Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[JLHPROF]

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

 

Why is that?

 

Because if some things in the book are not true then other things in the book might also not be true, and how do we determine which to believe as fact and which to dismiss?  How do we know which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as symbolic?

I have no fear of non-literal things in the scriptures (parables, symbols etc), but that's not what what we are talking about here.

Satan wasn't a serpent, the HG wasn't a dove, but I don't think it's so hard to use common sense to tell which items are symbolic and which are meant to be historical.

We are talking about items in the lives of the prophets which if they didn't happen cause us to question the existence of their very lives.

 

Look, I make no claim to be an expert on evolutionary science, geology, anthropology or any of those sciences.  I accept that there is much truth discovered and revealed by them.

 

But these are the same people who say there were no civilizations with great cities as described in the BOM.

These are sometimes the same people whose academic studies have led them to doubt Christ ever existed.  And that would make our whole religion void.  If they are right that Noah never existed, maybe they're also right that Moses never existed.  If they're right that Noah & Moses never existed them maybe they're right that Christ never existed using the same standards.  They would also be correct that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization never existed.

If none of them ever existed then Joseph Smith was a huge liar and my whole religion is pointless.  I don't trust all their conclusions in the name of science & history.  Truth IS found everywhere, but God is always the source, not man.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, I don't think it is obvious at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If you are not an eye witness to the flood (or non-flood) how can you be so sure it didn't occur? Especially as most of those humans tribes scattered over the earth have legends and stories of a great cataclysmic flood.

I do find your statement rather arrogant to be honest.

 

Even you know better than that. You weren't an eye witness to the birth of your parents, but even you would say they existed.

 

I don't know of any culture that hasn't had flooding at some time in their past. Unfortunately there is only one that has it in the right time, place, extent, and the right God for Bible Literalists.

[jkwilliams]

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

Symbolic != dishonest

 

Because if some things in the book are not true then other things in the book might also not be true, and how do we determine which to believe as fact and which to dismiss?  How do we know which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as symbolic?

I thought we were supposed to believe in revelation.

I have no fear of non-literal things in the scriptures (parables, symbols etc), but that's not what what we are talking about here.

It's what I'm talking about here.

Satan wasn't a serpent, the HG wasn't a dove, but I don't think it's so hard to use common sense to tell which items are symbolic and which are meant to be historical. We are talking about items in the lives of the prophets which if they didn't happen cause us to question the existence of their very lives.

They don't cause me to question the existence of their lives. And if they did, is that a bad thing? Should we be content to just passively accept everything as literal without pondering and praying, studying it out? That seems antithetical to what I was taught.

 

Look, I make no claim to be an expert on evolutionary science, geology, anthropology or any of those sciences.  I accept that there is much truth discovered and revealed by them.

Then why draw the line when discovered truth conflicts with your human interpretation of scripture?

 

But these are the same people who say there were no civilizations with great cities as described in the BOM. These are sometimes the same people whose academic studies have led them to doubt Christ ever existed.  And that would make our whole religion void.

IMO, doubt is an essential part of faith. Once you believe everything is certain and set in stone, you stop learning and progressing, intellectually and spiritually. To me, that's when religion is "void," as you say, because it no longer leads to progression.

If they are right that Noah never existed, maybe they're also right that Moses never existed.  If they're right that Noah & Moses never existed them maybe they're right that Christ never existed using the same standards.  They would also be correct that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization never existed.

If none of them ever existed then Joseph Smith was a huge liar and my whole religion is pointless.

Let me try to explain what I think is a better approach. Rather than insist that it's either all literally true or all false, I find it more productive to consider that my preconceptions about the scriptures may not be correct. Take Noah, for instance: In the face of evidence that there was no global flood, I can panic and decide that none of that story is true, it's all a fabrication. Or I can decide that there's something to that story that is much more important than the literal global flood and try to figure out through study and prayer what that is and what God wants me to take from that story. At that point, whether there was a global flood or not becomes irrelevant. I don't worry about the flood anymore because that's not what God wants me to learn from the story of Noah.

I don't trust all their conclusions in the name of science & history.  Truth IS found everywhere, but God is always the source, not man.

God's truth always comes through man, however.

[Rob Osborn]

How about 100,000 years or more of ice layers?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

What do you think about planes buried in over 200 feet of ice?http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Edited February 27, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Gray]

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

 

 

Because if some things in the book are not true then other things in the book might also not be true, and how do we determine which to believe as fact and which to dismiss?  How do we know which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as symbolic?

I have no fear of non-literal things in the scriptures (parables, symbols etc), but that's not what what we are talking about here.

