Book of Mormon

[Furrowed Brow]

Recently saw the Book of Mormon in London (expensive tickets....ouch!). It received a very warm standing ovation and I really enjoyed it. (Maybe not £160 enjoyed it but enjoy it I did).

But is the Book of Mormon picking on easy targets? Is there a more restrained and politely civil religion than Mormonism. But not all are so nice to their detractors.

Is the New Testament too hot to mock? I don't think the Life of Brian mocked the NT, or if it did, not in the full on way the BoT gets its teeth into the BoT. If the Book of Mormon had been the Book of the NT would it have even been allowed to open? Would there be a backlash if it had?

Clearly in present times the Qur'an is too hot unless the writers wanted to spend the rest of their life in hiding with a body guard. True the writers of South Park did put Mohammad in a bear suit, but that is about as far as they dare push it. (Drawing a bear and saying Mohammed was inside it). Can we dream of a day when irreverence breaks out in Islam and Mohammad can come out the bear suit?

Or for the time being are we - of an irreverent nature - going to restrict our mockery to the oh so polite religions and turn a little pale in the face of the more forceful religions.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe the Book of Mormon mocks the Bible and is Satan's attempt at cheapening the validity of inspired scripture...

But, to be fair, you believe a lot of things that shouldn't be taken seriously, wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes ---- I once believed that Nixon would make a fine President. I'm only human..

Seems it didn't end there, though, did it? For example, don't you believe in a dying and rising savior?

I believe Jesus is GOD who took on flesh and came to pay the penalty for sins of all who will believe on HIM. Don't you believe you will die some day? soon?

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Are you not a little aware that you are spouting religious dogma, and that you have no evidence for any of it being true?

As for death. Yes, it comes to all living things - even you. Choose wisely how you want to spend this one life before you slip into the Long Dark.

I have a SAVIOR, and you seem to have an excuse ---- that there is no life after death. Choose wisely...

No, people tell you you have a savior. That's different from reality. Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Time on this finite existence is running out and you are chasing ghosts.

[LittleNipper]

I believe the Book of Mormon mocks the Bible and is Satan's attempt at cheapening the validity of inspired scripture...

But, to be fair, you believe a lot of things that shouldn't be taken seriously, wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes ---- I once believed that Nixon would make a fine President. I'm only human..

Seems it didn't end there, though, did it? For example, don't you believe in a dying and rising savior?

I believe Jesus is GOD who took on flesh and came to pay the penalty for sins of all who will believe on HIM. Don't you believe you will die some day? soon?

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Are you not a little aware that you are spouting religious dogma, and that you have no evidence for any of it being true?

As for death. Yes, it comes to all living things - even you. Choose wisely how you want to spend this one life before you slip into the Long Dark.

I have a SAVIOR, and you seem to have an excuse ---- that there is no life after death. Choose wisely...

No, people tell you you have a savior. That's different from reality. Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Time on this finite existence is running out and you are chasing ghosts.

People told you there is no GOD. That's different from reality.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe the Book of Mormon mocks the Bible and is Satan's attempt at cheapening the validity of inspired scripture...

But, to be fair, you believe a lot of things that shouldn't be taken seriously, wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes ---- I once believed that Nixon would make a fine President. I'm only human..

Seems it didn't end there, though, did it? For example, don't you believe in a dying and rising savior?

I believe Jesus is GOD who took on flesh and came to pay the penalty for sins of all who will believe on HIM. Don't you believe you will die some day? soon?

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Are you not a little aware that you are spouting religious dogma, and that you have no evidence for any of it being true?

As for death. Yes, it comes to all living things - even you. Choose wisely how you want to spend this one life before you slip into the Long Dark.

I have a SAVIOR, and you seem to have an excuse ---- that there is no life after death. Choose wisely...

No, people tell you you have a savior. That's different from reality. Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Time on this finite existence is running out and you are chasing ghosts.

People told you there is no GOD. That's different from reality.

We all know the evidence is on my side, not yours. God hasn't contacted you, God hasn't made itself available to people, God hasn't revealed itself - ever. Just stories from Men saying it has.
And, which God? There have been thousands over the course of human history.
A Mayan would answer exactly the same as you. They would believe in gods, believe they have a savior, believe he was born of a virgin, believe he was the mediator between the divine and profane...

Like Christ, Quetzalcoatl is born of a virgin, the goddess Coatlique, and is a great teacher of civilization. Also like Jesus, Quetzalcoatl strikes down the Prince of Darkness and Evil (Tezcatlipoca), who attempts to deceive mankind. The Aztec godman descends into the underworld, where he “gathers the bones of the human beings of the previous epochs,” while, in the apocryphal text [The Gospel of Nicodemus], Christ resurrects several kings and prophets of previous epochs out of the underworld. Quetzalcoatl’s blood is used to convey life to the humans whose bones he saved, while Christ’s blood delivers eternal life and saves humans from death.

Quetzalcoatl became the “second sun,” while Jesus is the “sun of righteousness” arising with healing on his wings. (Mal 4:3) Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl are identified with the morning star. Quetzalcoatl also represents one of the four cardinal points, one of four “brothers,” while Christ has four brothers (Mt 13:55).

Both figures are depicted as light-skinned and bearded, and it is claimed of both that they will return to vanquish their enemies. Jesus came with a sword and threatened to bring chaos to the earth, while Quetzalcoatl “caused a rain of fire to devastate the earth, drying up all the rivers and destroying man…” Quetzalcoatl’s acts are also similar to several of the Jewish god Yahweh’s in Genesis, for example.

Also like Jesus, who identifies himself (Jn 3:14-15) with the serpent Moses raised up at Numbers 21:0, Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan are identified with the serpent, a relationship dramatically reflected at Kukulkan’s temple at Chichen Itza.

These contentions are all cited using modern research such as can be found in National Geographic Essential Visual History of World Mythology (391), articles on Wiki, which have been vetted for accuracy, and primary sources wherever possible. There are many more such correspondences, in fact, that can be verified in the same manner, validating the scholarship of older sources such as in my books Christ Con and Suns of God.

Virgin Birth?

As concerns the virgin birth, it is clear that such a concept was understood to have been applied to a “priest-king” named Quetzalcoatl. Based on the abundantly pervasive concept of the virgin birth found elsewhere, as well as the fact that kings, priests and other “authorities” have frequently been identified with or as gods, it is logical to suggest that the attribute attached to the supposed “king” Quetzalcoatl was also that of the god.

In his book Living Myths: How Myth Gives Meaning to Human Experience, under the entry “The Story of Quetzalcoatl: The Hero Becomes a God,” classical scholar J.F. Bierlein summarizes this issue:

Quetzalcoatl was many things: (1) a historical personage – a great priest-king and religious reformer who lived in approximately the tenth century A.D….; (2) a god of the winds, the sun, and the planet Venus; (3) the cultural hero and expected “messiah” of the pre-Columbian Mexicans; and (4) a god-hero who served as patron of the arts, writing and the cultivation of maize. These identities became fused together over time.

Concerning the birth of this composite figure, Bierlein further states:

There are several stories regarding the birth of Quetzalcoatl. One version has him born of a virgin named Chimalman, to whom the supreme god, Onteotl (the Great Father-Mother) appeared in a dream. Onteotl showed his/her face to Chimalman and her two sisters. The two sisters died instantly from the gaze, but Chimalman, pure of heart, survived and conceived a son, Quetzalcoatl. In another version, the virgin Chimalman swallows a sacred piece of jade and conceives Quetzalcoatl.

A third story of Quetzalcoatl’s birth is directly tied to his identify as a deity of the sun and planet Venus. In this story, Quetzalcoatl is the son of a mother who already has four thousand children who have left her and now form the stars of the Milky Way. This mother was saddened to be alone and have her children so far from her bosom. She began to weep from longing. Onteotl took pity on her in her loneliness and caused a feather of the sacred quetzal bird to drift…

Some of the pertinent information concerning Quetzalcoatl’s virgin birth can be found in the Codices Telleriano-Remensis and Vaticanus A, folio 27v, from a Spanish commentator, Pedro de los Rios.

Once more, many of these commonalities between Christ and Quetzalcoatl were remarked upon by the first non-native chroniclers, not a few of whom were so mortified to find basically their entire religion among the “savages” that they felt the need to destroy thousands of Mesoamerican writings and artifacts.

Again, for those who are interested in this fascinating information, I raise this issue because it exists and is part of the comparative religion I wish to share. And again, for my Christ Con revision, I will discuss the reasons behind these astonishingly detailed correspondences. One of these reasons, I have suggested repeatedly, is because these mythical motifs represent astronomical and natural phenomena observable globally, but some of the intricate details may serve as evidence of some type of post-Beringian and pre-Columbian contact between the Old and New Worlds.

https://stellarhousepublishing.com/our- ... tzalcoatl/

So, it's not amazing that the beliefs you have exist, it's amazing that people still believe them - given the lack of evidence for God and the vast evidence for so many Gods coming and going throughout human history.

[LittleNipper]

I believe the Book of Mormon mocks the Bible and is Satan's attempt at cheapening the validity of inspired scripture...

But, to be fair, you believe a lot of things that shouldn't be taken seriously, wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes ---- I once believed that Nixon would make a fine President. I'm only human..

Seems it didn't end there, though, did it? For example, don't you believe in a dying and rising savior?

I believe Jesus is GOD who took on flesh and came to pay the penalty for sins of all who will believe on HIM. Don't you believe you will die some day? soon?

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Are you not a little aware that you are spouting religious dogma, and that you have no evidence for any of it being true?

As for death. Yes, it comes to all living things - even you. Choose wisely how you want to spend this one life before you slip into the Long Dark.

I have a SAVIOR, and you seem to have an excuse ---- that there is no life after death. Choose wisely...

No, people tell you you have a savior. That's different from reality. Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Time on this finite existence is running out and you are chasing ghosts.

People told you there is no GOD. That's different from reality.

We all know the evidence is on my side, not yours. God hasn't contacted you, God hasn't made itself available to people, God hasn't revealed itself - ever. Just stories from Men saying it has.
And, which God? There have been thousands over the course of human history.
A Mayan would answer exactly the same as you. They would believe in gods, believe they have a savior, believe he was born of a virgin, believe he was the mediator between the divine and profane...

Like Christ, Quetzalcoatl is born of a virgin, the goddess Coatlique, and is a great teacher of civilization. Also like Jesus, Quetzalcoatl strikes down the Prince of Darkness and Evil (Tezcatlipoca), who attempts to deceive mankind. The Aztec godman descends into the underworld, where he “gathers the bones of the human beings of the previous epochs,” while, in the apocryphal text [The Gospel of Nicodemus], Christ resurrects several kings and prophets of previous epochs out of the underworld. Quetzalcoatl’s blood is used to convey life to the humans whose bones he saved, while Christ’s blood delivers eternal life and saves humans from death.

Quetzalcoatl became the “second sun,” while Jesus is the “sun of righteousness” arising with healing on his wings. (Mal 4:3) Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl are identified with the morning star. Quetzalcoatl also represents one of the four cardinal points, one of four “brothers,” while Christ has four brothers (Mt 13:55).

Both figures are depicted as light-skinned and bearded, and it is claimed of both that they will return to vanquish their enemies. Jesus came with a sword and threatened to bring chaos to the earth, while Quetzalcoatl “caused a rain of fire to devastate the earth, drying up all the rivers and destroying man…” Quetzalcoatl’s acts are also similar to several of the Jewish god Yahweh’s in Genesis, for example.

Also like Jesus, who identifies himself (Jn 3:14-15) with the serpent Moses raised up at Numbers 21:0, Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan are identified with the serpent, a relationship dramatically reflected at Kukulkan’s temple at Chichen Itza.

These contentions are all cited using modern research such as can be found in National Geographic Essential Visual History of World Mythology (391), articles on Wiki, which have been vetted for accuracy, and primary sources wherever possible. There are many more such correspondences, in fact, that can be verified in the same manner, validating the scholarship of older sources such as in my books Christ Con and Suns of God.

Virgin Birth?

As concerns the virgin birth, it is clear that such a concept was understood to have been applied to a “priest-king” named Quetzalcoatl. Based on the abundantly pervasive concept of the virgin birth found elsewhere, as well as the fact that kings, priests and other “authorities” have frequently been identified with or as gods, it is logical to suggest that the attribute attached to the supposed “king” Quetzalcoatl was also that of the god.

In his book Living Myths: How Myth Gives Meaning to Human Experience, under the entry “The Story of Quetzalcoatl: The Hero Becomes a God,” classical scholar J.F. Bierlein summarizes this issue:

Quetzalcoatl was many things: (1) a historical personage – a great priest-king and religious reformer who lived in approximately the tenth century A.D….; (2) a god of the winds, the sun, and the planet Venus; (3) the cultural hero and expected “messiah” of the pre-Columbian Mexicans; and (4) a god-hero who served as patron of the arts, writing and the cultivation of maize. These identities became fused together over time.

Concerning the birth of this composite figure, Bierlein further states:

There are several stories regarding the birth of Quetzalcoatl. One version has him born of a virgin named Chimalman, to whom the supreme god, Onteotl (the Great Father-Mother) appeared in a dream. Onteotl showed his/her face to Chimalman and her two sisters. The two sisters died instantly from the gaze, but Chimalman, pure of heart, survived and conceived a son, Quetzalcoatl. In another version, the virgin Chimalman swallows a sacred piece of jade and conceives Quetzalcoatl.

A third story of Quetzalcoatl’s birth is directly tied to his identify as a deity of the sun and planet Venus. In this story, Quetzalcoatl is the son of a mother who already has four thousand children who have left her and now form the stars of the Milky Way. This mother was saddened to be alone and have her children so far from her bosom. She began to weep from longing. Onteotl took pity on her in her loneliness and caused a feather of the sacred quetzal bird to drift…

Some of the pertinent information concerning Quetzalcoatl’s virgin birth can be found in the Codices Telleriano-Remensis and Vaticanus A, folio 27v, from a Spanish commentator, Pedro de los Rios.

Once more, many of these commonalities between Christ and Quetzalcoatl were remarked upon by the first non-native chroniclers, not a few of whom were so mortified to find basically their entire religion among the “savages” that they felt the need to destroy thousands of Mesoamerican writings and artifacts.

Again, for those who are interested in this fascinating information, I raise this issue because it exists and is part of the comparative religion I wish to share. And again, for my Christ Con revision, I will discuss the reasons behind these astonishingly detailed correspondences. One of these reasons, I have suggested repeatedly, is because these mythical motifs represent astronomical and natural phenomena observable globally, but some of the intricate details may serve as evidence of some type of post-Beringian and pre-Columbian contact between the Old and New Worlds.

https://stellarhousepublishing.com/our- ... tzalcoatl/

So, it's not amazing that the beliefs you have exist, it's amazing that people still believe them - given the lack of evidence for God and the vast evidence for so many Gods coming and going throughout human history.

So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers? And why is that scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube? The evidence is supportive of me rather than you.

[boatsnguitars]

So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers? And why is that scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube? The evidence is supportive of me rather than you.

Thank you for confirming, once again, that I made the right choice to leave the Church and it's silly thinking behind. I am sorry you can't recognize how silly your statements are. In fact, I would bet you thought they are clever. They aren't.

I fear, however, that since you can't recognize your responses are silly, that any attempt to explain it to you would not register, as would explaining calculus to a gerbil. Would you like me to try to get you to understand why your responses are silly, even from a religious point of view - or do you prefer to believe what you believe and demand that I honor your beliefs, as flawed as they are? I don't believe you to be dumb - I just feel that religion has made you appear to support dumb arguments.

edit: I've decided to do a public service.

The statement you provided contains two arguments:

The first: "So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers?" is an example of a rhetorical question fallacy. This fallacy involves asking a question not for the purpose of seeking an answer but to make a statement or argument. In this case, the question is framed in a way that assumes the existence of God is true and that prayers are being answered, which is the point the arguer is trying to make. It's a form of circular reasoning or begging the question, as it presupposes the conclusion it seeks to prove.

The Second:
Argument against scientists creating life: The second part of the statement questions why scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube. This argument implies that the inability to create life in a test tube is evidence against the existence of God. However, this is a non sequitur fallacy, as the inability to create life through scientific experiments does not necessarily prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. It is important to recognize that scientific limitations do not necessarily have implications for theological questions.

Argument from Ignorance: The statement implies that because scientists have not been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube, it supports the existence of God. This is a fallacious argument from ignorance, where one assumes that because something is not currently explained or achieved through natural processes, a supernatural explanation (in this case, the existence of God) must be the answer. This argument doesn't provide direct evidence for the existence of God.

Hasty Generalization: The statement appears to make a hasty generalization by asserting that the inability of scientists to create life in a test tube is indicative of God's existence. Such a generalization is not logically sound and does not necessarily follow from the given premise.

In a debate, it's essential to present well-reasoned and logically structured arguments. The errors in the provided statement arise from logical fallacies and the conflation of scientific limitations with theological questions. To engage in a more productive debate, it's better to present arguments and evidence in a clear and logically sound manner.

In other words, you provided more fallacies then actual statements! That's quite a feat for most people - par for the course with religious people. However, you are the one responsible for your religious beliefs: That's on you.

[LittleNipper]

So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers? And why is that scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube? The evidence is supportive of me rather than you.

Thank you for confirming, once again, that I made the right choice to leave the Church and it's silly thinking behind. I am sorry you can't recognize how silly your statements are. In fact, I would bet you thought they are clever. They aren't.

I fear, however, that since you can't recognize your responses are silly, that any attempt to explain it to you would not register, as would explaining calculus to a gerbil. Would you like me to try to get you to understand why your responses are silly, even from a religious point of view - or do you prefer to believe what you believe and demand that I honor your beliefs, as flawed as they are? I don't believe you to be dumb - I just feel that religion has made you appear to support dumb arguments.

edit: I've decided to do a public service.

The statement you provided contains two arguments:

The first: "So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers?" is an example of a rhetorical question fallacy. This fallacy involves asking a question not for the purpose of seeking an answer but to make a statement or argument. In this case, the question is framed in a way that assumes the existence of God is true and that prayers are being answered, which is the point the arguer is trying to make. It's a form of circular reasoning or begging the question, as it presupposes the conclusion it seeks to prove.

The Second:
Argument against scientists creating life: The second part of the statement questions why scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube. This argument implies that the inability to create life in a test tube is evidence against the existence of God. However, this is a non sequitur fallacy, as the inability to create life through scientific experiments does not necessarily prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. It is important to recognize that scientific limitations do not necessarily have implications for theological questions.

Argument from Ignorance: The statement implies that because scientists have not been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube, it supports the existence of God. This is a fallacious argument from ignorance, where one assumes that because something is not currently explained or achieved through natural processes, a supernatural explanation (in this case, the existence of God) must be the answer. This argument doesn't provide direct evidence for the existence of God.

Hasty Generalization: The statement appears to make a hasty generalization by asserting that the inability of scientists to create life in a test tube is indicative of God's existence. Such a generalization is not logically sound and does not necessarily follow from the given premise.

In a debate, it's essential to present well-reasoned and logically structured arguments. The errors in the provided statement arise from logical fallacies and the conflation of scientific limitations with theological questions. To engage in a more productive debate, it's better to present arguments and evidence in a clear and logically sound manner.

In other words, you provided more fallacies then actual statements! That's quite a feat for most people - par for the course with religious people. However, you are the one responsible for your religious beliefs: That's on you.

I can lead you to the fountain, but I cannot make you drink. That's on you.

[boatsnguitars]

So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers? And why is that scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube? The evidence is supportive of me rather than you.

Thank you for confirming, once again, that I made the right choice to leave the Church and it's silly thinking behind. I am sorry you can't recognize how silly your statements are. In fact, I would bet you thought they are clever. They aren't.

I fear, however, that since you can't recognize your responses are silly, that any attempt to explain it to you would not register, as would explaining calculus to a gerbil. Would you like me to try to get you to understand why your responses are silly, even from a religious point of view - or do you prefer to believe what you believe and demand that I honor your beliefs, as flawed as they are? I don't believe you to be dumb - I just feel that religion has made you appear to support dumb arguments.

edit: I've decided to do a public service.

The statement you provided contains two arguments:

The first: "So how can a GOD that doesn't exist answer my prayers?" is an example of a rhetorical question fallacy. This fallacy involves asking a question not for the purpose of seeking an answer but to make a statement or argument. In this case, the question is framed in a way that assumes the existence of God is true and that prayers are being answered, which is the point the arguer is trying to make. It's a form of circular reasoning or begging the question, as it presupposes the conclusion it seeks to prove.

The Second:
Argument against scientists creating life: The second part of the statement questions why scientists have never been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube. This argument implies that the inability to create life in a test tube is evidence against the existence of God. However, this is a non sequitur fallacy, as the inability to create life through scientific experiments does not necessarily prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. It is important to recognize that scientific limitations do not necessarily have implications for theological questions.

Argument from Ignorance: The statement implies that because scientists have not been able to create life from inert substances in a test tube, it supports the existence of God. This is a fallacious argument from ignorance, where one assumes that because something is not currently explained or achieved through natural processes, a supernatural explanation (in this case, the existence of God) must be the answer. This argument doesn't provide direct evidence for the existence of God.

Hasty Generalization: The statement appears to make a hasty generalization by asserting that the inability of scientists to create life in a test tube is indicative of God's existence. Such a generalization is not logically sound and does not necessarily follow from the given premise.

In a debate, it's essential to present well-reasoned and logically structured arguments. The errors in the provided statement arise from logical fallacies and the conflation of scientific limitations with theological questions. To engage in a more productive debate, it's better to present arguments and evidence in a clear and logically sound manner.

In other words, you provided more fallacies then actual statements! That's quite a feat for most people - par for the course with religious people. However, you are the one responsible for your religious beliefs: That's on you.

I can lead you to the fountain, but I cannot make you drink. That's on you.

The ego you have!

You spew a bunch of garbage - literal fallacies - then claim it's cool, tasty water that I'd be silly not to drink!

You didn't lead me to a fountain. You lead me to a bilge, filled with regurgitated backwash that has stagnated for centuries among pedophile priests and self-flagellating lunatics who come by to fill their gingivitis-afflicted mouths before spitting it back up on whoever they feel needs to be doused in their bile-filled rants.

[LittleNipper]

The ego you have!

You spew a bunch of garbage - literal fallacies - then claim it's cool, tasty water that I'd be silly not to drink!

You didn't lead me to a fountain. You lead me to a bilge, filled with regurgitated backwash that has stagnated for centuries among pedophile priests and self-flagellating lunatics who come by to fill their gingivitis-afflicted mouths before spitting it back up on whoever they feel needs to be doused in their bile-filled rants.

The ego I have? What about yours? I'm very sorry that you were brought up in seemingly a Catholic church (or so you've referenced it). They practice "religion" mixed with ecumenical politics. They are entrenched in salvation through works and through Mary in as a sort of super mom whose somehow equal with JESUS, or at the very least a go between who is able to sway HIM in his decision making. Neither is true. I'm a Bible believing Christian and make no bones about it. I don't in anyway attempt to interpret the Bible to either suit societies latest fads nor the most recent whims of scientific speculation. And frankly I find it abhorrent to do so, because everyone with a brain knows that fads come and go and scientific research are always discovering what's contrary, but GOD and the HIS word remain the same.

[boatsnguitars]

The ego you have!

You spew a bunch of garbage - literal fallacies - then claim it's cool, tasty water that I'd be silly not to drink!

You didn't lead me to a fountain. You lead me to a bilge, filled with regurgitated backwash that has stagnated for centuries among pedophile priests and self-flagellating lunatics who come by to fill their gingivitis-afflicted mouths before spitting it back up on whoever they feel needs to be doused in their bile-filled rants.

