Apostasy from Christ' true teachings

I would say it was not the prophecies that made me believe, perhaps that was a misconception. I said I found the church through history. I have been deceived with theoritical answeres and I am glad that we had this conversation because perhaps I was confused. I have already stated that I lost the debate.It does not mean that I dont believe, this just means I doubt that Joseph Smith is a prophet now. I have had these conversations before but before, I was like talking to a brick wall, latly since I have came to this forum, I actually see were you have to stop convincing your self of certain things, because people will do blind acts beacuse they want something to be true, that was my nature for a short time. I was simply blind because I wanted so much for Joseph Smith to be true, but I see how he could not be true. Let me note that I am still a young kid, 22, and I may not know everything... I am happy we were able to debate, so that I could learn as this is the reason I came the forum. I always start with a brick wall as my defense untill I see the big picture and verify the big picture at which point if the big picture is authenticated I adopt a new view as I have done here. Joseph Smith is false from the facts, you cannot re interpret a prophesy which if I remember right, PAULK pointed out. Anyways thanksQuiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-16-2003]

That is the nature of all of us. It isn't a "short time" thing. We all fight against that when we finally recognize it but can never be sure we are winning the battle.That is why the process of science works so well. It isn't because all the scientists are so darned able to contain this tendancy (though they do know about it more than most and most of them (but by no means all) try to watch out for it). It is because the overall process has a tendancy to catch such things.It is very, very adversarial. You have noticed the kind of postings that go on here. One is put up, then 10 attack it. This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to acedemic publishing!! There the degree of scrutiny is astronomically higher and by people are very, very knowledgable about the field involved.It goes off track here and there but it is very hard for it to stay off track for too long.

Quiz, thanks for your reply.I posted mine before reading the whole thread.I agree completely with Ned with regards to the tendency to want something to be true so much that you stop seeing things rationally.This isn't just rue of religions; it's true of interpersonal relationships of all kinds, of politics, world events, history, everything.We don't tend to look for disconfirming evidence. It's just a wierd thing to do, yet we must learn to do it if we are really interested in finding the truth, or at least, in the case of science, coming as close to the truth about nature as we can.

quote:

---

Let me note that I am still a young kid, 22, and I may not know everything

---

LOL! No, you most certainly do not know everything. But niether does anyone else, regardless of age.Thanks for your candor and for not denying your intelligence.I'm truly impressed.

When I first found "Church Of Jesus Christ Of Ladder Day Saints" I already had a understanding that Christianity was apostate and it was biblical that such would happen, yet no churches I found tought about the apostasy, they all saw the scripture differently which pointed to the apostasy, and I disagreed, (i.e. all the different teachings) but then I found (after getting into more recent history research) a church which for the most part kinda brought together all the teachings of all the different churches and expelled the teachings which were obviously blasphemy, (I accepted the church without researching prophecies because of personal fulfillment) which at that point I began to look into the LDS church and I researched the church for 2 years before I joined the church. Yes, some missionaries came and answered a few questions but for the most part all my answeres came through prayer, or what I thought was revelation when really it was the adversary (sometimes you cant tell the difference as you can see their is alot of different teachings out their). My point is that I found the church through history and the church validated some of my own personal feelings which at that point I thought that it was a revelation of God that I should join this church. Now I am at the point were I am a "seeker" somebody that does not support any of the churches but finds they are all confused for the most part, but I still agree with the bible because evolution is limited in my opinion. I think that if you take evolution to far you are putting faith into it just like those who put faith into God. Anyways, thats me, peace.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-17-2003]

Interesting post about your history with religion and faith, Quiz.I've gotta say, however, you really threw me with what you said at the very end:

quote:

---

but I still agree with the bible because evolution is limited in my opinion.

---

This is another logical error.It is a false dichotomy.Even if the Theory of Evolution was completely wrong that doesn't mean that the Bible is correct.For the Bible to be the correct explanation for the origin of species (not life)on Earth, it needs to stand on it's own with it's own positive evidence.Unfortunately, it fails pretty spectacularly at explaining what we observe in nature.When we stopped pointing to things in nature and saying "Godidit" and began looking for naturalistic explanations, that's when humans began to throw off the shackles of disease and superstition.It brought up out of the dark ages, when every bad thing that happend to you was the work of devils and people were burned at the stake for being witches.

quote:

---

I think that if you take evolution to far you are putting faith into it just like those who put faith into God.

---

Um, no.If credible, falsifiable, well-tested evidence came forth which disproved some or all of the Theory of Evolution, I would definitely accept it.The thing is, the Theory of Evolution is just about as well-supported as anything gewts in science.It is better understood than the various Theories of Gravity that we have.It is just as supportd as the Germ Theory of Disease, the theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, and the Atomic Theory of Matter.Do you think that accepting the evidence that germs cause disease is the same as having faith in God, or that accepting that the Sun is the center of our solar system and all the planets orbit around it is based in the same kind of faith that allows people to belive in Allah?It certainly is possible that someone could have blind faith in Evolution and believe in it religiously, but that is not the case with the people here, and is also not the case with most of the Biologists, Genetecists, Paleontologists, and other scientists who do this kind of work every day.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-18-2003]

quote:

---

Even if the Theory of Evolution was completely wrong that doesn't mean that the Bible is correct. For the Bible to be the correct explanation for the origin of species (not life)on Earth, it needs to stand on it's own with it's own positive evidence.

​

Unfortunately, it fails pretty spectacularly at explaining what we observe in nature.

---

That depends on the interpretation. I would say that God of the bible did create life on earth, at which point Natural Selection and Sexual Selection took over, allowing mutation to occur. I think mutation is not a math err, but a problem with food intake instead. I am saying that mutation occurs because of drugs/bad food intake which can cause when preg. with child/mammel/animal whatever a mutation to occur. When the baby is born it appears mutated this is to blame the mother on, not the father. If the mutated baby is of the sexual selection then sure, change occurs in natural selection eventually. Yes, natural selection also happends to the atmosphere and this is also allowed from a biblical standpoint.

quote:

---

The thing is, the Theory of Evolution is just about as well-supported as anything gewts in science.

---

So is the bible in religon. In science macro-evolution and the mechinisms of it, are not fully supported and as such we cannot accept it factually. I would say the confusion in science is the same as the confusion in religon.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-18-2003]

quote:

---

That depends on the interpretation. I would say that God of the bible did create life on earth, at which point Natural Selection and Sexual Selection took over, allowing mutation to occur.

---

OK, sure, except that there's no evidence that God did anything.However, the ToE is not affected by how life got here.

quote:

---

I think mutation is not a math err,

---

Neither do I.Mutation is either a replication error which has to do with chemical bonds, or it is caused by damage from radiation. There are any number of substances which can damage DNA.

quote:

---

but a problem with food intake instead. I am saying that mutation occurs because of drugs/bad food intake which can cause when preg. with child/mammel/animal whatever a mutation to occur.

---

However, please do not confuse fetal developmental problems with genetic problems.

quote:

---

When the baby is born it appears mutated this is to blame the mother on, not the father.

---

Actually, if the sperm is damaged, mutations can occur in the fetus.There is an equal chance that a mutation will come from the father than from the mother.

quote:

---

If the mutated baby is of the sexual selection then sure, change occurs in natural selection eventually. Yes, natural selection also happends to the atmosphere and this is also allowed from a biblical standpoint.

---

What the heck are you talking about?The atmosphere does not reproduce with variation, so natural selection does not happen to the atmosphere.

quote:

---

So is the bible in religon.

---

No, the Bible being a divine book is completely UNSUPPORTED by any evidence at all!Religion is not evidence-based. It is faith-based.Science is evidence-based.

quote:

---

In science macro-evolution and the mechinisms of it, are not fully supported and as such we cannot accept it factually.

---

No, it is quite well-supported and it is simply YOU who cannot accept it.What makes you, who above shows a painful ignorance of even the bare basics of genetics and evolution, think you know so much better than the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists who have studied these things in great detail for 150 years?

quote:

---

I would say the confusion in science is the same as the confusion in religon.

---

You could say that, but you would be speaking from an uninformed position.

Do you think that accepting the evidence that germs cause disease is the same as having faith in God, or that accepting that the Sun is the center of our solar system and all the planets orbit around it is based in the same kind of faith that allows people to belive in Allah?If credible, falsifiable, well-tested evidence came forth which disproved some or all of the Theory of Evolution, I would definitely accept it. How is this the same as having faith in God?

quote:

---

However, the ToE is not affected by how life got here.

---

The TOE is effected becase you have to explain how from no matter came matter.

quote:

---

Mutation is either a replication error which has to do with chemical bonds, or it is caused by damage from radiation. There are any number of substances which can damage DNA.

---

replication error would suggest a mathmatical error, all though I do agree with damage from radiation but it is also damage from other substances too.

quote:

---

Actually, if the sperm is damaged, mutations can occur in the fetus.
There is an equal chance that a mutation will come from the father than from the mother.

---

My understanding is that mutation won't occur unless a "outside" source comes into the picture and adds something, which causes a inbalance then eventually a mutation, but this is not transferable from the father (a bad sperm wont duplicate it is discarded) as that would be acquired characteristics, the inbalance has to happen to the mother and only the mother while she is preg.

quote:

---

What the heck are you talking about?
The atmosphere does not reproduce with variation, so natural selection does not happen to the atmosphere.

---

your right, the claims are all theoretical.

quote:

---

No, the Bible being a divine book is completely UNSUPPORTED by any evidence at all!

​

Religion is not evidence-based. It is faith-based.

​

Science is evidence-based.

---

Their is some scientific evidence for bibilical claims, but yeah it is mostly theoretical as that is were the faith comes in(i.e. confusion also).

quote:

---

No, it is quite well-supported and it is simply YOU who cannot accept it.

​

What makes you, who above shows a painful ignorance of even the bare basics of genetics and evolution, think you know so much better than the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists who have studied these things in great detail for 150 years?

---

You're right, I dont have much knowledge in genes. But evolution I understand preatty well for that does not take much to understand. The point I am trying to get across is: The reason why the TOE is called the TOE is because it is a theory(i.e. theory of evolution). Sure evolution is factual but the TOE is not. That's were the faith plays a role in evolution(i.e. the toe). The bible being supported in religon world? Sure alot of people support the bible in religon and alot of people support the TOE in science, they are both theoretical, and as such they require faith. You can come up with all kinds of explanations with evidence or without as to why a certain scripture means something, that is why their is so much confusion in Christianity because nobody really knows what exactly Christ tought. The same for science, no body really knows factually what happend, and as such we cannot just come up with ideas because something points(i.e. evidence) in that direction, that is were false prophets come into play, people who see certain things and think this is what happened or is going to happen, same idea. The point is, TOE is theoretical and as such it requires faith. Sure you have some facts supporting that faith, but so do Christians.Quiz

quote:

---

Do you think that accepting the evidence that germs cause disease is the same as having faith in God, or that accepting that the Sun is the center of our solar system and all the planets orbit around it is based in the same kind of faith that allows people to belive in Allah?

---

I dont think that eather are relevent when trying to support or deny the God of the Bible.

quote:

---

If credible, falsifiable, well-tested evidence came forth which disproved some or all of the Theory of Evolution, I would definitely accept it. How is this the same as having faith in God?

---

Maybe we need to create a post about "facts of the bible that disprove or approve it"Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-18-2003]

While Jesus may have said that there would be false prophets, some early church fathers agreed with him. The question may then become,'Who were the false prophets they were talking about?' Well, we may have to do some Bible studying to find out. It may also depend on whether the 'orthodox' view of Jesus (that he was God incarnate) can be taken seriously or not. If the early church fathers(Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc.) were correct, then the 'false prophets' were mostly Gnostic christians. The Gnostics, for the most part, taught that Jesus was just a 'spirit', and didn't have a physical body as such, and that salvation was obtained by realizing that we already had the spirit of God in us. You can understand why the the early church fathers believed this was false prophesy and labeled it heretical. Jesus couldn't pay for human sin if he wasn't a flesh-n-blood human himself, according to the early church. Therefor if we believe in the pronouncements of Jesus, Paul, Clement, Ignatius, etc., then of course we can say that there were false prophets. The BIG question now is: Can they be believed?[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-19-2003]

"Maybe we need to create a post about facts of the Bible that disprove or approve it" Great Quiz! However, before we do that, perhaps we should discuss whether the WHOLE Bible can be proved or disproved. Is that what you are proposing? If it is, then right now I can show that there is error in the Bible. For example, Jesus supposedly spoke about a mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds(to make a point about faith), but anybody who's gotten poppie seeds between their teeth knows better! Also there are statements in the Bible which are factual. For instance, the Bible tells stories of how ancient people lived during the time of ol'e Abe. They were semi-nomadic herdsmen who got wealthy as they got more animals, servants, wives, armies, etc. There are grains of truth as well as outright falsehoods in the Bible. So, I think we should be careful about putting the whole Bible into a "true" or "false" category. What do you think?

I think you are babeling, we should still discuss facts off the bibleQuizP.S. The point was not that a mustard seed was the smallest, who told you that, that sounds like another apostate view. It does not say anywhere that the reason he used the mustard seed was because it was the smallest. LOL[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-19-2003]

Read up on Down's Syndrome ("Mongolism"). It's frequently (23% of the time, in one study)caused by getting that third chromosome 21 from the sperm of an older father. And sperm don't "duplicate" - they come from the meiosis of spermatocytes, and if they can swim real well, I'm not aware of them getting "discarded" due to carrying some chromosomal defect.

interesting, I will look into it, thanksQuiz