"Altruism" is merely a front for self-interest based around the "golden rule."
Ah, so everyone who does something nice/caring is doing it to get something out of the person they're doing it for?
And the Golden Rule is about getting other people to treat you nicer, not about the hypocrisy and immorality of not treating other people the way you would want to be treated?
/His/ Church may not be out to scam people for cash, but I'm sure they ask for it to some degree, just like everyone from the Anglicans to Pat Robertson.
Seriously, what conclusion are you drawing from the (probable) fact that they take an offering? Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical for me to join a church community without supporting what they do?
Right, I haven't gotten into that topic. I haven't defended why it's important. I didn't attempt to convince you on it.
I said that if I have studied it and you haven't, my opinions about what it says are worth more than yours. Is it really that hard for you? Worthless_Comments saw the same thing.
Nah, I only default to it on the Internet to enrage the religious.
OK, so that's tongue-in-cheek--but I doubt you realize how much that kind of thing dilutes any argument against Christianity. It's flippant, cursory analysis--which doesn't speak well to the quality of your Rational Skepticism. You said that part of what influenced your rejection of theism was being "confronted with the fundamentalist nuts on the Internet and that pretty much turned me into an Atheist." It works the other way around, too.
However, a Christian Skeptic is someone who has not yet confronted his religion with reason.
You're welcome to believe that, but I find the examples you raise rather sophomoric. Free will and omniscience? Are you even familiar with the various definitions of free will--libertarian, compatibilistic, etc? In what sense do you think it's free? And if there is a conflict between omniscience and your definition of free will, why not say "Our will is not free in that sense of the word 'free'"? (I've recently been talking about this with some friends. I think "free will" is a terrible term--it's ambiguous, and means different things to different people. And the Bible doesn't even talk about free will--so conflict between free will & omniscience does nothing to show internal inconsistency.)
How much philosophy did you read before you decided that there's no intellectually respectable way to reconcile the two? Can you expound on Augustinian and Pelagian views of the will? Semi-Pelagian views? Martin Luther's extensive debates with Erasmus on the nature of the will? Do you know anything about Jonathan Edwards' The Freedom of the Will?
if he can act on our world he is bound to the laws of physics (or else we should detect forces that are unexplainable to physics)
Now that's just silly.
When and where he is acting, we should detect forces unexplainable to physics. Not, "if he can".
Obviously, Jesus doesn't really want people to maim themselves; but this is serious business.
A caution for you, brother: Don't be too quick to say that. Any statement that begins with "obviously" is suspect. If you can't flesh out the reasons, then you don't have a good basis for you conclusion--and people will be right to accuse you of picking and choosing.
There is no way to achieve perfect certainty--in any area of life, in any field of study. There are ways to have strong confidence in your conclusions.
The particular spin that I offered--riches were that man's hang-up--is somewhat guesswork. If I just had that proposal, my conclusion wouldn't be solid.
But in this case, it's not very hard: If we know that Jesus taught a lot about the kingdom of heaven and how to get in, and if we know that he talked to a lot of people, and if he didn't tell everyone to sell their possessions--then we can be extremely confident that it wasn't a general command. If he never addressed such a command to a general audience, why would we even start to think that it was intended as a general command?
I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.
You're trying to tell me something there, right?
Not that I think you're unintelligent. I have no basis to judge--and it would be pretty ugly of me if I went around thinking that way. (I hope I don't do that.)
But that you've got an irrational approach? Yes, I'm trying to tell you that. I have respect for the approach of some people who disagree with me; I do not have respect for the approach that I perceive you to be using.
You see, interpretation of any text is pretty much guesswork. Unverifiable guesswork.
Why on earth would you insult my mother like that? She doesn't even have red hair!
However, this is what most theologists do.
How on earth do you know that? Where do you get your demographics? [1]
More importantly, why do you assume that when you're talking to me, I haven't approached it in exactly the kind of objective manner you're proposing?
Do you have any idea how much time I've spent thinking and learning about how to interpret the Bible well? Do you have any idea what kind of resources I try to use, so that my conclusions will not be pure guesswork? To look into cultural background? To compare the various things a particular author said, so that I'm doing justice to context and not just stripping out verses one-by-one and thinking I can know what they mean? Do you know how hard I try to recognize when a passage is ambiguous, and when it's not?
I'm living like these things are the words of God. I care very much about their reliability, and determining what they actually mean.
[1] BTW, I actually agree that most people--Christian and non-Christian--don't try very hard to study the Bible well. Many people have little basis for their conclusions. I see it often. I also see careful research & study. And yes, if I've done that and you haven't, my opinion is worth more than yours.
Essentially, in #3 you say that nobody can study the Bible: nobody is objective to it.
Not quite. I was saying that you can't assume one side is objective and the other isn't. From there, we have to speak carefully about what we mean by "objective".
I am also saying that no one is purely objective. Everyone has biases. Former believers have psychological motivations to justify their unbelief; current believers have motivations to justify their belief. Everyone is prone to confirmation bias.
That does not mean we're hopelessly lost in a sea of subjectivity. A reasonable, intellectually honest approach involves doing your best to distance yourself from your background & your biases. It involves examining yourself and your reasoning process. It involves testing your conclusions wherever possible. It involves taking out your presuppositions and doing your best to evaluate them. (Sometimes you can do that by finding support for them specifically--like having one theorem serve as a premise of another argument. And sometimes they're more like axioms--you can't test it directly, but you can examine the self-consistency of the worldview that results from them.) A good, true skeptic must think this way.
The worst, however, are people who don't believe they have biases. If you know you have a blindspot, you can try to work around it, and have some measure of success. If you don't know that it's there--if you're irrationally persuaded of your own objectivity--then you'll be stuck with its blinding influence. That kind of person will see themselves as a "skeptic", but is really just a denier. (Skepticism doesn't mean that you disbelieve; it refers to your approach. A Christian can be a skeptic--and if that thought seems inherently laughable to you, then I suspect you're in this "blind" category.)
The phrases were there, there is no denying.
It's not the existence of the phrases that is questionable--it's the spin you placed on them. You may not have come from a fundamentalist background, but you default into that approach--an approach that you probably wouldn't use when reading any other book. People use hyperbole & figures of speech--and figuring out when they are doing so is not pure "guessing". (Even if you conclude that I'm wrong about these passages, if you approach it in the way you have been, then you have no basis for your conclusions.)
I realize that the relative objectivity of the two groups is arguable. I don't think it's absurd to conclude that skeptics are more objective. I do disagree, for the reasons I said, but I don't think it's absurd. I do think it's absurd simply to assume that one side is objective and the other isn't.
There is no real way to study the Bible, except to guess "what is really meant". Your guess is as good as mine, because it's, ehm, "guessing".
When I read your words, I "guess" that you are giving me a recipe for making apple strudel.
As I said, there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones. Sometimes a passage is genuinely ambiguous, and you can't form an objective conclusion. Sometimes you can.
You don't get to wave your hand and say "it's all just your interpretation", or "it's all just guessing". The world doesn't work that way. Reading a text is subject to rules; words have meanings. Don't relativize everything.
I know it's an easy way to excuse disbelief, but try to resist the temptation. I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
Absolutely not. I pretty much grep up Catholic. We pretty much only got the nicer parts to hear like "love thy neighbour", etc... I got confronted with the fundamentalist nuts on the Internet and that pretty much turned me into an Atheist.
Interesting. "There are idiots in the world" implies "There is no God"? That sounds like a novel version of the problem of evil.:)
(*) Oddly enough, I don't think I ever studied the Bible. Mostly my Catholicism teacher told the story and we got the interpretation for free. No need to think about it. I can't call that "study".
Ah, I agree. That was not study.
The problem is not that you can't tone down those verses.
It's not about "toning them down". It's about reading them with a minimum level of attempt to pay attention to what the person who said them actually meant. It's about realizing that people do use hyperbole, and there are ways of figuring it out with some measure of objectivity. (That is, there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones. There are reasonable ways to figure out what someone meant, and unreasonable ways. Reading verses without paying attention to context is simply inexcusable.)
As you said, I could interpret that those sayings were just for one person.
"Those sayings"? I said that one saying was for one person. Not because I'm trying to find some way to avoid that command--because it was an answer to a particular person's question, and because Jesus never gave that answer to other people when teaching about the kingdom of heaven. I conclude he didn't teach that as a general command, because he never said it addressed generally!
You were simply mistaken when you said that he taught that we have to do that.
For what they were recorded is a mystery to me then, as they are not important to anyone except that long dead dude.
Really? So when God told Abraham to leave his home and travel to a new land, it was pointless to record that because it was only relevant to him? When God told him to sacrifice Isaac, there was no point in recording it? When a prophet told David to repent of his adultery and murder, there was no point in recording it?
A statement doesn't have to be directed at me for me to learn from it.
The reason that you don't understand is that, as you have said, you've never studied the Bible.
The problem is that fundamentalists *do* interpret the Bible literally.
Yes, that is the problem. That is their error. So why are you content to engage in their foolishness? Why repeat nonsense like "Jesus taught people to hate their families an love only God", when he didn't?
However, logically, the Bible is a big pile of inconsistent crap written by goat herders 2000 years ago. Really not worth my time and a shame that so many people model their life after it. I have never(*), and will never, study the Bible.
My goodness. Do you have any idea what you just said? Read those two sentences together, and find the inconsistency. You've never studied it, but you somehow magically possess the sure knowledge that it is a pile of inconsistent crap? You've never studied it, but you are willing to make claims about what it teaches? You rejected it out of ignorance of it?
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven.
No... He said that to one person. A guy who asked him, "What must I do?" A guy who's particular hang-up seems to have been attachment to his riches. He did not say that to any random person. (He also didn't say, sell it all and give it to me.)
You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
No, you can't. He didn't say that. You added a piece: "only love God".
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
I agree that this decision is a good one. But I wonder...How would they rule on someone holding up a sign that says, "homosexual behavior is sinful"? Would that be seen as "threatening, abusive, or insulting"?
On perfection: You're mixing two things. Perfection of character, and perfection of revelation through them. No, Peter and Moses were not perfect--which is very comforting to know. Yes, the Scripture they produced was--because it came about not by the will of those men or by their own interpretation, but they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. They spoke authoritatively. And given the OT standard of putting to death prophets who spoke falsely, yes, claims to inspired, authoritative speech are held to the highest standard. Yes, a book "breathed out" by God is held to the highest standard. (It's odd that you would call such a standard "impossible". Do you think God so incapable? I can understand thinking that God did not do such a thing, but to call it "impossible"?)
The "puppets" reference is inane. You think God can't ensure the correctness of words spoken in His name by his selected prophets and apostles, without it making them "puppets"?
Oh, I know that the introduction isn't part of the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Go back to the context--I was replying to StorminMormon's comment about the NA/lost tribe thing not being part of Mormonism, and I said, "where on earth would people get such an idea?" Because that exact idea was part of official Mormon publications for over 20 years. It was a teaching--so this isn't something that critics are making up.
As for the article you linked to:
When a religion modifies a statement in the slightest degree, it is seen as being an imposter. When believers accept the change, they are guilty of doublethink. When intellectuals accept science's changes, they are on the cutting edge of knowledge.
There's a reason for the difference in some cases--if that religion is claiming authoritative titles like "prophet" and "apostle". If you claim to speak for God, you're held to a higher standard--the Old Testament penalty for false prophets was pretty high. (I'm not saying the introduction comment was an authoritative claim--I'm not sure. But if it was, this criticism applies.)
And you think saying "The Jews accused Christians of being polytheists" proves that the early Christians were?
What on earth are you thinking? Lots of Muslims still accuse Christians of being polytheists. Because they don't get it. Just as you misunderstood what the Trinity is, with your "Jesus praying to himself" comment. Christians were also accused of being cannibals; do you think that proves they were? Or do you recognize that sometimes, accusations are based on misunderstandings?
Mind you, I'm not claiming that the earliest Christians would have been able to articulate the Trinity by a Nicaean-style creed. We can read the progression of how they struggled to express the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit. If want to you think that Mormon-style polytheism was anywhere on the radar, it's going to require more than "Jews accused Christians of polytheism."
No, I didn't address that point in my comment. I replied to the part that seemed a bit silly to me. I'm happy to respond to the other part, though.
Yes. They were accused of that. And people today object to the Trinity by saying "What, you think Jesus prayed to himself?" Which is exactly what the Trinity denies. (Because we deny that Jesus is the Father. They are distinct, not separate.) In other words, lots of people make objects to the Trinity that are based in misunderstanding or ignorance of what the doctrine is.
The orthodox articulation of the Trinity has always affirmed that God is one. That there are not multiple Gods. People may object to the Three-in-one idea, but (even supposing they're right, and that it's inconsistent & nonsensical) that doesn't change the fact that we reject that there are multiple gods.
Mormons do not. They believe that the Father was once a man who worshiped his own god just as we worship the Father--with possibly an infinite regression of gods--and they believe that Jesus is a distinct god. They explicitly affirm polytheism; Christians explicitly deny it.
That's a major difference, even if you happen to decide that the Trinity is nonsense.
You keep using that source... I do not think it proves what you think it proves.
I think this may be a case where Wikipedia leads astray. I could easily be wrong, but double-checking the Athanasian Creed, it does not say anything about non-directionality. It doesn't have "God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit". It only has things stated the other way around.
There could be more going on here, but I would have to see some strong documentation to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "impressive" you're only looking at level of commitment, no, it's not. But why would anyone be using such a silly standard?
And the Golden Rule is about getting other people to treat you nicer, not about the hypocrisy and immorality of not treating other people the way you would want to be treated?Yes, it's always terrible to ask for money.
Seriously, what conclusion are you drawing from the (probable) fact that they take an offering? Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical for me to join a church community without supporting what they do?
P.S. I'm going to have to let you have the last word. I really need to get back to work. You're welcome to contact me if you have any desire to do so.
Right, I haven't gotten into that topic. I haven't defended why it's important. I didn't attempt to convince you on it.
I said that if I have studied it and you haven't, my opinions about what it says are worth more than yours. Is it really that hard for you? Worthless_Comments saw the same thing.
You're welcome to believe that, but I find the examples you raise rather sophomoric. Free will and omniscience? Are you even familiar with the various definitions of free will--libertarian, compatibilistic, etc? In what sense do you think it's free? And if there is a conflict between omniscience and your definition of free will, why not say "Our will is not free in that sense of the word 'free'"? (I've recently been talking about this with some friends. I think "free will" is a terrible term--it's ambiguous, and means different things to different people. And the Bible doesn't even talk about free will--so conflict between free will & omniscience does nothing to show internal inconsistency.)
How much philosophy did you read before you decided that there's no intellectually respectable way to reconcile the two? Can you expound on Augustinian and Pelagian views of the will? Semi-Pelagian views? Martin Luther's extensive debates with Erasmus on the nature of the will? Do you know anything about Jonathan Edwards' The Freedom of the Will? Now that's just silly.
When and where he is acting, we should detect forces unexplainable to physics. Not, "if he can".
The particular spin that I offered--riches were that man's hang-up--is somewhat guesswork. If I just had that proposal, my conclusion wouldn't be solid.
But in this case, it's not very hard: If we know that Jesus taught a lot about the kingdom of heaven and how to get in, and if we know that he talked to a lot of people, and if he didn't tell everyone to sell their possessions--then we can be extremely confident that it wasn't a general command. If he never addressed such a command to a general audience, why would we even start to think that it was intended as a general command?
Not that I think you're unintelligent. I have no basis to judge--and it would be pretty ugly of me if I went around thinking that way. (I hope I don't do that.)
But that you've got an irrational approach? Yes, I'm trying to tell you that. I have respect for the approach of some people who disagree with me; I do not have respect for the approach that I perceive you to be using.
More importantly, why do you assume that when you're talking to me, I haven't approached it in exactly the kind of objective manner you're proposing?
Do you have any idea how much time I've spent thinking and learning about how to interpret the Bible well? Do you have any idea what kind of resources I try to use, so that my conclusions will not be pure guesswork? To look into cultural background? To compare the various things a particular author said, so that I'm doing justice to context and not just stripping out verses one-by-one and thinking I can know what they mean? Do you know how hard I try to recognize when a passage is ambiguous, and when it's not?
I'm living like these things are the words of God. I care very much about their reliability, and determining what they actually mean.
[1] BTW, I actually agree that most people--Christian and non-Christian--don't try very hard to study the Bible well. Many people have little basis for their conclusions. I see it often. I also see careful research & study. And yes, if I've done that and you haven't, my opinion is worth more than yours.
Not quite. I was saying that you can't assume one side is objective and the other isn't. From there, we have to speak carefully about what we mean by "objective".
I am also saying that no one is purely objective. Everyone has biases. Former believers have psychological motivations to justify their unbelief; current believers have motivations to justify their belief. Everyone is prone to confirmation bias.
That does not mean we're hopelessly lost in a sea of subjectivity. A reasonable, intellectually honest approach involves doing your best to distance yourself from your background & your biases. It involves examining yourself and your reasoning process. It involves testing your conclusions wherever possible. It involves taking out your presuppositions and doing your best to evaluate them. (Sometimes you can do that by finding support for them specifically--like having one theorem serve as a premise of another argument. And sometimes they're more like axioms--you can't test it directly, but you can examine the self-consistency of the worldview that results from them.) A good, true skeptic must think this way.
The worst, however, are people who don't believe they have biases. If you know you have a blindspot, you can try to work around it, and have some measure of success. If you don't know that it's there--if you're irrationally persuaded of your own objectivity--then you'll be stuck with its blinding influence. That kind of person will see themselves as a "skeptic", but is really just a denier. (Skepticism doesn't mean that you disbelieve; it refers to your approach. A Christian can be a skeptic--and if that thought seems inherently laughable to you, then I suspect you're in this "blind" category.)
It's not the existence of the phrases that is questionable--it's the spin you placed on them. You may not have come from a fundamentalist background, but you default into that approach--an approach that you probably wouldn't use when reading any other book. People use hyperbole & figures of speech--and figuring out when they are doing so is not pure "guessing". (Even if you conclude that I'm wrong about these passages, if you approach it in the way you have been, then you have no basis for your conclusions.)
P.S. More on #3.
I realize that the relative objectivity of the two groups is arguable. I don't think it's absurd to conclude that skeptics are more objective. I do disagree, for the reasons I said, but I don't think it's absurd. I do think it's absurd simply to assume that one side is objective and the other isn't.
As I said, there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones. Sometimes a passage is genuinely ambiguous, and you can't form an objective conclusion. Sometimes you can.
You don't get to wave your hand and say "it's all just your interpretation", or "it's all just guessing". The world doesn't work that way. Reading a text is subject to rules; words have meanings. Don't relativize everything.
I know it's an easy way to excuse disbelief, but try to resist the temptation. I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.
Three things:
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
You were simply mistaken when you said that he taught that we have to do that. Really? So when God told Abraham to leave his home and travel to a new land, it was pointless to record that because it was only relevant to him? When God told him to sacrifice Isaac, there was no point in recording it? When a prophet told David to repent of his adultery and murder, there was no point in recording it?
A statement doesn't have to be directed at me for me to learn from it.
The reason that you don't understand is that, as you have said, you've never studied the Bible. Yes, that is the problem. That is their error. So why are you content to engage in their foolishness? Why repeat nonsense like "Jesus taught people to hate their families an love only God", when he didn't? My goodness. Do you have any idea what you just said? Read those two sentences together, and find the inconsistency. You've never studied it, but you somehow magically possess the sure knowledge that it is a pile of inconsistent crap? You've never studied it, but you are willing to make claims about what it teaches? You rejected it out of ignorance of it?
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
I agree that this decision is a good one. But I wonder...How would they rule on someone holding up a sign that says, "homosexual behavior is sinful"? Would that be seen as "threatening, abusive, or insulting"?
Should it be? If so, why?
"that there's no need to love god as long as you live right."
Eh? What verse do you have in mind?
Hmm... P.S. I just looked back over my comment, and it's a bit more cantankerous than I would like. Sorry about that.
On perfection: You're mixing two things. Perfection of character, and perfection of revelation through them. No, Peter and Moses were not perfect--which is very comforting to know. Yes, the Scripture they produced was--because it came about not by the will of those men or by their own interpretation, but they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. They spoke authoritatively. And given the OT standard of putting to death prophets who spoke falsely, yes, claims to inspired, authoritative speech are held to the highest standard. Yes, a book "breathed out" by God is held to the highest standard. (It's odd that you would call such a standard "impossible". Do you think God so incapable? I can understand thinking that God did not do such a thing, but to call it "impossible"?)
The "puppets" reference is inane. You think God can't ensure the correctness of words spoken in His name by his selected prophets and apostles, without it making them "puppets"?
As for the article you linked to: There's a reason for the difference in some cases--if that religion is claiming authoritative titles like "prophet" and "apostle". If you claim to speak for God, you're held to a higher standard--the Old Testament penalty for false prophets was pretty high. (I'm not saying the introduction comment was an authoritative claim--I'm not sure. But if it was, this criticism applies.)
They dropped the word "principal", and changed it to "are among the ancestors". Check it out.
And you think saying "The Jews accused Christians of being polytheists" proves that the early Christians were?
What on earth are you thinking? Lots of Muslims still accuse Christians of being polytheists. Because they don't get it. Just as you misunderstood what the Trinity is, with your "Jesus praying to himself" comment. Christians were also accused of being cannibals; do you think that proves they were? Or do you recognize that sometimes, accusations are based on misunderstandings?
Mind you, I'm not claiming that the earliest Christians would have been able to articulate the Trinity by a Nicaean-style creed. We can read the progression of how they struggled to express the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit. If want to you think that Mormon-style polytheism was anywhere on the radar, it's going to require more than "Jews accused Christians of polytheism."
No, I didn't address that point in my comment. I replied to the part that seemed a bit silly to me. I'm happy to respond to the other part, though.
Yes. They were accused of that. And people today object to the Trinity by saying "What, you think Jesus prayed to himself?" Which is exactly what the Trinity denies. (Because we deny that Jesus is the Father. They are distinct, not separate.) In other words, lots of people make objects to the Trinity that are based in misunderstanding or ignorance of what the doctrine is.
The orthodox articulation of the Trinity has always affirmed that God is one. That there are not multiple Gods. People may object to the Three-in-one idea, but (even supposing they're right, and that it's inconsistent & nonsensical) that doesn't change the fact that we reject that there are multiple gods.
Mormons do not. They believe that the Father was once a man who worshiped his own god just as we worship the Father--with possibly an infinite regression of gods--and they believe that Jesus is a distinct god. They explicitly affirm polytheism; Christians explicitly deny it.
That's a major difference, even if you happen to decide that the Trinity is nonsense.
You keep using that source... I do not think it proves what you think it proves.
I think this may be a case where Wikipedia leads astray. I could easily be wrong, but double-checking the Athanasian Creed, it does not say anything about non-directionality. It doesn't have "God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit". It only has things stated the other way around.
There could be more going on here, but I would have to see some strong documentation to the contrary.