Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Imwashingmypirate]

There had to be a flood, otherwise why did knowah build an ark and have two of each animal on it?

[_GoodK]

There had to be a flood, otherwise why did knowah build an ark and have two of each animal on it?

I wonder if Noah had two of each of the 20,000 + species of grasshoppers God created on his wooden yacht.

[_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.

The Bible teaches it.

Regardless, not all Christian denominations do.

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.

I don't doubt the earliest inhabitants of this earth thought it was flat. Revising their thinking once scientific evidence was in place doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing.

Should Christians still disdain belief in a heliocentric universe?

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

I'm not sure that's just been Christianity, but the world culture as a whole. Even non-Christians had to adjust their thinking when scientific evidence required.

I guess I don't understand why you think that's not admirable. Are you suggesting they should be ahead of the curve?

[_JAK]

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

GoodK,

Your stated comparison is flawed. Christianity is the religion. Mormon is a product of the Protestant Reformation begun in 1511 when Martin Luther challenged the Church of Rome on practices and doctrines.

Since that time the Protestant Reformation has sparked many divisions, sects, cults, start-ups, etc.

Islam is a religion.
Buddhism is a religion.
Hinduism is a religion.
Judaism is a religion.

And Christianity is a religion. The Mormon group is a late comer to the Protestant Reformation. But it is not a different religion as some Christians and some Mormons misguidedly believe.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

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

GoodK,

Your stated comparison is flawed. Christianity is the religion. Mormon is a product of the Protestant Reformation begun in 1511 when Martin Luther challenged the Church of Rome on practices and doctrines.

Since that time the Protestant Reformation has sparked many divisions, sects, cults, start-ups, etc.

Islam is a religion.
Buddhism is a religion.
Hinduism is a religion.
Judaism is a religion.

And Christianity is a religion. The Mormon group is a late comer to the Protestant Reformation. But it is not a different religion as some Christians and some Mormons misguidedly believe.

JAK

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

[_the road to hana]

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

As tedious as it might be, Nehor, you might want to go back and reread the thread.

Nowhere did GoodK suggest that the Church tried to teach that the earth was flat.

Any mention of a flat earth was made by me, and I did not suggest, or state, that the church taught that.

[_GoodK]

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

Who said that the church taught that the earth was flat? I certainly made no such claim, although I do believe that the church teaches equally stupid things.

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

GoodK,

Your stated comparison is flawed. Christianity is the religion. Mormon is a product of the Protestant Reformation begun in 1511 when Martin Luther challenged the Church of Rome on practices and doctrines.

Since that time the Protestant Reformation has sparked many divisions, sects, cults, start-ups, etc.

Islam is a religion.
Buddhism is a religion.
Hinduism is a religion.
Judaism is a religion.

And Christianity is a religion. The Mormon group is a late comer to the Protestant Reformation. But it is not a different religion as some Christians and some Mormons misguidedly believe.

JAK

You seem certain, however I feel this is a moot point.

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.

Regardless, not all Christian denominations do.

The doctrine that the entire Christian faith is founded upon does.
This is really simple - Why do Christians believe a man named Jesus is their savior? Because the Bible teaches it. Will science be obligated to absolutely disprove this before Christians revise their faith?

If they choose to cherry pick the Bible and discard other easily falsifiable claims, that is their own human ethics/logic/reasoning at work. This should serve as proof that humans do not need the Bible to tell us how to live.

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.

I don't doubt the earliest inhabitants of this earth thought it was flat. Revising their thinking once scientific evidence was in place doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing.

Not at all. This is the beauty of science. However, this is not the case as far as Christianity is concerned. They have yet to revise anything that science has not forced them to revise. If it was up to Christianity, there would be no revisions.

Should Christians still disdain belief in a heliocentric universe?

Christians should disdain belief systems riddled with falsehoods that were passed down to them from ignorant sources.

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

I'm not sure that's just been Christianity, but the world culture as a whole. Even non-Christians had to adjust their thinking when scientific evidence required.

Are you forgetting that the Christianity professes it's own truthfullness (without a need for evidence) and requires it's participants to endulge in these professions using faith?

I'd like to hear an example of a belief that;

Once we gained a better understanding of the Bible or Jesus, we were able to revise and form a more accurate belief.

I guess I don't understand why you think that's not admirable. Are you suggesting they should be ahead of the curve?

You seem to be speaking of the most moderate, watered-down version of Christianity, one that waits to make it's conclusions until all the evidence is in. I have never encountered such a Christian.

But even if I did, Christianity - by definition - still believes manifestly false claims.

Even if more moderate Christians no longer defend the global flood does not mean that they are open to the scientific method being applied to their beliefs. I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't rely on faith, and using faith is, well, below the curve. (or is it behind the curve?)

[_the road to hana]

This is really simple - Why do Christians believe a man named Jesus is their savior? Because the Bible teaches it.

Christianity predates the Bible (certainly, the New Testament accounts that tell of Jesus), so your premise is flawed.

I hate to say this, but I'm inclined to agree with those who are suggesting that you appear somewhat uninformed on this topic.

[_Jason Bourne]

Even if more moderate Christians no longer defend the global flood does not mean that they are open to the scientific method being applied to their beliefs. I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't rely on faith, and using faith is, well, below the curve. (or is it behind the curve?)

We use faith in all sorts of activities in life. Faith in the metaphysical aspects of spiritual life is proper and good. Why do you think faith is behind the curve?

[_the road to hana]

Christians should disdain belief systems riddled with falsehoods that were passed down to them from ignorant sources.

I think there are probably plenty of them who would agree with you.

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

I'm not sure that's just been Christianity, but the world culture as a whole. Even non-Christians had to adjust their thinking when scientific evidence required.

Are you forgetting that the Christianity professes it's own truthfullness (without a need for evidence) and requires it's participants to endulge in these professions using faith?

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here. It appears by "Christianity" you are imagining a subset of Christianity and applying it to the whole, which seems to be uninformed. I wonder if you haven't always been LDS, or atheist, and not particularly well versed in other religions or denominational differences, even from a cultural point of view.

I'd like to hear an example of a belief that;

Once we gained a better understanding of the Bible or Jesus, we were able to revise and form a more accurate belief.

Have you searched for any?

I guess I don't understand why you think that's not admirable. Are you suggesting they should be ahead of the curve?

You seem to be speaking of the most moderate, watered-down version of Christianity, one that waits to make it's conclusions until all the evidence is in. I have never encountered such a Christian.

I don't know. Catholics don't believe in a universal flood, and they believe in evolution. Is that "watered-down Christianity?" Maybe.

But even if I did, Christianity - by definition - still believes manifestly false claims.

The predominant claim of Christianity (as opposed to Judaism, from which it sprang) is that someone was killed, and then rose from the dead. That's the claim that's manifestly difficult to prove. Other claims you're suggesting from the Old Testament belong to Judaic heritage as much as they do Christian.

Even if more moderate Christians no longer defend the global flood does not mean that they are open to the scientific method being applied to their beliefs. I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't rely on faith, and using faith is, well, below the curve. (or is it behind the curve?)

I don't know. You think Catholics are moderate? I guess that's a matter of perspective. I know at least the previous pope (couldn't say about the current one) spoke to this issue publicly many years ago.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sc ... -9211.html