Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

And you know he was speaking truth how?

I mean, if he had been trying to lead people astray, that'd be a nice way to cover himself...

 

By jove, I think he's got it....

 

Gnarff,

I've long since given up trying to refute things that you say point by point. We have come to the conclusion that we will never be completely in agreement due to an unbridgable chasm in our sets of beliefs. I however have one thing that I keep going back to, and I can't seem to come to any rational explanation of this: The Bible is somewhere on the order of 2000 years old. There were issues today that could not even be comprehended back then. Why then, are you so sure that the scriptures contain the answer to every one of today's questions when they are largely not addressed in the text?

Yes, you have Prophets, but it is the scriptures that you base all of your answers upon. Furthermore, we have already seen that the scriptures, and by extension the Bible itself is an imperfect document. There are many things that are outlawed in the Bible that are not outlawed in any country, and there are things that are allowed in the Bible that are illegal in virtually every country on the planet. Some of the difference regard moral issues (and I will admit that there is some sense in that), but others don't seem to have any rational basis at all. For example, one of the commandments is do not commit adultery (specifically "do not covet thy neighbor's wife"). While I agree that's probably a good idea, it's AFAIK not actually illegal, at least not in North America or Europe. We're also not supposed to covet the property of other people. While it is law that you cannot actually take something that isn't yours, we don't punish people merely for coveting what isn't theirs. To go to the other end of the spectrum, the Bible says slavery is OK, but I don't see slavery being actively practiced in 1st world societies either.

So, given the imperfections, and the fact that the world is a very different place now than it was 2000 years ago, how can you be so sure that everything the Bible says is correct (even given that we see there are definitely instances where it isn't correct) and how can you be so sure that it can give direction and answer questions that it was never designed to answer?

 

Again, it comes down to faith. If you have no faith in these men, and their integrity, then you're obviously not going to believe what they say. If non-believers have nothing better to do than put us down for our faith, then they must really suck and beg to be bashed.

Well, if it's a theory that contradicts or otherwise doesn't fit with the taught gospel, then be careful with it. That's why I have accepted that Darwin had observed something, but disagree with his conclusions. Homosexuality and other sexual sins are explicitly covered. The General principles can and do still provide a guideline for the modern challenges.

Again, Trust in God, and reason your way through, and you'll have your answers. God is perfect, those that sought to translate the Bible without divine Guidance are not.

The Law of Moses was very explicit, often to the point of excess. When Christ came, he restated the laws, and made them clearer. Further, morality has come under scrutiny, and has not been upheld, so some of the commandments have been lost.

First, Covetous and adultery are two differing commandments. Covetous cannot be proven, therefore cannot be prosecuted. Adultery is an example of moral decay, where it is now tolerated legally. These do not change the fact that they are immoral. Slavery was the cultural norm in the time of the old testament (only leaving the law books in the western world in 1865), so the Law of Moses, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul addressed it. The Law of Moses put rules in place regulating it, Christ and Paul spoke of conduct of the master toward the servant.

Again, it's faith. Faith in God, the eternal Father, and the one who's will we ought to be doing. Given that Prophets have again been called, the Bible has been corrected, the testimony of Nephites restored. It comes down to faith. If you don't believe in God, or that He has sent prophets, then you won't accept this either...

 

Good one. Yet, it's okay for you to show us the error of our ways....

I found this quote:

Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?

Friedrich Nietzche

[ August 03, 2005, 16:33: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

So how do you know the other sections of the Bible will not change as well? Given that the Bible has been corrected means that - by definition - it is imperfect. So why can faith be stated as the answer for this dilemna when people who had faith in prior versions were wrong?

 

Aldeth, it's all because all you upstarts refuse to speak Hebrew.

 

or Aramaic.

 

It's the best I can do when asked to prove the unprovable.

Actually, Man screws up enough on his own, and often refuses to admit (or fails to see) where they've screwed up...

Because the process is completed. The process was completed during the ministry of Joseph Smith I believe. God has spoken, and shouldn't need to correct himself.

Rally and Hacken: I have enough trouble with English, and have forgotten too much french. Nobody is there to teach me Hebrew and Aramaic...

 

Both atheists and believers are bashed equally by the other party. The reason is that we all need to confront what we disagree with, and the stronger we disagree with something, the stronger we'll confront that something.

When discussing matters of belief it is impossible to reach an understanding on any side, because the matter is highly subjective and personal. No-one can satisfactorily prove the existance of a god or gods, and no-one can satisfactorily prove the non-existance of the same god or gods. Expressing your opinions about the matter is one thing. Preaching in favour of one way or the other is pointless, as there are no solid arguments on either side, and people end up repeating themselves, or resorting to personal aggravation.

Have you ever read the Buddhist parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant?

 

*frustration steadily growing*

OK, let me rephrase the question. Prior to Joseph Smith's revelation, wasn't it assumed that the Bible WAS correct? No one thought it needed to be fixed prior to the revelation, just as everyone now assumes it doesn't need to be fixed (unless there is another revelation). Of course no one assumes it's incorrect and leaves it uncorrected. So what I'm saying is how do we know some other Prophet won't have another revelation some day and change other parts of the Bible - I don't know - perhaps there will be parts that weren't corrected by Smith.

 

I have heard stories of how various re-translations of the bible were tailored to please the one commissioning the translation. Since this translation was commissioned by God, Himself, we can assume these now are his words as he has given them to ancient prophets.

 

I don't think I've ever read a more arrogant statement in my life.

 

Ha, that solves the problem. I always wondered why god didn't bother to have the bible written in a language everyone can read and understand by default, without having to bother with foreign languages and letters. The Babylon incident wouldn't have been a reasonable obstacle to that. But no, he sent the babel fish, a.k.a. holy spirit, to some chosen one in the shape of a parrot on his shoulder. That's good. Now we only have to discern who has the correct parrot under the thousands who claim to have the correct parrot. That's a huge step forward!

 

Because people sought to correct Him, and they were wrong, He had to set the record straight.

 

I think what Gnarfflinger is saying is this:

We do not have the original version. What we have are translations. As people made translations errors crept in or were intentionally made.

Therefore, God chose Joseph Smith to correct these errors.