Post Reference
mentalgymnast commented:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, unless there is some common ground on either core principles or core beliefs, it is difficult to have a productive conversation.
Thus far, no “common ground” has been established. Merely assuming fact absent evidence for fact is failure to establish common ground. Many have challenged your assumptions, MG.
Previously, on the very first page of this thread, I presented the following:
Much more importantly, no God claims have been established. Your “challenge” begs all issues surrounding the assumption: God. You seem oblivious to the fact that there are more than 1,500 groups (called denominations, sects, cults) which have a wide variety of God notions.
MG, you have provided no evidence for particular or peculiar God claims which the context in these discussions demonstrates to be extremely narrow in the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas.
How do you intend to establish “common ground”? That phrase assumes there is common ground. Second, it assumes it can be established. Virtually all the contributors to this thread demonstrate that no “common ground” has been established.
One does not establish “common ground” by mere assertion or implied assertion. You, MG, appear to be using that tactic. If fails.
I further presented the following:
Your challenge, MG, is to establish God. Further, it is your challenge to establish that your notion of God is valid, correct, reliable. It’s a monumental challenge for you MG. Otherwise you are but one among many making claims as well as assumptions inherent in your notion of “challenge.”
Prehistoric man had, at best, some emerging superstition. Religion evolved as an effort to legitimize superstition in the form of gods plural. Only with the passage of time, the accumulation of different perspectives, was the doctrinal shift to the notion of God a part of human evolution. It required primitive communication and primitive symbols (language). From the invention of gods as explanation, human evolution produced the further, and different invention of God in the singular. It is there that the above reference to more than 1,500 groups have come into existence in human evolution of language, thought, and doctrines contained within that language.
What is your understanding of the evolution of the human species? What is your understanding of the planet earth which is 14,000,000,000 years old? What is your understanding of the countless species which have evolved and which have become extinct as modern science has demonstrated and documented?
Last, I stated:
My challenge to you, MG, is to establish God as opposed to gods. After and only after you are able to do that is anything remotely like your “challenge” anything which requires address.
In short, prove that your God exists at all. Failure on your part to do that makes your posts of zero consequence.
Others have raised challenge for you in a much more narrow context that mine.
We might all be in favor of “common ground.” But that is not established by assertion as you have done.
In addition, we are not talking “past each other.” On the contrary, I have addressed you directly and with specific questions. Those questions were directly to you and asked you to address evidence for your claims (implied and stated).
It is you, MG, who claims and asserts “a God belief.” It is you who has the burden of proof for the claims you make. “In your mind” is exactly where my questions are going.
Do you deny the historical evidence existing which demonstrates the evolution of the human species and the evolution of human civilizations, cultures, and perspectives (beliefs)? If so, you deny that for which overwhelming evidence and documentation exists.
Religion did not just flash into existence. As I previously observed: There are more than 1,500 groups (called denominations, sects, cults) which have a wide variety of God notions.
While each tends to claim its beliefs and positions are the correct ones, any objective observation yields a different conclusion. They do not agree. The developed in different time-frames. They developed in largely or slightly differing cultures/civilizations.
All this is documented historically, MG.
So, I am not “talking past” you. I am addressing you directly and asking you what broad, consensus agreement there is today among the many perspectives on Christianity as a single religion alone.
For the moment I am excluding other world religions including but not limited to the following:
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism
Shinto
Confucianism
Thus far, you have addressed few if any of the issues presented to you directly – not just by me but by others who have raised issue with you.
Hence, I am not “talking past” you as I ask you for evidence regarding your claims.
marg presented this: The Big Religion Chart
In that presentation was much historical documentation. All these various religious perspectives have evolved and continue to evolve. Mormonism is a late-comer to the long list of religious perspectives following the beginning of the Protestant Reformation (1517 A.D.)
It’s an arduous task, an implausible task to defend any in her list as inherently superior to all others, MG.
