Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Thanks.

[_Jason Bourne]

One last time, GoodK and then I'm moving on.

You cannot categorize the entire Bible in terms of "true/false". The categories you're attempting to place on it are in and of themselves, false.

The parables of Christ cannot be described as true or false. They are parables.

The Proverbs cannot be described as true or false. They are proverbs.

Whatever it is that you cannot understand about that, I have no idea It's possible that you simply are here to screw around and nothing more. Whatever it is I'm not wasting my time further in attempting to engage you in thought.

Jersey Girl

You are comparing apples to oranges. Some things are clearly parable-stories uses to illustrate a point, others things are clearly allegorical and yet other things are clearly symbolical.

Then there are things that were written as if they actually happened and clearly believed by those who used them to teach doctrine. Now in the 21st century, you and others want to try to paint them as allegorical, which they may indeed be, but you cannot paint them allegorical to those who used them to teach truth and used them in such a way as if they were true.

[_Jersey Girl]

One last time, GoodK and then I'm moving on.

You cannot categorize the entire Bible in terms of "true/false". The categories you're attempting to place on it are in and of themselves, false.

The parables of Christ cannot be described as true or false. They are parables.

The Proverbs cannot be described as true or false. They are proverbs.

Whatever it is that you cannot understand about that, I have no idea It's possible that you simply are here to screw around and nothing more. Whatever it is I'm not wasting my time further in attempting to engage you in thought.

Jersey Girl

You are comparing apples to oranges. Some things are clearly parable-stories uses to illustrate a point, others things are clearly allegorical and yet other things are clearly symbolical.

Then there are things that were written as if they actually happened and clearly believed by those who used them to teach doctrine. Now in the 21st century, you and others want to try to paint them as allegorical, which they may indeed be, but you cannot paint them allegorical to those who used them to teach truth and used them in such a way as if they were true.

GoodK made no distinction between the variety of literary styles contained in the Bible. S/he simply attempted to confine the entire Bible into "true/false" categories. Read the posts, Jason.

I am getting together a post in reply to marg regarding allegory, etc. and whether or not Christianity relies on the literal interpretation of the Fall, etc.

You do not know if they were used to teach in such a way as if they were true. You have no way to read the minds of the transmitter or the receiver. That is to say you do not know the thinking of Jesus nor the thinking of the people whom he taught.

You are looking at the scripts in the way you were taught to look at them. You were taught that they mean specific things.

You were taught to read, to memorize, to study the scripts. You weren't taught to think about them or the culture for which they were written.

I will try to get my post up tonight.

[_GoodK]

My point is that there are no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived, than there is to believe that he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.

So this is about whether or not there was a literal, historical Jesus?

No, it's not just about that. I think I quantified my argument for you already, it is just one of many claims the Bible makes that can't be verified.

[_GoodK]

This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.

Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.

And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?

Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.

And you are qualified to make a statement about "most Christians"... why?

Because I have been alive in the real world for quite some time.

Here is why "most" is an appropriate word:

More than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.

44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years.

Arguing the semantics of the word "most" is sort of trivial, wouldn't you say?

I wanted to add a few more stats to add to the reasons why I'm probably right in using the word most:

83% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
(11% disbelieve. 6% don't know.)

Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution (and two-thirds of these believe evolution was "guided by God")
53% are actually creationists.

More than half of Americans believe that the cosmos was created six thousand years ago.

28% of Americans believe that every word of the Bible is literally true.
49% believe that it is the "inspired word of God.

65% of Americans believe in the literal existence of Satan.
73% believe in Hell.

90% of Americans believe in heaven.
77% rate their chances of going to heaven as "excellent" or "good"

[_Jason Bourne]

You do not know if they were used to teach in such a way as if they were true. You have no way to read the minds of the transmitter or the receiver. That is to say you do not know the thinking of Jesus nor the thinking of the people whom he taught.

I read the words they wrote and it seem clear and plain what Paul meant when he said by one man death and sin entered the world. You have no proof that they did not believe what they wrote to be literal and really the proof is on you not me. I am simply reading the text and taking their word for it.

You are looking at the scripts in the way you were taught to look at them. You were taught that they mean specific things.

You were taught to read, to memorize, to study the scripts. You weren't taught to think about them or the culture for which they were written

.


No. I was taught that one could read the Bible and not have to have a degree in anthropology to understand it. So, can you demonstrate that Paul believed Adam to be allegorical or that he though Abraham was a simple fictional story character? Are you really claiming this?

[_GoodK]

Christians that critique the tenets of Mormon faith are, in my opinion, hypocrites.
My point is that there are no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived, than there is to believe that he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.

A hypocrite is one who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. An argument cannot be hypocritical.

Are you serious in asserting that

1) no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived - a historical argument, is equivalent to

2) hat he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.

This is an argument from LDS eschatology.

I promise I am not joking.

[_GoodK]

One last time, GoodK and then I'm moving on.

You cannot categorize the entire Bible in terms of "true/false". The categories you're attempting to place on it are in and of themselves, false.

The parables of Christ cannot be described as true or false. They are parables.

The Proverbs cannot be described as true or false. They are proverbs.

Whatever it is that you cannot understand about that, I have no idea It's possible that you simply are here to screw around and nothing more. Whatever it is I'm not wasting my time further in attempting to engage you in thought.

I never even mentioned the parables of Christ, nor did I mention the Proverbs.
Thus your post above is a straw man. No one here is saying that the parables of Christ are true or false. Whatever it is that you cannot understand about that, I have no idea. It's possible you are simply here to defend the Bible at all costs. Whatever the reason, I trust the readers of this post to sort out who is screwing around here.


I'm glad your moving on. Your argument that YOU believe the Bible isn't meant to be taken seriously is poor, irrelevant to my post, and not supported by facts or consensus from the Christian community in the United States.

But thanks for participating, no hard feelings on this side.

[_GoodK]

Jesus may be just knowledge. Not a man at all, but pure knowledge. He might be anything.

What if Jesus was the embodiment of love?

Than it wouldn't matter if he was crucified, died for your sins, or is coming back for a second visit.

In that case it also wouldn't matter if we chalked the Bible up to mythology, as well as organized Christianity.

It also wouldn't matter if gay people wanted to get married or if unfit mothers wanted to get an abortion...

[_GoodK]

You were making some decent points until now.

GoodK, you specifically asked me:

Is this "being in Christ" interpretation uniquely yours, or where did you hear it?

Who teaches this?

So I provided you with some references.

Take it or leave it.

Thanks for trying, but I will most definitely be leaving this. Not to be rude or anything, but it is quite a stretch AF. But I'm glad you don't take the Bible as literally as others do.