What's new
By:

Noah's Ark was round

One Brow said:
Faith is a poor source of knowledge.
Click to expand...

How do you know that for sure? If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?

One Brow said:
Both descriptions, to my understanding, are incompatible with the strength of any known wood. The ships would have had hulls that buckled under the weight.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there's finally rock solid proof of supernatural power? Awesome, may I use you as a reference?
 
One Brow said:
Faith is a poor source of knowledge.

However, in this thread, I've only commented on how legends are created and passed on, and not commented on faith at all.
Click to expand...

Lets say there is a God (I believe there is, you don't, at least I don't think you do), so just for the sake of a discussion, lets just agree there is a God. Why would it make sense for us to understand or even know things on the same level as God? Wouldn't that essentially make it pointless for there to be a God if we knew everything that He knew?
 
Sirkickyass said:
So right off the bat, can we agree that FAIR is essentially the definition of apologetics?
Click to expand...

Sure, the A in FAIR stands for apologetics. But the way you imply it has a negative connotation, I have to say "I don't think the word means what you think it means." /Princess Bride. Apologetics simply means "systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics

Second, I suggest you review these various letters that the Smithsonian has sent out to previous inquiries regarding Book of Mormon historicity. While FAIR has posted one version of those letters, they chose only to present the one that is most neutral. If you'd like to review the detailed letter here: https://mit.irr.org/smithsonian-institution-statement-on-book-of-mormon you'll see that the organization has taken a significantly more hostile position than FAIR would have you believe. That position largely reflects the consensus on this subject.
Click to expand...

FAIR posted the current statement. The one you posted stopped being used, apparently in response to Sorenson's detailed rebuttal. From the FAIR site cited above: "In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of fact and logic in the statement. He revised that in 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up-to-date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes."

That would be fair if the church hadn't explicitly drawn links in all versions of the pre-2006 edition of the Book of Mormon by stating in the introductory page that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans.
Click to expand...

So the view held by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (author of that introduction page) was indeed shown to be wrong by the DNA evidence, and therefore the church edited the introduction. But how does DNA evidence disprove the current commonly held view?
 
Sirkickyass said:
Colton, I'm not nearly as vested on this subject as you are given that a) I'm not actually employed by the church and b) I don't take unequivocally anti-church positions. You may recall that in the past two years or so I've taken church-defensive positions regarding 1) allegations of Joseph Smith's fathering of children outside of his marriage to his first wife and 2) arguments related to Joseph Smith's use of guns near the time of his death. That makes my record of church support significantly more mixed than yours.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just to reply to a few other points:

a) I wasn't employed by the church when I formed my opinion on this topic.

b) I don't take unequivocally pro-church positions. You may recall that as recently as the post to which you were replying, for example, I mentioned that there are some legitimate things to complain about with regards to the BoM's historicity.


Given that my position regarding historicity reflects what is, BY FAR, the consensus position it is not remotely fair to claim that you can't take that position without being objective about the evidence.
Click to expand...

I've no idea how you would even try to get an unbiased consensus scientific position on this topic. But if it were possible, I believe it would be much closer to my previous statement than yours. For reference, my previous statement was: "There are plenty of things that speak to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Of course, there are also things that don't."
 
PKM said:
How do you know that for sure? If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?

So you're saying there's finally rock solid proof of supernatural power? Awesome, may I use you as a reference?
Click to expand...

I don't see why you would take my statement on "faith", and respond with "a God that can communicate with those willing to listen". To me, they are not the same thing at all.

If there were rock-solid proof the ark existed, yes.
 
Hantlers said:
Lets say there is a God (I believe there is, you don't, at least I don't think you do), so just for the sake of a discussion, lets just agree there is a God. Why would it make sense for us to understand or even know things on the same level as God? Wouldn't that essentially make it pointless for there to be a God if we knew everything that He knew?
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss at how one takes a statement about faith, and converts it to knowing what some hypothetical God knows. To my understand, faith does not give you the knowledge possessed by this putative God.
 
One Brow said:
I don't see why you would take my statement on "faith", and respond with "a God that can communicate with those willing to listen". To me, they are not the same thing at all.

If there were rock-solid proof the ark existed, yes.
Click to expand...

Faith tells me that I am, in fact, being led by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... that's why.
 
PKM said:
If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?
Click to expand...
Given the frequency of contradictory statements of fact/truth made by people claiming to be led by some god, it strikes me as a terrible source of reliable knowledge. Any omnipotent god would have recognized this long ago, and found a better way to transmit knowledge/truth (you know, like letting people critically examine and analyze the world around them). Any god worth worshiping wouldn't be so concerned about our worship or devotion to small points of doctrine/dogma that are irrelevant to the problems real people/others face today.

Seriously, who the **** cares if Noah's Ark actually existed? What difference does it make?
 
To be clear, I said I believe in God. I said I believe God steers me at times. I didn't say at all times, and I didn't say I always listen/obey.

One thing is for sure, no one group of religious people or otherwise have an exclusive license to being smug and self-righteous.
 
PKM said:
I said I believe God steers me at times. I didn't say at all times, and I didn't say I always listen/obey.
Click to expand...
God: Occasional source of irrational confidence.

****ing great. Need that dude in my life.
 
PKM said:
Maybe.
I love you, fwiw.
Click to expand...
Just having a little fun. I realize that post may come off as offensive/insulting/disrespectful to some, but (fwiw) it's probably roughly what I'd say in real life too. This is why I generally stay out of religious threads on this board. I'd rather be serious about **** that actually matters (and basketball).
 
Last edited:
PKM said:
Faith tells me that I am, in fact, being led by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... that's why.
Click to expand...

Faith tells similar things to Sikhs, Jains, Shia, Sunni, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. Even if faith is right for one of these groups, that makes it very unreliable for all the others. You have faith you are being led by God, but you do not know you are being led by God.
 
GVC said:
Given the frequency of contradictory statements of fact/truth made by people claiming to be led by some god, it strikes me as a terrible source of reliable knowledge. Any omnipotent god would have recognized this long ago, and found a better way to transmit knowledge/truth (you know, like letting people critically examine and analyze the world around them). Any god worth worshiping wouldn't be so concerned about our worship or devotion to small points of doctrine/dogma that are irrelevant to the problems real people/others face today.

Seriously, who the **** cares if Noah's Ark actually existed? What difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Historians, the religious and even some athiests trying to discount the Bible.
 
One Brow said:
Faith tells similar things to Sikhs, Jains, Shia, Sunni, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. Even if faith is right for one of these groups, that makes it very unreliable for all the others. You have faith you are being led by God, but you do not know you are being led by God.
Click to expand...

So basically he has faith. Like he said.
 
One Brow said:
Faith tells similar things to Sikhs, Jains, Shia, Sunni, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. Even if faith is right for one of these groups, that makes it very unreliable for all the others. You have faith you are being led by God, but you do not know you are being led by God.
Click to expand...

In another thread a long time ago I made a similar point about my sister in law. She was a devout anti-mormon, yet she had her own "awakening", which led her to believe, in her words "through the holy spirit" that mormonism was absolutely false and dangerous, but that she was hurting herself and the ones she loved fighting it the way she was. Who was to say that her own spiritual experience didn't come from God, when that is exactly what mormons rely on to say they "know beyond a shadow of a doubt". If Satan is capable of that level of deceit how does one know he is not being deceived with the same experience.

This is where I truly get conflicted, as I have had a few experiences that I can attribute to nothing but a higher power of some kind, yet I also know that the whole "feelings tell me it's true" is so wishy-washy to be nearly unbelievable. If a doctor can probe your brain and give you a shock in just the right place and make you cry and miss your mother or see things how can we trust that particular perception unequivocally.

Yet again, that is the very definition of faith. And so round the circle goes.
 
One Brow said:
Faith tells similar things to Sikhs, Jains, Shia, Sunni, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. Even if faith is right for one of these groups, that makes it very unreliable for all the others. You have faith you are being led by God, but you do not know you are being led by God.
Click to expand...
Much the same way one cannot be atheist, but rather agnostic?
 
One Brow said:
I don't see any point of disagreement between PKM and myself in this thread. His responses seem like non sequiturs to me.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. There exists an element of faith that is foreign (in the religious context) to you and thus throws off any semblance of sequituriousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top