Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2Nd Edition

[Tacenda]

Did anyone listen to Ash's interview on my podcast. Curious of any thoughts.

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/

sound quality?

questions?

ect?

I did but it was on my phone and the podcast would stop and begin again but then stopped for good. Tomorrow I'll listen on the computer. What I heard so far was good.

[Nathair/|\]

I think you can look at the links I provided or do a little research on your own to discover that there are many sites and artifacts that prove the setting and culture of the Bible. So, again, which Mayan site best proves to you the setting and culture described in the Book of Mormon?

The Grijalva(spelling ?) River. If Cursor is correct, you can visit Zarahemla with Scuba gear.

[mfbukowski]

This is clearly one of the most inane conversations I have allowed myself to get caught up in in a long time.

Much of the info I linked actually does speak to the religious nature of the Israelites, showing artifacts that point to culture and belief. You're not informed.

I am pretty well informed, but I think you are repeatedly missing the argument.

Artifacts which "point to culture and belief" are totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is not about WHAT the Israelites believed, the discussion is about whether or not religious beliefs can be justified based on historical data.

I can visit the Garden Tomb a thousand times, along with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher without any "evidence" that anyone actually arose from the dead in either location. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY SCIENTIFIC MEANS any more than visiting Independence Hall will justify the belief that "Men should be free" or that the Constitution was inspired by God.

Another strawman by way of putting words in my mouth.

No strawman at all- that is exactly your argument.

Why don't you answer my question about Mayan / Nephite sites?

Because it is totally inane and is simply a variation of your central argument.

If you actually want an answer, just google "Book of Mormon" tours and you will get your choice of cruises and guided tours of every country in Central America. There must be dozens.

So that is supposed to prove something? It proves nothing about the spiritual truths found in the Book of Mormon, and tourist traps all over the world prove nothing about the actual archaeology of the area. Google "Santa's Village" and see the dozens of places all over the country that are dedicated to the belief in Santa Claus. What does that prove?

There really is no reason to continue this derail, and I apologize for my participation in it.

Edited May 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

This is clearly one of the most inane conversations I have allowed myself to get caught up in in a long time.

I am pretty well informed, but I think you are repeatedly missing the argument.

Artifacts which "point to culture and belief" are totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is not about WHAT the Israelites believed, the discussion is about whether or not religious beliefs can be justified based on historical data.

Palerider said:

“There is ample and acceptable biblical and secular "proof" that the Savior actually did exist. There is an actual country (Israel) where His life was spent. You can go there and visit if you like. Unlike the B of M which is higly questionable in it's origins, one cannot go and visit Zarahemla or any other of the cities mentioned therein. Cannot find verifiable remnants of that civilization.”

“The presence of corroborating archeological evidence keeps the story of Christianity from slipping into the realm of pure fantasy, which unfortunately is where the LDS foundational stories reside.”

No one in this thread – including me – made a claim that “religious beliefs can be justified based on historical data.”

You introduced this strawman in your post #84. Go back and read it for yourself.

So that is supposed to prove something? It proves nothing about the spiritual truths found in the Book of Mormon, and tourist traps all over the world prove nothing about the actual archaeology of the area. Google "Santa's Village" and see the dozens of places all over the country that are dedicated to the belief in Santa Claus. What does that prove?

It proves, as was pointed out, that whatever you think about the truth claims of the Bible, the Book – at a minimum – describes persons, people groups, cultures, locations, and activities that are not all based on fictional imaginations. Does the Bible include fiction? No doubt. But when it comes to the truth claims of Christ, there is little doubt that the milieu described in the Bible is grounded in fact.

That obviously doesn't mean anything to you, but for someone who is honestly investigating the many truth claims offered in this world – and the origins of those claims – it might make a difference knowing that the setting (and we all remember from Writing 101 that setting is an important part of the story) is foundationally true. So, those artifacts that affirm religious practices, and cutlures, and - to a lesser extent - activities, described in the Bible do prove something. You may dismiss these verifications - and understandably so.

[mfbukowski]

So, those artifacts that affirm religious practices, and cutlures, and - to a lesser extent - activities, described in the Bible do prove something. You may dismiss these verifications - and understandably so.

Yes I do dismiss them.

If that "evidence" gives you comfort, I am pleased.

Evidence of Bible culture and beliefs proves that the historic people of the Bible had a culture and beliefs. Heavy stuff. It's a tautology.

We can go to Buddhist sites and find the same thing. We can go to Mayan sites and do likewise

If that is what you want to "prove" I gladly concede the point, since I have from the beginning.

[Gervin]

Yes I do dismiss them.

If that "evidence" gives you comfort, I am pleased.

Evidence of Bible culture and beliefs proves that the historic people of the Bible had a culture and beliefs. Heavy stuff. It's a tautology.

We can go to Buddhist sites and find the same thing. We can go to Mayan sites and do likewise

If that is what you want to "prove" I gladly concede the point, since I have from the beginning.

Great. Thanks. I must have missed your "beginning" post.

I guess it is pretty pedestrian stuff, but you'd be amazed at the number of LDS who, straight-faced, attempt to create the same tautology with the Book of Mormon. As you rightly noted for the Biblical tautology, "evidence" and "historic people," are words with meaning.

[ERayR]

Great. Thanks. I must have missed your "beginning" post.

I guess it is pretty pedestrian stuff, but you'd be amazed at the number of LDS who, straight-faced, attempt to create the same tautology with the Book of Mormon. As you rightly noted for the Biblical tautology, "evidence" and "historic people," are words with meaning.

Just so I will understand and believe show me the archeological evidence that Jesus really existed.