RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Those idiots showed up in body armor with U.S. flags on them?! Unbelievable.
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
This grandstanding about BIll Reel is stupid. What assholes.
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Well played Bill. Took the high road in the face of a ridiculous taunt.
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Oh, good grief, Kwaku, you aren't running for office you twit.
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Oh, C'MON, turning on the water works for your Book of Mormon "testimony?!" Uggh. Here comes the Heartsell (tm).
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
RFM just said "demonstrably", I think Bill Reel actually is taking part in this debate, somehow.
Cardon is all over the shop.
I thought Brad and Kwaku gave a good account of themselves. Articulate and informative. But yes, Kwaku laid it on thick.
Cardon is all over the shop.
I thought Brad and Kwaku gave a good account of themselves. Articulate and informative. But yes, Kwaku laid it on thick.
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9072
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
Omg. Lol. What pussies.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
-
Canadiandude2
- CTR B
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:50 pm
Re: RFM v. Midnight Mormons—Debate
They really don’t understand that social constructions can have positive and negative effects without existing beyond human beliefs and conventions.
Furthermore, they need to justify the changes in what the church emphasizes as mattering.
It’s like they wish to ignore every falsifiable statement the brethren ever made.
Lastly, the church has never moderated its view as being true to those that receive spiritual confirmation of such.
Using anecdotal or subjective confirmation still requires the believer to justify why the process cannot produce reliable results, or how they can be sure as to what the experience actually means.
The believer would then also need to justify their subjective process and experience over others that are different or produce results that supposedly signify something else.
Furthermore, they need to justify the changes in what the church emphasizes as mattering.
It’s like they wish to ignore every falsifiable statement the brethren ever made.
Lastly, the church has never moderated its view as being true to those that receive spiritual confirmation of such.
Using anecdotal or subjective confirmation still requires the believer to justify why the process cannot produce reliable results, or how they can be sure as to what the experience actually means.
The believer would then also need to justify their subjective process and experience over others that are different or produce results that supposedly signify something else.