Dr T

You sound fun keketwin. Looking for answers... me too.

Sorry for my ignorance but what does RM stand for? Thanks

The definition of the word martyr: "to kill sb because of their religious or political beliefs" was not difficult for me to understand. He was killed because of his beliefs. I just didn't understand the "willingly" part. Thanks, Dr. T

Hello ApostleKnight, Nice to meet you. You said, Fighting back, for whatever reason, does not fit with "voluntarily" laying down ones life. How do you equate fighting back as voluntary? Thanks, Dr. T

You are right Laureltree. I put it here so that the reference from where I was asking it came (on this board). I thought a mod would move it over it they saw fit. Sorry. Dr. T

Journey to the center of the Earth?... Can we bring marshmallows? Dr. T

Thanks for the links P.C.

Hello all, Thanks for your accepting and willingness to look at issues like this Mom of 7. I am really enjoying reading your/everyone's ideas and learning from you all. This issue is really causing me difficulties. At its root, it is not logically possible. I am not an expert and not a professional philosopher or theologian but I do know what a sound argument is and what is not. I’ll try and express the difficulty I’m having and hope to hear your ideas. Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events has long stood as a logical conclusion. I don’t know how familiar you all are with philosophical writings but starting back with Aristotle, we see that he ruled out an infinite progression of causes. We can also read other philosophers that come to the same conclusion. Thomas Aquinas for example offered similar arguments using ideas of the first mover, first cause, the sustainer, etc. Here is a sample of this pattern: 1. there exists a series of events 2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary) 3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being 4. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings Aquinas’ Argument from Motion is easy to understand and starts with this observation: “Of the things we observe, all things have been placed in motion. No thing has placed itself in motion.” Working from the assumption that if a thing is in motion then it has been caused to be in motion by another thing, Aquinas also notes that an infinite chain of things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion can not be correct. If an infinite chain or regression existed among things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion then we could not account for the motion we observe. If we move backwards from the things we observe in motion to their cause, and then to that cause of motion within those things that caused motion, and so on, then we could continuing moving backwards ad infinitum. My intro to philosophy professor taught that it would be like trying to count all of the points in a line, moving from point B to point A. We would never get to point A. Yet point A must exist as we know there is a line segment. Similarly, if the cause-and-effect chain did not have a starting point then we could not account for the motion we observe around us. Since there is motion, the cause and effect chain (accounting for motion) must have had a starting point. The cause and effect relationship here must have a starting point. At one point in time, the events were set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause which set all other things in motion. This is known as the cosmological argument. What else can we know about the First Cause? The first cause must have been uncaused. If it were caused by another thing, then we have not resolved the problem of the infinite regression. So, in order to account for the motion that we observe, it is necessary to posit a beginning to the cause and effect relationship underlying the observed motion. It is also necessary to claim that the First Cause has not been caused by some other thing. It is not set in motion by another entity. This is the only logical way to explain this series of events. If your interested, you can also read Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”: 1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. 2. Not every being can be contingent. 3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend. 4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what is taken as “God”. Basically, my problem here is a logic issue. It is a logically impossibility to transverse an actual infinite and still experience today. We would never be able to get to today. But the problem is-there is a today. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. If anyone has a deeper understanding that can set me straight, I eagerly await your reply. Thanks, Dr. T

Thanks P.C., I'm sorry to make the derogatory statement, "holy roller." I didn't know it had a negative connotation. I've been putting my foot in my mouth recently without even recognizing it. I didn't mean to. Sorry. You answer did help me understand a little bit about where you are coming from. Are you part of the word of faith movement then? Thanks for answering my questions, Dr. T

Hello all, Someone in a different thread said something about Mr. Hinckley being around to celebrate his 100th birthday and it made me wonder about his actual age. I googled his name and came up with this article. It's from Time magazine. Basically it goes back and forth between the LDS church officials and the Time magazine staff. Finding this makes me question and spurs questions about this issue. I hope a moderator will look at it and let me know if it's appropriate for discussion here. I'm really curious about board members ideas about this article and about their ideas of eternal progression that this article is referencing. Here is the link: http://www.irr.org/MIT/hinckley.html I hope we can talk about this issue, Dr. T

Hey P.C., I don't know anything about you. I'm just trying to get a bearing of the type of believer you are. Would you be the type of person someone would call a "holy roller"? A Benny Hin type? e.g., Holy laughter, let it "bubble out the belly," people slain in the spirit, speaking in tongues makes you a "higher ranking" Christian? Just curious. Thanks, Dr. T

