Yeah, let's keep playing rhetorical flourish. A lot of good that's really going to do anyone. Except for the one that's really dang good at it, like you...maybe a little 'fire in the belly' is the result?
My gosh, you like this crap? If so, why? Not to derail...but this stuff just sounds evil/destructive/malevolent, to me anyway. And that's from a person who likes MUSE.
New World Order? What are they talking about?
Regards,
My musical tastes cover a lot of ground. A LOT of ground.
It's supposed to shift back and forth to convey that there is something sinister at play as the narrator sings about protecting the listener from the devils, demons, a will to survive and the voice of reason. Like the mother in Pink Floyd's song. And the LDS Church. Go back to sleep.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Yeah, let's keep playing rhetorical flourish. A lot of good that's really going to do anyone. Except for the one that's really dang good at it, like you...maybe a little 'fire in the belly' is the result?
No wonder you want to play.
Regards, MG
Yeah, dang attempts at having consistent modes of thought. Just so much excitement about nothing, right? Best to go back to sleep.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
The trouble for both you and zerinus is you've shared a definition of truth which relies on correspondence with the observable world...
I see D&C 93:24 as simply describing reality. What is, what has been, and what will be...independent of any observations that we can make. Our consciousness, after all, creates its own reality independent of what MAY be. It's the 'MAY' that we seem to spend so much time with.
by the way, Section 93 is one of my favorite sections in the D&C.
You said, based on scripture, that truth is knowing about things. But when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon being true history, you don't rely on knowing about history . . .
That is an illogical and meaningless statement. The Book of Mormon is history. It is a historical record of a lost civilization. The fact that we claim to be able to verify it through a divine source does not automatically invalidate the claim.
. . . but on a mental state you believe is a special communication from God.
You aren't being consistent.
Rubbish, nonsense. You may not believe in the possibility of verifying that claim through a divine source; but the claim itself is neither inconsistent nor incoherent.
You said, based on scripture, that truth is knowing about things. But when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon being true history, you don't rely on knowing about history . . .
That is an illogical and meaningless statement. The Book of Mormon is history. It is a historical record of a lost civilization. The fact that we claim to be able to verify it through a divine source does not automatically invalidate the claim.
Validate a historical claim with physical evidence and you have something. Validate a historical claim with your "divine source" that contradicts the physical evidence....
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
SteelHead wrote:Validate a historical claim with physical evidence and you have something. Validate a historical claim with your "divine source" that contradicts the physical evidence....
The contradiction is in your imagination. There is no contradiction.
SteelHead wrote:Validate a historical claim with physical evidence and you have something. Validate a historical claim with your "divine source" that contradicts the physical evidence....
The contradiction is in your imagination. There is no contradiction.
Hey slacker, get back to this.
Here are three items that are not related to Mormonism. What do you believe is the truth value of each postulate that follows the source and how did you arrive at this belief regarding the postulate's truth value?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39673142 Postulate: American ground forces conducted a raid in Syria within the last couple of days that resulted in the death of one or more members of the group known as the Islamic State.
Except for the one that's really dang good at it, like you...maybe a little 'fire in the belly' is the result? 
