Before bashing infants head against the wall you should indeed ask yourself if a book written over a thousand years ago by powerhungry men is the correct moral guideline to follow.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Then he is going against what Matthew 16:18 says…[/quote]He’s going against quite a bit more than that Pat. How bout every single significant doctrine of either your church OR mine. The doctrines of creation, the godhead, the incarnation, the virgin birth (yeah right), the atonement and salvation, heaven, hell, the end times, the bible, pick anything. The Mormon view is not even in the same universe with Catholicism OR Protestantism. And I do mean universe. I’ve seen comic books that were closer. If you like I can dig up some of my old tapes where I throughly document from their own sources everything I’m telling you and you can judge for yourself my at least one time expertise in LDS “theology”.
[/quote]
I don’t know much about it, nor do I claim to. Further, I doubt I’ll ever have have any significant knowledge of it…Like I said I just don’t care. I believe many Mormons are good people who want to love and server God. I believe that love will transcend their religion as my love will transcend mine.
More than anything it’s a man’s love for God, rather than the branded dogmas of a particular flavor of faith that matter. Faith does matter, but love of God matters most.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Before bashing infants head against the wall you should indeed ask yourself if a book written over a thousand years ago by powerhungry men is the correct moral guideline to follow.[/quote]
“…book written over a thousand years…” ← kind of broad ain’t? LOL…
You should know what you are talking about before you talk about it. You know the whole book and cover thing?
I am still looking for the infant head bashing verse, BTW… I don’t remember that and I haven’t been able to find it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Before bashing infants head against the wall you should indeed ask yourself if a book written over a thousand years ago by powerhungry men is the correct moral guideline to follow.[/quote]
“…book written over a thousand years…” ← kind of broad ain’t? LOL…
You should know what you are talking about before you talk about it. You know the whole book and cover thing?
I am still looking for the infant head bashing verse, BTW… I don’t remember that and I haven’t been able to find it.[/quote]
Will it make any difference if I provide it? Or will you find a way to rationalize it?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Before bashing infants head against the wall you should indeed ask yourself if a book written over a thousand years ago by powerhungry men is the correct moral guideline to follow.[/quote]
“…book written over a thousand years…” ← kind of broad ain’t? LOL…
You should know what you are talking about before you talk about it. You know the whole book and cover thing?
I am still looking for the infant head bashing verse, BTW… I don’t remember that and I haven’t been able to find it.[/quote]
Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JESGPY wrote:
Man,
Most religions worship their “different GOD”.
What is different between them is the thing their religious leaders add.
For example the catholic bible was made in the Concile of Nicea. There they picked the books of
the bible that served their purposes, and discarted the ones that dont.
And many religions have different laws that were created acording to their time.
Some have very strick laws or belives.
About the mormon question.
What the hell does it matter if god appeared before Joseph Smith.
What the hell does it matter if jesus existed.
DOes is matter if the Virgin was in fact a virgin.
Does it matter if Jesus marries Mary Magdalene.
People divert from the true escense focusing and this facts.
They miss it.
And thats the point.
You get distracted and you have a hard time findind it.
So you can think for yourself.
You miss the Fact that god is one.
We are part of it. Thats why we are its “sons”
But we really are god its self, manifested as ourselves.
Its like when you, inside your imagination, imagine a story with characters.
They are inside your head, and by being there they are YOU.
[/quote]
It matters, because it proves that men have the capacity to sincerely believe things which are patently false.
And THAT matters, because it proves that your own claims may similarly be patently false.
You don’t know that there is a god any more than Mormons know that god appeared to Joseph Smith.[/quote]
It seems you have shifted questions at this point from originally arguing “how can you know which god is correct?” to arguing that “you can’t know that there is a god”. These are very different questions to ask.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine inspiration, and even logic, reason, and common sense, can be fickle proofs of the truth. It’s too easy for humans to cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually rationalize their beliefs, without even being aware they are doing so.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. If you set aside logic, reason, and common sense as “fickle” and therefore inadequate evidence for truth then you must by default admit that NOTHING can be knowable and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. That is self-defeating, incoherent, and patently ridiculous and you must know it.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine inspiration, and even logic, reason, and common sense, can be fickle proofs of the truth. It’s too easy for humans to cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually rationalize their beliefs, without even being aware they are doing so.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. If you set aside logic, reason, and common sense as “fickle” and therefore inadequate evidence for truth then you must by default admit that NOTHING can be knowable and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. That is self-defeating, incoherent, and patently ridiculous and you must know it.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge. Science and the statistics with which it draws conclusions are based on probabilities, not on absolute proof.
Which is why science is always open to refining its assertions. It’s only religion that leads people to close their minds to other possibilities, and to incorrectly assert that what they currently believe MUST be true.
What is so frightening about admitting your ignorance?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine inspiration, and even logic, reason, and common sense, can be fickle proofs of the truth. It’s too easy for humans to cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually rationalize their beliefs, without even being aware they are doing so.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. If you set aside logic, reason, and common sense as “fickle” and therefore inadequate evidence for truth then you must by default admit that NOTHING can be knowable and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. That is self-defeating, incoherent, and patently ridiculous and you must know it.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge. Science and the statistics with which it draws conclusions are based on probabilities, not on absolute proof.
Which is why science is always open to refining its assertions. It’s only religion that leads people to close their minds to other possibilities, and to incorrectly assert that what they currently believe MUST be true.
What is so frightening about admitting your ignorance?[/quote]
A) no such thing as “perfect knowledge” is not what your original post asserted as it was stated. As it was stated you called logic, reason, and common sense fickle (and by obvious implication inadequate) evidence for truth. This does exactly what I stated in my original response and essentially means that you believe that nothing can be knowable, and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. IE–no one can know anything. This is self-defeating, incoherent, and unavoidable. In order to avoid said result you need to either rephrase your position to change its corollary conclusions, or abandon it.
B) even if A) didn’t follow from your post’s position (and it does as you stated it), you have essentially called into question the very foundation of your beloved “science and statistics”, which, in order to be valid, rely on logic and reason. In fact that is the way they were created in the first place. It is the very basis of all science.
C) I am a scientist and I have no problem with imperfect knowledge and refining my assertions. My reply had nothing to do with Christianity or even religion in general, only your ridiculous statement.
D) Though not part of the post I quoted in responding, you asserted/asked early in this thread for “objective proof” (page 2) and “conclusive proof” (page 3) for God, which essentially is the same thing as asking for functionally absolute proof. Which you deny exists in the above post. Further both are impossible according to you, because according to your earlier post that I responded to there is no such thing as knowledge. Lack of knowledge essentially invalidates the concept of objective or conclusive proof of ANYTHING, EVER.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine inspiration, and even logic, reason, and common sense, can be fickle proofs of the truth. It’s too easy for humans to cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually rationalize their beliefs, without even being aware they are doing so.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. If you set aside logic, reason, and common sense as “fickle” and therefore inadequate evidence for truth then you must by default admit that NOTHING can be knowable and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. That is self-defeating, incoherent, and patently ridiculous and you must know it.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge. Science and the statistics with which it draws conclusions are based on probabilities, not on absolute proof.
Which is why science is always open to refining its assertions. It’s only religion that leads people to close their minds to other possibilities, and to incorrectly assert that what they currently believe MUST be true.
What is so frightening about admitting your ignorance?[/quote]
A) no such thing as “perfect knowledge” is not what your original post asserted as it was stated. As it was stated you called logic, reason, and common sense fickle (and by obvious implication inadequate) evidence for truth. This does exactly what I stated in my original response and essentially means that you believe that nothing can be knowable, and therefore that there is no such thing as knowledge. IE–no one can know anything. This is self-defeating, incoherent, and unavoidable. In order to avoid said result you need to either rephrase your position to change its corollary conclusions, or abandon it.
B) even if A) didn’t follow from your post’s position (and it does as you stated it), you have essentially called into question the very foundation of your beloved “science and statistics”, which, in order to be valid, rely on logic and reason. In fact that is the way they were created in the first place. It is the very basis of all science.
C) I am a scientist and I have no problem with imperfect knowledge and refining my assertions. My reply had nothing to do with Christianity or even religion in general, only your ridiculous statement.
D) Though not part of the post I quoted in responding, you asserted/asked early in this thread for “objective proof” (page 2) and “conclusive proof” (page 3) for God, which essentially is the same thing as asking for functionally absolute proof. Which you deny exists in the above post. Further both are impossible according to you, because according to your earlier post that I responded to there is no such thing as knowledge. Lack of knowledge essentially invalidates the concept of objective or conclusive proof of ANYTHING, EVER.
[/quote]
Apparently you’ve only skimmed the thread, because I’ve said numerous times that I don’t believe it’s possible for us to know ANYTHING with absolute certainty. I’ve acknowledged that science and statistics, and logic and reason, are based on underlying assumptions, which are ultimately unprovable.
Again, at best we can only make educated guesses about reality, and more importantly have the integrity not to assert something MUST be true when we have no actual proof that it is.
Are you disagreeing with me? If you’re a scientist, what do you assert it’s possible to KNOW with absolute certainty?
[quote]Elder forlife wrote to Aragorn:<<< you’re a scientist, what do you assert it’s possible to KNOW with absolute certainty?[/quote] =] =] =] This oughta be good. Dear Lord Jesus, what did I do to deserve a treat like this LOL!!! Oh yeah, all of grace. Bless your name.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I believe that love will transcend their religion as my love will transcend mine. >>>[/quote]I’m asking nicely Pat. Truly I am. Could you please point me to the source of this unitarian universalist belief of yours either in the scriptures OR even in Catholic teaching?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Then he is going against what Matthew 16:18 says…[/quote]He’s going against quite a bit more than that Pat. How bout every single significant doctrine of either your church OR mine. The doctrines of creation, the godhead, the incarnation, the virgin birth (yeah right), the atonement and salvation, heaven, hell, the end times, the bible, pick anything. The Mormon view is not even in the same universe with Catholicism OR Protestantism. And I do mean universe. I’ve seen comic books that were closer. If you like I can dig up some of my old tapes where I throughly document from their own sources everything I’m telling you and you can judge for yourself my at least one time expertise in LDS “theology”.
[/quote]
If the view of the Mormons is right and the view of Catholics is wrong, then wouldn’t that explain why they don’t match?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< If the view of the Mormons is right and the view of Catholics is wrong, then wouldn’t that explain why they don’t match?[/quote]I believe their both wrong, but they most definitely can’t both be right. Nothing could possibly be further from any expression of historic Christianity than Mormonism.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If Mormonism is wrong, how do you explain their faith being as strong, as sincere, and as life transforming as your own? Clearly, faith is a fickle guide to what is really true. Yet they’re as unjustifiably convinced as you are that they are right and you are wrong.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
They believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and atoned for the sins of all mankind. That’s pretty Christian don’t you think?
This is taken from an email sent to me from a close priest friend of mine.
"The psalmist is speaking about when Israel was attacked and their own children had been murdered. The psalmist who is upset with the death of the children is sharing with God their anger. The psalmist is not saying they will bash the enemiesâ?? children in with a rock but that they feel like they would like to do it.
It is a psalm where one expresses their pain and anger to God. The theological importance would not be in the words themselves but in what the words express about prayer. This psalm is not like the other ones and does not confine prayer to just ask God for something but is a prayer that simply expresses pain and anger. In expressing our pain and anger to God, then God can start to heal us. Many people today mistakenly think that prayer has to be confined to sharing happy feelings like thanksgiving or praise to God. They think to express anger or pain to God is an expression of doubt in God so they put on this false front before God. This is a psalm that shares oneâ??s deep anger with God. Sometimes the most authentic prayer is the one that expresses our anger. In expressing the dark anger of wanting to murder the enemiesâ?? children, the psalmist ends with trusting in God. The psalm is teaching us to be honest and authentic with our feelings before God and not to just pretend to be happy."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This is taken from an email sent to me from a close priest friend of mine.
"The psalmist is speaking about when Israel was attacked and their own children had been murdered. The psalmist who is upset with the death of the children is sharing with God their anger. The psalmist is not saying they will bash the enemiesâ?? children in with a rock but that they feel like they would like to do it.
It is a psalm where one expresses their pain and anger to God. The theological importance would not be in the words themselves but in what the words express about prayer. This psalm is not like the other ones and does not confine prayer to just ask God for something but is a prayer that simply expresses pain and anger. In expressing our pain and anger to God, then God can start to heal us. Many people today mistakenly think that prayer has to be confined to sharing happy feelings like thanksgiving or praise to God. They think to express anger or pain to God is an expression of doubt in God so they put on this false front before God. This is a psalm that shares oneâ??s deep anger with God. Sometimes the most authentic prayer is the one that expresses our anger. In expressing the dark anger of wanting to murder the enemiesâ?? children, the psalmist ends with trusting in God. The psalm is teaching us to be honest and authentic with our feelings before God and not to just pretend to be happy."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ah, so it’s just the psalmist wanting to murder children, not god.
I wonder what your priest friend has to say about 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where god clearly commands Israel to destroy the women and children of the Amalekites, or Hosea 13:16 where he commands them to destroy the little ones in Samaria, and rip open their pregnant women.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
They believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and atoned for the sins of all mankind. That’s pretty Christian don’t you think?[/quote]They belive that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are 3 gods. They belive that God the father begat the son by physical intercourse and that the father was once a man and now lives on the planet Kolob physically siring the preexistent souls that are now waitng for bodies here. That’s with all of his wives that he was married to in his mortal life in his temple before he became a god who was… and so on and so on. Think I’m kiddin? THAT’S JUST FOR BARE STARTERS. Whatever in the name of all that’s holy that is? It ain’t Christian.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
They believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and atoned for the sins of all mankind. That’s pretty Christian don’t you think?[/quote]They belive that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are 3 gods. They belive that God the father begat the son by physical intercourse and that the father was once a man and now lives on the planet Kolob physically siring the preexistent souls that are now waitng for bodies here. That’s with all of his wives that he was married to in his mortal life in his temple before he became a god who was… and so on and so on. Think I’m kiddin? THAT’S JUST FOR BARE STARTERS. Whatever in the name of all that’s holy that is? It ain’t Christian.[/quote]
I don’t know if you’ve seen this before. Take a look at the occult and pagan symbolism surrounding Mormonism: