Darth J wrote:It doesn't matter what kind of God. Belief in any God at all makes a person not an atheist by definition. Mormonism is a lie, Ray. The LDS Church is a modern corporate reboot of Joseph Smith's frontier tall tales. I'm not s******g on Mormonism anymore than the U.S. Department of Justice s*** on Bernie Madoff.
This is what you do every single time you get caught making things up and proffering specious evidence. You try to change the subject. Mormonism is a fraud, Ray. The LDS Church is the largest perpetrator of that fraud.
We disagree.
What are your views on Jesus Christ? Was he the son of God?
Darth J wrote:It doesn't matter what kind of God. Belief in any God at all makes a person not an atheist by definition. Mormonism is a lie, Ray. The LDS Church is a modern corporate reboot of Joseph Smith's frontier tall tales. I'm not s******g on Mormonism anymore than the U.S. Department of Justice s*** on Bernie Madoff.
This is what you do every single time you get caught making things up and proffering specious evidence. You try to change the subject. Mormonism is a fraud, Ray. The LDS Church is the largest perpetrator of that fraud.
We disagree.
What are your views on Jesus Christ? Was he the son of God?
I realize that objective fact is to you what a cross is to Dracula, but the objective fact is that I have said repeatedly over a long period of time that I am not an atheist. You are shamelessly lying, and you're doing it to change the subject because you don't like what I'm saying about your beloved superstitions and you can't refute it.
Darth J wrote: I realize that objective fact is to you what a cross is to Dracula, but the objective fact is that I have said repeatedly over a long period of time that I am not an atheist. You are shamelessly lying, and you're doing it to change the subject because you don't like what I'm saying about your beloved superstitions and you can't refute it.
Darth J wrote: I realize that objective fact is to you what a cross is to Dracula, but the objective fact is that I have said repeatedly over a long period of time that I am not an atheist. You are shamelessly lying, and you're doing it to change the subject because you don't like what I'm saying about your beloved superstitions and you can't refute it.
Was Jesus Christ the son of the Living God?
I am not indulging your irrelevancies. This has nothing to do with Alma 30 contradicting itself, nor with your blatant and habitual lying.
Darth J wrote: I am not indulging your irrelevancies. This has nothing to do with Alma 30 contradicting itself, nor with your blatant and habitual lying.
I asked you a simple question - Do you believe that Jesus Christ was, and is, the son of the Living God.
It's not irrelevant to your motives.
Where do you stand in relation to Jesus? It's a very simple question.
Darth J wrote: I am not indulging your irrelevancies. This has nothing to do with Alma 30 contradicting itself, nor with your blatant and habitual lying.
I asked you a simple question - Do you believe that Jesus Christ was, and is, the son of the Living God.
It's not irrelevant to your motives.
Where do you stand in relation to Jesus? It's a very simple question.
Going off on a tangent about an interlocutor's supposed motives instead of addressing an issue is exactly what the ad hominem fallacy is.
You engage in it consistently, just as you lie consistently. You have no ability to engage in rational discussion like a thinking adult.
Darth J wrote:Going off on a tangent about an interlocutor's supposed motives instead of addressing an issue is exactly what the ad hominem fallacy is.
You engage in it consistently, just as you lie consistently. You have no ability to engage in rational discussion like a thinking adult.
Darth J wrote:Going off on a tangent about an interlocutor's supposed motives instead of addressing an issue is exactly what the ad hominem fallacy is.
You engage in it consistently, just as you lie consistently. You have no ability to engage in rational discussion like a thinking adult.
Hmmm. Poor me.
Do you have any thoughts about Jesus?
Was he a conman? A deceiver? A charlatan?
Do say.
Ray A wrote: I find most of Scott's reasoning bizzare, to say the least. It's like they live in this Gilligan's Island cocoon, sheltered from the rest of the real world in a sort of "Jack and the Beanstalk" fantasy. 1 million light years away from reality. If Darth is in fact active, then his "anti-Mormon" criticisms hold more credibility for me than a whole choir of apologists singing "Let us all press on."
Mormon apologist are just so stoopid, with an absolute minimal appeal to intelligence, that I rank them with a lower IQ than Mickey Mouse. (Okay, I may be exaggerating). viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&hilit=winner
Ray A wrote: I find most of Scott's reasoning bizzare, to say the least. It's like they live in this Gilligan's Island cocoon, sheltered from the rest of the real world in a sort of "Jack and the Beanstalk" fantasy. 1 million light years away from reality. If Darth is in fact active, then his "anti-Mormon" criticisms hold more credibility for me than a whole choir of apologists singing "Let us all press on."
Mormon apologist are just so stoopid, with an absolute minimal appeal to intelligence, that I rank them with a lower IQ than Mickey Mouse. (Okay, I may be exaggerating). viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&hilit=winner
Darth J wrote: (To viewers: I know that discussing Nephite law is about as meaningful as discussing Klingon law, but we're staying in-universe for the sake of discussion.)
I know that. You think it's all fantasy. No new insight into you in that regard.
Ray A wrote: We can observe history. And the Book of Mormon reads like anything but history. Once you realise that, then you have to look for other interpretations about the Book of Mormon...
I started questioning it as history in the mid-80s, John, and as I’ve said before, I felt I couldn’t in all honesty teach it to my children as “history”. I felt like I was brainwashing them. But it wasn’t until the mid-90s that I felt I could no longer sustain it as history (confirming my doubts), after studying the pros and cons in more detail. Of course, like you, I’ve had many subsequent debates about this, and have been “open” to other viewpoints, mainly on FAIR. To put it bluntly, you’ve got to kid yourself bigtime to believe the Book of Mormon is history. Roberts caught on to this in the 1920s, but all the apologists have done is try to make him look like a “true believer”, while ignoring his most critical statements, or watering them down. SPIN.
And that’s the Sham. If they did like the Community of Christ, and left it open, I could respect that. But Book of Mormon historicity became a litmus test of “orthodoxy” in the case of scholars like David Wright, who was excommunicated because they would never, for one moment, even consider that people like Wright might have actually nailed it down. Oh no, “faith” comes first.
This is not truth-seeking. This is ecclesiastical bullying. Authoritarianism. You agree with us, or we “burn you at the stake”. The more thnigs change, the more they stay the same. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7997