DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
I have an eight inch telescope. One thing you should know - the photo's you see of nebulas and galaxies and others with beautiful colors, they are made by cameras focused on them for hours. It takes hours for the camera to collect all that light. If you point your telescope at a nebula and think you are going to see reds and greens and blues, you are going to be disappointed. You might see a light puff, like a cloud or fog. But if you want to see the colors like you seen online or in magazines, you are going to have to have to hook a camera to a scope.
Planets on the other hand can be viewed with scopes without cameras. Saturn is awesome. Jupiter is mighty. Mars is nice. Those rings of Saturn are amazing.
Spend a thousand or fifteen hundred on a scope and you will spend three times that on nice eye pieces! lol.
I was thinking of setting the scope up this winter and trying to get the missionaries here to view a planet or two at night. Of course they have to be in by 9pm so it might be hard to pull off.
Most of the really pretty nebula and galaxy pictures are from the Hubble satellite and colorized for helping visualize certain properties, not because that is how the naked eye would see them if you looked out the window of a space ship fairly close to the area. I was so disappointed when I found that out.
-
I think my son agrees with you. He is so interested in the planets and stars. He loves to talk about identifying stuff in the sky. I think we might get him a telescope for Christmas.
Amazing how kids can help you remember the wonder of things. :)
My wife and I have planetarium passes. It's not that expensive and you can see all the shows you want for a whole year :)
-
I think the universe is neat :)
-
On a more serious note...
In my opinion Christmas is more a matter of tradition than religion. I've always been agnostic/atheist (depends on your definition) and I've never felt uncomfortable with Christmas carols in school or any direct Christmas references. You can't even go into Walmart the day after Halloween without being assaulted by Christmas music and decorations all over the place so I would say the holiday has become more a part of the American culture than a part of any particular religion and you can choose for yourself how you want your family to celebrate it.
-
What if the mushroom is shifty?
I refuse to respect a fungus
-
I'm sorry, but no, this is hypocrisy at its worst. When Christians boycotted firms that supported pornography (seems like this was common in the 80s) we were accused of the worst sort of censorship, of bullying, intimidation, and, of course, supressing free speech. Anyone remember Larry Flynt's repeated antics...playing the victim against the alleged tyranny of the "puritanic religious right?'
Of course, now that the Left is doing so, it's their right, it's a form of free speech...it is political speech. IMHO, those on the social left get plenty of "free speech,"--especially from the media. It's those of us who are social traditionalists that seem to pay dearly for our voice to be heard.
Hypocrisy by who? I honestly don't give a crap what Christians boycotted in the 80's and I would be willing to bet I'm not the only one. You can't just lump people in with "the left" and then hold them accountable for every action by someone who you perceive is a part of "the left."
-
I recommend reading this article by economist Walter Williams of George Mason University:
Interesting paper, but I don't see how it is relevent to my comment. I was merely pointing out that by his definition, freedom had left America long ago, not making any moral or legal judgements of his stance.
-
(I want to be very careful in how I word this because I don't approve of racism or discrimination in any way. And bear with me as I'm thinking while I'm writing this out.)
A bus service is a public utility and a public service. It is (usually) a service provided to the public by a local government entity. There is NO reason for discrimination or racism in government provided services. Everyone has the right to have access to these services... unless they (individually) are unruly, rude or otherwise not deserving of service for their conduct (or cannot afford the service).
A private business... well, I think it depends on the nature of the business.
A photography STUDIO (or other STORE-FRONT business) probably cannot reasonably refuse service for a broad-based reason (like color, sexual orientation, etc.). They can (of course) refuse service for an individual based reason - probably because they can't afford their services or they are rude, unruly, etc.
A CONSULTATIVE business - by its very nature can refuse service simply because the client doesn't meet the target profile of their ideal client.
In my line of work, I can easily say that I only work with people who have $250,000 to invest, are between the ages of 25-55 years old and are business owners.
If you are not a business owner, and only have $100k to invest and you're 75 years old, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT WORK WITH YOU as this profile would NOT be conductive to building the kind of business I need to build.
If you're BROKE, there's no law that says that I'm a charity and MUST work with you. There are other people who do that, but that's not me or my line of work.
So, in my simple mind, the question is: Should a "store-front" business be able to have the same rights as a "consultant" business owner?
I think that "store-front" businesses do need to have a sellers permit and there are other rules and regulations that must be followed differently than consultants must do... (just thinking out loud here).
So... is a photographer a consultant or a store-front?
I am not a legal expert, but I think anti-discrimination laws apply the same to a "consultant" as they would to a "store-front" business. Of course businesses and consultants can refuse to serve people or take new clients based on a variety of practical reasons pertinent to their business interests, but they are not allowed to reject people based solely on factors like gender, skin color, or sexual orientation.
To me, this case is not very clear-cut though because I doubt that the photographer simply refuses to photograph homosexual people (if that is the case, I have no doubt that this is discrimination), but he is refusing to photograph an act that he finds morally repulsive (whether he is justified in that or not, it is his belief). I can't say I really agree with this lawsuit, but I also don't agree with many of the comments on this thread. That is why I haven't posted much on this thread.
