Jump to content
snowflake

Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then don't.  No one asked you to come here and no one is making you debate anyone (though I hope you stay).  When you want to debate faith and miracles with believers though, you have to acknowledge that the parameters of their perspective is a huge part of the debate.

 

Don’t “they” have to acknowledge that the parameters of my perspective is likewise a huge part of the debate, or is this a faith promoting one way street?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What is definitive doctrine? 

scriptures. And you get to interpret them according to Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32 et al.

If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview in perfectly good conscience- there is no other definer of doctrine than that. 

This is a pretty famous essay by a pretty famous Mormon theologian, and the topic of defining doctrine has been explored a lot on this forum

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

And LDS.org contains this statement- as official as any I suppose

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The interpretation of this statement has been hotly discussed here on this board, emphasizing the "consistently published" portion, but notice that apostles "counsel together.... to establish doctrine... that is consistently proclaimed".   BUT NOTE that the "doctrine RESIDES" in the scriptures.

So let's put on our logic hats for a moment.

Prophets are not infallible, but fallible.  We must always be guided by our own testimonies and the Holy Ghost otherwise we might drink the kool aid and end up like the people of Jim Jones- and the SCRIPTURES tell us to "ask God" for answers - they do not say "Ask the prophets" for truth anywhere.   Prime Directive:  Ask God

Doctrine RESIDES in the scriptures about which we should ask whom?  God!  Joseph was prompted by James 1:5 in the first place!   "Lack wisdom? Ask God".  THEN comes Moroni 10 and Alma 32- if the word is "sweet" it is true!  God manifests the truth to you.

Who was Joseph's "prophet"?  God!  He went to the scriptures and asked God, and we must do the same or we are robots.

The church is a central repository based on Jesus Christ- and what He represents- not a scientific interpretation of the old testament and is to be interpreted by each individual as they see fit, but the church is defined more as a LIFESTYLE- orthopraxis- than anything else.

We have no magesterium, we have no catechism.   The Articles of Faith are the Wentworth letter which was essentially a press release to the neighboring Protestants about what we believe, containing no "meat" of the gospel- just nice words for Protestants so they don't think we are too weird.  ;)

Doctrine?   It is really debatable whether or not we have anything we MUST believe except clearly what is asked in temple recommend interviews!   THAT and the baptismal interview define the beliefs we MUST have in order to be "members of the church in good standing".   Period. 

And trust me- I have and have had leadership callings, my stake president knows me well , my temple president knows me ,  and knows my beliefs,  I work in the temple weekly, and I am still here.  ;)

They haven't thrown me out yet! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Don’t “they” have to acknowledge that the parameters of my perspective is likewise a huge part of the debate, or is this a faith promoting one way street?

If they sought you out on an atheist message board and attempted to debate your beliefs and positions, then absolutely!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

True. I was using it with the assumption of no basis. But you're right people might hypothesize a historical origin for a myth. But most likely don't have one.

Yes but such things leave evidence as would an universal flood. At a minimum caves would have evidence of an influx of water. Those adopting an universal flood that covered all the mountains and then a massive movement of continents a little later have to end up adopting the view that God intentionally hid the history of such things by making the earth as if it followed what all the scientists following the evidence present. That is pretty well such people are committed to God more or less creating the world from scratch around the time of Peleg so that it would appear like civilizations had been continuous for 10,000 years, that animals evolved, and so forth. 

The question would then become, why on earth would God do such a thing?

I was at the cliffs of Moher last spring (not my photo), Just amazing the layers stacked up here, no evidence of erosion between the layers......, strata layed down perfectly symmetrical by water. I'm often amazed the assumptions people make, and simply disregard obvious signs of a global flood. Then replace God's word with lies that they have been taught since pre-school. We see layered strata all over the world as evidence of a global flood. 

 

Image result for cliffs of moher

Share this post


Link to post

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah's_Ark

"In 2004, Honolulu-based businessman Daniel McGivern announced he would finance a $900,000 expedition to the peak of Greater Ararat in July of that year to investigate the "Ararat anomaly" – he had previously paid for commercial satellite images of the site.[1] After much initial fanfare, he was refused permission by the Turkish authorities, as the summit is inside a restricted military zone. The expedition was subsequently labelled a "stunt" by National Geographic News, which pointed out that the expedition leader, a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, had previously been accused of faking evidence of the Ark for a CBS documentary."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Noah had more than one ark? :wacko:

It is hard to take you serious with comments like these or rather it becomes clear you aren't taking the conversation seriously.  Why should someone put any effort into their own answers if you can't be bothered?

Multiple claims for different sites obviously don't require more than one ark or any ark at all.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Noah had more than one ark? :wacko:

No, other people have claimed to have found Noah's Ark.  Wyatt isn't the only one and his 'discovery' is not the only possible ark location.  I was thinking of the site that Daniel McGivern championed.  It's also in Turkey but on the top of Mt. Ararat.  Turkey denied his expedition permission.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Don’t “they” have to acknowledge that the parameters of my perspective is likewise a huge part of the debate, or is this a faith promoting one way street?

Regardless, they have heard everything you have said SO many times before, if anything they are a tiny part of the debate, but it is fun trying out new arguments to see if they work.

They are looking for your reactions to what they say- not actually ACCEPTING any of it because they have heard it all so many times before.

At least that is my take.  ;)

I am looking for something new, so you keep poking this thing making noise to see if it makes new noises.  :)

But yes, poking is fun.  You might actually learn something.  Anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I was at the cliffs of Moher last spring (not my photo), Just amazing the layers stacked up here, no evidence of erosion between the layers......, strata layed down perfectly symmetrical by water. I'm often amazed the assumptions people make, and simply disregard obvious signs of a global flood. Then replace God's word with lies that they have been taught since pre-school. We see layered strata all over the world as evidence of a global flood. 

 

Image result for cliffs of moher

I am a firm believer in OT record of Noah's global flood (everything was under water) but I do not agree with your assessment of the layers.  I am no geologist but I probably could write several pages of questions and interpretations and conjectures about how the layers were formed.  Such as the possibility that this landmass was previously under a large body of water (maybe a vast sea) and the layers were formed by a gradual process of silting (and maybe volcanic activity) over a long period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What’s your rationale for why people during the forty days didn’t remember Noah was building the one boat built to withstand the storm and take it by force? 

That torrential rains and the rivers all overflowing their banks and the torrential rains making vision basically impossible make it unlikely they could get there and even if they were could and were sure of where it was, that it was conveniently located to where they could rush it, and that there was a convenient way to get in. It also assumes the boat was not afloat quickly which it almost certainly would be.

You seem to be naively picturing normal rain during this event and people could just saunter over to that boat the local lunatic Noah was building.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Don’t “they” have to acknowledge that the parameters of my perspective is likewise a huge part of the debate, or is this a faith promoting one way street?

No. We are not having a debate. You are just positioning strawmen and whining when a global flood washes them all away and demanding they be taken seriously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We have no magesterium, we have no catechism.   The Articles of Faith are the Wentworth letter which was essentially a press release to the neighboring Protestants about what we believe, containing no "meat" of the gospel- just nice words for Protestants so they don't think we are too weird.

Help me to understand this. Wouldn't the prophet and apostles count as your magisterium? What is the difference? They get to define doctrine (they make the temple recommend questions, yes?) and practices/ritual. They also decide what goes into the LDS scriptures, don't they?

And wouldn't all of the classes on Sunday and every morning for high schoolers count as your catechism? My experience at LDS Sunday services is that it is mainly all lessons. Don't those lessons come out of officially published manuals? Isn't that a catechism -- teaching people what their faith believes.

Also, it is a pet peeve of mine when people say there is no creed in the LDS church and you have the Articles of Faith which literally begin "We believe." You can't get much closer to a creed (Latin: "credo" = "I believe") than that, press release for protestants or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Help me to understand this. Wouldn't the prophet and apostles count as your magisterium? What is the difference? They get to define doctrine (they make the temple recommend questions, yes?) and practices/ritual. They also decide what goes into the LDS scriptures, don't they?

And wouldn't all of the classes on Sunday and every morning for high schoolers count as your catechism? My experience at LDS Sunday services is that it is mainly all lessons. Don't those lessons come out of officially published manuals? Isn't that a catechism -- teaching people what their faith believes.

Also, it is a pet peeve of mine when people say there is no creed in the LDS church and you have the Articles of Faith which literally begin "We believe." You can't get much closer to a creed (Latin: "credo" = "I believe") than that, press release for protestants or not.

The Articles of Faith were never intended for the modern use we have put them to. I disagree partially with two of the Articles in any cases. Please do not tell the Danites.

Sort of. I hesitate to compare our lessons to a Catechism for fear of doing injury to both our faiths. Ideally the lessons are peripherally guided by the manual as to what to study and the Spirit directs the discussion through the teacher and students so all are edified. A catechism seems to me to be structured differently. Our old Lectures on Faith are very like a Catholic catechism.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, The Nehor said:

The Articles of Faith were never intended for the modern use we have put them to. 

Do you mind elaborating on the original intention and the modern intention? Sounds interesting. Are the Articles of Faith canonized?

 

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sort of. I hesitate to compare our lessons to a Catechism for fear of doing injury to both our faiths. Ideally the lessons are peripherally guided by the manual as to what to study and the Spirit directs the discussion through the teacher and students so all are edified. A catechism seems to me to be structured differently.

Sounds good to me. When I was going through catechism prior to baptism (I converted as an adult) the priest would assign me sections to read. I would read and take notes and then we would meet and discuss it, sometimes in his office, sometimes while hiking (I have a great memory of discussion the Blessed Virgin Mary while trekking up a steep trail in the mountains), and sometimes while drinking beer, ha. I'd say it combined both: a very structured book whose purpose is to lay out the doctrines and beliefs, and then a more informal teacher/student relationship that could be, to use LDS parlance, led by the Spirit.

So the Catechism book is more structured than the LDS lesson plans (I wouldn't really know, but I'll certainly trust you on this) but the purposes are probably different -- one is to lay out clearly the doctrines and the other is to guide a class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mind elaborating on the original intention and the modern intention? Sounds interesting. Are the Articles of Faith canonized?

 

Sounds good to me. When I was going through catechism prior to baptism (I converted as an adult) the priest would assign me sections to read. I would read and take notes and then we would meet and discuss it, sometimes in his office, sometimes while hiking (I have a great memory of discussion the Blessed Virgin Mary while trekking up a steep trail in the mountains), and sometimes while drinking beer, ha. I'd say it combined both: a very structured book whose purpose is to lay out the doctrines and beliefs, and then a more informal teacher/student relationship that could be, to use LDS parlance, led by the Spirit.

So the Catechism book is more structured than the LDS lesson plans (I wouldn't really know, but I'll certainly trust you on this) but the purposes are probably different -- one is to lay out clearly the doctrines and the other is to guide a class.

They are canonized but the Articles were originally part of the Wentworth letter. It was a letter to a Chicago newspaper editor written by Joseph Smith in 1843 explaining the story of the Latter Day Saints starting with the First Vision and going to the Nauvoo period they were in. The Articles of Faith were at the end of the letter and were a summary of some LDS beliefs. They are definitely not comprehensive.

If I understand the Catechism it is very much a Q and A structured document that builds on previous answers.

Here are the Lectures on Faith: http://lecturesonfaith.com/

I believe their structure more closely matches the Catholic catechism. Please let me know if I am way off base here.

Our lesson manuals are shorter and most of them are tied to events in scripture. You read over them and draw lessons from them. The lesson tries to have a theme but I find our lessons usually dive off from them if we have a good group of people. I believe if we were the scripture reading people we should be we would dispense with the manuals entirely and just get an assignment as to what chapters to study or what topic to cover and go from there. In the best lessons the instructor chucks the lesson plan because someone needs something else under the influence of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Ghost takes what you are teaching and teaches a private lesson to a student. The best gospel teacher I have ever known taught me that the best experience you can ever have as a teacher is having a student come up to you at the end of a class and thank you for teaching them X which they really needed when you did not talk about X at all. That means you are teaching truth and the Spririt is using your words to personalize a lesson.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Hey I am not saying that this is noah's ark.....I'm just saying that the country of Turkey has recognized it as such and that there has been some interesting finds at this site. Never was my claim that this is the ark....that is several other people's claim.  

Oh, I see....In fact I saw a big newspaper clip in one of it's online newspapers. It is the country I was born & spent my teenage years, over 75% of population think the evolution is a man_made hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are canonized but the Articles were originally part of the Wentworth letter. It was a letter to a Chicago newspaper editor written by Joseph Smith in 1843 explaining the story of the Latter Day Saints starting with the First Vision and going to the Nauvoo period they were in. The Articles of Faith were at the end of the letter and were a summary of some LDS beliefs. They are definitely not comprehensive.

