Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[SpencerH]

I'm not taunting god, I'm taunting you. Hopefully you recognize the difference.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Because its a red-herring. Save it for the fundamentalist types.

He and you since your are backing him are both complaining about stuff that WAS SAID to the fundamentalist types. Why is this so difficult for you and he to comprehend?

Well I dont 'get' the flood story either. But is the idea that god exists (without proof) and that it created the universe so antithical to you? I see no proof that god exists, and I dont believe in god either, but "there are stranger things under heaven and earth Horatio". I'm willing to accept a small possibility.

Its truly amazing to me how people get something wrong in their head like this and won't let go. I am not an Atheist and that is exactly what are saying I am in this paragraph. Perhaps you also are under the impression that if there is a god it must be a christian god therefor I must be an atheist for saying that I have disproved that Fundamentalist god.

Give up this odd version of me you have in your head please. Its getting really tiresome to see the exact thing time after time no matter how many times I point out that its wrong.

Now thats a viewpoint that ckweb might argue. I hope he will.

So far I am not even sure that he comprehends relevance of the question.

I believe its called faith, some take it to extremes, others dont.

Faith does not equal proof, in the pudding or otherwise.

[Lung]

Oh my gawd! Not this thread again!!

Don't you guys get it? You can't just say the last debate doesn't count because you lost!

I could dismantle the bible from most "factual" claims, but it has been done so many times before. I don't want to listen to creationist nonsense any more. You are so far from the truth that you look totally ridiculous trying to defend the indefensible.

If you want to believe in your faith, go right ahead. We won't stop you. BUT, don't try and enforce your delusional ideas on our children by changing school curriculums and entrenching ignorance. Science's only crime is that it seeks the truth, regardless of what that may be. You're trying to ensure that the truth, at least preceived, fits within the mantra of the bible. Insisting on one "truth", regardless of facts to the contrary, is hardly the truth at all!!!

I'm sorry i don't have the patience Ethelred has, but you blokes sh*t me to tears!

[Lung]

Originally posted by Troll

This is indeed a Test, and it is simple to pass, Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

Troll

You are kidding, right?

Do you honestly think, assuming that god exists, that he would condemn scientists to hell for searching for the truth? He would condemn me me for using my brain and trying to find out how the universe works? WHAT A COMPLETE BASTARD!!!

Seriously, if YOU were a god and you wanted beings to follow you blindly, wouldn't you make them a bit less intelligent? We can make robots to do whatever we say, but they're hardly going to give you intellectual stimulation, are they? Wouldn't it be somewhat tiresome after a few millenia?

Just remember - it's your faith because you were indoctrinated. That's fine, because it comes with many sound principles, but let's face it - you wouldn't spontaneously believe in Jesus Christ as being the son of god if no one told you it was so.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Troll
Eighteen Inches. Thats the difference for those of us whom believe in JESUS CHRIST as our personal Lord and Savior.

Eighteen Inches.........the difference between "Head" knowledge..all you so called experts of science and literature and writings.......and "Heart" knowlege, knowing JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior.

But I cant argue the point, because knowing JESUS CHRIST is a matter of Faith, and if you dont have Faith than what He, GOD offered up as an Atonement for our Human Sinfulness, than this is foolishness to man in his own thought process.

I pray, and yes you folks can ridicule me, not a problem, I only offer up a testimony, but one day, sooner than you think, you will appear before the Master, and He will look to his Son, JESUS CHRIST and then He will either say "Well done thou good and faithful servant, or Depart from me you worker of iniquity!

It is sad, those whom try to rationalize to a point, because Faith is what God's plan of Salvation is based upon.

This is indeed a Test, and it is simple to pass, Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

Troll

Troll: "Heart" knowledge does not exempt one from pursuing "Head" knowledge. I know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Read how the citizens of Berea responded to Paul when he spoke to them as it is recorded in Acts. Mark Noll in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," rightly observed that Evangelicals have abdicated the mind when clearly God gave us one to employ. You should not ridicule those who would engage in reasoned discussion nor should you imply their condemnation. God alone saves and God alone condemns!

You should also not ridicule your Catholic brothers with veiled criticisms of their theology. If you want to raise objections with their theology, you should do so in a meaningful way. We all see as if through glass dimly and your theology (even from your short post) has flaws just as Catholic theology does.

[Aeson]

But of course it's alright to mock Mormons for their belief system.. right?

[Lung]

Originally posted by ckweb


Troll: "Heart" knowledge does not exempt one from pursuing "Head" knowledge. I know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Read how the citizens of Berea responded to Paul when he spoke to them as it is recorded in Acts. Mark Noll in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," rightly observed that Evangelicals have abdicated the mind when clearly God gave us one to employ. You should not ridicule those who would engage in reasoned discussion nor should you imply their condemnation. God alone saves and God alone condemns!

You should also not ridicule your Catholic brothers with veiled criticisms of their theology. If you want to raise objections with their theology, you should do so in a meaningful way. We all see as if through glass dimly and your theology (even from your short post) has flaws just as Catholic theology does.

It's good to see that your judgement is not blinded by your religion, as is Troll's. Clouded, perhaps, but not blinded

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actual not alleged. You make statements that do not include quotes but are actualy your perception of what I have said. This simply created even more misperception. Both in yourself and in others that read it. Things get mixed together over time and your versions of what I say get mixed up with the real thing.

Like I've said, if I perceived wrong, I apologize. But, in some cases, I just see you slithering through and using sleight of hand to avoid being caught on a point. But, enough is enough. I will desist from appealing to your discussions with Fundamentalists.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That IS THE CAUSE of the misperceptions. If you would take the time you might start dealing with I actually say instead of the model you have in your mind. I find that I do that if I do not check. I see no reason to think you are immune to this as it seems to be human nature. Please in the future actually post what I realy say and not your restatements as they often change the real meaning.

If you were better at it I wouldn't need to ask that you do this. I am not that good myself either. Its sheer laziness when I do it. Usually its OK but sometimes its not.

I don't think I'm immune that is why I have offered my apologies in a couple of posts now if I have indeed misread or misunderstood you. But, as I said above, I will not further argue on this point as we have started significant discussions on other points. I feel I've made my point and I will let readers decide for themselves if my criticisms were warranted. Some have already posted their thoughts. I encourage them to continue to do so regardless of their take on this aspect of our discussions.

Originally posted by Ethelred
YET AGAIN you change the meaning. Again:

"The Bible is a collection of myths legends and often dubious history"

Not once have I claimed it was all fiction. For one thing the people of that time did always make much of a distinction between fiction and fact in books.

Fictional stories are just fiction. You have a different definition of true than I use. You have this concept of Eternal Truths. I don't. I am thinking true/false or factual/fictional as well as precise/fuzzy.

Again that is entirely your perception. I am using the term stories to denote that its not a true statement about real historical events. You also say many of the things in the Bible are just stories and not real events. The Flood being the most obvious example and I suspect you would treat Job the same why. Its just a story. That is in no way pejoritive. Stories can be good entertainment or even upon occasion insightfull. They are however not a sign from a hypothetical god.

I think you failed to understand the thrust of my question. I would like to know how you arrived at your position that "The Bible is a collection of myths legends and often dubious history." Are they myths and legends because they are scientifically inaccurate? Or, are they myths and legends because that was the authorial intent as best as it can be recovered?

I agree that our semantics are not on the same wave length when it comes to terms like "true/untrue", historical, literal, relevant, irrelevant, etc. I pointed this out sometime ago in this thread and it continues to make things confusing. It is why I attempt to rephrase things in my own words so that I can see if I am following you properly on your points.

Again and again, I have stated that I am not attempting to convince you that the Bible proves the existence of God. First, because in and of itself, it does not. Second, I don't think you would be convinced of it anyways.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Even in you post about your beliefs you don't claim that the Bible is the source of your beliefs. You beliefs seem to be based largely on the beliefs of others and two events that are only documented in the Bible. Those both could be stories just as the Flood is a story.

In my posts, I have indicated that the Bible derives its authority from the community of faith. I have also stated that I am Christian because of that community of faith and my personal experiences. However, neither of these statements means that the Bible is not a source of my beliefs. It is a source and a pretty important one at that.

The Flood Story is distinguished from the national revelation at Sinai and the resurrection of Jesus in many respects. First, the latter two are not of the same genre nor in the same section of the Bible as the former. Second, the latter two have corresponding sociological and anthropological proofs that strongly suggest their likelihood. Third, the community of faith is based on direct witness to the latter two events.

But, I can see how from your perspective they still remain stories. In order to convict me of the same, however, you would have to offer me convincing explanations for how Israel's (I'm talking historical Israel here not modern Israel) rich socio-political, religious, and cultural heritage developed in the absence of an actual experience at Sinai. On this point, it would not be an easy task. Lemche and Seters, two excellent yet misguided scholars, have proposed to do this very thing but they remain fringe voices because their theories are overly reductionistic and fail to provide sufficient explanation for the literature of the biblical text in the absence of the historical events that allegedly precipitated it.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I give them great value in that regard. Its shows the Bible is a not a good source of information about any hypothetical god. It can't be trusted as so much is wrong. A Flood story that is true is usefull in that respect. A Flood story that is fictional is not. I do not see how it could be usefull if its fiction except in the same way as any other story. Which give the Flood story the same exact usefullness as Gilgamesh.

I am pretty sure you do not consider Gilgamesh usefull in understanding god so why do you find the Flood at all usefull?

So just what are they good for besides entertainment? You seem to be insisting they have some intrinsic value regarding your version of god even though you think they are fiction. Remember the context of the discusion. This is a discusion about religious beliefs in god not compative literature.

The Bible is more than the Flood Story. If the Flood Story was the only document preserved from the Bible, I would give it no more time and attention then I would the Gilgamesh Epic. However, the Flood Story is a part of huge corpus of literature and much of it is historical. Once the rest of the literature is taken into account, the Flood Story suddenly (at least for me) gains usefulness from being a part of the whole.

Also, apart from its religious significance, the Flood Story and the Gilgamesh Epic are insightful as cultural artifacts. They point to how people thought about the world around them in the Ancient Near East. I find that fascinating because for me, even though they may have been ignorant of science, they were interesting people who did interesting things.

Originally posted by Ethelred
If you want to read for literary purposes that is fine by me. I prefer Irish and Norse myths myself. Less killing but more blood and thunder. Or is that thud and blunder when Thor is involved?

You tell me. You are one who reads them. Anyways, outside of the Bible, I love LOTR for my mythology. Tolkien's a freakin' genius!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am still waiting for you to show some religious value to something that even you admit is often fiction. Specificly Genesis. Other parts of the Bible are not fictional although much of it is clearly told through a purely Jewish point of view.

All of the Hebrew Bible is told from the Jewish point of view! It is a Jewish book after all. The NT, while sometimes told from a Jewish perspective, is often and unfortunately hostile to the Jews.

About how I find religious value in the Bible... first, as I've pointed out, there are historical events contained therein that have enormous religious significance (i.e. the national revelation of Sinai and the resurrection of Jesus). second, fiction can have religious value because the author is still making a point about the world around him even if he is using fictional characters to do it. The perfect example is Job. One of the primary reasons for the book of Job is to show the logical flaw in Israel's own retribution theology (the idea that God rewards the good and punishes the bad). The argument of Job is that sometimes bad things happen to good people and so God's purposes can not be summed up in the simple dichotomy of retribution theology (even if that is how he chooses to work at times). third, as a cultural artifact, the Bible has religious value by showing me how people over the span of one and half millenia wrestled with the issues of their faith and reconciled it to the world they lived in. fourth, the Bible also contains much practical advice, especially in Proverbs, the words of Jesus and the Epistles of the NT. fifth, the worldview of many scriptural texts helps me to reflect on the world I live in and put things in proper perspective (Eccl. in particular). sixth, the simple beauty and genius of some passages serve as encouragement to me. I could go on but suffice it to say that the Bible (whether in its fictional elements or in its non-fiction) is of exceeding religious value to me and members of my community of faith.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Your statments claiming I actually believe the Bible to be as the Fundamentalists claim clearly shows this perception on your part.

That was a question. I was asking if you read the Bible literally or not.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't care if its attributed to divinity. I don't accept the claim. Its not divine if the god does not exist.

I note here that you did not address the other part of that. So I will ask again to be sure just how extensive you definition of a divine name is.

Do Thor, Odin, Jupter, and Zuess qualify as divine names?

To me they are not. So neither is the name of the god of the Bible. A name you seem reluctant to use.

Ok. I can understand that you would never apply the divine name to your conception of a god if you had any conception of a god. But, within the world of the Bible, the divine name is the tetragrammaton.

Thor, Odin, Jupiter and Zeus are divine names within the world of the literature in which they were penned. Are they divine names of the god of the Hebrew Bible? Obviously not.

I'm reluctant to use the divine name of the Hebrew Bible in public forum where members of the Jewish Orthodox tradition might be present. The use of the divine name, even in writing other than the Bible, is strictly forbidden by Orthodox Jews and it is regarded with great offense when it is used. I directed you in a previous post to visit my website where it is used quite frequently in my essays. I use it there because my website is an explicitly Christian one and as a Christian I have no qualms with employing the divine name myself.

Originally posted by Ethelred
However it does show that there is more than one author and that is significant consdering how many people think the Pentateuch was entirely the work of Moses. Why they do I cannot fathom since it includes his death. Its darn hard for a corpse to write about its death.

Single authorship is quite absurd. My favourite problem is did Moses write, "Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth" (Num 12:3)? If so, he wasn't very humble to consider himself the most humble person on the face of the earth!!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I find it to be less than fully convincing. Its very plausible but not certain since as I said there is evidence that Jews at one time were polytheistic and that could be the cause of some storys using a plural word.

Very well then, I shall leave you to your ignorance.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It has relevance. I did not simply allege it. The Golden Calf story alone shows the Jews were not far removed from polytheism at one time.

First, I have not denied that Hebrews practiced, at the very least, monolatry for much of their history. But, that does not prove whether or not a word in a given grammatical context should be understood as a proper name or a description.

Second, you misread the Calf Story. That is a bad example of the polytheistic tendencies within Israelite society. If you read the passage, the bull is meant to be God's mount. The offense of the Golden Calf was that it was syncretistic not that it was polytheistic. But, that aside, there are some significant problem in the Golden Calf narrative. It appears to be a secondary text added into the wilderness wanderings narrative or at the very least, it was edited at a later date in order to discredit Jeroboam's golden calves at Bethel and Dan. But, that is a whole other issue.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No. I can't. God capitalized is for a real god only. I know of none. I want to make it clear that I am talking about a specific god. Not all people are christians you know and not all people that join religious discusions are christians even if they think there is a creator.

Frankly I think you are upset over my use of the word Jehovah for religious reason. It used to be a stoning offense to say the name of the Jewish god. Your refusal to offer an alternative shows that there is a hidden agenda here. God capitalized is neither correct for me nor sufficient for my use. It must be a specific god since we are not talking about a general creator. You are not a Deist.

By the way I don't capitalize christian for a reason. Its generic to me. I do capitalize specific christian beliefs. Catholic, Baptist, Marinite and such all get capitalized. Islam is less balkinized so I don't bother with the distinctions there.

I'm glad you've made up your own rules regarding capitalization. The fact is English grammar already has rules. Capitalizing the word god only signifies that it is being used as a proper name. "God" is a proper name and therefore definite and referring to one particular "god" named "God". On the other hand, "god" is indefinite; "the god" is definite but gives no indication of the name of that god. In my opinion, "God" is sufficient for you to use as a deist should not capitalize the word just as you did not capitalize "creator". As a point of English grammar, "Christian" should be capitalized when you are using it as a name. But, hey, if you want to have your own rules of grammar go right ahead. I'm certainly not going to penalize you (even if I could), especially on a message board where grammar goes out the window anyways.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Islamic god is the same as your god. Just ask a Moslem.

A Muslim does not believe in the Trinity. I do. Therefore, I deny his claim to worship the same god as I do or at the very least, I deny that his understanding of our god (if it is indeed "our" god) is correct. Regardless, Allah seems to me to be a completely different god, both in character and in substance. But, if a Muslim wants to believe he worships my god, he can go on doing so.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Now the agenda is no longer hidden. I am not beholden to your religious squemishness. I will not be struck by lightening for saying or writing god. I am not Jewish and the Jews don't do that because of tradition but because its againt their religion. Christians do it too sometimes.

Am I also to deliberatly leave out part of Quetzalcoatal if I talk about Aztec gods as well? Sure would be easier to type anyway.

Agenda? That sounds sinister doesn't it. I have no squeamishness. It is out of respect for those who believe differently than I that I do not use the tetragrammaton. As I've indicated now several times, you can feel free to visit my website to see the correct vocalization of the divine name. If you want, send me an email and I will explain this issue to you.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You sure have some odd ideas up there. The JW god is the same god as you have. So do the Mormons, well the Mormons think so anyway. They are wacked though I will agree with you on that. Calling a 20 year old an Elder is only one minor indication of peculiar thinking.

Oh by the way the Mormons get just as annoyed with me as you do. More so in at least one instance. I can't quote some of Elder UltraJared here. It would be full of asterisks. He never apologized even after he admited that I was telling the truth about a real event. (the massacre in Utah of about 150 non-Morman imigrants by some Mormons).

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. Ergo, once again, they do not worship my god or at the very least, they do not share my understanding of that god.

Though they often deny it, the Mormons are essentially polytheistic, believing in three gods. Ergo, they do not believe in the Trinity. Ergo, . . . oh you get the drift!!

