DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:40 pm**

Xamindar wrote:That is a JW belief.

Then all first century christians must have been JW's. It has nothing to do with "belief." It is what the Bible "says," and it states it very clearly.

Diedel wrote:Pointless, if you ask me.

In most cases I agree, but you never know when someone might have a spark of insight that propels them out of the mud of tradition into the light of truth.

Posted: **Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:23 pm**

Shoku wrote:Believing that Christ was divine is true when viewing "Christianity" from a modern perpective. It is NOT true when one examines first century belief as stated in the New Testament;

Been there, done that

And, quite frankly, had a lot of fun along the way. It was a good discussion that showed, I feel, that people who disagree can still have a friendly debate without calling each other names.

Which is why:

Xamindar wrote:Maybe we should start a new thread if we want to discuss this stuff and leave this one for the results of the test.

I'm all for it. No need to hijack this thread, but lots of interesting topics popping up here that might be fun to discuss.

Posted: **Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:23 pm**

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (99%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (92%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (87%)
5. Roman Catholic (87%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (78%)
7. Islam (61%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (61%)

Accurate enough. I do have serious disagreements with SDA/RC, but that's the main reason, I'm guessing, why they rate several percent lower.

I should note that Satan being \"god\" of this world is perhaps not so accurate, but if anything he is its master, because nobody (who can) has yet challenged his authority. It'll happen though.

Incidentally, I never really got what physical baptism is even for...

Posted: **Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:38 am**

Diedel wrote: Xamindar, I couldn't care less about your opinions about being a Christian.

Why would you say that?

Posted: **Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:48 pm**

Can I be the first one to say that I think taking a multiple-choice online quiz titled \"What religion are you?\" doesn't really mesh at all with the core mindset that having religious beliefs entails? I took a glance over the questions and decided to avoid wasting my time on this one. I know what I am, I've said what I am multiple times on this forum, and I'll be damned if I care what percentages some nerd-programmed online quiz decides to arbitrarily assign to me.

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:45 am**

The bible states clearly that Jesus has taken the rulership over this world back from Satan, and that it is the believers' task to implement it on earth.

Can you list the scriptures that support this argument? Both on the rulership issue and using believer's to implement it on earth?

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:28 am**

Birdseye wrote:yeah but arent they a weird kind of christian that doesn't have a lot of standard beliefs? Not as close as calling a mormon a christian, but close.

I must admit ignorance as I don't know anything about them.

I can say I don't think you will find one person that believes the EXACT thing. To me being a Christian is implementing the Christ in Christian into my life. No I can never be Christ, but I do the actions by reading & studying the Word, learning & spending time with him in prayer. How do you learn to become like someone you spend time with them. To me I want to represent Christ in my life to the people with my actions not just words. No we are not perfect, but if I can show Christ likeness & the Holy Spirit can resignate through me. People will come to him just by my countenance.
For example if I treat you like crap, why in the world would you want to be like me, in return I am showing you an example of what I am which is reflected of my beliefs in the sense of what I learn & how I want to be. Who would want to be treated like crap! If someone came up to me (in likeness the same with any type of religion) & said hey I know someone who died for you & wants to live eternally in heaven with you. Then you go down the street & push down a homeless guy asking for money, when in return you should have showed him love & prayed for him & presented Christ in his life in fact is probably exactly what he needed, why would I want what you offered if thats the representation of what you present.

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:53 am**

Admiral Thrawn wrote:
The bible states clearly that Jesus has taken the rulership over this world back from Satan, and that it is the believers' task to implement it on earth.
Can you list the scriptures that support this argument? Both on the rulership issue and using believer's to implement it on earth?

The Bible talks about Christ & the people of Christ have already won in the New Testament. That his people just have to run the race set before them, & fight the good fight. I will look up more verses, but this is the one I can relate off the top of my head.
1 John 5:4

Jesus was talking to his disciples, and as his believers ones who follow his teachings are a representaion of his disciples.
Mark 16:15-16

Posted: **Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:29 pm**

This is mine:

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (95%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (85%)
4. Bahá'í Faith (82%)
5. Reform Judaism (68%)
6. Orthodox Quaker (63%)
7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (59%)
8. Neo-Pagan (57%)
9. New Age (56%)
10. Sikhism (52%)
11. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (52%)
12. Secular Humanism (52%)
13. Orthodox Judaism (52%)
14. Jehovah's Witness (51%)
15. Mahayana Buddhism (51%)
16. Theravada Buddhism (49%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (48%)
18. New Thought (46%)
19. Islam (45%)
20. Jainism (43%)
21. Taoism (39%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (37%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (33%)
24. Roman Catholic (33%)
25. Scientology (33%)
26. Nontheist (30%)
27. Hinduism (25%)

Some parts where though to answer, because i have some very personal beliefs about God and all those things that i didn't see as an option in the quiz, but i think this was somewhat accurate and near to my beliefs...

Posted: **Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:03 pm**

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (94%)
3. Secular Humanism (93%)
4. Liberal Quakers (88%)
5. Nontheist (81%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (79%)
7. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (66%)
8. Neo-Pagan (64%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (55%)
10. Bah�'� Faith (54%)
11. New Thought (54%)
12. Taoism (52%)
13. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (49%)
14. New Age (49%)
15. Reform Judaism (48%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (46%)
17. Scientology (44%)
18. Sikhism (40%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (38%)
20. Hinduism (32%)
21. Jainism (32%)
22. Orthodox Quaker (27%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (16%)
24. Islam (16%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (16%)
26. Roman Catholic (16%)
27. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:22 am**

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. Nontheist (86%)
4. Liberal Quakers (86%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (75%)
7. Bah�'� Faith (56%)
8. Neo-Pagan (56%)
9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (53%)
10. Taoism (47%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (44%)
12. Jehovah's Witness (40%)
13. New Age (40%)
14. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (39%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (36%)
16. Mahayana Buddhism (36%)
17. Reform Judaism (31%)
18. New Thought (31%)
19. Sikhism (29%)
20. Jainism (25%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (22%)
22. Scientology (20%)
23. Hinduism (18%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (16%)
25. Islam (16%)
26. Orthodox Judaism (16%)
27. Roman Catholic (16%)

Wow! I'm more Scientology than Islam. Is that a good thing? =)

Except for weddings and funerals, the only church I've ever attended was a Unitarian Church... I went like 4 times. =)

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:35 am**

Im half mexican and irish.... hmmm... what could i be...?

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:21 pm**

Isaac wrote:Im half mexican and irish.... hmmm... what could i be...?

Half Roman Catholic and Half Roman Catholic(unless you mean northern Ireland).

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:38 pm**

yeah... i don't know whatis better... St. Mary or St. Patrick

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:32 am**

when i took this 6 months ago this si what i got:

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. Hinduism (91%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (86%)
4. New Age (86%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (85%)
6. New Thought (78%)
7. Scientology (74%)
8. Sikhism (74%)
9. Liberal Quakers (71%)
10. Theravada Buddhism (70%)
11. Taoism (68%)
12. Reform Judaism (65%)
13. Jainism (63%)
14. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (56%)
15. Secular Humanism (55%)
16. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (54%)
17. Bah�'� Faith (52%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (45%)
19. Nontheist (37%)
20. Orthodox Quaker (33%)
21. Islam (30%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (25%)
23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (21%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (19%)
26. Roman Catholic (19%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (8%)

i think JWs are at the bottom coz i used to be a JW until recently. DIE! ..*achem*

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:32 am**

roid wrote: i think JWs are at the bottom coz i used to be a JW until recently. DIE! ..*achem*

Ya think? hehe. What was your reason for leaving? Was it doctrine or a particular person(s) in particular?

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:08 pm**

Doctrine.

do you have any experience with leaving a cult?
it's not smalltalk

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:37 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:12 pm**

roid wrote:Doctrine.

do you have any experience with leaving a cult?
it's not smalltalk

As obvious by the results of the quiz, I have no quarrels with their beliefs. I'm curious as to which one(s) in particular and why. Belief without evidence would be very unwise.

Also, what technically classifies a religion as a cult? I'm obviously curious since my "beliefs" closely resemble a that of a cult's.

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:45 pm**

Admiral Thrawn wrote: Also, what technically classifies a religion as a cult? I'm obviously curious since my "beliefs" closely resemble a that of a cult's.

I always thought a "cult" was simply a group of people who had common beliefs. I think the reason he used cult is because most people in the english language associate that word with negative meanings.

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:37 pm**

What a cult?

All religions are cults. It's just the mainstream cults want to think differently.

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:49 pm**

Koolbear is correct, according to one definition, all religions are cults. In that respect, it just means \"A system or community of religious worship and ritual.\"

But the more commonly used definition today is:
\"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.\"

Which is quite useless, because the definition of \"extremist\" and \"false\" is to loose to be of any good. EVERYONE'S religion is a cult according to someone else by that definition.

Please note, I am NOT disagreeing with that definition, I'm just saying I don't find it very USEFUL.

The only USEFUL definition of a cult (IMHO) is not in the dictionary. It's \"A religious group that uses coercive/brainwashing tactics to gain and keep members.\" And please note that brainwashing must go beyond persuasive indoctrination, or that definition becomes quite useless as well.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have some very strong methods for keeping people in the church. Walk out and you will be ostracized (Shunned) and separated from any family that doesn't live in the same house.

BUT, they don't lock people in rooms and refuse to let them go to the bathroom when they are attempting to convert you, and they won't shoot you or beat you up if you walk out. So to me, they don't fit my PERSONAL definition of a dangerous cult. I admit that they are a VERY controlling organization, and a difficult organization to leave.

This is not meant as an insult to JW's. I admire JW's missionary zeal. I admire their, (misguided in my opinion), willingness to risk their own life for their beliefs by refusing to take a transfusion. And I admire their (again, misguided IMHO) willingness to risk freedom for what they think is right by refusing to salute the flag. Even when I disagree with them, I can admire someone for having the guts to stick by what they believe in though it is inconvenient and dangerous.

But I find the practice of shunning a very unpalatable one, and when it comes to separating close family members, a practice that comes very close to coercion. BUT, as long as it is all voluntary, it fits within \"Freedom of Association\" (for adults anyway). It's a sticky and confusing area all in all.

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:01 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Koolbear is correct, according to one definition, all religions are cults. In that respect, it just means "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."

But the more commonly used definition today is:
"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

Which is quite useless, because the definition of "extremist" and "false" is to loose to be of any good. EVERYONE'S religion is a cult according to someone else by that definition.

Please note, I am NOT disagreeing with that definition, I'm just saying I don't find it very USEFUL.

The only USEFUL definition of a cult (IMHO) is not in the dictionary. It's "A religious group that uses coercive/brainwashing tactics to gain and keep members." And please note that brainwashing must go beyond persuasive indoctrination, or that definition becomes quite useless as well.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have some very strong methods for keeping people in the church. Walk out and you will be ostracized (Shunned) and separated from any family that doesn't live in the same house.

BUT, they don't lock people in rooms and refuse to let them go to the bathroom when they are attempting to convert you, and they won't shoot you or beat you up if you walk out. So to me, they don't fit my PERSONAL definition of a dangerous cult. I admit that they are a VERY controlling organization, and a difficult organization to leave.

This is not meant as an insult to JW's. I admire JW's missionary zeal. I admire their, (misguided in my opinion), willingness to risk their own life for their beliefs by refusing to take a transfusion. And I admire their (again, misguided IMHO) willingness to risk freedom for what they think is right by refusing to salute the flag. Even when I disagree with them, I can admire someone for having the guts to stick by what they believe in though it is inconvenient and dangerous.

But I find the practice of shunning a very unpalatable one, and when it comes to separating close family members, a practice that comes very close to coercion. BUT, as long as it is all voluntary, it fits within "Freedom of Association" (for adults anyway). It's a sticky and confusing area all in all.

What they do to themselves is one thing, but when they refuse medical care for their sons and daughters who are not old enough to make their own choices is nothing short of insane. A cult that I don't admire at all...

Bettina

Posted: **Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:53 pm**

Bettina wrote:What they do to themselves is one thing, but when they refuse medical care for their sons and daughters who are not old enough to make their own choices is nothing short of insane.

Yes and no.

Consider, what if you had lived back in say, the early 1800's, and suppose that the government DEMANDS that you give your child the best care that medicine knows of. Unfortunantly for you, that care happens to be bleeding and is far more likely to kill your child than help them. BUT, we should trust the government to understand medicine better than the parents, right?

There is no good answer to this problem. I'm with you, I think refusing your children blood transfusions is not only bad theology, but bad sense. But even today, following the prevailing medical inclination is NOT always the best, medicine has had to reverse itself too often.

I don't even pretend to have a good solution.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:36 am**

Kilarin wrote:Consider, what if you had lived back in say, the early 1800's, and suppose that the government DEMANDS that you give your child the best care that medicine knows of. Unfortunantly for you, that care happens to be bleeding and is far more likely to kill your child than help them. BUT, we should trust the government to understand medicine better than the parents, right?

Perhaps if the issue at hand had anything to do with medicine, I would agree. But that's not the case. Else when queried why he doesn't believe in blood transfusions, a JW would quote peer-reviewed medical journals instead of dogmatic literature. The issue at hand is entirely a religious one, the medical facts of the matter be damned.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:33 am**

Kilarin's point about the organisation being controlling and difficult to leave is a very important point. i was born into the organisation, have no family outside of it (not even extended family), and have no friends outside of it (as to have associates outside of the cult is against doctrine).

i'm wary to talk to deeply or candidly about it, to explain it would be very personal and revealing.

it would be best to quickly do some googling on \"what is a cult\". just now i am doing a google search and came across this which i agree with: \"A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines\".

growing up, things were never quite right. i ended up with a grab-bag of diagnosable psych issues, but i was always one of those quiet gifted kids so i thought it went along with the \"maddness is next to genius\" thing. as i finally resigned myself that if i was to get anywhere i'd need some professional psych help, at the same time i also took it apon myself to learn psychology. i soon learned a lot about methods of coercion and manipulation (some of you may have noticed me on occasion refer to the \"dark arts\" of psychology). i started to notice these methods all throughout the WTBTS, i could listen to talks making notes of all the flawed logic, and while studying the Watchtower i would make sideline notes as i analysed the language, layout, and pictures of the magazines. When i tried to talk to other JWs about these things, i would hit an uncomfortable wall of taboo. i began to fear that if i continued to ask questions i would be labeled as an apostate, shunned, my life as i knew it would be over. being the type of person i was, i withdrew into myself.

there's a taster.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:41 am**

Omoshiroi...

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:56 am**

Roid wrote:there's a taster.

It sounds very... unpleasant. My sympathies.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:42 pm**

Birdseye wrote:I don't know the verbage here, are you supposed to call mormons christians and quakers christians? I know Muslims believe in the bible and the mormons have an extra book like the muslims, so who is called a christian and who isn't?

1) It's misleading to say Muslims believe in the Bible but also have an extra book. More accurately, Muslims believe the Bible (both the Jewish and Christian parts) is a horribly corrupted book, and that the Koran "restores" the religion to its original state. So they believe the Bible exists and contains small snippets of truth, but they don't actually read it or anything.

2) Quakers are a pretty broad group, but for the most part, they fit in with other Christian groups. They're generally far on the "personal experience" end of the spectrum, considering the Bible a useful learning tool but not really something to spend a lot of time on. Think of them as the far opposite end from the "read your Bible every day and memorize it forwards and backwards, but don't bother praying because that'll distract you from reading" people.

3) Mormons use the Bible as well as 3 additional books (The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) and statements by their "prophets" (from Joseph Smith to Gordon B Hinkley). Somewhere in their scriptures is a statement that you shouldn't compare dead and living prophets because the living will always win -- in other words, the head of their church can override anything in the past. I'd say most Mormons aren't really Christian, but most Christians aren't really Christian either (Sir Sam II gave a good definition of what it menas to be Christian -- becoming like Christ by spending time with Him.) The distinctive Mormon doctrines do a lot to drive people away from Christ, though.