The ego I have? What about yours? I'm very sorry that you were brought up in seemingly a Catholic church (or so you've referenced it). They practice "religion" mixed with ecumenical politics. They are entrenched in salvation through works and through Mary in as a sort of super mom whose somehow equal with JESUS, or at the very least a go between who is able to sway HIM in his decision making. Neither is true. I'm a Bible believing Christian and make no bones about it. I don't in anyway attempt to interpret the Bible to either suit societies latest fads nor the most recent whims of scientific speculation. And frankly I find it abhorrent to do so, because everyone with a brain knows that fads come and go and scientific research are always discovering what's contrary, but GOD and the HIS word remain the same.

The Bible is a fad. It was written by a host of people, books were voted on by more people. The most popular books were voted into the Canon, the unpopular ones rejected. You can claim all you want that the Bible is the word of God - but have you confirmed that with God? Seems you've only confirmed it with your feelings.

Jesus was a fad. It's the "NEW" Testament. Even Judaism was the new religion at one point.

You don't even have the capacity to consider the Bible isn't the actual word of God. You have decided to declare the Bible the truth. Maybe because some guy told you it's the truth.

I have to wonder how you decide that it's the truth? You just feel like it is?

Great! That's the same answer a Muslim gives for the Koran, or a Mormon gives about his text.

The truth is, you are a Religious Zealot who believes they are right because it comforts you. Because you've been taught that it's the truth. You only bluster about knowing the truth, and about knowing the "True Religion"... Read my quote from Omar Khayyam: Believe what you want, you are going to anyhow. You have decided you are one of the few to know the REAL truth about the world. Sure, God picked you out special! You are special! God loves you and you alone! You alone know the secrets to the universe... go on, believe it!

Truth is: You have no idea how God feels about the issue. And you can ask him, but he isn't answering, is he?

[LittleNipper]

The ego you have!

You spew a bunch of garbage - literal fallacies - then claim it's cool, tasty water that I'd be silly not to drink!

You didn't lead me to a fountain. You lead me to a bilge, filled with regurgitated backwash that has stagnated for centuries among pedophile priests and self-flagellating lunatics who come by to fill their gingivitis-afflicted mouths before spitting it back up on whoever they feel needs to be doused in their bile-filled rants.

The ego I have? What about yours? I'm very sorry that you were brought up in seemingly a Catholic church (or so you've referenced it). They practice "religion" mixed with ecumenical politics. They are entrenched in salvation through works and through Mary in as a sort of super mom whose somehow equal with JESUS, or at the very least a go between who is able to sway HIM in his decision making. Neither is true. I'm a Bible believing Christian and make no bones about it. I don't in anyway attempt to interpret the Bible to either suit societies latest fads nor the most recent whims of scientific speculation. And frankly I find it abhorrent to do so, because everyone with a brain knows that fads come and go and scientific research are always discovering what's contrary, but GOD and the HIS word remain the same.

The Bible is a fad. It was written by a host of people, books were voted on by more people. The most popular books were voted into the Canon, the unpopular ones rejected. You can claim all you want that the Bible is the word of God - but have you confirmed that with God? Seems you've only confirmed it with your feelings.

Jesus was a fad. It's the "NEW" Testament. Even Judaism was the new religion at one point.

You don't even have the capacity to consider the Bible isn't the actual word of God. You have decided to declare the Bible the truth. Maybe because some guy told you it's the truth.

I have to wonder how you decide that it's the truth? You just feel like it is?

Great! That's the same answer a Muslim gives for the Koran, or a Mormon gives about his text.

The truth is, you are a Religious Zealot who believes they are right because it comforts you. Because you've been taught that it's the truth. You only bluster about knowing the truth, and about knowing the "True Religion"... Read my quote from Omar Khayyam: Believe what you want, you are going to anyhow. You have decided you are one of the few to know the REAL truth about the world. Sure, God picked you out special! You are special! God loves you and you alone! You alone know the secrets to the universe... go on, believe it!

Truth is: You have no idea how God feels about the issue. And you can ask him, but he isn't answering, is he?

Both the Mormons and the Muslims use the Bible as the Foundation for their "additional books". And you're an atheist, so just how would you know anything regarding GOD? As for the canon of scripture, if you are at all interested, you may wish to read the following: https://www.compellingtruth.org/canon-Bible.html