- Thread starter
- #101
it is when you give the other associated mythologies/fables (Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, ect...) more credence when they are as equally, if not more, preposterous.
Its like saying "Racism is wrong but sexism is A-OK "
oh yeah, "Ampad"!!!
YOu know when Romney's the nominee, you'll be whining about AmPad louder than I ever did, Lib-boy.
Of course one set is more perposterous than the other.
The Abrahamic religions are based on real history. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible were real people. the stories might have been embellished, propagandized, and so on. But the places and people were real places and people. Again. Mostly.
They have more "Credence", as you say, because they probably really happened.
Mormonism gets no such wiggle room. Joseph Smith lied, and he knew he was lying when he did it. (Unless he was crazy, which I doubt. Too well organized.)
If I live in 1300 and tell you the world is flat because I don't know any better and it certainly looks flat from my perspective, I'm a lot less culpable if I live in 2012, know the world is round but try to convince people it's flat because I'm kind of a malicious asshole.
see what I bolded LOLOL
Why does that make a difference.
Hey, guy, Jerusalem is a real place. You can visit it. You can find it on a map.
Please point out on a map a single place in the book of Mormon that can be verified to have actually existed.
Thanks.
Now, I know you really don't WANT to understand why I consider one worse than the other... because you are really engaging in handstands to do it.