Mormon

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

How will we lose it?

Firstly you cant assert with any degree of proof what constitutes a god

Jakkass wrote: »

No, not really. We base our translations on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek. The translation of the New Testament is probably more accurate than any of the translations we have of the works of Aristotle or Plato given the amount of sources.

Aristotle or Plato are not what we mean when we say modern The god delusion , harry potter = modern

Nodin wrote: »

Aye, and he had them Golden Tablets to go on, which had to go back to heaven- a far more convincing tale than this 'inspired by God' lark.

Not really the inspired bit leaves a lot more wiggle room

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't completely different from Modern Hebrew. The languages share much in common in terms of verbs, sentence structure and vocabulary.

that is an epic fail , it is completely different from Modern Hebrew , thats why so few people can translate it

philologos

crotalus667 wrote: »

Firstly you cant assert with any degree of proof what constitutes a god

You can't assert with any degree of proof that God doesn't exist. The lack of absolute proof doesn't automatically go in the favour of non-existence. The absense of absolute proof just means that we have to go to the territory of what indicates to us that God exists. Many people argue in this respect rather well. I don't consider it a loss in any respect . Particularly not in monotheism vs polytheism which you were picking at.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Aristotle or Plato are not what we mean when we say modern The god delusion , harry potter = modern

I'm just showing that your reasoning is fallacious. Other ancient texts are held to be true which have fewer manuscripts and which were lost for centuries in Europe. The New Testament has a better case than any of the work of Plato or Aristotle in authenticity yet it is automatically dismissed

crotalus667 wrote: »

that is an epic fail , it is completely different from Modern Hebrew , thats why so few people can translate it

No it isn't. Plenty of scholars can translate Biblical Hebrew. Infact Israeli high schoolers learn Biblical literature and read it in Biblical Hebrew. In addition to this, of course Jewish youths learn how to read from the Torah in Biblical Hebrew all over the world. Many of the verbs and grammatical structures are similar, and the alphabet is practically the same except in Modern Hebrew vowel dottings underneath the consonants is rarely used. Seriously get a decent Biblical Hebrew book and it will explain this to you.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't assert with any degree of proof that God doesn't exist.

That would be proving a negative , Russell’s teapot springs to mind

Jakkass wrote: »

The lack of absolute proof doesn't automatically go in the favour of non-existence.

It is not a case of there being a lack of absolute proof it is a case of there being a lack any proof whatsoever

Jakkass wrote: »

The absense of absolute proof just means that we have to go to the territory of what indicates to us that God exists.

Like what making stuff up ???

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just showing that your reasoning is fallacious..

No your not , you used diferent era text to try and prove your point

Jakkass wrote: »

Other ancient texts are held to be true which have fewer manuscripts and which were lost for centuries in Europe. The New Testament has a better case than any of the work of Plato or Aristotle in authenticity yet it is automatically dismissed ..

Most scholars will tell you that a lot of what is attributed to Aristotle and Plato is not their work , so again you have made an epic fail

philologos

crotalus667 wrote: »

That would be proving a negative , Russell’s teapot springs to mind

Luckily I think that all are equally accountable in a debate, atheist, or Christian. No cop outs for anyone.

crotalus667 wrote: »

It is not a case of there being a lack of absolute proof it is a case of there being a lack any proof whatsoever

Proof is absolute, it cannot be relative.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Like what making stuff up ???

No, it isn't making stuff up. It is arguing a case why the Bible is most likely to be true, or that atheism is most likely to be true. Most likely doesn't depend on fact that your case is true, it just means that it is most probable. I could recommend Christian apologists to read, but it's clear that you aren't interested and you think you are right already (emphasis on "think").

crotalus667 wrote: »

No your not , you used diferent era text to try and prove your point

It comes into the general timespan of when the Bible was written, both Old and New Testaments. It also is in the same language as the New Testament therefore it is reasonable assessment.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Most scholars will tell you that a lot of what is attributed to Aristotle and Plato is not their work , so again you have made an epic fail

If you wouldn't mind citing that it would be appreciated.

I note that you have left out a response to what I have said regarding Biblical Hebrew.

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

Like what making stuff up ???

Careful. Non-Christians are welcome in this forum to discuss Christian issues. But that comment gets you very close to crossing the line into muppetry and trolling.

kelly1

Seems IwasFrozen is still frozen :pac:

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Aristotle and Plato are accepted to be authentic. Yet you hold a different standard for a book which has far far more sources than any of Plato or Aristotles works. One could assume that many people have double standards if they are to consider Plato or Aristotles work to be authentic and the New Testament not to be so.

Plato and Aristotle were philosophers/scientists, the great thinkers of their time, some of their observations still stand up today, some dont. They wrote about politics,mathematics and lots of other things.Neither Plato nor Aristotle required everyone on the planet to worship them or anything else, neither claimed to be the word of god. The bible is a book of stories that some people claim to be the word of god and in some cases a historical record. I think most people would say the bible is just as authentic as plato and aristotles work in that it was written a very long time ago but thats where it ends.....I dont think they're comparable

Black Swan

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian denomination.

"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is not a Christian denomination?

"As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New."

Source: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=735b862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=true

Webster’s Dictionary defines the word Christian to mean “adherent of Christianity”, or “relating to or professing a belief in Christianity or Jesus Christ.” Simply put, a Christian is defined as one who believes in Jesus Christ.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “…writers of Christian history normally begin phenomenologically when discussing Christian identity; that is, they do not bring norms or standards by which they have determined the truth of this or that branch of Christianity or even of the faith tradition as a whole but identify everyone as Christian who call themselves Christian.” According to Britannica, a recognized source in continuous publication since 1768, a Christian is plainly defined as someone who calls themselves a Christian.

Source: http://www.studychristianity.com/christian_defined.html

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

But that comment gets you very close to crossing the line into muppetry and trolling.

I do not Troll :mad:, it was a valid reply to some one that was suggesting that some how in the absence of absolute proof he could find proof elsewhere , as a side note I find you use of the term “puppetry” to be bordering on the line of personal abuse / name calling

Fanny Cradock

crotalus667 wrote: »

I do not Troll :mad:, it was a valid reply to some one that was suggesting that some how in the absence of absolute proof he could find proof elsewhere , as a side note I find you use of the term “puppetry” to be bordering on the line of personal abuse / name calling

Listen, like every other forum, you either tow the line - something most people seem to be able to do - or you don't bother posting. You have been warned about your comment, so it would be best to leave it there. OK?

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is now the year 2009.
2009-1400=609

At the risk of being banned for a week.

You're an idiot.

it was written over a period of 1400 years, not over 1400 year ago.

Seaneh

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't there's any evidence to suggest any of them were peer reviewed by anything close to what is regarded as peer review by today's standards.

Literacy rates, educational standards and intellectual development were pretty poor back then compared to today's standards.

Proven historical links between intelectual development, literacy and acedemia or edit your post.

Cunning Alias

I hear Mormons and all I can think of is this...South park "all about Mormons" Is that what they believe?

Not trying to be a troll. I have heard that Mormons are some of the nicest people you will ever meet and I can respect that whatever you believe. Actually having faith in something is quite special in my eyes.

Iv always has a very logical/scientific outlook on life so faith has never really fitted in for me.

Schumacher1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They are your own personal belifes, the Mormons believe that God delivered his message to Joeseph Smith on a set of Golden Plates.

Cannot be any different to Moses going off on his OWN, and coming back with 16 commandments.

Splendour wrote: »

Mormonism is a religion which is based on the Book of Mormon and the teachings of their current 'living prophet.' They view the bible as being uncomplete and flawed and not the authoritative word of God...

A logical stance.

Mickeroo

Cunning Alias wrote: »

I hear Mormons and all I can think of is this...South park "all about Mormons" Is that what they believe?

Not trying to be a troll. I have heard that Mormons are some of the nicest people you will ever meet and I can respect that whatever you believe. Actually having faith in something is quite special in my eyes.

Iv always has a very logical/scientific outlook on life so faith has never really fitted in for me.

I can't say for sure, but from what i've heard about mormonism the stuff in that episode is pretty much what they believe. It wouldn't be like the south park guys not to research their targets

Dum Dum! :P

DTrotter

Christopher Hitchens take on mormonism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

Fanny Cradock

Seaneh wrote: »

At the risk of being banned for a week.

You're an idiot.

it was written over a period of 1400 years, not over 1400 year ago.

That's not on, Seaneh. You have been here long enough to know otherwise.

Iwasfrozen

Sorry for the bump but I thought it better to put this here than start a new thread.
Go here to chat live with a mormon missionary and ask them any questions you have, not only will they give you answers but they will provide links to scripture to back up these answers.

BrianCalgary

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sorry for the bump but I thought it better to put this here than start a new thread.
Go here to chat live with a mormon missionary and ask them any questions you have, not only will they give you answers but they will provide links to scripture to back up these answers.

Unfortunately what they have to say is not true.

There has never been a civilisation in North America the like of which is spelled out in the Book of Mormon. Which makes the Book of Mormon a fabrication.

There is no foundation for it.

Dr. Baltar

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately what they have to say is not true.

There has never been a civilisation in North America the like of which is spelled out in the Book of Mormon. Which makes the Book of Mormon a fabrication.

There is no foundation for it.

As much as I agree with you I don't think you have any right to show such disrespect for a religion like that.
Scientology is a belief to me that is so ridiculous, that it is laughable but at the ssame time I respect those who believe it and would never pass their belief off as a "fabrication".

Iwasfrozen

BrianCalgary wrote:

Unfortunately what they have to say is not true.

There has never been a civilisation in North America the like of which is spelled out in the Book of Mormon. Which makes the Book of Mormon a fabrication.

There is no foundation for it.

I have to agree with Sir Baralot here, As much as I don't believe in the Mormon church or indeed any other church I realise that religion brings strength, hope, and happiness to people and that the world is much better off because of it.

philologos

Just because somebody can be happy with it doesn't mean that Brian doesn't have a right to his view that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. He's merely saying that the claim that there were Jews in North America is falsifiable. Biologically there isn't any evidence of Semitic tribes living in North America before they arrived to the United States, or at least I thought that much. I am willing to be proven wrong on that.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

Just because somebody can be happy with it doesn't mean that Brian doesn't have a right to his view that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. He's merely saying that the claim that there were Jews in North America is falsifiable. Biologically there isn't any evidence of Semitic tribes living in North America before they arrived to the United States, or at least I thought that much. I am willing to be proven wrong on that.

They don't claim that, talk to one of the missionaries via my link.
The claim that the Nephites are descended from israelites is false. In truth they say they do not know of the origin of these tribes.
Nephi himself was a jew that they claim built a boat under Gods instruction and sailed to America to spread the gospel.

Dr. Baltar

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because somebody can be happy with it doesn't mean that Brian doesn't have a right to his view that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. He's merely saying that the claim that there were Jews in North America is falsifiable. Biologically there isn't any evidence of Semitic tribes living in North America before they arrived to the United States, or at least I thought that much. I am willing to be proven wrong on that.

By that standard we should remove all of the forums in this section of the board because there is no proof of God's existance.

philologos

Interesting I thought in the book of Mormon Nephi was a Jewish prophet who fled Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion of Judea.

Nephi was the fourth of six sons of Lehi and his mother, Sariah. Nephi and his family lived in Jerusalem, circa 600 BC,[1] during the reign of King Zedekiah

If Nephi was a Jew (one descended from Judah is a Jew), and if Judah is the son of Jacob who was also called Israel, he would also be an Israelite.

Interesting that a Mormon missionary told you that Nephi wasn't Jewish.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

Interesting I thought in the book of Mormon Nephi was a Jewish prophet who fled Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion of Judea

.
When did I say he wasn't Jewish ?

iwasfrozen wrote:

Nephi himself was a jew that they claim built a boat under Gods instruction and sailed to America to spread the gospel.

philologos

You said that he wasn't an Israelite. However if you are a Jew, you are also an Israelite.

Israel or Jacob is the father of 13 sons in the Biblical book of Genesis, Judah is one of these sons. Judah is the ancestor of the Jews. Israelite is one generation further back from Jew if you understand me.

PDN

Sir Baralot wrote: »

By that standard we should remove all of the forums in this section of the board because there is no proof of God's existance.

This is the Christianity forum, if people start threads on non-Christian groups or cults then Christians are entitled to respond and give their opinion.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

However if you are a Jew, you are also an Israelite.

wow, you learn something new every day.
The nephites where not israeli, they where native americans who listened to and followed the teachings of Nephi.
Again, I point you here, If you want to learn more about the faith from an expert.

