Morley wrote: Forgive me, Simon, but that's kind of a non-answer. How many "black spots" would you have assigned? One, two, or three? The comparison was, after all, your idea. (And yeah, I do realize the lists are only meant to be representative, not exhaustive.)
-Morley
I don't know. I didn't include the Latter-day Saint movement because the black spots are so frequently brought up here, they are common knowledge.
MsJack wrote:So what's the difference then, Simon? If God's organization of fallible humans into a single church is not actually producing better results, then what's the point? Why should someone become LDS in the first place?
I'm reminded of a clever post that my friend Dane Laverty at Times & Seasons did, "The One True Hot Dog Stand."
If the hot dogs at your favorite stand aren't actually any better than the hot dogs at my favorite stand, then why does it matter which ones I eat?
Well, MsJack, that is a question which requires a very personal answer -- personal to each individual. For example, and this is just my opinion, does your version of Christianity work for you? If it does, then I see no reason to abandon it for another denomination (there are so many, aren't there?)
Can one imagine Baha'i without its thermonuclear warheads? Oh wait, they don't have any, but they do have The Bab which they might drop on you.
Buddhists? They might avoid stepping on insects, yet they also made for such devoted followers to the Emperor Hirohito, that they excelled as Kamikaze pilots.
Every religious group may have the potential to perform the ritual of desecration, but it is what they are doing in the here and now that is important.
The premise of your OP is based on a tu quogue logical fallacy and you don't even seem to realize it.
If you are attempting LDS apologetics here, perhaps you should think a bit more about your approach. Hard to imagine a worse premise or thread title from an LDS apologist.
If the thread is intended as apologetics parody on the other hand, well done.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
The premise of your OP is based on a tu quogue logical fallacy and you don't even seem to realize it.
If you are attempting LDS apologetics here, perhaps you should think a bit more about your approach. Hard to imagine a worse premise or thread title from an LDS apologist.
If the thread is intended as apologetics parody on the other hand, well done.
Of course I realize that some might look at the OP as a tu quoque fallacy. But logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Simply because I have pointed out the historical follies of other organizations does not immediately render my OP dismissed.
Which of them are you planning on joining? Surely not the muslims as you aren't smart enough to blow your nose so I can't see you blowing up a restaurant.
Bet if you tried you would try to blow up a bus and burn your lips on the tailpipe.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson
Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?
infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
Joseph wrote:Which of them are you planning on joining? Surely not the muslims as you aren't smart enough to blow your nose so I can't see you blowing up a restaurant.
Bet if you tried you would try to blow up a bus and burn your lips on the tailpipe.
Joseph wrote:Which of them are you planning on joining? Surely not the muslims as you aren't smart enough to blow your nose so I can't see you blowing up a restaurant.
Bet if you tried you would try to blow up a bus and burn your lips on the tailpipe.
Says the town idiot.
These recent attacks on Joseph are very unbecoming.