Jump to content


Charles Manson versus Sarah Palin


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#1 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:14 PM

Who would you vote for if these were your presidential choices in 2016?

#2 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

Which one is the democrat?



#3 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

I'd write in a vote for my wife.  She'd kick some serious ass.



#4 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:32 PM

I would vote FP off the island.  He just isn't very good at this. 



#5 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:47 PM

I would vote FP off the island.  He just isn't very good at this. 

His Malarkey is no more fresh than that of the McCracken.  



#6 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:33 PM

Hey Sole Rosenburg... 46,921 post times 2 minutes per post divided by 60 minutes in an hour times $10 per hour adds up to $15640 wasted on SA. That $10 is just above your liberal-ass minimum wage. Maybe your time is worth more, maybe less. Do the math. Is it worth the money to have a few other Libs kiss your ass? Get a real life and a real job.

By the way, Manson is the Democrat. Remember he's got a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He's the poster child for the Occupy Movement. And when I mean movement, I mean the bowel kind.

#7 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

Hey Sole Rosenburg... 46,921 post times 2 minutes per post divided by 60 minutes in an hour times $10 per hour adds up to $15640 wasted on SA. That $10 is just above your liberal-ass minimum wage. Maybe your time is worth more, maybe less. Do the math. Is it worth the money to have a few other Libs kiss your ass? Get a real life and a real job.

By the way, Manson is the Democrat. Remember he's got a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He's the poster child for the Occupy Movement. And when I mean movement, I mean the bowel kind.

Boo hoo, did I hurt your wittle feelings?  Looks like I pissed off a self centered sock puppet.  Bummer.  



#8 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,777 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:40 PM

Hey Sole Rosenburg... 46,921 post times 2 minutes per post divided by 60 minutes in an hour times $10 per hour adds up to $15640 wasted on SA. That $10 is just above your liberal-ass minimum wage. Maybe your time is worth more, maybe less. Do the math. Is it worth the money to have a few other Libs kiss your ass? Get a real life and a real job.

By the way, Manson is the Democrat. Remember he's got a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He's the poster child for the Occupy Movement. And when I mean movement, I mean the bowel kind.

 

That's a pretty low billing rate there.



#9 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:42 PM

Well we know who folding prop is now, no one else would get this butthurt. What a tiny fisted little troll Malarkey is.



#10 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:54 PM

Well we know who folding prop is now, no one else would get this butthurt. What a tiny fisted little troll Malarkey is.

I suspected since his first posts.  But feared outting another sock puppet and gaining the dreaded second warning point.



#11 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:06 PM

It is just way too easy to get Dum Dum to show off his socks. It almost takes the fun out of it. Almost.

#12 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:08 PM

Well we know who folding prop is now, no one else would get this butthurt. What a tiny fisted little troll Malarkey is.

I suspected since his first posts.  But feared outting another sock puppet and gaining the dreaded second warning point.

How can you get a warning point for outing a sock? That's taking it a bit too far.



#13 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:14 PM

Did someone say Sock? I'm sure no one around here would stoop to such a low level



#14 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:16 PM

I want to know who I am. Please tell me. I can't believe you Bozos haven't figured it out yet. Sorry for insulting the clown industry. This is like shooting fish in a barrel without any water in it. You guys are just flopping around.

#15 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,182 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:20 PM



#16 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

I want to know who I am. Please tell me. I can't believe you Bozos haven't figured it out yet. Sorry for insulting the clown industry. This is like shooting fish in a barrel without any water in it. You guys are just flopping around.

Who cares? I'd take a poll, but I'm already sure no one cares at all.



#17 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

 

Well we know who folding prop is now, no one else would get this butthurt. What a tiny fisted little troll Malarkey is.

I suspected since his first posts.  But feared outting another sock puppet and gaining the dreaded second warning point.

How can you get a warning point for outing a sock? That's taking it a bit too far.

Call him by his first name.



#18 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 12 November 2013 - 09:55 PM

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

#19 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:00 PM

Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

#20 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:26 PM

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 

Undoubtedly pulled with your racing Ridgeline.

 

powering_casino_small.jpg



#21 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:36 PM

Sorry Dum Dum.  Race boats these days don't leave props dragging around in the water, folding or otherwise.  Guess again.  



#22 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:03 PM

Bull Gator, on 13 Nov 2013 - 08:49, said:
Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

Smart. Sane. Fucked up childhood. Discovers that extremist ideologies pull in the chicks.

Always a far bigger problem than some easy-to-spot crazy guy.

The problem with extremist thinking is that you need to double and triple-down with the denial, or it all comes apart at the seams. Like JBSF bitching about the Afghans. You get the feeling that he genuinely thinks they're ungrateful for hating america.

#23 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,721 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:11 PM


Hey Sole Rosenburg... 46,921 post times 2 minutes per post divided by 60 minutes in an hour times $10 per hour adds up to $15640 wasted on SA. That $10 is just above your liberal-ass minimum wage. Maybe your time is worth more, maybe less. Do the math. Is it worth the money to have a few other Libs kiss your ass? Get a real life and a real job.

By the way, Manson is the Democrat. Remember he's got a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He's the poster child for the Occupy Movement. And when I mean movement, I mean the bowel kind.

 
That's a pretty low billing rate there.


I didn't realize that property tax reduction types had billing rates. The things you learn around here.

