- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted on 7/6/26 at 1:16 pm to Prodigal Son
Posted on 7/6/26 at 1:16 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
You insist you’re unbiased, that your position is pure evidence-based neutrality with zero faith commitments.
Correct
quote:
Miracles or divine revelation are impossible by definition. Everything must have a natural/physical/material explanation. This is the lens through which you filter information.
I think you’re misrepresenting me, but not intentionally. Yes, miracles are impossible by definition, so belief in the occurrence of a miracle must have to have some extraordinary evidence… but there isn’t any. I’m not willing to just believe in anything written down on a 2000 year old goat skin without the preponderance of evidence supporting it.
quote:
We all have presuppositions. The intellectually honest move is acknowledging them- instead of claiming ignorance.
Maybe so, except my presuppositions can be shown to be wrong based on being supported by evidence. Your presuppositions, despite evidence to the contrary, aren’t accepted by you as evidence. For instance, we know Herod the Great died in 4BC and that Quirinius didn’t take over and conduct his census until 6AD. So I could look at Matthew and Luke and I’d have to say one or both cannot be true about when Jesus was born. You can’t accept that so you’d have to gin something up to trick yourself into believing contradictory accounts are both true. Same with Judas’ death - was the field of blood called that because it was bought with blood money or because Judas’ blood was spilled there. You would say “why not both?!” Were Jesus’ last words “why have you forsaken me?” or “I commit my spirit” or “it is finished”? It can’t be all of them. At most one can be right but maybe none are correct. Your presuppositions, supported by your biases, state that all three are historically accurate. Even if I had a bias, my bias could be overcome based on supported evidence. Your biases and presuppositions will remain no matter what evidence or argument could be made.
quote:
Were are the spider man meme. I think it’s hilarious. It’s even funnier that you can’t see it.
I don’t think so, Tim.
quote:
I don’t need to prove Christianity beyond all doubt to make this point.
Well no one has been able to do so, despite such a think being good for “your side”. Paul’s bad apologies (Romans) don’t make any sense at all when you consider there are a lot of Jews and Muslims who are devout and want to wholeheartedly believe and serve the God of Israel and they won’t believe in Christian claims. It’s not a lack of desire on their parts. If you believe a loving and all powerful god would willingly blind those (Jews and Muslims) who want to serve that god with all their mind and heart, then your belief is flawed. If anyone could prove their religion is true beyond all doubt, there would be only one religion in the world.
quote:
Dismissing Christian evidence isn’t “just following the data”
Well for a start, some evidence would have to be presented.
quote:
I can afford to be wrong about Christianity. You can’t.
Hello Pascal, can you afford to be wrong about Islam? Muslims say you’re going to burn in hell for eternity for worshipping a man instead of the one true God.
quote:
How do you neutrally evaluate the historical minimal facts around the resurrection
Bart, you can’t take a bunch of ancient documents you acknowledge are historically unreliable, plus some Christian forgeries inserted into Antiquities of the Jews plus a couple of Romans discussing the existence of Christians in the second century who are repeating already-established Christian tradition and arrive at “minimum facts” and say there was a rabbi named Jesus that pissed off the Romans and was crucified. Maybe there was, but we don’t have any evidence for it. Hell, there almost certainly was a “Yeshu” or “Iesous” who pissed off the Romans and was executed by them. It doesn’t mean that the Christian tradition goes back to such a person, when we can clearly show from evidence the earliest Christians were worshipping Jesus before there was any knowledge whatsoever of any traditions of a historical earthly Jesus.
There are no minimum facts of a historical earthly Jesus on which Christianity is based. If archaeologists one day find out by finding evidence that the man Jesus really existed on earth and he really was the start of the movement, I’d be elated that we knew more about early Christianity. Whatever we find out I’ve have to accept whether I wanted to or not, but I really don’t even have a dog in that hunt. I don’t care if Jesus was historical or not, though I am convinced by the evidence we have that he was not historical. If new evidence is introduced that shows I was wrong, then that’s fine. I am unbiased.
quote:
or the fine-tuning arguments
Just an argument, and a poor one. Why would God make an infinite universe that we could never travel through? Fine tuned for life? Please. How many droughts and crop failures did the Israelites experience in the Bible even? Only about 20% of the planet is habitable, and 0% of the remaining universe is habitable. I think the evidence points in the other direction - that the universe is clearly not fine tuned for life.
1
Posted on 7/6/26 at 4:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Seems like you are crawfishing
No. I’m trying to work within your understanding of morality.
quote:
think you are finally understanding though that there is no objective moral standard contained within the Bible
No. I’m better understanding that what we each mean when we say “objective morality” are two different definitions, and there is a fundamental disconnect in either of our abilities to understand the other.
You are defining morality by the actions themselves; isolating them from the circumstances and the environment in which they occur, and therefore assuming that the moral value of any particular action is determined by the circumstances. You are looking for an exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts.
I am defining objective morality as the nature of the actions; which takes into account the circumstances and environment (inseparable parts of an equation) in which the action occurs, and uses the nature of a Holy and perfect God as baseline for judgment.
So, when you say, there is no exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts in the Bible, you’re right.
But when I say that the nature of God is the objective standard by which all moral actions are ultimately judged, and that this can be found in the Bible, then I am right.
The problem with your position is twofold. One, nobody is challenging the claim that your definition of objective morality does not exist in the Bible or at all. Two, you don’t practice what you preach when it comes to morality. you don’t treat morality as though it were subjective in your daily life. None of us do. Except psychopaths..
quote:
if you went to college
quote:
you would learn how to think
Mmmm… there it is – the truth inside the lie. The double standard persists. One man’s education is another’s indoctrination.
I’m still waiting for you to lay out your plan to cure the world by killing God.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 4:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
You just don’t get it.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 9:13 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:quote:No. I’m better understanding that what we each mean when we say “objective morality” are two different definitions, and there is a fundamental disconnect in either of our abilities to understand the other. You are defining morality by the actions themselves; isolating them from the circumstances and the environment in which they occur, and therefore assuming that the moral value of any particular action is determined by the circumstances. You are looking for an exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts.
think you are finally understanding though that there is no objective moral standard contained within the Bible
Objective morality is defining actions as moral or immoral and if there is an objective standard, then the standard should show objectivity. For example, a code of laws could say that stealing is immoral. As an objective standard it would mean the action is stealing is immoral and that is the truth based on such a standard. If that same standard contained text that stealing is immoral - thou shalt not steal - but then also has other text commanding stealing and praising stealing then there is a conflict on the subject of stealing. It therefore cannot be stated that there is an objective standard contained within the text on the subject of stealing and whether is it moral or immoral.
So when the Bible says though shalt not steal - as commanded by the deity - and then the deity also commands the people to loot and steal and advocates and promotes thievery (Israelites loot Egypt upon their exodus, Abraham and Isaac both steal from Abimalech, Abraham steals from the Pharoah, David steals from Israelites while he is an agent of the philistines (and everything David did was good in the eyes of Yahweh except what he did to Uriah the Hittite), the Israelites steal the land from the Canaanites, the Israelites steal from their neighboring city-states (Moab), etc. then there is no objective standard. If it sometimes says don’t steal, and then it sometimes commands and promotes thievery, then there is no objective standard on theft. That’s just one example.
Take slavery. The southern plantation owners used “the Bible” as the objective moral standard that said slavery was morally permitted. The abolitionists used that same “the Bible” as the objective moral standard to conclude the opposite. Therefore there is no objective standard on slavery in the Bible.
quote:
I am defining objective morality as the nature of the actions; which takes into account the circumstances and environment (inseparable parts of an equation) in which the action occurs, and uses the nature of a Holy and perfect God as baseline for judgment.
Then stop saying the Bible contains an objective standard! Jesus!
Simply say you believe your morality is guided by your deity and your interpretation of “the Bible”. That would be correct and truthful.
You’ve admitted the Bible contains no such standard. I’m glad you see that now. Rather than wanting to be like FooLaneCraig I’d say just state what you believe but you don’t have to say the Bible contains any moral objective standard, because that would be a falsehood. Help to educate Foo and others on your side. Claim all you want that your morality is guided by God’s perfect good moral nature - fine! But stop saying the Bible contains an objective moral standard, because it doesn’t.
Let me help you with a 4 minute video.
The Bible is not an objective moral standard
quote:
So, when you say, there is no exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts in the Bible, you’re right.