Satan wasn't a serpent, the HG wasn't a dove, but I don't think it's so hard to use common sense to tell which items are symbolic and which are meant to be historical.

We are talking about items in the lives of the prophets which if they didn't happen cause us to question the existence of their very lives.

 

Look, I make no claim to be an expert on evolutionary science, geology, anthropology or any of those sciences.  I accept that there is much truth discovered and revealed by them.

 

But these are the same people who say there were no civilizations with great cities as described in the BOM.

These are sometimes the same people whose academic studies have led them to doubt Christ ever existed.  And that would make our whole religion void.  If they are right that Noah never existed, maybe they're also right that Moses never existed.  If they're right that Noah & Moses never existed them maybe they're right that Christ never existed using the same standards.  They would also be correct that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization never existed.

If none of them ever existed then Joseph Smith was a huge liar and my whole religion is pointless.  I don't trust all their conclusions in the name of science & history.  Truth IS found everywhere, but God is always the source, not man.

 

This is probably too short an answer, but for me good principles speak to something deep within us. The confirmation is not by circular reference to some text - the confirmation is written upon  the human heart. We are moral agents with moral reasoning. It seems a shame to let that ability atrophy. 

 

I don't quite understand what value is added by taking scriptural stories literally, even if they literally happened. The point is the moral lesson, is it not?

[JLHPROF]

Let me try to explain what I think is a better approach. Rather than insist that it's either all literally true or all false, I find it more productive to consider that my preconceptions about the scriptures may not be correct. Take Noah, for instance: In the face of evidence that there was no global flood, I can panic and decide that none of that story is true, it's all a fabrication. Or I can decide that there's something to that story that is much more important than the literal global flood and try to figure out through study and prayer what that is and what God wants me to take from that story. At that point, whether there was a global flood or not becomes irrelevant. I don't worry about the flood anymore because that's not what God wants me to learn from the story of Noah.

 

This approach ignores repercussions.  I don't disagree with anything you say here.  The lesson of the flood is far more important than whether or not it literally happened.  But the repercussion of saying "The flood didn't happen" is that the same evidence MIGHT lead us to think "Noah wasn't a real person either".  And if Noah really didn't exist as a person then that trickles down as I said to the truthfulness of the gospel accounts, the D&C accounts, and the prophet Joseph and his revelations.

The same applies to the Exodus & Moses.  If Moses didn't exist where did the law of Moses come from and is it really from God?

The same applies to Adam & Eve.  If Adam didn't exist, who did Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith see in vision.  If Adam didn't exist who will be returning as the Ancient of Days in prophecy.

 

Removal of one item as historical and identifying it as symbolic may sometimes be correct but it can't happen in a vacuum.  It affects other items of faith as well.

[jkwilliams]

This approach ignores repercussions.  I don't disagree with anything you say here.  The lesson of the flood is far more important than whether or not it literally happened.  But the repercussion of saying "The flood didn't happen" is that the same evidence MIGHT lead us to think "Noah wasn't a real person either".  And if Noah really didn't exist as a person then that trickles down as I said to the truthfulness of the gospel accounts, the D&C accounts, and the prophet Joseph and his revelations.

The same applies to the Exodus & Moses.  If Moses didn't exist where did the law of Moses come from and is it really from God?

The same applies to Adam & Eve.  If Adam didn't exist, who did Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith see in vision.  If Adam didn't exist who will be returning as the Ancient of Days in prophecy.

 

Removal of one item as historical and identifying it as symbolic may sometimes be correct but it can't happen in a vacuum.  It affects other items of faith as well.

That's why I believe we ought to let God tell us what is important in a scriptural story instead of assuming it's absolutely literal and refusing to consider anything else. If we're on the same page as God, who cares about repercussions?

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

 

 

Because if some things in the book are not true then other things in the book might also not be true, and how do we determine which to believe as fact and which to dismiss?  How do we know which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as symbolic?

I have no fear of non-literal things in the scriptures (parables, symbols etc), but that's not what what we are talking about here.

Satan wasn't a serpent, the HG wasn't a dove, but I don't think it's so hard to use common sense to tell which items are symbolic and which are meant to be historical.

We are talking about items in the lives of the prophets which if they didn't happen cause us to question the existence of their very lives.

 

Look, I make no claim to be an expert on evolutionary science, geology, anthropology or any of those sciences.  I accept that there is much truth discovered and revealed by them.

 

But these are the same people who say there were no civilizations with great cities as described in the BOM.

These are sometimes the same people whose academic studies have led them to doubt Christ ever existed.  And that would make our whole religion void.  If they are right that Noah never existed, maybe they're also right that Moses never existed.  If they're right that Noah & Moses never existed them maybe they're right that Christ never existed using the same standards.  They would also be correct that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization never existed.

If none of them ever existed then Joseph Smith was a huge liar and my whole religion is pointless.  I don't trust all their conclusions in the name of science & history.  Truth IS found everywhere, but God is always the source, not man.

 

Not even our Church accepts your premise.

 

If you don't have even an elementary understanding of those subjects. Why are you making claims about them?

 

No scientist that I know doubts that Mesoamerica had highly advanced civilizations(for the times). The argument is over what were the beliefs of those civilizations and is there a correspondence with Christianity.

 

I have no doubt that Noah existed; That he was a Prophet of God; That he built a boat; That he tried to save what he could; That he recorded accurately what he saw; A massive albeit regional flood.

 

Same with Moses except were not talking about a flood.

 

Even our own Church claims the same. That if JS wasn't telling the truth. Then the whole thing is a farce, and fantasy invented by a con-artist. But I firmly believe he was telling the truth, and my experiences with God confirm it. Your mileage may vary.

 

That statement is oxymoronic.

[thesometimesaint]

What do you think about planes buried in over 200 feet of ice?http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/digging-out-of-the-ice-in-greenland/

[Rob Osborn]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/digging-out-of-the-ice-in-greenland/

So, different goalposts when we have actual evidence....

 

I get it now

[jkwilliams]

So, different goalposts when we have actual evidence....

 

I get it now

What evidence are you talking about?

[thesometimesaint]

What evidence are you talking about?

 

I have no idea. But he seems ignorant of the fact that glaciers move.

[The Nehor]

What evidence are you talking about?

I was beginning to doubt Rob actually reads the articles and books he posts about. When he threw an IDer that completely disagreed with him on basically everything out as evidence for his side I moved on to full-fledged doubt.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Not even our Church accepts your premise.

 

My church and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.  It's still God's church though.

 

 

If you don't have even an elementary understanding of those subjects. Why are you making claims about them?

No scientist that I know doubts that Mesoamerica had highly advanced civilizations(for the times). The argument is over what were the beliefs of those civilizations and is there a correspondence with Christianity.

 

I didn't say I didn't have an elementary understanding.  I said I am no expert on the lastest studies and scholars.  I am no academic and I made NO claims concerning those things.  I did reiterate some of the academic beliefs that get trotted out against the Church from time to time.

 

 I have no doubt that Noah existed; That he was a Prophet of God; That he built a boat; That he tried to save what he could; That he recorded accurately what he saw; A massive albeit regional flood.

Same with Moses except were not talking about a flood.

 

That's good.  Not everyone here shares your belief.  There are those (even members) here who have expressed the view that Noah/Moses probably didn't exist, and I was objecting to that.  I'm glad you and I agree on something occasionally.

 

 

Even our own Church claims the same. That if JS wasn't telling the truth. Then the whole thing is a farce, and fantasy invented by a con-artist. But I firmly believe he was telling the truth, and my experiences with God confirm it. Your mileage may vary.

 

Yet we consistently read ideas here that while innocuous on their own, when taken as a group cause the doctrinal structure to crumble.  That was my only point.  Removing the flood as a historical event is pretty much harmless.  Unless it causes people to question Noah's existence or the Bible's believability, which can cause other events and doctrines to be called into question.  Maybe there was no global flood (I still think there probably was), but the gospel is a complex tapestry of doctrine, events, and teachings.  We should examine and study and reason, but we should be very careful which threads we pull on to discard lest the whole gospel unravel.

[jkwilliams]

Yet we consistently read ideas here that while innocuous on their own, when taken as a group cause the doctrinal structure to crumble.  That was my only point.  Removing the flood as a historical event is pretty much harmless.  Unless it causes people to question Noah's existence or the Bible's believability, which can cause other events and doctrines to be called into question.  Maybe there was no global flood (I still think there probably was), but the gospel is a complex tapestry of doctrine, events, and teachings.  We should examine and study and reason, but we should be very careful which threads we pull on to discard lest the whole gospel unravel.

Again, what I'm seeing here is fear, not faith. If I don't accept X as totally literal, it might possibly lead to me not believing Y, which might lead to Z, which might make my faith collapse.

Faith ought not to be a fragile house of cards built on a narrow interpretation of scripture. Faith grows with increased knowledge and understanding; it isn't threatened by new information.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

 

My church and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.  It's still God's church though.

 

 

I didn't say I didn't have an elementary understanding.  I said I am no expert on the lastest studies and scholars.  I am no academic and I made NO claims concerning those things.  I did reiterate some of the academic beliefs that get trotted out against the Church from time to time.

 

 

That's good.  Not everyone here shares your belief.  There are those (even members) here who have expressed the view that Noah/Moses probably didn't exist, and I was objecting to that.  I'm glad you and I agree on something occasionally.

 

 

Yet we consistently read ideas here that while innocuous on their own, when taken as a group cause the doctrinal structure to crumble.  That was my only point.  Removing the flood as a historical event is pretty much harmless.  Unless it causes people to question Noah's existence or the Bible's believability, which can cause other events and doctrines to be called into question.  Maybe there was no global flood (I still think there probably was), but the gospel is a complex tapestry of doctrine, events, and teachings.  We should examine and study and reason, but we should be very careful which threads we pull on to discard lest the whole gospel unravel.

 

 

I have no problem with that. Somethings said by some people who happen to be members of the Church drive me crazy too. But I forgive them and hope they forgive me my many crazy sounding things that I've said.

 

I am expert in only two areas. One is Social Work, and the other is what I believe. That being said I do know how to read and have a pretty good comprehension of what I do read.

 

As a faithful LDS I too have seen science sounding arguments made against our religion. I give them no more truck than I do religious sounding arguments against science. Believe me I've had this same argument with my atheist sister who happens to be a published peer reviewed research chemist.

 

I think we agree far more than we disagree.

 

I do try to present what I believe in a reasonably coherent manner. If anyone takes that to mean that I disbelieve in God, Christ, or his Church  I am sorry, but they are mistaken about what I believe.

 

I believe God expects us to test everything about everything. How else are we to become like God? Like a good Rabbi once told me; I go to the science books to explain to me how God did it, and I go to the Torah to explain the why he did it.

[Rob Osborn]

I was beginning to doubt Rob actually reads the articles and books he posts about. When he threw an IDer that completely disagreed with him on basically everything out as evidence for his side I moved on to full-fledged doubt.

When Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" first came out I was one of the first to go out and buy it. I read it and at that point whole-heartedly placed all my chips in with Intelligent Design. It was the first time I had seen where someone applied real science to the problems associated with Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with everything in his book nor sone of his ideas but nevertheless I wouldnt give kudos to him if I didnt generally hink he is right in the most important areas. If you havent read his book I mentioned, you should. He basically buries Darwinian evolution principle. An BTW, he is pretty much against every aspect of Darwinian evolution.

[The Nehor]

When Behe's book "Darwins Black Box" first came out I was one of the first to go out and buy it. I read it and at that point whole-heartedly placed all my chips in with Intelligent Design. It was the first time I had seen where someone applied real science to the problems associated with Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with everything in his book nor sone of his ideas but nevertheless I wouldnt give kudos to him if I didnt generally hink he is right in the most important areas. If you havent read his book I mentioned, you should. He basically buries Darwinian evolution principle. An BTW, he is pretty much against every aspect of Darwinian evolution.

Then why do you read creationist trash if this is "real science"? I have not read the book and do not intend to. I have been told that one of his main themes was irreducible complexity which has been discredited and is now obsolete. I have read a few of his papers. He is pro-evolution now if he was not when he write that book.

[ERayR]

Again, why do you insist on this false dichotomy?

 

Because it exists.

[Gray]

Because it exists.

 

It exists in most orthodoxies, but it's not the only way of approaching these subjects to say the least.

[Rob Osborn]

Then why do you read creationist trash if this is "real science"? I have not read the book and do not intend to. I have been told that one of his main themes was irreducible complexity which has been discredited and is now obsolete. I have read a few of his papers. He is pro-evolution now if he was not when he write that book.

His work on ireducable complexity is in fact grounbreaking to science. It basically destroys Darwinian evolution

[Gray]

His work on ireducable complexity is in fact grounbreaking to science. It basically destroys Darwinian evolution

 

In the same way that healing through crystals and foot pressure points has destroyed medical science.

[The Nehor]

His work on ireducable complexity is in fact grounbreaking to science. It basically destroys Darwinian evolution

No. Much of it has been shot to pieces.

[thesometimesaint]

His work on ireducable complexity is in fact grounbreaking to science. It basically destroys Darwinian evolution

 

Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_desig

Edited February 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

It exists in most orthodoxies, but it's not the only way of approaching these subjects to say the least.

 

I did not make the claim that it was the only way of approaching these subjects.  I stated in one post that some people place theories from academia over scriptures.  I was then asked why I insisted on that false dichotomy.  I replied "Because it exists". 

 

The only way you can eliminate that dichotomy is to eliminate academic theories or eliminate scripture as a source of credible information.  My original comment was that some people have done this.  Some judge the credibility of scripture by academic theories and some judge the credibility of academic theory by scripture and to some of us it becomes a balancing act.