Jamie123
-
Posts
2982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
Of course, it wasn't the same temple that Solomon built (it had been rebuilt twice since then) but that's a good point. Ritual leads to familiarity breeds contempt. I belong to a church that uses a lot of repeated ritual, and its sometimes so easy to go along with the words and forget what they mean.In fact, I would be surprised if the pattern so often seen in the bible - Of Piety->Ritualism->Secularism->fall from grace didn't repeat itself in the Book of Mormon. I submit it's a repeat of the type seen in Exodus and when Solomon built the temple(Which became a place for merchants when the Saviour came).
-
Call me a hopeless romantic, but here's what I think: Don't waste your lives waiting for some mythical future time when "everything is sorted". Life is too short for that. If you really love each other you will work through these problems together.
(But don't listen to me - I'm an idiot.)
-
If my experience is anything to go by you won't be "swamped" exactly, but you will be jumped on by the resident pair (or pairs) of elders and/or sisters. Don't wrry though - they are usually very nice young people who will not give you a hard time.
-
Should the rich or well-to-do be forced by law to pay for someone else's healthcare? I think not.
That is one kind of spin you could put on it. Another is that rich and poor alike should pay in proportion to their respective abilities.
I think you and I are going to have to agree to differ on this.
-
oh lol meant to mention.... i colored on the desk while in class when i was in kindergarten... the consequence... i missed recess, had to stay in and clean my desk, when that was done i washed as many other desks as i could with my extra time..... you know what.... i learned my lesson.
our schools would be in much better condition if consequences fit the crime like that. it would have sparkling bathrooms and fresh paint yearly. and think of all the money the city could save on labor costs, just need a couple ppl to supervise.
Everyone wrote on the desks in my school. Every now and then the woodwork teacher would plane them off and revarnish them. (He never made a very good job of it.)
-
It is not so simple. That is the problem with this reform, and most things of this magnitude. They are too complex to be distilled into a few analogies or comparisons. There is no adequate sound bite to explain it all. Both sides would oversimplify it to get the public on their side while leaving out the important, complex "political" and "pork barrel" stuff out.
America needs some kind of guranteed health care. America also needs for logic and critical thinking to be required skills before the age of 18.
I totally agree introducing national healthcare in any country is a complex issue. What I'm talking about is the Orwellian attitude of "Private healthcare good, state healthcare bad!" and the use of ad hoc arguments to support this.
Applepansy's argument is coherent (assuming that preserving free agency is more important than ensuring care for the sick) but it's full implications undermine social institutions such as the police. Anatess attempts to contain those implications by suggesting healthcare belongs to a different class from other public services. But I fail to see any real distinction.
I'm tempted to think that a lot of the real objections are visceral rather than logic-based - a throwback to McCarthyism - the looming communist threat - "reds under the beds" etc., and that arguments have been constructed aposteriori to justify this attitude. Law enforcement existed in the western world before there was any "red threat", and so is not connected with it. State healthcare arrived later, introduced by a socialist government in Britain, and is therefore subconsciously connected with communism. But I'm not historian enough to argue this point - it's just a thought.
P.S. I mean no disrespect to anyone I've disagreed with in this thread. I have every respect for America and the LDS Church. (My wife is an American, and my sister-in-law is a Mormon.)
-
That doesn't sound like zero tolerance. It sounds like an over-reliance on other people's common sense. Anyone who thinks that piece of plastic is likely to be mistaken for a real weapon (for use by whom? Men from Lilliput?) can hardly be expected to make serious decisions.They leave it up to the principal to decide whether or not a fake gun looks too realistic, and if it does, what the punishment would be.
-
You've mentioned this a couple times on this thread so I thought I'd respond to it. I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I get discordant with what the discussion is about.
There is a big difference with law enforcement/crime prevention and healthcare.
This country is not a pure democracy - as in, "majority rule". It is run by "rule of law". This law got defined in the Constitution with leeway to improve on. The Bill of Rights (extension of the declaration of independence) guarantee every individual in the United States of America the right to their lives, their liberty, their property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Law enforcement is a REQUIRED element of a society "ruled by law". Without enforcement, you can kiss the law good-bye. That is, you will forfeit your rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, because the law has no teeth.
But, just because the Bill of Rights guarantee our right to life, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take away from somebody so that we can prolong our own lives. It means that we have the right to protect ourselves from people who would threaten our lives.
The pursuit of happiness does not mean that we are guaranteed happiness. What it means is that the law protects your choices in trying to pursue what makes you happy. Now, if what makes you happy is something that will cause somebody else to be unhappy, then that right is questionable - because, as my father likes to say, your rights end where somebody's nose begins...
Healthcare as it stands now, is in this boat. Because, for somebody to get free healthcare, somebody else would have to pay through the nose for it.
I can sort-of see where you're coming from anatess, though you obviously see things differently from Applepansy. (The phrase as I've always heard it is: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".)
However, I don't see that the distinction is as big as you suppose.
Law enforcement aims to protect property from criminals. Medicine aims to protect the body from illness. Both are necessary for the "pursuit of happiness" but neither guarantee it. (Healthcare doesn't even necessarily guarantee health, let alone happiness.) Both have to be paid for by someone. So why are they so different?
Also there is no question of forcing others to "pay through the nose". I (like every other wage earner in the UK) pay a contribution towards the National Health Service. My taxes and NI payments have contributed towards the healthcare that I and my family - and millions of other people - have received. It's true that richer people than me have paid more (just as poorer people have paid less) but I pay as much as anyone in proportion to the income I have (*).
P.S. I'm also by no means sure that law enforcement (in our modern sense of the term) is a "required element of society". The modern idea of a "police force" to "protect and serve" the people is a relatively new concept. In older societies the state's interests were protected by guards, soldiers etc. (again paid for by taxes) but little or no protection was given to the ordinary citizen. In ancient Rome for example no one of importance ever went out in the streets without some retinue to protect them from criminals. They had to provide that for themselves and at their own expense. I daresay life in these societies was unpleasant for all but the most well-off, but the societies themselves did still exist and prosper.
(*) OK, so that's not exactly true. Richer people pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than poorer people, but I'm sure that's the case in most other countries. Plus it applies to all taxes, not just those destined for medical services.
-
Exactly... The City of Enoch is an example that comes to mind.
I'm not familiar with the City of Enoch (I'll read up on it when I've got more time). But that's a very interesting opinion. Is it true therefore that the Church doesn't approve of law enforcement, and any church members employed as police officers should resign? Or should they stand around while crimes are committed, and only rush in and arrest the perpetrators after the event?
(P.S. I'm not trying to have a go at you Apple. I like you a lot. I'm just a little whacked-out by this line of thinking.)
-
Living in England, social medicine didn’t work and know many sought out private health care.
You might think that the "NHS was a mistake" if your only information on the subject came from listening to Daniel Hannan's rants. (Or from a minority of people who do have genuine cause for dissatisfaction: I'm not doubting they exist. No system is perfect.) I can only speak from my own experience of the NHS, which has been universally good.
My daughter was born in an NHS hospital, and I have only praise for the doctors, nurses and midwives who looked after my wife, and for the prenatal care my baby got when she was suffering from jaundice. There is no way we could have paid for that. We'd have been bankrupted.
Also being an asthmatic, I have often needed medical care would have broken our family finances if we'd had to pay for it privately. I can't say the NHS was a "mistake" or "didn't work" when I have such good reason to be thankful for it.
-
Basically, if we are compelled or forced to do what is right (take care of each other) there is no blessing.
By this rule there should be no government-controlled law enforcement. Since police prevent crime they deprive would-be criminals of their free agency not to commit offences.
-
It puzzles me how many Americans are against it. In Britain we have the National Health Service, which is (as far as I can see) much the same as what Obama is proposing. People criticise and moan about the NHS, but at least it is available to everyone, regardless of their means. It's existed since the 1940's, and my generation grew up with it as a basic assumption of life. It seems appalling to us that the US - a country superficially so similar to ours - should not have its own equivalent.
But of course I'm a product of the environment I grew up in. Americans will no doubt find my thinking just as appalling and shoot me down in flames for saying this.
-
There are many evidences of biblical history. Its just that to go and see them with your own eyes would be very expensive.
You don't have to travel to see all of them. Many secular historians mentioned Jesus and His early followers. (Try reading Tacitus' Annals, Book XV.) Josephus even mentions Jesus was a "miracle worker". This of course doesn't prove he was one, but it does prove that miracle stories date from that time - they weren't cooked up hundreds of years later like some people would have us believe.
-
The French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested that mathematical truths could be definitely "known" to be true, but he saw one problem: Sometimes we add up numbers wrongly, so how do we know that we don't always add them up wrongly? How do we know that 1+1 isn't really 3?1+1=2
It's been true since before the earth was in existence, let alone before man was placed here. It continues to be true now. It will remain a truth through the eternities, long after we are finished with our learning here.
No matter how you choose to represent this simple equasion, regardless of the language, or physical objects that could be used to represent each figure, it still remains a truth, and there is no other proper answer to the question.
1.99999999 is wrong just as 2.00000001 is wrong. They're both very very close, but still wrong.
Because we can understand and accept this simple mathematical formula as a reliable, if not eternal truth, we can then begin to stretch our understanding to other, and more significant, eternal truths.
Find a foundation, then build upon it. A foundation based upon truth will withstand all that comes against it.
Bit worrying really....
-
The Ark...it stands to this day and can be seen.
I've often heard that there was some "evidence of the Ark" on Mt. Ararat, but I understand it's been pretty much discredited, even by most Biblical literalists.
-
For once in my life
I have someone who needs me
Someone I've needed so long
For once unafraid
I can go where life leads me
And somehow I know I'll be strong
No idea why. I don't especially like the song.
-
I get choked up all the time about all sorts of stuff.
One guy I can really relate to is that memorable X-factor contestant (X-factor is the British equivalent of American Idol) who performed Bat Out of Hell - complete with bat impersonations - and for his encore sang Puff the Magic Dragon and burst into tears in the last verse when "Jackie Paper came no more!"
He's my hero!
-
One thing that really annoys me is the hypocracy of some dog lovers.
Now I've nothing against dogs. I've nothing against people who like them. I'm quite fond of dogs myself. Well maybe not the small yappy ones so much, but dogs in general are fine.
But what really annoys me is people who make a big song and dance over their dogs, scrunching up their faces in front of them and calling them pet names....and even this doesn't bother me *UNTIL* they start berating other people for enjoying the company of cats.
"Oh, you like cats? How can you like cats? Cats are....no. No No No!!! I hate cats! Hate hate HATE! Now dogs...Oh dogs...Oh, snooky wooky diddums..." etc.
It really gets my goat in a big way. It's sheer hypocracy, and I'm not saying that just because I tend to be a cat person. My wife generally prefers dogs though she did grow very fond of my cat Tabitha whom I had before we were married. I loved Tabitha very much. I had her a long time and she grew very old and frail, until last summer had to have her put to sleep. One day though, we plan to get a puppy and a kitten and have them grow up together, hopefully as friends.
-
That's one way to do it. My orders are always multiples of everything...5 of these, 3 of those. In most fast food places you can actually watch them make the food or count it as they put it in the bags. :)
There was a TV documentary a few years ago about how some fast food employees salivate on the burgers before putting them in the buns. (I kid you not!) Now that's something I don't want to watch!
-
I think someone outside of your earthly family would give a hoot.
Maybe one hoot, but I doubt it'd be splashed over the front pages of the tabloids.
EXCLUSIVE! Some Obscure Bloke You've Never Heard Of Caught In Seedy Sex-Triangle!
It would never sell!
-
I don't know why everyone made such a fuss over Tiger Woods. OK he was very very naughty, but he's not the only person ever to have committed adultery.
As for fame being a "green light" for adultery, I should say the opposite. If I'd done the same thing, no one outside my family would give too hoots about it. It should be between him and his wife to sort things out.
-
They may also be allowed if the LDS person is a designated civil officer (Judge, Justice of the Peace) or a ship captain.
Actually it's doubtful that a ship's captain really has the authority to perform marriages, though it did happen in The African Queen. (Catherine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, 1951. Excellent movie.)
Check out The Straight Dope: Are ships' captains allowed to marry people at sea?
-
How did they get a picture of God?
I'm only guessing, but I think it might have been a fake!!!
(Which only adds to the crime!)
-
Isn't that what Charlotte said to Wilbur?Greetings and Salutations
Greetings and salutations to you too!
Only marry return missionaries!
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Are there enough returned missionaries to go round?
Also, more than half the LDS missionaries I've ever spoken to have been female. According to my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) girls usually only go on missions when they reach their early/mid 20's with no prospect of marriage. Could a lack of male RM's be to blame for this?