What do you think of this? Bonocore vs. Slick Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL!
so what do you think of Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s interpertation of that passage? I’ll repost it here for you…
Elder Bruce R. McConkie defined the church of the devil in the following way: “The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner. As Moroni will say in a later era of Nephite history, and as we shall ascertain in our evaluation of Rev. 18:1–24*, it is ‘secret combinations,’ oath-bound societies, and the great world force of Godless communism. (Ether 8:14–26.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551).*
SOURCE
Karin, 90% of what you say never makes any sense. If that continues I am going to have to stop responding to your posts. You had not asked me for a definition of the “church of the devil”. You had asked me how I understand 1 Nephi 14:10, and that is a different thing. How the Church of the devil is defined is a totally diferent issue. As it happens, I am not 100% in agreement with Bruice R McConkie’s definition of the church of the devil; but that is a different thing again. You had asked me for an interpretation of 1 Nephi 14:10, and I gave you my answer, and I stand by that answer.

zerinus
 
Karin, 90% of what you say never makes any sense. If that continues I am going to have to stop responding to your posts. You had not asked me for a definition of the “church of the devil”. You had asked me how I understand 1 Nephi 14:10, and that is a different thing. How the Church of the devil is defined is a totally diferent issue. As it happens, I am not 100% in agreement with Bruice R McConkie’s definition of the church of the devil; but that is a different thing again. You had asked me for an interpretation of 1 Nephi 14:10, and I gave you my answer, and I stand by that answer.

zerinus
LOL!
What did you think I was refering to Z? Did you really think I cared about the verse and what your Prostestant interpertation of it was?
I am pointing out more things to you from your own leaders that go to prove that mormons are not Christian…you brought this up in your post #31…
 
LOL!
What did you think I was refering to Z? Did you really think I cared about the verse and what your Prostestant interpertation of it was?
I am pointing out more things to you from your own leaders that go to prove that mormons are not Christian…you brought this up in your post #31…
You are talking a load of nonsense and you don’t know what you are talking about and I don’t see any need to waste my time any longer to respond to them.

zerinus
 
The following link is a podcast of about 17 meg in size, and it is a debate between a well known Evangelical activist and a Catholic. It is about an hour long:

feeds.feedburner.com/~r/carmorgpodcasting/~5/41698310/Matt_and_guest_Mark_Bonocore_10_25_.mp3

What do you think? Who won and who lost, and why?

zerinus
Is this the most recent discussion between the two? They had a discussion about 2 weeks ago and I made my comments on that show and it was clear Matt did a very poor job against Mark.

If this is a new show I hope to hear it asap.
 
Is this the most recent discussion between the two? They had a discussion about 2 weeks ago and I made my comments on that show and it was clear Matt did a very poor job against Mark.

If this is a new show I hope to hear it asap.
Read the thread. You will learn more.

zerinus
 
Okay, I still couldn’t get to volume 5; but as I promised here are the sources of the rest of your quotes.
"Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167);
These are deliberately pulled out of the context to misrepresent the quote. The complete quote is as follows:

There is no nation now that acknowledges the hand of God; there is not a king, potentate, nor ruler that acknowledges his jurisdiction. We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.

This statement was appropriate for the time it was spoken. At that time the LDS Church was suffering a lot of persecution from the churches of the day, and this is a reflection of that.
"Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." - Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127
This one was accurately quoted, but again out of context. Here is the full context

Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom. There is no people that have held communion with God, no true church, priesthood or authority, no medium of communication between God and man for church government, to dictate, regulated manage and control the affairs of his kingdom upon the earth.

How do you conclude from that that Mormons are not Christian? It is a fundamental principle of the LDS Church that the Christian church which Jesus established apostatized, and this is merely stating that position. The LDS Church mainiains that it is a restoration of the original true Church of Christ (following the apostasy of the original one). How does that make the LDS Church not Christian?
What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing… Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." - Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourse, 13:225
The same here. This is the full quote:

And Christianity, at the present time, is no more enlightened than other systems have been. What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing; yet these very men assume the right and power to tell others what they shall and what they shall not believe in. Why, so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God. Our Government is engaged just now in an act of this kind. Our legislators would tell me what I shall and shall not believe in, what shall be the course of my morals, as if they were immaculate and had been made perfect; as though they had inspiration from on high, and had found out the truth in all its richness, power and glory; as though they had conversed with the heavens and were acquainted with God.

The same argument applies as given above. How does that make LDS not Christian? It maintains that it is a restoration of the original church of Christ, after the original one apostatized. How does that make it an non-Christian church?

zerinus
 
Dude << Is this the most recent discussion between the two? They had a discussion about 2 weeks ago and I made my comments on that show and it was clear Matt did a very poor job against Mark. If this is a new show I hope to hear it asap. >>

There have been 3 shows so far, each the past few Wednesdays I think. The most recent was recorded and uploaded yesterday. Here are the links:

Part 1 (60 minutes)
Part 2 (60 minutes)
Part 3 (60 minutes)

CARM Podcasts (all recent shows)

I’ve listened to the first 2 and they were quite good. I haven’t listened to the third one completely but it appeared to repeat a lot of what was already said. For example, Slick keeps bringing up Acts 17:11 and the Bereans even though Mark answered that in the first show. 😃

Although Slick can be somewhat obnoxious (“Roman Catholicism is of the devil, demonic, blasphemous, etc” :rolleyes: ), I think he is quite fair giving Mark at least a chance to explain and defend anything he wanted, even allowing him to change the subject mid-discussion and bring up examples.

Phil P
 
Read the thread. You will learn more.

zerinus
Thanks, so now I need to hear parts 2 and 3, I cant wait!
Dude << Is this the most recent discussion between the two? They had a discussion about 2 weeks ago and I made my comments on that show and it was clear Matt did a very poor job against Mark. If this is a new show I hope to hear it asap. >>

There have been 3 shows so far, each the past few Wednesdays I think. The most recent was recorded and uploaded yesterday. Here are the links:

Part 1 (60 minutes)
Part 2 (60 minutes)
Part 3 (60 minutes)

CARM Podcasts (all recent shows)

I’ve listened to the first 2 and they were quite good. I haven’t listened to the third one completely but it appeared to repeat a lot of what was already said. For example, Slick keeps bringing up Acts 17:11 and the Bereans even though Mark answered that in the first show. 😃

Although Slick can be somewhat obnoxious (“Roman Catholicism is of the devil, demonic, blasphemous, etc” :rolleyes: ), I think he is quite fair giving Mark at least a chance to explain and defend anything he wanted, even allowing him to change the subject mid-discussion and bring up examples.

Phil P
👍 Good stuff, I cant wait to hear the last two debates. I made a thread about the first debate and showed how bad Slick did, especially how he refused to properly quote the CCC passage at the end of show 1.
 
You are talking a load of nonsense and you don’t know what you are talking about and I don’t see any need to waste my time any longer to respond to them.

zerinus
Don’t worry Karin, amgid quit responding to my posts when he became Zerinus. He thinks ignoring me somehow gives him credibility. Anyone who has read his posts for any length of time can see that he is a hate-spewing, anti-everyone who’s not LDS bitter person. Waht’s especially sad is that he consistently misrepresents LDS doctrine. He doesn’t seem to sustain his apostles as “prophets, seers and revelators” like the temple recomend says. He only sustains them when they say hat he wants to hear and ignores or even denounces the reast.

He is eagerly awaiting becoming a God so he can have his submissive harem.
:mad:
 
Don’t worry Karin, amgid quit responding to my posts when he became Zerinus. He thinks ignoring me somehow gives him credibility. Anyone who has read his posts for any length of time can see that he is a hate-spewing, anti-everyone who’s not LDS bitter person. Waht’s especially sad is that he consistently misrepresents LDS doctrine. He doesn’t seem to sustain his apostles as “prophets, seers and revelators” like the temple recomend says. He only sustains them when they say hat he wants to hear and ignores or even denounces the reast.

He is eagerly awaiting becoming a God so he can have his submissive harem.
:mad:
LOL!
Thanks Majick275!
“Z” really does like to twist things around especially when a non-LDS person points out the errors in the elders words/teachings etc.
I find it rather ammusing as a whole…that “Z” cant follow what I post as these are his own elders words…I guess “Z” is a confused mormon even off of these boards.
 
anybody know if there is a way to listen to the second half of the debate he was suposed to call back in I would like to know if we can listen to it as well
 
There have been 3 shows so far, each the past few Wednesdays I think. The most recent was recorded and uploaded yesterday. Here are the links:

Part 1 (60 minutes)
Part 2 (60 minutes)
Part 3 (60 minutes)

CARM Podcasts (all recent shows)

I’ve listened to the first 2 and they were quite good. I haven’t listened to the third one completely but it appeared to repeat a lot of what was already said. For example, Slick keeps bringing up Acts 17:11 and the Bereans even though Mark answered that in the first show. 😃

Although Slick can be somewhat obnoxious (“Roman Catholicism is of the devil, demonic, blasphemous, etc” :rolleyes: ), I think he is quite fair giving Mark at least a chance to explain and defend anything he wanted, even allowing him to change the subject mid-discussion and bring up examples.
Phil P
I just finished the 2nd show and I did not enjoy it, neither side won but I guess a little progress was made towards the end. Mark started off with some bad points which he didnt word properly and Matt used that against him, that being said they both made good points but it was all over the map so no issue could be solved.

Now show 3…this started off all over the map, repeating the same stuff, going off on typical Protestant objections to Catholicism, etc. :whacky:
Also I couldnt believe Mark didnt really mention the canon of Scripture, that is a important question that cant be wished away but for whatever reason it wasnt a main player in the “discussion”. There needs to be a set schedule for order or something. The real problem is Matt is in a lower league than Mark, Mark should have spent more time calling Matt to the carpet (eg who defines “essential vs nonessential”?) instead of letting things pass. They should have gone to bringyou.to/apologetics/ or something because its almost not worth spending the time to hear the shows.
 
Dude << They should have gone to bringyou.to/apologetics/ or something because its almost not worth spending the time to hear the shows. >>

You may be onto something! Hee hee. The problem with such “debates” is that neither side can agree on anything. Slick saying “No, No, No” with Mark saying “Yes, Yes, Yes” and vice versa. Reminds me of the the Monty Python “Argument Sketch” which sounds like this

Part 2 was OK since they were slightly more focused, Slick gave Mark an “opening statement” of about 2 minutes, and they delved into the authority and interpretation issue.

Yeah Part 3 was more chaotic with too many topics. :whacky:

Phil P
 
Dude << They should have gone to bringyou.to/apologetics/ or something because its almost not worth spending the time to hear the shows. >>

You may be onto something! Hee hee. The problem with such “debates” is that neither side can agree on anything. Slick saying “No, No, No” with Mark saying “Yes, Yes, Yes” and vice versa. Reminds me of the the Monty Python “Argument Sketch” which sounds like this

Part 2 was OK since they were slightly more focused, Slick gave Mark an “opening statement” of about 2 minutes, and they delved into the authority and interpretation issue.

Yeah Part 3 was more chaotic with too many topics. :whacky:

Phil P
I think that in all the shows the Catholic guy generally presents more valid and persuasive arguments; but Slick has a tendency to dodge, jump around, interrupt, not allow the other guy finish his sentence, and shift his position frequently. He is not as unfair in his debate as he could be; but he is not conpletely fair either. Part 2 wasn’t so good; but parts 1 and 3 weren’t too bad in my opinion. I have also heard on the CARM forums that Matt Slich didn’t receive a fair treatement from the host when debating on Catholic radio show. Is that true? I didn’t listen to the show, so I can’t tell.

zerinus
 
I think that in all the shows the Catholic guy generally presents more valid and persuasive arguments; but Slick has a tendency to dodge, jump around, interrupt, not allow the other guy finish his sentence, and shift his position frequently. He is not as unfair in his debate as he could be; but he is not conpletely fair either. Part 2 wasn’t so good; but parts 1 and 3 weren’t too bad in my opinion. I have also heard on the CARM forums that Matt Slich didn’t receive a fair treatement from the host when debating on Catholic radio show. Is that true? I didn’t listen to the show, so I can’t tell.

zerinus
If you’re referring to the show that Teresa Tomeo hosted back in September, with John Martinogni as the guest speaker, then unfortunately I would have to agree that Matt was not treated as fairly as he should have been. The fault was with Teresa, not John. When Matt asked a question, Teresa butted in, rather then allowing John to answer. In addition, she said, “we’re not going to argue, we’re going to have a discussion, as brothers and sisters in Christ.” Yet, she was very argumentative. When Matt brought up 1 John 2:19, Teresa asked, “How do you know who’s saved?” Then when Matt tried to answer, she kept cutting him off, “no, answer my question. How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?” Then Matt cried, “could I ANSWER, please?!” So in short, I thought she was unprofessional. On the other hand, Matt didn’t appear to be considerate of the fact that there were other callers, and that he could only have a limited time to talk. Just my :twocents:

Pax Tecum,
Jay
 
Dude << They should have gone to bringyou.to/apologetics/ or something because its almost not worth spending the time to hear the shows. >>

You may be onto something! Hee hee. The problem with such “debates” is that neither side can agree on anything. Slick saying “No, No, No” with Mark saying “Yes, Yes, Yes” and vice versa. Reminds me of the the Monty Python “Argument Sketch” which sounds like this

Part 2 was OK since they were slightly more focused, Slick gave Mark an “opening statement” of about 2 minutes, and they delved into the authority and interpretation issue.

Yeah Part 3 was more chaotic with too many topics. :whacky:

Phil P
It wasnt an argument it was just contradiction 😉
 
I have to say Bonovore is winning. I just wish they would have got further in to her being a virgin. I think Bonocore was about to corner him and slick knew it. And was slick to get out of the corner.

does anyone know if Bonocore gives parish speaches or does he have a home page I have searched and have got all dead ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top