mordorbund

....... Audrey Hepburn will not be happy when she finds out what I've done.

I've couldn't settle on just one response, so I'll give you all of them and you can tell me which one you like best. 1. You read the chapter. What did you think of the portion that quoted the same scripture you did? 2. The dedicated fast Sunday is the first Sunday of every month except April and October. The next one will be a week from Sunday. Come and see. Come and see if you can pick out the people who are fasting from the ones who aren't. I'll raise the stakes. You have my permission to point the finger of scorn and shout "hypocrite" to anyone who appears to be fasting in the Matthew 6 sense. 3. As a Catholic, Are the blessings the same for people participating in the public announcement of canonical fast periods such as Lent versus one's personal fast; when they don't reveal to others they are fasting? If Catholics don't engage in personal fasts, then does that make all forms of fasting hypocritical as per Matthew 6? 4. I would say that there is a difference, though it is not rooted in Matthew 6. The difference is that on fast Sundays fasting becomes a form of communal worship where the faith of a single congregation becomes unified, while personal fasts are just that - personal. It is the same difference experienced when one engages in congregational prayer versus praying on one's closet.

That's why democracies are better. You get to elect whoever you want to disappoint you.

Wow JAG! Any girl would be LUCKY - quite fortunate indeed - to have you break up with her.

The Torah says Balaam was slain in battle (Numbers 31). Verse 16 says what the offense was (although Balaam did not curse Israel, off-screen he advised Balak that the Lord's favor only works on principles of righteousness, so all blessings can be negated if they succumb to temptation - so feel free to tempt). As for the reference in Jude, it's not suggesting that Balaam (or Cain for that matter) died with Korah. It's saying that all 3 are guilty of the same sin of rebellion wrapped in righteousness. The 3 examples are used as a progression. Cain rebelled, Balaam compounded the error by profiting off of it, but (as with Korah) God will destroy them (can't use Balaam as the example unless Jude wants the church accused of assigning members to be "avenging angels" (danites) since he was killed by Israelite soldiers).

Fine. We'll broadcast from some valley in the middle of Missouri then.

@zil I believe we need a cartoon of the school Vort opened for the men who married his daughters.

From reading previous posts, "serious error" means falling into a path that actually leads a person away from God (or at the very least impedes true worship). It happens by "diverting too far one way or the other". In this sense, worshiping God polytheistically when Israel was expressly told to leave those other gods alone seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Oh, looks like PC covered that already. First, I'll point out that if revelation says we ought to do something, then disciples are going to strive to do that regardless of whether or not the why was revealed as well. (Surely God doesn't declare a person "unworthy" simply because he has a cup of coffee in the morning, or drinks green tea for his health). Second, for the specific argument you raise, there has been further apostolic counsel given. Paul writes that nature itself grants sufficient understanding of God that even non-believers should be able to follow core principles. Oh, looks like PC covered that already. This is why I quipped "What if my belief is that serious error should be corrected, and that an incorrect understanding of God is a serious error?" You are stridently arguing against the notion of "serious error" as though belief in it is itself a serious error. Just now you compared it to "false godhood", which the revelations have a term for that: idolatry. Even if you term it differently, this sounds like a path that leads to condemnation. First off, even though you earlier correctly stated that the belief in the Trinity is 3 persons 1 being, you're here conflating the two terms. But, specifics aside, if you really want to understand why believing in a false god is a very bad thing, I suggest rereading the previous posts (not just from PC, others have weighed in as well). To those arguments I briefly add that when Jesus taught the woman at the well, he pointed out how confused her worship was (ye worship ye know not what) and testified that it was more of an obstacle (salvation is of the Jews).

Interesting. I was not aware that heterosexuality was ever included in the APA's DSM or the WHO's ICD-10. Would you recommend any of these treatments for homosexuals with "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" - that is, they know they are homosexual but wish they weren't?

Thanks Randall!

That's okay. People who participate in these fora know restored scriptures (and the various editions of Gospel Principles) inside and out. We all know what you're talking about.

I am too, t'mai.

Really?! You're counting n the same as ñ? That's seems a little loose.

My observation is that those cultures and societies that have a strong patriarchy are accompanied by a well-organized matriarchy. That matriarchy provides a framework where little girls learn what it means to be a woman; where young mothers learn how to rear their little children; where women support each other to "get things done"; where middle-aged (or senior depending how young people die) women receive support transitioning past child-bearing years; where seasoned and experienced women pass on their skills and knowledge. Additionally, my observation is that when people try to dismantle the patriarchy what they really end up doing is dismantling the matriarchy, and place the displaced women in the patriarchy. The patriarchy is still there - it hasn't been dismantled at all! And while some women are quite comfortable in this structure, many find it* difficult to navigate 1) because the framework was optimized over millennia for men, and 2) their support structure has been dismantled. In addition, many men are displaced in the process. As long as I'm here, I'll add that Toy Story 4 can be viewed from this perspective (of placing women in the patriarchy and displacing men) not just as a story but also as a project. In the story, Woody doesn't have a purpose anymore and has to find one. He never really does so his character doesn't really arc (except to find out he's not needed any more - perhaps Million Dollar Babying him was too dark for Pixar?). In the project, Bo Peep and her girls resolve most of the conflict, so Woody doesn't really have a role in this film either. He doesn't serve to inspire others. And even in his babysitting duties is easily forgotten. *This is the "trying to have it all" trope from so many forms of media.

He's having a stroke in Spanish. But if you wait long enough he'll come right back out of it - even if he has to switch languages to reverse it.

Like those idiots from South Carolina? Haw haw haw. You must have some ugly cousins.

Sure, but what's the better solution? Should the patriarchy be dismantled so the abuses don't happen within that structure? Or should we have doubled down on the patriarchal system and had other men remind the abuser (that our strength protects others) while punishing the abuser?

So I guess Traveler should have included the disclaimer: in an attempt to pre-empt all the complaints about the imperfections of "pre-feminist" times.

You could have at least given him a dollar. He's had it rough lately.

Okay. So...crime didn't exist in the 1950's? Drugs didn't either? Try again MG. Your question in no way restates what Traveler is suggesting.

That car was..... ..... Licensed to THRILL

...... .............. ........I'm not sure that's true.

Huh. Those don't contain lead anymore either.