I do not think people in this discussion are “talking past” you. They are speaking directly to you and issue challenge to you albeit in a different context than what I have issued challenge. Ancient texts written out of ignorance or fear absent transparent facts open for all to see, to test, and to view with skeptical analysis are texts which fail in consistency and fail in agreement by those who read the same words.
“Productive discussion” involves engagement.
JAK
The Challenge
-
_mentalgymnast
Re: The Challenge
JAK wrote:Post Reference
mentalgymnast commented:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, unless there is some common ground on either core principles or core beliefs, it is difficult to have a productive conversation.
Thus far, no “common ground” has been established. Merely assuming fact absent evidence for fact is failure to establish common ground. Many have challenged your assumptions, MG.
Previously, on the very first page of this thread, I presented the following:
Much more importantly, no God claims have been established. Your “challenge” begs all issues surrounding the assumption: God. You seem oblivious to the fact that there are more than 1,500 groups (called denominations, sects, cults) which have a wide variety of God notions.
Granted, my assumption is that there is... God. That assumption is based upon the anthropic principle...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
evidence... which provides a space within which to place a God/creator.. It is not an unreasonable assumption. I also hold to many of the views expressed by John Polkinghorne:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
The fact that there are many "god notions" does not in and of itself negate the existence of God.
JAK wrote:MG, you have provided no evidence for particular or peculiar God claims which the context in these discussions demonstrates to be extremely narrow in the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas.
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
JAK wrote:How do you intend to establish “common ground”? That phrase assumes there is common ground. Second, it assumes it can be established. Virtually all the contributors to this thread demonstrate that no “common ground” has been established.
That is my point. Common ground cannot be established because there is disagreement upon the particulars of the evidence for God. That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there, just that it's not accepted by those that choose for one reason or another not to accept it.
JAK wrote:One does not establish “common ground” by mere assertion or implied assertion.
I agree.
JAK wrote:You, MG, appear to be using that tactic.
No.
JAK wrote:I further presented the following:
Your challenge, MG, is to establish God.
That cannot be done, absolutely, without God himself revealing himself. That which Joseph Smith claimed that God did. It is our burden to consider whether Joseph was telling the truth or not.
JAK wrote:Further, it is your challenge to establish that your notion of God is valid, correct, reliable. It’s a monumental challenge for you MG. Otherwise you are but one among many making claims as well as assumptions inherent in your notion of “challenge.”
I can only present two purported evidences that Joseph Smith testified of. The First Vision and Book of Mormon. We are then individually left with the burden discerning whether or not he was telling the truth. I cannot establish the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims for you. In that sense, yes you are correct, it is a monumental challenge.
JAK wrote:Prehistoric man had, at best, some emerging superstition. Religion evolved as an effort to legitimize superstition in the form of gods plural. Only with the passage of time, the accumulation of different perspectives, was the doctrinal shift to the notion of God a part of human evolution. It required primitive communication and primitive symbols (language). From the invention of gods as explanation, human evolution produced the further, and different invention of God in the singular. It is there that the above reference to more than 1,500 groups have come into existence in human evolution of language, thought, and doctrines contained within that language.
I don't know that I would seriously challenge this statement.
JAK wrote:What is your understanding of the evolution of the human species? What is your understanding of the planet earth which is 14,000,000,000 years old? What is your understanding of the countless species which have evolved and which have become extinct as modern science has demonstrated and documented?
That which I have read over the years. Diamond's, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", is a representative piece of writing that I have read... and others in that genre, Sagan (Demon Haunted World, Dragons of Eden, Cosmos) and others.
I do not discount the research findings of the scientists.
JAK wrote:In short, prove that your God exists at all. Failure on your part to do that makes your posts of zero consequence.
I can't as a matter of fact prove to you that God exists. So I suppose my posts are of absolutely zero consequence.
Regards,
MG
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: The Challenge
Good, MG. Let’s look at this.
