This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Christianity - The Horse that Refuses to Die
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
You're illicitly stating at this point that you're mixing a belief of quantum physics and the altering of space-time with Mormonism, which doesn't make any sense at all and is even less able to be proven than a single God's perpetual existance.
What?
Post by
Gone
Honestly in my experience of the past few years, Atheists in general are a lot more preachy and shove their beleifs down your throat than your average Christian.
Post by
chaosultimamage
So, you're attacking me on a terminology point? I'm afraid you're still wrong, as I was talking with my seminary teacher about this today.
And this is why, on top of many other reasons, Christianity has about as many holes in it as a fishing net. The people teaching people the religion can't even agree.
So do you not see how comments like that are offensive? or are you just trying to enflame people?
No, because either
Some Christian, somewhere, in some past time, was rude to him.
Or it is the only way to get people to listen and come to the "truth."
These comments should not be taken offensively when the point is being proven with every single post Ryjacork and yourself make.
If you can find me a reference in Mormon (or any other Christian doctrine) that states that there is an infinite progression of multiple gods that create one another and other "worlds", then I will retract my statement.
Post by
abulurd
(Of course, you may not believe Jesus even existed, but then you'd be the one believing in completely fictional things, as most historians agree that Jesus actually did exist, even if he wasn't the Son of God).
I personally do not believe Jesus ever existed, what are the reputable unbiased sources claiming he did exist?
Look up Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samasota.
There is a lot of evidence that there was an actual person named Jesus. Whether or not he was who he claimed is up for debate.
If we accept from those sources that Jesus existed, and we accept that what he is thought to have taught he actually did ( no certainty, many of the parables of Jesus had their origins in the parables of Rabbi Hillel) then he was either a lier, a lunatic, or lord (please note, I am not accepting the legend argument at this time, as I believe the writings I mentioned earlier prove someone named Jesus existed).
Personally, I do believe in both the historical Jesus, and that he was who he said he was. That being said, I do not believe there will ever be the kind of hard proof that would undeniably prove that Christianity is right. After all, if we accept that faith please the Christian God (
proof
) then what kind of faith does it take to believe when there is hard evidence.
As someone who dislikes debate and doesn't pay much attention to Wowhead's forums, I probably won't remember to check up on this, to those who wish to actually discuss things like this, I'd advise talking to a Catholic priest, if you are actually interested in discussion, and not just mindlessly spouting dogma you've heard from others.
Post by
Monday
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
God the Father had a Father, who had to have a Father, who had to have a Father.
How many times is it now that I've told you to actually read my posts?
Post by
chaosultimamage
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
You're illicitly stating at this point that you're mixing a belief of quantum physics and the altering of space-time with Mormonism, which doesn't make any sense at all and is even less able to be proven than a single God's perpetual existance.
What?
http://mrm.org/god-of-mormonism
- After the quotation from Joseph Smith stating that their could have been God's before God, they immediately quote scripture to the contrary.
And don't make me repeat myself. You're the one that is apparently not reading. I've provided documented proof from sources I don't even care about to make my point and you're just like "...derp?". You explicitly stated that you believe that their is an infinite progression of gods and worlds that have been created by other gods and worlds. The closest thing I can relate this too is quantum physics and Stargate episodes.
Post by
ExDementia
God says in Isaiah 43:10, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." Psalm 90:2 says of him, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." This is the God Christians worship. Of him we can say, "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:34-36)
Post by
Monday
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
You're illicitly stating at this point that you're mixing a belief of quantum physics and the altering of space-time with Mormonism, which doesn't make any sense at all and is even less able to be proven than a single God's perpetual existance.
What?
http://mrm.org/god-of-mormonism
- After the quotation from Joseph Smith stating that their could have been God's before God, they immediately quote scripture to the contrary.
And don't make me repeat myself. You're the one that is apparently not reading. I've provided documented proof from sources I don't even care about to make my point and you're just like "...derp?". You explicitly stated that you believe that their is an infinite progression of gods and worlds that have been created by other gods and worlds. The closest thing I can relate this too is quantum physics and Stargate episodes.
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Post by
Pwntiff
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Yeah, that's a huge mistake. If you want clarity on a religion, ask the adherents, not the opponents.
Post by
ExDementia
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Post by
Monday
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Modern revelation > ancient scripture.
Post by
Gone
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Im not a morman, but I beleive that those quotes are refering to the worship, not the existantce of God
Post by
ExDementia
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Modern revelation > ancient scripture.
If you say so. I certainly argue what your people believe :)
Post by
chaosultimamage
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Modern revelation > ancient scripture.
Okay, so I'm done arguing with you now. Cited quotes from the LDS site and others, as well as direct quotes from The Bible - the book all Christianity is based on - and you refuse to accept any evidence as truth. This is why I have a problem with Christians. You don't even believe what you believe.
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Modern revelation > ancient scripture.
Okay, so I'm done arguing with you now. Cited quotes from the LDS site and others, as well as direct quotes from The Bible - the book all Christianity is based on - and you refuse to accept any evidence as truth. This is why I have a problem with Christians. You don't even believe what you believe.
Actually, you cited sources from an anti-Mormon site and a corrupt book.
Post by
Pwntiff
You're quoting an anti Mormon site and claiming it as evidence? *bzzt* Try again.
Look at what I quoted. Those are cited quotes from the bible itself.
Modern revelation > ancient scripture.
Okay, so I'm done arguing with you now. Cited quotes from the LDS site and others, as well as direct quotes from The Bible - the book all Christianity is based on - and you refuse to accept any evidence as truth. This is why I have a problem with Christians. You don't even believe what you believe.
Actually, you cited sources from an anti-Mormon site and a corrupt book.
Yeah, Mormon.org is the official website for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Post by
Monday
I know it is.
The only quote he linked from there was essentially what I was saying.
Post by
chaosultimamage
Ok, I don't have time to read much into the rest of this thread, but I just want to say one thing.
Chaos, your argument is garbage. Let me explain:
What do you mean that they're wrong? Do you mean that they're factually wrong? Morally wrong? That it's socially unacceptable (even if not morally wrong)? How is their being wrong an objective fact that warrants a 'Period' at the end of that statement?
Let me give you another example:
Note the similarities:
1) You believe that the murderer is wrong because of your personal
beliefs
.
2) You believe that the person who murders should be damned to prison / death penalty / etc.
3) You believe that the person who murders should be taught that murder is bad at every opportunity.
Is that wrong? The majority of the population would probably agree with those three points I just listed, but would then disagree with the conclusion, because it's not demonstrably wrong. Likewise, your statement about people being damned because of Christian beliefs is not demonstrably wrong.
I'm as agnostic as they come, and I'll happily argue the religious side against atheists, and the atheist side against religion (see debates with HSR). However, I will not sit by and watch other people (of any religious aspect) butcher logic with that sort of crap. If you're going to tell people that they're
wrong
(and that's a very strong term), you'd better be able to back it up, which you haven't in this instance.
Factually wrong. Based on logic or science or whatever other evidence can be provided.
What is the second half of your post? I have no clue at all what you're trying to say. If the 1-3 points are supposed to be my beliefs as you interpret them from my post, then you couldn't be more wrong and couldn't have misread my post any more that you did. If that's not what those points were, then I really don't know what you are getting at.
Regarding "people being damned to Hell", no it isn't something that is necessarily going to happen, but it is the punishment for not believing exactly as The Bible or whatever random guy decided should be the benchmark of the religion. This, based on the fact that Christians believe this as truth, is worth noting. There are hundreds or thousands of religions in the world and the major ones, which make up the ones most widely supported and believed, pretty much all state without variance that there is one God and that is the only God and you will be punished if you don't believe as they do.
Post by
Pwntiff
I know it is.
The only quote he linked from there was essentially what I was saying.
Right, I was agreeing.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.