Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Ubbo-Sathla]

You are correct about the thousand+ groups of Christians. (I’m skeptical that you can find evidence for “thousands.”)
See this link:

List of Christian denominations by number of members

Mwa-haha-hargh! They had ONE "Baptist churches"! ONE "Jehovah's Witnesses", TWO "Latter day Saint movement (Mormons)", ONE "Seventh Day Adventists", 2 1/2 "Nestorians", ONE "Assemblies of God"! Who can trust wikipedia!!??

There are over a dozen JW churches, bunches of Seventh Day Adventist churches, countless Latter day Saint churches. Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists alone altogether must make over a thousand different churches different in doctrine and different in who th eleaders are. I'll bet there are a few dozen presbyterian churches too, becasue they're always arguing how strict to be, and the Church of God groups kick each other out so much there's bound to be a hundred or more of them.

There are too many churches. If they all took the Bible literally, there'd be only one church. But nobody but nobody takes the Bible completely literally. The only true church is the Church of Disagreement. Even scientists would feel comfortable in that church cause they can't agree either.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

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.

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

What portions of scripture do you see referring to homosexuality that you disagree with?

[_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?

Flawed analysis, JB.

No transparent, tested evidence has been established for “…the metaphysical aspects of spiritual life…” It’s a euphemism for emotions and emotional responses.

“Faith is below the curve” (GoodK) because it is religious dogma which must be revised in the face of discoveries of science. Hence, “faith” must adjust to information.

First, religion attempts to deny scientific evidence__i.e. biblical creation stories.
Second, it attempts to re-interpret its doctrines to accommodate science.
Third, religious doctrines are abandoned as reflection of reliable conclusion.

JAK

Do you have evidence of everything you believe to be true?

[_Jason Bourne]

Catholics don't believe in a universal flood. They don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, and last I checked, they believe in evolution. So I think that put them squarely in your "watered-down moderate" camp.

I think it would be better said some Catholics. The Catholic Church certainly believes these things.

[_the road to hana]

Catholics don't believe in a universal flood. They don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, and last I checked, they believe in evolution. So I think that put them squarely in your "watered-down moderate" camp.

I think it would be better said some Catholics. The Catholic Church certainly believes these things.

No, there are public statements on all those last I checked.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

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.

GoodK,

As I go through your comments on this thread, I'm reminded of a post I recently made on another board wherein I discuss skeptics arguing a literal position and that is exactly what you're doing here. On this thread, so far as I've read, you make no mention at all of Hebrew symbolism and only one reference that I can see to allegory.

You are holding the Bible to a flat literal view in order to discredit it.

Why?

(JAK if you are reading here, this is exactly what I referred to on another board.)

[_GoodK]

GoodK

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.

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Are you kidding? Is Genesis chapter 6 and 7 missing from your Bible?

What portions of scripture do you see referring to homosexuality that you disagree with?

It would be safe to say that I disagree with anything the Bible says about homosexuality... but Leviticus 20:13 is a gem. Lest anyone say that this sort of stupidity only resides in the Old Testament, Romans 1:24-32 is a good showing of St. Paul's wisdom.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

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.

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Are you kidding? Is Genesis chapter 6 and 7 missing from your Bible?

What portions of scripture do you see referring to homosexuality that you disagree with?

It would be safe to say that I disagree with anything the Bible says about homosexuality... but Leviticus 20:13 is a gem. Lest anyone say that this sort of stupidity only resides in the Old Testament, Romans 1:24-32 is a good showing of St. Paul's wisdom.

No, GoodK, I'm not "kidding". Would you like to provide quotes to support your assertions?

I'm good for either the flood or homosexuality. Preferrably in separate posts.

Thanks,
Jersey Girl

[_GoodK]

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.

I love being accused of being uninformed. I think that's twice now that you've said that ... but I don't see why...

My original post asked for reasons why Christianity is true, and Mormonism isn't - seeing as most posters on this DB are glad to join the dog-pile against anything LDS, I found it ironic that some people here seem to think the Bible is any more reliable/authentic/respectable than the Book of Mormon.

You have yet to initiate a defense, or even an answer, to this.

Instead, you have asked for specific things I find manifestly false in the Bible - which I listed a few for you - and then you set about disputing the idea that Christians actually believe some of those things. That isn't adequate.

I've been willing to engage you in this venture so far, but I'm starting to get a little weary as to where this is going.

Christianity pre-dates the Bible?

At best, I think this is debatable. It certainly isn't indisputable, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. Please, if I'm wrong, show me. And then after you do that, let's get back to the real topic.

[_GoodK]

GoodK

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.

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Are you kidding? Is Genesis chapter 6 and 7 missing from your Bible?

What portions of scripture do you see referring to homosexuality that you disagree with?

It would be safe to say that I disagree with anything the Bible says about homosexuality... but Leviticus 20:13 is a gem. Lest anyone say that this sort of stupidity only resides in the Old Testament, Romans 1:24-32 is a good showing of St. Paul's wisdom.

No, GoodK, I'm not "kidding". Would you like to provide quotes to support your assertions?

I'm good for either the flood or homosexuality. Preferrably in separate posts.

Thanks,
Jersey Girl

Didn't you just quote me giving you references? Are you asking me to type out the actual verses? Here, just in case you missed the post in which you are responding to:

[...]Is Genesis chapter 6 and 7 missing from your Bible?[...]

[...]Leviticus 20:13[...] [...]Romans 1:24-32[...]