#24 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:14 PM

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 
Undoubtedly pulled with your racing Ridgeline.
 
powering_casino_small.jpg
hey that's my boat. I've looking for that shot for years now. Finally I can display the photo in my room full of pickle dishes. I also have room full of trophies I got playing kids sports. You know the one's you Liberals like to give out for just showing up. Kinda like those diplomas you got for going to college. Game... set...match.

#25 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:37 PM

Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

 

Please expound on that, if you would.



#26 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,182 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:00 AM

Bull Gator, on 13 Nov 2013 - 08:49, said:
Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

Smart. Sane. Fucked up childhood. Discovers that extremist ideologies pull in the chicks.

Always a far bigger problem than some easy-to-spot crazy guy.

The problem with extremist thinking is that you need to double and triple-down with the denial, or it all comes apart at the seams. Like JBSF bitching about the Afghans. You get the feeling that he genuinely thinks they're ungrateful for hating america.

 

  Not sane, an extreme malignant narcissist. 

 

 http://nurseleah.hub...thejoyfulsadist

 

 Head fuckers. They like to manipulate people through their emotions. They range from a Nurse Ratched to Charles Manson. I've been suspecting that Incognito guy as one. The only things worse than being their enemy are being their "special friend" or becoming fully a member of their "family".

 

 Try to hang in the middle rings of their radar screen while plotting escape an/or ways to get rid of them.



#27 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:10 AM

 

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 
Undoubtedly pulled with your racing Ridgeline.
 
powering_casino_small.jpg
hey that's my boat. I've looking for that shot for years now. Finally I can display the photo in my room full of pickle dishes. I also have room full of trophies I got playing kids sports. You know the one's you Liberals like to give out for just showing up. Kinda like those diplomas you got for going to college. Game... set...match.

That's not your boat, the Mac26x has a mighty 40- 60HP outboard that is retracted for racing.  No Folding Prop.



#28 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,158 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:10 AM

http://www.google.co...tents/US2990889

US2990889-0.png

#29 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:14 AM


 


Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 
Undoubtedly pulled with your racing Ridgeline.
 powering_casino_small.jpg
hey that's my boat. I've looking for that shot for years now. Finally I can display the photo in my room full of pickle dishes. I also have room full of trophies I got playing kids sports. You know the one's you Liberals like to give out for just showing up. Kinda like those diplomas you got for going to college. Game... set...match.
That's not your boat, the Mac26x has a mighty 40- 60HP outboard that is retracted for racing.  No Folding Prop.


#30 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,465 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:16 AM

 

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 
Undoubtedly pulled with your racing Ridgeline.
 
powering_casino_small.jpg
hey that's my boat. I've looking for that shot for years now. Finally I can display the photo in my room full of pickle dishes. I also have room full of trophies I got playing kids sports. You know the one's you Liberals like to give out for just showing up. Kinda like those diplomas you got for going to college. Game... set...match.

 

I doubt anyone here will be surprised you never actually won anything.



#31 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:59 AM

Mark K, on 13 Nov 2013 - 10:49, said:

Battlecheese, on 13 Nov 2013 - 09:52, said:

Bull Gator, on 13 Nov 2013 - 08:49, said:
Bull Gator, on 13 Nov 2013 - 08:49, said:
Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

Smart. Sane. Fucked up childhood. Discovers that extremist ideologies pull in the chicks.

Always a far bigger problem than some easy-to-spot crazy guy.

The problem with extremist thinking is that you need to double and triple-down with the denial, or it all comes apart at the seams. Like JBSF bitching about the Afghans. You get the feeling that he genuinely thinks they're ungrateful for hating america.


Not sane, an extreme malignant narcissist.

http://nurseleah.hub...thejoyfulsadist

Head fuckers. They like to manipulate people through their emotions. They range from a Nurse Ratched to Charles Manson. I've been suspecting that Incognito guy as one. The only things worse than being their enemy are being their "special friend" or becoming fully a member of their "family".

Try to hang in the middle rings of their radar screen while plotting escape an/or ways to get rid of them.

I pondered the use of "sane" when posting, but decided to leave it in anyway.
A huge portion of the population is narcissistic. What criteria do you plan to use to describe them as insane?

He was definitely a few standard deviations away from "normal", but I think it is too easy to just dismiss someone as being "insane" or "crazy".

#32 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:05 AM

Bull Gator, on 13 Nov 2013 - 08:49, said:
Too be fair to Manson he didn't quit on his cult like palin did.

Smart. Sane. Fucked up childhood. Discovers that extremist ideologies pull in the chicks.

Always a far bigger problem than some easy-to-spot crazy guy.

The problem with extremist thinking is that you need to double and triple-down with the denial, or it all comes apart at the seams. Like JBSF bitching about the Afghans. You get the feeling that he genuinely thinks they're ungrateful for hating america.

 

You been there, BC?  The average Afghani doesn't hate anyone, they just wanna be left the f*ck alone, and will act in deference to whomever they think has the best chance to help 'em do that. 

You been listening to too much media BS if ya think otherwise. 



#33 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:11 AM

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

#34 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:23 AM

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 



#35 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:34 AM

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?



#36 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:35 AM

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 



#37 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:38 AM

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Muslims?

 

(Sorry, underpants and planets, banging virgins and what not)



#38 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:39 AM

I'd write in a vote for my wife.  She'd kick some serious ass.

 

Here is an ass that seriously needs kicking

 

vnmuqd.jpg



#39 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:41 AM

 

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 

 

Sailed with a few.  Good owners who buy the beer and don't consume it.



#40 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:44 AM

 

 

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 

 

Sailed with a few.  Good owners who buy the beer and don't consume it.

There daughters are fun too.  Oral is moral.  Or so they are told.



#41 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:14 AM


The problem with extremist thinking is that you need to double and triple-down with the denial, or it all comes apart at the seams. Like JBSF bitching about the Afghans. You get the feeling that he genuinely thinks they're ungrateful for hating america.

You been there, BC?  The average Afghani doesn't hate anyone, they just wanna be left the f*ck alone, and will act in deference to whomever they think has the best chance to help 'em do that. 
You been listening to too much media BS if ya think otherwise.


I agree with you. Maybe my sentence would have been clearer if I had put quotes around "ungrateful for hating america". I was projecting JBSFs argument, not declaring my own opinion.

#42 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,244 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:47 AM

 

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 

Only if there's two of them.  :)



#43 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,348 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:50 AM

:lol:.....

#44 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:19 AM

 

 

 

Name one person that is normal or at least the character traits of a normal person. Don't describe yourself as that wouldn't be normal. Only someone abnormal would characterize themselves as normal.

 

 

Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?

 

Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 

Only if there's two of them.   :)

 

In my experience the typical practicing Mormon would be more mortified for a non member to see them drink than a member. Any member I've been acquainted with understands what it is to fall short and are tolerant and helpful to each other. But to drink or smoke in front of knowing non members would bring ridicule to their faith and themselves. 

 

Any member you saw drinking wasn't practicing and was likely a cultural Mormon not a believing Mormon. 

 

Some say it is hypocritical to set high standards knowing many will fail. I say nonsense. The rest of the world solves that dilemma by reducing or eliminating their standards. The Mormon standard is to be as perfect as their savior is. The highest standard possible and one they know they will fall short of. 

 

Other religions, Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely to get out the torches and pitchforks when their faith is mocked. In contrast the wife and I went to see the Book of Mormon Play the other day here in Orlando. Seeing this play in Orlando is also unique as a central theme in the Play is Walt Disney World and Orlando so the audience was almost an honorary cast member. In any case, the play makes fun of the Mormon Church but instead of crying foul or trying to censor or boycott they placed advertisements in the playbill and take it all in stride with a bit of humor of their own.

 

29giybq.jpg

 

So mock away. Every Mormon I know is immune to it and I kinda like the way it diminishes the character of those that do it.



#45 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,510 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:42 AM

Folding prop... Sleek, reliable, powerful, and almost all racing boats have one. I am freakin' perfect. You're just a bunch old cry babies. Boo freakin' Hoo.

 

Gotta be Malarkey, cause he sure as shit don't know what he's talking about either.  Powerful?  Jayzus, what tripe.  Powerful compared to what?  A shovel?   Try backing down with one of those pieces of shit.  



#46 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,510 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:47 AM

Other religions, Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely to get out the torches and pitchforks when their faith is mocked. In contrast the wife and I went to see the Book of Mormon Play the other day here in Orlando. Seeing this play in Orlando is also unique as a central theme in the Play is Walt Disney World and Orlando so the audience was almost an honorary cast member. In any case, the play makes fun of the Mormon Church but instead of crying foul or trying to censor or boycott they placed advertisements in the playbill and take it all in stride with a bit of humor of their own.

 

So is that where your bigotry stems from?  Some sense of the superiority of your belief system coupled with the pedestrian view that 'Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely' to act in a monolithic and prescribed way?   Damn but you are a simple-minded fool.  And really, Hindus?  Do you have even the slightest idea?  Clearly not.



#47 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:24 PM

Other religions, Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely to get out the torches and pitchforks when their faith is mocked. In contrast the wife and I went to see the Book of Mormon Play the other day here in Orlando. Seeing this play in Orlando is also unique as a central theme in the Play is Walt Disney World and Orlando so the audience was almost an honorary cast member. In any case, the play makes fun of the Mormon Church but instead of crying foul or trying to censor or boycott they placed advertisements in the playbill and take it all in stride with a bit of humor of their own.

 

So is that where your bigotry stems from?  Some sense of the superiority of your belief system coupled with the pedestrian view that 'Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely' to act in a monolithic and prescribed way?   Damn but you are a simple-minded fool.  And really, Hindus?  Do you have even the slightest idea?  Clearly not.

 

You forget I'm from Vancouver. BC. It was routine for there to be trouble between Hindus and Sikhs. One side was always offending the other. In the early 80's. The city sponsored a day of peace rally and they ended up clubbing each other with their peace signs.

 

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 



#48 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:37 PM

Other religions, Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely to get out the torches and pitchforks when their faith is mocked. In contrast the wife and I went to see the Book of Mormon Play the other day here in Orlando. Seeing this play in Orlando is also unique as a central theme in the Play is Walt Disney World and Orlando so the audience was almost an honorary cast member. In any case, the play makes fun of the Mormon Church but instead of crying foul or trying to censor or boycott they placed advertisements in the playbill and take it all in stride with a bit of humor of their own.

 

So is that where your bigotry stems from?  Some sense of the superiority of your belief system coupled with the pedestrian view that 'Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely' to act in a monolithic and prescribed way?   Damn but you are a simple-minded fool.  And really, Hindus?  Do you have even the slightest idea?  Clearly not.

 

No idea huh?

 

205scg3.jpg



#49 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,465 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:52 PM

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 

 

So, by your words, there really exists no difference between the faiths listed.  At least with regard to being myopic and arrogant.



#50 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,244 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:06 PM


 


 



 
Normal is for people with no imagination. 

Mormons?
 
Naw - the Mormons generally rock - I've worked w/a bunch - they make great designated drivers! 
Only if there's two of them.   :)
 
In my experience the typical practicing Mormon would be more mortified for a non member to see them drink than a member. Any member I've been acquainted with understands what it is to fall short and are tolerant and helpful to each other. But to drink or smoke in front of knowing non members would bring ridicule to their faith and themselves. 
 
Any member you saw drinking wasn't practicing and was likely a cultural Mormon not a believing Mormon. 
 
Some say it is hypocritical to set high standards knowing many will fail. I say nonsense. The rest of the world solves that dilemma by reducing or eliminating their standards. The Mormon standard is to be as perfect as their savior is. The highest standard possible and one they know they will fall short of. 
 
Other religions, Muslim, Jewish, Catholics, Hindus etc are likely to get out the torches and pitchforks when their faith is mocked. In contrast the wife and I went to see the Book of Mormon Play the other day here in Orlando. Seeing this play in Orlando is also unique as a central theme in the Play is Walt Disney World and Orlando so the audience was almost an honorary cast member. In any case, the play makes fun of the Mormon Church but instead of crying foul or trying to censor or boycott they placed advertisements in the playbill and take it all in stride with a bit of humor of their own.
 
29giybq.jpg
 
So mock away. Every Mormon I know is immune to it and I kinda like the way it diminishes the character of those that do it.
So there's Mormons, and the rest of the world, as far as standards go?

#51 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:10 PM

There's one thing the thousands of religions have in common. Their faith is the one true path and all the others are not only wrong, but are the embodiment of evil to distract and mislead the faithful.

#52 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:39 PM

So sayeth the Demon so sayeth the flock



#53 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:14 PM

Going to see Book Of Mormon this weekend.



#54 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:43 PM

we see it in December. Looking forward to it.



#55 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:28 PM

1380700_10151711005505759_774354429_n.jp



#56 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:58 PM

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 

 

So, by your words, there really exists no difference between the faiths listed.  At least with regard to being myopic and arrogant.

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.



#57 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:01 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 



#58 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:16 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

When we became self aware of our own mortality.



#59 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:20 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

When they became self aware of their own mortality.

When was that? 



#60 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,182 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:23 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

 

 If it didn't have some tendency to enhance the odds of survival it probably would have been bred out. 

 

 Definite social-binding effect, and the largest troop of monkeys gets their pick of the fruit trees...the question may be whether or not it required speech. I'm not sure coherence can be achieved in the lobbing of shit in certain ritualized, specific ways. 



#61 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:23 PM

 

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

When they became self aware of their own mortality.

When was that? 

More than 30 thousand years ago.



#62 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:24 PM

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.



#63 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:26 PM

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.

But its essential to the survival of the religion.



#64 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:30 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

 

 If it didn't have some tendency to enhance the odds of survival it probably would have been bred out. 

 

 Definite social-binding effect, and the largest troop of monkeys gets their pick of the fruit trees...the question may be whether or not it required speech. I'm not sure coherence can be achieved in the lobbing of shit in certain ritualized, specific ways. 

Religion would require speech.  It would also dramatically enhance the odds of survival of the troop.  Binding individuals together for a common cause would make the group superior to any individual.



#65 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:30 PM

Exactly, that's why a superior position is given during the establishment of each new religion."God didn't like what they were doing so he gave you me to lead you out of the darkness"



#66 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:30 PM

 

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 

 

So, by your words, there really exists no difference between the faiths listed.  At least with regard to being myopic and arrogant.

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

Errorgance from the faithful and  the Buddhists will disagree that only one can be right.  First off, why would an all powerful God decide to deliver the message to one guy in one part of the world when transportation was not much better than walking and no mass communication?  

 

If that was the plan why not now when that one guy could reach the vast majority on the planet?  

 

My only beef with most religions is that they all believe everybody else is wrong and misguided.  Sort of like all the RWnuts I know.   



#67 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:34 PM

I don't consider Buddhists to be religious.  It is definitely a code of conduct but there is no supreme being keeping score.  Its more a philosophy, like being vegan.



#68 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:35 PM

 

 

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 

 

So, by your words, there really exists no difference between the faiths listed.  At least with regard to being myopic and arrogant.

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

Errorgance from the faithful and  the Buddhists will disagree that only one can be right.  First off, why would an all powerful God decide to deliver the message to one guy in one part of the world when transportation was not much better than walking and no mass communication?  

 

If that was the plan why not now when that one guy could reach the vast majority on the planet?  

 

My only beef with most religions is that they all believe everybody else is wrong and misguided.  Sort of like all the RWnuts I know.   

 

 I dunno - D'ranger. I don't think I've ever claimed to be the only one right, and am I not one of your favorite Right Wing Nuts?  :-) 


Seriously - I'm hopeful that when we all meet our maker, that he laughs at us for our divisive stupidity, and reminds us that messages are often tailored to the audience and context of the time of delivery. Trying to establish absolutes absent this context is, at least IMHO, how so many people have come up with what I think are such whacky ideas.    Put another way - how do you tell your 4 yr old to brush his teeth?  How do you explain the importance to someone who's never seen a toothbrush, much less explain how? 



#69 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:44 PM

Throughout my life, I've sought the one true answer.  Haven't found it yet.  Maybe next week.



#70 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:50 PM



 I dunno - D'ranger. I don't think I've ever claimed to be the only one right, and am I not one of your favorite Right Wing Nuts?  :-) 


Seriously - I'm hopeful that when we all meet our maker, that he laughs at us for our divisive stupidity, and reminds us that messages are often tailored to the audience and context of the time of delivery. Trying to establish absolutes absent this context is, at least IMHO, how so many people have come up with what I think are such whacky ideas.    Put another way - how do you tell your 4 yr old to brush his teeth?  How do you explain the importance to someone who's never seen a toothbrush, much less explain how? 

You are one of my favorite posters here and anything but a wingnut.  I mentioned the Buddhists because they believe there are many paths to enlightenment.  Which is what is the basis for almost all religions (at least those I know about) but it gets subjugated to "winning".  I will be the first to admit there is more that I don't know than what I do, as far as beliefs go I believe we are spiritual beings in a material universe and the only purpose that makes sense is we are here to learn stuff. 

 

My observation is that we are divided between those who want to learn and those who want to enforce their beliefs on everyone else. 



#71 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,182 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:08 PM

My rule of thumb: When religion is used to lead people towards reflection and thought it tends to be for good, but when it is used to lead people towards absolute certainty it tends to be bad. 



#72 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:29 PM

just another random thought on religion:  Judaism, Christianity, Protestants, Mormons, Islam to name a few were born of a need to survive much like the soldier who picks up the flag and charges the hill rallying the troops.  Others like $cientology are all about money and power. 



#73 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:32 PM

Well that's what they may have started out as, but most of them are all about money and power now.



#74 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:47 PM

just another random thought on religion:  Judaism, Christianity, Protestants, Mormons, Islam to name a few were born of a need to survive much like the soldier who picks up the flag and charges the hill rallying the troops.  Others like $cientology are all about money and power. 

Uh, Catholics and Mormons are all about the money.  Check out who's the largest single landowner in Florida.

 

Well, maybe there is hope for the Catholics with this new pope.



#75 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:36 PM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

 

Or that there is a universal connection we all have with God hence the universal search through the ages. Mormons believe that most if not all religions have part of the truth but only one has it all. 

 

Obviously if you do not believe we have a spirit separate from our physical existence then you dismiss all religions as made up superstition.

 

If you instead believe in a creator then it's logical you would be curious about him/her/it and seek to know God.

 

For each of us Religion is a decision tree.

 

The root Question: "Is there a God?"  The no branch terminates the tree.

 

Yes takes you to the next fork with "Is God relevant to our existence?"

 

Each no essentially terminated the inquiry. 

 

And eventually I get to the point where God exists, God is Relevant, God has a plan, God has shared that plan and you're at the point where you want to know what it is. 

 

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.



#76 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:38 PM

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.

 

Faith is not hubris. But, you error saying they can all be right. Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.



#77 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:42 PM

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.

Your decision tree should end with leave.



#78 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:05 AM

And eventually I get to the point where God exists, God is Relevant, God has a plan, God has shared that plan and you're at the point where you want to know what it is. 

 

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.

 

Personally, it's been a long journey in the opposite direction. Trained to be a believer in some version of Christianity - but worked back down the tree to "there is no evidence" for a supernatural being.  Let alone a supernatural being that listens to my brainwaves and takes a personal interest.

 

Now, if there was evidence, I'd take a look, but if there is such a being, it sure likes to stay hidden.



#79 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:06 AM

 

 

 

And,Mormons believe that theirs is the one true restored church of God. I can understand that sounds arrogant to other faiths. But that is the core of their religion so it's rather hard to profess a believe in Mormonism and not believe that. 

 

I have no doubt that Jews, the pope and Muslims believe theirs is a monopoly as well. 

 

So, by your words, there really exists no difference between the faiths listed.  At least with regard to being myopic and arrogant.

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

Errorgance from the faithful and  the Buddhists will disagree that only one can be right.  First off, why would an all powerful God decide to deliver the message to one guy in one part of the world when transportation was not much better than walking and no mass communication?  

 

If that was the plan why not now when that one guy could reach the vast majority on the planet?  

 

My only beef with most religions is that they all believe everybody else is wrong and misguided.  Sort of like all the RWnuts I know.   

 

 I dunno - D'ranger. I don't think I've ever claimed to be the only one right, and am I not one of your favorite Right Wing Nuts?  :-) 


Seriously - I'm hopeful that when we all meet our maker, that he laughs at us for our divisive stupidity, and reminds us that messages are often tailored to the audience and context of the time of delivery. Trying to establish absolutes absent this context is, at least IMHO, how so many people have come up with what I think are such whacky ideas.    Put another way - how do you tell your 4 yr old to brush his teeth?  How do you explain the importance to someone who's never seen a toothbrush, much less explain how? 

 

I have ranger on ignore but since you quoted him I'll give an answer.

 

"First off, why would an all powerful God decide to deliver the message to one guy in one part of the world when transportation was not much better than walking and no mass communication?  If that was the plan why not now when that one guy could reach the vast majority on the planet?"

 

I'm assuming he means Joseph Smith but let's start with the Mormon belief that at the time of his resurrection Jesus visited other parts of the world to teach them as well. 

 

John 10:16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 

 

The Book of Mormon in part claims to be a record of God's ministry in the America's. A testament of Christ as the Bible is. 

 

But back to what I think Ranger is asking. Why Smith in an age when communication was in it's infancy? Well Mormons believe the timing of this final dispensation was related to the coming advances in communication. 

 

For example

 

July 15, 1929: The Tabernacle Choir begins their weekly broadcast, now known as Music and the Spoken Word. This program is now the oldest continuous broadcast in American radio.



#80 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:20 AM

I don't want to talk for Ranger, but almost all mono-theistic religions have the single-prophet messenger, not just Mormonism.

 

Ad you're right - the various religions these days are great at using technology BUT none of this is first hand, 2nd hand, etc.  Even Mormonism, relatively new,is multiple generations away from the original prophet.



#81 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:22 AM

And eventually I get to the point where God exists, God is Relevant, God has a plan, God has shared that plan and you're at the point where you want to know what it is. 

 

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.

 

Personally, it's been a long journey in the opposite direction. Trained to be a believer in some version of Christianity - but worked back down the tree to "there is no evidence" for a supernatural being.  Let alone a supernatural being that listens to my brainwaves and takes a personal interest.

 

Now, if there was evidence, I'd take a look, but if there is such a being, it sure likes to stay hidden.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. 

 

Let me ask it this way. God just sent out a tweet saying each person can ask God to perform whatever miracle they decide, to prove to that individual that God exists. A one time never to be repeated offer. What would you ask of God? 

 

Author C Clark said  "any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic."

 

Fifty years from now when you are old and frail how will you know it wasn't a hallucination or just some elaborate magic trick?

 

Ultimately everything we believe rests on some expression of faith. 

 

You want some grand miracle production number to prove God exists. Even if it were granted you would still be subject to doubt and second guessing. 

 

Faith.

 

There is only Faith and that is the lesson this life is supposed to teach. 



#82 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:29 AM

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.



#83 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:29 AM

I don't want to talk for Ranger, but almost all mono-theistic religions have the single-prophet messenger, not just Mormonism.

 

Ad you're right - the various religions these days are great at using technology BUT none of this is first hand, 2nd hand, etc.  Even Mormonism, relatively new,is multiple generations away from the original prophet.

 

I think if you did a bit of research most religions do not claim divine origin. At least most Christian denominations don't. To my knowledge Catholics believe they are the official Christian faith through Jesus by way of the Apostle Peter and the Mormons directly through Jesus. 

 

Most other protestant denominations make no divine origin claim. there are some minor exceptions, Jim Jones, Moon, Hubbard etc. 



#84 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:33 AM

I don't want to talk for Ranger, but almost all mono-theistic religions have the single-prophet messenger, not just Mormonism.

 

Ad you're right - the various religions these days are great at using technology BUT none of this is first hand, 2nd hand, etc.  Even Mormonism, relatively new,is multiple generations away from the original prophet.

Mormonism is not monotheistic.  They are polytheistic.  Every faithful man becomes a god in their faith, inherits his own planet and provides for a multitude of celestial wives who are perpetually pregnant.  With a sales pitch like that, what sane man would deny that path?



#85 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,826 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:33 AM

 

And eventually I get to the point where God exists, God is Relevant, God has a plan, God has shared that plan and you're at the point where you want to know what it is. 

 

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.

 

Personally, it's been a long journey in the opposite direction. Trained to be a believer in some version of Christianity - but worked back down the tree to "there is no evidence" for a supernatural being.  Let alone a supernatural being that listens to my brainwaves and takes a personal interest.

 

Now, if there was evidence, I'd take a look, but if there is such a being, it sure likes to stay hidden.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. 

 

Let me ask it this way. God just sent out a tweet saying each person can ask God to perform whatever miracle they decide, to prove to that individual that God exists. A one time never to be repeated offer. What would you ask of God? 

 

Author C Clark said  "any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic."

 

Fifty years from now when you are old and frail how will you know it wasn't a hallucination or just some elaborate magic trick?

 

Ultimately everything we believe rests on some expression of faith. 

 

You want some grand miracle production number to prove God exists. Even if it were granted you would still be subject to doubt and second guessing. 

 

Faith.

 

There is only Faith and that is the lesson this life is supposed to teach. 

 

Please pass the collection plate, Rev H. Jack needs fuel for his Gulfstream G280, the ministry urgently needs you.



#86 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,952 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:33 AM

Jack's response was pretty lame and predictable.  Here is another conundrum:  Most religions believe that we are eternal beings who live forever in Heaven, Kolub, pick your place.

 

Each of us eternal beings began in 19__. 

 

We are either eternal or not.  Not sure how any rational thinking person gets past that one but I would be Happy(R)  to read an explanation. 



#87 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:38 AM

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.

 

Faith is not hubris. But, you error saying they can all be right. Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.

 

They can be, if the basis for those arguments is shown to have been misinterpreted. 



#88 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:42 AM

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Designed? A rather harsh belief. Are you a parent? What is your view on over protective parents? Ones that don't allow their kids to climb, swing, swim, sky, play sports, sleep over, own a bike, etc? Who try to protect them from every hurt no matter how small by making all the decisions for them?

 

Or should a parent watch and protect but still let the child risk some suffering so he/she can learn to make their own wise choices from experience.

 

Such a parent does not wish a broken arm on their child or a broken heart because the risked to love.  They don't design those sufferings but they accept them as part of growing and learning. 



