the mormon church

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's been done so many times, so do I really have to?
(*yawn*) What about genisis?

But let's not get off topic here. As long as there are fredom of religion, meaning you can have any religion you want, you have respect others for their choice of religion, as you want to be respected for yours.

Btw, I didn't show any negative opinion about the bible in my posting, did I? So exactly what did you react on?

It's been done exactly not once. As in, not a single, solitary time. Ever. You can stomp your foot, hold your breath and turn blue, but after you come to again, you'll be in the same position: not able to point to one irrefutable example of a biblical error.

[FYI, that first book is spelled G-E-N-E-S-I-S, for future reference.]

The point is on topic, as you are attempting to correlate the surety of historical foundation as supports the Bible with a plagiarized cast-off romantic novel upon which is based the book of Mormon. There is noting 'set apart, set above' with respect to that fictional book, thus in total contrast to the veracity we find in the Bible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's been done exactly not once. As in, not a single, solitary time. Ever. You can stomp your foot, hold your breath and turn blue, but after you come to again, you'll be in the same position: not able to point to one irrefutable example of a biblical error.

[FYI, that first book is spelled G-E-N-E-S-I-S, for future reference.]

The point is on top ...[text shortened]... respect to that fictional book, thus in total contrast to the veracity we find in the Bible.

Okay, Genesis, thanks for the correction. But it doesn't change the fact that there are no scientific evidence that the genesis is the correct explanation of the start of the Universe. Not one. You can stomp your foot, hold your breath and turn blue, but after you come to again, you'll be in the same position: The truth of genesis is only religious, not scientific. And that's only one part of the bible that doesn't hold. Do you really want me to repeat all the other parts?

I haven't anywhere in this thread said that the book of Mormon is better, nor worse, than the bible, the quaran, the torah, or any other religious scriptures.

You wrote: "There is noting 'set apart, set above'". It is spelled "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", which you and I should know as members of the spelling gestapo.

duplicate post

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one.

Lol, you know i am always glad if i can raise a smile dear Noobster, the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, you know i am always glad if i can raise a smile dear Noobster, the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

...both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

This is what is known as a vishvahetuism.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b] ...both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

This is what is known as a vishvahetuism.[/b]

posterity may crown you for inventing a new phrase 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
They have the right to believe what they want, exatly like you. I don't compare apples with oranges, I compare peoples right to have the right to chose their own religion, exactly as you have. I treat others as I wanted to be treated myself. So said Jesus, so says I.

fundamentaly you are correct. but wouldn't you say that some philosophies are "righter" than others? wouldn't you say budhism is slightly better than the aztec religion focused on human sacrifice?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, you know i am always glad if i can raise a smile dear Noobster, the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

Mmmmm.....[he says stroking his beard with a doubtful glint on his eye]

I feel a new thread may be on the way.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
fundamentaly you are correct. but wouldn't you say that some philosophies are "righter" than others? wouldn't you say budhism is slightly better than the aztec religion focused on human sacrifice?

You take an extrem case to prove your point - the human sacrifice.

I am sure that you understand that if we ask who has the 'truest' holy scripture and ask one religious leader in Bagdad, one religious leader in Jerusalem, one religious leader in Salt Lake City, and finally one religious leader in the Vatican, do you think we would have the same answer? If we were to objectively quantify the trueness in each holy scripture, what standard would we use then?

I don't say that one is better than the other, who am I to make a judgement of that? I just say that it is impossible to objectively decide what holy scripture is best. Or false. Or best for the humankind. Or worst.

Anyone wanting respect for his religion have to give respect for others. (Isn't that a part of the US declaration?)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, Genesis, thanks for the correction. But it doesn't change the fact that there are no scientific evidence that the genesis is the correct explanation of the start of the Universe. Not one. You can stomp your foot, hold your breath and turn blue, but after you come to again, you'll be in the same position: The truth of genesis is only religious, not s ...[text shortened]... lled "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", which you and I should know as members of the spelling gestapo.

But it doesn't change the fact that there are no scientific evidence that the genesis is the correct explanation of the start of the Universe.
There is no scientific evidence for or against any explanations for the initiation of the universe, let alone the one we find in the Bible. To expect one is naïve. No one but God was there, so we're kinda forced to take His rendition of it, which I am perfectly satisfied in doing. The ongoing revelation of man's knowledge (trial and error) is a fool's paradise: any placing their trust on today's speculation will be certainly revealed as tomorrow's fool. Which is not to say that one ought to place their confidence in the Bible based solely on its antiquity. The wise place their trust where it cannot be eroded, whether the fortress was established earlier this morning or eons ago. Smart money, however, leans toward the one established sometime before today.

The truth of genesis is only religious, not scientific.
You will need to define the term 'religious,' then. Because--- from what I know of science--- the account in the Bible is the textbook version of the definition of scientific... save one aspect: repeatability.

I haven't anywhere in this thread said that the book of Mormon is better, nor worse, than the bible, the quaran, the torah, or any other religious scriptures.
No one has said that you have. You have, however, equated them as on equal footing.

You wrote: "There is noting 'set apart, set above'". It is spelled "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", which you and I should know as members of the spelling gestapo.
Touché!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But it doesn't change the fact that there are no scientific evidence that the genesis is the correct explanation of the start of the Universe.
There is no scientific evidence for or against any explanations for the initiation of the universe, let alone the one we find in the Bible. To expect one is naïve. No one but God was there, so we're ...[text shortened]... -G", which you and I should know as members of the spelling gestapo.[/b]
Touché![/b]

This thread is not about the religious interpretation of the Genesis vs the scientific theory of BigBang. It's about the various scriptures of different religions in genreal and specifically the Mormons.

If you want to discuss the obvious flaws of genesis, then perhaps you want to create a new thread in the matter and we'll have a good discussion there.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, you know i am always glad if i can raise a smile dear Noobster, the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

But obviously Mormon archeologists and ©True Scientists corroborate the book of Mormon too. Sadly neither group of ©True scientists (the Mormon ones or yours) follow the principles of science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You take an extrem case to prove your point - the human sacrifice.

I am sure that you understand that if we ask who has the 'truest' holy scripture and ask one religious leader in Bagdad, one religious leader in Jerusalem, one religious leader in Salt Lake City, and finally one religious leader in the Vatican, do you think we would have the same answe ...[text shortened]... for his religion have to give respect for others. (Isn't that a part of the US declaration?)

you can't say you are unable to decide what holy scripture is best. i demonstrated you can, when i gave the extreme example of budhism versus aztect carnage. some comparisons are obvious and some are not so obvious, granted. but verdicts can in fact be given: mormonism is stupid, christianity is less stupid because that and that and that, budhism is better than christianity because that and that.

systems of beliefs aren't different than philosophy currents. some have merits some have flaws and some have more merits or flaws than others.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you can't say you are unable to decide what holy scripture is best. i demonstrated you can, when i gave the extreme example of budhism versus aztect carnage. some comparisons are obvious and some are not so obvious, granted. but verdicts can in fact be given: mormonism is stupid, christianity is less stupid because that and that and that, budhism is better ...[text shortened]... phy currents. some have merits some have flaws and some have more merits or flaws than others.

When we have to chose between two religions, we have to take all things in account, not only one thing, in this case human sacrifices. I don't know enough to debate the religion of the aztecs, so I won't.

Even the bible promotes human sacrifices in places, even Jesus himself was sacrificed on the cross. But that has nothing to do if the christian religion is a bad religion only of that reason. So this argument has nothing to do with deciding which one of the religion who can say or cannot say that one or another holy scripture is the most right one. The question is too complex for that.

Who would decide which one is the best? Is it more or less trustworthy if the one thinking the bible is the correct one is a christian himself? Of course it has. And if he is a moslem, is e more or less trustworthe if he propses the quaran as the best holy scripture? Perhaps an abjective decisision can be delivered only by someone who doesn't believe in either religion, a true atheist.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This thread is not about the religious interpretation of the Genesis vs the scientific theory of BigBang. It's about the various scriptures of different religions in genreal and specifically the Mormons.

If you want to discuss the obvious flaws of genesis, then perhaps you want to create a new thread in the matter and we'll have a good discussion there.

Let's try to stay on topic. You were equating all religions as on equal footing with Christianity, as all were based on equally error-laden books. I have corrected that perspective. Did you have anything else to cover, or are we through here?