In your reference, we find the following:
The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticized for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science. (emphasis mine)
The contention lacks support and is correctly “criticized” for being “untestable.” (That should read untested, but that’s the quote.)
Claims or assertions absent testable evidence should rightly be disregarded. Hence, a leap to conclusion such as above described is irrational (without reason). The composite of material in your reference does not justify a leap to the irrational. What was once perceived by the uneducated as “miraculous” in medical advances is, in fact, understood by reason through evidence.
MG states:
The fact that there are many "god notions" does not in and of itself negate the existence of God.
Commendation to you for recognizing there are many god notions. However, one must not bypass the historical analysis of how the various god notions evolved. One should not beg the issue of evidence for any singular notion of a singular God notion. The burden of proof lies with those who asserts. As you assert God, the burden of proof lies with you to establish the particulars, the details of your God claims. The same can be said for the wide variety of fractured Baptists (as example) or any other singular or fractured group. Such groups (or individuals) also have the same burden of proof for their claims. Absent consensus through skeptical review of any assertion is reason to reject such assertion(s).
MG states:
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
These are not “evidences” they are claims. They are assertions by a partisan, biased, group which subscribe to a claim -- a dogma. It’s incorrect from any objective perspective to use the term “evidences” as you have. As you point out, no other Christian group subscribes to or accepts Mormon dogma as reliable, valid, complete, flawless, or transparent.
Exclusivity of claim is not evidence for validity of claim. And it is a claim, an assertion absent transparent, critically reviewed analysis by objective investigation. That reality makes such claims unreliable.
“No other religious Christian denomination” besides the Roman Catholic Church claims the Pope as the head and chief spokesperson of another denomination. Exclusivity does not establish validity in religious claims and assertions. Truth by assertion is unreliable. You appear to claim exactly that – truth by assertion. You do not (nor does Mormonism) offer that transparent, skeptically reviewed, objective analysis which is required for solid conclusions based on fact not fiction.
In addition, “purported evidences” do not constitute evidences. It’s no more than an assertion. Truth by assertion fails. Anyone or any group can assert anything. Following an unreasoned assertion, one can continue to build other assertions on claims which have not been established by intellectual curiosity.
MG states:
Common ground cannot be established because there is disagreement upon the particulars of the evidence for God.
Correct
MG states:
That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there, just that it's not accepted by those that choose for one reason or another not to accept it.
It means the claimed evidence is unreliable. Religious dogma is perpetuated by religious groups which make every effort to indoctrinate their followers (and recruit additional followers). Marketing is well linked to brand identification not only in religion. However, religious doctrine often relies on fear and coercive methods.
Jim Jones was a charismatic, religious pundit who was accepted by a few (relatively speaking) as was his claimed truth which resulted in the Peoples Temple.
Recruting, size, and scope grew and some “accepted” the religious dogma of Jim Jones. This is no defense of that religious catastrophe. Rather, it’s a recognition that “accepted by those…” is no justification or rational response to religious propaganda. Mormon dogma is religious propaganda. It is not unlike other religious propaganda perpetuated by other groups. While Mormons claim their religious perspectives are the “true” ones, other religious groups do precisely the same thing. They rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance is inherently flawed, MG.
Mormonism (like other religious organizations in the wake of the Protestant Reformation) relies on religious propaganda just as does Roman Catholicism before the Protestant Reformation.
It means “that the evidence” (your phrase above) is unreliable for any religious group, sect, denomination.
Now you say:
“ …it's not accepted by those that choose for one reason or another not to accept it.”
One reason “not to accepted it” is absence of reliable evidence. Blind approval (acceptance) of any religious dogma is irrational. That is as much the case for those who were in the Peoples Temple as those presently in the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious group which asserts that it above all others is superior to those others.
There is objective history about the emergence of the Mormon organization. Objective, transparent analysis of Mormon history is “reason” to reject Mormon claims which cannot tolerate transparency and historical chronology.
