Originally posted by DarfiusLet me ask you this, Darfius:
There might be, but the burden of proof is on them, and so far everyone has failed miserably.
Have you ever spoken with a Mormon missionary?
The reason I ask is because their claim is precisely
what I am theorizing about: a 'New NT' so to speak.
You will admit the following: There are a lot of
outrageous and slanderous lies about Christianity on
non-Christian websites, right?
It is my opinion that there is a lot of slanderous and
spiteful lies about Mormons on non-Mormon websites,
especially on fundamentalist Christian ones.
I believe that you have not investigated The Church of
Latter-Day Saints in an opened-minded manner; I believe
that a lot of your information about that faith comes
from outside sources.
You wouldn't recommend an atheist website like 'infidels.org'
to a person considering becoming a Christian. Similarly, it
would be foolish to claim to be opened-minded to God's
Revelation and rely on information about Mormons on non-
Mormon websites.
I mean, being honest, have you ever read anything good about
Mormonism on those sites? I haven't. That should be a hint
that there is an axe being grinded and that such information
should be questioned.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat's a fair question. I've actually heard an intelligent, fervent Mormon defend his belief and it didn't hold up.
Let me ask you this, Darfius:
Have you ever spoken with a Mormon missionary?
The reason I ask is because their claim is precisely
what I am theorizing about: a 'New NT' so to speak.
You will admit the following: There are a lot of
outrageous and slanderous lies about Christianity on
non-Christian websites, right?
It is my opinion that there ...[text shortened]...
that there is an axe being grinded and that such information
should be questioned.
Nemesio
I've also examined the Book of Mormon for myself.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'd be interested in hearing your detailed opinion on why you
That's a fair question. I've actually heard an intelligent, fervent Mormon defend his belief and it didn't hold up.
I've also examined the Book of Mormon for myself.
feel it didn't hold up.
Tell me about your examination of the Book of Mormon.
Specifically, what didn't you like about it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNever heard of the second, New and EVERLASTING covenant ?
Let me ask you this, Darfius:
Have you ever spoken with a Mormon missionary?
The reason I ask is because their claim is precisely
what I am theorizing about: a 'New NT' so to speak.
You will admit the following: There are a lot ...[text shortened]... inded and that such information
should be questioned.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSVW used to be a Mormon. Maybe, if he feels like it and he usually does, he should spend some quality time with you to find out if you are one. You must be prepared however for a stiff conversation with him. Miky isn't exactly fond of them ..... know what I'm sayin' ?
I'd be interested in hearing your detailed opinion on why you
feel it didn't hold up.
Tell me about your examination of the Book of Mormon.
Specifically, what didn't you like about it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't like how it said that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin. I don't like how it said Lucifer and Jesus are on the same level and that Lucifer only got cast out because he disagreed with God. I don't like how they claim God is only Adam, in the first place, which is circular, of course. They also claim we will all be gods when we die.
I'd be interested in hearing your detailed opinion on why you
feel it didn't hold up.
Tell me about your examination of the Book of Mormon.
Specifically, what didn't you like about it?
Nemesio
It's pure blasphemy.
i am just sayin this cause i think my first time sayin this was not a good impact...maybee cause i'm RIGHT it needs a creator cause if the earth was just 1 inch out of place we could burn up or freeze up...
