Thanks Rick, I will read up on that link and respond to this and your other posts soon, in full. Sorry you were called names in the other forum; that was rude and inconsiderate for him to do to you.

Perhaps it is troubleing to me when I see good, decent sincere people being misled by false prophets...
I understand. If the purpose of this board is to examine how mormon theology is in conflict with christian tenets, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. Mormonism clearly conflicts with every single christian sect completely and I sincerely believe that no mormon would even contest that point because they believe they can add/remove from previous scripture as needed and have done so and continue to do so. What I offered was my question of, if we can dismiss outright all mormon claims of divine revelation, why shouldn't we dismiss others biblical claims of revelation. I have gotten an answer to that question and the answer is: because mormon revelatory doctrine doesn't don't match up with the existing tenets stated in the bible. I disagree that we should presume the bible to be a historical document but I think everyone should be free to believe what they want.

I think the only middle ground both you and I and the rest of the members of this board can agree on is that mormon theology, islam theology, vishnu, thor, and horus. are all man-made. I simply go one step further and say that christian theology is also man-made even through jesus' corpse was missing and that the bible book states that people saw jesus alive after he died.

Hi f_melo, I finished listening to the audio debate you linked. Have to agree with the DJ "Good Gravy" that Dr. Miller lost the debate. Miller was wishy washy and didn't clarify why he went back on his argument about why he initially claimed that Jesus should be considered a story. It was a superstition vs. superstition debate at the core with Miller asking the audience to "think prayerfully with me" and Martin going on about how we should only confine ourselves to the "facts and evidence" but then dishonestly quoting hearsay claims as facts themselves.

The debate consisted of the two going back and forth arguing over what Paul actually claimed. Did he claim Jesus actually rose from the dead or didn't he? After the debate was finished all we're left with is the claim itself: "Paul claimed Jesus was ressurrected literally and not as a metaphor." Ok, so now even if we can decide what the claim was, still there's no evidence for the claim except for the claim itself. Martin incorrectly stated additional claims as fact when citing that others saw Jesus. Those are not facts, they are stories written hundreds of years after the event. Saying something is a fact does not make it so. Martin said, "500 people saw him alive with infallible proof." Incorrect, what he should have said was there's a book that says that 500 people saw him alive.

My favorite part was at the end when Martin admits how his position is falsifiable and what that means if it is falsified. And I quote, "If the resurrection, which is the center of it all is up for grabs, why I think we can kick out the virgin birth on the grounds it was probably devolved from mythology, we can get rid of the trinity because it came from pagan sources, we can do away with the atonement because it was borrowed from the jews." Well said.

Well, if you don´t explain why it´s going to be difficult for anyone here to actually approach you in any way, especially via the internet...
I don't think the Bible is to be considered a historical document for the very same reason you don't think the Koran should be considered a historical document. I don't think you're going to convince me to believe in anything supernatural today and I don't think I could probably get a single person on this forum to even admit at the chance that a virgin-birth or a resurrection could have possibly been made up.

This is a good article that breaks it down - http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
I read the article and I didn't find it compelling. Just because the bible says the resurrection happened is simply not good enough for me for the same reason I don't find stories in the Koran that assert Mohammad was a prophet to be convincing.

See, Mormons claim to be Christian, and hold the Bible to defend that claim. Technically we shouldn´t have separate belief systems, since we all have the same source of information about God. That´s exactly why i can point out why BY is wrong.
If the bible was absolutely clear on every point and give specific instructions on how to interpret it, then there wouldn't be thousands of other christian sects today either. Who's to say your interpretation of the bible is better than the other thousand interpretations people hold? BY clearly didn't even care if his beliefs matched the Bible, no mormons care because they believe anything their prophet says overrides the bible. To you this means BY is a fraud, to Mormons that argument is completely meaningless, to me I just see it as another evangelist making up stories to get members and a paycheck. All of my religious friends in different sects ALL say the same thing: that their church's interpretation is the correct one.

If Mormonism was independent from the Bible and did not claim to be the only correct form of Christianity, then i could actually consider your argument reasonable.
Agreed, mormonism does claim to be the only correct form of Christianity. I just think we shouldn't bash other religions for for making stuff up, because that is what all religion does. We simply disagree that the resurrection/virgin birth/water-to-wine stories/sightings-of-the-dead weren't also simply... made up.

Rick wrote:
But what you do is, you type...
Excellent, thank you!

Hi all, sorry for the off-topic question, but how do you quote another user causing their text to indent and become italicized? Thanks!

"I love how you avoided much of what I said. Is their a reason why?"

Yes, I didn't find your response helpful in contrast with the other responders who have given me some interesting things to think on. You make assumptions about me and question my answer when I straight up told you I read the Bible. I don't appreciate your accusations of me being a liar or not interested in the "truth."

When you compared the bible to a newspaper I blinked. Is that your own viewpoint or that of a religion I'm not aware of? I'm sorry but I'm not impressed with the analogy. For the record I'm not totally opposed to responding to every point you made but given what I just said and after reading the posting guidelines here I'm trying to not monopolize this forum and keep my posts short. That's why I chose to respond to the part of your post I found most relevant.

"Can I see the brain in your head? No I cannot, does that mean it does not exist simply because I cannot see it? Dont reply with, after I am dead you can cut open my head and see it, because I will reply with, after your dead you will see hell and know you were wrong."

What if I told you Vishnu real and was promising you something after you die. Would you let me use the same argument against you or would you demand some kind of evidence for that which you cannot *observe*? At what point do you set aside your demand for objective verifiable proof and accept something someone tells you? We can observe brain activity, MRIs, even open skull brain surgury. Is there another example you'd like to use?

I do not agree that the Bible is to be considered a historical document. The question of the historicity of the Exodus has long been debated, without conclusive result. Additionally, the evidence I am aware of for the resurrection is not compelling. Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "strong evidence" for Christ's resurrection?

If you want to say, that according to your personal belief system BY doesn't meet the credentials to be a prophet, you're probably right. Likely, BY would agree that by your standards he doesn't which is why he and other mormon leaders are keen on a continual-revelation system that enables them to redefine the rules and standards at a whim in order to justify their own behavior and beliefs.

I have downloaded the MP3 and will listen to it this weekend; thank you for your response.

"The Bible wasn´t written by one author alone, even though today we have it all together in a single volume. It isn´t circular reasoning at all."

Multiple authors telling each other they are correct is not evidence of their correctness. That is the definition of circular reasoning. The question remains, f_melo, how do you personally determine which books (written by men) are of a god, and why? Is it the answer you just gave: that books within the book tell you that the book is correct and so you believe it? Is it that outlandish to say I don't find that argument compelling?