Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[doppelganger]

Do you think that religious faith should follow the same methodology?

No. Religious faith has no business dealing in any form of ontology (including science, history, or archeology) in the first place. :yes:

 

[Francine]

Point me to the original argument, and I'll be happy to give you a far better argument. This would, of course, be the third time I've asked you to point me to these arguments you keep referencing, so I can give you a proper answer. Given the circumstances, I'm starting to wonder if you even want a proper answer. Could it be that you prefer to argue with strawmen than to address the real issues?

Consider it a post-mortem rant. I came here wanting to address real issues, and some very unfortunate events intervened, with fault on both sides, and now it will never happen.

 

[Katzpur]

Like homosexuality, for example?

I'm not aware of any time that God has approved of sexual intimacy between partners of the same sex.

 

[DeepShadow]

Consider it a post-mortem rant. I came here wanting to address real issues, and some very unfortunate events intervened, with fault on both sides, and now it will never happen.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I can understand your frustration, but it's not fair to judge the rest of us by the actions of a few. Ask anyone in this forum why I earned my ambassador award; I'm known for tackling the hard questions that leave my fellow LDS seeing red. If you would PM me your questions, I'll be happy to answer them with honesty and candor.

 

[DeepShadow]

No. Religious faith has no business dealing in any form of ontology (including science, history, or archeology) in the first place. :yes:

Agreed. Of course, likewise, ontology has no place as a weapon against religious faith. We've been trying to say that for two centuries now, every time someone tries to use archaeology agains the Book of Mormon. It can't support or refute a testimony, so it has no place in religious discussion.

 

[doppelganger]

Agreed. Of course, likewise, ontology has no place as a weapon against religious faith.

Agreed. :rainbow1:

 

[doppelganger]

Though I would add that if a pillar of a particular religious faith is to accept as ontologically true some historical narrative or objectified dogma, then the lack of evidence for any such ontological proposition is a perfectly valid reason for not "believing."

 

[DeepShadow]

Though I would add that if a pillar of a particular religious faith is to accept as ontologically true some historical narrative or objectified dogma, then the lack of evidence for any such ontological proposition is a perfectly valid reason for not "believing."

I would agree again, with the emphasis above. For example, the Bible talks about iron chariots, which seems to be hyperbole or synecdoche. Moreover, I would't accept something as ontologically true before I had examined it ontologically. Which brings me back to the point that people who criticise the Book of Mormon on these grounds are being unfair, as they are not demanding that people see the actual garden tomb and verify the data themselves.

 

[doppelganger]

I would agree again, with the emphasis above. For example, the Bible talks about iron chariots, which seems to be hyperbole or synecdoche. Moreover, I would't accept something as ontologically true before I had examined it ontologically. Which brings me back to the point that people who criticise the Book of Mormon on these grounds are being unfair, as they are not demanding that people see the actual garden tomb and verify the data themselves.

We are on the same page.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I can understand your frustration, but it's not fair to judge the rest of us by the actions of a few. Ask anyone in this forum why I earned my ambassador award; I'm known for tackling the hard questions that leave my fellow LDS seeing red.

I've got one of those little medals, too, you know. Furthermore, while I have neither your patience nor your brilliant mind, I make it a point to give even the most confrontational posters the benefit of the doubt... at least initially. My patience is not without limit, though, and when someone states on two or three occasions that he is through talking to any and all members of the Church, but continues with the "post mortem rants," I figure enough is enough. It's not hard to distinguish between an honest difference of opinion and a sarcastic put-down. If you have the time and the inclination to deal with both, more power to you. I don't.

 

[nutshell]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I can understand your frustration, but it's not fair to judge the rest of us by the actions of a few. Ask anyone in this forum why I earned my ambassador award; I'm known for tackling the hard questions that leave my fellow LDS seeing red. If you would PM me your questions, I'll be happy to answer them with honesty and candor.

No doubt the humility award is not far behind.

 

[tomspug]

I think I've decided that the Aztecs descended from an ancient race called the Tomspugians. Unfortunately, the Tomspugians were killed off in an ancient struggle with the Francinians. Both races were actually descended from a Japanese warlord named Doppelganger.

The remains of ancient ruins everywhere? Not the Lamaans, or the Nephites! But descendants of the Tomspugians! Aw, if only they would have listened to Jesus...

I can use your exact same arguments to defend the existence of Tomspugians.

 

[Francine]

I think I've decided that the Aztecs descended from an ancient race called the Tomspugians. Unfortunately, the Tomspugians were killed off in an ancient struggle with the Francinians. Both races were actually descended from a Japanese warlord named Doppelganger.

The Francinians were a race of female warriors who fled into the Amazon River basin in what is now known as Brazil. Because they lived before artificial insemination and sperm banks became available, the only way the Francinians were able to carry on their legacy was to kill all the men in the neighboring villages and recruit all the women and girls to Francinianism.

 

[nutshell]

OK, lets see your sacred text...you know...the one that includes all the textual evidence as the Book of Mormon.

Your attempts are pathetic.

 

[Francine]

No doubt the humility award is not far behind.

No one will ever top the humility of Moses, who wrote in his fourth book of the Penteteuch: (Numbers 12:3) Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.

 

[tomspug]

Wait, where are the gold plates? That's right. They vanished along with the entire Nephite race. But good thing Joseph Smith was there.

That's why my existence is so important, so the legacy of the Tomspugians can LIVE ON!

 

[nutshell]

Toms, seriously, try to create something like the Book of Mormon. I dare you to try it.

 

[nutshell]

No one will ever top the humility of Moses, who wrote in his fourth book of the Penteteuch: (Numbers 12:3) Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.

True 'dat.

 

[Francine]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I can understand your frustration, but it's not fair to judge the rest of us by the actions of a few. Ask anyone in this forum why I earned my ambassador award; I'm known for tackling the hard questions that leave my fellow LDS seeing red. If you would PM me your questions, I'll be happy to answer them with honesty and candor.

Thanks Deep Shadow, you have given me reason to consider that not all LDS members on the forum should be put in the same lump.

 

[tomspug]

Toms, seriously, try to create something like the Book of Mormon. I dare you to try it.

How about Health and Science With Keys to the Scriptures? Or the Quran? Millions and millions of people have found inspiration from books like these. You reject these books as being divine, I'm sure, and yet they are full of inspiration and "truth". Tell me, what makes your book any different? Both the Quran and Health and Science believe in the Bible, but believe that the Bible is incomplete without the respective additions these books make.

Step One: Discover ancient Tomspugian text and become a divine prophet.
Step Two: Explain how Tomspugians came to America, validating said text.
Step Three: Explain how Tomspugians vanished without a trace.
Step Four: Connect this whole story with the Bible.

Step One: Mohammed claims to be a prophet of God.
Step Two: Mohammed explains how Ishmael's descendancy makes his an heir.
Step Three: Connect this story with Jesus, who was only a prophet.