Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Jim

Getting kicked out.....

http://mormonstories.org/marisa-a...od-discuss-their-excommunication/
gone

deleted
Derek

We recognize the good in all people. We recognize the good in all churches, in their efforts to improve mankind and to teach principles that lead to good, stable, productive living. To people everywhere we simply say, ‘You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.’ -

1. http://mormonwoman.org/2010/10/20...ion-stories/#sthash.Cw9Uf8Fm.dpuf

2. http://mormonconverts.com

3. http://www.mormonmissionprep.com/conversion-stories/

4. http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormon_Conversion_Stories

5.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lySmL9_gJMA



Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

1.Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

John 13:34

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

3 Nephi

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

No Need to Say Anything. You are condemned by the scriptures you claim to believe in and by the same search engine that you use to spread contention. There are more conversion story's to Mormonism then there is those who leave that faith, however, that is irrelevant. By posting this you are in sighting confrontation and not love and harmony, which is expected of converted Christians.

From a Baptist to a Christian Mormon


Link


The Temple and why.


Link


And finally, the agenda

wum

It is an acronym meaning Wind-Up Merchant.

It refers to someone who posts on message boards and newsgroups with the intention to cause as much disruption as possible by goading others.[/b]
gone

deleted
Jim

I agree.
We do recognise the good in all people, and in all churches.

The LDS is not a Christian church.
Derek

Jim wrote:
I agree.
We do recognise the good in all people, and in all churches.

The LDS is not a Christian church.


That is, of course, your opinion, to which you are entitled to. An opinion that is in the minority.

The English Dictionary Disagrees with you

Christian definition

A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian

Chris·tian  (krĭs′chən)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus, especially in showing concern for others.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Wiki disagrees with you

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established congregations (called wards or branches) and built temples worldwide. According to the church, it has over 85,000 missionaries[2] and a membership of over 15 million.[2] It is ranked by the National Council of Churches as the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States.[7] It is by far the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th...Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

The Mormon Church Disagree with You

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng&query=christians

I Disagree with You

Of course mormons are Christians. Anyone who say otherwise possesses the spirit of contention and are like unto those spoken of in scripture, being false prophets and those who draw near to him with their mouth, but in their hearts they are far from him. Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of their church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do they not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?

What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.” Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians.

Conclusion

You are very much entitled to believe in whatever you like. You are perfectly entitled to taunt others regarding their religion, thus offending them, and you have the right to criticise mormonism, however, you do not have the right to bear false witness about them with no other reason but to discredit them and their beliefs. This post clearly shows that your opinion is very much in the minority with most people considering Mormons as christians, however, it is your perogative to believe whatever you wish to believe. I believe that Mormons are Christians. Can you prove me wrong?

NOTE

Like an increasing number of Christian churches today, Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New Testament Christianity, that is, the unauthorised by God Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed of the orthodox faith of the early Christian church.
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
There is nothing good about the Mormon cult!


How about this

Humanitarian Aid and Welfare Services Basics: How Donations and Resources Are Used

When the multimillion-dollar Teton Dam disaster struck Idaho in 1976, a force of 45,000 Latter-day Saints was deployed almost overnight to provide emergency relief. When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, Mormon relief trucks arrived before the National Guard was even allowing relief through. Massive oil spills in South Korea in late 2007 found hundreds of volunteers handling the disaster with plans, supplies and manpower within days. The 2010 Haitian earthquake catastrophe was met immediately with 160,000 pounds of food and emergency resources, and a month later, when a devastating earthquake hit Chile, an airlift of tents, tarps, supplies and even diapers was quickly deployed.

The Church is interested in helping those in need become self-sufficient in the long term as well as meeting immediate needs. After the 2004 tsunami devastated Southeast Asia, LDS Humanitarian Services personnel were still working with community-based organizations to provide longer-term aid and development three years later.[i] In addition, the Church regularly donates wheelchairs, funds global immunization efforts, provides clean water service, trains doctors and volunteers in neonatal resuscitation programs, and offers training and treatment for preventing blindness for people all over the world, regardless of race, religion or nationality.

While the Church’s humanitarian aid efforts and its significant financial donations may be known to some, few realize that they represent only a fraction of the costs and resources involved with carrying out these initiatives. Furthermore, it may not be well known that the Church sponsors many other relief programs, including extensive welfare, vocational, rehabilitative, counseling and other services. These services include millions of hours donated by Latter-day Saint doctors, nurses and other Church members each year. Thousands of professionals and volunteers give freely of their time and means to those in need, with no expectation of praise, publicity or reward.

While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church. Today, thanks to a robust infrastructure, the Church continues to relieve the hunger, thirst, suffering and poverty of millions of people around the world and to empower individuals and communities to become more self-sustaining.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/art...eakdown-donations-costs-resources

Sometimes it is best to say nothing rather then embarrass yourself with guile
Derek

As I thought, and expected from both of you, all talk and bluster without anything to substantiate your unfounded discrimatory assertions against a minority group.
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
The actions of the nasty Mormon cult are unpleasant, I can think of one member who is a compulsive liar, ring any bells?



Could I ask for some evidence of where the Mormon Church, and it's teachings, are nasty or unpleasant, or is this yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

No, i hear no bells, but is it connected with the topic, or is it another of your insulting slurs against a member of the forum. If the latter then I am not interested. If the former then may I say that words without evidence are empty. If you can debate, using verifiable arguments, then I am willing to participate, anything else is pure conjecture and contention and will not recieve a serious response..
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
The actions of the nasty Mormon cult are unpleasant, I can think of one member who is a compulsive liar, ring any bells?



Could I ask for some evidence of where the Mormon Church, and it's teachings, are nasty or unpleasant, or is this yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

No, i hear no bells, but is it connected with the topic, or is it another of your insulting slurs against a member of the forum. If the latter then I am not interested. If the former then may I say that words without evidence are empty. If you can debate, using verifiable arguments, then I am willing to participate, anything else is pure conjecture and contention and will not recieve a serious response..


Ralph we all know you are a nasty liar, you have been caught out so many times!


1) This forum is for members of all religious persuasions, which means those of some religious affiliation and none at all. Inevitably this will give rise to debate, but however full and frank the exchange of ideas may be, please keep it civil and courteous. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others or which are considered to harass another poster may be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite. How messages which may be deemed to be directly insulting to another member of the forum are dealt with can never be codified in advance and has to remain a matter for the judgement of the admin/moderation team depending on the nature of the offence. However, warnings - either official or unofficial - can be given: in the case of official warnings a maximum of three will be given before a permanent and automatic ban.
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
The actions of the nasty Mormon cult are unpleasant, I can think of one member who is a compulsive liar, ring any bells?



Could I ask for some evidence of where the Mormon Church, and it's teachings, are nasty or unpleasant, or is this yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

No, i hear no bells, but is it connected with the topic, or is it another of your insulting slurs against a member of the forum. If the latter then I am not interested. If the former then may I say that words without evidence are empty. If you can debate, using verifiable arguments, then I am willing to participate, anything else is pure conjecture and contention and will not recieve a serious response..


Ralph we all know you are a nasty liar, you have been caught out so many times!


Again, you have failed to answer the question resorting to ad hominem instead. One can only conclude that your argument has no veracity and that you posted it as a WUM trolling, specifically to cause as much disruption as possible by goading and insulting others
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!


1) This forum is for members of all religious persuasions, which means those of some religious affiliation and none at all. Inevitably this will give rise to debate, but however full and frank the exchange of ideas may be, please keep it civil and courteous. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others or which are considered to harass another poster may be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite. How messages which may be deemed to be directly insulting to another member of the forum are dealt with can never be codified in advance and has to remain a matter for the judgement of the admin/moderation team depending on the nature of the offence. However, warnings - either official or unofficial - can be given: in the case of official warnings a maximum of three will be given before a permanent and automatic ban.
Derek

Floo wrote:
There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!


Seems to me that you are intellectually ignorant to the definition of the word debate. It appears, by your post, that you do not debate on here as much as you deliver unprovoked and unnecessary vitriol and malevolently malicious rhetoric in a fashion beholding to a troll. The only thing that you have proven is your lack of propriety on a debating forum and your eagerness to content. That is ñothing to be proud of. Now, please hold your tongue so as to give any potential genuine debater an opportunity to do what this forum is intended for and you seem oblivious of, debate.
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!


So why are you bothering to respond to him?

Looks like you're only responding in order to call him names.

The Bearpit is the place for that, not the rest of the board.
cyberman

The Boyg wrote:
Floo wrote:
There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!


So why are you bothering to respond to him?

Looks like you're only responding in order to call him names.

The Bearpit is the place for that, not the rest of the board.


I think floo's point is that Ralph's behaviour (as she sees it) reflects upon the value of Mormonism.

I disagree - within any group, such as Catholics, Mormons, Socialists, Conservatives, etc., you can find individuals who behave badly, but that doesn't usually reflect upon the beliefs or behaviours of the group as a whole.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Floo wrote:
There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!


So why are you bothering to respond to him?

Looks like you're only responding in order to call him names.

The Bearpit is the place for that, not the rest of the board.


I think floo's point is that Ralph's behaviour (as she sees it) reflects upon the value of Mormonism.

I disagree - within any group, such as Catholics, Mormons, Socialists, Conservatives, etc., you can find individuals who behave badly, but that doesn't usually reflect upon the beliefs or behaviours of the group as a whole.


Which would be a sound argument if I were a Mormon, however, I am not a Mormon, I am an individualist. That does not mean that as an individualist I do not adhere to many Mormon beliefs and concepts, I do, however, it is as a result of those beliefs that I do not hold to that I am no longer a Mormon. Having said that, I do not believe that any Mormon should feel any shame for their belief but should stand tall and proud of who they are. Their religion might have faults, like the other 4,300 worldwide religion have, but their fruits are sweet to the taste and, if organised religion is what you want, it is worth eating the occasional worm.

Quote:
Definition of an Individualist

The modern understanding of religious individualism, as defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia, “describes the attitude of those persons who refuse to subscribe to definite creeds, or to submit to any external religious authority.” It is conceptually similar to “cafeteria Christians,” a phrase used to describe Christians who take an a la carte approach to their faith. This is done by accepting some aspects of Christianity while rejecting others. For example, one might accept the teachings of Jesus while dismissing the stories of virgin birth and resurrection as myth. The religious individualist expands on this idea to encompass different faiths. Rather than go all in with one religious tradition, a personalized set of ethical views are derived from the elements of a variety of faiths.

http://people.opposingviews.com/a...religious-individualism-9151.html


If you are right, and Floo does believe that her perceived opinions of my integrity would bring disrepute to the Mormon Church, then why not just say that in a controlled and cordial manner, as you have done in your disagreement that one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch, without willfully and haphazardly violating the forum rules by viciously attacking the player instead of the ball. Why the necessity to resort to abrasive name calling? If I bring disrepute to the Mormon faith by any previous behaviour, then by the same logic, Floo must bring disrepute to her fellow atheists or agnostics by her current behaviour.
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
Where you are concerned, lying Ralph, you would bring any organisation to which you belonged into disrepute, even the most worthy!



gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
You are talking about yourself!


Sorry, i should have explained it better. You see, my response to your post is actuallying a quote from Socrates, the famous classical Greek philosopher. I am not physically saying anything, or even writing anything,, therefore, how have you determine that I am even talking/writing, let alone doing it to myself.. If I were saying it to myself, well, lets be honest, there would be no need for me to post it on here, in order for me to see it and read it, I could have just as easily said it to myself when I found it on the quotes Web site, rather then burden the posters on here with a message for myself.

Who would have thought that I would need to explain, a quote posted in response to the person it was actually intended for, that it was not actually for me but it was for them. I can now see why you are having trouble debating on here, you don't know when someone is responding to your post, or speaking to themselves, so how on earth could we expect you to debate a point. I hope that I have clarified it for you, that this post was aimed at, and intended for, YOU!! That wasn't too verbose, was it?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
That wasn't too verbose, was it?


It was, actually, and also disingenuous from beginning to end.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
That wasn't too verbose, was it?


It was, actually, and also disingenuous from beginning to end.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That wasn't too verbose, was it?


It was, actually, and also disingenuous from beginning to end.


Thank you, verbose was in fact part of my intention. As for Disingenuous, well that depends on exactly how you define disingenuous. If you define it as deceitful and duplicitous, then no, there is nothing in Floo's statement, or my rebuttal, that could, in anyway, be considered deceitful or duplicitous. If you define it as subtle, calculating, or designing, then yes, it was subtly designed and calculated to prove a particular point. In the event that you have not percieved it, the point was, that she, like many others here, act like trolls who seem incapable of good honest debate, that is void of personal judgements and acrimony against the writer, but they seem intellectually challenged by the words that he/she writes. Debate is not about the orator, and his/her persona, rather then what his/her expressed opinions and beliefs are. Floo, quite obviously, is wilfully denigrating the orator without giving any consideration to what he is saying. That is not only lacking in etiquette and sobriety,  but it is odiously asinine. Judging by your selectively gratuitous imputation, one can only assume that you are of the same ilk and mindset as she is and as much undeserved of a serious response as she is.
Derek

Sometimes, after you have had your opinions and beliefs demolished by sound reasoning and good sense, it is best to say nothing and walk away, tail tucked between legs, rather then to dig any hole that you are in so deep that it becomes impossible to get out without falling back in again. Wise words that it seems is already well known by posters who frequent this forum. That is, better to say nothing then be proven wrong.

Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
I agree.
We do recognise the good in all people, and in all churches.

The LDS is not a Christian church.


That is, of course, your opinion, to which you are entitled to. An opinion that is in the minority.

The English Dictionary Disagrees with you

Christian definition

A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian

Chris·tian  (krĭs′chən)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus, especially in showing concern for others.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Wiki disagrees with you

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established congregations (called wards or branches) and built temples worldwide. According to the church, it has over 85,000 missionaries[2] and a membership of over 15 million.[2] It is ranked by the National Council of Churches as the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States.[7] It is by far the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th...Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

The Mormon Church Disagree with You

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng&query=christians

I Disagree with You

Of course mormons are Christians. Anyone who say otherwise possesses the spirit of contention and are like unto those spoken of in scripture, being false prophets and those who draw near to him with their mouth, but in their hearts they are far from him. Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of their church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do they not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?

What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.” Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians.

Conclusion

You are very much entitled to believe in whatever you like. You are perfectly entitled to taunt others regarding their religion, thus offending them, and you have the right to criticise mormonism, however, you do not have the right to bear false witness about them with no other reason but to discredit them and their beliefs. This post clearly shows that your opinion is very much in the minority with most people considering Mormons as christians, however, it is your perogative to believe whatever you wish to believe. I believe that Mormons are Christians. Can you prove me wrong?

NOTE

Like an increasing number of Christian churches today, Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New Testament Christianity, that is, the unauthorised by God Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed of the orthodox faith of the early Christian church.





--------

With respect, The Woeld Council of Churches, The Lausanne movement (confessing evangelicals), The Roman Catholic Church, The British council of Churches, and Action for Churches together in Scotland
(Which comprise
The Church of Scotland
The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland
The Baptist Union in Scotland
The Scottish Episcopal Church
and The Scottish network of confessing evangelicals)

All confirm that the LDS is not Christian, or a church.
They can call themselves whatever they feel like - but Christian they are  most certainly not.
Derek

[quote="Jim:125193"][quote="Ralph2:125161"]
Jim wrote:


With respect, The Woeld Council of Churches, The Lausanne movement (confessing evangelicals), The Roman Catholic Church, The British council of Churches, and Action for Churches together in Scotland
(Which comprise
The Church of Scotland
The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland
The Baptist Union in Scotland
The Scottish Episcopal Church
and The Scottish network of confessing evangelicals)

All confirm that the LDS is not Christian, or a church.
They can call themselves whatever they feel like - but Christian they are  most certainly not.


It sounds as though you are using the logical fallacy of ad populum, however, I am sure you are not. You see the problem here is that every organisation that you have mentioned have all been established by men, with the interpretations of men with all the imperfections, bias and bigotry that men are known to have. That they have decided that the LDS church are not christian is inconsequential and meaningless to both God and christianity. Christianity is not a building, a congregation or a particular denomination, it is a lifestyle. A lifestyle that adheres to the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you live a christ centred life then you are a christian irrespective of what any organisation or individual might say. Thesee organisations have no authority, from God, to make such a judgement anyway, therefore, what they say is not only nonsensical but it is non-sequitur to what a christian is defined as. There judgement, or belief, has no meaning, other then to those who want to believe that kind of ridiculous diatribe.