-
Once the government dictates what a private business MUST do, such as servicing clients they don't want to, then America as a nation of freedom is over.
So by that logic, America was no longer a nation of freedom a long time ago when businesses were no longer allowed to refuse service to people based solely on the color of their skin. Why are people just now making a fuss?
-
I can somewhat relate. I've been to other religious forums as well and seen incredible hatred from so-called Christians toward me simply because I don't agree. This is the only forum that made me feel welcome and where (most) people were willing to peacefully discuss our disagreements. I don't know if that speaks towards Mormons in general or the moderators for doing such a good job at keeping things peaceful, but I am thankful as well for the community here.
-
Inter-faith marriages can work; I'm agnostic and my husband is LDS. He's pretty devoted as far as I can tell. He goes to church and teaches and seems to believe about as solidly as one can believe in a faith without going off the deep end. He comes home with a constant stream of compliments he gets from other church members about his insights and the quality of his lessons. I'm about as lacking in faith as one can get (without being an atheist). I have seen zero solid evidence for deities, and though I can't possibly discount omnipotent beings (on the basis that omnipotent beings can exist very happily without giving any solid evidence of their existence), I don't see enough use for them in my life to make them worth putting time and effort into discovering. And yet, we've been married for several years, and haven't had more than the rare fight as an issue.
Many people (if not all) have deal-breakers in relationships. I'm guessing here that the problem is less generic inter-faith marriages, and more that her specific interpretation (or, as it sounds, the interpretation she chooses to take from others, perhaps because of social pressure) make an inter-faith marriage a deal-breaker for her.
I don't really have a lot of happy sunshine advice, (and I have no authority to say anything about mentioned deity's degree of fairness,) but I would imagine that since faith is so highly emotional and highly subjective, neither of you should lie to the other about it. You wouldn't be happy. If you can't believe Mormon doctrine, you can't. You need to be honest and up front with her. Even if she does leave you, I think it would be better than prolonging a failing relationship by trying to prop it up with lies. That just builds up resentment and makes the deterioration slower and more painful. If she can't be married to someone that can't believe Mormon doctrine, she should divorce you for the same reasons. It sucks, but getting it over quickly and moving on is likely the best answer if it can't work out.
Of course, if your faith in Mormonism does revive, or if she finds she can be married to someone who is not of her faith, then that's great! Hopefully it will either work out, or your troubles will be brief and amount to useful experience.
That's my experience and two cents. Take it or leave it as you find useful.
Your situation sounds strangely similar to mine. It's nice to know I'm not the only one :)
-
Question: How much of a backlash would there have been if those for proposition 8 advertised and promoted a boycott of businesses, organizations, employees of those organizations and so on and so forth. No, not just a boycott of those in support of proposition 8, but with any business that employs and or affiliates with homosexuals in general. Because that is what is being called for. A boycott of Mormons, just because the majority of them supported prop 8.
People are free to boycott whoever they like. If people want to boycott all but the most bigoted companies, then they are free to do so. I might point and laugh that they can no longer even buy toilet paper anymore, but I really wouldn't care or claim that free speech is being supressed.
For the record, I would not boycott any Mormon businesses or even advise anyone else to, but I have no problem with people using where they spend their money to make a statement. I do find it incredibly funny though that many Mormons get this attitude of "but that's not fair when people single us out!" after making such a big stink about how they have the right to claim homosexuals are being immoral and go out of their way to make sure they can never get married to the person they love.
-
If Atheists want, they can pick a day to call "What God? Day." If you'll celebrate Christmas with me, I'll celebrate What God? Day with you.
"What God? Day" - 7 results on google (none of them actually referring to a proposed holiday, I don't think it is catchy enough)
"Atheistmas" - 243 results on google (most of them are people mocking what christmas has become)
"Atheist's Day" - 688 results on google (most of them offensively and incorrectly claiming it to be April Fools Day, look it up on snopes)
Very interesting. From all this, I conclude that there aren't currently any atheist holidays, but there should be :)
-
I find it disturbing that limiting what religion a PARENT can teach his/her child about is allowed to be included in a divorce decree.
I would find it disturbing if the other party was not able to protest this or was forced into it, but if they both agreed to it, I see no reason not to hold them to it.
-
If he wasn't going to abide by the visitation agreement, he shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place. The ruling isn't very suprising, all the court did was recognize that the LDS faith is not the same as the protestant faith which falls under the "duh" category to me.
-
To me, hearing people say Xmas is almost as annoying as hearing people say LOL. You don't need to verbalize the abbreviation of "Christ" since it takes just as much effort to verbalize "X" just as you don't need to say LOL, it is easier to just laugh (not to mention if you say LOL but don't laugh, you are obviously lying)!
Ok, rant over :)
-
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but it was pretty funny. The association of X with Christmas is based in the Greek language. I'm guessing that the association of X with crossing might have similar roots, but I have not read anything about it.
I was hoping you would pick up on the fact that I was joking. I thought about editing the post to make it more clear :)
-
The 'Xmas' complaint is another one that bugs me. Yes, it does grate on me a little read it, but that's partly because I'm not used to seeing 'x' at the beginning of the word.
'Xmas' is not cutting Christ out of Christmas. In fact, it has it's roots several millenia ago in the Greek language. The letter 'X' was commonly used (often paired with another letter, usually 'p' or 't') to denote "Christ."
So is this sign trying to say that Jesus is crossing the street, or that pedestrians are worshipping in the street?
-
The whole "War on Christmas" philosophy amuses me greatly. It sounds very much like a projection of Christians' war on everyone else and an excuse to get all offended when someone dares to try to include other religions when trying to express their good will to others. I find it especially ironic when an LDS member expresses their disgust at having to be sensitive to other minority religious groups in this country.
-
and they call... probably sould say called USA a free country American Thinker: It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'
Unbeilevable what the anties are allowed to do. Such hate speach was lastime used against the blacks.
From the article:
These boycotts, which aim at suppressing political speech
Mormons went out of their way to support a bill that a lot of people strongly disagree with. The boycotts don't aim to supress political speech, the boycotts are political speech. If you take a stand against what people believe to be their civil rights you will end up getting people taking a stand against you. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? I support the LDS right to encourage people to vote for something, but I also support the right of people to peacefully express their disagreement and disgust at that decision.
-
It is very interesting to me how most of the Mormons who responded seem to have interpreted the original post completely differently than most of the Catholics who responded.
I am agnostic, my wife is LDS and we've been happily married for 2 years now. So you could say that I have some experience with inter-faith marriages and I think that I bring yet another perspective to this discussion. Yes inter-faith marriages can work, no they are not easy, but you can't always choose who you fall madly in love with. It would probably be more convenient if my wife and I were the same faith, but I can't imagine myself being with anyone else and I am pretty sure she feels the same way.
On one hand, I understand that your wife probably married you with an expectation that you would be sealed in the temple whether she explicitly told you or not. On the other hand, I can relate to your situation of sincerely wanting the church to be true, but not being able to fully convince yourself of it. Religion is a deeply personal choice and it is not always clear what the right decision is. I don't know your bishop, but from what it sounds like he is not acting appropriately or acting in either of your best interestes. I have had talks with our ward's bishop and while he urges me to join the church, he still respects that a testimony can't simply be forced on another person and that I can still be a loving husband and would never even hint that we should be separated.
So what is my advice? I think you should try to be honest, but not argumentative with your wife about your beliefs. She needs to understand that you are honestly seeking the truth and threats are no way for a person to gain a testimony, and you need to understand that she feels you may be depriving her of eternal happiness. It is certainly not an easy situation, and probably not what either of you thought you were getting in to at the start, but it can work.
I wish you both the best of luck.
-
I've put off reading this post for a couple days now simply because it is so long and I've been short on time lately. Now that I have read it all the way through, I find your perspective very interesting.
I consider myself agnostic, and as such I don't believe it is possible to know anything as absolute truth with our limited perspective. You say that in your experience, "too many unknowingly deceive themselves" and I would strongly agree. I am curious though, what makes you sure you are not one of those people? I mean, obviously you have put a lot of thought into the subject and are not a person who is religious out of habit or appeals to authority, but what makes you sure that your faith affirming experience is "true" and that other people who feel just as strongly about their faith are wrong?
I have seen many people of different faiths who are completely and truly convinced that their religion is true and cite similar, very personal experiences for the basis of their faith. Personally, I find it more likely that these experiences are simply a manifestation of their desire for there to be something more or for deeper purpose. To me, that is the best explaination for the multitude of religions that exist and have existed throughout human history.
I am still open to the possibility that one religion is the "correct" one, but at the moment, I remain unconvinced. So I guess that is my basis of disbelief.
-
Tithing is not a concept thought up by LDS....it is of God.
It is something that has been asked of all who believe. It is all through the Scriptures.
All religions claim their principles are from God and not thought up by man. While it is true that all Christians religions have a concept of tithing, the LDS church is the only one I have ever heard recommend everyone tithe regardless of their situation.
-
I doubt that using their money for tithing instead of reducing their debt caused them to go into bankruptcy. A lot of people go into bankruptcy no doubt, especially in Utah, as it seems, but I don't think that if that money was shifted from tithing to debt that it would have prevented the bankruptcy. It would have come anyways. Why was it ever a problem? Because they weren't personally responsible with their finances. Not paying their tithing is not going to fix that. Paying their tithing and using that commitment to become financially responsible will fix their habits and prevent debt problems down the road. That and the Church will help them when they truly need it, so long as they're faithful and pay their tithes as asked.
There's something to changing one's bad ways (financial, spiritual) for the better when you're financially committed to something, isn't there?
When I said bills, I was mostly referring to things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and other cost of living things. Some people are financially responsible, but still have trouble paying monthly bills.
Edit: I guess it would have been better phrased as become homeless, because I think bankruptcy has more to do with debt.
God is neat
in General Discussion
Posted
I think that may be one of the few things we have in common :)