Christianity vs Mormonism

[_the road to hana]

I'd like to hear the reasons why Christianity is true, literally, but not Mormonism. I disbelieve Mormonism because I don't believe in a God at all. I think Christianity is just as ridiculous - and false - as Mormonism, but I'm willing to consider some good evidence and argument...


Best,

Good K

Which version of Christianity?

It doesn't matter how moderate, Christianity in any form.

I'd like to hear the reasons why Christianity is true, literally, but not Mormonism. I disbelieve Mormonism because I don't believe in a God at all. I think Christianity is just as ridiculous - and false - as Mormonism, but I'm willing to consider some good evidence and argument...


Best,

Good K

Why do you think Christianity is just as ridiculous -and false-as Mormonism?

I think it presupposes things that are manifestly false, as does Mormonism.

Will you list examples of that?

Sure, I'd love to. I assume you mean examples for Christianity, so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps.
These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.

I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones, and there are other things that I find morally wrong in the Bible, I can list those as well if you'd like.

GoodK, I think your problem comes in using the word "literally" in your original question on this thread.

It's not clear whether you are asking whether they are "literally" true or whether they "literally" believe in the Bible.

If you're asking the second, which seems to be the case from the examples you listed above, as far as I know there are plenty of Christian groups that don't believe in a global flood, a literal Adam and Eve, a six-day creation, and so on.

Does it necessarily make them more credible that they don't believe those things? Is it possible for them to be "literally true" if they don't "literally believe" every story in the Bible as written, other than as allegory?

So really, I'm not sure what you're asking. Anyone familiar with contemporary Christianity, whether they're a believer or not, should know that those who believe literally in all the things you listed above are only a subset of a larger group.

[_GoodK]

Positive. Unless the Bible mentions sperm bank...

Genesis 38: 9

I always seem to forget why people think the Bible is of divine origin, and then I read passages like Genesis 38:9 and am humbled...


GoodK

[_GoodK]

Positive. Unless the Bible mentions sperm bank...

Genesis 38: 9

I always seem to forget why people think the Bible is of divine origin, and then I read passages like Genesis 38:9 and am humbled...


GoodK

[_Doctor Steuss]

I always seem to forget why people think the Bible is of divine origin, and then I read passages like Genesis 38:9 and am humbled...


GoodK

Just let me know if you ever need to be humbled again.

[_GoodK]

I always seem to forget why people think the Bible is of divine origin, and then I read passages like Genesis 38:9 and am humbled...


GoodK

Just let me know if you ever need to be humbled again.

Stu, I always am in need of being humbled - atheists are a rather arrogant bunch - so please, keep it coming ;)

GoodK

[_Doctor Steuss]

Stu, I always am in need of being humbled - atheists are a rather arrogant bunch - so please, keep it coming ;)

GoodK

I know... What with your science, and facts. Pffftttt, you make me sick.

Job 19:17

[_GoodK]

Stu, I always am in need of being humbled - atheists are a rather arrogant bunch - so please, keep it coming ;)

GoodK

I know... What with your science, and facts. Pffftttt, you make me sick.

Job 19:17

Oh dear. Why did they leave Job 19:17 off of my Daily Inspiration Bible verse calender?

[_GoodK]

GoodK, I think your problem comes in using the word "literally" in your original question on this thread.

It's not clear whether you are asking whether they are "literally" true or whether they "literally" believe in the Bible.

If you're asking the second, which seems to be the case from the examples you listed above, as far as I know there are plenty of Christian groups that don't believe in a global flood, a literal Adam and Eve, a six-day creation, and so on.

Does it necessarily make them more credible that they don't believe those things? Is it possible for them to be "literally true" if they don't "literally believe" every story in the Bible as written, other than as allegory?

So really, I'm not sure what you're asking. Anyone familiar with contemporary Christianity, whether they're a believer or not, should know that those who believe literally in all the things you listed above are only a subset of a larger group.

Hello Hana,

I'm sorry if my post was a little vague, I'll try and clarify it a bit.
I don't like to facilitate cherry picking of the Bible. If a Christian moderate is going to claim that they don't literally believe in the global flood, then I am glad to be in agreement with them. But their doctrine does teach it. I also don't think most contemporary Christians will teach their children that the global flood or Adam and Eve are allegories.

I understand that the majority of contemporary Christianity does not take the fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Bible - that's mostly why I left the killing of homosexuals, adulterers and heretics off my brief list. However, I feel like the moderate approach is still worthy of contempt.

Best,

GoodK

[_the road to hana]

If a Christian moderate is going to claim that they don't literally believe in the global flood, then I am glad to be in agreement with them. But their doctrine does teach it.

You might want to check that. I don't believe all mainstream Christian religions teach a global flood. You might find some that do, but certainly not all.

I also don't think most contemporary Christians will teach their children that the global flood or Adam and Eve are allegories.

Again, as far as I know there are plenty of mainstream Christians who do both, and have the support of their individual denominations in the process.

I understand that the majority of contemporary Christianity does not take the fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Bible - that's mostly why I left the killing of homosexuals, adulterers and heretics off my brief list. However, I feel like the moderate approach is still worthy of contempt.

I imagine that depends on what you're calling "moderate."

[_GoodK]

If a Christian moderate is going to claim that they don't literally believe in the global flood, then I am glad to be in agreement with them. But their doctrine does teach it.

You might want to check that. I don't believe all mainstream Christian religions teach a global flood. You might find some that do, but certainly not all.

The Bible teaches it.

Regarding moderation, it should be noted that there wasn't a single Christian religion that didn't teach its congregation about the global flood until it was proven by science to be false. Same with Adam and Eve. The decision for certain Christian sects to stop teaching a select few blatant falsehoods in the wake of scientific fact is hardly admirable.

Christianity has always been at battle with science and real knowledge, and it has been a fight where Christianity is constantly being forced to make concessions and revisions.