Blind Faith?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Its a challenge that directly illuminates the monstrous double standard you are operating under: the critical tools you use to discard the book of mormon as fiction do the same thing when turned upon the bible.

And this seems to be what Hughes is having a promblem understaing.

Just saying that Egypt is real, or that there is a Jerusalem is real, in no way supports that Jesus really was resurrected or any of the other mircales.

His faith in the bible is absoutlty no different than my faith in the BoM. I think you have done a great job in demonstrating this.

[SilverKnight]

Claims of hundreds who saw, heard and witnessed events surrounding Jesus' life. Some who wrote down what they saw, in public. And we still have copies of said writings...

Really? There are 'hundreds' of first-hand eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus, and we have copies of said accounts?

Do share.

[Hughes]

You can keep beating that 51% strawman, but it's still a failing grade in school.

As I've pointed out, places and names do not make it anything more than historical fiction.

The 51% comes from the LDS article you linked to.

And if the Bible is is historical fiction then the book of mormon is even more so fiction.

The point is that your attack on the bible doesn't amount to a defense of the book of mormon.

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Does the existence of Troy prove the reality of the Ancient Greek Gods?

Not to me? Does it to you? And further, how does this provide evidence for the claims of JS?

[ELF1024]

The 51% comes from the LDS article you linked to.

And if the Bible is is historical fiction then the book of mormon is even more so fiction.

The point is that your attack on the bible doesn't amount to a defense of the book of mormon.

LOL!!! It was never intended to be a defense! It was to show you the double standard! You accept the Bible on BLIND FAITH in Jesus Christ. We accept the Bible and Book of Mormon on BLIND FAITH in Jesus Christ. (See post #151 & #157 from Mola)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is an interesting argument.

JS claims to translate text from gold plates... No one or nothing could verify this even still today. 100% of this claim is blind faith and 100% of mormonism is based on Joseph Smith claims.

compared with.

Claims of hundreds who saw, heard and witnessed events surrounding Jesus' life. Some who wrote down what they saw, in public. And we still have copies of said writings...

And you honestly think that Christians have the same blind faith that you do in Joseph Smith?

Wait, most of those that testified of Christ can not even be verified. Infact lets say they claimed what happened is true. How do you know that Jesus rose from the grave? You have not seen him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The 51% comes from the LDS article you linked to.

And if the Bible is is historical fiction then the book of mormon is even more so fiction.

The point is that your attack on the bible doesn't amount to a defense of the book of mormon.

Dude, you are really missing this. Maybe a 4th time will be the charm. We are not trying to defend the BoM dude. We are pointing out your vastly huge double standard.

[Gervin]

Your inability to understand is not my problem. The question has been answered.

all you had to do was fill in the blank - thus, your mantra, above. next time be more careful about your claims; people expect you to back them up.

[SilverKnight]

The 51% comes from the LDS article you linked to.

And if the Bible is is historical fiction then the book of mormon is even more so fiction.

LOL.

So your book of myths is at least better than the mormons' book of myths becasue it is older, and has toponyms.

It would probably grieve you much to read some other religions' holy texts that are even older and more closely tied to historic events than the bible.

The point is that your attack on the bible doesn't amount to a defense of the book of mormon.

The point is that your faith in the Bible is no more grounded in evidence than:

-Mormons' faith in the Book of Mormon

-Muslims' faith in the Quran

-Hindus' faith in the Baghavad Gita

-Neopagans' faith in the Norse Sagas

-Etc.

That you would claim the above groups have 'blind' faith, but you have 'real' faith, is laughable you consider the actual evidence for the world's various religions' holy texts.

[ELF1024]

all you had to do was fill in the blank - thus, your mantra, above. next time be more careful about your claims; people expect you to back them up.

Gervin, the question was answered numberous times by both me and Silverknight. Your inability to compherend English does not mean that the claim was not backed up, or that question wasn't answered. It just demonstrates your lack of understanding and your ignornace.

I gave you an answer, I even showed you other examples of work of fiction and why it compared. Your boundless stupidity is not my problem, now kindly quit harassing me for an answer you've already been given.

[ElfLord]

Right. However, notice the difference. Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Seventh Day, Non-denominational, Catholic all subscribe to what we could call (for lack of a better term) Historical Christianity.

The very thing that Joseph Smith was told not to participate in.

This set's Smith's teaching apart, and your faith in your God and my faith in my God are different Gods. Hence completely contradictory theology when comparing Mormonism to historical Christianity.

I always get a chuckle when, against their Hero Paul's council, self-professed Christians drive a wedge between themselves and their fellow man.

Romans 10:12

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Acts 10:34-35

34

[Gervin]

Now kindly quit harassing me for an answer you've already been given.

You've not provided an answer despite your claims to the contrary and I am not harrassing you; have I resorted to name-calling, ugliness? You can't provide an answer - that's all I'm pointing out now.

... your ignornace.

... Your boundless stupidity

hmmm, your LDS, right?

