The Christian Mirage of Hank Hanegraaff

[SeattleGhostWriter]

It is always refreshing to get a hold of something and read it, recognizing how presumptious some of the things are stated and posit to be factual reasoning.

In a series of articles, I am dismantling and exposing Hank Hanegraaff's position against the Mormon Religion and challenge his "fiction" rather than "factual" booklet - The Mormon Mirage: Seeing through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism.

Come, weigh in on your thoughts and discuss this.

[Zakuska]

It is always refreshing to get a hold of something and read it, recognizing how presumptious some of the things are stated and posit to be factual reasoning.

In a series of articles, I am dismantling and exposing Hank Hanegraaff's position against the Mormon Religion and challenge his "fiction" rather than "factual" booklet - The Mormon Mirage: Seeing through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism.

Come, weigh in on your thoughts and discuss this.

Good article im finishing it shortly. One quick note... you have a couple mis spelled 'The's (eg teh) understandable one finger types faster than the other.

Another quick one...

"because King David too many wives" 'too' should be "took".

another 'the' this might be hanks misspell though

A final crack in the credibility of the Book of Mormon is that whole sections are derived directly from the King James Version of the Bible

[Mordecai]

I read some of that guy's stuff before. I wasn't even a little impressed. The "Bible Answer Man," if he were logical, would simply become a Mormon, seeing as we interpret the Bible for what it says better than anyone.

[ERMD]

It's a good start. You may want to do some proofreading. There are many typos and incorrect terms, e.g., National Geography Society (it's Geographic); you use " -y's " for plural rather than "-ies"; etc.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Ah thank you. I will go through and make those necessary corrections and thank you all for pointing those out to me.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Good article im finishing it shortly. One quick note... you have a couple mis spelled 'The's (eg teh) understandable one finger types faster than the other.

Another quick one...

"because King David too many wives" 'too' should be "took".

another 'the' this might be hanks misspell though

A final crack in the credibility of the Book of Mormon is that whole sections are derived directly from the King James Version of the Bible

[Zakuska]

Alas... I receive a CFR and I am unable to remember where I read that. Let me pull some books off the shelf and see what I can find. :blush:

[Hoops22]

Alas... I receive a CFR and I am unable to remember where I read that. Let me pull some books off the shelf and see what I can find. :blush:

I think you link is broken. I was trying to get to the article where you dismantle Hank's arguments but this link leads to a different article. Maybe you could repost the correct one.

[Zakuska]

Here is a place to start:

http://www.geocities...t/spexecsum.htm

http://www.vexen.co....on/matthew.html

You do mention the first

" Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew heavily relies on Old Testament Prophecies

[cdowis]

While a good effort, it was ..... boring and tedious.

You spend alot of time quibbling over minor stuff at the beginning, rather than hitting the nail on the head. You waste alot of effort on truth in love, and folklore. Cut the whining, and get to the point.

Convince your audience that you are not wasting their time, or you will lose them.

You can start by cutting out the first five paragraphs of your article, and get down to business. I doubt if anyone will bother to get past those first paragraphs. I certainly did not get past that point before giving up.

As I said, nice effort, but cut the fluff.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

I think you link is broken. I was trying to get to the article where you dismantle Hank's arguments but this link leads to a different article. Maybe you could repost the correct one.

Here is the first: The Christian Mirage of CRI - Introduction

The Second: Moroni - Hanegraaff's Strawman Mirage

I will be correcting the second one and then the first one.

[Nevo]

Also, L. Ara Norwood is a man.

[Hoops22]

Here is the first: The Christian Mirage of CRI - Introduction

The Second: Moroni - Hanegraaff's Strawman Mirage

I will be correcting the second one and then the first one.

My apologies, Mr. Seattle. I was teasing you thusly:

You said the article you wrote would dismantle Hank's argument(s). I read much of it, and don't come to the same conclusion you do. In fact, I found it to be the same mormon argument, albeit couched in feigned adoration for fairness. It is:

Bible bad

BoM good.

