Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult

[John Dibble]

In the modern sense of the word cult and the particulars of the behaviors we associate with cults, I would say the modern LDS is perhaps 'cult-lite'. They have a number of habits that are typical of cults, but they aren't nearly as oppressive to their members as groups like Scientology are, and you probably wouldn't be too hard pressed to find some Christian churches that have a similar level of cult behavior.

Now on the other hand, the fundamentalist Mormon groups that still practice polygamy, force male children onto the street to do so, and stay very isolated are most definitely full blown cults.

[John Dibble]

you're Mormon?!  When did this happen?  I thought you were atheist?

No, he had missionaries visit him and give him the book. (seemingly more out of curiosity that actual interest)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147413.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what?  Is that how the bible tells you to determine truth – just simply pray about it? If all truth is simply determined through prayer, then what is the role of scripture?[/quote]

I think the specifics of the doctrine is something like that you read the scriptures to get the specific knowledge, and then when you pray to God he somehow shows you that what you just read is true. From my outsider perspective it doesn't seem to be much different from how you describe your experience - you were studying the Bible at the time and then you felt that bonefire thing or what have you, which you say was the Holy Spirit filling you. (or something along those lines)

Also, just an FYI, it isn't uncommon for Christians of varying stripes to tell unbelievers that we just need to pray real hard and God will reveal himself to us. (failure is of course usually blamed on the person doing the praying) It's not exactly an idea that's exclusive to Mormons.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?[/quote]

Do you think someone could really test Christian doctrine without first reading the Bible, and only taking the statement of beliefs for their face value?

[John Dibble]

After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept. There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?

[John Dibble]

Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it? And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?

[John Dibble]

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.[/quote]

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?
[/quote]

The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.[/quote]

Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?

[John Dibble]

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[John Dibble]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks.

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts. The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)
3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.

[John Dibble]

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*bangs head on desk* For crying out loud man, that's exactly how I interpreted it. The problem is that you don't have any real evidence for your big picture assertion. If you can't back up your big picture argument with something real (no, scripture alone does not count) then asserting anyone who disagrees with you on it is merely giving an excuse is nothing short of arrogance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give the specific passages, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations there are also ones where entire portions of the gospels seem to be copied significant amounts from other Gospels. (specifically Matthew and Luke appear to be very much based on Mark due to the similarity of the Greek wording, which would not likely have been the case if they had either been written directly by the Apostles or simply been solely written from it being orally passed down) Plagiarism kind of makes the two witnesses thing problematic, because it will by necessity agree with the first witness.

[John Dibble]

Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.

Another problem of yours you should be aware of - you tend to construe general statements as blanket statements and personal attacks against you or your church. Case in point, notice that BRTD didn't say 'all Christian churches', just 'Christian churches'. I'm pretty sure BRTD wasn't even necessarily saying that a majority does it. (IMO, I'd say the majority of Christian churches in America don't even encourage their followers to read the Bible in the first place - probably why only 1 in 10 American Christians have read the whole thing)

[John Dibble]

Why do you always fall back on your empty argument of, “I agree with the interpretation, but you haven’t shown me proof!”…haven’t I been telling you for years that proof and faith are contradictory terms and that you are only shown the proof once you called by God because only God can reveal what is unseen?  So why do you keep going back to your contradictory argument?

So, since I have clearly stated that you can’t prove the claims true, but you can prove a claim false, why don’t you instead focus on the simply test of: “If Y claims X is True, and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then the claims of Y are False”?

1. I'm well aware that you have completely absurd standards by which you choose to believe in your religion. Faith is not a good way to determine what the truth is, for reasons that I have explained to you again and again over the years.

2. I have not used the word proof. I hate how that word gets thrown around so casually. Proofs are for math. For pretty much everything else you've got evidence, and the weight of the evidence for a claim determines how reasonable it is to believe in a claim.

3. Agreeing with you on how a book's author meant it to be interpreted does not mean I have to agree that the actual contents are true. You could probably find a Muslim with whom you could agree with on the author's intended interpretation of the Koran is, but that doesn't mean you'd have to accept the Koran is true. The notion of reading comprehension is rather basic, so I'm not sure why you insist my agreement on matters of interpretation has to mean anything more than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet, you are fully aware that by not basing a doctrine on a single passage, the additions and mistranslations don’t influence doctrine…so what is your point?[/quote]

My point, which includes more than just the part you included there, is that the Bible is a very unreliable document for a variety of reasons.

