Christianity vs Mormonism

[_JAK]

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.

Legends regarded as truth which might originate today are hightly unlikely. We have far too much observation from television, satellites, and on-the-scene reporters. Consider Katrina. If one had been in that hurricane with no contact to the world beyond the hurricane, he/she might have thought it was the end of the world. While it was the end of his/her world, we who watched our televisions from the comfort of hundreds of miles had a different perspective. In the days of total flood myths, people had no such perspective beyond what they endured and experienced.

It’s very difficult to start a new legend today if not impossible.

Nice resource from National Geographic!

JAK

[_JAK]

You are correct about the thousand+ groups of Christians. (I’m skeptical that you can find evidence for “thousands.”)
See this link:

List of Christian denominations by number of members

Ubbo-Sathla stated:
Mwa-haha-hargh! They had ONE "Baptist churches"! ONE "Jehovah's Witnesses", TWO "Latter day Saint movement (Mormons)", ONE "Seventh Day Adventists", 2 1/2 "Nestorians", ONE "Assemblies of God"! Who can trust wikipedia!!??

There are over a dozen JW churches, bunches of Seventh Day Adventist churches, countless Latter day Saint churches. Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists alone altogether must make over a thousand different churches different in doctrine and different in who th eleaders are. I'll bet there are a few dozen presbyterian churches too, becasue they're always arguing how strict to be, and the Church of God groups kick each other out so much there's bound to be a hundred or more of them.

There are too many churches. If they all took the Bible literally, there'd be only one church. But nobody but nobody takes the Bible completely literally. The only true church is the Church of Disagreement. Even scientists would feel comfortable in that church cause they can't agree either.

JAK

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment and link. I was not counting individual church buildings as separate churches, but rather denominations as singular groups. For example: The United Methodist Church is a single denomination. While Methodists may disagree with one another on some aspects of their denomination’s position, they are a part of the same, single denomination.

No as for you charge that “Even scientists would feel comfortable in that church cause they can't agree either,” it’s flawed in this respect.

Science has major consensus. The computer on which you read these posts is an example of applied science on which there is major scientific agreement.

The same can be said for the field of medicine – medical science.

There is far more consensus in science than in religion. Scientists over the world in the Western world and penetrating now into many countries have much agreement. They employ the scientific method which is universal in its requirement of evidence before conclusion. And science is constantly testing and re-testing its tentative conclusions.

Religion, on the other hand, does no such thing. Religion and all those religious groups to which I referred rely on truth by assertion. That is the anthesis of how science and the scientific method work.

JAK

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

Now I'm going to say something that will come off totally irritating, but what else is new, huh?

No not irritating. I think my writing may reflect an irritated tone, but that is certainly not the case. I enjoy discussion here, as I am sure you do as well.

This is what a straw man (and a rather ugly one, at that) looks like:

The arguments that you put up to "prove" Christianity false, ridiculous, etc, aren't arguments that you've studied and reasoned out for yourself. You are parroting arguments borrowed from others.

First of all, if you go back and read the thread in context (sound familiar?) you will see that I was asked to give a list of things that Christianity teaches that I believe are manifestly false. I did that. I wasn't quite prepared for the responses I was to receive...

I did not put forth an argument to prove Christianity is false. I gave a brief list.
And I find it funny you are accusing me of not studying and reasoning things out for myself... after you try and defend the idea of noah's ark by saying "but they thought the earth was flat!"

I suppose no one can accuse of parroting arguments borrowed from others. Ü

Second of all, I am sure many others have made the same arguments before. Are you really implying that I should find unique reasons to dislike the Bible or Christianity?

Translation: "Shut up about Noah's Ark, we know it's stupid -- but we still can't muster the integrity to own up to the claims our silly book makes. We'd rather just tell you we don't really believe it."

PS. I learned of the British Education standards from one of Professor Richard Dawkins talks at the AAI convention in September. He makes a much better case for religion as child abuse than I ever could. I'm sure there are clips available online for anyone interested enough..

[_GoodK]

I'm not here to defend either the Bible, or Christianity, except to point out flaws in your assertions.

What a wonderful statement. Isn't religion quaint this way? Constantly moving backwards, calling for evidence when it isn't there, arguing the evidence when it is, and when that doesn't work saying we don't really believe it and it isn't important anyways.

[_GoodK]

This coupled with your statement that the Church tried to teach that the Earth was flat make me question if you've learned much history beyond what is in a High School textbook.

As tedious as it might be, Nehor, you might want to go back and reread the thread.

Nowhere did GoodK suggest that the Church tried to teach that the earth was flat.

Any mention of a flat earth was made by me, and I did not suggest, or state, that the church taught that.

I'm referring to his saying this in another thread.

I never said that the church taught that the earth was flat. Nice try.

I was talking to JAK. I quoted JAK in the original statement. Hana then tied it to you for some reason.

Ok, I'm sorry then.

[_the road to hana]

I'm not here to defend either the Bible, or Christianity, except to point out flaws in your assertions.

What a wonderful statement. Isn't religion quaint this way? Constantly moving backwards, calling for evidence when it isn't there, arguing the evidence when it is, and when that doesn't work saying we don't really believe it and it isn't important anyways.

As I pointed out, if you went out looking for an audience of (non-Mormon) Christians to respond to your OP, you went to the wrong forum.

[_GoodK]

You want someone to tell you, as a non-believer, how Christianity is better, but then you make false and uninformed claims about Christian beliefs or origins? What type of discussion do you really hope to have?

Why must you say such a blatantly false thing?

I never made a false or uninformed claim about Christianity.

Is Noah's Ark not a story in the Bible? Does the Bible lend any support to your seemingly false claim that Christianity doesn't literally believe it? Nope.

The type of discussion I'd like to have is one in which people string together rational arguments and reasonable responses, whether or not I agree with them.

[_the road to hana]

The type of discussion I'd like to have is one in which people string together rational arguments and reasonable responses, whether or not I agree with them.

Indeed. But you are persisting in false assertions, primarily attributing belief in literality to the whole rather than just the part. Until you stop doing that, you won't be able to have such a discussion.

[_GoodK]

The type of discussion I'd like to have is one in which people string together rational arguments and reasonable responses, whether or not I agree with them.

Indeed. But you are persisting in false assertions, primarily attributing belief in literality to the whole rather than just the part. Until you stop doing that, you won't be able to have such a discussion.

I think you should stop saying I've provided a false assertion until you can back it up more thoroughly... but since you are having such a hard time coming to terms with the global flood and Noah's Ark, I won't fault you for moving on and addressing any of the other parts of the Bible I listed for you:

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.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

What if the flood story was a parable - one that depicts "salvation" and "life" to those who are "in" the ark, the vessel, while all those who do not enter suffer death?

Either way, this is an interesting topic, GoodK.