asbestosman wrote:Also for what it's worth, I prefer somewhat more substantive back and forth instead of an all out pissing match. I'm sure that's not just me.
It's me, too.
This sort of thing becomes very boring very quickly. And irritating, if you get involved in it.
Is my memory faulty? I seem to recall that Buffalo (Chip) once posted more substantively. Anyway, I haven't seen him do much of that for a very long time. Maybe he never actually did.
I don't mean to be dramatic, but, really, I'm beginning to think that I'll just ignore him. Life is better that way.
Well it would be nice Dan if you would actually back up your claim instead of participating in the pissing match. I am not aware of any scholar, who can translate Egyptian languages, has translated any of the papyri we have into anything about Abraham. This includes the facsimiles, which have been translated, including the papyri, showing they are funerary documents used by ancient Egyptians. I know some like Gee want to believe it's on some missing papyri, which I have a hard time thinking why he would think this in light of the fact we have all three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and we have text accompanying facsimile 1.
I was given a path to follow. I was taught to do what I wanted to do as long as I didn't hurt anyone. I was taught to go with my own feelings as to whether something is right or wrong but my parents did give some guidence. It is okay to date when I was sixteen and it is okay to have sex but I must be careful to use a condom...it is okay to have a beer but don't drink and drive. I should wear clothes that I feel comfortable with and it is perfectly normal to look at girls and desire them. And if I wanted a tattoo just make sure that I will feel comfortable with it because I would have it my entire life. And if I wanted to pierce my lips or tongue, just remember that I may not like it when I am forty something. I can go to church or not or I can believe whatever I wanted to believe. And it didn't matter if I cussed as long as I didn't do in the home.
Beyond that I was taught to make my own happiness the goal of life. I was taught that the steps in my life should go like this: graduate high school, perhaps go to college, eventually get married but sow some oats before that happened, get a job to support my family, eventually have children so my parents can be grandparent, be a good father etc.
So that is what I did. I have been unhappy my entire adult life because of it. I needed more guidence, more healthy guidence from my parents. I wish that I had a healthy belief system and that I had some sort of faith that there is a god to believe in because I need something else in my life. I was always only thinking about myself and my own role in my life without consideration for others. My parents meant well but in the end, there should have been more discipline in the home.
For *ME* it is not authentic to continue down the prescribed narcistic path. That doesn't mean that being authentic is doing everything opposite of what I was taught.
Probably the biggest change for me has been to disconinue only thinking about myself and to get some order in my life.
For me, it would be more authentic to do what I think that god wants for me and to have trust in a supernatural being.
And although I have strange tattoos on my arms and legs, I will see them as what life was like for me. And although I no longer drink alcohol, I will still respect people who do. I guess that I just needed to change my life. And I am grateful that I did. I feel now that I am more authentic as a human being and in the end, I can now ask the world how are you doing and get a more positive answer than before. I am just glad that I didn't follow my former path to destruction as Amy Winehouse did. Now I have hope.
Just wow.[/quote]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
I just read most of this thread this afternoon when I logged on. I said a thing or two early on, yesterday. Anyway, it seems to me that DrW first post here was suggesting that believing stuff automatically puts one diametrically opposed to critical thinking. From there it all went down hill, so I made my assessment as I did. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the pissing match started after that. I can't tell.
The pissing match started after Dan's comments to Dr W. Dr W was not responsible for it, but Dan and Buffalo did get it going.
Themis wrote: Well it would be nice Dan if you would actually back up your claim instead of participating in the pissing match.
Lets get honest here. When Dan posts, every tom, dick and jane wants to challenge what he is saying regardless how they are responding to him. He attracts posters because of who he is. And the pissing match starts usually from the critics. It just goes that way...nothing to do about it.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Buffalo wrote:I'm sure there will always be a market for dad humor.
I find that whether humor is funny or groanworthy depends far too much on who ends up as the butt of the joke--or at least which side the joke supports. That may very well be why I prefer Daniel Peterson's humor over yours. However, I like to think it's because he's more sophisticated and makes references to many things from Monty Python to Classic literature or media, and even Mormon culture.
for what it's worth, I often Some Schmo's humor to be entertaining instead of bland, but I think Cinepro has one of the sharpest wits around. Maybe there's no accounting for taste, but most people seem to enjoy Cinepro--at least among critics. One of my best belly laughs, came from Ren when he made the connection between Spinal Tap and having a probability greater than 1.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Buffalo wrote:I'm sure there will always be a market for dad humor.
I find that whether humor is funny or groanworthy depends far too much on who ends up as the butt of the joke--or at least which side the joke supports. That may very well be why I prefer Daniel Peterson's humor over yours. However, I like to think it's because he's more sophisticated and makes references to many things from Monty Python to Classic literature or media, and even Mormon culture.
for what it's worth, I often Some Schmo's humor to be entertaining instead of bland, but I think Cinepro has one of the sharpest wits around. Maybe there's no accounting for taste, but most people seem to enjoy Cinepro--at least among critics. One of my best belly laughs, came from Ren when he made the connection between Spinal Tap and having a probability greater than 1.
I'm not sure how much sophistication it takes to make jokes about Buffalo chips, or in Kevin's case, Graham crackers. Pretty weak stuff. It's very popular over at MAD, though.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:I am not aware of any scholar, who can translate Egyptian languages, has translated any of the papyri we have into anything about Abraham.
That's a different issue.
Themis wrote:I know some like Gee want to believe it's on some missing papyri
Which means, then, that, although you actually already knew that the claim is disputed, you simply brushed that fact aside.
DrW wrote:Speaking of substance, you made a bald assertion that there is an "academic dispute" regarding the the original provenance and purpose of papyri from which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been "translated". Perhaps you would care to respond to my request for credible supporting evidence for your claim.
It's in print. And easily found.
DrW wrote:You will forgive me if I point out that your tactic of claiming 'not enough time to adequately explain things', and then resorting to complaints about process and ad hominem attacks when it becomes clear that the attempts to defend indefensible can no longer working (if they ever did) are becoming transparent.
No, I won't forgive you.
I don't admire your arrogant dogmatism, and won't pretend to do so.
As an avid scholar and empiricist, do you agree with me that until we have visual evidence to support her claims, we should not accept at face value Just Me's statement that she does not have a tattoo anywhere on her buttocks?