Anti-Mormon?

[_Drifting]

Subby, you are beginning to sound anti Mormon...

 

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

[_Drifting]

One can easily be Pro-health but not Anti-smoking or Pro-smoking.
One can easily be Pro-Republican without being Anti-Democrat or Anti-Libertarian

Actually, I think this is nonsense.

You would have to be apathetic about health to not be anti smoking.
You would have to be apathetic about politics to not be anti some party or other.

If you state you are pro health but claim not be anti smoking then you are lying (maybe to yourself) about one or the other.

[_subgenius]

If by interesting you mean my response doesn't fit your strawman, then sure.

My idea includes the assertion that, in some fundamental sense, we all operate precariously from insufficient information. Often, our biggest mistake is thinking some spiritually fulfilling benifit verifies our chosen paradigm. There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm, only discussions about how each paradigm, while incompatible, are all supported the by the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits), just in different degrees.

put the bong down and realize that you are contradicting yourself into nonsense.
Captain Brevity was clear enough when he proposed that we all do stuff (everything) because we think it "good" and that there must not be any objective good in existence - somehow (magically) being proven by the one man's trash is another man's treasure theorem.

1. "operate precariously from insufficient information" - but enough information to know this...interesting
2. "There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm" - this assertion has been refuted and has been shown to be conjecture time and time again. (see also #1 above)
3. "Often, our biggest mistake is thinking some spiritually fulfilling benifit verifies our chosen paradigm" - How is this a mistake again?

So, what's the next step if we think the best evidence for one paradigm is the very same sort of evidence offered by others. The only difference in support between contrary religious paradigms seems to the who and not the why. The why is always the same at it's fundamental level.

It's not a hard sell at all to claim people discriminate and such because they believe something "good" will happen. You'll have to explain what you mean.

I have no issue that the actions of discrimination are what are deemed either good or bad....but i do have issue that a person motivated to stand before a crowd a yell condemnations shares the same goal as one who is motivated to knock on a door and politely ask to share a message.
The OP is quite clear.
The desire to behave in the "Anti" way is rather explicit and surely cannot be confused with being "good".
Either there is an objective good and an objective bad or there is not, correct?
If there is, then regardless of any paradigm or personal preference or matter of taste people either conform to good or to bad at any given time and for any given reason.
If there is not, then discussion of good and bad are rather meaningless because they are simply constructed for any particular purpose and likely defined by whoever has the biggest stick in the room....a sort of justice is might way of life.

[_subgenius]

Subby, you are beginning to sound anti Mormon...

 

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

i think you misunderstand both the topic at hand and that scripture

[_subgenius]

If you state you are pro health but claim not be anti smoking then you are lying (maybe to yourself) about one or the other.

So, if i were pro-health but owned a store that sold tobacco.....?

so can you be anti-mormon but still attend sacrament meetings and maintain membership?

[_MCB]

Newton stated it very precisely, and it applies as well in sociology as it does in physics.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
how does that differ from "There is opposition in all things?"

If someone would knock on my door and ask to share the Mormon gospel with me, I would say, "Sorry, but you really don't want to talk with me." as I did two years ago. And as I said twelve years ago, "I have already made my decision as to what faith to follow." Does that make me into an anti-Mormon? If one defines Catholic as anti-Mormon, I guess so.

Of course, if Mormons say otherwise, I can quote:

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I do believe that article eleven allows me the right to explain why I am not Mormon. If others choose to be Mormon, I allow them that right, so long as they respect my rights.

[Guest]

...

[_Drifting]

If you state you are pro health but claim not be anti smoking then you are lying (maybe to yourself) about one or the other.

So, if i were pro-health but owned a store that sold tobacco.....?

so can you be anti-mormon but still attend sacrament meetings and maintain membership?

If you own a tobacco store that sells tobacco then you aren't pro health.
You can attend Sacrament and maintain membership without being pro Mormon, yes. Lots of people do every week.

[Guest]

...

[_Themis]

this is a ridiculous parallel you are trying to draw here ! - An absolute incompetent conclusion to apply across the board!

Are you stating that one either becomes Pro-something because they first were Anti-something or that they are Anti-something because first they are Pro-something ?
you may, seemingly, be schizophrenic.

It is obvious from the OP that "Anti" is in terms of contrary and hostile towards.
One can easily be Pro-health but not Anti-smoking or Pro-smoking.
One can easily be Pro-Republican without being Anti-Democrat or Anti-Libertarian
Personally, i do not care for the taste of broccoli - but i am neither anti-broccoli nor pro-broccoli, but i am Pro-vegetable and Pro-doughnut!

so, while i understand your need to simplify things to the idiomatic "2 sides of the same coin", there has been little to prove that a coin exists on this matter.

As usual subby can only try to insult others. My post is certainly a generalization, and may not fit every situation perfectly, but it is still a good one. One who is pro-health is much less likely to be pro-smoking. If one is pro-Republican they are likely to be anti-democrat in the same way they are pro-republican. Anti Mormon in the wiki you posted is more about how they feel and act towards Mormons. Being pro is about what one believes. What one believes tends to inform them on what they do not believe, and anti does not have to be about hostility or persecution.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti