Atheist Mormon Posted June 11, 2016 Author Posted June 11, 2016 13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: So you are blaming God for Agency? How could I blame God, if I'm sure he doesn't exist?
Guest Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 34 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Won't be the first time? For us all, we all makes mistakes. To me is seem harsh, but maybe only two me. If so, then I am the one who demeaned. I hope niether us us did.
thesometimesaint Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 43 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: How could I blame God, if I'm sure he doesn't exist? Doesn't help your cause. If we have Agency then it is our own choosing what we do. My belief is that God didn't give us Agency he just made it possible for us to use it.
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted June 11, 2016 Popular Post Posted June 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Slippery slope, who is standing on it? Not me....It is you who gives the possibility of God might be there; heck why don't we include ghosts, aliens, invisible unicorns and the invisible spaceship waiting for me to take off? I have no intention of offending anybody...but I'm forced to defend reality here and reality is; there's no God. Until he shows Himself (which i don't even doubt, I know he won't because he doesn't exist). I'm a student of history (very amateur one).....It is littered with examples of Christian misery, not only that the sword of Islam butchered tens of millions of them without hesitation....And greatest examples of rare victories our civilization had was made possible by identifiable forces, like Americans defeated Nazis or Americans took a successful mission to kill Osama (sorry about using Americans only)....... Friend, you do not offend, don't worry. The problem is that you said you "know" god does not exist and you have yet to offer any evidence to demonstrate your knowledge. Everything else you have talked about is irrelevant to the main question. If you don't have evidence, that is okay, just say so. If you have it, let's hear it. Otherwise, concede the point that you are doing the same thing that believers in god do and you don't know, but express your faith in his non-existence. 7
Atheist Mormon Posted June 11, 2016 Author Posted June 11, 2016 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Doesn't help your cause. If we have Agency then it is our own choosing what we do. My belief is that God didn't give us Agency he just made it possible for us to use it. I don't have a cause at all, to have a cause I'd have a body evidence or minimum a videotape/picture.....
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 8 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sorry I've given you reason to feel that way. Then stop doing it. You are doing it right now. You do not say things in a forthright manner, own it, and then say you are wrong if you are, or then just agree to disagree. It goes around and around in ambiguous meaningless circles and then you apologize about something amorphous to make yourself look good. Just talk. Don't be unctuous while slipping the dagger between the ribs.
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Friend, you do not offend, don't worry. The problem is that you said you "know" god does not exist and you have yet to offer any evidence to demonstrate your knowledge. Everything else you have talked about is irrelevant to the main question. If you don't have evidence, that is okay, just say so. If you have it, let's hear it. Otherwise, concede the point that you are doing the same thing that believers in god do and you don't know, but express your faith in his non-existence. Ah yes. That makes two.
jkwilliams Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 Just now, mfbukowski said: Then stop doing it. You are doing it right now. You do not say things in a forthright manner, own it, and then say you are wrong if you are, or then just agree to disagree. It goes around and around in ambiguous meaningless circles and then you apologize about something amorphous to make yourself look good. Just talk. Don't be unctuous while slipping the dagger between the ribs. I wasn't slipping in a dagger. I was noting that, strictly speaking, there are textual variants of the Book of Mormon. How you could take that as unctuous or not forthright, let alone a dagger attack, is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for making an innocuous comment, but I am indeed sorry that it's come to this.
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I wasn't slipping in a dagger. I was noting that, strictly speaking, there are textual variants of the Book of Mormon. How you could take that as unctuous or not forthright, let alone a dagger attack, is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for making an innocuous comment, but I am indeed sorry that it's come to this. There you go- I was talking about YEARS of similar sorts of interactions and you bring it down to one comment and say you will not apologize but then end up saying you are sorry. Great job, you look good, I look like a heel, even though you did not listen to the video and do not even understand what the discussion is about, and your comment is totally irrelevant. Note that others agreed with me and had no trouble seeing my point, except for you making an irrelevant point based on not following the argument fully. You will not manipulate me into a reply that leads no where, even though it will make me look even worse. I apologize to all for the derail. No mas Senor Bolivia Edited June 11, 2016 by mfbukowski
jkwilliams Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 I understood your point and agreed with it, as I noted. I'm not trying to make anyone look like anything. I made a very minor, tangential point, and suddenly it's part and parcel of my long-term project of attacking you. I readily acknowledge I have behaved badly in the past, and I've tried hard to make up for it. But I am letting go, and I'll just go back to avoiding any interaction with you. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted June 12, 2016 Author Posted June 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Friend, you do not offend, don't worry. The problem is that you said you "know" god does not exist and you have yet to offer any evidence to demonstrate your knowledge. Everything else you have talked about is irrelevant to the main question. If you don't have evidence, that is okay, just say so. If you have it, let's hear it. Otherwise, concede the point that you are doing the same thing that believers in god do and you don't know, but express your faith in his non-existence. "Ah yes. That makes two." As I defend non-existence of God, you call it faith, I call it a knowledge which rests on solid ground...Faith or hope expects some action from a person...I have none to offer on this matter....It's a type of knowledge I can equate to Einstein's relativity theory.....We know the speed of light exists.... One cannot have evidence of concept when he created it out of thin air expect somebody else to prove it "it doesn't exists"... There is a "James Randi Foundation" which offers anyone One cool Million Dollars who can prove God's existence....I realize the tests are a little hard but, it should not impossible for God.....
snowflake Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/11/2016 at 6:42 PM, jkwilliams said: I wasn't slipping in a dagger. I was noting that, strictly speaking, there are textual variants of the Book of Mormon. How you could take that as unctuous or not forthright, let alone a dagger attack, is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for making an innocuous comment, but I am indeed sorry that it's come to this. What do you mean textual variants? The old manuscripts are not exactly the same, some of it is in fragments? How could one ever trust that book when you don't have the original? Those old documents could have just been made up by any one!!!! Can you say double standard?
jkwilliams Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, snowflake said: What do you mean textual variants? The old manuscripts are not exactly the same, some of it is in fragments? How could one ever trust that book when you don't have the original? Those old documents could have just been made up by any one!!!! Can you say double standard? I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/11/2016 at 3:27 PM, Atheist Mormon said: I don't have a cause at all, to have a cause I'd have a body evidence or minimum a videotape/picture..... You are making the claim the God doesn't exist. That is your cause. How would a videotape/picture help your cause?
Ahab Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/11/2016 at 5:24 PM, Atheist Mormon said: "Ah yes. That makes two." As I defend non-existence of God, you call it faith, I call it a knowledge which rests on solid ground...Faith or hope expects some action from a person...I have none to offer on this matter....It's a type of knowledge I can equate to Einstein's relativity theory.....We know the speed of light exists.... One cannot have evidence of concept when he created it out of thin air expect somebody else to prove it "it doesn't exists"... There is a "James Randi Foundation" which offers anyone One cool Million Dollars who can prove God's existence....I realize the tests are a little hard but, it should not impossible for God..... Not be impossible for God??? You are only expressing your belief/ faith/ knowledge in the existence or non-existence of God. It is your own assessment. It's not as if your assessment of reality determines reality. Reality as it is exists regardless of your own assessment of it. I know that in reality God really does exist, but my assessment of reality doesn't determine reality, either, just as yours doesn't. All we are doing is expressing our own assessments.
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/11/2016 at 5:24 PM, Atheist Mormon said: "Ah yes. That makes two." As I defend non-existence of God, you call it faith, I call it a knowledge which rests on solid ground...Faith or hope expects some action from a person...I have none to offer on this matter....It's a type of knowledge I can equate to Einstein's relativity theory.....We know the speed of light exists.... One cannot have evidence of concept when he created it out of thin air expect somebody else to prove it "it doesn't exists"... There is a "James Randi Foundation" which offers anyone One cool Million Dollars who can prove God's existence....I realize the tests are a little hard but, it should not impossible for God..... Science is Agnostic. SEE
snowflake Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify. You simply cannot trust the book of Mormon because of the textual variants in the earliest manuscripts. Punctuation changes, certain words inserted or deleted and of course no golden plates. The earliest copies don't agree with one another perfectly. So how can you trust that the most recent B.O.M. edition hasn't significantly changed from the original without the original copy (golden plates)? The whole book seems like someone could have just made it up.
jkwilliams Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 1 minute ago, snowflake said: You simply cannot trust the book of Mormon because of the textual variants in the earliest manuscripts. Punctuation changes, certain words inserted or deleted and of course no golden plates. The earliest copies don't agree with one another perfectly. So how can you trust that the most recent B.O.M. edition hasn't significantly changed from the original without the original copy (golden plates)? The whole book seems like someone could have just made it up. Far be it from me to defend the textual history of the Book of Mormon, but the "original" manuscript we have only in fragmentary form, and the printer's manuscript we have in its entirety, as I recall. As far as I can tell, beginning with the 1981 edition, the church put a lot of effort into harmonizing it with the earliest texts. Royal Skousen's work went much farther, of course. My point all along has been that I don't know anyone whose faith rests on textual integrity or history. I don't believe your faith does, either, but you might be the first one I've ever met. The advantage that the Bible has over the Book of Mormon is that the Bible can be demonstrated to be of ancient origin. But that has nothing to do with whether it actually is the word of God.
Ahab Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, snowflake said: You simply cannot trust the book of Mormon because of the textual variants in the earliest manuscripts. Punctuation changes, certain words inserted or deleted and of course no golden plates. The earliest copies don't agree with one another perfectly. So how can you trust that the most recent B.O.M. edition hasn't significantly changed from the original without the original copy (golden plates)? The whole book seems like someone could have just made it up. Most people like me who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God accept it as the word of God because God has personally told us that we can accept it as the word of God. And yes the words were translated/ altered/ changed by men who God inspired to do the translating/ altering/ changing. And we're not bothered by any of that. God's word to us to tell us that the book is his word is enough and all we need to know what is his word. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, snowflake said: You simply cannot trust the book of Mormon because of the textual variants in the earliest manuscripts. Punctuation changes, certain words inserted or deleted and of course no golden plates. The earliest copies don't agree with one another perfectly. So how can you trust that the most recent B.O.M. edition hasn't significantly changed from the original without the original copy (golden plates)? The whole book seems like someone could have just made it up. No knowledgeable LDS has ever claimed such. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ". Since you're so smart. Let's see you do it. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMchallenge.shtml
snowflake Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/10/2016 at 8:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Assertion is not the same thing as evidence, and the summary by John Tvedtnes is very restrained. It represents the standard scholarship of modern times, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but fact-based. Merely comparing the 4 Gospels ought to make it clear that we do not have one version of Christian origins in them, but great diversity. And all of them are late. We have no scholarly way of knowing how closely any of them actually mirror the real life of Jesus and his disciples. For that we are left to depend upon the Holy Spirit. You say that you "just want the facts," but you have no idea what those facts might be nor how to obtain them -- short of knowledge mediated via the Holy Spirit. The gospels were written by different witnesses of some of the same events,...as I'm sure you know. I would agree that we don't know if the events described "actually happened". We do have a ton of ancient N.T. documents (albeit not the originals) that support the life and ministry of Jesus, archeological finds that support the ancient documents and all of it coheres to ancient history. The ancient manuscripts tend to agree with today's N.T. and I would agree it is not 100% however the N.T. manuscript itself is reliable and supported by the vast amount of textual evidence we have. We also have multiple extra biblical manuscripts that support the life and ministry of Jesus. Josephus, Lucian, Mara bar-sarapian, Pliny, Tacitus, Serutonius, and The Talmud. These also put Jesus in the correct place and time, Josephus even speaks of the resurrection, some speak of his brother James and father Joseph. Most scholars would call this "evidence". As for the evidence you seem to be talking about, I'm sure that as a faithful latter day saint you "know" a lot of things...... and I am certain that you "believe" that the "feelings" you are receiving are by the Holy Spirit...
snowflake Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: No knowledgeable LDS has ever claimed such. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ". Since you're so smart. Let's see you do it. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMchallenge.shtml I read this book and it told me to read and pray about it to know truth. This gentleman said that the church had become corrupt and was not to be trusted. So he prayed and asked God what he should do and........well you can read it. The plates sealed portion has been translated! http://marvelousworkandawonder.com/tsp/index.htm So someone was able to do the BOM challenge, does it make the book true?
Kevin Christensen Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, snowflake said: The gospels were written by different witnesses of some of the same events,...as I'm sure you know. I would agree that we don't know if the events described "actually happened". We do have a ton of ancient N.T. documents (albeit not the originals) that support the life and ministry of Jesus, archeological finds that support the ancient documents and all of it coheres to ancient history. The ancient manuscripts tend to agree with today's N.T. and I would agree it is not 100% however the N.T. manuscript itself is reliable and supported by the vast amount of textual evidence we have. We also have multiple extra biblical manuscripts that support the life and ministry of Jesus. Josephus, Lucian, Mara bar-sarapian, Pliny, Tacitus, Serutonius, and The Talmud. These also put Jesus in the correct place and time, Josephus even speaks of the resurrection, some speak of his brother James and father Joseph. Most scholars would call this "evidence". As for the evidence you seem to be talking about, I'm sure that as a faithful latter day saint you "know" a lot of things...... and I am certain that you "believe" that the "feelings" you are receiving are by the Holy Spirit... I am not "certain", snowflake, that you "know" the quality and range of Robert F. Smith's thinking and research on ancient things. For instance: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/robert-f-smith/ And this more recently. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf He's very well read on a wide range of topics. One of the best informed you are likely to meet. Just saying. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited June 13, 2016 by Kevin Christensen Added link to 2014 FAIR talk 3
snowflake Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: I am not "certain", snowflake, that you "know" the quality and range of Robert F. Smith's thinking and research on ancient things. For instance: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/robert-f-smith/ He's very well read on a wide range of topics. One of the best informed you are likely to meet. Just saying. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Wow, that is quite an impressive list of work. Thank you. I watched several you tube videos of Royal Skousen's textual criticism of the B.O.M. and found them extremely interesting. He seems to be extremely genuine, honest and up-front with evidence for changes and incredibly thorough with his research. I respect a man that is honest and follows evidence to the end of the trail so it was extremely uplifting for me to hear Mr.Skousen's report on the changes to the "original and printer's manuscript" video. Even when some of the information might seem uncomfortable (for LDS believers) he just put it out there and I appreciate that. He was able to get the B.O.M. incredibly close to the original copy, even though there is only about 30% of the original copy (mostly fragments due to water damage). With his work showing all the evidence that the B.O.M. has been altered, I wonder why if this book truly came from the mouth of God why wouldn't the LDS church want it to be in the most original form? I just don't understand when biblical scholars do the same types of textual criticism, and find archeological evidence that corroborates the text it is not considered as factual. (not the events themselves but to the consistency of the text as being unaltered). The biblical manuscripts don't seem to be on the same par as the B.O.M. and above else, use (what I see as) emotions or a feeling to over ride the evidence as well. Thanks Kevin for pointing out that we do have an LDS "expert" on many topics on our discussion board!
Kevin Christensen Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, snowflake said: Wow, that is quite an impressive list of work. Thank you. I watched several you tube videos of Royal Skousen's textual criticism of the B.O.M. and found them extremely interesting. He seems to be extremely genuine, honest and up-front with evidence for changes and incredibly thorough with his research. I respect a man that is honest and follows evidence to the end of the trail so it was extremely uplifting for me to hear Mr.Skousen's report on the changes to the "original and printer's manuscript" video. Even when some of the information might seem uncomfortable (for LDS believers) he just put it out there and I appreciate that. He was able to get the B.O.M. incredibly close to the original copy, even though there is only about 30% of the original copy (mostly fragments due to water damage). With his work showing all the evidence that the B.O.M. has been altered, I wonder why if this book truly came from the mouth of God why wouldn't the LDS church want it to be in the most original form? I just don't understand when biblical scholars do the same types of textual criticism, and find archeological evidence that corroborates the text it is not considered as factual. (not the events themselves but to the consistency of the text as being unaltered). The biblical manuscripts don't seem to be on the same par as the B.O.M. and above else, use (what I see as) emotions or a feeling to over ride the evidence as well. Thanks Kevin for pointing out that we do have an LDS "expert" on many topics on our discussion board! You are welcome. There are several very knowledgeable people, some reasonably so, and some fairly new to the game. We all go through stages, playing different parts at different times, as Shakespeare has Jaques say in As You Like it. Most original text... that would be the plates, except the plates had sources behind them, and some sources with sources behind them... Original is one desirable attribute, to be sure, but "useful and practical" are also desirable attributes. Hence, as with the Bible, we get both translators and editors, the prime motivation in both cases to produce something useful and practical, based on some immediate need. The notion that Mormons in general don't think, but rely on emotions and feelings to avoid what is obvious to all reasonable people is a hypothesis, and the thing to do with a hypothesis is to test it, which is quite different than hiding behind it. I've tested my own beliefs in a number of ways by reading the research of others, pro and con, and adding my own. For instance, I've thought Bible believers would be interested in this approach: http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets And I've done things like this: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/ For example. Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
Recommended Posts