Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[jkwilliams]

I don't think God wants us to stick our heads in the sand and take literally stories that were always intended to be conveyances for deeper meaning. 

 

I don't much care if people want to be fundamentalists, but I take exception to those who tell me that their personal interpretation is the right one. I know how I read the scriptures, and I know what the spirit tells me, but I will not insist that other people ignore large pieces of evidence to fit my interpretation to the evidence. That's what I object to about the fundamentalists. They want us to filter out all the evidence that doesn't fit our preconceived beliefs. Frankly, that kind of thinking is dangerous.

[thesometimesaint]

I am quite convinced you worship Zeus because we are worlds apart on LDS doctrine.

 

1. i don't worship Zeus

 

2. There is no LDS doctrine on the extent of the Flood.

[jkwilliams]

What spiritual value is there in "knowing" that the earth was literally flooded a few thousand years ago, to the tops of the highest mountain?

 

Even if it were true, it has no intrinsic meaning. 

 

I would think the same question applies to the notion that death has only existed on the earth in the last 6000 years. What does it add to our understanding to adhere to such a rigid and fundamentalist interpretation?

[Gray]

His first sentence is a textbook declaration of fundamentalism. I've always liked Terry Eagleton's definition of fundamentalism:

 

Great quote, that's a keeper!

[Bikeemikey]

Well said Rob.

Creation deniers and flood deniers are simply evidence that we are in the last days.

 

Hold on... I thought that privilege was reserved for gays, foreigners (to the USA) and democrats?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Gray]

I don't much care if people want to be fundamentalists, but I take exception to those who tell me that their personal interpretation is the right one. I know how I read the scriptures, and I know what the spirit tells me, but I will not insist that other people ignore large pieces of evidence to fit my interpretation to the evidence. That's what I object to about the fundamentalists. They want us to filter out all the evidence that doesn't fit our preconceived beliefs. Frankly, that kind of thinking is dangerous.

 

I understand the frustration as I feel it too. Even as I type that I have to remind myself that it's not worth getting frustrated over. We're all in this together, and we don't have to agree with everyone. 

[Gray]

I would think the same question applies to the notion that death has only existed on the earth in the last 6000 years. What does it add to our understanding to adhere to such a rigid and fundamentalist interpretation?

 

Yes, it really adds nothing. I don't think literal events or physical objects or anything concrete is the proper place to stake a faith claim. Faith is best left for expressions of value and divinity, while the concrete is best expressed using the tools for concrete things (science). 

[jkwilliams]

I understand the frustration as I feel it too. Even as I type that I have to remind myself that it's not worth getting frustrated over. We're all in this together, and we don't have to agree with everyone. 

 

I'm not frustrated, but I wanted to be clear why I don't just give this stuff a pass. I don't expect the literalists to agree with me, but other people are reading who might be led to shut their eyes to the evidence before making up their own minds.

[thesometimesaint]

Hold on... I thought that privilege was reserved for gays, foreigners (to the USA) and democrats?

 

Add in scientists, non Christians, a lot of Christians, anyone not living in Happy Valley; Utah.

[Gray]

I'm not frustrated, but I wanted to be clear why I don't just give this stuff a pass. I don't expect the literalists to agree with me, but other people are reading who might be led to shut their eyes to the evidence before making up their own minds.

 

Ironically literalism is a kind of empty counterfeit of spirituality. It exists entirely at the surface level of scripture, and in my opinion misses the point of faith entirely. IMO

[jkwilliams]

Yes, it really adds nothing. I don't think literal events or physical objects or anything concrete is the proper place to stake a faith claim. Faith is best left for expressions of value and divinity, while the concrete is best expressed using the tools for concrete things (science). 

 

Think of Saul on the road to Damascus: there are two conflicting accounts in the New Testament. They can't both be right, but if you take a fundamentalist approach, they must both be right, and our confusion is our own fault. Of course, which account is correct is irrelevant to Paul's conversion and ministry. That's how I see the insistence on a literal flood or a 6000-year-old earth: believing that a text has only one meaning is to reject the richness of language and communication in favor of an argument over whether dinosaurs were knockin' about with cavemen.

[jkwilliams]

Ironically literalism is a kind of empty counterfeit of spirituality. It exists entirely at the surface level of scripture, and in my opinion misses the point of faith entirely. IMO

 

It's worth repeating Eagleton's statement that "fundamentalists are really necrophiliacs, in love with a dead letter. The letter of the sacred text must be rigidly embalmed if it is to imbue life with the certitude and finality of death."

 

That's what it's really about: the desire for certitude and finality, which is the equivalent of putting the scriptures in formaldehyde forever.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't, and I'm at peace. I just hope to limit the damage you do to other people by constantly denigrating science, as if it were some kind of evil profession designed to fight God. Leading people into ignorance is not commendable, especially when your sole reason for doing so is that you think your personal interpretation of scripture is right.

I embrace observable and testable science. Godless interpretations on the other hand is leading people into disbelief

[Rob Osborn]

There is no evidence that points to a global flood. In fact all of the evidence from the physical world rules it out.

Oh that I could cause the blind to see but faith they have not.

[thesometimesaint]

I embrace observable and testable science. Godless interpretations on the other hand is leading people into disbelief

 

I don't believe anyone here is giving a Godless interpretation. I just have no need for that hypothesis.

[Gray]

Oh that I could cause the blind to see but faith they have not.

 

What you seem to be advocating is blind faith, which in my view is an affront to God and to human dignity.

 

A carrot in a snowman is not evidence that  Frosty really did come to life. Faith is of no value if it is not tempered with reason. 

Edited February 25, 2014 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

Oh that I could cause the blind to see but faith they have not.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo the Theist.

[Rob Osborn]

What you seem to be advocating is blind faith, which in my view is an affront to God and to human dignity.

 

A carrot in a snowman is not evidence that  Frosty really did come to life. Faith is of no value if it is not tempered with reason.

Like I said, you can lead a horse to water...

[Alan]

 Faith is of no value if it is not tempered with reason. 

 

In my view, it is of very little value if it is.

In fact, in all of scripture I can't remember one instruction to temper our faith.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Alan

[thesometimesaint]

In my view, it is of very little value if it is.

In fact, in all of scripture I can't remember one instruction to temper our faith.

 

Zealotry isn't a hallmark of Mormonism. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I embrace observable and testable science. Godless interpretations on the other hand is leading people into disbelief

What leads to disbelief is the false dichotomy set up by certain atheists and believers like you. A student raised with your world view, who actually examines all the evidence is forced to leave religion behind. It doesn't have to be that way.

[thesometimesaint]

What leads to disbelief is the false dichotomy set up by certain atheists and believers like you. A student raised with your world view, who actually examines all the evidence is forced to leave religion behind. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

SEE Demon-Haunted World.

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:

[Gray]

Like I said, you can lead a horse to water...

 

... but you can't make it grow wings and fly you to Fantastica. 

[Gray]

In my view, it is of very little value if it is.

In fact, in all of scripture I can't remember one instruction to temper our faith.

 

"Come now, and let us reason together," sayeth the LORD

 

If you have no mechanism with which to temper your faith, you must literally believe in everything.  If your filter is to only accept that which agrees with your own biases and tradition, then your faith is not based on respect for truth but rather respect for tradition. That's not faith so much as it is tribalism.

 

Surely God did not endow us with sense, reason, and intellect only to forbid their use. 

Edited February 25, 2014 by Gray

[Rob Osborn]

What leads to disbelief is the false dichotomy set up by certain atheists and believers like you. A student raised with your world view, who actually examines all the evidence is forced to leave religion behind. It doesn't have to be that way.

After examining the evidence I am left with a greater belief in God.