#89 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:45 AM

 

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.

 

Faith is not hubris. But, you error saying they can all be right. Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.

 

They can be, if the basis for those arguments is shown to have been misinterpreted. 

 

Misinterpreted is no more that a euphemism for wrong. 

 

 Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.



#90 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:46 AM

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Designed? A rather harsh belief. Are you a parent? What is your view on over protective parents? Ones that don't allow their kids to climb, swing, swim, sky, play sports, sleep over, own a bike, etc? Who try to protect them from every hurt no matter how small by making all the decisions for them?

 

Or should a parent watch and protect but still let the child risk some suffering so he/she can learn to make their own wise choices from experience.

 

Such a parent does not wish a broken arm on their child or a broken heart because the risked to love.  They don't design those sufferings but they accept them as part of growing and learning. 

Jack, would you ever support allowing your children or grandchildren to experiment with other religions?



#91 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,687 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:51 AM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

 

Or that there is a universal connection we all have with God hence the universal search through the ages. Mormons believe that most if not all religions have part of the truth but only one has it all. 

 

Obviously if you do not believe we have a spirit separate from our physical existence then you dismiss all religions as made up superstition.

....

I'll take a wild guess and say your decision tree is quite short.

 

Yup.



#92 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:52 AM

 

 

 

They may all be wrong but only one can be right.  In the latter case there is a huge difference.

 

They can all be wrong and they can all be right and since we don't know the truth it is simple hubris to believe your belief is the only correct one.

 

Faith is not hubris. But, you error saying they can all be right. Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.

 

They can be, if the basis for those arguments is shown to have been misinterpreted. 

 

Misinterpreted is no more that a euphemism for wrong. 

 

 Mutually exclusive arguments can not all be right.

 

No sir, not necessarily:  Remember, please, my earlier comment: I believe that most divine prophecy was uttered with the audience and its social context in mind ( just consider the vagaries of MANY of our apostolic letters, for example).  If someone interprets a scripture outside that context, OR - mistakenly confused the context, it's entirely appropriate for a misinterpretation to occur.  God's word is considered to be infallible, Jack - man's interpretation of God's word has been proven time and again to be quite fallible.  Sorry brudda - no disrespect intended towards Mormonism or any other belief system, but, I don't think that Man is capable of a perfect interpretation. 



#93 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,687 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:02 AM

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Designed? A rather harsh belief. Are you a parent? What is your view on over protective parents? Ones that don't allow their kids to climb, swing, swim, sky, play sports, sleep over, own a bike, etc? Who try to protect them from every hurt no matter how small by making all the decisions for them?

 

Or should a parent watch and protect but still let the child risk some suffering so he/she can learn to make their own wise choices from experience.

 

Such a parent does not wish a broken arm on their child or a broken heart because the risked to love.  They don't design those sufferings but they accept them as part of growing and learning. 

 

Sorry - I don't buy that.

 

No god worth anything that cares about its creations would wish to see them tortured to death, watch children be raped and butchered and starve, etc.

 

What "growing and learning" is there in starving to death when you are four?  To be happy you didn't drink the water and die from dysentery at three?  Sorry that's a load of crap - what lesson has a two year old that was raped and killed learned?  How has the dead toddler grown?

 

A god which allows innocents to suffer at both the hands of Evil and of Fate is one of several things:

 

1) Incompetent.  Not omniscient, not able to help or prevent or stop the evil or bad things.

2) Disinterested.  Does not choose or care to prevent or stop horrible things happening to innocents.

3) Sadistic and uncaring - actively evil IMHO, may even partake in the suffering.  See Job, Book of.

 

I can not see such a being, if it exists, to be worth the bother of worshiping.



#94 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:32 AM

 I don't think that Man is capable of a perfect interpretation.

 

A Mormon would say that's why they are led by a prophet of God. They frequently refer to the LDS church as a perfect institution administered but imperfect members. 



#95 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,182 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:35 AM

Given the likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religions from before recorded history to now, the odds are that NONE are "right".

 

At what point in human evolution did humans invent religion? 

 

 After giving it some thought, I believe the salient question is how religion became mixed with government. Before then nobody really gave a shit because it wasn't dangerous. 

 

 Perhaps the "Reese's Peanut Butter Cup" example: Somebody complained about finding chocolate in their peanut butter, but then found it delicious.  They were mixed from then on. Oh, we have our purists. They serve an important function of continuing the fight to maintain a proper balance buy routinely demanding that we "Get that chocolate out of my peanut butter!" and "Get that peanut butter out of my chocolate!" (insert "Goddammit!" or "dadgummit!" here)  but the  two things compliment each other far too well for either of those guys to prevail for very long.  



#96 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,971 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:37 AM

 

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Designed? A rather harsh belief. Are you a parent? What is your view on over protective parents? Ones that don't allow their kids to climb, swing, swim, sky, play sports, sleep over, own a bike, etc? Who try to protect them from every hurt no matter how small by making all the decisions for them?

 

Or should a parent watch and protect but still let the child risk some suffering so he/she can learn to make their own wise choices from experience.

 

Such a parent does not wish a broken arm on their child or a broken heart because the risked to love.  They don't design those sufferings but they accept them as part of growing and learning. 

 

Sorry - I don't buy that.

 

No god worth anything that cares about its creations would wish to see them tortured to death, watch children be raped and butchered and starve, etc.

 

What "growing and learning" is there in starving to death when you are four?  To be happy you didn't drink the water and die from dysentery at three?  Sorry that's a load of crap - what lesson has a two year old that was raped and killed learned?  How has the dead toddler grown?

 

A god which allows innocents to suffer at both the hands of Evil and of Fate is one of several things:

 

1) Incompetent.  Not omniscient, not able to help or prevent or stop the evil or bad things.

2) Disinterested.  Does not choose or care to prevent or stop horrible things happening to innocents.

3) Sadistic and uncaring - actively evil IMHO, may even partake in the suffering.  See Job, Book of.

 

I can not see such a being, if it exists, to be worth the bother of worshiping.

 

If the choice is to forever surrender your free will or suffer which would you choose?



#97 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,903 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:39 AM

1458433_646336238752496_1785285692_n.jpg



#98 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,021 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:40 AM

 

Doesn't need to be a grand gesture.  Just a simple demonstration that there is a being outside of the laws of physics who can make things happen that make no sense.  Maybe a big smiley face in the middle of some far off galaxy. Something cute would help.

 

Any rational god wouldn't be put off by making a splash for each new generation.

 

now, emotionally, if there IS such a being, with the suffering the being has designed, said bastard doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Designed? A rather harsh belief. Are you a parent? What is your view on over protective parents? Ones that don't allow their kids to climb, swing, swim, sky, play sports, sleep over, own a bike, etc? Who try to protect them from every hurt no matter how small by making all the decisions for them?

 

Or should a parent watch and protect but still let the child risk some suffering so he/she can learn to make their own wise choices from experience.

 

Such a parent does not wish a broken arm on their child or a broken heart because the risked to love.  They don't design those sufferings but they accept them as part of growing and learning. 

 

Sorry - I don't buy that.

 

No god worth anything that cares about its creations would wish to see them tortured to death, watch children be raped and butchered and starve, etc.

 

What "growing and learning" is there in starving to death when you are four?  To be happy you didn't drink the water and die from dysentery at three?  Sorry that's a load of crap - what lesson has a two year old that was raped and killed learned?  How has the dead toddler grown?

 

A god which allows innocents to suffer at both the hands of Evil and of Fate is one of several things:

 

1) Incompetent.  Not omniscient, not able to help or prevent or stop the evil or bad things.

2) Disinterested.  Does not choose or care to prevent or stop horrible things happening to innocents.

3) Sadistic and uncaring - actively evil IMHO, may even partake in the suffering.  See Job, Book of.

 

I can not see such a being, if it exists, to be worth the bother of worshiping.

Myopic perspective, brudda - in that it ignores that a benevolent God treasures the desires of his creations, good AND bad.   Able to and deciding against intervention != not able to help.   I know that messes with the comfort level you've established for yourself, and I'm not sorry about that, but, the right and just God has ultimate faith in his creation - kinda like when you let your kids fight it out so that they gain for themselves the ability to solve problems.  

 

Not bustin' chops - not at all, but, just suggesting that your evaluative perspective might be more limited than what God had in mind. 

 

BTW - I sincerely hope that Wx routing and your good sense don't EVER make this scenario happen, but, I'd be real interested in an honest after-the-fact evaluation of what you're thinkin' if you ever get caught in an "Oh My - how will I make it outta this" storm.  To reiterate, as I know you're hyper-sensitive about the fact that others accept a Deity that you refuse, I'm interested in your post-event perspective - not tryin' to tell ya what you oughtta think - that's between You and God. :-) 

 

 I don't think that Man is capable of a perfect interpretation.

 

A Mormon would say that's why they are led by a prophet of God. They frequently refer to the LDS church as a perfect institution administered but imperfect members. 

And those Imperfect Members are the ones tryin' to tell everyone else what's what.  Ya know what? I'm OK w/that - I'm GROSSLY imperfect, and don't mind admitting it.  The prophets are men, too - even if they've had a divine experience. It's the things that those imperfect members (like Me!) do, say and proffer, that form the basis upon which a religion is evaluated. If those imperfect members (much like the current Pope) admit that imperfection, and share what they're trying to accomplish and why - they empower the believers (and the unconvinced) to accept they're imperfect interpretation, and to seek they're own respective balance. 

 

Suggesting that something other than a personal relationship w/the BASIS for the religion is what's desired also suggests a personal motive of increasing one's personal influence. Me?  I just want to share with folks what's worked for me, and why it has.   If it doesn't work for them - we can talk about why, but, I *know* I'm not smart enough to have all the answers. and I'm OK w/that - I'm just a dude working his ass off to have enough $$ to care for the family, and to scrape enough extra time to enjoy some of the things I enjoy - my family, sailing, paddling, going crazy fast on motorcycles, and home-made libations. Oh yeah - eating, too - lots of that! 



#99 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,491 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:41 AM

 I don't think that Man is capable of a perfect interpretation.

 

A Mormon would say that's why they are led by a prophet of God. They frequently refer to the LDS church as a perfect institution administered but imperfect members. 

Considering the LDS Church is administered by lay ministry and not trained and certified pastors, there is a potential of great deal of deviation from the one true prophet who is elected by a quorum of the 12 apostles to the needy follower.  Really, only one LDS man really communicates with the big guy, then retransmits the message through the chain.  Lots of opportunity for message drift.



#100 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 14 November 2013 - 03:55 AM

Gods don't lie unless it's the Liberal god who currently resides in the White House.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users