Thank you!!! Spread the word. Help your brothers in Christ become honest with themselves on this subject.
quote:
But when I say that the nature of God is the objective standard by which all moral actions are ultimately judged, and that this can be found in the Bible, then I am right.
PS, come on man. You’re killing me. You and Foo can’t even agree on the nature of God. How many Christian denominations? How many sects of them and Jews and Muslims who claim to worship the same deity? What maybe 50,000 sects or so? None of them can agree fully on the nature of God. How is that objective? It’s not.
quote:
The problem with your position is twofold. One, nobody is challenging the claim that your definition of objective morality does not exist in the Bible or at all. Two, you don’t practice what you preach when it comes to morality. you don’t treat morality as though it were subjective in your daily life. None of us do. Except psychopaths..
Not true. Is killing morally permissive? Am I killing a person for fun or because I don’t like them? That would be immoral. Am I killing them because they are attacking my family in my home at night? Different ball game. Do they have a gun? Or any weapon? Are they big and scary? Do they have accomplices? How far away are they? Can we get away? Quick I only have 5 seconds to decide! I have to judge and it’s a judgement call. That’s moral relativism. That’s how everyone in society operates except psychopaths.
quote:
I’m still waiting for you to lay out your plan to cure the world by killing God.
I don’t know what that means
but it did remind me of this (29 second) clip of South Park. Let’s be atheists
Posted on 7/6/26 at 9:15 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
You just don’t get it.
No you are mistaken. I actually just do not agree with you.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:25 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Mormons are as christian as Muslims are. Both believe that jesus is real, but a prophet is more important. Both hold women back. One is violent, and one is fricking annoying.
Mormons arent christian.
Mormons arent christian.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:26 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Mormons, while good people, are defined as a cult by most Christian religions.
They objectively arent good people....They may come off as nice, but they are corrupt and slimey.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 7:51 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:It does, though.
But stop saying the Bible contains an objective moral standard, because it doesn’t.
An objective moral standard is one whose truth and binding authority do not originate in and are not contingent upon the mind of the subject bound by it, but exist independently of that subject’s beliefs, preferences, or will.
Morality is based on God’s nature, not His will, and not our wills. God wills morality because His will is consistent with His nature, but the basis of morality is in God’s nature/character, not in His decree.
Objectivity speaks to the nature, origin, and authority or binding nature of morality.
What you keep wanting to focus on is application of an objective moral code, and won’t accept any explanation that interferes with your mission to dismiss it.
For example, stealing: stealing is ultimately wrong because it denies God’s ownership and authority over all things. When you steal from your neighbor, you are denying God’s authority and benevolence in giving something to the “owner”. When, for example, God commands the land of Canaan to be taken, that isn’t stealing because the true owner (God) is giving permission for Israel to take over stewardship. And that’s what property ownership really is; stewardship, since God owns all things and He can give “ownership” (from our perspective, but it’s actually stewardship) to whomever He pleases. It’s also why God cannot be guilty of stealing anything because everything belongs to Him already.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 7:58 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
Just jumping in to say it’s entertaining to watch a good battle of “I’m not in a cult but you are”
Posted on 7/7/26 at 8:11 am to jlovel7
quote:
Just jumping in to say it’s entertaining to watch a good battle of “I’m not in a cult but you are”
You could join in.
Your cult believes that the universe created itself.
It's the dumbest one of all.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 8:14 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Who says this is a list of Christian churches?
Posted on 7/7/26 at 8:29 am to wackatimesthree
quote:.
You could join in. Your cult believes that the universe created itself. It's the dumbest one of all.
Nah bro I’m here I guess as an agnostic (but who really cares). I’ll catch everyone 6 feet under :peace:
Posted on 7/7/26 at 10:13 am to jlovel7
quote:I don't think you will. You have guilt for sin that needs to be accounted for. You will either pay that debt you owe to God yourself in Hell for eternity, or you need someone else to pay that for you. Jesus went to the cross to pay for that sin debt we owe, and if you trust that He did that for you, then you will be forgiven and granted eternal life. I hope you do that--trust in the Lord
Nah bro I’m here I guess as an agnostic (but who really cares). I’ll catch everyone 6 feet under :peace:
Posted on 7/7/26 at 11:18 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You have guilt for sin that needs to be accounted for. You will either pay that debt you owe to God yourself in Hell for eternity, or you need someone else to pay that for you. Jesus went to the cross to pay for that sin debt we owe, and if you trust that He did that for you, then you will be forgiven and granted eternal life. I hope you do that--trust in the Lord
It takes more than that to be allowed into heaven as faith without works...is dead.
quote:
"Faith without works" refers to the famous biblical concept found in the Book of James, which states that belief in God is incomplete without active, loving deeds. It teaches that true faith cannot be passive; it must be demonstrated through tangible actions and service to others.
