Noah's Ark was round
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Not me. I can't stand ANYONE that thinks they have all the answers.. only village idiots believe that.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Religion has given me guidance, and advice that (in my opinion) have had positive impacts on my life. Therefore, I continue to practice, and believe in my faith.
As long as y'all are being better people through your belief systems, I could not care less as to what the different ways we go about it, are. Don't infringe on my path to righteousness, and I won't infringe on yours (probably the biggest 'easier said than done' statement in the world). We all have different ways to go about this, and different faiths work for different people, often determined purely by geography.
So yeah. Quit arguing, people of the world. Most of us are out to do the same thing here.
Good day.
As long as y'all are being better people through your belief systems, I could not care less as to what the different ways we go about it, are. Don't infringe on my path to righteousness, and I won't infringe on yours (probably the biggest 'easier said than done' statement in the world). We all have different ways to go about this, and different faiths work for different people, often determined purely by geography.
So yeah. Quit arguing, people of the world. Most of us are out to do the same thing here.
Good day.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Even if you could, you'd quickly understand that it doesn't simplify things. The 'simplicity' you speak of is not derived from the idea-- it is derived from the interpretation of the idea. Therefore, one can proclaim simplicity in any system of beliefs-- both in the presence, and absence, of religion.
That's okay in my book. I think both believers and non-believers have credible stances.
Seemed simple enough for me.
Admittedly, i may have been doing it wrong. But i never got anywhere leaving my fate in the hands of God.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
What, faith in general? Do you not realize the wide spectrum of how complex the theology of a single faith can be-- let alone the entire practice of deism in general?
It's not whether it's right or wrong-- it's simply acknowledging that you observed one particular (perhaps very popular, but only one nonetheless) interpretation of one sect of a faith.
I think i grasp decent chunks of it. Lds wasn't for me. Most Christian faiths i find myself struggling with, largely but not only past actions.
Meh... Come to Utah...we'll have the God talk. Its just too big a concept to relay in a forum.
Not to mention my God, at least, never promised an earthly life of prosperity and joy.
As always colton, I suspect we're going to go deeper on Mormon topics than everyone else.
Apologetics, by definition, comes with a set perspective that is unchangeable. FAIR can never acknowledge doubts as to the historicity of the Book of Mormon because it starts from the perspective that it's true and accurate. As a result there is virtually nothing that you can ever post from FAIR that will be convincing to anyone but the already converted.
I posted both the pre and post 1997 statements in that link.
That said, the Smithsonian statement was used as an exemplar, specifically with problems of using religious texts as archaeological evidence of faith-based beliefs. I'd be curious as to which portions of the old Smithsonian statement related to various historic problems with the book of Mormon you disagree with.
I always find the tendency to run from McConkie amusing. There is probably no more regrettable apostle in modern church history for those that seek to be apologetic to the faith. That said, saying this is just McConkie is incorrect. This was a view repeated by Spencer W. Kimball for example. Countering the view that the Native Americans were genetically linked to Lamanites was met with threats of expulsion from the church for Thomas Murphy, an LDS anthropologist, and actual ex-communication for a former LDS microbiologist named Simon Southerton. https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ge-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all
To say that this is one man's view rather than the official position of the church for decades is an incredibly selective reading of the facts, especially given that it was a page included in the primary text of the church.
Also, the Church still states that that the Lamanaties are "among the ancestors of the Native Americans." This is a one word change away from the "primary ancestors of the Native Americans" language. You and I both know that it's logically impossible to prove a negative, that said the DNA evidence on this issue provides that there is no evidence of Middle Eastern, and specifically Jewish, heritage in Native Americans. Either the Lamanites died out entirely with no intermingling with parallel populations (which the history of humanity tells us is incredibly improbable) or they're simply not an ancestor of Modern Native Americans.
But it certainly doesn't help in terms of changing your opinion on the topic.
Obviously, given that you are still a member, you don't think those things are particularly problematic.
I'm curious what you believe, if anything, is a historical issue of fact that is under dispute that points to the historical accuracy of the BoM.
I actually think it's an interesting localized flood story. Then again, I'm always interested in the first forms of story. Some of the apocryphal books of the Bible actually contain the first form of the closed room mystery for example.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Always got to out do everyone, cause, you know, we're not on your level. ****ing elitism.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'm actually really impressed with dalamon. High five, little bro.
Again, I don't see this as a response to my post. Responding nonetheless, depends on how the words are defined. I lack belief in any gods, which is the usual definition atheists use. I am certain enough of their non-existence that I don't account for said existence in any of my daily activities. Generally, agnostics are those who allow for the existence of gods.
However, I don't claim my lack of belief is knowledge. There is no convincing philosophical proofs that no gods can exist. There are no ways to measure it. I don't think of my lack of faith as being any better knowledge than your faith.
the bottom line - - everyone, or at least almost everyone, has faith in something
When you posted this, I read it as a clear rebuke of the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. As the conversation unfolded, it bewildered me to see that anyone could take this as saying the opinion was neutral, mixed, and anything other than a blanket condemnation.
I'd say everyone has faith in something. I am using faith in a broad way here. Faith is an intregal part of being human. Fiath in God, faith it'll all work out, faith there is no God, faith it wont work out, faith you'll get better when you're sick, faith you'll get a job...