Viable Nephite colonies

[Daniel Peterson]

I think you don't understand my position, Jeff. The two options are not "Prove your claim" or "Acknowledge that you're lying." Suggesting that those are the two available alternatives is merely silly.

I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so. But acknowledging an absence of proof is not the same thing as asknowledging an absence of evidence. I think there's substantial evidence, quite enough to make the decision to exercise faith a reasonable one -- but not enough (at least in terms of publicly available and "objective" evidence) to make such a decision supererogatory.

That, as I understand it, is the way mortal life is supposed to be.

Catholicism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, Jainism, existentialism, materialism, naturalism, and Hinduism haven't proven their claims, either.

It's late here. I'm going to bed. Quite satisfied with the universe, too.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I think you don't understand my position, Jeff. The two options are not "Prove your claim" or "Acknowledge that you're lying." Suggesting that those are the two available alternatives is merely silly.

I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims.

Another revealing post, Daniel. Thank you for openly acknowledging that it has not proven it's claims.

I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so.

Semantics, Daniel, mere semantics. Failed to prove its claims means the same thing as it "has not proven its claims."

But acknowledging an absence of proof is not the same thing as asknowledging an absence of evidence.

Daniel, to whom is that statement directed? It can't be me because I don't recall saying there is NO evidence. Regardless of to whom it's directed, the presence of evidence is effectively meaningless when there's insufficient evidence to establish a proof

I think there's substantial evidence, quite enough to make the decision to exercise faith a reasonable one -- but not enough (at least in terms of publicly available and "objective" evidence) to make such a decision supererogatory.

Another revealing admission, Daniel. Thank you for your admission that the evidence that does exist is "not enough" to do the job, without a little faith thrown in. Thank you for all this fessing up. That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw where two professors are at a blackboard and one has drawn out an elaborate mathematical proof and asked for the other guy's opinion. The other guy points to the part of his proof where it says, "And then something magical happens here," and he says, "I think you need to do more work on this part of your equation."

That, as I understand it, is the way mortal life is supposed to be.

Says who? Why is it that in the real world, truth in advertising is expected, but religion gets a bye on that one? Please explain for me why that is?

Catholicism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, Jainism, existentialism, materialism, naturalism, and Hinduism haven't proven their claims, either.

Exactly. All religions gets a bye on establishing their truth claims. Why is that, Daniel? [eta: that does not imply that I agree that atheism is a religion. A world view, but not a religion. I refuse to argue that point at this time because that's a different topic all together. I'm just establishing that my statement does not imply that I agree with Daniel's inclusion of it in his list.]

[Nofear]

Says who? Why is it that in the real world, truth in advertising is expected, but religion gets a bye on that one? Please explain for me why that is?

The apostle Paul for one. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb 11:6)

Faith is a necessary component for some of the most important reasons of why we are here on earth. And that is the truth advertised. I'm not aware of any religion that says, "Come believe us. We've have indisputable proof!" and I get the impression that is what you are expecting. Rather, the message is and has always to come and exercise faith. It is a very pervasive concept. Where did you come up with the idea that it should be otherwise?

[Jeff_Ricks]

The apostle Paul for one. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb 11:6)

Faith is a necessary component for some of the most important reasons of why we are here on earth. And that is the truth advertised. I'm not aware of any religion that says, "Come believe us. We've have indisputable proof!" and I get the impression that is what you are expecting. Rather, the message is and has always to come and exercise faith. It is a very pervasive concept. Where did you come up with the idea that it should be otherwise?

Hmmm...all of the above must be why Utah leads the nation in gullibility cases of fraud.

You see, NoFear, faith tends to mislead, facts tend to establish what's real. Please tell me, why don't you put on a blindfold and use faith to drive to the store? Give it a try and see how far you get. Why doesn't an engineer use faith to determine the needed thickness of an I-beam in a building he's designing, to insure that the structure doesn't fail? Why don't you use faith to determine how much money is in your bank account? You see, NoFear, when it really matters to you that you are right about something, faith is quickly jettisoned for facts when making choices and decisions.

[notHagoth7]

...I think there's substantial evidence, quite enough to make the decision to exercise faith a reasonable one...

Good stuff Daniel.

It's about a decision. A choice. Whether we're talking about things like Semiticisms, Hebrew parallels, Chiasmus, Nahum, a timbered oasis on the coast of the Arabian peninsula, evidence of ancient metal plates/records buried in stone boxes, American elephants, Book of Mormon prophecies that have subsequently been fulfilled, or any number of other things found in the Nephite record.

Or whether we're talking Bible promises about the last days that were fulfilled precisely through Joseph, and others that were and are being fulfilled through the movement that grew out of his calling and sacrifice...the evidence is substantial. And it grows every year, across en entire spectrum of knowledge.

But it all boils down to:

1. Reasonable.

2. And a decision to exercise faith.

Belief is a choice. Nurturing such a belief is also a choice. But the prerequisite is a willingness, even a small desire to believe

(Alma 32).

(On the other side of the coin, disbelief is also a choice. No evidence, no matter how substantial, can change that.)

As evidence mounts, as the light grows brighter, will the day come when disbelief itself will no longer be reasonable in the face of a growing mountain of evidence? Where one may literally have to exercise faith in disbelief, have to nurture disbelief, to maintain and preserve that disbelief?

From one who simply loves family history, distancing oneself from a reasonable, fascinating and noble heritage, and all the goodies associated with it, seems like waving off a rip-roaring kick-butt family reunion with extremely good people, tables piled with some of the best food anywhere, with some of the most fascinating (and meaningful) histories found anywhere. All that, with a profound sense of belonging to boot.

There have been times when I have doubted mormon claims. So I can't blame those who do. But even then, I saw how well loved my wife was by good people. I saw how joyful they made my boy whenever he got within arms' reach of them. And that's in addition to all the good I saw being done throughout the world by such a people. I saw bad people becoming good. And good people becoming better. And I had to ask myself, Why I wouldn't want to sustain something like that? And be part of something like that. Whether it was true or not. That's where my desire to believe came from.

My genuine hope is that each of you find yours.

That is also is true is almost a separate matter.

But I affirm that it is.

[rodheadlee]

Yeah, so anyways, those ships described by Caesar were certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. I've logged over 12k miles in a 38 foot sailboat with a draft of 7 feet. The trick is to have enough ballast to make you vessel stable in rough seas. This not unusual. Many people have many more miles than me in smaller vessels. I also submit that if you put a message in a bottle and toss it in in the Yucatan Channel it will wind up in the Gulf Stream on it's way to Northern Europe. Having a flat bottom would make it a bit rolly but it would be possible to perform beach landings with out damage as opposed to a fin keel vessel which doesn't like confrontations with the ground.

[Jeff_Ricks]

There have been times when I have doubted mormon claims. But even then, I saw how well loved my wife was by good people. I saw how joyful they made my boy whenever he got within arms' reach of them. And that's in addition to all the good I saw being done throughout the world by such a people. I saw bad people becoming good. And good people becoming better. And I had to ask myself, Why I wouldn't want to sustain something like that? And be part of something like that. Whether it was true or not. That's where my desire to believe came from.

All points well taken NotHagoth. However, you lose me at the point where you say, "Whether it was true or not." In other words, it doesn't matter that it might all be a fantasy, as long as it works for you at the moment. That's your choice but anyone who chooses as such goes on my list of others who make similar choices, like the guy who jumped out a window because he had this fantasy that he could fly. Or the guy who flew a plane into a building because he had this fantasy about 70 virgins coming his way. Yes, you're right NoHagoth, it's certainly a person's choice to make. I guess I happen to be one of those people who watch someone standing in front of a train coming down the tracks thinking he can stop it, and I feel compelled to say, "Ummm....you might want to reconsider what you're thinking there buddy."

Regarding truth in advertising, I don't think we should force religions to prove their faith-based claims before promoting them to the public, but I do think we should require religions to represent them as what they in fact are: faith-based hypotheses. Then I'm satisfied that they are meeting the moral ethical standards, relative to truth in advertising that we require of all other types of organizations who pitch their offerings to the public. Mormonism would then be required to take down their "Truth Restored" advertising and replace it with, "A Really Neat Hypothesis to Consider." That works for me!

[notHagoth7]

Yeah, so anyways, those ships described by Caesar were certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. I've logged over 12k miles in a 38 foot sailboat with a draft of 7 feet. The trick is to have enough ballast to make you vessel stable in rough seas. This not unusual. Many people have many more miles than me in smaller vessels. I also submit that if you put a message in a bottle and toss it in in the Yucatan Channel it will wind up in the Gulf Stream on it's way to Northern Europe. Having a flat bottom would make it a bit rolly but it would be possible to perform beach landings with out damage as opposed to a fin keel vessel which doesn't like confrontations with the ground.

Good stuff Rod.

When I read Caesar's accounts, although I have very limited sailing experience, I came to the same conclusion. It was capable.

Furthermore, I had to ask myself, why leather sails? Talk about an extensive utilization of valuable resources.

That's perfectly good leather that could have instead been used for shoes, other clothing, vellum, etc.

Why not use simple, less costly textiles instead?

Such an extravagant feature implies that it was a vessel specifically designed for deep-ocean sailing.

I don't see a more reasonable explanation for investing in such a feature.

[notHagoth7]

All points well taken NotHagoth. However, you lose me at the point where you say, "Whether it was true or not." In other words, it doesn't matter that it might all be a fantasy, as long as it works for you....

Let me provide the context for that. In all the various faiths that I have studied, I couldn't find anything that showed better promise of being true. Or of being more true. And I've studied a considerable number of faiths.

Within such a framework, does it then make sense why its truth became less relevant than the obvious fact that it was an organization of good people, who brought joy to my family, and that thereby earned and merited my loyalty and support?

So by being true or not, it could have been the Rotary Club for all I cared. It no longer needed to be true. I would sustain it because of what it was and what it did.

anyone who chooses as such goes on my list of others who make similar choices, like the guy who jumped out a window because he had this fantasy that he could fly.

I can't agree. And here's why. His decision was a selfish one.

Choosing to believe something is one thing.

But choosing to believe in something that produces good people and helps them become better people - that feeds the hungry, and visits the sick, etc., etc., choosing to believe in something like that is in a different category altogether than choosing to jump out of a window...an act that would benefit...whom....even if it did work?

Or the guy who flew a plane into a building because he had this fantasy about 70 virgins coming his way.

Which is selfish to the extreme. Wouldn't you agree?

Feel free to distort what I'm saying to examples of people choosing to be selfish.

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about choosing to be part of a people who are, to a considerable degree, selfless.

Giving. Kind. Cheerful. Optimistic. Patient. Compassionate.

If you choose to equate believing and being part of a community like that to selfishly jumping out a window, or selfish terrorism, or standing in front of a train, we're talking completely different languages.

Regarding truth in advertising, I don't think we should force religions to prove their faith-based claims before promoting them to the public, but I do think we should require religions to represent them as what they in fact are: A faith-based hypotheses.

Which is what Daniel said a few moments ago. It's based on faith. On a decision to believe.

And that's what I've said all along.

But that doesn't mean evidence can't (and won't) corroborate and sustain a faith-based hypothesis.

Which is what this thread (and many others) are about.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Feel free to distort what I'm saying to examples of people choosing to be selfish.

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about choosing to be part of a people who are, to a considerable degree, selfless.

Giving. Kind. Cheerful. Optimistic. Patient. Compassionate.

If you choose to equate believing and being part of a community like that to selfishly jumping out a window, or selfish terrorism, or standing in front of a train, we're talking completely different languages.

Okay, here's another type of example: The people who choose to sacrifice a child, and the parents who selflessly and willingly allow it, because they all have a fantasy that it'll bring the community good fortune, peace and happiness.

The issue isn't whether their choice is selfish or selfless, it's why they choose to believe while reason says it "might be something you want to reconsider there buddy."

Are you aware that the world is full of people who are "selfless, Giving. Kind. Cheerful. Optimistic. Patient. Compassionate," and don't require a belief in a fantasy something that might not be true, to compel them to be that way? They do it because it is simply the moral, ethical, right thing to do.

I forget who said it but the statement goes like so: "Without religion, good people will still to good things, and evil people will still do evil things, but it takes religion to compel good people to do evil things." Do I need to provide examples where religion compels good people to do evil things? There are many.

[ERayR]

In this case they're not, are they. In another context they might be. We're not in that other context, are we. "What if" doesn't matter unless you're writing fiction.

Again I take issue with your statement. "What if" scenarios are a popular, tried and true method of brainstorming in business. There are some pretty sophisticated computer programs devoted to "what if" modeling.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Again I take issue with your statement. "What if" scenarios are a popular, tried and true method of brainstorming in business. There are some pretty sophisticated computer programs devoted to "what if" modeling.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. In the context of this discussion the "what if" proposed (way back when) was, in my opinion, irrelevant and therefore meaningless.

[Nofear]

You see, NoFear,

Unless otherwise indicated by the author, it is inappropriate and rude to presume that you know how to change somebody's moniker. It is Nofear. This courtesy should extend to others that you abuse as well.

Hmmm...all of the above must be why Utah leads the nation in gullibility cases of fraud.

Yawn.

...faith tends to mislead, facts tend to establish what's real. Please tell me, why don't you put on a blindfold and use faith to drive to the store? Give it a try and see how far you get. Why doesn't an engineer use faith to determine the needed thickness of an I-beam in a building he's designing, to insure that the structure doesn't fail? Why don't you use faith to determine how much money is in your bank account? You see, Nofear, when it really matters to you that you are right about something, faith is quickly jettisoned for facts when making choices and decisions.

You clearly do not understand what faith is. I do use "faith" when I drive to the store. I do use "faith" when I check my balance online. Faith is a form of integrity of trust. I trust my eyes and so exercise belief and act on that belief when I drive. I have some trust/confidence that the bank is not lying to me when I check the balance online. These are at the heart of the etymology of the word faith.

Typically we use faith to specifically reference the kind of trust/belief we manifest with respect to spiritual things - things unseen with our typical 5 senses. God communicates with you, me, everybody. Faith is an expression of how much we trust/believe those communications. Some choose to ignore, suppress, and/or deny those communications. Yet, they are there.

[notHagoth7]

Okay, here's another type of example: The people who choose to sacrifice a child, and the parents who selflessly and willingly allow it, because they all have a fantasy that it'll bring the community good fortune, peace and happiness.

The issue isn't whether their choice is selfish or selfless, it's why they choose to believe while reason says it "might be something you want to reconsider there buddy."

Are you aware that the world is full of people who are "selfless, Giving. Kind. Cheerful. Optimistic. Patient. Compassionate," and don't require a belief in a fantasy something that might not be true, to compel them to be that way?

Yes. Without question.

For clarity, what did you mean by the reference to fantasy?

They do it because it is simply the moral, ethical, right thing to do.

I'll concede that point in a heartbeat. No argument here.

I forget who said it but the statement goes like so: "Without religion, good people will still to good things, and evil people will still do evil things

Agreed. That doesn't mean it can't help them become better people. Progression. Which is precisely what I have seen.

Still, as you've said, the same boiling water that hardens eggs softens carrots.

but it takes religion to compel good people to do evil things."

There, I have to disagree.

It's discussed pretty much every week in this forum - with examples of evil from agnostics, atheists, and religionists alike.

Evil things are not confined to people who profess religion. But it certainly is more troubling when it does surface there.

Do I need to provide examples where religion compels good people to do evil things?

There, you've shifted the terminology a bit.

I don't believe compulsion is part of the program. People can choose. And, as your statement itself implies, they can (and do) choose - whether part of a specific faith system or not.

So your new assertion that religion "compels" people in a specific direction seems to run contrary to your previous statement that "Without religion, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil things." I respectfully disagree with the claim that religion compels people to do evil. Choice is always part of the program.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Yes. Without question.

For clarity, what did you mean by the reference to fantasy?

Your statement in post #230 where you said, a belief "whether it was true or not." To me, that equates to, if not to fantasy, then to possible fantasy.

There, I have to disagree.

It's discussed pretty much every week in this forum - with examples of evil from agnostics, atheists, and religionists alike.

Evil things are not confined to people who profess religion. But it certainly is more troubling when it does surface there.

Frequently the argument is made that it's not just religion that compels people to do evil things, atheistic social systems also compel people to do evil things too, then Stalin and others are used as examples. But those kind of social systems bear so much similarity to theistic based social systems that it's hard to tell much difference. Both have a supreme ruler and law giver, both demand worship, and both mete out severe punishment on those who don't comply. There's more but that's a different subject of discussion.

There, you've shifted the terminology a bit.

I don't believe compulsion is part of the program. People can choose. And, as your statement itself implies, they can (and do) choose - whether part of a specific faith system or not.

So your new assertion that religion "compels" people in a specific direction seems to run contrary to your previous statement that "Without religion, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil things." I respectfully disagree with the claim that religion compels people to do evil. Choice is always part of the program.

Of course personal choice is always a part of any action a person makes. But when religion convinces people of beliefs that harm others, that religion bears some responsibility for a person's choice to take actions on those beliefs, because to go against such a belief, according to the religion, bring on them God's wrath. Therefore, not only does religion compel people to do evil things, it often twists their arm with threats of eternal punishment if they don't.

[notHagoth7]

Tolkien

Few people are aware of J.R.R. Tolkien's relevance to the discussion...both in his academic career, and in the fictional narratives he introduced into modern culture.

Frodo? Attested to in European chronicles as the name of Shield's grandson, who was ruling at the time of Christ.

Gandalf? Also from medieval manuscripts.

Orcs? Reference to the Isles of Orc. The medieval kingdom of Orkney.

Elves? Well, I've offered a link earlier in this thread to a glimpse of some of my research which demonstrates how elves were a historical people in northern Europe. A people who have had a substantial impact on the shaping of Western Civilization. (Of course the elves depicted in fantasy fiction today bear only passing resemblance to the historical people by the same name.)

And so on.

Of course Tolkien plucked such ideas and people from their manuscript context, plugged them into his fictional setting, and gave them a new identity. But the fiction he wrote was an outgrowth of his academic research, as an Oxford professor in more grounded, historical things.

He drew his inspiration from Western Civilization.

From the manuscripts which attest to the western origins of various seafaring peoples.

And from actual prophecies among them that one day, their descendants would return, would sail back to the west.

What then of those of us whose ancestry traces to those people?

Tolkien's contribution to academic discussion of Germanic and Celtic studies has had considerable ripple effects.

And his specific contribution to the discussion of Beowulf can't be understated.

Of that manuscript, he said: "Beowulf is among my most valued sources."

And as the world of wiki attests, "this influence can be seen in the Lord of the Rings."

Some might chuckle that Tolkien could merit discussion in a thread about the shaping of Western Civilization, Nephites, and Europe.

But his academic contribution offers considerable fuel to the discussion - as do his fictional elaborations with which most are more familiar.

[ERayR]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. In the context of this discussion the "what if" proposed (way back when) was, in my opinion, irrelevant and therefore meaningless.

Just so you understand what I am getting at: What if modeling allows us to look at and explore what information is available and develop questions, answers and conclusions that otherwise may be missed. It is a method relevent and useful in almost all areas of discussion and search.

[wenglund]

Yeah, so anyways, those ships described by Caesar were certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. I've logged over 12k miles in a 38 foot sailboat with a draft of 7 feet. The trick is to have enough ballast to make you vessel stable in rough seas. This not unusual. Many people have many more miles than me in smaller vessels. I also submit that if you put a message in a bottle and toss it in in the Yucatan Channel it will wind up in the Gulf Stream on it's way to Northern Europe. Having a flat bottom would make it a bit rolly but it would be possible to perform beach landings with out damage as opposed to a fin keel vessel which doesn't like confrontations with the ground.

Do you suppose they had swing keels back then (I believe they called them star boards back in the day--which is where we derive the term starboard)?

Oh...I could tell you some fun stories about sailing my 22 foot Catalina on the Great Salt Lake and up in the Puget Sound. But, that's for another day and another place.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

For fun, there is a scene from Tolkien's Two Towers that comes to mind.

A defense of a seemingly indefensible position. Against a supposedly overwhelming invading army.

Before that invading army arrives, torches appear on the horizon, and march up to the gate, which swings open. Theoden steps forward to welcome them.

Elven reinforcements. Like the 2,000 stripling warriors.

Th

[wenglund]

Jeff,

It might help to understand that many of us LDS are not limited to binary (either/or black/white) thinking. We also look at things in shades of ideational grey, or along a conceptual spectrum. So, when we speak of the notion of "proof", we are speaking of a spectrum of confidence and faith that extends from weak "proof" to strong "proof", from low confidence to high confidence.

It is a matter of individual choice in how a person weighs evidence, what evidence they accept or reject, and where to draw the line for what is deemed compelling or not.

So, depending upon the various guiding factors behind such personal choices, the amount of evidence for one person that may inwardly compel them to act on their faith, may not be suffient for another person. To each their own.

It also may be helpful for you to learn that this all takes place in free and open marketplace of ideas. The buyers are not forced to accept "proof" of this idea or that, nor are sellers forced to "prove" their ideas. They each are free to buy and sell the ideas (beliefs) as suits their purposes.

What this means for the LDS Church and its missionary program or even the independant aspect of apologetics, is that we aren't set up to try and talk resistent people like you into accepting or re-accepting the restored gospel. Rather, we are about informing the public of the intents and purpose and advantages and viability of our product (which is actually Christ and his gospel). We are about planting seeds of faith and giving cause for those seeds to grow. And, if people are amenable to our message (or in other words if they are one of Christ's sheep), then great, they will take advantage of the opportunities the restored gospel affords them (the will follow Christ). If they, like you, are not amenable, then fine for them. We wish you and them all the best in your chosen faith journey.

And, while you are certainly free to be as resistant to the restored gospel as you so desire, I am not sure that the reasons behind your resistence are in your best interest. In fact, I question whether your resistence even factors in much the question of your best interest. But, that may be a discussion for another time and another thread.

I mention all of this to assist you in correctly comprehending Dr. Peterson's comments (which you clearly did not get).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff_Ricks]

It also may be helpful for you to learn that this all takes place in free and open marketplace of ideas. The buyers are not forced to accept "proof" of this idea or that, nor are sellers forced to "prove" their ideas. They each are free to buy and sell the ideas (beliefs) as suits their purposes.

Wade, from a previous post on mine (#232):

"Regarding truth in advertising, I don't think we should force religions to prove their faith-based claims before promoting them to the public, but I do think we should require religions to represent them as what they in fact are: faith-based hypotheses. Then I'm satisfied that they are meeting the moral ethical standards, relative to truth in advertising that we require of all other types of organizations who pitch their offerings to the public. Mormonism would then be required to take down their "Truth Restored" advertising and replace it with, 'A Really Neat Hypothesis to Consider.'"

I'm all for a free market of ideas, where everyone's free to choose, as long as everyone promoting their ideas are held to the same moral and ethical standards regarding truth in advertising. I don't think religion should get a bye on that, do you??? If it's truth call it truth. If it's merely an hypothesis, then calling it truth is deceptive and unethical (by normal standards). Deception is something I have a problem with, for some reason, but that's just me I guess.

[wenglund]

What is happening in this discussion is that an elven host, historical elves, are figuratively wheeling into formation and taking a flanking position on issues relating to Joseph, the Book of Mormon, and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.

What I find of interest as well, is that in Tolkein's tale, the Orc were once elven--maken them apostate elves as it were, who are continually marshalled to war against their former kin (a metaphor that may also have some bearing in this forum).

Anyway, I appreciate you sounding the Great Horn at Helms Deep.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

What I find of interest as well, is that in Tolkein's tale, the Orc were once elven--maken them apostate elves as it were, who are continually marshalled to war against their former kin (a metaphor that may also have some bearing in this forum).

Huh. Good stuff.

Perhaps some of this might help bridge the gap for some to return.

Anyway, I appreciate you sounding the Great Horn at Helms Deep.

[ERayR]

Wade, from a previous post on mine (#232):

"Regarding truth in advertising, I don't think we should force religions to prove their faith-based claims before promoting them to the public, but I do think we should require religions to represent them as what they in fact are: faith-based hypotheses. Then I'm satisfied that they are meeting the moral ethical standards, relative to truth in advertising that we require of all other types of organizations who pitch their offerings to the public. Mormonism would then be required to take down their "Truth Restored" advertising and replace it with, 'A Really Neat Hypothesis to Consider.'"

I'm all for a free market of ideas, where everyone's free to choose, as long as everyone promoting their ideas are held to the same moral and ethical standards regarding truth in advertising. I don't think religion should get a bye on that, do you??? If it's truth call it truth. If it's merely an hypothesis, then calling it truth is deceptive and unethical (by normal standards). Deception is something I have a problem with, for some reason, but that's just me I guess.

Please go back and reread wengland's post about continum decision making. Who gets to decide for me or wengland or notHagoth7 or anyone else at what point on the continum it can be claimed as truth in our lives. There may be ample evidence of its truth claims for one and not for another. Just because you have not reached a point where you can accept those claims does not invalidate the claims. Real life decisions are rarely reached on complete evidence. Real life policies in business and government and I dare say in science are rarely implemented on complete evidence. Very importand decisions and policies are undertaken daily with less than complete and perfect information.

On the flip side I may very well be in error when I make my decisions and should have waited for more complete evidence. That is the problem with decision making. The question is how long can I wait for more information and at what point I go with the information I have. If I am in error I am accountable for my error and for the harm it has caused. It's called accountability.

[notHagoth7]

What has Ingeld to do with Christ?

At the dawn of the Viking Age, the English scholar Alcuin of York, sent a letter back to England from the continent, castigating the monks for preserving, listening to, and enjoying the accounts of former days.

He scolded them:

The words of God should be read at the monks' feasts.

There the reader should be heard, not a harpist.

The discourses of the [Church] Fathers,

Not the songs of the heathens.

What has Ingeld to do with Christ?

The house is narrow, it cannot contain both.

The king of the heavens will have nothing to do with heathen and damned so-called kings.

For the eternal king rules in the heavens, the lost heathen repines in hell.

Alcuin was a very accomplished man.

But his understanding of the atonement's scope and bredth is beyond sad.

As is his lack of respect for the people's (and his own) heritage.

To not only believe, but to teach that there was NO hope for those who supposedly died before hearing the gospel

That they were somehow consigned forever to burn in hell all because of an accident of chronology.

Mercy couldn't reach them. Compassion held no sway over their suffering.

How could someone believe and preach of such a calloused, limited Christ?

How could such a false image of Christ command people's loyalties?

A few generations before Alcuin, the Frisian king Radbod was being taught the gospel by Frankish-enlisted priests.

He was basically preparing to accept the faith and be baptized. But then he asked, "What of my fathers?"

He was told that they were consigned to hell and would roast there forever.

Disgusted, Radbod withdrew from the font, and refused to align with a faith that was powerless to reach the helpless...

...a faith that abandoned those that he loved and honored.

Talk about honoring your father and mother!

So what does Ingeld have to do with Christ?

Quite a bit, actually.

Ingeld's people attested to a visitation from the son of God.

And their arrival on the continent? Well, we've already touched on that.

Ingeld is mentioned in Beowulf and in Widsith - so Alcuin may be scolding the monks for preserving, listening to, and enjoying one of the rare manuscripts we started out discussing in this thread.

With such government-sponsored hatred towards the past, it is something of a miracle that enough monks rebelled to preserve the manuscripts from our heritage that we have today. Who knows what else was instead destroyed or lost to the passage of time.

What's curious about Alcuin's letter is this:

He was writing to the monks of Lindisfarne, four years after the Viking attack on Lindisfarne which some say launched the Viking Age.

What was it the Vikings were actually fighting?

What was their reason for plundering monasteries and cathedrals?

Was this part of their response to the cultural war that Charlemagne launched against them?

Was this their way of snatching the manuscripts from oblivion that Alcuin and his ilk were bent on repressing?

What does the word Viking even mean?

You'll hear a dozen different answer to that.

But in Danish, "vi" means "we."

Of the Icelandic commonwealth, one of the few people in his age who had preserved a Representative form of government, a national assembly,

Adam of Bremen said, "They have no king but the law."

In other words, Vi-king may simply mean we kings. Democracy.

Gives a fun new twist to "We Three Kings of Orient Are."

This provides more ancestral context to Joseph's statement about his approach to gov't:

I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.