S/O Mormonism... I just don't get it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so disturbing on many levels. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? Can't imagine a thread like this bashing the Muslim religion -- so, why, then, is ok to bash Mormans. I don't agree with many of their teachings (or the teachings of many religions) but I respect their right to their beliefs (just as I do for Muslims, Jews and Christians). Thought that most educated, DCUMers would too. Very disappointed to be so wrong.

I would tolerate all religions that stay out of my life. Mormons don't do that. Nor do a lot of the wacko Christians. If they just practiced their faith, or whatever you want to call it, fine. No sweat. But let me ask you this - what happened to the separation of church and state? I don't tolerate them, because in essence, they don't tolerate me.

[Anonymous]

no. almost all historians accept that Jesus lived. there are enough independent sources. beyond that, the historical narrative of the new testament is non-fiction. the people described in the gospel existed, the roman governor, the leader of the jews, the various cities and towns visited by Paul in Greece, etc. This isn't exactly controversial or exciting. I am ignoring all of the "miracle" type stories. But to the contrary, the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is entirely fiction. That the people of Israel moved to North America to become Indians, etc. Not to mention the corruption and the pedophilia of the early leaders.

I would be careful throwing around pedophilia of the leaders as a reason to discount an entire religion. Hoist on your own petard, as they say.

[Anonymous]

I am a Jew who doesn't necessarily believe the world was created in seven days by a diety. I have always viewed much of what Judaism and Christianity teach with a grain of salt. I find it particularly funny that non-Mormon Christians here are so militant against Mormons when their religion started in such a similar way, following a radical. Yes, Jesus was a radical Jew with radical beliefs in heaven and hell. Judaism does not believe in heaven and hell as taught by Christianity. Jesus's teaching of salvation was radical. The difference is that Christianity was given a boost and a history revision by Constantine. Who really knows what Jesus was like, when his loyal followers were allowed to write the history? You all take as fact that what was written was accurate. More likely, it's been scrubbed through the years. Who know in a couple thousand years where the LDS will be?

It also seems to me that 50 years ago, a certain young Senator's religion was questioned as a cult when he was running for president. In the 50 years that have passed since JFK won that election, memory has faded about the fear many Christian Americans felt over a having a president who might be anwerable to the Pope.

The hypocracy on this thread is killing me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The men are literally never allowed to masturbate. Never.

Are Catholic men allowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I understand you believe that "all historians accept that Jesus lived". What you believe is incorrect. Just repeating it doesn't strengthen your argument. If you define "Jesus" as "one or more arbitrary charismatic rabbis any of whom may or may not have been named 'Jesus'", then, yes, "Jesus lived". There were countless hundreds of such characters during (and long predating) the time in question.

So "Jesus" is every bit as much an historical fact as, say, "The Ancient Mariner" or "Bluebeard". There's ironclad historical evidence that "mariners" existed, and that "pirates" existed. Meanwhile, all evidence for the literal existence of "Jesus" comes from the gospels which obviously are not particularly compelling to legitimate historians given that they were all written much later than "Jesus" was supposed to have lived, and with an obvious agenda.

you repeating your falsehood doesn't make it true. I am a biblical historian, and I am not Christian, and we accept that the story of Jesus is historically true. The written accounts of Jesus’ life, including the four gospels, were written decades after his death by people living far from where the events of his life took place. So we use certain criteria — three criteria in particular. One is multiple independent attestation. Sources include many different written accounts without collusion. The story of Jesus’ crucifixion shows up in all four gospels and many other written accounts—and we accept that it passes the “attestation” test.

Wow, the story of Jesus' crucifixion shows up in all for gospels, you say! Now that's compelling evidence right there. Did you know that the story of Posiedon shows up in

The second is historical context. It is very likely that a radical preacher in Jerusalem in 30 AD would have been tried before a Roman governor, found guilty of a high crime and crucified. Rome’s provincial governors, including Pontius Pilate, had the power to crucify troublemakers; Jesus’ preaching definitely would have been considered troublemaking, especially during Passover, and crucifixion was the preferred punishment when Romans wanted to send a “law and order” message.

This is, of course, all irrelevant hand-waving. Nothing here speaks to the question of whether there was a "Jesus". Just that there were Jesus-like characters both long before, during, and after the period in question.

Third and most important is dissimilarity. And Jesus’ crucifixion certainly passes that test because the highest priority of early Christians was converting others. But in the Old Testament the Messiah is portrayed as a mighty leader, a fearsome warrior destined to defeat all of Israel’s enemies and establish a kingdom of God in Israel. Because Jesus was killed by his enemies, Jesus’ crucifixion was a huge impediment to attracting converts, meaning no early Christian writer would have included that story unless it happened. So it probably did per most historians.

This is just sad.


This has nothing to do with faith or miracles, or proving that Jesus then rose from the dead.

So just to review the evidence: First, the gospels written long after the fact that make up the Christian holy book claim that Jesus existed . A handful of corroborating contemporary documents which didn't quite make the cut into the New Testament also make that claim.


Second, the Romans crucified people who were rabble rousers. "Jesus" would have been a rabble-rouser. Therefore, we can say that he would have been crucified.


Thirdly, the central point of the entire Christian mythos (that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life) is so unpalatable to potential converts that there's no way it would have been included unless it were true. This point is so fantastic as to be beneath commenting on.

You could very nearly prove the historical existence of any fictional character loosely based on reality by this criteria.

If all "Biblical scholars" have such low bar for evidence, I'm not surprised "we accept that the story of Jesus is historically true". Any disinterested observer will note that says more about Biblical scholars than it does about the existence of Jesus. It practically begs for an Annie Hall moment where Marshall McLuhan steps out from behind the sandwich board and upbraids the hapless "scholar".

[Anonymous]

Did you know that the story of Posiedon shows up in...

(sorry) ...as diverse sources as Plato to The Iliad?

[Anonymous]

from Wiki:

Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection.

Pretty silly to debate that, as it has nothing to do with anything.

[Anonymous]

I take no position on the historical debate - but citing Wikipedia? Really? Does that even count as a citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so disturbing on many levels. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? Can't imagine a thread like this bashing the Muslim religion -- so, why, then, is ok to bash Mormans. I don't agree with many of their teachings (or the teachings of many religions) but I respect their right to their beliefs (just as I do for Muslims, Jews and Christians). Thought that most educated, DCUMers would too. Very disappointed to be so wrong.

I would tolerate all religions that stay out of my life. Mormons don't do that. Nor do a lot of the wacko Christians. If they just practiced their faith, or whatever you want to call it, fine. No sweat. But let me ask you this - what happened to the separation of church and state? I don't tolerate them, because in essence, they don't tolerate me.

Last time I checked, mormons were not bombing innocent people, crashing planes into buildings, or otherwise carrying on any type of "jihad" against the west. If we can (and should) be tolerant and understanding of the Muslim faith then, certainly, we ought to be tolerant of the Mormon faith.

[Anonymous]

11:53, historians do agree that the historical Jesus existed. Not the "Christ" part, of course, just the fact that a radical rabbi by the names of Jesus seemed to have developed a following that was threatening to the Roman republic.

That's all.

Don't confuse the Jesus with the Christ part.

[Anonymous]

Can we define "religious tolerance"? If anything negative is ever said about some followers, all followers or any doctrine, someone posts about tolerance. Can nothing negative ever be said about doctrine or specific followers?

[Anonymous]

we ought to be tolerant of the Mormon faith.

tolerance does not equal silent non-questioning of the faith nor does it prevent one from poking fun at the sillier aspects of the religion.

[Anonymous]

"The hypocracy on this thread is killing me. "

And the bad spelling?

[Anonymous]

My favorite fact about the Jesus myth is this:

The virgin birth story is totally made up.

The prophecy of Isaiah that foretold the birth of the messiah, in its original language, talks of a young girl, not a virgin. But the version of the Jewish scriptures that was in use by the authors of the new testament misranslated the prophecy as foretelling that a virgin would give birth. So the options are either 1) having revealed that the messiah would be born to a young girl, God decided to go that extra step and make it a virgin birth so that people using the mistransltion would be convinced; or 2) The authors of the bible wanted to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and so wrote the story to fit the prophecy as they understood it, even though the version they had was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite fact about the Jesus myth is this:

The virgin birth story is totally made up.

The prophecy of Isaiah that foretold the birth of the messiah, in its original language, talks of a young girl, not a virgin. But the version of the Jewish scriptures that was in use by the authors of the new testament misranslated the prophecy as foretelling that a virgin would give birth. So the options are either 1) having revealed that the messiah would be born to a young girl, God decided to go that extra step and make it a virgin birth so that people using the mistransltion would be convinced; or 2) The authors of the bible wanted to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and so wrote the story to fit the prophecy as they understood it, even though the version they had was wrong.

You are totally misranslated .