Mormonism is wacked on so many levels it's not even funny. It is really a testament to the power of propaganda that Mormonism maintains its parishioners.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I fully agree. There is however nothing special in that. Nothing unique to the Bible in that.

I think there is something special in that. No other corpus of literature that I can think of represents as much cultural history as the Bible does.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Stuff in the Hittite diplomatic archives. Surprisingly little in Egypt however. There is some possibilty that the Hicksos were Israelites.

Actually, Amarna and Merneptah are Egyptian in origin. The Amarna Letters are correspondence between the Pharoah and his vassal states in Palestine. The Merneptah Stele is named after the Pharoah who quelled rebellions in Palestine around 1210 B.C.E.

It is doubtful that the Hyksos were Hebrews. They were probably Semitic peoples and it may be during this time that Joseph rose to prominence in Egypt but even that is uncertain as the dating is tenuous.

Originally posted by Ethelred
This is know as preaching to the choir. That is I know these things. Well I don't know about the two distints accounts but the general idea anyway. It looks a lot like one to me. Perhaps in the Hebrew its more clear.

First Story ("J"): Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-2, 3b-5, 7aa, 7b, 10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23 (except "they were blotted out from the earth"); 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

Second Story ("E"): Genesis 6:9-22; 7:6, 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17.

Editorial Additions ("P"?): Genesis 7:3a, 7ab, 8-9, 17a, in 23 "they were blotted out from the earth".

This is the source division of Martin Noth. There are scholarly disagreements that shift a few verses from one story to the other or to editorial additions but for the most part, this outline is accepted. Read the first and second story as I've laid them out. You'll find it very interesting that they are totally coherent (I'm not saying true or accurate just coherent) stories by themselves. It kind of surprised me when I read it.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Genesis one and two being one of the more obvious doublets.

That is believed to be the source of the Elohim/Jehova dichotomy. The doublets have the differing versions of the reference to god.

These aren't really doublets. They are two completely different stories. Doublets are like the stories in Genesis 20 and 26. In Gen 20, Abraham passes Sarah off as his sister (rather than his wife) to avoid being killed. Abimelech then takes Sarah into his household. He is warned by God, however, to return Sarah. In Gen 26, Isaac passes Rebekah off as sister (rather than his wife) to avoid being killed. Abimelech then takes Rebekah into his household. He is warned by God, however, to return Rebekah. Just proves the maxim: like father, like son!

Yes, the different use of divine names is considered a reflection of different theologies of the two kingdoms of Israel and is often used as a key to deciphering the sources underlying the first four books of the Pentateuch.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Often not so plausible as in the Flood, the Tower of Bable and the Exodus slaughter of Egyptians.

I was talking about Genesis 12-50 when I made the statement you are responding to. The Flood Story and the Tower of Babel are in Genesis 1-11.

What do you mean by the Exodus slaughter of the Egyptians? Are you referring to the tenth plague or the Sea of Reeds incident?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Stable or not its not evidence that such an interaction ever occured.

It's not compelling evidence, I'll grant you that.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Precise dating yes. There realy was no such thing as Isreal prior to Moses anyway. Actually prior to Joshua as Moses was a nomad except when in Egypt.

It depends how you are employing the term. The term Israel is first applied to Jacob and so the national identity might be said to already start taking shape with his sons. However, from a purely archaeological standpoint, Israel is not named in historical records until the Merneptah Stele in 1210 B.C.E.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Oh dear you missed one. True its fiction but is pretty clear that Abraham saw Jehovah in the story. He even washed his feet according to the Bible in Genesis 18.

Accoding to Genesis 18 he must. He ate. Hard to eat without a face.

Genesis 18 looks like a patch job to me. I think it was tacked on later to justify the morals of killing everone in two towns.

No miracle is needed for both the towns to burn down the same night. That happened in the US once. The day of the Chicago fire another city had an even worse one, it was so bad no one knew about it for days after the Chicago fire took over the papers. That other city's fire has a know cause AND the cause could be the same as the cause of the Chicago fire.

The cause was meteor. Fire from the sky.

You are referring to Gen 18. It is not that clear cut. The language of that chapter is difficult because it alternates its subject often and sometimes the subject is very ambigious in the Hebrew. There seems to be some overlap between the identity of the three men and God. It is not easy to work through.

You seem pretty definite that the cause was a meteor. What's your physical evidence? Incidentally, even if it was a meteor, whose to say God didn't send it? Besides, Sodom and Gomorrah were an accident waiting to happen. They were located on pure saltpeter, which of course the residents had little clue of its potent potential. Damn scientists hadn't invented Gunpowder, yet! They were probably playing on Deity level!

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
But of course it's alright to mock Mormons for their belief system.. right?

You bet!

But, really, Mormonism is such a fraud that it should be illegal. Its adherents need to be protected from their own gullibility.

The Lost Tribe of Dan?

Jesus Christ appears to a tribe of non-existent North American Indians who sport weaponry and tools beyond their scientific age of advancement?

Joseph Smith translates Golden Plates and then loses them? All the signees of the certificate of authenticity recant?

The Book of Mormon has undergone amazing levels of editorial revision?

Talk about racist doctrines?

There are beyond problems here!!

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Lung
Oh my gawd! Not this thread again!!

Don't you guys get it? You can't just say the last debate doesn't count because you lost!

I could dismantle the bible from most "factual" claims, but it has been done so many times before. I don't want to listen to creationist nonsense any more. You are so far from the truth that you look totally ridiculous trying to defend the indefensible.

If you want to believe in your faith, go right ahead. We won't stop you. BUT, don't try and enforce your delusional ideas on our children by changing school curriculums and entrenching ignorance. Science's only crime is that it seeks the truth, regardless of what that may be. You're trying to ensure that the truth, at least preceived, fits within the mantra of the bible. Insisting on one "truth", regardless of facts to the contrary, is hardly the truth at all!!!

I'm sorry i don't have the patience Ethelred has, but you blokes sh*t me to tears!

I'm not a Creationism theorist. Read my posts.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


SOME. Hordes is more accurate. Thats why I passed over this to get to the others first.



Depends on who I am discussing it with at the time. To me its all myth, legend and a possible touch of some history.



I have covered this exceeding well already. Only your stubborn insistence on holding on to a false perception has you continuing with this line. Please try another. I don't like talking to brick walls except to practice my voice impressions.



Why do you ask this again since you allready made a post where you seemed to have finally got the right idea. Did you lose your memory between one post and the next?



Why should I? I know why you do but there is no real reasoning involved in your thinking. Most of it is pure bandwagon and the rest is based on unsupported claims in the Bible.



The total lack of evidence for them. You have to believe the Bible to believe it constitutes evidence. Your thinking is circular on this. The Bible says it happened therefor it happened. Thats circular.

By the way that whole of Isreal was not there even if it did happen. Only the Jews from Egypt were. There were Jews that never left the fertile crescent.



I don't need to account for it as nothing supernatural was involved. All religions evolve for one. Judaism has only grow by population growth and Christianity got lucky in Constantines use of it for political purposes. Often it has spread by axe and sword as in the case of Norway. Or Musket and cannon as in Mexico.



Not if you keep on with the same misperceptions about my method of reading the Bible when dealing with fundamentalists. I thought you had decided to get over that.



I take it that the word is new to you.

Agnositcs DON'T believe. At all. Atheists often have a belief about god. Those that don't are really Agnostics that have been cowed into taking a stand they don't actually hold. For some reason there are people that like to sneer at Agnostics as fence sitters. Slowhand for one.

There may be a god but I see no evidence for one. I don't live my life on belief. I like evidence.



Simply. No more as there is no evidence.



I believe in the church of baseball - Annie Savoy in Bull Durum.

Actually I am a Lakers fan. The team is god and Chick Hearn is the prophet. For another year anyway, at 85 he really can't keep doing the broadcasting much longer. Baseball is ssssllllloooooowwww and I don't like the present Dodger owner so I am sticking with Basketball till he sells.



I answered that allready. Its a silly thing to say. Mankind has inherent self interest and people that don't understand that others might have different interests call the results of the differences evil. Thats not being realistic.

You want evil try Charles Ng or Charly Manson. Don't name your children Charles.



Self interested.



The same way christians do minus the god part. The golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Treat those that can't manage to do that themselves as you must to survive.



B and C not A. There is at least some instinct involved in human socialization. Those with less of the instinct make better salesmen. Those with nearly none are very dangerous. The two Charles above for instance.




The golden rule and survival when dealing with the socialy dangerous.



I will point out to you that Agnostics and Atheist are much more prevalent in the general population than in the prison population. Non-believers don't have anywhere near as many problems with acting in a moral manner as christians do or the non-believers would be majority of the prison population or at least of a greater percentage than in the general population.



Thats a contradiction in terms.

This had no real substance in it. C'mon, you can do better than that Ethelred!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Troll
Eighteen Inches.

Troll it really isn't 18 inches. Trust me on this. Long Dong Silver was wearing a prosthetic. Even it had been real it wouldn't have been 18 inches as the guy was no more tha 5'9" and at a half inch short of six of feet its still only 14 inches from my groin to my knee.

Eighteen Inches.........the difference between "Head" knowledge

Just get over it. Its not real. Think with your big head instead of the little one.

..all you so called experts of science and literature and writings.

I know you don't want the truth but I have this from experts in the field of Special Effects Makeup. I read every copy of Cinefex and I know a fake apendage when I see one.

as your personal Lord

Look its OK by me if you prefer men to women but don't you think thats just tad excessive.

But I cant argue the point, because knowing JESUS CHRIST

Yes indeed it was large but please don't swear like that. You will upset the straights.

is a matter of Faith,

Its a matter of fact. The man wore a latex prosthetic.

and if you dont have Faith than what He, GOD

Get a hold of yourself man and stop taking the lords name in vain over this.

Maybe you shouldn't get a hold of yourself so often. Perhaps that would be better.

offered up as an Atonement for our Human Sinfulness,

I don't think holding your self qualifies as atonement, Troll. I am pretty sure on this but perhaps your cult has other ideas.

and yes you folks can ridicule me,

We would never do that Troll. We are just trying to help you get over this obsession of yours. Get some girly magazines and try to remember that all trolls are male as they reproduce by fission.

not a problem, I only offer up a testimony,

Keep your hands off those in public. It embaresses people to see that. No one wants your testicles. Keep them as you may some day find a use for them.

but one day, sooner than you think, you will appear before the Master,

I am not into B&D. Nor S&M either. Really you are getting to be too much here.

and He will look to his Son,

Incest is not best Troll. Whoever told you that was not a good person.

JESUS CHRIST

If you don't stop swearing you are liable to wind up in Mingapulco.

and then He will either say "Well done thou good and faithful servant,

I only do the maid and master bit with women.

or Depart from me you worker of iniquity!

Sorry but you seem to have mistaken me for a working girl.

It is sad, those whom try to rationalize to a point,

At last you are learning. You can't rationalize this sort or sordid behaviour any longer. Oh dear I said long. Really it was just latex.

because Faith

Is not working the streets anymore.

This is indeed a Test,

And only a test. If had a been a real male member just where would he have put it anyway. A wheelbarrow? The man would have frightened the snakes.

and it is simple to pass,

Drink more water.

Accept JESUS CHRIST

If you don't stop swearing you are going to get Ming's banning rod used on you. There is no soft latex in that one.

as your personal Lord

I really meant it when I said I am not into B&D. Thats D&D that I prefer but I don't use the official rules.

spend eternity in Hell.

I found the secret door and made it out the dungeon a long time ago. Look its on the eighth level just like it is in every other dungeon crawl. Poke around a bit more and you too can finish the game.

Not a halfway house for good behavior

Usually people are sent to halfway houses for bad behaviour. Someone has been telling you fairy stories again.

or self worth as a count of your deeds

Yes improving peoples self-worth is always a good deed. But you don't have to play slave to their master for that.

performed on earth

Its hard to get a gig off the Earth you know.

, or what alms were or were not performed,

They are performed at 5 and 9 weekdays and there is a mattinee performance on weekends and holidays but I can assure the Mr. Silver will not be there. He took off his prosthetic a long time ago as it got in the way of mictruation.

but simple childlike

Lay off the kids you will get arrested for that. Even troll aren't allowed to mess with kids.

faith in the One

And look what it got him. Gollum just bit the thing off and then it was destroyed in Mt. Doom. Never put all your eggs in One Ring.

whom died for the ransom

Look, kidnapping is right out. The FBI has a really strong record on that.

Troll

Yes you are.


Now that is how to carefully edit someones post. Trolls deserve it as they spend too much time under bridges.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Stuff in the Hittite diplomatic archives. Surprisingly little in Egypt however. There is some possibilty that the Hicksos were Israelites.

It's interesting that you should bring up the Hittites. Alot of people, not unlike yourself, used disclaim the validity of the biblical text on the basis that there was not a shred of evidence the Hittites ever existed. That was until archaeology proved them wrong in a big way by uncovering its capital. Alot of excellent scholars had to eat crow at that discovery!

Samething happened when the Tel-Dan inscription was found. Lemche and Seters took along time to recover from that one. Oh they tried to fight it for awhile but inevitably they had to admit that Tel-Dan provide external corroboration to the "House of David".

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Troll it really isn't 18 inches. Trust me on this. Long Dong Silver was wearing a prosthetic. Even it had been real it wouldn't have been 18 inches as the guy was no more tha 5'9" and at a half inch short of six of feet its still only 14 inches from my groin to my knee.



Just get over it. Its not real. Think with your big head instead of the little one.



I know you don't want the truth but I have this from experts in the field of Special Effects Makeup. I read every copy of Cinefex and I know a fake apendage when I see one.



Look its OK by me if you prefer men to women but don't you think thats just tad excessive.



Yes indeed it was large but please don't swear like that. You will upset the straights.



Its a matter of fact. The man wore a latex prosthetic.




Get a hold of yourself man and stop taking the lords name in vain over this.

Maybe you shouldn't get a hold of yourself so often. Perhaps that would be better.



I don't think holding your self qualifies as atonement, Troll. I am pretty sure on this but perhaps your cult has other ideas.



We would never do that Troll. We are just trying to help you get over this obsession of yours. Get some girly magazines and try to remember that all trolls are male as they reproduce by fission.



Keep your hands off those in public. It embaresses people to see that. No one wants your testicles. Keep them as you may some day find a use for them.



I am not into B&D. Nor S&M either. Really you are getting to be too much here.



Incest is not best Troll. Whoever told you that was not a good person.



If you don't stop swearing you are liable to wind up in Mingapulco.



I only do the maid and master bit with women.



Sorry but you seem to have mistaken me for a working girl.



At last you are learning. You can't rationalize this sort or sordid behaviour any longer. Oh dear I said long. Really it was just latex.



Is not working the streets anymore.



And only a test. If had a been a real male member just where would he have put it anyway. A wheelbarrow? The man would have frightened the snakes.



Drink more water.



If you don't stop swearing you are going to get Ming's banning rod used on you. There is no soft latex in that one.



I really meant it when I said I am not into B&D. Thats D&D that I prefer but I don't use the official rules.



I found the secret door and made it out the dungeon a long time ago. Look its on the eighth level just like it is in every other dungeon crawl. Poke around a bit more and you too can finish the game.



Usually people are sent to halfway houses for bad behaviour. Someone has been telling you fairy stories again.




Yes improving peoples self-worth is always a good deed. But you don't have to play slave to their master for that.



Its hard to get a gig off the Earth you know.



They are performed at 5 and 9 weekdays and there is a mattinee performance on weekends and holidays but I can assure the Mr. Silver will not be there. He took off his prosthetic a long time ago as it got in the way of mictruation.



Lay off the kids you will get arrested for that. Even troll aren't allowed to mess with kids.



And look what it got him. Gollum just bit the thing off and then it was destroyed in Mt. Doom. Never put all your eggs in One Ring.



Look, kidnapping is right out. The FBI has a really strong record on that.



Yes you are.


Now that is how to carefully edit someones post. Trolls deserve it as they spend too much time under bridges.

While slightly humourous and a tad skillful, (and probably a little bit deserved too by Troll), this post is offensive.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm not taunting god, I'm taunting you. Hopefully you recognize the difference.

I am just representing God, not myself.

Troll

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred
He and you since your are backing him are both complaining about stuff that WAS SAID to the fundamentalist types. Why is this so difficult for you and he to comprehend?

Maybe its because you brought it up in your first or second post and continued to bring it up.

[QUOTE] Its truly amazing to me how people get something wrong in their head like this and won't let go. I am not an Atheist and that is exactly what are saying I am in this paragraph. [QUOTE]

I never would have guessed it

Perhaps you also are under the impression that if there is a god it must be a christian god therefor I must be an atheist for saying that I have disproved that Fundamentalist god.

Give up this odd version of me you have in your head please. Its getting really tiresome to see the exact thing time after time no matter how many times I point out that its wrong.

I stand corrected on my assumptions.

Faith does not equal proof, in the pudding or otherwise.

I never said it did

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Troll

I am just representing God, not myself.

Troll

You're his lawyer or something?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by ckweb


Troll: "Heart" knowledge does not exempt one from pursuing "Head" knowledge. I know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Read how the citizens of Berea responded to Paul when he spoke to them as it is recorded in Acts. Mark Noll in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," rightly observed that Evangelicals have abdicated the mind when clearly God gave us one to employ. You should not ridicule those who would engage in reasoned discussion nor should you imply their condemnation. God alone saves and God alone condemns!

