When Prophets and Professors collide. A survey

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligentsia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligentsia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

[Bat-Man]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligencia)?
Yes.

And btw, I define a "prophet" as a man who reveals some truth that he has learned from God, directly, and I know whether or not a man is a prophet by God by God personally ***uring me that man was or is a true prophet of God.

A professor, to me, is simply someone who "professes" something, and what he or she professes is not necessarily true.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Yes.

And btw, I define a "prophet" as a man who reveals some truth that he has learned from God, directly, and I know whether or not a man is a prophet by God by God personally ***uring me that man was or is a true prophet of God.

A professor, to me, is simply someone who "professes" something, and what he or she professes is not necessarily true.

Thanks. Any one else care to give it a shot? BrianH perhaps?

[PostTribber]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

"I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

as far as mainstream intelligencia and scholarship are concerned, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans 14:11)

Jesus is not only King of kings, and Lord of lords; He's also Professor of professors and Prophet of prophets!! :rolleyes:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

"I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

as far as mainstream intelligencia and scholarship are concerned, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans 14:11)

Jesus is not only King of kings, and Lord of lords; He's also Professor of professors and Prophet of prophets!! :rolleyes:

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

does BrianH have an answer to this question?

[nrajeff]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligencia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligencia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.
---I have found that historically, prophets have a track record of being right on the issues they speak about more often than academics are on the topics they speak about, so I tend to go with the prophet. :)

[PostTribber]

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

I follow Christ: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:16-18)

the intelligentsia may conflict, no problem: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." (1 Corinthians 1:27)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I follow Christ: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:16-18)

the intelligentsia may conflict, no problem: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." (1 Corinthians 1:27)

Thanks, PT. I tend to agree.

So far we can say that 1 out of 1 Evangelicals agree that when Prophets (they believe in) and Professors (mainstream intelligentsia) collide, they side with the prophets.

And 3 out of 3 Mormons also hold that conclusion.

Still waiting for BrianH to respond.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligentsia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligentsia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

I am really disappointed that more critics have not responded to this question. Can it be that the critics are afraid that their response may defeat one of their biggest criticisms against the LDS?

[BrianH]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

The answer to each of your questions depends on what both (prophet and professor) are claiming.

For example, my biology professor would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms. OTH, Moses and the biblical prophets tell me that God consciously created living things.

Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

For another example, my physics professors were all scrambling like crazy to try to establish a material primary cause for the existence of the physical universe. But a non-material primary cause of the universe makes sense while a material cause for the existence of the phyusical universe is a blatant self-contradiction.

Since there is no way to test either claim that will result in a cartesian certainty, I can only go with that which makes sense. The Bible describes a non-material cause for the existence of the universe, and since that at least makes sense (compared to the alternative), I believe the Bible.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The answer to each of your questions depends on what both (prophet and professor) are claiming.

For example, my biology professor would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms. OTH, Moses and the biblical prophets tell me that God consciously created living things.

Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

For another example, my physics professors were all scrambling like crazy to try to establish a material primary cause for the existence of the physical universe. But a non-material primary cause of the universe makes sense while a material cause for the existence of the phyusical universe is a blatant self-contradiction.

Since there is no way to test either claim that will result in a cartesian certainty, I can only go with that which makes sense. The Bible describes a non-material cause for the existence of the universe, and since that at least makes sense (compared to the alternative), I believe the Bible.

-BH

.

Thanks, Brian. I found what you said very interesting and though provoking.

When you said:
Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

I could not help but think of that word "paradigm". (I'm getting tired of it, so I'll interchange the term with "framework" and "starting point".)

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?

[Bat-Man]

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?
Don't mistake what Brian's biology professor actually said with what Brian thinks or recalls from memory concerning what his biology professor said, Fig.

I know of no biology professor who would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms.

[BrianH]

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?

For himself, sure. The problem is, like most biology and even most science professors, he is not sufficiently educated in matters of philosophy to recognize his own ***umptions. The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Don't mistake what Brian's biology professor actually said with what Brian thinks or recalls from memory concerning what his biology professor said, Fig.


LOL!!! Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me.


I know of no biology professor who would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms.

What an ignoran t thing to say. It is apparent that you don't know many (if any) biology professors, or else you are simply uninformed on matters of evolutionary theory. The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

-BH

.

Something you could never do, of course. :)

So why didn't you tell him how he was all wrong, and convince him otherwise? If you are right, then he should naturally and easily agree with you. Right?

[BrianH]

BH>>The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

F>Something you could never do, of course.

Try me.


So why didn't you tell him how he was all wrong, and convince him otherwise? If you are right, then he should naturally and easily agree with you. Right?

At the time I was an undergrad, and I was not sufficiently educated to refute his ***umptions. Moreover, I ultimately just didn't really care.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

At the time I was an undergrad, and I was not sufficiently educated to refute his ***umptions. Moreover, I ultimately just didn't really care.

-BH

.

But if you were to approach him today, you would naturally be able to convince him of his erroneous ideas. Right?

[BrianH]

But if you were to approach him today, you would naturally be able to convince him of his erroneous ideas. Right?

That depends on his ability to examine his own a-priori ***umptions.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me.
The theory of evolution, naturally, which proposes that all life on Earth originated from some very basic life form from somewhere else... not from dead matter.


The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.
Here you are again showing that you don't correctly understand the theory of evolution, Brian... as it is understood by those who at least understand it.

Hint: Get rid of the word "dead" in front of the word "matter".

[BrianH]

BH>>Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me

BM>The theory of evolution, naturally, which proposes that all life on Earth originated from some very basic life form from somewhere else... not from dead matter.

WRONG. He did NOT say that. In fact he never said ANYTHING about life supposedly arriving from 'somewhere else'. Neither did Darwin, BTW. Wanna try again?


BH>>The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.

BM>Here you are again showing that you don't correctly understand the theory of evolution, Brian... as it is understood by those who at least understand it.

Hint: Get rid of the word "dead" in front of the word "matter".

Oh brother! YOU are the one who has no idea what he is talking about, "Batman". If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today. Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evoloved our of NON living (ie "dead") things. If you knew ANYTHING about evolution you would know at least that much.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

WRONG. He did NOT say that. In fact he never said ANYTHING about life supposedly arriving from 'somewhere else'.
I seriously doubt that your biology professor didn't know and understand the theory of evolution, BrianH. I think it's far more likely that you didn't hear him correctly when he was describing and explaining the theory of evolution as it is now understood in our day and age.

... and rather than try to teach you the theory of evolution as it is taught by any professor of biology who has been properly "trained" to teach it, I suggest you pick up a book somewhere, perhaps at your local library, while focusing mainly on how the "primordial ooze" on this Earth was supposedly infused with some particle of life from somewhere else.


If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today.
Ta da !

That's what all forms of life on this planet are believed to be now, BrianH, by those who accept the theory of evolution as it is taught today.

Some very simple particle of life which supposedly started the whole she-bang on this planet has now supposedly somehow morphed into all of the various forms of life we now see on this planet, with that "essence" of life supposedly living on in each one of us on this planet.

Some people just don't know how dead wrong they are to believe that, but the fact that they believe it is actually true.


Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evolved our of NON living (ie "dead") things.
Not from dead things, BrianH.

Nobody would be so gullible to believe that life evolves from dead things.

Even Satan knows that much.

You've got to add at least a spark of life to get people to believe in evolution.

If you knew ANYTHING about the people who believe in evolution you would know at least that much.

[BrianH]

I seriously doubt that your biology professor didn't know and understand the theory of evolution, BrianH.

No, he understood it, but YOU sure dont. The theory of evolution does NOT postulate or even ***ume that life on earth began "somewhere else". YOU are the one who needs to pick up a book, sonny. You have apparently mistaken the scientific theory of evolution for some stoooopid, new age/UFO claptrap fantasy.

Now ...YOU said that you could tell me what my bio teacher told me. You have FAILED twice now. You get one more chance. TELL ME what my biology teacher told me smart guy.


BH>>If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today.

BM>Ta da !

That's what all forms of life on this planet are believed to be now, BrianH, by those who accept the theory of evolution as it is taught today.

Pay attention sonny - this is NOT difficult to understand. LIVING things are NOW alive (like DUH!); if they were alive BEFORE they were alive, then obviously they were ALWAYS alive. This is NOT what ANY theory of evolution affirms (other than the rambling speculations of Oprah and Shirley Maclane).


Some very simple particle of life which supposedly started the whole she-bang on this planet has now supposedly somehow morphed into all of the various forms of life we now see on this planet, with that "essence" of life supposedly living on in each one of us on this planet.

"Particle of life"????

You are ***uming that evolution accepts that there was "a particle of life" (whatever that means) BEFORE there was any life on earth. Prove it. Show me a scientific evolutionary theory that says that life came from "somewhere else".


Some people just don't know how dead wrong they are to believe that, but the fact that they believe it is actually true.

"Some people" do indeed believe that life began "somewher else". No scientific theory of evolution does and CERTAINLY Darwinian theory (which, despite your pretense at omniscience really is what my bio teacher was talking about) absoltuely does not.


You've got to add at least a spark of life to get people to believe in evolution.

Evolution has not identified any such "spark". Evolutionists ***UME that some unknown but purely PHYSICAL energy modified DEAD matter and converted it into a living (metabolic, reproductive) thing. But they cannot admit to this "spark" being anything other than a natural, physical force of some kind.


BH>>Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evolved our of NON living (ie "dead") things.

BM> Not from dead things, BrianH.

YES from NON-LIVING (aka "dead") matter, BM! If all matter was already alive, then all matter would STILL be alive today. But all matter is NOT ALIVE! THINK will ya?

Sheesh!


Nobody would be so gullible to believe that life evolves from dead things.

Again you PROVE that you have no idea what you are talking about. That IS EXACTLY what evolutionists ***UME. READ DARWIN, boy! Read Dawkins. Read Crick! Read ANY prominent evolutionary theorist and you will find that they absolutely DO affirm that life came from NON-LIVING matter. Just R E A D, something ...before you embarr*** yourself even further.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

No, he understood it, but YOU sure dont. The theory of evolution does NOT postulate or even ***ume that life on earth began "somewhere else". YOU are the one who needs to pick up a book, sonny. You have apparently mistaken the scientific theory of evolution for some stoooopid, new age/UFO claptrap fantasy.
As much as it pains me to tell you this, BrianH, the theory of evolution isn't even about the origin of life. The theory of evolution presupposes that there is already some form of life to begin with, with the theory of evolution focusing on how that life form evolved, or evolves, so to get to the question of how life originated you need to study up on abiogenesis.

Try this link, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life).

It will at least give you some basic information to work with.


"Particle of life"????
Yes, as in particle physics, especially related to panspermia.

Try this link, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)

It will at least give you some basic information to work with.


You are ***uming that evolution accepts that there was "a particle of life" (whatever that means) BEFORE there was any life on earth. Prove it. Show me a scientific evolutionary theory that says that life came from "somewhere else".
The universe did not come from this Earth, BrianH.

This Earth and all things on it came from somewhere else... FYI.

Bye, now.

<< Bat-Man mumbles as he walks away: "Why do I even bother ?" >>

[BrianH]

That was your third try and you have even abandoned the effort. Obviously you now realize the utter silliness of your claim that you could correct me on what my biology teacher told me. Just as obviously you CANNOT tell me any such thing. Strike three - yer OUT!



As much as it pains me to tell you this, BrianH, the theory of evolution isn't even about the origin of life. The theory of evolution presupposes that there is already some form of life to begin with, with the theory of evolution focusing on how that life form evolved, or evolves, so to get to the question of how life originated you need to study up on abiogenesis.

What an incredibly lame thing to say. Pay attention: I am talking about the ***UMPTIONS that must be made by evolutionists, Be-Em. As soon as an evolutionist admits that life did NOT arise out of non-life, he has admitted that there is something non-physical that caused life to exist. YOU said that the theory of evolution affirms that life came here from "somewhere else". You were wrong.


The universe did not come from this Earth, BrianH.

Allow me to contratulate you on your grasp of the obvious. I never said or implied that the universe DID come from this earth, kid.


This Earth and all things on it came from somewhere else... FYI.

YOU said that the theory of evolution holds that life came to the earth from somewhere else. No theory of evolution posits such a claim. There ARE evolutionists (like Crick, for example) who SPECULATE that is the case, but no recognized theory of evolution includes such speculation as any part of the hypothesis in the actual theory, and CERTAINLY Darwinian theory (which obviously YOU did not even know my bio teacher was talking about) posits no such thing.


Bye, now.

<< Bat-Man mumbles as he walks away: "Why do I even bother ?" >>

It would help if you would stop mistaking your ability to figure out how to use Google for actual scholarship. You clearly have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

You win, BrianH.

You always have been so much more intelligent than I have ever been.

I'll just do myself a favor now and put you back on my ignore list.

Life is so much easier for me when I don't have to see what you are saying.

[BrianH]

You win, BrianH.

You always have been so much more intelligent than I have ever been.

I'll just do myself a favor now and put you back on my ignore list.

Of course you will put me on "ignore". You are a Momron and that is what Mormons do: They IGNORE anything that pops their little fantasy balloons.


Life is so much easier for me when I don't have to see what you are saying.
Yes ...life is SO much easier for Mormons when they don't have to see what I am saying. Thanks for P R O V I N G my point.

Behold the utterly ABYSMAL state of the LDS apologetic.

I wonder when the Mormons will get some competent debaters in here... This crew only embar***es their church and their religion with concrete examples of the total intellectual cowardice required of Mormons such as we have seen here.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Of course you will put me on "ignore". You are a Momron and that is what Mormons do: They IGNORE anything that pops their little fantasy balloons.
I was only testing you... again..., BrianH.

You aren't graceful even when you think you have won. Good grief.


Yes ...life is SO much easier for Mormons when they don't have to see what I am saying. Thanks for P R O V I N G my point.
What makes it easier is not having to see the way you talk to me, and other people too, BrianH.

Do you think you would respond favorably if you were me, and I were you ?

Where is the love ?


Behold the utterly ABYSMAL state of the LDS apologetic.
The state of the LDS apologetic is fine and dandy, BrianH.

... even though you think we (LDS) are losing to you and others like you.


I wonder when the Mormons will get some competent debaters in here... This crew only embar***es their church and their religion with concrete examples of the total intellectual cowardice required of Mormons such as we have seen here.
We win every time you show other people how you talk to us, BrianH.

I see no love from you when you talk to me or other people the way you do.

... and I do love you, BrianH, even though I don't love the way you are now.

[BrianH]

I was only testing you... again..., BrianH.

You aren't graceful even when you think you have won. Good grief.


Its not a matter of "winning" Bats. Nor is it a question of my "gracefulness". The issue here is that you made absurd claims that you cannot support ...AS USUAL. It is exactly THIS kind of nonesense that characterizes Mormon "thought" about the LDS religion. I am either surprized or not surprized however, at seeing the same mental gymnastics on a topic that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mormonism ...I just have not decided yet.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Its not a matter of "winning" Bats.
It is a matter of winning, and the name is Bat-Man, not Bats, BrianH.

... and just like the apostle Paul said, we should be running to win the prize.


Nor is it a question of my "gracefulness".
Try acting as if you have some, though, will ya ?


The issue here is that you made absurd claims that you cannot support ...AS USUAL.
None of my claims were absurd, and I can support all of my claims.

As usual, you simply deny or refuse to acknowledge the truth I am sharing.


It is exactly THIS kind of nonesense that characterizes Mormon "thought" about the LDS religion.
The kind of nonsense you are spewing is your own undoing, BrianH.

This is and has always been all about the origin and continuation of life.

[BrianH]

It is a matter of winning, and the name is Bat-Man, not Bats, BrianH.


No it is not a matter of winning. NO ONE ever "wins" in these discussions, YOU know that. And the only reason no one wins is that Mormons will consistently fail to abide by any objective standard according to which any "victory" can be meaningfully claimed.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No it is not a matter of winning. NO ONE ever "wins" in these discussions, YOU know that. And the only reason no one wins is that Mormons will consistently fail to abide by any objective standard according to which any "victory" can be meaningfully claimed.

-BH

.

OH, look what mr. double standard has to say about an objective standard.

Brian, I dare you to come up with any objective standard to criticize the LDS Church or Joseph Smith, that cannot also be used to blast your own beliefs.

In the 3+ years I've known you, you have not succeeded yet in doing this yet.

[BrianH]

OH, look what mr. double standard has to say about an objective standard.


You have just accused me of maintaining a double standard. Now produce the evidence that will support that accusation, Fig. Do so now or be exposed once again as a lia r and a coward.


Brian, I dare you to come up with any objective standard to criticize the LDS Church or Joseph Smith, that cannot also be used to blast your own beliefs

I have already done so uncountable times. Here are some examples just off the top of my head:

1.) The Bible was translated correctly from its original languages. The Book of Mormon was only SUPPOSEDLY written in a language that has never been shown to have even existed and which on its very face is an absurd lie.