What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. That means that God has not provided us with any definition of what a christian is, therefore, these organisation, who have taken it upon themselves to define a christian, must be taken to be spurious at best, possessing no authority or having no veracity to any genuinely converted follower of Christ. Their secular doctrine is intended for secular christians who worship the word of man as opposed to the word of God. However, according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.” Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians, thereby refuting your statement that Mormons are not Christian..

The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death when none of these organisations existed. Does their authority supercede that of Jesus Christ's disciples? Do you believe that their authority supercedes that of Jesus Christ? Is not an individual who lives a christian lifestyle not to be called a christian but something else. Where is the logic in what you, and these temples of men, say about God and his expectations of us.

Having said all of this, Mormons are not your type of Christian. Your type of Christian is the invention of men and what they believe to be a christian. It bears little resemblance to the true nature of God and his son Jesus Christ and their teaching are of false doctrine, the teachings of men. I suspect that those who belong to these organisations are likely those to whom Jesus will say "I knew thee not"


2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Nephi 28.

3 For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord—

4 And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

5 And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;

6 Behold, hearken ye unto my precept; if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work.

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
You see the problem here is that every organisation that you have mentioned have all been established by men, with the interpretations of men with all the imperfections, bias and bigotry that men are known to have.


Whereas Wikipedia is unearthly, do you mean..?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You see the problem here is that every organisation that you have mentioned have all been established by men, with the interpretations of men with all the imperfections, bias and bigotry that men are known to have.


Whereas Wikipedia is unearthly, do you mean..?


Wikipedia does what it does adequately enough, but how you have made a connection between these organisation, who do not accept Mormons as christian, and Wikipedia, quite frankly puzzles me.
Jim

No, Ralph, I am not using a fallacy, logical or not.
You see the bodies I named have at their disposal eminent theologians, professional historians, archaeologists, doctors of linguistics (whether Koine, Armaic, Hebrew, and real (as opposed to fantasy) Egyptian.
Utilising the skills of these experts, all peer reviewed in their fields, they came to the same conclusion, though in separate conferences:
that the religion calling itself LDS has no basis in Scripture, history, archaeology or linguistics. Many have accepted as valid that its foundation was based on fraudulent claims and either spurious or non existant documents, along with snake oil theology and downright lies concerning material purcheed by a huckster and passed of as a translation of a non existant extra scriptural book.
On these, and numerous other basis, the overwhelming opinion of academic Christians is that the LDS, whilst undoubtedly a religion, is not Christian.
Derek

Jim wrote:
No, Ralph, I am not using a fallacy, logical or not..


I did not say that you were using a logical fallacy, I said "It sounds as though you are using the logical fallacy of ad populum, however, I am sure you are not".

.
Quote:
You see the bodies I named have at their disposal eminent theologians, professional historians, archaeologists, doctors of linguistics (whether Koine, Armaic, Hebrew, and real (as opposed to fantasy) Egyptian.


Are you saying that these organisation, or bodies, as you call them, are more knowledgeable then an omniscient God? It very much sounds like it, when you expect these organisations to have some kind of theological authority over christianity. It is that kind of thinking that brought christianity into such disrepute in the dark ages. We all have the same source of knowledge, the Holy Ghost, not bodies of men, and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things, so why would we need bodies of men, with their self proclaimed authority, to tell us anything. What could they possibly tell us that we could not find out for ourselves from the Holy Ghost, the testator? Come on Jim, these are fundamental principles of christianity. If we want to know anything then we ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of His son, Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Ghost, and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of ALL THINGS. Religions are concepts created by men and governed by men, however, they are not sanctioned by God. Christianity is a lifestyle, not a membership is a particular club. One can be a christian and never go to church.

Hmm. In all honesty, I cannot think of any other way to explain to you what you are obviously not seeing. You say that all these eminent individuals, with infinite letters after their names, and membership in the most influential organisation of men, relating to religion, yet you do not see the irrelevance of such qualifications and positions when determining who is or is not a Christian. You may just as well say that the milk marketing board says that the LDS church are not christians, for what authority they give the statement. It appears as though your entire religious faith is based on the intellectual capabilities of a few men in man made religious organisations. You have completely missed the most relevant person when determining who can be called a christian. Jesus Christ. Being a Christian is a lifestyle not a religion. The LDS are not a Christian Church, just like the other 4,300 churches worldwide claim to be. It is their congregations who are Christians. It is the individuals who lives a Christ centred life that are Christian. You have it so wrong, or it has been presented to your mind in such a duplicitous manner, that it blinds your sensibilities and replaces gospel principles with the false teaching of men..

Quote:
Utilising the skills of these experts, all peer reviewed in their fields, they came to the same conclusion, though in separate conferences:
that the religion calling itself LDS has no basis in Scripture, history, archaeology or linguistics.


To be perfectly honest, I do not, can not, believe this for a moment, simply because it is completely untenable and dubiously implausible for an esteem organisation to publish such diatribe and fulmination, thus risking their credibility. The Mormon Church is actually called the "Church of Jesus Christ". It's teachings are centred around Jesus Christ and his ministry. They administer the eucharist in the name of Jesus Christ every week, they follow the complete Teachings of Jesus Christ, to the very letter, being literalist. The whole organisation revolves around Jesus Christ and his teachings. There is no one, or nothing else, within their beliefs system that they worship other then Jesus Christ. It is a complete and utter calamitous contradiction, and a grave error, to claim that the LDS has no basis in Scripture, history, archaeology or linguistics, which brings disrepute to those who make such unfounded claims and assertions. Sadly, your percieved ignorance of Mormonism has let you down and exposed either a complete lie or a total misunderstanding of the Mormon Church and their beliefs. I hope it is the latter.

How is it possible to make an assertion that the LDS church has no basis in Scripture when their main canon of works is the bible itself, followed by, what they describe as, a second witness of Christ, the Book of Mormon. How can anybody say that the LDS church has no basis in history, archaeology or linguistics when they use the same tenet of Holy Writ as all religious denominations throughout the world. You have left me with no need to prove that what you are saying is false and unrealistic, you have actually done that yourself by making such a ludicrous and erroneous statement, that I now charge you to verify. That is, that Mormons believe in a different bible to any other worldwide denomination.


Quote:
Many have accepted as valid that its foundation was based on fraudulent claims and either spurious or non existant documents, along with snake oil theology and downright lies concerning material purcheed by a huckster and passed of as a translation of a non existant extra scriptural book.


The beliefs and actions of the founder of Mormonism bears no relationship, or relevance, to whether they are Christian or not. The only factor that determines whether one is a Christian, or not, is if they live a christian lifestyle. Joseph Smith could have been the biggest charlitan that ever lived, however, that does not mean that mormons are not Christians. To make such a statement is again non-sensual and based upon your own bias against mormonism, and in particular, Joseph Smith. What makes Mormons Christian is that they live a lifestyle conducive to the teachings of Christ. Even if you believe that the Book of Mormon is total hogwash and the church hierarchy are all villains, it still does not exempt Mormons from being christians.

Quote:
On these, and numerous other basis, the overwhelming opinion of academic Christians is that the LDS, whilst undoubtedly a religion, is not Christian.


What is an academic christian? That is a new one on me. What makes a academic christian any different to a normal christian?. How can a lifestyle be defined as academic?. I believe that you have create this name, or adopted it from your bodies of men, to help you prove a point, that cannot be proven. We all use the same source of knowledge, the Holy Ghost, so I suppose we can all be deemed as being academic Christians. Anything else is the creation of men, yet again. There is a common thread through your post Jim. It is your faith and worship of men, in these bodies of men, that seems greater then your faith in God. Have you ever communed with the Holy Ghost? Do you know that he is the testator of truth and knowledge. Do you know that through the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. If you do, then why do you hold so firmly to the teachings of men?

I am sorry, but your entire post revolves around men and their ability to authoritively preach the mind and will of God on the grounds that they belong to organisations that you esteem as being an authority and, of course, their academic abilities. You have not included God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost in your response, you know that same Holy Ghost that John said was the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Not the learnings of men, and the false edifices raised in God's name, but void of that which he has taught us. LDS, by default of their beliefs, can be nothing other then Christian and your attempts to proclaim any different is failing on dishonest and untrue claims, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You see the problem here is that every organisation that you have mentioned have all been established by men, with the interpretations of men with all the imperfections, bias and bigotry that men are known to have.


Whereas Wikipedia is unearthly, do you mean..?


Wikipedia does what it does adequately enough, but how you have made a connection between these organisation, who do not accept Mormons as christian, and Wikipedia, quite frankly puzzles me.


Then you are easily puzzled, old bean. It is perfectly clear.

When Jim said Mormons are not christians, you cited Wikipedia as a source to show that they are.

Jim countered that by citing the world council of churches etc.

You then said that his argument was invalid because he had cited man-made sources.

So, if man-made sources make invalid arguments, what were you doing using Wiki to back up your claim the Mormons are Christians?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You see the problem here is that every organisation that you have mentioned have all been established by men, with the interpretations of men with all the imperfections, bias and bigotry that men are known to have.


Whereas Wikipedia is unearthly, do you mean..?


Wikipedia does what it does adequately enough, but how you have made a connection between these organisation, who do not accept Mormons as christian, and Wikipedia, quite frankly puzzles me.


Then you are easily puzzled, old bean. It is perfectly clear.

Not so clear as you tried to make it, was it old bean

When Jim said Mormons are not christians, you cited Wikipedia as a source to show that they are.

That is a blatant falsehood. Show me where I either wrote that or even insinuated it

Jim countered that by citing the world council of churches etc.

That is true, bodies of men, as I recall he called them. He is right, bodies of men, not God, the father, or Jesus Christ, his son, or even the Holy Ghost, the testator of all truth, no, he cited bodies of men.

You then said that his argument was invalid because he had cited man-made sources.

No, i didn't. You misrepresent me. I said that these bodies of men, that he speaks of, stand for invalide false doctrines, the teaching of men. I said that his argument was invalid because he perpetuates those lies and deciet. I said his argument was invalid because it did not come from God. I am right. Christians get their authority from God, in the name of Christ and through the Holy Ghost. Nobody else has the authority to act in his name.

So, if man-made sources make invalid arguments, what were you doing using Wiki to back up your claim the Mormons are Christians?

I wasn't. I said they disagreed with Jim. They do.




Your straw man argument does not work. I did not use Wiki to back up my clain that the mormons are christians. I actually said that "Wiki disagrees with you ". I gave no opinion as to whether I think they are right or wrong, just that they disagree. Nice logical fallacy.

Now then, off you go and look for any other unintentional fallacy to capitalise on. Maybe you could use some out of context statement of mine to misrepresent so as to make it easier for you to attack and gain brownie point off. I did not just twiddle my thumbs whilst I was unfairly suspended from here. I went through the refiners fire on other forums and learned about people just like yourself. You wouldn't last for two minutes on a forum where there were equal numbers of christian's and atheists. Your foul mouth would have you suspended by fair and impartial moderators in no time. Yes, i know you are not an atheist, however, the way in which you critique christian's and hold to the false doctrines of men, you are just as well to be. That is why I still find you here when I come back to take a look, and why you are on the other forum. It is your limit, as demonstrated by your feeble attempt to catch me out. You make debate personal rather then just opinions that conflict.

Oh, I won't be expecting a response, what can you say, after all.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
 
When Jim said Mormons are not christians, you cited Wikipedia as a source to show that they are.

That is a blatant falsehood. Show me where I either wrote that or even insinuated it


Just here, old bean - you can see it on page one of this thread:

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:


The LDS is not a Christian church.


Wiki disagrees with you

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established congregations (called wards or branches) and built temples worldwide. According to the church, it has over 85,000 missionaries[2] and a membership of over 15 million.[2] It is ranked by the National Council of Churches as the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States.[7] It is by far the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th...Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints



I won't be expecting a response. What can you say, after all....?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
 
When Jim said Mormons are not christians, you cited Wikipedia as a source to show that they are.

That is a blatant falsehood. Show me where I either wrote that or even insinuated it


Just here, old bean - you can see it on page one of this thread:

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:


The LDS is not a Christian church.


Wiki disagrees with you

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established congregations (called wards or branches) and built temples worldwide. According to the church, it has over 85,000 missionaries[2] and a membership of over 15 million.[2] It is ranked by the National Council of Churches as the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States.[7] It is by far the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th...Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints



I won't be expecting a response. What can you say, after all....?


Oh, you can expect a response when you contravene informal logical fallacies, such as this. I said that "Wiki Disagrees with you", meaning Jim, followed by a quote from them showing where they have disagreed. In effect, I am stating that wiki disagrees with Jim and then i verify my assertion with evidence. I am certainly not using them as a form of evidence, niether have I said as much. Again you still lose, and you have still tried, unsuccessfully, to use a fallacious straw man argument that simply does not work. My advice is to read every word carefully as people like me write every word carefully in order to prevent these dissection techniques, that are dishonest and duplicitous.

Again, I will not be expecting a response as you still have no reasonable and valid comeback. You did not read the post carefully enough.
The Boyg

The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.
The Boyg

What is the relevance of Wikipedia disagreeing with Jim other than as a source of refutation for his comment?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
What is the relevance of Wikipedia disagreeing with Jim other than as a source of refutation for his comment?


Well then, let me enlighten you as best as I can, mon ami. In my infinite wisdom i used it to demonstrate that I am not the sole objector and propagandist against his claim that mormons are not Christians, hence my highlighted heading, "Wiki Disagrees with You" and "I disagree with you" and "the mormons disagree with you", effectively sighting them as an ally and not a body of authority. If I deemed them as an authority I might have inserted a different heading, such as, "Wiki are an authority on Christianity, they claim that Mormons are Christians, therefore, it must be true" One shows solidarity and camaraderie, esprit de corps, and the other shows unremitting authority. One thing is clear, I made absolutely no claim that Wiki are an authority on Christianity, or that they should be considered as an authority to anything.

Wiki is a website, or database, developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. For that reason it can have no definative authority on anything. It is a voice of the people, for the people. The bodies of men, spoken of by Jim in his fallacious appeal to authority, do not speak for anyone other then themselves, they instruct and indoctrinate using false doctrines, the teachings of men, unauthorised by God. Whatever they say to their congregations is deemed as religious law, not to be argued with, but to be obeyed without question. This is the authority that Jim used and expected me to to accept and revere. I don't. Wiki is the complete opposite and is probably the best unbiased advocate, on the Internet, that I could have used. Not authority, as you contend, or source of refutation, as you have surmised, just a secondary advocate and ally of truth and honesty.

You can try and erase parts of the painting and insert foreign objects, but all it does is to confuse the observers and spoil the meaning of the picture by trying to change its content into what you want it to portray, instead of what the artist had intended for it to be. One constant is that the artist always resents the attempted pervertion of his creation by subtle, but obvious, manipulation of his painting. As the artist, I resent the implications of the attempted changes.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.


Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. All it does is to post potential facts.

I have not, nor have I made any allegation, that Wikipedia is an authority on Christianity.

If one were using Wikipedia as a source of authority then Crazy Joe would be equally as unsuitable as an authority as wiki is, however, if, as I did, we use Wikipedia as an advocate then Crazy Joe might be equally as valuable, dependant on who he is.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


Who are all these people you accuse me of bothering, only nobody seems to post here other then you, and your post is usually some form of argumentum ad hominem, with this post not being any different. Have you ever engaged in intellectual debate as opposed to slurs, offensive insults, hostility, confrontation, contention and general put-downs?
cyberman

[quote="Ralph2:125226"]
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.


Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. All it does is to post potential facts.

I have not, nor have I made any allegation, that Wikipedia is an authority on Christianity.

If one were using Wikipedia as a source of authority then Crazy Joe would be equally as unsuitable as an authority as wiki is, however, if, as I did, we use Wikipedia as an advocate then Crazy Joe might be equally as valuable, dependant on who he is.


Why did you even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.


Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. All it does is to post potential facts.

I have not, nor have I made any allegation, that Wikipedia is an authority on Christianity.

If one were using Wikipedia as a source of authority then Crazy Joe would be equally as unsuitable as an authority as wiki is, however, if, as I did, we use Wikipedia as an advocate then Crazy Joe might be equally as valuable, dependant on who he is.


Why did you even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


I have answered that question.
Derek

[quote="cyberman:125227"]
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?


No dodge, just an observation. Read their quote.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.


Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. All it does is to post potential facts.

I have not, nor have I made any allegation, that Wikipedia is an authority on Christianity.

If one were using Wikipedia as a source of authority then Crazy Joe would be equally as unsuitable as an authority as wiki is, however, if, as I did, we use Wikipedia as an advocate then Crazy Joe might be equally as valuable, dependant on who he is.


Why did you even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


I have answered that question.


With evasion and blather.

Please sum up in one sentence why it was relevant to even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?
cyberman

[quote="Ralph2:125230"]
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?


No dodge, just an observation. Read their quote.


does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?
Derek

[quote="cyberman:125232"]
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?


No dodge, just an observation. Read their quote.


does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?



You are committing the ligical fallacy of equivolcation. That is to say, "Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings". Therefore, to answer the question, "does Wikipedia agree with Jim or disagree with him". The abstract existence of Wikipedia can neither agree or disagree with anything or anybody. It is a service having no goods to sell. Only what is published by Wikipedia can agree or disagree with Jim. In this case, the article, published by wikipedia, disagrees with Jim. I suspect you knew this and that you are intentionally playing with semantics dishonestly.

1. Wiki disagrees with you when put into context refers to the article that was published with the heading

2. Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. Again, when put into context it refers to the abstract existence of the Wikipedia web site.

Your lack of knowledge of logical fallacies makes you easy picking in exposing your MO. That is not to debate at all, but just to semantically pick holes in the wording of posts in order to gain advantage dishonestly.
Derek

[quote="The Boyg:125231"]
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia disagrees with a comment would only be relevant if one was using Wikipedia to refute that comment, i.e. presuming that Wikipedia was regarded as a source of authority on the subject.

Otherwise one might as well say "crazy Joe who lives in a doorway in the precinct disagrees with you" and it would carry as much weight.


Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. All it does is to post potential facts.

I have not, nor have I made any allegation, that Wikipedia is an authority on Christianity.

If one were using Wikipedia as a source of authority then Crazy Joe would be equally as unsuitable as an authority as wiki is, however, if, as I did, we use Wikipedia as an advocate then Crazy Joe might be equally as valuable, dependant on who he is.


Why did you even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


I have answered that question.


Quote:
With evasion and blather.


That is, of course, your opinion, which I would have expect.

Quote:
Please sum up in one sentence why it was relevant to even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


Let me do better then that and re quote my original answer to that very question just a few posts back.

Quote:
Well then, let me enlighten you as best as I can, mon ami. In my infinite wisdom i used it to demonstrate that I am not the sole objector and propagandist against his claim that mormons are not Christians, hence my highlighted heading, "Wiki Disagrees with You" and "I disagree with you" and "the mormons disagree with you", effectively sighting them as an ally and not a body of authority. If I deemed them as an authority I might have inserted a different heading, such as, "Wiki are an authority on Christianity, they claim that Mormons are Christians, therefore, it must be true" One shows solidarity and camaraderie, esprit de corps, and the other shows unremitting authority. One thing is clear, I made absolutely no claim that Wiki are an authority on Christianity, or that they should be considered as an authority to anything.

Wiki is a website, or database, developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. For that reason it can have no definative authority on anything. It is a voice of the people, for the people. The bodies of men, spoken of by Jim in his fallacious appeal to authority, do not speak for anyone other then themselves, they instruct and indoctrinate using false doctrines, the teachings of men, unauthorised by God. Whatever they say to their congregations is deemed as religious law, not to be argued with, but to be obeyed without question. This is the authority that Jim used and expected me to to accept and revere. I don't. Wiki is the complete opposite and is probably the best unbiased advocate, on the Internet, that I could have used. Not authority, as you contend, or source of refutation, as you have surmised, just a secondary advocate and ally of truth and honesty.
cyberman

[quote="Ralph2:125233"]
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?


No dodge, just an observation. Read their quote.


does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?



You are committing the ligical fallacy of equivolcation. That is to say, "Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings". Therefore, to answer the question, "does Wikipedia agree with Jim or disagree with him". The abstract existence of Wikipedia can neither agree or disagree with anything or anybody. It is a service having no goods to sell. Only what is published by Wikipedia can agree or disagree with Jim. In this case, the article, published by wikipedia, disagrees with Jim. I suspect you knew this and that you are intentionally playing with semantics dishonestly.

1. Wiki disagrees with you when put into context refers to the article that was published with the heading

2. Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. Again, when put into context it refers to the abstract existence of the Wikipedia web site.

Your lack of knowledge of logical fallacies makes you easy picking in exposing your MO. That is not to debate at all, but just to semantically pick holes in the wording of posts in order to gain advantage dishonestly.


Your excitement about having discovered that blathering on about logical fallacies helps you to avoid the point has got you a bit carried away, old bean.

First of all, in asking a question I am not committing a logical fallacy. Secondly, there is no ambiguity in what you wrote in in what I asked about it. This is why you have had to resort to an appeal to context to try and wriggle out of a blatant self-contradiction.

All of this stuff you are trotting out is very basic undergaduate philosophy seminar stuff; you're not impressing anyone, especially when it is wrongly deployed. Being overly pompous in your language doesn't make you look clever. Quite the opposite in fact.

The point is this: You felt that Jim was wrong to refer to the World Council of Churches, etc., in his rebuttal of you. But you felt you were right to refer to Wiki in your rebuttal of him.

The question is: Why?

Your response is: blah blah blah fallacy blah blah blah ambiguous blah blah blah context blah blah blah

Can you answer the question or not?
Derek

[quote="cyberman:125236"][quote="Ralph2:125233"]
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Wiki disagrees with you


Ralph2 wrote:

Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone.


Are you just making this up as you go along?

If you're just going to sit and disagree with yourself, you can do that at home, can't you, without coming on here and bothering the rest of us?


nice attempt to dodge the issue - does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?


No dodge, just an observation. Read their quote.


does Wiki disagree with Jim or doesn't it?



You are committing the ligical fallacy of equivolcation. That is to say, "Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings". Therefore, to answer the question, "does Wikipedia agree with Jim or disagree with him". The abstract existence of Wikipedia can neither agree or disagree with anything or anybody. It is a service having no goods to sell. Only what is published by Wikipedia can agree or disagree with Jim. In this case, the article, published by wikipedia, disagrees with Jim. I suspect you knew this and that you are intentionally playing with semantics dishonestly.

1. Wiki disagrees with you when put into context refers to the article that was published with the heading

2. Wikipedia has not, does not, disagree with anyone. Again, when put into context it refers to the abstract existence of the Wikipedia web site.

Your lack of knowledge of logical fallacies makes you easy picking in exposing your MO. That is not to debate at all, but just to semantically pick holes in the wording of posts in order to gain advantage dishonestly.


Quote:
Your excitement about having discovered that blathering on about logical fallacies helps you to avoid the point has got you a bit carried away, old bean.

First of all, in asking a question I am not committing a logical fallacy. Secondly, there is no ambiguity in what you wrote in in what I asked about it. This is why you have had to resort to an appeal to context to try and wriggle out of a blatant self-contradiction.

All of this stuff you are trotting out is very basic undergaduate philosophy seminar stuff; you're not impressing anyone, especially when it is wrongly deployed. Being overly pompous in your language doesn't make you look clever. Quite the opposite in fact.


All of this is just ad hominem, therefore, I have absolutely no intentions of responding to attacks against me personally, other then to say that when writing on an Internet forum one loses the physical appearance and sound of the person with whom you are debating, therefore, logical fallacies are essential in insuring that what you say is clearly understood, plus it gives you an insight into the integrity and ethics of the person with whom you are debating, and if he/she is worth spending time debating with. To demonstrate my point, your use of logical fallacies has enabled you to turn the topic of this thread, about mormonism, to one about Wikipedia, and then to insist that my words mean something that you say they do rather then what I intended them to mean..

Quote:
The point is this: You felt that Jim was wrong to refer to the World Council of Churches, etc., in his rebuttal of you. But you felt you were right to refer to Wiki in your rebuttal of him.

The question is: Why?


Of course I did not feel that Jim was wrong by mentioning this body of men in his defence. He has been indoctrinated with their guile and genuinely believes that they have some kind of authority over christianity. I, therefore, expect no different from him. But you forget that this is a debating forum, where people air their opposing beliefs and opinions, or, at least they used to. All I have done is simply put forward an opposing argument to Jim's, that I firmly believe in, as much as Jim firmly believes in his opinion. I believe that these bodies of men have no authority to act in the name of God to determine who is or is not a christian. I am prepared to debate my belief with anyone. Jim believes the complete opposite, and, "hey presto", we have the beginnings of a lively debate to all be entertained by. That is all fine and enjoyable stuff, it is what gives such appeal to debating forums, the alternative is  as you seem to be suggesting, that we all agree with each other and talk about the weather and wine, resulting in a forum, like this one, destitute and bereft of constructive discussion.  Anyway, I will never change Jim's mind. Only he can do that, with a little help from the Holy Ghost. That is not what i want to do anyway. He is what he is and I do not intend to try and change that, however, as i said, this is a debating forum, where I do intend to debate the beliefs that he puts forward for discussion, from my perspective, and perhaps cause him to at least think about it. As soon as you get annoyed or hostile, because somebody does not hold the same opinions as you, that is when you become a narcissist. In conclusion, I used Wiki, or an article published by wiki, to act as an advocate to my own beliefs, an ally, if you like. I also used the Mormon Church, yet nobody has mentioned them.

Quote:
Your response is: blah blah blah fallacy blah blah blah ambiguous blah blah blah context blah blah blah


If you see my responses as incomprehensible drivel, then you are perfectly entitled to say so, or you can just ignore my post altogether, or, better still, you could use your intellect to argue the point with me instead of what I did or did not intend to say and mean, after I made it clear.

Quote:
Can you answer the question or not?


I am satisfied that the question has been adequately answered. Whether it is what you want to hear is another thing.
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
Trying to get a straight answer out of Ralph is well nigh impossible. He posts garbage but like his lies refuses to acknowledge it!


The logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, that you so readily and capably use, is as it is defined, that is, you are "responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than the content of their arguments". You cannot attack my argument, so you attack me, in an attempt to exonerate yourself. All you do is compliment me, and anyone else that you venomously attack. What kind of impression do you think you make when using such vitriolic rancor? Who would take anyone, who flagrantly contravenes forum rules, seriously?
gone

deleted
Derek

Floo wrote:
You are an evil piece of scum and I will keep telling you so. You have told so many lies about me and others!





The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Please sum up in one sentence why it was relevant to even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


Let me do better then that and re quote my original answer to that very question just a few posts back.

Quote:
Well then, let me enlighten you as best as I can, mon ami. In my infinite wisdom i used it to demonstrate that I am not the sole objector and propagandist against his claim that mormons are not Christians, hence my highlighted heading, "Wiki Disagrees with You" and "I disagree with you" and "the mormons disagree with you", effectively sighting them as an ally and not a body of authority. If I deemed them as an authority I might have inserted a different heading, such as, "Wiki are an authority on Christianity, they claim that Mormons are Christians, therefore, it must be true" One shows solidarity and camaraderie, esprit de corps, and the other shows unremitting authority. One thing is clear, I made absolutely no claim that Wiki are an authority on Christianity, or that they should be considered as an authority to anything.

Wiki is a website, or database, developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. For that reason it can have no definative authority on anything. It is a voice of the people, for the people. The bodies of men, spoken of by Jim in his fallacious appeal to authority, do not speak for anyone other then themselves, they instruct and indoctrinate using false doctrines, the teachings of men, unauthorised by God. Whatever they say to their congregations is deemed as religious law, not to be argued with, but to be obeyed without question. This is the authority that Jim used and expected me to to accept and revere. I don't. Wiki is the complete opposite and is probably the best unbiased advocate, on the Internet, that I could have used. Not authority, as you contend, or source of refutation, as you have surmised, just a secondary advocate and ally of truth and honesty.


Answering a request to respond in one sentence instead of blather with the same blather and evasion as before is not an improvement.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Please sum up in one sentence why it was relevant to even mention what Wikipedia says if you weren't trying to use it to refute Jim's comment?


Let me do better then that and re quote my original answer to that very question just a few posts back.

Quote:
Well then, let me enlighten you as best as I can, mon ami. In my infinite wisdom i used it to demonstrate that I am not the sole objector and propagandist against his claim that mormons are not Christians, hence my highlighted heading, "Wiki Disagrees with You" and "I disagree with you" and "the mormons disagree with you", effectively sighting them as an ally and not a body of authority. If I deemed them as an authority I might have inserted a different heading, such as, "Wiki are an authority on Christianity, they claim that Mormons are Christians, therefore, it must be true" One shows solidarity and camaraderie, esprit de corps, and the other shows unremitting authority. One thing is clear, I made absolutely no claim that Wiki are an authority on Christianity, or that they should be considered as an authority to anything.

Wiki is a website, or database, developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. For that reason it can have no definative authority on anything. It is a voice of the people, for the people. The bodies of men, spoken of by Jim in his fallacious appeal to authority, do not speak for anyone other then themselves, they instruct and indoctrinate using false doctrines, the teachings of men, unauthorised by God. Whatever they say to their congregations is deemed as religious law, not to be argued with, but to be obeyed without question. This is the authority that Jim used and expected me to to accept and revere. I don't. Wiki is the complete opposite and is probably the best unbiased advocate, on the Internet, that I could have used. Not authority, as you contend, or source of refutation, as you have surmised, just a secondary advocate and ally of truth and honesty.


Answering a request to respond in one sentence instead of blather with the same blather and evasion as before is not an improvement.


Well, I never said that it was, but we don't always get what we want. Sometimes we get more. I have more then adequately answered your question. If it is not acceptable to you, well!!
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I have more then adequately answered your question. If it is not acceptable to you, well!!


I doubt that anyone would consider blather and evasion to be an acceptable answer to a reasonable question.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Answering a request to respond in one sentence instead of blather with the same blather and evasion as before is not an improvement.


Well, I never said that it was


You said that what you offered was better than what had been requested.

It wasn't.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have more then adequately answered your question. If it is not acceptable to you, well!!


I doubt that anyone would consider blather and evasion to be an acceptable answer to a reasonable question.



I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are, let alone consider your request to be reasonable.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Answering a request to respond in one sentence instead of blather with the same blather and evasion as before is not an improvement.


Well, I never said that it was


You said that what you offered was better than what had been requested.

It wasn't.


That is your opinion.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are, let alone consider your request to be reasonable.


Resorting to personal insult.

You lose!

Better luck next time
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are, let alone consider your request to be reasonable.


Resorting to personal insult.

You lose!

Better luck next time


I was referring to your post not your person.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are, let alone consider your request to be reasonable.


Resorting to personal insult.

You lose!

Better luck next time


I was referring to your post not your person.



Highlighting your lies is easier than shooting fish in a barrel:
Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are, let alone consider your request to be reasonable.


Resorting to personal insult.

You lose!

Better luck next time


I was referring to your post not your person.



Highlighting your lies is easier than shooting fish in a barrel:
Ralph2 wrote:

I doubt whether anyone else would be quite as contemptuous and supercilious as you are



I am well aware of what I said, after all, I wrote it. You are just not comprehending the connotations of what I said. By saying "as you are" I was referring to the content of your post, being disrespectful and disdainful. It was a personal observation gleaned from your words in your post, not an ad hominem, gleaned from your persona.

gone

deleted
MikeRan

Floo wrote:
There is nothing good about the Mormon cult!


I wouldn't say that. It's certainly not my bag but they are usually ordinary, decent people who bring their families up in a loving environment.

There are fringe Mormon cults who live in communities in the sticks and there's nothing good about them, still practising polygamy, but they aren't recognised or even tolerated by mainstream LDS.  Every religion has its fringe cults who make up the rules for themselves.  Very sinister but we can't tar everyone known as "Mormon" with the same brush.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Trying to get a straight answer out of Ralph is well nigh impossible. He posts garbage but like his lies refuses to acknowledge it!


The logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem...


No, no Ralph, you're getting it all wrong.

What floo has done here is criticise you. That is not the ad hominem fallacy.

If I say "Nigel Farage is a dick", that is a personal attack, but it is not ad hominem.

If I say "Leaving the EU must be a bad idea because Nigel Farage is a dick", then I am guilty of ad hominem. That is, I am trying to engage the argument (we should leave the EU) but am in fact engaging the person (Nigel Farage)

See how that's different?

It's a bit like when you go on about how foul mouthed I am , or how arrogant Shaker is, or how unfair Ketty is, or how mean floo is etc etc etc - when you constantly constantly launch personal attacks, and then whinge about all the ad hominem.

A personal attack in itself is not an ad hom. And attempt to refute an argument by means of a personal attack is an ad hom.

Back to school for you, old bean.

x
Derek

[quote="cyberman:125313"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Trying to get a straight answer out of Ralph is well nigh impossible. He posts garbage but like his lies refuses to acknowledge it!


The logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem...


Quote:
No, no Ralph, you're getting it all wrong.


No, I am not

Quote:
What floo has done here is criticise you. That is not the ad hominem fallacy.


For anybody to consider that the diatribe that ouses from Floo's head, into her post, is anything other then undiluted guile and rancid vitriol is quite obviously of the same ilk as she is. I have never come across anybody quite so demonstrably unpleasant and callously offensive. She once posted on this forum that she feeds live prey to her pet wild spider, that she keeps on her bedside cabinet. What kinda person does that. Not one that could ever be taken seriously, that's for sure.

Quote:
If I say "Nigel Farage is a dick", that is a personal attack, but it is not ad hominem.

If I say "Leaving the EU must be a bad idea because Nigel Farage is a dick", then I am guilty of ad hominem. That is, I am trying to engage the argument (we should leave the EU) but am in fact engaging the person (Nigel Farage)

See how that's different?


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. Rather then the argument and not as well as the argument, as you a poorly trying to say. If you said that Nigel Farage is a dick, without giving mention to the argument, you would be guilty of ad hominem. Nigel Farage being a dick maybe a valid point in leaving the EU, therefore, no fallacy has taken place. It is a poor straw man argument that you are building and, therefore, a logical fallacy most obvious.

You are wrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:
It's a bit like when you go on about how foul mouthed I am , or how arrogant Shaker is, or how unfair Ketty is, or how mean floo is etc etc etc - when you constantly constantly launch personal attacks, and then whinge about all the ad hominem.


Again you are wrong. It is not an attack against you to state that you have a foul mouth. You actually do have a foul mouth, that effects the fluidity of the debate, and also brings the Christian lifestyle into disrepute. It is all part of the debate. I have only made an observation, without malice, and within the debate, not instead of the debate, as Floo consistently does, because she does not have the intellect to debate, but finds it easy to attack other posters. Same for Shakers arrogance and Ketty's restriction of freedom of speech. All mere observations. I tend to only attack in retaliation. But look at these examples from Floo. All unprovoked attacks, all made outside of any recognisable debate.

1. Ralph, the consummate liar, is on another planet he really is!

2. Unfortunately I don't think this forum will ever be rid of that unpleasant, lying piece of the proverbial!

3. The actions of the nasty Mormon cult are unpleasant, I can think of one member who is a compulsive liar, ring any bells?

4. Ralph we all know you are a nasty liar, you have been caught out so many times!

5. There is no point in debating with a nasty proven liar!

6. Where you are concerned, lying Ralph, you would bring any organisation to which you belonged into disrepute, even the most worthy!

7. Trying to get a straight answer out of Ralph is well nigh impossible. He posts garbage but like his lies refuses to acknowledge it!

8. You are an evil piece of scum and I will keep telling you so. You have told so many lies about me and others!

9. Ralph need to look up the definition of 'truth', as he obviously hasn't a clue what the word actually means!

This is not criticism. None of this contributes to any debate. This is an unprovoked attack made by somebody who, in my opjnion, has an obsessive physiological disorder. In the real world Floo would be on some kind of register, in order to be kept her, and us, safe. It is not only ad hominem, it is obsessive ad hominem, and, in my opinion, the words voiced from an unbalanced, unpredictable mind, more to be pitied then scorned. To agree with this obscure behaviour will only make her worse and you will be implicated as the same by association, and ignored, as she is.

Quote:
A personal attack in itself is not an ad hom. And attempt to refute an argument by means of a personal attack is an ad hom.


No it is not. You are wrong. An ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. Rather then the content of the argument, not as well as the argument, as you a trying to say, very unsuccessfully. This is a debating forum where debate, or argument, takes centre stage, regardless as to whether it is world peace or the abusive nature of poster such as yourself. Either way it is an attack against a person's character, in the midst of a thread intended for debate, instead of the debate.

Back to school for you, old bean.


Jim

Any chance of getting back on topic here....the topic of someone kicked out of the LDS cult?
Derek

Jim wrote:
Any chance of getting back on topic here....the topic of someone kicked out of the LDS cult?


Well, to be fair, you are not being very forthcoming in any contribution towards it, which might be the reason why these thread derailers have managed to derail it.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. Rather then the argument and not as well as the argument, as you a trying to say. ....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are wrong


Well, the reference from Wiki which you helpfully sourced tells us:

"ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy."

and

"it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

Backing up my view that it is all about trying to invalidate and dismiss the argument by means of the personal attack. Perhaps you should have read beyond the first line.

x
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. Rather then the argument and not as well as the argument, as you a trying to say. ....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are wrong


Well, the reference from Wiki which you helpfully sourced tells us:

"ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy."

This relates to abusive ad hominem which is the heading of another sub,paragraph.

and

"it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

This relates to that ad hominem attack argument and not the debate. An attack is launched by way of an argument against your opponent. You are taking it out of context and then making your own interpretation of it, yet another fallacy. Logical fallacies exist to stop dishonest tactics in a debate. You seem quite adept at contravening them. What does that tell us?

Backing up my view that it is all about trying to invalidate and dismiss the argument by means of the personal attack. Perhaps you should have read beyond the first line.

x


You are clutching at straws and making a complete and utter hash of it. The definition is clear. An ad hominem  means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. Rather then the argument and not as well as the argument, as you a trying to say. ....

You can try and rephrase it, you can use different definitions, take words out of context and try to manipulate the words using straw men arguments as much as you like. You are making an argument specifically to put me in error for saying that Floo has used ad hominem, when she clearly has, that is, she has attacked me and in the process has omitted to make any contribution towards the argument. That is the exact definition of ad hominem. So stop your desperate juggling of semantics to make your argument fit thus scoring your brownie points against the infamous Ralph. Your not going to win against generally accepted logical reasoning, no matter how desperately you try. Floo, who also attacks you, uses unnecessary ad hominem to insult and offend posters on this forum. It is a fact that has nothing to do with mormons being excommunicated for bringing the church into disrepute, the OP, but is a prime example of how people like you derail threads by pathetic pernickety tangents in the hope that it will make them look intelligent. It doesn't

When it becomes a desperation to prove an individual wrong, instead of his argument, people become complacent and make mistakes as they desperately clutch at straws, because their agenda utilises dishonesty and duplicitous tactics that alway fail. The truth always, but always prevails.
gone

Ralph you are a total prat and that is being polite!
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph you are a total prat and that is being polite!




 
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Any chance of getting back on topic here....the topic of someone kicked out of the LDS cult?


A very good idea!

Apologies for not being at my station as I should (real life sometimes just gets too busy), but to start splitting and doing all the moderatory stuff at this late stage would be rather too time-consuming on a lovely summer's day.  That, and my laptop is a little bit poorly.

As you were, but back on topic, please.    

gone

deleted
Jim

While I dismiss the Smithite fantasies, floo, I think you might be being a tad unjust - seriously.
Many of those who find themselves ostracised by cults such as LDS and WTBTS have been inculcated and indoctrinated - steeped in the system - since birth.
Finding themselves evicted from such groups simply because the cannot affirm the shaky foundation on which they are based, can cause immense family difficulties, even mental breakdown.
gone

deleted
Derek

Jim wrote:
While I dismiss the Smithite fantasies, floo, I think you might be being a tad unjust - seriously.
Many of those who find themselves ostracised by cults such as LDS and WTBTS have been inculcated and indoctrinated - steeped in the system - since birth.
Finding themselves evicted from such groups simply because the cannot affirm the shaky foundation on which they are based, can cause immense family difficulties, even mental breakdown.


Yes, it can. But the same is true for all religions. They all use forms of indoctrination.
Jim

Not really.
For example, I am in the position of discussing whether or not, for theological reasons, I should leave the denomination to which I belong and join an independent evangelical fellowship.
No obstacle has been put in my way in either case.
Should I take the decision to leave, my contacts and friends in my present denomination will remain friends - and brothers and sisters in Christ.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Not really.
For example, I am in the position of discussing whether or not, for theological reasons, I should leave the denomination to which I belong and join an independent evangelical fellowship.
No obstacle has been put in my way in either case.
Should I take the decision to leave, my contacts and friends in my present denomination will remain friends - and brothers and sisters in Christ.


Yes, of course, that is what you want to believe, it is what we all would like to think, and there is no reason why you shouldn't be right, however, you could, equally, be wrong and be ostracised.

I was a Mormon for 25 years. I left of my own volition, and when I left, many members showed me an increase of love and kindness. Never coercion or unwanted pressure, what so ever. They would still be my close friends today, and not just associates, as they are, if I did not disassociate myself from them. But this is the UK. If I were a member who lived in Salt Lake City then there maybe a whole new story to tell, and I might be labelled a Jack Mormon, however, that is all unrelated to the actual denomination. That is what people do, not what the religion wants then to do. Even your own religion may ostracise with different congregations, geographical locations and attitudes. It is all down to the carnal nature of men and nothing to do with who they worship, or who they worship with.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
I was a Mormon for 25 years. I left of my own volition, and when I left, many members showed me an increase of love and kindness. Never coercion or unwanted pressure, what so ever. They would still be my close friends today, and not just associates, as they are, if I did not disassociate myself from them. But this is the UK. If I were a member who lived in Salt Lake City then there maybe a whole new story to tell, and I might be labelled a Jack Mormon, however, that is all unrelated to the actual denomination. That is what people do, not what the religion wants then to do. Even your own religion may ostracise with different congregations, geographical locations and attitudes. It is all down to the carnal nature of men and nothing to do with who they worship, or who they worship with.


Well, without going over the same old, same old, your experience will have been down to the fact you say you belonged to the Mormon Cult.  It does not equate in any way, shape nor form with Jim's current situation and his thoughts about moving on in and with Christ Jesus within a Christian setting.

Jim wrote:

Should I take the decision to leave, my contacts and friends in my present denomination will remain friends - and brothers and sisters in Christ.


Jim, given the church where you currently worship and its way of being Church, of course your Church family will remain brothers and sisters in Christ - just as it should be, and just as is my experience.  At certain times I've picked and mixed denominations according to circumstances, but Church family always remains family if our own and our family's firm foundation is in Christ Jesus.  Despite what Delly thinks he knows, you and I both know that nobody would be ostracised by those who love the Lord our God with all their mind, strength, heart and spirit; but encouraged to go how God leads.

I trust you are surrounded by prayerful mentors who can help you seek the heart of the Lord on your next step of the journey.  Exciting times!
Jim

Exciting times indeed, Ketty.
My decision is, as you know, complicated by my calling as an elder, and the responsibility I undertook when I was ordained - the responsibility of oversight.
I'm still very much in two minds re: the situation in the CofS - I have advice from those who have already left the denomination, and evangelicals who have formed a 'confessing union' within it. I'm seeking God in prayer over this.
There is, as yet, no immediate need to make up my mind, but if certain situations arise within my local Presbytery, there will come a point when I'll need to decide and go as God directs.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Exciting times indeed, Ketty.
My decision is, as you know, complicated by my calling as an elder, and the responsibility I undertook when I was ordained - the responsibility of oversight.
I'm still very much in two minds re: the situation in the CofS - I have advice from those who have already left the denomination, and evangelicals who have formed a 'confessing union' within it. I'm seeking God in prayer over this.
There is, as yet, no immediate need to make up my mind, but if certain situations arise within my local Presbytery, there will come a point when I'll need to decide and go as God directs.


Listen to His heartbeat ... and you can't go wrong.  
bnabernard

Are we talking about religion being tailored to suit the person rather than the person being tailored to suite the religion


bernard (hug)

(still hanging in there   )
trentvoyager

bnabernard wrote:
Are we talking about religion being tailored to suit the person rather than the person being tailored to suite the religion


bernard (hug)

(still hanging in there   )


Bernard - good to see you again!  
Ketty

Hiya Bernie  

No, my friend,  Jim and I aren't talking religion at all.  
gone

deleted
bnabernard

Flo me old petal that biz about so many doctrines cults etc etc etc, so many lights, so much illumination.
So much darkness, which came first the darkness or the light.
Where does all the energy come from to keep the light shining.
From a simple match to the blazing sun.
Where will we be when the lights go out.

ho hum where.s me quantum physic I want to get physical.
Nanoo nanoo

bernard (hug)
Quizzimodo

Ralph2 wrote:
We recognize the good in all people. We recognize the good in all churches, in their efforts to improve mankind and to teach principles that lead to good, stable, productive living. To people everywhere we simply say, ‘You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.’ -

1. http://mormonwoman.org/2010/10/20...ion-stories/#sthash.Cw9Uf8Fm.dpuf

2. http://mormonconverts.com

3. http://www.mormonmissionprep.com/conversion-stories/

4. http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormon_Conversion_Stories

5.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lySmL9_gJMA



Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

1.Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

John 13:34

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

3 Nephi

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

No Need to Say Anything. You are condemned by the scriptures you claim to believe in and by the same search engine that you use to spread contention. There are more conversion story's to Mormonism then there is those who leave that faith, however, that is irrelevant. By posting this you are in sighting confrontation and not love and harmony, which is expected of converted Christians.

From a Baptist to a Christian Mormon


Link


The Temple and why.


Link


And finally, the agenda

wum

It is an acronym meaning Wind-Up Merchant.

It refers to someone who posts on message boards and newsgroups with the intention to cause as much disruption as possible by goading others.[/b]


Hi all.

Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon
cyberman

Quizzimodo wrote:


Hi all.

Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon


Oh no!

Chandler Bing wrote:
Can open: worms everywhere!
Sebastian Toe

Quizzimodo wrote:


Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon




Ralph2 wrote:


Which would be a sound argument if I were a Mormon, however, I am not a Mormon


As far as I can make out, he is not one.
A sympathiser maybe but not a member of that church.
Ketty

cyberman wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:


Hi all.

Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon


Oh no!

Chandler Bing wrote:
Can open: worms everywhere!



Noooooooooooooooooooooo!      



 


I'm ready guys, I'm ready.  Full armour never removed, and ready.
Derek

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:


Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon




Ralph2 wrote:


Which would be a sound argument if I were a Mormon, however, I am not a Mormon


As far as I can make out, he is not one.
A sympathiser maybe but not a member of that church.


You are right. I am not a Mormon, however, I was a Mormon for 25 years. My wife still is, as is my eldest and youngest sons. I don't actually sympathize with them either. I think that they have got parts of it spot on, so i say it, but they are way off kilter with others, so i say that, however, their lifestyle is morally sound, making it good and wholesome for my wife and boys.

Whatever you hear from Ketty is the result of indoctrination and conditioning by her own sect. That is what individual religious establishments do, however, any sect that condemns another with anger and hostility is not only elitist but they need to get their own house in order before judging and condemning those in other congregations. Just saying!
Quizzimodo

Ralph2 wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:


Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon




Ralph2 wrote:


Which would be a sound argument if I were a Mormon, however, I am not a Mormon


As far as I can make out, he is not one.
A sympathiser maybe but not a member of that church.


You are right. I am not a Mormon, however, I was a Mormon for 25 years. My wife still is, as is my eldest and youngest sons. I don't actually sympathize with them either. I think that they have got parts of it spot on, so i say it, but they are way off kilter with others, so i say that, however, their lifestyle is morally sound, making it good and wholesome for my wife and boys.

Whatever you hear from Ketty is the result of indoctrination and conditioning by her own sect. That is what individual religious establishments do, however, any sect that condemns another with anger and hostility is no t only elitist but they need to get their own house in order before judging and condemning those in other congregations. Just saying!


Can I ask what the LDS have got right & wrong in your opinion
Derek

Quizzimodo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:


Sorry been a while so got a bit of catching up to but didn't Ralph used deny being a Mormon




Ralph2 wrote:


Which would be a sound argument if I were a Mormon, however, I am not a Mormon


As far as I can make out, he is not one.
A sympathiser maybe but not a member of that church.


You are right. I am not a Mormon, however, I was a Mormon for 25 years. My wife still is, as is my eldest and youngest sons. I don't actually sympathize with them either. I think that they have got parts of it spot on, so i say it, but they are way off kilter with others, so i say that, however, their lifestyle is morally sound, making it good and wholesome for my wife and boys.

Whatever you hear from Ketty is the result of indoctrination and conditioning by her own sect. That is what individual religious establishments do, however, any sect that condemns another with anger and hostility is no t only elitist but they need to get their own house in order before judging and condemning those in other congregations. Just saying!


Can I ask what the LDS have got right & wrong in your opinion


You could. and i am quite capable of telling you, however, the time and effort required could result in me casting many valuable pearls before swine. I have experienced trying to debate with you in the past, so, with all due respects, I am not entirely at ease with writing lengthy posts for you, to enter into constructive debate with, and end up in destructive attacks, ridicule and hostility. I am not remotely interested in that so would prefer to avoid it. If you have individual points that you would like answering, then I will be happy to do that, if I can.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum