|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism a load of nonsense?
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
After DOS's ill-fated Islam thread, I'm not sure if I'm sticking my head above the parapets to be shot down, but I was wondering if anyone had some insights on Mormonism - better still, any Mormons on the ship?
Of every faith I've looked into, I simply can't grasp how any reasonable person can be a Mormon.
I remember the South Park episode on Mormonism. The ironic thing is, they didn't change the story or make a satire. They simply presented the Mormon story and how ridiculous it seems...
- Joseph Smith's unscrupulous history.
- The testimonies and recants of the so-called 'witnesses' to the plates.
- The lack of Archaeological evidence.
- (as far as I remember), Horses etc. in America before they were introduced.
- The ability to make 'revisions' of translations of a document that only one person 'saw'.
- The un-verifiable nature of the translations.
- The fact that the Book of Mormon has the same translation errors as the AV suggests that these were simply copied.
- The not-so-subtely hidden racism.
I have no desire to attack anyone's treasured faith, so apologies for any offence caused, but can someone please put me right if I am missing something here...
[ 31. October 2009, 02:02: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoS
Shipmate
# 14359
|
Posted
I agree, on the face of it, its a load of nonsense.
I don't know what you mean ill-fated - its still there and going strong..
[ 12. January 2009, 19:33: Message edited by: DoS ]
--------------------
Wow - It worked! Thank you Jesus
Posts: 844 | From: Surrey | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
For all the issues I have with their treatment of women, persons of color, single people and GLBTQ people, I must admit that I am envious of the tight-knit communities the LDS church creates. I also wish my parish had a quarter as many events every week as the typical LDS stake.
But, yeah. They'd just have to kick me out if I joined, and they'd probably kick me out before I got fed up with the hooey and made a spectacle of myself.
I grew up in an area that was 30% LDS and I've done all the missionary talks and read the Book of Mormon and been to many, many events at LDS stakes and wards (including one where a complete stranger told me that God had informed him we were to be married). So I'm not talking out of my ear.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
For all the issues I have with their treatment of women, persons of color, single people and GLBTQ people, I must admit that I am envious of the tight-knit communities the LDS church creates. I also wish my parish had a quarter as many events every week as the typical LDS stake.
Sure - I was always impressed with the community our local JW's have as well. It's just the theology that I find incredulous.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I love South Park, but you have to admit that they didn’t “just present” the LDS story- unless having a chorus singing “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” in the background the whole time is your idea of “just presenting” a story.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Of every faith I've looked into, I simply can't grasp how any reasonable person can be ...
Fill in the blank. You will find someone who would be willing to put in any faith you could possibly think of. There are certainly those who don't think Christianity in general is all that reasonable, much less the particulars of any specific denomination. If someone filled it in with my church--or your church--I think we would expect more than just "apologies for any offense.." before we were willing to take the discussion seriously
We do have at least one Mormon on the ship. I don't know if he'll feel called upon to comment, or if the tone of the OP may lead him to believe a response is beneath him
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Paul said it (paraphrased): "God chose the foolish to confound the wise." Even Paul could see how goofy Christianity looks from the outside. The same can be said of most other religions. Just ask our atheists and humanists here. Mormonism seems just a little goofier than some.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scribbler
Shipmate
# 12268
|
Posted
If my church didn't allow me to have coffee, I know I would be talking a lot of nonsense--at least before lunch.
Maybe that's the explanation.
Posts: 309 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I love South Park, but you have to admit that they didn’t “just present” the LDS story- unless having a chorus singing “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” in the background the whole time is your idea of “just presenting” a story.
That was "just presenting" compared to having the Catholic church be run by child molesters under the command of a giant alien spider queen.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Queen Mousie
Shipmate
# 9925
|
Posted
I did belong to a theatre group that was run by a Mormon family. They were nice enough - until you said you were not interested in joining their "church". Once you said "no thank you", no matter how nicely you said it -you got the official ice cold shoulder and were never asked into another production they were doing. They had their family members and others who they would favor (all Mormons) and not give anyone else a chance, no matter how good they might be - or even worse, have more talent than one of the family members, CAN'T HAVE THAT. They were very cliquey.
I remember a woman I worked with told me she could not attend her own son's wedding (he converted) because it was in the temple and she wasn't a Mormon. What are they afraid of - what's the big deal - are they trying to hide something? Makes one wonder.
QM
--------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 167 | From: On a clear day you can see L.A. L.A. Land | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I love South Park, but you have to admit that they didn’t “just present” the LDS story- unless having a chorus singing “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” in the background the whole time is your idea of “just presenting” a story.
It was a long time ago that I saw the episode, and I don't remember that bit - apologies, you're right.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Of every faith I've looked into, I simply can't grasp how any reasonable person can be ...
Fill in the blank. You will find someone who would be willing to put in any faith you could possibly think of. There are certainly those who don't think Christianity in general is all that reasonable, much less the particulars of any specific denomination. If someone filled it in with my church--or your church--I think we would expect more than just "apologies for any offense.." before we were willing to take the discussion seriously
To be fair, that's what plenty of people DO do on the ship. I've spent plenty of time backing up my belief system, sometimes to less polite attacks than mine above. I'm well aware that people don't think Christianity is all that reasonable, and as a reasonable Christian I can explain why it is. I'm also well aware that there
are surely some reasonable Mormons out there (hence my paradox), and I'd love to hear what they have to say, which is why I posted the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
We do have at least one Mormon on the ship. I don't know if he'll feel called upon to comment, or if the tone of the OP may lead him to believe a response is beneath him
That's a shame, because I'd love to hear a good apology. I live in the UK, where there aren't very many Mormons. I find Mormonism & the book of Mormon facinating, if highly unbelievable, but the only research I can do is internet / reading. I'd love to hear from some real people who can give answers to the points I raised.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mormonism seems just a little goofier than some.
But Mormonism also makes the mistake of making easily verifiable claims.
- There should be archaeological traces of all these people somewhere in the Americas; where are they?
- Dodgy source stories for texts, which, as have been said, follow the KJV a little too closely for comfort
- A hilariously inaccurate translation of an Egyptian funerary text
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
antSJD
Shipmate
# 13598
|
Posted
I like to think of myself as liberal. Tolerant.
But I really struggle with Mormonism.
It started as a cult, and still is in my opinion. It is based on, as Figbash says, dubious or false historical truths.
Known con-artist finds stones written in secret language. Reads them. Buries them. Tells everyone that he has a secret message which sounds looney. Everyone locally agrees and Mormons run out of numerous towns. But it also lets him have more than one woman. Hmmmmm.
Go figure.
--------------------
I yearn to understand some measure of your truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.
Posts: 440 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Queen Mousie:
are they trying to hide something? Makes one wonder.
Yes, they are.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
I remember a woman I worked with told me she could not attend her own son's wedding (he converted) because it was in the temple and she wasn't a Mormon. What are they afraid of - what's the big deal - are they trying to hide something? Makes one wonder.
My daughter converted to the LDS and yeah, I wasn't able to attend her Temple wedding either. But the LDS elders will assure you with great sincerity that it's not "personal" since many Mormons aren't granted admission either-- it's a "purity" thing. Like that helps.
Grant Palmer's excellent quote:
An Insider's View of Mormon Origins
provides some interesting insights on all that's been said already. From a simply cultural perspective, the Ostlings' Mormon America is a fascinating read. A newer books, The New Mormon Challenge is an interesting read.
One of the things that is striking in Mormon culture is their strong connection to their history, especially their past persecution. In fact, many still seem to carry the martyr's cross. One wonders if they would have gone the way of so many other similar 19th c. flimflams if, rather than persecution, they'd been met with indifference.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Mormonism is a hotbed of American exceptionalism. The feeling probably was that such an important and blessed people as Americans just had to live in a holy land, too. Surely God wouldn't leave his favorite people out by keeping all the cosmic action in Palestine....
IMHO, the dangerous political illusions promoted by his religion constituted the most urgent reason for opposing the Presidential nomination of Mitt Romney on its grounds-- even more than the implication that an adherent is obviously challenged in the common-sense department.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Although the curious thing is that so many seemingly very well educated, quite intelligent men and women are, indeed, LDS. Either they're seeing something there I just don't get (a real possibility of course) or-- more apt to the last election-- they've found a way to compartmentalize their faith. "Faith history" runs on this sort of this separate, fairy-tale continuum from real life, and, like all good fairy tales, doesn't need to follow the rules of real life-- or common sense. Given the last administration's inability to integrate a supposedly devout faith with anything remotely resembling ethical behavior, that was reason enough to oppose Romney's candidacy IMHO, however bigotted such a stance might appear be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Paul said it (paraphrased): "God chose the foolish to confound the wise." Even Paul could see how goofy Christianity looks from the outside. The same can be said of most other religions. Just ask our atheists and humanists here. Mormonism seems just a little goofier than some.
Well said.
Speaking as a nontheist, Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.
Mormonism looks slightly wacky because there hasn't been 2000 years to fake the record, cleanup the inconsistencies by forgetting them, altering them, losing them, or actually eliminating the competition.
If you ask me, Christianity looks crazier the longer I am out of it, Mormonism looks crazier than that, and Scientology looks batshit-stark-raving-nuts, and just shy of Jim Jones territory. Given that semi-observation if you notice, the Mor-men have had a while to clean up their mess, so they don't look quite so batshit crazy. Christians have had longer still. Okay, I maybe wrong, but I swear it looks like it to me.
There are things in the NT that are nonsense, flat out. Virgin births, water to wine, dead man walking. All B.S. So what if the mormen think the Indians are lost Jews? Not much crazier than Lazurus the Zombie up and walking around.
The problem with criticising One faith is that all are suibject to the same root problem. We are not talking about things that are measurable, verifiable, and logical. We are talking about FAITH. People revel in the fact that their faith is BLIND. "Blessed are those that HAVE NOT seen and yet still believe". Not the other way around.
If you're gonna believe in something, it might as well be hooking up with multiple women and following a prophet. Oh wait, that's right, that's the OLD Testament.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
Mormonism has some 12-13 million members, about the same number as there are Jews in the world. Just as you can call it a "cult" you might call it a "world religion" - and a vibrant one with close-knit congregations. Frankly, if the rest of the world copied nothing but their politeness (as neighbours or missionaries) it would be a nicer place. (Ok, to Americans this politeness might be an ordinary thing but over here in Europe it definitely makes Mormons stick out!).
The funniest thing about Mormonism is their belief that God is literally a bloke living (with his wife and his son Jesus) on his throne in on the planet "Kolob" in the galaxy "Kokaubeam". He used to be an ordinary man but developed into a God (like we all could do!).
I used to think this was meant metaphorically but I once asked a Mormon - an ex-professor of physics, too! - and he said no, there is nothing metaphorical there. This is how it is. Somehow the teaching is perfectly in line with the children's books illustrations that don all their publications. It is hilarious and quaint in a way, no?
But then ... the idea that God becomes man (or is it "fathers a child" through his spirit?) to sacrifice his son in order to be able to forgive the world ... I mean, it does not exactly sound like cutting edge rational logic, does it?
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
antSJD
Shipmate
# 13598
|
Posted
Mormonism in a nutshell
--------------------
I yearn to understand some measure of your truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.
Posts: 440 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]
The problem with criticising One faith is that all are suibject to the same root problem. We are not talking about things that are measurable, verifiable, and logical. We are talking about FAITH. People revel in the fact that their faith is BLIND. "Blessed are those that HAVE NOT seen and yet still believe". Not the other way around.
Thanks Mad Geo,
I was expecting an answer like this, and for what it's worth, I do think there are a differences nevertheless:
On the time since the faiths started, as far as I know, the earliest manuscript from the NT dates to 125 AD, so in terms of 'faking the record' over time, I'm not sure if that's really viable. Christianity has been around for a long time, yes, but what it has taught has been in the public domain since the beginning and has always been open to investigation.
I think I'd re-phrase your statement to "There are things in the NT that SEEM nonsense", then I'd agree. There are certainly things in every faith that seem nonsense. I'm not a Christian because I want to believe nonsense things and find them in Christianity. I'm a Christian because I encountered Christ, and because I'm a Christian, I have to take these seemingly nonsense things on board. But that doesn't mean that I can't investigate those things and decide if they are at least reasonable, if not provable. The fact that people like Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel who set out to see if the NT witness was reasonable, found that in their view it was, suggests that the NT is not so much unbelievable nonsense, but perhaps surprisingly believable nonsense.
But I just don't think that Mormonism holds up to the same standard. We can look at the earliest manuscripts of the NT and compare them, see how it has changed and verify it as historical documents. We can't look at the gold plates.
The New Testament has consistently answered the archaeological and most questions of historical accuracy. I don't know of any archaeological backup for the BOM, instead the archaeological evidence speaks strongly against it. Plus the history - steel, horses etc.
Virgin births seem incredulous, but we don't really have any way to prove it either way. Horses and steel in America, plagiarised manuscripts we do have the ability to prove as false. That's the difference for me.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by antSJD:
Mormonism in a nutshell
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Scary. I wonder which parts of this are wrong, according to Mormons. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
....I do think there are a differences nevertheless:
On the time since the faiths started, as far as I know, the earliest manuscript from the NT dates to 125 AD, so in terms of 'faking the record' over time, I'm not sure if that's really viable. Christianity has been around for a long time, yes, but what it has taught has been in the public domain since the beginning and has always been open to investigation.
Actually there is more than one way to fake a record. We have actual evidence from early manuscripts that things have been added, redacted, accidentally changed, and otherwise affected. Tale a course in biblical literature if you doubt it.
In addition, there is the little matter that the victors decided what books to include that fit what they wanted to say. That is a form of faking the record as well. Fortunately we have recovered many of the other books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas, etc. and so we know that selective culling of the record occurred. You see, that is the beauty of faith, you can change it however you want, you just have to start a new church that says, "we don't like this bit over here" and voila! That bit is gone, or added, or whatever. The difference is that Mor-men and Scientologists started doing it recently, and not 2000 years ago. quote:
I think I'd re-phrase your statement to "There are things in the NT that SEEM nonsense", then I'd agree.
No rephrasing allowed.
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.
That someone wishes it to be otherwise, is faith. That is doesn't happen is accurate, rational, reasonable. quote:
There are certainly things in every faith that seem nonsense. I'm not a Christian because I want to believe nonsense things and find them in Christianity. I'm a Christian because I encountered Christ, and because I'm a Christian, I have to take these seemingly nonsense things on board. But that doesn't mean that I can't investigate those things and decide if they are at least reasonable, if not provable. The fact that people like Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel who set out to see if the NT witness was reasonable, found that in their view it was, suggests that the NT is not so much unbelievable nonsense, but perhaps surprisingly believable nonsense.
I am not interested really if something is "belief"-able. People are belief creators, myth makers, and story tellers. All of that is believable. Is it POSSIBLE or even LIKELY now that is a rather different kettle of fish.
I read enough of Strobbel's book to think he's a moron and a bad writer to boot. Just my opinion FWIW. quote:
But I just don't think that Mormonism holds up to the same standard. We can look at the earliest manuscripts of the NT and compare them, see how it has changed and verify it as historical documents. We can't look at the gold plates.
The New Testament has consistently answered the archaeological and most questions of historical accuracy.
Oh ho. Wait a minute there.
Archaeology has not proven the Virgin Birth, water into wine, walking on water, hell it hasn't even been able to prove that Jesus said nearly anything that he said! Certainly none of the important bits.
Someone could literally have made the whole thing up minus about 16 things that we "know" from other sources. That Jesus lived and died is indisputable. Most any detail of importance not only is up for debate, there is internal inconsistencies within the very texts that you use as to historical accuracy, or the lack thereof.
That the NT contains SOME archalogically verifiable information, and historical information is true. However, that is not really the point is it? I can say all kinds of things in my historical setting and what people say I said after I died would be a whole nother matter. Especially after 125 years (at the earliest!). quote:
I don't know of any archaeological backup for the BOM, instead the archaeological evidence speaks strongly against it. Plus the history - steel, horses etc.
Again, I don't deny that the BOM is wackier. It's just not have had 2000 years, and a whole lot of whitewashing to make it "true". quote:
Virgin births seem incredulous, but we don't really have any way to prove it either way.
Seen a virgin birth lately?
Me neither.
All the proof I need.
But let's take it a step further. What is more likely, a virgin birth, or someone made this shit up.
quote:
Horses and steel in America, plagiarised manuscripts we do have the ability to prove as false. That's the difference for me.
Well, when you can show me a virgin with a baby popping out, I'll agree with you.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
MadGeo said:
Archaeology has not proven the Virgin Birth, water into wine, walking on water, hell it hasn't even been able to prove that Jesus said nearly anything that he said! Certainly none of the important bits.
Archaeology isn't good at seeing specific events at the level of the individual person, so I wouldn't expect to see these events in the record. What record would a virgin birth or water into wine leave? None.
However, the Book of Mormon makes claims about large communities existing in the Americas over hundreds / thousands of years. Surely they should have left some trace?
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually there is more than one way to fake a record. We have actual evidence from early manuscripts that things have been added, redacted, accidentally changed, and otherwise affected. Tale a course in biblical literature if you doubt it.
In addition, there is the little matter that the victors decided what books to include that fit what they wanted to say. That is a form of faking the record as well. Fortunately we have recovered many of the other books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas, etc. and so we know that selective culling of the record occurred.
Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use. Those that were kept in were done so because they were the most reliable historical documents. The ones that didn't make it in were left out because they were of dubious authorship or because they didn't 'fit' with the most reliable documents (you might call it culling - I would call it common sense. If an unreliable document conflicts with a reliable one which would you believe more?). The fact that we still have Thomas, Judas and the others shows that they weren't censored - just ignored by the majority because they were known to be innacurate (or less accurate).
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.
I think we're coming around to Mr Atheist's (I think) thread on the supernatural. I, along with many people in this world believe that the miraculous is possible, and that scientific laws, which are otherwise steadfast and defined, can be broken. This means that, given exceptional circumstances, I can believe that virgin birth is possible, though surprising.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]
Well, when you can show me a virgin with a baby popping out, I'll agree with you.
This is what I'm saying. I can't show you a virgin with a baby popping out, but that doesn't mean Christianity is false. Christianity still stays in the 'who knows?' category.
But if there was strong evidence AGAINST Christianity, as there is with Mormonism, then you'd have a much stronger case that someone had made it up.
That's the difference. For someone who accepts that the miraculous/supernatural is possible:
- There's a strong case to say Mormonism is a load of bull.
- There isn't a strong case to say Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism or whatever) is.
For someone who doesn't believe in the miraculous:
- They're are a load of bull.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.
Correct. And this cult-plus gave us the civilization in which we all live. For me, in my doubting moments, that's one of the bottom lines.
Following this line of reasoning then, we must ask what the LDS folk find so unacceptable or lacking in our civilization that they must so drastically revise its received religion. What's the pudding that the proof is in? The church gave us Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Bach. I understand that the Mormons speak of "cultural activities," too, and I won't knock the the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but it seems to be sheer tokenism: at the local level, they are very little in evidence. Just take a peek inside any stake house. It's culture only in an anthropological sense. The atmosphere is stultifyingly philistine.
That plus their homophobia and what they've done to the Boy Scouts is quite enough to raise one's suspicions.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.
Ooh, you trusting soul. You don't think that politics or the prejudices of those who convened to set the canon had anything to do with it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:
MadGeo said:
Archaeology has not proven the Virgin Birth, water into wine, walking on water, hell it hasn't even been able to prove that Jesus said nearly anything that he said! Certainly none of the important bits.
Archaeology isn't good at seeing specific events at the level of the individual person, so I wouldn't expect to see these events in the record. What record would a virgin birth or water into wine leave? None.
However, the Book of Mormon makes claims about large communities existing in the Americas over hundreds / thousands of years. Surely they should have left some trace?
Exactly.
My point was not that archaeology hasn’t proven the NT right or wrong, it was that the things that MATTER are not verifiable by archaeology.
I have to repeat that I think Mormonism is just this side of wacked. Just like Christianity, only slightly more so.
Christians that condemn Mormonism for lack of technical verifiability and outright mythological balderdash are throwing stones in crystal cathedrals.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually there is more than one way to fake a record. We have actual evidence from early manuscripts that things have been added, redacted, accidentally changed, and otherwise affected. Tale a course in biblical literature if you doubt it.
In addition, there is the little matter that the victors decided what books to include that fit what they wanted to say. That is a form of faking the record as well. Fortunately we have recovered many of the other books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas, etc. and so we know that selective culling of the record occurred.
Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.
Yes, you invent it out of thin air, or worse, you invent it because you heard it from someone who heard it from someone, who heard it from the religion of their forefathers.
If I was going to convince a bunch of goatherds and fisherman that My Guy is The Big Guy, I’d start with poaching the Virgin Birth idea. Absolutely. Throw in a Magic Star, Wise Men, and Magic Healing Tricks and VOILA! We have a god! Recipe for success.
quote:
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.
That is true. The canon of the NT was assembled through a messy contest over a long period of time that included such technical evaluation as what was commonly used, or were otherwise popular for whatever reasons. Yes, some choice was based on authorship. If that method were used today, the Book of Mormen might qualify under the popularity contest criteria, given enough time. Gotta love that. quote:
Those that were kept in were done so because they were the most reliable historical documents.
Uh huh. “Frequent use”, is not a very rigorous method, I gotta say. quote:
The ones that didn't make it in were left out because they were of dubious authorship or because they didn't 'fit' with the most reliable documents (you might call it culling - I would call it common sense.
Pullease. Common sense had little to do with it. Your boys didn’t like the Gnostics and ran them outta town. Popularity contest 101.
Here’s some “Common Sense”: The victors write the history. Too bad that they weren’t able to wipe out ALL the history they didn’t like, otherwise we might not even know about the Book of Thomas, etc. quote:
If an unreliable document conflicts with a reliable one which would you believe more?). The fact that we still have Thomas, Judas and the others shows that they weren't censored - just ignored by the majority because they were known to be innacurate (or less accurate).
Actually the Gospel of Thomas was lost for centuries because it WAS censored and only have a copy because someone hid a copy at Nag Hammadi in a jar which was found in 1945! In short, your boys did such a thorough job of censorship, they ALMOST succeeded!
Likewise the Gospel of Judas was REdiscovered in the 1970s in much the same fashion. Kinda makes you wonder what ELSE they banned, doesn’t it? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.
I think we're coming around to Mr Atheist's (I think) thread on the supernatural. I, along with many people in this world believe that the miraculous is possible, and that scientific laws, which are otherwise steadfast and defined, can be broken. This means that, given exceptional circumstances, I can believe that virgin birth is possible, though surprising.
Do you believe that magic tricks are real? No? Why? Because its not possible and you know that its magic. Which is more likely, that a virgin birth actually happened, or that the laws of the natural world as we know it are violated? Human virgins do not give birth. End of argument. Anything else must be false. Any argument to the contrary is more likely to be delusion, non-rational, fiction, mythology, call it what you want, it’s simply Not True. That is WAY more likely, than the opposite. That a virgin birth is put forth as “true” calls into question the veracity of the document and the people that wrote it, not the laws of nature. It shows that someone was duped.
If Joseph Smith had said that, everyone here would be questioning his veracity. But he didn’t say that, he said he read some golden tablets that the rest of us didn’t see. Well okay! Good to know. I put that right up there in likelihood as Virgin Births!
See how that works?
Come to think of it, it is interesting that I have never seen Christians question his seeing the angel. They always pull out the archaeology or something that THEY can verify, but not the unverifiable bits. Because THAT they can believe in. Go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.
Correct. And this cult-plus gave us the civilization in which we all live. For me, in my doubting moments, that's one of the bottom lines.
Heh. Lots of things have given us our civilization. Doesn't mean we shouldn't move on from the bits that no longer work.
As you noted, some Christianity brings us homophobia, not to mention suppression of women, bad reproductive practices, etc. etc. Just because something helped get us here, doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate if its time to move on without it. I wouldn't want to go back to Imperialism, or Confederacy, or any number of other ideas that got us here. The Greeks and Romans gave us our civilization too. Doesn't mean I want to wear togas. quote:
Following this line of reasoning then, we must ask what the LDS folk find so unacceptable or lacking in our civilization that they must so drastically revise its received religion. What's the pudding that the proof is in? The church gave us Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Bach. I understand that the Mormons speak of "cultural activities," too, and I won't knock the the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but it seems to be sheer tokenism: at the local level, they are very little in evidence. Just take a peek inside any stake house. It's culture only in an anthropological sense. The atmosphere is stultifyingly philistine.
Actually I think the Mormen have done a lot for the country. They have an insane number of relatively fine politicians they can point to. Not all mind you, but many. They are actually more honest than many politicans I can think of, because they are Mor-men.
Utah is certainly a fine state in many ways. Not that I want to live there mind you, but we have worse (much of the South comes to mind).
In short, I see this as a bit of Christian snobbery. You got nothin but time on the LDS in this regard and they are off to a pretty fine start, or at least no worse than your history, which was clouded by much violence and mayhem.
quote:
That plus their homophobia and what they've done to the Boy Scouts is quite enough to raise one's suspicions.
On this we can absolutely AGREE. But don't forget to slay every other Christian church that is non gay friendly while your at it. Catholics, Baptists, etc. etc. The list is LOOOOONG.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.
Ooh, you trusting soul. You don't think that politics or the prejudices of those who convened to set the canon had anything to do with it?
Perhaps, but generally they just cemented the canon as it was already being used across the churches.
No time to reply to Mad Geo now - sorry! Will try to soon.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Just take a peek inside any stake house. It's culture only in an anthropological sense. The atmosphere is stultifyingly philistine.
Strange. In my part of the world they are usually indistinguishable from the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Nazarenes, or any other non-liturgical church I could mention. You can tell they aren't Church of Christ because they have organs (at least the ones I go in do--which isn't surprising somehow).
Now as it happens I do find that atmosphere a bit philistine. But using architectural blandness as a means of assessing spiritual depth doesn't really wash, does it?
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use. Those that were kept in were done so because they were the most reliable historical documents. The ones that didn't make it in were left out because they were of dubious authorship or because they didn't 'fit' with the most reliable documents (you might call it culling - I would call it common sense. If an unreliable document conflicts with a reliable one which would you believe more?).
At the distance they were from the events in question they had no way of knowing for sure which was more historically reliable. Thus reliability collapses into preferability given pre-existing views, so those were selected which fitted in with established dogma at the time.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Odiprofanum
Apprentice
# 14434
|
Posted
Quoting Figbash:
At the distance they were from the events in question they had no way of knowing for sure which was more historically reliable.
- That's a bit strong. In fact early church writers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius took trouble to compare and contrast different texts, looking for inconsistencies of style or point of view, in order to form a view on whether a document was canonical or not. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas was in the NT for a long time until it was concluded that it was not really from the Apostolic age, but was still used as a spiritual document.
Posts: 11 | From: Luxembourg | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Odiprofanum:
Irenaeus and Eusebius took trouble to compare and contrast different texts, looking for inconsistencies of style or point of view, in order to form a view on whether a document was canonical or not.
It is easy to spot inconsistencies between two texts. What matters is what your selection process is for picking one to accept and one to drop. And I am arguing that as there was no independent standard that could be appealed to, in the form of a single unimpeachable historical source, only preference based on current belief / tradition was possible.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.
[Irrelevant tangent]
(Irrelevant because, as someone pointed out, the point of a miracle is it's meant to be miraculous.)
I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one . However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once. However, it may well have happened to a woman in a sexual relationship already, who just thought their daughter looked extremely like them. (Not sure you could get a male this way though.) And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis. (That last link tells you everything you ever wanted to know about parthenogensis and it is commoner than you'd think in other species - salamander sperm hardly ever make it.)
[/Irrelevant tangent]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
Sorry, having thought about it a bit more, I think that in my previous post I asserted too strong a position. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
So, it's not impossible to winnow a selection of texts in order to arrive at what one believes is a coherent and reliable subset.
BUT
There is always going to be some selection bias. The idea of an agenda-free historian is meaningless: all historians bring their own bias to the table. And thus those who selected the canon brought their selection bias. Which is where dogma enters in.
So my proposal is that there was rather more concern for dogmatic correctness and less for 'historical accuracy'. Which probably wasn't a meaningful concept back then anyway: the appropriate concept of 'rightness' is not 'is this what really happened' but 'does this tell a truth that is important'.
Back to Mormonism
Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.
[ 13. January 2009, 18:50: Message edited by: Figbash ]
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but this reminded me of something I read long ago:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one . However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once. However, it may well have happened to a woman in a sexual relationship already, who just thought their daughter looked extremely like them. (Not sure you could get a male this way though.) And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis. (That last link tells you everything you ever wanted to know about parthenogensis and it is commoner than you'd think in other species - salamander sperm hardly ever make it.)
This is a quote from Wolpert's 'Principles of development':
quote:
Mouse eggs can be manipulated by nuclear transplantation to have either two paternal genomes or two maternal genomes, and can be reimplanted into a mouse for further development . . . Although both kinds of embryo have a diploid number of chromosomes, their development is abnormal. The embryos with two paternal genomes have well-developed extra embryonic tissues, but the embryo itself is abnormal, and does not proceed beyond a stage at which several somites are present. By contrast, the embryos with diploid maternal genomes have relatively well-developed embryos, but the extra-embryonic tissues - placenta and yolk sac - are poorly developed. These results clearly show that both maternal and paternal genomes are necessary for normal mammalian development . . . This is the reason that mammals cannot be naturally produced parthenogenetically, by activation of an unfertilised egg.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.
Well, you are wrong about lots of species other than sharks, though probably not about humans
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one .
Er, umm, I don't think that guy you link to ever did any experiments. He's using "billion to one" as a handwacing way of saying "very unlikely"
quote:
However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once.
No, it probably isn't likely. I'm no expert on this bit of biology but different kinds of vertebrates have rather different reproductive systems. And humans (& other apes, & primates in general) are really quite unlikely to do parthenogenesis of any of the major kinds.
One main reason is that we inherit different genes from each parent - they don't start off exactly equal in the race. For many of our genes one of each pair is turned off in early embryonic development (a process confusingly called "imprinting") and that is triggered by fertilisation. No fertilisation event, no imprinting, no normal embryionic development.
(There are some lizards that require fertilisation for parthenogenesis - and at least a couple of species that have no males left so they have to mate with males of other species to clone themselves - the world is weird)
quote:
And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis.
Not viable ones.
I'm not saying its impossible to do artificially - after all we can jsut about do it to mice and they are our close relatives (much closer than, say, sheep - the method used to clone Dolly would not work on humans without some modification). But I am saying that if it was done artificially there woudl have to be a considerable amount of medical intervention to make it work. As Figbash's quote shows.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Am I right in thinking that the resident Mormon hasn't joined this thread?
I just thought I'd offer my perspective. My sister joined the mormons (here in the UK) when she was 16. It made her as happy as she could have been. I was much younger, but I'd go and stay with her and go along to church services which, I recall strongly, were a hell of a lot more interesting than the Anglican services I was used to. Everyone went to Sunday school because Mormons believe that you can always be learning.
The building was no more bland than any modern church.
The emphasis on family meant that she spent time with us, building bridges that could so easily have otherwise been lost. The community supported her and loved her, and when there was a (big) problem, they sent her to a Mormon family in Europe to work and get over it.
the events of 20 odd years intervened, and these days she kind of misses the community and sense of fellowship and purpose and so on. They would welcome her with open arms, but would reject her partner, so it can't be done.
There are strong Mormon/LDS communities in many towns in the UK... and while the theology is a bit wacky, most English Mormons believe in what helps and ditch the rest, same as most adherents of most faiths. (do I duck now..?)
It was certainly a very healthy way of life - no toxins, generous giving, family orientated, tolerent (I never heard the racist bit, I must ask her if she was aware of that. There is a similar racist bit in the Noah story, if I recall correctly, but we manage to fudge it out these days.) and everyone willing to help everyone else at the first invitation.
there are definitely worse church communities to belong to.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
All religions make claims about a lot of stuff that seems crazy to outsiders--the question is, how much of that stuff is actually critical to the truth of the religion?
If Buddha turned out to be a fictional character, it woulnd't necessarily overturn Buddhism--if the Four Noble Truths are true, what does it matter who discovered them (as Gautama himself would surely be the first to agree).
Judaism? Well, the Jewish people incontrovertibly exist, and they have a Law that defines their relationship with God. If the stories about that relationship are illustrative fables compiled from a thousand-year oral tradition, rather than factual history, it's probably not fatal.
Jesus was born, lived, taught, and died. If the resurrection were disproved, that might do Christianity in--fortunately for Christians, the practical evidentiary problems make that unlikely.
But Mormonism hinges on one thing--whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. And if a self-proclaimed prophet makes numerous demonstrably false statements, it pretty much puts paid to the whole corpus. That's the difference between Mormonism and the others.
[ 13. January 2009, 19:53: Message edited by: Timothy the Obscure ]
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
...
Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.