Thanks for contributing Lindy, PC (not to be confused with Politically Correct), Begood, Shan, & Maureen. Shanstress70, I actually appreciate your comments on this thread. I didn’t take it as derailing. Actually, I take everyone’s contribution here as “filling in my understanding. (or at least showing me how much I don’t understand.)” The topics in this short thread have already brought up a lot of questions for me. They should be moved to another forum though. Maybe the Gospel Discussion Board? I’m looking into Lindy and Begood’s concepts and trying to see the differences of the LDS beliefs and traditional Christianity’s view of these topics. Thanks again, Dr. T

Hello Snow, Sorry; I read post #42 and did not recognize it as the Nicene Creed-thus my confusion. I didn't see a reference for what you posted there. What you posted seems something to do with the concept of the trinity in general. Thanks, Dr. T

Exactly Heather. Thanks. :) Dr. T

Hi Palerider, I'm asking in response to her reply in another thread Paleone. I do have a ton of questions about various things. The more I read about your faith, the more questions I have. Lindy made the statement that the questions she had can only be answered by the LDS church. That makes me curious as to what questions she had. THanks, Dr. T

Hello Snow, You appear to have strong beliefs about the creeds. Will you help me understand what parts you see as confusing and filled with contradiction? Thanks, Dr. T

Hello Lindy, You said, Can you talk a little about the questions that could only be answered in the LDS faith? Thank you, Dr. T

Mom of 7, That pun was great! (I love that type of thing) Dr. T

Hello Heather, I did my postdoc resident/fellowship as a child and family psych. Your question is a good one. There has been debate for a long time on this issue. I somewhat hesitate to post research one way of the other for fear that someone reading it will use it as a justification for or against spanking. Here is an example of "mild" spanking: http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/spanking.html. I fear that someone would say, “See there’s research that says spanking is OK” and when the child continues to do the same behavior even after a spanking the parent often increases the strength “to get the point across” to the child and this can result in abuse. The above study was from 2001. In 2002 we read of a meta-analysis (http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/corporal.html) that says do not use corporal punishment. I for one, advocate using other forms of behavioral interventions when our children are acting up. I do believe that they need to be taught and shaped and there are various ways to do that without hitting. I don't tell parents not to hit though. The fact is, spanking is effective in stoping a behavior (in the short run). We also know though, that there are side-effects such as fear of parents, avoidance, not accepting responsibility for fear that they will be spanked, not internalizing the offense, becoming more sneaky in their misbehavior, a sore bottom, etc. If we want them to learn to make better decisions, positive reinforcement/praise for good behavior is a better way to instill internalization of appropriate behavior. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Dr. T

Hello Christos, Hobbes, the philosopher would say what you said, "God would hear the tree fall." Just thought you would appreciate his writing. Dr. T

Ray, I offer my sincere apology for offending you. Please forgive my poor decision to address you in that way. Dr. T Jason, I also apologize for distracting from your interesting thread. Dr. T

Hi Ray, Since we disagree about the understanding of the word "after" in that verse, we can move on to other questions I had for my neighbor while in SLC. He was unable to give me an answer and you asked for modern revelation vs. the Bible here is the conflict I found. In the Bible, we read: "For I am God, and not man-the Holy One among you" (Hos. 11:9). "God is spirit" (John 4:24) "A spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39) and in the D&C we read: "The Faher has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" 130:22. Thoughts? Dr. T

Two brownie points to Lindy. Got it. Dr. T

Hello Ray, I debated posting that for fear that you would be offended. I thought that maybe you didn't realize how you were coming off to people and I thought I would have the integrity to bring it up to you directly. I should have PM'ed it to you. I apologize. I just thought of that as I was writing this. I hope to have interesting dialogue with people on this forum and I really enjoy the topics here, but when it turns to patronizing, it becomes off-putting. Your accusation that I was being patronizing or pedantic confuses me. I was not feeling better, or more intelligent than you or was not splitting hairs in my post to you in any way . I thought I was being informative about the way you come off, but as you said, you have heard that before-yet you continue to post in that way. Do you often ignore feedback? Since I'm new here and havn't experienced you much, I don't know if you find that it helps you get your points across by using that type of post or if you are often dismissed on this board? Look forward to finding out as I go along, Dr. T

Interesting question Jason, thanks. Ray, I’ve read a number of your responses and they come off as patronizing and/or pedantic. Do you realize that you’re doing that? If not, now you know. If you are, what purpose does it serve? Thanks, Dr. T