9/11/2010 Burn a Koran Day

[Scat]

Washington#1 was a metaphor.

Of course it's a metaphor. It does however show that Washington acknowledges Providence is involved.

Washington#2 said nothing about the USA.

So? It shows Washington's spiritual nature and belief that it wasn't just pure, dumb luck that he didn't get shot. Why would this attitude and belief system not carry through to all other aspects and occurrences of his life?

Washington's belief that he was spared through divine intervention is very much relevant as he was instrumental in the birth of the USA.

Adams#1 invokes God for his personal circumstances, nor for the USA.

You're really splitting hairs on this one. It is his personal circumstances that are affecting the direction the U.S. is headed.

Adams#2 makes no claim God is blessing the USA.

But he is asking for God's blessing of the USA. Why would one ask for a blessing if they did not think it would be granted?

Franklin#1 seems to come from a speech in 1747: https://books.google.com/books?id=vdQLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false

You are correct. The source I used erroneously referenced it. That said, it still shows Franklin's spiritual nature and belief in Providence. In fact, it was Franklin that suggested each day of the Constitutional Convention be started with a prayer.

Franklin#2 is requesting a blessing, every day, not stating that one was provided

Again, why ask if you thought it weren't to be granted?

Hamilton is an unsourced quote, and considering the quality of the quotes so far presented, probably a fabrication.

What's wrong with the quality of the quotes? Are they not real? Are you saying I made them up? Are you saying they are not pertinent to the subject at hand?

The best reference I can get on this is that it was in a statement made in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention. Since they didn't have video or audio back then this is the best you're going to get.

Henry's quote dates before the Declaration of Independence.

But it shows his mindset and belief that God does inspire and guide men.

Adding more context to Pinckney's quote shows it's not a suggestion of divine endorsement.

When the great work was done and published, I was not only most agreeably disappointed, but struck with amazement. Nothing less than that superintending hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war (in my humble opinion), could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole .

It absolutely does. How would you interpret the phrase "superintending hand of Providence"?

The quote from Paine was first published in January 1776 in common Sense, again before the Declaration of Independence.

I erroneously typed in the Constitution when I meant the Declaration. Common Sense was Paine's call to declare independence which I am sure you are aware of.

Webster's quote does not even mention God.

True but he does use the word miracle which is often associated with God. Perhaps this reference was a bit too abstract.

You also keep hammering on the fact that several of the quotes I provided were before the Declaration. So? My statement was that the US was divinely inspired. That does not exclude all but the writing of the Constitution. This would include events leading up to the Declaration through the Revolutionary War to the writing of the Constitution.

I'll just leave you with this

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." - James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 37, January 11, 1788

I know, I know... it's just a metaphor.

As for the latter point, people believe they are doing things that are inspired by God all the time. That subjective belief is not exactly persuasive on the issue of whether or not their actions are objectively divinely inspired. None of these guys, as far as I'm aware, were exactly religious leaders or claimed to have a direct connection to God that you would recognize as valid (i.e. I don't think any of these guys were a prophet).

Put another way, the structure of your argument seems to imply that if someone expresses a belief in God, or frames their actions as being driven by a belief in God, then their actions must be divinely inspired. This has implications I'm sure you wouldn't defend. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I completely understand what you are saying here. If someone tells me they were divinely inspired to donate their time at a relief shelter this makes sense. Now If someone says they were divinely inspired to knock off the local liquor store and get hammered they're either crazy or just making up an excuse to get drunk.

When I see some of this county's greatest minds asking for divine guidance and then producing the results they did and then giving credit to Providence I have to sit up and take notice.

 

[GVC]

Put another way, the structure of your argument seems to imply that if someone expresses a belief in God, or frames their actions as being driven by a belief in God, then their actions must be divinely inspired. This has implications I'm sure you wouldn't defend. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Time to drink the kool-aid.

 

[moevillini]

sort of straying a bit, but I have a question about the "Divine Right of Kings" - - I know that's what it's called in current history books, but is that how the monarchy of the time (in the 1400's - 1500's - 1600's) also referred to their right to the throne? I mean, as I recall, it was sort of "understood" that the monarchy ruled by something akin to "divine right" but I don't really know if it was specifically referred to in that fashion.

a second point is that it's really tough to discern the meaning that words may have had when they were used 500 years ago when we filter those words through the context of their more recent meanings.

 

[One Brow]

Of course it's a metaphor. It does however show that Washington acknowledges Providence is involved.

I believe I understand your position now. By your use of the term, the creation of the USA was divinely inspired by belief in King George III.

You are correct. The source I used erroneously referenced it.

Your source had many similar errors. Why do you trust it?

What's wrong with the quality of the quotes?

You already noted one of the quality problems above.

Are they not real? Are you saying I made them up?

I don't recall using the plural nor attributing the made-up status of the Hamilton quote to you. I am curious if, seeing how unreliabel your source is, you will subsequently disavow it. I expect you will not.

Are you saying they are not pertinent to the subject at hand?

By any non-trivial definition of "inspired", sure. Since you have chosen to use a trivial definition, almost any genuine quote would be relevant.

The best reference I can get on this is that it was in a statement made in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention. Since they didn't have video or audio back then this is the best you're going to get.

Who is the reference? Where did they find it? Made-up quotes are a common phenomenon. Why should I think this Hamilton quote is not one?

It absolutely does. How would you interpret the phrase "superintending hand of Providence"?

In Pinckney's case, that would be "the foreordained outcome from the world as set up by the Creator and allowed to unwind without His interference".

I erroneously typed in the Constitution when I meant the Declaration. Common Sense was Paine's call to declare independence which I am sure you are aware of.

Either way, still not an endorsement of the divine inspiration of the USA, except for the most trivial meaning. I'm not going to bother arguing whether the USA was inspired by the writings of Cicero with you.

I completely understand what you are saying here. If someone tells me they were divinely inspired to donate their time at a relief shelter this makes sense. Now If someone says they were divinely inspired to knock off the local liquor store and get hammered they're either crazy or just making up an excuse to get drunk.

What allows you to say one makes sense while the other does not?

 

[Bronco70]

I've concluded that this thread is NOT divinely inspired.

 

[NAOS]

LOL. Cheers! Lock the thread. The end. Seriously.

 

[Archie Moses]

A) You have no idea how amused I am that you think you can condescend to me.

The irony here is beyond epic. It pretty much solidifies how stuck on yourself you are. I gave you an answer which suffices for pretty much everyone I've ever talked to. You simply replied by saying the answer wasn't good enough and it was a conclusion. Then you resorted to the Happy Gilmore/Shooter MacGavin line: "Do you think you're better than me?" Kick, if you're truly better than me, please, feel free to explain.

B) Your answer was the equivalent of "because I said so." I asked you detailed follow-up questions, some of which were based in distinctions laid out by Mormon leaders, which you declined to answer.

"Because I said so"? lol. Not even close. The conversation was more like this...

Kicky: "Why can't people show what goes on in your temples?"

Me: "Because it's sacred and we ask everyone, including members, not to share it and be respectful and because we feel that is something God has commanded us to keep secluded."

Kicky: "That's not an acceptable answer! That's a conclusion. Ramble ramble ramble I'm a lawyer."

Answer my post and then maybe we can engage in the fantasy that you're in a position to behave as if you're above me. As is, it simply appears that you're not prepared to seriously discuss what constitutes offensive behavior and why.

I answered your question already. No one cares that you think you're smarter than everyone. Seriously, we don't.

 

[sirkickyass]

"Because I said so"? lol. Not even close. The conversation was more like this...

Kicky: "Why can't people show what goes on in your temples?"

Me: "Because it's sacred and we ask everyone, including members, not to share it and be respectful and because we feel that is something God has commanded us to keep secluded."

Kicky: "That's not an acceptable answer! That's a conclusion. Ramble ramble ramble I'm a lawyer."

You indicated that was the "short answer." Then I asked you some very specific questions about a) distinctions between simulations and actual performances and b) why, in particular, the depiction of something that is sacred is offensive. One might say that I asked you for the "long answer" particularly as it applies to some factual circumstances germane to the actual situation that was being discussed.

Your response was literally "You want to know specifics? How bout this. Mormons believe temple ceremonies should not be depicted outside of the temple because God said so."

So yes, your answer was no better than "because I said so." It's the essentially the definition of dogmatic and made no attempt to address the distinction or general idea I laid out to you.

I responded to that post with some statements as to why it's not entirely clear that even Mormons believe that "God said so" particularly with respect to the differentiation between tokens and signs to the rest of the ceremony.

You, to date, have no response to those questions or any explanation as to why your personal interpretation of God's will is consistent with any doctrinal or scriptural mandate not to reveal the temple ceremony.

Why do I think I'm better than you Archie? Because this is par for your course.

I answered your question already.

No. In fact, you didn't. It's possible you are incapable of understanding the questions I asked you.

No one cares that you think you're smarter than everyone. Seriously, we don't.

I'm not exactly running around making lists of who I think the smartest people on the board are. I will say this, I do not believe I am the smartest person on the board. I do, however, believe that I am significantly smarter than you. Then again, that's not exactly setting the bar super-high.

 

[Archie Moses]

why is the act of filming a simulation of a temple ceremony (i.e. not an actual ceremony) offensive?

Because it's something sacred to us. In other words, it's blasphemy.

Is it really that upsetting that someone who's not of the faith knows what happens inside the temple?

To make buck off of it? Certainly. For any other reason? Certainly. It is sacred to us.

They still can't participate in the actual ceremony nor are they able to view the ceremony itself being carried out in the particular place of worship.

It doesn't matter. They're still doing it/revealing it.

EDIT:

"Large portions of LDS temple ceremonies are publicly discussed in church publications such as the Ensign, the History of the Church, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. There are, however, certain aspects of temple worship that are considered to be of such a sacred character that they are not to be viewed by, nor discussed with, the uninitiated. The same was true with the biblical temple of ancient Israel -- Gentiles were never allowed into the three main temple areas (outer court, holy place, holy of holies) and the entrances throughout the temple complex were guarded by porters and shielded by veils. The vast majority of the Israelites were never allowed to view the ordinances that took place in the temple proper (holy place, holy of holies)."

"Many early Christian groups had ceremonies or services (frequently referred to as the "mysteries") that were only open to those who were faithful members in good standing. Would the critics also condemn them?"

"Jesus also taught his apostles things which they were not permitted to teach to everyone, and this was done in private."

"The Latter-day Saints are merely following a pattern of respect for holy things laid down by Jesus and the early Christians (Matt. 7:6). Latter-day Saints treasure this aspect of Christian life and worship, clearly spelled out in history and scripture."

Does that answer your questions, kicky?

 

[Archie Moses]

I'm not exactly running around making lists of who I think the smartest people on the board are. I will say this, I do not believe I am the smartest person on the board. I do, however, believe that I am significantly smarter than you. Then again, that's not exactly setting the bar super-high.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1CvIzRezOM

You may have a higher IQ, but you're still a little man with a man-crush on a Ukrainian. Pat on the back, bro. I still gots chu beat in pretty much every aspect in life though.

 

[sirkickyass]

Does that answer your questions, kicky?

You basically wrote "it's sacred" a bunch of different times and then copy-pasted a bunch of quotes that weren't really responsive to my baseline questions about distinctions between simulations/performances and the rest of the ceremony vs. tokens and signs.

I do believe, however, that it's the best you can do so I won't pester you about it anymore.

 

[Archie Moses]

You basically wrote "it's sacred" a bunch of different times and then copy-pasted a bunch of quotes that weren't really responsive to my baseline questions about distinctions between simulations/performances and the rest of the ceremony vs. tokens and signs.

I do believe, however, that it's the best you can do so I won't pester you about it anymore.

Simulations/performances are considered to be blasphemous. Do you know what that means, kicky?

Also, any other LDS people that feel they can explain or answers kicky question, please do so. I'm not communicating very well or up to "par" with his standards. The dude is too "smart" for me.

EDIT: Question for you now. Why can't cartoonists draw Muhammad in cartoons without offending Muslims?