Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 'Christian'.

[McBell]

Now the reswte of the forum know what I know---yu would if you could, b ut you can't.

I claim no moral grounds at all.



You are your own deity. I bet at times you violate your own standard of conduct.



Not interested. I want to pursue you saying I have not answered Biblical contradictions, but it seems you have painted yourself into a corner and have to stay there until it drys Lies never dry completely.

*yawn*
Enough pigeon chess.
Either start a thread or not.
Any one can look and see there are already numerous threads showing theists dismissing and ignore the contradictions in their holy writings.

So, nice try, but it failed.

I am an atheist.
Now I understand that you have problems with comprehension, but know that your bold faced lie "you are your own deity" reveals more about you than it does about me.

You claim no interest yet then want to pursue it?
But you do not want to pursue it enough to start your own thread...
Nor are you interested enough to resurrect a thread your "arguments" have already been refuted in...

Seems to me you talk an awful lot of ****, but severely lack substance when it comes time to supporting it.

I have not backed myself into a corner.
That is nothing more than a bold empty claim you use to try and save face.

Prove me wrong, start the thread.
After I hand your *** to you a few times we will see who backed themselves into a corner.
Or is this yet another time you talk a bunch of bull **** yet cannot back it up?

 

[Muffled]

That's not a flaw in my reasoning; it's a flaw in the reasoning of people who describe God as omni-present. Take it up with them - omni-present means present everywhere i.e. in space-time.

I believe omni-presence means in the universe not of it.

God can still be omni-present if he's in the Universe but not made out of this Universe's matter. Again, take it up with those who describe him as such.

However I believe the universe is perceived as material, so He is not part of it. Of course if one is saying the universe means everything in it then it would include God.

Since you were foresighted enough to preface that with "I believe" rather than claiming it's objectively true I won't dispute it. All I'll say is a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth flies in the face of all observable evidence.

I believe there is no objective observable evidence when it comes to creation.

I have seen no viable evidence to the contrary.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you.
Now that you have revealed you are merely going to keep trying to be a martyr...

Poor poor Sonny.
The whole forum is out to get him...

I believe I managed to stay out of it but when it comes to written books, the question isn't whether they were written but whether they are accepted as doctrine. The book of Thomas was written but it is not accepted as Christian theology.

 

[omega2xx]

*yawn*
Enough pigeon chess.
Either start a thread or not.
Any one can look and see there are already numerous threads showing theists dismissing and ignore the contradictions in their holy writings.

You said I hadn't addressed them. That is a lie unless you can show where I didn't and you would if you could but you can't. I don't read every post in a thread. If you wan't to post some time, feel free.

So, nice try, but it failed. The failure is yours, when you saying that you can' back up.

I am an atheist.

So what

Now I understand that you have problems with comprehension, but know that your bold faced lie "you are your own deity" reveals more about you than it does about me.

Both of those statements area bold face lie.

You claim no interest yet then want to pursue it?

Another bold faced lie. I have not claimed no interest. I just invited you to post what you consider contradictions. You Are the one not wanting to pursue the subject. Time to put up or shut up. If you want to discuss this, discuss int. If you are here just to insult me, go back to the playground.

But you do not want to pursue it enough to start your own thread...
Nor are you interested enough to resurrect a thread your "arguments" have already been refuted in...

You are the one making all the false claims. Either accept my challenge or run away. Don't forget to cover your ears until you get back to the playground.

Seems to me you talk an awful lot of ****, but severely lack substance when it comes time to supporting it.

Another bold face lie. YOU, not me are the one who has made a statement you can't back up.

I have not backed myself into a corner.
That is nothing more than a bold empty claim you use to try and save face.

The show where I have not replied to contradictory statement sin the Bible sent to me. You can't so now you are just blowing smoke to try and save face. You are in the corner until you can do what i said. You can't and you know it.

Prove me wrong, start the thread.
After I hand your *** to you a few times we will see who backed themselves into a corner.
Or is this yet another time you talk a bunch of bull **** yet cannot back it up?

Accept my challenge or go back to the playground. Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street.

You would give your eye teeth to show me wrong and you would if you could but YOU CAN'T. Now everyone else knows it.

 

[McBell]

I believe I managed to stay out of it but when it comes to written books, the question isn't whether they were written but whether they are accepted as doctrine.

I agree.
The problem is that Sonny is in this thread making the false claims of this and that being Doctrine and then telling the Mormons they are wrong when they tell him they are not doctrine.

Sonny thinks that anything he wants to be Mormon Doctrine is Mormon Doctrine, truth and facts be damned.

 

[McBell]

You said I hadn't addressed them. That is a lie unless you can show where I didn't and you would if you could but you can't. I don't read every post in a thread. If you wan't to post some time, feel free.



Accept my challenge or go back to the playground. Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street.

You would give your eye teeth to show me wrong and you would if you could but YOU CAN'T. Now everyone else knows it.

And yet you STILL have not started a new thread...

All talk, no action.

 

[omega2xx]

And yet you STILL have not started a new thread...

All talk, no action.

 

[McBell]

Ah, so you made the new thread then, right?
PLease be so kind as to either put a link in this one or perhaps tag me in the new one.

Or are you perhaps telling this thread you just blowing smoke?

 

[omega2xx]

Ah, so you made the new thread then, right?
PLease be so kind as to either put a link in this one or perhaps tag me in the new one.

Or are you perhaps telling this thread you just blowing smoke?

I will start it when you show where I have not replied to any "Bible contradictions" sent to me. You made the first statement, so it is time for you to put up or shut up.

Its getting thicker and blacker, but still not thick enough for you to hide behind.

 

[Prestor John]

In my opinion, yes, they are Christian.

 

[McBell]

I will start it when you show where I have not replied to any "Bible contradictions" sent to me. You made the first statement, so it is time for you to put up or shut up.

Its getting thicker and blacker, but still not thick enough for you to hide behind.

:yawn:

 

[omega2xx]

:yawn:

 

[Prestor John]

I forgot that using pictures in an online debates means you win.

Congratulations!

 

[omega2xx]

I forgot that using pictures in an online debates means you win.

Congratulations!

I don't consider discussions a contest to win or lose. It is to exchange ideas in a civil manner.

 

[Prestor John]

I don't consider discussions a contest to win or lose. It is to exchange ideas in a civil manner.

If you weren't looking to win, why did you use pictures?

I already told you that using pictures means you win.

You think using pictures is you being civil?

 

[McBell]

I will start it when you show where I have not replied to any "Bible contradictions" sent to me. You made the first statement, so it is time for you to put up or shut up.

All this huffing and puffing is nothing more than you wanting me to support a claim I have not made?
Seriously?

 

[omega2xx]

If you weren't looking to win, why did you use pictures?

To emphasize a point I had made earlier.

already told you that using pictures means you win.

I don't accept your OPINION.

You think using pictures is you being civil?

What is uncivil about the pictures i used?

What qualifies you to be the final authority on what is civil?

 

[omega2xx]

All this huffing and puffing is nothing more than you wanting me to support a claim I have not made?
Seriously?

Seriously. You claimed I had not answered the Biblical contradictions sent to me. To date you have not shown any I did not answer.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This thread is hopelessly off track.
It need to be put to bed.

 

[Sonny]

In my experience with Katzpur (all positive and friendly BTW), whether you agree with her on theology or not, she obviously does her homework on the issue, and always has an honest and thoughtful opinion on it.

I'm pretty sure I proved that wrong (she has you fooled, huh) by posting the fact that Haun's Mill had militarized men in the group. Katzpur either intentionally left that extremely important point out by choice (intentional deception) or she does not know much of LDS history. You can bet, as I do and believe, that when a member of the LDS church speaks of LDS history, doctrines or general facts they are leaving out a lot intentionally or they are quoting others' opinions bc they haven't studied their own church's history/doctrines/facts.
I am truly sorry that you are so easily deceived, David. Could be bc you don't know much about the LDS. But that is ok- bc I don't know much about Rocket Science so I take 'their word' that what they say is true. But the RS could be lying to me and I would not know it tho I 'think' they are being "honest". See how that works? Personal research OR listening to those who have done the investigation and who have a history of verifiable integrity is the only way to go on issues like these two. noi