The Book of Mormon is basically a fictional history of the people we now call Native Americans -- how they were descended from Jews who sailed 8000 miles on rafts and found elephants (!) when they got to this hemisphere, how they built huge cities that nobody can find evidence of, how they had battles with millions of men using millions of steel swords that never existed, and so on. (The Bible vs the Book of Mormon has a lot more info on this.) But despite the obviously fictional nature of the book, that's not where most of the "weird" Mormon beliefs come from -- most of those are from Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and statements of their "living prophets".

Perhaps the most damaging Mormon belief is the idea of "becoming worthy" -- they come from the perspective that you have to make yourself good enough for God to be willing to deal with you, that you have to become worthy by doing good deeds. (I didn't realize this until I visited the visitors center in Salt Lake, right next to the huge Tabernacle/Temple/conference center complex. It becomes really obvious when you read the quotes on the walls and watch the videos.) The mainstream Christian belief is that we can never be worthy on our own but that God reaches out to us anyway and makes us worthy ("Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-8)

Lest anyone think I'm a "Mormon hater" because I think their book is total garbage and their prophets lead people away from Christ... I do have a Mormon family living with me right now, and I love them dearly.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:20 pm**

Lothar wrote:Lest anyone think I'm a "Mormon hater" because I think their book is total garbage and their prophets lead people away from Christ... I do have a Mormon family living with me right now, and I love them dearly.

Then I hope that "Mormon family" living with you doesn't read your twisted post in this thread. You would seriously hurt their feelings.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:52 pm**

Xamindar wrote:Then I hope that "Mormon family" living with you doesn't read your twisted post in this thread. You would seriously hurt their feelings.

It's possible to disagree without being insulting. I don't think Lothar said anything insulting, unless you are just insulted that anyone would call the book of Morman fictional. People call the Bible fictional all the time, so I doubt if that is a big deal.

Were there any facts about what Mormans believe that Lothar got wrong? Because otherwise, I think all he was saying was that he disagrees, and that shouldn't be considered an insult.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:47 pm**

One of the main problems that comes out of all this is who is right? Is it the christians god or muslims? Are there seperate heavens? Why is it considered a farce what the Muslims consider their heaven?

What did the guy say in the remake of the flight of the phoenix movie?

Spirituality is not religion. Religion divides, belief in something unites. Isn't it kind of arrogant to walk around telling people that what they believe just as stoutly as yourselves, is a complete load of crap?

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:04 pm**

Zuruck wrote:Isn't it kind of arrogant to walk around telling people that what they believe just as stoutly as yourselves, is a complete load of crap?

Whoa! So let me get this straight, you are henceforth promising never to tell religious people that they are wrong!!! Wow! I never expected such a concession out of you Zuruck!

Seriously though. If the universe isn't just a big illusion, if there is actually such a thing as abstract truth, then it IS worth disagreeing over things.

We can divide the world into two groups here.

There are those who do not believe in abstract truth. They think that EVERYONE can be right, because reality is flexible and truth is whatever you believe it to be. If these guys are right, then there isn't any point arguing about ANYTHING, because the entire universe is just a matter of opinion.

The other side believes that truth is actually abstract, that A and NOT A can't both be true at the same time. It's logically possible that the Muslims, Hindus, and Christians could all be wrong, but it's not logically possible that they can all be right since they contradict each other.

And so, if there IS such a thing as truth, then yes, its worth disagreeing over. One side or both might LEARN something about reality.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:10 pm**

Kilarin, I guess you are right. He was just disagreeing. But he did it in a way as if he knew the \"facts\". I don't think you can apply \"fact\" to anything religion, or even history telling for that matter. There will always be points of view. For example, I believe the Book of Mormon is true, Lothar doesn't. Can either of us call that fact? I don't think so.

The discussion of whether it is true has been going on sense it was first brought fourth. At this point it is like beating a dead horse.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:16 pm**

Zuruck wrote:Is it the christians god or muslims?

this is another funny discussion. Muslims that I have talked with (and I agree with them) say Cristians and Muslims actually pray to the same God. But, of course, these two types of religions believe the nature/characteristics of God to be very different.

Posted: **Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:26 pm**

Xamindar wrote:I believe the Book of Mormon is true, Lothar doesn't. Can either of us call that fact? I don't think so.

That all depends on what you mean by "the Book of Mormon is true".

If you mean that the Book of Mormon tells of a true history, then yes, we can rationally discuss that. There are MANY things we can look for and talk about in that regard. People have been discussing the Bible as history this way for a LONG time.

If you just mean that the Book of Mormon is profitable for spiritual growth, well, that is a discussion that is possible, but MUCH more difficult to have on any kind of objective level.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:27 am**

Xamindar wrote:He was just disagreeing. But he did it in a way as if he knew the "facts".

I did it that way because I do, in fact, know the facts. You call my post "twisted", but what's twisted about it?

What facts did I get wrong in my discussion of the Book of Mormon? Did I tell the story wrong? Does the Book of Mormon not, in fact, tell of Jewish people sailing from Israel to the Americas and finding elephants here? Does it not describe something like 30 major cities in the Americas, none of which anyone can find?

I don't think you can apply "fact" to anything religion, or even history telling for that matter. There will always be points of view.

That's a bit of a dodge. You can always analyze evidence. You may find there's insufficient evidence to form a strong opinion, but in the case of the historical reliability of the Bible and of the Book of Mormon, there's quite a bit of evidence. Now, I can't claim anything about the truth of the WHOLE book of Mormon or the WHOLE Bible as being fact -- there's not evidence relating to every single passage. But where there is evidence we can analyze, the Book of Mormon consistantly comes up short, which tells me it can't be trusted overall.

For example, we can find the cities named in the Bible (here's Jerusalem), but we can't find the cities in the Book of Mormon (where's Bountiful?) We can find the coins described in the Bible, but no evidence of the coins described in the Book of Mormon. We can find battle sites described in the Bible, but nobody seems to be able to account for the millions of bodies from the battle at the hill Cumorah, or find the metal weapons used there, or find any evidence that metal weapons even existed in this hemisphere before they were brought by Europeans. There are dozens of other examples in the video here, which you can watch for free online (or at Google Video), and which any LDS member can get a free copy of.

Again, I don't say this out of Mormon hatred or some twisted desire to hurt your feelings. I say it because your relationship with God is the most important thing you could possibly have, and it's dangerous to get information about who God is from unreliable sources. The Book of Mormon tells a fictional history set in a fictional place, and that makes it a bad place to get your information. The LDS church teaches the book is true, and that makes it an even worse place to get your information.

----------

Muslims that I have talked with (and I agree with them) say Cristians and Muslims actually pray to the same God. But, of course, these two types of religions believe the nature/characteristics of God to be very different.

If their statements about the fundamental nature of God don't match up, how can they possibly be praying to the same God? We all have incomplete views, and there's room for some disagreement based on that, but at some point, you reach a stage where there's no possible way you can be describing the same God. What finally convinced me is hearing a Muslim talk about how Allah can lie, because Allah can do anything. But Yahweh can't lie because it's against His fundamental nature... so Allah and Yahweh can't be the same.

Posted: **Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:38 am**

I know I'm coming in a bit late, and I don't mean to interrupt the Mormon/LDS discussion, but here were my top ten:

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (93%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (80%)
4. Liberal Quakers (75%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (69%)
6. Unitarian Universalism (66%)
7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (60%)
8. Bah�'� Faith (60%)
9. Eastern Orthodox (60%)
10. Reform Judaism (60%)

I'm not sure how much \"faith\" (heh, pun intended) I put in the results, since I found the wording of some of the answers to be a bit strange.

But what was most interesting to me was the high Quaker results I got. I figured I would get high Protestant results because of the emphasis I put on the Christian \"fundamentals\" questions (one God, Trinity, etc.), but the Quaker thing was surprising. I suppose it was because of my answers about pacifism and poverty?

DescentBB

What are you religiously?