Reasons you left the LDS church.

[TroutBum]

I disagree, and I think this is the type of interjection that makes reasonable discussion difficult.

You're probably right.

That being said, there is no way that you can construe anything he's posting as "resonable".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yet you believe that God only started putting spirits in the bodies of humans four thousand years ago. What happened to all those people prior to four thousand years? How does science explain putting spirits into a body? Did God not love or care about these spiritless people? Was God experimenting on humans? Are these spiritless people in hell? I was in the LDS church for 25 plus years and I never heard this idea of God putting spirits into humans only starting four thousand years ago.

Sorry but science and faith are at odds all the time and the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

The part in bold is mainly what inspired my response, even though you did not direct it at me.

Does the world's understanding of science know everything about everything yet? Is there a cure for cancer yet? Is there a cure for the flu? (*insert one of a billion scientific questions we don't have answers to yet.) If you don't know everything about science, why would you expect Colton, or anyone else, to know everything about what happened thousands of years ago.

Colton's theory is reasonable, and it's possible he is right and we just don't know or understand everything yet.
Just because in 25 years you never heard it, doesn't mean it's not out there, or that it's not valid.
It's an idea, it's not "Church Doctrine".

I wasn't claiming to know all the questions? I never said science had all the answer. Besides the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief. As far as the spiritless body suggestion, I didn't say it was true or not, I've simply never heard of it. I believe it is illogical, not plausible and simply weird. There are plenty of ways to make educated guesses what happened millions of years ago and even thousands of years. Your claim that we don't know what happened years ago, yet millions of people use these books (Bible, Koran etc) to judge, condemn and as a tool to justify how things should run today. How do we know these things to be true? Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own. I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do. I find Conan's theory to be highly likely but heck what do I know? Maybe God is a mad scientist and Earth is his/her laboratory.

To answer why I proposed the questions in my earlier post to CONAN, was because he was promoting his credentials of being a scientist and how he believe that science and the LDS church teachings are compatible. I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers. Unfortunately, instead of answering my question you felt the need to protect your BFF. I am not surprised that you ignored the point of my post. When insecure people feel they are right they tend to either attack a person or simply name calling.

Sorry but I don't think it is reasonable at all. What actual evidence do you have that it is right? No more than I have it isn't. I admit I don't know all the answers. So when you're done making up your own theories about what happened a long time ago. Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being. So if you believe in this theory and have come to the understanding of how to defend the fact that there is a huge hole in the story of the creation of the Earth/Universe, then why not share it with the General Authorities. Perhaps because they would laugh at you? Now I know all "doctrine" doesn't make sense but if this is the probable explanation than why not? Has God cured cancer? Or the common flu? So I guess neither is that effective. LOL.

Where to start.... hmmmm.
You did say it was not true in your prior post when you stated

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

The implication is that the LDS Church is wrong, and that Faith has blinded members to the fact that they are wrong. You stated that after the paragraph about the topic. Am I correct to infer your followup statement had to do with the topic of your post as it appeared?

I believe I correctly addressed the point of your post, which was again the last line

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

Duly noted, and tagged for irony.

I'm trying to follow you, but you are making this difficult.

the LDS church is certainly without a doubt in conflict with science. It is your faith that is blinding you to this fact.

the fact that most religious people claim they have the truth while in reality they have no evidence but simple belief.

I didn't say it was true or not

Some people chose to belief and others choose to use science to better understand the world we live in. To each his own.

I do not profess to know all the answers like some religious people do.

I disagree and at no time did I insinuate that science has all the answers.

I admit I don't know all the answers.

Maybe you can take a second to realize how hypocritical you are being.

If you admit you don't know all of the answers, how can you be so quick to say a person of faith does not have something you don't?
You don't claim to know the answers, but you claim to know who does not have the answers.

Did you really want to talk about the people before God started putting spirits into bodies, or did you want to talk about how religion, for sure the LDS faith, is blind?

By the way, I read again my post to you and failed to find the part where I called you names or attacked you. If you could find it for me and explain it I would appreciate it so I don't do it again.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is the most colorful post without a pic I have ever seen. +12 when I spread some rep around.

 

[Scat]

That is the most colorful post without a pic I have ever seen. +12 when I spread some rep around.

Funny, I was going to neg rep Spazz for posting such an ugly response...

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That is the most colorful post without a pic I have ever seen. +12 when I spread some rep around.

No other way to do it without going too One Brow for my taste, and I can't believe you are at 12 already. You just hit 11 a few days ago it seems.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Funny, I was going to neg rep Spazz for posting such an ugly response...

It was so long I got sick of working on it to make it look better. Sometimes you just have to let them go... and hope they never come back.
That's one post I'm glad to be done with, but I guess I'm too OCD to let it go.

 

[Siro]

You're probably right.

That being said, there is no way that you can construe anything he's posting as "resonable".

You're riled up because I pointed out your stupidity a week ago. Get over it. You are a stupid person. You've never said an original or even a mildly interesting thing in your long history on this forum. However, I know that you have no life and that you'll keep harassing me (you're proud of that right? Isn't that why you're supposed to be cute or whatever?). I can't match your anger, or your insurance-salesman level of intellect, and I don't seem to be capable of just ignoring your insults. I also realize you're part of the inner circle, and that your behavior will be allowed to continue. So I'm left with one choice. You win.

 

[JTSPEED]

Well said.

 

[CONAN]

****ing A this thread went to ****. And **** you inner circle dillholes.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Can one of you in the know tell me if I am in the inner circle please?
I didn't even think I was in any sort of circle, but if so, the inner circle sounds better.
TIA

 

[Scat]

Can one of you in the know tell me if I am in the inner circle please?
I didn't even think I was in any sort of circle, but if so, the inner circle sounds better.
TIA

That kind of depends on what the circle is made of, doesn't it?

 

[colton]

As far as the spiritless body suggestion, I didn't say it was true or not, I've simply never heard of it. I believe it is illogical, not plausible and simply weird.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm saying that there's a difference between humans and animals... namely that humans are the spirit children of God, not that animals do not have spirits. And at some point in time humans became, well, human, instead of animals.

I never said anything about spiritless bodies. That was your phrase.

To answer why I proposed the questions in my earlier post to CONAN, was because he was promoting his credentials of being a scientist...

Name mixup there.