116 pages

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

thestyleguy wrote:
Calculus Crusader wrote:
You are both wrong. It stands for Haploid.


you are all wrong: the real story is that it stands for Jesus Humbert Christiansen. He is a half danish and half mexican day laborer who hangs out at the Home Depot.


LOL! You guys are a riot! Seth's and Bond's were funny, too.

Actually, don't Mormons think Jesus's middle initial is "S"? You know, for Smith? I think that's what Hinckley said his name was...

KA
_Gillebre
_Emeritus
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:56 am

Post by _Gillebre »

You think you guys are "good" at dismantling stuff? Head over to Concerned Christians or LivePrayer.com, you guys are little league, compared to them. ;)


As opposed to belief here, I am feel more happy and certain of what the truth is than before, but that's just a personal note. :)
Gillebre

Apprentice Apologist
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Gillebre wrote:You think you guys are "good" at dismantling stuff? Head over to Concerned Christians or LivePrayer.com, you guys are little league, compared to them. ;)


As opposed to belief here, I am feel more happy and certain of what the truth is than before, but that's just a personal note. :)

Gillebre, the very fact that you find some Christian fundementalists more convincing merely betrays the fact that you yourself still hold a somewhat magical worldview. Their Biblical references and whatnot still resonate with your own thought patterns, so you find them more convincing.

These guys still believe that a few thousand years ago the entire Earth was covered with water in a great flood, where Noah and his families were the only surviving homo sapiens and repopulated the entire world in just the last 5000 years or so, for heaven's sake.

Do you see a rainbow and think of God's promise never to kill everyone on earth by flooding it again?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Gillebre wrote:You think you guys are "good" at dismantling stuff? Head over to Concerned Christians or LivePrayer.com, you guys are little league, compared to them. ;)


As opposed to belief here, I am feel more happy and certain of what the truth is than before, but that's just a personal note. :)


Let's see, arguing the truthiness of one's belief system, and the un-truthiness of someone else's belief system, by citing a work of fiction cobbled together by ignorant, superstitious, mysoginist, bronze age goat herders--yup, that's a winner all right.

Like most true believers, the Concerned Christians appear utterly incapable of turning their critical eye on their own beliefs.

By the way, viz your statement that we've already made up our minds, well, true and false.

False in that we've in fact CHANGED OUR MINDS, which is why many of us are here in the first place. We were open to new ideas, to criticism of our own beliefs, and in considering the possibility that we were wrong. We, unlike (probably) you and many other believers, did not arrive to where we are as an accidental artifact of our birth, but we reasoned our way to where we are, and many of us are open to reasoning our way to different conclusions.

True in that we've made up our mind that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be. But again, this is based on evidence, not because this is what our mammy and pappy taught us.

As for the whole argument viz God, I'm open to considering the evidence, I've just never seen any that I consider anything but a non-starter. I don't find subjective experiences of others to be good reason to change my own views, nor do I believe that my own subjective personal experiences carry any weight or authority for anyone else, nor that they answer questions on issues for which no actual evidence exists. Give me something objectively verifiable, and I'm happy to consider it.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

guy sajer wrote:...a work of fiction cobbled together by ignorant, superstitious, mysoginist, bronze age goat herders...


That is a mischaracterization.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
guy sajer wrote:...a work of fiction cobbled together by ignorant, superstitious, mysoginist, bronze age goat herders...


That is a mischaracterization.


OK, iron age.

Which part is a mischaracterization?

Fiction--Absolutely; more like historical fiction, tall tales intermingled with some actual history here and there
Ignorant--By today's standards; absolutely viz science, technology, and, very importantly, human moral development (why we would take our moral cues today from this morally backward culture/society is beyond bizzare)
Supersititious--Absolutely
Misogynist-Absolutely
Goat herders--Possibly sheep herders, but you get the idea
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

guy sajer wrote:
Calculus Crusader wrote:
guy sajer wrote:...a work of fiction cobbled together by ignorant, superstitious, mysoginist, bronze age goat herders...


That is a mischaracterization.


OK, iron age.

Which part is a mischaracterization?

Fiction--Absolutely; more like historical fiction, tall tales intermingled with some actual history here and there
Ignorant--By today's standards; absolutely viz science, technology, and, very importantly, human moral development (why we would take our moral cues today from this morally backward culture/society is beyond bizzare)
Supersititious--Absolutely
Misogynist-Absolutely
Goat herders--Possibly sheep herders, but you get the idea


Fiction--Depends on what book you're reading. I suspect Samson is exaggerated but the Chronicles of Judah's Court are probably pretty accurate.
Ignorant--We can't live up to the best of the moral cues in this primitive book.
Superstitious--Is believing a pool of water can heal illness any worse than believing in Get-rich schemes or the latest fad diet?
Misogynist--If the New Testament was a Misogynist text they really screwed up.
Goat herders/Sheep Herders--Not sure how this is relevant. I ate stuff that came from goat milk today and had a nice lamb kebab earlier in the week. We still have these around. Slightly different technique.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

No, believing in get-rich-quick schemes and fad diets isn't really any better than a lot of the religious superstition contained in the Bible. But then again, nobody here is saying that these are good things, either. Is this a sort of tu quoque argument? You know, "I know this idea is dumb, but other people believe dumb things too" logic? How do you think that this really helps anything?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Martin's credibility (again?)

Post by _Trevor »

When will apologists quietly drop Martin as a credible Book of Mormon witness?

Here we have a man who claimed to hold a conversation with God in the form a deer that followed him as he walked down the lane.

Here we have a guy that cheated on and beat his wife, and considered murdering a neighbor whose wife he desired (D&C 19:25).

Here we have a man who joined over a dozen religious sects over his life. When he found Mormonism, why didn't he just stick with that?

Since he did testify to the truth of the Shaker scroll and the Voree record, how are we to distinguish between the claims. I mean, if he can attest to the truth of records Mormons don't accept as true, then surely he can't be trusted in his witness of the truth of the one that they do accept.

Or are Mormons prepared to accept the Sacred Roll and the Voree Record as scripture?

Why not just chuck Martin and rely on witnesses that have a little more credibility and better character?
Post Reply