mentalgymnast wrote:I am almost dead sure that I could face the red comment being true. The Spaghetti Monster knows I've thought about it enough. And if I came to believe that the church held little or no chance of being true I'd hop, skip, and jump over to some kind of deistic/agnostic/atheistic flavor mix.
Regards, MG
MG, please don't take this as a criticism because it's not meant that way....but....I think you have already concluded that the Church holds little chance of being 'true' in the exact way that it portrays itself as being true.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
I have a theory about Maklelan and his postings here.
I think he comes here to quell his own faith doubts and cognitive dissonance by defending the Church on subjects he himself finds problematic. Sort of like cauterising a wound.
When he realises the blood flow is simply too great (see the thread about a Universal Flood being Church doctrine) he disappears for a time.
It's just a theory, and I may be doing him a massive disservice. He may simply have periods when he's too busy or on a plane etc that just happen to coincide with discussions where he has backed himself into a blatantly untenable position....
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
mentalgymnast wrote:I am almost dead sure that I could face the red comment being true. The Spaghetti Monster knows I've thought about it enough. And if I came to believe that the church held little or no chance of being true I'd hop, skip, and jump over to some kind of deistic/agnostic/atheistic flavor mix.
Regards, MG
MG, please don't take this as a criticism because it's not meant that way....but....I think you have already concluded that the Church holds little chance of being 'true' in the exact way that it portrays itself as being true.
I've already stated my position earlier. And I stick to it.
mentalgymnast wrote: I've already stated my position earlier. And I stick to it.
Regards, MG
I expect nothing less!
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
bcspace wrote:Nothing serious though and my long experience with an inept opposition allows me not to worry about things I might not have an immediate answer to.
You just proved my case.
I think we communicate of completely different wave lengths...cuz I have no idea how my comment proved your case...
Craig it is possible that BCspace has provided you with an answer to the question you started this thread with. The truth or lack of truth for the church does not depend upon the ideas, statements or objections of critics. Critics cannot change or determine the truth. Critics can however form a barrier of noise for believers which might insulate a believer from his own internal questions.
i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's why they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's why they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.
I suspect this as well. I also believe those who feel they must often testify of the God of the Lost Car Keys are in the same position - trying to convince themselves.
And if I came to believe that the church held little or no chance of being true I'd hop, skip, and jump over to some kind of deistic/agnostic/atheistic flavor mix.
