|
So when Kirth points out that geological evidence does not support literal translation of Genesis, you say Genesis is more of a mythology. Yet, the Book of Mormon is expected to live up to the same science the Bible gets a free pass from.
That is not what anyone said. It is more then just a rigorous(sometimes more then rigorous) scientific scrutiny that is at issue.
|
So when Kirth points out that geological evidence does not support literal translation of Genesis, you say Genesis is more of a mythology. Yet, the Book of Mormon is expected to live up to the same science the Bible gets a free pass from.
I don't even know what you are talking about any more. This isn't even remotely what I'm talking about or said. (Also, you talk about Genesis 1 as if that's the entire book of Genesis.)
So what's really going on?
|
So when Kirth points out that geological evidence does not support literal translation of Genesis, you say Genesis is more of a mythology. Yet, the Book of Mormon is expected to live up to the same science the Bible gets a free pass from.I don't even know what you are talking about any more. This isn't even remotely what I'm talking about or said. (Also, you talk about Genesis 1 as if that's the entire book of Genesis.)
So what's really going on?
I don't think he's referring to you.
I won't speak for Courtfool, but I suspect it has to do with CrimJ's suggestion that archaeological and historical data about horses "shuts [Mormons] up quick". It struck me as remarkably dismissive of a religious belief, especially since archaeological data (or lack thereof) is often used as grounds to dispute the veracity of the Bible.
There certainly have been plenty of examples of people being dismissive of various religions on this thread, but not usually from CrimJ. I suspect that there was a lot more to his answer than the brief comment he gave, and am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly did a double-take, though, and can see where Courtfool is coming from.
I think it's probably more of a misunderstanding than anything else, but maybe an interesting discussion will come of it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't even know what you are talking about any more. This isn't even remotely what I'm talking about or said. (Also, you talk about Genesis 1 as if that's the entire book of Genesis.)So what's really going on?
The perception of a non-Christian is that there are two standards applied to the two books. Whenever a historical inconsistency crops up in the Bible, we tend to hear "that's not a literal story, it's like a fable" or "the scientific tools are not accurate" or "there's some (usually slight) supporting evidence from history/geology/etc."
When a historical inconsistency corps up in the book of Mormon, we now hear the same arguments made by non-Mormons as we atheists make regarding the Bible ("scientific evidence doesn't support the book of Mormon" or "inconsistencies demonstrate that the book of Mormon is incorrect and are not the result of the stories being fables instead of historical facts."
Honestly, I can't see any meaningful difference between the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, Aesops Fables, the Illead, or (honestly) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
Dumbledore is real! And gay!
|
|
Honestly, I can't see any meaningful difference between the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, Aesops Fables, the Illead, or (honestly) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
I understand what you (and possibly CF) are saying with regard to this. And I'm not sure if there is an answer that is sufficient for your purposes.
The problem that I have with the Book of Mormon more than any other religious document around is that I feel that it is closer in comparison to the Hobbit than the Illead -- yet it tries to come across as historical. Even with Harry Potter, it has some real places -- but at least that isn't trying to come across as being even remotely historical.
Like Aesops Fables, many of the stories in the Bible have a moral point to them. Unlike Aesops Fables, many of the stories in the Bible don't have a moral point to them.
Dianetics (or the religion surrounding that guy -- I'm drawing a blank right now) -- I have a problem with to a larger degree what (one of) your problem with Christianity is -- what about the "untouched masses"? I feel like it either always was or never was. (Or I guess in theory it could be created -- but not by Hubbard.)
I'm rambling.
I'm just getting a little tired of people throwing out there that geological evidence "proves" that an artistic poem isn't 100% literally accurate. And then further implying that this "evidence" therefore "proves" that the entire Bible is false and absolutely nothing more than a fairy tale.
With regard specifically to the Book of Mormon -- (And I really don't like doing this...)
Never mind. I was going to do a comparison, but I don't think I can do so in a civil manner. I will however say this -- The God in the Book of Mormon told his (unnamed) servant to build giant boats that were somehow air-tight (around 800 BC if memory serves me right) in order to make the journey across the Pacific ocean -- but apparently God forgot that if the boat was air-tight that the people wouldn't be able to breath and this needed to be pointed out by his servant and God's solution was to cut air-holes in the bottom of the boat.
That's not the God I know.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I tend to take the South Park stance on Mormonism - I can't personally imagine how they can get comfortable with the tenants of their religion, which strike me as even more tenuous than the tenants of plain vanilla Christianity, but (almost) every Mormon I've met has been a kind person with good family values, a strong work ethic, and a willingness to try to explain their religion until they're blue in the face. (Though, that said, I did get burned not too long ago based upon making that generalization about Mormons and then finding out the particular person was dishonest and untrustworthy - I guess I'm just lucky with regards to most Mormons I have met.)
The really funny thing is that making personal peace with the concept of Mormonism helped me to make personal peace with Christianity in general.
Except around Easter. When I still get pissed off.
And Sundays.
And on full moons, new moons, and waxing crescent moons.
Wait...what was my point again?
If part of the Bible is an artistic poem, it does call the veracity of the rest of the book into question. Jesus died to cleanse us all of original sin, but what does that mean if original sin is just a story?
I find any god that would demand you sacrifice a child equally absurd. Especially one that already knows what you will do before hand.
Is it possible the Book of Mormon is an artistic poem?
|
|
So when Kirth points out that geological evidence does not support literal translation of Genesis, you say Genesis is more of a mythology. Yet, the Book of Mormon is expected to live up to the same science the Bible gets a free pass from.I don't even know what you are talking about any more. This isn't even remotely what I'm talking about or said. (Also, you talk about Genesis 1 as if that's the entire book of Genesis.)
So what's really going on?
I don't think he's referring to you.
I won't speak for Courtfool, but I suspect it has to do with CrimJ's suggestion that archaeological and historical data about horses "shuts [Mormons] up quick". It struck me as remarkably dismissive of a religious belief, especially since archaeological data (or lack thereof) is often used as grounds to dispute the veracity of the Bible.
There certainly have been plenty of examples of people being dismissive of various religions on this thread, but not usually from CrimJ. I suspect that there was a lot more to his answer than the brief comment he gave, and am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly did a double-take, though, and can see where Courtfool is coming from.
I think it's probably more of a misunderstanding than anything else, but maybe an interesting discussion will come of it.
Typically I (try to)give a more precise response. being at work when we get busy does however pose posting issues.
My wife was raised in the LDS faith and says I am overtly harsh at times with them.
|
|
The perception of a non-Christian is that there are two standards applied to the two books. Whenever a historical inconsistency crops up in the Bible, we tend to hear "that's not a literal story, it's like a fable" or "the scientific tools are not accurate" or "there's some (usually slight) supporting evidence from history/geology/etc."
I don't even know what you are talking about any more. This isn't even remotely what I'm talking about or said. (Also, you talk about Genesis 1 as if that's the entire book of Genesis.)So what's really going on?
It may look like two different standards to the two books, but I don't see it that way. There are a number of things in the Old Testament that while fantastical, might have happened. I'm thinking of places mentioned, equipment, tools, materials, animals, and so on. This has little to do with whether or not a rabbit chews its cud or how many legs a grasshopper has. Were there locusts? horses? camels? chariots? bronze weapons? was there a city called Ai? etc. Things like -- Was there a literal tree of knowledge? Did "Adam" exist? Did Methusala (sp?) live 969 years? These are questions for faith -- and really have little to do with salvation one way or the other. With regard to the first couple of chapters in Genesis -- I really think it's our Westerner way of thinking's fault for trying to make it literal. But ok, you've got that example under your belt.
But when you compare it to the Book of Mormon, places mentioned, equipment, tools, materials, animals, etc. not only aren't correct -- it's well documented when they were introduced. It might mean something if the text said something like "The Lord God handed the prophet special plates that He said were 'Brass' to record their history..." but it didn't. It said that about special light bulbs that they used in their air-tight boats. We're not talking about stone tablets. Or other materials that were common for the time. Things like God cursing "bad" people with dark skin -- that's a matter of faith. And if they want to believe that, fine. (And people say that the Bible is racist.) But when few if any of the mundane facts aren't even close to being true.
To you the Bible may be equivalent to the Illead. But if that's true, where do you put a book where much of the mundane facts are false?
|
|
If part of the Bible is an artistic poem, it does call the veracity of the rest of the book into question.
No. It's pretty easy to point out Hebrew poetry in the Bible. More often than not, it's indented. I'm actually being serious here. Pretty much the entire first chapter of the Bible is indented. There are all kinds of places where there are similar indentations with songs or other praises to God. So take those, generally, as they were meant to be taken -- as praises to God. You don't even have to be an ancient Hebrew scholar for that.
Is it possible the Book of Mormon is an artistic poem?
No. For a number of reasons. But in the end, no. Possibly parts, but unlikely. The Book of Mormon is pretty specifically meant to be a historical account of things. The Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrine and Covenants has more of the "poetic" feel to it.
|
|
My wife was raised in the LDS faith and says I am overtly harsh at times with them.
I'm pretty harsh with them as well. I guess that they are to me as we are to atheists.
I would love to have seen the original text though. I would be fascinated to find out how Joseph Smith translated ancient Hebrew history, written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, into English, ...
And got French.
|
|
My wife was raised in the LDS faith and says I am overtly harsh at times with them.I'm pretty harsh with them as well. I guess that they are to me as we are to atheists.
I would love to have seen the original text though. I would be fascinated to find out how Joseph Smith translated ancient Hebrew history, written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, into English, ...
And got French.
LMAO - by the way thank you, you are explaining things much better then I.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
To you the Bible may be equivalent to the Illead. But if that's true, where do you put a book where much of the mundane facts are false?
I'm comfortable with a continuum of truth, but, I think the Bible is about as accurate as the Illead. The Book of Mormon is easier to find factual inaccuracies because it makes more verifiable claims than the other two. But, at the end of the day, each of those volumes contains enough fictitious elements for me to say that none of them describe any deity with any amount of accuracy. And I'm not even talking about the Old Testament here - I find the New Testament equally fantastical and much more easily explained as a work of propaganda which may be based on some historical facts (e.g., there was probably a prophet, he probably was crucified, etc).
Now that I think about it though, I'm not particularly fond of the Mormon view and treatment of women.
I would love to have seen the original text though. I would be fascinated to find out how Joseph Smith translated ancient Hebrew history, written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, into English, ...And got French.
He used a rock stuck in a white stovepipe hat. It's the same method he used to divine the location of buried treasure. Smith claimed to be given magical glasses, but like the golden plates and the angel Moroni, nobody seems to have ever seen them. When he translated in public, he stuck his face in the hat.
The Book of Mormon is easier to find factual inaccuracies because it makes more verifiable claims than the other two.
It helps that it was written much more recently too, and in a more literate time.
Now that I think about it though, I'm not particularly fond of the Mormon view and treatment of women.
I was going to say that the FLDS are even worse, but then the FLDS treat women more or less as Smith and Brigham Young did so I guess there's not much distinction.
|
|
He used a rock stuck in a white stovepipe hat. It's the same method he used to divine the location of buried treasure. Smith claimed to be given magical glasses, but like the golden plates and the angel Moroni, nobody seems to have ever seen them. When he translated in public, he stuck his face in the hat.
I would love to have seen the original text though. I would be fascinated to find out how Joseph Smith translated ancient Hebrew history, written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, into English, ...And got French.
Yeah, I know the story. I'm just really curious to know what Hebrew word it was when written down in Egyptian while trying to translate into English would have translated into French. I'm curious to know what word would have translated earlier in the sentence as "farewell" and later on as "adieu". Is there a different word in Egyptian that says "adieu" rather than "farewell"?
EDIT: The passage in question is Jacob 7:27 for those interested. Doing a quick search came up with a lot of apologetics -- the problem is that there is no original text to go back to. Hence the reason the Book of Mormon (technically) can't be changed from its King James language. (Even though it has been changed. A number of times.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've always been intrigued by the stories in the Bible that mean the same regardless of whether or not they are historically factual. Job comes to mind. Whether or not Job really lived and died, or actually had those events occur, the message of the book is the same. You can read it as a history or as a fable and get the same idea.
EDIT: The passage in question is Jacob 7:27 for those interested. Doing a quick search came up with a lot of apologetics -- the problem is that there is no original text to go back to. Hence the reason the Book of Mormon (technically) can't be changed from its King James language. (Even though it has been changed. A number of times.)
Heh. I wasn't aware of that one. He must not have even been trying by then. Though I suppose once you have enough marks hooked the thing runs itself.
I guess that they are to me as we are to atheists.
Bingo.
Heh. I wasn't aware of that one. He must not have even been trying by then. Though I suppose once you have enough marks hooked the thing runs itself.
And once it gets really big, it is easy enough to peel off a few more by layering your own creation on top of it.
And once it gets really big, it is easy enough to peel off a few more by layering your own creation on top of it.
Sure. People will believe anything. Even today.
Through meditation, you too can live without eating or drinking for seventy years.
I propose that this man be given a very comfortable, climate-controlled room without any outside access. Cement block walls. No plumbing. Comfortable furniture, books, a television, internet. But no running water. No food inside, of course. We'll frisk him thoroughly and then pop him in and lock the door. The room is covered with video cameras so we can observe his technique in great detail.
We guard the door for one month. Nobody goes in or out. At the end of that time if he's still alive we can start studying him in earnest.
I bet this is cheaper than all the crap the Indian Army is doing with him.
|
|
I've always been intrigued by the stories in the Bible that mean the same regardless of whether or not they are historically factual. Job comes to mind. Whether or not Job really lived and died, or actually had those events occur, the message of the book is the same. You can read it as a history or as a fable and get the same idea.
Whats fascinating is just how much can be read into the historical record if a person puts there mind to it. Unfortunately this is not necessarily factual but can be interesting.
|
Feel better man. What kind of accident? Did you fall or was it in a car or else? Did anyone else get hurt?
Brand new exec chair. Wheels exploded!(not literally, but cracked under my fat bastard 2001b frame. Sheesh I'm 6'2" bone, muscle and some marginal fat - seat says it could hold 250lb, in proceedings with manufacturer. The steel caster columns too radially thin (compared to average ones, I checked a lot of different chair manufacturer's casters afterward) and caster casing so thin you can move it with your pinkie without trying. Manufacturer is concerned because it wasn't aware of any design change to casters or base which it maintains are standard. They're waiting for the returned product from store and getting a lawyer to contact me soon. Don't want anyone else to suffer this. Oh and if I sound weird, I'm drugged up on oxycodone for the pain :) May have to have an MRI, and I get bad claustrophobia!!
The Accident, caught me by surprise, sent me spinning(I guess it was hilarious to watch mind ;) , spine got a little fractured, and now I feel like I'm being perpetually electrocuted from lumbar region to legs.
Anyway. First I am around the forums again, mainly on the RPG specific ones because I don't need to think too hard there as the bed rest is giving me plenty of time to read and re-read the Pathfinder Core Rulebooks and supplements (I like memorizing stuff, it makes Gming easier for me as I am eventually going to convert my entire Campaign to PF, because it's bloody amazing.
Also thanks too all for your kind regards. I know I said it earlier already but it means a lot to me.
Finally sorry for taking so long to write back here. Best wishes to all of you.
If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Its not the same thing. If the Bible claimed that the people of Judea where using laser cannons to win their wars there would be the same issue but that is not the case. One can be skeptical about parts of the Bible due to the lack of archeological evidence but there is a difference between a shortage of archeological evidence regarding an event in the distant past and having something in a text that clearly not supported by any modern understanding of history and geography.
