At 8/14/07 10:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Just wondering, don't you fellows not drink or indulge in any caffenated drinks or ingest alchohol?

I think that's Baptist.

At 8/14/07 10:07 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/14/07 10:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I think that's Baptist.

No, Baptists can't drink, I know that.

But I think I remember reading that Mormons can indulge in caffenine or alchohol for some odd reason.

At 8/14/07 05:53 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Whoa. Who even said anything about Princess Diana? Face it, the reason you're bringing her up is to deflect attention away from Mother Teresa.

Actually, no. I was bringing it up because they did the exact same work, only instead of living in a palace, Mother Theresa took a vow of poverty.

If you'd stop pulling stuff out of thin air, you'd have realized by now that I hate Mother Teresa because I strongly disagree with her conduct and ethics.

Her conduct with what? You're making assumptions on one photograph and propaganda taken from one source. There is VIDEO of her actually taking care of those people. Cleaning their wounds, and bathing them. You can claim she was a camera whore pandering to the camera, but once again, it's all your assumptions on a woman whose work you obviously don't understand.

Incidently, Princess Diana isn't up for sainthood here, nor did she claim to devote her whole life to the poor. She is still a Princess at the end of the day, and Mother Teresa was still a nun with the use of Charles Keating's private jet.

Which he donated in order for her to help other people and spread the word. Of course, I suppose if she takes anything she's a greedy selfish bitch because someone offers her something and she takes it in order to further support her convent and her charity work.

But, once again, I suppose you'd think it better for these people to die in the streets of dysentery than be sheltered, clothed, and fed. You're of such a charitable mindset.

At 8/14/07 10:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/14/07 07:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah well at least our belief is actually rooted in the Bible, instead of being in DIRECT disobedience to it as Catholic practice is.

Just wondering, don't you fellows not drink or indulge in any caffenated drinks or ingest alchohol?

Don't forget, there's the Book of Mormon.

At 8/13/07 12:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/13/07 07:21 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

- martyers: Only muslims one's are looked on as hero's.

Yeah, because no body celebrates Martin Luther Kings birthday. And Texas never honors the people who fought for the Alamo. And France doesn't hold MASSIVE celebrations for Jone of Arc. And who the fucks remembers Jesus of Nazereth, anyways?

Some of those martyers died for an honorable purpose, i was just meaning that some of them died while slaying infidels which is what granted them sainthood; which is extremely pathetic in my mind.

At 8/14/07 05:53 AM, Jerconjake wrote: That being so, it's not the coverup that's the story, it's the story itself. Actually, it's good that you make light of that so we can avoid all those needless "Hitchens is just an anti-Church atheist pig" arguments.

Well therein lies the problem. Which "story" carries more weight? The one Hitchens wrote, or the dozens of others depicting her kindness?

Yeah, I just don't buy that. That's as obscure a reference to serving peace as the quote from her acceptance speech.

Well that's your choice. But that's what's going down on the documentation for her. She also won numerous other peace awards, if that's any testament to her character as a peacekeeper.

This isn't about who is canonized or not. Frankly, I don't give a damn. What bothers me is that fraud is being committed to canonize someone whose beliefs are probably harmful to the world. Such as her views on contraception in over-populated regions, and the cult of suffering surrounding the treatment of the sick and dying.

And yet desipte all that, she is known almost universally as one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century......

Might do you some good to find out why......

it doesn't somehow make it ok that they are turned into idols.

Define "ok". Ok as in morally acceptable, or ok as in pertaining to Christians?

Mormons believe that as children of God, we are eligible to receive what Christ has, as an heir of God. Which is validated by the Bible.

That's just a justification Mormons use to continue their disobedience of the Bible (see what I did there?). FACT is you deify humans upon death, what is written in the Mormon bible is written by a corrupt Church to justify such blasphemy.

This argument should sound AWFULLY familiar cellypoo.....

Drinking alcohol is against church guidelines, but some Mormons drink and it's not that much of a big deal.

But when I disagree with the Pope, that means I'm somehow not Catholic any more? Come on.....get real, it doesn't work both ways....

At 8/15/07 03:07 PM, Imperator wrote: This argument should sound AWFULLY familiar cellypoo.....

I'm going to do a George Bush and use a pre-emptive strike...
NO. Book of Mormon isn't part of the Bible. It's part of the Mormon's canonical beliefs in conjunction of the Bible. "Blah, blah... inspired by God through Joseph Smith..." NO. It's followed by a majority Christian sects, and it's read only by Mormon and people who are inclined to pick up the book. The Bible has never said, ever, about people transmuting to a god like status though their be only one true father. If there is, then where? And I'm talking about the canonical texts that are more-or-less accepted by nearly all Christians (even if one has a few discrepencies.) Not the Book of Mormon. Using that text dos not mean it's part of the Bible and most Christians will promptly accept its authority as you would accept the Apocrypha readily after this post. C'mon... I have my Oxford academic Bible ready in front of my screen, ready to find your evidence to individualized godhood. And hey-- know what? I also authority in these matters because I'll graduated from a Jesuit school and read several versions of the Bible. So don't try to mention about going into a single Religeous Studies class, where as I have 4 years of intimate scholarly knowlege.

Jesus Christ...

If you didn't know, Catholics also believe that everything they believe is found in the Bible or inspired by the Bible. That could be said of EVERY Christian sect... Protestant, Catholic, Calvinist... Each one has their discrepencies here and there, and to say that one is false because of a certain practice is to deny them their reasoning with the Bible.

Sort of you like saying how Catholics are idolators and giving no absolute compassion to their reasoning... yet, your church has several things that only Mormons can understand.

Here's my point: Don't speak of specks, until you can pull out that log.

At least reconcile yourself that all Christian religions have certain quirks and each one believe they can validate it through biblical texts (or philosophy inspired by biblical understanding.) Just don't be a hypocrite about it... because I'm sure at least half the people are raising their eyebrows at the notion of people becoming a god like figure, especially when a good number of us can't think of texts that could validate that notion.

What do Catholics do as a matter of official church doctrine? Oh that's right, they BOW DOWN TO STATUES, and they PRAY to the deity represented by those statues.

1st link provides no definitive proof of anything. Great, he's in front of a statue with his head down. Wonderful. I guess that means when I kneel in front of my bed and pray I'm actually praying to my bed.....

http://images1.comstock.com/Imagewarehou se/PR/SITECS/NLWMCompingVersions/0026000 /26500-26999/PR26889.jpg

Damn idolater!

The second link is no proof of anything either. Us saying "Pray for us sinners" is no different than me asking you to keep my family in your prayers.

If I said, 'Cellypoo, pray for me. My family is going through some rough times", does that constitute idolatry? Cause that's what the Hail Mary is. A prayer asking Mary to pray for us, just like we would of anyone.

Your argument is about as solid as a sponge. And the fact that you keep parading around like you actually know what you're talking about, while calling everyone who disagrees "Disingenuous" or "dishonest" shows that the only one who's close-minded about any of this is....tada! YOU!

Meanwhile:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_ra ce.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ha m#The_curse_of_Ham_in_The_Church_of_Jesu s_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Like Fli said, I have no problem if you wanna hate Catholics, the Church, or anything else. Just don't be hypocritical about it.

I'd have to say that the only way Mother Terresa would go to hell would be if Jack Nicholas was God.

Nope. Once again, not the same.

It's exactly the same. A Catholic doesn't follow a rule of Catholicism, and he's no longer Catholic.

A Mormon doesn't follow a rule of Mormonism, but "it isn't a big deal"? And he's still considered Mormon?

The hell?

And I'M the one arguing semantics?

Now I'm curious, how does THIS work?

Interesting concept. But too bad what Catholics ACTUALLY do is ACTUALLY forbidden in the Bible, and what Mormons ACTUALLY believe is ACTUALLY validated by the Bible.

Interesting concept. But too bad what Mormons ACTUALLY do is ACTUALLY forbidden in the Bible, and what Catholics ACTUALLY believe is ACTUALLY validated by the Bible.

Just curious why we're having a serious debate about Mother Terresas status in hell.

cellardoor6 forgive me if I'm wrong, are you saying that we basically worship saints because if that's what you are saying than you are wrong, we remember them for the great things they did.

Haha you're pathetic! It's funny that you have so little integrity, that you even deny something about your own religion that you know is true, while you're attempting to defend it at the same time.

Cellypoo, my family is going through a rough time. Pray for us sinners.
Thank you.

Catholics PRAY to Mary, you know it. Just because Catholics think she is relaying their prayer doesn't take away from the fact they are PRAYING TO HER. They are still praying to and praising her... a dead mortal.

"V. Pray for us, 0 holy Mother of God. "

Again, exact same thing.

I'm asking YOU cellardoor, to pray for me. Pray for me, O mighty Cellypoo.

Wait... so that's not really a prayer to Mary huh? You Catholics are just talking to yourself right?

No, we're talking to God. I thought that was a given?

Nope, because I'm alive, hence you wouldn't be praying to me.

I'm doing it right now. Pray for me Celladoor. I ask for your prayers. I ask for St. Gregory's prayer as well, that I can follow his example and be a good educator.

Wake up.

I'm PRAYING, and asking you for the same assistance.

wake up!

Actually it's 100% solid any anyone who isn't blinded by their loyalty to their faith, or their goal of criticizing the things that I am personally saying, would be aware of this.

Then why have the only two people I've ever heard talk about Christian Idolatry in the modern world are you and Dre-Man. Two of the most arrogant, disliked, and otherwise malicious users to ever grace our boards?

I haven't seen one damn scholarly reference to Catholic idolatry in the 20th century, not one. And I've been through the gamut of them, I've read all the old ones.

Catholics are idolaters, the Catholic church condones idolatry, even though it is directly against the very Bible they claim to be their word of God.

Again, I can give you the direct link to the Vatican saying "we don't condone Idolatry". But it's moot because you're too close-minded.

It's kind of funny you'd suggest that i don't know what I'm talking about, meanwhile YOU, the person who has failed miserably to defend Catholicism, doesn't even know as much about Catholicism as I do.

Round and round we go.
Take a shot at Heathenry. Test your theory there, against people who actually have brains. Do it, I dare you. I double dare you. Go for it, and I'll give you all the time you want. Provided one thing:

You follow the rules of that thread. NO shit talking, of any sort. If you can't conduct yourself like a gentleman, then don't post there. But just realize that I'm offering you a chance to prove your point to some of the smartest people I've seen on this forum, and if you refuse, you have no claim to your accusations. If you can't do it there, I don't give a shit what you say, you're arguments belong in General.

Go for it. Let's settle this once and for all, Mormon a Catholic.

Actually what I said was true, and the only people that are closed-minded are those, like you and flkie, who base their argument on lies and semantics to help you avoid the truth.

And Ravariel, and Lapis, and Grammar, and Elfer, and Moritfied, and anyone else you happen to disagree with. We're ALL the ones who don't know what we're talking about, RIIIIIIGHT!

Your ego is writing checks your mouth can't cash.

And you're surprised I call you disingenuous? Hmm.. could it be because you say things you know are wrong?

No, I'm not surprised. Because there isn't a single person I know you HAVEN'T called disingenous.

You've said it to Fli, Grammar, D2kVirus, Ravariel, Jos, etc. The list is endless, cause you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, and your only recourse is to call someone a liar, hope they get pissed and say something stupid so you can shit on them.

Heathenry. Go ahead, prove how smart you THINK you are. Go for it.

Maybe you should learn to you know, accept facts instead of lying and deceiving your way out of accepting facts that are uncomfortable for your small, feeble little mind.

Thanks, another great Cellar one-liner for my collection.

I'm not hypocritical, you just linked to things discussing something I didn't even criticize Catholicism for.

You're hypocritical because you complain of the Church's faults, while accepting none of Mormonisms'. You JUST tried to weasel out of what is a historical event, Mormon racism, by saying "well everyone else did it too so there!"

Gimme a break. Heathenry, put your money where your ego is.

Well crap, I just realized why you think the way you do.

The King James Bible has so many flaws, there are some schools that won't even accept it for Doctoral work.....

Christ Almighty cellypoo.....I would think a Religious Studies class would at least teach you THAT much......

You're all wrong.

All religions are false.

Belief without proof is a fundamental flaw in the human brain.

At 8/16/07 01:03 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: You're all wrong.

All religions are false.

Belief without proof is a fundamental flaw in the human brain.

Why don't you proof god dosn't exist and I will believe

At 8/16/07 01:45 AM, LordJaric wrote: Why don't you proof god dosn't exist and I will believe

I couldn't give some flying monkey shit whether you believe or not. i just stated a fact. God does not exist. no gods have ever existed. the only religions that even nearly got it right were the early sun worshipers (pre-Egyptian). the sun isn't a magical sentient being, but it did indirectly create us.

But you believe in the hairy old dude living in the clouds if you want man, it's none of my business.

At 8/16/07 02:01 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: But you believe in the hairy old dude living in the clouds if you want man, it's none of my business.

My God waxes his chest >:(

WRONG.

The King James Version is the most unadulterated version of the combined Bible in the English language. Catholics specifically called for new translations because several verses undermine their distortion of Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_
Version#Criticism
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bib le.shtml#pick

"Numerous printer's errors affected not only the Book of Mormon, but also the King James Bible."
"Technically, the concept of Biblical inerrancy should mean that the words originally written by prophets and apostles under inspiration of God are correct. Most Latter-day Saints would agree with that. However, when many people speak of biblical inerrancy, they have extended a rather reasonable concept to mean that a particular modern translation (esp. the King James Bible) is absolutely perfect and infallible, a proposition that is simply untenable."

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjver ror.html

"Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV. "

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/
tr.htm

"In the minds of some individuals the King James Translation of 1611 has become the only legitimate translation of the Bible in the English language. As far as they are concerned, all other translations are unfaithful and purposefully misleading. Those who disagree are often castegated as brain-washed pseudo-intellectuals who have been led astray by "so-called" modern scholarship. Therefore, it is difficult to respond to those who hold a KJV only position because they have "poisoned the well" of discussion -- that is, before any information exchange can take place, they have already discounted the reliability and reputation of any who would dare disagree. "

This guy nailed it. Sounds deceptively familiar to someone I know.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-
Only_Movement

"Some, such as Jack Chick, even claim that the Roman Catholic Church, including the Jesuits, has been part of a conspiracy to deliberately make fake Bibles which support their doctrines (see Modern Bible versions support Catholic doctrine?)."

Congrats. You've been upgraded to "Conspiracy Theorist". Please see the 9/11 was caused by Bush people for membership details.

"Critics claim that KJO arguments typically involve logical fallacies, including begging the question (proving their assumption about KJV superiority), selection bias, selective thinking and guilt by association."

Again, awfully familiar sounding.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also holds a King-James-Only position. The Church publishes the Latter-Day Saint King James Version (LDS-KJV), which, in addition to the text of the KJV, contains numerous footnotes and study aids, including excerpts of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible."

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

Yeah, I'M the close-minded one.

Seriously, expand your mind.
Here, read a REAL scholarly bible. Now I KNOW your Religious Studies class is bullshit.

At 8/16/07 12:59 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: However, in an academic environment, it is a well established fact that Catholic practices constitute idolatry by both the literal definition, as well as in comparison to historical instances of idolatry.

I want class name, institution, and the name of the professor where you learned this. Historical yes, absolutely. That's why we went through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coun cil_of_Nicaea

Modern? Nuh uh. Show your scholarly references stat.

Haha, what's true isn't always popular. People react defensively to the truth and therefore the messengers of that truth will be targeted so that people can ignore what they said.

People react defensively to jackasses. People who learn something from a true teacher or messenger thank them. Guess which one you are?

And THEN, people like you try and cast doubt on something that you know is much more valid than what you say, by appealing to popularity.

You just don't get it. That's fine, if you are indicative of what you consider open-minded and intelligent, I'd rather be with all the other "disingenuous" people out there.

That's why another reason why I highly doubt the claims you make about your education. Any secular scholar, will specifically refer to Catholic practice of designating dead people as Saints, creating statues, and bowing down before them while praying to the supposed Saint as IDOLATRY. Because that is what it is by any stretch of the imagination (beyond that of a Catholic person).

Then start showin some links. Come on, this is your specialty, I asked for links, and you give me a bullshit response. Let's go, 20th century links.

No it's moot because while someone may SAY something, they can - and in this case - DO contradict it by their actions.

Fine, then Mormons aren't Christian for the very same reason. They pray to Smith for the very same reason, they're racist for the very same reason, polygamist for the very same reason, and they claim a monopoly on Christ for the very same reason.

As I've said before, the only person there who knows what they are talking about is lapis. Other than that, I've seen no display of "brains" by anyone else, I see a lot of attempts to sound intelligent, and a lot of linking to wikipedia but that's about it.

That's what I thought. You don't even understand the thread, it shot 5 miles over your head. You think nothing important was said cause all you see are links to wiki. Congrats, you couldn't get a liberal arts degree if you had 3 Harvard tutors. You don't have the balls, no, you don't have the ABILITY, in all your perceived intelligence, to DEBATE a religious topic like an adult.

You sure did bring me up and insult me several times, while I wasn't even in that thread. Hell, you specifically ran away to that thread while lying and pretending you'd be busy, as your excuse for retreating from the thread you got proven wrong in several times.

You don't get the difference. You really don't. I can argue with you, or debate in heathenry. And I use those terms appropriately. The fact that you don't recognize at least a semi-academic debate on religion is great. It negates everything you ever speak of about your so-called intelligence.

If you think you're so great, then go to that thread, and have a debate with me in an environment where you can't hide behind your insults.

Your only "debate" tactic is to insult someone into making a mistake, and then you pounce. You have no others. Take a look at my NG page, I've got a whole list of you saying the EXACT SAME THING to several different users, all in an attempt to cover up the fact that your the most close-minded, arrogant, and malicious wanna be scholar on the boards. I'll keep adding them too, since you just don't KNOW how to debate any other way.

So here's the challenge, take this shit to heathenry, where you can't hide behind your petty insults, and debate me like a man.

If you refuse, I say you're nothing but a child and a coward.

I'm through with you.

You're using the supposed inaccuracies of the King James Version to pretend I'm confused, when actually it is YOU (rather brainwashed)

"Those who disagree are often castegated as brain-washed pseudo-intellectuals who have been led astray by "so-called" modern scholarship"

"Therefore, it is difficult to respond to those who hold a KJV only position because they have "poisoned the well" of discussion -- that is, before any information exchange can take place, they have already discounted the reliability and reputation of any who would dare disagree. "

Trip post!

And before you respond:

Whatever you say cellypoo!

At 8/16/07 02:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's just hilarious that you think your modern Catholic interpretation which is just a translation of other translations is somehow more accurate than the OLDEST version of the bible we have.

Yay, hypocracy. Your sect predicted the second coming of Christ in 1890, and you're telling him that his version is inaccurate?

At 8/8/07 2:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: So if you really want to throw that ignorant claim around, then look at your own religion.

You took a nice shot at what I said, but I'm afraid you've had far too much experience debating people who cling dearly to church dogma, and not enough with Catholics who understand what the church should have been; not what it is. Sadly, I wish I could say I was entirely part of the latter, but I have much to learn still. I can say, however, that you've made the fatal flaw of judging a religion by the power of it's institution, rather than it's potential for purity. Rather than ramble on, I'll dive straight into your refutation.

Mormonism does violate the sacred rule of changing the Bible. Quoting from Revelations is a common mistake, I'll concede to that. And if that were the only part where the divinity of the scriptures was mentioned, you'd have me pegged and I'd have to seriously reconsider my stance. But it's not, and assuming it is is a common mistake on the part of Mormons, ironically. 2 Timothy 3:16 reveals "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." You do NOT change the word of God, especially when it's spelled out that the word of God was being written specifically to prevent it from being changed. Misquotations and interpretation errors happen, of course. Entirely changing and outright refuting the roots of the Bible is an entirely different story. Joseph Smith did this with the origin of Adam, saying that him being born of dust was nothing more than a child's tale his parents told him. If one is an atheist, the entire bible is a fairy tale. But when you're claiming to adhere to certain parts of the bible but not others, who's the hypocrite here?

Mormons claim Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan, the Bible does not. Mormons claim Mary physically had sex to give birth to Jesus, the Bible does not. Mormons claim that we may be as gods, the bible does not. The Bible says we may be glorified among God through Jesus, and Jesus alone. Not by acts or deeds, but by faith and servitude to the Lord through Jesus Christ.

why does Mormonism claim to be part of Christianity while it clearly violates this sacred rule?

Actually Mormonism actually inprets the Bible CORRECTLY instead of allowing ignorance to cause people to interpret it falsely for their own benefit.

