Mormon Mitt and his buddy Larry Craig

Post by **_The Dude** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:34 pm

Hoops wrote:You are making quite a leap from not supporting gay marriage to "hater".

Okay, you got me. The people of Idaho want someone who is a political enemy of gays.

_Nephi · Post by **_Nephi** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:35 pm

Hoops wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Mormons are Christians because they believe in Christ. It's really nonsensical to try to argue that someone isn't what they claim to be and believe they are. I've been guilty of using "Christians" as a sort of short-hand for "mainline evangelical Christians" before, but I don't try to argue that Mormons aren't, themselves, also Christian. It's really not for anyone to say who is and isn't a Christian, if they believe they are.

I would think Christ might be able to offer an opinion. Wait, I think he has.

Oh, wait. Please enlighten us! I am dying to hear your's (and your implied Christ's) definition of a Christian, please...

Post by **_Hoops** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:36 pm

The Dude wrote:
Hoops wrote:You are making quite a leap from not supporting gay marriage to "hater".

Okay, you got me. The people of Idaho want someone who is a political enemy of gays.

I would agree with that. And the good folks of Massachusetts want someone who is the political enemy of traditional marriage. That doesn't make them haters.

Post by **_Hoops** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:38 pm

Nephi wrote:
Hoops wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Mormons are Christians because they believe in Christ. It's really nonsensical to try to argue that someone isn't what they claim to be and believe they are. I've been guilty of using "Christians" as a sort of short-hand for "mainline evangelical Christians" before, but I don't try to argue that Mormons aren't, themselves, also Christian. It's really not for anyone to say who is and isn't a Christian, if they believe they are.

I would think Christ might be able to offer an opinion. Wait, I think he has.

Oh, wait. Please enlighten us! I am dying to hear your's (and your implied Christ's) definition of a Christian, please...

Another thread, don't you think? But would be glad to.

Post by **_The Dude** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:42 pm

Hoops wrote:
The Dude wrote:
Hoops wrote:You are making quite a leap from not supporting gay marriage to "hater".

Okay, you got me. The people of Idaho want someone who is a political enemy of gays.

I would agree with that. And the good folks of Massachusetts want someone who is the political enemy of traditional marriage. That doesn't make them haters.

?? It only makes them enemy to a certain conservative position, which is traditional-marriage-only, not the enemy of traditional marriage per se.

Post by **_moksha** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm

Mitt understands the say anything for the sake of political expediency all to well. It is a cut throat business and if you need to abandon your friends and supportive colleagues in the quest for votes, then so be it. Republicans know you can cover up financial misdealings but not cruising the men's room. It is a matter of priorities.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:59 pm

bcspace wrote:
Bring it on. I relish the challenge. My experience has shown that the Church only gets stronger when opposition is applied.

Yes, that's called the siege mentality kicking in. Nothing like a strong external threat, whether real or perceived, to galvanize the solidarity of the membership.

The typical reaction of one who has been stymied and debunked on a continuous basis.......

ROFL. Only in your dreams have I been stymied and debunked at all, much less on a continual basis.

Hey, I'm not the one cruising the scriptures looking for loopholes that I can use to excuse away or justify the false beliefs of my prophets, seers, and revelators. That's pretty sad when you're having to make excuses for your own church, and find interpretations of scripture that allow for your church's past doctrines to be incorrect, yet the church still "true".

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:04 pm

Hoops wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Mormons are Christians because they believe in Christ. It's really nonsensical to try to argue that someone isn't what they claim to be and believe they are. I've been guilty of using "Christians" as a sort of short-hand for "mainline evangelical Christians" before, but I don't try to argue that Mormons aren't, themselves, also Christian. It's really not for anyone to say who is and isn't a Christian, if they believe they are.

I would think Christ might be able to offer an opinion. Wait, I think he has.

Says you. Mormons say that Christ told Joseph Smith that all other churches were an abomination, and that the LDS church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth with which he is pleased.

Bottom line is that the "are Mormons Christian" thing is that it's a total "he said/she said" kind of thing. It's the pot telling the kettle he can't also be black. It's "you're a dink. No I'm not, you are! No I'm not, you are! I'm rubber and you're glue! Oh yeah? I'm not playing with you anymore! You're not my friend anymore! Oh yeah? Well you're a poopoo head! Man you are in trouble, I'm telling! ..."

Mormons are Christians because Mormons proclaim belief in Christ. Trying to deny Mormons their Christianity on the basis of disagreements about doctrine is really non-sensical. Who set you up as Christ's representative on Earth, to pass along Christ's opinion on the Mormons anyway?

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:08 pm

The typical reaction of one who has been stymied and debunked on a continuous basis.......

ROFL. Only in your dreams have I been stymied and debunked at all, much less on a continual basis.

No, seems to be my experience, such as in the evolution thread. You do tend to make grandiose statements but little in the way of evidence.

Hey, I'm not the one cruising the scriptures looking for loopholes that I can use to excuse away or justify the false beliefs of my prophets, seers, and revelators. That's pretty sad when you're having to make excuses for your own church, and find interpretations of scripture that allow for your church's past doctrines to be incorrect, yet the church still "true".

CFR

Again the answer of one who has been stymied on a continual basis. To whit, your favorite arguments don't work when all the facts are known.

So is it a loophole to fill in nonrevealed details with opinion and still believe all the doctrines of the Church? I think not.....

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:13 pm

The fact that bcspace can believe that sethbag has been stymied on a continual basis speaks volumes in regards to the capacity of the human mind to engage in self-deception.

I think, in the end, this is what disturbs me so much about internet Mormon apologetics. It isn't that they believe strange things and craft convoluted arguments to support those beliefs, but it is that while they do so, they so confidently proclaim the soundness of their own arguments and the weakness of critics. To me, this is delusional behavior, and it bothers me that human beings are so comfortable with delusional behavior. It makes me despair for our future.

I'm not saying that apologists have to be delusional to keep believing - I'm saying they have to be delusional to act as if their arguments are so superior and tight that critics are continually "stymied". This demonstrates a fundamental disconnect to reality. These arguments may satisfy those who already believe in the LDS church for spiritual reasons, but these same arguments appear quite weak to those who have no such compelling reason to believe.