CiaranC

I hope the irony of Christians using science to prove Moronism is a "fabrication" is not lost on you all

Iwasfrozen

CiaranC wrote: »

I hope the irony of Christians using science to prove Moronism is a "fabrication" is not lost on you all

lmao.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

You said that he wasn't an Israelite. However if you are a Jew, you are also an Israelite.

Israel or Jacob is the father of 13 sons in the Biblical book of Genesis, Judah is one of these sons. Judah is the ancestor of the Jews. Israelite is one generation further back from Jew if you understand me.

I think its more to do with holding an Isrealie passport :pac:

philologos

Israeli refers to a citizen of the modern State of Israel (post 1948), Israelite refers to descent from Israel (Jacob was renamed Israel by God in the Biblical book of Genesis)

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

Israeli refers to a citizen of the modern State of Israel (post 1948), Israelite refers to descent from Israel (Jacob was renamed Israel by God in the Biblical book of Genesis)

okay, this isn't going through well.
Nephi was an Israeli/Israelite from Jerusalem who under Gods instruction built a boat capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean much in the same way he instructed Noah to build the Ark.
Once the ship was built Nephi and a group of followers spend the next couple of years travelling to the Americas. When they get there they begin preaching to the Native Americans, those that follow them are called Nephites.
The Nephites where not Israeli, and the Israeli genes of Nephi and his group would have been lost after his death.
Also I don't see what any of this has to do with your original argument that Mormons aren't Christian.

philologos

I was merely clarifying an error in your post. Although I am certain that the Nephites were a tribe of Israelites who fled from Jerusalem and settled in the Americas. That was the entire point of why Jesus Christ as described in Mormonism came to the Americas, to witness to the Jewish people that were there.

I've discussed with a Mormon about this before, and I am pretty certain the idea was that there was apparently a landbridge between North Africa and South America and they didn't use a boat.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

I was merely clarifying an error in your post. Although I am certain that the Nephites were a tribe of Israelites who fled from Jerusalem and settled in the Americas. That was the entire point of why Jesus Christ as described in Mormonism came to the Americas, to witness to the Jewish people that were there.

I've discussed with a Mormon about this before, and I am pretty certain the idea was that there was apparently a landbridge between North Africa and South America and they didn't use a boat.

Theres still a land bridge between the Americas and the Nephites where not Israeli.

philologos

I never said there wasn't a land bridge between North and South America, I was commenting on a land bridge between North Africa and South America. The validity of this only requires a check of whether or not there was such a land bridge in 600BC.

If the Nephites were Jewish from Jerusalem at the time of King Zedekiah like the Book of Mormon says they were Israelites.

Fanny Cradock

CiaranC wrote: »

I hope the irony of Christians using science to prove Moronism is a "fabrication" is not lost on you all

Care to expand on this?

robindch

Here's Christopher Hitchens on the development of the mormons' holy book:

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2165033 (search for "If the followers" to get to the relevant bit).

Have the mormons spent much effort rebutting this account (which seems quite reasonable to me)?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Here's Christopher Hitchens on the development of the mormons' holy book:

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2165033 (search for "If the followers" to get to the relevant bit).

Have the mormons spent much effort rebutting this account (which seems quite reasonable to me)?

Agh robindch, I'm in the middle of reading the book, don't ruin it for me

CiaranC

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because somebody can be happy with it doesn't mean that Brian doesn't have a right to his view that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. He's merely saying that the claim that there were Jews in North America is falsifiable. Biologically there isn't any evidence of Semitic tribes living in North America before they arrived to the United States, or at least I thought that much. I am willing to be proven wrong on that.

Since when does an absence of scientific proof of something mean its falsifiable on this forum? Surely its a matter of faith?

PDN

CiaranC wrote: »

Since when does an absence of scientific proof of something mean its falsifiable on this forum? Surely its a matter of faith?

No. I certainly don't accept anything purely on faith without evidence to back it up, nor do I know of any other posters here who do that.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I certainly don't accept anything purely on faith without evidence to back it up, nor do I know of any other posters here who do that.

I recall somewhere that you mentioned that the bible in its original text was inerrant and that errors only occurred due to copying and translation errors.

Is that not taking a position on an important item based upon faith alone?

CiaranC

PDN wrote: »

No. I certainly don't accept anything purely on faith without evidence to back it up, nor do I know of any other posters here who do that.

Really?

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? That he walked on water? That he created loaves and fishes where none existed? That he was the son of God? That there is a heaven? That God created the earth? That Jehovah exists?

