Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bill “Papa” Lee

The Bible and

Recommended Posts

I think Papa is getting you confused with Hughes.

Could be...I am easily confused. Who is Hughes? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Could be...I am easily confused. Who is Hughes? :P

No one knows...

Share this post


Link to post

Almost a cloned response to my own thinking! Is there some "map" which guides people out of dogmatic, organized religion?

I follow each of your points to a "T".

And yes, the process took years and is still ongoing: in the sense that all the evidence I run across since I accepted that even Jesus Christ is a manmade (evolved) character, has only continued to confirm that this perspective is correct: when a hypothesis is the simplest explanation, and additional facts support it, then I see no reason to disbelieve the conclusion of my own study and experience.

The bottom line for me is the resulting emotional condition I find myself experiencing: though my religious world view has been completely undone, this has not resulted in my becoming angry or wicked. Rather, I find myself motivated to be my authentic self for no other reason than to do good: to make the world better by my being in it makes the most sense out of Existence. It would be a crime against Existence to deliberately choose bad (that is unjust) behavior when I know better! It seems essential to my commitment that "God" is the Cause of Existence in the First Place. I don't know what "God" is; but I do know that Existence requires "God", and that the most infinite concept I can muster to "define God" is going to be closer to the reality than some anthropomorphic manmade dogmatic concept that excludes all beliefs not adhering to said-religion....

Hi PaPa,

While you're correct that I don't particularly think Abraham was a historical person or that the Exodus/Joshua narrative occurred as reported in the Old Testament, there was more to my apostasy than just that. The following factors all contributed:

1) I came to the conclusion that many biblical texts were mythical and/or pseudepigraphal, including not only Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua, but also Deuteronomy, Daniel, and the Pastoral Epistles.

2) I became increasingly disturbed by biblical teachings that I believe are immoral, including animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism, arbitrary smiting, etc.

3) I became increasingly distressed by the narrow-mindedness of my religious community, which was committed not only to creationism, sexism, and heternormativity, but also to a militaristic Republican political agenda.

4) I came to reject the idea that God saves or damns people based on their religious beliefs, which I consider cruel and unfair.

I might have been able to reconcile myself to all that if not for number 5, the real dealbreaker:

5) I began to question the life and teachings of Jesus. How do we know Jesus wasn't just as bad as any modern cult leader? The Jesus of John's Gospel comes across as extremely narcissistic. Jesus did not return in "this generation" as he said he would. Atonement theology is nonsensical. And so on.

I don't expect anyone else to find all of this persuasive. For me, it was a process that took years, and I fought and clawed against it the whole way. Finally, though, there was just such a critical mass of problems that I couldn't live with it anymore. It was a relief to finally let go, even though I look back fondly on some things I miss about it.

Peace,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post

When we accept Christ we become the "seed of Abraham" and heirs according to his promises. If there were no Abraham...then we are all wasting our time. If we are doing so already.

I don't want to defend this position of no Moses, Abraham and so forth to heavily. I don't actually support the idea of them not existing but for discussions sake I'll offer a bit of a counter to your position.

Now what I do believe is, that when we accept Christ, we become joint-heirs with him and we are adopted as his brothers and sisters. To me this is of much greater consideration than being a seed of Abraham.

If Abraham was the father of many nations, this was in a patriarchal sense, only in the physical sense of paternity. If Abraham existed, he was not the spiritual father of many nations but the physical father of them. Also, though not LDS, I would think the notion of linking Abraham with spiritual paternity would cause difficulty in an LDS paradigm. However, I am not sure what the LDS perspective on that is actually.

But let's say for a moment that a good bit of the OT was most likely some sort of collection of mythical and/or pseudepigraphical works and for all practical purposes there wasn't a real Abraham that was ever linked to the works regarding the character.

I still wouldn't think that Christianity is somehow annulled by such an instance of nonexistence.

Certainly Christ referenced things from available Scripture, but also Christ often spoke of characters in parables to relay a message to whomever he taught. The notion that Christ might utilize characters from a pool of commonly held figures to relay a message might not be untoward given that in his parables we see the generation of characters for the same purpose.

Regards,

Mudcat

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want to defend this position of no Moses, Abraham and so forth to heavily. I don't actually support the idea of them not existing but for discussions sake I'll offer a bit of a counter to your position.

Now what I do believe is, that when we accept Christ, we become joint-heirs with him and we are adopted as his brothers and sisters. To me this is of much greater consideration than being a seed of Abraham.

Regards,

Mudcat

Galatians 3: 26 29

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye be Christ

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

I don't think this is an expression of reality.

We have authors (supposedly) of New Testament books;

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude.

That is 8 MEN, ZERO women.

All four Gospels report that women followers of Jesus found the tomb empty, and three report that women were the first people to see the risen Jesus. Even most skeptical scholars acknowledge that this report is probably based on fact, since first-century men were not likely to invent a story of resurrection and make a group of females the first witnesses.

You wrote:

How many of those 8 claimed to be witnesses of the resurrection?

Directly in those writings, the answer would be three (Peter, John, and Paul). We know from other sources (explicitly in Paul and implicitly in Acts) that James was also a witness to the Resurrection. But the others pass along the witness of other individuals, as again even most non-Christian scholars grudgingly admit. A classic example of such an admission comes from E. P. Sanders:

Share this post


Link to post

All four Gospels report that women followers of Jesus found the tomb empty, and three report that women were the first people to see the risen Jesus.

Hearsay evidence. These are second tier witnesses NOT first tier like the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. These women didn't claim it for themselves, but rather Mark

(the source for Matthew and Luke) and John claimed if for them.

Inadmissible in a court of law.

Directly in those writings, the answer would be three (Peter, John, and Paul).

That makes ONLY THREE that are equivalent to the first hand witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

We know from other sources (explicitly in Paul and implicitly in Acts) that James was also a witness to the Resurrection.

Then James is a second tier/hearsay witness similar to the women mentioned earlier. James didn't claim it for himself, Paul claimed it for him. Inadmissible in a court of law.

But the others pass along the witness of other individuals, as again even most non-Christian scholars grudgingly admit.

Hearsay witnesses, inadmissible in a court of law.

In the case of the twelve witnesses to the gold plates (Joseph and the other eleven), four were members of the Smith family, six were members of the Whitmer family (counting Hiram Page, related to them by marriage), and the other two were Cowdery and Harris. The differences on this point are obvious.

So, even if being related somehow degraded their witness, which it doesn't, this would make 4 separate families, which is 33% more firsthand NT witnesses of the resurrection.

No, there is only one witness to the Book of Mormon--Joseph Smith.

Sorry, it is remedial math. 1 + 3 + 8 = 12.

There are eleven other witnesses to the existence of the plates. Calling witnesses to the plates witnesses to the Book of Mormon is like calling witnesses to the empty tomb witnesses to the Resurrection.

The existence of the plates is an important element of the witness to the Book of Mormon.

If we accept the testimony of the three that they heard the voice of God telling them the Book of Mormon is true, that gives you at most four witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

Which is 33% more than there are firsthand NT witnesses to the resurrection.

Furthermore, these are not independent testimonies. All of the eleven witnesses had to be shown the plates by Joseph Smith, privately and under controlled circumstances.

True, but irrelevant to the strength of their witness.

In the case of the Resurrection, we have several independent testimonies.

No, by your own admission we ONLY HAVE THREE.

The testimonies of the women were independent of the men (in fact, at first the men did not believe the women).

They are not independent from Mark and John, so you claim fails.

Various men saw Jesus in groups and individually (notably Peter and James) and on several different occasions. These appearances took place at times and places of Jesus' choosing, and without any prior preparation or coordination with any mortal.

According to these witnesses. It doesn't increase the number or power or their witness. So, this to, is irrelevant.

The point here is not simply the number of testimonies, but the diversity of testimonies, the independence of the testimonies, and the lack of any coordination or orchestration of the witnesses by any mortal individual or group of individuals.

The point here is exactly the number of first hand testimonies. 12 vs. 3.

Try as you might, you can't change these numbers.

12 vs. 3.

And as far as women are concerned, Emma Smith is a witness of the plates.

So ANY WAY you look at it there are more firsthand witnesses to the Book of Mormon that there are NT witnesses to the resurrection.

Sorry Bowman, but your argument is a BIG FAIL!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

All four Gospels report that women followers of Jesus found the tomb empty, and three report that women were the first people to see the risen Jesus. Even most skeptical scholars acknowledge that this report is probably based on fact, since first-century men were not likely to invent a story of resurrection and make a group of females the first witnesses.

Huh...what are you saying here. This is a joke; right? 1st century men were likely to make up stories? What does the "century" have to do with integrity? I was up most of the night fixing my furnace, so I might be a little tired and not following the thread very well. Just so you know there was a reason Mary was first at the tomb

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

My argument was an historical argument, not a legal argument. Thus, your repeated "Inadmissible in a court of law" objection is, shall we say, "overruled."

Share this post


Link to post

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

I was up most of the night fixing my furnace, so I might be a little tired and not following the thread very well.

I would say so. I'm sorry about the trouble with your furnace.

You wrote:

Just so you know there was a reason Mary was first at the tomb

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

My argument was an historical argument, not a legal argument. Thus, your repeated "Inadmissible in a court of law" objection is, shall we say, "overruled."

Your argument is weak. It is dependent upon hearsay evidence. There is a reason hearsay evidence isn't admissible in court and you know it. It is because it is UNRELIABLE.

The fact remains. The firsthand witnesses of the Book of Mormon are more numerous than the firsthand NT witnesses of the resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

I would say so. I'm sorry about the trouble with your furnace.

You wrote:

It is, huh? CFR.

Yes CFR...although the furnace is still broken.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

The witnesses testified that they saw the plates and observed that there were engravings on them. But they didn't know what the engravings said. The eight could only testify that the engravings and plates looked old and of curious workmanship. I grant that the testimony of the three witnesses asserts that they knew that God inspired the translation because his "voice" told them so. That is the only element of the testimonies, taking everything they say at face value, that would support Joseph's claim that the plates contained the Book of Mormon. So that leaves out the eight witnesses altogether on this point. So much for my view ignoring "large portions of their witness."

Still waiting for a cogent answer to Bill's posed EV conundrum concerning faith based salvation vs. historical proof about the Messiahship of Jesus. Always interesting to see responses to this "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel", so to speak.

In that same vein, the most important part of both the resurrection witnesses and the Book of Mormon witnesses was the spiritual aspect. In both cases, spiritual and physical witness were provided as testimony. Indeed, from an LDS perspective, the emphasis on the ongoing spiritual witness as the foundation of testimony of Jesus and the Book of Mormon is far more credible and sound than the apparent EV confusion about whether faith trumps rational evidence, or the other way around.

On the other hand, I do find evidence for a certain level of embellishment in the biblical record. While I find the foundational concepts to be true (Christ was indeed resurrected), if we become too strident about the biblical accounts being inerrant, we open ourselves up to disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post

I too have someone at work who was Evangelical and then decided to leave religion because he studied religion and discovered the Bible wasn't perfect. It bothers him to this day.

As for BOM witnesses, don't forget:

Katherine Smith who hid the plates in her bed with her when the mobs came to search for them. She also is the one who reports that she felt the rings and the pages.

Mary Whitmer who was shown the plates by and Angel.

Lucy Mack Smith who held the "devine interpreters" with two smooth three corner diamonds set in glass and the breastplate in her hands

Luke Johnson reportedly saw the plates and an angel

Alva Beman who felt the plates through a cloth

William Smith who hefted them and felt them

Harrison Burgess who saw the plates and an angel

John Whitmere said, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them."

There was some object that some people saw that some people felt that weighed about 60lbs and people could feel the rings, and rustle the pages. Before one dismisses it out of hand, one must ask where Joseph Smith got these plates. It is difficult to believe that he went down the street to his local WalMart to purchase the necessary supplies to make it. If we was wealthy enough and skilled enough to make something of that believability, going into "the religion business" would have been the wrong thing to do. He could have had a career as a talented metallurgist.

Share this post


Link to post

I too have someone at work who was Evangelical and then decided to leave religion because he studied religion and discovered the Bible wasn't perfect. It bothers him to this day.

As for BOM witnesses, don't forget:

Katherine Smith who hid the plates in her bed with her when the mobs came to search for them. She also is the one who reports that she felt the rings and the pages.

Mary Whitmer who was shown the plates by and Angel.

Lucy Mack Smith who held the "devine interpreters" with two smooth three corner diamonds set in glass and the breastplate in her hands

Luke Johnson reportedly saw the plates and an angel

Alva Beman who felt the plates through a cloth

William Smith who hefted them and felt them

Harrison Burgess who saw the plates and an angel

John Whitmere said, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them."

There was some object that some people saw that some people felt that weighed about 60lbs and people could feel the rings, and rustle the pages. Before one dismisses it out of hand, one must ask where Joseph Smith got these plates. It is difficult to believe that he went down the street to his local WalMart to purchase the necessary supplies to make it. If we was wealthy enough and skilled enough to make something of that believability, going into "the religion business" would have been the wrong thing to do. He could have had a career as a talented metallurgist.

Some of those facts need to be added to fairwiki. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Still waiting for a cogent answer to Bill's posed EV conundrum concerning faith based salvation vs. historical proof about the Messiahship of Jesus. Always interesting to see responses to this "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel", so to speak.

I hope you are not holding your breath on this. That might not work out well. ;)

In that same vein, the most important part of both the resurrection witnesses and the Book of Mormon witnesses was the spiritual aspect. In both cases, spiritual and physical witness were provided as testimony. Indeed, from an LDS perspective, the emphasis on the ongoing spiritual witness as the foundation of testimony of Jesus and the Book of Mormon is far more credible and sound than the apparent EV confusion about whether faith trumps rational evidence, or the other way around.

:P

On the other hand, I do find evidence for a certain level of embellishment in the biblical record. While I find the foundational concepts to be true (Christ was indeed resurrected), if we become too strident about the biblical accounts being inerrant, we open ourselves up to disappointment.

The false doctrine of inerrancy can and does cause loss of faith.

Tis a shame.

Share this post


Link to post

Still waiting for a cogent answer to Bill's posed EV conundrum concerning faith based salvation vs. historical proof about the Messiahship of Jesus.

That would be something...instead he always try's to teach instead of answer.

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

Still waiting for a cogent answer to Bill's posed EV conundrum concerning faith based salvation vs. historical proof about the Messiahship of Jesus. Always interesting to see responses to this "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel", so to speak.

I replied to Bill once, and he claimed I didn't understand his objection. I could just as easily claim that he didn't understand my answer. Those here that understand and care about civil discourse know that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone here to respond to everything, back and forth, to the satisfaction of everyone else. Bill didn't badger me (to his credit); there is no need for you or Vance or anyone else to do so.

Belief that something is true is not the same thing as faith. Faith includes belief but is not the same thing as belief. Faith in Jesus means trusting in Jesus, not merely believing truth about Jesus (such as that Jesus is the Messiah). That is why there is no inconsistency in claiming that there is good evidence for the truth about Jesus and also affirming the need for faith in Jesus. Faith is needed, not to make up for a deficit of good evidence for the truth about Jesus, but as the proper response to that truth.

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

I replied to Bill once, and he claimed I didn't understand his objection. I could just as easily claim that he didn't understand my answer. Those here that understand and care about civil discourse know that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone here to respond to everything, back and forth, to the satisfaction of everyone else. Bill didn't badger me (to his credit); there is no need for you or Vance or anyone else to do so.

Belief that something is true is not the same thing as faith. Faith includes belief but is not the same thing as belief. Faith in Jesus means trusting in Jesus, not merely believing truth about Jesus (such as that Jesus is the Messiah). That is why there is no inconsistency in claiming that there is good evidence for the truth about Jesus and also affirming the need for faith in Jesus. Faith is needed, not to make up for a deficit of good evidence for the truth about Jesus, but as the proper response to that truth.

I think we have all done a good job of being civil in this discussion. Disagreement does no always = rude. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I replied to Bill once, and he claimed I didn't understand his objection. I could just as easily claim that he didn't understand my answer. Those here that understand and care about civil discourse know that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone here to respond to everything, back and forth, to the satisfaction of everyone else. Bill didn't badger me (to his credit); there is no need for you or Vance or anyone else to do so.

Coming from the director of the IRR, your comments about badgering seem ironic. But we'll let that pass for now.

Belief that something is true is not the same thing as faith. Faith includes belief but is not the same thing as belief. Faith in Jesus means trusting in Jesus, not merely believing truth about Jesus (such as that Jesus is the Messiah). That is why there is no inconsistency in claiming that there is good evidence for the truth about Jesus and also affirming the need for faith in Jesus. Faith is needed, not to make up for a deficit of good evidence for the truth about Jesus, but as the proper response to that truth
.

And I still get the distinct feeling that you're not responding directly to Bill's question. Simply put - and as I noted in the rest of my post - EVs seem to have trouble deciding which takes priority, faith or physical / academically vetted evidence.

The write of Hebrews 11 doesn't seem to have a problem understanding the importance of faith, even in the absence of physical evidence. Yet certain EVs seem to go to great lengths, as you are well aware, to dismiss LDS evidences of the Book of Mormon as if that somehow invalidates the emphasis LDS place on faith and spiritual evidences.

The inconsistency is not in having faith and physical / academic evidence, but where EVs place their emphasis. You seem to infer in your post above that the response to "truth" is nothing more than placing faith only in things for which you have orthodoxically interpreted physical or academic evidence. That is what I, and possibly Bill, are looking for clarification from you on.

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

Coming from the director of the IRR, your comments about badgering seem ironic. But we'll let that pass for now.

In fact, you didn't "let that pass," but tried to have your ad hominem and eat it too. What my being the director of research for IRR has to do with badgering is beyond me, unless you mean the badgering I get from some (not all) LDS on this forum because of my position.

You wrote:

And I still get the distinct feeling that you're not responding directly to Bill's question. Simply put - and as I noted in the rest of my post - EVs seem to have trouble deciding which takes priority, faith or physical / academically vetted evidence.

Neither faith nor fact "takes priority" for us, because both are absolutely essential in their own way and in their own context. And yes, I said "fact" instead of "physically / academically vetted evidence" because your way of putting the matter is clearly prejudicial.

You wrote:

The write of Hebrews 11 doesn't seem to have a problem understanding the importance of faith, even in the absence of physical evidence. Yet certain EVs seem to go to great lengths, as you are well aware, to dismiss LDS evidences of the Book of Mormon as if that somehow invalidates the emphasis LDS place on faith and spiritual evidences.

The inconsistency is not in having faith and physical / academic evidence, but where EVs place their emphasis. You seem to infer in your post above that the response to "truth" is nothing more than placing faith only in things for which you have orthodoxically interpreted physical or academic evidence. That is what I, and possibly Bill, are looking for clarification from you on.

"Orthodoxically interpreted physical or academic evidence"? The question is so loaded as to invalidate itself.

In Hebrews 11, faith is forward looking: trusting God for the future realization of his promises. That is not at all incompatible with having good reasons to accept as fact that certain past events of importance to one's faith are historical.

I must also say that I am not here to answer for nameless other evangelicals. If you want to argue with them, go argue with them. If you want to discuss my position, discuss my position. I have never dismissed LDS evidential arguments in the way you describe. For that matter, I have never heard any evangelical do so, though again, I'm not here to defend what unnamed other people might or might not have said.

Share this post


Link to post

In fact, you didn't "let that pass," but tried to have your ad hominem and eat it too. What my being the director of research for IRR has to do with badgering is beyond me, unless you mean the badgering I get from some (not all) LDS on this forum because of my position.

Accusations of ad hom from the director of the IRR? More irony; perhaps (among other things) you don't consider the accusation of "badgering" to be an ad hom attack.

We're both intelligent beings. The IRR exists to attack Mormonism, among other things. Ad hom is an major part of what you do, so let's not play the innocently offended game, shall we?

Neither faith nor fact "takes priority" for us, because both are absolutely essential in their own way and in their own context. And yes, I said "fact" instead of "physically / academically vetted evidence" because your way of putting the matter is clearly prejudicial.

Nothing prejudicial about it; simply being specific about defining terms. What you call "fact" is nothing more than your interpretation of evidence, often carefully and narrowly selected, according to your own preconceived religious biases. We all do it, but EVs have developed special terms, such as hermeneutics and exegesis, to try to make it seem like there's more expert authority to their interpretations.

In any case, you've answered my question, and given the emphasis quite a number of other EVs I've spoken with place on intellectual evidence, it looks to me like you're saying you can't have faith, unless you can back up what you believe with hard facts. If that's the case, I emphatically disagree. And I do think that it leads to significant doctrinal and faith problems when it comes to things like inerrancy.

"Orthodoxically interpreted physical or academic evidence"? The question is so loaded as to invalidate itself.

See my comments above concerning bias. Or would you like to address the aspects of spiritual / testimonial evidence?

In Hebrews 11, faith is forward looking: trusting God for the future realization of his promises. That is not at all incompatible with having good reasons to accept as fact that certain past events of importance to one's faith are historical.

Never said it was incompatible. However, faith can indeed be exercised in the absence of hard evidence. Indeed, as was noted earlier on the thread, when you "know" something, you no longer are exercising faith.

I must also say that I am not here to answer for nameless other evangelicals. If you want to argue with them, go argue with them. If you want to discuss my position, discuss my position. I have never dismissed LDS evidential arguments in the way you describe. For that matter, I have never heard any evangelical do so, though again, I'm not here to defend what unnamed other people might or might not have said.

Yet, you do dismiss them, do you not? And I would suggest that you do so because of the importance you (and many other unnamed EVs I have spoken with) place on "fact", as you would interpret it. Anything that can undermine LDS evidence will also undermine LDS faith. Isn't that your viewpoint? Interestingly enough, if that is the case, you're missing the boat. We understand that faith and spiritual witness can operate when we don't have all the answers. Because of that, we don't create doctrines of inerrancy where faith lives or dies on being able to rationally prove something.

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

Accusations of ad hom from the director of the IRR? More irony; perhaps (among other things) you don't consider the accusation of "badgering" to be an ad hom attack.

You're right, I don't, because it isn't.

You wrote:

We're both intelligent beings. The IRR exists to attack Mormonism, among other things. Ad hom is an major part of what you do, so let's not play the innocently offended game, shall we?

CFR. In order to substantiate your claim that ad hominem "is an [sic] major part of what" IRR does, you should be able to provide half a dozen examples with little difficulty. I promise to take steps to remove any genuine examples of ad hominem fallacious arguments on the IRR web site. But be sure your examples are genuine examples of the ad hominem fallacy. Not all criticisms of someone's religious claims or points of view are ad hominem fallacies.

You wrote:

Nothing prejudicial about it; simply being specific about defining terms. What you call "fact" is nothing more than your interpretation of evidence, often carefully and narrowly selected, according to your own preconceived religious biases. We all do it, but EVs have developed special terms, such as hermeneutics and exegesis, to try to make it seem like there's more expert authority to their interpretations.

There's nothing substantial enough or specific enough here for me to refute. You have made some broad assertions but offered no examples or instances of what you allege. Of course, my noticing this may be dismissed as another example of my rationalistic demand for evidence in support of factual assertions, assuming your assessment of evangelicalism is a religious article of faith for you and not something you claim you can support factually.

You wrote:

In any case, you've answered my question, and given the emphasis quite a number of other EVs I've spoken with place on intellectual evidence, it looks to me like you're saying you can't have faith, unless you can back up what you believe with hard facts. If that's the case, I emphatically disagree.

That's fine, because I emphatically disagree as well. My position is not that a person cannot have faith unless he can back it up with hard facts. My position is that a person's faith is misplaced if the cognitive content of that faith is in reality false.

You wrote:

However, faith can indeed be exercised in the absence of hard evidence.

I agree. But hard evidence doesn't hurt. :P

You wrote:

Indeed, as was noted earlier on the thread, when you "know" something, you no longer are exercising faith.

Not so. The New Testament frequently associates knowledge and faith (or belief) together (John 4:42; 6:69; 10:38; 16:30; 17:8; 19:35; Rom. 16:26; 1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 8:7; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 4:13; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:12; Titus 1:1; James 1:3; 1 Peter 5:9; 2 Peter 1:5; 1 John 4:16; 5:13). I just did a search and, oddly enough, I cannot find a single biblical text that supports this idea that if you know something you are no longer having faith. Where did you get this idea?

Regarding LDS evidential arguments, you wrote:

Yet, you do dismiss them, do you not?

No. I don't "dismiss" them; I refute them. That is, rather than claiming that the arguments don't matter, I argue that they don't work because they are faulty arguments.

You wrote:

Anything that can undermine LDS evidence will also undermine LDS faith. Isn't that your viewpoint?

No. Lack of evidence is not a sufficient argument against the truth-claims of the LDS religion. Evidence contrary to your position is the decisive problem.

You wrote:

\Interestingly enough, if that is the case, you're missing the boat. We understand that faith and spiritual witness can operate when we don't have all the answers.

Of course. No one except God has all the answers. One need not be omniscient to have faith! You are knocking down a straw man.

You wrote:

Because of that, we don't create doctrines of inerrancy where faith lives or dies on being able to rationally prove something.

Inerrancy has absolutely nothing to do with being able to prove something rationally. Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think Rob's views are being fairly treated. As for faith, I wrote this about it:

In the book How Wide the Divide?, written with New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson argues,

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...