Easy to be Entreated

These aren't my questions, but were prepared by others on PostMormon.org . Yet, I thought they are so great, I thought I'd share them here. Now, as many of you know I was an amateur apologist for Mormonism before I discovered Mormonism wasn't true, so I know a good many apologetic responses to many of these questions. However, I think these questions bring up a lot of the significant issues and when one mentally adds up the probability that all of the apologetic excuses one right after the other one begins to see that the most likely explanation is that Mormonism is just not true. Questions by wintersfootsteps Do you consider it lying when someone does not tell you the complete story and purposefully leaves out certain details? Why was I taught an inaccurate version of events from church leaders regarding the first vision and translation of the Book of Mormon? Why was I not taught about Joseph Smith's past regarding treasure seeking...

I thought some might find it enjoyable or informative to take the Offense-Taking Scale, which I developed and validated a few years ago for my master's thesis. If you are interested in reading more about this scale, you can find it here (I am first author). Indicate the extent to which you are in agreement with each item by putting one number next to the item. 6 = Agree strongly 5 = Agree somewhat 4 = Agree slightly 3 = Disagree slightly 2 = Disagree somewhat 1 = Disagree strongly ____ 1. After someone has offended me, I usually think about the offense frequently. ____ 2. It takes something fairly severe to offend me. ____ 3. When I become offended, it is very difficult for me to concentrate. ____ 4. Once someone ha...

I just love the program on NPR called RadioLab. It is a very entertaining and thought provoking science show. Today's episode was all about the mind and one's sense of self. If you are even mildly interested, take a listen and you will not regret it. If you like this episode, listen to some more. Who Am I?

So many religionists believe that if they try something and it works then it denotes that something is true. Buddhists lean heavily on it. Mormons do too, as do New Agers. Scientific research methods are designed to help scientists not be fooled by that fallacy. Let's discuss a few reasons why something might not be true, even when we try something and we get the desired outcome. First, correlation cannot establish causation. For example, let's say these two events are correlated (i.e., they both occur in relative proximity), praying to find keys and finding the keys. Let's say that this has happened on a number of occasions. We cannot infer based solely on correlation that the praying caused us to find the keys. We might find the keys everytime whether or not we pray. Certainly there are people who don't pray (like me) who lose keys and then find them. Or, it could be that some third variable also co-occurs with the first two events, such as thinking about w...

The following is the most even handed summary of the arguments, although it is far from complete. I highly recommend not making a judgment based solely on the content of this post, but also read the material on the 8 links at the bottom of this post under the section "Sources and Further Reading". The following material is quoted from here . The title " Christ ," which was applied almost interchangeably with the name "Jesus" by Christians from the New Testament era onwards, comes from the Greek for " Messiah ." The Messiah is a Jewish hero-figure predicted by the Hebrew prophets to save the Jews and bring justice to the world. Christians believe Jesus was and is this Messiah; Jews believe he is not and still await a future messiah. Presented below are basic outlines of the reasons given for both views. Reasons for Jesus as Messiah (Christian Perspective) Christian Argument ...

My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful. It is beyond dispute that suffering does exist. What is in question is whether this suffering is needless. The standard apologetic argument is that we are not in a position to know whether suffering is needless or not; god could have a purpose for our suffering that we may not be able to comprehend. So, let us suppose that god does have a purpose for our suffering - if we suffer it accomplishes some end. Is there another way to accomplish that same end without our suffering? If god is all-powerful, he could accomplish that end without our suffering; if one suggests that he cannot, then one admits that he is not all-po...