I think Im missing something here.

PDN

CiaranC wrote: »

Really?

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? That he walked on water? That he created loaves and fishes where none existed? That he was the son of God? That there is a heaven? That God created the earth? That Jehovah exists?

I think Im missing something here.

I think you quite probably are.

However, if you want to start a new thread on the basis for Christian faith then do so. This thread is about Mormonism.

CiaranC

The point is entirely relevant to Mormonism. Its absurd to dismiss Mormonism as a Christian religion, its as valid as any other strand of Christianity.

PDN

CiaranC wrote: »

The point is entirely relevant to Mormonism. Its absurd to dismiss Mormonism as a Christian religion, its as valid as any other strand of Christianity.

And I, as a Moderator of this board, am telling you it is not relevant and, if you wish to discuss it further, you take it to a separate thread.

JimiTime

CiaranC wrote: »

The point is entirely relevant to Mormonism. Its absurd to dismiss Mormonism as a Christian religion, its as valid as any other strand of Christianity.

Its as valid if we merely say 'Christianity' is anyone who believes in Jesus in whatever shape or form. Like saying, 'I believe in Jesus, but I believe space monkeys from the planet Jahubu from the Metagargo system took him to their planet and gave him jam donuts containing mind controling larvae. He lives there still with his wife Beatrix and their kids, Tigerlilly, Bumfluff and Zarn.'

However, you'll find that when someone says 'Christian' these days, there are a few things that are taken as a given. That is why there is resistance to calling a Mormon a Christian. It doesn't actually matter. I don't meet the criteria for being a Christian in alot of peoples eyes, because I don't accept certain doctrines. At the end of the day, its better not to label ones self IMO. People feel safer when they can put you in a neat little box. If I say to someone, 'I'm a Christian', you can be guranteed it conjures up 101 preconceptions that do not relate to me. Following Christ, but not calling oneself a Christian has its benefits. It really is only a title of conveniance IMO. There are so many strands, it almost has no real meaning any more.

Black Swan

I find it ironic that some people who claim to be Christians, but not of the Mormon denomination, want to exclude them as being Christian.

The official name of the Mormon religion is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." This is proclaimed by their followers, and is displayed on all their temples, stakes, literature, and official website: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD

This website further states on page one: "FAITH IN CHRIST...
In 'The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,' modern-day prophets and apostles bear witness of the divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ."

Have any of you on this thread attended one of their Sunday church services? I have, just out of curiosity. I found many of the rituals borrowed from the Catholic Church, including several of the sacraments. For example, they have holy communion, and celebrate the body and blood of Jesus Christ in all their Sunday services. Many of their Sunday sermons come straight out of the Old or New Testament, and as far as I know, all Mormons claim that Jesus Christ is their Savior.

Not too long ago two lads dressed alike in white dress shirts, black ties, black slacks, and black shoes came to where we live professing their Mormon faith. They carried two free books they wanted us to have, one was the Bible and the other was the Book of Mormon.

Just because their version of Christianity is not Catholic or main stream Protestant (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc., etc.) is now to be grounds for exclusion? But come to think of it, the Catholic Church does not accept Protestants as being of the true faith, so to some degree are they to be excluded too?

mdebets

Blue_Lagoon you're mixing-up two things here: Christianity and religions based on Christianity.

Without going into too much theology, there is one big point, as to how to distinguish between a Christianity and a religion based on Christianity. When you look at all denominations that are called Christians today (e.g. Roman Catholic, Lutherans, Baptistis, Anglicans, etc.), you see that they have one thing in common, their most important book, on which their theology and all their other literature is based, is the Bible (ok, some have taken out or added the odd book, but the main parts are the same for all denominations).
When you now look at the LDS Church, you see that the Book of Mormon stands on the same level as the Bible. This makes it clear that Mormons added something to Christianity. Therefore they are no longer Christians.

It's similar to Christians and Jews. Both have the Tanakh (Old Testament in Christianity), but Christianity added the new Testament. Using your argument, you could call Christians Jews, as they both have the Old Testament as a holy book, but that is not possible, as Christians are clearly no Jews, as the New Testament is as important as the Old Testament to thyem, something that is not true for Jews.

So by the same token, Mormons are not Christians, because they see the Book of Mormon as equal to the Bible, something a christian would never do.