Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[LeSellers]

I can't stop further posts to this thread, but if I ignore any such further posts, you know why.

Yes, we know why, but I doubt it is what you claim.

It is not "fairly common" at all, and only under a very broad and indescriminate defintion of "fairly common" could anyone make such a spurious charge.

How "common" is "fairly common"? 62.562%, 10%, 1%? I'd guess that the rate you'd find in an honest poll of Saints would be >>5%. (">>" is "much less than".) It seems unlikely that anyone in the world would find 5% to be "fairly common".

Further, as others have stated, the use of "atheist" in the quotes you snatched did not refer to classic atheism at all, but to the pragmatic concept of worshiping "something" that neither can nor does exist because it defies all description. But, then, nuances were never your strong point, and do not serve your nefarious purposes.

(Now I'll take a few minutes and find out why my 'ignore" setting is not working as I configured it.)

Lehi

[Vance]

Vance,

You, of course, have never, ever said anything with less than full precision.

Right.

Just pointing out the fact that you did inflate their status for your attack.

When you were accused of inflating their status for your attack, you stated that such an accusation was "ridiculous".

Then when asked why you inflated their status if not for polemical purposes, you denied that you inflated their status.

But the fact remains, you DID inflate their status. You even used bold lettering to do the inflation.

{2} The LDS figures I cited were not merely "thinkers"; they were LDS apostles.

So, now that you can no longer deny that you inflated their status, you want us to believe that your use of "less than full precision" was what exactly?

Inadvertent?

[ERayR]

All,

I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread: to document that my statement about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists was not a lie and in fact has significant support from leading LDS figures for most of the LDS Church's history. I am not interested in responding to quibbles and gotchas that try to make my assertions more precise than I intended them or that try to divert attention from the point I was making. As I have explained in a couple of other threads, my time for these online discussions is now severely limited. I can't stop further posts to this thread, but if I ignore any such further posts, you know why.

Right, you are going to declare victory and go home. Good move but for the fact that all you have established is that you either have no understanding of Mormon thought or you are deliberatly misrepresenting it. The old "don't tell me what you believe, I'll tell you what you believe". Much smoother but still the same.

[ebeddoulos]

Trininquerianism?

Lehi

Nicely played! I laughed!

[Ahab]

All,

I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread: to document that my statement about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists was not a lie and in fact has significant support from leading LDS figures for most of the LDS Church's history. I am not interested in responding to quibbles and gotchas that try to make my assertions more precise than I intended them or that try to divert attention from the point I was making. As I have explained in a couple of other threads, my time for these online discussions is now severely limited. I can't stop further posts to this thread, but if I ignore any such further posts, you know why.

You're wrong, Rob, although I do give you partical credit for showing that (some) Mormons consider (some) non-"Mormon" Christians to be atheists.

Maybe if you were more interested in responding to correction of your imprecise language and characterizations you'd realize why we aren't interested in giving you full credit for being correct on all of your points.

[Vance]

All,

I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread: to document that my statement about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists was not a lie and in fact has significant support from leading LDS figures for most of the LDS Church's history.

Still trying to maintain your untenable position?

Commonly: Adverb: Very often; frequently.

1. usually; ordinarily he was commonly known as Joe

1.usually; generally; ordinarily.

Your accusation has been shown to be without merit. So yes, it is time for you to move on (or back) to another one of your weak quibbles against Mormonism.

[Vance]

You asked for a definition that was not self-contradictory; I gave you one.

If only that were true.

Three persons, in one being (as you explain it) IS a contradiction.

[LeSellers]

Trininquerianism?

Nicely played! I laughed!

I live to serve.

Lehi

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

I am not going to engage someone in discussion who ridicules my beliefs:

Now that truly deserves a belly laugh! Surely you are not oblivious to the hypocracy of your comment, Mr. Director of Research - Institute for Religious Research?

I suspect you saw the pathway being laid out for you and decided that you best disengage. As I've said before, you do know your limitations.

[Tarski]

Tarski,

You're just playing games. You obviously know enough to know what I mean. You asked for a definition that was not self-contradictory; I gave you one.

No I don't ...not at all. I suspect that you don't either but that's why I am asking. Maybe you do. If you do then unpacking the terms shouldn't be a problem.

You asked for a definition that was not self-contradictory; I gave you one.

To the extent that it is not self contradictory it is unremarkable---since one could read it to be saying something unremarkable not all that different than Mormonism. Three ghosts instead of three mammals.

What does coexist mean in this context? Can I just use the dictionary for that?

What does self-existent mean?

Unpack the terms without restating it in equally ambiguous or undefined terms. If you do, one of us will learn from the exercise

[CV75]

I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread: to document that my statement about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists was not a lie and in fact has significant support from leading LDS figures for most of the LDS Church's history.

I'm not sure how this can prove whether you lied or not (and who cares? no one asked you to prove you weren't lying) when the real issue, and what you were called on, is the claim that it is fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists. What we do accept is that the principle of immaterialism is as worthwhile as atheism in promoting faith in Christ, even if it is held by some Christians. This is what the passages you provided prove, and not that you were not lying.

[Jesterss]

Thats why I brought the Tertullian text over here too... and wished Rob would comment on it.

Here is the Important Part again...

That sounds just like...

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes

Tertullian also believed Paul was single. So do you fully back Tertullian's views or just some of them?...

[Zakuska]

Tertullian also believed Paul was single. So do you fully back Tertullian's views or just some of them?...

The saducees didn't believe in a bodily ressurection. Yet even Jesus didn't say they had everything wrong.

[altersteve]

Tertullian also believed Paul was single. So do you fully back Tertullian's views or just some of them?...

If you agree with somebody about a certain subject, who says you have to agree with everything else they say? I agree with some of President Obama's views, for example, but why does that mean I have to agree with all of them?

[Jesterss]

If you agree with somebody about a certain subject, who says you have to agree with everything else they say? I agree with some of President Obama's views, for example, but why does that mean I have to agree with all of them?

We are talking from a historical view point on the validity of someone elses interpretation of a biblical point of view. I find it interesting that one would pick and choose what to take from someones opinions on the bible only if they agree with their understanding or interpretations, then ignore those that don't.. Don't you see the irony in that?

[Jesterss]

The saducees didn't believe in a bodily ressurection. Yet even Jesus didn't say they had everything wrong.

They didn't believe in a resurrection. No mention of anything "bodily" about the resurrection in the form of human flesh.

[altersteve]

We are talking from a historical view point on the validity of someone elses interpretation of a biblical point of view. I find it interesting that one would pick and choose what to take from someones opinions on the bible only if they agree with their understanding or interpretations, then ignore those that don't.. Don't you see the irony in that?

So it's ironic that someone would agree with some of a person's opinions about the Bible but disagree with others? All Zakusa was doing was using one of Tertullian's teachings to show that the doctrine of material spirits is nothing new. What's so "ironic" about that?

They didn't believe in a resurrection. No mention of anything "bodily" about the resurrection in the form of human flesh.

Resurrection = bodily resurrection. They're the same thing. Besides, I think you knew precisely what Zakusa meant, so there's no need to be nitpicky. He made a good point that you failed to respond to.

Edited September 26, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

So it's ironic that someone would agree with some of a person's opinions about the Bible but disagree with others? All Zakusa was doing was using one of Tertullian's teachings to show that the doctrine of material spirits is nothing new. What's so "ironic" about that?

Yes actually, it is. When you are trying to draw upon "biblical scholars of old" because "they knew the greek" and say that these are valid points because of that information alone and some agrees with your viewpoint that is seeking a biased opinion based on the fact that it agrees with the way you think, but anything else he says, although it may be just as legit, is discredited because its not what you have come to believe. The irony is that I used Tertullian in the Paul and Marriage section and LeSellers and T-Shirt just wanted to use Clement of Alexandria, and you yourself overlooked my comments on Tertullian because it wasn't what you believed.

Resurrection = bodily resurrection. They're the same thing. Besides, I think you knew precisely what Zakusa meant, so there's no need to be nitpicky. He made a good point that you failed to respond to.

Are you saying that it's flesh and bone or spiritual? Because to me, I believe spiritual. So yes, bodily, but it doesn't have to be the same bodily as you intend. And what point did I fail to respond to?

[altersteve]

Yes actually, it is. When you are trying to draw upon "biblical scholars of old" because "they knew the greek" and say that these are valid points because of that information alone and some agrees with your viewpoint that is seeking a biased opinion based on the fact that it agrees with the way you think, but anything else he says, although it may be just as legit, is discredited because its not what you have come to believe. The irony is that I used Tertullian in the Paul and Marriage section and LeSellers and T-Shirt just wanted to use Clement of Alexandria, and you yourself overlooked my comments on Tertullian because it wasn't what you believed.

Now we're going completely off course. I've made my point already.

Are you saying that it's flesh and bone or spiritual? Because to me, I believe spiritual. So yes, bodily, but it doesn't have to be the same bodily as you intend. And what point did I fail to respond to?

The resurrection is a literal, physical, bodily resurrection; that is, we will receive perfected, immortal bodies after we die. This is guaranteed for all people. And you failed to comment on what Zakusa actually said, that even Jesus didn't say that the Sadducees were 100% wrong.

[Jesterss]

The resurrection is a literal, physical, bodily resurrection; that is, we will receive perfected, immortal bodies after we die. This is guaranteed for all people. And you failed to comment on what Zakusa actually said, that even Jesus didn't say that the Sadducees were 100% wrong.

Post #216?

And of course he didn't say they were wrong 100%, he said they do err in their knowledge of the scripture. Because they did not believe in a resurrection at all. And I already replied to him. I never said I disagreed with that viewpoint. I simply stated that if you're going to take someone at their word, Tertullian, and you're going to use him in your arguments, you should understand his full belief, or not rely on it as your soul proof that if Tertullian says body and spiritual are the same, then they are the same. If Paul was single, then he was preaching singleness... One and the same.

Don't take part of a guys beliefs and expect others to have to answer your "reference" because you found a reference that agrees with your opinion, even though you don't really believe in what Tertullian had to say about the bible. Just that at one moment and time of conflict he happened to support your opinion.

[Zakuska]

Post #216?

And of course he didn't say they were wrong 100%, he said they do err in their knowledge of the scripture. Because they did not believe in a resurrection at all. And I already replied to him. I never said I disagreed with that viewpoint. I simply stated that if you're going to take someone at their word, Tertullian, and you're going to use him in your arguments, you should understand his full belief, or not rely on it as your soul proof that if Tertullian says body and spiritual are the same, then they are the same. If Paul was single, then he was preaching singleness... One and the same.

Don't take part of a guys beliefs and expect others to have to answer your "reference" because you found a reference that agrees with your opinion, even though you don't really believe in what Tertullian had to say about the bible. Just that at one moment and time of conflict he happened to support your opinion.

And yet thats exactly what Paul did on 2 different occasions when he quoted teachings from Heathan prophets and poets which he agreed with. Did Paul beleive everything these non-Christians believed? Of Course not.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

Post #216?

What about it? The fact that the resurrection isn't said to be "bodily" means that it's not?

As for the rest of your post, I feel no need to comment. You simply don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I will say this, though:

If Paul was single, then he was preaching singleness... One and the same.

Except that Paul wasn't preaching singleness. He was married at one point or another. That much is obvious to me.

[zerinus]

If only that were true.

Three persons, in one being (as you explain it) IS a contradiction.

It is actually three persons in one person--which is more obviously absurd. But they try to dodge the obvious absurdity by calling it three persons in one God--as if God was not a person--hoping thereby to paper over the absurdity, thinking that nobody will notice!

Edited September 26, 2011 by zerinus

[Pahoran]

Yes actually, it is. When you are trying to draw upon "biblical scholars of old" because "they knew the greek" and say that these are valid points because of that information alone and some agrees with your viewpoint that is seeking a biased opinion based on the fact that it agrees with the way you think, but anything else he says, although it may be just as legit, is discredited because its not what you have come to believe. The irony is that I used Tertullian in the Paul and Marriage section and LeSellers and T-Shirt just wanted to use Clement of Alexandria, and you yourself overlooked my comments on Tertullian because it wasn't what you believed.

Are you saying that it's flesh and bone or spiritual? Because to me, I believe spiritual. So yes, bodily, but it doesn't have to be the same bodily as you intend. And what point did I fail to respond to?

What do you mean by "spiritual?"

Luke 24:

36 ¶And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus was resurrected bodily. Which is to say, he was resurrected -- the "bodily" part is inherent in asserting that he was resurrected, and is therefore redundant, which is why it doesn't get mentioned all that much.

Much like referring to an ATM as an "ATM machine" -- the "M" in ATM stands for "machine."

Likewise, a person is resurrected when the spirit and the body are reunited.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[erichard]

Wrong preposition; if you had said on instead of onto then you'd be right.

Ah. Another feeble polemic.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hi Pahoran,

Orthodox Christians believe in all sorts of things that are not part of this world: an "immaterial" (whatever that means) God, immaterial angels, immaterial demons, a heaven and a hell that are "somewhere" and not understood very well, etc etc. God creates everything out of nothing with blank check power to make up any power.

Mormons on the other hand believe that the elements are eternal, and that there is nothing in heaven that was not first on an earth. God has all power over the eternal things that exist-- not to create out of nothing.. This earth will become a heaven eventually. They do not believe in "immaterial" anything. All the building blocks of the universe are here on earth.

Atheists are much more like Mormons. The may not believe in what Mormons believe will happen to things on earth, but they have stopped believing in anything that is not right here.

Richard