Christ not destructive says Animated Dirt

[DJAkuma]

Sorry if I'm not as smart as the guy with a degree but what's an "atheist superstition"? And what does it have to do with anything in the thread?

I wonder if communion crackers are painted with lead-based paint.

[Gawen]

That may be true, but his avatar is strangely compelling, I wonder what tricks are used to make it so.
I suppose it's the halo effect.
And the skeletal stare.
That's a Christ who doesn't enjoy seeing me sent to burn for eternity, but what can he do, rules is rules.

Nah, he's watching people for using their "god given" brains instead of faith. If I were Jesus and saw that 25% of Americans are not faithful to me, I'd look that way to.

[Stevil]

Don't be so hard on him Stevil.

I was irritated by his sarcasm. So applied his own logic back on himself. I am still waiting for him to refute this logic

[Gawen]

Don't be so hard on him Stevil.

I was irritated by his sarcasm. So applied his own logic back on himself. I am still waiting for him to refute this logic

*whispering*...I know. Keep up the good work!!!

[Achronos]

It would have been better had you deconstructed my points instead of leaving me an insult.

Um, you didn't make any points, hence the sarcasm.  I don't believe what you think we believe in this tirade of yours, so there's nothing to reply to.

So? I'm not very impressed that you have a degree in supernatural studies written by ancient goat herders.

Not trying to impress anybody.  My point was that I have a degree in Bible and that you think you know more about it because of your "debunking logic" is laughable.  That's why I threw a little sarcastic humor out there.

You can be honest, and nobody will judge you, but have you legitimately read the Bible cover to cover?  Until you have, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

For the same reason people think crystals will heal their every ills.

Oh.  Okay.  Getting a degree is the same thing as healing crystals in your mind.  Got it.  This explains a lot!

Now, why not expand that wonderful mind of yours and spend five years each on the book of Mormon, Theravada, etc.

Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods (althgouh have studied see below).  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

So five years of studying the bible has given you at least - wrong definitions of the words "apocalyptic" and "superstition". How odd. I've been studying the bible for nearly 3 times longer than you and I still maintain a coherent understanding of these words and the biblical definition of "apocalypse".

When you can study Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam unbiased for five years each, no need to gain a degree...come back here and let us know what you find out.

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

"Apocalyptic" can mean: 1) describing or prophesying the complete destruction of the world, 2)momentous or catastrophic, or 3) of or resembling the biblical Apocalypse (OED).  I would also add 4) a struggle between good and evil.  Superhero comics are apocalyptic when the heroes strive against great villainy (and I would add at their best when this is so), they cease to be apocalyptic when heroes and villains devolve to mere protagonist/antagonist relationships.  Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is apocalyptic because it involves a momentous struggle between good and evil.  Despite being post-apocalyptic in sense (1) Stephen King's The Stand is apocalyptic in senses (2) and (4).  The biblical apocalyptic scenarios fit all four definitions.

Now, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  Atheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely, it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.  At any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Now, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary . (Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

You can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

I accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.  I believe atheism has a false conception of causation by the very fact that it believes something can be caused by nothing, and that it maintains it's notions despite an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of God.  As for other atheistic superstitions, the concept of evolution has developed quite a few, such as a belief that the newer is better than the older, that the fittest survives and thus that which survives is fittest, and that there is no good or evil merely action.  You can argue that this is a misapplication of atheism and evolutionary theory, but I can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

As to the study of other religions, I have indeed studied Buddhism and Taoism with an open mind (not looking to convert, but with a goodhearted curiosity).  There are many admirable things within both, but they fall short of the mark.  Buddhism is good when it tells me to seek dispassion, not so good when it tells me to seek inaction.  Taoism is good (and has even enhanced my understanding of Christianity) when it tells me to deem something is to allow for it's opposite.  It's not so good for telling me which to prefer.  

Mormonism and Islam I have studied, not with an open mind, but the same way a banker compares a counterfeit note to a real one.

[Gawen]

Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing. Yes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism.  And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I have been a member of Internet Infidels Discussion Board (now known as Free Ratio Discussion Board) since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and the now defunct General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I am short a little over 200 posts to reach my 10,000th post. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others. Both of which you have seen here.

All the above took place since 1997.

Eh...I'll throw in one more.

Until you have {read the bible cover to cover}, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

We'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

The rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. Besides, Whitney would spank me if I said it. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a theological degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

I will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.
Edited to add: your post is still full of logical fallacies and Christian Superiority Complex but, I might as well add, much more professional.

[Achronos]

Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing.

Pity, because there a few things I'd have liked you to address.  Particularly why you think experience applies to you but not to others; why you are certain you're not a brain in a vat and yet certain that someone's religious experience can only be false.

Yes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism.  And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I have been a member of Internet Infidels Discussion Board (now known as Free Ratio Discussion Board) since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and the now defunct General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I am short a little over 200 posts to reach my 10,000th post. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others. Both of which you have seen here.

All the above took place since 1997.

Very nice.

We'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

Please do.  I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on something when I haven't put in the time to try to understand it.  I don't doubt that you've studied the Bible as much as you have, but I'll be honest and say that I find that pretty impossible to believe considering the childish caricatures you assign to it.

The rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. Besides, Whitney would spank me if I said it. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a theological degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

Not quite sure what this is in reference to, but okay.  One would think the time I'm willing to put in in replying to you would be a quality identified as "courtesy" (especially given that you're clearly unwilling to actually try to understand what I'm trying to say).  I have no debate style because I'm not debating you or anyone.  I don't much care for debate because it results in trying to score points rather than trying to find truth.

I will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.

Please do.

[Achronos]

Gawen I'm just curious, are you really interested in studying the Bible and what it actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time? Are you truly interested in learning about "contradictions" in the Bible, why they exist and what they mean? Are you truly interested in understanding the "bible puzzles" that exist? If you really and truly are interested in this subject for yourself, for no other reason but because you find the Bible interesting, it's wisdom and it's horrors, I could recommend a couple of starter books for you and an awesome website with podcasts. I'm not an apologist, and if most people on here knew I was a fan of what I'd recommend to you, they'd probably freak out, but I'm trying to determine if you have a true interest in the Bible as a historical, religious, spiritual and political collection of works, or if you just want to find "bad stuff" to "debunk" religion. If that's the case you'll hate what I have to recommend anyways so there is no need; but if the former is the case, which I suspect it might be. (I cannot imagine someone spending 4 days a week reading the Bible as you have just to "debunk" religion, OTH there are nuts out there) Anyways if you're interested, and sincerely want to learn about the Bible (not religion) then I'm happy to make a couple of suggestions, however if you're just trying to find "ammo" to tow the atheist party line, there is no point because you'll despise any sort of real scholarly work which treats the Bible fairly (like the Illiad or the Oddyssey would be treated).

Anyways just curious. Reply if you wish, if not that's fine too. Just curious because some of what you write appears to be written out of utter confusion about the Bible and religion because it IS confusing when Churches strip the Bible out of it's original context.

[Gawen]

Gawen I'm just curious, are you really interested in studying the Bible and what it actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time? Are you truly interested in learning about "contradictions" in the Bible, why they exist and what they mean? Are you truly interested in understanding the "bible puzzles" that exist? If you really and truly are interested in this subject for yourself, for no other reason but because you find the Bible interesting, it's wisdom and it's horrors, I could recommend a couple of starter books for you and an awesome website with podcasts.

Achronos, the Bible means whatever one gets out of it. It's subjective. I can go to a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian or Greek or Russian Orthodox and get what it "actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time" and how to apply such wisdom for today in their own particular fashion. Your take on it will not sway me.
There are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty. I like to throw them out to Christians that say there aren't contradictions. Sadly, they never get back to me. If there are contradictions in the Bible, then God's word is contradictory.
Throw out the books, then. Someone here might have the time to read them, but I tell you up front that I have read numerous apologists books and find them lacking.

I'm not an apologist...

But you are.

...and if most people on here knew I was a fan of what I'd recommend to you, they'd probably freak out, but I'm trying to determine if you have a true interest in the Bible as a historical, religious, spiritual and political collection of works, or if you just want to find "bad stuff" to "debunk" religion.

Like I said, give us the names of these books. However, religion debunks itself quite regularly.

If that's the case you'll hate what I have to recommend anyways so there is no need; but if the former is the case, which I suspect it might be. (I cannot imagine someone spending 4 days a week reading the Bible as you have just to "debunk" religion, OTH there are nuts out there)

Frankly, the reason I ever picked up a bible 15 or so years ago was to examine WHY i did not believe it in the first place. I have never been a believer. I wished to know why everyone around me did believe. The only way to do that was to read the bible without some sort of bias or slant to any particular denomination. I have succeeded in that endeavour. Now, if Christians could do the same, there would be less Christians.

Anyways if you're interested, and sincerely want to learn about the Bible (not religion) then I'm happy to make a couple of suggestions, however if you're just trying to find "ammo" to tow the atheist party line, there is no point because you'll despise any sort of real scholarly work which treats the Bible fairly (like the Illiad or the Oddyssey would be treated).

Define "real scholarly work". Do you define it this way because this "work" tows your Orthodox party line?

Just curious because some of what you write appears to be written out of utter confusion about the Bible and religion because it IS confusing when Churches strip the Bible out of it's original context.

That cannot be helped. When one denomination says one thing and another up the street says an entirely different thing. It's why there have been over 36,000 (yes, thirty six thousand) denominations of Christianity.
If there have been that many, then all of them save one is not true. You would have it that yours is true. All the others would say the same as yours. The problem is that none of the denominations can prove theirs is the one true 'way' in original context and that includes yours as well. This is where you get that superiority complex, I'd wager. All the denominations claim theirs is the superior. Some are just a little more aggressive than others.

Now Achronos...you're an intelligent person. I can see it in your writing. But in order for you to see religion my way, you simply must take off the god goggles. Your bias is too thick and you cannot seem to get past the glaring contradictions questionable precepts and other mindless and maddening junk in the bible. You cannot, it seems, think outside the box of your belief system. This is no different than a Muslim cannot think outside the box ...or a Presbyterian cannot side with a Jehovah's Witness. This is why you are at loggerheads between me and several other on the board here.
On the contrary, many atheists who are ex-believers can see why and how believers believe what they believe. They've been there...done that...and many have gotten the t-shirt.

I'm interested in those books and I may read one or two. But I'm telling you up front that if I have to rely on religious faith, which I'm sure I will have to do to make sense of what YOU consider TRUE in these books, well, we aren't going to get far at all. The reason I say this is just last weekend a friend who claims to be Southern Baptist (as are most people where I live) gave me a book called Pagan Ways. She asked me to read it, claiming that some of the stuff in it makes sense to her. I got to about page 12 and then started skimming. The book was full of fallacies, wishful uncritical thinking, contradictions, and no proof whatsoever. And this made sense to a person who said she would never leave the Southern Baptist Church.

I've rambled long enough, I reckon.

[Achronos]

the Bible means whatever one gets out of it. It's subjective. I can go to a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian or Greek or Russian Orthodox and get what it "actually means, and what it actually meant in it's historical, religous, social, and cultural context at the time" and how to apply such wisdom for today in their own particular fashion. Your take on it will not sway me.

A simple "no, I'm not interested in the Bible, I only want to reaffirm what I already believe/do not believe" would have sufficed.

There are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty.

Oh, only 30? You've studied the Bible for years and can only come up with 30? There are probably 30 contradictions in the Gospel of John alone. lol  :eek:

Which box would you like me think out of? I have been an atheist, and used to fluctuate back and forth between it and agnosticism on a daily basis. I was NOT raised in a religious home, became a Christian later in life, and then went towards atheism and now am comfortable with where I am as a Christian (not counting the second bout of atheism). I have studied other religions, I read the Dalai Lama, I find Hinduism of great interest. I have read all the New Atheists, I do not like Christian or Atheist Apologists and I try my best to look at a subject from all sides. I think there is a good, sound historical case to be made for the fact that the Apostle Paul was actually Simon Magus. I think the ancient Hebrews were clearly polytheistic, and see irrufutable proofs in the Hebrew Bible, and I cannot think outside the box? Yeah, okay! Right!

On the contrary, many atheists who are ex-believers can see why and how believers believe what they believe. They've been there...done that...and many have gotten the t-shirt.

I guess I'm comfortable enough with where I am in life that I don't need a t-shirt to advertise my "beliefs" to the world in an attempt to seek attention or to convince others I'm "on the fringe" and am just more hip than the typical person on the street.

I'm interested in those books and I may read one or two. But I'm telling you up front that if I have to rely on religious faith, which I'm sure I will have to do to make sense of what YOU consider TRUE in these books, well, we aren't going to get far at all.

Again, you're assuming things about me that are not true. And even if I were to recommend something like that to you, I thought you said you began reading the Bible to, A. reinforce why you didn't believe, and B. to understand why it us believers believe? If B is true you should have finished that book on neo-Paganism. Just because you feel it is dren doesn't mean everyone does. I think some aspects of Hinduism is purely fantastical nonsense, but I read it anyways because I find other people's beliefs fascinating. I think some aspects of Buddhism are just not my cup of tea, but I read it anyway and try to understand it. The same goes for Jehova's Witnesses....I find their organization oppressive but I find the religion of interest. I find most neo-pagan new age stuff just too "fluffy bunny" for me, but I like to learn WHY people are drawn to it. OTH you seem to only care about reinforcing your beliefs or lack thereof. The fact that you admit you won't read something I recommend if you happen to disagree with it makes me really wonder why I should recommend anything at all? What would be the point? You've already made up your mind and admit you won't read anything that doesn't adhere to your world view. Huh? Shouldn't you be reading EVERYTHING from every perspective? You're right when you say most Christians do not do that. They only read what only reinforces their religion, but then so do you...so how are you any different than posters here? The reason I've butted heads with you here is because as someone who has claimed to study as you have and claims to be open minded you should be the first to be open to other possibilities. I certainly won't recommend any books to certain individuals because, well it's obvious, or it will be in a moment...LOL!

Anyways some books of interest:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament, by Robert M Price (excellent book, his own translation and gives great historical notes. No it is NOT just a "lost gospels" book....for example he explains how Galatians originally didn't have chapters 1 and 2, but those were added later on by the ecclesiastical redactor (whom he and other scholars believe was Polycarp of Smyrna)

The Great Angel a Study of Israel's Second God, by Margaret Barker (anything by her is brilliant)

Hebrew Myths the book of Genesis by Raphael Patai

The Bible, by Karen Armstrong (good introduction on form/source criticism, probably the best starter book for anyone who has only read the Bible, introduces the 4 source hypothesis for the Torah etc)

The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan

The Cross that Spoke (Crossan)

Anything by Bart Ehrman is good.

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M Price


The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E Brown, as the joke goes, if he had written this in the middle ages he would have been burnt at the stake. (he basically shows how the virgin birth stories were later additions to the gospels)

Then of course there is the classic "The quest for the historical Jesus" by Albert Shweitzer,

Jesus and Judaism, by EP Sanders (brilliant scholar on Jewish origins of Christianity, one of my favorites actually)

There are thousands more. It all depends on what you're interests actually are. These are not apologists all are real Biblical scholars, Armstrong leans more to being a popularizer but she knows her stuff.

The classic writers are all great too, and some of these are more tomes than books (Fr. Brown's book is like 600 pages on only 4 chapters in the New Testament) but if you like that stuff, go for it. If you just want an overview try Ehrman's books, Misquoting Jesus, a good starter. (you may have already read that though)

Also for a complete reading list try here:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm

Robert M Price also has a podcast titled "the Bible Geek"...check out his website or search iTunes. You can send in and ask questions and he'll answer you on his show. He's funny, brilliant, a member of the Jesus Seminar (the group that has been looking for 20 years a Jesus they themselves have created) and ascribes to the Christ myth hypothesis, but doesn't assume he "must" be right. He's got 3 years of back logged shows on iTunes, check them out. I thought I'd never post this on the boards because it would freak out way too many people. I don't fear critical scholarship though, I love it and it has answered more questions that long puzzled me about the Bible than anything I ever learned in Church, Divinity School or anything else. (Like, what is this stuff in Genesis about "let US create man", or why are there 2 creation stories? Or "why the heck is Jesus cursing fig trees?" Or about all this talk about "dragons and 8 headed beasts"....(these were actually chaos gods in the ancient world and YHWH slayed Tiamat the 8 headed chaos dragon) What does Isaiah 53 really mean in it's historical context? (it has nothing to do with jesus) Etc. If you've asked yourself these questions and really would like to begin to understand them, I strongly suggest you check out his podcast. I ask questions about once a week and had one answered just today, though I'll leave you guessing which person I actually am. I think you'll be surprised though.

I do hope our dialogue can be fruitful and if I've been short with you I do apologize.

[DJAkuma]

My point was that I have a degree in Bible and that you think you know more about it because of your "debunking logic" is laughable.  That's why I threw a little sarcastic humor out there.

You can be honest, and nobody will judge you, but have you legitimately read the Bible cover to cover?  Until you have, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

What does a "degree in the bible" entail? Is there anywhere I can get an advanced degree in something and only have to study one book, and maybe a few other books about that book?

Should we ignore all of your arguments since while you did type them on a computer you don't have a computer science degree and thus are not qualified to use one?

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that's not impressed by your"degree in the bible". I've met plenty of people with fairly advanced degrees in real sciences that aren't too bright, having a degree doesn't mean they're intelligent. In many cases it just means their parents could afford it and they can regurgitate information well.

[DJAkuma]

There are contradictions in the Bible and try as they might, apologists explain them away with great spin to those that already believe. There are numerous contradictions in the bible; I have at hand about thirty.

Oh, only 30? You've studied the Bible for years and can only come up with 30? There are probably 30 contradictions in the Gospel of John alone. lol   yeah, based on my religion? Again, you are seeing what you want to see. You see me as a Christian, and then assume everything about me based on my religious attendance.

Can you point out a few denominations of christianity that do not make the claim that they're the only one that's right?

Now Achronos...you're an intelligent person. I can see it in your writing. But in order for you to see religion my way, you simply must take off the god goggles. Your bias is too thick and you cannot seem to get past the glaring contradictions questionable precepts and other mindless and maddening junk in the bible.

ROFL! I have to laugh for 2 reasons: one, I have said NOTHING at all in defense of a believe in God, or even in the Orthodox Church, two; "blah, blah, blah". What I'm wondering about is your motivation in all this? Are you simply mining the Bible for things to "debunk" it? Do you do the same thing with the Greek myths? When was the last time you spent 15 years debunking Zoroastrianism? What is your motivation?

Could someone who's bored and has some time on their hands maybe put up a page or two of quotes from him where he defends his belief in god and the orthodox church?

It should be obvious that we focus on the bible because it's relevant in our time, when was the last time you met a follower of zoroastrianism? they don't need to be debunked because they're not the ones knocking on doors, shoving bibles in faces, protesting at abortion clinics, or trying to run for public office so they can legislate their morality.

Just because you feel it is dren doesn't mean everyone does.

Farscape fan?

[Gawen]

Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

[DJAkuma]

Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

I was just throwing in my two cents out of boredom. Anyway, he's wrong, my girlfriends mormon parents talk to god all the time and He says everything in the book of mormon is true.

[Gawen]

Feel free DJ to continue the fight. I say fight because one cannot debate effectively with someone who throws out numerous fallacies in just about every post. Snarkiness and superiority complex's, not answering questions, moving goalposts etc etc etc are not conducive to debate either. I'm not bothering with him any more. Good luck

I was just throwing in my two cents out of boredom. Anyway, he's wrong, my girlfriends mormon parents talk to god all the time and He says everything in the book of mormon is true.

Makes sense to me.