5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_mentalgymnast]

This quote was directed at Kevin who has indicated this a number of times.

Earlier you'd said:

Of course you two do. Your desire to believe outweighs your desire for the truth. You have admitted you will never want believe God doesn't exist, or that you may cease to exist.

I figured that was addressed to me too. I'm one of the 'two'.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

I'm guessing that you're saying that there is nothing that could sway me from choosing to believe in God. That's actually not true either.

What could sway you from choosing to believe in God?

[_mentalgymnast]

It would depend on ones desire to believe or disbelieve in relation to their desire to know the truth as things really are.

I suppose I'm open to a wider definition of "things [as they] really are".

I would suggest one can have a high desire for the truth, but be trumped by an even higher desire to believe a particular belief.

I suppose that may be. In my case, however, knowing many of the more esoteric and quirky teachings encapsulated within this thing we call Mormonism, I would have to say that truth would have to be the greater object in view. Mormonism has some fairly difficult doctrines/theology to swallow.

This can be complicated in that desire to believe can vary a lot from one particular belief to another. Your posts suggest you have a very high desire to believe certain LDS claims even if you may have a high desire for the truth.

There are some LDS claims that I would just as well not have to 'believe'. So again, I am more concerned with what 'truth' may be.

This is in consideration that I think you know some of the evidences available that clearly show Joseph as a religious fraud.

Not some. Many. Over twenty years worth. I'm not convinced that he was definitively and/or by default a religious fraud. I am open to him being the conduit through which a creator/God performed a latter day work that is somehow important in the eternal scheme of things.

This thread is a good example with Jesus. I think the evidence for Jesus existence is very limited, but enough to make it more likely there was a Jesus figure, but nothing to confirm the many stories about him. It's unlikely they are even close to accurate, but many have that large desire to believe many if not most of them as true.

As has been mentioned in this very thread, we ought not to expect that there would be a lot of evidence of Him. It's the nature of the historical record and those that recorded it...or didn't.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

This quote was directed at Kevin who has indicated this a number of times.

Earlier you'd said:

Of course you two do. Your desire to believe outweighs your desire for the truth. You have admitted you will never want believe God doesn't exist, or that you may cease to exist.

I figured that was addressed to me too. I'm one of the 'two'.

Regards,
MG

The last sentence was directed at Kevin, but i recognize it was not clear.

[_Quasimodo]

This is in consideration that I think you know some of the evidences available that clearly show Joseph as a religious fraud.

Not some. Many. Over twenty years worth. I'm not convinced that he was definitively and/or by default a religious fraud. I am open to him being the conduit through which a creator/God performed a latter day work that is somehow important in the eternal scheme of things.

Regards,
MG

Sorry, this bit just caught my eye. Charles Manson claimed to his followers that he had mystical powers and some thought that he was the reborn Christ. It was claimed by his followers (among other miraculous things) that he picked up a dead bird and brought it back to life.

Would you be open to Charles Manson being the conduit through which a creator/God performed a latter day work that is somehow important in the eternal scheme of things?

If not, why not (serious question)?

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you planning on staying bitchy and irrationally judgemental about almost everything on the board?

IHaveAQuestion, surely you could have found a better word to use than bitchy. Bitchy, like bastard, while not always used to talk derogatorily about women and illegitimate children, are still sufficiently connected to those concepts that use of those two terms is always in very bad taste in my opinion.

Can I just say something since the remark was made about me?

Point 1: My screen name is true.

Point 2: If I didn't take offense to what IHAQ posted to me, then why are you?

Point 3: Are you going to lecture me for saying he was acting like a "hyperbolic dick"? I haven't checked for your lecture on that yet, but I'll give the thread the once over and see if you took me to task for my language as well.

Point 4: The remark wasn't made about you. The remark was made about me. If your opposition to the language is some sort of attempt to protect me from a poster posting profanity to me, I can take care of myself. See Point 1.

[_mentalgymnast]

Sorry, this bit just caught my eye. Charles Manson claimed to his followers that he had mystical powers and some thought that he was the reborn Christ. It was claimed by his followers (among other miraculous things) that he picked up a dead bird and brought it back to life.

Would you be open to Charles Manson being the conduit through which a creator/God performed a latter day work that is somehow important in the eternal scheme of things?

If not, why not (serious question)?

Tell me a bit more about this 'latter day work' that came about through Charles Manson.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I can take care of myself.

You're not opposed to men opening the door for you out of a desire to act as a gentleman, are you?

If so, I guess I can understand your point.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Me, I'd be out the door never to return. How do I know? I've already exited a church because I couldn't tolerate some of the things I witnessed and still remain my authentic self.

Why is it that you couldn't tolerate such things?

General rundown:

1. Fake people.
2. Thoughtless people.
3. People who demean LDS.
4. Obnoxious building campaign.
5. People who were more concerned about what was taking place inside the church than they were about what was taking place outside the church.

(Some day I'll tell you the story about how I ended up online. You'd probably find it unusual, but this isn't the thread for it.)

[_Jersey Girl]

I can take care of myself.

You're not opposed to men opening the door for you out of a desire to act as a gentleman, are you?

If so, I guess I can understand your point.

Regards,
MG

Opening the door? I don't care who opens a door, doesn't open a door, why they do, why they don't, or if I'm the one opening the door.

I've been opening doors for myself all my life. No, really. Have you?