[selek]

I found it to be the same mormon argument, albeit couched in feigned adoration for fairness. It is:

Bible bad

BoM good.

Hoops, you have the unique and unenviable talent of producing more chicken **** per hour than all of the poultry farms in the Northern hemisphere combined, and your last post was an unusually pure and concentrated sample.

"Bible = bad, BOM = good" is not and never has been a Mormon argument, let alone a "typical" one.

And contrary to your self-worship, your machinations and self-serving hype (nor those of macho man Hank H) are not now, nor will ever be "The Bible".

[Hoops22]

Hoops, you have the unique and unenviable talent of producing more chicken **** per hour than all of the poultry farms in the Northern hemisphere combined, and your last post was an unusually pure and concentrated sample.

"Bible = bad, BOM = good" is not and never has been a Mormon argument, let alone a "typical" one.

And contrary to your self-worship, your machinations and self-serving hype (nor those of macho man Hank H) are not now, nor will ever be "The Bible".

Again, it's always personal with you. And always so pleasant. Why would that be? I suppose only your therapist knows for sure. Does using the little stars some how absolve you of such coarse language? Not gonna work your way to heaven that way, now are you. Nonetheless, your non-denial denial is a handful of sticks on this roaring blaze of divorce from reality. In this, your very post, the Bible is not the Bible. This bible bashing seems to be a reflexive action that has lost all its uniqueness.

In the op's post, his alleged dismantling of Hank's assertion is that the Bible is suspect. This tactic is seen constantly in these here parts, your (and others) failure to see that notwithstanding.

That's fine, if that's your position. But one can not, and still remain with the rest of us mortals (perhaps thats the hangup) on this rock, trumpet embrace the Bible as God's word and still cast aspersions on it. You may want it both ways, and it serves you to have it both ways, but you can not have it both ways.

[selek]

Again, it's always personal with you. And always so pleasant.

What can I say- I react poorly to the same-old book-burning, red-necked bigotry and deliberate deception that spill from your lips like crap from a goose.

Why would that be? I suppose only your therapist knows for sure.

Projection is an ugly thing, Hoops. Perhaps you should tend to your own medications and leave mine to me?

Does using the little stars some how absolve you of such coarse language?

I wanted to use language I could be certain you'd understand- but I DO apologize if the analogy struck a little too close to your true origins.

Not gonna work your way to heaven that way, now are you.

I wasn't "working my way to Heaven" in any event, but right now the very worst fate that could befall me is a cell in Hell adjoining yours.

But one can not embrace the Bible as God's word and still cast aspersions on it.

And this is where you lie, Hoops- because it isn't (and never has been) the Bible upon which we cast aspersions. Our criticisms are focused instead upon your mendacious attempts to re-write the Bible.

It isn't the Bible we disparage, but your Alice-through -the-looking-glass distortions.

But thank you for confirming that you cannot differentiate between the Word of God and the deranged whispers of your own ego and remain willing to lie to protect your conceit.

[selek]

I will say this for you though, Hoops.

From your first post to your last, the flow of ignorance, bigotry, arrogant presumption, willful deceit and hateful disinformation has not slacked, waned, or ebbed in any way.

In that regard, you are truly a wonder to behold.

[Hoops22]

Now, Selek, my friend, don't get so flustered. Just put an extra 2% in the till and all will be okay.

What can I say- I react poorly to the same-old book-burning, red-necked bigotry and deliberate deception that spill from your lips like crap from a goose.

I see you still want to make this about me. I appreciate that my arguments get under your skin, but really, so unflattering to you.

Projection is an ugly thing, Hoops. Perhaps you should tend to your own medications and leave mine to me?

Good idea. Remember, yours reads take TWO daily. You seem to be undercutting your meds by half.

I wanted to use language I could be certain you'd understand- but I DO apologize if the analogy struck a little too close to your true origins.

No, it's the language I find offensive, not your argument. Mainly because I have yet to see your argument.

I wasn't "working my way to Heaven" in any event, but right now the very worst fate that could befall me is a cell in Hell adjoining yours.

I won't be there. I've already been saved. Remember, once saved, always saved. See, I'm assured of my salvation every day, yours is subect to the arbitray adherence to rule-making of your own invention.

And this is where you lie, Hoops- because it isn't (and never has been) the Bible upon which we cast aspersions. Our criticisms are focused instead upon your mendacious attempts to re-write the Bible.

Ah, now you're calling me a liar. How utterly................ predictable.

It isn't the Bible we disparage, but your Alice-through -the-looking-glass distortions.

I'm wondering why lds never seem to have it in them to actually DEFEND the Bible. Oh wait, I remember why. Never mind.

But thank you for confirming that you cannot differentiate between the Word of God and the deranged whispers of your own ego and remain willing to lie to protect your conceit.

CAlling me a liar twice now. Mercy. Better make it an extra 4% in the till.

[Hoops22]

I will say this for you though, Hoops.

From your first post to your last, the flow of ignorance, bigotry, arrogant presumption, willful deceit and hateful disinformation has not slacked, waned, or ebbed in any way.

In that regard, you are truly a wonder to behold.

Hey, if you produce you play. It's all about the numbers, baby, all about the numbers.

[selek]

Now, Selek, don't get so flustered. Just put an extra 2% in the till and all will be okay.

Flustered? Hardly.

"Meanly amused at your desperate attempt to deflect criticism of your man-crush" would be far closer to the mark.

I see you still want to make this about me.

Not really- but I note that you seem awfully desperate to avoid actually addressing Seattle Writer's points. You dismissed them with an airy (and somewhat limp-wristed) wave of the hand- but you didn't even try to refute them.

I appreciate that my arguments get under your skin,

What argument? The tropes you've vomitted up are designed to AVOID real arguments.

Offer up some substance for a change, instead of tired stereotypes.

Mainly because I have yet to see your argument.

Physician, heal thyself! You've offered no rebuttal to Seattle Writer, just throw-away canards with no bearing on reality.

I'm assured of my salvation every day, yours is subect to the arbitray adherence to rule-making of your own invention.[/stMore throw-away bigotry and distraction...how utterly typical.

In that regard, you're rather like the

Missouri River- ever flowing.

Roll on, Old Man Fibber!

I'm wondering why lds never seem to have it in them to actually DEFEND the Bible. Oh wait, I remember why.

Actually, we defend the Bible every bit as often as any other Christian group- but your blinders won't allow you to see that.

[Hoops22]

Actually, we defend the Bible every bit as often as any other Christian group- but your blinders won't allow you to see that.

If it occurs as often as you say, it should cross my scope even with the blinders. I have yet to see it. Perhaps you could point to a thread on this board where lds are defending the Bible against its attackers?

[selek]

If it occurs as often as you say, it should cross my scope even with the blinders. I have yet to see it. Perhaps you could point to a thread on this board where lds are defending the Bible against its attackers?

I offer any and every thread in which Mighty Curelom, John Hansen, and the whole host of atheist drive-by's congregate.

If those aren't sufficient, then you're damned simply by act of will.

None is so blind as he who WILL NOT see.

It goes without saying, of course, that your attempt at sleight-of-hand has failed.

You keep trying to put the Mormons in this thread on the defensive- but that can't disguise the fact that you STILL HAVEN'T OFFERED A COGENT REBUTTAL TO SEATTLE WRITER'S ARGUMENTS.

Keep trying to change the subject, Hoops- the desperation is glaring and the omission revealing.

[Hoops22]

I offer any and every thread in which Mighty Curelom, John Hansen, and the whole host of atheist drive-by's congregate.

Why don't you pick one that you think best serves your claim.

[selek]

Why don't you pick one that you think best serves your claim.

So as to deny you the derailment you crave.

Why haven't you offered a cogent rebuttal to Seattle Writer?

[Hoops22]

The latest thread offered by an lds. Conveniently titled for my purposes:

The biggest Bible debacle I've encountered yet