[ELF1024]

You've not provided an answer despite your claims to the contrary and I am not harrassing you; have I resorted to name-calling, ugliness? You can't provide an answer - that's all I'm pointing out now.

hmmm, your LDS, right?

Technically, No I'm not LDS.

And Yes, the question was answered NUMBEROUS TIMES.

[Vance]

Evapogists

???

I am not sure you spelled it right.

Evapidologists. Pronounced E-vapid-ologists.

[Pahoran]

The most cogent argument for a naturalistic origin of the book is the book itself.

Fail. Your bibliolatry utterly prejudices you against it, but the book itself is evidence of miraculous origin.

Besides, you are deflecting from my actual point. There is no cogent argument for The Book of Mormon having a naturalistic origin that also allows for it to be authentically ancient.

You probably realize this,

Epic fail.

offering the discovery of Zarahemla (it could really be anything - a Hebrew temple, an Old World inscription, a steel sword, etc) as confirmation of the book's miraculous claims.

If Zarahemla were to be found and positively identified (by inscription, naturally) then that would prove The Book of Mormon to be authentically ancient. If authentically ancient, then of miraculous origin.

That wouldn't stop diehards from scrambling to find an alternative explanation, of course; but the fact is that the discovery of Zarahemla would immediately explode all extant attempts at a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon.

However, LDS claims of finds to date (NHM = Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) certainly haven't confirmed anything miraculous. New World claims are no different. Find something then we can debate whether it is truly represented in the Book of Mormon and miraculous. Until then, understand that such miracle claims are worth less than zero.

Which would make them almost as worthless as your opinions; but only almost.

Notice, however, that I made no "miracle claims" at all. You are playing a shell game, and you are playing it with the practiced skill that shows you to be accustomed to such verbal legerdemain. I was, as you perfectly well know, speaking of a hypothetical case.

And thus your accusation of "canard" rebounds upon you.

Which is where it belongs.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

Technically, No I'm not LDS.

And Yes, the question was answered NUMBEROUS TIMES.

no, it hasn't and I HAVE CAPS LOCK, TOO. I think it's spelled "numerous", btw.

[ELF1024]

I think it's spelled "numerous", btw.

Depends on what side of the pond you're on.

(It's an older spelling, but it is techincally correct, like potatoe)

[Hughes]

As I said in the beginning of this "discussion"...

However, it is not blind faith in Joseph Smith, as he as been dead for quite some time, it is blind faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The same God you put your Blind Faith in for a confirmation of the Bible.

Yeah, your faith is in what Joseph Smith taught about Jesus... If you agree with JS then it's a different Jesus.

[Hughes]

As I stated before, they are on equal ground.

There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible.

Too bad your statement doesn't match reality. The reality is there only 1% supporting the book of Mormon compared to 51% percent for the Biblical account.

Please explain how 51 equal 1?

[ELF1024]

Yeah, your faith is in what Joseph Smith taught about Jesus... If you agree with JS then it's a different Jesus.

There is plenty of Bibical evidence that demonstrates that there is only one Jesus (Jehovah). So your assertion that it must be a different one is even heretical to an evapidologists point of view.

[Deborah]

I joined the LDS church on blind faith; accompanied of course by a very powerful spiritual confirmation.

Through the years my faith has been supported by historical study, testimony of witnesses and reading the Book of Mormon over and over and over.

Everyone may start with blind faith, but such faith cannot continue without some kind of assurance that it is not in vain and therefore not blind but faith based on the on-going confirmation that faith works and gives us strength and comfort and guidance.

[Hughes]

I do not think that Martin Luther would agree with you in that. He clearly had some ideas that set him apart from "Historical Christianity" in that he rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a radical idea at the time. He also railed against the selling of indulgences, he did not believe that the church's piece of paper would save you from anything; also a radical idea at the time. Which was why he was excommunicated.

I'm sure there were people in his time who believe that his God was different than the Catholic God.

You might be correct, I haven't talked to anyone from that time period. However, Luther held to Historical truths, such as the Trinity, the validity of the creeds and the major theological teachings of the Apostles. Which Joseph Smith rejected.

[ELF1024]

Too bad your statement doesn't match reality. The reality is there only 1% supporting the book of Mormon compared to 51% percent for the Biblical account.

Please explain how 51 equal 1?

Your arguing only city-names. There is much more about archeological evidence than just City-names. Besides which, you have yet to show any evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the Bible is anything other than historical fiction. So in the end, unless you can somehow prove that Jesus is a ressurected being, which you can't do with "evidence" of man, but only of evidence of the spirit; then the equasion is actually 0=0.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, your faith is in what Joseph Smith taught about Jesus... If you agree with JS then it's a different Jesus.

Pssst, we are not talking about Jesus down at the taco stand.

[ElfLord]

There is plenty of Bibical evidence that demonstrates that there is only one Jesus (Jehovah). So your assertion that it must be a different one is even heretical to an evapidologists point of view.

And to Paul himself...

Romans 10:12

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Here again...

Acts 17

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men