Douglas Under Siege, Lock Your Doors, Do Not Answer Them

[Pat Ayres]

Let me make it clear from the outset. I'm not going to debate anything here. You may as usual take the opportunity to insult me and mock the church... but I won't be involved. Any genuine concerns can be brought up by personal message.

 

Thank you.

 

Didn't hold out long did you?

[tribz]

Amadeus, you always make me laugh when you complain and mock missionaries going door to door... when you used the same method yourself during your failed attempt to get people to vote for you. You were happy then to knock on doors, yet you don't want other people to do the same.

I think there is a lot of difference between someone calling at your door who wants to inform you of their potential policies that may effect your every day life if they are elected into office and a pair of pushy self rightious religious nuts who want to try to push their beliefs on you and waffle on about fictional garbage that has no effect on your everyday life unless you are already a member of their cult.

 

Which ones which again?

[DjDan]

Let me make it clear from the outset. I'm not going to debate anything here. You may as usual take the opportunity to insult me and mock the church... but I won't be involved. Any genuine concerns can be brought up by personal message.

 

Thank you.

 

Didn't hold out long did you?

 

What are you suggesting? I haven't debated anything in this thread.. and I won't do so.

 

As it happens... the topic about the missionaries appears to have ended - and the comments have shifted onto other matters now anyway. Hence the videos...

[Pat Ayres]

The Bottom Line

 

 

The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." (It would be more accurate to say it contains almost none of their "everlasting gospel" at all.) Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.

 

If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.

 

We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

 

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.

 

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

 

The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.

 

Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God."

CA Forums 2010

 

As a nontheist I am quite comfortable using one load of BS to refute another.

[hboy]

Amadeus, you always make me laugh when you complain and mock missionaries going door to door... when you used the same method yourself during your failed attempt to get people to vote for you. You were happy then to knock on doors, yet you don't want other people to do the same.

 

And you make me laugh with your gay internet voice whining away again. I'm guessing Amadeus was offering people what they want (ie, a chance of representation in Parliament) as opposed to what what nobody wants (ie, a piss boring lecture about eternal salvation). I'd also guess that his polite conversation v told to fuck off ratio is better than any of your chums :-)

[Albert Tatlock]

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem.

You're both talking rubbish - Alma lived in Coronation Street.

[Back to the Future]

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem.

You're both talking rubbish - Alma lived in Coronation Street.

 

Alma Cogan was in Coronation Street??

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

And you make me laugh with your gay internet voice whining away again.

Ooooh, is that software I can download?

[hboy]

 

And you make me laugh with your gay internet voice whining away again.

 

Ooooh, is that software I can download?

 

I thought you'd already downloaded that app.

[DjDan]

Pat Ayres... that is a rather pathetic attempt at spewing out some anti-mormon drivel. All of which has already been explained before.

 

As I've said before, I won't be debating anything here. If anyone has genuine concerns, they can PM me - I've already had a few conversations with people here.

[Terse]

 

Alma Cogan was in Coronation Street??

No... but her aunt had a dress shop on Prospect Hill - and that was on Bernie Quayle's programme so it must be true!

[Mr. Sausages]

If anyone has genuine concerns, they can PM me - I've already had a few conversations with people here.

 

Concerned people produce happy mormon faces.

[Gladys]

Dan, in my simple analysis of religion, it appears this way:-

 

Man was a thinking animal and had to have an understanding as to 'why'. He wasn't yet analytical or scientific, so to rationalise how the world worked had to find a higher authority; there was no other explanation for the order and progress of things. So, we had God. That was a neat explanation as to 'why'.

 

Next we have to explore the 'how'. Very conveniently and for many same reasons, the 'how' gave man a framework on living; the ten commandments, none of which could be viewed as bad or against the greater good, the 'hygiene' rules of the Old Testament, etc. etc. All of which actually codfied the rules for an effective, relatively disease free, society; i.e one that would work and prosper. That gave us religion.

 

However, there were more cynical, controlling men around who saw the effect of God and religion, and thought, a bit of that will help us control this lot, and then we had politics.

 

So, I fall at the first hurdle, because I have thought through the process. Religion is perfecty explainable and supportable for less sophisticated times, and there are people who derive a tremendous amount of solace from religion now and that is fine. However, please do not now push those views on me or anyone else who is not persuaded at the fundamental leap of faith that there is a God. To me God is just an easy (responsibility removing) explanation of why things are they way they are and how that can be quite unpleasant.

[Bananaman]

To me God is just an easy (responsibility removing) explanation of why things are they way they are and how that can be quite unpleasant.

 

 

Ain't that right!

 

Father Christmas is watching you behave like this.....................

[credente]

Much as I may abhor the excesses of many organised religions, I also find it difficult to understand the total rejection of any suggestion that, within the vastness of the universe, there might exist some superior being or beings who are responsible for the existence of ourselves and our environment.

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.” is the example used by Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Lord Rees who is also president of the Royal Society.

Therefore, while the promoted idea of a single deity who is continuously concerned with our everyday lives may well be nothing short of ludicrous, so the arrogance of pronouncing ourselves capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe is farcical.

Was the ‘Big Bang’ purely an accident, or was it ‘designed’ in some way? Was there only ever one such event? Is the visible universe the only one that exists?

To state, with absolute authority, that there cannot be any kind of superior being (or beings) who have, or will, affect the universe or our place in it, is almost as ridiculous as to suggest that some great truth was buried on a hill in Wayne County, New York.

We are limited by our own minds – no matter how much we strive to improve them and no matter how much we achieve in doing so.

To reject anything that can not been proven to be impossible - or is so ludicrous that it must be rejected - is, therefore, both foolish and arrogant.