Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers book. Happy reading Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Mormon One-Liners Fifty Five Zingers Pocket Guide.

No members, no money and no religion. Some of my relatives didn't agree with many of the Catholic church's doctrines. They never said a word or felt guilty. They either dropped out calling it superstitious rubbish or joined Protestant churches. Oddly enough, the only one who still goes to Mass is a lesbian married to another woman.

Don't ask me to explain that one. Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect. Origen was an early proponent of apokatastasis, which later theologians condemned as heretical. Not that you would care about that, I suppose. I don't think this is necessarily the reality of it. Plenty of practising Catholics actually use contraception; no doubt they feel guilty and go to confession, but it doesn't turn them away from the Church. Rather, I think what turns people away from the Catholic Church is some of its more fossilised and judgmental doctrine.

For instance, there have been many Catholics - including a close friend of my family - whose baby sons or daughters have died in infancy and have not been buried in sacred ground, on the basis that they haven't been baptised and therefore were not "saved" at the time of their death. I recognise that this largely depends on the priest, but this idea certainly does have a basis in Catholic teaching that a person is not "saved" until they undergo the sacrament of baptism, regardless of their innocence.

Not to mention the fact that the prohibition against contraceptives, while largely ignored in the West, is taken seriously in the Third World - with the result that HIV spreads, and many people have more children than they can afford to support, with predictably bad consequences. I understand the Catholic teaching that sex is not for pleasure but for the creation of life, and that's fair enough; but one has to realise that human beings are fallible, and many will inevitably have sex when the Church teaches that they should not - with negative results for society as a whole.

Coming from a liberal Protestant background, I've never been a fan of the "top-down" structure of Catholicism or, for that matter, of the LDS Church, which is organised in much the same way. Religious beliefs are by their nature individual; it's about having a personal relationship with one's God, not about accepting dogma handed down from a higher authority. It shouldn't be an "all-or-nothing" package. No,no,no, didn't you know, babies are born with an innate sense of feeling guilty for using contraception. It's got nothing at all to do with religious brainwashing. Seems obvious that if God had wanted us not to feel guilty for using contraception, he would have created males with a detachable condom on their penises.

Religious beliefs can be either. The former largely we don't object to unless you've a very loony individual religion. Then why do I feel guilt only when not using contraception? Is it because of my secular background? My goodness, have I hit a nerve? I said nothing another law-abiding sincere Catholic wouldn't say.

How did you get from my few comments, to that amazing psychoanalysis of me? Our America has been a great country because of her Judeo-Christian principles. Now, she is in a tail-spin because of those who attack these principles. Why am I supposed to sit back and be all kind and gooey and understanding when organizations of anti-J-C-principles want to destroy my children's understanding of God and family, when I know and anyone who understands history knows that this tailspin is leading to disaster?

Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate. Please help me to understand where this livid hatred comes from. I do not label you. I do not call you names.

I found this incessant fruitbatism rather disturbing. There's no evidence that fruitbats eat pieces of bread thinking they are eating pieces of the creator of the universe. Cathos are way more loony than fruitbats. And it's not a compliment, it's saying your musings are so insane that we can't tell if you are real or someone doing an over-the-top parody. I'm not full of hate, I don't hate you at all.

Tell me why you don't think homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? Tell me why you think that the precepts of Catholicism should dominate a secular society? Michelle you claim that we don't know what's in the bible but I say it's you who doesn't know what's in your bible or you are flatly ignoring what is in there. Moses who is supposed to be a holy man did this: Exodus And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men Does that sound like a good and loving thing to do to your fellow man?

Matthew 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter inlaw against her mother in law. To play Devil's advocate, if it weren't for top-down structured religions, how would you have otherwise come to have your relationship with God and Jesus? How do you resolve those two positions? When you reject it, your soul gets destroyed, which causes your brain to feal guilty for the wrong things, this can even lead to you becoming a socialist or a baby killer.

Ether 2 16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. That's an easy one, duh! Because you've rejected the love of God. When you reject it, your soul gets destroyed, which causes your brain to feal guilty for the wrong things, this can even lead to you becoming a socialist. So that explains why I feel compassion towards my fellow man and my desire to live in a harmonious society America was founded as a secular country.

Secondly, it turned out to be so "great" because of the Natives' lack of immunity to European diseases. Finally, if it was a Christian country it definitely wouldn't be a Catholic one. I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. We did not refer to you as a hater because you want to do scary as it is. We referred to you as a hater because of this you 1 Used the term "homo" 2 Refused to use the term 'gay' because it was a "joyful word" 3 Referred to their life style as "filth".

I don't hate Catholicism. I have Catholic friends and relatives. But I do disagree with some of the more dogmatic parts of Catholic doctrine, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a monolithic, top-down, centrally-controlled religion. As I said, I think religion should be about finding one's personal beliefs and personal relationship with God, not about blind and unquestioning obedience to a central authority.

America is a religiously-diverse country, and different religions have different perspectives on God and different moral and ethical teachings. The point of the much-maligned "separation of church and state" is to ensure that people retain their freedom of conscience, and that no one sectarian viewpoint dominates public policy. America is not a Catholic nation, or a Protestant nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Mormon nation, or a humanist nation.

It's a nation for everyone; and so public policy needs to be justified on objective, secular grounds, not simply on the grounds of one particular religious belief. For instance, to justify banning same-sex marriage, it isn't sufficient to point out that Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals are against it on moral grounds.

This is true; and no one is asking Catholic priests or Baptist pastors to bless same-sex weddings. But to justify actually making it illegal - considering that some religious groups, such as the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ and Unitarians, are in favour of gay marriage - you have to show why it's harmful to all Americans, not just those who are opposed to it on religious grounds, for same-sex marriage to be allowed.

God, if He exists, did not choose to impose one religious belief on all His people and force them to follow it via coercion. Neither should the Church, or the temporal powers. Religion should be a personal and free choice; that's the only way it's truly honest. And if someone genuinely doesn't and can't believe in a particular doctrine, no one should force or pressure them to do so.

This is the problem I have with the authoritarian structure of Catholicism. Got to love believers. Quite the opposite. I feel guilty is I don't use contraception when I'm fornicating. I do quite a lot of fornicating.

Our new personal best: 0 carbon

It's harmless and fun. So sad that instead of straightening out their lives, which the Church makes it so simple to do via a heart-felt confession,. Confession propagates two immoral premises: 1 that one can be absolved of responsibility for ones wrongdoing vicariously, and 2 that such vicarious redemption is achieved by the torture and murder of another person.

No, it's a criminal conspiracy, coordinated at the highest level within the Vatican, which continues to this very day. There is no more connection between the Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church than there is between Rembrandt and Microsoft. No, multiple, horrible, individual crimes , enabled by a year cover-up, most recently orchestrated by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, a criminal conspiracy aiding and abetting child-rapists before, after, and during the fact. The Catholic Church has no regard for truth.

If it had, it wouldn't continue to shield child-rapists from the law while pretending to the gullible rubes on their pews that these are "sins of the past". They are crimes, both past and present, and the Church continues to be a vile child-rape enablement mafia. We have to pray for those and punish, as required by law, in certain instances who do not live by the Faith,.

You have no right to mete out punishment of any kind to those who do not live by the insane delusion you call "the Faith". Thankfully, that ended with the last poor bastard you nutters boiled in oil. Priests who rape children, and bishops who conspire to enable those crimes, must be handed over to the civil authorities for prosecution, not whisked away to the Vatican beyond justice.

I deride the institution of the Roman Catholic Church for its institutional failings, and any individuals who support such a blatantly evil, depraved, and immoral institution. Well let's see Michelle maybe it's because God's law says to put to death the following: adulterers, gays, lesbian, and bisexuals, blasphamy oh this one is especially good it says Leviticus And he that blasphermeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Firstly, I don't really have a personal relationship with God; I no longer go to church regularly and I have serious doubts about all aspects of the faith. But if one must have any religion, I'm arguing that it should be a personal religion, and that each person should independently choose which doctrines they believe, rather than subordinating their mind to a fallible, human central authority.

This seems to me to be sheer common sense. That's why I prefer the Protestant concept of the "priesthood of all believers" - each person having a direct line to God, rather than having to rely on what the Church which at many times in history has been, indisputably, a corrupt institution tells them. Both Catholicism and the LDS have suffered, at times, from the inevitable disease of an organised institutional religion: it becomes the institution, not the belief, which is important.

Like in Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, where only one of the millions of adherents of the Omnian faith actually believes in Om; all the rest are simply out to retain their own position in the social hierarchy. Non-centralised churches do survive and thrive in the "marketplace of ideas"; and there are other religious traditions in the world which have survived without a centralised structure. And, of course, in a country like America with no state religion, the major churches retain their power and influence because they have so many adherents who voluntarily donate their money and time.

Well, it must be that those things aren't controlled by the soul. It doesn't control everything, but it's supposed to give you this innate feeling of guilt when using contraception or masturbating yourself or any kind of sexual perversion, or when you don't go to Church and feed on the love of God every Sunday. Michelle, the hate-filled and in denial about it troll, much of what needed to be pointed out to you has been done so by the other posters. However, I have one question: if you were asked to sit in a room full of the children repeatedly raped by the priests who were protected from prosecution by the church hierarchy and explain to them how it is possible for what happened to them if there is a god and he is kind and loving, what would you say to them to reassure them to your god does exist and he loves them and cares for them?

You can defend your church here to us, who already see it for what it is - an evil, bloated, obsolete, corrupt, archaic monstrosity - but what would you say to the people who god's own agents on earth, priests, repeatedly raped and were not punished because they were protected by the church hierarchy? Emmet at I feel guilty is I don't use contraception when I'm fornicating. Is that as bad as being trapped on a planet swarming with superstitious lunatics who keep threatening each other with it?

It describes men with extremely small penises, or not, the joke is ambiguous and permanently shriveled. I wish I'd said that! As for the two trolls on here go look up the word Dominionism - it's scary! Well I don't feel guilty about any of those. Sweet, my soul is dead yet I still feel compassion for my fellow man. That that those who attribute goodness to the soul! You don't see the beauty of the free will God has given us -- the choice we always have to pick the right thing.

I've never been able to understand this Christian notion of "free will. What kind of free will is that? Michelle "Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? I meant to say I have already ranted about it. The ontological proof fails because it's based on equivocation.

The argument boils down to: perfect thing X exists in my imagination; existence must be an attribute of perfect things X; therefore perfect thing X exists. The failure occurs in the premise; it is simply not true that perfect thing X exists in your imagination. The idea of perfect thing X exists in your imagination, but that is not the same thing.

No force of logic can equate "the idea of X exists" with "X exists anywhere other than the world of ideas". Michelle says, "Again, please get this straight -- I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as "haters" when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. I'm so very sorry to bring you the bad news, sweatheart, but our country does not have that provision in it's constitution. Let me repeat that, since it may look horrendously sacrilegious to your eyes: there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States of America that demands, requires or in any way suggests that God must be placed at the helm.

There isn't even any mention of a "helm". Unfortunately, the reason the country is flat on its back in the first place is due in large measure to the veneration of irrational notions and superstitious nonsense by an alarming proportion of its citizens, who are as a result readily manipulated by people who lust for power. Putting "God at the helm" would be equivalent to putting nothing there at all, except that you and I both know who would really be in charge, and it sure wouldn't be your idea of "God".

I don't want my country to be consumed by an ignorant and superstitious mob controlled by a power-hungry elite who uses their gullibility to potent advantage. That way ends in disaster for all. While it's understandable that you may be unable to understand the reaction of those who have respect for the document upon which their country is founded and guided, you can't expect them to be thrilled over the idea that your religion wishes to take over their country.

That, believe it or not, means ALL of them, not just a part of them who think they are special or divinely graced. If you would like to see the country get back on its feet, if you sincerely mean that, I suggest you support the proper education and informing of its people and its children. You can start yourself by reading about the history and constitution of your own country. Go and see what the founding fathers had to say. Go to school, or visit a library. Introduce yourself to nature through science.

There are vastly more Good Books than you may ever have imagined. Trust me. It's really and truly a wonderful world out there. All you have to do is seize it for yourself. As for the "hatred"? Learn to distinguish between "hatred" and "outrage" by looking them up in a dictionary. But when the word "hatred" is leveled against adherents to your precious faith, please understand that there is every historical justification for it. You can read all about it. It's your choice. That's what is so great about this country: you still have the freedom to form and shape your own mind, despite all of those who would shape it for you.

Go ahead, give it a whirl. It's okay to seek honest answers and seek them in earnest. Your idea of God wouldn't object I think we've scared Michelle away but if we haven't I have a question for you. What would you do if one of your children came up and told you that they were a homosexual or gay or horror of horrors a gay atheist? Just asking. Oh my goodness, I am beginning to feel as if some of the posters here might not like me!

Those who keep bringing up Old Testament directions from God, out of context, also choose to ignore the fact that Jesus came to "make all things new", and has fine-tuned His Father's requirements of us. Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in yrs. My caps are to warn off all those who start bringing in the Galileo history again, for instance. Oh yes, and to the one who gave me a "slap" about the Church having no right to punish -- you misunderstood, I WAS referring to abusers, whose sin is publicly outed, having to be turned over to civil authorities.

I was not referring to the tragedy of, say, the infamous witch-burnings. These, again, were big administrative mistakes -- sins -- but they never were dogma of the church. Hopefully she'll be better than this mother. The boy eventually killed himself. You are simply refusing to accept all the scientific evidence, purely based on primitive semi-intuitive notions that were deeply implanted in your brain at a young age, notions such as homosexuality goes aganst nature when we clearly know that homosexual behaviour is frequent in nature and beneficial to many species.

So unless you're willing to show some scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice and No, sorry, "that's what I've been told and that's what's written in the Bible" does not constitute scientific evidence , there is no basis for any sort of discussion. Can anyone tell me how I brought up things out of context when I typed them straight out of the book? Please examples? Can you answer why you don't think that homosexuals should have equal rights in a secular society?

Why do you think it's okay to persecute homosexuals for simply wanting dignity? What would I say to a room of abused children But god didn't protect them from the priests, his agents on earth, in the first place; why would he start caring now? If he didn't see fit to 'stay with' them and 'keep them in his grace' when they were being sexually abused, what's changed?

Did they deserve what happened to them? Do you think they needed to learn a lesson? And, more importantly, when they realise that the institution of the church not only didn't stop the priests from doing what they were doing but moved them to other areas so they could keep on doing it and avoid prosecution and justice, what if they ask you what you did? What did you do, Michelle?

Did you write to the head of the church in your area, demanding that he intercede to see justice done? Did you write to the Pope and ask him to ensure these evil people were stopped and punished? If you've read through this post you'll see there are Mormons who are leaving the church because it fostered hatred of gays. They are worthwhile people who stand up for what they believe in. You aren't fit to lick their boots. If you were even a tenth of a decent human being you'd have stood up and walked out of the church and not returned until they'd found every kid-raping priest and handed him over to the authorities.

But you didn't did you? You proudly admit to being a catholic, and are, as a result, worthless scum who stood by an organisation that not only protected rapists after they acted the first time, but allowed them to go on destroying the lives of children. If there was a God, surely he'd have mercy and spare us the febrile censer-swinging cretins stinking up the place with the attar of smouldering stupid.

Michelle: Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in yrs. Oh yeah, Catholics know what God wants. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His alleged reply, recalled by a fellow Cistercian, was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Reportedly, 7, people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.

Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex. When you've digested that one, there's many, many other instances of doing God's work that I'll be happy to point you to in the long and glorious history of the Church. Can't wait to get to the Spanish Inquisition, me being born in Spain and all.

How do you know this? Because the church tells you they've never been wrong? But Michelle's already explained away all of that - the Albigensians, the Spanish Inquisition, the kid-raping priests etc. Not really the church's fault at all. Somebody probably just signed the wrong form, or forgot to mail the letter that said 'don't kill all those people' and 'we'd really rather you didn't rape the kids'. Could happen to anyone.

It's in no way an indication that the church is a vile cancer on humanity and living proof that god is either non-existent, incompetent or evil. Here's another goody tell me who this reminds you of. Wowbagger, You have to remember that child-raping priests is all part of the sky fairy's plan. The sky fairy moves in mysterious ways, and all that. Consider this before ordering. Yes, you too can guarantee yourself hours of fun with Mormons by ordering your free copy of the Book of Mormon today.

Now there's a headline I'd love to see: 'Pope indicted'. Still, I imagine that wily old bastard has more layers of plausible deniability between him and the actual kid-rapers than tons of gold bullion stashed in the Vatican cellars - for god, of course. Because, you know, he needs it. The Mormons are as bad as the Catholics. And there's a lot less of them Yeah, and in this thread we've heard that there are Mormons who've quit the church because of its support of Prop H8 - I don't recall hearing from any papists who've left the catholic church for similar reasons.

Says a lot, doesn't it? From the outset, one of the first tasks assigned to your Order was the proclamation of the truth of Christ in response to the Albigensian heresy, a new form of the recurrent Manichaean heresy with which Christianity has had to contend from the beginning. At its core there lay the denial of the Incarnation, a refusal to accept that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, full of grace and truth" Jn To respond to this new form of the old heresy, the Holy Spirit raised up the Order of Preachers, men who would be pre-eminent for their poverty and mobility in the service of the Gospel, who would unceasingly contemplate the truth of the Incarnate Word in prayer and study, and through their preaching and teaching would pass on to others the fruits of that contemplation.

Or this one :. The value of this knowledge of Divine things not long after was to be seen in his disputations against the heretics. They were armed with all arts and fallacies to attack the dogmas of Faith; yet with wonderful success he confounded and refuted them. This appeared especially at Toulouse, the head and center of the heresies, where the most learned of the adversaries had come together.

It is recorded that he, with his first companions, powerful in word and work, invincibly withstood the insolence of the heretics. Indeed, not only did he withstand their strength, but he so softened their spirits by his eloquence and charity that he recalled an immense number to the bosom of the Church.

God Himself was ever at hand to aid him in his battle for the Faith. Thus, having accepted the challenge of the heretics that each should consign his book to the flames, his book alone remained untouched by the fire. Thus by the valor of Dominic Europe was freed from the danger of the Albigensian heresy. Quick version: exit polls statistically very screwed up; not enough blacks in Cali anyway; easy racist answer to complex question. You're just refusing to take a stand so you can, dishonestly, try to weasel out of your position by "being above it.

In short, you're really talking about what sort of Abrahamic-cult doctrine you believe in and not existence of the Abrahamic God. Even though you pretend to be open minded. A very cowardly position and a version of Pascal's wager. Not that I would expect different from you. You just God-bot with a refreshing level of dishonesty that even the fundies don't possess. And, man, do they possess a lot. Catholics can leave the church more quietly than most Mormons. While the Catholics are certainly goofy in their superstitions, they're less cult-like than the Mormons in that they do less to foster dependence on the church.

If a Mormon leaves the church, they're often leaving their whole lives behind. If a Catholic leaves the church, it's usually not as big of a deal. Also, plenty of Catholics disagree with their church on various issues, but still consider themselves Catholic. Mormons are more likely to be excommunicated if they dissent on anything their church considers important. You think we haven't seen cut-and-paste warriors before? And doing it while you're all ate up with yourself? Seriously, "philosopher kings" like you come and go, a dime a dozen. So, no matter how much you cut-and-paste and jump the thesaurus Apprehend?

You still don't have proof. You still haven't carried the argument because you have yet to start from zero and put on proof necessary for anyone not already predisposed to being religious and believing your arguments because they've been brainwashed or lack critical reasoning skills to get to God. No matter how clever you think you are by plagiarizing some dead white man blinded by his cultural beliefs and assumptions. And the first problem you need to overcome in your philosophy is the infinite regression first discovered in kindergarten: Who made God?

Where did God come from? We try to be kind, to do right - Michelle. Well you're not very good at it. Widespread collaboration with fascism, systematic cover-ups of child rape; homophobic bigotry; and causing millions of deaths from AIDS through barefaced lies about condoms letting the virus through. Listen, it was fun for a while, as I thought I had some genuine truth-seekers on this site, but it feels like being lowered into a pit of snakes right now.

Is no one genuine? Do you not hear what I'm saying? Those who know our holy Church, have lived within her gentle constraints, are truly looking for God -- they know in which direction to go. They know when evil, masquerading as "demanding rights", is on the doorstep. They know what innocence is, and where twisted logic lies. Why do some of you keep harping about me and those "like" me, bashing those who just want equal rights?

You have got to be kidding. These "rights seekers" are just like an avowed murderer who decides to gather other murderers around him and demand to be treated by the rest of the world with compassion, understanding, love, marriage rights just because he and the bunch of murderers decided they should be lifted up in the eyes of others. Don't like my word "murderer"? Feel free to substitute adulterer Those who have homosexual tendencies -- male or female -- have no need to make this public in any way to others, but should recognize this as some cross, some test allowed by God, and strive all their lives to remain pure.

Those who want to ACT on homosexual tendencies do not have my approval, and never will, but I am willing to help them to find new situations -- jobs, apartments, other support -- to help them stay away from temptation. I laughed when one poster taunted me to learn more about science, and about educating children. I have degrees in both, and I am so grateful to God that He gives me daily opportunities to learn so much more. Speaking of degrees, again, I encourage Professor Myers to use his God-given talents to spread goodness, rather than insult God in His Eucharistic presence.

Yes, it's late. Sleep well, young men and women, but I hope you awaken with a fresh resolve to look into bettering your lives and those of others. Pretty much. I went to "jack Mormon" status. Because of this I rarely talk to my Dad as he's got the Mormon-Death-Cult stick pretty far up his ass. Same with my brother, which surprises me considering the way he lived his life until he had kids I have good relationship with my mother. Mostly because she's pretty much gone to jack Mormon status too.

As for all my Mormon "bosom friends. The only reason Glen stuck by me is I was his sparring partner. When I dropped Karate, our relationship hit the skids, too. BTW, evangelicals behave like Mormons, too. They aren't quite as bad. But there's a lot of those cult-like behaviors, too. Which makes me laugh when I hear one of them call Mormon's cultists as I'm thinking "So are you. Now, if I took myself off the roles Then the pressure would really start. Mostly now they leave me alone save the occasional Missionaries showing up to re-church me.

Just thought I would preface this comment with the fact that I am a resident of Utah, and a member of the minority of non mor m ons. I notice that you mentioned BYU. Not only is it sad that you can get expelled for being excommunicated, but I think you have to be a tithe paying mormon to even enroll. Also, forgoing that bit it apparently isn't that good of a school. A friend of mine has a sister in a local nursing program. She is working with a lady who did all of her pre-med stuff at BYU, including anatomy. It would seem that in BYU you can opt out of the objectionable parts of the anatomy class that involves the genitals if you feel that this will compromise your chastity, or something like that.

So this lady in the nursing program was so ill versed in the human anatomy that there has apparently been a number of catheter related problems. Such as: pulling out a tube on one poor guy with it still inflated, another being missing the urethra on one lady by 2 holes, feeding it into the anus instead. Which means that some percentage of these voters were African-American. That leaves us with a mere 1, voters. A quick jaunt to the California Secretary of State's website reveals that there are 25, precincts in California and that Is this really large enough?

Exit polls have proved somewhat accurate in relation to simple binary choices, but I'm wondering if it all turns to bunk when it comes to correlation. Because I'm tempted to view this as a strange offshoot of the Bradley effect. I don't think someone with any degree in science would think of homosexuality the way you do. I think you have a "degree" in "science". Now, what "science" is that? Also, someone with a science degree wouldn't be so stupid as to come here where many if not most have not only actual degrees in various scientific disciplines, but also do actual research, read papers, and most of all, are not stupid.

So you approve of the genocide of the Cathars and the burning alive of "heretics", Michelle. You sick fuck. Wowbagger way back at : so is all this really an argument about pinheads? Or between pinheads? Except when it taught that it was only right to address God in Latin. And when it taught that he would forgive your sins if you gave the church money. And when Oh, their offical numbers still show 6. But Pew research' latest report on the US religious landscape shows that the number of self identified Mormons is much smaller than this, at only 1.

Could it be that the LDS church is tricking the data by keeping ex-members in their statistics because admitting that they are losing followers would be the absolute worst heresy for them? In , University of Washington sociologist Rodney Stark was astonished to discover that the LDS Church's growth rate from through was 53 percent. He estimated that if it continued to grow at a more modest 30 percent, there would be 60 million Mormons by the year Bet you this slow death of the Mormon faith in the US will only accelerate itself in the future.

Why can two men play basketball but not Hide the Salami? Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream? Does it make you uncomfortably warm and itchy in the bad place to visualise that? Is that part of your problem? I'm straight, happily married, and I simply Do.

What's so twisted in your head that you can't do the same? Hi, I'm a gay man. Still wondering how you helping me to find a job or an apartment might help me not to feel sexually attracted to men, and to start liking pussies more than cocks? Maybe you can explain how it works, I'm really interested to learn more about this program. This isn't a remark regarding homosexuality itself; a graphic depiction of straight sexual activities would be equally inappropriate for this forum.

What Michelle and others clearly fails to understand is that people has no obligation to follow the precepts of her church by virtue of the very legal provisions that allow her to practice those precepts, and that also protect her from being compelled to, say, pray towards Mecca five times a day. A prime number between and is a Platonic object, while the Statue of Liberty - American sentiment notwithstanding - is not.

Proposition H2 makes a claim for the nature of God's ontological status that is similar to saying that numbers are Platonic objects Hartshorne's argument makes a similar claim for God and there is no obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God. Even if there were "no obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God", this would be a hole in the argument, since to be convincing it would require proof that God does indeed have the same "ontological status" as the prime between and However, there is an obvious reason, which stems from the use of "possible worlds" ideas.

A "possible world", in the only interpretation of that term that will suffice here, a logically possible world, is simply one that can be described without self-contradiction. It is clear that a "world" in which there is no prime number between and cannot be so described. However, no reason whatever has been proposed to believe that a "world without God" cannot be so described. Indeed, many such possible worlds have been described, and the descriptions have not been shown to be self-contradictory. Hence even if Godel's "proof" is indeed logically sound, this does not suffice to show that God, even in the most vapid form, must exist.

More generally, all forms of the ontological argument appear to involve smuggling the conclusion in among the premises. Once this has been done of course a logically sound argument for the existence of God can be constructed. The simplest course, which I recommend to all devotees of the ontological argument, is to make God's existence an explicit premise of your logic. This ensures that no long and complex derivations will be required. Jaketoad That is really fucking scary. Remind me never to go to Utah and get sick, OK?

Best Fun images in | Church humor, Inspiring quotes, Lds memes

A catheter up the ass does not sound like a fun time. Which doesn't, of course, get us anywhere at all, since God's existence is not empirically demonstrable as we've already discussed ad nauseam. So does this make the ontological argument simply a sophisticated exercise in navel-gazing? To add to what Nick has said, it is quite possible in Mathematics to describe internally consistant systems that do not exist in reality.

Using such a system to show god exists is a futile exercise as the system is not achored in reality, and thus it is not possible to extrapolate logical conclusions from the constructed to the real world. In fact, I'm not keen on sterile "God of the philosophers"-type arguments. One can't rationally debate the generic concept of the existence of God; because God, if He exists, is by definition inherent in the functioning of universe itself, and since by that premise we can never know what a universe without a God can look like, we cannot evaluate whether God actually exists in this universe.

On a similar level, when a city is destroyed by a storm and the fundamentalists say "It was God's punishment for our sins", there is no way to prove or disprove this statement. One can point out that the storm is explicable through the ordinary laws of nature; but they can reply by claiming that God works through the laws of nature. Which makes divine action indistinguishable from the ordinary operation of material laws - and therefore empirically unknowable. The only way it would be possible to empirically prove God's existence would be if God actually intervened in a perceptible way in the material universe, in a way that suspended the ordinary laws of nature.

Which, of course, Christians believe He did the parting of the Red Sea, miracles, the Resurrection, etc. But the historical truth of these claims has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. They're not. I find that quite funny really, though my real aim was to see if Michele would freak out. There is a Mormon Tabarnacle a couple of miles from me, and I normally get them knocking on my door every couple of months. The last time I explained to them I was an atheist, and that I had the decency not to come round to their homes trying to convince them there was no god and I was surprised they lacked the same manners and consideration towards me.

They seemed somewhat flumoxed. Michelle wrote: Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? How ironic coming from a fundie Catholic. Religion is based on infantilizing its followers, and the followers wishing to retain the advantages of childhood throughout their lives.

The unconditional love of an all powerful parent that will tell them what is right and wrong, will comfort them when they are sad, will protect them when they are scared. Religion represents a denial of adulthood, a retreat from going forth into the world to use ones own brain to reason what is right and wrong, to face one's fears and make one's way in the world. To accept and cling to religion the way Michelle does is to cling to childhood, to retain the pre-adolescent mentality she accuses the atheist of.

To reject religion is to become fully adult and mature. Walton , Er, yes, Walton, that was rather my point! Of course, in reality the long and complex derivations are necessary in order to hide the way the conclusion has been smuggled in among the premises.

I'm not accusing those producing ontological arguments for God of deliberate deception - I'm sure they hide this from themselves too. Something like Moses' burning bush comes to mind. Something that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, and found to be of divine origin. Michelle, believe it or not, you are an atheist. Guess what, he doesn't exist either. Time to become rational and give up the last god. Then all the logical dissonance of believing falls away. It makes life much easier at the end of the day. It is not so much a raw nerve as an old story and a commonly boring one.

The 100 Jokes That Shaped Modern Comedy

Seriously deranged people who are a danger to themselves at best and a danger to themselves and everyone around them at worst. The Michelles don't so much make their religion look stupid and evil as much as they show that mental illness is hard to treat. I thought that was what non-frum Jews say when they see the Rabbi walking up the path!

Section c 3 of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads emphasis added :. The "otherwise provided" clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection h. But I want to note this: There was a really clear racial divide on Prop 8, and I think we need to discuss this. Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8? This is an interactive map from the Sacramento Bee that shows voting patterns. Prop 8 failed in my neighborhood My neighborhood has no ethnic majorities; the largest ethnic group is probably Chinese-American, but that wouldn't be by a very large margin.

However, look at the area labeled "South Sacramento. Voting data has shown that Latinos voted yes by a small margin, Asians and Whites voted no by slim margins, and African-Americans voted for it, that was the CNN data I saw. Just for fun, click on the area "Granite Bay. And it passed 8 by the same margin as South Sacramento.

The only common thread I can see: Protestants. I used to go door to door collecting food with the Boy Scouts when I was that age. Please don't abuse these kids, they have no idea what they're doing; a lot of them aren't old enough to know the difference yet. There is a difference between making a point and being cruel. If you want to teach someone a lesson, stick with the adults who are culpable for their actions and don't treat children so unfairly. Lastly, I am amazed at your lack of cognitive dissonance for wanting to throw bags of shit at people who are collecting food.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; I would say that it does not, since the federal government does not grant marriage as a privilege of national citizenship. The case for it has never even been made, Walton. It can't be made.

You're talking about fairy stories. It's just as vacuous as if you'd said "That Hansel and Gretel acted in self-defense has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ignorance and hatred is dripping from this board. And it doesn't help when the original author is among the worst of them. The LDS church has no affiliation with those polygamist sects. Yes, the church used to practice polygamy, but when it was outlawed by the government back in the 19th century, the church complied and gave up the practice. So much for being "out of step with the rest of the country. There's the liberal persona I know.

For being such an open-minded way of thinking, it is shocking! This definition of what it means to be liberal is both ironic and spot-on. The irony: free from bigotry. The spot-on truth: morally unrestrained; licentious. If you don't like something, you mock it. If there isn't a law for it, you petition for it. If you don't get your way, you mock some more. Liberals act like a two-year-old kicking and screaming when they don't get their way.

Can I get an answer to this question: why is same-sex marriage an "equal right"? Just because you may believe homosexuality is okay that doesn't mean you are right. Are homosexuals bad people? Of course they are not. But does that mean the government should recognize their sexuality? In other words, why is same-sex marriage an "equal right" when homosexuals do not have the ability to procreate with each other?

Shouldn't a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability? This is where someone will say marriage is the ability, but it's procreation that is the underlying ability and the issue at hand. But in true liberal fashion, you wouldn't ever consider this point of view.

Hate on Mormons, Catholics, and every other theology, but that won't ever make you more right than them. Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority. From a social perspective, this makes you more wrong than right. Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it? Just be happy with the thought you live in a country that allows you to voice your opinion. But please, your childish antics are pathetic and quite degrading to your credibility. Is it really fruitful to focus on the race of a voter?

Perhaps decades of divisiveness was a factor in in many voters' decision: IE, "If I'm not one of them, so why should I vote for what they want?

The long and short of it is, that the voters who passed Prop 8, like those who vote against medical marijuana, and many other matters that the government should have no involvement with in the first place, fail to understand the suffering caused by their choices.

While the privileges and immunities clause might not apply, it has always been my opinion that an honest reading of the Equal Protection clause strongly supports legalizing gay marriage:. Of course, some say that the Equal Protection clause is satisfied because gays are able to marry a heterosexual just like everybody else. BDC I agree that there may be some data pointing that way, but in the very limited map I link to, it certainly supports my conclusion.

Of course, that's not a good example, given that "Lavender Heights" is in downtown Sacramento.

A Conversation With Local Mormon Missionaries

A better example would be East Sac, which is predominantly white and liberal And voted against 8. Using that map, which is limited, concluding that African-American and Protestant voters approved 8 is not hard.

1 Raising Arizona

Based on area by area votes, it sure looks that way. This of course is the great hazard of democracy. This is why our constitution was designed to place several barriers to mob rule, such as dividing the government into three branches, electing the president through the electoral college, and establishing the bill of rights as a barrier to arbitrary legislation. I'm sick of this ADA business too. Parapalegics can't walk, so obviously they shouldn't be considered the equals of those who can.

Read this comment from a Sacramento area pastor:. Protesters in Sacramento said the dispute over same-sex marriage is a modern-day civil rights issue. What the fuck is it with conservatives and the inability to see an argument through to its conclusion?

And if you're equivocating heterosexuality with the ability to procreate, well, you're just grossly ignorant of both biology and the Bible which mentions several barren heteros, if you're interested in reading it. Fuck, but you're a stupid, stupid human being. As a public health measure, I suggest you take advantage of full-service gas stations from now on; left to your own devices you're liable to blow up innocents.

And no more lectures about bigotry, you homophobic moron: all they do is demonstrate that you're both an anonymous coward and a hypocrite. A group that fought hard for it's civil rights turns around and denies it to another group. Or are some groups more equal than others?

Maybe in your church procreation is the "underlying ability" justifying marriages. But that is not the basis for civil marriage. In this country, a marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. They are not required to reproduce. Or would you deny the right to marry to a heterosexual couple where one or both parties were infertile? In addition to the infertility point, what about couples with no intention to have children in the first place? Should they be allowed to marry? Being beaten to death doesn't count I guess. Wrong, moron. Neither truth nor morality is decided by the casting of votes.

It is entirely democratic to be outraged by a majority vote, and work, democratically, to overturn it. That can include protest against and ridicule of those who support it. All this to-do over buttsex. Really, the sticking of a penis into another man's butt. Some day, I'd really like to meet one of those people who honk on about it not being "natural", look him in the eye and ask him, "If that's the case, then why does it feel so good?

Really, if you are even moderately in control of your actions, you will never have to experience buttsex in your entire life, nor even witness it happening, nor have it affect you in any way. And yet it freaks people like Michelle and Anon out so bad that they have to construct these ridiculous justifications as to why we shouldn't allow it to happen. Someone prepare another fainting couch for the fatally mocked. Boy, we sure get a lot of delicate constitutions around here. The way they carry on, you'd think they were actually being persecuted in some way.

That's a really good way of reframing this, because it neatly undermines one of the central arguments against same-sex marriage. If a heterosexual couple elects not to have children, does that invalidate the marriage? Should it be invalidated by statute? Yeah, that would shut them up, cus they can't stop divorce because marraige is already a compete sham. There's nearly a billion kids to choose from, pick one of them.

We no longer neeed to reproduce like rabbits. The world is filled, divine mandate satisfied, so put a cork in it for God's sake! Athiest can marry; that's a bigger slap in the face to the church than any buttsex! But athiests don't even get a disapproval rating for marrying, it's total hypocracy. People should get married by the Church of the Sugbenius, you get to choose how long you want to stay married at the ceremony. At some of the Devivals, and campouts, there are several one night marriage ceremonies performed.

Why should a church be unable to express an advocacy position on a doctrinal teaching? Whether it's a letter, speech, diagram, musical arrangement etc. A few did go to Canada. A couple went to England. Only one I know went to Russia. Clinton responded by confronting Bush directly. Clinton then unloaded his own zinger:. He was wrong, and a senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism.

An unsettled Bush never regained the initiative. So, the public never got to hear such clever comments as:. He probably has trouble refolding a map of Arkansas. Though the first President Bush is now viewed in a rose-colored haze, he was not always the beloved elder statesman that he is seen as today.

Bush unleashed his team of political attack dogs to savage the reputations of his adversaries. The general election campaign against Michael Dukakis in stands as one of the nastiest in U. Bush also expressed strong interest in rumors that Clinton had sought to renounce his U. The documents depicted Bush as raging, Nixon-like, about political enemies, demanding action and then counting on his subordinates to ignore some of his more outrageous ideas.

Reporters from several news organizations, including the right-wing Washington Times , had filed Freedom of Information Act requests. At the same time, rumors were floating around conservative circles that Clinton might have written a letter renouncing his citizenship during the war. Recognizing the damage these rumors could cause Clinton, Baker asked other administration officials about the status of the FOIA requests.

On the night of Sept. The State Department team did not find the rumored renunciation letter. But Bush aides did not give up the hunt. Tamposi contacted the U. Only the London embassy complied and found nothing. With little to show for their efforts, Bush officials next constructed a suspicion that a Clinton sympathizer might have tampered with the passport file and removed the supposed renunciation letter.

The existence of the referral was then leaked to Newsweek , which published a story on Oct. What would exonerate him — put it that way — in the files? On Oct. At that point, Bush backpedaled. But the list of zingers, prepared on Oct. But he did resort to other clumsy insults against Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore. He is way out, far out. Far out, man. There were also fax transmissions on Oct. The Czech articles soon blew back to the United States. The Clinton campaign responded that Clinton had entered Czechoslovakia under normal procedures for a student and stayed with the family of his Oxford friend.