Yeah, I mean, if you take even half a second to look at the majority of the stuff they try to bash, you can come up with the reason why it is ridiculous for them to bash it, it's like they read it, and they make fun of the writing style which was used back then, as if they expect something written thousands of years ago to use the same language we use today.

the BOM still says it's a curse to have dark skin, and most religions tried to force themselves upon blacks.

Dark skin has always been a curse from God in the scriptures, african people are descendants of Cain for instance, it does not mean that we think they are bad people, but back then, usually they were.

Gah...... another religion thread. Everything humans do is selfish, even worship god. BTW the ten commandments said "no other idles THAN ME" you have an idle just god nothing else.

Idol you mean? And the commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" And that "Thou shalt not make unto me any graven image" and God isn't an idol.

Looks like I missed a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonism
if you want objective criticism. I definitely recommend the read. Includes Mormon rebuttals to almost every point made.


Still, their afterlife views of heaven and hell (which is what everything really comes down to) are much more reasonable and believable than anything I've seen from the mainstream christian faiths.

"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible"


By scriptures, do you mean the Bible or the Book of Mormon? If the Bible, tell me, where the hell does it say African people descended from Cain?

Just... wow...

Yeah, but the majority of their skepticism is like jokes that I would make while reading, not something I would actually take seriously. They are trying to compare A: A book which has been modified like crazy during translation, as it has been translated many times from different languages and many people have attempted to edit it according to their beliefs. and B: They are often acting as if it is stupid because of the language being used in it which was common language back then.


Bible, in Genesis 4:15 is said that a mark was set on Cain, and as Cain's children were separated from all the other children of Adam, it's a pretty good assumption that at Africans were descendants of Cain.

It's true that this is a popular assumption, but I still have a hard time agreeing with it.
Cain had just murdered his brother Abel, so the lord cursed him. The curse . After this, interpretation get's tricky. The popular interpretation is that Cain cried out to god for mercy because he was scared to death that people would kill him because of his anti-green thumb(who these people are and where they came from is another can of worms). So god gave Cain a mark (or symbol) that would let others know that if they killed him, they would have to go 1on1 with God next.
Scripture goes into ZERO detail at all about what this symbol or mark may have looked like. It could have just been a tattoo of an odd shape, or the blackening of all skin. Although of it was the latter, I'm inclined to believe that there would have been a description given. Another popular interpretation is that it was a pillar of light of the sky that followed him. Simply having black skin or a tattoo wouldn't instinctively translate to "DO NOT KILL" as much as a heavenly aura.
But back to that I said here, and to my actual point -
That other interpretation is that Cain didn't so much cry out to god for mercy, as he actually admitted that he did something wrong and stupid, and that he deserved to die. This makes more sense to how God could have went from vengeance to mercy. "aw cain, I'm sorry I yelled at you. I know you killed your brother, but you don't deserve to die! Here let me give you this..."
So even if you believe in the black skin theory, that's just the mark and not the actual curse. The mark was really a blessing.

Also after reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
I'm pretty much convinced Joseph Smith was more influenced by society and his times, than an all-loving god.

Such as?


Pretty good assumption? No. It is a completely baseless assumption thought up in the 1800's to justify slavery and racism. They didn't understand how skin pigmentation is due to melanin, which is an evolutionary adaptation to defend against ultraviolet radiation. The Book of Mormon reflects this time period's faulty logic with Joseph Smith writing that the Native American's skin color was changed as punishment (playing off the existing notion then about the mark of Cain). It's ignorant and disgusting, and is just one of the many reasons I cannot take the Mormon religion seriously.

What makes you think God didn't use that to cause the darker color? He's not going to just make it obvious that there is a God, he wants you to be able to use your free agency and return back to him of your own accord, not because you saw some scientific evidence that tells you there must be a God.

Nothing in the Bible specifies what the mark was. Nor does it say that the mark is hereditary -- ie, that any of his children would bare the same mark. In fact, the whole purpose of the mark was so that no one would kill Cain, lest they suffer sevenfold. So does that mean if you kill a black man, you'll be punished sevenfold?

What about Asians? Maybe the elipse on their eyes is the mark of Cain! OMFG! ... Exactly. The whole African "theory" it's complete and utter bull with no support whatsoever in the Bible. It is a masquerade for racism, and has only ever served to perpetuate discrimination (such as the denial of priesthood to blacks).


Right, because falsely assuming skin color is the mark of Cain somehow makes you closer to God? What the hell?


Such as? If you're going to make accusations, back them up with supporting evidence.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 13 2008, 8:37 pm by Hercanic.

My church leaders have had revelation supporting that, and it never says anything about Cain's children, as you pointed out, so the killing part did not apply to his children.
The priesthood is not denied to blacks, so I don't see where you're pulling that crap from.


Nice pulling that whole part out of context, I can see why you love this skeptic's bible so much.


Such as almost every other one shown in the Absurdities section.

if im not mistaken at one point of time it did, as yet it still denies women seems pretty ignorant to me.

Gender and races are completely different things, women are given other responsibilities. As much as people love to say men and women are equal, they both have different responsibilities in life, which you really can't compare.

please explain the responsibilities that women are given in your religion other than bearing children.

How does your Church come up with revelations? How does God speak to them? Are they God's prophets?

The Bible is supposed to be the definitive word of God, correct? Revelations cannot go against the Bible for this reason. The Pope, for instance, cannot one day state he had a revelation that it is now okay to kill your neighbor. Your church leader's revelation on the mark of Cain and Africans is false because it is saying that one group of people are evil (and thus marked) when the Bible says that all of God's children are equal. That is a contradiction of the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus was supposed to have died for all man's sins, not just white people's. Another contradiction.

Revelations are a dangerous prospect. What is true, and what might be a lie to further someone's agenda? There is no way to truly make this distinction in an environment where words like faith are absolute. That is, belief without proof. Priests are not infallible, as the pedophilia in Catholicism has deftly shown, or the countless other transgressions in the past (Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Manifest Destiny, Indulgences, the Crusades, etc). Priests can be misguided, or at worst lie, manipulate, and mislead. They are, after all, only men. How can you question them, then, when they can default to revelations ("God told me so")? That kind of power, I am fearful...


Cherrypicking. So the killing part doesn't apply because nothing is said about Cain's children (nevermind that was the entire freakin' purpose of the mark, so Cain wouldn't be killed by anyone, so if the killing part doesn't transfer, why would the mark?); yet, that contradicts the assertion that the mark of Cain was passed onto his descendants (as nothing is said about Cain's children).

The real curse of Cain was that the earth would not yield its strength to him. As in, he'd suck at farming (which was his area of expertise beforehand, a big punch to the nuts). Yet, sadly, 189 years of slavery in America, tilling away in fields, prove otherwise for black people.

Tell me, how did a good Christian back then justify to his children why it was okay to beat, rape, and kill his slaves? Dehumanize them, of course. If they bare the mark of Cain, then clearly they are an evil people deserving of their fate. Now the children can go to church with a clear conscience.


"and has only ever served to perpetuate discrimination" is past perfect tense.

Try this or this.


The only other bit of your entire message was quoted right above it.


Well, then it should be easy for you to produce an example and explain your reasoning.

However, to address your claim of everything being taken out of context: The entire King James Bible is present on that site (you can crack open your own Bible for comparison), and every excerption is hyperlinked to the exact passages. Lists like Absurdities are only present for convenience. You can read the entire Bible, Book of Mormon, and Koran in order and in context on that site, with notes and observations written on the side.

Read this book!

I'm content to merely say "there is no god" and leave it at that. Of course there are contradictions in all the major "books", so then folks will say, "well, you've got to take some parts figuratively." That way, they can pick and choose which passages they will interpret literally. Kudos to the site for pointing out "good stuff" in the books though. Just flipping through Matthew, there are a number of good ideas: "Blessed are the merciful," "Don't brag," etc. On the other hand, those ideas ought to be common sense by now, but it seems most often that those who vigorously defend their bible have the hardest time using the good advice found in it. While the site is fun for atheists to flip through, I'm sure that the vast majority of "believers" would hate to lay eyes upon it. For years, I would still hold the rather absurd notion in my mind that god existed. That book persuaded me to stop being a pansy fence sitter, and I honestly feel relieved now, and liberated atop of that. It would seem that believers could spend their time more wisely helping society as opposed to praying to a fictitious god, but it doesn't matter how much evidence is amassed against any particular religion. As he put it, "most people are atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Atheists just go one god further."


Why would god care more that you believe in particular ideas? Considering that most people aren't born Christian, what would make god favor John Smith over in London more than Assef over in Pakistan? After all, religion is determined largely by location. People have just a little more choice in it than they do with the color of their skin, gender, sexuality, etc., and it can be extremely difficult for some folks to break away from their parents' religion. To borrow another point from Dawkins, one woman found her experience in the church so traumatizing as a child that the idea of hell forced her to go through psychiatric therapy when she was older while being molested at the age of seven (by her pastor, no less) was merely "yucky" to her as a seven year old. To find out about the troubles that religion cause, you have to go beyond what the books preach and look at the real world effects, because quite honestly, I couldn't care less what any religious book has to offer. Burden of proof does unfortunately lie with beliefs because with different choices floating around, I will shoot for the one that seems most accurate.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts