wenglund wrote:To your respective ways of thinking or feeling, how do varied levels of belief factor in (wavering or weak to unequivocal and strong)?
Or, varied levels of disbelief (agnostic vs. athiest)?
To your ways of thinking or feeling, is it possible that perceived evidence may play a part (i.e. the more perceived evidence in support of a belief, the stronger the belief, whereas the less perceived evidence in support of the belief, the weaker the belief; and the more perceived evidence in controvention to a belief the stronger the disbelief, and the less perceived evidence in controvention to a belief, the weaker the disbelief)?
Thanks, -Wade
What evidence are you talking about? A spiritual witness, or pure physical evidence? If pure physical evidence, then I would say Jaredite barges carrying humans and animals in ancient submarines upon the water for 344 days, with illuminated stones for light, no apparent toilet facilities, and emerging half a globe away in a promised land, and starting a whole civilisation, which eventually detroys itself down to one man who survives, the leader, is fantasy. This is also what Roberts thought in his "devil's advocate" writing, and it's things like this that Roberts questioned, "how shall we escape these difficulties?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking belief insofar as mythology brings people meaning. What I am questioning is the literalness applied to what is clearly mythology. If you'd like to start a thread on the Jaredite barges, Wade, be my guest. The Book of Mormon is far more than Jaredite barges, or Liahonas, or mountains removing at a word, or three Nephites who are still alive, somewhere, and who crop up in legends so often. Nephi could see some 2,500 years into the future, in detail that would give Nostradamus a fit. Yet as beastie pointed out, the leaders could not see in 1950 how wrong racism was. I won't go into those embarrassing Petersen's quotes, because he was a cultural norm of his time, and if he was here today he would not say those things. But the Book of Mormon does have other ethically admirable concepts which disposes one to accept all the other junk stories. I contend that a separation is necessary. We need a whittling down to the good concepts in the Book of Mormon, and to ignore the junk stories.
So the evidence I see is that people place their faith in what is good and uplifting in the scriptures, yet some feel they have to make it all literal to be true. If asses don't talk, then the Sermon on the Mount is a fraud. Great logic. That's just one analogy. I have a Christian friend who insists that the world was created in six 24 hour days, and if, in his mind, this was proved false, he would lose his whole faith in Christianity! You might think this silly, but he can't wrap his mind around the "silliness" of the Book of Mormon, yet he has no problem with biblical stupidity. So is this evidence perceived, or real? Did Elisha really have two bears kill those children because they teased him about his bald head? This has to be the worst case of sledgehammering ants or killing someone, children at that, for lighthearted teasing. And if you think there is some mythology in the scriptures, where do you draw the line? To many Muslims the Qur'an is NOT mythology - it is verily the word of God. Those who doubt the literal interpretations of the Qur'an are called "moderates". So why do we call them moderates for doubting literal interpretations, but if a Mormon doubts literal interpretations they are called "apostates"?
I won't go into 1 Samuel 15 in detail, but do you believe that Samuel chopped Agag in pieces with a sword, and that Saul was disobedient because he killed all the men, women and children, but spared Agag and the animals? Is this historical fact?
I'm merely discussing evidence. Do you see anything wrong in the points I've made, if so, why?