Got it, thanks.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If I understand the Catechism it is very much a Q and A structured document that builds on previous answers.

There have been multiple over the years and the most famous in the US was the Baltimore Catechism, which is question/answer. The Catholic Church decided to release a universal catechism which is not question answer. Here is the table of contents.

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here are the Lectures on Faith: http://lecturesonfaith.com/

I believe their structure more closely matches the Catholic catechism. Please let me know if I am way off base here.

I glanced at a few parts of it, mainly skimming for tone and structure rather than content, and yes, it has a very similar feel to the catechism.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The best gospel teacher I have ever known taught me that the best experience you can ever have as a teacher is having a student come up to you at the end of a class and thank you for teaching them X which they really needed when you did not talk about X at all. That means you are teaching truth and the Spririt is using your words to personalize a lesson.

Or that they totally weren't paying attention and were lost in their own thoughts :P Seriously, though, that would be a cool experience as a teacher.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Oh, I see....In fact I saw a big newspaper clip in one of it's online newspapers. It is the country I was born & spent my teenage years, over 75% of population think the evolution is a man_made hoax.

Evolution....the atheist's religion, or magic wand, fantasy, wishful thinking...total nonsense, but I know we have been down this road before. 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Or that they totally weren't paying attention and were lost in their own thoughts :P Seriously, though, that would be a cool experience as a teacher.

Yeah, that too. But if they are the given thoughts of a member of the Godhead I will give it a pass. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Evolution....the atheist's religion, or magic wand, fantasy, wishful thinking...total nonsense, but I know we have been down this road before. 

Here you go, you are fitting very well....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fair enough- great question but not so good an answer :)

My question was essentially why YOU believe the bible was the word of God and instead it kind of got switched to comparing LDS views to charlatans.  

I am glad we can discuss this reasonably- It is a rare chance for a reasonable dialogue!    

I am not quite following your argument here on why the Moroni challenge is "circular" exactly, but let's take it back to your comment that the "LDS fall into this circular argument as well."

I would certainly agree that both those who accept the Bible based on their "emotional" (using your word) justification AND the LDS folks who do the same in the Moroni challenge ARE agreeing that one should follow one's emotions in deciding if God has spoken to them, but I don't see why that is a "circular" argument.

A circular argument is one when one is already ASSUMING the conclusion in the premise.  "The Bible is true because it says it is" is circular because one is not really examining WHY the bible is "true", but simply accepting that it is.   It completely avoids the "why" question- which incidentally you have not yet answered either.  ;)

BUT Evangelicals typically do NOT want to admit that they accept the Bible "because God has told them it is true"  BECAUSE that is exactly the Mormon challenge itself- which is of course that we should "ask God" if it is true and "He will manifest the truth to you".   

Yes, arguably the same thing as a faith healer but also the same thing for someone in a Billy Graham crusade "accepting Jesus" OR someone saying "the bible is true because it says it is,"  OR someone saying "The bible is true because God told me so" OR "I know I am saved because God has manifested the truth to me !!

THEY ARE ALL THE SAME LOGIC!   That is the crucial point I am trying to make!  ALL are based on an emotional response!

BUT is that bad?  NO!

How do you know rape and murder are wrong?  Emotional response!  How do you even know God exists?  Emotional response!  Can you prove it scientifically?  NO!

AND that is what philosophers freely acknowledge and is why I am here trying to get this point through people's heads- and it helps ALL THEISTS equally!

The only "evidence " we have that we are "saved" or that the "Bible is true" or the Book of Mormon is true" or that God exists is within our hearts!

So yes all theists are in the same boat with the faith healers and charlatans, unfortunately,and  there are false prophets and real prophets and real choices.

So we must choose wisely the path we will take, and acknowledge that in the final analysis we have to live and let live- because every argument we make AGAINST the other guy's religion can come right back and bite us. 

God is our only judge on whether or not we get it "right"- not other people.

And atheists actually also have the same problem!  They cannot prove THEIR morality- "save the whales" or WHATEVER it is is "right" except by basing it on emotion.  Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives all have their arguments, all based in the final analysis on emotion.

Every decision we make about whom to marry, what values we have and what is important in life are based on emotion and not scientific evidence- so their arguments that theists are stupid because they have no evidence are just as stupid as the theists- IF they are stupid.

All people have beliefs that give them comfort and all people think they are "right" in their beliefs.

I know that is not a pleasant notion to one who has never seen it that way, but that is the truth.   You cannot justify the bible any more than I can justify the Book of Mormon and atheists cannot justify what gives their personal lives meaning any more than we can without emotion.

That's just the way that is, and philosophers acknowledge it.

Values and what we consider important in life are all based on personal subjective values.  Period.

Thank you for your response MFB, well said. 

First: Why I believe the bible to be the word of God. The more I study the Bible the more i have come to understand that it is an integrated message system from outside our time-space domain.  The old testament has hundreds of prophecies many of which have come true. How could the OT prophets know of future events? Well they were inspired by God to give us a message before the actual events took place.  Here are just a few that would give evidence for my claim. Micah 5:2 ....born in Bethlehem. Zechariah 9:9...King on a Donkey, Zechariah 11:12...betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, Zechariah 11:13 Temple, Potter..etc. Zechariah 13:6...wounds in hands, Isaiah 53:7 ...no defense..innocent, Isaiah 53:9....died with the wicked, grave with the rich, Psalm 22:16, crucified.  These are 8 of the more famous prophicies....which there are over 300 prophicies. Once you understand and do some homework this is clear evidence of inspired by (someone outside our time space domain)...God if you will.  Empirical evidence for the claims of the book (Bible). Empirical evidence and a world view that makes the most sense out of everything.....that is my main reason for trusting in the Bible. 

Second: Your explanation above is excellent... we know these books to be true..... because God told us so......this as an emotional response is spot on....well said sir! The problem I have always had with this response is that is assumes that there is no such thing as "truth" if you will.  The Mormons, Christians, and Muslims all get an emotional response that their book is correct..but if we are honest we know that all three of them have a different "God" among many other things, (and yes I am saying the LDS God is different than the Christian God) and without looking very deep we know that that simply cannot be correct, they are three very different "Gods"! So if you throw "truth" out the window as irrelevant (I know you will have a brilliant take on "truth" for me MFB) or as "everyone has their own truth"....then I guess you are fine with this as an accurate test for scripture. Oh, and also yes, God has told me that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church is a central repository based on Jesus Christ- and what He represents- not a scientific interpretation of the old testament and is to be interpreted by each individual as they see fit, but the church is defined more as a LIFESTYLE- orthopraxis- than anything else.

We have no magesterium, we have no catechism.   The Articles of Faith are the Wentworth letter which was essentially a press release to the neighboring Protestants about what we believe, containing no "meat" of the gospel- just nice words for Protestants so they don't think we are too weird.  ;)

Doctrine?   It is really debatable whether or not we have anything we MUST believe except clearly what is asked in temple recommend interviews!   THAT and the baptismal interview define the beliefs we MUST have in order to be "members of the church in good standing".   Period. 

And trust me- I have and have had leadership callings, my stake president knows me well , my temple president knows me ,  and knows my beliefs,  I work in the temple weekly, and I am still here.  ;)

They haven't thrown me out yet! 

Just you wait MB! The belief police are going to catch up with you... and then Wham! Catastrophic convulsions of thought will take place, and you will come out a new MB.. ;) Oh, I fergot, that happened already.... gosh come to think of it, that happened to me too. The Church police must have secretly gotten us with their secret mind-ray. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

I am a firm believer in OT record of Noah's global flood (everything was under water) but I do not agree with your assessment of the layers.  I am no geologist but I probably could write several pages of questions and interpretations and conjectures about how the layers were formed.  Such as the possibility that this landmass was previously under a large body of water (maybe a vast sea) and the layers were formed by a gradual process of silting (and maybe volcanic activity) over a long period of time.

I am not a geologist either, but we are in agreement here, this was clearly underwater at one time... to make these layers....perfectly fitting into the global flood.  Sediments naturally separate into layers, I was at the beach two weeks ago and there was an area where the beach was eroding with probably about a 2-3 foot cut. My boys and i were amazed at the distinct layers in just the sand alone.....my 13 year old son jokingly said man that must have taken millions of years to form those layers...like they taught me in 7th grade earth sciences. I thought....or a few hours at a really high tide or storm. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Evolution....the atheist's religion, or magic wand, fantasy, wishful thinking...total nonsense, but I know we have been down this road before. 

Yeah, let’s go down this road again. It always ends well:

mexico_crash.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×