Hinckley quote

[tjohnson]

Here's a quote I just found on another website... I thought it was pretty intense, and even current:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."-
President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

I love how he is able to threaten without actual backing... and it's effective for current members. :Puking Basically, either you believe 100% or you don't and you will go to hell. :Puking

At least he got half of it right... I'm in full agreement with the "it is nothing" part. :D :D

[nate]

Here's a quote I just found on another website... I thought it was pretty intense, and even current:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."-
President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

I love how he is able to threaten without actual backing... and it's effective for current members. :Puking Basically, either you believe 100% or you don't and you will go to hell. :Puking

At least he got half of it right... I'm in full agreement with the "it is nothing" part. :D :D

"Each of has to face the matter".... but let US do it FOR YOU!!

[darin]

Nate,

Just had to say, I LOVE your avatar. VERY cool.

[silverfox]

Here's a quote I just found on another website... I thought it was pretty intense, and even current:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."-
President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

I love how he is able to threaten without actual backing... and it's effective for current members. :Puking Basically, either you believe 100% or you don't and you will go to hell. :Puking

At least he got half of it right... I'm in full agreement with the "it is nothing" part. :D :D

My hubby used this quote when I first started my exit. He used it over and over and over and over. I got so sick of it! Each time I would respond with "then it's not true". It freaked him out. But he is slowly coming around. Now he is starting to realize that there are some untruths and now I use the quote on him. (heh heh)

[Born Free]

My hubby used this quote when I first started my exit. He used it over and over and over and over. I got so sick of it! Each time I would respond with "then it's not true". It freaked him out. But he is slowly coming around. Now he is starting to realize that there are some untruths and now I use the quote on him. (heh heh)

That statement does not even deserve to be answered, it is so purile. It is like a political party going to an election where I get to vote for one of two major parties, Each party has 2,561 policies, and when one wins, they then have the gaul to argue that by getting some slim majority, they have a 'mandate' to implement all their policies.

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right!!!!!!!!

This either/or level of thinking says where Moism comes from - a very immature level of thinking. It follows that if it is 'right' then it is perfect and therefore it never does anything wrong or less than perfect????

And an apologist will say "No, the Gospel is perfect, but the Church is human!" to give themselves some wiggle room. But the statement was "The Church is true", so stiff,; there is no wiggle room.

It says more about their thinking, and what holds them captive.

Confronted with such an immature argument, rather than buying into the immature logic, go after the mindset, and seize the high moral ground, and make them defend.

Keep in mind, this is not some teenager mounting this "logic", but one of their esteemed wise men.

Daryl

[nate]

Nate,

Just had to say, I LOVE your avatar. VERY cool.

Thanks Darin! It's actually a piece by the artist, Derek Hess. You can see more of his stuff at www.derekhess.com.

Nate

[miss taken]

Hmmm. I have heard exactly the same thing said about the Old and New Testament....either you take the lot or you take nothing.... I was never convinced of that either...

Is it a fraud if Joseph was a fraud. I am not so sure it is as easy as that. Maybe like all things, despite the very human origins of most organisations, there is a spark of the divine that survives.

I came to the conclusion that asking if it is true or not is no longer valid. To me the question that any person should ask themselves is... Is this doing me good, is it helping me to be a better more loving more kind person, if it is then fine and well. If it isn't then somethings up.


Mary

[wescape]

Hi Mary,

I agree that humans and human organizations are deeply flawed. In the case of Mormonism, we have a human organization that was founded by individuals (most heinously Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) who deliberately deceived people for personal gain. In fact, it is accurate to say that the whole thing originated from and is built on deception. Smith used King James English to make his "scriptures" sound like the Bible and probably had a very charismatic personality that enabled him to fool folks who were looking for direction. His goals were clearly power, sex, and money. When Smith was "martryed," Brigham Young just picked up where the "prophet" left off and moved the Mormon machine thousands of miles away to a remote enough area where he could have absolute power. From there, Mormonism flourished under his tyrannical rule and resulted in awful atrocities like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But then Mormon leaders started caving in to political pressure when they received the "new revelation from God" that the everlasting commandment polygamy was now forbidden. After that, Mormonism gradually grew into what it is seen as today. Of course, now with the internet, people have access to information that pulls the rug out from under Mormonism and apparently are leaving in droves.

Many put the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus in a similar category, and for understandable reasons. People claiming Christianity have done unspeakable things over the last two millenia. The dilemma is that these folks were not acting in accordance with what Jesus taught and therefore I must question the validity of their claim to be his follower. At the same time, a major tenet of Biblical Christianity is that all human beings are fallen and in need of God's grace which is of course the whole reason Jesus came to die in the first place. In that sense, no one is perfect, but extreme stuff like the crusades, the inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, hate crimes against homosexuals, etc. is in total opposition with who Jesus was and the life he lived.

All of this to say that in some ways I believe Chrisitanity and Mormonism are in a similar boat: Either the founder of each was legitimate, including their claims (Jesus is the Son of God/Joseph Smith is a prophet of God) or they were not and everything hinges on the answer to that question. If the latter is true for either, then both crumble under the weight of deception and there was nothing divine about either of these men or what they created. On the other hand, if either one was legitimate then there are equally enormous implications on the other side. That's why I think looking at the credibility of these individuals is so important.

You said that the main question needs to be "Is this doing me good, is it helping me to be a better more loving more kind person." I believe it is possible for people to genuinely believe that the answer to that question is yes when in actuality the answer is no. Obviously, it depends on one's definitions of good, kind, and loving. Crazy as it may sound, I believe Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini thought they were being good, kind, and loving and they convinced millions of the same. Perhaps the folks who led the crusades and inquisitions thought they were being good, kind, and loving too? Of course, most of us would agree that those words do not apply to any of these situations but who decides what those words mean?

Just my two cents. :)

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Hi Mary,

I agree that humans and human organizations are deeply flawed. In the case of Mormonism, we have a human organization that was founded by individuals (most heinously Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) who deliberately deceived people for personal gain. In fact, it is accurate to say that the whole thing originated from and is built on deception. Smith used King James English to make his "scriptures" sound like the Bible and probably had a very charismatic personality that enabled him to fool folks who were looking for direction. His goals were clearly power, sex, and money. When Smith was "martryed," Brigham Young just picked up where the "prophet" left off and moved the Mormon machine thousands of miles away to a remote enough area where he could have absolute power. From there, Mormonism flourished under his tyrannical rule and resulted in awful atrocities like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But then Mormon leaders started caving in to political pressure when they received the "new revelation from God" that the everlasting commandment polygamy was now forbidden. After that, Mormonism gradually grew into what it is seen as today. Of course, now with the internet, people have access to information that pulls the rug out from under Mormonism and apparently are leaving in droves.

Many put the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus in a similar category, and for understandable reasons. People claiming Christianity have done unspeakable things over the last two millenia. The dilemma is that these folks were not acting in accordance with what Jesus taught and therefore I must question the validity of their claim to be his follower. At the same time, a major tenet of Biblical Christianity is that all human beings are fallen and in need of God's grace which is of course the whole reason Jesus came to die in the first place. In that sense, no one is perfect, but extreme stuff like the crusades, the inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, hate crimes against homosexuals, etc. is in total opposition with who Jesus was and the life he lived.

All of this to say that in some ways I believe Chrisitanity and Mormonism are in a similar boat: Either the founder of each was legitimate, including their claims (Jesus is the Son of God/Joseph Smith is a prophet of God) or they were not and everything hinges on the answer to that question. If the latter is true for either, then both crumble under the weight of deception and there was nothing divine about either of these men or what they created. On the other hand, if either one was legitimate then there are equally enormous implications on the other side. That's why I think looking at the credibility of these individuals is so important.

You said that the main question needs to be "Is this doing me good, is it helping me to be a better more loving more kind person." I believe it is possible for people to genuinely believe that the answer to that question is yes when in actuality the answer is no. Obviously, it depends on one's definitions of good, kind, and loving. Crazy as it may sound, I believe Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini thought they were being good, kind, and loving and they convinced millions of the same. Perhaps the folks who led the crusades and inquisitions thought they were being good, kind, and loving too? Of course, most of us would agree that those words do not apply to any of these situations but who decides what those words mean?

Just my two cents. :)

Wes

One thing that should be kept in mind while comparing Jesus and Joseph Smith is that with Smith we have records he penned and we have court documents and eye witnesses who wrote based on first hand knowledge of Smith. With Jesus it’s different. We have no records penned by Jesus and it's not certain that any of the New Testament writers knew Jesus personally. Paul, the most significant NT writer never met Jesus or even saw him from a distance.

So my point is that it’s not the integrity of Jesus that should be considered but the integrity of the people who wrote the story of Jesus. The whole Jesus thing could be a lie written by opportunistic men. Or quite possibly it started out true but changed dramatically from the time Jesus supposedly lived to the several decades later when the accounts of Jesus were written. The details conveyed via word of mouth for those decades could every well have evolved into something so different that it became another story all together finally ending up as the New Testament. So bottom line is it wasn’t an infallible Jesus who wrote the NT accounts but fallible men with questionable motives writing decades after the fact.

Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

I agree that the integrity of the people who wrote the story of Jesus is important. One thing that gives the Bible credibility is the fact that the writers include things about themselves that are not too flattering. For example, Paul refers to himself as "the chief of all sinners" and the gospels contain stories about the apostles that don't make them look very good. In fact, the entire Bible is full of people who are pretty messed up. It would seem that "opportunistic men with questionable motives," to use your phrase, would not include such things about themselves or their people. We know that Joseph Smith lied to his followers when the issue of Polygamy came up in order to keep people from bailing on him and to make himself appear righteous. Additionally, Mormon history has been grossly revised within Mormon circles in order to keep its members from knowing the truth.

Wes

[peter_mary]

Regardless of whether the story of either Jesus or Joseph is true, it can clearly be argued that for many people, the "story" as it came to be told was powerful, meaningful, and inspirational. I don't like the Mormon story. I don't like the Jesus story, either. I don't like the Mohammed story. But I know lots of Mormons, Christians, and Muslims who claim that their lives are better now that they have made those stories a part of their lives than they would have been in the absence of those stories. And so in some regards, it doesn't matter what I think of those stories. It matters what they think. What you think.

Wes, the Jesus story is clearly one that resonates with you. My guess is, it doesn't really matter to you whether or not the Bible is "true" as a historical record, what matters is that you feel better about your life and your place in the universe when you think about it in terms of the Jesus story.

For me, the Jesus story actually gets in the way, but in the end, you and I have the same objectives...be nice to other people, be good to the planet, be honest with one another, and work hard to make the world a better place. We arrive there by virtue of different stories. And that's actually kind of cool.

What I appreciate about this conversation is that despite what Hinckley and countless Church leaders have said before him, we can talk about the value of the story independent of it's historicity. Consistent with another thread asking about what the GA's know, my guess is that many of them "know" the story of the Book of Mormon differently than the common member, but the story probaby works for them, both spiritually and temporally (remember, they are sustained rather comfortably now that they have "arrived.")

If I can remove myself from the "true/not true" battle of Mormonism, I can see much that works, no matter whether Joseph was a fraud or a prophet. For those people who feel their lives are enriched, I am happy for them. The sad part is when we forget that these things are stories...the Mormon story, the Jesus story, or the Muslim story (or any countless number of other stories), and we impose upon them a sense of "realness" or a tangible nature rather than a spiritual, mystical meaning upon which we project our own lives, and derive our own meaning.

Fraud? Probably. But the story is sufficiently powerful to keep a lot of people, a lot of INTELLIGENT people, hanging around to see what happens next.

Paul

[wescape]

Hi Paul,

Actually, the historicity of the Bible does matter to me a great deal. The other Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ was not actually raised from the dead then we (Christians) are to be pitied more than all men (verses 12-19). I agree. If Jesus was a scoundrel then I'm not interested in who he was and if the Bible is made up then I have been deceived.

Your comments about stories were interesting. Here's my view on story: Whether someone likes a story or does not like a story is not as important as the validity of the story. There some stories I don't like because they have been used to trick people into believing things that are not true. There are other stories I do like that are mythical because they illustrate deeper truths about reality and are used for good. But I believe that the Jesus story is in a special category because I believe it actually happened. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis I like a lot that captures how I feel:

"...the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened. . ."

So for me, the "realness" of a story is significant in many ways. The story itself, who is telling it, and why they are telling it. All of these things matter in deep and profound ways.

Yes, the story of Jesus deeply resonates with me - because I believe it is where God entered into human history as an expression of His love.

You mentioned that you don't like the Jesus story and that it gets in the way for you. I'm curious why that is?

Wes

[free thinker]

I think your analysis and synopsis of the mormon church is accurate! It can easily be deconstructed.

In the end, whether or not Jesus was the son of god , or god himself come to earth, must be accepted on faith. It cannot be proven empirically.

I am fine with whether he was or not! If he was, and I stand before him to be judged, I will be fine with that! I will bow before him and thank him for what he did. Then I will ask him for his forgiveness, and be fine worshipping him for ever after!

What I will not do is pay any homage, or revere in any way, a man like Joseph Smith, who clearly was a liar and manipulator!

Free Thinker

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I agree that the integrity of the people who wrote the story of Jesus is important. One thing that gives the Bible credibility is the fact that the writers include things about themselves that are not too flattering. For example, Paul refers to himself as "the chief of all sinners" and the gospels contain stories about the apostles that don't make them look very good. In fact, the entire Bible is full of people who are pretty messed up. It would seem that "opportunistic men with questionable motives," to use your phrase, would not include such things about themselves or their people. We know that Joseph Smith lied to his followers when the issue of Polygamy came up in order to keep people from bailing on him and to make himself appear righteous. Additionally, Mormon history has been grossly revised within Mormon circles in order to keep its members from knowing the truth.

Wes


Wes, I debated whether I should respond in private on this subject but I decided that the material is probably of interest to more than one person so I decided to post it here in the forum.

Lying and taking things out of context are not qualities I attribute to people of integrity. More than once Matthew does both in his story of Jesus in an attempt get the ignorant Jewish masses to accept his messiah hero as fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. For example in the second chapter of Matthew he writes how Jesus was taken to Egypt by his parents in order escape Herod’s order to have every firstborn male baby killed. Then he writes of their return from Egypt after Herod died. The whole Egypt tangent in his story appears to have been created so Matthew could claim that his messiah hero, Jesus, fulfilled a passage in Jewish prophecy that says, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.”

Most of the Jews didn’t have easy access to those prophecies and Matthew didn’t provide any information on where that prophecy can be found, making it very difficult for people to check up on Matthew to make sure he's being honest. But we today do have easy access to those prophecies and can even do a search on keywords to find exactly what we’re looking for. Searching on “Egypt called son” brings up the passage Matthew used and sure enough it does say, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” But what Matthew conveniently doesn’t say in his account is that he took the passage out of context. Not only does he ignore the context of the surrounding verses he even ignores the context of the sentence in which the passage is found. In fact Matthew leaves out the first half of the sentence and only quotes the last half. The full sentence says, “When Israel was a child I loved him and out of Egypt I have called my son.” It was the children of Israel, not a future Jesus, that Hosea says was the son called out of Egypt.

No matter how we slice it Matthew lied to his audience about the passage in an attempt to get the Jews to buy into his messiah hero story. The Hosea passage is found in Hosea chapter 11 verse 1 and Matthew’s misuse of the passage is found in Matthew chapter 2 verse 15. When I noticed that little loose thread in the fabric of Christianity I pulled on it to see where it led and within two years the whole thing unraveled.

I found several places where NT authors use OT passages out of context and discovered that Jesus or even someone like Jesus is nowhere whatsoever to be found in the Old Testament. Every passage that is traditionally thought to be about Jesus (such as the 53rd chapter of Isaiah) is taken out of context. In every case the original messiah hero that the ancient Jewish writers wrote of is none other than the children of Israel collectively. Jesus is not to be found anywhere in their writings. In Exodus the author introduces for the first time in the OT the son of God. And who is this son of God? Is he an individual who dies on a cross at some point in the future? No. In fact he’s not even an individual at all. Here’s the passage:

“The Lord instructed Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, make sure you do in front of Pharaoh all the wonders I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he won't let the people go. Then you will say to Pharaoh: This is what the Lord says: Israel is My firstborn son. I told you: Let My son go so that he may worship Me, but you refused to let him go. Now I will kill your firstborn son!"

The only son of God in all of Jewish scripture is Israel. How can Israel be the son of God? That’s another subject I won’t get into. My point in this post is that it is, leaving no room for a Jesus.

Jeff

[Born Free]

The only son of God in all of Jewish scripture is Israel. How can Israel be the son of God? That’s another subject I won’t get into. My point in this post is that it is, leaving no room for a Jesus.

Jeff

I have had occasion recently to read some good material that prompted me, as we approach one of the most important times in the Christian calendar - Easter, to compare the story in the various gospels.

They are so disparate, I wonder how for years I swallowed the notion of the Bible being some perfect literal history of the life of Christ.

That exercise is particularly informative when one observes the disparity in light of the sequence in which we now know the gospels were written, some 40 - 70 years after the death of Christ, after their living as oral tradition within Jewish culture for that period.

I would encourage anyone who takes their Bible seriously and literally, to use the Easter break to note on a large page in 4 columns, the key events of the Easter story as recorded in each Gospel. Note the parallels and disparity, and then come back after Easter and tell of the historic accuracy of the Bible.

I believe that we might have a different conversation at that point.

Daryl

[wescape]

Jeff,

Thanks for providing the info about Matthew that we discussed previously. Here is a link to a site that explains a Christian defense and understanding of the verses you mentioned (It's too long to post here):

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1208/q1208.html

Anyway, my purpose was never to get into a heated debate about this stuff. There have and always will be Bible skeptics just as there have and always will be Darwinian skeptics. Neither position is "air-tight" in the empirical scientific sense and both will have critics until (or if) the time comes that one can be proven with certainty. Until then, it will be a matter of faith regardless of which one a person chooses to believe in.

Nevertheless, these conversations are always enjoyable and I'm grateful for the exchange. :)

Wes

[miss taken]

Wes, I debated whether I should respond in private on this subject but I decided that the material is probably of interest to more than one person so I decided to post it here in the forum.

Lying and taking things out of context are not qualities I attribute to people of integrity. More than once Matthew does both in his story of Jesus in an attempt get the ignorant Jewish masses to accept his messiah hero as fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. For example in the second chapter of Matthew he writes how Jesus was taken to Egypt by his parents in order escape Herod’s order to have every firstborn male baby killed. Then he writes of their return from Egypt after Herod died. The whole Egypt tangent in his story appears to have been created so Matthew could claim that his messiah hero, Jesus, fulfilled a passage in Jewish prophecy that says, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.”

Most of the Jews didn’t have easy access to those prophecies and Matthew didn’t provide any information on where that prophecy can be found, making it very difficult for people to check up on Matthew to make sure he's being honest. But we today do have easy access to those prophecies and can even do a search on keywords to find exactly what we’re looking for. Searching on “Egypt called son” brings up the passage Matthew used and sure enough it does say, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” But what Matthew conveniently doesn’t say in his account is that he took the passage out of context. Not only does he ignore the context of the surrounding verses he even ignores the context of the sentence in which the passage is found. In fact Matthew leaves out the first half of the sentence and only quotes the last half. The full sentence says, “When Israel was a child I loved him and out of Egypt I have called my son.” It was the children of Israel, not a future Jesus, that Hosea says was the son called out of Egypt.

No matter how we slice it Matthew lied to his audience about the passage in an attempt to get the Jews to buy into his messiah hero story. The Hosea passage is found in Hosea chapter 11 verse 1 and Matthew’s misuse of the passage is found in Matthew chapter 2 verse 15. When I noticed that little loose thread in the fabric of Christianity I pulled on it to see where it led and within two years the whole thing unraveled.

I found several places where NT authors use OT passages out of context and discovered that Jesus or even someone like Jesus is nowhere whatsoever to be found in the Old Testament. Every passage that is traditionally thought to be about Jesus (such as the 53rd chapter of Isaiah) is taken out of context. In every case the original messiah hero that the ancient Jewish writers wrote of is none other than the children of Israel collectively. Jesus is not to be found anywhere in their writings. In Exodus the author introduces for the first time in the OT the son of God. And who is this son of God? Is he an individual who dies on a cross at some point in the future? No. In fact he’s not even an individual at all. Here’s the passage:

“The Lord instructed Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, make sure you do in front of Pharaoh all the wonders I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he won't let the people go. Then you will say to Pharaoh: This is what the Lord says: Israel is My firstborn son. I told you: Let My son go so that he may worship Me, but you refused to let him go. Now I will kill your firstborn son!"

The only son of God in all of Jewish scripture is Israel. How can Israel be the son of God? That’s another subject I won’t get into. My point in this post is that it is, leaving no room for a Jesus.

Jeff


Jeff I am not an expert on Jesus, and I have not been blessed with a particularly good memory. When I left the church, and probably a good few years before it I have always been fascinated with church history and exegisis. Believe it or not I was once invited to study Theology at Oxford Uni, that is another story, and was while I was still LDS, so may have been because the principal felt my perspective would be an interesting one and unique on the course. Of course I didn't feel confident enough to take him up on it, and wanted to be a teacher anyway.

After reading literally hundreds of books on the historical Jesus (I have a really good book list if you are interested), what have I gleaned....

A person called Jesus almost certainly did walk around Israel about 2000 years ago.

He was charismatic enough to begin a following totally devoted to him, and prepared to die, in fact the cult of the martyr pretty much started with his death.

Stories quickly surfaced that he had somehow survived his crucifiction

The Judaic Tradition do not and never will see him as the literal son of God

In calling himself the Son of God he was following a tradition passed on from the OT, whether He meant that literally is another thing.

He may have performed 'miracles' or 'magic tricks' and taught enough non'kosher stuff, to get him noticed by the authorities of his time, as somewhat of a threat.

Following on from that, he was probably crucified as per the biblical record

I think that that is it. Josephus's sayings were probably later interpolations, and there are a few writings that mention him by name outside of the gospels (not including the wide array of apocryphal writings that are interesting in their own right)

Does that make him the literal son of God, or as Islam says a good teacher?

I have my own perpective on that, but I love most of what I percieve to be his teachings. The Lord's prayer, the various parables, the sermon on the mount. All seem to be such good teaching, and it seemed to be one of his intents to show 'organised religion' just how corrupt and hypocritical it had become, something that all organised religions would do well to apply to themselves.

That's it really, Maybe I need to go back to that myriad of books and take another look 6 years down the line, and see if I feel differently!!!!

Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

Thanks for providing the info about Matthew that we discussed previously. Here is a link to a site that explains a Christian defense and understanding of the verses you mentioned (It's too long to post here):

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1208/q1208.html

Anyway, my purpose was never to get into a heated debate about this stuff. There have and always will be Bible skeptics just as there have and always will be Darwinian skeptics. Neither position is "air-tight" in the empirical scientific sense and both will have critics until (or if) the time comes that one can be proven with certainty. Until then, it will be a matter of faith regardless of which one a person chooses to believe in.

Nevertheless, these conversations are always enjoyable and I'm grateful for the exchange. :)

Wes

Wes, the page you link to is one I have had book-marked for around eight years now. It contains the most plausible explanations I’ve found for why there are serious discrepancies in the Jesus story that undermine the validity of the New Testament and Christianity. That’s not to say they are good explanations, only that they are as good as it gets.

On the up side there is a lot of information there, but on the downside none of it holds up under close examination. In other words, quantity does not equal quality. No matter how many words are used if the arguments are lacking in substance all you have is a lot of arguments lacking in substance.

I’m not going to address each topic because it would take me more time than I want to spend on it this weekend but I’ll address two of them, the “out of Egypt” one and any other one you think makes the strongest argument for Christianity’s claims about Jesus being the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

I admit that these are not the kind of discussions I like to see on this site because a certain percentage of our members are Christian but I have a hard time biting my tongue when I see Christians running down Mormonism for things that it is no less guilty of. To me it’s like people in glass houses throwing rocks at people in glass houses. I should say that in my experience most Christians aren't being hypocritical, they just don't realize that their house is also made of glass.

Back to the “out of Egypt” issue. The apologist who wrote the material you linked me to is honest in his characterization of the problem:

“The problem comes when we check out Matthew's Old Testament source. A casual reading of Hosea 11:1 indicates that the prophet was speaking about the nation of Israel. From an Old Testament perspective, it doesn't seem that there are any messianic overtones in the text. So what gave Matthew the right to claim that Jesus' flight from Egypt fulfilled what Hosea said?”

But his pathetic response to the problem is also used by Mormons to claim that Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon fulfilled OT prophecy. If you accept the answer for Christianity’s claims you have to accept it for Mormonism’s claims as well, meaning that if Jesus fulfilled prophecy then so did Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

For example, the apologist writes,

“The problem looks different in hindsight. (no duh) Matthew knew Jesus to be the Messiah.” Mormons would say, “The problem looks different in hindsight. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church today is led by a true prophet.”

Then the apologist blows some meaningless smoke at the issue by claiming that Israel was an imperfect Son of God but Jesus trumped their claim of sonship because he was the perfect son, Dads’ favorite one and only firstborn son. Then the apologist summarizes with,

“Matthew therefore saw Jesus as the perfect Son who would accomplish all that Israel, the imperfect son, had failed to achieve. Because of this, Matthew could apply passages to Jesus, which in their context seemed to relate only to Israel.”

A Mormon would say,

“Joseph Smith was the Lord’s true prophet of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times (tm), meaning we have a true prophet of god today leading the Church. Because of this, the general authorities can apply OT passages to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, which in their context seem to be talking about other things.”

Then the apologist turns to a “Moroni’s promise” type appeal as if to say, I know there ain’t much of any real substance in what you just read, but none of that matters anyway. What really matters is that you know in your heart that it is true.

The apologist's promise:

“The Lord loves honest skeptics. He extends to them the invitation, "Come now, let us reason together . . . . Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isa. 1:18). He has provided this complete forgiveness through Jesus Christ and longs to give it to you. What remains is your response to His invitation. If you are uncertain, ask God to reveal Himself to you and to show you the truth about Jesus. He will open your eyes to see that Jesus is the Messiah who died for your sin and rose from the dead. I urge you to do your part by accepting Him as your Savior and making Him your Lord and Master.”

Moroni's promise:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

While I was a post-Mormon Christian up until a decade ago, when I discovered the discrepancies between NT and OT claims about the Hebrew messiah hero I could have bought into the rationalizations I was offered by Christian friends but I couldn’t get past the fact that those same rationalizations could be and are used by Mormonism to get people to buy into it’s claims of prophecy fulfillment too. When I confronted my (ex)pastor with some of the above outlined discrepancies he promised to find an answer for me. I told him he didn’t have to answer all of them, just the “out of Egypt” one would do because the answer would most likely apply to all of them. Then finally a year and a half later, after several reminders that he still owed by a response, he finally came back with a letter he sent me that was something very similar to the above apologist’s response about Matthew – because it is someone of the caliber of Matthew making the claim of fulfillment then it’s okay for him to take the passage out of context. I responded by telling him I can apply the same rationalizations for Mormonism’s claims about prophecy fulfillment, i.e. If it’s someone of the caliber of Joseph Smith then its okay for him to take the passage out of context. If you expect me to accept that excuse for Christianity then I should also accept it for Mormonism, and between the two I’d rather apply it to Mormonism because life would be easier living in a Mormon family and Mormon community than leaving it for Christianity, but I couldn't accept such a pathetic excuse for either. That's when I left Christianity.

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff I am not an expert on Jesus, and I have not been blessed with a particularly good memory. When I left the church, and probably a good few years before it I have always been fascinated with church history and exegisis. Believe it or not I was once invited to study Theology at Oxford Uni, that is another story, and was while I was still LDS, so may have been because the principal felt my perspective would be an interesting one and unique on the course. Of course I didn't feel confident enough to take him up on it, and wanted to be a teacher anyway.

After reading literally hundreds of books on the historical Jesus (I have a really good book list if you are interested), what have I gleaned....

A person called Jesus almost certainly did walk around Israel about 2000 years ago.

He was charismatic enough to begin a following totally devoted to him, and prepared to die, in fact the cult of the martyr pretty much started with his death.

Stories quickly surfaced that he had somehow survived his crucifiction

The Judaic Tradition do not and never will see him as the literal son of God

In calling himself the Son of God he was following a tradition passed on from the OT, whether He meant that literally is another thing.

He may have performed 'miracles' or 'magic tricks' and taught enough non'kosher stuff, to get him noticed by the authorities of his time, as somewhat of a threat.

Following on from that, he was probably crucified as per the biblical record

I think that that is it. Josephus's sayings were probably later interpolations, and there are a few writings that mention him by name outside of the gospels (not including the wide array of apocryphal writings that are interesting in their own right)

Does that make him the literal son of God, or as Islam says a good teacher?

I have my own perpective on that, but I love most of what I percieve to be his teachings. The Lord's prayer, the various parables, the sermon on the mount. All seem to be such good teaching, and it seemed to be one of his intents to show 'organised religion' just how corrupt and hypocritical it had become, something that all organised religions would do well to apply to themselves.

That's it really, Maybe I need to go back to that myriad of books and take another look 6 years down the line, and see if I feel differently!!!!

Mary

Mary, I can only agree with one of your claims about Jesus, "A person called Jesus almost certainly did walk around Israel about 2000 years ago." In fact there were probably many named Jesus who walked around Isreal about 2000 years ago. There are at least four that I'm aware of and only two that I'm aware of that called themselves, Jesus Son of God. Actually, according the New Testament the Jesus Christianity is based more often than not was called Son of Man. The one who called himself Son of God was the one who was stood next to Jesus when Pilate asked the Jews to vote on which Jesus they liked the best. While you say that Christianity's Jesus was charismatic, it appear that the other Jesus was liked even better. They voted to let Jesus Son of God live and to crucify Jesus Son of Man (aka Jesus the Christ).

Okay, what am I talking about?? The name Barabbas literally means "son of the father" and "the father" was apparently also known back then as God. "Father" is what the commonly known Jesus called him -- Abba. The word "bar" means son, such as Simon bar Jonah, which means, "Simon son of Jonah". In the Bible we only have "the other Jesus'" last name but in the earliest documents from which the New Testament is derived his first and last names are included, "Jesus bar abbas". At some point the early church leaders didn't like portraying Jesus in competition with another Jesus -- thought it didn't look too good -- so they dropped the first name leaving only Barabbas.

Google “Jesus Barabbas” using the quotes and you’ll get a lot of information confirming this but even on some pro Christian website Barabbas’ real name is mentioned. The first I found in a seach is under the section at the following link subtitled, “Jesus was also the name of four other men in the Bible...”

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/jesus.html

And also here about halfway down the page:

http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/whoisjesus/jeschar1.htm

Mary, I respect your right to believe as you do but as I said in my response to Wes, when I see claims made about Jesus that have no more substance than Mormonism’s claims about Joseph Smith I have a hard time biting my tongue and remaining quiet. I feel guilty if I don’t pass along information I’m aware of that shows the flaws in such arguments. In a way I feel like I’d be allowing someone walk the streets that I’m aware is infected with a highly contagious disease but I say nothing about it so as not to alarm anyone. It’s primarily for this reason that it's my preference that the subject of Jesus’ validity or promotion of his story not even be allowed on this site, but I have no right to censor it. So when it comes up I have to respond and inevitably some people take offence. I don’t mean to offend, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not trying to censor the subject I only warn that when it comes up I am likely to say something about it.

Jeff

[miss taken]

Mary, I can only agree with one of your claims about Jesus, "A person called Jesus almost certainly did walk around Israel about 2000 years ago." In fact there were probably many named Jesus who walked around Isreal about 2000 years ago. There are at least four that I'm aware of and only two that I'm aware of that called themselves, Jesus Son of God. Actually, according the New Testament the Jesus Christianity is based more often than not was called Son of Man. The one who called himself Son of God was the one who was stood next to Jesus when Pilate asked the Jews to vote on which Jesus they liked the best. While you say that Christianity's Jesus was charismatic, it appear that the other Jesus was liked even better. They voted to let Jesus Son of God live and to crucify Jesus Son of Man (aka Jesus the Christ).

Okay, what am I talking about?? The name Barabbas literally means "son of the father" and "the father" was apparently also known back then as God. "Father" is what the commonly known Jesus called him -- Abba. The word "bar" means son, such as Simon bar Jonah, which means, "Simon son of Jonah". In the Bible we only have "the other Jesus'" last name but in the earliest documents from which the New Testament is derived his first and last names are included, "Jesus bar abbas". At some point the early church leaders didn't like portraying Jesus in competition with another Jesus -- thought it didn't look too good -- so they dropped the first name leaving only Barabbas.

Google “Jesus Barabbas” using the quotes and you’ll get a lot of information confirming this but even on some pro Christian website Barabbas’ real name is mentioned. The first I found in a seach is under the section at the following link subtitled, “Jesus was also the name of four other men in the Bible...”

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/jesus.html

And also here about halfway down the page:

http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/whoisjesus/jeschar1.htm

Mary, I respect your right to believe as you do but as I said in my response to Wes, when I see claims made about Jesus that have no more substance than Mormonism’s claims about Joseph Smith I have a hard time biting my tongue and remaining quiet. I feel guilty if I don’t pass along information I’m aware of that shows the flaws in such arguments. In a way I feel like I’d be allowing someone walk the streets that I’m aware is infected with a highly contagious disease but I say nothing about it so as not to alarm anyone. It’s primarily for this reason that it's my preference that the subject of Jesus’ validity or promotion of his story not even be allowed on this site, but I have no right to censor it. So when it comes up I have to respond and inevitably some people take offence. I don’t mean to offend, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not trying to censor the subject I only warn that when it comes up I am likely to say something about it.

Jeff

Absolutely no problem Jeff. I don't have a problem at all with your position, and I am here to learn as well as give an opinion..

I am aware of the Bar Abbas connection, and it meaning son of abba. It isn't new to me. But though academics may speculate on what that was all about. That, again is all we have been told. There were 2 people put forward and Barabbas was chosen to be set free. We can only speculate on his name, because there is no evidence for what you say, just speculation. It is however one of the interesting anomolies that appear in the new testament.

The bit I am referring to about Jesus son of God, is somewhere in John, where it has Jesus saying something like 'why critisise me for saying I am a son of God, when moses says you are all sons of God...big deal...'
My memory isn't too good but it went on those lines.

Have I deified Jesus, no I don't think so. Do I think he has been identified as someone who said some pretty ethical things..yes.

Do I understand everything that was put into his mouth, by the gospel writers, absolutely not. Is a lot of it contradiction both of itself and OT. Yes.


A while back I read a book by Carsten Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona, about the historical dating of the gospels. It is called the Jesus Papyrus. Here's what Graham Stanton from King's College London says about it
'If accepted, this date would revolutionize our understanding of the origin of the gospels and just about every other aspect of earliest christianity'

Basically it is about a few verses of Matthew on papyrus that have been stored after being bequeathed to Magdalen College, Oxford in 1901.

Thiede's basic premise is that this papyrus is the first 'material evidence that St Matthew's Gospel was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses', that it records history as experienced by those who were there when it happened'.

It's discovery has been likened to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls with all their implications on the cultural religious melting pot 2000 years ago.

Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Thiede's basic premise is that this papyrus is the first 'material evidence that St Matthew's Gospel was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses', that it records history as experienced by those who were there when it happened'. Mary


As you said about Jesus bar abbas, Thiede's premise is only speculation. The majority of biblical scholars find Thiede's premise flawed and have concluded that Matthew was written long after Jesus died and is based on the writings of Mark, which implies that Mark came first, and Mark is also recognized to have been written after Jesus' death by at least 40 years. I don't know about anyone else but I can't remember much 40 years ago, just sketchy highlights here and there, and even some of those memories I'm sure have altered over time. Mix that with wishful thinking and well meaning early Jesus promoters attempts to 'sell' their views and it is almost certain that what we have in the Bible is far from what actually happened.

It is fact that the name Jesus was attached to Barabbas in some of the earliest known documents about the New Testament. No speculation there. I can dig up those references if anyone would like.

Jeff

[miss taken]

As you said about Jesus bar abbas, Thiede's premise is only speculation. The majority of biblical scholars find Thiede's premise flawed and have concluded that Matthew was written long after Jesus died and is based on the writings of Mark, which implies that Mark came first, and Mark is also recognized to have been written after Jesus' death by at least 40 years. I don't know about anyone else but I can't remember much 40 years ago, just sketchy highlights here and there, and even some of those memories I'm sure have altered over time. Mix that with wishful thinking and well meaning early Jesus promoters attempts to 'sell' their views and it is almost certain that what we have in the Bible is far from what actually happened.

It is fact that the name Jesus was attached to Barabbas in some of the earliest known documents about the New Testament. No speculation there. I can dig up those references if anyone would like.

Jeff

I believe he bases his premise also on the type of writing that was used, and that he was overtly attempting to put another perspective in, on the accepted chronology of gospel authorship, which is as you state.

From what I remember (which isn't much!!) all the gospels are supposed to have been written from Q.

It's an interesting area, but 2000 years ago, and so difficult to say with any degree of certainty one way or another.

The references would be great Jeff, as I don't know of any outside of the New Testament. I don't doubt that there were many Jews who called themselves Joshua, it is a relatively common name, and the surname Barabbas may have also been a common one (that I don't know)
I do know that Bar equates to 'son of'. What I question is the interpretation that there was confusion over who the real 'Joshua' was, from that one particular story, that is what I am calling speculation... Hope this clarifies my position. AS to what I believe, well I don't know that I believe anything strongly Jeff, so you may be misinterpreting me. Do I believe that Jesus is the literal son of God. To me it doesn't matter. His ethical standpoint is more important to me, than whether he was literally what others have made him into.


Mary

[nate]

As you said about Jesus bar abbas, Thiede's premise is only speculation. It is fact that the name Jesus was attached to Barabbas in some of the earliest known documents about the New Testament. No speculation there. I can dig up those references if anyone would like.

Jeff

If you can find them without too much trouble, I'd love to see them! Without it, I can't feel comfortable sharing this info with those I'd like to share with. ;)

Thanks Jeff.

[Jeff_Ricks]

The references would be great Jeff, as I don't know of any outside of the New Testament.


As you probably know, Origen, who is considered one of the greatest of all Christian theologians lived about 180-255 A.D. and commented on parts of the early manuscripts from which the Bible is derived. In his commentary on Matthew vol. v. 35 he acknowledges that the majority of the manuscripts in his day render Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas. But he chose to reject the inclusion of Jesus because he said that “no one who is a sinner can be named Jesus.” This confirms two things, 1) that Jesus Barabbas is not a late addition to the earlier text nor is it mere speculation that it was Barbabbas’ full title, and 2) well meaning good Christian people are capable of changing things they don’t want to acknowledge in the Jesus story. When I entered this thread I said it is really the early fallible writers of the NT writing decades after the fact whom we are trusting to tell us the Jesus story, not an infallible Jesus. It’s easy to forget that when speaking of the NT as if it is historical fact.

Jeff

P.S. It should also be noted that Jesus means "he saves" or "savior". This means that a literal translation of Jesus bar abbas is "Savior son of the Father", a.k.a, Savior son of God.

[miss taken]

As you probably know, Origen, who is considered one of the greatest of all Christian theologians lived about 180-255 A.D. and commented on parts of the early manuscripts from which the Bible is derived. In his commentary on Matthew vol. v. 35 he acknowledges that the majority of the manuscripts in his day render Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas. But he chose to reject the inclusion of Jesus because he said that “no one who is a sinner can be named Jesus.” This confirms two things, 1) that Jesus Barabbas is not a late addition to the earlier text nor is it mere speculation that it was Barbabbas’ full title, and 2) well meaning good Christian people are capable of changing things they don’t want to acknowledge in the Jesus story. When I entered this thread I said it is really the early fallible writers of the NT writing decades after the fact whom we are trusting to tell us the Jesus story, not an infallible Jesus. It’s easy to forget that when speaking of the NT as if it is historical fact.

Jeff

THanks Jeff, I think we probably have more common ground than you think. I absolutely agree that the Jesus Story has been told by fallible men. I have no problem with Jesus Barrabbas, in fact it is quite interesting. (I didn't know Origen had mentioned it, so will go look it up, thanks) What I have a problem with is the interpretation of what that means, and I have read an interpretation that states that the 'real' Jesus actually wasn't crucified at all, he was the one who was let go, on the basis of that particular anomaly. That is what I am calling speculation..

I also agree that much of the gospel writing can not be verified, and that particular authors would have had their own bias. One to 'prove' that there was a link to the 'OT' one to appeal to the non-jews, and so forth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamadi? Texts have also brought about new perspectives on what was going on at the time of Jesus, in terms of the essenes and so forth.

You are inspiring me to go back and do a bit more research as I havn't looked at the stuff for years now!
It all got toooooo much!!!!!!! and I needed a break from thinking about it!!!! :o :o
Mary

[wescape]

Jeff,

I appreciate your views about the Matthew prophecy issue. Having that web page book-marked for the past 8 years shows that it's something you've thought a lot about. I also appreciate your concern for others. You said:

"In a way I feel like I’d be allowing someone walk the streets that I’m aware is infected with a highly contagious disease but I say nothing about it so as not to alarm anyone."

I share your concern for others. The last thing I want to see happen is for people to be infected with a highly contagious disease. Obviously we both feel that analogy applies to Mormonism but we disagree when it comes to Christianity and Darwinism. You feel that Christianity is the disease and I feel that Darwinism is the disease. For those reading this thread who are not aware, this issue originally came out of a discussion on Darwinism which I sent Jeff a video about. The video shows several instances of deliberate deception on the part of scientists in order to cover up the problems with that theory. I believe it takes the same stretch of faith (actually even more faith IMO) to accept Darwinism as it does to accept any religious belief.

I respect your views on Christianity. To be honest, the issue of prophecy is not one I am that familiar with and something I need to study up on. The issues you have raised are significant (obviously since they caused you to reject Christianity) and worthy of consideration. Thanks again for your concern about them and your willingness to share your story.

Wes :)

[miss taken]

Hi Mary,

I agree that humans and human organizations are deeply flawed. In the case of Mormonism, we have a human organization that was founded by individuals (most heinously Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) who deliberately deceived people for personal gain. In fact, it is accurate to say that the whole thing originated from and is built on deception. Smith used King James English to make his "scriptures" sound like the Bible and probably had a very charismatic personality that enabled him to fool folks who were looking for direction. His goals were clearly power, sex, and money. When Smith was "martryed," Brigham Young just picked up where the "prophet" left off and moved the Mormon machine thousands of miles away to a remote enough area where he could have absolute power. From there, Mormonism flourished under his tyrannical rule and resulted in awful atrocities like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But then Mormon leaders started caving in to political pressure when they received the "new revelation from God" that the everlasting commandment polygamy was now forbidden. After that, Mormonism gradually grew into what it is seen as today. Of course, now with the internet, people have access to information that pulls the rug out from under Mormonism and apparently are leaving in droves.

Many put the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus in a similar category, and for understandable reasons. People claiming Christianity have done unspeakable things over the last two millenia. The dilemma is that these folks were not acting in accordance with what Jesus taught and therefore I must question the validity of their claim to be his follower. At the same time, a major tenet of Biblical Christianity is that all human beings are fallen and in need of God's grace which is of course the whole reason Jesus came to die in the first place. In that sense, no one is perfect, but extreme stuff like the crusades, the inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, hate crimes against homosexuals, etc. is in total opposition with who Jesus was and the life he lived.

All of this to say that in some ways I believe Chrisitanity and Mormonism are in a similar boat: Either the founder of each was legitimate, including their claims (Jesus is the Son of God/Joseph Smith is a prophet of God) or they were not and everything hinges on the answer to that question. If the latter is true for either, then both crumble under the weight of deception and there was nothing divine about either of these men or what they created. On the other hand, if either one was legitimate then there are equally enormous implications on the other side. That's why I think looking at the credibility of these individuals is so important.

You said that the main question needs to be "Is this doing me good, is it helping me to be a better more loving more kind person." I believe it is possible for people to genuinely believe that the answer to that question is yes when in actuality the answer is no. Obviously, it depends on one's definitions of good, kind, and loving. Crazy as it may sound, I believe Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini thought they were being good, kind, and loving and they convinced millions of the same. Perhaps the folks who led the crusades and inquisitions thought they were being good, kind, and loving too? Of course, most of us would agree that those words do not apply to any of these situations but who decides what those words mean?

Just my two cents. :)

Wes

Hey Wes!
I do agree that love as a concept can be open to interpretation and that things can be done in the name of love that we would certainly not regard as love.

Anyone want to start a thread on what love is and isn't!!!

Should Plato's cave be brought in here!!!!!
Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I share your concern for others. The last thing I want to see happen is for people to be infected with a highly contagious disease. Obviously we both feel that analogy applies to Mormonism but we disagree when it comes to Christianity and Darwinism. You feel that Christianity is the disease and I feel that Darwinism is the disease.

Well.... that's not exactly what I meant. No I don't feel that Christianity per se is the disease in my metaphor. It's information that I have found to be false or misunderstood that is the disease, whatever the subject happens to be. If I'm aware that it is false and say nothing when I see the information passed on to someone else then I feel a degree of responsibility to say something about it. I don't always say something, but at times I feel too much of a responsibility to remain silent.

For those reading this thread who are not aware, this issue originally came out of a discussion on Darwinism which I sent Jeff a video about. The video shows several instances of deliberate deception on the part of scientists in order to cover up the problems with that theory. I believe it takes the same stretch of faith (actually even more faith IMO) to accept Darwinism as it does to accept any religious belief.

I don't agree with your characterization of the video Wes. The Christian bias behind the production of the video shows when it attempts to prove deliberate deception as if there's a grand conspiracy in the scientific community to cover up "the truth” about Darwinism. As is brought out in Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science has it's trends, its fashionable views, and it's fringe fanatics with those various camps shifting and changing over time, but science is generally moving in the direction of progressively uncovering “truth”. But while certain camps might hold onto ideas that have run their course, having built their careers or reputations on those ideas, there is no evidence of a widespread deliberate conspiracy to cover-up the facts. The video brings out some problems with pure Darwinism that have yet to be resolved but the fact is, to date it is the basis for the most plausible, factually based explanation we have for creation given that the alternative is a faith based theory almost totally lacking in hard evidence. Shall we talk about the problems with creationism and the cover-ups to hide those problems from the public? I believe it will be found that they are far more numerous than the few the video singles out about Darwinism. Science is all about finding out the truth through empirical means. Religion is all about finding out truth through the much less reliable means, “faith”. So even though it's not perfect, my bet is still confidently on science as the eventual winner on the creation issue.


I respect your views on Christianity. To be honest, the issue of prophecy is not one I am that familiar with and something I need to study up on. The issues you have raised are significant (obviously since they caused you to reject Christianity) and worthy of consideration. Thanks again for your concern about them and your willingness to share your story.

Wes :)

[wescape]

Jeff,

I could say the same thing about your characterization of the Matthew prophecy issue, which showed your bias. We all have biases that are impossible to avoid. The bottom line is that we each feel we have compelling reasons for what we believe and we will continue with those beliefs until one of them is undeniably refuted or confirmed. Your reasons against Christianity are no more compelling to me than my reasons against Darwinism are to you. In the meantime, my hope is that we can respectfully agree to disagree. :)

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I could say the same thing about your characterization of the Matthew prophecy issue, which showed your bias. We all have biases that are impossible to avoid. The bottom line is that we each feel we have compelling reasons for what we believe and we will continue with those beliefs until one of them is undeniably refuted or confirmed. Your reasons against Christianity are no more compelling to me than my reasons against Darwinism are to you. In the meantime, my hope is that we can respectfully agree to disagree. :)

Wes

I can agree to that Wes with one stipulation ;) that no offense is taken when I respond to claims I don't agree with when no offense is intended. :)

Jeff

[wescape]

Sounds good Jeff. No offense taken or intended from my end either. :)

Wes

[free thinker]

What I like about reading this thread is the obvious respect that Jeff and Wescape have for each other, and their willingness to listen to, and consider a different point of view. As has been said about politics , which is "something on which reasonable men may disagree". I learned a lot about early christianity here. Jeff your information was quite interesting. Wes ,yours also, and I appreciate your conviction!!

I am inclined to think that Jesus was no more than a man, It seems to me that christianity can be deconstructed as easily as mormonism. I am cautious to not be fooled again. I am not willing to wrap my life around something that may not be true. Especially since it will require me to devote significant amounts of time and energy!! Time which I no longer feel I have to give away. This is where I appreciate Jeff's input. I have not done as much research, but find his point of view quite salient as it satifies my reasoning, without making a stretch of faith. Faith which has before been misappropriated!!

This was a great exchange, IMHO. I wonder how much bloodshed may have been prevented over the years had more people been able to, like this, agree to disagree without shouting heretic or fanatic!!

Thank you both!! My opinion of you both was elevated today, for whatever that's worth!! ;) This is one of the reasons I come to this site!!

Free Thinker

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I share your concern for others. The last thing I want to see happen is for people to be infected with a highly contagious disease. Obviously we both feel that analogy applies to Mormonism but we disagree when it comes to Christianity and Darwinism. You feel that Christianity is the disease and I feel that Darwinism is the disease. For those reading this thread who are not aware, this issue originally came out of a discussion on Darwinism which I sent Jeff a video about. The video shows several instances of deliberate deception on the part of scientists in order to cover up the problems with that theory. I believe it takes the same stretch of faith (actually even more faith IMO) to accept Darwinism as it does to accept any religious belief.

Wes :)

Wes, I took a break today and spent some time at Borders books looking for information about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate and learned that some of the most significant examples the video uses against evolution are gross misrepresentations of the facts. For example the video acknowledges that evolution within species is a proven fact, although one-time creationists refused to give up that ground. But then it states that there are absolutely no examples in the fossil record of one species evolving into another. Today I learned that nothing can be further from the truth. There are many examples of creatures that share the features of two different species. In some cases the examples are such that it is difficult to tell where one species begins and the other ends. For example, Australopithecus is a good example of a transitional form in between ape and man. Eusthenopteron shows what one book describes as having marvelous intermediate characteristics between the lobe-finned fishes and the amphibians. Archaeopteryx is clearly intermediate between reptiles and amphibians bearing obvious features of reptiles such as clawed wings, a long bony tail, and toothed jaws, but it also had feathers. Creationists ignore the reptilian features and claim that because it had feathers it was a bird but offer no plausible explanation for the reptilian features.

The video also claims that the sudden explosion of life shown in the fossil record at the base of the Cambrian period 600 million years ago can only be explained by intelligent design. But the fact is there are fossils of life that date back to 3 billion years during the Precambrian period. The reason for the sudden explosion of life is that there was no sudden explosion of life. The Cambrian period does explode with fossils, but that is simply because the first shelled organisms date from that period and their shells fossilize more readily than their soft bodied ancestors of the Precambrian period. Also the rocks of the Precambrian are so old that they have been subjected to deformation making us very lucky to have any fossils from that period.

The video uses the bacterial flagellar motor, the little tail that flails around behind it as its propulsion system as evidence against evolution. The video offers what seemed to me to be a compelling argument that the motor could not have evolved through random mutation and natural selection and states that science is completely silent on this issue, implying that it has collectively in some kind of orchestrated conspiracy swept the issue under the carpet. But in fact, there are plausible theories for the evolution of the flagellar motor that show step by step using random mutation and natural selection how it might have happened.

So Wes, after doing a little research today the video has lost all credibility with me. I appreciate you sending it to me and giving me the impetus to brush up a little on Darwinian science but honestly I’m a bit angered (not at you) that such information is being foisted on the public as fact based science when the truth is it's not.

Jeff

[wescape]

Hi Free Thinker,

Glad to hear you were encouraged by our conversation. I understand your caution about not wanting to be fooled again by something like Mormonism. How long have you been out of the church?

It took me several years before I would even consider looking into anything of a spiritual nature. As far as I was concerned, all that stuff was a bunch of BS just used to control people and get their money. While I had no interest in organized religion whatsoever, the whole Darwinian thing seemed pretty ridiculous to me. The thought of an intelligent designer on the other hand, made a lot of sense (and for me was the only statistically possible explanation for the complex beauty of the natural world). After studying the Bible on my own (without the influence of anyone else) and being overwhelmed by the profound wisdom contained in it that applied directly to my current situation at the time, I concluded that it was legitimate. However, I also concluded that man had taken this book of history, wisdom and truth, used it for his own purposes and twisted it into religion which is not what God intended. It wasn't until awhile later that I met someone who did not fit my paradigm of a "religious" person. He accepted me as I was and genuinely cared for me as a human being. Even though I was suspicious of him for months, he continued to pursue me and had no agenda other than being my friend. Eventually, I came to trust him and saw that the love of God was being demonstrated to me through this person's unconditional acceptance of me. That began my relationship with Jesus and it has transformed my life in miraculous ways that could never have happened otherwise.

Anyway, that's the short version of my faith journey. Now, my aim is to communicate that same love to others. That's it - Christianity in a nutshell. Jesus said we are to love God and love others. He did not say to convert people, to shove anything down their throat, or to hit them over the head with a Bible. Just to love. Therefore, I have no need to be disrespectful to folks like Jeff or anyone else whom I disagree with. Also, I enjoy those kind of discussions because while I do have strong convictions about many things, I appreciate people who have differing convictions and I think dialogue always presents an opportunity for growth. :)

Wes

[wescape]

Jeff,

The examples of Eusthenopteron and Archaeopteryx you pointed out are open for interpretation and are not hard facts. While you may feel "Archaeopteryx is clearly intermediate between reptiles and amphibians" that does not make it the case. What you see as "intermediate characteristics between the lobe-finned fishes and the amphibians" I see as the handywork of a creative God.

For the record, I have never disagreed with micro-evolution (change within a species). I am aware that there are those who do and I have never aligned myself with them.

With regard to the bacterial flagellar motor, I would love to see the "plausible theories for the evolution of the flagellar motor that show step by step using random mutation and natural selection how it might have happened."

As for the Cambrian Explosion issue, I remember there being a chinese scientist on the video who made a fossil discovery in China that led him to beleive that there was an explosion.

There are plenty of credible scientists who do not agree with Darwinian theory. My anger about this issue has to do with the lack of information provided in textbooks that is critical of Darwinism. Also, the drawings mentioned in the video that even Darwinians agree are incorrect that are still being used in textbooks to support the theory. Finally, Darwinian theory is often referred to as a fact when in actuality it is only a theory.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

The examples of Eusthenopteron and Archaeopteryx you pointed out are open for interpretation and are not hard facts. While you may feel "Archaeopteryx is clearly intermediate between reptiles and amphibians" that does not make it the case. What you see as "intermediate characteristics between the lobe-finned fishes and the amphibians" I see as the handywork of a creative God.

Wes, with all due respect I find your dismissal with the wave of the hand, so to speak, less than convincing. You should provide reasons to support your claim that they are open for interpretation, don't you think? Likewise, "does not make it so" is a less than compelling response. If you could explain why it does not make it so you've done your job in my opinion. Likewise, calling what is an intermediate design the handiwork of a creative God is like describing God as someone with a magic wand, good imagination and a sense of humor. This is a mischievous god who likes to tease us by making intermediate creatures that seem to support Darwinism. Not a very convincing argument either, Wes.


With regard to the bacterial flagellar motor, I would love to see the "plausible theories for the evolution of the flagellar motor that show step by step using random mutation and natural selection how it might have happened."

Here’s a couple of links that discuss how the flagellar motor might have evolved. I’m sure there are more. These I found in a quick Google search.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html


As for the Cambrian Explosion issue, I remember there being a chinese scientist on the video who made a fossil discovery in China that led him to beleive that there was an explosion.

I don't recall the chinese scientist in the video but I'll take your word for it. But Wes, some guy discovered a fossil that led him to believe that the entire fossil record is wrong???? I would tend to think that what it led him to believe is wrong.


There are plenty of credible scientists who do not agree with Darwinian theory.

Who are those scientists? There are far more scientists who do agree with the theory.


My anger about this issue has to do with the lack of information provided in textbooks that is critical of Darwinism. Also, the drawings mentioned in the video that even Darwinians agree are incorrect that are still being used in textbooks to support the theory. Finally, Darwinian theory is often referred to as a fact when in actuality it is only a theory.

Wes
Of course, the lack of up to date information in textbooks is not a fault of Darwinism or the result of a conspiracy in the scientific community, but is a fault of the educational system and the textbook industry. While Darwinism might technically be a theory it is widely accepted as fact because the hard evidence is so compelling that most in the scientific community consider it a no-brainer. Don’t forget that intelligent design is only a theory too but in stark contrast to Darwinism is a theory completely lacking in any hard evidence. It’s a theory based only on faith.

Jeff

[miss taken]

I find the evolution versus religion thing quite interesting, though am not particularly qualified on the subject.

Personally, It doesn't matter to me in terms of affecting any faith I have in a creator, because as my 6 year old says, it all comes back to the big bang anyway. The quesion of how we got here still leaves the question of why we are here (and I have already been through this with Paul). Without wishing to sound too quirky, scientists are already concieving of travelling to other planets, perhaps one day they will have the technology to do so on a more grand scale, and to travel faster than the speed of light. (don't say it is impossible cause you never know). With that being the case, then it is not impossible to suggest that a more advanced species populated this earth, and hey maybe its all a dream, a matrix anyway!!!! Perhaps there are many more dimensions that we just don't know about, other than what we CAN percieve in the physical universe. This becomes particularly salient when we are told that up to 80% of the universe cannot even be seen, heard, or sensed in anyway.

I just wonder and marvel at the mystery of it all, and I still maintain on the evolution front that which is argued in 'The Hidden History of the Human Race' may just have something to consider in it. i.e. finding modern humans in jurassic levels and so forth..(don't quote me on that, but it is the type of evidence that was coming out in 19th century US which has been surpressed BECAUSE it doesn't fit the Darwinian Model). P Johnson calls this supressing 'a knowledge filter, that protects the ruling paradigm.

Evolutionists become so entrenched in their own theory that they are just as guilty as the religionists.

I think the important thing is to keep an OPEN MIND!!!


Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

I find the evolution versus religion thing quite interesting, though am not particularly qualified on the subject.

Personally, It doesn't matter to me in terms of affecting any faith I have in a creator, because as my 6 year old says, it all comes back to the big bang anyway. The quesion of how we got here still leaves the question of why we are here (and I have already been through this with Paul).


From an intelligent design perspective why do you think we are here? Is it to prepare ourselves to ultimately spend eternity worshipping a supreme God? Frankly I'd rather be dead.

Jeff

[miss taken]

I DONT believe that we will spend eternity worshiping a supreme God, I am EXCITED by a belief in ETERNAL PROGRESSION, and continuing to gain in intelligence and knowledge.

Anyway Jeff!!! It's a win-win situation. If death is the end, then we cease to exist and so won't know about it anway!! If there is life after death, and it is about progression, then I am sure as heck excited to get there!

Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

I DONT believe that we will spend eternity worshiping a supreme God, I am EXCITED by a belief in ETERNAL PROGRESSION, and continuing to gain in intelligence and knowledge.

Anyway Jeff!!! It's a win-win situation. If death is the end, then we cease to exist and so won't know about it anway!! If there is life after death, and it is about progression, then I am sure as heck excited to get there!

Mary

I find that to be a healthy attitude Mary! Two thumbs up from me. :D

Jeff

[miss taken]

I find that to be a healthy attitude Mary! Two thumbs up from me. :D

Jeff

Phew!!!!!! :D :D

Mary

[silverfox]

I DONT believe that we will spend eternity worshiping a supreme God, I am EXCITED by a belief in ETERNAL PROGRESSION, and continuing to gain in intelligence and knowledge.

Anyway Jeff!!! It's a win-win situation. If death is the end, then we cease to exist and so won't know about it anway!! If there is life after death, and it is about progression, then I am sure as heck excited to get there!

Mary

I like this!

[wescape]

Jeff,

While you (and others) believe that Darwinism has "hard evidence," I (and others) do not. It is a theory and nothing more that is believed to be true based on certain assumptions. Unless someone has actually observed Macro-evolution take place and can demonstrate it, sufficient "hard evidence" is sorely lacking in my opinion and the theory can only be accepted on faith. Your interpretation of Eusthenopteron and Archaeopteryx is not "hard evidence" that Darwinism is true, it is an interpretation that you believe supports the theory. In the same way, I have many interpretations that support my theory. You claim that the idea of a creator "is a theory completely lacking in any hard evidence. It’s a theory based only on faith." Again, it all depends on whose interpretation a person chooses to accept and I believe your words apply to Darwinism just as much as they apply to Intelligent Design.

You asked for names of the credible scientists I mentioned who do not support Darwinism. Here are a few:

Dean Kenyon
Michael J Behe
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Jay W Richards
Mark Ryland
Wesley J Smith
Jonathan Wells
Raymond Bohlin
Stephen C Meyer

You wanted me to explain why I said "it does not make it so" but I could ask you the same question about God. Can you prove there is no God? If you can, then you have done your job in my opinion.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

While you (and others) believe that Darwinism has "hard evidence," I (and others) do not. It is a theory and nothing more that is believed to be true based on certain assumptions. Unless someone has actually observed Macro-evolution take place and can demonstrate it, sufficient "hard evidence" is sorely lacking in my opinion and the theory can only be accepted on faith. Your interpretation of Eusthenopteron and Archaeopteryx is not "hard evidence" that Darwinism is true, it is an interpretation that you believe supports the theory. In the same way, I have many interpretations that support my theory. You claim that the idea of a creator "is a theory completely lacking in any hard evidence. It’s a theory based only on faith." Again, it all depends on whose interpretation a person chooses to accept and I believe your words apply to Darwinism just as much as they apply to Intelligent Design.

You asked for names of the credible scientists I mentioned who do not support Darwinism. Here are a few:

Dean Kenyon
Michael J Behe
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Jay W Richards
Mark Ryland
Wesley J Smith
Jonathan Wells
Raymond Bohlin
Stephen C Meyer

You wanted me to explain why I said "it does not make it so" but I could ask you the same question about God. Can you prove there is no God? If you can, then you have done your job in my opinion.

Wes

Wes, in my opinion you are oversimplifying and misrepresenting the issue. Darwinism doesn't just "believe" it has hard evidence, that evidence sits in museums and in labs. I've pointed out some of it, and with no explanation you dismiss it. You say there are other interpretations but you've not offered what they are, only that they're out there somewhere.

You say that Dawinism is only a theory based on assumptions. It is in fact a theory based on assumptions that are based on tangible evidence that sits in museums and labs. In contrast the existence of God is only a theory based on intangible feelings and faith that sits in people’s heads. No one can see it and cross-examine it. I’ll accept that Darwinism is only a theory if you'll accept that a belief in God is only a theory.

The only reason no one has witnessed macroevolution is because no one can live long enough! 10,000 years is not long enough. But we CAN and DO witness macroevolution through the fossil record that spans billions of years. When I show you that evidence you dismiss it with (so far) no justification for doing so, other than you don't believe that it is evidence. Apparently it doesn’t matter what I show you, you’ll just wave it away with no explanation??

No, of course I can’t prove there is no god. Can you prove that Kolob doesn’t exist? Can you prove that there is no one named Ralph living on a planet called Ernie somewhere in the universe? It’s impossible to prove that something no one has ever seen doesn’t exist. Things can only be proven to exist by demonstrating their existence; nothing can be proven not to exist. In other words it’s impossible to prove a negative.

Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

I will agree that belief in God fits the category of a theory because it cannot be demonstrated to be true using the scientific method. The same is true of Macro-Evolution.

Actually, I have offered another interpretation but you dismissed it as "describing God as someone with a magic wand, good imagination and a sense of humor." I have not dismissed what you perceive as evidence for Darwinism, I just do not find it compelling in the same way that you do not find the evidence for Intelligent Design compelling.

You said that Darwinism is a theory "based on tangible evidence that sits in museums and labs." The theory of Intelligent Design is a based on tangible evidence that is all around us. The difference is in the assumptions that each theory is based upon. Darwinists assume that the "hard evidence" they have supports their theory of Macro-Evolution. Creationists assume that the complexity of natural world is "hard evidence" for an intelligent designer. I cannot speak for everyone who agrees with Intelligent Design but this verse in Romans sums up part of my reasoning for agreeing with it:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (1:20).

While this verse is not "proof" of an intellgent designer, it lays out the philisophical framework behind the theory that there may indeed be one.

The bottom line is that no one knows with undeniable certainty that either theory is correct. Darwinism may be correct just as Intelligent Design may be correct. For you to assert that Darwinism has more "hard evidence" than Intellgient Design is based on an assumption that there is no such designer which, as you stated, is not provable. The evidence used to support Darwinism does not convince me it is true just as the evidence used to support Intelligent Design does not convince you. The reasons I have for rejecting your evidence are no different from the reasons you have to reject my evidence. It all comes down to the different worldviews we hold.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I will agree that belief in God fits the category of a theory because it cannot be demonstrated to be true using the scientific method. The same is true of Macro-Evolution.

Actually, I have offered another interpretation but you dismissed it as "describing God as someone with a magic wand, good imagination and a sense of humor." I have not dismissed what you perceive as evidence for Darwinism, I just do not find it compelling in the same way that you do not find the evidence for Intelligent Design compelling.

You said that Darwinism is a theory "based on tangible evidence that sits in museums and labs." The theory of Intelligent Design is a based on tangible evidence that is all around us. The difference is in the assumptions that each theory is based upon. Darwinists assume that the "hard evidence" they have supports their theory of Macro-Evolution. Creationists assume that the complexity of natural world is "hard evidence" for an intelligent designer. I cannot speak for everyone who agrees with Intelligent Design but this verse in Romans sums up part of my reasoning for agreeing with it:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (1:20).

While this verse is not "proof" of an intellgent designer, it lays out the philisophical framework behind the theory that there may be one.

The bottom line is that no one knows with undeniable certainty that either theory is correct. Darwinism may be correct just as Intelligent Design may be correct. For you to assert that Darwinism has more "hard evidence" than Intellgient Design is based on an assumption that there is no such designer which, as you stated, is not provable. The evidence used to support Darwinism does not convince me it is true just as the evidence used to support Intelligent Design does not convince you. The reasons I have for rejecting your evidence are no different from the reasons you have to reject my evidence. It all comes down to the different worldviews we hold.

Wes


Theists once believed that the sun was god citing religious tradition and what appeared to them to be obvious clues in nature. At some point more objective thinkers said, no, I think the evidence shows that the sun is nothing more than a ball of fire. The religious held their ground but eventually had to give in.

Theists once believed that the earth was the center of the universe, citing the Bible and what appeared to them to be obvious clues in nature. More objective thinkers said, no, I think the earth revolves around the sun. The religious held their ground but eventually had to give in.

Theists once believed that disease was caused by evil spirits citing the Bible and what appeared to them to be obvious clues in nature. More objective thinkers said, no, I think disease is caused by tiny germs. The religious held their ground but eventually had to give in.

Theists once believed that there was no such thing as microevolution citing the Bible and what appeared to them to be lack of evidence in nature. More objective thinkers said, no, there is plenty of evidence. The religious chose to interpret the evidence differently and held their ground but eventually had to give in.

Now, theists believe that there is no such thing as macroevolution citing the Bible and what appears to them to be lack of evidence in nature. More objective thinkers said, no, there is plenty of evidence. The religious chose to interpret the evidence differently and held their ground but........

TO BE CONTINUED


My money is still on science. -- Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

You are entitled to put your hope in objective, rational thinking and the scientific method. I will continue to put mine in living into the mystery of a creative, loving God who deeply desires relationship with his creatures even when we repeatedly reject him.

I enjoyed your recounting of the progression of theistic thought in relation to science. It reveals just how right human beings think they can be when in reality they are dead wrong (even as a majority). Of course, this possibility applies to all humans in my opinion and not just theists.

What I'm really interested in with regard to the scientific method is when it will attempt to explain how matter came into existence. I realize that the Big Bang theory sort of gave it a shot but where did the stuff come from that caused the explosion? If and when science can answer that question with reliability, I will be impressed.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,
I enjoyed your recounting of the progression of theistic thought in relation to science. It reveals just how right human beings think they can be when in reality they are dead wrong (even as a majority). Of course, this possibility applies to all humans in my opinion and not just theists.

Wes, of course it applies to all humans, but given theism's dismal track record when it's gone up against rational thinking and science, when you point out how "dead wrong" humans can be your statement is most condemning of theism, is it not? Unless you can point out something to the contrary, theism has proven to be “dead wrong" every single time it's gone up against science. Obviously that’s why, in my humble opinion, it would be foolhardy to bet on theism in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate.


What I'm really interested in with regard to the scientific method is when it will attempt to explain how matter came into existence. I realize that the Big Bang theory sort of gave it a shot but where did the stuff come from that caused the explosion? If and when science can answer that question with reliability, I will be impressed.

Wes
Pepare to be impressed because science has been hot on that trail for decades and has already made many impressive discoveries as little by little it reveals more of that "mystery". Meanwhile little by little theism keeps finding itself losing ground as again and again it finds itself having to say, "okay, so we'll give science that one.... oh yeah, and that one..... uh, and that one .... hmmm, and I guess that one too.... and that one…. and that one......."

Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

The emphasis of the statement I made was how a majority of humans could sincerely believe one thing and be completely wrong in that belief. I was illustrating just how much we as humans don't really know. While the example you gave showed instances where certain theists were mistaken, there are plenty of humans in the world who are just as susceptible to coming to a wrong conclusion. Science involves the testing of hypotheses and then accepting or rejecting theories based on the results of those experiments. As new information is discovered, old theories are discarded or reinforced depending on how that information is interpreted. I (and others) interpret the discovery of DNA as a huge blow to Darwinian thought. Obviously, you and the current scientific majority interpret that discovery quite oppositely. The point is that no one knows what will be discovered tomorrow and that anyone's theory could be trumped at anytime. I understand that you consider it foolhardy to bank on theism in light of the fact that certain folks in that camp came to some wrong conclusions but I think that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. As an aside, I do find it ironic that most of the people who are considered the fathers of modern science were theists.

You mentioned that scientists are hot on the trail of explaining how matter came into existence. That's really interesting. When science demonstates how you can get something from nothing I will be very impressed indeed.

Wes

[miss taken]

Just to let you two know, that I am really, really enjoying this banter between you, and that at present it is the talk of our house!!! :D
Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,
The emphasis of the statement I made was how a majority of humans could sincerely believe one thing and be completely wrong in that belief. I was illustrating just how much we as humans don't really know. While the example you gave showed instances where certain theists were mistaken, there are plenty of humans in the world who are just as susceptible to coming to a wrong conclusion.

Wes, with all due respect I feel you are distorting and compartmentalizing the facts here. To claim that only "certain thesists" and only "certain folks" believed the earth was the center of the universe, that desease was caused by evil spirits, that there's no such thing as microevloution, that the earth is flat, etc., etc. is a gross distortion of the facts. Virtually every Christian once believed those things. It was rational thinking and science that fought against an overwhelming tide of theistic and Bible based thinking that provided the answers. The same applies to everything else I listed in my historical review. At one time virtually every Christian believed every one of them, not just certain theists.


I understand that you consider it foolhardy to bank on theism in light of the fact that certain folks in that camp came to some wrong conclusions but I think that is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Exactly what baby am I throwing out, Wes? :confused: I think the position that most theists advocate today is like washing the baby over and over again in the same old dirty water. ;) I think it's time to learn from the past and toss it out!


As an aside, I do find it ironic that most of the people who are considered the fathers of modern science were theists.

Of course they were Wes, they invented the tools of science and rational thinking. Prior to the existence of those tools what else was there but faith and superstition? I think your statement is like saying that it's ironic that Alexander Graham Bell once sent letters to communicate with his family. ;)

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

Just to let you two know, that I am really, really enjoying this banter between you, and that at present it is the talk of our house!!! :D
Mary

Wes, we're famous! :D No autographs please. :cool:

Jeff

[wescape]

Jeff,

I think the key words were "virtually every" when you were describing Christians who believed those things. I never believed them and neither did Galileo or Copernicus. We really don't have any statistical information on that anyway so for you to make that claim is unsubstantiated.

The baby you're throwing out is God since you can't prove he doesn't exist.

The reason I find it ironic that theists invented science is because of this very discussion. You may disagree but I believe the whole reason we even have science is because of theism. The early scientists believed God was a God of order, not chaos. Out of that assumption came the desire to learn more about this God through studying His creation. Why would they even attempt experiments if they thought everything existed due to random processes? Because that wouldn't make any sense.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I think the key words were "virtually every" when you were describing Christians who believed those things. I never believed them and neither did Galileo or Copernicus. We really don't have any statistical information on that anyway so for you to make that claim is unsubstantiated.

The baby you're throwing out is God since you can't prove he doesn't exist.

The reason I find it ironic that theists invented science is because of this very discussion. You may disagree but I believe the whole reason we even have science is because of theism. The early scientists believed God was a God of order, not chaos. Out of that assumption came the desire to learn more about this God through studying His creation. Why would they even attempt experiments if they thought everything existed due to random processes? Because that wouldn't make any sense.

Wes

Fair enough Wes. I think enough has been said on both sides of this issue and I'm satisfied with letting the thread speak for itself from here on out. Thanks! It's been an interesting exchange. :)

Jeff

[wescape]

I enjoyed it too, Jeff. Thank you! :)

[Born Free]

I have observed this and other discussions along similar lines and am fascinated by this particular branch in post-Mo beliefs deconstruction and rebuilding.

Some appear to maintain a strong theistic belief, whilst others take a more naturalist tack. Do others see any more branches in the road at this time?

It seems that will always create some tension between those camps, as their world view and beliefs difffer substantially.

Daryl

[free thinker]

Hi Free Thinker,

Glad to hear you were encouraged by our conversation. I understand your caution about not wanting to be fooled again by something like Mormonism. How long have you been out of the church?

It took me several years before I would even consider looking into anything of a spiritual nature. As far as I was concerned, all that stuff was a bunch of BS just used to control people and get their money. While I had no interest in organized religion whatsoever, the whole Darwinian thing seemed pretty ridiculous to me. The thought of an intelligent designer on the other hand, made a lot of sense (and for me was the only statistically possible explanation for the complex beauty of the natural world). After studying the Bible on my own (without the influence of anyone else) and being overwhelmed by the profound wisdom contained in it that applied directly to my current situation at the time, I concluded that it was legitimate. However, I also concluded that man had taken this book of history, wisdom and truth, used it for his own purposes and twisted it into religion which is not what God intended. It wasn't until awhile later that I met someone who did not fit my paradigm of a "religious" person. He accepted me as I was and genuinely cared for me as a human being. Even though I was suspicious of him for months, he continued to pursue me and had no agenda other than being my friend. Eventually, I came to trust him and saw that the love of God was being demonstrated to me through this person's unconditional acceptance of me. That began my relationship with Jesus and it has transformed my life in miraculous ways that could never have happened otherwise.

Anyway, that's the short version of my faith journey. Now, my aim is to communicate that same love to others. That's it - Christianity in a nutshell. Jesus said we are to love God and love others. He did not say to convert people, to shove anything down their throat, or to hit them over the head with a Bible. Just to love. Therefore, I have no need to be disrespectful to folks like Jeff or anyone else whom I disagree with. Also, I enjoy those kind of discussions because while I do have strong convictions about many things, I appreciate people who have differing convictions and I think dialogue always presents an opportunity for growth. :)

Wes

Wes I am in my first year post-mo. I am open to spirituality. I have not excluded the supernatural from my mind. I am just unsure of what may be there.

I want to make sure that I contunue to pursue "verticle growth" as has been mentioned on another thread by BIG EDDY. I will remain open, but very sceptical!!

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

Wes I am in my first year post-mo. I am open to spirituality. I have not excluded the supernatural from my mind. I am just unsure of what may be there.

I want to make sure that I contunue to pursue "verticle growth" as has been mentioned on another thread by BIG EDDY. I will remain open, but very sceptical!!

Free Thinker

I see as regrettable that many people give up on spirituality after being burnt by religion.

It does not have to be thus!!!

Check out this thread - one of my favourites on this site (not the least because I started it :rolleyes: ) and it elicited some brilliant responses.

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=87

Daryl

[miss taken]

I see as regrettable that many people give up on spirituality after being burnt by religion.

It does not have to be thus!!!

Check out this thread - one of my favourites on this site (not the least because I started it :rolleyes: ) and it elicited some brilliant responses.

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=87

Daryl

I agree, I had to force myself (still do on occassion) to separate the mormon god with my view/construction of God, and the mormon view of the afterlife with my own view. I found that there are quite subtle differences, but extremely pivotal ones. ie judgement, progression, the nature of god, the nature of worship etc etc etc

[SoUtSkeptic]

Here's a quote I just found on another website... I thought it was pretty intense, and even current:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."-
President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

[QUOTE=nate]"Each of has to face the matter".... but let US do it FOR YOU!!

______________________________________________
Attempting my first post, see if it works.

Thank you for posting the quote. I was able to look it up on LDS.org.
As far as problems with the church, my sweet TBM wife responds she just takes the best parts and leaves the rest along. I can now show her the horses mouth states one must to accept it all.

SoUtSkeptic

The LDS.org link is and the quote is on the last page.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q= "Each%20of%20us%20has%20to%20face%20the%20matter-either%20the%20Church%20is%20true,%20or%20it%20is% 20a%20fraud.%20There%20is%20no%20middle%20ground.% 20It%20is%20the%20Church%20and%20kingdom%20of%20Go d,%20or%20it%20is%20nothing."-%20$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C 0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef

[silverfox]

______________________________________________
Attempting my first post, see if it works.

Thank you for posting the quote. I was able to look it up on LDS.org.
As far as problems with the church, my sweet TBM wife responds she just takes the best parts and leaves the rest along. I can now show her the horses mouth states one must to accept it all.

SoUtSkeptic

The LDS.org link is and the quote is on the last page.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q= "Each%20of%20us%20has%20to%20face%20the%20matter-either%20the%20Church%20is%20true,%20or%20it%20is% 20a%20fraud.%20There%20is%20no%20middle%20ground.% 20It%20is%20the%20Church%20and%20kingdom%20of%20Go d,%20or%20it%20is%20nothing."-%20$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C 0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef

Welcome. SoUtskeptic - have her read the 14 Fundamentals of following a prophet, too.

I am wondering, if a member can take pick and choose what they like from the church and leave the rest alone are they REALLY TBM? I would guess so in the sense that they can ignore what they don't like and still stay true to the church.

It's when we are proactive toward the things we dislike or question that makes us anything but, I guess.

[helemon]

The whole Jesus thing could be a lie written by opportunistic men.

Check this out:
http://www.bettybowers.com/pagan.html

[helemon]

Here's a quote I just found on another website... I thought it was pretty intense, and even current:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."-
President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

I love how he is able to threaten without actual backing... and it's effective for current members.

I sometimes toy with the idea that Hinckley in his own way (perhaps unconciously) is trying to tell people that the church is false. During one of his conference talks he mentioned he had been reading a book that said the books of the New Testament were not written until decades after the life of Christ. His response to this was the old chestnut about trusting the bible only so far as it is correctly translated. But still he did not dispute the position that some of the bible might be a fabrication. Growing up he admitted that he had doubts about the church. He has thrown out some wild statements, like the couplet quip, that have made many in the church sit up and say Huh? Maybe these are just senior moments or maybe not?

If the leaders of the church were to come out and say the church is false think of the impact it would have on members? Remember how painful it was when you realized the church wasn't true, now magnify that pain by 11+million. Which would be better for the members of the church? For the church to die a quick death resulting in massive chaos not only for the members but also the coporations and investments of the church, or die a slow death where increasing numbers of members begin to wake up to the problems the church is not facing and leave on their own? Personally I think the slow death might be more humane. Let the church die of attrition rather than instantaneous implosion. What or who would fill the spiritual vacuum in UT if the church were to disappear overnight? The fundies? The Catholic church? Evangelicals? Athieism? Scientology? Drugs? So in a way the leadership may be doing us a favor by forcing members to figure out these problems on their own and deal with the ramifications slowly in their own way?

[miss taken]

I sometimes toy with the idea that Hinckley in his own way (perhaps unconciously) is trying to tell people that the church is false. During one of his conference talks he mentioned he had been reading a book that said the books of the New Testament were not written until decades after the life of Christ. His response to this was the old chestnut about trusting the bible only so far as it is correctly translated. But still he did not dispute the position that some of the bible might be a fabrication. Growing up he admitted that he had doubts about the church. He has thrown out some wild statements, like the couplet quip, that have made many in the church sit up and say Huh? Maybe these are just senior moments or maybe not?

If the leaders of the church were to come out and say the church is false think of the impact it would have on members? Remember how painful it was when you realized the church wasn't true, now magnify that pain by 11+million. Which would be better for the members of the church? For the church to die a quick death resulting in massive chaos not only for the members but also the coporations and investments of the church, or die a slow death where increasing numbers of members begin to wake up to the problems the church is not facing and leave on their own? Personally I think the slow death might be more humane. Let the church die of attrition rather than instantaneous implosion. What or who would fill the spiritual vacuum in UT if the church were to disappear overnight? The fundies? The Catholic church? Evangelicals? Athieism? Scientology? Drugs? So in a way the leadership may be doing us a favor by forcing members to figure out these problems on their own and deal with the ramifications slowly in their own way?

Hinkleys quote is a little depressing isn't it. He's saying there is no room for doubt, no middle way, no taking of what you like and disregarding the rest (which I know that many many LDS members do infact do).

I think his mindset is one of the biggest reasons I left.
There seems to be no room for doubt or questioning in that statement. Black/white. No grey. Life isn't like that
Mary

[miss taken]

Check this out:
http://www.bettybowers.com/pagan.html

I have read up on the Osiris, Mithras, etc links to Jesus before. It is interesting, but I think there are an awful lot of scholars out there who would not even bother with this book.

What I find interesting is trying to answer the following questions (on the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in history which I believe to be true)

1) What did HE actually say and believe?

(this isn't so easy to fathom from the evidence that we have left)

2) What was the culture like in which he grew up in and lived, and how did it influence him?

(it is not unreasonable to assume that the Jews would have had a pretty good understanding of Egyptian, Bablylonian, Greek Religion and Philosophy)

No doubt the Jesus of History was influenced by all of these as were the people contemporary with him.

Just out of interest, when I was at college we went on a field trip around Oxfordshire. Under the porch of one church was a roman god, there in all his glory, etched 1400 years ago, by the earliest catholic christians.

Why did they do it. Just as they put a date of 25th December, celebrated Jesus's resurection at easter, they were trying to make christianity, in my opinion, more palatable to a pagan audience. Mix this religion with the religion of the time, and you get one that is easier to digest.

I have never doubted this about christianity.
The adoration of the virgin Mary, is at the very least in my opinion, a throw over from a pre-christian religion that revered women more than the christian one did.

Halo's, from the worship of the sun.

In the OT there is no doubt that, should there be some historical validity to some of it, which I am sure is correct, then Rebeccah was influenced by the local Gods, and the Jews on return from Exile in Eqypt were caught red'handed so to speak, worshiping idols.

I don't know that any religion is truly pure?
Mary

Mary