Atheist Mormon Posted June 13, 2016 Author Posted June 13, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: You are making the claim the God doesn't exist. That is your cause. How would a videotape/picture help your cause? I'm making that claim, yes...... How are suggesting for me to take a picture of God you believe?
JLHPROF Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: I'm making that claim, yes...... How are suggesting for me to take a picture of God you believe? As I've said before, you cannot prove something doesn't exist. So go right on thinking you've managed to achieve the impossible somehow. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 5 hours 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. The textual evidence is not as unified as you suggest, and much of it is very late. Centuries late. Scholars do their best to obtain the most likely early readings, but cannot always agree what that might be. This is the same situation for any set of ancient manuscripts from any culture. In the end, our judgments on what did in fact happen historically cannot support any of the miracles. The text provides no evidence for that. 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". All historians agree that Jesus, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius, and James the Just (brother of Jesus) actually existed. However, in the case of Jesus, historical evidence that he was the Son of God is not available. 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... You and I may state our beliefs about the historical and textual materials, and even discuss how to know whether anything miraculous happened in religious history, but mistrust of the Holy Spirit is the largest obstacle for mainstream Christians -- who tend to put their ultimate trust in the arm of flesh. 2
Atheist Mormon Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: As I've said before, you cannot prove something doesn't exist. So go right on thinking you've managed to achieve the impossible somehow. "As I've said before, you cannot prove something doesn't exist." I agree, what is the point of disagreement here then?
JLHPROF Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: "As I've said before, you cannot prove something doesn't exist." I agree, what is the point of disagreement here then? 5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Quote 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: You are making the claim the God doesn't exist. That is your cause. I'm making that claim, yes...... That is the disagreement. You are claiming to know with a certainty that God does not exist, which is something that cannot be proven or known. Maybe you have more faith than you are claiming. Edited June 14, 2016 by JLHPROF 4
Atheist Mormon Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Maybe you have more faith than you are claiming. You might be right after all I might have faith into that fiction as much as Asimov's "Foundation utopia"......... (which was my childhood dream book) ......
snowflake Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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... You and I may state our beliefs about the historical and textual materials, and even discuss how to know whether anything miraculous happened in religious history, but mistrust of the Holy Spirit is the largest obstacle for mainstream Christians -- who tend to put their ultimate trust in the arm of flesh. Agreed, I do seem to find the LDS "Holy Spirit" a bit suspect....for good reason. Other LDS sects claim to have the same "truth" as you would. They would say that they "know" their version of the church is true, and that their prophet is the only living prophet on the earth today....etc. I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only.
JLHPROF Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, snowflake said: I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only. As do most Christians. Unfortunately, they think he stopped talking to us after the Bible ended. That the interpretations of mortal men in the middle ages of the words of prophets after Christ died are without flaw. 1
snowflake Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: As do most Christians. Unfortunately, they think he stopped talking to us after the Bible ended. That the interpretations of mortal men in the middle ages of the words of prophets after Christ died are without flaw. Christ is the mediator between God and Man, and we have direct access to God through Christ. Not sure what you mean in your statement above.......please explain.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Agreed, I do seem to find the LDS "Holy Spirit" a bit suspect....for good reason. Other LDS sects claim to have the same "truth" as you would. They would say that they "know" their version of the church is true, and that their prophet is the only living prophet on the earth today....etc. I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only. I did take the trouble to locate 28 different Biblical Tests for True and False Prophets, (gathered in the FAIR paper linked on my profile). That is, I took the trouble to figure out what characteristics distinguish figs from thorns, and grapes from thistles. And found passages on what a person should do to discover truth. And mistakes to avoid. (It turned out that all arguments by Biblical peoples given towards rejecting Biblical prophets boil down to saying, "It's not what I want" and/or "It's not what I, or my favored authorities, think." And how to recognize the voice of the spirit. Methodist Bible Scholar Margaret Barker has dealt with Sola Scripture. Quote Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use, and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that the texts which became the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf It's very interesting to compare the story she tells with 1 Nephi 13. And there is this sort of thing about what the NT does not say about Jesus. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Agreed, I do seem to find the LDS "Holy Spirit" a bit suspect....for good reason. Other LDS sects claim to have the same "truth" as you would. They would say that they "know" their version of the church is true, and that their prophet is the only living prophet on the earth today....etc. It is quite true that most Christian denominations share your suspicion that the Holy Spirit is useless, and that is why they hold charismatic or Pentecostal Christianity in such contempt. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, puts great stock in their received tradition (the sacred deposit of the faith). Yet both Roman Catholic and Protestant mainstream Christianity give constant lip service to the Holy Spirit, only denying it when in discussion with Mormons. It seems to be merely strategic duplicity -- perhaps like Sister Simplice lying only in order to save Jean Valjean. Yet Mormons do not believe that only they may commune with the Holy Spirit, but that it is available to all (http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD ). Indeed, the Bible itself urges the primacy of the Holy Spirit for an answer to all questions: John 14:26 "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"; Luke 24:32 “did not our heart burn within us when he spoke to us on the road”; Matthew 16:17, John 20:29, Acts 1:2, 2:2-20 (Joel 2:28), James 1:5. What was the whole point of Jesus promising to send the Holy Spirit as the second Comforter in his place after he had gone (John 14:16-18,26, 15:26, 16:7-8)? I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only. Exactly, sola scriptura. Yet how is the Word of Truth to be correctly parsed (2 Timothy 2:15)? Does one interpret for oneself? Does the Word interpret itself, or is that to be left up to God and his Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-20; cf. Proverbs 3:5)? Which is supreme: God, man’s reasoning powers, or ink on paper or vellum? Indeed, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles have as their central theme that “the Spirit is the primary means of God’s interacting with the Church, especially to its ordinary members.” So says non-Mormon Luke Timothy Johnson, Gospel of Luke (Liturgical Press, 1991), 17-18. You put your trust in the arm of flesh, while early Christians put it in the Holy Spirit of God. As long as you reject God's Holy Spirit, you will not understand this. Edited June 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 3 hours ago, snowflake said: Agreed, I do seem to find the LDS "Holy Spirit" a bit suspect....for good reason. Other LDS sects claim to have the same "truth" as you would. They would say that they "know" their version of the church is true, and that their prophet is the only living prophet on the earth today....etc. I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only. Listen to yourself. How do YOU know your "prophet" and your bible is better than their claims? 2
UtahTexan Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Listen to yourself. How do YOU know your "prophet" and your bible is better than their claims? Keep in mind....Protestants and Catholics believe they are better fathers than Heavenly Father, so you are starting from a different starting point than they are.
3DOP Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, CountryBoy said: Keep in mind....Protestants and Catholics believe they are better fathers than Heavenly Father, so you are starting from a different starting point than they are. Keep in mind something that nobody believes or professes? What is the possible benefit of that? 1
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: Keep in mind something that nobody believes or professes? What is the possible benefit of that? Sure they do...not in so many words...but they absolutely believe they are better Fathers than Heavenly Father
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Sure they do...not in so many words...but they absolutely believe they are better Fathers than Heavenly Father I take it you feel absolutely qualified to tell other people what they really believe. 1
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I take it you feel absolutely qualified to tell other people what they really believe. qualified to guess? nope. But with my experience, I can certainly see facts and repeat them. I am not wrong, here. Twist how you like...but I am correct Edited June 15, 2016 by CountryBoy
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 minute ago, CountryBoy said: qualified to guess? nope. But with my experience, I can certainly see facts and repeat them. I am not wrong, here. Twist how you like...but I am correct No twisting, just your assertion makes no sense.
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: No twisting, just your assertion makes no sense. What does not make sense about the facts to you?
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: What does not make sense about the facts to you? What facts are you speaking of?
Calm Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Sure they do...not in so many words...but they absolutely believe they are better Fathers than Heavenly Father Explain what you mean because I am not seeing it.
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What facts are you speaking of? Let me ask you this...do you have any children?
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Explain what you mean because I am not seeing it. You're not alone.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Let me ask you this...do you have any children? Either explain yourself or not. Leave my kids out of it.
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Either explain yourself or not. Leave my kids out of it. lol.....touchy? Ok...since you are sooooo afraid of a yes or no....let me assume you have two kids. Let's assume your kids are 16. Are you gonna tell them, "Ok....when you turn 18, I will never talk to you. eveything you ever need to know in the changing world I have written down for you or told you....so there is no need to ever talk to you, counsel you, or help you again. Can you do that? Or can you speak just to one of your kids and not the other? Just curious. Edited June 15, 2016 by CountryBoy
Recommended Posts