James 2:26: "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."
Keep the commandments, have faith, hope and Charity.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 11:21 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
quote:
Mormons, while good people, are defined as a cult by most Christian religions.
They objectively arent good people....They may come off as nice, but they are corrupt and slimey.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reports an official worldwide membership of roughly 17.2 million.
Do you know all 17.2 million? I didn't think so.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:31 pm to Ailsa
quote:If you add to what Christ has done, you have taken away from what He has done. There is no amount of merit we can provide by good works to pay for the infinite debt of sin we have accrued. That's precisely why Jesus had to obey the law perfectly and die a death that we deserve, in our place, to satisfy the debt we owe to God.
It takes more than that to be allowed into heaven as faith without works...is dead.
We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. True saving faith will produce good works, but good works do not merit our justification. Good works prove our justification.
So again I say to sinners: believe in Jesus Christ and you will be forgiven.
This post was edited on 7/7/26 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you add to what Christ has done, you have taken away from what He has done
James was Christ's brother and an apostle... do you disagree with what he said?
No unclean thing shall enter into heaven...that means you have to keep the commandments and try to do what's right. No one is perfect but if we have done the best we could his grace will save us. You can't lie/kill/commit adultery/etc and be allowed into heaven...you must repent and keep the commandments and above all have charity.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:45 pm to Ailsa
quote:
James was Christ's brother and an apostle... do you disagree with what he said?
I don't. But I interpret it in proper context.
For example, what good works did the thief on the cross do after he accepted Jesus as Lord?
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:55 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
what good works did the thief on the cross do after he accepted Jesus as Lord?
He was forgiven of his sin, he was a believer and he acknowledged Christ as the Son of God. Luke 23.
MatthewChapter 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:11 pm to Ailsa
quote:Of course not. I'm just not agreeing with you that he was referring to works being meritorious towards our justification.
James was Christ's brother and an apostle... do you disagree with what he said?
In fact, if you read what he said, he was differentiating between the faith of a righteous person and the faith of the devils. Do devils have the same sort of faith as Christians? No, they don't, because they are not trusting in Jesus to save them. Their "faith" is mere knowledge and assent, but they lack the key ingredient of trust.
But what does a person who trusts in Christ do? They submit to Him and seek to honor Him out of thanksgiving with good works. So, good works are an evidence of true and saving (trusting) faith that justifies sinners.
It's why Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit. Someone who is justified will produce good works (fruit) that evidence their justification, while someone who merely claims to believe in Jesus (knowledge and assent without trust) will not have works that demonstrate salvation.
Judas and Peter both claimed to follow Christ, and both of them betrayed Him, but only one repented. The repentance of Peter was evidence of His saving faith.
quote:You're right that nothing unclean can enter into Heaven, which is why when we are trusting in Christ, His righteousness is imputed to us and we are washed clean once and for all time.
No unclean thing shall enter into heaven...that means you have to keep the commandments and try to do what's right. No one is perfect but if we have done the best we could his grace will save us. You can't lie/kill/commit adultery/etc and be allowed into heaven...you must repent and keep the commandments and above all have charity.
The difference between our state now and in Heaven is that we are capable of sin right now, but we won't be capable of sin in Heaven.
If you believe we can be made acceptable before God by our good works, then Jesus did not need to die at all. But we can't be acceptable to God by our good works, because each sin against an infinite God produces and infinite sin-debt that we can't pay off on our own. That's why Jesus died for us: because as the God-man, His life is of infinite worth, so only He could provide a sacrifice to pay for sin.
So again I say, if you add to what Christ has done, you actually take away from it, and you are still in your sins.
Page 28 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News