We have an archeological record of North America, there where horses (or at least close cousins of horses) and they all died out some significant time back (there is controversy here with some archeologists believing that they probably died due to over hunting when human populations became significant in the new world and others thinking other causes led to their demise). So the archeological record is fairly clear - there where horses and then, at some point, there simply where no horses anymore. Furthermore we know a reasonable amount about some of the societies here - such as the Aztecs, Maya and Inca - and they did not have horses. Finally we have both oral history and archeological evidence regarding the tribes of the Great Plains whose societies underwent a significant paradigm shift when they became horse cultures in and around the 1600s.
All the evidence points to the fact that there in fact where no horses in early AD America's while we simply have a paucity of evidence for a Hebrew expedition out of Egypt (but lots of evidence that various tribes have in fact take this route into and out of Africa at various times in pre-history). Its at least reasonably conceivable that that the Hebrews did in fact do just that - its not reasonably conceivable that their where civilizations using horses in early AD America.
Just an observation after reading a couple pages...
Can't some of the (un)verifiable and/or contradictive passages in the Book of Mormon be taken upon at 'faith value'? I mean, if Christians are able to take up the position of accepting certain things as a matter of faith even though it cannot be verified or explained in a scientific (and/or rational?) manner, cannot the same litmus be extended to LDS? Otherwise, I see it as a bit hypocritical and/or double standard. Quid pro quo.
Besides, just because there are a lot of references to locations and events in the bible that corresponds to other verifiable records, it does not make it any more valid. I am sure that some of us are very familiar with the number of alternative fiction novels out there on the market where a fictional character is interjected into otherwise what is known as to be a historically accurate record of events.
Arguing whose matters of faith having greater validity over another's sometimes - to me - seems as absurd as the whole discussion as to who shot first: Han or Greedo.
|
|
Feel better man. What kind of accident? Did you fall or was it in a car or else? Did anyone else get hurt?Brand new exec chair. Wheels exploded!(not literally, but cracked under my fat bastard 2001b frame. Sheesh I'm 6'2" bone, muscle and some marginal fat - seat says it could hold 250lb, in proceedings with manufacturer. The steel caster columns too radially thin (compared to average ones, I checked a lot of different chair manufacturer's casters afterward) and caster casing so thin you can move it with your pinkie without trying. Manufacturer is concerned because it wasn't aware of any design change to casters or base which it maintains are standard. They're waiting for the returned product from store and getting a lawyer to contact me soon. Don't want anyone else to suffer this. Oh and if I sound weird, I'm drugged up on oxycodone for the pain :) May have to have an MRI, and I get bad claustrophobia!!
The Accident, caught me by surprise, sent me spinning(I guess it was hilarious to watch mind ;) , spine got a little fractured, and now I feel like I'm being perpetually electrocuted from lumbar region to legs.
Anyway. First I am around the forums again, mainly on the RPG specific ones because I don't need to think too hard there as the bed rest is giving me plenty of time to read and re-read the Pathfinder Core Rulebooks and supplements (I like memorizing stuff, it makes Gming easier for me as I am eventually going to convert my entire Campaign to PF, because it's bloody amazing.
Also thanks too all for your kind regards. I know I said it earlier already but it means a lot to me.
Finally sorry for taking so long to write back here. Best wishes to all of you.
Tough break man...two things:
1) ask for an open MRI, they're a little less enclosed.2) Be careful when that lawyer comes by...companies are ruthless when it comes to getting out of spending money. My dad's law partner worked for McDonald's when he was 16 or so and actually invented the little fry scoop that pretty much every single fast food joint uses nowadays. McD's brought in lawyers who offered him $10 for the rights to it, then went and patented it and made a fortune off of it. Not exactly the same, but you get my point.
|
|
Just an observation after reading a couple pages...
Can't some of the (un)verifiable and/or contradictive passages in the Book of Mormon be taken upon at 'faith value'? I mean, if Christians are able to take up the position of accepting certain things as a matter of faith even though it cannot be verified or explained in a scientific (and/or rational?) manner, cannot the same litmus be extended to LDS? Otherwise, I see it as a bit hypocritical and/or double standard. Quid pro quo.
Besides, just because there are a lot of references to locations and events in the bible that corresponds to other verifiable records, it does not make it any more valid. I am sure that some of us are very familiar with the number of alternative fiction novels out there on the market where a fictional character is interjected into otherwise what is known as to be a historically accurate record of events.
Arguing whose matters of faith having greater validity over another's sometimes - to me - seems as absurd as the whole discussion as to who shot first: Han or Greedo.
Han shot first..
Ok now that this is out of the way.
Because we can verify some of the record, it does in fact make parts of it much more valid then a book that is totally unverifiable. Especially when there is more evidence then not, one way or the other.
It may seem small to a person who chooses to ignore the entire thing, but it is not small to others.
|
|
Honestly, I can't see any meaningful difference between the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, Aesops Fables, the Illead, or (honestly) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.I'm just getting a little tired of people throwing out there that geological evidence "proves" that an artistic poem isn't 100% literally accurate. And then further implying that this "evidence" therefore "proves" that the entire Bible is false and absolutely nothing more than a fairy tale.
Moff,
As one of the people (along with Kirth) who bring geological evidence up against a literal reading of Genesis quite often in this thread, it's the literal reading on the part of the believer that's the problem. As you don't seem to hold with a strict literalist interpretation, I would hope I'm not one of the people tiring you. The Bible works well as a work of allegory and morality tales It works less well as a science text, which is what I argue against. I'd hope our discussions aren't arguments as there I'm trying to understand a viewpoint that is alien to me, and I thank you for your patience in repeatedly explaining things to me.Personally, I'm not trying to change your faith any more that you're trying to change mine (we've already discussed, I think, that using scienctific evidence to disprove religious faith is missing the point of both). But if people make basic errors with the science which I do know a bit about, I'll correct them as you do when people make basic errors with the Bible. Although probably with less patience, understanding or civility. I'm working on it.
And as you were kind enough to inquire after my state of wellbeing when I was on a rant in a different thread, are you ok? This thread seems to be wearing you down recently. Perhaps a break from the fray might be beneficial?
Because we can verify some of the record, it does in fact make parts of it much more valid then a book that is totally unverifiable. Especially when there is more evidence then not, one way or the other.
It may seem small to a person who chooses to ignore the entire thing, but it is not small to others.
To use your example, would it be safe to assume that it may be small to a Catholic who chooses to ignore the entire Book of Mormon may not necessarily be small to a Mormon?
|
|
To use your example, would it be safe to assume that it may be small to a Catholic who chooses to ignore the entire Book of Mormon may not necessarily be small to a Mormon?Because we can verify some of the record, it does in fact make parts of it much more valid then a book that is totally unverifiable. Especially when there is more evidence then not, one way or the other.
It may seem small to a person who chooses to ignore the entire thing, but it is not small to others.
I am not explaining myself very clearly. I have to finish the move today and will be at a family ~sigh~ gathering over the weekend.I will do my best to explain what I am trying to say next week.
I am not explaining myself very clearly. I have to finish the move today and will be at a family ~sigh~ gathering over the weekend.I will do my best to explain what I am trying to say next week.
I hope you know that I'm partially playing devil's advocate, so I wouldn't stress out on it. I am trying to make a subtle point, however... ;)
I'm not religious, but if the woman chooses it to wear the burqa by choice then that's their perrogative (although I am aware that they're raised that way and may not see it as a sign of subservience). But I wouldn't mind it going the way of the dinosaurs as there's some hawt muslim chicks out there that needs to get some exposure. :P
As is often the case, Paul summed up what I was about to say.
For people who find that the "militant atheist" trope is annoying rather than enlightening, there's an interesting blog that pretty often suggests to people like PZ Myers (of the "desecration of the Host" infamy) that they need to tone it down a notch. I don't always agree with them (as you can see from a number of my comments there), but the posts there are usually fairly thought-provoking, and they supply a number of helpful links.
|
|
Tough break man...two things:
1) ask for an open MRI, they're a little less enclosed.
2) Be careful when that lawyer comes by...companies are ruthless when it comes to getting out of spending money. My dad's law partner worked for McDonald's when he was 16 or so and actually invented the little fry scoop that pretty much every single fast food joint uses nowadays. McD's brought in lawyers who offered him $10 for the rights to it, then went and patented it and made a fortune off of it. Not exactly the same, but you get my point.
I know about lawyers, my wife is a paralegal. I'll get her to do the talking, saying that I'm on oxycodone and not to fit for questioning.
|
|
And as you were kind enough to inquire after my state of wellbeing when I was on a rant in a different thread, are you ok? This thread seems to be wearing you down recently. Perhaps a break from the fray might be beneficial?
Thanks. It's probably just CF getting under my skin. I think that he has about as much geological experience as I do yet he keeps bringing up how geological evidence disproves the entire Bible. No. Geological evidence strongly points to the "fact" that the first chapter of the first book of the entire Bible isn't an accurate account of the literal way the earth and its inhabitants were created.
But we've run this thought into the ground.
I think that it is also tiring for me talking about Mormons. Similar to Sebastian, some of my absolute best friends are Mormons. Generally, they are really good people. The Book of Mormon, however ... I just don't get it. And I know a lot about it. I know more about Mormons than is safe for me and regardless of what others say, it isn't the same thing or even close to the Bible.
But thanks for asking.
|
|
Thanks. It's probably just CF getting under my skin. I think that he has about as much geological experience as I do yet he keeps bringing up how geological evidence disproves the entire Bible. No. Geological evidence strongly points to the "fact" that the first chapter of the first book of the entire Bible isn't an accurate account of the literal way the earth and its inhabitants were created.
Actually I am a Geologist with a Master's degree in organic petrography and organic geochemistry. Geological evidence does not in any way shape or form disprove the Bible, however neither does it prove it. All it proves to Christians, is the Creation "Science" crowd are *not* true scientists because they don't apply the basic priciples of Science or the pursuit of natural truth to their kooky half-baked theories. All of which have been logically disproved by the general scientific community. Geology, however, does not disprove the Bible either because the Bible is a book about God's interaction with mankind and it has been passed on and interpreted to us by fallible men. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit I would say the bible is a meaningless waste of paper. In fact I would go as far as to say that Genesis actually hints at geological process and evolution. That, however is a story for another day, as I can't sit around for long periods at the moment.
Regards.
Mark
|
|
I strongly dislike being preached at. :P
Edit: Context... I am reading a book called Godless by Dan Barker. I cannot find myself wanting to finish the book because I'm constantly being preached at... in this case by a strong atheist.
I've been picking it up and putting it back down for weeks now. :\
I strongly dislike being preached at. :P
I just strongly dislike the clergy. It's quicker. Who has time to wait until they start talking? :)
|
|
I strongly dislike being preached at. :P
Edit: Context... I am reading a book called Godless by Dan Barker. I cannot find myself wanting to finish the book because I'm constantly being preached at... in this case by a strong atheist.
I've been picking it up and putting it back down for weeks now. :\
Probably because it is irritating. I hate being preached at too. I have found peace in my life through my faith. If someone wants to know what I believe and why I believe it I'll tell em. If not then I won't. I don't go to Church because I find many Christians irritate the heck out of me, because they think they have all the answers and if only you were open enough to understand then you would too.
Christians do not have all the answers. But they don't like to admit it for seeming weak. S#@$ happens to Christians and to everyone else. Some get it worse than others too. It has nothing to do with God, it's just the way life deals the cards.
The Christian churches have managed to do irreparable harm to the simple message of Jesus. Do not judge lest you be judged, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
To me God is alive and his thoughts are so way beyond our comprehension that we decided it was easier to create the Heaven/Hell formula. I.e. Do like me and live, don't do like me and perish in flames for eternity. God is, to me, not a silly formula, but the Christian churches have branded the whole thing, packaged it, and sold it as a list of do's and don'ts and lost the plot. The Catholics started it and the Protestants continue it. Its a f**king mess.
A simple test is this. Do I want to try to love others and help others and try be a kind person? If the answer is *yes* then you have already gone further than most, whether you're an atheist, jew, buddhist, muslim or whatever.
That's how I see it, and it was not meant to be preachy. But much of Christianity has really lost the plot. That, my friend is why I don't go to Church, and yet I delight in God.