2.) The Hebrews actually spoke and wrote in Hebrew and still do. No American Indians wrote Hebrew scripture using any Egyptian dialect.

3.) The Bible records MANY thousands of historically accurate details that have been repeatedly confirmed by any rational objective standard, while the Book of Mormon has yet to have a single claim confirmed outside the minds of Mormons who accept it entirely on the basis of a demonstrated blind fideism.


In the 3+ years I've known you, you have not succeeded yet in doing this yet.

Sure I have. In fact I just did it three more times. The soon to be observed (again) FACT that you cannot refute the three claims I just made and you cannot support your position on the Book of Mormon (or any other LDS "scripture") is living PROOF that you have been instantly reduced here to pretending that YOU are the final arbiter of all objective truth where you SHOULD HAVE been presenting some actual EVIDENCE and valid reasoning to support your position.

Sorry, Fig ...you are not one of the Mormon Gods as your religion has deceived you into "thinking" and you are not in a position to dictate how others will determine the truth of the claim of your silly little cult.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You have just accused me of maintaining a double standard. Now produce the evidence that will support that accusation, Fig. Do so now or be exposed once again as a lia r and a coward.

lia r and a coward? LOL! Are we going to see another one of your tantrums, Brian?



1.) The Bible was translated correctly from its original languages. The Book of Mormon was only SUPPOSEDLY written in a language that has never been shown to have even existed and which on its very face is an absurd lie.

How do you know. Where is the original m****cripts written by Paul himself?

Matt, Mark, Luke, John? etc?

Brian again blasts his own bible.



2.) The Hebrews actually spoke and wrote in Hebrew and still do. No American Indians wrote Hebrew scripture using any Egyptian dialect.

Huh? No fair. Your criticism needs to actually make sense. There are thousands of languages that once were, a that are now extinct. A meaningless criticism.



3.) The Bible records MANY thousands of historically accurate details that have been repeatedly confirmed by any rational objective standard, while the Book of Mormon has yet to have a single claim confirmed outside the minds of Mormons who accept it entirely on the basis of a demonstrated blind fideism.

Does that mean that the Bible was untrue for hundreds of years until the self-proclaimed 'rational minds' endorsed it?

Another swing, and a miss from Brian.

[nrajeff]

Does that mean that the Bible was untrue for hundreds of years until the self-proclaimed 'rational minds' endorsed it?

---Plus, do the many historically verifiable parts of Forrest Gump or the Iliad mean that it's a true account?

[BrianH]

lia r and a coward? LOL! Are we going to see another one of your tantrums, Brian?
No we are seeing yet another example of a Mormon unable to support his claims and trying to hide that fact behind an accusation (a l ying and cowardly thing to do) ...and in particular an accusation, I just challenged you to support. You failed to even try to support your accusation. More cowardice.


BH>>1.) The Bible was translated correctly from its original languages. The Book of Mormon was only SUPPOSEDLY written in a language that has never been shown to have even existed and which on its very face is an absurd lie.

F>How do you know. Where is the original m****cripts written by Paul himself?

Matt, Mark, Luke, John? etc?

Brian again blasts his own bible.

Brian blasts his own Bible ...? No. YOU blast the Bible. But your gun is only loaded with the water-bombs of your own ignorance. This is just more desperate rhetoric. Fig, YOU cannot show that the langauge of the BoM ever even existed. And the claim that Jewish American Indians were writing Hebew scripture in ANY Egyptian langauge is absrud on its face. If you would like to prove that Paul, Matt, Mark, Luke and John wrote in some language OTHER THAN Koine Greek and/or Herbew (depending on the author), I suggest you go right ahead and try. Until then, however, the sad news for you is that the universally acknolwedged FACT is that the Bible's author's AT THE VERY LEAST wrote in the common lanaguages of their own time and place. That is an OBJECTIVE FACT of the kind that you asked for. And in now trying to deny it, you will only once again make a total fool of yourself, demonstrating both an amazing ignorance and a hoplessly desperate rhetoric.


BH>>2.) The Hebrews actually spoke and wrote in Hebrew and still do. No American Indians wrote Hebrew scripture using any Egyptian dialect.

F>Huh? No fair. Your criticism needs to actually make sense. There are thousands of languages that once were, a that are now extinct. A meaningless criticism.

Meaningless? The FACT that there is no evidence that would indicate that American Indians wrote Hebrew scripture in some never-seen Egyptian dialect cannot lead to a "meaningless criticism", Fig ...at least not for any person who can actually THINK even a little. The OBJECTIVE and irrefutable FACT is that the Hebrews spoke and wrote in the language that we use to identify their culture! That is an OBJECITIVE FACT that, when compared to the Book of Mormon, shows the total emptiness of the LDS apologetic. Imaginary fantasies (such as we see in the BoM) do not compare well to reality, Fig. I met your challenge on this one point alone, though you will never even be able to perceive it due to the thought-stopping conditioning you have received as a victim of the Mormon hoax.


BH>>3.) The Bible records MANY thousands of historically accurate details that have been repeatedly confirmed by any rational objective standard, while the Book of Mormon has yet to have a single claim confirmed outside the minds of Mormons who accept it entirely on the basis of a demonstrated blind fideism.

F>Does that mean that the Bible was untrue for hundreds of years until the self-proclaimed 'rational minds' endorsed it?

Nope. The Bible was telling the truth.

What you will never be able to understand, Fig, is that the Bible was NOT discovered in 1830 by some kid claiming to have a magic rock in his hat. The simple truth is that the Bible is DEEPLY integrated directly into the fabric of the ~2,000 years of history that it recounts. Moreover, the Bible has withstood the single most intense scrutiny of any historical record in human history and shown itself to be tellilng the truth on AT LEAST many thousands of independently confirmed points. BY CONTRAST, you cannot show me ONE established fact unique to the content Book of Mormon. In fact, the central narrative premise of the BoM, (Jewish American Indians write Hebrew scripture in a non-existenent Egyptian language, buid the single largest, most advanced and most successful civilization in the history of the Western hemisphere until their own day, baptize each other into the Christian church 500 years before Christ was born, ride around on elephants and chariots, fight each other with steel swords, etc.) is patently ABSURD. TheFACT is that your holy book is not taken seriously by ANYONE except those gullible dupes who have been conditioned to accept it a-priori and without question on nothing but the lame supers***ion you mistakenly call "faith"...


Another swing, and a miss from Brian.
More pathetic Mormon rhetoric. Your ***essment of your own position is what is meaningless. Obviously you have little faith in your own position here and so you are forced to post meaningless cheer-leading for yourself.

Let me famil iarize you with a little basic reality, Fig: you do not get to be both the pitcher AND the umpire. Your effort to do that only shows that you have no real confidence in your own pitches.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

No it is not a matter of winning.
Yes, it is.


NO ONE ever "wins" in these discussions, YOU know that.
I know that I win every time I stand up for God and what God has told me.

I don't lose when people don't agree with me, or with what God has told me.

I repeat: I win every time I stand up for God and what God has told me.


And the only reason no one wins is that Mormons will consistently fail to abide by any objective standard according to which any "victory" can be meaningfully claimed.
Ha. I just won again even without having to tell you what God has told me.

[BrianH]

BH>>No it is not a matter of winning

BM>Yes, it is.


Okey, then on your view, you are the looser.

I am not interested in a parsing match with you, BM. Go cry to someone else.

Come on back to debate me when you can figure out how to formulate actual arguments.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Okey, then on your view, you are the looser.

Go cry to someone else.

-BH

.
Heh, No, based on what God has told me, I am still winning.

[Bat-Man]

Come on back to debate me when you can figure out how to formulate actual arguments.
I don't need to argue about the truth with you, BrianH.

I can just tell you what is true, and let that be the end of it.

I do sometimes enjoy arguing with you, though. It can be fun.

[BrianH]

I don't need to argue about the truth with you, BrianH.

Good. Then quit trying.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Good. Then quit trying.

-BH

.
Okay. Maybe it is time to turn over a whole new leaf with you.

I'll just tell you what is true and leave it at that, from now on, and at this point I'll simply say:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church of Jesus Christ which is on this Earth now, among mortals like us, and Joseph Smith was and the true prophet of God through whom God opened up this final dispensation for sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ preparatory to the return of our Lord in glory to rule and reign over all who will remain on this planet, not counting those we can't see now and still won't be able to see in the spirit world.

Oh, and I'll also say that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, in the sense that it was written by men who were inspired by God to write it.

That should do, for now, I think.

I'll tell you some more truth when I think you are ready to hear it, again.

[BrianH]

Let me explain something here. You are telling me what you believe to be true, not what IS true. The problem is ...when I ask you to show me why I should think it is true too, you Mormon guys get all squirly.

For example, you just claimed that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I think you would agree that your entire religion stands as at least possibly true or falls flat on its face as a total hoax on that claim. After all, every distinctive doctrine and "revelation" in Mormonism traces exclusvely to that one man.

But ...when I ask you to provide me with an actual REASON to think that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you are not be able to provide any such reason. Meanwhile I CAN provide you with dozens of REASONS to reject that claim (specifically the dozens of predictive prophecies -about 60 or so- supposedly uttered by Smith, that FAILED to materialize).

So here's the deal, BM. YOU claim that the TRUTH is that JS was a prophet but cannot provide any actual REASON to think that your claim is actually true. OTH, I claim that the truth is that JS was a FALSE prophet, and I CAN provide evidence and reasoning that shows that my clami is true.

It would appear from all relevant, objective evidence that your claim of what is the truth is actually NOT true.

So why am I supposed to think that you are telling me the truth here?


-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Let me explain something here. You are telling me what you believe to be true, not what IS true.
I am telling you what I believe is true AND what is actually true, BrianH.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Everything I told you is true IS true.


The problem is ...when I ask you to show me why I should think it is true too, you Mormon guys get all squirly.
My goal here is to tell you what is true and what I believe is true, and if you have heard me and understood me, my goal has been fulfilled, regarding those truths that I have told you are true.


For example, you just claimed that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.
Yes, and I claimed that because he is truly a prophet of God.


I think you would agree that your entire religion stands as at least possibly true or falls flat on its face as a total hoax on that claim.
No, I truly do not agree with that statement, because our (LDS) religion is centered in Jesus Christ, not in the prophets of Jesus Christ who bear the true testimony of Jesus Christ as they reveal the truth that is known to Jesus Christ.


After all, every distinctive doctrine and "revelation" in Mormonism traces exclusvely to that one man.
Nonsense. See above.


But ...when I ask you to provide me with an actual REASON to think that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you are not be able to provide any such reason.
The reason you should think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God is because he was a prophet of God. You should think it simply because it is true.

All you have to know is the truth to know what is actually true, BrianH.

Don't you know that yet ?


Meanwhile I CAN provide you with dozens of REASONS to reject that claim (specifically the dozens of predictive prophecies -about 60 or so- supposedly uttered by Smith, that FAILED to materialize).
It's not as if you're the only one who can do that, BrianH.

Anyone who doesn't believe what is true can come up with all kinds of reasons for not believing what is actually true.

... but all we really need to know to know what is true is the truth, while all the reasons for not believing the truth simply fall by the wayside.


So here's the deal, BM. YOU claim that the TRUTH is that JS was a prophet but cannot provide any actual REASON to think that your claim is actually true.
I can provide a reason for thinking that my claim is actually true, BrianH.

You are misrepreresenting me and what I have been telling you.

All I need is ONE reason to believe that something is true, and that ONE reason is that what I believe is actually true.


OTH, I claim that the truth is that JS was a FALSE prophet, and I CAN provide evidence and reasoning that shows that my claim is true.
Nonsense, because the truth is that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to refute that fact other than to deny the truth.


It would appear from all relevant, objective evidence that your claim of what is the truth is actually NOT true.
More nonsense, BrianH.

The Truth bears witness that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.


So why am I supposed to think that you are telling me the truth here?
IF you're someone who wants to know the truth, then the reason you should think that what I have told you is true is because what I have told you is true, as the Truth itself bears witness of the truth, as anyone who knows the Truth can bear witness.

[BrianH]

I am telling you what I believe is true AND what is actually true, BrianH.


Then it should be easy for you to SHOW ME a reason to think that what you claim is true.

Just telling me its true because YOU are telling me its true is only a manifestation of the irrationality at the very heart of your claim.



-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Then it should be easy for you to SHOW ME a reason to think that what you claim is true.
You have to know Truth to be able to know that something is true, BrianH, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do to make you know the Truth because it is not in my power to make you do or know anything.

... and, likewise, there isn't anything that you, alone, can do to make me do or know anything, either.

I have set truth right in front of your face here and you have rejected it.

I have led you to living water, but I can't make you drink any of it.

Heh, what makes you think it's supposed to be easy for me to show you anything ?

I didn't do anything to make you think it was supposed to be easy.

That idea, which is a false idea, is another one of the false ideas that I think you need to get out of your head.

[BrianH]

You have to know Truth to be able to know that something is true, BrianH

Okay, I know truth. In fact I know LOTS of true things. So this SHOULD have been easy for you.

So go ahead ...tell me why I should think that the claims of your religion are true. I am still waiting for you to meet this very reasonable request.

Surely you do not honestly think that I should believe your claims are true just because YOU say they are (even though that is what you said). You are not THAT dense. No one is. And you and I both know that you are not a God, even though your religion has told you that you are. So surely you cannot expect me to think that YOUR claims have some kind of divine authority and should be automatically believed just because YOU utter them, right? NO ONE could possibly be THAT arrogant ...right?

So since you are telling me the truth, it should be easy for you to tell me WHY what you claim is actually true.

Why are you evanding your responsibility here to simply provide reasons to think that what you say is actually true?

Why all the squirling around, BM?

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Okay, I know truth.
Yes, you know some truth, but you don't know all of the truth.


In fact I know LOTS of true things. So this SHOULD have been easy for you.
It's easy only when we know the truth to the same degree, or when we both know how to find out what is true when we have a question on what is or is not true.

If I know the truth of something that you don't know about yet, though, you can easily choose to just reject whatever I tell you is true for any reason you may want to reject it even if what I am telling you is actually true.


So go ahead ...tell me why I should think that the claims of your religion are true. I am still waiting for you to meet this very reasonable request.
Because they are true, BrianH.

That's why I think you should think that the claims of my religion are true.

I think you should be open to accepting truth from wherever it comes from, and since what I have been telling you is true, I think you should just accept it as truth, because it is true.


Surely you do not honestly think that I should believe your claims are true just because YOU say they are (even though that is what you said).
No, I said I think you should accept my claims because they are true.

They actually are true, BrianH... whether or not you believe they are true.

[BrianH]

Yes, you know some truth, but you don't know all of the truth.

...But YOU do, right? After all, you have told me I should believe what you say because YOU are saying it.

I asked you to provide a reason why I should think what you say is true, and you respond by saying I should believe you because what you say is true.

Amazing.

I can only thank you for providing yet another public display of what happens to people who turn into Mormons. They become arrogant and self-inflated but intellectually vacuous. Nevertheless, they somehow think that they really are omniscient deities whose every proclimation must be accepted as true because THEY say it is.

Its ...pretty pathetic, "Bat man".

Had you enough sense you would be embarr***ed. As it stands ...you have no idea how foolish you look.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

...But YOU do, right? After all, you have told me I should believe what you say because YOU are saying it.
No, not because I am saying it, but because what I am saying is true.


I asked you to provide a reason why I should think what you say is true, and you respond by saying I should believe you because what you say is true.
Right. You should believe truth because it is true.


Amazing.
Eh, yeah, I suppose so, but even a child will believe what is true.


I can only thank you for providing yet another public display of what happens to people who turn into Mormons.
... which is: We believe what is true.

You're welcome.


They become arrogant and self-inflated but intellectually vacuous.
Nope, that's not true, at least not while we/they accept official Mormon doctrine.


Nevertheless, they somehow think that they really are omniscient deities whose every proclimation must be accepted as true because THEY say it is.
No, not because we say it is, but because truth is true.


Its ...pretty pathetic, "Bat man".
I think your misrepresentation of what I am saying is pretty pathetic, too.


Had you enough sense you would be embarr***ed.
More nonsense, BrianH.

Just keep it up, will you ?

You're a perfect example of someone who doesn't accept official Mormon doctrine, and I think the world should see what happens to those who refuse to accept official Mormon doctrine.

"As it stands ...you have no idea how foolish you look."

[alanmolstad]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?
......

So far it has never even come close to happening.

Now Im sure there are some nuts loose in schools of higher learing that say all kinds of ****trat..

But for the most part when I listen the the guys at NASA and or other schools I only hearing things that give my faith support and comfort....

[alanmolstad]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligentsia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligentsia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

well....we are told to not just believe the people that stand up and say, "God told me so"
We are to put what the Prophet says to a test.

remember a Prophet has to be correct all the time....and if we find a moment when the Prophet is in error we are to not believe that False prophet.
Test what the guy says against the Scriptures, and believe only the things that are actually true and reject the teachers that are false