Gospel of Barnabas proves modern Christianity Wrong

There was once a child, Jim, who had never had chocolate before, although he had had other sweets on numerous days. One day his father gave him a chocolate candy bar, and he was at a loss as to what to do with it.

He said to his father, "What is this?"
The father replied, "It is very delicious candy, like the lollipop you had yesterday. Try it, you'll like it."
Jim said, "Well, it may be sweet, but I prefer lollipops."
"That's okay, but I think you will really like chocolate a lot. Try it."
"I don't believe that trying the chocolate bar will change my mind. I don't think it is as sweet as my candy."
"Suit yourself," said the father. "But you are missing out if you don't try it."
"I am searching for sweets, you know, Dad," said Jim. "I want to experience all sweets, not just hard candy. But I don't think eating the chocolate bar will help. There are counterfeit chocolates out there, you know."
"Just try the bar," said the father.
"No, I don't think tasting it will help me understand it."
"You can never say you know what chocolate tastes like if you won't try it."
"I don't believe tasting it will help," repeated Jim.
"Your loss," said Dad.
"You can't gain understanding about a confection by tasting it," Jim insisted. "There are too many counterfeit sweets, anyway. I guess I'm not really looking for chocolate; I just want hard candy."
"Suit yourself, but I think you'd like chocolate."
"Nah."

So Jim went on his merry way, enjoying his hard candy. At times he wondered whether he should try chocolate, but each time, he found an excuse not to indulge. The excuses were many and varied, but they all boiled down to, he just didn't have faith that chocolate was delicious. All he had to do at any time was take out the chocolate bar and taste it, but he never did.

His loss, I guess.
 
Frisbinator said:
The Gnostic gospels were ommitted because they were written by the gnostics in the 3rd centuray AD. Do you know who the Gnostics were? They were a crooked branch of Christianity who believed that the body was evil and therefore the spirit was the only thing good, so they would simply meditate and get themselves into trances which helped them to become less dependent on the body. They also believed that Jesus Christ was a spectre, because anything with a body cannot fight against temptation and sin.

The Nag Hamadi find was Gnostic in origin.

Atheists seem to be really gifted at finding completely trendy and false reasons to bash Christian beliefs.
Click to expand...

Gnosticism pre-existed christianity in the form of many different religions, which thanks to the propoganda of the catholics are now all referred to as pagan. there is no possible way to generalize what the gnostics believed in the way that you did in that statement. The Essene Jews had beliefs that were gnostic in origin, as did the ancient egyptians, and the Cathars. some predate christianity, others do not. The only unifying aspect of gnostic religious beliefs is that at one point or another they were all persecuted by the christian church or absorbed into it through force. the reason many christians dont take the gnostic gospels seriously is because they provide proof that the church systematically eradicated all other points of view in order to propogate what was politically expedient for Rome in the early days. in fact most of accepted christian belief today is ust an amalgam of concepts stolen from other religions, or already existing pagan beliefs (and sometimes holy sites as well) co-opted by the church in order to make christianity palatable to pagans so it could flourish in their cultures. almost nothing in christianity is an original idea, from even its most basic beliefs, like the death and resurrection of christ.
 
Marlin said:
There was once a child, Jim, who had never had chocolate before, although he had had other sweets on numerous days. One day his father gave him a chocolate candy bar, and he was at a loss as to what to do with it.

He said to his father, "What is this?"
The father replied, "It is very delicious candy, like the lollipop you had yesterday. Try it, you'll like it."
Jim said, "Well, it may be sweet, but I prefer lollipops."
"That's okay, but I think you will really like chocolate a lot. Try it."
"I don't believe that trying the chocolate bar will change my mind. I don't think it is as sweet as my candy."
"Suit yourself," said the father. "But you are missing out if you don't try it."
"I am searching for sweets, you know, Dad," said Jim. "I want to experience all sweets, not just hard candy. But I don't think eating the chocolate bar will help. There are counterfeit chocolates out there, you know."
"Just try the bar," said the father.
"No, I don't think tasting it will help me understand it."
"You can never say you know what chocolate tastes like if you won't try it."
"I don't believe tasting it will help," repeated Jim.
"Your loss," said Dad.
"You can't gain understanding about a confection by tasting it," Jim insisted. "There are too many counterfeit sweets, anyway. I guess I'm not really looking for chocolate; I just want hard candy."
"Suit yourself, but I think you'd like chocolate."
"Nah."

So Jim went on his merry way, enjoying his hard candy. At times he wondered whether he should try chocolate, but each time, he found an excuse not to indulge. The excuses were many and varied, but they all boiled down to, he just didn't have faith that chocolate was delicious. All he had to do at any time was take out the chocolate bar and taste it, but he never did.

