Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 12:00:46 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Poll
Question: What say you?
Religion   -30 (65.2%)
Cult   -16 (34.8%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 46

Author Topic: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult  (Read 3210 times)
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2012, 01:57:16 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
There’s contradictions with Genesis and the evidence and/or within Genesis itself?  How so?

The bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing – science is now in agreement.
The bible says the universe has not always existed – science is now in agreement (even though science used to believe differently)

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.

Quote
There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs.

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…

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

Quote
There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events.
   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.

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?


Quote
If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

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.

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
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: February 08, 2012, 12:10:46 pm »
Ignore


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?

Dang, dude, can’t you read?

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The context here is the THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.  And the text doesn’t imply the universe immediately coming into existence, nor does the text imply a process.  So we can’t say, from the text, if this was immediate or the results of a long sequence of events.

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was (or perhaps became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Here, the locational context of the darkness is the EARTH, not the entire universe.

Gen 1 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

There has been no change in context, so the context here is STILL the EARTH.

---

I didn’t read your reply for days because I knew it would be butt-stupid and therefore a total waste of time.  And, sadly, you proved me correct.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 12:25:32 pm by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: February 08, 2012, 01:37:35 pm »
Ignore

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

Quote
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

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?
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: February 08, 2012, 02:17:39 pm »
Ignore

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

Quote
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

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?

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.

---

Genesis is simply too much of a general summary (e.g. doesn’t define length of time intervals, doesn’t define process or lack of process), and God’s power too unlimited, to make cut and dry declarations.

Aside from being literal yet vague, Gen ch 1 is also allegorical:   “Let there be light” is allegorical for the Word of God…the Sun is Jesus, the Moon is the church which reflects the Sun’s light, the stars are the believers…the separation of light from darkness is the judgment...etc, etc.

Same thing with Adam/Eve.  They were literal, but what is written is an extremely brief summary of only a couple of chapters.  But the allegorical meaning could fill volumes:  Adam is Jesus who longed for a companion, but none of the created things of the earth were a match, so God took part of Jesus and created the Church out of the body of Jesus.  The bride of Adam was deceived, just as the Jesus’ bride, the church, was once deceived.  In order for Adam to be with his deceived bride, he had to die for her…just as Jesus died for his church.  In order for Adam to be with his bride and share her flawed humanity, he had to leave paradise…just as Christ had to leave heaven to share with his bride’s humanity.

But then the contrasts to Adam and Christ are even more striking:  Adam was the first man from earth, Christ is the first man from Heaven…Adam died because he sinned in order to be with his bride, Christ died because he was righteous in order to be with his bride. 

This is what I meant when I said the Apostles could not have created a story that so completely meshes with the scripture.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: February 08, 2012, 02:58:22 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
Genesis is simply too much of a general summary (e.g. doesn’t define length of time intervals, doesn’t define process or lack of process), and God’s power too unlimited, to make cut and dry declarations.

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.
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: February 08, 2012, 03:33:56 pm »
Ignore

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.

---

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.

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.

---


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.

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.

---

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…

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

---

and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

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

Your claim of contradiction is just like those who claim that one gospel has Jesus being visited in a manger by shepherds and the other has him being visited in a house by wise…and thus, “Ha! A contradiction!!!”.  When in fact, the timetable of the story allows for the house visit of the wise men to be up to two years after the birth of Jesus.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: February 08, 2012, 04:16:34 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
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.

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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

Quote
and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

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

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?
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2012, 04:51:40 pm »
Ignore

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.

There is nothing in science that precludes God making H2O without the help of fusion within stars.

---

…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.

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.

---

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 missed my point - I pointed out that the bible doesn’t exclude the possibility of process in order to show that the water could have come from fusion within stars:  

“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”

There is no mention of timeframe or process or lack thereof.  It doesn’t tell us if the Earth was created at the same instant as the universe, or whether the earth was produced later by a process that first started as a result of the creation of universe.

So, your statement that the bible has the earth’s water molecules being created without the help of stellar fusion is off base, for there is nothing in the account to preclude the water on the earth being formed by the undefined time period of Gen 1:1.

The only thing it excludes is that the earth’s water was NOT formed by the Sun Moon or visible stars…a fact that science is in complete agreement with.

 ---


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?

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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 04:59:07 pm by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: February 08, 2012, 05:42:59 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
There is nothing in science that precludes God making H2O without the help of fusion within stars.

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.

Quote
…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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

Quote
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

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])
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: February 08, 2012, 07:12:54 pm »
Ignore

[A very silly argument]

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.  

Nevertheless, we do have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event.

Now, if those eyewitnesses and the accounts are telling the truth… your whole argument against the Genesis account immediately become extremely foolish, for if God exists and if he did raise Jesus from the dead, there is no argument against Genesis, since no one was there to witness creation…and if God is the cause of the universe being in existence, there are infinite ways God could have gone about it.

The bible is not saying, “this is the exhaustive way God did it,.therefore, you can use your knowledge to back track into the past and arrive at a single solution”…else it would be claiming you could trace the mind of God.   But in fact, it claims that you CAN’T trace the mind of God.

So, if the bible is true, by definition, your limited knowledge of current cosmological theories will NEVER solve the equation, likewise the scientists themselves will never solve it…because 1) it didn’t begin with a natural process, and 2) God never stopped intervening in the natural process he himself started.

Summary:  The bible explicitly states God created the universe, along with the laws that govern it.  In addition, the bible explicitly states that after God initially created the universe, he intervened numerous times.  Therefore, there is not a continuous observable equation to follow to a single solution.  Which is why all scientific “solutions” are mere conjecture that run contrary to every single experiment ever conducted.

---


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.

Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

---


Quote
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

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

You seriously don’t know how to read.

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The reason given for no plants was that there was no rain, which is understandable even in Moses’ day…that fact that no man was there to work the ground is NOT stated as being part of the reason, you’re simply assuming it is part of the reason.

It is also obvious that plants grow without the presence of man being there to work the ground….showing that your interpretation is a hack job that not only assumes what is not being stated, but it also makes no sense even to the people of Moses’ time.  

« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 08:44:20 pm by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: February 08, 2012, 09:02:25 pm »
Ignore

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.



Quote
Nevertheless, we do have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event.

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

Quote
Now, if those eyewitnesses and the accounts are telling the truth… your whole argument against the Genesis account immediately become extremely foolish, for if God exists and if he did raise Jesus from the dead, there is no argument against Genesis, since no one was there to witness creation…and if God is the cause of the universe being in existence, there are infinite ways God could have gone about it.

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



Quote
Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

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

Quote
You seriously don’t know how to read.

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The reason given for no plants was that there was no rain, which is understandable even in Moses’ day…that fact that no man was there to work the ground is NOT stated as being part of the reason, you’re simply assuming it is part of the reason.

It is also obvious that plants grow without the presence of man being there to work the ground….showing that your interpretation is a hack job that not only assumes what is not being stated, but it also makes no sense even to the people of Moses’ time.

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

Quote
(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])

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?
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2012, 11:57:59 am »
Ignore

sorry, for my previous tone...I'll try to be more productive:

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

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.

---

1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

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).

But you are approaching it as if were a concrete continuous equation with a single solution…which is much the same mistake the Young Earthers make, they’re just making it  from a different angle - They make several assumptions about the Genesis account which are actually contrary to the account itself, then they attempt to apply it to the natural world.

---


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.

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?

---

2.   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

But it is explicitly not a continuous natural process.  Rather it states God stuck his hand into it numerous times, thus breaking the chain of a continuous natural process.  But you’re addressing it by assuming the world is the result of a continuous natural process, and then you attempt to compare that to an account that is not a continuous natural process.


By definition, the two sides of the equations are NEVER going to equate.  Yet you act as their inequality is proof that the bible is wrong, when it is nothing more than proof that the assumptions of both sides of the equation are totally different, and therefore their inequality is to be expected. 

Furthermore, if by chance they did equate, you would use it as evidence that  the universe didn’t require a God.  You would say, “See, God is not needed.  The biblical account is explainable by natural forces alone.”

---



Quote
Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

Character limits on this forum being what they are…

Dibble, the answer is very short:  Unlike the earth and the moon, there is no current way to directly measure the age of the Sun, for the Sun is way too hot for molecules to hold together. 

Any age given for the Sun will have to be either a) a broad guess based on observing other stars, or 2)  assumed by the dating of other objects within the solar system.

Even dating techniques of the earth and moon can only prove the age of the material which they were formed out of….but that doesn’t even prove when they were formed, for that they use the age of rocks…what is left is a age range (older than the oldest rocks, but younger than the age of the compounds).

So, there are direct methods for arriving at a narrow age range for the planets…but not for the Sun.  The age of the Sun is simply inferred based a model for stars and on the assumption that it had to form before the Earth and Moon.

But, this whole point is moot, since the bible doesn’t assume a natural process.

---


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?

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.

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2012, 03:20:58 pm »
Ignore

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.

Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

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.

Quote
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.

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?

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?

Quote
<the rest of your argument>

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?

Quote
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?

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.

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.
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2012, 05:25:47 pm »
Ignore

Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

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.

--- 

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?

My rejection of Mormonism has nothing to do with the golden plates, rather it has to do between:

a)   the contradictions within Joseph Smith’s own beliefs
b)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s teachings and the bible
c)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s claims and recorded human history

I allow Mormonism to stand or fall based on its own merit…I compare apples to apples…which is exactly the test I am trying to get you to apply to Christianity.

---


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?

