ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_SteelHead]

Well if you can not base faith on miracles nor rationale, what can you base it on? What is left?

I do not know how the word rationale worked its way into this negation.

What is left? The opportunity to live each day in the light of the kingdom of God and the friendship of Jesus, thankful to the God who gave us life.

You say we can not base faith on miracle, I added rationale because to have faith in a global flood requires the disregard of what one's perceptions and logic speak to the subject. A global flood should show the destruction of all other cultures but ones senses show that there were various cultures that thrived from 5000-2000 bc, and that there are areas of continuous human occupation for 12000 to 2000 bc and beyond.

A case in point to this type of belief is Hoop's assertion that nothing ate meat before the flood.

There are bones that show that they were gnawed on by humans much older than 3000 bc, and bones that show that other critters were gnawing on other critters from recent time to millions of years ago. Now I know that Hoop's evasion of this will be to question when the flood occurred, and the validity of dating methodologies, but hey...........

If you can not base faith on the supernatural and you can not base it on reason then what is left for the basis of faith? Pure unquestioning blind faith in an highly improbable tenet that can not be affirmed by the witnessing of a miracle (the supernatural) requires the total subjugation of ones intellect to the tenet. Blind faith is aptly named. It requires you to blind yourself to reason, and your other senses and "believe" in the tenet.

The "witness" of the spirit affirming the validity of said belief is highly suspect as so many have received contradictory witnesses to the selfsame question, event, etc, or have acted on the promptings of said "spirit" in ways that proved erroneous.

[_Nightlion]

How is that knocking a pitch out of the park? The statement was you can not base faith on miracles, but you reference Jesus being the light of the world, the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, being born again by power, all requiring supernatural power. So faith based on a miracle.

The difficulty with supernatural explanations is that they are impossible. Impossible to either prove or disprove.

The Lord is ONLY concerned with gathering HIS sheep. Those who are OF the truth. So he is not interested in proving anything except to those who come unto him with full purpose of heart.
My point is that this proof exists and should not be ignored as if it cannot exist.

Science will build a multi-billion dollar CERN accelerator just to find proof about a theory.

And the science buffs on this board want to discover the truth of God for so much less? They expect that He should require nothing of men to first prove them worthy before he will prove himself to them? That is making God vulgar, like a bug under a scope.

Making a case so that religion is NOT wacky is knocking it out of the park, again.

[_DrW]

And the science buffs on this board want to discover the truth of God for so much less? They expect that He should require nothing of men to first prove them worthy before he will prove himself to them?

So, let me make sure I have this straight. First one must believe in an imginary friend and then convince that imaginary friend that one is worthy of having such an imaginary friend.

Thereafter one is allowed to believe that one's imaginary friend has "revealed himself" while remaining imaginary.

Is that about right?

[_SteelHead]

The Lord is ONLY concerned with gathering HIS sheep. Those who are OF the truth. So he is not interested in proving anything except to those who come unto him with full purpose of heart.

How do you know this?

[_Nightlion]

And the science buffs on this board want to discover the truth of God for so much less? They expect that He should require nothing of men to first prove them worthy before he will prove himself to them?

So, let me make sure I have this straight. First one must believe in an imginary friend and then convince that imaginary friend that one is worthy of having such an imaginary friend.

Thereafter one is allowed to believe that one's imaginary friend has "revealed himself" while remaining imaginary.

Is that about right?

God designed all living things and the planets and more. Do you really think he is not sophisticated enough to establish proofs with those who love him? You want to get proofs without paying the Piper. I think it is Super Ingenious that he is able to selectively prove himself to this one in a nontransferable manner, leaving that other one completely in the dark.
This works altogether for his name's glory.

The visitation of God in the regeneration of a true saint is more impressive than any natural and observable and demonstrable fact as if it were ingrained upon every particle in you, both physical, spiritual and intellectual. To an extent that to sin against that proof is deemed punishable by being cast out into outer darkness and a second death.

[_Morley]

I'm bumping this question for Franktalk or Hoops or.... whoever.

Perhaps the answer was given and I missed it.

It seems few are reading this thread anymore. It has turned into a mud fight. But I will post a link for those who happen to come along. The link is from a guy who has an alternative theory about evolution. Mainstream science has really tried to suppress this guy.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

The fossil record has big jumps in it and this theory matches those jumps. It also tries to explain extinction. I enjoy reading it every once in a while just for the alternative view.

Hoops, if you haven't read this paper I think you will enjoy it.

Emphasis mine.

What has mainstream science done to suppress Davison? (Ignoring him is not suppressing him.)

[_huckelberry]

The answer to the first version of the question is that once one sheds the shackles of unfounded belief and is free of a worldview of superstition and religious nonsense, there is much in life indeed to look forward too. Better yet, one is free to experience and enjoy it.

The change is especially rewarding for former Mormons. No longer is their life run, regulated (and often ruined) by the unfounded and irrational beliefs and pronouncements (please see the OP) of a secretive and isolated corporate management gerontocracy who also happen to be the leaders of a religious enterprise with a business model that would be illegal if said enterprise didn't call itself a Church.


SteelHead may well have a different response, but somehow I think it would be very similar to the one I have just provided.

I am not fitting easily to one side or the other in this flood and faith argument. I believe that faith and reason are necessary partners. I realize that is not always peoples experience but I think it should be. Naturally that means that reason must be used to both criticized and clarify received beliefs and interpretaion. Because of that I am in sympathy with your escape from the LDS system.(being an excapee myself)

I am suspicios of the LDS view of spiritual experience where people are encouraged to expect test confirmation of religious information. I find for myself spiritual experience is the primary foundation of religious belief but it is closer to an invitation to faith as a journey than a fact test. As a journey faith can be an invitation to reason. If the Spirit is not an answer machine then one must use reason and living experience as part of the guidance of the spirit.

[_Franktalk]

What has mainstream science done to suppress Davison? (Ignoring him is not suppressing him.)

Here is an interesting discussion about the manifesto. In it you can read about how mainstream science treats a valid idea.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_top ... 00370.html

[_Franktalk]

So, let me make sure I have this straight. First one must believe in an imginary friend and then convince that imaginary friend that one is worthy of having such an imaginary friend.

Thereafter one is allowed to believe that one's imaginary friend has "revealed himself" while remaining imaginary.

Is that about right?

The idea that the gospel is foolishness is done on purpose. God uses a path that a man of the world would reject. Of course scripture lays this all out for you to see.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[_Franktalk]

....If you can not base faith on the supernatural and you can not base it on reason then what is left for the basis of faith? Pure unquestioning blind faith in an highly improbable tenet that can not be affirmed by the witnessing of a miracle (the supernatural) requires the total subjugation of ones intellect to the tenet. Blind faith is aptly named. It requires you to blind yourself to reason, and your other senses and "believe" in the tenet.

The "witness" of the spirit affirming the validity of said belief is highly suspect as so many have received contradictory witnesses to the selfsame question, event, etc, or have acted on the promptings of said "spirit" in ways that proved erroneous.

Just as some men use references to science articles to support their own ideas there are others who will use a reference to the Holy Spirit to support their ideas as well. Most of this is all worldly based and as such is subject to worldly error. I am in contact with the Holy Ghost yet I have never had a witness to the flood or any historical event other than the crucifixion. But this is expected. We are to live in faith. In matters of doctrine I also receive no guidance. This is expected as well. Parts of the Bible are very clear and those are to be used to figure out the rest. Few do this.

When Christ came to the Apostles after He rose from the dead Thomas was not there. When he heard that Christ had shown up he declared he would not believe unless he could see and touch the risen Christ. I am sure that if Christ first had shown up while Thomas was there and the others missing that all would have been like Thomas. It is the nature of man to have a first hand experience on some things to believe. Yet we have billions of people who say they are Christian. If indeed the gospel is foolishness then it would make sense that someone would have come up with a better idea and most people would be attracted to that better idea. If indeed the idea of the gospel is man made then why is it so powerful after all this time? If indeed people need an idea to hold onto in death then there are thousands of man made ideas to choose from.

I have argued that science is not much different than religion in the sense that the foundations of science rest on some observations and not an understanding as to why we have this reality. So to me it is a choice as to where one wishes to place their faith.