faith or evidence

[archaeologist]

the other thread was 'why do all the ...'  in the OTHER forum.

[turanclancath]

Christian Denominations - Under God ProCon.org

Although I agree with you to classify Mormons as not official Christians it worries me that in the link above New York City University( very academic I think ) classifys Mormons( item nr 10 ) as a Christian Religion.

Perhaps we in the Netherlands dont know much about Mormons we only learn generally that they have more than 1 wife  and live around Salt Lake city is that right?

its only an question from  ignorance i post here   so  my apology if I offend anyone  with this question.

turanclancath

[archaeologist]

it worries me that in the link above New York City University( very academic I think ) classifys Mormons( item nr 10 ) as a Christian Religion.

no need toworry.  the majority of non-believers do not classify christians properly.  instead of looking for the differences, they place themn all in one boat.

new york university is a secular university i believe and wouldn't know the or care about the differences and what makes mormons non-christian.

in my signature is a website address, click on that, go to the comparitive religions button, click on that and a page about the mormons is there .  you can learn a lot about the mormons from those and other videos.

[turanclancath]

Thanks Archaelogist for the information.
Indeed I ( as many Europeans ) know so little of the USA,  so dont know much about universitys.
Of course we know here Harvard, Cornell ,Yale,Princeton,Berkely,Stanford.  And then.?

As a historian I know Syracuse University,Houston Texas ,(Brynn Mawr in Canada and Notre Dame )   Brandeis ,and Phoenix because it advertises  so much on the net.

And then it stops  and what is their denomination we mostly dont know.

I graduated at a religious university The Free University ( the name would not point out its religious denomination  to a foreigner i think )

We had a lot of students from the so called Bible belt in the states  so i know the name of 1 , Calvin college but nothing more.

And indeed it makes a big difference from wich culture ,university background,School etc you write.

In the Netherlands we had ( 19 and first half of the 20 century ) the big difference if a author was from a Catholic or Protestant university  if they were writing about the revolt of the netherlands ( as catholic writers put it ) or The 80 years war as most protestant writers  put it.
(1568/1648)
The Duke of Alva ( repressor of the Netherlands in the name of king Philip II of Spain ) between circa 1566/1572 was seen by  Catholic authors as a good but stern military commander doing its duty agains rebels defending the holy Church.

Protestants saw him as the reincarnation of the devil the henchman of the Spanish inquisition.

So always important to know the background.

Nowedays these differences are faded  we have 1 Christian Political Party ( greatest party in the Netherlands )consisting of Catholics and Protestants.

And Religious universitys ( as a symbol of this trend ) blurred this kind of differences after circa 1980 .
The Duke of Alva is seen nowedays  by most authors of both religions as an old gout illness ridden gentlemen who was a professional soldier and was sent by Ph.II by purpose into a hornets nest..
This long long ( to long ? ) excurs is to demonstrate how important it is to know the background of sites ,writers,schools,universitys,journals papers etc etc.

Stay well and sorry for this long but not unimportant excurs i think.

turanclancath:)

[rumplesnitz]

i will disagree with you and try to remind you that not all of us stumble in the dark but are lead to learn things which in turn we must pass on to those who get to avoid the struggle we have had to endure to learn what we did.

i read both secular and christian works and i do not always put the source down because it is the Holy Spirit leading me to learn things and that is hard to cite.

Now brother, let me remind you in peace and love that no scripture is of private interpretation.  I myself have received moments of edification from The Holy Spirit, but I don't rely on my say-so to expect others to accept my claims.  That last sentence particularly is a classic Joseph Smithism...

Certainly, if you get an insight into the Character of God for instance, you would rely entirely on established Scripture for your sources to justify or disregard your concept.  But for instance let's take your claim that science is of no value in 'proving' the Exodus story: we use scientific method to gain better translation methods so that we may understand the words we are given, we use scientific method to support or disregard evidence that points toward or away from a certain route, and we can use scientific method to interpret whether the coral formations at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba are evidence of a destroyed Egyptian army or purely natural formations.  Now we can't use scientific method to auto-playback the Plagues or the Parting of the Red Sea, but we can debunk total nonsense from undeniable truths.  And God does not expect anyone to sit gape-jawed and accept anyone's tales simply because of their charisma.  That's how the Mormons and the JW's and the 7th Day Adventists, and David Koresh, Jim Jones, and all the other cultists get over.  Anyway for the last century anti-theists have slammed and berated the Exodus story over and over, telling people what idiots they are to believe such tripe, because there is no evidence to support it whatsoever.  And traveling through the 'Reed Sea' route, there isn't.  And heck yes folks should expect some sort of physical signs that something happened.  God gave us the gift of curiosity for a good reason, and faith without substance over a period of time turns into just plain superstition.  But when we go to the route that Ron Wyatt and others have recently laid out, wow - is there ever an abundance of what seems to be evidence.  The mute evidence in and of itself doesn't 'prove' anything - but it does conform to what a reasonable person who was seeking to confirm the story would expect to find.  It is still up to the individual to decide what, if anything, any of it means - and to accept or reject God's Word for his own reasons - so  faith is still a valid component regardless of 'evidence', but seeking and finding can and will lift that faith above the level of base superstition.  So in this physical world situation - as opposed to the previous spiritual-world-only example - it is important first to examine the Scriptures scientifically to see where to look and what to look for - then to examine the physical world scientifically to see if there is really a match.  The whole procedure needs to be sourced.  The only point that may be acceptably unsourceable would be the seeker's curiosity in the first place - that would be the Gift of God.

let me give you an example of why in another thread i can boldly state that mormons are not christians and can do so without references;

(reasons)

i am leaving out many details but you should see from the example that the Mormon 'religion' is not Christian without me posting a sources (the sources are very common works) but you can always ask me to produce titles like rambo preacher, and i do.  doesn't hurt to ask but i will tell you that much of it is right in front of your eyes if you would only look.

Yes, and I agree with you.  The story of Joseph Smith and company reads like a chapter out of Huckleberry Finn.  A classic religious confidence game that got way beyond itself simply because too many people let themselves be flummoxed by charismatic men throwing around spiritual prose, without checking the sources for themselves.  Of course I'm sure there was plenty of brow-beating and arm-twisting involved along the way, too.  But that doesn't mean that there are not genuine Christians fighting the good fight while trapped in a cultist morass.  And their plight is a mighty witness to the imperative need for assertions to be legitimately sourced.

It's one thing if you and I are just chatting along and you say, 'Oh btw, did you know 2+2=4?' and I say, 'Sure, I know that - 2+2=4, and 2+3=5!' and we chat along merrily about the whole deal, happy in our own knowledge base of how we learned such things.  But if a third party comes along and asks how we know that, we should be willing to help him understand.  And generally - I'm that third party.

[rumplesnitz]

the other thread was 'why do all the ...'  in the OTHER forum.

to help you  in your studies,  read 'Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia' y Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat.  i don't agree with everything she says but if life was as you say it was, then there would be no time to do all that she describes they did.

Okay, is this the source you're referring to in that other topic?  I'll study up on it some.  I may be over-stating my view somewhat over there, but I think your premise in that topic is a slightly strong also.  That topic header is 'Why is every ancient building and artifact...' (given religious significance).

[archaeologist]

And then it stops  and what is their denomination we mostly dont know

turancloth--one thing you have to realize is that harvard and many ivy league schools started out as christian or puritan universities and have long left their religious foundations behind.

just because a school declares it has a christian heritage does it mean it is teaching the truth or still follows Christ.  one has to be investigative when there are claims of christianity and their words and actions must line up with God's and His word or they may be going in the wrong direction.

not every christian is a strong one either and you must make allowances for their level of faith but with mormonism as the example, you can judge their doctrines, their 'scriptures', their focus and see that they are not christian and have no right to claim that they are.

we are not judging the people but finding out who is or isn't a false teacher and that is what we are allowed to do.  we can not accept everyone who claims they follow Christ but must check into what they believe, look at their fruits and other criteria before listening to them or accepting them into the fold.

[archaeologist]

Now brother, let me remind you in peace and love that no scripture is of private interpretation.  I myself have received moments of edification from The Holy Spirit, but I don't rely on my say-so to expect others to accept my claims.  That last sentence particularly is a classic Joseph Smithism

don't misunderstand what i am writing, i am not saying that only i can learn what i have learned nor do i say i get visits from angels with secret messages but ther Holy Spirit still leads me and teaches and i believe there is a scripture verse to that effect.

also i do not believe in 'interpretations'  those are like opinions and one must sort through them to get to the truth, per the Bible--ye shall know the truth  and the truth shall set you free-- notice we are ot to know interpretations to be free.

Jesus is also 'the truth' not 'the interpretation'.  so one must be careful as they learn to make sure they are not following a disguised demon (like joseph smith)

But for instance let's take your claim that science is of no value in 'proving' the Exodus story: we use scientific method to gain better translation methods so that we may understand the words we are given, we use scientific method to support or disregard evidence that points toward or away from a certain route,

i will disagree with you in part here as 'the scientific method' is not our only tool and is not the final authority, we are to follow Christ and the Holy Spirit and if they use some of the scientific method then fine, if not then fine.

science is limited and its limitations tell us we can't not trust it blindly or 100%   read Kitchen's 'the Bible in its World' and you will see how little information 'the scientific method' gets.

Now we can't use scientific method to auto-playback the Plagues or the Parting of the Red Sea, but we can debunk total nonsense from undeniable truths.  And God does not expect anyone to sit gape-jawed and accept anyone's tales simply because of their charisma.  That's how the Mormons and the JW's and the 7th Day Adventists, and David Koresh, Jim Jones, and all the other cultists get over.

you omit the working of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the criteria found in the Bible to measure all information and sources against to see if they are on the right track.  BUT even non-christians come across valid evidence and it is their interpretation you need to watch out for.

Anyway for the last century anti-theists have slammed and berated the Exodus story over and over, telling people what idiots they are to believe such tripe, because there is no evidence to support it whatsoever

right and they forget that 'without faith you can't please God'  and that verse tells us we will never get all the evidence we seek and must use God's criteria not man's.

God gave us the gift of curiosity for a good reason,

nothing wrong with learning proverbs tells us to get knowledge wisdom and understanding BUT we don't blindly accept the world's ways or thoughts as the book of Timothy tells us that 'men are deceived and are deceiving' (paraphrase) we have to use our heads to find out God's path even in science and archaeology and we must shun man's strategies.

when we go to the route that Ron Wyatt and others have recently laid out, wow - is there ever an abundance of what seems to be evidence

well intentioned people are under the same microscope and their 'discoveries' must be honestly investigated (i dismiss 'objectivity' as that is a pipe dream)

it is important first to examine the Scriptures scientifically to see where to look and what to look for - then to examine the physical world scientifically to see if there is really a match.

i will disagree with you here as i think you have it backwards and elevate science to be an authority over God's words and that is just wrong.

***next time, please use paragraphs as it was very difficult trying to find points to discuss

[rumplesnitz]

Archie, i'm not saying you say you're the only one who can learn what you have learned, but that you are saying what you think you have learned is correct, period.  I just think that's a little extreme.

And I don't mean to over-value scientific investigation and method - it's just that you don't seem to value it at all.  Scientific method certainly will not point a person to Jesus - dead flesh cannot be reanimated scientifically, nor can a soul be demonstrated by the five senses.  There is a point where God expects us to be a new-born, a point where He expects us to investigate, and a point where He expects us to have the matter resolved in our hearts.  Scientific method is best at demonstrating to scoffers just why their 'reasons' and arguments will not hold water.  But still the soul and resurrection are points where science will never penetrate.

[archaeologist]

i'm not saying you say you're the only one who can learn what you have learned, but that you are saying what you think you have learned is correct, period.  I just think that's a little extreme

if you doubt me then provide something that is provable that is correct and shows me to be wrong.  i double check many things i learned and i do not go off half cocked BUT one thing i do do is that i put the Bible and God above science and interpretation.

And I don't mean to over-value scientific investigation and method - it's just that you don't seem to value it at all.  Scientific method certainly will not point a person to Jesus - dead flesh cannot be reanimated scientifically, nor can a soul be demonstrated by the five senses.  There is a point where God expects us to be a new-born, a point where He expects us to investigate, and a point where He expects us to have the matter resolved in our hearts

actually i value faith over scientific methods as science is very limited and deals with a fraction of the information it needs.  you cannot trust something that draws conclusions on incomplete data or which goes beyond its authority and scope.

how many times have archaeologists declare a biblical event or society as non-existent only to be shown to be wrong?  the Hittites are a great example.  thought ot be a fairy tale for 1900 years then one day---they are discovered.  sorry but science has shown to be unreliable and untrustworthy in such matters as the past and origins.

science is merely a tool and it needs to be done God's way not secular man's.  if you read Dr. Del Ratzsch's book, 'The Battle of Beginnings'  you will see how the secular world has structured science to only deal with the physical world.  right there you see that they and science are doomed to find the wrong conclusions and go in the wrong direction.

now for some things like technology medicines, dentistry and other areas that do deal with the physical, science has usually done a fairly good job (though with some or a lot of mishaps along the way).

so no i do not give much credence to science because it is not an authority nor is it the authority. you need to consider the source and if the work is within the scope of science.

[RBeron]

Yes, and I agree with you.  The story of Joseph Smith and company reads like a chapter out of Huckleberry Finn.  A classic religious confidence game that got way beyond itself simply because too many people let themselves be flummoxed by charismatic men throwing around spiritual prose, without checking the sources for themselves.  Of course I'm sure there was plenty of brow-beating and arm-twisting involved along the way, too.  But that doesn't mean that there are not genuine Christians fighting the good fight while trapped in a cultist morass.  And their plight is a mighty witness to the imperative need for assertions to be legitimately sourced.

I will agree that the JS story sounds a bit fantastic, but so does the story of Paul on the road to Damascus or Moses at Sinai.  There are few confidence men that would go to the gallows on a con.  JS did that, knowingly.  Additionally to the good gentleman from the Netherlands, Mormons do live in Salt Lake, but also throughout the world and to contrary opinion we do not have more than one wife.  One is certainly enough.

[RBeron]

it worries me that in the link above New York City University( very academic I think ) classifys Mormons( item nr 10 ) as a Christian Religion.

no need toworry.  the majority of non-believers do not classify christians properly.  instead of looking for the differences, they place themn all in one boat.

new york university is a secular university i believe and wouldn't know the or care about the differences and what makes mormons non-christian.

in my signature is a website address, click on that, go to the comparitive religions button, click on that and a page about the mormons is there .  you can learn a lot about the mormons from those and other videos.

If you want to know about someone you don't go to their enemies, but to a unbiased source.

[rumplesnitz]

Yes, and I agree with you.  The story of Joseph Smith and company reads like a chapter out of Huckleberry Finn.  A classic religious confidence game that got way beyond itself simply because too many people let themselves be flummoxed by charismatic men throwing around spiritual prose, without checking the sources for themselves.  Of course I'm sure there was plenty of brow-beating and arm-twisting involved along the way, too.  But that doesn't mean that there are not genuine Christians fighting the good fight while trapped in a cultist morass.  And their plight is a mighty witness to the imperative need for assertions to be legitimately sourced.

I will agree that the JS story sounds a bit fantastic, but so does the story of Paul on the road to Damascus or Moses at Sinai.  There are few confidence men that would go to the gallows on a con.  JS did that, knowingly.  Additionally to the good gentleman from the Netherlands, Mormons do live in Salt Lake, but also throughout the world and to contrary opinion we do not have more than one wife.  One is certainly enough.

From Wikipedia:
The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on 27 June 1844 marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. At the time of his death, Smith was serving as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while being imprisoned in a jail in Carthage, Illinois, on charges relating to his destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition alleged that Smith had been practicing plural marriage and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. While Smith was in prison awaiting trial, an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and killed his brother Hyrum and him.

-------------------

Being the skilled con-artist Mr. Smit, Jr. was I am sure he and his brother were busted out of jail and some poor unfortunate souls were left behind in their places.  Smith knew the jig was up and he was going to have to pay for several heinous crimes he was responsible for.  He was probably in the background running things after that, including ordering the massacre of a wagon-train full of women and children, the Mountain Meadows Massacre as it is known.

There are some fine, fine persons in the Mormon Church.  I am not your enemy.  Those critical of your mislead doctrines are probably your best friends.

[archaeologist]

but to a unbiased source

no such thing as an unbiased source--- william dever robert orr and many, many other scholars.

[lowrider]

"Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, from such turn away."
2 Tim. 3:5