Wolfy, by one definition of the word, sure. Though for that definition I wouldn't consider it to have a negative connotation.

What do you mean, "by one definition of the word?" The word blasphemy means to attribute attributes of God to oneself -- he used it in the exactly correct context. It is blasphemous to say that you can be God. It was blasphemy for which Lucifer was cast out of Heaven.

The most widely-used definition of blasphemy is disrespect toward God, not having god-like attributes. That's all I'm saying. Having god like attributes isn't a negative thing.

Simply because it's not the most widely-used doesn't negate the fact that it is still blasphemous to make yourself out to be a god. I mean, "******" still means a bundle of sticks tied together and "queer" means strange, and uses as such are still appropriate for their proper definitions, even if others don't use them the same way.

The claims are not of people being gods, but of the possibility of their gaining those attributes if they make the right moves.

...which constitutes blasphemy. If you do the "right moves," you're then saying you're worthy of being attributed the same qualities as God.

I don't disagree, but I find it worthwhile to not let misconceptions linger.

Because they're crazy, delusional, self-contradictory blasphemers?

Believe whatever you want, but try calling your oddball suicide pact cult "Christianity" LIE and I'll take the fight to my grave.

If you're a Christian it should be almost fairly well known...

From Genesis (king james version)



*shrug* the first sin was an attempt to be godlike.
Anyways...the first commandment of the bible:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.



Fair enough *shrug*.

He was describing how we are NOW, not how we might be as gods further down the road.

I would just like to point out (mostly in response to Mort's post), that when dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, incomprehensible being of unimaginable power that apparently exists in a plane seperate from our own, you can't use science to back it up. That would be like Mario (of nintendo fame) deciding that, since all he knew was a two-dimension pixelated sidescroller, that his creators must have also been formed of pixels in a two-dimensional side-scrolling world.

What I'm saying is, if there is a God, and if said God created this universe and all the rules that bind it, that God is not required to be bound by those same rules (Just like Shigeru Miyamoto or whatever the heck his name is, isn't a two-dimensional pixelated being who can only move from side to side)

Likewise, The creation of the universe doesn't have to be bound by our laws of physics. Someone pointed out in a previous thread, that if God could create this universe, who's to say he couldn't create it to seem like it had been around for millions of years? Why he would do that, I can't say. But God as described in the Bible is above science, so trying to explain or disprove him using science is ridiculous. Likewise, Creation as described in the Bible did not involve science, so trying to disprove creation using science doesn't work.

LMAO! I just learned that the new edition of the Book of Mormon that just came out omits all references to the American Indians being descendents of the Lamanites! What a ****ing crock. Every president of the Mormon Church has taught that Native Americans are/were descendents of the Lamanaites, and it was in previous versions of the BoM.

They can't have incriminating evidence against Mormonism in the BoM, now, can they, so they took it out! That church does more whitewashing and sanitizing of its history and false scripture than any organization I've ever seen.

Awesome. Where'd you find that out?

Freelancer, we may have some disagreements, but you just made my day with that post. I laughed quite a bit.

And I'm glad that you can at least see problems with Mormonism, even though we might have other disagreements with opinions and the bible.

I think Mormonizm is a buch of crock myself.

I hate JW people, mormons have never bothered me but their religion is...yeah...

I don't care enough about JW "christians" to research their religion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite similar to mormonism.

After reading this thread, I have decided to start my own religion, the one and only TRUE faith.

I'm going to call it: Shebobinism.

Basically you can believe in whatever the **** you want to and no one else gives a ****. You're also allowed to kill people who don't take "no" for an answer.

>.<

They don't have their own book of worship, but they do have their own special translation ( heavily edited ) version of the Bible which corroborates whatever bat**** end of the world theory their Charismatic Leaders wish to propagate.

Yes, the "appearance of age" argument is often the 'last line of defense' for creationist arguments.

Why does radiodecay give such old dates for the Earth? Why, God Created all daughter elements of the decay series.

Why do the bristlecone pines have so many rings? Why, God created trees with the tree rings already in place.

Why do we see light from stars that are billions of light years away? Why, the light bathing the Earth on the first three days was from the innumerable light bearers which were yet to be constituted on the fourth day.

Taking this argument ("the Universe looks old because that's how God made it to look") to its logical conclusion, one can safely assume that the entire Universe was in fact made last night, and the Universe is really only a few hours old.
Everything that indicates otherwise - history textbooks, your memories of yesterday, your grandparents, the leftovers in the fridge, last month's newspaper - they were all created by God during the Creation last night to make it LOOK as though the Universe is older.
Who could prove otherwise?

It's a bit funny, you've got to admit.

It also raises the question of whether we can trust our senses. When I see a chair with my eyes, is that chair actually there, or is it an illusion created by God?

Now, this could go down the heavily philosophical road regarding consciousness and existance and the like. Fortunately, we don't have to.

Biblical faith is rooted in history. When Moses saw the burning bush, we are trusting not only his words but also his eyes. If he was hallucinating, his account would be meaningless. If God created the Universe with an appearance of age, he is creating an illusion of history.
If history is an illusion, then biblical faith is fantasy.

So really, the 'appearance of age' argument ends up shooting itself in the foot.

True say.

I'm not bothered about where it all came from (on a day to day basis), I'm more concerned about keeping what we've got intact for future generations. Maybe organised religion is useful for this, but personally, I'm a big fan of personal faith and organised religion being phased out.

I do however find religion fascinating. Mormons intrigue me, especially with the dodgy founding of its belief system.

Ha I haven't read past the first half of the first page of this, but I can guess how it went. Everybody keeps pwning mormons and then somebody is like "THE BIBLE IS WHACK" but can't back it up at all. Then people pwn moronism some more. Back to the subject anyway, I've got two stories that pwn.

First off, when I was really depressed, and it was really showing at school, my "mormon" "friend" decided to help. I say "mormon" because she's like most christians who claim some stuff and memorize some idea but don't live by it most of the time. I say "friend" cause she acts like a friend sometimes and then at others she PMSs on me and only me. Anyway she took a book of mormon, wrote on the first couple of pages a letter about "don't kill yourself, read this, I love you, you're so special, and then says to write down good things that happen each day." Then she sneaks it into my backpack. Later on I literally screamed when I opened my bag and saw the BOM(b) staring at me. She was trying to be nice, and it is sorta sweet, until you consider that she said to read this to be happy.

So I read it and it did indeed make me happy. Mainly from laughing so much I found it interesting that the witnessess of the tablets were all ('cept for 2) from two families. One was the smith family, the other was of a family friend. I'll find it if you want...

So story number 2. We were moving down here to Florida when i was a youngin. We were packing stuff like mad. Anyhoo some mormons came along and asked if they could help (sensing a good way to gain some converts). So my dad says yes and works them like dogs for a few hours. Once we're finished he gives them some water and they start talking about mormonism. So my dad says "no thx" and closes the door on them. OWNED! ultimate free labor.

edit: and I managed to use some form of "owned" 3 or 4 times

Your stories would be much more entertaining if they held some form of coherency, and had a distinct absence of "owned" and its mutations.

So I assume this has turned into a debate. Who would've thought...

oh you know it has.

Seriously though, why is this thread still here? I've finished a whole school semester and this thread is still going.



And besides, we still haven't addressed the issue that Mormons typically drive cheap cars. *runs and watches from the shadows*

I personally think Mormonism is a load of bull pucky. Why do I think this? Because I can. It's my opinion. I don't agree with it's teachings. If you disagree, with me.. fine. It's your opinion. Just don't try to alter mine.

It is your opinion. Also, your opinion is completely correct. That means your opinion is fact. Congratulations.

Damn... if it only worked like that.