His loss, I guess.
Click to expand...

You see that he needed to have faith in the chocolate. What I am asking you to do basically is prove the faith of Moromonism. And then you say have faith. If I have then why would I need someone to prove it?

I mean if Jim had faith in the chocolate he would eat it, then there is no need to do anything because he already ate the chocolate. The issue was to him if he should eat or not.

Peace be unto you :)
 
786, I can't prove to anyone that Mormonism is true. Only God can do that, and I have shown you how to get such a testimony from God (Moroni's Promise). If you just exercise the tiniest particle of faith, He will lead you on, and your testimony will grow. This may take days, weeks, months, or even years, but if you're willing to do your part (studying and praying) then He will guide you to the truth.
 
An extension of Jim's story:

Jim asked his father, "Is chocolate sweet?"
His father said, "Yes."
"Prove that chocolate is sweet, father."
"Eat some, here."
"No, I don't want to eat some, I just want you to prove that it is sweet."
"If you'll just try some for yourself..."
"No, I want you to prove it to me before I will taste it."
"It doesn't work that way, son. By tasting it, you will gain the knowledge that it is sweet."
"You have to have faith that chocolate is sweet in order to prove it is sweet."
"Just have enough faith to taste it," said his father.

See where this is going? The saying goes, "Faith precedes the miracle."
 
Faith has two meanings - the faith you speak of in the chocolate story is not the same as faith in the supernatural. The analogy fails.
 
Marlin said:
An extension of Jim's story:

Jim asked his father, "Is chocolate sweet?"
His father said, "Yes."
"Prove that chocolate is sweet, father."
"Eat some, here."
"No, I don't want to eat some, I just want you to prove that it is sweet."
"If you'll just try some for yourself..."
"No, I want you to prove it to me before I will taste it."
"It doesn't work that way, son. By tasting it, you will gain the knowledge that it is sweet."
"You have to have faith that chocolate is sweet in order to prove it is sweet."
"Just have enough faith to taste it," said his father.

See where this is going? The saying goes, "Faith precedes the miracle."
Click to expand...

actually that part of the analogy is total bullshit. jim's dad could have proved that the chocolate is sweet by doing a scientific analysis of its sugar content and then comparing that to the sugar content of a known quantity, like jim's lollipop that he loves so much. in this way proof of sweetness could be acheived through quantitative analysis and Jim's father is just holding out on him because he wants his son to trust him. you cant prove god through scientific analysis, you just have to trust without question, which is a stupid thing to do anyway.

your analogy gets two thumbs down. way to think it through.
 
That's just the point, though:

God does want us to trust Him. That's what mortality is for, a test of faith, to see if we will do everything He tells us to do without having a perfect knowledge of things.

The analogy, although flawed, still has its value. We must walk by faith and trust in God as well as use our minds. The Book of Mormon tells us that "to be learned is good," but only if we will do so while hearkening to the precepts of God. Using our minds alone is good, but it can only take us so far. Mortality is a test of faith.
 
Marlin said:
That's what mortality is for, a test of faith, to see if we will do everything He tells us to do without having a perfect knowledge of things.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of moral atheists as well as polytheists.

Morality is the set of changing norms every person within a particular society are expected to maintain.

In the past Christians and Muslims both held that slavery was a moral practice. And so it was. Now it’s not.

Morality has nothing to do with faith.
 
Um...Michael? It's "Mortality," not "Morality" that I'm talking about: the condition of being mortal; perishable.
 
Marlin, your anology is sweet, but it sucks, like lolipops. You can see, smell and touch chocolate to help in your choice. Not so, with your distinctly silent and absent god. The faithful in the multitude of Christian denominations and ofshoots, believe they are right and have found the true god. Unfortunately if you cant` all be right, some of you have to be wrong. Its obvious that you all believe you have found something of value. Unless of course all these paths lead to the same door? What do you think?
 
There is truth in just about every religion, IMHO. I happen to believe that Mormonism is true, as it is pure Christianity in action and belief. But I don't think Mormons have a "corner on truth." I have seen God at work in the lives of many who are not of my faith.

In LDS belief, God is neither silent nor absent. He speaks through modern prophets and personal revelation. The canon of scripture is open and awaits more. There are many things that God has yet to reveal to Man that are important to our salvation. Our task is to first gain a testimony that the prophets are true prophets, and then to follow their advice (contingent on their meeting the confirmation of personal revelation that what they say is God's word).

And yes, I know the analogy is flawed. But I still think it has value in explaining the process of faith and spiritual growth. God (the "father" in my analogy) wants Jim to taste the chocolate bar for himself, rather than proving it is sweet by chemical tests. Life is a test of faith. How we deal with what we are given will determine where we will spend eternity.
 
Marlin said:
Um...Michael? It's "Mortality," not "Morality" that I'm talking about: the condition of being mortal; perishable.
Click to expand...
Ooops my bad. . .

Hmmm mortality, yeah it sucks, as an atheist I have accepted that death will be the end of "me". I suppose as a Xian you must assume that the "you" you are presently will also end - so it's about the same huh?

If it is the struggle that defines us, then in a sense, when that ends so do we.

Marlin, IF, lets say in the next 150 years we find a way to stop and reverse aging as well as put an end to most disease, do you think a lot of LDS will lose their faith? Will they want to partake in the new directed-evolution of man, or would that be going against God’s will?

Will we have two types of people, immortal atheists and mortal theists?
 
Michael said:
Ooops my bad. . .

Hmmm mortality, yeah it sucks, as an atheist I have accepted that death will be the end of "me". I suppose as a Xian you must assume that the "you" you are presently will also end - so it's about the same huh?
Click to expand...

No, we go on exactly as we are in mortality. We have the same likes, dislikes, fears, faults, faith, whatever there is about us goes on into eternity.

If it is the struggle that defines us, then in a sense, when that ends so do we.

Marlin, IF, lets say in the next 150 years we find a way to stop and reverse aging as well as put an end to most disease, do you think a lot of LDS will lose their faith? Will they want to partake in the new directed-evolution of man, or would that be going against God’s will?

Will we have two types of people, immortal atheists and mortal theists?
Click to expand...

I think that most if not all Mormons would love to live longer. I know I would, provided I didn't have health problems.

But the Millennium, I think, when Christ comes to earth to reign personally for 1000 years, will usher in an age where no one really "dies," but is just translated from mortal to immortal in the "twinkling of an eye" at the age of man (72). I am of the opinion that Christ will return pretty soon. Time will tell.
 
And yes, I know the analogy is flawed. But I still think it has value in explaining the process of faith and spiritual growth.

Once more with feeling, there are two definitions of faith, yours fails to explain the definition of faith in the supernatural. It has NO value.
 
Marlin said:
That's just the point, though:

God does want us to trust Him. That's what mortality is for, a test of faith, to see if we will do everything He tells us to do without having a perfect knowledge of things.

The analogy, although flawed, still has its value. We must walk by faith and trust in God as well as use our minds. The Book of Mormon tells us that "to be learned is good," but only if we will do so while hearkening to the precepts of God. Using our minds alone is good, but it can only take us so far. Mortality is a test of faith.
Click to expand...

i dont agree with that at all. morality is not a test of faith, morality requires a knowledge of and definition of the parameters of right and wrong. each person may outline these boundaries in a slightly different way. why is that? because every persons faith in god is different and so god tells them that different things are right and wrong? no, its because whether you posture yourself as a person with faith or not, blind faith is useless, and outside information is still required as a key part in every decision about how to act in a situation and whether it will be right or wrong according to your definition of morality. faith doesnt have anything to do with it.

and by the way has it or has it not occured to you that if god wanted people to trust, there should have been some proof of god's existence so people could accept the trust as necessary. Jim doesnt have faith in the chocolate, but he knows his father is real at least in the analogy and he can see the chocolate. at the very least he knows that both things exist and is only unsure about the qualities of one of the things in the analogy. thats why it doesnt work.

if i had an ant farm and could somehow give two ants, one male and one female, minds that worked in the exact same way as human minds, put them in the ant farm while they were unconscious and walked away and didnt return for 2,000 years, would i have the right to be mad if their offspring didnt recognize me as the creator of their whole world? no.
god is the same.
 
charles cure said:
i dont agree with that at all. morality is not a test of faith, morality requires a knowledge of and definition of the parameters of right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Once again: I didn't say "MORALITY is a test of faith." I said "MORTALITY" is a test of faith. Mortality is the condition of being mortal, of being subject to death. It is a temporary condition that we as mortals must go through, after which our immortal souls will finally be reunited with immortal bodies after a short time as spirits. MORTALITY is not MORALITY.
 
Marlin said:
Once again: I didn't say "MORALITY is a test of faith." I said "MORTALITY" is a test of faith. Mortality is the condition of being mortal, of being subject to death. It is a temporary condition that we as mortals must go through, after which our immortal souls will finally be reunited with immortal bodies after a short time as spirits. MORTALITY is not MORALITY.
Click to expand...


ok i didnt see the T in there. boy is my face red.
too bad it still doesnt make you right.
actually now that i think of it, the idea of mortality being a test of faith is even more fallacious than morality being a test of faith. where the hell would you get any evidence (and dont quote the bible because thats not evidence) that you get reunited with some immortal body at the end of your life. that sounds like something from a science fiction novel. retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top