WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

No, I mean that the culture of the internet has a lot of anti-Christian and anti-theistic tendencies. I also mean that the academic disciplines tend to reject claims that Christians rely on.

You have avoided answering my question, answer the question. Have you read the Book of Mormon?

Ok? Islam isn't as popular in the West, nor are we as saturated with Islam in the West. Christianity is a part of Western culture though, and so most internet users, when engaging Christianity, are criticizing notable features of their own culture, not features of an outside culture. Frankly, to be totally dismissive and piss off every Islamic poster here, there is no reason going over Islam in the eyes of most as it is already considered by most readers to be false and depraved, and few people, unless they try, will even meet a muslim. If there were greater saturation of Muslim apologists, the story would be different.

I am not an atheist. I am a Theist. I have been through to seminary, and have been an Elder.

I have also studied the Bible, and have not just read it.

That's how I know what I know.

well, I probably would, regarding unconditional love, but not here

Wait, do you believe in God or gods? if so, you are a Theist, else, you are an atheist (wether weak or strong atheist)

Last edited by blunnet on 23 Apr 2011, 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You phrased your question like this: "Have you read the book of Mormon, or are you basing your information on second-hand sources?"

I stated "the book of Mormon is noted to be historically less accurate than the Bible", a statement I made based upon the fact that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually have a historical grounding on the level that the Bible does. Y'know, Paul was an actual historical person. The Old Testament was the set of cultural writings of the people of old. The book of Mormon's origins are known as being a set of tablets only seen by Joseph Smith, and only supported by Mormon theological assumptions. Establishing this does not entail the reading of any text at all, whatsoever.

In any case, I hate fundamentalists asking me questions about what I have read and what I have not read, so I will refuse to answer the question on that ground alone.

I'd probably dismiss your criticisms as useless anyway.

If the criticism is irrelevant to the discussion, yes it would be useless.

I dislike ill-informed & ill educated people who have not taken the time to study a believe system from first hand research instead of being spoon-fed other people's opinions.

Kid, I know the difference. Nowhere have I ever claimed to be an Atheist, yet people assumed as much.

This is what happens when a person questions and challenges the beliefs of others; those others assume that such questions and challenges can only be made by an Atheist, and not by a Theist who is TOTALLY FED UP WITH RELIGION!! !

Faith is one thing - the belief in unprovable things (such as the existence of God) - but religion is how people express their beliefs. Unfortunately, most people express their belief in a kind, loving, and forgiving God by being prideful, judgmental, and insufferably ignorant about what their own Holy Scriptures teach them, which is typical of 'Religionists' - those who worship their beliefs more than their God.

Atheists are cool, in that they are the least hypocritical about their (lack of) belief, and they openly recognize the lack of reason exhibited by religionists. I get along better with Atheists than most of those who claim Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, simply because I can have an intelligent conversation with them, and not have to deal with any "God Did It" explanation for everything - most Atheists I know are moral, ethical, and have a better sense of empathy toward others than most of the religionists I know, and that most especially includes Christians!

Anti-Christian? No, just anti-religion, anti-ignorance, and anti-dogma.

"The unexamined faith is not worth believing", eh? I nearly got kicked out of Seminary for using that quote as an essay title...

Personal study on sacred texts with mediation, pondering & refection on the texts I feel is good starting point of inquiry.
Then commentary on the texts can build on that knowledge.

I have over 25 years of eduction in the Mormon faith in which I spent 10 years teaching.
I haven't been active in the faith for about ten years now for personal reasons plus I changed my spiritual path I still believe in God.
How I practice my spirituality right now I which to keep private.

Over the years I have deal with many critics of Mormonism most of them have never taken the time to education themselves for the church's perspective, most of those who do are former members of the church.

I'll be very help to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who takes the time to fully research Mormonism & can back up there argument. As they will earn my respect especially if there can use sacred texts & comments from general authorities of the church to make there point.

Well, of course people have assumed. "the belief in unprovable things (such as the existence of God)" is an assertion not taken to be made by a theist, because it contradicts what people understand as Theism, thus considered an atheist assertion.

You are implying with your response that the rejection of the existence of God (you have demonstrated to hold that position) can be compatible with Theism, and how is that compatible with theism exactly?

Last edited by blunnet on 24 Apr 2011, 3:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

@leejosepho: there are patterns of logic that are considered non-subjective, and if we are not to become solipsistic we have to accept a foundation of logic somewhere.

@deaconblues: I was born into a Catholic family. Cracking open the bible and reading it as a teenager was what set me on the road to atheism, and frankly quoting parts of the bible that believers don't like to acknowledge is one of the quickest ways to be accused of a lack of respect and/or 'being mean.'

Because, and as you have said, people are merely supposing "complete and inerrant" as a matter of dogma while having no factual proof of that.