Urloony Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 There is a great thread that is now winding down and possibly close to deletion at CARM. I wanted to thank Daniel McClellan publically for his contribution and responses. While his posts caused the Carmites to spin and turn, it was a fascinating read and I know I’m not alone in saying I learned a lot and appreciate his effort there.
Vance Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 There is a great thread that is now winding down and possibly close to deletion at CARM. I wanted to thank Daniel McClellan publically for his contribution and responses. While his posts caused the Carmites to spin and turn, it was a fascinating read and I know I’m not alone in saying I learned a lot and appreciate his effort there.WOW!!!!MAK sure can send the antis into fits.LOL!
CV75 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 There is a great thread that is now winding down and possibly close to deletion at CARM. I wanted to thank Daniel McClellan publically for his contribution and responses. While his posts caused the Carmites to spin and turn, it was a fascinating read and I know I’m not alone in saying I learned a lot and appreciate his effort there.I only read the link -- is there further clarification that the "other gods" are not referring to the false gods of the false religions; that He is superior to these false gods, and that no false god is like Him, etc.?
ChristKnight Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm definitely enjoying reading that thread. Urloony and maklelan did a great job. I just have one question (so far):Aaronshaf states-"There is no Heavenly Grandfather", to which Daniel responds-"There was according to the earliest Israelite beliefs.". I guess I"m issuing a friendly CFR, as I'd like to learn more about that.
Mars Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 ChristKnight:Going out on a limb here... 'God Most High' was the chief God of all Gods. He was El-Elyon, and His children were sometimes referred to as angels, but we would think of them as Gods. Each nation had its own God, and for Israel, that God was Jehovah. That's why, in my estimation, it was easy for the early Israelites to worship other deities who were essentially on the same 'rung,' so to speak, as Jehovah, but not Jehovah himself.Maklelan, and others, are obviously *way* more versed in this stuff than me, but there's something to get started on. If anyone has any corrections for me, fire away.
Mars Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 CARM has both Mormonism and Freemasonry in their 'Cults' section... You'll pardon me if I skip out on the fun.
Urloony Posted June 21, 2011 Author Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I only read the link -- is there further clarification that the "other gods" are not referring to the false gods of the false religions; that He is superior to these false gods, and that no false god is like Him, etc.?Yes. The issues presented primarily deal with the fact that the gods of the other nations were as real to the Israelites as Yahweh was to them. Additionally as you point out, the context of Isaiah 43:10 identifies Yahweh in terms of incomparability to the other gods, not the only god in existence. Edited June 21, 2011 by Urloony
CV75 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Yes. The issues presented primarily deal with the fact that the gods of the other nations were as real to the Israelites as Yahweh was to them. Additionally as you point out, the context of Isaiah 43:10 identifies Yahweh in terms of incomparability to the other gods, not the only god in existence.Thank you--
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Hmmm... why'd they ban Mak?Because he destroyed their arguments. They probably banned him because he told the truth about some of the lies they were spreading about Mak's position and education. Some of their arguments were of the worst kind. I did not see very many substantive posts. Granted I did not read the whole thread, but of the few I did read there was not really any compelling arguments. Perhaps Rob Bowman can go over there and teach them how to present an argument. Just because he as an EV and I think he presents some good cases for his POV. Edited June 21, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
volgadon Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Mak has been banned from CARM about as often as you have breakfast. They could never counter his arguments. Edited June 21, 2011 by volgadon
Flyonthewall Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I started reading that thread but found it interesting that the overwhelming majority of CARM posters paid little attention to the topic at hand, but were more interested in attacking the LDS faith. Not surprising considering the history of the board though.It is amazing what can be discovered about religion when pre-conceived notions are set aside to find out what was really being said.
maklelan Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I'm definitely enjoying reading that thread. Urloony and maklelan did a great job. I just have one question (so far):Aaronshaf states-"There is no Heavenly Grandfather", to which Daniel responds-"There was according to the earliest Israelite beliefs.". I guess I"m issuing a friendly CFR, as I'd like to learn more about that.El and Yahweh were originally considered separate deities, with El acting as the High God, and Yahweh as one of his sons. This is the situation in Deut 32:8-9, where Elyon (and epithet associated with El) divides up the nations to the sons of Elohim, with Yahweh receiving Israel.
volgadon Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 El and Yahweh were originally considered separate deities, with El acting as the High God, and Yahweh as one of his sons. This is the situation in Deut 32:8-9, where Elyon (and epithet associated with El) divides up the nations to the sons of Elohim, with Yahweh receiving Israel.BTW, did you get my response to your message? I was without an internet connection for a few days.
maklelan Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 BTW, did you get my response to your message? I was without an internet connection for a few days.I was just going to ask you about that. I haven't gotten a response yet. I think if you just hit reply to the email it sends it to the board, not to me.
urroner Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I have captured the complete thread in a single PDF file as of 10 a.m. this morning. I would have attached it, but it's 6MB long. If anybody wants it, and it's a good read, very entertaining sometimes especially if you like seeing the ardent critics of the Church, in their attempt to rend Dan's arguments invalid, do the old soft shoe and quickly slide into use of ad hominems, building strawmen, or laying out some excellent bunny rabbit trails, please contact me at urroner1 at hot male hotmail.com.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 There is a great thread that is now winding down and possibly close to deletion at CARM. I wanted to thank Daniel McClellan publically for his contribution and responses. While his posts caused the Carmites to spin and turn, it was a fascinating read and I know I’m not alone in saying I learned a lot and appreciate his effort there.I though they only hated me.
