LordIsaac:
Oh malaria!

It probably causes long-term brain damage lmao

KnownUnknown:


It probably causes long-term brain damage lmao

It actually does, via CEREBRAL MALARIA. 🥱

ItisWell22:


It actually does, via CEREBRAL MALARIA. 🥱

LordIsaac:
Oh malaria!

Knownunknown , itiswell22 , lordreed LordIsaac

Can I know your alternative the principle, ideology, practice, etc you object to individually?


Let's start from there.

Next is: The book in question and my thread deals with History and not necessarily religion if you deduct.

The Christian bible too is history majorly, where people fling their hopes, expectations and perceptions on and clinging into that to form beliefs and religions.

Question: Which part of the historical side of the two books fo you dispute please? Thanks.

chieveboy:


Knownunknown, itiswell22, lordreed

Can I know your alternative the principle, ideology, practice, etc you object to individually?


Let's start from there.

Next is: The book in question and my thread deals with History and not necessarily religion if you deduct.

The Christian bible too is history majorly, where people fling their hopes, expectations and perceptions on and clinging into that to form beliefs and religions.

Question: Which part of the historical side of the two books fo you dispute please? Thanks.

Joseph Smith was a massive fraud so is the so called Book of Mormon or whatever those golden plates he purportedly found is called. His tale matches nothing in reality.

The Bible is NOT a history book, it's an anthology of Jewish myths and legends possibly interspersed with Greek ideas.

LordReed:


Joseph Smith was a massive fraud so is the so called Book of Mormon or whatever those golden plates he purportedly found is called. His tale matches nothing in reality.

The Bible is NOT a history book, it's an anthology of Jewish myths and legends possibly interspersed with Greek ideas.

When I wish to deal with people, I get turned off with those who make blanket allegations and whatnots without proof.


What are your sources and proof? Let's dissect and have a close objective look.

chieveboy:


When I wish to deal with people, I get turned off with those who make blanket allegations and whatnots without proof.


What are your sources and proof? Let's dissect and have a close objective look.

Oh sure, I don't make my statement lightly.

First off, he claimed he had the power to find hidden treasure but after many attempts never found any.

Next, he claimed he found the golden plates but never showed those plates in the open. Then after claiming to have translated the plates, suddenly the plates are no where to be found.

He also created a joint stock company, called the Kirtland Safety Society, to act as a quasi-bank; the company issued banknotes partly capitalized by real estate. He encouraged his followers to buy the notes, in which he invested heavily himself. The bank failed within a month. A warrant was issued for his arrest for banking fraud but he ran away.

After declaring that only he had the power to make church doctrine, he began to secretly marry multiple wives, a doctrine called plural marriage but he only spoke of it to close associates so that kasala will not bust. When one of his main men started using the doctrine, he had that one excommunicated.

He latter created a secret council that was to declare him Prophet, Priest, and King and create an independent state within US territory.

It was when he started secretly trying to seduce his close followers wives that the final kasala that would lead to his death busted.

There are other details to this story that taken all together will show he was indeed a massive fraud but these I think are the most cogent to any honest person reviewing his story and should point to that conclusion.

I will make a separate post for the Book of Mormon.

LordReed:


Oh sure, I don't make my statement lightly.

First off, he claimed he had the power to find hidden treasure but after many attempts never found any.

Next, he claimed he found the golden plates but never showed those plates in the open. Then after claiming to have translated the plates, suddenly the plates are no where to be found.

He also created a joint stock company, called the Kirtland Safety Society, to act as a quasi-bank; the company issued banknotes partly capitalized by real estate. He encouraged his followers to buy the notes, in which he invested heavily himself. The bank failed within a month. A warrant was issued for his arrest for banking fraud but he ran away.

After declaring that only he had the power to make church doctrine, he began to secretly marry multiple wives, a doctrine called plural marriage but he only spoke of it to close associates so that kasala will not bust. When one of his main men started using the doctrine, he had that one excommunicated.

He latter created a secret council that was to declare him Prophet, Priest, and King and create an independent state within US territory.

It was when he started secretly trying to seduce his close followers wives that the final kasala that would lead to his death busted.

There are other details to this story that taken all together will show he was indeed a massive fraud but these I think are the most cogent to any honest person reviewing his story and should point to that conclusion.

I will make a separate post for the Book of Mormon.

Catch this drift swiftly before it escapes:

1: All your assertions above are derived from certain sources.

Drift: Why do you trust and believe them hook, line and sinker?

2: Experientially, you rely heavily on focusing on the negative sides of people gleaned from sources you would have dug negative story about if the subject was your target...

Drift: This is giving us a clear image of an acute Contraria host...

3: If your read up, I am not for or against the Mormons (God bless their Souls), I merely reflected on the experience with their book.

You seem to think it was an Ad for Mormon and is out to characteristically de-market. I don't get ...

chieveboy:



Catch this drift swiftly before it escapes:

1: All your assertions above are derived from certain sources.

Drift: Why do you trust and believe them hook, line and sinker?

2: Experientially, you rely heavily on focusing on the negative sides of people gleaned from sources you would have dug negative story about if the subject was your target...

Drift: This is giving us a clear image of an acute Contraria host...

3: If your read up, I am not for or against the Mormons (God bless their Souls), I merely reflected on the experience with their book.

You seem to think it was an Ad for Mormon and is out to characteristically de-market. I don't get ...

I accept those sources because they are corroborated with real documents. All the things I said about Joseph Smith have documents backing them.

There is no person who hasn't done something wrong so I don't expect any saints anywhere however some people's own is too egregious to ignore like Joseph Smith.

The book is a product of a fraud so whatever you experienced is entirely subjective to you and has nothing to do with such a book.

LordReed:


I accept those sources because they are corroborated with real documents. All the things I said about Joseph Smith have documents backing them.

There is no person who hasn't done something wrong so I don't expect any saints anywhere however some people's own is too egregious to ignore like Joseph Smith.

The book is a product of a fraud so whatever you experienced is entirely subjective to you and has nothing to do with such a book.

I have watched fantastic movies and had that flow I described. A movie is essentially a work of fiction by the way...

I need to mention this so you don't feel my experience with the book where I mentioned the Life Force flowed within me was a moment of 'too good' for your stance.

The book is a product of a fraud so whatever you experienced is entirely subjective to you and has nothing to do with such a book.

What experience isn't subjective psychologically speaking?

chieveboy:


When I wish to deal with people, I get turned off with those who make blanket allegations and whatnots without proof.


What are your sources and proof? Let's dissect and have a close objective look.

Let's examine a bit about the Book of Mormon.

1. It claims to have been ori written in reformed Egyptian, a language that has no evidence of ever existing.

2. It claims to be from ancient American natives yet extensively quotes the King James version of the Bible. Ancient native Americans had the King James Bible?

3. The book claims there were horses and elephants in America at the time it was written but these animals were in fact introduced to America by Europeans. Horses were brought to America in the 16th century, elephants much later.

4. The book claims native Americans descended from Abraham but no genetic study has ever found genetic link between native Americans and people from the Middle East.

5. No archaeological findings has ever supported anything the book claims about ancient native Americans.

There is a whole lot more but most of it is of academic interest because you need to really invest in understanding some things before you know why the Book of Mormon cannot be what it says it is. These ones I have written here I think are sufficient to put pause to any claim that it is some kind of historical or accurate record of real world events.

chieveboy:


I have watched fantastic movies and had that flow I described. A movie is essentially a work of fiction by the way...

I need to mention this so you don't feel my experience with the book where I mentioned the Life Force flowed within me was a moment of 'too good' for your stance.



What experience isn't subjective psychologically speaking?

Great so you do accept that profound experiences can be had without anything that claims to be supernatural.

I agree all experiences are subjective (partly or wholly) however certain experiences are produced/reproduced by objective stimuli, such experiences are not purely subjective. Your particular experience with the book will not be reproduced just by reading the book or else everyone who has read it would be claiming the same thing you did.

KnownUnknown:


Which experiences of the conman Joseph smith did you relive? The real experiences or the tall tales. Lol

Don't let the knowledge of semantics let you down:

Basically the word "relive" means to put one's self into a memory or experience to re-experience it. It doesn't matter if it was a real experience or not.

To dumb this down, this is why people watch movies and cry. Movies are essentially tall tales most of the time.

LordReed:


Great so you do accept that profound experiences can be had without anything that claims to be supernatural.

Profound experiences can be had with anything at all because everything is supernatural. Everything from the Spaghetti Monster, the scrotum of Zeus up to the table spoon of Jehova!

And this is so when you marry the best of today's science with religion out of necessity because both are not really separate.

I agree all experiences are subjective (partly or wholly) however certain experiences are produced/reproduced by objective stimuli, such experiences are not purely subjective. Your particular experience with the book will not be reproduced just by reading the book or else everyone who has read it would be claiming the same thing you did.

When you're working with the viewpoint of text book and obsolete science, you indeed would accept the possibility of objectivity. Go further...

chieveboy:


Profound experiences can be had with anything at all because everything is supernatural. Everything from the Spaghetti Monster, the scrotum of Zeus up to the table spoon of Jehova!

And this is so when you marry the best of today's science with religion out of necessity because both are not really separate.

If everything is supernatural then everything is natural since nothing is special.

When you're working with the viewpoint of text book and obsolete science, you indeed would accept the possibility of objectivity. Go further...

You are the one who needs to to go further since I already agreed that all experience is either partially or wholly subjective. And also quote which textbook and obsolete science you think my viewpoint comes from.

LordReed:


A: If everything is supernatural then everything is natural since nothing is special.

B: You see? This is the whole point and you did a great job in catching it (although inadvertently and I will say why later)!

C: Everything is supernatural and natural at the same time, it depends on who is viewing and their well being--that's their and state of (respective) biokind (animal or plant), and the space-time index (earth, another planet, another dimension, etc). This is why it's entirely subjective as far as this domain (of physics) is concerned.

Back to B above, initially you were mocking how someone could experience the 'supernatural' reading Joseph Smith who to you was scam. Today you officially became the genius who decoded that yes, seemingly stupid things could be supernatural after all...

This reminds us of the biblical scripture: "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"

You are the one who needs to to go further since I already agreed that all experience is either partially or wholly subjective. And also quote which textbook and obsolete science you think my viewpoint comes from.

Please refer to C above in this would you? Show me you get that science or not. Cheers!

LordReed:


Let's examine a bit about the Book of Mormon.

1. It claims to have been ori written in reformed Egyptian, a language that has no evidence of ever existing.

2. It claims to be from ancient American natives yet extensively quotes the King James version of the Bible. Ancient native Americans had the King James Bible?

3. The book claims there were horses and elephants in America at the time it was written but these animals were in fact introduced to America by Europeans. Horses were brought to America in the 16th century, elephants much later.

4. The book claims native Americans descended from Abraham but no genetic study has ever found genetic link between native Americans and people from the Middle East.

5. No archaeological findings has ever supported anything the book claims about ancient native Americans.

There is a whole lot more but most of it is of academic interest because you need to really invest in understanding some things before you know why the Book of Mormon cannot be what it says it is. These ones I have written here I think are sufficient to put pause to any claim that it is some kind of historical or accurate record of real world events.

You will recall the famous paragraph "C" in my earlier response and marry that to the substance of the gist of this thread where I said I was not endorsing nor debunking their book.

Although its entertainment watching your discomfort that despite the alleged fallacy in it, I had a supernatural encounter. I further liked how you came home earlier that everything being supernatural and natural at the same time.

LordReed:


Let's examine a bit about the Book of Mormon.

1. It claims to have been ori written in reformed Egyptian, a language that has no evidence of ever existing.

2. It claims to be from ancient American natives yet extensively quotes the King James version of the Bible. Ancient native Americans had the King James Bible?

3. The book claims there were horses and elephants in America at the time it was written but these animals were in fact introduced to America by Europeans. Horses were brought to America in the 16th century, elephants much later.

4. The book claims native Americans descended from Abraham but no genetic study has ever found genetic link between native Americans and people from the Middle East.

5. No archaeological findings has ever supported anything the book claims about ancient native Americans.

There is a whole lot more but most of it is of academic interest because you need to really invest in understanding some things before you know why the Book of Mormon cannot be what it says it is. These ones I have written here I think are sufficient to put pause to any claim that it is some kind of historical or accurate record of real world events.

I don't think we should judge religious scripture with the eyes of an academic document.

All ancient religions scripture contains contradictory historical accounts and claims that science can proof to be false. All without exception.

For example, archaeology and history have proven that there was no wall of Jericho at the time the children of Israel fell the wall. Jericho at that time wasn't even a city. It was just a small settlement.

The question here is, how best can we judge the content of a spiritual ducument?

You clearly have very intelligent argument so I want to hear your thoughts on judging ancient scripture with historical facts and other scientific measures.

tctrills:


I don't think we should judge religious scripture with the eyes of an academic document.

All ancient religions scripture contains contradictory historical accounts and claims that science can proof to be false. All without exception.

For example, archaeology and history have proven that there was no wall of Jericho at the time the children of Israel fell the wall. Jericho at that time wasn't even a city. It was just a small settlement.

The question here is, how best can we judge the content of a spiritual ducument?

You clearly have very intelligent argument so I want to hear your thoughts on judging ancient scripture with historical facts and other scientific measures.

I have no qualms with people interpreting their text in spiritual ways, but a problem arises when they begin to claim what is obviously contrary to reality as historical or scientific. If you notice I didn't tell the OP that his experience wasn't real or profound or meaningful, that's because I think having those kinds of experiences can be helpful to the individual. However, having an experience does not change what is obviously not factual into fact.

chieveboy:


B: You see? This is the whole point and you did a great job in catching it (although inadvertently and I will say why later)!

C: Everything is supernatural and natural at the same time, it depends on who is viewing and their well being--that's their and state of (respective) biokind (animal or plant), and the space-time index (earth, another planet, another dimension, etc). This is why it's entirely subjective as far as this domain (of physics) is concerned.

Back to B above, initially you were mocking how someone could experience the 'supernatural' reading Joseph Smith who to you was scam. Today you officially became the genius who decoded that yes, seemingly stupid things could be supernatural after all...

This reminds us of the biblical scripture: "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"

Wrong. I didn't mock your ability to have an experience via the book. You called what is obviously a product of fraud a historical document and that is why I said Joseph Smith was a massive fraud and his book a product of fraud, I nowhere said anything to mock your experience.

Please refer to C above in this would you? Show me you get that science or not. Cheers!

Get what science? You haven't shown me any science yet.

chieveboy:


You will recall the famous paragraph "C" in my earlier response and marry that to the substance of the gist of this thread where I said I was not endorsing nor debunking their book.

Although its entertainment watching your discomfort that despite the alleged fallacy in it, I had a supernatural encounter. I further liked how you came home earlier as they everything being supernatural and natural at the same time.

You called the book a historical document did you not?

I never said everything was supernatural and natural at the same time, don't get it twisted. As far as I know, what is termed supernatural has not been substantiated to any reliable degree. Calling what are obviously natural phenomena supernatural is just an attempt to fudge meanings, which is why I told you calling everything supernatural just means you obliterated the word supernatural ie everything is therefore natural.

LordReed:


I have no qualms with people interpreting their text in spiritual ways, but a problem arises when they begin to claim what is obviously contrary to reality as historical or scientific. If you notice I didn't tell the OP that his experience wasn't real or profound or meaningful, that's because I think having those kinds of experiences can be helpful to the individual. However, having an experience does not change what is obviously not factual into fact.

We are somehow saying the same thing. My point is that every ancient religions scripture is contrary to reality as historical or scientific. So religion should not be judged the same way we judge other history or scientific texts.
There must be in different measure for religion.
If not, we all should be atheists. There is a place for religion and there is a different place for science and even historical facts.

tctrills:

We are somehow saying the same thing. My point is that every ancient religions scripture is contrary to reality as historical or scientific. So religion should not be judged the same way we judge other history or scientific texts.
There must be in different measure for religion.
If not, we all should be atheists. There is a place for religion and there is a different place for science and even historical facts.

Then religion should stay in its lane and not cross over to making bogus historical or scientific claims. Fact is fact, a religion should not have the leeway to attempt to manufacture bullshit and call it fact.

LordReed:


Then religion should stay in its lane and not cross over to making bogus historical or scientific claims. Fact is fact, a religion should not have the leeway to attempt to manufacture bullshit and call it fact.

You clearly don't get the purpose of religion.

Now let's talk a little about scientific facts.
One thing we learnt from the COVID 19 pandemic is that the general science view also undergoes constant change. What's viewed as correct today may be seen as wrong in the next 50 years.

There have been records of plants and animals that at a time we believed where extinct only to discover that they were not as more evidence were provided.

So when it comes to things that happened hundreds of years ago, science is not always conclusive.

There are still so many arguments going in the world of science.

So even when we don't have evidence of a religious event, it's not always safe to claim it is false.

That's where faith comes in.
Faith is a religious quality. It has no place in the science world.

Hence it's not right to measure religious events with scientific Indicators.

chieveboy:


Don't let the knowledge of semantics let you down:

Basically the word "relive" means to put one's self into a memory or experience to re-experience it. It doesn't matter if it was a real experience or not.

To dumb this down, this is why people watch movies and cry. Movies are essentially tall tales most of the time.

You have emotions! Riveting.

KnownUnknown:


You have emotions! Riveting.

This cracked me up. Who said I don't?

I mentioned you to provide information not check whether I have emotions or not.

It seems it's an addiction the heavy reliance on digging up " scandals" from the web...is that the new flex?

tctrills:


You clearly don't get the purpose of religion.

Now let's talk a little about scientific facts.
One thing we learnt from the COVID 19 pandemic is that the general science view also undergoes constant change. What's viewed as correct today may be seen as wrong in the next 50 years.

There have been records of plants and animals that at a time we believed where extinct only to discover that they were not as more evidence were provided.

So when it comes to things that happened hundreds of years ago, science is not always conclusive.

There are still so many arguments going in the world of science.

So even when we don't have evidence of a religious event, it's not always safe to claim it is false.

That's where faith comes in.
Faith is a religious quality. It has no place in the science world.

Hence it's not right to measure religious events with scientific Indicators.

Where these records found in religious scripture and disputed by scientific findings?

What is a religious event? You mean miracle? Are you saying miracles leave no evidence?

Science doesn't declare itself a monolithic body of knowledge that is inviolate, that is religion.

LordReed:


Then religion should stay in its lane and not cross over to making bogus historical or scientific claims. Fact is fact, a religion should not have the leeway to attempt to manufacture bullshit and call it fact.

Not at all.

From the distance of pre-information (aka "ignorance" ), science and religion are apart. Scientist today who have known and chew their onions find it hard to create a dichotomy between science and religion in all it's tributaries as history, belief and even dogma.

They both wine and dine at a particular joint in town.

chieveboy:


Not at all.

From the distance of pre-information (aka "ignorance", science and religion are apart. Scientist today who have know and chew their onions find it hard to create a dichotomy between science and religion in all it's tributaries as history, belief and even dogma.

They both will be and dine at a particular joint in town.

LoLz. Dude there is a big dichotomy between the 2 whether it is acknowledged or not. Science deals with facts, religion deals with spirituality. Spirituality doesn't need facts and facts don't need spirituality.

LordReed:


LoLz. Dude there is a big dichotomy between the 2 whether it is acknowledged or not. Science deals with facts, religion deals with spirituality. Spirituality doesn't need facts and facts don't need spirituality.

Spirituality can also deal with facts and be based on science. It depends on your definition of spirituality. Note I said spirituality, not religion. You can have one without the other.

It's actually good to adopt a science-based approach to spirituality. There's actually a physics underlying what religious people call "spirit".

It's all energy and consciousness. The physics here doesn't require faith at all. It's even deeper and more fundamental than even Quantum Physics.

A001:

Spirituality can also deal with facts and be based on science. It depends on your definition of spirituality. Note I said spirituality, not religion. You can have one without the other.

It's actually good to adopt a science-based approach to spirituality. There's actually a physics underlying what religious people call "spirit".

It's all energy and consciousness.

It can but doesn't need to.

I don't see the need to create another layer of flowery language to describe natural phenomena to make it seem more mysterious or something. I appreciate the complexity of natural phenomena just as they are.

LordReed:


LoLz. Dude there is a big dichotomy between the 2 whether it is acknowledged or not. Science deals with facts, religion deals with spirituality. Spirituality doesn't need facts and facts don't need spirituality.

No wonder