log2
-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by log2
-
-
But seems like they're going to go back to the original concept of Spidey making his own web-shooter device - not the biological webbing that's an effect of the spider-bite that came out with his enhanced powers in the later comics. That's cool.
That's NECESSARY! The bio-web stuff was just icky on so many levels.
-
Yes. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins". That's straight up from my 3rd grade teacher...
So, if I smell bad, you can kill me?
Or, more seriously - how does anyone's smoking pot generate a claim to self-defense on your part, whereby you can legitimize utilizing deadly force to stop them from so doing?
-
Yeah! Let's get a little "
" up in here, yo!Is it proper to enforce our morals upon others by the edge of the sword?
-
When I was your age, I had to walk uphill in the snow, both ways, to take a date to the local MacDonald's Restaurant, where both of us would read a book to ourselves while uttering the occasional "Um," "Ah," and "Well, I never..."
Strangely, it wasn't too conducive to interpersonal communications with each other. But if we wanted to talk to each other, we wouldn't have been using our texts, now, would we?
-
Feel free to PM or create a new string to explain...
Because at least one tradition had it that Moses was translated.
-
I don't find it to be ambiguous - you'll be dead. Those alive at the Savior's coming are not twinkled till they die.
-
I wonder - does anybody find that caffeine dulls the heart, making it more difficult to discern the promptings of the Spirit?
I've taught my children they should avoid caffeine, but also that it is up to them.
-
Get a 4yo boy.But what do I do in the 4.75 years till he arrives?
-
As the aforementioned crazy person, when my lycanthropy subsided, I had my kids watch it a little with me.
I have no idea how the Japanese get a rabbit out of the "man-in-the-moon."
-
If I had a scanner I could actually provide proof of it as I was on the program.
And, of course, you get my point. So why not cut me a little slack - when I read that stuff years ago, how could I possibly know I would be required to provide it years later?
-
As long as the charity only needs to be extended to you, not received from you, you mean?
I'm willing to grant many things. I've noticed you tend to sneer at me very frequently. Is that the standard I should aspire to?
-
Then you've defined yourself outside of this conversation, having revealed you did not read the thread in its entirety, and I guess have excused me from having to respond to any more of your posts.No, it doesn't stand on its own, because it's got nothing to stand on.
You might try granting that I don't have evil intentions - but it seems the "thou shalt not judge" board guideline is overlooked so long as someone takes a sufficiently unpopular position.
-
On this board, the person making a claim as fact has the burden of proof. Unless you can provide that burden of proof any claim to fact is null and void.
Please see the post immediately prior to this one.
I also can, by this standard, claim - and I'm not actually making this claim, understand - that you did not attend church today, as you cannot produce documentation of it. Some charity ought to prevail in such discussions among brothers and sisters in Christ, right?
-
I don't believe that anyone is placing masturbation on that level.[ You are the one who claimed that BY said that violations of the law of chastity create sons of perdition, yet you are unable to back up that claim.
Sorry - if you want, you can do what I've done, and hunt down all of his "blood atonement" sermons. You'll see the pattern clearly. He doesn't use the phrase "Sons of Perdition" often - he most commonly refers to them as "angels to the Devil." And you'll also see that the Law of Chastity, even to him, was solely concerned with interpersonal sexual relations.
Memory doesn't count in a debate -- citations and documentation count. Until you can provide documentation of that claim, your argument doesn't hold water.
The argument I have made stands on its own. Brigham's teachings were only appealed to as a reductio ad absurdum for the position that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, and is not necessary to make my case.
-
I am not your "dear sister".
That is unfortunate. Even when I disagree with someone, I don't assume them to be apostate.
Have you no charity, even for those who you deem to be enemies?
-
In this world, murder is a sin and is punished by death. Manslaughter may or may not be a sin - but was not punishable by death according to God's law anciently.
Why is it you are insisting on placing masturbation in the murder category, speaking of degrees of severity, when it obviously belongs in the manslaughter category?
-
What? The corrolation department is over all organizations in the church. Did you not read past the first paragraph?
Pam,
Did you not observe the exact claim MOE made which he cited that article to support?
And did you not already see where I said "I stand corrected on the dominion of the Priesthood Correlation Committee."?
-
I'm pretty sure I'm saying the same thing MOE said. You just don't like hearing it from either of us. That isn't my problem.
I'm pretty sure you aren't saying the same thing MOE said.
As it was a rhetorical ploy on his part anyways, and not really relevant to the topic, I have no interest in pursuing it further.
-
(If that were true)Why would that bother you? You make a claim based on something you "read somewhere", but can't/won't produce the 'something' or the 'somewhere.
I know what I read. And MOE is not claiming to have firsthand knowledge of his claim. And as it stands, there never was good reason for MOE to believe his claim.
-
The First Presidency heads the Correlation Department. Everything that is published by the church must be approved by the Correlation Department. Ergo, the First Presidency de facto approved (implies vetted) the statement, heading, wording, etc.
Are you sincere in not understanding the significant difference between what you are saying, and what MOE claimed?
-
It is easy to explain...but you clearly have reading comprehension problems, especially when you read things you don't like.
I have a "problem" with your position because it is NOT the truth. It is a lie. See? So simple!
Your judgment of others is laughable, especially considering the fact that you make a statement you claim is fact - masturbation is not against the LoC - based on something you claim to have read somewhere....but then cannot remember where you read it and therefore you cannot provide the back-up you claim to have.
Yeah...and I "read somewhere" that I was going to be tall and blonde.
No, dear sister. I claim that masturbation is not covered by the Law of Chastity because the Law of Chastity only covers interpersonal sexual relations.
How, pray tell, is that a lie? Please, be as detailed as you wish.
-
You change the rules as you go. I bet you were a big hit on the playground.
On the other hand, I'm sure you've found great success in middle management, which is where I imagine you work.
Gee. If I need lessons in triumphalism and sneering, what are your rates? And will you telecommute?
-
How is it unsubstantiated?
It is unsubstantiated that any particular member of the First Presidency felt anything at all about it, or even thought about it, or even vetted it.
-
No, he said that they thought it was reasonable to add.
Whichever. As it turns out, that claim is unsubstantiated.
Those wacky nonviolent pot smokers
in Current Events
Posted