In a now-closed thread, a mighty Christian defender suggests that when leaving Mormonism in search of "the truth" in Jesus, one should turn to the writings of C.S. Lewis.

Been there, done that.

Out of curiousity, some years ago I got myself a copy of one of Lewis' more famous books, "Mere Christianity"--which, quite frankly, I found to be so dull, shallow and boilerplate that I've since lost track of where I laid my personal copy.

Nonetheless, this intense Christian defender brought up my grandfather's name in an effort to make his case for Christianity, which prompted poster SLCabbie to accurately note that Ezra Taft Benson's famous "Beware of Pride" talk was--well, I'll be damned--heavily plagiarized from Lewis' "Mere Christianity." (Cabbie also inconveniently mentioned that Lewis borrowed from Milton in penning his "Screwtape Letters," and so it goes).

Anyway, the point here for those Jesus boosters out there who pound on Mormonism in favor of Christianity and come to this board trying to use both Lewis and ETB to make their case for their unrisen Lord, it's really not that necessary.

Like I said, the Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson was cribbing from Lewis years ago. Those of you anti-Mormon Christians who choose to venture on to RFM in the name of the Lewis-for-Jesus movement could save yourself the trouble of scoping out a new faith and just read ETB's purloined version of Lewis' own writings.

Let the point-by-point demonstration of that fact now commence:


--Was Ezra Taft Benson's Famous Sermon on Pride Borrowed From the Writings of C.S. Lewis?--

Previous inquiries along that line on this board have cited a sermon of then-Mormon Church President Ezra Taft Benson, entitled "Beware of Pride."

The question is whether Benson’s sermon plagiarized the writings of Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, from Lewis' book "Mere Christianity," specifically the chapter, “The Great Sin” (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1952, revised and enlarged).
_____


--Mormon Worship of a Non-Mormon Talk That Mormons Think is Mormon--

In Mormon circles, one of the most beloved sermons attributed to the then-LDS Church President ETB is, in fact, the "Pride" one (which was actually read on 1 April 1989, at the Saturday morning session of the 159th semi-annual General Conference, not by Benson, but by First Presidency counselor Gordon B. Hinckley, who delivered it in the ailing Benson's behalf).

This talk by my grandfather has been described by LDS devotees as "[p}erhaps the best remembered of all Ezra Taft Benson's talks . . . [Church] [m]embers from all over the political spectrum love and agree with him here. This talk is . . . loved."

http://www.zionsbest.com/pride.html

http://www.zionsbest.com/top25.html


Moreover, in a glowing obituary of my grandfather, the sermon was mentioned as follows:

"Continuing to help set the Church in order and perfect the Saints, he delivered another landmark address entitled 'Beware of Pride' . . ."

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/people/Benson_EOM.htm

Too bad he didn't write it.
_____


--Abundant Evidence of Lewis-Looted Lines--

A line-by-line comparison of the text of both documents provides clear and convincing evidence for the source of Ezra Taft Benson's talk on pride.

His sermon borrowed heavily, and without attribution, both in terms of wording and concept, from Lewis’ earlier work.

Examples of these plagiarisms are listed below, by topic.

**Pride is the Ultimate Vice**

Lewis:

"The essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride." (p. 109)

Benson:

"Pride is the universal sin, the great vice."
_____


**Competitive Nature of Pride**

Lewis:

"Pride is essentially competitive--is competitive by is very nature . . .” (p. 109)

". . . Pride is essentially competitive in a way that other vices are not." (p. 110)

"Pride is competitive by its very nature." (p. 110)

“Once the element of competition has gone, pride is gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not.” (p. 110)

Benson:

"Pride is essentially competitive in nature. . . .

Our will in competition to God’s will allows desires, appetites, and passions to go unbridled."
_____


**The Proud See Themselves Being Above Others**

Lewis:

"A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you." (p.111)

Benson:

“Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us.”
_____


**The Proud Also Look From the Bottom Up**

Lewis:

“When you delight wholly in yourself and do not care about the praise at all, you have reached the bottom.” (p. 112)

Benson:

“There is, however, a more common ailment among us and that is pride from the bottom looking up.”
_____


**Pride Equals Enmity**

Lewis:

"Pride always means enmity--it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God." (p.111)

Benson:

"The central feature of pride is enmity--enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowman."

“Our enmity toward God takes on many labels, such as rebellion, hard-heartedness, stiff-neckedness, unrepentant, puffed up, easily offended, and sign seekers.”

“Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen.”
_____


**Pride and Self-Value**

Lewis:

"You value other people enough to want them to look at you." (p. 112)

Benson:

"The proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not."
_____


**Pride vs. Humility**

Lewis:

"The virtue opposite to it [pride], in Christian morals, is called Humility." (p. 109)

“ . . . if you really get into any kind of touch with Him you will, in fact, be humble—delightfully humble, feeling the infinite relief of having for once got rid of all the silly nonsense about your own dignity which had made you restless and unhappy all your life. He is trying to make you humble in order to make this moment possible . . .” (p. 114)

Benson:

"The antidote for pride is humility . . . "

“Choose to be humble. God will have a humble people. Either we can choose to be humble or we can be compelled to be humble.”
_____


**Pride Not Admitted in Self**

Lewis:

"There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves." (pp. 108-09)

Benson:

"Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves."
_____


Finally, leading to the false impression that the sermon originated with Benson and not Lewis, only once in ETB's sermon was proper credit given to Lewis as a source:

"The proud make every man their adversary by pitting their intellects, opinions, works, wealth, talents, or any other worldly measuring device against others. In the words of C.S. Lewis: "Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. . . . It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone" (C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity" [New York: Macmillan, 1952], pp. 109-10)."
_____


--Conclusion: Damning Details on the Research and Writing of ETB's Sermon on Pride--

Some years ago, I visited with May Benson, wife of Reed Benson (ETB's oldest child), in their home in Provo, Utah, during which time the subject of ETB's sermon on pride was a focus of conversation.

The first occasion was prior to the public delivery of ETB's sermon by Gordon B. Hinckley in the April 1989 General Conference and the second visit came after the speech.

May said on that occasion that she had very strong feelings about the subject of pride. She was especially offended and concerned with what she regarded as the Benson family's own problems with pride.

(In fact, she had gotten up in disgust and walked out of a wedding breakfast for my sister, when one of the daughters of ETB, while listening to the father of the groom make some remarks to the assembled, leaned over and whispered self-righteously, "Well, we know which family was blessed with the spirituality").

May said she had put together quite a few thoughts on the subject of pride that she hoped someday to compile and publish in a book.

However, after my grandfather’s pride sermon was delivered, May said she no longer felt it necessary to publish her hoped-for book. Why? Because, she said, her husband Reed had spoken with Ezra Taft Benson about her research on the topic.

May was clearly indicating that her information and study efforts had been used in crafting my grandfather’s sermon on pride.

However, the true extent of May Benson's involvement in that effort was not openly shared by her and did not become apparent until some time later.

Reliable sources in Provo subsequently informed me of rumors that May herself may have worked on Ezra Taft Benson’s sermon.

This I was able to conclusively confirm from a very credible source inside Benson family circles who knows May very well, who was personally and directly familiar with the situation and who wishes to remain anonymous.

The source told me in a face-to-face meeting that May Benson, daughter-in-law of Ezra Taft Benson through marriage to his son Reed, traveled to St. George, Utah, where over a period of several weeks “she wrote his talk.”

It appears that those responsible for the production and delivery of Ezra Taft Benson's "Beware of Pride" sermon were themselves too prideful to acknowlege that:

--(1) the sermon was largely plagiarized from the earlier works of a noted Christian writer; and

--(2) the sermon was actually ghost-written by a woman doing research on the talk for an uninspired Mormon "prophet."

*****


So, for you Christians who come to this board touting C.S. Lewis as an inspired and inspiring alternative to the Mormons' Joseph Smith, just remember that the LDS Church must be true; after all, its prophet, seer and revelator ripped off Lewis big-time for a General Conference sermon and the LDS Church has kept making that rip-off publicly available ever since to its gullible believers.

In the name of Geezus Christ, say it ain't so!

Amen.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 03:36AM by steve benson.

I wish I had the book in front of me but it was one of the Narnia books. Edmund is being willfully ignorant of reality when someone else says "The trouble with trying to be stupid is that one often succeeds."

I'm sure I didn't quote it exactly but that's the main idea. Other than the Narnia books I can't think of anything I've read of his that was more than mildly entertaining. Dr. Seuss had his profound moments but I wouldn't quote him as a religious authority. But just like Lewis, he wrote some cool children's stories.

Cool children stories? tell that to Stephen Hawking that goes around saying nothing exploded forming everything...

Physicists and Hawkins assert that the four forces: electromagnetic, gravity, the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, broke away in the primeval atom. That is not something from nothing.
There is probably a lot of material in the multiverse to form new universes. Any talk of "something from nothing" by physicists you may have come across to describe the big bang is purely poetic.
Hawking does not tell children stories. His stories are for adults capable of the intellect and ability to see what all educated, credible scientists can comprehend easily.

At least recently... He appears to have changed his mind, and I'm a well educated sort who's honest enough to admit I don't grasp what he's saying... Particularly since he appears to have changed his mind...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

>In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary."

>"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Our new resident physicist appears otherwise occupied at this time, but I shall endeavor to make certain this article is translated properly...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 09:11AM by SL Cabbie.

I might be taking this quote out of context; however, the most likely reason that Hawking is saying this, is that certain evidence is now suggesting that the "big bang" is a result of black holes in other universes.

One possible reason behind the big bang is that a black hole formed in onother universe. One singularity is created somewhere else, and that singularity becomes a universe for us. Gravity is the reason why we have black holes in the first place. This is probably what Hawking means with this particular quote.

However, I am going to say that this argument really stems from something else. Hawking is not simply telling "children" stories. He is elaborating on theories and hypotheses that come from observable, testable data. What is also interesting is that Hawking and other physicists of his calibre will be the first ones to admit where the theories disagree, and are missing vital pieces. Even the theory of the multiverse gets hung up on the quetion, "well, if there were other universes to begin with, so what? what was the first universe? and why did THAT one exist?"

These scientists understand the gaps in their theories, but these theories are still backed up by observable and testable facts. Whereas religion is not. Just stories that are presented as facts to back up "doctrine."

All of that unproven, and nobody has ever seen it... so, all imagination so far.
Nobody knows either where gravity and everything else you mention came from. You can call that science if you want... whatever...
BTW, let me know when evolution loses the status of theory... i won´t put my faith in it until then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 01:43PM by fmelo.

Did I read that right?

Yes, you heard it correctly. Until it is a established fact, with no evidence contradicting it, then i´ll put my faith in it - sure, i have no problem saying that - i like truth... i´m not afraid of it, whatever it means.

btw, i´m not a mormon... and to say all religions are the same is very stupid.

>To say all religions are the same is very stupid...

This one is from "Apologetics 101," and the lesson plan is "How to Properly Use a Strawman."

One more time...

1) Secure a set of old clothes (Mormons use the D.I., but any thrift shop with do) and some straw or other suitable stuffing.

2) Fill them accordingly and pat into the appropriate human form.

3) A pillow case or paper sack works well for a head, and magic marker can be used to draw a face...

4) Once constructed, some dilletentes douse liberally with gasoline or other inflammable...

5) Apply a match or other flame source, admire the pretty fire, and declare victory for the forces of enlightment...

Nobody said all religions are the same, only that they all have common elements, which is why they're called religions. And if some of those common elements are absurd, ridiculous, or indefensible, well...

it´s not strawman - look at this post:

"Mormons believe Jesus rose from the dead... So do Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, and every other sect of Christianity...

(BTW, they all probably got that one from the Osiris myth in ancient Egypt)

So how are we to distinguish which zombie story is the true and correct one?"

I wrote it. I know what it says.

Cabdriver Confession Time: I stole the zombie metaphor from somebody who used to post here...

More Cabbie English stuff: A zombie is a mythical being who rose from the dead...

1. I don't care if you are Mormon or not.

2. If something is a "fact," you don't need faith in it. Just a "btw" I guess.

3. I'll echo what Cabbie said below, please look up the differences among the terms: fact, hypothesis, and theory. It is very very important when dealing with science to understand what science is, and why they call certain things, "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories." It is also important to understand the differences among them before you place judgement values on "facts" being better than "theories." It's a common missunderstanding though.

4. I never claimed that "all religions are the same," so please don't insult my intelligence. However, I will take the opportunity to bring up where all religions are the same given specific contexts. All religions use stories to instruct. If you believe, these storires relay "doctrine." For those who don't, the stories are just "myths." All religions do this, just like all religions claim that they "don't just have stories" but have proof that their metaphysical claims are superior to those of other religions.

The stories differ in detail, the "doctrines" differ in detail, but all religions try to solve metaphysical problems by using stories without any proof as defined in the scientific sense.

I was thinking that the other day when trying to read some of his stuff to my 6 year old. She just wasn't interested in Steve's ideas on time travel.

Hawking may get some stuff wrong sometimes. Sometimes he's just guessing and wondering to himself. The great thing about him is that he'll say so when he writes it down. And when he thinks he's on to something he'll bring loads of evidence to back it up.

When has creationism ever done the same?

"he'll bring loads of evidence to back it up"

I truly hope so, because so far the evidences such as genetic mutation adding information to the genome, irreducible complexity, among other facts, seem not to agree with what Mr. Hawking, Mr. Dawkings and others are promoting.

I find it amusing how the atheistic apologetics starts so passionately, just like any Christian or even Mormon apolegetics do... why do i get the feeling that this is just another religion? Are you really free to question your own theories and consider other possibilities or will you die defending unproven theories and stories just like any religious people do?

I hope you do apply the same standards to your own beliefs, specially when you acknowledge they can all change in little time(and they can also adapt due to convenience too, like anthropomorphic global warming, because the sun has nothing to do with it, right?)

You guys definitely have huge masochistic streaks, that's fersher...

First off, you don't have a clue about the linguistic difference between "theory" and "hypothesis."

Hypotheses are bits of speculation for which there may or may not be evidence; They are, to use your word, "unproven." You're using the word theory when you ought to be saying hypothesis.

The word "theory" has some nuanced differences in areas of "hard science" versus "soft science." In the soft sciences (where my background is), theories are either "useful" or "non-useful." In the hard sciences, they are held to be valid when there is no consensus evidence they are false, and strong consensus evidence they are true.

Gravity is such a theory, and so is evolution, the spin from the I.D. "talking points crowd" not withstanding.

And besides a few hours in the Cabbie's remedial English class, you could really use someone to help you exorcise those "strawman tendencies." That claim of "genetic mutation adding information to the genome" as a necessity for evolution is diagnostic of utter ignorance of how DNA operates and "gene expression functions." A single change in how long a "gene is expressed" can have tremendous implications for the phenotype. The same gene in some fishes in Africa growing thick lips operates in finches in the Galapagos to create thicker bills. Too, in case of that "I.D. darling," the human eye, it's been demonstrated overwhelmingly that a "platform process" occurred, where useful characteristics developed and built upon earlier structures.

Ah, here we go...

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=105065

>One of the popular arguments of intelligent design is that some organs, such as the human eye, are too complex without a designer or a creator.


>“The theory of intelligent design pretends that the theory of evolution has not been established,” Ayala said.

>But Ayala said the argument about the eye mirrors almost exactly the work of William Paley, an 18th-Century English scientist who Darwin studied at Cambridge.

>Natural selection has long since refuted Paley’s work, Ayala said, adding the eye can be explained by looking at mollusks.

>Simple mollusks, like limpets, have what can barely even be called eyes — mere nerve endings that can sense light and dark. Limpets, which live in tidal zones, use these sensors to know when the tide is going in or out.

Note, too, the interesting observations on how our large brains arose in contrast with our jaws that were two small... There was an interesting piece on Nat Geo a few months ago that pointed out a single change in the genome for jaw muscles permitted unrestricted growth for the human skull, an obvious difference between humans and the other apes, which have powerful jaw muscles...

Don't look too deeply at that stuff, though... You'll find it particularly disconcerting and threatening...

Finally, I'm in the middle of a project regarding the claims of BYU mopologist John L. Sorenson on the subject of "diploid versus tetraploid" chromosomes. It's interesting to me--Sorenson isn't gonna like it, though--that simply "doubling" the number of chromosomes in a cell (many plants do this spontaneously) can result in changes (such as larger flowers) that don't require mutations to provide "additional [new] information added to the genome."

What microbiologists and genetists are discovering is an "elegant parsimony" among the principles of how evolution takes place...

Some of us find that more intriguing than a simple declaration, "God dunnit!"

"find it particularly disconcerting and threatening..."

I want to watch that Nat Geo episode - what was the title of it, remember? Thank you.

I´m not afraid of this stuff, seriously. I really find it amazing - the more knowledge the better!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 03:07PM by fmelo.

Steve wrote:
(So, for you Christians who come to this board touting C. S. Lewis as an inspired and inspiring alternative to the Mormons' Joseph Smith, just remember that the LDS Church must be true; after all, its prophet, seer and revelator ripped off Lewis big-time for a General Conference sermon and the LDS Church has kept making that rip-off publicly available ever since.)

Response: The fact that mormon brass stole intellectual property from someone says everything about mormons, but nothing about the person who is the victim of the theft. As everyone knows, the BOM stole whole pages out of the KJV Bible verbatim. That proves that Smith made up the BOM, it does not prove the Bible to be false.

You are using a guilt by association argument, with a person or thing that has no knowledge of the association.

In sum, nothing has been stated to discredit CS Lewis as an author.

Rather, I was discrediting the Mormon Church's undeserved entitlement to the sermon's original authorship.

Again, why look outside to Lewis when you can get Lewis' wonderful words of wisdom (chuckle) from inside the Mormon Church?

The Mormons must have been inspired to do so by your Christian god. What a great way to deliver the truth to the Mormon masses, right there in their own pews, without them even suspecting it. How could you have missed that approach when you claim to be so close to Jesus? :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 02:32AM by steve benson.

ThAT THE MORMON CHURCH STUMBLES ON SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE ELSE THAT THEY USE MEANS almost nothing ABOUT anything. They use whatever they want when it works for them. Obviously, they are not disciples of cs lewis, and probably have never gone back to his works as a source again.

ALSO, the fact that some mormons read the Bible does not make the Bible false. Nor does it make mormons inspired,

After all, in some respects mormons do preach orthodox views, such as sexual puruty and so on. That a cult does that is a coincidence. Besides, Satan seeks to mahe the church appear valid, what better way than to STEAL some things preached outside their wards?

This is all one big red hering WITH NO PROBATIVE VALUE, And you still Have not responded to my questions.

You insist that the Mormons stole C.S. Lewis' writings. Really? How do you know that your Jesus didn't just lead the Mormons to find Lewis' writings and stick them in ETB's sermon? How do you know otherwise?

And you still haven't answered my question as to how you know I'm going to bend my knees to Jesus as my lard and shaver. Did your Jesus tell you that, too? If so, exactly how did he do it? Showed up at your door? Sent you an email? Identified himself from inside your heart? (If that way, how did you know it wasn't merely a case of heartburn vs. a burning in the bosom?) Whispered in your ear? Turned on voices in your head? Informed you over the phone? Delivered the message by courier angel?

And has your Jesus told you how old the Earth is?

And has your Jesus explained to you how was it that dinosaurs and humans managed to live together at the same time if the Earth was created, as many fundy Christians claim, in less than a week?

Did your Jesus also tell you not to take any real science classes?

Still waiting . . .



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 03:17AM by steve benson.

if he had taken the time to go to the presentation I did. The guy actually adressed these questions plus several more, two of which came from me.

The earth is only several thousand years old. The Bible says so.

We know dinosaurs lived among humans because there are so many stories about dragons out there. Sure, some of them are probably fiction but could something that is false be repeated so many times, so reliably, over such a long period of time? He also presented a photograph of a dinosaur footprint next to what could have been an imprint of many different things but did somewhat rememble the outline of a human footprint when viewed at the correct angle and highlighted.

I was going to ask him how the physical composition of a T-Rex enabled him to breathe fire but he beat me to the punch. He says the multi-chambered skull of a Hadrosaur enabled this particular dinosaur to mix separate liquid chemicals and eject a caustic spray from it's nose or mouth. Just like a bombardier beetle. You should have heard the crowd then. They really ate that part up.

He addressed the science class question too. Why attend a class that completely ignores the evidence put forward by God's own word? Aren't science classes every bit as biased as anything else put out there?

Creationism, case closed. Verdict: Humans used to ride around on dinosaurs and even hunt them. Just ask Jesus.

I think I am quoting correctly here when I say

'some things that are true aren't particulary useful...'

Unless you are seeking the truth of course!

Religion per se struggles to survive the scrutiny of fact based evidences. God may or may not be a real entity, but Religion is definitely man made.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 05:58AM by steve benson.

"Did your Jesus tell you that, too"

That´s silly. Who tells you what to do? yourself alone? You don´t follow any philosophy, you don´t follow any cultural trend? You don´t get together with anyone who influences your way of thinking?

Man, i´m jealous of your intellectual independence.

Mormons believe Jesus rose from the dead... So do Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, and every other sect of Christianity...

(BTW, they all probably got that one from the Osiris myth in ancient Egypt)

So how are we to distinguish which zombie story is the true and correct one?

And will God ticket us to hell if we don't get it right?

If that's the case, then Lewis Black is right about that Old Testament God... I mean is heaven destined to be full of lucky guessers?

He responded to your questions, bub. It just wasn't with an answer you liked...

SLC
Loading up the bus for the HeriticsRUs meeting,
Should be quite the party...

"Badgered John, behold my Son C.S. Lewis, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him . . ."

http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/image/050823jthom_first_vision_me.jpg



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 03:48AM by steve benson.

Not so deep. Just silly, IMO

The reason to discard a belief is due to facts that support a view to the contrary. Christianity doesn't have verifiable facts...which is why it requires faith- the default of position for those who ignore facts.

Example. Do you discard a belief in leprechauns because you have a leap of faith that makes you think there is no evidence for them? No. It is based on likelihood after examining the evidence.

(Holy cow, Steve. You are having a gnat attack. Lightweight CS Lewis? That alone tells you the level of study someone has attempted. I read Lewis when I was Christian but soon found Lewis'arguments are easily refuted.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 02:29AM by steve benson.

"Christianity doesn't have verifiable facts...which is why it requires faith"

I really don´t want to annoy anybody here, but this is my last one. Everybody seems decided to remain believing what they believe, no matter what - so what´s the point?

Atheism doesn´t have verifiable facts for many of its assertions either if ones subscribes to evolution by natural selection. Some evolutionists falsified many facts as well such as the feathered dinosaur fossil, Haeckel´s fake embryo drawings, fake transitional fossils imagined out of a hog´s tooth, etc., etc., etc.

Nobody can prove half of it, there are no transitional fossils, let alone in abundance where one can observe the transitional steps. Today nobody can see one specie slowly turning to another, unless you have faith it will happen in another million years. While there are variations within species that cannot be compared to what evolution biologists present as what it really happened.

No Atheist can provide one single evidence for how life started - it´s all theories, probabilities, ideas, etc. The truth is, no scientist has a clue, and that´s a fact, like it or not.

So, yes, all religions require faith, including Atheism. Now if Atheists want to portray themselves as superior because of it, that´s their problem. I don´t see anything wrong with criticizing religion as long as your beliefs are not above criticism as well.

There are things here people could teach you, seriously...

And people's views do change; mine have, I know (and I'm not an atheist, just a bigtime doubter), and so have Steve's...

I don't see that it's locked into the theories of Geology, Natural Selection or anything in Astronomy or physics.

Lacking a religious creation explaination, it's likely that an atheist will subscribe to the theories of Evolution, etc., but it's not a given.

...leaves me standing here like a deer in headlights!!! File it to, never thought of that! Your posts are lengthy but well enjoyed!!

Man Steve you sure bring out the crazies!

The one thing that bugs me more than TBMs - those preachy Christians who are critical of others while failing to see the stupidity of their own beliefs. Gag me.

it's one thing if he was out and out cribbing and paraphrasing (i don't know that i'd use the term plagiarized), but that some other individual wrote it up, and the Prophet was blind to the influence of a Christian author, is even more delicious.

this country's actual President has his speeches ghost-written, why not a pseudo president?

ETB wasn't meaningfully writing or contributing to any sermons of "his" at that point, was fast (if not completely at that juncture) losing his place in the day-to-day leadership loop of the Mormon Church due to his increasingly poor physical health and advancing mental deterioration, and was having the talks and the tacking of the LDS ship of state being determined by standby Church administrators who were on the deck plotting the course, while falsely telling the faithful that ETB was calling the shots.

In short, my grandfather's hand wasn't on the wheel or at the pulpit.

That's where God stepped in, donchya see, and inspired Gordon B. Hinckley to preach lifted Lewis to the Latter-day Saints from a talk that ETB's daughter-in-law secretly wrote. :)

God works in deceitful ways, his wonders to perform.

Lordy.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2010 04:21AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ETB wasn't meaningfully writing or contributing to
> any sermons of "his" at that point, was fast (if
> not completely at that juncture) losing his place
> in the day-to-day leadership loop of the Mormon
> Church due to his increasingly poor physical
> health and advancing mental deterioration, and
> was having the talks and the tacking of the LDS
> ship of state being determined by standby Church
> administrators who were on the deck plotting the
> course, while falsely telling the faithful that
> ETB was calling the shots.
>
> In short, my grandfather's hand wasn't on the
> wheel or at the pulpit.
>
> That's where God stepped in, donchya see, and
> inspired Gordon B. Hinckley to preach lifted Lewis
> to the Latter-day Saints from a talk that ETB's
> daughter-in-law secretly wrote. :)
>
> God works in deceitful ways, his wonders to
> perform.
>
> Lordy.


Steve, my friend, none of your extensive posting changes the fact that you have still refused to answer the questions that I had posted in your previous thread. Will you ever answer two simple questions? You are ass stubborn as a TBM!

All these posts in this thread, plus the threads about the Book of Mammon only confirm to me that Religion is managed mythology packaged for the hopeless hopeful.
I find far more solace in reading existential philosophy than C.S. Lewis, alleged scriptures, etc.
I really appreciate Steve Benson's incredibly informative and informed posts. It all goes to reinforce my skepticism towards religious-minded suits of all persuasions.

By the way, Stephen Hawking (with his daughter) did write a series of Childrens stories!

:)

So does this mean that Pres. Uchtdorf plagerized from C.S. Lewis as well in his last talk on pride? :)