Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:52:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: What say you?
#1
Religion
 
#2
Cult
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult  (Read 10018 times)
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2012, 09:05:36 PM »


10 to 1 he's going to say Isaiah 52-53.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,716
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2012, 02:53:44 AM »

53 certainly fits very well.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2012, 11:48:51 AM »

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2012, 11:57:32 AM »

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

I'm only heading towards a Grand Inquisitor style anti-faith: my defenses are strong.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,716
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2012, 11:58:11 AM »

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2012, 01:45:35 PM »

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.”

Instead we are told just he opposite, “Don’t rely on a study guide when you read your bible.”

And I agree with that approach, because I didn’t start going to my church until 5 months AFTER I was saved, and in those 5 months (and for a over a year afterward), I was dealing with “Christians” who were taught to be terrified of attempting to read the bible without an official study guide from their church.  And they thought I was attempting to deceive them by asking them, “Put down your study guide, start at the beginning of a book of the bible, read a section, then tell me what you think it means…then read the next section, then tell me what you think it means…and keep going until you reach the end of that particular book.  I am simply going to sit here and listen and not say a word.”…and they, for the most part, had NO TROUBLE AT ALL understanding what they had just read. 

For example, when I had them read the book of Hebrews, they completely and without question understood the New Covenant was currently in effect.  When they finished reading and stating their interpretation:

I said, “I agree with your interpretation…So, just to be clear, from what you read from the book of Hebrews, you believe the New Covenant is currently in effect, right?”

…and they answered, “Well, of course it is, it just said so over and over again. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews I just read to you was all about the New Covenant being in effect and how it superseded the old!  Why do you ask?”

Then, I would spill the beans: “Because your church says that the New Covenant is NOT yet in effect.  But that it is a future covenant…..here, look what your church says in this article, and in this other article, and here, and here, and here…”

And they would be very upset, and then after I couple of days I would receive a phone call: “[jmfcst], I just called to let you know that I have prayed about it and now I see how the New Covenant  has not been put into effect yet.”

Me: “But what about what you read in book of Hebrews”

Them: “I don’t want to read the bible anymore without first checking with my church’s study guide.  I’m too afraid of being deceived.”

---

I am somewhat an expert on brainwashing techniques of cults, not because I have studied the subject, but because I have witnessed it firsthand for 18 straight months.  I myself went and attended a cultish church for 18 months with my friends (their church’s services were on Saturday, so after finding my church 5 months into it, for the remaining 13 months I attended their church on Saturday and mine on Sunday)

I lived and breathed their church’s doctrine for 18 months and became an expert on their doctrinal beliefs, so much so that I knew their doctrine better than 99% of their members.  I read everything they published, past and present – in order to learn their doctrinal roots and how their doctrine had changed over the years…I searched and acquired older books published by their church which their church had previously told their members to get rid of or burn (they would make changes to their doctrine - yet claim it really wasn’t a change since they were, after all, “the true church” and could make no doctrinal errors – so they would instruct their members to get rid of some of their previous books and magazines so that the members couldn’t trace the history of their doctrine and wouldn’t think they had fundamentally changed some beliefs).

Their services were NOT open to the public, and they took attendance at the door.  If you were a visitor, they took you aside and asked you a series of questions like, “Why are you here?  What is your motive? Was our staff expecting you?”.  In fact, in order for me to attend their services in Houston, I had to first write to the church’s headquarters in California (the address was provided on their weekly TV show).  They then replied by mail and sent be the phone number to one of their local pastors, which I had to call and discuss my interest BEFORE even being invited and given their address to where their weekly services were located.  Once inside, everyone who could write was expected to take notes, and all the men were dressed in suits and brought brief cases to keep their bible and notepad in, and all the women, if they couldn’t fit it in their purse, would do likewise (I kid you not!), so that they all appeared as clones of each other.  If your attendance wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If your tithing wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If you brought a quest, you were expected to check with your pastor BEFORE bringing them to church.  And the only unforgivable sin was for a baptize member of their church to leave the cult

---

This isn’t some game that is being played.  This is real varsity level brain washing and deception.  And it is demonic, even if it doesn’t involve pentangles and human sacrifice.  I didn’t buy into it because God had already opened my eyes before sending me to them.

This is why I warned Tweed not to attempt to pray to or petition the spirits seeking to gain insight into Mormon scripture, because he is simply opening himself up the spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon.  If one wants to pray a Christian prayer, then lift up Christ in prayer.  If one wants to seek what is proper Christian doctrine, then don’t consult the spirits, rather consult the bible.

This is not something to play around with.  If you want to check out Mormonism (or any other “Christian” church, no matter how benign it appears), than check it out by comparing it to the OT/NT, since every church claims to be in agreement with the OT/NT.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2012, 01:54:07 PM »

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)
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2012, 01:58:27 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 02:02:48 PM by consigliere jmfcst »


*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.

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”?

It’s a pretty simple test, as long as you are willing to be a neutral judge.  In fact, back in Oct ’92 when I was an unbeliever and decided to look into the claims of Herbert Armstrong, I didn’t foolishly ask, “Hey, just show me some proof!’  Rather I tested their claims against something (the bible) that they stated their claims were in agreement with.



---


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 …

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?

---

…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.

1) your plagiarism claim is pure speculation.

2) you can still get to two or three witness even if you throw out Matthew and Luke, and only use Mark and John.

2) And you are fully aware the complete doctrine of the Gospel can be taught by using only the OT (which is exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did), so what is your point?  The NT never claims to stand on its own, but rather claims to have the OT as it’s foundation.

---

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give the specific passages, please.


Well, I would have to quote hundreds upon hundreds of verses if I listed them all, so I’ll just pick a few:

Messiah would be a rejected by the Jews and accepted by the Gentiles:

Foreshadowing of Messiah being rejected by the Jews yet accepted by the Gentiles, within the story of Joseph:  Genesis chapters 37-50  

One of Moses last prophesies that because of Israel’s rejection of God, they would be envious and understand less that the Gentiles who know nothing:  Deut 32:21 “I will make Israel envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

Isaiah agrees with Moses’ Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God: Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.” (This is why Gentiles like me can take OT stories like the life of Joseph and explain them more perfectly than Jews who have been studying them for thousands of years.)

Prophesy that the Jews, who were supposed to be the masters of the word of God, would reject the Messiah, and those who do accept him will marvel at the plan of God.  Psalm 118:22 “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.”

And a similar prophecy is found in Isaiah – a prophesy that the Stone would bring salvation to anyone who trusts in him:  Isa 28:16 “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”

Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.”

Prophesy that God’s plan would have the Jews rejecting the Messiah: Isa 53:1-10  “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?...he was despised, and we esteemed him not…Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer..”

Isaiah also includes a prophecy concerning ignorant Gentiles achieving the knowledge of the Messiah: Isa 55:5 “Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor.””

Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles:

Prophecy given to Abraham that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 18:18; 22:18 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Isaac that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 26:4 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Jacob that nations would bow down to his seed, the Messiah: Genesis 27:29 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

God himself will be exalted among the Gentiles: Psa 46:10 “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”… Psa 98:2 “The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.”…Psa 102:15 “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.”…


Prophesy of David that the Messiah would be a blessing to the Gentiles:  entire 72nd Psalm


Prophesy that the Messiah will be a banner to all nations:  Isa 11:10 “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”… Isa 49:22 ““See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples.”


Prophesy that the Messiah will call the Gentiles to God: Isa 9:1-3 “In the future God will honor the Gentiles…2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.”

The Messiah will, in himself, be a covenant that gives light to the Gentiles: Isa 42:1 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.”…Isa 42:6 “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”…Isa 49:6 “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth…Isa 60:3 “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.”

Prophesy that anyone can call on the name of the Lord and be saved:  Joel 2:32 “And all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

etc, etc, etc…




Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2012, 02:13:44 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 02:23:32 PM by consigliere jmfcst »

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 never said it was a direct attack on me or my church…rather I was simply making the point that not all churches are ignorant of or practice brainwashing, and that the behavior I spoke of is in fact brain washing....so it seems I don't have the problem you speak of...not that I view your statement was a personal attack on me or anything Wink

There are some churches who don’t use brainwashing techniques because:

1)   they can recognize brain washing techniques when they see them
2)   they understand such techniques are contrary to the truth and find them sickening and misguided
3)   they have witnessed the damage that such brainwashing does
4)   they have something real that doesn’t require something fake
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM »

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

I'm only heading towards a Grand Inquisitor style anti-faith: my defenses are strong.
  then what was all this "the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit" stuff?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2012, 02:45:22 PM »

I don't see the contradiction.  it's clear the author felt a transcendental inspiration while penning it.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 03, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 03:07:46 PM by consigliere jmfcst »

I don't see the contradiction.  it's clear the author felt a transcendental inspiration while penning it.

I'm talking about you, not Joseph Smith...by YOU stating "the book is dripping in the Holy Spirit", you're saying that you believe you have discerned a spiritual force behind the book.

And since you are saying you've tapped into something spiritual, I'm advising you to be careful and test the spirits BEFORE you dabble in the spirits.  And I've given you a very simple method to conduct such a test, a test that was used throughout scripture.

Since the LDS claims the bible and the Book of Mormon are both from God, then simply COMPARE the two.  If they are in disagreement, then you’ll know the LDS has been proven false without subjecting yourself to unnecessary spiritual contact.

If you believe in the transcendental, do not deceive yourself into thinking you’re stronger than it.  Do not think you can dabble in it and not be overcome by it.  Do not think you can dabble in the supernatural and escape unscathed – both Eve and Samson thought the same, and they were wrong, dead wrong.

just like in the movie Marked for Death:

Max: Well?
John Hatcher: One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.
Max: So?
John Hatcher: They were both wrong.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 03, 2012, 03:08:43 PM »

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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 03, 2012, 04:28:27 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 04:32:23 PM by Redalgo »

Mormonism is a mainstream social institution organized around ceremonies and beliefs geared toward recognizing what is sacred, which is enough to convince me that it ought to be labeled as a religion. Its teachings deviate just enough from established societal norms that I can see how traditionalists would be tempted to think of it as a cult, but I know a number of Mormons and none of them have ever struck me as being deviant, or fundamentally different than other Christians.

The designation of "cult" is something I reserve for systems of spiritual belief and sects that prescribe teachings which differ so radically from those embraced by the vast majority of people in society as to lack a reputation of legitimacy (e.g. Scientology)... yet even then I tend not to use the word in practice since it might be construed as pejorative or make me sound like an ethnocentric bigot. It's not a big deal though either way - people define words like cult and religion differently.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 03, 2012, 04:54:15 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 05:00:15 PM by consigliere jmfcst »

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.

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?

---

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.

Well, considering the gospel was taught to dozens of nations in many languages during the life of the Apostles, and what has remained is thousands of documents across those many nations and languages that are 99.5% in agreement (MUCH more that any other set of ancient documents that had widespread dissemination), I’m not sure what you find lacking.  Guess maybe you’re expecting to discover some bronze plates that are supposedly the original copy. Tongue

----


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

You mean, outside of John 7:53-8:11? Then how about the parable of the weeds:

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
   27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
   28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
  “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
   29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


As I have told you many times, capital punishment of the immoral was a foreshadowing of the coming judgment and the executioners where symbolic of God pouring out his wrath…but now that the reality of God himself was come to us (in the body of Jesus Christ), the foreshadowing has ceased.

If you want another example outside of the 4 gospels, then 1Cor ch 5 instructs the church to expel (not kill) immoral members…then, in 2Cor ch 2 the same church is instructed to receive back into fellowship the same person they were previously instructed to expel.

If you want an example from the OT prior to the Law of Moses, then you can look at the fall of Adam or Eve for examples – they weren’t stoned due to their failures.  Or, even in the story of Cain, God allowed him live even after he sinned by killing his brother.

The foreshadowing of judgment by killing was simply temporary, but it was not like that from the beginning (Adam, Eve, Cain werent killed).

---

Quote
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…

But the bible claims that there is only one true author of the bible, Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing stopping God from giving multiple people the same exact message, if he chose to do so (though, even the books you mentioned aren’t carbon copies of each other).

---

 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation (just as I was).  

Such was the case of the Ethiopian eunuch: Phillip explained to him that the OT was all about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized on the spot, then Phillips vanished and the Ethiopian eunuch continued on his way to Ethiopia without any further connection with the Apostles and without a NT - all he had was his faith in Christ and an OT.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 03, 2012, 05:19:03 PM »

@Dibble


...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.

You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation.  

Such was the case of the Ethiopian eunuch: Phillips explained to him that the OT was all about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized on the stop, then Phillips vanished and the Ethiopian eunuch continued on his way to Ethiopian without any further connection with the Apostles and without a NT - all he had was his faith in Christ and an OT.

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 question for you, Dibble, is: If you had to compare both the Christian viewpoint verses the Judaism viewpoint, to the OT, which viewpoint better meshes with the WHOLE of the OT?
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 03, 2012, 06:28:01 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 03, 2012, 07:48:09 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2012, 07:50:57 PM by consigliere jmfcst »

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.

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.

In fact, if I were to claim that Houston Texas was the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, such an obvious contradiction with the bible (which I claim as my foundation) wouldn’t move me up or down a peg at all in your mind, would it?

---

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.

Well, if you want to get downright technical about it, 85% is IDENTICAL, the other 15% includes mostly misspellings or differences in word order that are easy to spot,,,after all these obvious copying errors are corrected, you’re down to <1%, and none of that <1% affects doctrine.

In fact, there are more differences between theEnglish translations (e.g. NIV vs. KJV) than there are between the early manuscripts.  But the differences between the English translations are not due to manuscript differences, but are almost entirely due to the approach the publisher was following:  literal vs annotated, etc, etc.

Which is why I have stated for years on this forum that if your doctrinal approach is correct, your doctrine won’t be depended upon a particular translation.

---

Quote
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.

I think most of the conversion examples in the NT involved people who were very intimately familiar with the OT.  Which is why the Apostles referenced the OT to prove their points.  Peter converted 3000 Jews who knew the OT with his very first sermon in Acts ch 2.  Throughout Acts, even many of the Gentile converts were familiar with the OT scriptures before their conversion.  Most scenes have the Apostles preaching in synagogues to both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (probably Gentile converts to Judaism).

In fact, you probably have to fast forward all the way to Acts ch 17 when Paul preached on Mars Hill in Athens before you could point to a possible example of converts without knowledge of the OT.

---


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.

Oh, really?   Was Joseph rejected by his blood Jews, by the plan of God, yet accepted among the Gentiles to the point where he even married a Gentile bride?  Yes or No?  Obviously, this is what Genesis says.

Now, you may say, “Well, the Jews will say that portion isn’t prophetic.”  But that only means Christianity has more parallels to the story of Joseph than even Judaism does.  What’s more, those added parallels between Christianity and the story of Joseph came to pass historically - the Jews did reject Jesus and the Gentiles did accept him.

Also, given that Judaism has had thousands of years to get its story straight, how do you explain that the historical story told in the four Gospels and the book of Acts can mesh so completely with the WHOLE of the OT, both the pre-Moses law portion and after Moses Law?  How did a group of uneducated men (the original Apostles prior to Paul) fabricate such a tale that meshes entirely with the whole of the OT, and did so to the point that it meshes with the OT in parts that the NT doesn’t even explicitly tie together (e.g. the parallels between Joseph and Jesus I’ve been discussing aren’t even mentioned in the NT)?  How exactly did they pull that rabbit out of that hat?

“A guy named Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?”

It’s simply beyond the realm of possibility.

Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2012, 10:53:28 PM »

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.

Quote
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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,716
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2012, 12:15:03 AM »

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.”

Instead we are told just he opposite, “Don’t rely on a study guide when you read your bible.”

As Dibble pointed out, I never said all do. And I agree that the study guide thing often is as used as such, because the "study guides" are often intended to railroad someone into one interpretation. I know this is a big indoctrination tactic used by Jehovah's Witnesses based on something I read awhile back about their recruitment practices.

But at far more liberal churches than your's or Mormons I have heard things such as praying for guidance and that you seek the truth in reading the Bible, etc.

And I agree with that approach, because I didn’t start going to my church until 5 months AFTER I was saved, and in those 5 months (and for a over a year afterward), I was dealing with “Christians” who were taught to be terrified of attempting to read the bible without an official study guide from their church.  And they thought I was attempting to deceive them by asking them, “Put down your study guide, start at the beginning of a book of the bible, read a section, then tell me what you think it means…then read the next section, then tell me what you think it means…and keep going until you reach the end of that particular book.  I am simply going to sit here and listen and not say a word.”…and they, for the most part, had NO TROUBLE AT ALL understanding what they had just read. 

For example, when I had them read the book of Hebrews, they completely and without question understood the New Covenant was currently in effect.  When they finished reading and stating their interpretation:

I said, “I agree with your interpretation…So, just to be clear, from what you read from the book of Hebrews, you believe the New Covenant is currently in effect, right?”

…and they answered, “Well, of course it is, it just said so over and over again. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews I just read to you was all about the New Covenant being in effect and how it superseded the old!  Why do you ask?”

Then, I would spill the beans: “Because your church says that the New Covenant is NOT yet in effect.  But that it is a future covenant…..here, look what your church says in this article, and in this other article, and here, and here, and here…”

And they would be very upset, and then after I couple of days I would receive a phone call: “[jmfcst], I just called to let you know that I have prayed about it and now I see how the New Covenant  has not been put into effect yet.”

Me: “But what about what you read in book of Hebrews”

Them: “I don’t want to read the bible anymore without first checking with my church’s study guide.  I’m too afraid of being deceived.”

---

I am somewhat an expert on brainwashing techniques of cults, not because I have studied the subject, but because I have witnessed it firsthand for 18 straight months.  I myself went and attended a cultish church for 18 months with my friends (their church’s services were on Saturday, so after finding my church 5 months into it, for the remaining 13 months I attended their church on Saturday and mine on Sunday)

I lived and breathed their church’s doctrine for 18 months and became an expert on their doctrinal beliefs, so much so that I knew their doctrine better than 99% of their members.  I read everything they published, past and present – in order to learn their doctrinal roots and how their doctrine had changed over the years…I searched and acquired older books published by their church which their church had previously told their members to get rid of or burn (they would make changes to their doctrine - yet claim it really wasn’t a change since they were, after all, “the true church” and could make no doctrinal errors – so they would instruct their members to get rid of some of their previous books and magazines so that the members couldn’t trace the history of their doctrine and wouldn’t think they had fundamentally changed some beliefs).

Their services were NOT open to the public, and they took attendance at the door.  If you were a visitor, they took you aside and asked you a series of questions like, “Why are you here?  What is your motive? Was our staff expecting you?”.  In fact, in order for me to attend their services in Houston, I had to first write to the church’s headquarters in California (the address was provided on their weekly TV show).  They then replied by mail and sent be the phone number to one of their local pastors, which I had to call and discuss my interest BEFORE even being invited and given their address to where their weekly services were located.  Once inside, everyone who could write was expected to take notes, and all the men were dressed in suits and brought brief cases to keep their bible and notepad in, and all the women, if they couldn’t fit it in their purse, would do likewise (I kid you not!), so that they all appeared as clones of each other.  If your attendance wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If your tithing wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If you brought a quest, you were expected to check with your pastor BEFORE bringing them to church.  And the only unforgivable sin was for a baptize member of their church to leave the cult

---

This isn’t some game that is being played.  This is real varsity level brain washing and deception.  And it is demonic, even if it doesn’t involve pentangles and human sacrifice.  I didn’t buy into it because God had already opened my eyes before sending me to them.

This is why I warned Tweed not to attempt to pray to or petition the spirits seeking to gain insight into Mormon scripture, because he is simply opening himself up the spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon.  If one wants to pray a Christian prayer, then lift up Christ in prayer.  If one wants to seek what is proper Christian doctrine, then don’t consult the spirits, rather consult the bible.

This is not something to play around with.  If you want to check out Mormonism (or any other “Christian” church, no matter how benign it appears), than check it out by comparing it to the OT/NT, since every church claims to be in agreement with the OT/NT.

Yes that church indeed sounds quite bizarre and cult-like. But the type of indoctrination tactics they use are quite different from what's described here. Mind you I'm familiar with a lot of the indoctrination tactics Mormons use and it's not much different from evangelical churches. I don't have a problem with that either really. The problem with Mormonism is the other aspects that are quite similar to the church you described.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 06, 2012, 11:45:27 AM »

But at far more liberal churches than your's or Mormons I have heard things such as praying for guidance and that you seek the truth in reading the Bible, etc.

praying for guidance when reading the bible is one thing...but asking some to read your supposed extra book and then pray in reference to said book is something entirely different. That's brainwashing, regardless if it comes from liberal or conservative churches… and that method simply unheard of in the NT - that is NOT how they won converts.

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,716
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 06, 2012, 12:27:00 PM »

Well of course not because it's in the New Testament. The Bible wasn't completed at that time.

Now yes what you describe here is different but I've seen conservative evangelical websites advise to do that all the time. I'd like to note that it would have no effect on anyone who isn't already a Christian of some type, although granted that's probably where the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses draw most of their converts from.

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

Ha, at the church that afleitch thinks is some evil right wing holy roller abomination (and thus just like you according to him) a few months ago in the sermon the guy actually spoke about listening to the voice of God (and gave some example about how he had a dream about a friend of his committing cheating on his wife so he talked to his friend saying "Hey I know this sounds crazy but..." and then his friend broke down and admitted that he was considering and planning adultery.) So are you saying you agree with afleitch?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 06, 2012, 12:33:51 PM »

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.

---


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 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)


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…The bible never claims the world was covered with mud from the flood.  In fact, the story suggests just the opposite:

Gen 8:11 “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.”

If the flood had covered the world in a thick layer of mud, then the events of Gen 8:11 would have been impossible.  What’s more, Noah and the animals would have died of starvation after disembarking from the ark if the world had been covered in mud.

You need to actually read the whole story before jumping to assumptions.

---

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.

e.g. Muslims claim Jerusalem was never the site of a Jewish temple – yet that is contrary to archeology and the recorded human history of the surrounding nations.

--

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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2012, 12:54:52 PM »

Well of course not because it's in the New Testament. The Bible wasn't completed at that time.

But even without a NT, the Apostle’s did NOT say to unbelievers, “Hey, here is our doctrine: [xyz].  Now go and pray to God about our doctrine.”

---

Now yes what you describe here is different but I've seen conservative evangelical websites advise to do that all the time.

I don’t care if it is conservative churches doing this or not – it is BRAIN-WASHING!  Even if the rest of doctrine is 100% correct, in this area they are still WRONG.  I’m not saying they are committing a deadly sin, rather I am just saying this particular practice is misguided.

---

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

Ha, at the church that afleitch thinks is some evil right wing holy roller abomination (and thus just like you according to him) a few months ago in the sermon the guy actually spoke about listening to the voice of God (and gave some example about how he had a dream about a friend of his committing cheating on his wife so he talked to his friend saying "Hey I know this sounds crazy but..." and then his friend broke down and admitted that he was considering and planning adultery.) So are you saying you agree with afleitch?

Obviously, the difference between Andrew and me is that my viewpoint actually meshed with scripture.  No matter how many hoops he attempted to jump through, his views were contradicted by the very passages he was attempting to corrupt.

So, I am not against connections with and messages from the spiritual realm, rather I am simply saying those messages have to be tested against scripture.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2012, 01:57:16 PM »

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
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?


Quote
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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 14 queries.