The Nehor Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 26 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: The evidence is credible, but you believe as you wish. Nope.
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Nope. Yup
InCognitus Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 9 hours ago, rongo said: Like @LDS Watchman said, you (and others) are taking stories told as parables and comparing them to stories told as history. Everyone (including the original hearers) knows the difference between the two. That isn't what we're talking about here. The question is: which, if any, of the historical stories in the Bible really happened? Trying to obscure the matter by asking things like "Do you believe the congress of trees in Judges 9:7-15 is real history?" is an attempt to make literalists look ridiculous. No one is talking about believing that parables really happened. As I said in my previous post, I'm not trying to compare parables to history. I'm simply pointing out that scripture consists of multiple genres of writing, and there may be more than one genre of writing that can be detected in the book of Genesis. In the other thread (here), I provided some resources from various studies that discuss this, including one that considers some of the views that people in the church have had about the great flood. There is more than one way to view those events without relegating them to the status of "parable". Almost everyone recognizes parables for what they are, so that's why I used them as an example. But the other genres of writing in scripture may not be quite so obvious to a 21st century reader, and that's why we need to be careful to not always assume a literalist point of view as was taken in the opening post. And we also need to consider the historical writings from the viewpoint of the people who lived at the time of the event. 1
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 27 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: Yup Nope infinity. I win.
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 Just now, The Nehor said: Nope infinity. I win. Lol, I knew something like that was coming. Let's try to be more mature about this.
MiserereNobis Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 32 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I'm saying that doubting that the stories in the scriptures actually happened as described in the scriptures can lead to a loss of faith, because once we start questioning the truthfulness of the scriptures our faith can easily begin to unravel. But, like I posted before, the Catholic Church does not require a literal belief in Genesis 1-11. And the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world. So, "doubting" the literalness of Genesis 1-11 hasn't unraveled the faith of many. 34 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: I agree with you here. I think the key is that "true science" and the word of God are on the same side. No, you do not agree with me. You've changed science to "true science" (it's telling you put it in quotes), so now you're talking about something different than what I'm talking about. It seems that you are talking about creationism pseudo-science that agrees with your viewpoint. 37 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: The story of the creation and origin of man as found in the bible is simply incompatible with the big bang theory and macro evolution. They are in direct conflict with each other. Like it or not that's a serious conflict between "Science" and "Christianity." Not in Catholicism. 38 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: People deal with this issue in different ways. I choose to believe the scriptures over these scientific theories. Others choose science over the scriptures. Many others try to walk a path in between the two. You've set up a false dichotomy between scripture and science.
Calm Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: Have you read any of ICR's articles on the flood? Yep.
JAHS Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Teancum said: I disagree. Faith is not courageous at all. It is timid. It is childish. It is weak. It is ignorng free and critical thinking. It is relying on a belief in something that someone else tells you some God is telling them. It is a controlling mechanism. Courage is rejecting challenging everything even if it destroys you indoctrinated faith. That is courage because it can unravel your world. I have been involved in free and critical thinking as I spent years earning a PhD in biochemistry. I didn't know if I could get through all that schooling but I had faith that I could do it. And since faith without works is dead I worked hard at it. My faith in myself to do it helped strengthen my positive mental attitude greatly. My faith in God gives me hope that I will some day be able to see my wife and child again. It works for me so I will stick with it. If I die and there is nothing after this life I won't know it anyway because I will no longer exist. 2
katherine the great Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said: The scriptures say that Satan deceives the whole world. That's what we're seeing today. He's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes in order to destroy their faith in God and his word. So did Satan create all the mountains of evidence against a young earth? Did Satan create the fossil record found in the earth stratum from the bottom up? Did he create the mutation rate in DNA? Did he create the unbroken Australian fossil record that shows the unique forms of life that live there (and only there) and then erase the evidence of these creatures’ migration from the mountains of Ararat back to (and only to) Australia? Penguins? I thought God was the creator and the God I worship doesn’t give us the greatest brain of all and then try to fool us with phony evidence. He does, however, allow parables and allegory in scripture. 3
InCognitus Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: I think Elder Widstoe did the church a disservice with this comment. I'm actually not really a fan of his for a number of reasons. I'm firmly in Joseph Fielding Smith's camp on issues such as the flood and evolution. You would benefit from watching this: Joseph Fielding Smith was influenced by a Seventh-day Adventist creationist pamphlet, which he quoted from directly. Edit: In the video above, Ben Spackman mentioned that he was to present a paper in "July" on the Seventh-Day Adventist influence on Joseph Fielding Smith's views on evolution. I looked for that presentation, and apparently that was pushed until next year. But I did find this on his blog. from September 21, 2020, which he describes as "an expanded teaser [to his presentation] with some analysis of philosophical underpinnings": Interpreting Science and Scripture: Joseph Fielding Smith, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Hermeneutics in LDS History Edited December 18, 2020 by InCognitus 3
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Not in Catholicism. With all do respect, I consider Catholicism to be a corrupt and apostate form of Christianity, so I honestly don't care if the Catholic church embraces macro evolution and the big bang theory these days. These bogus theories are completely contrary to the scriptures. Having said that, I do have a lot of love and respect for individual Catholics who faithfully live their religion and strive to serve God and their fellow man to the best of their ability. 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: You've changed science to "true science" (it's telling you put it in quotes), so now you're talking about something different than what I'm talking about. It seems that you are talking about creationism pseudo-science that agrees with your viewpoint. Creationism is not pseudoscience at all. Nothing ever gets made unless some intelligent being made it. That's science. The pseudoscientific theory that our world and the life on it came together on it's own by random chance over eons is the biggest load of crap. There's nothing scientific about it. Tell me when was the last time a scientist observed anything being created on it's own without a creator? How about a human nervous system, did that develop on it's own? Big bang and macro evolution are pseudoscience. Neither have been observed. Neither have been tested using the scientific method. Big bang. What a joke. Eons ago there was an explosion in which something was created out of nothing. That's not science. Macro evolution is another joke. Where are the half developed eye balls? Where are the half developed wings and legs? Where is one creature anywhere upon the earth that is clearly in transition from one species to another. Not a single one exists. If macro evolution was real we would see transitional species everywhere, but there are none. That's not science. Edited December 18, 2020 by LDS Watchman
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 49 minutes ago, katherine the great said: So did Satan create all the mountains of evidence against a young earth? I don't believe that there really are mountains of evidence against a young earth. It's a matter of how one interpretates the available evidence. There's plenty of evidence for a young earth, but the scientistific community has made up it's mind that the earth is ancient and so all evidence that suggests a young earth is disgarded. Of course the matter on earth is ancient, so the scientists do have that one right. 56 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Did Satan create the fossil record found in the earth stratum from the bottom up? Did he create the mutation rate in DNA? Did he create the unbroken Australian fossil record that shows the unique forms of life that live there (and only there) and then erase the evidence of these creatures’ migration from the mountains of Ararat back to (and only to) Australia? Penguins? None of these things prove that the earth is eons of years old and that life has been upon it for millions and millions of years. This is just how the scientific community understands it. 1 hour ago, katherine the great said: I thought God was the creator and the God I worship doesn’t give us the greatest brain of all and then try to fool us with phony evidence. The God I worship doesn't "try to fool us with phony evidence" either. The God I worship is the master scientist. But he doesn't tell the world his mysteries. He expects us to have faith in him and trust in him in spite of what the philosophies of men claim. He said that his ways are not our ways and that the wisdom of man is foolishness to him. Human scientists, most of whom have rejected the words of their Creator, don't know anything in comparison to what the almighty Creator knows, yet they think they know better than the God who gave them life. God can move mountains instantly with the snap of his finger. He doesn't need to wait millions of years. God can command species of animals to adapt and evolve within their kinds at a rapid rate. Scientists have no way to account for what God can do, so they eliminate him from the equation and create these godless theories to try and make sense of our world without our Creator. I choose the word of God over the word of man.
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: @mfbukowskiMark! Mark! Quick, we need the Rorty video!! It might be good for LDS Watchman to see, too. We'll make it part of the board's initiation for new posters. You are a glutton for punishment! NOTICE He says "we know what truth is, we know how to use the word- but it's undefinable." He's not saying "there is no truth" - and guess what- this way of thinking is precisely what any religious person needs in today's intellectual climate. A religious person now can say - using Rorty's position- essentially that his position is as "true" IN THE CATEGORY OF RELIGION AND MORALS- as anyone else's including atheists. Do atheists have morals? Of course they do!! What are they based on? "Feelings in their heart" and the usefulness/pragmatic value of the belief. In that sense even atheists believe in a conscience- the Light of Christ! "Thou shalt not kill" gives one a peaceful society which is more desirable than one in which you have to worry about being mugged or your kids in a gang. What are our morals and sense of truth based on ? Feelings in our heart!! This is something we actually have in common with all humanity. We need to use that. When Rorty speaks of religion he often speaks indirectly about our doctrine- AND his wife was LDS and he allowed his kids to be brought up LDS. There's a bit more in my siggy. Edited December 18, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
carbon dioxide Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 I believe in the teachings of the scriptures on Noah and the flood. That does not mean I believe the flood was global in scope. The scriptures don't demand such an interpretation. The flood was big enough to wipe out the civilization that Noah lived in. It was too big for Noah to avoid or simply take a long hike to get away from. However it was not so big that it wiped out all animal life on earth. Some believe the flood was global. Others believe it was just local. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 1 hour ago, InCognitus said: You would benefit from watching this: Joseph Fielding Smith was influenced by a Seventh-day Adventist creationist pamphlet, which he quoted from directly. Edit: In the video above, Ben Spackman mentioned that he was to present a paper in "July" on the Seventh-Day Adventist influence on Joseph Fielding Smith's views on evolution. I looked for that presentation, and apparently that was pushed until next year. But I did find this on his blog. from September 21, 2020, which he describes as "an expanded teaser [to his presentation] with some analysis of philosophical underpinnings": Interpreting Science and Scripture: Joseph Fielding Smith, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Hermeneutics in LDS History Ben is THE expert in this area
katherine the great Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 44 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: There's plenty of evidence for a young earth Wrong 45 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: Scientists have no way to account for what God can do, so they eliminate him from the equation and create these godless theories to try and make sense of our world without our Creator. You have no understanding of science. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: The story of the creation and origin of man as found in the bible is simply incompatible with the big bang theory and macro evolution. They are in direct conflict with each other. Like it or not that's a serious conflict between "Science" and "Christianity." Not anymore than Basketball is in conflict with Christianity- both simply present different contexts, different purposes and ways of looking at the world. As Galileo said, "Scripture teaches us about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" The alleged conflict between science and Christianity is simply one of purpose and viewpoint, and vocabulary 2
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said: Creationism is not pseudoscience at all. Nothing ever gets made unless some intelligent being made it. That's science. No, that's begging the question. 2
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: No, that's begging the question. Ever heard of the scientific method? Science begins with a question. Then a hypothesis is made. Then experiments are performed to test the hypothesis. The results of the experiment are then observed. Have scientists ever observed life forming in a pool of water, in which there was no life previously? How about in dirt? Have scientists observed creatures today who have a half formed eye? What about ocean dwelling creatures which are about to crawl out of the ocean? How about clear transitional species? They haven't observed any of these things yet they claim them to be fact. Macro evolution is a pseudoscience. It's a religion that requires faith by it's adherents. It's a travesty that this bogus theory is presented as fact by the scientific community and that our children are brainwashed with it in school. Edited December 18, 2020 by LDS Watchman
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Teancum said: What tangible evidence do you have about a literal global flood, that all humans on earth today are a result of a few people 4000 years ago, that the BoM people literally existed in the Americas and so on... For the flood, how about the fact that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains? Or that nearly every ancient culture has a great flood story? For the origin of people, how about the fact that cultural development is very similar or even identical for ancient people who lived on different continents and the islands of the sea? And that these similar cultural developments happened in the same time period as each other? For the Book of Mormon, how about the ancient ruins of buildings in the Americas? How about ancient gold, ore, and copper mines in Peru? How about the ancient highway system in Peru? How about the sunken city at the bottom of Lake Titicaca? Edited December 18, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Calm Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: that these similar cultural developments happened in the same time period as each other? How would this be evidence for the origin of people? Edited December 18, 2020 by Calm
smac97 Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 12 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: Quote Quote What it boils down to is that the only reason any believer would doubt that the flood literally happened as described in the scriptures, is because secular science tells them it's ridiculous. "Secular science" would also tell us that turning water to wine, raising Lazarus and Jairus' daugher from the dead, multiplying the loaves and fishes, Christ's resurrection, and so on are impossible or ridiculous, and yet we believe these things. Some people who deny the reality of the flood believe in these other miracles, but many reject these, too. There are plenty of believers who believe that the flood happened, but was local. These same believers also believe in miracles (water to wine, etc.) despite "secular science" telling them not to. Belief in God still requires faith in things that are not explainable by "secular science." 12 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: Quote Meanwhile, what are your thoughts about Elder Widtsoe's remarks? Here they are again: Quote THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us {Widtsoe, p. 127}. ...Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, 1987. I think Elder Widstoe did the church a disservice with this comment. Earlier in this thread you were saying that "the leaders of the church who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have taught that the flood literally happened" and warned us against "doubt{ing} the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood." Yet here you are, apparently "doubt{ing}" Elder Widtsoe. I will also note that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (that contains the article quoting Elder Widtsoe) though not published by the Church, was "a project and title approved by the First Presidency." Its intended purpose was to "become one of the major resources available for Church members" and "be of special help to new members in familiarizing themselves with the heritage and perspective of the Church." Does that make the EOM doctrine? Nope. Not by a long shot. It's an authority, but a "persuasive" rather than "mandatory" one. I acknowledge Donald Parry's 1998 Ensign article speaks of the flood as being global ("Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth"). However, Donald Parry was not a general authority. And as I noted earlier, Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." There are many things that general authorities have addressed in their prophetic capacity which I feel obligated to accept as doctrinally binding. That the Flood literally covered the entire earth is not one of those things. It's not in the Temple Recommend interview questions. I have never been asked to commit to it as a precondition to receiving a calling. The scope of the flood is not an essential doctrine or belief. "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are but appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 121). I believe in prophets and apostles. I believe in past and continuing revelation. I believe in miracles. But I am not persuaded that I am obligated to believe that the Flood was global. 12 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: I'm actually not really a fan of his for a number of reasons. I'm firmly in Joseph Fielding Smith's camp on issues such as the flood and evolution. Do you see any risk in choosing "camp{s}" in this way? I sure do. Thanks, -Smac 4
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2020 Posted December 18, 2020 1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said: Ever heard of the scientific method? Science begins with a question. Then a hypothesis is made. Then experiments are performed to test the hypothesis. The results of the experiment are then observed. Have scientists ever observed life forming in a pool of water, in which there was no life previously? How about in dirt? Have scientists observed creatures today who have a half formed eye? What about ocean dwelling creatures which are about to crawl out of the ocean? How about clear transitional species? They haven't observed any of these things yet they claim them to be fact. Macro evolution is a pseudoscience. It's a religion that requires faith by it's adherents. It's a travesty that this bogus theory is presented as fact by the scientific community and that our children are brainwashed with it in school. Every sentence here is like a hammer of pure idiocy pounding into my skull. 1
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 26 minutes ago, Calm said: How would this be evidence for the origin of people? It suggests that the people were originally all gathered together in one body after the flood and had the same culture or similar culture. Then when the continents were divided in the days of Peleg, that's when the different cultures were separated from each other and branched out on their own.
LDS Watchman Posted December 18, 2020 Author Posted December 18, 2020 19 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Every sentence here is like a hammer of pure idiocy pounding into my skull. Apparently all you have to offer is insults. You must not have any good counter arguments.
Recommended Posts