question for a mormon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:difference between mormons and mainstream christianity is that everything in the old testament that can be factually vetted has been proven to be true. historians accept the basic scenario - only question is the miracles and the resurrection.
.

Totally false. Everything in the old testament has been disputed by historians. It depends on which historian you believe.

actually that was a typo. I meant to say "NEW" testament. big mistake, I realize. that said, much of the history in the Old testament is accurate too.

You are fucking stupid if you believe that. Jesus, even a cursory reading of wikipedia would dispel this notion, let alone reading any academic literature on the the subject.

nice response. much of the old testament is historically accurate, not all. things like Moses and the Exodus, the Great Flood, etc., are all based on ancient events. It is practically pre-history though, so tougher to debate. the new testament is much easier since it is all historical record.

New Poster Here: I agree with PP that you are fucking stupid. Yep, Noah built a giant ark and put two of every animal on it! Your bible is a book of fables written by man. I appreciate that religion gives people something to believe in, but please don't be an idiot. And I think that since the old testament is "pre-history" it is actually tougher to PROVE, rather than tougher to debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:difference between mormons and mainstream christianity is that everything in the old testament that can be factually vetted has been proven to be true. historians accept the basic scenario - only question is the miracles and the resurrection.
.

Totally false. Everything in the old testament has been disputed by historians. It depends on which historian you believe.

actually that was a typo. I meant to say "NEW" testament. big mistake, I realize. that said, much of the history in the Old testament is accurate too.

You are fucking stupid if you believe that. Jesus, even a cursory reading of wikipedia would dispel this notion, let alone reading any academic literature on the the subject.

nice response. much of the old testament is historically accurate, not all. things like Moses and the Exodus, the Great Flood, etc., are all based on ancient events. It is practically pre-history though, so tougher to debate. the new testament is much easier since it is all historical record.

New Poster Here: I agree with PP that you are fucking stupid. Yep, Noah built a giant ark and put two of every animal on it! Your bible is a book of fables written by man. I appreciate that religion gives people something to believe in, but please don't be an idiot. And I think that since the old testament is "pre-history" it is actually tougher to PROVE, rather than tougher to debate.

another nice response from the anti-religious crowd. so you do not agree that there was a great flood in ancient times, around the time of Noah's flood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:difference between mormons and mainstream christianity is that everything in the old testament that can be factually vetted has been proven to be true. historians accept the basic scenario - only question is the miracles and the resurrection.
.

Totally false. Everything in the old testament has been disputed by historians. It depends on which historian you believe.

actually that was a typo. I meant to say "NEW" testament. big mistake, I realize. that said, much of the history in the Old testament is accurate too.

You are fucking stupid if you believe that. Jesus, even a cursory reading of wikipedia would dispel this notion, let alone reading any academic literature on the the subject.

nice response. much of the old testament is historically accurate, not all. things like Moses and the Exodus, the Great Flood, etc., are all based on ancient events. It is practically pre-history though, so tougher to debate. the new testament is much easier since it is all historical record.

New Poster Here: I agree with PP that you are fucking stupid. Yep, Noah built a giant ark and put two of every animal on it! Your bible is a book of fables written by man. I appreciate that religion gives people something to believe in, but please don't be an idiot. And I think that since the old testament is "pre-history" it is actually tougher to PROVE, rather than tougher to debate.

another nice response from the anti-religious crowd. so you do not agree that there was a great flood in ancient times, around the time of Noah's flood?

Not the PP you are referring too, but there may have been a flood. I don't see how that relates AT ALL to the story of Moses and his arc. A historical event like a great flood would invite some legend or myth to be tied to it. I think what the PP is saying is that there may have been these historical events, but it is in man's nature to create sensational stories to go along with them. So how are we to know, thousands of years later, what's true and what's not? This is no different than any other religious mythology, be it Roman, Greek, Norse, etc.

[Anonymous]

Moses had an arc?

[Anonymous]

Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh = puts a new spin on that whole flood thing...

[Anonymous]

Not the PP you are referring too, but there may have been a flood. I don't see how that relates AT ALL to the story of Moses and his arc. A historical event like a great flood would invite some legend or myth to be tied to it. I think what the PP is saying is that there may have been these historical events, but it is in man's nature to create sensational stories to go along with them. So how are we to know, thousands of years later, what's true and what's not? This is no different than any other religious mythology, be it Roman, Greek, Norse, etc.

Not just stories to go along with, but to explain historical events. Lightning? Zeus is angry. Sunrise? Apollo pulling the sun across the sky. Seasons? Demeter is sad that Persephone has to spend time in the underworld. The flood? God caused it, and directed Noah to save two of each animal. (I've always wondered - where did he get the penguins? They lived a long way from where he was . . . but I digress.)

Point being, all religions (at least, established religions) are based on historical events around which a legend/myth/fantasy explanation is created. That the historical events actually occurred in some form of another has zero to do with whether the religion is "correct." That belief ALWAYS requires faith - that's the whole point of religion, believing in something that is unprovable. If faith wasn't required, the religious would just be historians.

To the believers/faithful, their own religion is "correct" precisely BECAUSE they have faith that it is. To non-believers, it's all just different forms of mythology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moses had an arc?

Well, he had to get across the Red Sea somehow . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been curious about this:
Do ya'll judge us non-LDSers when we drink coffee or alcohol in front of you in a professional setting? Not a lot, just one serving. please explain your answer.

Thanks!

Do you also wonder if Jewish folk jusge you for eating bacon or shrimp? No? Why is this any different?

But they do judge you. Make no mistake, jewish people think that goyim are unclean because they eat traife. So.

You are very wrong. Jews believe that ONLY JEWISH people are required to keep kosher, etc.

[Anonymous]

OP here:

So I've learned that DC Mormons are probably more "cool" than their fly-over country counterparts.

I've also learned that when asking a question, spin-offs can be quite unpredictable. I suspected I 'd get special underwear comments but not the anti-God stuff.

Some of y'all were FUNNY! Even if I don't agree with some of the name-calling.

anyway, I don't think an actual Mormon answered....but if I was one, I wouldn't out myself on this board. Goodness.

I asked a question b/c I met a Mormon at work when I was preg and now am nursing and so don't drink sin liquids. We went to a work-dinner and everybody had wine but us. She made a slightly judgey comment about it like I am a non-drinker...SO NOT TRUE. ANyway, I"m almost done nursing and was curious how local LDSers thought about sin liquids b/c I think DC runs on coffee and liquor sometimes.

Happy Friday all.