You are not seriously trying to pin down just how less wacky your religion is than the next guy?
No. Really?
You're splitting hairs. Your religion is wacky. Mormonism is wacky. As you said, you offend against reason, as do they. I could argue just how non-historical non-archeological X Christian Church is on a case by case basis, but there is really no need, you admitted the problem and that is REASON.
There is a lack of reason somewhere in all Christian sects, it's just splitting hairs us to who is MORE unreasonable. Rather hypocritical too, to those of us watching from outside.
Mormen believe in Joseph Smith. Catholics believe in Ratzinger and that women should be held down while Mary is all important. Baptists and others believe in Rapture. You all believe in Virgin Births, and zombies raising from the dead, and monotheism with three gods (father, son, and holy spigot). UU possibly exempted.
Go figure.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But Mormonism hinges on one thing--whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. And if a self-proclaimed prophet makes numerous demonstrably false statements, it pretty much puts paid to the whole corpus. That's the difference between Mormonism and the others.
Oooh, that's quite a gauntlet. It's also mighty convenient. Your writers got to rewrite the prophecy to fit the history. Again 2000 years cures a lot of blunders.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Figbash:
[qb]
You're splitting hairs. Your religion is wacky. Mormonism is wacky.
- Who said it was my religion?
- If you think that the difference between highly unlikely but not disprovable events and highly unlikely and disprovable events is splitting hairs then that's your problem. Remember, the aspects of Mormonism that I am complaining about aren't those that invoke miraculous events, they're bits that purport to describe the early history of the Americas. If Christianity told an easily disproved parallel history for first century Palestine then you might have a point.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I am not really disputing that I find their religion unlikely. I am merely saying it's only slightly less likely than Anglicanism (your religion according to your profile, oops).
[ 13. January 2009, 22:20: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Your writers got to rewrite the prophecy to fit the history. Again 2000 years cures a lot of blunders.
[CITATION NEEDED]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The point is not whether a religion's scriptures make claims that are probably not true--it's whether those claims are so central to the faith that their falsity would fatally undermine it. There are plenty of things in the Old and New Testaments that reasonable people could doubt, and scientists and historians have challenged. But if the wise men are a legend, or Quirinius wasn't actually governor in Syria when Jesus was born, it doesn't matter that much to most Christians (there are a few kooks who insist that every word has to be true or you might as well forget the whole thing, but they'll just deny the evidence of historical errors). Christianity doesn't depend on the testimony of any one person. About the only thing that could overthrow it would be the discovery of a grave in Jerusalem with an undeniably 1st-century inscription: "Here lies the body of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, crucified by Pontius Pilate, called King of the Jews by his followers...etc." with actual bones in it (and incontrovertible evidence that it hadn't been opened since 33 C.E.) Even if the resurrection is a hoax, it would be virtually impossible to prove it.
Mormonism has no tradition, no multiple witnesses (the same could be said of Islam, but Muhammad didn't make critical claims that can be examined empirically). Smith, on the other hand, wrote in modern times when science was coming into its own and he made claims that have been convincingly refuted. Time will not turn his "translations" into a folk tradition like the OT, nor will it obliterate the archaeological and other findings that falsify them. If modern science had been around in the 1st century (forensic scientists taking DNA samples from the empty tomb) it might have been different for Christianity. But the superficial similarities (which were, after all, deliberately created by Smith) does not obliterate the critical distinction: most religious traditions arise in a community through sociocultural processes--Mormonism is the invention of one man. That makes all the difference.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am not really disputing that I find their religion unlikely. I am merely saying it's only slightly less likely than Anglicanism (your religion according to your profile, oops).
So a religion that rewrites the history of the Americas, that has scriptures based on demonstrably false translations of Egyptian texts, etc, etc, etc is only slightly less unlikely than Anglicanism which, for all its many faults, doesn't actually require any falsification of the historical record or massive re-writing of the rules for translating from Greek to modern languages? I see.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.
Don't worry, I fully expect all of you to apologetic away. Won't really matter. Your people had 2000 years to bury bodies, hide the tomes they/you don't like, etc. etc. to make sure we will never know the "truth". Just think 2000 years from now, the Mormons will have TOO and there will be some upstart religion that will have some nontheist guy showing them how likely it was that their founding fathers falsified prophecy to fit history! Won't that be great? The Mormen will get to experience your frustration!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.
As I have said before: prophecies and the birth of individuals are invisible in the archaeological record. Whole peoples are not. That is what I see as the fundamental difference.
Now, you're not going to get me disagreeing that Christianity proper contains some pretty strange things, like virgin births, the dead being raised, etc. However, from a purely archaeological perspective, they are again invisible.
So both Christianity and Mormonism are an affront to reason. However, only Mormonism is an affront to history.
There, will that do?
F
PS I don't for a moment believe that the OT narrative actually reflects the history of Bronze Age / Iron Age Palestine.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
