The Nehor wrote:Disagree all you wish. That's the scholarly consensus.
I don't consider the conclusions of a every credible archaeologist and historian and Egyptologist who has ever evaluated the issue a scholarly consensus.
Edited for accuracy.
The Nehor wrote:Disagree all you wish. That's the scholarly consensus.
I don't consider the conclusions of a every credible archaeologist and historian and Egyptologist who has ever evaluated the issue a scholarly consensus.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:Your church teaches faith healing.
Not in the usual meaning of that term.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:Since when do astronomy, geology, linguistics and archeology fall outside the realm of science?
They don't but they are concerned with what we have now and then they make guesses about the past. Some of them are incredibly likely. Others less so.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:It proves that these experiences are physical, not indicative of anything spiritual at all. Remember Occam's razor.
Occam's razor can be a handy tool but the simple truth is it's not effective at discerning truth from error. Read up on it. I'm guessing even the wiki article knows more about that then you do.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:Not necessary. They've demonstrated at every step of the way how no intelligent forces are necessary at any point.
Assuming that's true (and all my reading on the Big Bang suggests to me you are talking out of your ass) that all things are completely explained that is proof that there isn't a God now? Wow.....
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:Non-sequitur. You didn't address this point.
You didn't have a point. All you suggested was that religion got the nature of the solar system wrong in some way. I can't refute your vague ideas without guesswork. Is that the secret to science beating religion? Making up vague strawmen and then smugly smashing them to pieces? When we try to defend it you say we're defending the wrong thing.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:Yes, and where did they learn it? Not from the Hebrew prophets. They learned it from the Greeks, who figured it out through a primitive form of science.
Okay, then please demonstrate where religion got it wrong please.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
The Nehor wrote:
Typo. Divining rods. Joseph believed in them, and thought they had something to do with the priesthood. They don't work.
You mean they don't work without the priesthood. I agree completely. If they ever work they work by miraculous means. See below for testing miracles.
The Nehor wrote:That's your private definition which you have constructed just now as an ad hoc means of hiding your faith from scrutiny.
b***s***. It's the common theological definition. You would know that if you so much as touched a book about them.
It's much easier to pontificate about things you know nothing about though isn't it?
I recommend C.S. Lewis's book on Miracles. While flawed in some respects he is clear on how miracles interact with nature and he is repeating the consensus of Christianity on what a miracle is over the last two millenia. Amazing that you seem to have debunked something you don't understand. Does this happen often with you?
Or do you really imagine that everyone thinks miracles are magic that you can make happen on demand so they can be subjected to scientific scrutiny?
The Nehor wrote:I was referring to the section marked "superstition."
I deny that any of my faith fits in that section.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Buffalo wrote:I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally stupid or not. Are you trying to discount the importance of evidence, or making a childish argument about "proof"?
Oh really? You can't dig up old bones and settlements and pottery and utensils and pollen deposits and analyze them? You can't run DNA testing? Really, Nehor?
Edited for accuracy.
The LDS church recognizes the faith healing of other churches.
It's own system isn't much different.
God, are you really this ignorant?
Have you ever stepped foot inside a science class?
When an event is fully explained by natural phenomena, heaping on a superfluous supernatural explanation is illogical and nonsensical.
Please don't try to tell me what I know, ignoramus.
It renders god irrelevant and unnecessary, therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
Buffalo wrote: