Why people want to believe there is a god.

quote:

---

Is that the same Talk Origins at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy ?

---

Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.A creationist run board.

quote:

---

To call creationisn "science" even a pseudoscience is an insult.

---

To me, an ambiguous statement. Are you saying an insult to creationism or an insult to science?Moose (non-admin mode)----------

quote:

---

Plus, even on other forums what I've said here wouldn't have been grounds for being banned. From what I've seen elsewhere I've been quite mild.

---

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of both more extreme and less extreme degrees of moderation. I'm just trying to inject a little guidence here. I may be right, or I may be wrong, or most likely I'm a little of both. So I repeat: Everyone, try to be nice to each other.Adminnemooseus

Originally posted by gene90:NOS I noticed was not a very nice fellow even when he was going after YECs (and Americans), and he was more of a heckler than a participant. His debate styles are shoddy and devoid of logic. He failed to make a case against the spirit witness, only assured me that I have somehow found a way to delude myself.That is like saying that I failed to make a case against the Easter Bunny.The only outcome from that is that I would eventually get bored and leave and let him have his "victory" celebration. After I round out this post I'll let him get right to it. When I go back to debating YECs I don't want him on my side but as I can't censure him I guess I'll just have to accept it. He's the kind that is rough around the edges and needs to debate a lot of people before he learns the ropes. Maybe then his debates will be better, early on my style of "debate" was much like his, I remember that very well.You're reading in a lot which isn't there to begin with.The opposition (Nos) quickly resorted to a quote from Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but my quote from the same, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was instantly ignored. This is selective thinking on behalf of the opposition and no counterargument was offered.I didn't ignore anything of the kind.As for my lobotomy I haven't found any scars but I can't prove that I haven't had one.They mostly go up through the nose. There is nothing further I can add in defense of my perspective or to continue this thread, it was all categorically ignored from the beginning anyway.If it were ignored than you wouldn't have gotten any replies at all.Do you consider a valid reply when it is only in agreement with your point of view? If so than that wouldn't be a real debate at all. All I've ever asked you is if you could provided any credible, verifible, or unbiased proof of the existence of your god and all you came back with was basically that I had to first believe, or have faith, before I could see it. This is not a valid answer. If I already believed, or had faith, I wouldn't have had the need to ask in the first place.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-06-2002]

Originally posted by minnemooseus:Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.

​

A creationist run board.Ok, they took the name to confuse the issue by making people think that they were part of the real Talk Origins site.I just paid the site a visit and I see what you mean. It reminds me of the AIG and CARM forums. They let theists do as they please and bear down instantly on non-theists for the least little thing. Every non-theistic site I've been to has been far more open minded even on both sides of the issue. In other words theistic sites are not interested in real debate, but in preaching to the choir.To me, an ambiguous statement. Are you saying an insult to creationism or an insult to science?An insult to pseudscience as well. I have a strange sense of humor and I like to play on words.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-06-2002]

Had to dig pretty deep, into the pile of often trite and/or redundant topics, to find this.Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.Scroll down to message 18, to see the message that got Joe Meert banned. Terry's banning message is #19.By the way, I am feeling considerable moderators guilt, in carrying this so far of topic.Moose/Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

Polygamy was authorized temporarily by God, it was necessary for such a miraculous message to rescind the practice. Also the First Presidency voted unanimously to approve the declaration.

---

Before it was authorized (temporarily) by God, was it considered a sin? If so, how does this work? Is it suddenly no longer sinful because God changed his mind?------------------
compmage

[QUOTE][B]Before it was authorized (temporarily) by God, was it considered a sin? If so, how does this work? Is it suddenly no longer sinful because God changed his mind? [/QUOTE][/B]As I understand it this discussion is over so hopefully I won't get attacked just for answering your question.Since your question seems innocent enough I'll try to answer.Normally polygamy is a sin. It would be if I just decided to start practicing it. Interestingly the Book of Mormon says that polygamy is a sin -- except for when God says otherwise. God doesn't just "decide" to reinstitute polygamy. It happens when a population needs to be built quickly and when gender ratios are out of whack.If there were a war next week and it didn't go very well polygamy might be reinstated. But it's a tool for social purposes, not a necessary foundation of theology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

As I understand it this discussion is over so hopefully I won't get attacked just for answering your question.

---

I don't recall a moderator actually closing this discussion. If it is indeed closed maybe we could move this somewhere else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

Normally polygamy is a sin. It would be if I just decided to start practicing it. Interestingly the Book of Mormon says that polygamy is a sin -- except for when God says otherwise.

---

Isn't a sin always a sin? Don't get me wrong. I understand that under certain circumstances polymamy would be necessary in order to avoid extinction but surely the term 'sin' should be reserved for actions that are completely and always forbidden such as murder or rape?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

God doesn't just "decide" to reinstitute polygamy. It happens when a population needs to be built quickly and when gender ratios are out of whack.

---

I understand this but I don't see why God needs to tell us when and when not this practice is acceptable. Surely he doesn't have such a low opinion of our ability to reason?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

If there were a war next week and it didn't go very well polygamy might be reinstated. But it's a tool for social purposes, not a necessary foundation of theology.

---

Why then make it a sin where God then has to personally inform us "Hey, you better start having multiple partners or you'll die out"? Wouldn't it be better just to allow it, provided all parties are in agreement?------------------
compmage

Well the Book of Mormon does not use the word "sin" to describe polygamy but it does say not to engage in the practice unless specifically told otherwise. It's here: Scriptures in verses 27-33.It would be nice if people could make up their own mind but right now there are about 30,000 polygamists living in Utah despite being told by the church that what they are doing is wrong and despite that the church has a wing of missionaries that specialize in trying to reform them. They like the practice so much they just left the church to continue what they do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Well the Book of Mormon does not use the word "sin" to describe polygamy but it does say not to engage in the practice unless specifically told otherwise. It's here: Scriptures in verses 27-33.

---

A commandment is as close as sin as you can get without actually saying it. Where does it say that God will tell you if he changes his mind?------------------
compmage

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
As I understand it this discussion is over so hopefully I won't get attacked just for answering your question. If it were over than the Admin would have officially closed it.Since your question seems innocent enough I'll try to answer. All questions are innocent, it is the answers which show the guilt. Normally polygamy is a sin. It would be if I just decided to start practicing it. Interestingly the Book of Mormon says that polygamy is a sin -- except for when God says otherwise. God doesn't just "decide" to reinstitute polygamy. It happens when a population needs to be built quickly and when gender ratios are out of whack.Actually I see nothing wrong in this practice and it is of no ones business who one marries as long as it is through informed consent.

[QUOTE][B]A commandment is as close as sin as you can get without actually saying it. Where does it say that God will tell you if he changes his mind?[/QUOTE][/B]It is implied in the scripture reference.Just as it is implied that this discussion is ended.

quote:

---

Things here got nasty when Schrafinator attacked my church based upon her opinions on how things "should be". Why she bothered is incomprehensible to me, as she is no member of the church and would not be personally affected by how we operate in any way, shape or form. In effect, the whole point is irrelevant. In fact whenver somebody mentions the concept of "making up" a theology she usually chimes in with Smith as an example. This seems strange, as if she has some sort of vendetta to carry out (maybe it goes back to college). I'll be wary of that in the future.

---

Actually, Gene, I think you might be confusing me with someone else, because I don't "usually" talk much about LDS at all.And you are utterly wrong about my not being affected by how your church operates. Didn't you read what I wrote about my best friend's conversion?Do I point out institutionalized sexism and mysogyny when I see it? Of course I do. I would not be following my conscience if I remained silent.Whether my critical thinking skills have been somehow "damaged" or erased I cannot be sure and can make no logical judgement without evidence (again: hint, hint). The way I see it is that I still think the same way I always did, with the same decision-making processes and the same logic (or perhaps lack thereof) that I used when I was arguing on your side in favor of naturalism either last week or four years ago. The only difference is that, for the very first time, I disagree with you and you have immediately responded to it as if I have (A) been damaged (B) had my account hacked (C) mysteriously unlearned a few years of first-hand experience in logical reasoning and debates in this medium or (D) am bored with the lack of YEC activity and am having a bit of fun. Your commentary on how I got where I am interests me because I am the same as I always have been, but now I see that your judgements are based not on how I reason or the quality of my arguments but on which side I am on. (If that was an experiment or a test I was conducting, you failed)[/QUOTE]Wow, Gene. You actually think you are using the same logic as you always have when you answer a request for independent historical evidence with "The holy spirit verifies it".That's amazing.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

If it were over than the Admin would have officially closed it.

---

I think that Gene was referring to your argument with him is over. How about getting back to the topic?

quote:

---

All questions are innocent, it is the answers which show the guilt

---

Questions can be loaded, or have malice in them. Like asking whether a person has had a lobotomy.

quote:

---

The one's written by members of the church out of whole cloth? I know that many Christians at the time didn't want the Book of Revelation included because it contradicted what Christ had been teaching. BTW, the BoR is put together from the letters sent to the 7 Churches in Asia Minor by John of Patmost (sp) about his re-interpretation of the Book of Daniel and of the politics of the 1st AD (The beast is Nero).

​

Wasn't there a big conference around 1000 AD where they made major changes to the bible and other docterine as well?

---

I don't recall anything in Revelation which contradicts what he taught. Many might have disliked Revelation because it taught of Hell, which isn't a popular concept. As for talking about interpretations, they're interpretations and interpretations can be wrong, however that does not necessarily mean the text is wrong.And as for the conference around 1000 AD, please enlighten me.

quote:

---

How is this evidence of historical corroboration? After a religion is established and its text are widely translated this just establishes that the new testament was widely read. If a John Grisham novel is translated into 2,000 languages and we come back 10 years from now are the contents of his novel historically corroborated? By your standards yes. That the new testament was written down only corroborates that the new testament was written down...the contents are a myth.

---

Mmm? really? I'll give you a few examples.
Biblical Manuscripts |Date written|Earliest Copy|Time Span|Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)|1st century |50-60 AD |co-existant (?)|John Rylands (John) |90 AD |130 AD |40 years |Bodmer Papyrus II (John) |90 AD |150-200 AD |60-110 years |Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)|1st century| 200 AD | 150 years |Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)|1st century| 200 AD |150 years |Codex Vaticanus (Bible) |1st century |325-350 AD| 275-300 years |Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)| 1st century| 350 AD| 300 years |
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)| 1st century 400 AD| 350 years |And since the John Grisham novel hasn't been translated into that many languages, even with all the printing resources, consider the bible; without printing presses that many manuscripts were produced in many different languages. Please contrast this with the Qu'ran. More than 100 years after Muhammed's death, we still do not have any verifiable Muslim documents. The primary sources to which Islam uses are about 150-300 years after the events they describe. Even if the documents had desintegrated, there should be fragments to which we could refer to. However, there is none. Two of the primary documents that Muslims use are the Samarkand Manuscript and the Topkapi Manuscript. However, these two were written in Kufic, which according to experts did not appear until the late 8th century.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-08-2002]