Just_A_Guy

The audience reviews are coming in:

More Health Care Joy From the UK: Question the NHS, Lose Your Kid. Thankfully, there seem to be MPs who are looking into the situation.

US Army Hosts Robotics Rodeo

From Instapundit:

TARP-I was, IIRC, about $700 billion. Postulating a US population of 250 million, that's about $2,800 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Still a nice chunk of change. Today's September 7th. Let's say you will get paid $2,000 on September 15th. You have $300 in the bank right now. Your rent payment of $850 is due on September 10th. Are you "insolvent"? Technically, no; because your assets (including "accounts receivable") total $2,300 whereas your liabilities are only $850.00. But you do have a cash flow issue; and unless you can come up with some extra cash before the tenth you're going to be in a world of hurt. In a nutshell, that's what happened to the banks. They had plenty of assets, but they were in forms that couldn't be touched for the immediate future (outstanding loans, real property that couldn't be sold, bonds that could not yet be redeemed, etc). One of the issues that came out shortly after TARP-I (and discussed in excruciating detail on this forum) was that some of that money went to bonuses for AIG upper-middle management. Some people (myself included) felt these bonus were justified, but the whole debacle made it painfully clear that the federal government had not imposed sufficient guidelines as to what the companies could and couldn't do with the money.

One of the salient points I've always thought the Democrats had is that the Republicans have not bothered to posit an alternative to Obamacare. Turns out, there is a Republican health care reform plan. (You guys probably already knew this; but it was new to me.)

No, Snow; I am not spoofing. I go into discussions like this on the principle (which perhaps I should have clarified up front) that I take the canon of scripture at face value unless or until someone provides a solid argument as to why I should not. Snow, two days ago you tried to pin me into advocating the position that God does in fact kill children, and I informed you then that It should not surprise you that I'm not standing by a contention that I warned you, thirty-nine posts ago, I did not intend to make. I am genuinely mystified as to your definition of "back up". You seem to find my quoting, and even linking to, previous posts to be insufficient. Ditto when I cite specific chapter and verse where an event is referred to--you first ignore such citations, and then dismiss them as insufficient "evidence" even to illustrate that an event is indeed recorded in the Book of Mormon or that the book's authors' attitude on those events may be divined from the text. Guilty. I do, indeed, demand that you prove that any alleged "immorality" of God's taking life would not be negated by antemortal consent on the part of the person being killed. If you want presume to tell me which scriptures to believe and which not to believe; then you must dot every "i" and cross every "t". Saying that killing is bad because killing is bad is circular reasoning. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you want to force God into some kind of box, that's your prerogative insofar as your personal theology is concerned. If you're trying to convince me and a bunch of other Latter-day Saints to do likewise, you're going to need to do so with logical arguments based on a solid foundation. The closest you've gotten is a generic statement that life is sacred. It's a pity, because you do have a very penetrating mind and I think that, had you chosen to follow up on that statement, you could have fleshed it out into something really fascinating and we all could have learned a lot from you. Heck, I may have wound up agreeing with you. Best-- --JAG

Because mine is not a "contention" as such; it is a possibility which you must deal with in your effort to have me reject the plain text of the scripture as well as the orthodox interpretation thereof. I think the record speaks for itself. No; I say that you arguing that "the text is what it is" while similarly trying to get us to reject the claims made within that text, is "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading." Hmm. Apparently, you're right--I am insane. I came into this discussion with the idea that you and I could at least agree that "we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." But I now understand that the text of the Book of Mormon is not an authoritative guide as to what is or is not contained within the text of the Book of Mormon. Got it. More circular reasoning. What part of was not sufficiently clear?*[referring primarily to Church policy, though perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in the original] OK, I'm with you there. I expect you to address and convincingly rule out the possibilities that a) such consent may have been given in the pre-existence; b) infants may in fact have sufficient capacity to give such consent and in fact give it; and c) that if infants indeed lack such capacity, their heavenly Father has no legitimate right to make that decision on their behalf. None of that matters in the long run, if the action was truly God's will.

I notice the President intends to close his speech with "God bless America". Indoctrination. INDOCTRINATION, I tell you!

Let me be very clear: I’m not consciously trying to advance any particular argument at this point. I’m simply putting you to your proof, because yes—what you’re doing is the functional equivalent of rewriting scripture; and if you want to get me to go along with that you’re going to have to prove every element of your argument. Including the assumption that God is bound by the same moral code as man. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: sophistry. At the end of the day, you’re trying to get your readers to reject something that has been accepted and sustained as canon by the body of the Church—even if you purport to be willing to leave it “on the books”. I appreciate that concession So, you’re expecting me to believe your conclusion is logical even though you’ve put forth no logical argument. So . . . I’m apparently supposed to take it on faith that your argument is logical. But I’m the insane one? I have given you the same two examples in two different posts. Your failure to respond to them, in conjunction with your baseless allegations that I have provided no support, would seem to indicate that either you aren’t paying attention, or you’re hoping this thread’s readers aren’t. But again, you’re assuming that there’s a moral code that transcends your authority; and that that moral code may place limitations on your right to fire anyone. Which, within the scope of your anecdote, I will grant you. But I will not grant it to you on a cosmic scale. If you think there’s a moral code that transcends God’s authority as Creator and Savior, and if you think that moral code prohibits God from ending an innocent life in all situations, then prove it. Oh, of course they apply to me. It’s God I’m not convinced they apply to. And in point of fact, wasn't it you who just recently argued in a recent thread on LDS leadership succession that What would current Church policy say to that? This is a minor point and I don’t think it’s worth haggling over. By way of clarification, though: I’m not saying they have “sinned”; I was just suggesting that if we take “innocent” as some kind of synonym for “unconditionally protected from God’s power to kill” – we have no idea what goes on in God’s mind, or what kind of criteria He uses in determining whose time on this earth ought now to end. As long as you limit the definition of "innocent" to "blameless", I have no quibbles. If I have been positively convinced that it is the Lord’s will? Yes. I consecrated my life to Him in the temple; and I presumably made similar covenants in the pre-mortal life. I don’t know. I hope that’s never required of me; and if I did decide to do it I’m quite sure would shrink from it—just as Nephi did; just as Abraham did; just as we are told Elohim Himself did. But I do not claim that that aversion is “logical”, and more to the point: I cannot and will not presume to tell the Lord what He can or can’t ask of me. All I can do is to strengthen my relationship with Him as best I can, continue my efforts to reconcile the scriptures with the Spirit and the Lord's anointed leaders; and trust that I won’t be deceived by a LeBaron or a Koresh.

No; but judging by the election results a lot of people believed Obama when he said he understood the problem and had a workable plan to solve it. This graph demonstrates that either a) the President's economic team has no idea what it's doing, or b) the President's economic team does know what it's doing, but doesn't give a rat's posterior as long as it has an excuse to fund pet projects. Either way, Dubya has nothing to do with it.

My understanding is that with most banks the issue was that they lacked short-term cash flow, but still had assets that would be valuable over the long haul. But yes; the bank bailouts generally didn't result in consumer relief the way they should have. A lot of ink has been spilled as to why; and I don't pretend to understand it all.

I can say from personal experience that TRAX is both well-used and well-loved; and from anecdotal experience that the same is true of FrontRunner. But they're still demanding more money from the State. Part of that, no doubt, is construction funds--the TRAX line is done from SLC to Draper, but they're doing three or four east-west branches including one out to the airport; and FrontRunner is being extended down into Utah Valley. I've seen simulations, though, that project that even when it's all done it won't be paying for itself--which is a shame.

I am ashamed. Yes, it's the annual budget deficit. Yes, they do. More here.

Well, she did watch him grow up . . .

I did not say you have dishonestly represented my position; I said you have "misrepresented" my position and that it "comes off" as dishonest. See my Post #61. It was intended as a semi-friendly warning, not an accusation. My apologies if it came off wrong. But the fact is, it is misleading to say that I'm forcing you to prove that killing babies is bad; because I have said (repeatedly) that your burden is much more limited. I have already agreed with you that it is bad for humans, of themselves, to take it upon themselves to end life. See my Post #36. Your burden is only to show that it is inherently wrong for God to end an innocent life. Appeal to Emotion (Repeated use of loaded terms, notably "baby" and "killing".)Appeal to Common Practice/Popularity ([Paraphrasing here]: "The common practice of the Church is to not allow such behavior/other people would despise anyone who engaged in it; therefore God would never do it.")Begging the Question ([Paraphrasing again:] "It's wrong for God to kill innocents. How do I know this? Because killing innocents is wrong!")Guilt by Association ([subtle implication]: "Rapists, looters, and murderers think like you do!")Hasty Generalization/Straw Man (Your repeated over-simplification of my position, as explained earlier in this post.)Such antics, in and of themselves, don't make your point incorrect because they are logical fallacies and your argument is not a logical one (indeed, one might reasonably infer that you yourself conceded in your Post #38 that your argument is emotionally based; though if you think I'm misinterpreting you I'm sure you'll correct me). But they do reinforce--quite clearly--the logical bankruptcy of your arguments thus far. You are welcome to provide quotes--or a link to a post--where I made a material claim I have not since supported. But I'd really appreciate it if you'd first lay a proper foundation for your assertion that it is immoral for God to end the life of one of His creations even though we may deem that life "innocent". It's not in discussion (currently) because you don't want it to be in discussion, and you try to change the subject. But it's the elephant in the room. The simple fact is, if you want to rewrite the scriptures because they allegedly impute immoral behavior to God, you have to demonstrate that the behavior is in fact immoral. This, you have utterly failed--even refused--to do. That was not my argument. Please try reading it again in context. I don't recall you addressing the topic after I responded to your "correction", in Post #40, as follows: It was an attempt to make you see how completely you've abandoned those virtues--logic and reason--you purport to hold in such esteem. No, I didn't. Look it up--Post #51. I said, On your demand for evidence I referred to 1 Nephi Chapter 4 and 3 Nephi Chapter 9. However, on a closer review of the post I see that, before throwing the question back at me, you changed my original verbiage from Post 51 into the following: I probably should have caught that and responded accordingly, but I did not. I frankly still don't think it's a material difference; but if you do then I can only extend my apologies. Of course. If we're trying to determine whether the Book of Mormon relates a particular event and its authors attitudes towards that event, "facts" are Snow's abstract, emotion-based arguments about the character of God in conjunction with Snow's wholly unsubstantiated interpretation of the code of morality that binds Beings like God. "Dogma", by contrast, is what we call Just_A_Guy's insane attempts to actually look at the text of the document. :)

This is awesome.

Except that those statistics were based on the President's numbers--which were presented as "proof" that we had to "Do Something". We "Did Something", all right: Are we happy now? Was it worth it?

The fact that you refuse to quote me in full--just make misleading paraphrases of my position--comes off as pretty dishonest. Why on earth would I complain to the moderators? I have not, and don't intend to. I'm perfectly comfortable letting the readers of this forum judge your ad hominems and logical fallacies--in all their glory--for themselves. The question of what limitations exist on God's authority is the subject. When faced with a serious discussion about divine law, all you seem to be able to do is repeat your "baby killer" mantra--which has no basis in anything except your own emotions. And then, as icing on the cake, you run to other threads and condemn all those other rubes in Sacrament Meeting whose emotions and "dogma" lead them to believe that they can "know" God exists, or that He routinely answers prayers--when you yourself are demanding the right to rewrite scripture based on the exact same bases. I said they "approvingly record" God's killing people "or ordering their deaths", which I think I have more than adequately shown to anyone who is willing to accept the text of scripture as evidence. But then, I should have remembered that you are not such an individual. My bad.

And we're back to that pesky burden-of-proof issue. As long as you're trying to rewrite scripture, the burden of proof still lies with you. This is interesting, and I think worth discussing more. Why is life sacred, would you say? What implications does this sacredness have? Does anyone have the prerogative to take life? If so, who; and under what circumstances? Nephi--in spite of great personal misgivings--accepted the idea of God ordering killings (see 1 Nephi 4). If Mormon objected to God's destroying entire cities (3 Nephi 9), he passed up a prize opportunity to express his objections (unless, as Maxel has said, you want to make the case that those cities contained no children). Are you arguing that it wouldn't be "immoral" for me, of my own accord, to burn, bury, or sink a city (or sixteen cities)?

Speaks for itself, I think.

I don't think LDS doctrine teaches that God and Jesus live in a sort of perpetual mind-meld. But that's beside the point. Your parsing out the "God Jesus" from the "Man Jesus" pretty much leaves the underlying point of my post #37 (which is the basis for this line of discussion) intact: a father sacrifices the life of one innocent offspring (who, at least in one phase of the trinitarian multiple-personality-disorder you attribute to Jesus, has a separate will that must be consciously bent to the parent's) for the benefit of a culpable offspring. Wholly unethical for a mortal to do; yet God the Father did it. I freely admitted that my own view (that a fully informed individual might well prefer the afterlife to this life, which is more or less what Joseph Smith taught as well) was speculation. But so is yours. If you want me to go along with your revision of scripture (and the underlying principle that if any portion of scripture challenges my conception of God, it is the scripture and not me who must change); it had better be based on something much stronger than "well, I love this telestial earth, and so must everyone else!" Other than repeating the loaded terms "baby" and "killing" in the same sentence ad infinitum, do you have any substantive arguments supporting the arguments I posed earlier, viz. "a) that there's a universal standard of morality that is equally applicable to men (in all dispensations of time) as well as gods; and b) that under the aforementioned standard, there are no justifiable reasons for taking innocent life"? And what do you make of the fact that the authors of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the New Testament., and of the Doctrine and Covenants all approvingly record (or cite to other references of) God's killing people, or ordering their deaths? If something's true, then it isn't my fault that someone else chooses to pervert it for their own ends.

They are unified because Jesus chose to submit His will to the Father. Doesn't mean Jesus didn't have his own desires, thoughts, feelings . . . He just recognized the Father's supremacy. Consider Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane that the "cup" be taken from Him (or have I stumbled upon yet another part of the Bible you don't accept?). Er . . . what I originally wrote was and I later said that to assert otherwise was also speculation. And I stand by that. Imagine--a fully-informed being implicitly trusting his Father in Heaven!

All that Christ did, He did at the behest of His Father. Except that your position appears based on the *speculation* that they did not (and/or would not) consent.

Oh, I see it; if by "insanity" you mean "foolishness". And to be honest, I'm not all that bothered by it. :) Exhibit A: The Atonement (as I've been continually harping on). Exhibit B: AIDS babies. Shall I go on? Nice try. But no; I have no intention of taking the argument that far. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to rewrite scripture is based on a moral code to which you can't even demonstrate God adheres. Sophistry. You're taking something that was approved and accepted by the body of the Church, and making a calculated attempt to change the meaning thereof. Why? As far as I can tell, solely because you have independently concluded that you know the character of God better than did the person whose writings the Church chose to embrace as canon. As do I. Then I suspect you're in for a lot of disappointment, because the simple fact is that you aren't a god (yet!).