Rob Bowman Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Mola,You wrote:Because he destroyed their arguments. They probably banned him because he told the truth about some of the lies they were spreading about Mak's position and education. Some of their arguments were of the worst kind. I did not see very many substantive posts. Granted I did not read the whole thread, but of the few I did read there was not really any compelling arguments. Perhaps Rob Bowman can go over there and teach them how to present an argument. Just because he as an EV and I think he presents some good cases for his POV.Thanks for that kind comment. I have now posted twice to that thread on CARM.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Mola,You wrote:Thanks for that kind comment. I have now posted twice to that thread on CARM.Cool. Your welcome too.
maklelan Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Rob-I'm not allowed to post over there right now, but I'd like to address your comments, as I figured someone would bring those issues up (but no one was paying much attention). First, regarding the title of the thread, when I first read the OP I noticed that there wasn't really any substantive discussion of syntax or grammar. I didn't think it was a big deal, though, and still felt the OP raised some issues worthy of discussion. The posters over there have consistently shown, after all, that the topic of the thread is whatever the mainstream Christians over there decided it is, irrespective of the title or of the substance of the OP. Catherine makes this perfectly clear in a recent post when she says the following:The Mormons were just trying to change this thread into a time consuming analysis of the worthless garbage peddled by the higher critics.Of course, the title of the thread and the substance of the OP, although quite disparate, specifically treat "the worthless garbage peddled by the higher critics." These threads always come back to trying to manipulate the discussion in one direction or another that is more advantageous for the debater. Latter-day Saints want to keep the focus on the Christian interpretation of Old Testament texts, since they want to show that traditional Christian interpretations (upon which their criticisms of Latter-day Saint theology are based) are not connected with the original context of the texts. Showing that those texts unilaterally support the intricacies of Mormon theology (note: not necessarily doctrine, but theology, whether official or not) is not really in view (in my opinion), and is not really possible. The Israelites were not proto-Mormons. The mainstream Christians over there want to keep the focus trained on that very issue, though, since they recognize the difficulty in trying to unilaterally connect Mormonism with Israelite religion, and they can't really engage the level of exegetical sophistication required to critique the relevant positions. I can't speak for any other Latter-day Saints on that thread, but I am not over there to try to prove that the Israelites were proto-Mormons. I am more aware than any of them of the distance between Mormonism and the Israelite and Jewish worldviews, as well as the distance between the latter and mainstream Christianity. I am there specifically to show that the criticisms they level against Mormonism are based on a methodology that flatly undermines their own worldview, and that they would do better to quit presuming that the hermeneutic they employ against Mormonism is anything other than a double-edged sword that cuts them as deep or more so with every swipe at Mormonism. Both religions are founded upon faith and cannot be adequately defended on empirical grounds. Sooner or later both are going to come down to a question of a presupposition based on faith. I am there to show that their own presuppositions are just as indefensible on logical or empirical grounds as are those of Mormonism. I've explained that very fact literally more than a dozen times over there, and I cannot get them to even acknowledge it, much less engage it.EDIT: I believe urloony's recent post addresses the issue. Regarding the notion of monotheism, the point is not to say "we're right" so much as "you're wrong." This does not mean we are right by default, but only that in this particular general issue, mainstream Christians have no grounds for criticizing Mormonism. Both our faiths are separated from Israelite religion. If they'd like to say "Fine, there are other gods, but the Bible doesn't say X, Y, or Z, which Mormonism affirms," then we can move in that direction, as some have briefly tried to do, but they don't seem capable of acknowledging the first part of that statement. Edited June 22, 2011 by maklelan 2
Rob Bowman Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 maklelan,Your comments criticize a statement by Catherine but do not engage my criticisms of urloony's opening post.You wrote:First, regarding the title of the thread, when I first read the OP I noticed that there wasn't really any substantive discussion of syntax or grammar. I didn't think it was a big deal, though, and still felt the OP raised some issues worthy of discussion.I would imagine you might feel differently if an evangelical critic had claimed that he was going to show from grammar or syntax that a verse proved Mormon theology false, and then neglected to discuss grammar or syntax! And as I pointed out, urloony's post did not even discuss the context or meaning of Isaiah 43:10.I have responded to urloony's recent response to me.
Vance Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I have responded to urloony's recent response to me.Too bad, your "response" didn't respond to the point he made.
Rob Bowman Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Vance,You wrote:Too bad, your "response" didn't respond to the point he made.Of course it did.
Vance Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Vance,You wrote:Of course it did.Oh, there it is. Hidden amongst all the whining. The denial phrases that are found in Isaiah 43:10, Deut 4 and 32 are interpreted by our critics as supporting a definition of Monotheism that precludes the existence of any other gods but Yahweh. This however is not the case when correctly exegeting the verses above. It is true that Heiser thinks that Isaiah 43:10 does not deny the existence of other gods.. . .I grant you that Heiser disagrees with the flat denial of the existence of any gods, in any sense of the term, in the canon of the Old Testament.So you are agreeing while whining about it.
Recommended Posts