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

But, in the case of Christianity, you are faced with:

1)   the testimony of witnesses, both modern and historical
2)   a historical account written by eyewitnesses that completely meshes with what is known from nonChristians historical records about the 1st Century world…proving that the NT account was written by those who lived in that geographical location within the timeframe that is claimed
3)    the complete lack of evidence, as well as plausibility, of a vast conspiracy between Jews/Christians/Rome – the existence of Jesus and the nature of his death is not made up.
4)   The short timeframe between Christ’s death and the widespread growth of Christianity across many nations and languages – thus preventing both enough time and control to concoct such a deep and profound story.
5)   Given such a brief window for conspiracy, the vast agreement between the NT and OT, the complexity, depth, and profoundness that the NT explains the OT.
6)   The inexhaustibility and profoundness of what the NT leaves unstated, so that  believers, completely unschooled in theology, who lives span across the vast centuries, have the ability to understand deep mysteries of the scripture that aren’t even mentioned in the NT…leaving no doubt that the NT was written to dovetail with these areas of the OT, even though the NT doesn’t itself point them out.
7)   The lack of external context needed for its interpretation, demonstrating it was designed for a global audience without regard to time nor place.
8 )   The generality, yet profoundness, of the concepts of the message, demonstration that is was designed to be message translatable to every language.
9)   The way the NT completely accepts people of all races, even those who killed Jesus…again demonstrating that is was intended for a global audience.
10)    Etc, etc, etc.


---

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.

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.

It makes complete sense:  the first account obviously was meant to offer a broad overview of creation, including the entire universe and the earth and man…the second account then backtracks and fills in addition detail in order to zone in on the need for Adam to have a mate, the relationship between Adam and Eve, and the universal covenant of marriage.

The reason it mentions the plants is simply to introduce the Garden and food, the same food given to man in Gen 1:29…and Gen 1:29 and the account of the Garden in Gen ch 2, pave the way for the fall of man in Gen ch 3.

Also, Gen ch 9:3 references the account of Gen 1:29…so Gen 1:29, Gen ch2, Gen ch3, and Gen 9:3 are all interdependent.

If you can’t see that then you’re simply being purposely dumb, once again.

 
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2012, 05:43:20 pm »
Ignore

Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

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.

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.

Quote
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?

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

[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?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 05:48:50 pm by IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble »Logged

False Leftist
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5480
United States


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: February 11, 2012, 03:37:49 pm »
Ignore

Vaguely suprised at the results.

But it's a cult. They force their followers to be Republicans, prevent Non-Mormons from their temples, and make them not watch R-Rated movies.
Logged

Thanks guys!

As I said once I'd moderate not per the Terms of Service but the the Word of Jesus Christ.  For there is neither troll nor quality poster, neither banned nor unbanned, nor is there red avatar or blue avatar for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
BYUmormon
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2012, 09:46:43 pm »
Ignore

Certainly a religion! It might not be quite the same as other christian religions, but I'm a Mormon and this is what Mormons do:They go to church for 3 hours on Sunday, pay 10% tithing to the church(which is used to help the needy, build temples, fund BYU, and is not to pay anyone), they are certainly not polygamists(although some people who say they are mormons are), they have far higher standards than most other people I've met, and they have big families. On top of that, they follow the Bible more closely than most religions. For example the Bible says not to do excessive work on Sundays, we don't go to sports, we don't work, and we don't do other things that would diminish it's value as a day of rest. We are not secretive, look st Mitt Romney, he is a Mormon. He does all of these things. Is he part of a Cult? Anyone who says we are a cult should actually find out the whole story. I encourage anyone reading this to go to Mormon.org and sincerely pray asking god if Mormonism is true. If you're an atheist who won't try, or hates religion, then just don't look at us any differently from other Christians. I'm not saying other religions are bad, if everyone was a Christian the world would be a far better place. 
Logged

Mormon, BYU fan, Republican, and Cowboy, watch out Democrats, when together these are your worst nightmares come true.
False Leftist
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5480
United States


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2012, 09:58:14 pm »
Ignore

Uhh.... watch out with that last sentance. Anyway, it's nice to see someone who isn't anti-mormon around here. By the way, FF means Freedom Fighter and HP means Horrible Person.
Logged

Thanks guys!

As I said once I'd moderate not per the Terms of Service but the the Word of Jesus Christ.  For there is neither troll nor quality poster, neither banned nor unbanned, nor is there red avatar or blue avatar for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2012, 11:05:39 pm »
Ignore

I encourage anyone reading this to go to Mormon.org and sincerely pray asking god if Mormonism is true.

there it is, the brainwashing, again...
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29577
United States


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2012, 11:15:53 pm »
Ignore

For example the Bible says not to do excessive work on Sundays, we don't go to sports, we don't work, and we don't do other things that would diminish it's value as a day of rest.

I work with several Mormons, including on Sundays.  They attend Temple in the morning.
Logged
BYUmormon
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: March 01, 2012, 01:52:08 pm »
Ignore

Well most don't work on Sundays unless its something serving others like hospital work. You must know some mormons if you work with them. Do they seem like members of a cult to you?
Logged

Mormon, BYU fan, Republican, and Cowboy, watch out Democrats, when together these are your worst nightmares come true.
BYUmormon
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: March 01, 2012, 01:53:33 pm »
Ignore

Uhh.... watch out with that last sentance.

 Well maybe not for Liberals.
Logged

Mormon, BYU fan, Republican, and Cowboy, watch out Democrats, when together these are your worst nightmares come true.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines