Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

Post by _Themis »

The CCC wrote:Then punish the action of joining ISIS or murdering people in church are actions worthy of punishment. Believing in 20 gods, or no God at all, is between the individual and their own conscience. What they do is between them and the law.


Beliefs play a vital role in our actions, and while we cannot outlaw certain thoughts, we shouldn't help promote beliefs that are not in societies best interest. This is why we have some laws regarding the promotion of certain beliefs.

That is your belief that it was a sham. The women and men involved didn't believe or act as if it were.


I am not sure why you are having a comprehension problem. Emma though she was watching a real marriage, not a second one. Joseph and others did not confess that the person whom Emma begrudgingly. and for various reasons agreed Joseph could marry, was already married to Joseph.

Joseph didn't do the same thing. Again what consenting adults do between the bed-sheets is none of my concern.


Yes he did. He broke the law in marrying these people. I already told you he was breaking the bigamy laws. He lied about it consistently.

They weren't young girls. !4 was well within the legal age of consent to marry in the US of the early 19th Century.
SEE https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230


They are still young girls, and Joseph was a manipulative in doping it and other marriages. The reason we don't allow young girls to marry today is because we understand they are not ready then or now. I suspect you would think quite negatively of others doing it even if it is legal but cannot go there with Joseph due to your believers bias.

Last I heard you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, at least in the US. But I guess in your biased mind an accusation is better than a conviction in a court of law.


Joseph is dead. Courts are not going to go over the facts. Historians do though. This is not a court of law, but we can look at the facts to see what Joseph was doing and what the law of the time were.

It was Missouri Gov, Lilburn Boggs who issued the Extermination Order. I hold responsible the Carthage Gray's incited by the Nauvoo Expositor for Joseph and Hyram's killings.


Boggs is not a whole group. Don't condemn a whole group. The Expositor told the truth, and it was Joseph's destruction of the press that added to animosity of the different sides.

Polygamy is all through the Bible.
For a non LDS source SEE http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesi ... ave-wives/


That doesn't make it right, nor does the Bible specially say it is from God. Joseph's flaming sword, the number of women he married, etc should cause some real pause to thinking it was from a good God.

The exemption in the Book of Mormon is quite specific in LDS doctrine. The President/Prophet of the Church is the only one with the authority to give revelation as to if, when and how polygamy is to be practiced.


Sorry but it is not very specific at all. I understand you believe it is from God. Not sure why if you really know the history of Joseph and what he did. My unbelief come directly from things like the smoking gun called the Book of Abraham. Add to that the Book of Mormon, and other facts about Joseph's claims. He was a fraud, even if maybe pious to some degree, right from his youth when he was deceiving people into thinking he could find lost treasure. You should read up on it. Funny that no one after him did anything like that anymore. Not even finishing the Book of Abraham.
42
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

Post by _Gunnar »

subgenius wrote:
Gunnar wrote:None of the scriptures you cited detract even the slightest bit from the validity of my argument. Neither does the fact that my conclusion is not original with me. Impersonal and random chance and/or genetics is still the most obvious and likely explanation for why some people are born handicapped and others are not. If God is actively choosing what people are to be born handicapped and who will not, he is obviously showing partiality toward some over others which directly contradicts the scriptures you cited. Besides that, you can't provide any empirical justification for concluding that the Bible is any more likely to be the revealed word of God than any other "holy scripture" that has ever been written.


1. The first "detraction" is that you apply the razor incorrectly. You assume that the razor is whatever is the "easiest" or simplest solution must be the correct solution. Yet the more accurate application is to recognize that it is a principle of parsimony which resolves competing hypotheses by measuring which has fewer assumptions. Your hypothesis, while obviously not a hypothesis at all, assumes the same as its opposite. For example, the assumption that there is a God is countered with your assumption that there is not a God.

Wrong! I do not assume that the razor is "whatever is the 'easiest' of simplest must be the correct solution." I meant only and exactly the definition I emphasized in your quoted response. The rest of your response is the purest nonsense. My hypothesis does not really assume either the existence or non-existence of God--only that the existence of God is not necessary to explain the phenomenon in question. If anything, the phenomenon is harder to explain and requires more additional or unwarranted assumptions if there is anything like a just and compassionate God.

2. No one is claiming that God has predestined persons to be handicap or not. The nature of His design for the human being may offer the opportunity for a body to exhibit what you may consider handicap today while others may consider it an adaptation tomorrow. Your basic "assumption" is flawed.

3. The origin of the scriptures provided is irrelevant as they were provided as a means to discount the originality of your conclusion in as much as they pre-date your conclusion - by your own admission above these scriptures do not detract from your argument - and they were not intended to detract fro your argument, rather they quite simply prove that your argument is an echo of their sentiment. The unequivocally support your statement of how impartial God is towards your handicap.

Your last two points here are merely examples of superfluous assumptions or considerations unnecessary to sufficiently explain why some "humans are born handicapped and minorities" that, according to Ockham's razor, can justifiably be thrown out.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

Post by _subgenius »

Gunnar wrote:...My hypothesis does not really assume either the existence or non-existence of God--only that the existence of God is not necessary to explain the phenomenon in question.


so, what you are not assuming this you are assuming that.

Score : Razor 1 Gunnar 1
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

Post by _Gunnar »

subgenius wrote:
Gunnar wrote:...My hypothesis does not really assume either the existence or non-existence of God--only that the existence of God is not necessary to explain the phenomenon in question.


so, what you are not assuming this you are assuming that.

Score : Razor 1 Gunnar 1

I apologize for not stating it correctly. What I should have said was: "My hypothesis does not really assume either the existence or non-existence of God--it only acknowledges that the existence of God is not necessary to explain the phenomenon in question." Nor is the non-existence of God, by itself, absolutely necessary to explain the phenomenon, but, as I said previously, it is a bit harder to explain satisfactorily without the additional assumptions you provided if one assumes that a just, compassionate and all-powerful God exists. In short, the non-existence of God requires fewer assumptions, overall, than the existence of God to satisfactorily account for the phenomenon in question. In fact, it is an inevitable consequence if there is no God! Thus, I am not entirely unjustified in claiming "problem solved!"
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Mittens
_Emeritus
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:07 am

Re: Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

Post by _Mittens »

moksha wrote:
Mittens wrote:"This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valient, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations...." (Decisions for Successful Living pp 164-65) TLDP:497


I don't know what President Harold B. Lee was thinking as he wrote this, but apparently back then the editors at Deseret Book were afraid to broach the inherent ramifications of this statement and work with him on coming up with something Christ-like to say.

Maybe an appologist could put a positive slant on this statement.


Mormons leaders have always taught that :lol:

“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God”
(Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).


Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre‑existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. With that in mind, we can account in no other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood‑ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre‑existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter‑day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds.

"Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. a Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. but think of the mercy of god to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood... This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

(Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)
Justice = Getting what you deserve
Mercy = Not getting what you deserve
Grace = Getting what you can never deserve
Post Reply