ebeddoulos Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Sorry about the dupes, didn't show that it was posting.I loved it! Considering that Rob replicates his own tired arguments over and over and over ad infinitum, repeatedly avoids responding to the arguments of others, and then plays the “I Take Offense” card on an ever recurring basis, I thought it a very appropriate and even a heaven sent response. I smiled. Actually I grinned. Broadly. Thanks! Edited February 27, 2012 by ebeddoulos 2
Rob Bowman Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Steve,You wrote:It seems like you're avoiding the question.Here we go again.I wasn't trying to change the subject deliberately, I was simply curious about your statement that "the Qur'an cannot be inspired by God," giving the implication that none of it can possibly be inspired. I agree that the Qur'an, as a whole, is not inspired, but what I meant was that at least parts of Qur'an and other texts must be inspired by God if He is the source of all truth. If you believe God is the source of truth, then is it really possible for you to honestly deny this? For example, the Qur'an teaches that God created the world. Since this is in harmony with what God has revealed in the Bible, how can we deny that God also revealed this same truth to Muhammad? Likewise, the Buddha taught, for example, about the importance of kindness; this, obviously, is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, so can we honestly deny that the Buddha, regardless of his false teachings, was teaching some of the words of Christ to his followers?If we're going to talk about honesty, let's do so. Can you honestly tell me that you thought I meant that everything the Qur'an says is false? And why are you asking this question again and claiming I am avoiding it, when I told you explicitly that the Qur'an contains some truth?Honestly!
altersteve Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Steve,You wrote:Here we go again.If we're going to talk about honesty, let's do so. Can you honestly tell me that you thought I meant that everything the Qur'an says is false? And why are you asking this question again and claiming I am avoiding it, when I told you explicitly that the Qur'an contains some truth?Honestly!No, I never suggested that you think everything in the Qur'an is false, but it sounds like you're avoiding the question because you're not answering it directly. If "the Qur'an contains some truth," as you say, then would it not follow that parts of the Qur'an are inspired by God? If at least some of the teachings of Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Joseph Smith, and others are true, then wouldn't these teachings be inspired?A simple yes or no will do.
Rob Bowman Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Steve,You wrote:No, I never suggested that you think everything in the Qur'an is false, but it sounds like you're avoiding the question because you're not answering it directly.When I said that the fact that the Qur'an and other religious texts contain some truth "doesn't make any of these texts inspired by God," that wasn't a direct enough answer for you?The Qur'an is not inspired by God. The Qur'an is not the word of God. Is that direct enough for you?You wrote:If "the Qur'an contains some truth," as you say, then would it not follow that parts of the Qur'an are inspired by God? If at least some of the teachings of Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Joseph Smith, and others are true, then wouldn't these teachings be inspired?A simple yes or no will do.A simple yes or no will not do, because you asked two different questions. The answer to your first question is no. No parts of the Qur'an are inspired by God. No part of the text of the Qur'an is the word of God. The answer to your second question is "It depends on what you mean by "these teachings be inspired." The teachings are not identical to the texts that convey them. If by "inspired" you mean "ultimately come from God," then yes, any teachings that happen to be true ultimately come from God. But the text that includes these teachings may be inspired or uninspired text. For orthodox Christians, to say that a text is inspired means that it is God's word, carrying the authority of God himself. Human beings can accept some truths and express them in writings like the Qur'an, but that doesn't make the Qur'an, or even parts of the Qur'an, inspired.Now, if you want to use the word inspired to mean containing some truth, then have at it. By that standard, to be consistent, even "anti-Mormon" writings are inspired! Somehow I don't think you'll be willing to take consistency that far.
altersteve Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) No parts of the Qur'an are inspired by God.That's what I wanted to know. I happen to disagree with this statement, as I don't believe God only speaks to only one religion.As for your claim that I would deny that "anti-Mormon" works contain inspired truths, you are mistaken. Any and all truth, wherever it may be found, ultimately comes from God and it should be embraced, even if those truths are used for the wrong reasons. All people are free to do what they will with the light God gives them, and, ultimately, only He can judge them. Edited February 28, 2012 by altersteve 1
Rob Bowman Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Steve,You wrote:That's what I wanted to know. I happen to disagree with this statement, as I don't believe God only speaks to only one religion.As for your claim that I would deny that "anti-Mormon" works contain inspired truths, you are mistaken. Any and all truth, wherever it may be found, ultimately comes from God and it should be embraced, even if those truths are used for the wrong reasons. All people are free to do what they will with the light God gives them, and, ultimately, only He can judge them.You are confusing two different claims:1. Book X is an inspired text.2. Book X contains inspired truths.One can accept (2) and reject (1). For example, the truth that God's people are known by their love for one another is a truth revealed by God. In that sense it is an "inspired truth." All sorts of books and other writings express this truth. However, that does not make those books inspired texts. I can accept that C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity contains truths revealed by God in the Bible and at the same time deny that Mere Christianity is itself an inspired text (which undoubtedly Lewis would also deny quite strenuously!). So denying that a text is inspired is not necessarily a criticism of that text. It just means it isn't in that exclusive category of texts that God supernaturally inspired to function for his people as the written word of God.You say that you don't believe that God speaks only to one religion. Do you believe that God speaks to all religions? If not, how do you differentiate those to whom God speaks from those to whom he does not?
altersteve Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 You are confusing two different claims:1. Book X is an inspired text.2. Book X contains inspired truths.One can accept (2) and reject (1). For example, the truth that God's people are known by their love for one another is a truth revealed by God. In that sense it is an "inspired truth." All sorts of books and other writings express this truth. However, that does not make those books inspired texts. I can accept that C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity contains truths revealed by God in the Bible and at the same time deny that Mere Christianity is itself an inspired text (which undoubtedly Lewis would also deny quite strenuously!). So denying that a text is inspired is not necessarily a criticism of that text. It just means it isn't in that exclusive category of texts that God supernaturally inspired to function for his people as the written word of God.I agree with you. I'm not saying that a book which contains truth is inspired as a whole. What I'm saying is that if a text contains an inspired teaching, then the text itself is, by definition, at least partially inspired. Or you could say that it is inspired to the extent of the truth it teaches. I disagree with your last sentence, though; as the Lord told Nephi, He commands all nations to write the words He gives them, and if those words somehow end up in the Qur'an, then the truth taught in the Qur'an is the word by which He will judge those nations. He judges all men and women according to what they do with the light and truth (intelligence) that He gives them.You say that you don't believe that God speaks only to one religion. Do you believe that God speaks to all religions? If not, how do you differentiate those to whom God speaks from those to whom he does not?He speaks to all people regardless of their religion, I meant to say. God doesn't speak to a religion, because that doesn't make any sense. How can God speak to Christianity? Of course He doesn't, but He certainly speaks to Christians. He also speaks to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others, and He does so in a variety of ways, whether they realize it or not.
Rob Bowman Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Steve,Let's change the terminology so as to gain more clarity and focus. Is the Qur'an the word of God?
altersteve Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Not as a whole, as you and I have both already said. However, it contains portions of God's word, whereas the Book of Mormon is the word of God in its fullness since it teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in all its purity (and it is in this sense that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, as Joseph Smith said). But this does not mean that bits and pieces of God's word cannot be found within the Qur'an, or any other religious text for that matter. Edited February 28, 2012 by altersteve
Rob Bowman Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Steve,Is the Bible God's word?Not as a whole, as you have already said. However, it contains portions of God's word, whereas the Book of Mormon is the word of God in its fullness since it teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in all its purity. It is in this sense that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, as Joseph Smith said. But this does not mean that bits and pieces of God's word cannot be found within the Qur'an, or any other religious text for that matter.
altersteve Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."(That's not to say the Bible we have today is not translated correctly, though. Critics read that into this Article of Faith all the time, but it does not say that.)
zerinus Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Steve,Let's change the terminology so as to gain more clarity and focus. Is the Qur'an the word of God?The official LDS position on that is expressed in the following quote from a First Presicency message given by President Foust:We believe that the fulness of the gospel of Christ has been restored, but this is no reason for anyone to feel superior in any way toward others of God’s children. Rather, it requires a greater obligation to invoke the essence of the gospel of Christ in our lives—to love, serve, and bless others. Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” * Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear. Source.___________________________* First Presidency statement, Feb. 15, 1978
Bob Crockett Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 The official LDS position on that is expressed in the following quote from a First Presicency message given by President Foust:And thus it follows that the old Cumorah/Ramah is in NY, because the same authoritative statement was made in general conference when the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah.I think the feeling that Mohammed was "inspired" is an opinion. Nothing more. I mean, what really did Mohammed say? He was illiterate. Many of his pithy sayings could have been said by Plato or Mussolini.
Rob Bowman Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Steve,You seem to make a fairly clear distinction between the Bible as a whole being God's word and the Qur'an as a whole not being God's word. The Qur'an, like any other religious text (as you put it), contains bits and pieces of God's word, but the Qur'an itself, as a book, as a whole, is not God's word. This makes it different from the Bible, which is, as a book, as a whole, God's word. This is what I have been saying all along. I really think you agree with this. There is a qualitative difference between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Qur'an is not God's word; the Bible is. This is what I meant when I said that that Qur'an is not inspired by God. I did not mean there was no truth at all in the Qur'an; I did not mean that it did not include statements that originally come from God's word. I meant that the Qur'an carries no authority as God's word."We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."(That's not to say the Bible we have today is not translated correctly, though. Critics read that into this Article of Faith all the time, but it does not say that.)
zerinus Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Steve,You seem to make a fairly clear distinction between the Bible as a whole being God's word and the Qur'an as a whole not being God's word. The Qur'an, like any other religious text (as you put it), contains bits and pieces of God's word, but the Qur'an itself, as a book, as a whole, is not God's word. This makes it different from the Bible, which is, as a book, as a whole, God's word. This is what I have been saying all along. I really think you agree with this. There is a qualitative difference between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Qur'an is not God's word; the Bible is. This is what I meant when I said that that Qur'an is not inspired by God. I did not mean there was no truth at all in the Qur'an; I did not mean that it did not include statements that originally come from God's word. I meant that the Qur'an carries no authority as God's word.According to the First Presidency statement, Mohamed (among others) was "inspired" of God to bring a portion of truth to some of mankind. I suppose there are degrees of inspiration involved. Paul tells the heathen Greeks that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths (Acts 17:28). So there is a degree of "inspiration" that brings Isaiah and 1 Peter, and there is a degree that brings the Koran. It is not exactly a black and white, either/or situation.
Rob Bowman Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:According to the First Presidency statement, Mohamed (among others) was "inspired" of God to bring a portion of truth to some of mankind. I suppose there are degrees of inspiration involved. Paul tells the heathen Greeks that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths (Acts 17:28). So there is a degree of "inspiration" that brings Isaiah and 1 Peter, and there is a degree that brings the Koran. It is not exactly a black and white, either/or situation.Paul did not tell the Athenians that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths. Paul made a statement and illustrated it by quoting something one of their own poets had said. He does not attribute inspiration to the Stoic poet (Aratus) or to his poem.
Bob Crockett Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:Paul did not tell the Athenians that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths. Paul made a statement and illustrated it by quoting something one of their own poets had said. He does not attribute inspiration to the Stoic poet (Aratus) or to his poem.Well, perhaps, but he must have thought that whomever was telling stories about Jambres and Jannes (or however you spell them) was reciting fact. Point being, Paul cited from material he thought was inspired but is not or couldn't be or isn't available to us. Point being, Paul never cited from the Gospels once, Point further being, one must then conclude the Gospels didn't exist in Paul's day. Not even as an oral tradition. And therefore, the Book of Mormon is closer to God's lips.
zerinus Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Paul did not tell the Athenians that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths. Paul made a statement and illustrated it by quoting something one of their own poets had said. He does not attribute inspiration to the Stoic poet (Aratus) or to his poem.By making that remark, he is upholding, ratifying, commending the teaching of the poet, in the course of preaching the gospel; that elevates, to my way of thinking, the poet to the level of an inspired writer. Could it be that the poet had said other things that were equally true, and therefore worth studying and learning from? Let's look at it another way: do you thing that Paul would have drawn attention to the poet's teaching if instead of being a poet he had been a well-known sorcerer, a soothsayer, a witch, or a magician? I think that Paul's commendatory and complementary quotation elevates the poet to the level of an inspired teacher.
Rob Bowman Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Bob,You wrote:Well, perhaps, but he must have thought that whomever was telling stories about Jambres and Jannes (or however you spell them) was reciting fact. Point being, Paul cited from material he thought was inspired but is not or couldn't be or isn't available to us. Point being, Paul never cited from the Gospels once, Point further being, one must then conclude the Gospels didn't exist in Paul's day. Not even as an oral tradition. And therefore, the Book of Mormon is closer to God's lips.I can't remember the last time I read such a dizzying flurry of non sequiturs.
Rob Bowman Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:By making that remark, he is upholding, ratifying, commending the teaching of the poet, in the course of preaching the gospel; that elevates, to my way of thinking, the poet to the level of an inspired writer. Could it be that the poet had said other things that were equally true, and therefore worth studying and learning from? Let's look at it another way: do you thing that Paul would have drawn attention to the poet's teaching if instead of being a poet he had been a well-known sorcerer, a soothsayer, a witch, or a magician? I think that Paul's commendatory and complementary quotation elevates the poet to the level of an inspired teacher.Your opinion is noted. I guess Paul also thought the Cretan writer Epimenides was inspired, since Paul quoted and affirmed as true the statement by Epimenides that Cretans are always liars (Titus 1:12-13)!
zerinus Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Your opinion is noted.So is yours.I guess Paul also thought the Cretan writer Epimenides was inspired, since Paul quoted and affirmed as true the statement by Epimenides that Cretans are always liars (Titus 1:12-13)!Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;Thank you for confirming that Paul definitely considered some Heathen philosophers, writers, and poets to be prophets. LOL! Edited February 29, 2012 by zerinus
Jeff K. Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:Paul did not tell the Athenians that some of their own poets were inspired to reveal truths. Paul made a statement and illustrated it by quoting something one of their own poets had said. He does not attribute inspiration to the Stoic poet (Aratus) or to his poem.Paul did indeed allow the Athenians to know that the "great unknown God" was represented by him. Contextually it was an attribuiton. I suggest you read Acts more carefully. Apparently even Paul could accept inspiration by other means, otherwise he would not have identified himself with the unknown God. Or was he lying?
altersteve Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I meant that the Qur'an carries no authority as God's word.This is what I disagree with.
Rob Bowman Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 zerinus,You wrote:LOL! At last, something on which we can agree.
Rob Bowman Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Jeff,You wrote:Paul did indeed allow the Athenians to know that the "great unknown God" was represented by him. Contextually it was an attribuiton.I don't know what you are trying to say here. Feel free to explain.I suggest you read Acts more carefully.That's pretty funny. If only you knew the hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours I have spent studying the passage in Greek, reading ancient speeches to understand the cultural background of Paul's speech in Athens, reading academic periodical articles and books devoted to the passage....Apparently even Paul could accept inspiration by other means, otherwise he would not have identified himself with the unknown God. Or was he lying?False dilemma. The "unknown God" was not a reference in an inspired text. It was an inscription on a pagan altar. Paul's use of the inscription was rhetorical, as a springboard from which to explain that he was talking about a God they did not know.
Recommended Posts