[ShepherdsDog]

This is where the Anabaptists had it right. Only an adult can make the concious descision to accept or reject a set of beliefs, based on reason. Children can be brought up in Christian families or raised with Christian values(or any other belief), but until they can fully understand the significance of their beliefs and accept them, they aren't truly one thing or the other.

The age of understanding differs in individuals, usually anytime after 13 or 14. it's only when the the ability to reason truly kicks in that a person can truly grasp the meaning of their faith (and the sacrifices/expectations that go along with it), or why they don't believe.

Part of the problem is that the Christians came up with this idea of original Sin....Jews don't believe in it, and you'll notice that the New Testament only discusses Jesus and John baptizing 'adults'.

Children are only prospects...they aren't patched members of the club.....Sorry i've been watching Sons of Anarchy

[Guy_Fawkes]

EyeBrock wrote:

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Now do you classify her as a Christian?

Nope, she's a Catholic until she decides she doesn't want to be one any longer. Some decisions can't be made by 5 year-olds. Until she can make her own decisions in that department she will follow my cultural upbringing just as I did at her age.

I classify her as my daughter and a part of our family unit. I think you are thinking too hard on this one GF.

I just wanted to see what your view point was on the issue.

[Psudo]

I hate to interrupt the actual topic of conversation by continuing this tangent, but I also hate to let the lateness of my reply look like logical defeat when it is not. On the topic of the religious affiliation of children, Mormons do not extend membership to children under the age of 8 years old.

ShepherdsDog wrote:

None of the cities talked about in the book of Mormon existed nor is there any genetic link between meso-Americans and the Jews, so it sort of undermines the entire premise of Mormonism. An interesting work of fiction but without any of the historical context found in the bibles of the Jews and the Christians.

None of the cities talked about in the Book of Mormon have been located, and no genetic link between Meso-Americans and Jews have been found. However, evidence from the Book of Mormon suggests that 1) the entire known world of the Book of Mormon in the Americas was about three day's march across (what is that, 60-100 miles?), so their culture may merely not yet have been found in the 8 million square miles of South and Central America, 2) a great geological upheaval "swallowed up" most of what the Book of Mormon talked about, so Book of Mormon locations may be unusually hidden, and 3) that God performs miracles, including a couple explicit mentions of changes to the physical, hereditary traits of an entire people; that sounds like a genetic change to me. Would you like chapter and verse for these things?

There's no empirical or historical evidence of much of what happens in the Book of Mormon, just as there is no documentation of Jesus' miracles to verify the Gospels, or proof of the existence of Moses' burning bush, or Islam's jinni, or Hindu's ancient kings who ascended to heaven on ropes tied around them. All religious stories from all religions require a certain suspension of disbelief that we call "faith.". The only difference is that Mormonism goes all in on faith, such that it is impossible follow the pattern of humanist-adherents like Jefferson who pick and choose, accepting the cultural without the miraculous from their scripture. Mormons believe in miracles or disbelieve it all. That is all your argument proves.

[ShepherdsDog]

We're not talking about miracles. We're talking about geographical locations and genetics. The cities haven't been located because they never existed. ...and you would have me believe God tinkered with DNA. We can trace 17 000 year old european mitochondrial DNA in the Ojibway people and explain how Clovis Culture developed from Soultrean Culture, or pin point a commom male ancestor 75 000 years ago and a common female ancestor about 160 000 years ago. There was never any Hebraic culture in the New World prior to the creation of New York and Florida. Two thousand years is not enough time to allow for genetic drift, that would erase the DNA evidence. Hell, even the most hardcore zionists have to admit that a large chunk of the Palestinians are the descendants of Hebrews that converted to Christianity and Islam. Similar time scale and its scientifically verifiable because of their common genetic markers.

[Psudo]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

We're not talking about miracles. We're talking about geographical locations and genetics.

For which Mormons have miraculous explanations. Read Chinese or Hindi myths of their cultural origins and you'll see largely the same thing. Empirical Egyptologists have the same criticisms of the claims that Moses freed the Hebrew slaves from Pharaoh. Your arguments are not more critical of Mormonism than of religion generally.

[EyeBrock]

Mmm. Miracles.

Religion and reality. Two very different issues.

[ShepherdsDog]

Except that there is no question about Egypt having existed and that it had hebrew settlements. the only thing questionable is how many Hebrews lived there and the claims of miracles occurring. The Babylonian Captivity was a fact as well, but myths grew out of it too.. Smith tried scamming people with the Indian burial mounds being proof of hebraic civilization..he was outed. Then the Olmec, Toltec and Mayan ruins became publicized. Ruins of ancient cities and civilizations found in the jungle.... and he seized on that.

Christopher Hitchens writes a couple good articles on the subject


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... igion.html


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... n_activity

[Bruce_the_vii]

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm. Miracles.

Religion and reality. Two very different issues.

My life is a series of miracles. Some of them quite beyond explanation.

[Psudo]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Except that there is no question about Egypt having existed and that it had hebrew settlements.

There is no empirical evidence that Egyptians held any Jews as slaves in Moses' time.

a sketpic website wrote:

It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt [...] beginning in about 650 BCE.

That's about 600 years after the Bible says Moses lived.

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Christopher Hitchens writes a couple good articles on the subject

Your source is a generically anti-religious guy. That kinda proves my point.

Neither you nor Hitchens are going to introduce me to some new criticism of Joseph Smith I haven't already heard. I've read plenty of secular history written about the man. If you'd like to act informed on the topic, read Rough Stone Rolling.

Differentiate between Mormons and religion generally or we have nothing to discuss.