UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-20-2010, 11:10 PM   #26
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
Derp
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 10:50 AM   #27
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
A friend tweeted this picture this morning. Yes, it's likely made by your typical 4chan /b/tard so try not to mind the coarse nature of the presentation. Still, I think the nine points it raises are nine amusing and valid ones.

God is an epic troll
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 08:54 PM   #28
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
A friend tweeted this picture this morning. Yes, it's likely made by your typical 4chan /b/tard so try not to mind the coarse nature of the presentation. Still, I think the nine points it raises are nine amusing and valid ones.

God is an epic troll
Well those are certainly easy to explain..

going from right to left:
1. Circumscision is the symbol of a covenant he made with the Hebrews, it's also hygenic in a time when hygiene did not exist. Christians are not commanded to be circumsized, but many choose to have it done anyway.
2. His love is not conditional. He loves us regardless of our choices, but does not protect us from the consequences of our choices.
3. Free will is nessesary for Humans to progress. Otherwise we'd be like animals, and the purpose of our existance (to learn to obey and become like him), would be foiled.
4. The world he created is not the exact same as the world we live in today. (Noah's Flood). Also, perhaps the ratio of water to land was for a purpose.
5. This is a pointless arguement. Goes along with Free Will. Being smart doesn't make someone believe or not believe in God. There has to be opposition for Humans to be choose, believe or not, otherwise we'd have no choices to make and our existance would be pointless.
6. Certain Christian sects take the position to prohibit abortion, not God. however, if he is against it, I believe the reason would be because, 1, it's being abused to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions, and 3, people are aborting much later in their pregnancy then they ought, to a point where the child is actually a living human being, and aborting at that stage, is murder.
7. I doubt God directly interferes with the planet's natural weather and geological cycles on a regular basis. The times that he would, is to stir up a remembrence of Him because many are sinning. Those who do die, are either wicked and ripe for destruction, or their allotted time on earth is up.
8. Hmm, Holocaust, eh? Apparently whoever made this hasn't read the Old Testament. It's stated very plainly that 1, it's not just the Jews that are his Chosen people, All Hebrews are, (this of course would include Hebrews by descent or Adoption). and 2, when the Hebrews have forgotten Him, and sinned, they will be scourged.
9. lol?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 07:40 PM   #29
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
>Book of Mormon discussion.

So yeah it turns out that the native people of Britain are descended from one of the lost tribes - this angel appeared to me last night and sent me to where I found some gold plates with the whole story written on them. Fascinating stuff - working on translating it now, from a language that no-one has ever heard of before or will ever see any evidence of - turns out that archaeological digs in the past have completely missed all evidence of a series of cultures the lost tribe bought with them, and the influence on our language and genes they would obviously have has vanished mysteriously in the intervening years. Also I can't show you the plates because the angel told me not to.

Oh, and the references to tigers and buffalo existing when there weren't any in Britain? Totally a typo lol, was meant to say dogs and cows. Easy mistake. The bits about clocks and other anachronistic technologies is a translation error too... yeah divinely inspired translations aren't all they're cracked up to be, use google translator any day.

Oh yeah did I mention I entirely made up another book a while back? Not this one though, this one's totally legit. Scouts honour.

Do you see why some people, even those with no issues accepting mainstream Christianity, might find the Book of Mormon a little hard to swallow, Unownmew?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 12:35 PM   #30
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
>Book of Mormon discussion.

So yeah it turns out that the native people of Britain are descended from one of the lost tribes - this angel appeared to me last night and sent me to where I found some gold plates with the whole story written on them. Fascinating stuff - working on translating it now, from a language that no-one has ever heard of before or will ever see any evidence of - turns out that archaeological digs in the past have completely missed all evidence of a series of cultures the lost tribe bought with them, and the influence on our language and genes they would obviously have has vanished mysteriously in the intervening years. Also I can't show you the plates because the angel told me not to.

Oh, and the references to tigers and buffalo existing when there weren't any in Britain? Totally a typo lol, was meant to say dogs and cows. Easy mistake. The bits about clocks and other anachronistic technologies is a translation error too... yeah divinely inspired translations aren't all they're cracked up to be, use google translator any day.

Oh yeah did I mention I entirely made up another book a while back? Not this one though, this one's totally legit. Scouts honour.

Do you see why some people, even those with no issues accepting mainstream Christianity, might find the Book of Mormon a little hard to swallow, Unownmew?
It's as hard to swallow as God speaking directly with Adam and Eve, taking the City of Enoch up from the Earth, speaking with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, parting the Red sea for Moses, and feeding the Iraelites for 40 years on Manna from Heaven. Oh, and Jesus rising up on the third day after Confirmably dieing. You'd have to be completely MAD to believe such an impossible Tall Tale right?

I can't see why professing Christians can believe Jesus did so many miracles and was ressurected after 3 days being dead, and yet claim that prophets, miracles, and revelation from God does not exist anymore. I mean God has always had prophets right? From Adam down to Noah, down to Abraham down to Jesus Himself. If God is God, and God is unchanging, that would mean he can still have phophets today, would it not?


Unless you completely disbelieve the Bible, I can't see why one would claim that there will never be another prophet on the earth again, except to further their own agenda of keeping people in ignorance..

Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is. Examples of such are all over the place in the Bible, and History in general.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 02:25 PM   #31
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
It's as hard to swallow as God speaking directly with Adam and Eve, taking the City of Enoch up from the Earth, speaking with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, parting the Red sea for Moses, and feeding the Iraelites for 40 years on Manna from Heaven. Oh, and Jesus rising up on the third day after Confirmably dieing. You'd have to be completely MAD to believe such an impossible Tall Tale right?
Completely different thing. My point is, with regards to the main bible canon, we have evidence of cities mentioned. Places. Ethnic groups. Language. My main arguments against the Book of Mormon;

1) Absolutely no archaeological evidence for any place mentioned.
2) Absolutely no genetic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.
3) Absolutely no evidence for many of the technologies (chariots etc), flora or fauna (horses) mentioned at that time in the Americas.
4) Absolutely no linguistic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.

To quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be". There is no evidence for the account given in the Book of Mormon outside of the Book or Mormon. Ditto, there is no evidence for Harry Potter outside of the books and the films. These three arguments cannot be levied nearly so much against Biblical Canon. You have to defend the Book of Mormon on its own terms, you can't defend the Bible and hold that as defence of the Book of Mormon anymore than you could defend Harry Potter and use it as a defence of the Book of Mormon.

I would also hold the references to the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon up as a specific example of evidence that those sections cannot have been written when it is claimed they were. They must have been written after the writing of the Book of Isaiah - a book written after the tribe supposedly migrated to America and lost contact - and thus after the events they describe. In fact, these cannot have been written until, at the earliest, the Book of Isaiah was introduced to the Americas - post-Columbian. This places the authorship of those passages at least hundreds and hundreds of years after they claim to have been written.

Quote:
I can't see why professing Christians can believe Jesus did so many miracles and was ressurected after 3 days being dead, and yet claim that prophets, miracles, and revelation from God does not exist anymore. I mean God has always had prophets right? From Adam down to Noah, down to Abraham down to Jesus Himself. If God is God, and God is unchanging, that would mean he can still have phophets today, would it not?
If God is unchanging, why did he change from the laws of Moses to modern Christian teachings? Assuming your earlier argument when Talon bought this up resurfaces (ie it was the difference in nature of later people from the Hebrews that allowed the change in the laws that was previously not possible) then the same argument can be applied to prophets.

Quote:
Unless you completely disbelieve the Bible, I can't see why one would claim that there will never be another prophet on the earth again, except to further their own agenda of keeping people in ignorance..
It's an interesting and well covered argument. Large portions of Christianity do not share your view, but there is by no means consensus either way amongst Christians.

Quote:
Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is. Examples of such are all over the place in the Bible, and History in general.
Nazi beliefs get pretty heavily persecuted these days. They must be true! GOGO holocaust, amirite?

In the same vein, Jews got pretty heavily persecuted back then. Clearly they must be right and Jesus isn't the Messiah, yes? You have to agree, it must be true, look at all the persecution they suffered!

EDIT the first: My point is this. If I came online tomorrow and claimed to have been converted to your viewpoint by an angel - if I claimed this angel had given me ancient engravings to translate - would you believe me? If I further claimed, later, that I'd translated these engravings, and that the story they told was completely contrary to all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence to date and then failed to find any other evidence of the story told in this book - would you believe me? If I further told you that I couldn't show you the only piece of evidence I claimed to have, the engravings, because the angel told me not to - would you believe me?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-25-2010 at 02:48 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 03:00 PM   #32
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Also on the subject of the Red Sea parting as Unownmew mentioned it - I found this really interesting.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 03:14 PM   #33
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Also on the subject of the Red Sea parting as Unownmew mentioned it - I found this really interesting.
Whoa. That means Moses might have had been a great climatologist rather than a magic man like Kongming.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 04:51 PM   #34
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Completely different thing. My point is, with regards to the main bible canon, we have evidence of cities mentioned. Places. Ethnic groups. Language. My main arguments against the Book of Mormon;

1) Absolutely no archaeological evidence for any place mentioned.
2) Absolutely no genetic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.
3) Absolutely no evidence for many of the technologies (chariots etc), flora or fauna (horses) mentioned at that time in the Americas.
4) Absolutely no linguistic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.
1. I have personally seen documented evidence of the places along the route described in First Niphi being where they are claimed to have been. As it was a Documentary Film I do not own or have immediate access to, I will try to find it later.
2. This I can not dispute at this time, due to lack of research on the topic.
3. There is no mention of Chariots anywhere in the Book of Mormon that I can remember. Lack of Flora and Fauna evidence could be due the cataclysm that occurs at Jesus's death, or have been referenced in the Book of Ether, which is an abridement of an account of a people who had come to America during the time of the Tower of Bable and the division of languages, and warred themselved to extinction before Nephi and his family had arrived.
4. There are various perspectives on where exactly Lehi's family landed in America. Some claim it was South America, others claim it was North. Either way, languages change greatly over time, especially when there is no official form of writing to reference back to, so it's natural that linguistic evidence would be hard to find in this case.




Quote:
I would also hold the references to the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon up as a specific example of evidence that those sections cannot have been written when it is claimed they were. They must have been written after the writing of the Book of Isaiah - a book written after the tribe supposedly migrated to America and lost contact - and thus after the events they describe. In fact, these cannot have been written until, at the earliest, the Book of Isaiah was introduced to the Americas - post-Columbian. This places the authorship of those passages at least hundreds and hundreds of years after they claim to have been written.
This is easily disputed.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Isaiah.html
Quote:
Date of Writing: The Book of Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C.
The Book of Mormon puts the Family of Lehi's journey out of Jerusalem at right about 600 BC. That's about a 81 year difference, at least, that I can see.

According to Wikipedia though, The Book of Isaiah, according to scholars (which may or may not be right, as it stands I haven't seen any substancial proof for or against their claims, so imo, it's all conjecture), the latter part of the book of Isaiah may have been written by different people. I'll find out where the passages quoted in the Book of Mormon fall in the Book of Isaiah and come back to this)

Quote:
If God is unchanging, why did he change from the laws of Moses to modern Christian teachings? Assuming your earlier argument when Talon bought this up resurfaces (ie it was the difference in nature of later people from the Hebrews that allowed the change in the laws that was previously not possible) then the same argument can be applied to prophets.
I've tried to explain this already.

Due to the sins of the Israelites, they required a harsh law to govern them. It was meant to be an Absolute Law for the Hebrews only.
From the beginning it was meant to give way to the Higher Law after Christ's Atonement for our sins. Those who follow Christ, follow the Christian Law. The Hebrews that do not, must obey the Law of Moses by default. (Which they do not, and as such is why they are currently being scourged so often)

The Hebrew law is also not the same as the law God gave to Adam and Eve (none of us know the specifics of that law except that it required sacrifices to symbolize Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins). Christianity is the full Law which God has not been able to bring forth until now. That doesn't mean it hasn't been his intention from the beginning. And as such, he has not changed by changing the "Law".


Quote:
It's an interesting and well covered argument. Large portions of Christianity do not share your view, but there is by no means consensus either way amongst Christians.
Of course. If there was complete consensus, we'd already have passed through Judgement Day and know the full truth ourselves.
There must needs be opposition in all things.

Quote:
Nazi beliefs get pretty heavily persecuted these days. They must be true! GOGO holocaust, amirite?
Really? How are they persecuted? Are they Tarred and Feathered? Are they threatened with death if they do not renounce their beliefs? Are they jailed on account of false charges? Denyed the rights granted them in their country of citizenship?


Afgan Terrorists are certainly not persecuted much these days. In fact, I recall a large promotion to give American Rights to Terrorist detainees, including giving a certain prominent one a Public Trial New York.

Quote:
In the same vein, Jews got pretty heavily persecuted back then. Clearly they must be right and Jesus isn't the Messiah, yes? You have to agree, it must be true, look at all the persecution they suffered!
They are certainly more right then the Nazis that persecuted them, being God's Chosen people after all. So, yes, they are "right", but that doesn't mean they are "completely right". You also Ignore God's Covenant with them: When they sin, he will abandon them to be at the mercy of the world.

Lucifer will always put up a huge fight against something he doesn't like: Jews, Christians, Mormons, Morals, Virtue, etc. But will always abandon those who follow him to reap the consequences of their actions as well.


Quote:
EDIT the first: My point is this. If I came online tomorrow and claimed to have been converted to your viewpoint by an angel - if I claimed this angel had given me ancient engravings to translate - would you believe me? If I further claimed, later, that I'd translated these engravings, and that the story they told was completely contrary to all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence to date and then failed to find any other evidence of the story told in this book - would you believe me? If I further told you that I couldn't show you the only piece of evidence I claimed to have, the engravings, because the angel told me not to - would you believe me?
I'd be skeptical, especially if you had no change of heart from what you are right now. But I certainly would not gather a group of people to raid your house looking for the engravings and persecute you every step of your life for such outlandish claims.

What I would do is this:
I'd ask to see them, or, if that was impossible, ask for 3 more witnesses to back your claim (the Book of Mormon has about 14 official witnesses who were shown the Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummin by an Angel, can you top that?), and then ask if you and your witnesses would stake your own lives on this claim. I'd also ask to read the translation, to see if you actually have anything produced from those engravings, and if they go contrary to what I already know is right or not. If they do not, then I'd pray and ask God if what the writings say is true or not, and see how you fair from there. If you're persecuted to death, and your followers continue to endure hardship after hardship without straying from the path your writings tell them to follow and your Church grows larger and larger over the years (to over 13 million members), and God tells me the words are true, then I'd certainly consider what you claimed to be truth.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-25-2010 at 05:32 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 06:03 PM   #35
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
I was going to address your post, then I saw this bit.

Quote:
Lucifer will always put up a huge fight against something he doesn't like: Jews, Christians, Mormons, Morals, Virtue, etc. But will always abandon those who follow him to reap the consequences of their actions as well.
So basically - if the people you agree with get shit, it's evidence that they're right, but if people you disagree with get shit, it's evidence they're wrong?

That's some shit logic right there. What it basically boils down to is "people get persecuted. The ones I agree with are getting persecuted because they are good and right. The ones I disagree with are getting persecuted because they're wrong and evil and deserve it". It's not logic at all.

I invoke your logic of "those I agree with are inherently right and are getting unfairly persecuted, those I disagree with are inherently wrong and deserve persecution." I am agnostic. Therefore you are wrong because I disagree with you. Therefore I'm going to persecute you, and by your own logic you deserve it. You see my point? If you genuinely think this is valid logic, you have a serious mental handicap and there's little point in continuing this discussion because you're demonstrably incapable of objective reasoning. If it was a joke I'll go back and address the rest of your post.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-25-2010 at 06:23 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 06:21 PM   #36
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
It surprises me that this argument isn't actually as full of morons as I was led to believe. I mean, Moron and Mormon is generally synonymous in that it's just so full of horseshit, but when you consider that many Mormons are fantastic people, and more to the point who generally don't go around burning pictures of Martin Luther King, that's really not so much of an issue.

The whole magic underpants thing is cool though. Maybe Jesus should have time travelled to the future and gotten some of those for the whole crucifixion thing.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 06:52 PM   #37
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
I was going to address your post, then I saw this bit.



So basically - if the people you agree with get shit, it's evidence that they're right, but if people you disagree with get shit, it's evidence they're wrong?

That's some shit logic right there. What it basically boils down to is "people get persecuted. The ones I agree with are getting persecuted because they are good and right. The ones I disagree with are getting persecuted because they're wrong and evil and deserve it". It's not logic at all.

I invoke your logic of "those I agree with are inherently right and are getting unfairly persecuted, those I disagree with are inherently wrong and deserve persecution." I am agnostic. Therefore you are wrong because I disagree with you. Therefore I'm going to persecute you, and by your own logic you deserve it. You see my point? If you genuinely think this is valid logic, you have a serious mental handicap and there's little point in continuing this discussion because you're demonstrably incapable of objective reasoning. If it was a joke I'll go back and address the rest of your post.
Ok, perhaps there's a miscommunication.

The people doing the persecution are always wrong, regardless of what the persecuted are.
Of course this would also mean that the persecuted will always be more "right" then the persecutor, but that doesn't mean they are completely "right".

BTW, what is your definition of "Persecuted"? This may be part of the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush View Post
It surprises me that this argument isn't actually as full of morons as I was led to believe. I mean, Moron and Mormon is generally synonymous in that it's just so full of horseshit, but when you consider that many Mormons are fantastic people, and more to the point who generally don't go around burning pictures of Martin Luther King, that's really not so much of an issue.

The whole magic underpants thing is cool though. Maybe Jesus should have time travelled to the future and gotten some of those for the whole crucifixion thing.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here..
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 09:03 PM   #38
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is.
This is wrong on many levels, some of which have already been addressed.

This also ought to have served as a pretty bright red flag to you, Concept. I'm disappointed that you're continuing to try to reach him in the manner which you are (argumentative reasoning) when clearly he will shut himself off to such approaches. As he's just told you, "the more you tell me I'm wrong, the more I know I'm right."

The best thing you can do at this stage is to ask unownmew, "What would it take for you to doubt a particular claim of the Church of Latter-Day Saints?" You raise a particular claim -- one at a time, one claim per train of posts -- and ask him to tell you what it would take for him to doubt that claim. If he tells you his faith is unshakable in regards to this particular point, either because he's trying to sound bigger than he is or else because he really is that unswayable, you drop it and move on to the next point. If on the other hand he tells you, "I would doubt it if ..." and he provides you with circumstances, you assess whether those circumstances are (a) within the realm of science to prove or disprove and (b) if disprovable, whether they have already been disproven or not. Only when the answer is (a) yes within the realm and (b) yes has been disproven do you then waste spend your time writing up a long post explaining why unownmew ought to consider re-evaluating his belief system.

Of course, this assumes -- and having read your posts I think it a fair assumption -- that your primary goal in this thread at present is to persuade unownmew that the Mormon position is far less defensible than that of other Christian sects. If instead your goal is to merely hold a debate, with unownmew defending the LDS and you going on the offensive, and if instead your primary goal in this thread is to persuade third parties that the Mormon belief system is a lot of crock and bull, then I think you need change little with your approach.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 09:14 PM   #39
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
So now the focus is trying to get me to let go of my personal beliefs instead of debating Christianity as a whole?

Sorry, but if all you care about is getting me to denounce my faith and join you as an Anti-Mormon, not gunna happen. I'm pretty sure I know more about my faith and it's history, having been raised as such, then you do. That's not to say we can't learn things from each other though.

So, if we could get back to the points being discussed at present, that'd be great.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 10:32 PM   #40
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
The point being discussed originally was why Christianity is or is not right.

The point being discussed at present is why Mormonism is or is not right.

Perhaps instead of saying, "the goal is to convert you," one should say that the goal is to reach one of these three points as properly yet swiftly as possible:
(1) get you to concede that Mormonism is wrong;
(2) get Concept to concede that Mormonism should be treated with no less respect than Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or
(3) get both of you to agree that the other party has exhausted all possibilities for civil debate.

As 3 is the least likely at present, that leaves us with 1 and 2.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 11:50 PM   #41
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.
That is the definition of persecution. So yeah, I have a feeling unownmew has a different one.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2010, 12:54 AM   #42
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
WE ARE PERSECUTING UNOWNMEW! HE IS IN THE RIGHT BY HIS LOGIC! HE WINS THE THREAD!
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2010, 10:04 AM   #43
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?

A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?

If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that. Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-26-2010 at 11:26 AM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 12:11 AM   #44
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Totally jumping into the middle of this conversation to say that there is some historical fact behind the Bible and I wouldn't totally dismiss it as historically inaccurate even if it consists mostly of the legend of the Judeo-Christian Faith.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 10:15 AM   #45
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
To the opposing parties: If you're going to argue against the Book of Mormon, may I request that you also read it, instead of simply reading about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.
That is the definition of persecution. So yeah, I have a feeling unownmew has a different one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dictionary.com
sys·tem·at·ic   /ˌsɪstəˈmćtɪk/ Show Spelled
[sis-tuh-mat-ik]
–adjective
1. having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan: a systematic course of reading; systematic efforts.
2. given to or using a system or method; methodical: a systematic person.
3. arranged in or comprising an ordered system: systematic theology.
This is the definition of Systematic.

Simply being laughed at, made fun of, injured, or warred against, is not persecution.
Persecution is when one person/group is singled out to recieve injustice or mistreatment.

Jews were persecuted, Christians were persecuted, African americans, scientists going against the Catholic Church in the middle ages, false witches, and Mormons have all been persecuted.
Nazis and similarly evil groups/people have never been "persecuted", they are the ones that always do the persecution. And they receive justice, either in this world or the next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?
Hmm... probably direct revelation saying that Christianity is false and then a personal feeling that what I was told is true, would be the only thing that would make me change my mind.

Quote:
A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?
IMO, for some, it's not that they think they're right, and we're wrong, they just don't want to change, regardless of how much "Proof" they are given. For others, they Feel that what they have is the "most right" of everything they currently know, but if they had more knowledge and understanding, they would definitely change. They just don't have the knowledge yet and/or are not seeking it.


Quote:
If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that. Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?
There are no double standards. You yourself, and everyone else in the world is entitled to just as much divine revelation as Joseph Smith, Thomas, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Saul/Paul, John the baptist, John the beloved, etc, etc.

You will be given all that you need to know. What does it say in the Bible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.
6. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew 7:7-8
7 Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
All you need to do is ask for proof, and you'll get it. The problem is, no one asks, they think it should be handed to them without any effort at all on their part.
Study it out in your mind, then ask if it is true, and you'll be answered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Totally jumping into the middle of this conversation to say that there is some historical fact behind the Bible and I wouldn't totally dismiss it as historically inaccurate even if it consists mostly of the legend of the Judeo-Christian Faith.
Thanks for the support.

I found these fewsites interesting. Of course they are partial to the Book of Mormon (just as the sites that say the Book of Mormon has no evidence are partial against the Book of Mormom), but it does refute much of your arguements regarding the lack of archeological proof for the Book of Mormon, and I trust the source material isn't phony (you're welcome to check it if you'd like).


Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Jews many times over, Knowledge does not convert, only faith. And even proving the Book of Mormon irrefutably true would not cause people to wholely believe it was found and translated by Divine Power, even if it is the only logical answer. In the end, knowing it's truth would only be a condemning factor for those who chose not to act on it.

If you're interested, I can continue, if not, It's best if I bow out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew 7:6
6 Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Not saying any of you are dogs or swine, only that if you're not ready to hear it, I can say no more.

Last edited by unownmew; 01-07-2011 at 10:44 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 06:04 PM   #46
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>All you need to do is ask for proof, and you'll get it. The problem is, no one asks, they think it should be handed to them without any effort at all on their part.

I think part of the problem with that is it's not quite that simple. How do you ask for proof? How do you know it's proof when it's presented to you and not just random happenstance?

Personally, I think it all derives from personal perspective and your own interpretation - your view of the world is your reality, and for someone to tell you something different is them imposing a non-reality (for lack of a better term) on you. If you believe something to be true or proof of something else, it is to you until you convince yourself otherwise.

That's why I don't really support or believe in organized religion - spirituality is a personal journey and experience and not something that can be dictated by man, church, book or even a divine being.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 09:58 AM   #47
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Not quite prepared to join back into this conversation, but I did want to link this here instead of in MiscDisc since it's relevant to the thread at hand and it may provide some great talking points for either side: scene from the film "God on Trial" in which one Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz explains his belief that, if there is a God, that he is not a good God.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 06:37 PM   #48
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?
If a great voice came down from the heavens and yelled, "There is no God," I would probably not be skeptical.

But more to the point, it would take proof. I would like to see someone explain exactly why God can't possibly exist. Free will is a common front, but I'm still waiting for somebody to actually give a satisfactory attack on it. Evolution is old hat.

Quote:
A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?
It is. Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity. Where they conflict with each other and not Christianity is a different (and far messier) matter that is best discreetly swept up under the carpet. Fortunately, such instances are rare enough that I haven't heard of any.
Quote:
Not everything in false religion is false, nor is everything in the true religion (or Christianity) supernatural.
A little piece of wisdom I like to use sometimes whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed by the state of the internets.
Quote:
If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that.
"The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Well, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Quote:
Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?
Ummm...no. That is overexaggeration, plain and simple. It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

tl;drDoubting Thomas is blind faith embodied. Jesus showed him the marks so that he could believe, and then tell everyone about it. In other words, he was told so that he could tell. Capisci?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 06:55 PM   #49
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Thanks for an 8 and a half month necromancy post.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 07:15 PM   #50
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I never pay attention to dates...sorry :3
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.