You should also not ridicule your Catholic brothers with veiled criticisms of their theology. If you want to raise objections with their theology, you should do so in a meaningful way. We all see as if through glass dimly and your theology (even from your short post) has flaws just as Catholic theology does.

I sincerely apologize for not clarifying myself. I was referrring to "Head" knowledge - that being Non-Christian beliefs and "Heart" knowledge-the True belief in One's heart That Jesus Died for our Sinfulness.

You say you are a Christian? I am glad to hear this. God does condemn, through Jesus Christ and God alone saves, Through Jesus Christ. And I am doing this in a meaningful way. You are indeed correct, I have many flaws, for this I do apologize. God, in and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit does not however. I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to point my many flaws out I have not ridiculed anyone, only stated a simple fact, If you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, you go to Heaven, If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong. I apologize for speaking in a manner you could not understand, I am sorry! Forgive me.

Troll

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
Though they often deny it, the Mormons are essentially polytheistic, believing in three gods. Ergo, they do not believe in the Trinity. Ergo, . . . oh you get the drift!!

Christ is not considered a God (yet), and neither is the Holy Ghost. Mormons would agree that they are polytheistic, though it might not be the right term exactly. It is a very basic part of Mormon doctrine that God is not the only god. Rather only God is respected (worshipped isn't quite the right term), as he is viewed as our spiritual father. He was once the spirit child of another God, and eventually attained perfection. Anyone who attains this perfection becomes a God.

I won't go into too much detail, that's the general gist of it. The definition of God is different than in other Christian sects. It's still a definition that you can twist the Bible to fit, and so is viewed as the same God (by Mormons), just with a different spin.

Mormonism is wacked on so many levels it's not even funny. It is really a testament to the power of propaganda that Mormonism maintains its parishioners.

Perhaps you can understand that this is the viewpoint that some take of Christianity. Take out the 'not even funny' part and tone down 'wacked', and it would be close to how I feel about religion in general.

It's easy to say a group is wrong because they believe differently. It's hard to apply the same reasoning to your own beliefs from another's standpoint.

But, really, Mormonism is such a fraud that it should be illegal. Its adherents need to be protected from their own gullibility.

The same could be said about most religions/sects (any that you don't particularly agree with). Mormons haven't had a spotless record (far from it), but so far they haven't accounted for any large scale losses of life at least, and seem to be over that stage of developement completely. Given enough time maybe they can match the exploits of some of their more ancient counterparts though.

The shots against Mormons are just easier because their 'divine' inspirations are contemperary, not clouded by centuries or millenia. The inconsistancies are easier to show proof of, as alternative contemperary sources are much more prevalent.

The Lost Tribe of Dan?

I forget the names of all the tribes. I would agree that they have different takes on several Biblical issues. Until the lost tribes are found though...

One thing to consider is that in the BoM, at the time Nephi and his family left Jerusalem, they stole (pretty shady stuff going on there) some historical text to take with them. These were brass plates, which two angels from God supposedly told them they needed to take along to preserve their history.

I have no idea what LDS doctrine is on this point, but if the records on those plates weren't perfect, or perfectly preserved, then the BoM plates would have had a slightly different record too.

Jesus Christ appears to a tribe of non-existent North American Indians who sport weaponry and tools beyond their scientific age of advancement?

You are using scientific claims to disprove a religious text, sound familiar? The Book of Mormon does give explainations as to why evidence of these people are not found, and how they got there. Not very likely explainations IMO, but if taken as fact they would account for why there isn't any physical evidence.

The peoples in the BoM are migrants from Israel, and another migration from after the time of Babel. God inspired each group to build ships capable of crossing the Atlantic, though it isn't specific if they crossed that way or went east instead.

By the end, God caused cities and their wealth to be swallowed up by the earth because they were wicked, the Nephites were completely wiped out (other than 3 or possibly 4 exceptions) by a more barbaric and primitive people, the Lamanites (both derived from the latter crossing). The depiction of the Lamanites is roughly equivalent of the Aztec or other more developed Native American civilizations.

Isn't there a quote in the Bible where Jesus talks about other flocks he has to attend to? I can't remember the passage, but Mormons use this to corroborate the BoM's story that Jesus appeared on the American continent.

Joseph Smith translates Golden Plates and then loses them? All the signees of the certificate of authenticity recant?

They were supposedly taken by the angel Moroni, not lost. It is a point where belief is required, as proof isn't given. A common theme within religions of all sorts.

The second part is pretty damning, but can be attributed to the 'evil' nature of man. Always an easy scapegoat; God is perfect, religion isn't because men screw it up. I don't think that all of them recanted either, there were 2 groups of witnesses. Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum (sp?) was killed with him in jail and was one of the witnesses. I'm pretty sure he never recanted.

I'd have to read up on the others, it has been a while.

The Book of Mormon has undergone amazing levels of editorial revision?

Do you claim that the Bible and stories contained were never revised? As many of the passages were originally from oral tradition, I find it hard to believe that they could have survived from conception to modern day without any changes.

I'm not sure what you mean by amazing levels of revision, but I've seen BoM's from as early as 1850 which are just about word for word with the current edition. The main differences are in the cross references always listed with the text nowdays, it wasn't there in the first editions. I haven't seen any BoM's with glaring changes, I'm sure some exist though. As in just about any point, this could be attributed to evil and corruption in man. It's only been 170 years, and to make substantiated claims about whether Joseph Smith was the author of this version or that version would be hard to prove.

The idea that the BoM was a perfect translation is false of course. Akin to fundamentalist claims that the Bible is literal truth.

Talk about racist doctrines?

They've outgrown that. I can't think of any racist institution left within the LDS church. Allowing those of african descent to hold the priestood came about in the 70's I think. I'm sure there are Mormons who still harbor racist ideas, but it isn't sanctioned by the LDS church.

Again though, it's an argument that applies to the history of Christianity and religion in general.

There are beyond problems here!!

I don't dispute that. From my perspective, they are the same problems that pop up in just about every religion.

I found it interesting that you seem to apply some of the same refutation techniques (judging a spiritual text about the supernatural by scientific methods) towards the BoM and Mormons as Ethelred does towards the Bible and Christians.

If I have mischaracterized your statements I apologize in advance, just trying to butt into the conversation a little.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Troll
If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong.

It's comforting to know that while not necessarily wrong, I'm going to hell.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ckweb

You bet!

But, really, Mormonism is such a fraud that it should be illegal. Its adherents need to be protected from their own gullibility.

The Lost Tribe of Dan?

Jesus Christ appears to a tribe of non-existent North American Indians who sport weaponry and tools beyond their scientific age of advancement?

Joseph Smith translates Golden Plates and then loses them? All the signees of the certificate of authenticity recant?

The Book of Mormon has undergone amazing levels of editorial revision?

Talk about racist doctrines?

There are beyond problems here!!

This is from your first post

Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written.

You refute the arguments that deny the scientific accuracy of the bible by asserting that it must be judged as a theological (literary) text without taking into account science as a basis for judging its accuracy or significance.

Then you deride other theological texts using the same scientific arguments that you assert cant be used to judge the bible.

How typical.

[ckweb]

Woah! Am I in a bit of hot water over the Mormon thing? Allegedly criticizing them in the way that I disclaimed as inappropriate criticism for my religious views. . . except, you were not reading my posts carefully enough. Speaking about the Bible, I wrote:

Originally Posted by ckweb
It is certainly an artifact of history and in that capacity reveals something of the culture and people who wrote it as well as the cultures and peoples that preserved it. The historical-scientific approaches can be applied to it in that capacity, most certainly. But, scientific method can't be applied as means to interpret the text itself.

I welcome historical-scientific approaches of the biblical text that pertain to its cultural authenticity. My statement against the Mormons was that the Book of Mormon totally lacks cultural authenticity because not only do we have no evidence of the Indian tribes mentioned in their Book, the weapons and tools used by them are anachronisms. If they, or you, would like to explain how these things can be accounted for while still maintaining the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly recant my over-the-top criticisms of that religion.

Yes. The Biblical text has undergone revisions prior to its canonization. The Book of Mormon has undergone revisions since its canonization.

As for many of the other problems, I'll leave it to ex-Mormons to challenge their own ex-Faith. You can read some of the incredibly damning (albeit sometimes very inflammatory) things they have to say:

http://www.exmormon.org/goodsite.htm

("Thinking of Joining Mormonism?" is a good article to start with to get just a sense of the problems.)

BTW, Aeson, I really don't care if you think I'm a quack. My only point in this thread with Ethelred is that you can't prove I'm one because the Bible, when understood in historical context and using the tools of academic inquiry, can hold up remarkably well under the pressure. If you want to liken me to Mormons, I also don't mind but it reflects your ignorance not mine. There are some things in this world that are just more plausible than others. Mormonism is one of the most implausible religious traditions on the face of the earth. But, as I've said, I'm willing to recant my over the top criticisms if you want to prove to me the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and actually I should have added, their untenable interpretations of the biblical text).

[ckweb]

The differences between Mormonism and my religious tradition are numerous. My religious tradition does not include a mechanism to prevent me from challenging its doctrines. In fact, I went to a denominational school and was consistently free to do just that. I even wrote an essay challenging the exegetical necessity of the virginal conception in the book of Matthew:

http://anduril.ca/PDFs/A%20Matter%20of%20Conception.pdf

I submit to the authority of my church willingly and am free to follow my conscience on all matters of faith. Mormons are not.

Local churches and their larger denominations are open with their finances. In fact, if and when I join another local church, I will be able to vote on the budget to decide how and where my tithes are spent.

I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, an essentially secular professional society that puts the Bible under close and rigourous academic scrutiny. The Society of Biblical Literature is an international organization that brings together all scholars in the field of biblical studies. Few Mormons are members of this organization and finding an audience for their extremely outlandish perspectives within such a society is next to impossible. Conversely, members of my community of faith are not only given an audience but are respected for the academic value of their insights and conclusions. I will be presenting a paper at this society in November 2002 and I look forward to the criticisms and insight that I will receive from the excellent scholars that will be in attendance.

In sum, my religious tradition is characterized by openness and rigorous pursuit of the truth through the application of academic discipline. Mormonism on the other hand is characterized by rigid adherence to the authority of the LDS hierarchy and a virtually unquestioned commitment to its doctrines. As a result, I feel confident in declaring that my religious tradition is infinitely more plausible than Mormonism.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Troll


I sincerely apologize for not clarifying myself. I was referrring to "Head" knowledge - that being Non-Christian beliefs and "Heart" knowledge-the True belief in One's heart That Jesus Died for our Sinfulness.

You say you are a Christian? I am glad to hear this. God does condemn, through Jesus Christ and God alone saves, Through Jesus Christ. And I am doing this in a meaningful way. You are indeed correct, I have many flaws, for this I do apologize. God, in and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit does not however. I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to point my many flaws out I have not ridiculed anyone, only stated a simple fact, If you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, you go to Heaven, If you have "Head" knowledge of Science Facts and Historic relevance and "Conjectures" disputing those beliefs you will go to Hell. I did not say that if you use your head to think you are wrong. I apologize for speaking in a manner you could not understand, I am sorry! Forgive me.

Troll

Why do you equate "Head" knowledge with "Non-Christian beliefs"? I don't recall Jesus meeting the wise man and saying, if you have "Head" knowledge it is harder for you to enter the kingdom of heaven (as he did of those who possess wealth). Possessing "Head" knowledge of any kind does not invalidate "Heart" knowledge. If you think it does, I challenge you to prove this from Scripture.

"But in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." (1 Pet 3:15).

Troll, I beg to differ that you are making your statements in a meaningful way and if you paid attention to your replies, you would see why. You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe. Alternatively, you could have entered into profitable discussion on the relevancy of your beliefs to daily life. How often did Jesus say, "You will go to Hell!" If Jesus rarely used such a tactic, and he had the authority to use this statement (!), how much more should you not use it!

BTW, you did ridicule Catholic theology by writing:

Originally Posted by Troll

Accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Savior or deny him and spend eternity in Hell. Not a halfway house for good behavior or self worth as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed, but simple childlike faith in the One whom died for the ransom of our Sinfulness.

You denigrated the doctrine of purgatory but comparing it to "a halfway house for good behaviour." You also made a sleight of hand cut at their works theology when you wrote "as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed." You then declared the primacy of your own view that Christ's death was a ransom when in fact there are many other views on the nature and purpose of his crucifixition that are as if not more biblically sound than your "ransom" view.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
I welcome historical-scientific approaches of the biblical text that pertain to its cultural authenticity. My statement against the Mormons was that the Book of Mormon totally lacks cultural authenticity because not only do we have no evidence of the Indian tribes mentioned in their Book, the weapons and tools used by them are anachronisms. If they, or you, would like to explain how these things can be accounted for while still maintaining the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly recant my over-the-top criticisms of that religion.

Have you read the BoM? Or at least read my quick explaination as to how the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to have come to the new world? These were not Indians in the context of a prehistoric migration from Asia (even if they may have passed that way), but a migration of Hebrews. As such they would have had a bronze age technological level at least, and some familiarity with Iron was suggested in the text, along with certain constructions by divine insights.

The physical evidence of their habitation here (of the advanced Nephite faction) was destroyed by the hand of God. A very convenient circumstance. Through LDS doctrine, there should be little or no direct physical evidence of their habitation here in the Americas.

As for the weapons and tools being anachronisms, you are judging a seperate people, advancing (and in some cases regressing) with no contact with the outside world, and in a different environment. The main migration was a small group, and while they could preserve some of the cultural and technical knowlege, some would most likely be lost as well. Also there was divine inspiration attributed to some constructions, which would allow for seemingly large jumps in technology if true.

Yes. The Biblical text has undergone revisions prior to its canonization. The Book of Mormon has undergone revisions since its canonization.

I'm not sure what your point is here. On one hand you have a non-divine text which becomes divine? On the other you have a divine text which has changed over time.

If you could point me to a version of the BoM with these major revisions it would be helpful. As I stated before, I've seen BoM's from 1850 (1830 being when Joseph Smith founded the LDS church) with little revision outside of an addition of crossreferencing, the rest explained as typographical error fixes.

On the implication that divine inspiration cannot have reason to be changed over time, how would you explain the jump from the law of Moses to the law of Christ? How about certain Christian sects allowing for women to hold the priesthood, when they weren't before? How about the issue of slavery and how Christian ideas on the subject changed over time?

At one time or another all faiths undergo some doctrinal revisions. I don't see the significance of whether that doctrine was in writing or not.

BTW, Aeson, I really don't care if you think I'm a quack.

I never said you were. I made statements about my feelings on religion in general, not their members. The only reason for offering that opinion was to help depict how belief can vary widely depending on the viewpoint of the observer. As you stated, it's subjective.

My only point in this thread with Ethelred is that you can't prove I'm one because the Bible, when understood in historical context and using the tools of academic inquiry, can hold up remarkably well under the pressure.

I don't think Ethelred was trying to prove you were a quack previous to this thread. I'm not trying to either, I'm just interested in how you derived your opinions about Mormons, and if you apply the same logic towards the Bible.

If you want to liken me to Mormons, I also don't mind but it reflects your ignorance not mine.

I never tried to liken you to Mormons. I was likening you to Ethelred in some respects. I'd also like to point out that the comparison was of traits I think are complementary.

There are some things in this world that are just more plausible than others.

No doubt. Belief has different levels. You noted this earlier:

But, notwithstanding, I do not expect that most people would be persuaded by any evidence of this nature simply because the events are too manifestly unique and require too much of a person to accept them.

This issue, however, would radically change a person's worldview and people simply don't swap their worldview for another one on the basis of this type of evidence. It's insufficient and I completely understand that. I think the Fourth Gospel acknowledges this fact when it declares, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn 20:29b).

Can't the same reasoning apply to the BoM? Insufficient (or even contrary) evidence which requires belief. Would not those with no support for their beliefs be blessed as well? Or is it only at some specific ratios of proof:belief that being blessed is activated?

Mormonism is one of the most implausible religious traditions on the face of the earth.

Plausible to some. I don't think it is, but some of the most intelligent people I've met do, some of the most ignorant too. I could say the same thing about any religion I'm familiar with, and even science (the part about smart/ignorant people). God in general is implausible, otherwise belief is not necessary. There can be no physical proof of God unless some account of God is first accepted as truthfully depicting God.

If you read the BoM you come to a passage at the end which explains the entire significance of the text (LDS doctrine).

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:3)

It really isn't an attempt to be historical, maybe not even culturally accurate, but a test of faith. I agree that there isn't as much evidence supporting the BoM as the Bible, and that there are contradictory sources even, but it doesn't ask to be judged that way. Fundamentalist Mormons are just as easy to refute as fundamentalist Christians, they try to prove God exists with a spiritual text, rather than allow the text to be proved by God, which is usually the purpose of the text. In the case of the BoM and LDS doctrine, this is the test. You read the BoM, pray about it, and God will manifest the truth of it unto you. The BoM by itself is not meant as a proof of anything, and thus can't be used to disprove anything.

But, as I've said, I'm willing to recant my over the top criticisms if you want to prove to me the cultural authenticity of the Book of Mormon (and actually I should have added, their untenable interpretations of the biblical text).

The interpretations of the biblical text are quite easy to explain. You accept revisions in the Bible before it was cannonized as stated previously right? Well the Bible wasn't connonized as Mormon scripture until after Joseph Smith recieved divine inspiration to help clear up some issues. The result is called the Joseph Smith translation, and he worked off of the King James version of the Bible. It isn't meant to be a perfect translation of what Hebrews wrote, but rather a (more?) perfect translation of what God wanted to be written. It assumes that the Hebrew Bible is flawed, that God inspired Joseph Smith, and offers that up as a belief. The assumption that the Bible is flawed is probably the root of why Mormons are less accepted as a Christian sect.

I'm still not sure if you've read the BoM or not, or various other LDS 'inspired' literature. If you are relying on ex-mormon accounts of LDS doctrine it would necessarily be anti-Mormon. Not the most objective sources are we. I am an ex-Mormon, I have read the BoM several times and tested the main precept in Moroni 10:3 each time. From a personal standpoint, this is the means of proving or disproving the text. It's the only way the LDS church advocates.

When dealing with any religion, there has to be some 'givens'. A believer can't just believe anything and everything they ever hear (at least they shouldn't). Some religions rely on different givens. Even in Christian sects there are variation on what is important to accept, and to judge one sect's beliefs with another sect's givens is unfair. The Mormon religion relies on the given that God will manifest truth unto those who ask. The only way to disprove the religion is to actually go through the process and not get a personal answer. Even then the claim is usually made that the inherent evil in man can cause a person to not be able to hear God's message, or to misinterpret it.

Your arguments about how Ethelred uses improper methods of proof against Christian texts applies to your methods of proof against Mormon texts.

I do agree in your assessment of the plausibility of the BoM and LDS doctrine. It's very unlikely.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by ckweb


Why do you equate "Head" knowledge with "Non-Christian beliefs"? I don't recall Jesus meeting the wise man and saying, if you have "Head" knowledge it is harder for you to enter the kingdom of heaven (as he did of those who possess wealth). Possessing "Head" knowledge of any kind does not invalidate "Heart" knowledge. If you think it does, I challenge you to prove this from Scripture.

"But in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." (1 Pet 3:15).

Troll, I beg to differ that you are making your statements in a meaningful way and if you paid attention to your replies, you would see why. You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe. Alternatively, you could have entered into profitable discussion on the relevancy of your beliefs to daily life. How often did Jesus say, "You will go to Hell!" If Jesus rarely used such a tactic, and he had the authority to use this statement (!), how much more should you not use it!

BTW, you did ridicule Catholic theology by writing:



You denigrated the doctrine of purgatory but comparing it to "a halfway house for good behaviour." You also made a sleight of hand cut at their works theology when you wrote "as a count of your deeds performed on earth, or what alms were or were not performed." You then declared the primacy of your own view that Christ's death was a ransom when in fact there are many other views on the nature and purpose of his crucifixition that are as if not more biblically sound than your "ransom" view.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

I am sure glad that I am able to "offend" now, as opposed to you or anyone out here going to Heaven's gate, finding out the fact that you came sooooo close..but yet soooo far..from being accepted into Heaven. I say this to indeed bring attention to the fact that Jesus Christ did come to clarify and set things straight.

Ok..Gotta answer and respond to your putting words into my mouth, or forming opinions not expressed or believed by me. I DID NOT MAKE REFERENCE to Catholicism, or "Puragtory", I am sure hoping you get some thicker skin, you will need it come eternity in Hell, Fiery furnace, Gnashing of Teeth, unquenchable fire, yup...you are sure gonna need it.

I came to this forum to voice an opinion of mine, Facts..laid upon me by God, to give the straight Facts, Yes Jesus Christ did in most cases come forth with a Gentle Spirit, but he did otherwise hold account those whom despised him, mocked him, and mistreated his children!

Look, I have sit here,watched many people slander God, and Slander Eternity's Plan of Salvation, Slander Creation through God, and Slander the Trinity. I love you, Jesus Loves you, I came not to start pain without substanence, but bring the Truth which will set you free!

If this bothers you, i am sorry, for once I was too antagonistical, full of bitternes, mockery and guile,vile spatterings, attacking all whom I came in contact with! I am simply sharing that Jesus Died for our Sins, paid the price at Golgotha and was raied three days later, and after a short time, Ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

As for asking Non-Christains for Forgiveness, I ask if I have offended you, outside of sharing the Gospel, please forgive me. If I offended you through the Gospel, count it a blessing that it happened here, and not at Judgement day!

In Jesus Name

Troll

[Ethelred]

I don't feel like doing any serious writing on this stuff today. Going to read the stuff though. May reply tommorow. However:

Originally posted by ckweb
You simply succeeded in coming into this forum to offend or anger those who do not believe what you believe.

I don't think Troll really managed to offend anyone. Unless it was you anyway. He is too amusing for that. I think he may even be aware of this. The only real question I had was wether he was serious.

It is so bloody hard to tell a satire from the real thing. I have seen sites that I was SURE were satire but no matter hard I tried I could not see a single giveaway except for how far over the top they were. Which isn't really a giveaway with sites like that.

The Amazingly hatefilled Jack Chick.

http://www.chick.com/

The NIV Bible is Satanic. Nice picture with the Pope and Satan.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/

The truly vile Surfin the net with Jesus site

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

This URL speaks for itself

http://www.demonbuster.com/

Someone here disagrees with God Bless America

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

I never saw this one before. Allegedly its for real.

Messiahcam

http://www.olivetree.org/

I hesitate to post this one but the concept cries out for it.

CADS - Christians and Domination/submission

A PRO Chistrian PRO B&D site.

http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ecads/


One site is a ringer. One and only one is parody.

Well think only one is. Hard to tell. I can't find the parody site that has no giveaways today.

I'm not the one you should be asking forgiveness from. If anyone, you should ask the non-Christians on this board for forgiveness. They are the ones that are quite obviously upset and perturbed by your statements and the similar statements of members of your tradition. You have not offended me, only concerned me.

I forgive him my son. Please forgive me for finding him amusing instead of annoying.

I am only doing lightweigtht stuff today anyway. My brain is fried and I my grammer and spelling is bad enough when at its best. I think anything serious would be too garbled for even me to figure just what I intended to say.

All mistakes in the above are purely unintentional. The only thing I do well on days like this is be funny. Sometimes unintentionally.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
Have you read the BoM? Or at least read my quick explaination as to how the Nephites and Lamanites were supposed to have come to the new world? These were not Indians in the context of a prehistoric migration from Asia (even if they may have passed that way), but a migration of Hebrews. As such they would have had a bronze age technological level at least, and some familiarity with Iron was suggested in the text, along with certain constructions by divine insights.

The physical evidence of their habitation here (of the advanced Nephite faction) was destroyed by the hand of God. A very convenient circumstance. Through LDS doctrine, there should be little or no direct physical evidence of their habitation here in the Americas.

As for the weapons and tools being anachronisms, you are judging a seperate people, advancing (and in some cases regressing) with no contact with the outside world, and in a different environment. The main migration was a small group, and while they could preserve some of the cultural and technical knowlege, some would most likely be lost as well. Also there was divine inspiration attributed to some constructions, which would allow for seemingly large jumps in technology if true.

I have only read portions of BoM and other LDS scriptures and I will readily concede that I do not have extensive knowledge of Mormonism. And so, in that respect, I rely upon their reception at professional societies and upon the claims they have made for the Hebrew Bible.

The migration of Hebrews, even with bronze age technology, does not account for some of the metallurgical advancements present in BoM. Also, I do not think I'm guilty of improper methodology in refuting the validity of the Mormon texts on this basis unless of course Mormons do not claim that the BoM is an authentic cultural artifact testifying to peoples that populated the Americas. This claim can be tested and has much like you could test the biblical claim that Hebrews lived in Palestine and established two kingdoms in that area. Also, you can confirm that the Bible speaks authentically about its time whereas I do not see that you can do so with BoM.

I was not aware that LDS claimed God destroyed all evidence of these peoples. This is convenient, as you say.

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure what your point is here. On one hand you have a non-divine text which becomes divine? On the other you have a divine text which has changed over time.

If you could point me to a version of the BoM with these major revisions it would be helpful. As I stated before, I've seen BoM's from 1850 (1830 being when Joseph Smith founded the LDS church) with little revision outside of an addition of crossreferencing, the rest explained as typographical error fixes.

On the implication that divine inspiration cannot have reason to be changed over time, how would you explain the jump from the law of Moses to the law of Christ? How about certain Christian sects allowing for women to hold the priesthood, when they weren't before? How about the issue of slavery and how Christian ideas on the subject changed over time?

At one time or another all faiths undergo some doctrinal revisions. I don't see the significance of whether that doctrine was in writing or not.

Doctrinal revision is quite different from revising the base text. Textual criticism, the science by which an ancient text is recovered and revised, is not under the control of Christians. Even the accurate translation of the text is not controlled by Christians. In the case of BoM, however, it is strictly controlled by the church, who (it is my understanding) has been free to make changes as they accord with changes in doctrine (i.e. changing "white" to read "pure"--I'm taking it this change was not based on any philogical grounds or a new understanding of the original as the originals are not around--so, on what authority was the change made? Newly received divine inspiration?). One approach seems infinitely more intellectually honest to me than the other.

If I am incorrect in my assertion that BoM has had drastic revisions, I concede on this point. My expertise into the various editions of the BoM is simply not sufficient enough. I will trust that you are accurate in your position.

Originally posted by Aeson
I never said you were. I made statements about my feelings on religion in general, not their members. The only reason for offering that opinion was to help depict how belief can vary widely depending on the viewpoint of the observer. As you stated, it's subjective.

I don't think Ethelred was trying to prove you were a quack previous to this thread. I'm not trying to either, I'm just interested in how you derived your opinions about Mormons, and if you apply the same logic towards the Bible.

I made the mistake of moving from general to specific. My mistake.

I think that I reflect critically and honestly on the Bible. I do not attempt to make it conform to my views nor do I claim for it anything it does not claim for itself. I am more than willing to be challenged by the text. I think my process of investigation is intellectually honest.

With respect to the Mormons, I am attempting to reflect critically and honestly on their claims and the claims of the BoM. As I stated above, if there is no claim for the cultural and historical authenticity of the BoM, then I have misunderstood them. But, if no claim of historical and cultural authenticity is made, aren't Mormons conceding that Joseph Smith made it up and Jesus did not actually appear on this continent? If so, what is the basis for their religious convictions? Is it based in the revelations of the Mormon prophets? And, don't the prophets often make contradictory statements? God changing inspiration is one thing; God constantly contradicting himself is quite another. Mormonism then seems to become more about faith in the prophets than it is about faith in God.

Originally posted by Aeson
I never tried to liken you to Mormons. I was likening you to Ethelred in some respects. I'd also like to point out that the comparison was of traits I think are complementary.

No doubt. Belief has different levels. You noted this earlier:

Can't the same reasoning apply to the BoM? Insufficient (or even contrary) evidence which requires belief. Would not those with no support for their beliefs be blessed as well? Or is it only at some specific ratios of proof:belief that being blessed is activated?

Plausible to some. I don't think it is, but some of the most intelligent people I've met do, some of the most ignorant too. I could say the same thing about any religion I'm familiar with, and even science (the part about smart/ignorant people). God in general is implausible, otherwise belief is not necessary. There can be no physical proof of God unless some account of God is first accepted as truthfully depicting God.

If you read the BoM you come to a passage at the end which explains the entire significance of the text (LDS doctrine).

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:3)

It really isn't an attempt to be historical, maybe not even culturally accurate, but a test of faith. I agree that there isn't as much evidence supporting the BoM as the Bible, and that there are contradictory sources even, but it doesn't ask to be judged that way. Fundamentalist Mormons are just as easy to refute as fundamentalist Christians, they try to prove God exists with a spiritual text, rather than allow the text to be proved by God, which is usually the purpose of the text. In the case of the BoM and LDS doctrine, this is the test. You read the BoM, pray about it, and God will manifest the truth of it unto you. The BoM by itself is not meant as a proof of anything, and thus can't be used to disprove anything.

My point is this: The common element of all religious traditions is that they require faith. Some religious traditions, however, are more plausible than others in the degree to which they require this faith.

Christianity really only requires one faith conviction, namely that the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God and more specifically, validates the message Jesus came to bring. The resurrection itself, as I've said, has sufficient proof to meet a legal standard (not a scientific one, of course, because the physical evidence of the resurrected body is not available to test). Yet, I also stated that a legal standard is often not sufficient to convince people of the resurrection because the event is too manifestly unique. Moreover, even if they did accept the resurrection, they might still not possess the faith required to accept it means anything. But, nevertheless, the only important faith conviction Christianity requires of an individual is related to an event many people have testified concerning in the past and into the present.

Islam requires faith in the testimony of Mohammed that he was indeed visited by the angel Gabriel and given a message. There are no witnesses to support this claim. Your faith rests only on the claim of one man.

Mormonism requires much more faith on the part of its adherents. Moreover, the faith required is compounded by the presence of evidence that suggests Mormonism is a fraud perpetrated by some people of questionable character (i.e. Joseph Smith). If I read you correctly, a Mormon must have faith that God will reveal the truth of the BoM to him after that person places his faith in that text. Seems like a circular argument of the worst kind.

While the degree of faith may not be a reflection of the ultimate truthfulness of that religion, it does affect the degree to which a religion can be substantiated by external evidence and hence be more plausible.

Originally posted by Aeson
The interpretations of the biblical text are quite easy to explain. You accept revisions in the Bible before it was cannonized as stated previously right? Well the Bible wasn't connonized as Mormon scripture until after Joseph Smith recieved divine inspiration to help clear up some issues. The result is called the Joseph Smith translation, and he worked off of the King James version of the Bible. It isn't meant to be a perfect translation of what Hebrews wrote, but rather a (more?) perfect translation of what God wanted to be written. It assumes that the Hebrew Bible is flawed, that God inspired Joseph Smith, and offers that up as a belief. The assumption that the Bible is flawed is probably the root of why Mormons are less accepted as a Christian sect.

Here, as before, a Mormon is required to exercise a great deal of faith that Joseph Smith was indeed inspired to re-write an ancient cultural document.

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm still not sure if you've read the BoM or not, or various other LDS 'inspired' literature. If you are relying on ex-mormon accounts of LDS doctrine it would necessarily be anti-Mormon. Not the most objective sources are we. I am an ex-Mormon, I have read the BoM several times and tested the main precept in Moroni 10:3 each time. From a personal standpoint, this is the means of proving or disproving the text. It's the only way the LDS church advocates.

When dealing with any religion, there has to be some 'givens'. A believer can't just believe anything and everything they ever hear (at least they shouldn't). Some religions rely on different givens. Even in Christian sects there are variation on what is important to accept, and to judge one sect's beliefs with another sect's givens is unfair. The Mormon religion relies on the given that God will manifest truth unto those who ask. The only way to disprove the religion is to actually go through the process and not get a personal answer. Even then the claim is usually made that the inherent evil in man can cause a person to not be able to hear God's message, or to misinterpret it.

Your arguments about how Ethelred uses improper methods of proof against Christian texts applies to your methods of proof against Mormon texts.

I do agree in your assessment of the plausibility of the BoM and LDS doctrine. It's very unlikely.

I appreciate your points and quite obviously as an ex-Mormon yourself, you understand the ins of the religion much better than I do. I will certainly concede that my understanding of Mormonism is extremely limited. I have only read parts of BoM and other LDS scriptures. I rely on ex-Mormons for information because many aspects of Mormon practice are highly secretive to the uninitiated. I take their comments with a grain of salt, however, recognizing that they all-too-often have an extremely jaded view of their ex-Faith. However, they are often an excellent source of information because they still often retain the ability to speak objectively about their ex-religion, particularly the farther removed they are from their involvement in it. You would seem to fit into this latter category.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Troll


I am sure glad that I am able to "offend" now, as opposed to you or anyone out here going to Heaven's gate, finding out the fact that you came sooooo close..but yet soooo far..from being accepted into Heaven. I say this to indeed bring attention to the fact that Jesus Christ did come to clarify and set things straight.

Ok..Gotta answer and respond to your putting words into my mouth, or forming opinions not expressed or believed by me. I DID NOT MAKE REFERENCE to Catholicism, or "Puragtory", I am sure hoping you get some thicker skin, you will need it come eternity in Hell, Fiery furnace, Gnashing of Teeth, unquenchable fire, yup...you are sure gonna need it.

I came to this forum to voice an opinion of mine, Facts..laid upon me by God, to give the straight Facts, Yes Jesus Christ did in most cases come forth with a Gentle Spirit, but he did otherwise hold account those whom despised him, mocked him, and mistreated his children!

Look, I have sit here,watched many people slander God, and Slander Eternity's Plan of Salvation, Slander Creation through God, and Slander the Trinity. I love you, Jesus Loves you, I came not to start pain without substanence, but bring the Truth which will set you free!

If this bothers you, i am sorry, for once I was too antagonistical, full of bitternes, mockery and guile,vile spatterings, attacking all whom I came in contact with! I am simply sharing that Jesus Died for our Sins, paid the price at Golgotha and was raied three days later, and after a short time, Ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.

As for asking Non-Christains for Forgiveness, I ask if I have offended you, outside of sharing the Gospel, please forgive me. If I offended you through the Gospel, count it a blessing that it happened here, and not at Judgement day!

In Jesus Name

Troll

Troll: Your post is not a demonstration of love nor is it in Jesus' name. I make this statement with the opinion that you do not display the fruits of the spirit. In my opinion, you bring disrepute upon Christ and his church. I have nothing more to discuss with you.