Unanswered questions

[Drich]

Then I'm confused why you are against it if you've heard this argument before. You should know that the Bible never explicitly states anything about God hating Gays or any such nonsense, so why all the bullshit?

I did not say God hated Gays. I said there is no sanctified pretext in which homosexual sex is condoned which makes Homosexuality a sin, just like any other sin. This is something I have mentioned 6 times now and appearently you do not know how to answer it otherwise you would not keep trying bait and switch the topic.

Again, just in case you missed it. Even if you strip the bible of all that it says against Homosexuality, you still do not have a sanctified pretext in which Homosexual sex is permitted before God, as Heterosexual sex has been sanctified under the marriage covenant. If there is not a setting in which Homosexual sex is sanctified then ALL HOMOSEXUAL sex is a sin.

Do try and stay on topic this time old sport, and address what has been said rather than defaulting to a position of obstinance and name calling.

Care to explain the deaths of thousands by the hands of God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah then? So they weren't wicked?

Are you implying it takes a law to be considered wicked?
Not to mention God's law only applied to God's people even after it was given. So even if Lot had the law it would not directly apply to those who live in Sodom or Gomorrah, and yes God will still have found them wicked.

They didn't transgress any of God's laws?

at that point no. a simple time line would confirm.

According to your Holy Babble, they indeed lived before the law of Moses, but I guarantee you that no Christian in his right mind will agree with what you just pooped out of your mouth.

-or- Maybe you do not understand the basics of Christianity.

I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time,so this cannot possibly be the translation

OMG are you being serious right now???

Do you see it yet?

Think about it a second more? I'm sure you figured it out by now, but just in case you didn't NONE OF THE WORDS IN ANY TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE "WERE KNOWN WORDS AT THE TIME!!!!"

That is why it is called a TRANSLATION!!! The Bible was not written in King James English So ALL of the Words are Direct Translations of either Hebrew or Koine Greek Words. Some words translate and in other cases Ideas are described and are translated into single words or word phrases.

But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking. If you're going to follow the admonitions of Moses, why not also avoid eating Rabbits and Pork still? Those were also part of that law. I mean, you guys preached that Jesus fulfilled the law, and since he never spoke out against Homosexuality, that means anything goes now. Jesus is cool with it.

Again, stop trying to pretend that I haven't introduced a death blow to your whole argument, and address the points I made about Removing a "Thou shalt not" from the bible is on par with providing you with a thou shalt. For even if you remove everything the bible openly say against Homosexual sex, You still do not have a context in which it is allowed. For the bible Clearly states ALL SEX outside of a sanctified marriage is a sin. Because there is not a provision for same sex marriage in the bible it makes all homosexual sex a sin. Just like any other sexual sin. No greater no worse, but a sin none the less one that requires repentance.

Now sport, I double dog dare you to Man up and stay on topic as to answer my biblically supported argument that all Homosexual sex is a sin because God does not allow a sanctified context in which it is allowed!

[quote]You see how we can twist and mangle the Bible to say whatever we want? That's why it doesn't take a fucking degree to understand what it says: because what it says doesn't matter when compared to a lot of other stuff that it says. (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear about how Mormonism contradicts the Bible.)

This is known as a red Herring Sport. It where a desperate man seeks to address something off topic so as to distract and subvert the primary focous of the conversation away from what is being discussed.

Remember you asked me a question, demanded an answer now here it is. What will you do with it when the answer given was not the one you were taught to expect? Can you think on your feet and address what I have said point by point? (If you could you would have not let it go 6 different times) Can you do a google search and see how smarter people/atheists have attacked my position (Probably not because as far as I know this argument has orginated with me, and no one to date has over turned what I have said biblically.)

So you only have a few options 1) to keep ignoring what I have said and try and flood this thread with various attempts to try and divert the topic (Which will get harder and harder to do because the more you divert the more direct I will get drawing attention to your inability to answer me topically)
2) turn to personal attacks, maybe try and call the mixed race guy a bigot some more and see how well you fare.
3) Admit that your wrong, and concede the argument (Which would earn my respect.)
or
4) simply drop the topic. (Just like every other person on this web site has had to do, and maybe go head hunting some place else.) Because my responses are worded to answer your initial query. If you are satasified then I will have nothing else to say.

Indeed. And you admitted that you have a soft spot for porn, so I was dead on with my assumption that you have a preference.

Now your into building straw men...

You're right, I left that option out.

Which is the literal definition of "Begging the Question" and as a logical fallacy can not be answered truthfully.

But the questions of preference were about which types of porn, not if you liked porn or not. But I'm willing to forgive you for trying to pin a logical fallacy on me like this.

Again begs the question. For If I say I do not like porn, how can I have a favorite?
If you strip a question of any chance of logically or honestly being answered then I will not answer it for I can not answer a baited question logically or truthfully.
I am not here to answer baited questions that you used on your friends in grade school. If/when you grow up and want to a have a big boy talk then let me know.

How do you define a Sanctified marriage? Holy Matrimony? Justice of the Peace? Common law marriage okay? Also, if a man and woman get marooned on an island with no hope of leaving, should they not have sex with each other and raise a family simply because there is no Priest to marry them?

http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-marriage.html

Are you seriously saying that the coincidence of traditional family values changing in different societies is actually directly linked to the downfall of entire nations?

Once or twice is a coincidence. I gave you 1/2 a dozen examples of great soceities separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Are you willfully being ignorant here?

Okay, I can see where you got that logic from. It's right there in Genesis when God destroyed Gomorrah. So did Napoleon fall because of his views on sex?

seriously? Napoleon the Emporer of France? Do you not know your history? Google it.

What were they again?

Emperlistic monarchy. What are they now a 1/2 hearted republic, in league with several other failing half hearted republics. (all of which btw hold the same contempt for traditional family I am speaking of here.) Is France the same nation as it was when Napoleon ruled? Absolutely not! They share the same language, and that's about it. The great Napolenic empire had been strip of it's lands, wealth, and power long before Hitler marched in and took what remained of Napoleon's legacy.

Again now it is a shell of what it once was, as it has been assimilated into the ECC. Which again itself is failing, and if allowed to go on it's present course will take the western world economy with it.

Has England fallen?

OMG YES!!! England Ruled the whole World!!! and it's monarchy has also be reduced to nothing but a show piece, with it's lands and power striped from it. It has been reduced from literally holding influence and power over the whole world, to an island nation who has trouble managing it's own affairs. Another former shadow of a great nation. England only shares a Name of what it once was.

Is it showing any signs of collapse?

The England of Olde is Gone, Never to return. It no longer shows signs of collapse because it is already gone.

GERMANY? You're telling me that the Nazi party failed because it had some kind of non-traditional family thing going on?

Did you graduate high school? Did they teach History? Do you have access to the History channel? Do you have access to the internet? Then maybe do a google search, and get your facts straight before you try and represent verifiable data.

I edited out a lot of pointless bickering, and decided not to answer any of it. If I cut something out you honestly would like answered the rephrase the core question minus the bicketry please.

---

[quote='Drich' pid='492541' dateline='1376428731']

I'll do you one better:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Christians.html

YAY!!!! *Gets out the surgery kit to dissect the linked article, to see if Drich was actually able to back up his claim or if this is just another half-assed attempt at proving himself despite there being no evidence to back up the claim.* I would normally channel PeterPriesthood for an undertaking like this, but I think his Atheist Sock Puppet BWS will do just fine.

Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"

Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity.

So far we have a baseless assertion to break down another baseless assertion. Let's see if evidence is provided later to show how believing in the teachings and divinity of Christ makes someone less of a Christian.

The next line is an attempt at giving the definition of a cult.

In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from the God’s Word, they are not.

So a religious organization is only a cult if they pervert the word of god. Interesting. Since we're making up definitions, let's see what the Merriam-Webster actually identifies as a cult, since Drich loves using the definitions within it as just as authoritative as his Bible.

cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\

So far so good. It's obviously a noun. So what are the definitions?

1 : formal religious veneration

Man...the first definition completely defines even Drich's claim to divinity. Need I go on?

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

It's not looking good for the link Drich gave us. This still describes pretty much any religion out there today. Any Christian denomination so far is looking just as cultish as the Mormon religion.

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

If we don't assume that these extra definitions are given simply as alternatives and are instead trying to narrow down the definition of "cult", then we get a better idea of why Christian denominations refer to the Mormons as a cult. However, this also gives Mormons the same amount of right to claim that any religion that doesn't conform to their teachings is also a cult. We get nowhere with this one.

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

This is a definition put into a different light, taking god out of the equation in some cases. What else is there?

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

The way that all Christians, including Mormons, adore Jesus Christ, God, Saints, Joseph Smith, and any important religious figure indeed makes them all cults by this definition. Whew, I'm glad we cleared that one up.

Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity.

Smith's mistake here was trying to restore something that was bogus in the first place. Christians should be thanking him for trying to take them back to their roots: polygamy in a patriarchal society!

Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism [New York, 1861], and Mormonism Unveiled [Painesville, Ohio, 1834]), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.

Jesus' entire background is questionable as his entire childhood is all but left out of the Bible. Why should Smith be viewed any differently? Angels testifying to man is all in accordance with the pattern set forth in the Bible. I mean, the Virgin Mary (or not-so-virgin Mary according to the Mormons) was visited by the Angel Gabriel so that she could know that God spirit-fucked her. Or did the angel appear to Joseph? Ah, fuck it. No one's going to notice a contradiction like that, right? Even Joseph Smith got the name of his Angel mixed up at times, calling him Nephi and Moroni interchangeably.

The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible. Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthony of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism. These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

And let me guess. Nothing like this has EVER happened with the Bible. No forgeries, no interpolations, no apologetics...no, this book is perfect. This still doesn't explain how it conflicts with the Bible though. It's merely stated that there are theological inconsistencies, but Christianity itself is split into thousands of factions because of their differences. Why beat up on the Mormon Church for doing the exact same thing?

One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works. This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16).

How does this prove God wasn't a man? If spirits are eternal, and the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit, then how has he not existed for an eternity? The same goes for Christ in Mormon theology. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Christians just don't like to think that God had to earn his God status. Well, who do you think made God? Other gods, duh. This solves this crazy eternity dilemma right there! It seems Mormons are made of smarter stuff than Christians give them credit for. I'm not saying they're any less crazy though.

Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth. However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).

Except that Jesus states in John 10 that "ye are gods". Oh well, chalk it up to another Bible inconsistency. However, this still puts Mormons in line with the Bible, even if the Bible is not in line with itself.

Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself. It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).

Silly anti-Mormon literature. They should really learn more about Mormon doctrine before making themselves look silly. Jesus claims his divinity in the Gospel of John, revealing that he is indeed Jehovah of the Old Testament. This is what Mormons actually believe. His father is another god, and they say his name is Elohim. No contradictions as far as I can see, but there's still plenty of bullshit for all to have.

Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works. While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church and practicing good works in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).

Oh, the great dilemma! Faith vs. Works! Mormons solved this by saying that Faith complements Works, and that both are necessary for entrance into Heaven. How do they justify this? With the Bible! Take a close look at James Chapter 2. This isn't even out of context! (notice how the Christian site conveniently left this passage out of its justification for salvation on faith alone)

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks is dead?

You can read the rest of that chapter and see for yourself that I am not making this up. And, again, I have proven that the Mormon religion is not contrary to the Bible.

Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church.

Sadly, those who do find out the full doctrine of the Mormon Church are usually too far in to realize that they've drunk too much of the Koolaid by that point. However, with this church and other Christian denominations all being cults, the Koolaid has a very similar taste.

Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).

So when the Holy Ghost tells them that their Church is true, they're being deceived by Satan? How does on keep this from happening? Isn't there some kind of failsafe? I think GC thinks so, but this article seems to differ on that opinion. I guess Southern Baptists have a whole different flavor of Koolaid from you, Drich.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Chri...z2btx1iRpr

This was great! Now I'm going to show you how the Bible even testifies of the Book of Mormon! Prepare to be amazed!

"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall be one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the LORD God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will put them with him, even the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand." (Ezekiel 37:15-19)

Mormons interpret this passage to mean that these sticks are synonymous with scrolls, as used in those times, and one contains the record of the Jews (the Bible) and the other contains the record of Ephraim (the Book of Mormon). If one has read the Book of Mormon, they would see that the people described in the account claim descent from Joseph of Egypt and on through his son Ephraim. The Book of Mormon was to account for one of the Lost Tribes if Israel scattered during the destruction of Jerusalem under the reign of King Zedekiah and contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah. Thus, the Book of Mormon, when viewed in this light, is indeed a prophecy of the Bible come true!

(Self-fulfilling prophecy, but, hey, Christians have to make their shit smell like roses somehow.)

This next prophecy is a little easier to understand, concerning the origin story of the Book of Mormon. Voila!

"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Isaiah 29:4

The tribe of Ephraim allegedly wrote their history and prophecies on Golden Plates, which the Angel Moroni (or Nephi) told Joseph to dig up out the ground. This Bible prophecy stuff is easy!

Now for the kicker. A prophecy by Jesus himself! We return to John 10 in order to take a look at it.

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16

Mormons take this as a sure confirmation of the Book of Mormon. How, you say? In the Book of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Zombie Jesus himself makes an appearance in the ancient Americas to the children of Ephraim (and Manasseh...? Yeah, apparently his seed made it to the Americas back then as well). Anyway, Jesus' words in this verse is taken as a prophecy that he will not forget the Lost Tribes of Israel, and said prophecy was fulfilled when he appeared to the lost tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient America. Pretty nifty, eh? He even tells them after his visit that he was going to go visit the other lost tribes, spouting off the same line to them that we saw in John 10. This can't possibly be a plagiarism of the Bible, can it?

Drich, that's all I have for now. I hope you come up with something more concrete next time. I may even bring PeterPriesthood out to play if you do, and that's fun times for everyone!
[/quote]

So if you were a Mormon then why did you identify as being a former Christian?