Christianity vs Mormonism

[_the road to hana]

Hey GoodK, Good-stuff! Ya got 'em hanging on your string! just keep pulling it. It'll take a long time to haul some out of their cave. :-)

A lot like the story of those folks wondering in the desert for 40 years. The old generation, with their cluttered minds and misconceptions, had to die before entering their "promised land" and a better life. Ever thus, eh? So "we" have Compromised Christianism influencing "us" to the same moderated falsehoods of origin and destiny.

It is to me unbelievable that seemingly intelligent folks require "verse & page" of primitive mythology to substantiate understanding and findings that "we" have in hand?! These same folks use elecrticity, wirelessness, have joint replacements, defy gravity at 30,000 feet flying through the air at 400+ MPH?? Go figger :-)

Oh, I nearly forgot: Most of the same folks also have a fixation on Balls: Golf, Base, Foot, Cricket, and go crazy watching others do their thing with them. And they even PAY-BIG-BUCKS to watch them. And, they pay to take their kids to artifical Adventure Lands...

Conclusion: They enjoy Fantasy. Don't be impatient GoodK. Future generations will deal--being better informed, and more enlightened--with reality. They might even click into truths burried within the myths that could bring "peace-on-earth". Not glory in heaven. IMSCO. Warm regards, Roger

I don't see that the discussion that GoodK set up in the OP has actually taken place yet. I'd still like to see her clarify what she's intending with the expression "literally true," because it seems to me that she's focusing on literality of Old Testament scripture in an all-or-nothing proposition, which is a demonstrably false premise.

In any case, she's probably chosen the wrong audience for the particular discussion, and might do better getting responses from conservative Christians someplace where there actually are some, like CARMS. Those who would more nearly identify with that concept on this board are conservative Mormons, and they're not likely to argue that somehow non-Mormon Christianity is more credible than Mormonism.

Most of us here are not the audience she's seeking. She might as well go over to RFM and ask people to convince her why she should return to Mormonism, or wander into a Democratic Convention and ask people to extol the virtues of George W. Bush.

[_dartagnan]

Yea, Roger, we're all on her string huh?

Are you guys so stupid as to think any of this is news to us?

As if we are not aware of the scientifically based facts about the flood, etc? Jesus didn't require anyone to believe any of this stuff, so it can hardly be pegged into the fundamental stuff that makes Christainity what it is.

Despite all the science that refutes ancient/biblical allegory, Christianity is alive and well and most Christian scientists don't feel any need to compromise their Christianity with science. In fact, most scientists who brought us modern science, were Christians operating on Christian assumptions about the universe. You owe it more than you'll ever know.

Only the idiots think they can wrap Christainity up in a convenient Old Testament and start dishing out refutations based on that alone. It doesn't work that way. The inerrancy fad has a history to it that came long after Christianity and it is currently on its way out - at least the extreme version of it.

Maybe this says more about your ignorance about what Christianity is, wouldn't ya think?

Before giving GoodK any credit, wander on over to the Zeitgeist thread and check out how she is squirming after comitting herself to defending the untenable; that ridiculous anti-religion flick that has a special place in her heart.

It proves you guys are going to stick with a thesis so long as it conforms to your bigoted presuppositions. The only thing GoodK is right about is when she admits she is ignorant and uninformed on the issues, and admits she researches nothing.

[_Dr. Shades]

GoodK, the only problem with that little strawman argument is that the authors didn't write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. They wrote about, at best, a localized flood.

You said the magic words.

The authors actually did write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. If they didn't, then:

• Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've just walked uphill.
• Noah wouldn't have gathered together any animals.
• When God put the rainbow in the sky, what exactly was He promising He'd never do again?

Whether or not there really was a localized flood is irrelevant, it is a story about judgement and most likely allegory.

I disagree. It's completely relevant, 'cause if it didn't happen, then it's false.

If it's an allegory, then it's a very poor one, since it creates far more confusion than it solves.

[_dartagnan]

I disagree. It's completely relevant, 'cause if it didn't happen, then it's false.

So? I believe it didn't happen, and I consider myself a Christian.

If it's an allegory, then it's a very poor one, since it creates far more confusion than it solves.

Well, then it is a poor one. But the fact is this was the norm in ancient literature. Allegory was all the rage. People were writing it whether they had talent or not.

[_the road to hana]

GoodK, the only problem with that little strawman argument is that the authors didn't write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. They wrote about, at best, a localized flood.

You said the magic words.

The authors actually did write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. If they didn't, then:

• Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've just walked uphill.
• Noah wouldn't have gathered together any animals.
• When God put the rainbow in the sky, what exactly was He promising He'd never do again?

Whether or not there really was a localized flood is irrelevant, it is a story about judgement and most likely allegory.

I disagree. It's completely relevant, 'cause if it didn't happen, then it's false.

If it's an allegory, then it's a very poor one, since it creates far more confusion than it solves.

I think the problem, Shades, is that people erroneously assume when they hear someone say that the Bible is the "word of God" that God actually authored the pages.

We can't put our 21st century assumptions on top of Old Testament stories, whether myth, legend, history or allegory, and make them correctly fit. Likewise, someone in the 45th century would find our perspective, our accounts, skewed by their measure.

From a purely historical (and non-theological) point of view, it's interesting to study all these various flood stories that exist in multiple cultures, and the theories surrounding them.

You might find this particular National Geographic link interesting:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html

When these sorts of conversations take place, I'm reminded of the short story "By the Waters of Babylon," by Stephen Vincent Benet, a classic piece of post-apocalyptic fiction.
http://www.tkinter.smig.net/Outings/Ros ... abylon.htm

If at some point in the future, global warming creates excessive flooding in some parts of the globe, there might be local inhabitants who imagine that indeed, the entire earth has been flooded, because that might be their perspective. It won't necessarily make it true, but whatever stories and legends that ultimately survive could reflect it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Good K

Will you list examples of that?

Sure, I'd love to. I assume you mean examples for Christianity, so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps.
These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.

They are manifestly false to anyone who attempts to couch them in literal terms. Taking the Flood story for example, why do you frame it as a global flood?

I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones, and there are other things that I find morally wrong in the Bible, I can list those as well if you'd like.

Yes, I'd like a brief list of things in the Bible you find morally wrong.

I think one can get away with not taking a lot literally and still maintain a Christian faith. The one major problem though is Adam and Eve and the Fall. It seems to me the New Testament bases the whole need for a savior on the Fall of man. If there was not a fall why do we need a savior?

[_Jason Bourne]

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Your interpretation you mean. Really, I think most conservative Christians believe in a literal world wide flood, and view the rest of the Bible stories literally.

[_the road to hana]

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Your interpretation you mean. Really, I think most conservative Christians believe in a literal world wide flood, and view the rest of the Bible stories literally.

By "conservative" I assume you mean EVs primarily.

[_Jason Bourne]

Let me clarify what I'm asking. I'd like you to quote the scripture in context. There is no need for you to "type out" the actual verses. You can access the Bible online and copy and paste it here.

Genesis 6:12-13,17

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Certainly a literal read of this leads one to conclude that this is a world wide flood. I understand that now it is fashionable for many to interpret this as a localized event. But that seem a recent development and for thousands of years Bible believers read this as a world wide flood and a literal event. And a good part of Christianity still does.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahark.htm

http://www2.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/december1999/posts/topic12830.shtm