pogi Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 No, the creation as portrayed in Genesis is a metaphor. The creation itself is not. Moses used the creation story as a way to present the temple ordinance, just as we today use the creation story in our own temple ordinance. The killing of Laban by Nephi is a metaphor, using a real life event to establish Nephi as King with its blatant elusions to King David. The major events recorded in the Book of Mormon are all metaphors for the grand exodus. They all have the same motifs - people in captivity, a prophet/leader leads them out of captivity to a promised land. The scriptures are not history or science books, the authors use real live events to teach gospel principles. It is important to note that the version of the creation in the temple is different than that in Genesis, and the wording is a bit different than that of Abraham. They are teaching different concepts. They exaggerate some aspects and leave out other aspects to present the message they want to portray. Joseph Smith did this with his various versions of the first visions - including some events and leaving out others to suite the message and the audience. So we do not know how the world was created, other than the fact that God had his hand in it somehow. Genesis is using the creation story to teach gospel principles, explaining why we are here but not how we got here. If I were telling a story of sacrifice, I might tell you of a trip I made to Calgary. I would mention how I got there or who I stayed with, but I would stress the aspects of the story to convey the message of sacrifice. If I were telling a story of transportation problems, I would go into great detail of how I got to Calgary, how I got around, the all my observation of travel, but I would not mention anything about the sacrifices I made while in Calgary because they have nothing to do with transportation. The creation did occur, the version in Genesis is not how it occurred, it is using the creation as a metaphor. If not, why would God provide all this evidence that contradicts the story? I can run with that.
Anti-NOMunistJackMormon Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 I say most athiests I've met personally throughout my life. I could see books like "Wired for God" (I think that's the title) makes a better argument though I've never read it I've heard the basic theory of it. I guy I used to work with was an athiest whom I got along with well, had a theory that earth was the Universe's version of Austrailia. He supposed we were basically put on earth because we were the Universe's worst. I'm not saying every athiest is of one mind or another. I'm speaking from my experience in conversing with athiests than many arguments are based upon the bible, personal/worldy tragedies and yes scientific or philisophical study. Generally speaking however it started with some religious background that didn't make sense to them or personal/worldy tragic event. I can't speak for Hitchens, Dawkins or any major scholar's athiestic theory or belief.
Stone holm Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 Well you know given what many Christians believe, atheism seems very convincing. Mormonism on the other hand if we do not graft too much fundamentalism and Christian Right barnacles on it makes a lot of very logical arguments that I think overwhelm the atheist position. Atheism has only flourished because of the stupidity that is passed off as religious truth from time to time. When you hand the microphone to idiots and let them become the voice of religion, well of course people are going to look elsewhere for answers.
ERayR Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 Well you know given what many Christians believe, atheism seems very convincing. Mormonism on the other hand if we do not graft too much fundamentalism and Christian Right barnacles on it makes a lot of very logical arguments that I think overwhelm the atheist position. Atheism has only flourished because of the stupidity that is passed off as religious truth from time to time. When you hand the microphone to idiots and let them become the voice of religion, well of course people are going to look elsewhere for answers. And macro-evolutionary theory only flourishes because its adherents put in earplugs, don blinders and sit around patting themselves on the back. It does result in a lot of dislocated shoulders.
thesometimesaint Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 Please explain what a scientific theory is.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) I'm not an atheist, but every atheist I've known has expressed their lack of a belief in God as being based on a lack of evidence (or the perceived weakness of the arguments and evidence believers present in support of their belief).They also usually point out that there is no "argument" (anecdotal, ad hominem or otherwise) against the existence of a god. Obviously, anyone's idea of what a god is or isn't can be easily changed to accommodate whatever situation arises (sick relative, holocaust, happy evil people, etc.) So there is no way to prove a god (or anything else) doesn't exist. They can only look at the claims and evidence presented and judge whether or not it is sufficient for the claim.So you might believe you have listened to "many if not most" atheists, but I suspect your level of comprehension has been quite low if that is what you think they were saying.This is in line with my experience. I think the "God is a sadist" argument is only really used in some books and debates where the atheists temporarily grants that the believers god exists and then tries to show that if their god existed it wouldn't be worthy or worship but rather disdain based on what we know of God from the scriptural record. But most atheists I know don't believe is god for the reasons outlined in what Cinepro said and don't "use the bible to support atheism". They don't actually believe god is a sadist, because they obviously don't think god exists. Edited September 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 I like the God of the New Testiment. I'm still working on liking the God of the Old Testiment.
Stone holm Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 I like the God of the New Testiment. I'm still working on liking the God of the Old Testiment.I have this little hometeaching spiel that the BOM is not the Scripture that makes us peculiar, that is the D&C, but the BOM is critical to making the OT make sense since we should look at the OT with the rational eyes of the BOM. The problem with the OT is we spin so much spin on historical events that are actually just "stuff happens" and then some events are not historical events and we treat them as so sacred that we deny the scientific evidence to support them.
Freedom Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I like the God of the New Testiment. I'm still working on liking the God of the Old Testiment.The God of the old testament is the God of the Book of Mormon. The bibles version of the Old Testament is, in my opinion, corrupted and distorted.
thesometimesaint Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 We do have that belief, and not just about the OT, but I'm not willing to speculate on which verses have been corrupted and distored. I'm seeking understanding, and not vindication.
Stone holm Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 The God of the old testament is the God of the Book of Mormon. The bibles version of the Old Testament is, in my opinion, corrupted and distorted.I agree.
Rivers Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 I think the God of any book of scripture is distorted to some degree. 2
Freedom Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 I think the God of any book of scripture is distorted to some degree.Along this same line of thinking, any event recorded in the scripture is distorted to some degree. The reason is quite simple: the authors are teaching principles and are using real life events or people to teach these principles. As soon as you turn from historian to story teller, the truth becomes secondary. We are told to search the scriptures for the doctrines and principles, not history. We are told to go outside of the scripture to learn the history so as to better understand the lessons. If, for example, we do not know what it means to gather 'house to house' as stated in Isaiah 5:8 we need to understand the economic conditions of Palestine during this time period. I think of that song "Jesus loves me" and consider how naïve it is. I do not know Jesus loves be because the bible tells me so, I know Jesus loves me because of divine revelation. The scriptures can lead to revelation, but no man can come to know God through scripture study alone. If this were so, there would be only one religion and all biblical scholars would be temple endowed.
mfbukowski Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) Along this same line of thinking, any event recorded in the scripture is distorted to some degree. The reason is quite simple: the authors are teaching principles and are using real life events or people to teach these principles. As soon as you turn from historian to story teller, the truth becomes secondary.Only if what the historian teaches is "the truth", but truth is not defined by historians. Better to think that it is all metaphor to one degree or another, just with stories told for different purposes, for better communication within a given context. Scripture is as true as history and science, but all are told from a different point of view. It's all just language and language cannot capture the reality of all that "is". Edited September 19, 2013 by mfbukowski
danielwoods Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 I think of that song "Jesus loves me" and consider how naïve it is. I do not know Jesus loves be because the bible tells me so, I know Jesus loves me because of divine revelation. The scriptures can lead to revelation, but no man can come to know God through scripture study alone. If this were so, there would be only one religion and all biblical scholars would be temple endowed. Or the song is describing how we know things about God because we believe or trust, the revelation that is recorded in what is written, or the Biblical text. As John said, I write these things so that you know and believe. So, the tradition of knowing and believing based on the written word goes all the way back to the beginning (1 Jn. 5:13). Likewise, when Jesus was confronted by Satan. Three times he said, "it is written...", he didn't say "I have a revelation...", rather he pointed to and trusted the written word as the authority.
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Because Christ was a Jew, and made reference to Jewish Scripture. In fact until Paul ALL Christians were Jews.
mfbukowski Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Or the song is describing how we know things about God because we believe or trust, the revelation that is recorded in what is written, or the Biblical text. As John said, I write these things so that you know and believe. So, the tradition of knowing and believing based on the written word goes all the way back to the beginning (1 Jn. 5:13). Likewise, when Jesus was confronted by Satan. Three times he said, "it is written...", he didn't say "I have a revelation...", rather he pointed to and trusted the written word as the authority.This is the old discussion we have had before. The question becomes "what is the beginning?" Clearly there are revealed texts much older than the Bible- for example the Zoroastrian Avesta "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." - Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979, p. 1)"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence....” - Mary Boyce, Op. Cit. p. 29. http://www.avesta.org/So why don't we throw out the bible and accept the avesta? It is older. The answer is in each of our hearts- we accept as doctrinal what God tells us is doctrinal, individually. That's because we all have different things to learn in this life, and our path of grow extends forward into eternity. That is precisely what sola scriptura advocates don't understand. We accept the bible because God tells us to do so, not because it is history or old. Incidentally, LDS should read the avesta as evidence that we are a restoration of God's original teachings. Clearly it is not "doctrinal" but what is taught is so close to our beliefs that it is evidence for an original belief taught by God which was fragmented by apostasies.
danielwoods Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Because Christ was a Jew, and made reference to Jewish Scripture. In fact until Paul ALL Christians were Jews. Indeed. As a follower of Christ, my goal is to understand and follow his example. This is the old discussion we have had before. The question becomes "what is the beginning?" Clearly there are revealed texts much older than the Bible- for example the Zoroastrian Avesta http://www.avesta.org/So why don't we throw out the bible and accept the avesta? It is older. The answer is in each of our hearts- we accept as doctrinal what God tells us is doctrinal, individually. That's because we all have different things to learn in this life, and our path of grow extends forward into eternity. That is precisely what sola scriptura advocates don't understand. We accept the bible because God tells us to do so, not because it is history or old. Incidentally, LDS should read the avesta as evidence that we are a restoration of God's original teachings. Clearly it is not "doctrinal" but what is taught is so close to our beliefs that it is evidence for an original belief taught by God which was fragmented by apostasies. I agree. It gets back to how truth is determined, or in this case revelation. For the LDS revelation is personal, as above, "I know because God told me..." For the non-LDS revelation is both personal and general. The scripture is an example of general revelation or revelation that is relevant to everyone. For example, "I know because the Bible tells me so" and because he lives in my heart. Both are true. Both are equally revelatory, just as Christ taught us to use God's word as an authority. As for Zoroastrian, I don't know that I made the argument that just because something was old or ancient it was therefore true and accurate or from God?
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 If we are to follow Jesus, Jesus clearly was Jew. During his mortal ministry he went only to the Jews. He live and died as a Jew. So again I ask why are you are not a Jew?
danielwoods Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 If we are to follow Jesus, Jesus clearly was Jew. During his mortal ministry he went only to the Jews. He live and died as a Jew. So again I ask why are you are not a Jew? Because Jesus didn't demand people become a jew to follow him.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Because Jesus didn't demand people become a jew to follow him. Irrelevant. Jesus only taught the Jews and even commented on that a few times.
mfbukowski Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Indeed. As a follower of Christ, my goal is to understand and follow his example. I agree. It gets back to how truth is determined, or in this case revelation.Exactly. So how do you know you should follow the bible and not the Avesta?For the non-LDS revelation is both personal and general. The scripture is an example of general revelation or revelation that is relevant to everyone. For example, "I know because the Bible tells me so" and because he lives in my heart. Both are true. Both are equally revelatory, just as Christ taught us to use God's word as an authority. Can you see that this does not answer my question above?Christ taught us to use God's word as an authority. But why should we follow the words of Christ and not Zoroaster? General revelation does not answer that- it only shows us (as I understand Protestant theology) that God exists- SOME supreme being. Nature does not tell us that Christ is preferable to Zoroaster. It must always come down to personal revelation, or the argument is circular. "I know because the bible tells me it's so because the bible tells me it is so". It's an infinite regress going no where. It seems you do not understand that problem, and this is not the first time I have tried to discuss it with you. The answer is always the same.
Recommended Posts