Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?
Moderator: Moderators
- Kuan
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
- Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
- Contact:
Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?
Post #1So, you can probably tell I'm Mormon and I'm willing to debate my religion or answer questions. The purpose of this thread though is that I have had many people tell me I'm not Christian even though I believe in Jesus. I'm wondering why that is. Thanks for any answers!
- Burninglight
- Guru
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am
Post #131
dianaiad wrote:We really do need to rename the 'True Scott' fallacy.Burninglight wrote:Yes, what makes us true Christians is believing in Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation.
Well, you have no quarrel with Mormons in any of the above. You realize that, yes?Burninglight wrote: It is being born again; it is trusting God's grace through our faith; It is believing God when he said there was no god before me nor shall there be after me; It is believing that Jesus is the unique son of God born of a virgin and without sin; the word of God incarnate; it is making Jesus the Lord of our life not just believing in Him.
You have absolutely no idea what "Adam god" is. That's obvious by the way you brought it up. However, feel free to explain it.Burninglight wrote: It is not to believe in the Adam god.
..and we must 'worship Him in spirit and truth." Gotcha.Burninglight wrote: It is to believe God is Spirit;
I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.Burninglight wrote: It is to believe God is Holy; it is to believe that God is the Holy Spirit. [/quote\
I see. You ARE a modalist. That's supposed to be a heresy, you realize this, yes?
I'll concede that you don't think so. You are, of course, wrong about that.Burninglight wrote:Those who don't believe that are not True Biblical Christians.
Well, that leaves us out, since we don't claim that.Burninglight wrote:Mormons give the appearance of having sound Christian doctrine by the Christian terms they use, but they mean something completely different than that of the congregation of churches. IMO, it is a cult. Cults say they are the only ones doing the ministry of God;
Aren't all religious leaders?Burninglight wrote:Its leaders are only accountable to God.
Isn't that what you are saying?Burninglight wrote:They say their way is the only true way.
I'd say so, yes. Some project a great deal, as well.Burninglight wrote: Cults have pride that go along with believing this. Some are better at hiding it than others.
There's something in the Bible about new scriptures being found on golden plates?Burninglight wrote:Joseph Smith plagiarized from the KJV of the Bible saying he found golden plates.
I rather imagine that he did. After all, he, like you, believed that the KJV was to be relied upon as a good translation. So when he got to those areas in the BoM which were obviously scriptures brought with the folks who left the old lands, he decided not to reinvent the wheel, and trust to what he thought was fairly trustworthy rather than do work that had already been done. That's MY opinion of what happened, anyway.Burninglight wrote: I read some of it and could see that he copied the translational errors in the KJV.
How ironic it is that you, who claim that the bible is absolute truth and is the Word of God, are claiming that Joseph Smith shouldn't have done that because there are ERRORS in the Bible?
Which side of this argument are you taking?
Really? Where does it say that?Burninglight wrote: True Biblical Christians belief that we are all God's creation, but we are not all God's children.
So..you are claiming that Satan was literally the father of those Pharisees and scribes? Wanna tell me how that happened, exactly?Burninglight wrote: Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil to the scribes and pharisees. They are the ones with the lying pens. So God has his children and Satan has his.
Oddly enough, I disagree with you about Joseph Smith. I hate to break this to you...I'll put this as gently as I can.Burninglight wrote: Joseph Smith like Muhammad was not a confirmed prophet.
You don't get to decide that.
Uh, HUH????? Ok, you have a whole bunch of requirements that I've not heard of. Care to expound on this? Especially with some proof that these ARE requirements?Burninglight wrote: In order to be a confirmed prophet he has to be of the right ancestral line; have done a miracle or given a prophecy that happens; be confirmed by other prophets and know the name of God. Joseph Smith like Muhammad doesn't pass the test!
Why do I even try?Burninglight wrote:Mormons have a different gospel that is no gospel at all and a different Jesus to go with it. True Biblical Christians believe that in the beginning was the word (Jesus) the Word was with God and the word was God. Jesus was the word God used to speak all things into existence without Him not anything was made that was made. All things were made by Jesus for Jesus and through Jesus. God was never a man and man will never become God. God said it Himself "I know no God before me and no god shall come after me." God won't let it happen.
The book of Mormon is another testament of another Jesus; not my Jesus not our Jesus!!!
Peace to truth seekers
You said, "Well, you have no quarrel with Mormons in any of the above. You realize that, yes?" What about "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become?" That certainly goes against: "No God before me and no God after me!
You said, "You have absolutely no idea what "Adam god" is. That's obvious by the way you brought it up. However, feel free to explain it." No, I don't know what that is. I only know it is not Biblical Christianity to believe such a thing. I thought maybe you could explain why Mormons believe that or once did.
"Aren't all religious leaders?"
No, they are accountable to the congregation and eachother!
"Isn't that what you are saying?"
No, I am not saying that.
"Really? Where does it say that?" Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil to the scribes and pharisees. So God has his children and Satan has his. Do you want the Bible reference?
"So..you are claiming that Satan was literally the father of those Pharisees and scribes? Wanna tell me how that happened, exactly?"
No, where did I say I literally believe that? I believe what Jesus said!
"Oddly enough, I disagree with you about Joseph Smith. I hate to break this to you...I'll put this as gently as I can." I know, Don't feel bad about it.
"You don't get to decide that."
Yes, I do, because God showed me. Mark my words!
"Uh, HUH????? Ok, you have a whole bunch of requirements that I've not heard of. Care to expound on this? Especially with some proof that these ARE requirements?"
Every major prophet that came with an universal word for the world in the Bible has come from the right ancestral line, has been confirmed by other prophets, as done miracles or gave prophecies that came to pass. I challenge you to show me this is not the case. What I share comes with observation and study of the Scriptures.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Post #132
Burninglight wrote: I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
- Burninglight
- Guru
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am
Post #133
So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?fredonly wrote:Burninglight wrote: I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Post #134
Agnostic.Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?fredonly wrote:
The No True Scotsman Fallacy
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
- Burninglight
- Guru
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am
Post #135
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?fredonly wrote:Agnostic.Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?fredonly wrote:
The No True Scotsman Fallacy
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Post #136
There are many reported eyewitness accounts of alien encounters. For example, Barney and Betty Hill. There's also a Wikipedia article on this. There are eyewitness accounts of all the phenomena I listed. Is that enough to convince you all of them are true? They are actually first-hand accounts. Compare that evidence to that of Jesus' alleged resurrection: all we have are accounts written by unknown authors in superstitious times, decades after the alleged event, written outside the locale of the event in a language other than that spoken by the people who would theoretically have been the actual eyewitnesses. So no, eyewitness accounts of extraordinary phenomena aren't enough for me - tell me if they're enough for you. If you insist the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are convincing accounts, and you do not accept the accounts of the other phenomena - then please explain your assessment criteria.Burninglight wrote:Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?fredonly wrote:Agnostic.Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
Regarding your second question: yes, I would tend to believe my sensory input. I would need to satisfy myself that it wasn't a trick (ever see a good magician?).
- Burninglight
- Guru
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am
Post #137
You would believe it if you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears. Well then how do you know you are not imagining it or if the chemical balance in your brain is not off. I submit to you that even if you saw and heard you wouldn't believe because if you saw it alone it is not falsifiable and cannot be repeated. There are some thing in life that can only be accessed by faith. For without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't know what cause you to be agnostic, but at least I see more more for agnosticism than atheism.fredonly wrote:There are many reported eyewitness accounts of alien encounters. For example, Barney and Betty Hill. There's also a Wikipedia article on this. There are eyewitness accounts of all the phenomena I listed. Is that enough to convince you all of them are true? They are actually first-hand accounts. Compare that evidence to that of Jesus' alleged resurrection: all we have are accounts written by unknown authors in superstitious times, decades after the alleged event, written outside the locale of the event in a language other than that spoken by the people who would theoretically have been the actual eyewitnesses. So no, eyewitness accounts of extraordinary phenomena aren't enough for me - tell me if they're enough for you. If you insist the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are convincing accounts, and you do not accept the accounts of the other phenomena - then please explain your assessment criteria.Burninglight wrote:Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?fredonly wrote:Agnostic.Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
Regarding your second question: yes, I would tend to believe my sensory input. I would need to satisfy myself that it wasn't a trick (ever see a good magician?).
BTW, I have spoken to people that I had considered to be intelligent and of a sound mind, and one of them is still my friend today. They saw a space ship of some sought come up close to them. One friend rebuked it in Jesus' name, and it left, the other was knock down by it. I believe their testimony. You wouldn't, that is the difference between us!
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #138
Burninglight wrote:
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?
What eye witness accounts. What you have are CLAIMS that there are eye witness accounts. Of course, 'eye witness accounts' are not very reliable to begin with.. but you don't even have that.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Burninglight
- Guru
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am
Post #139
Jesus disciples saw Him arrested and charged with blasphemy and some of them saw him on the cross. Are you saying or denying that Jesus died on the cross? IMO, that would be tantamount to to Germans denying the holocaust happen; in fact, many of them do. Besides, I was talking about eye witnessed accounts in general. We even spoke of UFO's which I believe are demonic spiritual occurrences.Goat wrote:Burninglight wrote:
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?
What eye witness accounts. What you have are CLAIMS that there are eye witness accounts. Of course, 'eye witness accounts' are not very reliable to begin with.. but you don't even have that.
This discussion is pointless, because even if I could convince you that Jesus died on the cross, you wouldn't believe it was God's plan for our salvation which is the only message I am interested in conveying; otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in having discussion or debates on any forum with anybody. I would just go my own selfish little way and not feel an obligation to share the good news!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Post #140
Don't define my skepticism for me. I have a few properly basic beliefs, and this includes a trust in the validity of logic and a qualified trust in my senses. Regarding my sensory input, it's not a certain faith, like some people profess in God – I'm willing to hear arguments that my seeing or hearing are mistaken (that's part of being married ) If I have a chemical imbalance that is undetected, and this results in hallucinations – then so be it; I'll be in error. I'm not that extreme a skeptic – I simply have a plausibility hurdle. I gave a brief sketch of my road to agnosticism here.Burninglight wrote: You would believe it if you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears. Well then how do you know you are not imagining it or if the chemical balance in your brain is not off. I submit to you that even if you saw and heard you wouldn't believe because if you saw it alone it is not falsifiable and cannot be repeated. There are some thing in life that can only be accessed by faith. For without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't know what cause you to be agnostic, but at least I see more more for agnosticism than atheism.
You are right, I probably would not believe a friend who told me this. It is an extremely low likelihood that there is intelligent life, more scientifically advanced than our own, within a traversable distance from earth, that would somehow know to come here (we can barely detect the existence of planet around other stars), and that they would expend the resources, and undergo the risk, to travel all this way. Still, it's not impossible.BTW, I have spoken to people that I had considered to be intelligent and of a sound mind, and one of them is still my friend today. They saw a space ship of some sought come up close to them. One friend rebuked it in Jesus' name, and it left, the other was knock down by it. I believe their testimony. You wouldn't, that is the difference between us!