St. Aelios【聖太陽】

@ldsabuse ...Your example is Wade? Bruh, you're a joke.

Jacob Hansen is a coward. He won’t debate the real topic, which is “Does the LDS Church Tolerate Abuse?”, which it clearly does, and instead puts out clips whining about the church being held liable when it protects predators - you know, like in the Wade Christofferson case. He does this to stir up his audience, whom he doesn’t even respect, because he feels justified in twisting the truth if it protects his outdated version of what he wants the church to be. Pathetic.

@MormonSerf @RestoredTruth8 this you?

@enor_mal @gwowls You might be in a cult.

@gwowls The Bible has no contradictions in doctrine.

If you think the Bible has no contradictions you might be in a cult

@ThoughtfulSaint Besides the adultery, JFK was based.

Holy crap. This is awesome. It’s sad when outsiders can see more clearly than many modern members.

@DavidJHarrisJr That's how we know he didn't listen to Moses or Joshua or David or Samuel or... Countless popes

🚨The Pope says that Jesus doesn't listen to the prayers of those who wage war! Thoughts?

@Mormonger @DiscipleFidei

@DiscipleFidei Are you sure you want to bring up which of our Gods is most just? 😂

The Mormon god is like an unjust king who lets his wicked sons abuse the people without consequence.

@DiscipleFidei Sure, if you're illiterate.

@faithapologia Myopic, hubristic losers who don't think their own belief system is its own cage.

Statistically, atheists are less happy and more depressed than religious people. Religious people are also more charitable. Walking around pretending to be happy 24/7 is a facade. It's a life of constantly lying to yourself.

@surskitmaxxing Longest ad hom rant I've seen in a long time.

A serious blind spot in the Mormon community is assuming that Mormon researchers are far more credible than they actually are Mormon apologetic research is a hub for absurd nonsense with little to no accountability or external oversight. That’s how you get even prominent…

Welp pack it up folks…

@EvidenceOfFaith @Latterdaytruth Historically illiterate.

@Latterdaytruth He died in a shootout.. he was a liar and a conman.

On June 27, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered by a mob of cowards. 182 years later, the cause for which they were willing to die is practiced by millions across the globe.

@dummkopfe48320 @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos Reliable regarding what? ....His dating on the manuscripts? Okay, dummkopf, I need you to put on your big boy glasses and actually articulate an argument. So far it has been pure ad hominem. Stay focused. Need you to pay attention.

@st_aelios @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos Now you want to discuss manuscript dating? If you were wearing your big-boy glasses you would have seen we were discussing if Bart E was reliable. There is, like most things, a spectrum of opinion on the dating. Ehrman typically sides with the liberal/secular perspective.

Except Luke does not mention Paul’s death in acts. Which implies Paul had not been executed when Acts was written. Paul was executed around 65Ad. The synoptic gospels were likely written in the late 50s. Mike @InspiringPhilos has a great series on it.

@dummkopfe48320 @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos ........Anyways, we're talking about the dating of the manuscripts. Did you have an actual argument regarding that? All the theology of the manuscripts can be true with a later of earlier dating, so analogy doesn't work. Stay focused.

@st_aelios @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos I gave you the example of the resurrection which is both historical and theological. If you approach it just from a secular perspective like Erham, you will walk away with conclusions that the apostles were hallucinating. You cant separate Christian history from the supernatural

@dummkopfe48320 @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos ....So did you have an argument or not? The question is historical not theological, so stay focused.

@st_aelios @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos When it comes to religion, I don’t put much weight on atheist scholars because their presuppositions often rule out the supernatural from the outset.

@dummkopfe48320 @RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos Do you have a single legit argument against Bart's evidences? Or are you just mad he's atheist? I don't dismiss Dan merely for being anti-mormon. He has good work too. If I disagree with a claim, I disagree with evidence. Stop living in an echo chamber.

@RestoredTruth8 @ThoughtfulSaint @InspiringPhilos Dan Vogel is a Joseph Smith scholar and believes he is a pious fraud. You believe him right? He’s a scholar bro. Stop living in an echo-chamber. lol

On this day in 1844 Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob. A lot of people talk about Joseph Smith but very few know his actual story. He could have run, he was in the clear… but we went back across the Mississippi. Praise to the man. youtu.be/OB9y5DXefbc?is…

@LdstoCatholic Certain details are still debated or unknown.....so? That's better than only 15% of Christians knowing what the Trinity is, and 100% of everyone on planet earth being, by definition, incapable of comprehending it. Apples and…not even oranges, camels. Apples and camels.

@ThoughtfulSaint @RestoredTruth8 I think it speaks more to how our spirits are eternal rather than required rounds of generation from heavenly parents which is required by IR.

I am not an IR guy… but @RestoredTruth8 I don’t think creation ex nihilo is required in IR.

@TraviXai Literally not even trying to be rude or anything, I just think maybe you're reading too much into him adding "bro" to infinite regression. Please take it in its intended spirit. Much love 🙏🏻

condescending, yes.... so condescending, no. you making up your own nickname and saying i can use it is so brave. Also, IR still says the Father is eternal(all of us are), so your nickname doesn't work anyway. I'll just call you "middle school lunchroom tiktok bro." But it isn't condescending because i say it isn't, and also since i actually very much enjoy most of your discussions. :) xoxo

Is starting out a question by creating a demeaning nickname just a prideful “I already know your answer is wrong and I’m right” flex?