Also out of curiosity, where else in the Bible does it say that the stoning of adulterers should stop?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's based on the study of many theologians who have analyzed the texts. As I said, the idea is based on the original wording being similar - if you were a teacher and you had two students hand in papers that had mostly identical wording in addition to identical content you'd expect that they would have copied one another. And again, if the authors had entirely based their writings off of oral traditions you would expect widely different wording. At the very least the closeness in the wording indicates that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as a template, even if what they had been told orally was roughly identical in content.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evidence suggests that John may have been written decades after all of the other canonical gospels. Even if John was based largely off of something orally passed down, there's enough time for cross-contamination - I think it would be rather absurd to think that whomever wrote John down hadn't heard about the other gospels and at least their basic contents by that point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...which is why Jews where historically just like Christians. Oh wait, they weren't. If you don't have the lens of the New Testament when looking at the Old Testament you're going to come to some very different conclusions.

[John Dibble]

Granted.  But since you are admitting you can’t discount my testimony/doctrine (which I claim was birthed from the spirit that inspired the bible) based on the fact it is in agreement with the bible, can I assume you’re also admitting that Mormonism is not in agreement with the bible and is therefore full of beans?

1. I have no reason to believe your particular testimony was anything special, as there are people of other religions who have claimed religious experiences that mesh with their own beliefs. You could probably find a Mormon with such an experience. It's not really useful as evidence.
2. Mormonism is full of beans for plenty of reasons beyond any lack of agreement with any particular interpretation of the Bible, so I really don't care that much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from the differences between early manuscripts and later ones (which I'm not sure where you are getting 99.5%), we have uncertain authorship, the indications of copying, etc. Also fantastical claims without any supporting evidence is rather disconcerting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Invoking circular logic and ghost writing through magical intervention does not exactly strengthen your case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They still had the stories of Jesus, which is more than the pre-Jesus Jews would have had. Also, how many of those converts you mention are ones who had actually read the OT before hearing about Jesus? If they only read the OT afterwards, their interpretation is going to be colored by their new found beliefs.

Also, look at it from this angle:

Obviously, if you read the OT using something other than a Christ-centered approach, you’re going to reach a different conclusion.  In fact, you could turn it into anything, including a recipe book for lamb chops.  But the Jews DO believe in a Messiah, so the approaches aren’t vastly different.

The Jews don't believe in your Messiah though, and many of the passages you consider prophetic they don't, and there are many passages that they do consider prophetic that Jesus didn't fulfill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Christian one meshes better with the Christian interpretation of prophecy and the Judaic viewpoint meshes better with the Judaic interpretation of prophecy. Having vague, non-specific prophecies gives you that problem - too many ways to interpret, no good way to demonstrate which one is right.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true. The Bible in fact seems to have a number of contradictions... with reality. The description of the creation process (which the Bible itself can't seem to decide which order events occurred in) contradicts what we find in actual evidence. There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs. There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events. If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said, I just don't care that much. They may add an extra layer of absurdity, but it doesn't make the previous layers any better.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true.

Like I said, it’s all just a shade of gray to you.  You choose to enter into these conversations, yet you learn nothing in the process.

It has nothing to do with shades of gray - shades of gray has to do with moral issues and our inability to absolutely know what is most moral at any given time, not matters of fact. You claim that there are no contradictions in your religion. I don't think the facts bear out on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, you really want to get into this?

Ok, let's start with Genesis 1. Let's look at the order of events.

1. God creates the heavens and the earth. Waters are mentioned in the second sentence, so clearly matter advanced enough to make H20 exists.
2. God creates light, and makes day and night.

I can find contradiction with scientific knowledge right here. Science indicates that after the 'birth' of the universe with the Big Bang the only matter available was hydrogen and helium. In order for heavier elements to be made available so that molecules like water, which requires oxygen, stars had to be formed first to fuse atoms together. How could the Earth and water exist before light if the component elements necessary for it to exist require stars, which are sources of light, to exist first?

Moving on...

3. God creates land.
4. God creates vegetation on land.

No mention of plants in the water is made at all, even though plants clearly are there, and would have been there first if evolutionary theory holds.

5. God creates the stars in the sky.

See previous statement - stars had to come before any of this other stuff.

6. God creates the sun and the moon.

A couple of problems with this. First off, all data indicates the sun preceded the Earth. Second, all the lands and waters would have been frozen without the light of the sun to bring heat.

7. God creates the creatures of the sea.
8. God creates birds to populate the sky.
9. The next 'day', (I won't insist on the literal 24 hour day since you don't insist on it either) God creates the land animals.

The sea creatures coming first agrees with science in a way, but evolutionary theory indicates land animals coming before any flying ones.

10. God creates mankind.

Man is recent, so I suppose you could say this agrees with the correct order of events if you like.

Moving on to Genesis 2, the second story of creation.

1. The heavens and Earth are created. No plants or animals exist yet.
2. God creates the first man out of dirt.

Science indicates we evolved from prior species, so the notion we were made from dirt contradicts science.

3. God creates plants and the Garden of Eden.
4. God creates all the wild animals of ground and sky to try to make a companion for Adam.

Again, evolution. Prior species required for humans.

5. God creates the first woman out of Adam's rib.

If I have to explain to you why this contradicts evolutionary theory, I'm afraid you need to educate yourself on the subject.

So, not only do we have contradictions with science in both accounts, we have the two accounts not agreeing with one another on the order of events.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean that there is no geological evidence for a natural flood, but the bible doesn’t claim it was a natural flood, but rather a supernatural flood…[/quote]

Explaining away the absurdity of a claim with magic does not make the claim any less absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   assuming we would have found archeological for every event in the bible is simply being dishonest.  The question is whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

I never claimed that there had to be complete evidence for every event described. Rather, there are some things for which we would expect there to be at least some evidence should have been found by now - for instance, if Moses had really led two million freed slaves from Egypt and wondered around a desert for forty years that would definitely leave a footprint of some kind. Nomadic groups much smaller than that have left evidence, so why can't we find evidence of a wandering group two million strong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean, like others use google to attempt to prove homosexuality is acceptable within the bible?  Haven’t you learned by now that the internet is full of hacks?   If you’re going to use google to attempt to debate with someone who is knowledgeable of scripture, then you’re going to be bringing a knife to a gun fight.[/quote]

Ok, here. I expect you won't agree with all of them, but it's a decent list.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[John Dibble]

Clearly you don't quite understand the notion of order of events, which the Bible quite clearly lays out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So again, if the stars were only created on the fourth 'day', and yet science tells us stars have to come before we can get water (or the rocks that make up the Earth to boot), exactly where did the water in all the prior 'days' to this come from?

[John Dibble]

Point 1) So, God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, doesn’t have the power to make water without fusion from stars?  That’s illogical.

Point 2) And, on a wholly separate point which doesn’t rely upon Point 1…Gen 1:1 already has the heavens and the earth in existence, with an unspecified time WITHIN Gen 1:1 and BETWEEN Gen 1:1 and the 4th “day” when the objects that mark time (Sun, Moon, visible stars…” let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”) were put into place.

So, I could either argue God has the power to make water without stars AND/OR I could argue the water came from the unspecified processes of the universe during the unspecified timeframe of Gen 1:1.

1. I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

2. All available scientific evidence on the subject suggests that stars existed long before the Earth did. Gen 1 says they came after. (as clearly indicated by God making sky, sea, and land in previous 'days') The amount of time in between 'days' is completely irrelevant to that, it's still a contradiction between the two.

3. You can argue for some unspecified process if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. Until you can specify what the process is and then provide evidence for it, your claim would be utterly worthless - it wouldn't even be an argument, just a bald assertion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet when this unlimited being dictated this summary to Moses he somehow stated an order of events contradicted by what reality actually indicates happened, and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

[John Dibble]

1.   I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

The supernatural is NOT contrary to science, it is just outside the observable realm of science.

If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The context of the celestial objects created on the 4th day (Sun, Moon, stars), is in the context of those which give light on the earth and are used for keeping time:

Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Which celestial objects have been used to mark the seasons, days, and years?  Answer:  the Sun, Moon, and visible starts.  Do those represent the entire universe?  No.

So the only context of the 4th of Genesis is all the celestial objects used throughout the ages for keeping time…the context is NOT all the stars of the universe.[/quote]

Even if I accept your logic, science also says that the Sun came before the Earth.

Furthermore, some of the stars used to determine seasons came about AFTER the animals created on later days. For instance take the star Rigel, brightest star in the Orion constellation - scientific dating puts its age at about 8 million years, giver or take a million. That's well after the dinosaurs, some of the best known land animals, died off. The Bible doesn't mention God continuing to create stars afterward, rather the text indicates he's done doing that. Yes, I'm sure you'll object that it didn't explicitly state he didn't, but if the best you can do is state what the book that was supposedly dictated by the thing that actually performed it was sketchy on the details I don't find that particularly convincing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, it’s not an assertion.  I simply pointed to the lack of mention of whether there was or was not a process to counter the interpretation (by young earthers and some non-believers) that everything just instantly appears as soon as God commands it..  The bible doesn’t say if it immediately appeared, or if it appeared after a God ordained process.[/quote]

I didn't say anything about appearing immediately - you used the word 'process' so I actually thought you could mean something that took a while. I pointed out that if you don't have a process outside of stellar fusion for which you have evidence that making such an argument isn't worthwhile, regardless of how long your process might have taken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

as I have shown above, there is no contradiction with science, rather there is only a contradiction with your assumptions.[/quote]

No, you've made vague claims about the 'supernatural' and the possibility of some unmentioned process that you have no way of backing up. The contradictions are still there, like it or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no contradiction between ch 1 and ch 2, rather you’re only creating a contradiction because you take each as separate and exhaustive descriptions, when in fact ch 2 assumes the context of ch 1 and neither are exhaustive[/quote]

Ok, Gen 1 says animals, then man and woman. Gen 2 says man, then animals, and then woman. How exactly is that not a contradiction?

[John Dibble]

If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

You’re confusion the assumptive statements of scientists with science.  If you want to equate the two, then science has changed its story and contradicted itself millions of times in just the past 100 years.

But when I say science, I’m referring to the known physical processes, I’m not referring to the scientific theories regarding past events that were not observed by scientists.

1. The scientific theories regarding the past use the known physical processes to make their predictions, many of which are made before the discovery of the direct physical evidence. (the Cosmic Microwave Background, being an example) We use the same type of scientific reasoning for forensics to convict criminals, even if there are no witnesses to their crimes. I don't see you trying to make excuses like "Well the gunpowder residue could have been made to appear on the suspect's jacket by supernatural means!"
2. That science has changed its theories over time to accommodate new data that was not previously available is not a problem. The contradictions are resolved by favoring the explanation that uses the most reliable data. This is not assumption, it's evidence based reasoning. That's a difference even a child can understand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there's nothing in science to preclude that the universe was created five minutes ago with everything being in a state where things indicate it's much older, but that doesn't mean there's any good reason to believe that it's true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And stars are still being birthed by the natural processes put in place by God…so what’s your point?  Nothing in Genesis about the 4th day states that the starry sky has to remain constant.   In fact, since the account of the 4th day claims they will also serve as “signs”, the context is of a dynamic system, one stable enough to mark time, while also being dynamic enough to serve as signs.[/quote]

Hold on there cowboy - I noticed you skipped over the Sun being older than the Earth. That's the more blatant contradiction. Please address it if you want to continue the conversation. And no, calling science 'assumptive' doesn't count - you need to show why the science that lead to the conclusion the Sun is older than the Earth is flawed.

As to this, see how I predicted your objection? Also see where I said I don't find the argument convincing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, please learn to read, there is no “then” between Gen 2:18 and 19

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.[/quote]

Even if I accept this there's still problems with the narrative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this indicates that God didn't make plants until he made man, because there had to be rain first and man had to be there to work the ground... which makes no sense because most plant life grows without man having to till the ground. (and if you'd like to use the KJV translation and make it field plants and field herbs he hadn't made yet it still makes no sense to include the rain comment because the other plants would still require rain, and it also adds the oddity of having plants that require fields to be worked when man only had to toil to get food AFTER the fall [unless of course you believe that God knew ahead of time that the fall would happen, which just makes him a jerk who set it up to begin with])

[John Dibble]

Dibble, would you attempt to use science to disprove the resurrection of Christ, which the bible admits is impossible using natural processes?  Of course not, it would be a futile exercise without any hard evidence for or against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unreliable accounts by uncertain authors making fantastical claims for which they have no further evidence. Not convincing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.
2. Objections are not necessarily foolish even if what's being objected to is true. IF Joseph Smith or Mohammed actually did receive divine revelation, many of your objections are perfectly reasonable because they are based on the data available to you. If no evidence for the claims can be presented, it isn't foolish to not believe them and raise objections on those grounds.
3. Even if God had infinite avenues with which to create the universe, only one would have actually happened. The order of events proposed in Genesis are supposedly the order of events used. Regardless of the number of possible permutations with which God might have done his work in the order specified, if the evidence available suggest

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Character limits on this forum being what they are, I can't really do it justice. I also don't feel like writing a book and mailing you a copy. For now I'll just link you to Wikipedia and you can do further research from there if you are so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismic#Helioseismic_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The age of the Earth by the data is roughly 4.54 billion years, and for the Sun 4.57 billion years.

Also, if the leading hypothesis on the Moon's formation holds, this would indicate plants coming before the moon being highly unlikely - the impact would have utterly destroyed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, uh, yeah, I kind of mentioned both of those things:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yeah, apparently I do know how to read, but you only know how to read selectively.

Let me clarify - if God created plants before man as Gen 1 states, why does Gen 2 state "no plants because..." and then skip all the other steps and immediately in the next sentence move to the creation of man? This indicates that either Gen 2 is a different story (or alternate retelling) with a different order of events OR it means that whomever wrote Gen 2 doesn't know how to write in a cohesive, sensible manner. Was Moses just bad at taking dictation or something?

[John Dibble]

What part of the story are you doubting…Do you believe Jesus Christ really existed and really was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem?  Or are you questioning his entire existence?  Or, do you accept his existence yet question whether or not he was executed.

I find it likely that there was a person or possibly an amalgamation of persons (there where a number of 'messiahs' at the time) on which the stories are based. How much of the account is accurate is uncertain, and the various miracle claims are particularly questionable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).[/quote]

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’re serious not equating my objections to those religions (which are single witnesses contradicted by recorded human history) to your objection of Christianity, are you?[/quote]

It depends on the objection. I imagine you have some similar objections to me - I think we would both say to Joseph Smith's claims things like "Well why couldn't you show anyone else those golden plates before destroying them?" Even if he did have the golden plates, it would be perfectly natural to be suspicious of such a fantastical claim if not even one other person had seen them because you'd think that anyone who had such artifacts would be happy to show them off, especially if he's trying to get converts. Understand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, I had something else written up but it seems we'd just continue going in circles if I did, so I'll respond with one thing - you throw around the word assumption a lot. In fact, you throw it around in a way that makes pretty much everything an assumption, which makes the word rather worthless. Let me clarify by posing a couple of questions to you:

Do you think it's an assumption to believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? If not, why? If yes, do you think it a more reasonable assumption than someone saying that it will rise in the west instead? If yes, why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dibble, Jesus and the Apostles referenced BOTH Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2, multiple times, and they saw them as one and the same story.  If you don’t, then there is not a lot I can tell you.[/quote]

So is God a bad writer or was Moses bad at taking dictation? Again, it makes no sense in terms of story structure to mention the plants not being because of no rain when the the creation of plants was discussed beforehand, and then immediately move on to man being created in the next sentence.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.

By point is that by going by what the account actually says, you have no basis by which to attempt to measure it by assuming a continuous process, any more than a Young Earther has a basis to their argument by assuming no process whatsoever.

You’re attempting to the answer the following:

Does A=B?

Where:
A = continuous nature process (assumption of scientists)
B = mix of non-continuous nature and super natural process (claims of the bible)

The assumption that you can ask “Does A=B?” is faulting…because, obviously, by the completely different definitions of A & B, A is NOT going to equal B,

In other words: You’re comparing apples and oranges and stating that since an apple is not an orange, the apple must be false.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you're just being absurd. I didn't say they were equal, rather I said they contradicted. Obviously that makes them unequal because the contradiction implies at least one has to be wrong. I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing claims about reality and examining their merits to determine which if either is more likely to be true. Being claims about reality they fall into the exact same category.

Furthermore, you are stuck on this notion of continuity - it isn't necessarily relevant if a defined order of events is being proposed. ANY claim that says that the Earth and plants came before the Sun contradicts ANY claim that says that the Sun came before the Earth and plants, regardless of processes proposed to be involved. It doesn't matter whether one claim or the other uses continuous processes or not. It would be a simple matter of fact whether one order of events was correct, and both can't be right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because, based on my own experience and the total lack for contrary evidence and/or testimony, I have no reason to doubt otherwise,[/quote]

[grammar nazi]...a yes or no question is typically answered with a yes or a no, not "because".[/grammar nazi]

I'm going to think you mean to answer NO to the first question. If the standards of experience (in other words, observed evidence) and lack of contrary evidence are your standards for this, why do you object to the scientific conclusions which use the exact same standard? Why call them a mere assumption?