Amen. I live in central Kansas. I telecommute to work every day. I make 3-4 times what I need to maintain this lifestyle(which is pretty extravagant compared to most of my neighbors), and my extra cash is going into debt payments(which are student loans) and investment properties, so I could probably retire before 40 if I desired. My last urban experience was a cramped little condo, with bills so high that even with a decent job, we were just barely scraping by. Now, I am laughing all the way to the bank.
(I'm sure if she said "kill a man," I might have had some objections, but thankfully, such requests were rare)
They were only RARE? Your mom was metal, man.
And so, how do you divide the compensation? If I start cranking out drivel for the purpose of becoming a copyright holder, does that mean I'm magically entitled to some cash, even though no one cares enough to buy my "art?" If I can't find patronage, then I should be doing something else to make money. I shouldn't expect someone to foot the bill for me.
This is the same problem I have with state sponsored art of any kind. Why should any penny of my taxes go to floating the career of some guy whose creations I wouldn't even dignify with the title of art, whether it be a painting, music or whatever?
I don't claim to have any definite solution to this problem, but more taxes is not it.
Wrong. It's simply called experience. We can now see that most of that crap was stupid. I've done my share of drinking, and I can honestly say that it was stupid, pointless and harmed my life in measurable ways. The same with my teenage sexual exploits. I was screwing around(no pun intended) with relationships that were deeper than I expected, and some people ended up emotionally hurt. It's literally something that I regret to this very day, and deeply wish I could go back and smack myself. I've also seen the body parts left on the road after a bad teen wreck. Why the hell wouldn't I try to steer my kids clear of the crap they will one day regret? They'll mess around and do stupid shit, and I know and accept that. I just try to minimize the life altering damage with the benefit of hindsight.That's not hypocrisy, that's called learning from your mistakes, and it's a part of maturity.
Oh, and I don't think blowing things up is in any way weird. You just have to be careful about it.
Mormons believe that modern Christianity has lost truth (including true nature of God).
You can feel free to believe anything you like, true or false.
One can debate the validity Joseph Smith's claim but they have yet to be disproven and therefore, Mormons should be classified as Christians.
What? Smith wrote about numerous wars and cultures spanning North America. You don't find it odd that absolutely no authentic relics or structures have ever been found? Ever? Comparative DNA studies show that the Native Americans could not have migrated here in the time frame Smith claimed. There is ZERO evidence of Smith's claims. What else is there to disprove? Give me the name of any reputable non-LDS archeologist who supports any of those claims.
If you want to make a distinction, which I agree you should, you can call them restorationists (as done by wikipedia).
That would imply that there was something lost, which Smith restored. Give me evidence. Show me the writings of some ancient Hebrews talking about how God was a man, and that they'd get to become the God of their own world. If you can, you'll be the first in LDS history. Secondly, show me some proof from Christian sources. We have numerous extra-biblical writings from Christians, including some written concurrently with or before parts of the New Testament. Even the Gnostics don't show signs of this belief.
But you can't offer any legitimate academic argument to exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity.
No, the problem is that your religion has offered no academic argument to be included. If you can't back up your claims with research showing their validity, why would you expect anyone, Christian or otherwise, to accept them?
Modern mainstream Christians do that because their umbrella isn't wide enough to handle the fact that some truths might have been lost or misinterpreted shortly after the deaths of the apostles.
No, modern Christians simply do not redefine core beliefs to suit fringe groups who can offer nothing to back up their claims. And, as an agnostic, I don't choose to muddy the water any further by lumping separate religions under a single definition. And that's without digging into the odious teachings of the various LDS prophets. I could quote some of Brigham Young's more colorful teachings, if you like.
Mormon doctrine is that God is an exalted and perfected man. That is true.
Bingo. That breaks with all Judeo-Christian belief right there. Jewish belief is that God pre-existed everything else. There was no "before" for God, certainly no point where he was a human. Christians inherited that belief. Joseph Smith tossed it. With a completely different conception of who God(and therefore Christ) is, it is simply false to equate the two. Regardless of which side is correct, you do a disservice to both by playing semantic games.
both doctrines claim Christ to be the chief cornerstone of faith so why can't they be classified under the same umbrella?
Because the two conceptions of Christ/God are completely different. It's the same reason that Gnostics are not considered "mainstream" Christians. The names are the same, the substance is different.
I am happy to include your Christ in my umbrella
I'm agnostic, so I have no umbrella. Believe what you will, it doesn't matter to me. But at least be honest, and admit that you follow a different religion.
Mormons teach that God is simply an exalted man. Jesus was, likewise, a human whose purpose was to show how to become exalted and gain Godhood. This is a fundamental break with Christianity, pre-Nicea or not. The difference is no less than the nature and identity of God.
the idea that Mormons are not Christian is preposterous.
Because the theology is different. Mormonism redefines God and humanity in a way that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. If Mormonism is Christian, so is Islam. Without arguing about which one is correct(if any), the fact remains that they are not the same.
The first use of nuclear weapons was an awakening for the world, and they saw something to fear: Pandora's Box. No one wanted -- or wants -- to turn its key.
I think that statement should be qualified. No one who is sane(in an institutional sense) wants to turn the key. I can think of of several ideology driven groups who would happily turn that key.
An interesting comment, since I just got done reading Stephen King's "Cell": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(novel)
In that story, cell phones were instruments of a large scale, forced evolution of the human race.
Actually, I noticed one other belated point. The freighter was not hauling ore. It was a fully automated oil refinery. Basically, they extracted oil from other planets, loaded it onto this huge super freighter/refinery, and by the time the ship made it to Earth, it had a cargo of refined petrochemicals for plastics production and whatnot.
The novelization was based on the original script, so it was at least originally going to be addressed, then cut for time, I'd imagine. In the novel, the alien had broken into the food locker, and ripped everything open.
Of course, all of the "food" on the Nostromo was recycled waste, so basically everyone was eating sewage.
In the Alan Dean Foster novelization, the alien tore open food packages that the crew used. So, it's not true that it didn't eat. Also, part of the point of having the cat onboard was vermin. I imagine that the alien fed on them as well.
We've used NFP for years, and had no problem regulating pregnancy. No hormones, no chemicals, no barriers. Oh, and it costs zip once you start. 99% effective or more, with little training. Plus, the most common method has several layers of built in redundant checks. For the cost of a thermometer and a few hours of training, you can give a woman effective control of her reproductive capabilities for life. Even from a strictly secular point of view, it makes sense. You don't have to hook them up with a lifetime of hormone therapy or a perpetual supply of condoms or diaphragms.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. I live in central Kansas. I telecommute to work every day. I make 3-4 times what I need to maintain this lifestyle(which is pretty extravagant compared to most of my neighbors), and my extra cash is going into debt payments(which are student loans) and investment properties, so I could probably retire before 40 if I desired. My last urban experience was a cramped little condo, with bills so high that even with a decent job, we were just barely scraping by. Now, I am laughing all the way to the bank.
(I'm sure if she said "kill a man," I might have had some objections, but thankfully, such requests were rare)
They were only RARE? Your mom was metal, man.
And so, how do you divide the compensation? If I start cranking out drivel for the purpose of becoming a copyright holder, does that mean I'm magically entitled to some cash, even though no one cares enough to buy my "art?" If I can't find patronage, then I should be doing something else to make money. I shouldn't expect someone to foot the bill for me.
This is the same problem I have with state sponsored art of any kind. Why should any penny of my taxes go to floating the career of some guy whose creations I wouldn't even dignify with the title of art, whether it be a painting, music or whatever?
I don't claim to have any definite solution to this problem, but more taxes is not it.
Well, all of them except for Cartman. And probably Darl, too.
Wrong. It's simply called experience. We can now see that most of that crap was stupid. I've done my share of drinking, and I can honestly say that it was stupid, pointless and harmed my life in measurable ways. The same with my teenage sexual exploits. I was screwing around(no pun intended) with relationships that were deeper than I expected, and some people ended up emotionally hurt. It's literally something that I regret to this very day, and deeply wish I could go back and smack myself. I've also seen the body parts left on the road after a bad teen wreck. Why the hell wouldn't I try to steer my kids clear of the crap they will one day regret? They'll mess around and do stupid shit, and I know and accept that. I just try to minimize the life altering damage with the benefit of hindsight.That's not hypocrisy, that's called learning from your mistakes, and it's a part of maturity.
Oh, and I don't think blowing things up is in any way weird. You just have to be careful about it.
Little Susy has it. Duck and cover.
Why is this modded funny? Ask Monsanto about it.
Mormons believe that modern Christianity has lost truth (including true nature of God).
You can feel free to believe anything you like, true or false.
One can debate the validity Joseph Smith's claim but they have yet to be disproven and therefore, Mormons should be classified as Christians.
What? Smith wrote about numerous wars and cultures spanning North America. You don't find it odd that absolutely no authentic relics or structures have ever been found? Ever? Comparative DNA studies show that the Native Americans could not have migrated here in the time frame Smith claimed. There is ZERO evidence of Smith's claims. What else is there to disprove? Give me the name of any reputable non-LDS archeologist who supports any of those claims.
If you want to make a distinction, which I agree you should, you can call them restorationists (as done by wikipedia).
That would imply that there was something lost, which Smith restored. Give me evidence. Show me the writings of some ancient Hebrews talking about how God was a man, and that they'd get to become the God of their own world. If you can, you'll be the first in LDS history. Secondly, show me some proof from Christian sources. We have numerous extra-biblical writings from Christians, including some written concurrently with or before parts of the New Testament. Even the Gnostics don't show signs of this belief.
But you can't offer any legitimate academic argument to exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity.
No, the problem is that your religion has offered no academic argument to be included. If you can't back up your claims with research showing their validity, why would you expect anyone, Christian or otherwise, to accept them?
Modern mainstream Christians do that because their umbrella isn't wide enough to handle the fact that some truths might have been lost or misinterpreted shortly after the deaths of the apostles.
No, modern Christians simply do not redefine core beliefs to suit fringe groups who can offer nothing to back up their claims. And, as an agnostic, I don't choose to muddy the water any further by lumping separate religions under a single definition. And that's without digging into the odious teachings of the various LDS prophets. I could quote some of Brigham Young's more colorful teachings, if you like.
Mormon doctrine is that God is an exalted and perfected man. That is true.
Bingo. That breaks with all Judeo-Christian belief right there. Jewish belief is that God pre-existed everything else. There was no "before" for God, certainly no point where he was a human. Christians inherited that belief. Joseph Smith tossed it. With a completely different conception of who God(and therefore Christ) is, it is simply false to equate the two. Regardless of which side is correct, you do a disservice to both by playing semantic games.
both doctrines claim Christ to be the chief cornerstone of faith so why can't they be classified under the same umbrella?
Because the two conceptions of Christ/God are completely different. It's the same reason that Gnostics are not considered "mainstream" Christians. The names are the same, the substance is different.
I am happy to include your Christ in my umbrella
I'm agnostic, so I have no umbrella. Believe what you will, it doesn't matter to me. But at least be honest, and admit that you follow a different religion.
Mormons teach that God is simply an exalted man. Jesus was, likewise, a human whose purpose was to show how to become exalted and gain Godhood. This is a fundamental break with Christianity, pre-Nicea or not. The difference is no less than the nature and identity of God.
the idea that Mormons are not Christian is preposterous.
Because the theology is different. Mormonism redefines God and humanity in a way that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. If Mormonism is Christian, so is Islam. Without arguing about which one is correct(if any), the fact remains that they are not the same.
Can I download it with Firefox and Linux? Cause I have tried, and failed.
Heh, only the majority of all Christians use it, as Catholics and Orthodox comprise the majority of Christians in the world.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html#International
more than 70% of wars are fought over religion
No, pretty much all major wars were fought for control of territories and resources. Religion does make a nice pretext, though.
So, use NFP. Ignore the religious bits, if you are so inclined. It works great.
The first use of nuclear weapons was an awakening for the world, and they saw something to fear: Pandora's Box. No one wanted -- or wants -- to turn its key.
I think that statement should be qualified. No one who is sane(in an institutional sense) wants to turn the key. I can think of of several ideology driven groups who would happily turn that key.
Thank you. That was an excellent story.
An interesting comment, since I just got done reading Stephen King's "Cell": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(novel) In that story, cell phones were instruments of a large scale, forced evolution of the human race.
Actually, I noticed one other belated point. The freighter was not hauling ore. It was a fully automated oil refinery. Basically, they extracted oil from other planets, loaded it onto this huge super freighter/refinery, and by the time the ship made it to Earth, it had a cargo of refined petrochemicals for plastics production and whatnot.
The novelization was based on the original script, so it was at least originally going to be addressed, then cut for time, I'd imagine. In the novel, the alien had broken into the food locker, and ripped everything open. Of course, all of the "food" on the Nostromo was recycled waste, so basically everyone was eating sewage.
In the Alan Dean Foster novelization, the alien tore open food packages that the crew used. So, it's not true that it didn't eat. Also, part of the point of having the cat onboard was vermin. I imagine that the alien fed on them as well.
Never tell me the odds!
Right. Because everyone knows that vampire fiction is a reliable predictor of scientific advances.
Ahh, so you are onto Yawgmoth's plan, too?
We've used NFP for years, and had no problem regulating pregnancy. No hormones, no chemicals, no barriers. Oh, and it costs zip once you start. 99% effective or more, with little training. Plus, the most common method has several layers of built in redundant checks. For the cost of a thermometer and a few hours of training, you can give a woman effective control of her reproductive capabilities for life. Even from a strictly secular point of view, it makes sense. You don't have to hook them up with a lifetime of hormone therapy or a perpetual supply of condoms or diaphragms.