Tobin wrote: There you go again, comparing apples and oranges. You really like to mix up your fruits.
Keep dodging the issue all you want. It doesn't mean we won't call you on it. The issue here has always been about the catalyst theory and whether it is plausible. Some of your posts about it being silly unless you talk to God admit it is not.
Tobin wrote:Billions of people believe in God and prophets. Seems like it is plausible enough for a large portion of the human population of the planet.
themis wrote:Irrelevant to the issue here which is the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham. These billions of others have nothing to do with it other then a weak attempt to distract from the issue.
Tobin wrote:There you go again, comparing apples and oranges. You really like to mix up your fruits.
Tobin, you are the one who said the critical argument against the Book of Abraham has no value because it is advanced by folks who do not believe in God. Then when it is pointed out that billions of people who believe in God also do not believe in the Book of Abraham, you complain that it is apples and oranges. Your inconsistencies are as numerous as the sands of the sea and the stars in the sky, to borrow from our fictional friend Abraham.
I'm not interested in your reading disorder Equality.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote: There you go again, comparing apples and oranges. You really like to mix up your fruits.
Keep dodging the issue all you want. It doesn't mean we won't call you on it. The issue here has always been about the catalyst theory and whether it is plausible. Some of your posts about it being silly unless you talk to God admit it is not.
Again, lodging the same untrue complaint over and over doesn't make it true. I've clearly stated that it is plausible for people to believe in a God and prophets. And I've also clearly stated it is plausible for Mormons, that believe in a God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, to believe the Book of Abraham was inspired.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:Again, lodging the same untrue complaint over and over doesn't make it true. I've clearly stated that it is plausible for people to believe in a God and prophets. And I've also clearly stated it is plausible for Mormons, that believe in a God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, to believe the Book of Abraham was inspired.
I provided the definition for you, and clearly it is not, and you have admitted as much in many posts. Most people who believe in God and prophets do not believe in the Book of Abraham and would not consider your views plausible. Equality and other have been saying the same thing about your inconsistencies. Everyone sees it but you.
Tobin wrote:Again, lodging the same untrue complaint over and over doesn't make it true. I've clearly stated that it is plausible for people to believe in a God and prophets. And I've also clearly stated it is plausible for Mormons, that believe in a God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, to believe the Book of Abraham was inspired.
I provided the definition for you, and clearly it is not, and you have admitted as much in many posts. Most people who believe in God and prophets do not believe in the Book of Abraham and would not consider your views plausible. Equality and other have been saying the same thing about your inconsistencies. Everyone sees it but you.
That wasn't what I said. When you want to come back to what I stated, please let me know.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:That wasn't what I said. When you want to come back to what I stated, please let me know.
You have said on many occasions the evidence does not support Joseph, and people would be silly to believe his claims unless God talked to them. It's just one of your many inconsistencies, but now I see you have run from the real discussion here. I can understand it gets tiring defending the indefensible..
Tobin wrote:That wasn't what I said. When you want to come back to what I stated, please let me know.
You have said on many occasions the evidence does not support Joseph, and people would be silly to believe his claims unless God talked to them. It's just one of your many inconsistencies, but now I see you have run from the real discussion here. I can understand it gets tiring defending the indefensible..
I have said the evidence does not support the traditional apologetic arguments mounted in defense of the Book of Abraham. Evidence you are well aware of (as are others in this forum). The question I have posed to you is, what alternative can you offer? So far, all you've insisted on is the broken apologetic position as being the "most" reasonable even though the facts don't support it. How neatly disingenuous of you.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:I have said the evidence does not support the traditional apologetic arguments mounted in defense of the Book of Abraham. Evidence you are well aware of (as are others in this forum).
I have seen you say it even about Joseph's other claims in your bid to get people to ask God as though they never have. You would think that since all these good people believing and not have not seen God that maybe you really haven't as well.
The question I have posed to you is, what alternative can you offer?
None that are plausible(meaning probably, likely, reasonable, etc). You have to make Joseph and God into dumb and dumber. You go back and forth on the explanations to the facsimiles, and reject Joseph's others claims even though they claim God's revelation
So far, all you've insisted on is the broken apologetic position as being the "most" reasonable even though the facts don't support it. How neatly disingenuous of you.
I must conclude you are being disingenuous since I have never claimed the broken apologetic you reference as reasonable. It to does not fit the evidence. The only thing that does fit the evidence perfectly is Joseph making it up. It is the only plausible conclusion based on the physical evidence.
Tobin wrote:I have said the evidence does not support the traditional apologetic arguments mounted in defense of the Book of Abraham. Evidence you are well aware of (as are others in this forum).
I have seen you say it even about Joseph's other claims in your bid to get people to ask God as though they never have. You would think that since all these good people believing and not have not seen God that maybe you really haven't as well.
Fascinating. The scriptures don't agree with you. I wonder why that is?
Themis wrote:
Tobin wrote:The question I have posed to you is, what alternative can you offer?
None that are plausible(meaning probably, likely, reasonable, etc). You have to make Joseph and God into dumb and dumber. You go back and forth on the explanations to the facsimiles, and reject Joseph's others claims even though they claim God's revelation
Just as I thought. You wouldn't consider a plausible alternative because of your misconceptions. Again, that is no surprise coming from you.
Themis wrote:
Tobin wrote:So far, all you've insisted on is the broken apologetic position as being the "most" reasonable even though the facts don't support it. How neatly disingenuous of you.
I must conclude you are being disingenuous since I have never claimed the broken apologetic you reference as reasonable. It to does not fit the evidence. The only thing that does fit the evidence perfectly is Joseph making it up. It is the only plausible conclusion based on the physical evidence.
Again, your reading problems aren't my problem to solve. I was being flippant. Of course you don't accept the traditional apologetic position. Duh.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:Fascinating. The scriptures don't agree with you. I wonder why that is?
The scriptures don't agree with me that all these people haven't seen God, or are you saying the scripture say Tobin has seen God?
Just as I thought. You wouldn't consider a plausible alternative because of your misconceptions. Again, that is no surprise coming from hou.
Your extreme bias is showing again by stating things you don't know. You don't have a plausible alternative to see who would accept it, and you have the most plausible one that rejects it. With that and so many other issues it's not hard to see why so many change their beliefs about Mormonism.
Again, your reading problems aren't my problem. I was being flippant. Of course you don't accept the traditional apologetic position. Duh.
Yet you falsely accuse me of being disingenuous, but I suppose distracting from the issue is all that's left to you.