Why Do Atheists Criticize People's Beliefs?

[Harry Nevis]

Questioning the word of god?

Did not Paul state that "if angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."

Is that not exactly what John Smith claims happened?

Now who's cursed?

Ah, the old trick of "Anyone who says different is a liar". Sounds like you're the one cursed with inane beliefs.

[Whateverist]

I don't think they had adequate protections for intellectual property rights back then. Cursing was pretty much it.

[Huggy Bear]

That's not even a passage from scripture, it appears to be the Book of Mormon.

You're confusing scripture with Scripture. I used a lower case "s".

There is no confusion, defining it by using lower case makes it no less irrelevant.

---

Did not Paul state that "if angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."

Is that not exactly what John Smith claims happened?

Now who's cursed?

Ah, the old trick of "Anyone who says different is a liar". Sounds like you're the one cursed with inane beliefs.

Ofcourse, that's the very definition of a liar.

If I recount Harry Potter differntly than what's originally written down, would I not be a liar?

[Valyza1]

You're confusing scripture with Scripture. I used a lower case "s".

There is no confusion, defining it by using lower case makes it no less irrelevant.

My only point is that the Book of Mormon is scripture, so I wasn't using the word incorrectly. I never suggested it was relevant.

[vorlon13]

I note the main impetus of being a Mormon is BELEIVING all the crap Joe (John?) Smith coughed up.  If one has trouble digesting it, they would move on to the 7th Day Adventists or the JWs, or somewhere else . . .

[Cyberman]

If I recount Harry Potter differntly than what's originally written down, would I not be a liar?

Or adapting it for some reason.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

With his claymore.

/obscure_Morecambe_and_Wise_reference

Swooshed me. 

[Crossless2.0]

You're confusing scripture with Scripture. I used a lower case "s".

There is no confusion, defining it by using lower case makes it no less irrelevant.

---

Ah, the old trick of "Anyone who says different is a liar". Sounds like you're the one cursed with inane beliefs.

Ofcourse, that's the very definition of a liar.

If I recount Harry Potter differntly than what's originally written down, would I not be a liar?

If I delivered a doctrine and then said that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with my doctrine is accursed, would you just take my word for it or would you think that perhaps I was making a power play?

[Huggy Bear]

There is no confusion, defining it by using lower case makes it no less irrelevant.

---

Ofcourse, that's the very definition of a liar.

If I recount Harry Potter differntly than what's originally written down, would I not be a liar?

If I delivered a doctrine and then said that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with my doctrine is accursed, would you just take my word for it or would you think that perhaps I was making a power play?

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

---

If I recount Harry Potter differntly than what's originally written down, would I not be a liar?

Or adapting it for some reason.

Okay...

The point is it is no longer canon.

[Crossless2.0]

If I delivered a doctrine and then said that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with my doctrine is accursed, would you just take my word for it or would you think that perhaps I was making a power play?

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

Perfectly? That's interesting. Jews seemed to have regarded the Law as a burden to be embraced and celebrated, not as something that revealed how utterly depraved they were. Admitting fault, making such amends as possible, observing the stipulations of the Law, maintaining ritual purity, and beseeching the Lord to forgive us was deemed sufficient for righteousness -- no gory sacrifice of some god/man, much less uncritical belief that such a thing happened, was required. Paul's doctrines, though consonant with scripture (after all, what else would you have expected from a Pharisee?), are hardly the last word on the subject and certainly debatable.

In any case, if his doctrines match up with the scriptures they must be accepted as true? Um, no.