if u want to believe in the stupid big bang theory or evolution...then just go ahead...but u will be greatly decieved...evolution isn't true but even if it was ... then how were we positioned just the way we are now???and do u think everything on this earth just started to grow within a big bang???we need air to live right?so trees and plants ex hail oxogyn...and many more reasons...but if the big bang was even partially right ...then how did the universe appear???and everything else in it...and if there is nothing like a universe to have planets just appear like that...then how did anything appear...if there is nothing to happen anywhere then how can it be???...God died for us and he paid a price...for us...to go to heaven...that should be the reason for u to get saved...i know its true...so all this to say that God is real...our brains are so stupid we don't understand how God could be alive forever...no begining and no end...but its true...this is y u should go to church at a young age...to believe this...adults don't because they think that all this is just a fairy tail...and since they don't believe in them they think that it is not true...but it is...it is true...and exists...everything in the heavens could be yours...just get saved...or say this...lord,please come into my heart...and that is it...thats all u have to do...just go to church and believe that God lived on this earth...and then the holy spirit starts to kick in once u grow spiritually...that is so awsome when he tells u something...it is more then u can fathom...so please...take my message seriously and get saved...and stay on that life stile...you will have to sacrifice some things like sin...it is fun for a little until you get caught...and there will be a time of judgment at the end...just think...going before God with your sin...that is what i have to sy so...yea...my fingers hurt so i will stop now...but i will be back...if u have any questions please pm me...
Originally posted by WulebgrI think that mighty chickens 42 might agree that a very very small percentage of people believe the big-bang theory because they truly understand all the technical details and calculations involved.
!!
And since the rest believe it based on hearsay, and not on proof or clear understanding, then they believe it on faith. I'd go so far as to say that 99% of people who believe things like evolution and the big bang theory due so because they have faith in science.
I mean, if you want to be totally unbiased about it, the big bang theory is just as strange and unbelievable as any other belief on the origins of the universe. So it must be believed by faith in science. I doubt that even the scientist who do understand it completely would claim it as a perfectly logical proof. That would be unscientific.
Originally posted by Darfiusthat was in 1992, this is afterward
The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.
The world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawkins in an address of international conference on Wednesday, July 11, 2004 gave an indication to revise his thirty-year-old earlier opinion that black holes destroy everything that enters into them. In a Dublin seminar he would disclose his new thinking of black holes which might solve the so called ‘black hole paradox’, a crucial puzzle of modern physics, the problem that was generated from his own work.
and
For a long time astrophysicists including Hawking argued that the extreme gravitational fields of black holes somehow overturned the quantum laws. But now Stephen has dropped the idea.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/hawking.htm
Originally posted by ColettiWell said Coletti!
I think that mighty chickens 42 might agree that a very very small percentage of people believe the big-bang theory because they truly understand all the technical details and calculations involved.
And since the rest believe it based on hearsay, and not on proof or clear understanding, then they believe it on faith. I'd go so far as to say that 99% ...[text shortened]... derstand it completely would claim it as a perfectly logical proof. That would be unscientific.
It is absolutely unscientific, by definition, for anyone to think that any theory on origins can be proven. One of the basic tenets is that a theory must be testable and repeatable before it can be considered a fact.
I have three girls myself Col, except that two of them are boys! (I hope my sons don't see this!) ONLY KIDDING GALAXYSHIELD!
Originally posted by frogstompHey if anyone hears of a job opening as a theoretical physicist, let me know will ya? How about a theoretical garbage collector, or a theoretical brain surgeon? If all you have to do is throw out ideas and then change the ones that sound silly later, I am your man!
that was in 1992, this is afterward
The world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawkins in an address of international conference on Wednesday, July 11, 2004 gave an indication to revise his thirty-year-old earlier opinion that black holes destroy everything that enters into them. In a Dublin seminar he would disclose his new ...[text shortened]... But now Stephen has dropped the idea.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/hawking.htm
Originally posted by chinking58A quick clarification: theories don't have to be repeatable, the experiments by which data are collected need to be repeatable. You are right, however, that when speculating on whether the universe has an origin, we are doing metaphysics and not science.
It is absolutely unscientific, by definition, for anyone to think that any theory on origins can be proven. One of the basic tenets is that a theory must be testable and repeatable before it can be considered a fact.
Originally posted by chinking58will you work for theoretical pay?
Hey if anyone hears of a job opening as a theoretical physicist, let me know will ya? How about a theoretical garbage collector, or a theoretical brain surgeon? If all you have to do is throw out ideas and then change the ones that sound silly later, I am your man!