Human Sacrifice

[Snow]

Details counselor. It's all in the attention to details.

[Tr2]

You don't answer my questions. Why should I answer yours? You go off on these little trips by yourself and then get frustrated because I don't follow you. Give me a good reason why i should do something you refuse to do?

I asked you a very simple question and I'll try again. If you refuse to believe that God could have killed people, as was being discussed here, why should I believe anything else the bible has to say regarding the character of God? A large portion of God speaking to Israel in the OT was regarding taking violence to their enemies. If this is not true then why should I believe the other parts of the bible where it says God speaks to men. Or more importantly why should i believe that God speaks to your prophet? This tactic of yours is not new. Question one part of the bible and that throws the rest off. When your religion exists for the purpose of undercutting the bible I guess this is to be expected.

You answer my question and then, and only then, I'll answer yours. Am I really asking too much? Since you don't answer questions that are asked of you I don't anticipate you'll have anything to say other than some elitist comment that shows how much better you are than me.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 24 2004, 04:55 PM

Peace, let me touch up your post.

You, Peave HAVE FAITH, that YOUR interpretation of the Bible's eternal principles is perfectly sound. And, you, Peace, have a belief that God allowed or put in the errors in the Bible to serve a purpose as opposed to the errors just getting in their via mistake and/or corruption with no input or specific purpose from God.

Maybe.

Naw! I searched....I asked.....I knocked over things... and I finally found, was answered, and had things opened....

I didn't have faith ..... I just had this feeling...that there was something there I had to know...understand...

It was an absolute obsession to understand why God did a religion based upon ....what seemed at the time....an irrational premis.

What was all this stuff about kneeling to God, fearing God, pleasing God, praising God....

It was soooooo 'ego' tistical... God seemed like a real jerk ...ya know? What was all the mumbo..jumbo....why not just have a practical, rational, common sense based....cause and effect set up? Why the faith thing...why not just come down...tell us what he wanted and then grade us on our performance according to our absolute knowledge of what was expected....why was it so hard just to find out what was expected of us and why?

I was driven to know and understand why. And now I do.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 25 2004, 12:05 AM

You don't answer my questions. Why should I answer yours? You go off on these little trips by yourself and then get frustrated because I don't follow you. Give me a good reason why i should do something you refuse to do?

I asked you a very simple question and I'll try again. If you refuse to believe that God could have killed people, as was being discussed here, why should I believe anything else the bible has to say regarding the character of God? A large portion of God speaking to Israel in the OT was regarding taking violence to their enemies. If this is not true then why should I believe the other parts of the bible where it says God speaks to men. Or more importantly why should i believe that God speaks to your prophet? This tactic of yours is not new. Question one part of the bible and that throws the rest off. When your religion exists for the purpose of undercutting the bible I guess this is to be expected.

You answer my question and then, and only then, I'll answer yours. Am I really asking too much? Since you don't answer questions that are asked of you I don't anticipate you'll have anything to say other than some elitist comment that shows how much better you are than me.

Okay, if that is your issue, then I apologize, I wasn't deliberately avoiding it. I thought it was a rhetorical question.

First, I don't REFUSE to believe it. I could believe that God commanded such violence. I just have yet to be persuaded.

Second, I am aware that people get concerned that if you disregard one part of the Bible, then you start down a slippery slope and picking and chosing leads to a cobbled-together, less-than-whole gospel or moral code. An example of that would be the ordination of the gay Episcopal Bishop. Obviously they have decided that extra-marital sex and homosexuality are no longer relevant. That's dangerous. That's bad, in my opinion. So why do I pick and choose if I think it is wrong when the Episcopals pick and choose? Simply... because I pick the right things and they pick the wrong things; you do too, we all do, everyone picks and chooses but more about that later.

We don't know everything about how the Bible was compiled, but we do know a lot, especially the NT. Knowing what we know about the Bible's compilation, why should we place so much faith in it's content? If the Catholics put together a book of the apocrypha today and called it scripture, you wouldn't accept it. Why do you accept what they did 1700 years ago? They did it unders the order and auspices of a mass-murderer - Constantine. It was, for 200 years, a highly polictical process. The books that wound up in the Bible (NT) are there because they represent the beliefs of the WINNERS. There was no clear hierarchical structure to the Church, if you can call it a church. There was a struggle for power - winners and losers. If the losers had won, there would be different books in the Bible. As the Bible was taking shape in the 3rd and 4th centuries, decisions had to be made about what to include and exclude. Books were selected, not based upon scholarship (who wrote what, how old was it, how historically accurate was it) but based upon the philosophical/doctrinal alignment the books had with the people who were picking them.

Besides just compiling problems, there is copyist error and translation error. The Bible is full of them.

Beyond compilation, scribal and translation error, we have the biggest problem of all - authorship and redaction. We have NO IDEA who wrote most of the books of the OT or when they were written or who edited them, or who redacted (wove various accounts into one account) them or how that was all done and why.

Why believe something from anonymous sources?

Third, why should we accept the Bible history as literal? The Bible itself does not say that we should or shouldn't. You do. Other's don't. I am in the middle. What does the Bible have to say about it? Nothing.

Fourth, We all pick and choose what to believe.

Do you believe Paul's advice that man is better not to marry. Pure rubbish is what I say. What about divorce? Do you believe the Bible when it prohibits it? You believe Paul about faith and works but not so much for James. Who killed Goliath? The Bible say it was Elhanan. Most people disregard that and think it was David. Do you believe that Job is literal? That God made a wager with Satan? We all disregard some parts of Mosaic law but wholeheartedly accept other parts, like the 10 commandments. We all pick and choose.

Fifth, and this part applies to me, not you, we have other scripture, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP and modern prophets to clarify what is unclear in the Bible.

Sixth, If God were to command today the horrible attrocities that the Bible attributes to him, we wouldn't accept it. In fact we call people that beleive that terrorists. Why should we believe it just becasue it happened long ago and far away?

Lastly, after all the posturing, I believe the Bible, all of it. I just don't believe it the same way that you believe it.

Sorry for any typos - I have to go to Church and time is short. Does that answer your question?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 22 2004, 01:30 PM

I believe that a child or baby being killed when in a wicked city or country...is actually a blessing. When a child or babe dies before it is accountable it automatically allows that child to go to the celestial kingdom.

We forget this life isn't for this life and the purposes are all fulfilled for our best good.

This is the kind of unabashed non-sense that you get when you take religion to its absurd extremes. Babies are better off dead! Hey, let's just kill all the babies and so we can keep most of them from not making it to the "Celestial Kingdom". You go for it Peace. Just leave the rest of us out of it. You give religion a bad name.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 25 2004, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 25 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Jan 25 2004, 12:05 AM

You don't answer my questions. Why should I answer yours? You go off on these little trips by yourself and then get frustrated because I don't follow you. Give me a good reason why i should do something you refuse to do?

I asked you a very simple question and I'll try again. If you refuse to believe that God could have killed people, as was being discussed here, why should I believe anything else the bible has to say regarding the character of God? A large portion of God speaking to Israel in the OT was regarding taking violence to their enemies. If this is not true then why should I believe the other parts of the bible where it says God speaks to men. Or more importantly why should i believe that God speaks to your prophet? This tactic of yours is not new. Question one part of the bible and that throws the rest off. When your religion exists for the purpose of undercutting the bible I guess this is to be expected.

You answer my question and then, and only then, I'll answer yours.  Am I really asking too much? Since you don't answer questions that are asked of you I don't anticipate you'll have anything to say other than some elitist comment that shows how much better you are than me.

Okay, if that is your issue, then I apologize, I wasn't deliberately avoiding it. I thought it was a rhetorical question.

First, I don't REFUSE to believe it. I could believe that God commanded such violence. I just have yet to be persuaded.

Second, I am aware that people get concerned that if you disregard one part of the Bible, then you start down a slippery slope and picking and chosing leads to a cobbled-together, less-than-whole gospel or moral code. An example of that would be the ordination of the gay Episcopal Bishop. Obviously they have decided that extra-marital sex and homosexuality are no longer relevant. That's dangerous. That's bad, in my opinion. So why do I pick and choose if I think it is wrong when the Episcopals pick and choose? Simply... because I pick the right things and they pick the wrong things; you do too, we all do, everyone picks and chooses but more about that later.

We don't know everything about how the Bible was compiled, but we do know a lot, especially the NT. Knowing what we know about the Bible's compilation, why should we place so much faith in it's content? If the Catholics put together a book of the apocrypha today and called it scripture, you wouldn't accept it. Why do you accept what they did 1700 years ago? They did it unders the order and auspices of a mass-murderer - Constantine. It was, for 200 years, a highly polictical process. The books that wound up in the Bible (NT) are there because they represent the beliefs of the WINNERS. There was no clear hierarchical structure to the Church, if you can call it a church. There was a struggle for power - winners and losers. If the losers had won, there would be different books in the Bible. As the Bible was taking shape in the 3rd and 4th centuries, decisions had to be made about what to include and exclude. Books were selected, not based upon scholarship (who wrote what, how old was it, how historically accurate was it) but based upon the philosophical/doctrinal alignment the books had with the people who were picking them.

Besides just compiling problems, there is copyist error and translation error. The Bible is full of them.

Beyond compilation, scribal and translation error, we have the biggest problem of all - authorship and redaction. We have NO IDEA who wrote most of the books of the OT or when they were written or who edited them, or who redacted (wove various accounts into one account) them or how that was all done and why.

Why believe something from anonymous sources?

Third, why should we accept the Bible history as literal? The Bible itself does not say that we should or shouldn't. You do. Other's don't. I am in the middle. What does the Bible have to say about it? Nothing.

Fourth, We all pick and choose what to believe.

Do you believe Paul's advice that man is better not to marry. Pure rubbish is what I say. What about divorce? Do you believe the Bible when it prohibits it? You believe Paul about faith and works but not so much for James. Who killed Goliath? The Bible say it was Elhanan. Most people disregard that and think it was David. Do you believe that Job is literal? That God made a wager with Satan? We all disregard some parts of Mosaic law but wholeheartedly accept other parts, like the 10 commandments. We all pick and choose.

Fifth, and this part applies to me, not you, we have other scripture, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP and modern prophets to clarify what is unclear in the Bible.

Sixth, If God were to command today the horrible attrocities that the Bible attributes to him, we wouldn't accept it. In fact we call people that beleive that terrorists. Why should we believe it just becasue it happened long ago and far away?

Lastly, after all the posturing, I believe the Bible, all of it. I just don't believe it the same way that you believe it.

Sorry for any typos - I have to go to Church and time is short. Does that answer your question?

Snow-good posting. Don't forget to include the NT in your statement about not knowing who the authors of the OT books were. Except for the epsitles of Paul, (and even some of them) scholars are not sure who wrote the rest--this is especially true of the most important part of the NT, the Gospels.

[Snow]

No Cal, I won't forget. And even the purity (are they close to the originals) of the Pauline letters is unknown.

See, I have faith, but have a fair idea of what my faith is based upon.

...what's that Trident? Didn't think so.

[Cal]

Snow--I'm curious what you think of this. I have not done a ton of research on this, but enough to wonder about it.

I recently read that the archeological digs that have been done in Palestine reveal that neither the City of Nazareth nor the City of Capernaum existed at the time Jesus lived. It said that Nazareth, at the time of Jesus was only a Jewish burial ground, and that it would never have been used as a city since the Jews had taboos about building dwellings in or near burial grounds. And the Capernaum was not settled until around 70 AD or later. Have you run into this research?

[Snow]

No, sorry. Haven't heard anything about. Though I would be surprized if that were the case, I wouldn't say it is not possible.

Here's one quick test. Look at what Josh McDowell has written (Evidence Demands a Verdict) and then there is a good chance that whatever he says -- is wrong.

[Tr2]

I just have yet to be persuaded.

At least you're being honest.

In regards to what you mentioned about the gay bishop. What they have done is pick and choose what parts of the bible they are going to believe. They have made excuses as to why they shouldn't have to believe certain aspects of the bible. Whether it be mormonism, homosexuals, etc. the arguments all seem the same. There are certain beliefs that do not fit in with biblical scripture so there are reasons created why those scriptures are not relevant. I've seen it done by numerous groups. some have been rather innocent and others have been very bad. Things like LDS's word of wisdom are the smaller things. The WOW is not a biblical commandment but some treat it like it is. It isn't that bad in the long run, in fact it is probably good for you, it's just not a commandment and shouldn't be treated as such. I see the same liberities being taken now with the Old Testament scriptures. By the end of this e-mail I hope to at least convey what I think about all this. Whether you believe it or not is not my decison.

We don't know everything about how the Bible was compiled, but we do know a lot, especially the NT.

We know quite a bit about how the bible was compiled. I wish I could locate a book where I read about an Egyptian General named Moses who fought many wars and had tremendous conquest in the exact same time period that the bible says Moses was around. Those writings were in no way associated with the bible, they made no connection with the bible. It was a history book, which was very solid evidence in convincing me that the OT was not a fictional story. We know who the people were, we can track their civilization, we know where they were.

When the bible was compiled over 400 years they made no changes to the material itself. They just selected which would be included in the bible and which wouldn't. There were 4-5 main selection lists over those few hundred years. What we have now is a result of the best scholars of that day deciding which books fitted in and which didn't. Have you read all of the Aocrypha? There is a notable difference between those writingds and the bible. We have talked about the apocrypha before and why it's not in the bible so we don't need to go there again. No book has been scrutinized (sp?) like the bible has.

Besides just compiling problems, there is copyist error and translation error. The Bible is full of them.

That is why we have around 50 translations of the bible. Whenever I need to understand something I go through the major ones and figure out what they were trying to say.

Books were selected, not based upon scholarship (who wrote what, how old was it, how historically accurate was it) but based upon the philosophical/doctrinal alignment the books had with the people who were picking them.

The books were chosen based on how they matched up to the rest of them. With the OT, there were so many books telling the same story. 2 people telling the same story is a good indication that it actually happened.

Why believe something from anonymous sources?

I don't. Most of the bible's books have a distinct author. That is based on the author's writing style, who would have kept historical records at that time. There are a lot of ways to figure out that ..... wrote the book of.....

Do you believe Paul's advice that man is better not to marry.

Now you're trying to compare the OT to the NT in writing style. Most of the OT and the Gospels are historical accounts of what happened. All of Paul's writings were written for specific people at a specific time period addressing specific problems. If Paul's adivce was not to marry, thenI thik that was the best for the people he was writing to. If you wrote a letter to your wife and somebody got hold of it and made it universal, it wouldn't work for everybody because not everybody has the same relationship strengths/weaknesses as you and your wife.

Third, why should we accept the Bible history as literal?

I accept historical literature as literate.

Fourth, We all pick and choose what to believe.

Yes, we pick godly and ungodly beliefs to have.

Fifth, and this part applies to me, not you, we have other scripture, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP and modern prophets to clarify what is unclear in the Bible.

But you have never applied the same level of criticism to the BoM, D/C, POGP that you have applied to the bible. I know that because they couldn't hold up to a fraction of what you put the bible through.

Sixth, If God were to command today the horrible attrocities that the Bible attributes to him, we wouldn't accept it. In fact we call people that beleive that terrorists. Why should we believe it just becasue it happened long ago and far away?

We wouldn't accept that? We would have no choice! What would we do about it? People could do nothing more than pout and say "this is not fair".

Based on what you wrote is appears as though you do not have all the facts at your disposal, or are just choosing to ignore them. I find it funny that a some can have such objections to the bible yet so readily believe the BoM. It makes me laugh.

[Guest antishock82003]

It's like talking to the dumbest person on earth...ugh...

[Tr2]

I notice how it's the dumb ones who have the discussions and the smart ones who avoid them. I guess it is smart to stay away from a discussion in which you have nothing to say.

You have no place is this discussion, just keep moving.

[Snow]

The WOW is not a biblical commandment but some treat it like it is. It isn't that bad in the long run, in fact it is probably good for you, it's just not a commandment and shouldn't be treated as such.

Trident,

Try seeing through LDS lenses for a change. To us, modern scripture is just he same as ancient scripture. It’s no different except we know who wrote it and when and that there is much, much less problem with translation and scribal errors.

It was a history book, which was very solid evidence in convincing me that the OT was not a fictional story. We know who the people were, we can track their civilization, we know where they were.

I agree that it contains historical material but it does not meet the criteria or real, unbiased, verifiable history. Even Jewish Rabbis are now forced to deal with it:

http://senrs.com/as_rabbis_face_facts,_bib...are_wilting.htm

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting

March 9, 2002 -- Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions — the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years — have gained wide acceptance among non- Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity — until now.

When the bible was compiled over 400 years they made no changes to the material itself. They just selected which would be included in the bible and which wouldn't.

We know that the OT reached its current form in the years after 600 BCE, and that since that time the Jews were renowned for the care they placed in accurate copying, though there were far from perfect. We have no idea what the original texts were like nor indeed the oral traditions from whence the texts were taken. As for the NT, once the manuscripts were widely circulated, they became very difficult to either deliberately or mistakenly alter. We have no idea about the original manuscripts prior to the middle of the 2nd century or about the oral storys that predate them. In the early Christian church, oral tradition was the rule of the day, not written materials, it is not like someone took notes during the Sermon on the Mount. The accounts were written decades (lots of them) after the fact.

Most of the bible's books have a distinct author.

Maybe, maybe not. All books have a traditional author assigned to them but beyond a very few of the Bible books, the real author (and in many OT books - authorS), is/are unknown and at this point unknowable. This is not really a disputed point Trident. We just don’t know who wrote them. We only have tradition.

>>>>Do you believe Paul's advice that man is better not to marry.

Now you're trying to compare the OT to the NT in writing style. Most of the OT and the Gospels are historical accounts of what happened. All of Paul's writings were written for specific people at a specific time period addressing specific problems. If Paul's adivce was not to marry, thenI thik that was the best for the people he was writing to. If you wrote a letter to your wife and somebody got hold of it and made it universal, it wouldn't work for everybody because not everybody has the same relationship strengths/weaknesses as you and your wife.

I’m not talking about style, I am talking content. Paul’s advice, not private, but to the church at Corinth was that it was best that man and woman, all men and women, not marry, unless they cannot keep themselves chaste, and then only to marry as a last resort; not just to not marry, but that man, in general, should not even touch a woman.

I think that is nonsense and you probably agree; the point being that everyone picks and chooses what from the Bible they are going to believe and how they are going to interpret it.

But you have never applied the same level of criticism to the BoM, D/C, POGP that you have applied to the bible.

Yes, that’s right, I don’t. Two points: 1. I acknowledge that LDS scriptures are subject to criticism. I could criticize but from a debater’s perspective, there is no upside for me. I occasionally get involved with those discussions, but not often, I am just not motivated, so in that regard, you have a point. 2. LDS scriptures are not necessarily subject to the same type of criticism as the Bible. For example with the D&C... we know who wrote it, we know what the original text said, there is little or no scribal error, no translation error, no redaction issue, no canonization/compilation controversy, no archeological dispute, no taxinomical errors, no scientific errors (that I know of), no disputed historical material, no mathematical errors, no borrowed myth, no internal consistency error (that I know of), etc, as are readily found in the bible. The only problems I acknowledge MAY exist are doctrinal (and that’s just subjective) and common sense or logical difficulties.

>>>>Sixth, If God were to command today the horrible attrocities that the Bible attributes to him, we wouldn't accept it. In fact we call people that beleive that terrorists. Why should we believe it just becasue it happened long ago and far away?

We wouldn't accept that? We would have no choice! What would we do about it?

What would we do? If Utah Mormons announced that God had commanded them to invade Wyoming, kill the men and married women, kidnap and rape the virgins, kidnap the children and steal the Cattle... what do you think we would do? We would mobilize the troops and put down the terrorism with extreme prejudice.

Thanks for your responses.

[Guest bat]

Try seeing through LDS lenses for a change. To us, modern scripture is just he same as ancient scripture. It’s no different except we know who wrote it and when and that there is much, much less problem with translation and scribal errors

Because we have the originals to compare it to, and they match up precisely.....

[Tr2]

Try seeing through LDS lenses for a change. To us, modern scripture is just he same as ancient scripture. It’s no different except we know who wrote it and when and that there is much, much less problem with translation and scribal errors.

Why should I believe LDS scriptures? There is no historical basis for it, we don't know where it comes from, considering it is 200 years old there is no good reason why we should not have originals to compare the writings to.

So because a few Rabbi's don't believe the OT that mkaes it so? They do not speak for me, nor countless other scholars who do not agree with them.

I’m not talking about style, I am talking content. Paul’s advice, not private, but to the church at Corinth was that it was best that man and woman, all men and women, not marry, unless they cannot keep themselves chaste, and then only to marry as a last resort; not just to not marry, but that man, in general, should not even touch a woman.

You fail to understand that Paul was not speaking to the United States of America in 2004. He would have addressed other CULTURAL-SPECIFIC-ISSUES (which is entirely what he did). If I were to write a letter to George Bush regarding what I thought he was to do, and you got hold of it and applied those words to your life, that would be stupid because I was not talking to you in the first place. The OT and NT were written entirely different. How many times do I have to say that?

Yes, that’s right, I don’t

Then that is hypocritical. You will not subject your own beliefs to facts. You are living in a dream world.

If Utah Mormons announced that God had commanded them to invade Wyoming, kill the men and married women, kidnap and rape the virgins, kidnap the children and steal the Cattle... what do you think we would do?

You would have a tough tiem justifying that based on the following facts:

1) God speaks to modern man through biblical scriuptures. Using the NT, it is impossible to justify that.

2) In the OT God spoke in person directly to the people.

Things in 2004 are not the same as they were in the OT. They cannot be compared because things are so different. You need to stop comparing these two very different cultures as though the same logic still applies.

[Snow]

Why should I believe LDS scriptures? There is no historical basis for it, we don't know where it comes from,

Trident,

I know what you may be trying to say, but what you wound up saying is just plain wrong. Of course there is a real, verified, witnessed and recorded history to LDS scriptures. We know who wrote, where it was written, when it was written, what the events surrounding it, etc. Something tells me that you don’t know the difference between the BoM and the D&C or the Book of Moses for that matter. Sorry, I am particular in my arguments. What you are saying, and trying to say doesn’t make sense.

So because a few Rabbi's don't believe the OT that mkaes it so? They do not speak for me, nor countless other scholars who do not agree with them.

Trident,

It is not just a few Rabbi’s. It is widespread. What it means is that the most educated Jews are now forced to deal with the “history” of their people in a realistic way that conforms to the known facts. Did you know that among Christians, the more educated you are in theology, the more likely it is that you will less and less view the Bible as literal and infallible?

Education on the topic leads to a less childlike view of the Bible.

You fail to understand that Paul was not speaking to the United States of America in 2004. He would have addressed other CULTURAL-SPECIFIC-ISSUES (which is entirely what he did). If I were to write a letter to George Bush regarding what I thought he was to do, and you got hold of it and applied those words to your life, that would be stupid because I was not talking to you in the first place. The OT and NT were written entirely different. How many times do I have to say that?

I bet you already know that argument has no traction. Why worry about the 10 commandment or the two great commandments if we are to follow your logic? Paul didn’t qualify his message. It was universal. By the way, Peter taught the same thing after Christ death - man is not to marry - it didn’t go so well for him.

In my opinion, be you a modern day Canuck or an ancient Jew, marriage is ordained of God.

>>>Yes, that’s right, I don’t.

Then that is hypocritical. You will not subject your own beliefs to facts. You are living in a dream world.

Sorry Trident but I know the definition of hypocrisy and that ain’t it. At worst it is selective criticism, but it is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if I criticized the Bible in a way that did not reflect my real beliefs toward it. You might have a case if you were to charge me with that.

You would have a tough tiem justifying that based on the following facts:

1) God speaks to modern man through biblical scriuptures. Using the NT, it is impossible to justify that.

2) In the OT God spoke in person directly to the people.

Those aren’t FACTS. Those are BELIEFS. I know of no good reason for me to accept your beliefs. In fact, I find that your beliefs on this topic are completely unbiblical. Check Amos 3:7. Since we both agree that God is doing something that must mean that he is also revealing his word to the prophets. Anyway, what kind of thinking is that? God used to talk to man, now he can’t, you have to read the book.

When Christ returns, are you going to tell him to keep quiet as God no longer talk to us?

Limiting God’s ability to speak based upon your interpretation of an ancient copy of an ancient manyscript might not really make much difference to God.

[Tr2]

Of course there is a real, verified, witnessed and recorded history to LDS scriptures.

Are you keeping that information from the rest of us?

It is not just a few Rabbi’s. It is widespread.

I'm just guessing that there are more athiests in the world than Rabbi's who feel that way. I didn't realized just because people had an opinion that made it right.

Did you know that among Christians, the more educated you are in theology, the more likely it is that you will less and less view the Bible as literal and infallible?

I do know that the more educated people are, the less Christianity is about having a relationship with God. I can't name many scholars who can describe the relationship they have with God.

Why worry about the 10 commandment or the two great commandments if we are to follow your logic?

The 10 commandments were God's laws to civilization. Paul's letters were not. Do you ever wonder why Paul spoke of the major issues of those civilizations and why he was so specific? Since this is your train of thought, every time I speak to another person on this board will you think I am speaking to you?

Sorry Trident but I know the definition of hypocrisy and that ain’t it. At worst it is selective criticism, but it is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if I criticized the Bible in a way that did not reflect my real beliefs toward it. You might have a case if you were to charge me with that.

Don't worry, you don't have to explain why you won't dare look at mormon doctrine and literature the same way you look at the bible. You are so scared of learning truth that you'd rather not know. I can't imagine living like that. IF mormonism was wrong, wouldn't you want to know about it?

So who is a prophet? A group of men decided that GBH was a prophet. The lifestyles of the OT prophets made it obvious who the prophets were. I agree that God speaks to prophets, I just want to know who they are.

Limiting God’s ability to speak based upon your interpretation of an ancient copy of an ancient manyscript might not really make much difference to God.

No I should just claim all these visitations by angels, come up with a book that nobody knows the origins to and nobody can prove the existance of, and say "this is what God wants". I think I've got this cult thing down now.

[Snow]

>>>Of course there is a real, verified, witnessed and recorded history to LDS scriptures.

Are you keeping that information from the rest of us?

Geeze Trident, it’s not like you haven’t been posting on an LDS message board for 3 or 4 years and don’t know where to find LDS scriptures (www.lds.org)

Take D&C section 54. It was written in June of 1831 at Kirtland Ohio and was directed to Newel Knight and concerned questions from the branch at Thompson Ohio. The full details can be found in the Hx of the Church Vol. 1 page 180. Unlike, say, the story of Issac in the Bible, the place is known and verfied, as is the date, and the people and the author, and we have, at minimum, the original printed text, perhaps even the original manuscript.

That doesn’t mean it came from God any more than the fact that Matthew is in the Bible means it came from God, but as verifiable history, the Bible can’t hold a candle to it.

>>>I do know that the more educated people are, the less Christianity is about having a relationship with God.

I can't name many scholars who can describe the relationship they have with God.

I’m not talking about scholars. I am talking about ordained ministers and seminary students. They are much less likely, according to studies, to believe in a literal and inerrant Bible than are the lay members of their denominations.

However, if we were to address your point about scholars; as christians become more educated their belief in God goes down. However the reverse is true of Mormons. The better educated they are, the firmer they report is their faith in God. And specifically to your point, the LDS Church is loaded with high caliber scholars who profess a deep and abiding relationship with God.

The 10 commandments were God's laws to civilization. Paul's letters were not.

Whatever Trident. I know you can’t offer any argument or evidence from the text to support that contention so I’ll let it alone.

Don't worry, you don't have to explain why you won't dare look at mormon doctrine and literature the same way you look at the bible. You are so scared of learning truth that you'd rather not know. I can't imagine living like that. IF mormonism was wrong, wouldn't you want to know about it?

You’re flat out wrong. I know more “critical” information about the Church and have read more “anti” literature and books than you even know exist; more than anybody else on this board save 1 or 2 (3 tops) of anybody who has posted here. There is no negative thing about the Church you know, that I don’t know more about. That is not a challenge you could ever win. Right now, in front of and behind me in my library, I have more anti-Mormon information than most so-called christian bookstore that are low-life enough to sell the stuff will ever carry.

So who is a prophet? A group of men decided that GBH was a prophet.

Nope. God decides who is or isn’t a prophet. The Quorum of the 12 ordained him as such and the body of the Church sustained him, but without God’s authority it means nothing.

The lifestyles of the OT prophets made it obvious who the prophets were.

Pure nonsense. You have no idea what the lifestyles of the OT prophets were. All you know is what tiny, meager bit of information are carried forward after centuries of oral tradition captured and recorded by unknow authors (who’s orginal work is lost) at an unknown place and time. Even if you accept the Bible’s paltry report, I hardly think that what it says about some of the lifestyles of the prophets make them seem like obvious choice as prophets.

What do you think of a man who claims that God told him to murder his son and then fully intended to go through with it. We don’t call those types prophets. We call those types “now serving a life term in the state mental hospital for the criminally insane.”

What about a guy that gets drunk, gets seen naked by his son and then instead of being mad at his son, curses his son’s son to become “the lowest of slaves”

Are you under the impression that prophets are drunks and promote slavery and curse the innocent? Did you know that in Leviticus “uncover nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual relations and that Cannan (Cannan was the the one that was cursed) were later considered by the Israelites to engage in perverse (homosexual) relations. the implication and interpretation being that Cannan saw Noah in a homosexual act.

Does that sound like a prophet to you? What then was your point?

No I should just claim all these visitations by angels, come up with a book that nobody knows the origins to and nobody can prove the existance of, and say "this is what God wants". I think I've got this cult thing down now.

People in house made out of glass that are famous for being slain in the spirit, holy laughter, and having their mouths bless with gold fillings might not want to throw so many “cult” stones. You had been doing so well lately.

[Tr2]

I know about the various things that Joseph Smith penned. I'm not concerned about that. My comment was directed at the historical writings about ancient civilizations. That history is the one that I want to see verified and proven. I would also like some verification about these gold plates that vanished into thin air before any objective person could view them. It seems very convenient to me.

I am talking about ordained ministers and seminary students.

Who? People who have spent their entire Christian lives with their heads buried in books and not experiencing what God really has? Of course they would learn to find fault with it. Christianity is a very poor religion when you do not experience the life that Jesus died to give you. I know that if it wasn't for certain life experiences I would never be able to accept much of the bible.

I think many scholars have contributed wonderfully to Christianity over the years. However anyone who doesn't have a real-experiential relationship with Christ, their opinions do not interest me greatly. If somebody came along and wrote a book about fatherhood, yet had no children or child raising experience, would you accept their opinions about what you should be doing? To a very large degree you would not. Credibility is the biggest thing here. Much of Christianity you have to experience outside of the literature.

I know you can’t offer any argument or evidence from the text to support that contention so I’ll let it alone.

I guess you failed to read this in your bible, "Paul's letter to.......". If i were to write a letter "Trident's letter to snow", who do you think that would be intended for? i don't know why you are failing to understand this, it is not very difficult.

Nope. God decides who is or isn’t a prophet. The Quorum of the 12 ordained him as such and the body of the Church sustained him, but without God’s authority it means nothing.

Why should I believe he is a prophet? Convince me.

Does that sound like a prophet to you? What then was your point?

I wouldn't have chosen them to be. However you can clearly see that God chosen them and set them apart. You can't honestly say somebody like Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah or Isaiah was not set apatt from everybody else. If so then I don't think there is any point in discussing this further because you cannot see the obvious.

There is no negative thing about the Church you know, that I don’t know more about

But you dismissed it before you ever read it in the first place. I can guarantee that you have never taken an honest look at it. Never examined LDS literature as closely as you have the bible. I think that you'd rather just not know if your religion is a sham. It's easier that way. If you ever went through your own literature the same way you went through the bible, you would dismiss mormonism very quickly. There may be holes in the bible, but nowhere near the holes that are in mormonism.

People in house made out of glass that are famous for being slain in the spirit, holy laughter, and having their mouths bless with gold fillings might not want to throw so many “cult” stones. You had been doing so well lately.

So you cannot defend your point, so you just ignore what I say and counter-attack. Typical.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 21 2004, 12:44 PM

Human Sacrifice has always been a fascinating but repulsive topic to me. I've felt grateful that I don't worship a God who requires it. Or does He? The Old Testament contains several instances where the Israelites are commanded (supposedly by God) to forcibly take cities and destroy all of their inhabitants including innocent children and babies. I don't believe believe this for several reasons, but to those on the board who literally believe the Old Testament stories: How do you reconcile this in your minds?

I don't believe that God ever demanded those killings. God was used to justify the invasion of Canaan and the slaughter of its people. History is written by the winners.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 27 2004, 07:44 AM

It's like talking to the dumbest person on earth...ugh...

Arrrgh.

[Cal]

I'm curious. Do any of the TBM's on this site (like Ray, Peace or AFD) think God ordered human sacrifice?

[Snow]

Oh, oh.

Try and make us look good guys.