Dan recommends the Heartsell technique to ward off apostasy

[Bret Ripley]

Calvinists can face things like that.

Therefore put on the full armor of John Calvin that you may be able to stand Ecclesiastes.

[Physics Guy]

That cure is worse than the disease, in my view. But it was refreshing to be in a Bible study where there really seemed to be no pressure at all to pretend that the text was anything besides what it said. It didn't make me a Calvinist but it made me feel that there was more to be said for the Calvinists than I had expected there could be.

[huckelberry]

That cure is worse than the disease, in my view. But it was refreshing to be in a Bible study where there really seemed to be no pressure at all to pretend that the text was anything besides what it said. It didn't make me a Calvinist but it made me feel that there was more to be said for the Calvinists than I had expected there could be.

physics Guy, I sometimes have put on a Calvinist hat in discussion here. A large part because of its respect for the limits and difficulties in life. I am much put off by the tendencies in America to advertise faith as success insurance. Send in your money you will be healed. Just claim it and it can be yours and other such horrors. Well there are uglies in Mr Calvin's thought and I have no desire to sign onto his whole system.

I remember Ecclesiastes perhaps particularly in my youth as encouragement to face difficulties and limitations. I perhaps attached it to a bit of Camus. I do not know if that would be called upbeat but I saw it as positive.

I have been struck by Jurgen Moltman's thought. He has some respect for suffering and limitations. Do you know if he has much traction over on your side of the Atlantic. I do not see him getting much in America at this time.

[I Have Questions]

I think it important to preemptively strengthen faith as well as to fend off attacks, criticisms, or doubts.

…

Suppose a person Bernie Madoff has been a friend of yours for several decades. You’ve always known him to be good, honorable, reliable, and kind. The report that you’ve just heard about him simply doesn’t fit with the man you know, doesn’t seem consistent with his character as you’ve observed it over the years. You don’t necessarily pronounce the report a lie, but you’re certainly more inclined to withhold judgment, to give him the benefit of the doubt, to suspend your verdict until you can get his side of the story. It’s going to take quite a bit of solid evidence to persuade you to revise your long-standing opinion of your friend.

Now, I think that this parable, if you will, can be applied to both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

If someone runs into an argument against the Book of Mormon, the weight that she is going to give to that argument will depend, to a significant degree, upon her general evaluation of the Book of Mormon. If she’s studied it and found it rich with spiritual treasures, she’ll be more inclined to minimize the argument’s force than if she doesn’t know the Book of Mormon very well and doesn’t value it, let alone if she already holds the book in contempt or derision.

In both cases, just keep investing your money in them, doubt the reports and doubt your doubts. DCP is peddling very harmful advice.

[tagriffy]

That sermon I heard argued that Matt. 12:40, bringing in the fish, was a confused gloss by a later writer and not actually part of what Jesus said, which would have skipped straight from 39 to 41, as in the same passage in Luke. Indeed it would have made no sense in this context for Jesus to refer to Jonah for the miraculous fish ride, let alone as a far-fetched analogy to Jesus's death and resurrection. Jesus's rest in the tomb hadn't happened yet at that point, and even if Jesus somehow had been trying to foretell it, comparing it to Jonah's fish story would have been a weird and silly way to frame the great Christian miracle.

This is a bit of speculation, but I think it was the author of Matthew who interpolated verse 40 into the Q saying. In other words, verse 40 is original to the gospel. The author of Matthew was a bit of a hyper-literalist, e.g., he's the only one who has Jesus ride both the donkey and its colt (21:7). I can easily see the author looking at the Q saying and feeling that it needed some explanation. Jonah was in the fish for three days; Jesus was in the grave for three days. It's an obvious parallel so the author ran with it.

[Physics Guy]

I have been struck by Jurgen Moltman's thought. He has some respect for suffering and limitations. Do you know if he has much traction over on your side of the Atlantic. I do not see him getting much in America at this time.

I hadn't heard of Jürgen Moltmann myself until you mentioned him, huckelberry. I know a couple of German theology students, so I'll try to remember to ask about him next time I see them. From his Wikipedia page, he looks interesting. Just the fact that he had a chair at Tübingen is some measure of influence.