Pundits of Mormonism are not open to transparency, historical chronology, and analysis. Those pundits rely on dogma (assertion).
Hence, “belief” must remain blind and unquestioned. That’s no more the case for Mormonism than for any other religious doctrine/dogma based on the fractured, acrimonious notions of those 1,500 competing groups which claim or imply that their religious notions are the correct ones.
JAK previously:
Your challenge, MG, is to establish God.
MG states:
That cannot be done, absolutely, without God himself revealing himself. That which Joseph Smith claimed that God did. It is our burden to consider whether Joseph was telling the truth or not.
Notice that you assume God. Absent evidence, a claim should be rejected. Your burden of proof is far greater than anything to do with Joe Smith and his claims. His claims have been soundly refuted by objective, transparent evidence and investigations of his history. There is enormous evidence that Smith was a fraud.
Smith not what he claimed
Smith the lawbreaker
Smith the fraud
Smith the imposter
The Mormon Church is a fraud
Who wrote the Book of Mormon?
Creating the Book of Mormon
So-called prophecies which failed
There is far more research on Joseph Smith and that he was untruthful than the few websites posted here.
JAK
In your reference, we find the following:
The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticized for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science. (emphasis mine)
The contention lacks support and is correctly “criticized” for being “untestable.” (That should read untested, but that’s the quote.)
Claims or assertions absent testable evidence should rightly be disregarded. Hence, a leap to conclusion such as above described is irrational (without reason). The composite of material in your reference does not justify a leap to the irrational. What was once perceived by the uneducated as “miraculous” in medical advances is, in fact, understood by reason through evidence.
MG states:
The fact that there are many "god notions" does not in and of itself negate the existence of God.
Commendation to you for recognizing there are many god notions. However, one must not bypass the historical analysis of how the various god notions evolved. One should not beg the issue of evidence for any singular notion of a singular God notion. The burden of proof lies with those who asserts. As you assert God, the burden of proof lies with you to establish the particulars, the details of your God claims. The same can be said for the wide variety of fractured Baptists (as example) or any other singular or fractured group. Such groups (or individuals) also have the same burden of proof for their claims. Absent consensus through skeptical review of any assertion is reason to reject such assertion(s).
MG states:
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
These are not “evidences” they are claims. They are assertions by a partisan, biased, group which subscribe to a claim -- a dogma. It’s incorrect from any objective perspective to use the term “evidences” as you have. As you point out, no other Christian group subscribes to or accepts Mormon dogma as reliable, valid, complete, flawless, or transparent.
Exclusivity of claim is not evidence for validity of claim. And it is a claim, an assertion absent transparent, critically reviewed analysis by objective investigation. That reality makes such claims unreliable.
“No other religious Christian denomination” besides the Roman Catholic Church claims the Pope as the head and chief spokesperson of another denomination. Exclusivity does not establish validity in religious claims and assertions. Truth by assertion is unreliable. You appear to claim exactly that – truth by assertion. You do not (nor does Mormonism) offer that transparent, skeptically reviewed, objective analysis which is required for solid conclusions based on fact not fiction.
In addition, “purported evidences” do not constitute evidences. It’s no more than an assertion. Truth by assertion fails. Anyone or any group can assert anything. Following an unreasoned assertion, one can continue to build other assertions on claims which have not been established by intellectual curiosity.
MG states:
Common ground cannot be established because there is disagreement upon the particulars of the evidence for God.
Correct
MG states:
That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there, just that it's not accepted by those that choose for one reason or another not to accept it.
It means the claimed evidence is unreliable. Religious dogma is perpetuated by religious groups which make every effort to indoctrinate their followers (and recruit additional followers). Marketing is well linked to brand identification not only in religion. However, religious doctrine often relies on fear and coercive methods.
Jim Jones was a charismatic, religious pundit who was accepted by a few (relatively speaking) as was his claimed truth which resulted in the Peoples Temple.
Recruting, size, and scope grew and some “accepted” the religious dogma of Jim Jones. This is no defense of that religious catastrophe. Rather, it’s a recognition that “accepted by those…” is no justification or rational response to religious propaganda. Mormon dogma is religious propaganda. It is not unlike other religious propaganda perpetuated by other groups. While Mormons claim their religious perspectives are the “true” ones, other religious groups do precisely the same thing. They rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance is inherently flawed, MG.
Mormonism (like other religious organizations in the wake of the Protestant Reformation) relies on religious propaganda just as does Roman Catholicism before the Protestant Reformation.
It means “that the evidence” (your phrase above) is unreliable for any religious group, sect, denomination.
Now you say:
“ …it's not accepted by those that choose for one reason or another not to accept it.”
One reason “not to accepted it” is absence of reliable evidence. Blind approval (acceptance) of any religious dogma is irrational. That is as much the case for those who were in the Peoples Temple as those presently in the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious group which asserts that it above all others is superior to those others.
There is objective history about the emergence of the Mormon organization. Objective, transparent analysis of Mormon history is “reason” to reject Mormon claims which cannot tolerate transparency and historical chronology.
Pundits of Mormonism are not open to transparency, historical chronology, and analysis. Those pundits rely on dogma (assertion).
Hence, “belief” must remain blind and unquestioned. That’s no more the case for Mormonism than for any other religious doctrine/dogma based on the fractured, acrimonious notions of those 1,500 competing groups which claim or imply that their religious notions are the correct ones.
JAK previously:
Your challenge, MG, is to establish God.
MG states:
That cannot be done, absolutely, without God himself revealing himself. That which Joseph Smith claimed that God did. It is our burden to consider whether Joseph was telling the truth or not.
Notice that you assume God. Absent evidence, a claim should be rejected. Your burden of proof is far greater than anything to do with Joe Smith and his claims. His claims have been soundly refuted by objective, transparent evidence and investigations of his history. There is enormous evidence that Smith was a fraud.
Smith not what he claimed
Smith the lawbreaker
Smith the fraud
Smith the imposter
The Mormon Church is a fraud
Who wrote the Book of Mormon?
Creating the Book of Mormon
So-called prophecies which failed
There is far more research on Joseph Smith and that he was untruthful than the few websites posted here.
JAK
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Re: The Challenge
mentalgymnast wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:What's so special about prophesying about oneself?
The thing is, that isn't what's going on here... simply because you say it's so. It may very well be that we have a prophet of antiquity prophesying of another prophet in our day.
It also may very well be that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. It also may very well be that L. Ron Hubbard got everything right. It also may very well be that Nightlion is a true prophet.
If "may very well be" is your only standard of knowledge-gaining, then where, pray tell, does it end?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: The Challenge
MG
When you refer to Joseph's First Vision, which version are you thinking of? To the best of my knowledge, his account changed dramatically over a period of years regarding just who appeared to him.
Do you disagree?
You are correct that no other Christian denomination can "offer up" the First Vision and the Book of Mormon as purported evidences. No Christian denomination ever would. The Book of Mormon is not accepted as scripture by any other Christian denomination because Christian denominations take their cues from the Bible. There is no Biblical support whatsoever for the Book of Mormon, nor is there historical/archaelogical support for it.
Quite the contrary is true.
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
When you refer to Joseph's First Vision, which version are you thinking of? To the best of my knowledge, his account changed dramatically over a period of years regarding just who appeared to him.
Do you disagree?
You are correct that no other Christian denomination can "offer up" the First Vision and the Book of Mormon as purported evidences. No Christian denomination ever would. The Book of Mormon is not accepted as scripture by any other Christian denomination because Christian denominations take their cues from the Bible. There is no Biblical support whatsoever for the Book of Mormon, nor is there historical/archaelogical support for it.
Quite the contrary is true.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: The Challenge
JAK,
With regards to your link about the failed prophecies of Joseph Smith. I don't see that is relevant in terms of what Biblical scripture has to say about what constitutes a true prophet.
Does a prophet have to prophesy accurately each and every time?
Stirring your pot,
Jersey Girl
:-)
With regards to your link about the failed prophecies of Joseph Smith. I don't see that is relevant in terms of what Biblical scripture has to say about what constitutes a true prophet.
Does a prophet have to prophesy accurately each and every time?
Stirring your pot,
Jersey Girl
:-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: The Challenge
The comments to which you refer were specifically directed to MG who argued he had to do nothing more than evidence Mormonism.
MG stated:
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
My comment to MG had little to do with “Biblical scripture.”
The challenge for MG is far greater than a posit for Mormonism. There is abundant evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud and worse.
Anyone who gets one guess (prediction) right may be elevated as a seer (prophet) and a “true” one at that. It’s particularly the case if the prediction is about something which impacts large numbers of people. Earthquakes are predicted. However, those who predict them are generally scientifically knowledgeable enough NOT to predict them on a specific DAY and at a specific HOUR. But a scientist who tells us (and virtually all scientists do tell us) that earthquakes are certain to occur – those scientists are correct.
As for reliability and accuracy, the more frequently anyone assembles known facts and accurately characterizes a result, the more credibility he/she has. Getting a prediction right only 50% of the time doesn’t give great credibility.
How good anyone is at any kind of “prediction” has much to do with what he/she knows, not with what’s a lucky guess once-in-a-decade. Of course predictions after the fact are frauds.
JAK
MG stated:
Yes, Mormonism's views of God are different than "the broad perspective of various Christian dogmas." The two evidences used to promote Mormonism's God claims are the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. No other religious Christian denomination can offer up both of these two purported evidences.
My comment to MG had little to do with “Biblical scripture.”
The challenge for MG is far greater than a posit for Mormonism. There is abundant evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud and worse.
Anyone who gets one guess (prediction) right may be elevated as a seer (prophet) and a “true” one at that. It’s particularly the case if the prediction is about something which impacts large numbers of people. Earthquakes are predicted. However, those who predict them are generally scientifically knowledgeable enough NOT to predict them on a specific DAY and at a specific HOUR. But a scientist who tells us (and virtually all scientists do tell us) that earthquakes are certain to occur – those scientists are correct.
As for reliability and accuracy, the more frequently anyone assembles known facts and accurately characterizes a result, the more credibility he/she has. Getting a prediction right only 50% of the time doesn’t give great credibility.
How good anyone is at any kind of “prediction” has much to do with what he/she knows, not with what’s a lucky guess once-in-a-decade. Of course predictions after the fact are frauds.
JAK
-
_mentalgymnast
Re: The Challenge
MG: The thing is, that isn't what's going on here... simply because you say it's so. It may very well be that we have a prophet of antiquity prophesying of another prophet in our day.
Shades: It also may very well be that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. It also may very well be that L. Ron Hubbard got everything right. It also may very well be that Nightlion is a true prophet.
If "may very well be" is your only standard of knowledge-gaining, then where, pray tell, does it end?
Let's rephrase that. It appears from what we read in scripture that we have a prophet of antiquity prophesying of another prophet in our day. I suppose I was a bit soft.
Regards,
MG
-
_mentalgymnast
Re: The Challenge
JAK wrote:Notice that you assume God. Absent evidence, a claim should be rejected.
You assume no God. Absent evidence, should not that claim be rejected?
Isn't it just as reasonable to believe in God as it is to not?
Regards,
MG
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Re: The Challenge
mentalgymnast wrote:Let's rephrase that. It appears from what we read in scripture that we have a prophet of antiquity prophesying of another prophet in our day. I suppose I was a bit soft.
No. It appears from the writings produced by Smith that Smith "prophesied" about himself.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley