Blind Faith?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Does the existence of Troy prove the reality of the Ancient Greek Gods?

[Hughes]

Others have already provided this information to you. If giving it to you a second time will help your condition, I will be glad to do so.

Didn't see "large" amounts of evidence, what I saw was two (maybe) bits, that amounted to 1% of corroboration for the book of Mormon.

And compared to 51% for the biblical text, you wouldn't call that large would you?

[Gervin]

Actually, what I said was...

It doesn't prove anything other than the tunnel exists.

How you think it proves anything more than that?

How does the tunnel "show the Bible to be a historical fiction at best"? Why won't you answer a question based on your claims?

[ELF1024]

I can say that only one example is equal to the situation of Joseph Smith. That's the story of Abraham.

Here's a guy who was called, and he could offer no proof of this call and no proof that he was hearing from God. Yet, from him came the Judeo/Christian faith.

What you are doing now, is when I say something about the book of mormon, you point to the bible and attempt to equivocate, instead of providing an adequate response or refutation. You haven't proven that I have false notions about the Bible, and the point is, even if you did, the argument that the Book of mormon has to be taken all on blind faith still stands.

As I said in the beginning of this "discussion"...

At some level all faith is blind.

However, it is not blind faith in Joseph Smith, as he as been dead for quite some time, it is blind faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The same God you put your Blind Faith in for a confirmation of the Bible.

[ELF1024]

How does the tunnel "show the Bible to be a historical fiction at best"? Why won't you answer a question based on your claims?

Asked and answered several times now. Your inability to understand the answer does not mean that the question hasn't been answered.

[Gervin]

Okay, please pay attention:

A tunnel was dug in Jerusalem sometime around 700BC.

Some hebrew author became aware of this - not terribly unusual that a massive construction job would be noticed by a local author.

He mentions this event in his manuscript.

Some time later this manuscript is subsumed into the larger compendium of text that will one day become the Hebrew Bible.

The kernel of actual history now takes its place among others, along with regional myths, folklore and legends.

Ultimately creating a work of historic fiction.

Okay, please pay attention. You conveniently contradict yourself and claim victory. You asked for one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history. I provided a piece of evidence that you now have to recognize as a fact, or "kernel of actual history." You take this one piece of evidence and simply make it appear as a happenstance among a larger piece of writing that you call fiction. But the piece of evidence [you asked for] doesn't actually perform like you want it to - it doesn't show up in the Bible as a myth, or folklore, or legend; at least you haven't shown that it does. You've created out of whole cloth people and writings and, voila! you have historic fiction. So you claim, but Hezekiah's Tunnel doesn't validate the magic act you create. Your claim remains fallacious.

[Gervin]

Asked and answered several times now. Your inability to understand the answer does not mean that the question hasn't been answered.

<sigh> What post had the answer? I don't think you understand what you said.

[ELF1024]

Okay, please pay attention. You conveniently contradict yourself and claim victory. You asked for one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history. I provided a piece of evidence that you now have to recognize as a fact, or "kernel of actual history." You take this one piece of evidence and simply make it appear as a happenstance among a larger piece of writing that you call fiction. But the piece of evidence [you asked for] doesn't actually perform like you want it to - it doesn't show up in the Bible as a myth, or folklore, or legend; at least you haven't shown that it does. You've created out of whole cloth people and writings and, voila! you have historic fiction. So you claim, but Hezekiah's Tunnel doesn't validate the magic act you create. Your claim remains fallacious.

Tom Clancy's book "The Hunt for Red October" is a work of fiction. Yet it says that a submarine was having a nuclear problem and surfaced near the US Eastern Seaboard. That event actually happened, and you can find out more about it when reading about the events that happened on the USSR Submarine "K-19", nicknamed the widowmaker. However the work is still of fiction.

Harry Turtledove's book "The Guns of the South" uses the historical setting of the Civil war, and uses historical figures, like General Robert E Lee to paint an alternate past where the Confederacy won the war. The fact that the people and setting actually existed, doesn't change the fact that the book is fiction.

By the same logic, the fact that a tunnel that was mentioned in the bible exists, doesn't mean that the Bible is a true account. it just means that the tunnel actually existed.

[Hughes]

However, since there are many proofs that God exists, the comparison fails.

Oh, really Einstein... I would LOVE to hear how you think you can prove that God exists.

Notice I said "proofs" I didn't claim to be able to prove anything.

If you're truly unfamiliar with the basic arguments or proofs of God's existence:

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1572404.htm

[Hughes]

Hughes,

Please list one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history.

I expect that any piece of historic or archeological evidence you produce will suggest one thing: the bible was a book written around the dates, and places, historians have suggested it was.

As for evidence supporting the supernatural claims of Christianity (such as the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the flood, the plagues of moses, the garden of eden, etc) you will be able to produce exactly nothing.

And how exactly is this a defense of the Book of Mormon that has almost no archeological support?

[ELF1024]

<sigh> What post had the answer? I don't think you understand what you said.

Look Forrest... The answer was stated in the following..

#133

#125

#121

#115

#114

#112

[Hughes]

So, I'm hearing that you agree with me that all of mormonism is based on blind faith in Joseph Smith?

Not in Joseph Smith, but in the same God that you have blind faith in, for your testimony of the Bible.

First, thank you. Now are getting somewhere.

Second, how could it be the same God when we clearly don't agree on the very basic questions of theology?

The differences in theology go back to Joseph Smith, for without him there wouldn't be Mormonism.

[Hughes]

Obviously not undisputed historic facts, like yours is.

I noticed you have not taken my challenge issued a few posts above.

Your "challenge" is a red herring as proved by your response to Gervin's Post.

In essence, your challenge is only meant to draw attention away from the fact that literally no archeological evidence is found to corroborate or verify the book of mormon. Your challenge isn't a defense of the book of mormon.

[ELF1024]

First, thank you. Now are getting somewhere.

Second, how could it be the same God when we clearly don't agree on the very basic questions of theology?

The differences in theology go back to Joseph Smith, for without him there wouldn't be Mormonism.

And that is relevant how? Without Luther there would be no Lutheran. Without Calvin there would have been no Calvinists.

All of the Christian Relgions from Baptists to Seventh Day to Non-Denominiation to Catholic all have differences in theology.

[Hughes]

The existance of a tunnel proves nothing other than the tunnel exists. It doesn't prove anything else. It still shows the Bible to be a historical fiction at best.

Then this must be your conclusion about the Book of Mormon since it has literally none of the verifying artifacts that the Bible has.

[ELF1024]

Then this must be your conclusion about the Book of Mormon since it has literally none of the verifying artifacts that the Bible has.

As I stated before, they are on equal ground.

There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible.

[SilverKnight]

Okay, please pay attention. You conveniently contradict yourself and claim victory. You asked for one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history.

Yes indeed. And this will be the third time I've addressed your claim directly.

I provided a piece of evidence that you now have to recognize as a fact, or "kernel of actual history."

Nowhere did I claim that historic fiction/pseudo history is void of particles of actual history - for that would make it ahistoric fiction and pure fable.

The definitions of the terms themselves suggest they are exactly that - fiction mixed with historic events.

This makes the bible much like virtually ever piece of fiction ever written: from Huckleberry Finn, to Gone With The Wind, to Harry Potter.

You take this one piece of evidence and simply make it appear as a happenstance among a larger piece of writing that you call fiction.

Because it is.

But the piece of evidence [you asked for] doesn't actually perform like you want it to - it doesn't show up in the Bible as a myth, or folklore, or legend; at least you haven't shown that it does.

It shows up exactly how I said it would - a fragment of actual history amid myth, folklore and legend.

You've created out of whole cloth people and writings and, voila! you have historic fiction.

Most of the people and events in the bible (including 100% of the miraculous events) have zero external evidence supporting their existence or occurrence.

So you claim, but Hezekiah's Tunnel doesn't validate the magic act you create. Your claim remains fallacious.

When it comes to evidence supporting the bible as a literal history book, Hezekiah's Tunnel is about compelling as the Empire State Building is in King Kong.

[Hughes]

First, thank you. Now are getting somewhere.

Second, how could it be the same God when we clearly don't agree on the very basic questions of theology?

The differences in theology go back to Joseph Smith, for without him there wouldn't be Mormonism.

And that is relevant how? Without Luther there would be no Lutheran. Without Calvin there would have been no Calvinists.

All of the Christian Relgions from Baptists to Seventh Day to Non-Denominiation to Catholic all have differences in theology.

Right. However, notice the difference. Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Seventh Day, Non-denominational, Catholic all subscribe to what we could call (for lack of a better term) Historical Christianity.

The very thing that Joseph Smith was told not to participate in.

This set's Smith's teaching apart, and your faith in your God and my faith in my God are different Gods. Hence completely contradictory theology when comparing Mormonism to historical Christianity.

[Gervin]

Look Forrest... The answer was stated in the following..

#133

#125

#121

#115

#114

#112

A tunnel exists. An inscription was found in the tunnel about the construction of the tunnel. Verses in the Bible corroborate the tunnel construction and purpose. So the question to you (remains) "how does the tunnel show the Bible to be a historical fiction at best?" The posts, above, simply document that you've not provided evidence or analysis of how this is shown.

I'll help you get started. "The tunnel shows that the Bible is historical fiction, at best, by ____________" (you get to fill in the blank)

[ELF1024]

Right. However, notice the difference. Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Seventh Day, Non-denominational, Catholic all subscribe to what we could call (for lack of a better term) Historical Christianity.

The very thing that Joseph Smith was told not to participate in.

This set's Smith's teaching apart, and your faith in your God and my faith in my God are different Gods. Hence completely contradictory theology when comparing Mormonism to historical Christianity.

I do not think that Martin Luther would agree with you in that. He clearly had some ideas that set him apart from "Historical Christianity" in that he rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a radical idea at the time. He also railed against the selling of indulgences, he did not believe that the church's piece of paper would save you from anything; also a radical idea at the time. Which was why he was excommunicated.

I'm sure there were people in his time who believe that his God was different than the Catholic God.

[Nathair/|\]

First, thank you. Now are getting somewhere.

Second, how could it be the same God when we clearly don't agree on the very basic questions of theology?

So you don"t believe this:

Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

(Mosiah 4:7)

Or this:

Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son.

The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Twelve Apostles

Or this:

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye ^asanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the ^bblood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your ^csins, that ye become ^dholy, without spot.

Moroni 10:33

The differences in theology go back to Joseph Smith, for without him there wouldn't be Mormonism.

Actually, if Brother Joseph had been unavailable, The Lord would have chosen someone else.

Yours under the Heaven-reaching oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Hughes]

Neither is there any way to verify the miraculous events claimed in the Bible. You are operating on BLIND FAITH!!! You are operating on blind faith in the men (who are unknown) involved in transmission from the original texts to what we have today.

How does your blind faith make you feel?

Joseph Smith didn't operate in a vacuum. He wasn't the only one involved. So no, our faith isn't any more blind than yours.

This is an interesting argument.

JS claims to translate text from gold plates... No one or nothing could verify this even still today. 100% of this claim is blind faith and 100% of mormonism is based on Joseph Smith claims.

compared with.

Claims of hundreds who saw, heard and witnessed events surrounding Jesus' life. Some who wrote down what they saw, in public. And we still have copies of said writings...

And you honestly think that Christians have the same blind faith that you do in Joseph Smith?

[SilverKnight]

And how exactly is this a defense of the Book of Mormon that has almost no archeological support?

It's not supposed to be a defense of the Book of Mormon - which indeed has almost no archaeological support.

It's a challenge for you to defend the Bible - which I claim has not one shred of evidence supporting it as anything more than a work of historic folklore written over several centuries in the Near East.

Its a challenge that directly illuminates the monstrous double standard you are operating under: the critical tools you use to discard the book of mormon as fiction do the same thing when turned upon the bible.

[ELF1024]

And you honestly think that Christians have the same blind faith that you do in Joseph Smith?

I believe that Faith in God, the Christian God, the LDS God, being the same God, is required to know if both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God. I have recieved a witness that they are both the word of God, and are true accounts.

There is no other proof that can prove either the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be true accounts and the Word of God.

[ELF1024]

A tunnel exists. An inscription was found in the tunnel about the construction of the tunnel. Verses in the Bible corroborate the tunnel construction and purpose. So the question to you (remains) "how does the tunnel show the Bible to be a historical fiction at best?" The posts, above, simply document that you've not provided evidence or analysis of how this is shown.

I'll help you get started. "The tunnel shows that the Bible is historical fiction, at best, by ____________" (you get to fill in the blank)

Your inability to understand is not my problem. The question has been answered.