What's new
By:
Filters

Longest Thread Ever

Hotttnickkk said:
- Moral values when there is nothing in it for us to further our species/cause? If I travel to India, and I see a poor beggar on the street, why should I give him money? I was never going to see him again - so it doesn't benefit me to help him.

One Brow would say, that we do it out of "empathy". But that answer alone isn't good enough. I can have empathy (defined as capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another person), but how does it benefit me to act upon that empathy from an "animal" stand point? Let's say a lion develops "empathy" - would it stop eating other animals? No it won't. Its survival instinct would still kick in. But as humans, we're willing to do the opposite - we're willing to sacrifice our own life for others.

I would argue that we don't help others simply out of empathy - having empathy helps, but it's not the only reason. We help others because we have "love" built within us to "do the right thing". It is written in our "hearts". It's what's in every human's "hearts" if we're honest with ourselves.
Click to expand...

worthy of some second thoughts. . . . .

The LDS, in common with many Christians I believe, do consider Man to be a favored creation/creature in relation to God, by reason of having a "soul". Joseph Smith, however, has been criticized for the fact that he believed animals and in fact all living things have a "spiritual" creation/nature as well as a physical one. As well as a certain "intelligence" of an eternal nature.

But in the LDS view, the distinction between Man and all other creatures consists in the capacity for and expectation of moral accountability with respect to the laws or commands we are given, and the fundamental fact of our "forgetfulness" associated with our birth into this world which is a condition of our life here, being placed here to face the test of whether we will choose to act on faith, or choose to love God and follow Him on the terms of our trial. . . . on our own uncoerced choice.

I wouldn't feel to criticize Joseph Smith on his concept, rudimentary as it was in his one or two remarks on the subject. I love animals and have learned to "see" elements of what I think a lot of folks believe is only true of humans in them. The God I love, as I understand things, loves animals in their various conditions as well. Even the Bible has some examples attributing to beasts some virtues. . . . I think there was a donkey who reproved a prophet once. . . . . look up Balaam in your concordance, in association with a term unacceptable to this site.

I am happy with the notion of living things having spirit existence as well as physical. The spirit leaving makes, for me, a definition of death. And the presence of a spirit makes for me a better notion of "life" than mere chemistry.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Yeah I've recently started helping leading discussion/teaching bible to youth at our Church. It's been fun, and I've learnt a few lessons really quickly.

- First, don't treat them like they're children. Treat them as if they're one of the adults and respect them (I learnt that the hard way - too much joking around, if they don't find it funny you ended up looking like a real dick).

- Secondly, be consistent with them - you can't pretend to be nice to them one day, and think that's enough and shun them the next. You've got to build on that relationship.

- Thirdly, be honest, they can tell when you're lying and it's not a good look.

- Fourth - lead them - you have to build relationships, but at the end of the day you're there to set an example, lead them in the right direction.

It's a steep learning curve, but it's a challenge I'm looking forward to.
Click to expand...

This is truly wonderful news. Sounds like you're gonna be a great teacher.
 
MoTown16 said:
Good for you Hotttnickkk. Guess I'll have to change my mind about you - sounds like you're a nice guy after all. :p
And very good advice about working with children.
Click to expand...

double dittos. Only I had already caught on about the "nice guy" part. Only question is if we can get OB to come to Sunday School.
 
well, thanks to all who visited the LTE. I don't know how long I'll need to be in town this time. At least until Tues. morning for sure. But I have a pretty busy day ahead.
 
well, how about some discussion about chemistry and medical definition of "life"??

here's an excellent article I found just browsing . . . .

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24

the thesis here is that "life" is the capacity for integrated life-sustaining functions. . . . . does not require consciousness or higher brain function, only lower brain functions capable of maintaining/integrating various functions like respiration, nutritional absorbtion, bowel and bladder and other organ functions. . . . .

makes the argument that "life" so defined has implications for the debate about the human "life" of a fetus.

I whole-heartedly concur. I used to be susceptible to the sophistry about "human" life being questionable in regard to a "lump of tissue in the womb". . . . until I saw my kids on ultrasound at a very early time in their lives. . . . and somehow just "knew" it was human life. End of the debate for me, right then.

I'd say the spirit is there, and is active somehow in directing and integrating the processes of life. . .. . it's just that simple.
 
Last edited:
My great-grandma loved my great-grandpa. My steadfast scientist father who somehow didn't believe in God told me the story. He saw her in perfect health care for my great-grandpa for months as he ailed, declined, and then finally died. She went through the funeral proceedings in perfect health too, and then just went home, laid down on her bed, and died herself. Even my scientist father who probably wondered if anyone cared for him put that down as the most amazing love he had ever seen in human kind, and concluded she wanted to care for him, and then just wanted to go home with him too.
 
Medical science has a tremendous amount of lore about people just dying for no clear reason. . . . and for people just living when for all reasonable expectation they should have died. . . . .

defying all concepts of life as defined by chemistry. . . . . .
 
babe said:
But I assure you, I'm not in that "market".
Click to expand...

Haha. On that note, there are actually a lot of good looking single LDS girls in the Philippines and South America. I'm not sure how you pursue girls in foreign countries, but some of these guys that get older around here and then complain that they can't find anyone suitable should find a way. Work at a multi-national... go teach English.... or at an embassy. I don't know. But just being Mormon in those countries would be enough for those dudes to date way above their leagues.
 
babe said:
I find this particular insight quite illuminating. I've studied languages in the general for many years. . . and have found there are astounding inferences that can be made on the basis of minimal data. The word "mank" has in fact ancient roots in old Sanskrit, where it was the word for "poop" of a certain kind. . . . elephant poop to be precise. . . . The suffix "ind" in the same language was a modifier that had the sense of "progressing" in the directional sense of "from", and so the combined term carries the sense of the ancient origins of Darwin's plagiarism from the common scientific knowledge of around ten thousand years ago that life spontaneously emerged from piles of poop of various kinds. As you know, poop does have some DNA present from various bacterial, viral, foodsource, and host remnants, and when allowed to fester in the warm sunlight, new species can emerge, as from say a primordial "soup".
Click to expand...

babe, I think it's highly inappropriate that you use this thread at a platform for your potty talk. Please keep your poop in the bathroom.

Thank you.
 
Bronco70 said:
babe, I think it's highly inappropriate that you use this thread at a platform for your potty talk. Please keep your poop in the bathroom.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I sense an undertone of resentment here in regards to my taking you and Spazz to task on your recent poetry offerings. As I recall, you were on the side of potty poetry at that time.

My scientific discussion of spontaneous generation as the theory existed among the ancients, long before it was validated by scientists in the middle ages, has direct implications on Charles' Darwin's more recent validation of it. Pure Science, and indeed I would appreciate someone should notify One Brow that perhaps he would benefit from my "history" of Evolution through the ages.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Haha. On that note, there are actually a lot of good looking single LDS girls in the Philippines and South America. I'm not sure how you pursue girls in foreign countries, but some of these guys that get older around here and then complain that they can't find anyone suitable should find a way. Work at a multi-national... go teach English.... or at an embassy. I don't know. But just being Mormon in those countries would be enough for those dudes to date way above their leagues.
Click to expand...

Fact often is quite the reverse of that which is claimed.

Thirty years ago, there were LDS Singles' Wards. I'm sure they have not improved at all. Back then, there were at least sixty single women, all in their right minds and gainfully employed, besides the throw-away single moms who would've been grateful for the chance to talk to a single man with a job. And less than ten men in the ward that could mumble three coherent words in succession.

No need for any man to go abroad hunting for an appropriate mate, anywhere in this world. Question is, when will the women finally decide Isaiah 4:1 is a direct revelation to the First Presidency and decide to authoritatively instruct the doddering old men to allow them their rightful selection in the Evolutionary Process.
 
Bronco70 said:
babe, I think it's highly inappropriate that you use this thread at a platform for your potty talk. Please keep your poop in the bathroom.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

babe said:
I sense an undertone of resentment here in regards to my taking you and Spazz to task on your recent poetry offerings. As I recall, you were on the side of potty poetry at that time.

My scientific discussion of spontaneous generation as the theory existed among the ancients, long before it was validated by scientists in the middle ages, has direct implications on Charles' Darwin's more recent validation of it. Pure Science, and indeed I would appreciate someone should notify One Brow that perhaps he would benefit from my "history" of Evolution through the ages.
Click to expand...

I agree Bronco, what is going on here babe?

You took me to task about my potty poetry, and I did a complete 360 only to find you talking about poop.
I am very disappointed.

In fact, here I sit brokenhearted......
 
JazzSpazz said:
I agree Bronco, what is going on here babe?

You took me to task about my potty poetry, and I did a complete 360 only to find you talking about poop.
I am very disappointed.

In fact, here I sit brokenhearted......
Click to expand...

I concur you do indeed have a case.

However, had you been an attentive and comprehending reader of my posting contributions both here and abroad in other threads, you would know that I've been insinuating that science is crap for a good long time. Just ask One Brow.
 
Spazz is a like a craftsman
Molding meter, building rhyme
He exhibits deft precision
Nearly each and every time

His verse is bright and textured
Like the peel of an orange
...

Aw crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top