Seeking Truth Wherever You Can Find it

[OtherCheek]

so you are going to ignore the part where it was not even Celsus' words????? and you accused us of "lying"?

I already addressed that in the very post where I introduced it.

[Bill the Cat]

What's wrong with that? Is it impossible for a few brilliant men to have lived during the time of the apostasy, and had some good insights and incorrect ideas?

It's status quo for Mormon apologists. They quote only what they see as similar to their beliefs, then toss the person under the bus when it differs.

Was it begging the question? Or was it stating his hypothesis, after which he provided evidence supporting it?

It was question begging. There was no indication that it was hypothetical or alleged. Christensen stated it as fact.

Then maybe Joseph Smith's reporting on the state of 19th-century Christendom was accurate from HIS POV?

Did Smith use his OWN ideas, or like Celsus, report what others were saying?

So Celsus is the good guy in all this? : O

No. Celsus was a heretic. But his methods were general argumentation methods, nad comparing them to methods Orthodox Christianity uses against Mormonism is sloppy and fallacy ridden - much like most of Christensen's piece. I may start a thread today on some of the more specific claims in Christensen's piece.

[Sparko]

I already addressed that in the very post where I introduced it.

No you didn't. OC. Not at ALL. Your only comment was that Hoffman embellishes the words of Celsus like antimormons do the words of Smith. So what, now you are equating Celsus with Smith???? I thought Celsus represent the "antis"??? And how does the fact that Hoffman embellished Celsus' words become an example of anti mormon arguments? If those were not Celsus' words then you whole example of using Celsus argument as a comparable argument to antimormons goes out the window. Not to mention how does the fact that some people argue against Christianity automagically mean that those who argue against Mormonism are wrong??????????????????????

OC you are not making a lick of sense in your posts lately.

[OtherCheek]

No you didn't. OC. Not at ALL. Your only comment was that Hoffman embellishes the words of Celsus like antimormons do the words of Smith. So what, now you are equating Celsus with Smith????

No, I'm comparing Hoffman tactics with anti-Mormonism tactics. Remarkably similar.

[Sparko]

No, I'm comparing Hoffman tactics with anti-Mormonism tactics. Remarkably similar.

still makes no sense. It would be like you complaining that we were changing the words of someone else who was attacking mormons in order to attack mormons.

Just admit you have no idea what you were quoting or why.

and let me ask again: How does the fact that some people argue against Christianity and others argue against Mormonism, make both false?

[Cow Poke]

No, I'm comparing Hoffman tactics with anti-Mormonism tactics. Remarkably similar.

Smith was a false prophet who did a lot of really stupid things deserving of criticism.
Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

Pointing out the TRUTH about Smith bears no resemblance whatsoever to making false charges against Christianity.
Whoever wrote the talking points is a moron.

[Bill the Cat]

No, I'm comparing Hoffman tactics with anti-Mormonism tactics. Remarkably similar.

Christensen uses Hofmann's book as one of his main sources to compare Celsus and anti-Mormon attacks. So it is Christensen who is wrong to use Hoffman's book in his piece.

[OtherCheek]

Christensen uses Hofmann's book as one of his main sources to compare Celsus and anti-Mormon attacks. So it is Christensen who is wrong to use Hoffman's book in his piece.

And I didn't cite Christensen's work. I cited Hofmann's misleading and deceptive compilation of Celsus' quotes to make my point about the similarities I have observed in anti-Mormons incorrect and deceptive compilation of LDS quotes.

[OtherCheek]

Smith was a false prophet who did a lot of really stupid things deserving of criticism.
Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

Yea, when fighting Mormonism, anything goes. As long as our cause it just in our eyes, anything goes.

[Cow Poke]

And I didn't cite Christensen's work. I cited Hofmann's misleading and deceptive compilation of Celsus' quotes to make my point about the similarities I have observed in anti-Mormons incorrect and deceptive compilation of LDS quotes.

Do you believe WE (Twebbers) are using incorrect and deceptive compilations of LDS quotes, OC? Cause, we don't NEED to. Your guys have said and done enough stupid stuff without our NEEDING to, and you guys (Mormon Twebbers) help a bunch.

[Bill the Cat]

And I didn't cite Christensen's work. I cited Hofmann's misleading and deceptive compilation of Celsus' quotes to make my point about the similarities I have observed in anti-Mormons incorrect and deceptive compilation of LDS quotes.

So you object to Christensen's use of Hoffman's work then?

[Cerebrum123]

Yea, when fighting Mormonism, anything goes. As long as our cause it just in our eyes, anything goes.

Yeah, the truth and fact of the matter are such a bad thing. Nobody should have to resort to being honest to criticize someone else.

[Cow Poke]

Yea, when fighting Mormonism, anything goes. As long as our cause it just in our eyes, anything goes.

Ah, back to the persecution complex theme!

Are you an apologist, OC, or a whiny little crybaby? Which (if either) of the following statements do you deny... (I'll remove the "was a false prophet who" part, because I know we disagree on that....

A) Smith was a false prophet who did a lot of really stupid things deserving of criticism.
2) Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

Are either of those statements false?

Do you deny that Smith did a lot of stupid things deserving of criticism?
Do you deny that Jesus was the sinless Son of God?

[nrajeff]

Are you an apologist, OC, or a whiny little crybaby?

Isn't that a false dichotomy?

Do you deny that Smith did a lot of stupid things deserving of criticism?

If you mean Chuck Smith, then I won't deny it.

[Cow Poke]

Isn't that a false dichotomy?

If I insisted he ONLY be one or the other, then yes, it would be. He's a big boy, though, and he can choose other options. IN FACT... he can even choose not to be offended!!!!