Ah, I see. The way Joseph Smith transformed Nauvoo into a political and military theocracy, granted more power to himself, or how about also giving himself the rights to secret celestial marriage, much to his wife's disappointment? Or about his support for free-speech when he destroyed the Nauvoo printing press for writing things about him he didn't want made public? Seriously, the Mormon hands are as soiled as the Catholics are; you'll make no progress with that argument because all religions are soaked in blood and corruption; thank human-nature.

If you want to talk about people rejecting the Bible, maybe you should look at modern Christianity and realize that making millions of dollars for teaching the Gospel is an IMMEDIATE contradiction from what Jesus taught. Go look at your pastor, look at his house and his car that he payed for by teaching the Gospel.

Don't know about you, but I grew up in a small town before I moved and my priest wasn't exactly on MTV cribs. As for making millions of dollars for preaching the Gospel, you must have me mixed up with the Evangelists, who've always done things their own way. Though I don't think they have to pay the church to go on missions. Again, we fall on institutional fallacies, which I've never cared for.

like Satan being Jesus Christ's brother

Where in the Bible does it say either way?

...It's Satan, for crying out loud. Lord of darkness. Root of evil. An ANGEL, not a man-god. Any of this ringing a bell? Supposedly that's how they get their wings, you know.

it's funny because you don't even know about the very scripture you're using to some how make Mormonism invalid. YOUR beliefs, YOUR interpretation and YOUR adding to and distorting the Bible is the very thing you're criticizing Mormons for by doing so.

Ironically, I don't need to because Mormons preach a different Gospel. Funny how all mine are written down in the original writing, huh? Fancy that, believing in something that's credible by thousands of years of history compared to...hm, what are we going on. 200 for the religion of Joseph Smith? How about original writings saying that no man can or should predict the second coming of Christ? Didn't Brigham Young do just that? Not to mention he's still off by 110 years and still counting. I never said I followed the best interpretation of the Bible, you did. I only said Mormonism negates and changes crucially important elements of the Bible, and it does.

Mormons believe that as children of God, they are entitled to the same power that God has.

You'd think we'd start hitting some flashing red warning lights here, considering that in Genesis the first sin was engineered by asserting man could have the same power God has; ain't that a bitch. But hey, who am I to read what's actually written, and not change it.

But too bad Christians are so delusional, so corrupt and blinded by their false interpretations that they pick and choose from the bible and distort it for their own gain, having the audacity to accuse Mormons of denying the Bible, when it is actually Christians who do this.

...you ARE aware that the LDS church claims to be Christian, right? You're trying to draw a dividing line between us and you, and your leaders are trying to erase it. I'm supposedly denying the bible by actually following it, yet you say you follow it better because only Morman scriptures are reliable; not the Bible. Hmmmmm

Then you have the audacity to say that I can't have a civilized debate... haha.

And yet.....no post in Heathenry.

At 8/16/07 01:03 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Belief without proof is a fundamental flaw in the human brain.

I have no "proof" that the next lemon I bite into will be sour. I can offer an inductive argument but that is not the same as proof. With an inductive argument I can't be certain - at best I can be confident.

I have no "proof" that I will awake from my sleep tomorrow. However, I believe I will and act accordingly.

I have no "proof" that space aliens exist.

I don't have proof that my last charitable donation was virtuous but I nevertheless believe it was.

I have no proof that my current career choice was the best choice I could have made.

I have no proof that when my colleagues compliment my choice of ties they are being truthful.

ROFL this thread is retarded.

This still cracks me up, a bunch of people who dont read Latin, dont read Aramic, dont read Greek, dont read Hebrew, dont have a PhD from a religious institution, dont preach, and really dont know what they are talking about. . . talking about ways to interpret the Bible.

Shit guys, if you fools were qualified to "interpret" the Bible we might have lots of problems in the world of lay people interpreting religious dogma they dont undertstand, maybe even stuff like this happening for other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism, and Islam and. . . err. . .

Fuck. My bad.

BTW Mormons. Seriously.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
- Emma Hale Smith

That shit is just fucking funny.

I'm not even a Christian anymore, and I still despise Catholics just as much as I did before.

They're famous for this kind of thing.

At 8/16/07 06:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/16/07 06:44 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

Someone who isn't a comedian, who isn't funny, has no sense of what is funny, thinks he can decide what is, or isn't funny.

Mhhm k.

Yeah because funny and the sense of being funny is completely arbitrary to the individual and not set up for a mass audience.