Ok, interesting topic. I've just come across a book entitled Blessed are the Cynical which deals with the removal of the biblical notion of original sin from American society and it's impacts, and that got me wondering about what you all think. To this effect, I have a few questions:

1.) Do you believe mankind is born inherrantly good and pure, and becomes corrupted by an external evil; is born inherrantly evil and vile, and becomes 'corrupted' by some external good; some combination of the above; or that there is no such thing. Mind you, 'good' and 'evil' here may mean more or less whatever you want, theologically moral or societally beneficial, so it would be nice if you would explain it briefly.

2.) If you believe we are influenced by an external force on this matter, what would that force be? Other individuals? Society as a whole? God? The Devil? Malicious little invisible alien space monkeys?

Please keep this civil and do not attack others for their beliefs, or insist that yours must be right simply because you believe them. I would, however, like to hear supporting evidence and the like for your views.

Hmmm...

1.) I believe mankind is born inherrantly good, pure, and friggin' stupid. :skeptic: It is society that shapes their paths towards good or evil. For some of the actions made by mankind (either good or evil), stupidity is often the best description for why they chose a particular cousre of action.

2.) I think that society is the biggest force, with family and friends coming in as a close 2nd, and religion ringing in at #3. However, for some, religion is #1 - dissregarding what society, family, and friends say.

That's all you're getting out of me. :rolling:

I think humans are just animals, and as such we do what animals do.

That being said, a lot of human behaviour is not witnessed in animals, or at least not frequently (ie chimps murder each other, but they dont commit genocide, and dolphins commit rape, but arent pedophiles). So humans arent inherently evil, but we are capable of evil acts just as we are capable of good acts. Its the act that is evil, not the person, although some people are responsible for far more evil than others.

Also, there is no external force - only us and the decisions we make.

To even begin to answer the question I think we need to first define what is good and what is evil?

1) I'd go for "there is no such thing". Joacqin pointed out that you need a moderately solid definition of "good" and "evil" to answer that but I don't think this is a problem, as many people have such a definition through religion, their own moral or ethical compass, or simply by whatever is the law in the country they live in. Because we ourselves define what's good and what's evil, and then act on either one or the other (or in a grey area in-between), I'd say we're born neither good nor evil but instead totally amoral.

2) As for what influences us to go one way or the other, my previous point sort of leads into external forces being solely responsible for influencing or shaping us. Being agnostic these forces would be both other individuals and society itself (two different entities. Family, religion and so on would fall into either one or the other, depending on the specific situation). However I'm going to sort of contradict myself here and say that the decision to go either way rests with us, so in a way it's not entirely down to external forces. The way we react to and how we incorporate external influences into our own belief system is a major factor as well.

1) I don't really like good and evil for describing people. They are way too simplistic. No one is in my opinion evil just because they are evil, there is a reason behind acts we consider evil and it's those reasons rather than the evil that we should concentrate on. Otherwise I think the human is both just an animal and something more than an animal. The less predatory we become in our nature the more human and the more good we become.

2) External forces definently affect us and society is the most clear of those. Circumstances define a lot of what we are, most of us are very bound to social norms and follow a path society lays forward us. Deviations from social norms are discouraged and met with everything from physical punishment to ridicule and social expulsion. Of course in the end I think it's our choice what we make of our lives and we could just ignore the social preassure but most of us don't see the point in doing that and are not willing to pay the price it would require. Now as for God or the Devil or space monkeys or whatever, assuming that they exist I don't think they intervene directly, human is free to do as he/she wishes and held accountable for those afterwards. I don't believe the devil is roaming the world tempting people to commit sin, we are prefectly capable of doing that without his generous aid. ;)

1.)I don't believe in good or evil. Such arbitrary labels really aren't usefull. The United States, for example, labels Bin Laden and Al Quaida as evil while casting our nation as noble and good. Bin Laden and his cohorts apply the same label to us and cast themselves as noble and good. In my opinion they are both wrong. No man, no organization, no nation is evil. Likewise, no man, nation, or organization is good.

Now, if we change the question to "is man inherently selfish?" this becomes a different matter entirely. To this question, I would answer that yes, we absolutely are.

Interesting, interesting. Let me ask you all some clarifying questions, in that case.

Kitrax:
Is one path (good or evil) easier to follow than the other? And do you consider religions seperate from society in terms of influences?

Proteus:
From your statement, it sounds like you would consider such things as rape and murder to be evil (agian, this doesn not have to be a religiously moral definition). You also seem to suggest that, while humans are animals, we have risen above (or perhaps sunk below) the position of other animals. Is this correct or am I reading into it? If we are 'just animals', how do you explain the many unreasonable, unproductive acts that humans commit? How do you explain serial killers, torturers, etc.? Are there reasonable, natural purposes behind these acts? Assuming that not all of them are mentally ill, that is.

Joacqin:
Please use your own definitions for these terms, but if they vary wildly from the 'norm' please define them to avoid confusion.

Ziad:
Because we ourselves define what's good and what's evil, and then act on either one or the other (or in a grey area in-between), I'd say we're born neither good nor evil but instead totally amoral.
Does us defining these terms make us inherrantly amoral, or do our actions with respect to these definitions define our position with respect to them. It's fine to say we make our own frame of reference, but that doesn't mean we have to be in the center of it. Many people who commit crimes do so considering that such acts are evil.

Morgoroth:
I don't really like good and evil for describing people. They are way too simplistic. No one is in my opinion evil just because they are evil, there is a reason behind acts we consider evil and it's those reasons rather than the evil that we should concentrate on.
So, considering the reasons, motives, and situations, and considering that, given similar reasons, motives, and situations, different people will act differently, can we say that given reason X, act X is an evil act, while act Y is a good one?

Drew:
Does this mean you don't believe any such definition could possibly be reasonable? Sure, Bin Laden and Bush may disagree on what is evil, and I suspect you disagree with both of them, but do you think terms like 'evil' and 'good' are simply smokescreens? What about this 'selfish' you used? Could it be categorized in a larger grouping of negative characteristics you would be comfortable calling 'wrong', or do you believe it is honestly an amoral and secular characteristic?

To all of you, may I ask you to consider human nature where it is best revealed? As Morgoroth pointed out, I believe society is an inherrantly limiting factor to both the development of exceptional good and exceptional evil. It is the nature of society to force everyone within it to conform, thus trying to make the unusually 'good' person more banal and the unusually 'evil' person more caring. This, then, suggests that human nature should best be revealed in those that are less bound by society, or are less aware of their social bonds. It seems to me that this leads us to four groups:

1.) The elderly. They are commonly seen, at least in the US, as having 'done their duty' and most any actions by them are excusable. Old people can be cruel and malicious and we'll just say he's a mean old man, or they can be wonderfully kind and generous and we'll just say she's a nice old lady, maybe a touch senile.

2.) The exceptionally rich. These people are capable of removing themselves from the social bonds to a greater degree than perhaps any of us. Not only that, but they are also capable of fulfilling their desires better and fuller than any of us.

3.) The exceptionally poor, especially the homeless. These people, like the elderly, are generally given excuses for just about anything they may do. They are generally seen as 'outside society'. Additionally, the strain in their lives to simply survive may pull out the nature of humanity under stress.

4.) The very young. These people, I think, are the best indication of the basic nature of humanity. All of the above have already been heavily influenced by outside forces, whatever you may consider them to be, but children have not. They are given a great amount of leeway in society, especially modern society which tends to view them as inherrantly good and innocent, and are generally given excuses for any actions they take. What's more, they tend to be provided for pretty well, so they aren't really 'forced' to do anything. Given all this, I think they are the best group to look at in determining what we really are like. Obviously, there are adjustments to be made due to brain development and the like.

Any comments, criticisms, other ideas?

Does this mean you don't believe any such definition could possibly be reasonable? Sure, Bin Laden and Bush may disagree on what is evil, and I suspect you disagree with both of them, but do you think terms like 'evil' and 'good' are simply smokescreens? What about this 'selfish' you used? Could it be categorized in a larger grouping of negative characteristics you would be comfortable calling 'wrong', or do you believe it is honestly an amoral and secular characteristic?Yes, I do believe that terms like good and evil are simply smokescreens. As far as how I classify "wrong", it would be any action that hurts others. In cases where you have to hurt someone, the "wrong" action is the one which causes greater injury.

Does us defining these terms make us inherrantly amoral, or do our actions with respect to these definitions define our position with respect to them. It's fine to say we make our own frame of reference, but that doesn't mean we have to be in the center of it. Many people who commit crimes do so considering that such acts are evil.
Our actions define our position on the spectrum, of course. I was not suggesting that defining good and evil makes us amoral, or that because we define the references then we fall exactly in the center (what the D&D system defines as "neutral"). I meant that we are born amoral, then define our spectrum, then our actions (or way of life in some cases) place us, and others, on that spectrum. So I may end up as "slightly good" on my spectrum but "slightly evil" on yours, while you may end up as "good" on both mine and yours. All combinations are technically possible.

It is the nature of society to force everyone within it to conform, thus trying to make the unusually 'good' person more banal and the unusually 'evil' person more caring.
I would have said "more banal" in both cases, but I get the feeling that society (well, most societies) is more forgiving of extreme good than of extreme evil. This is apparent in laws as well: murder is always unlawful (social, ethical or moral connotation: because it's evil), but there are no countries that I know of where, say, donating to the poor is unlawful.

I stick with original sin - errr... you know what I mean. ;) God created us good, we became burdened with disobedience and concupiscence (our lusts and failing nature) and so here we are, good by nature but needing grace to be saved from evil.

I will just grab hold of the selfish line and use that. We are in my experience and in my opinion selfish biological machines. Pretty much everything we do we do for our own good whether we are aware of this or not. We banded together in societies for our own long term safety and security. We behave in a way that is approved of by the society for our own good. People who break the rules are either stupid or desperate. If you have spent any time with criminals you would see that their main characterstic is an inability to see further than their own immediate needs. They dont understand that by playing by the rules the generally benefit themselves. Children is the pinnacle of selfishness, their only concern is for their own comfort and do not care one bit about anyone else. They are humanity without socialisation. The main reason we do not go out and do exactly what we want, be it stealing, raping or pillaging is that we consider possible punishments greater than the possible reward. Put a man in a warzone and that restraint is taken away and he will very soon have no problem with gangraping twelve year olds and slicing her father into little pieces before her eyes simple because the man struck while trying to stop the rape. This isnt strange and anyone who is surprised by this kind of behaviour during war is naive to the extreme. The entire goal when training soldiers is to get them to shed off the restraints they have, to make them accept that it is ok to kill other people. If you believe they will then put limits on what they do shows a very innocent view of the world.

All this of course is if you look at things from the broadest possible picture, some are coded harder than others and some even hard enough that they actually are willing to do things that go against their own interest even if it is exceedingly rare. Even though I do not like to use the word as "evil" is usually just put on people who do things that goes against your own interest and the people using it are generally the most or more or less the only "evil" ones out there I am perfectly convinced that we as humans are all "evil" in that our main and most of the time only motivation is our own wellbeing.

To get a bit personal here, I know that I myself have plenty of things I would like to do but dont for the simple reason that whatever benefit I might derive from it would not compare to the possible hurt it could do to myself and anyone who claims they are perfectly "good" are more or less full of crap and the ones starting the bonfires as soon as they get a chance. Know yourself and you can be your own watchman. Paraphrased from Samuel Vimes, wonderful character.

I've just come across a book entitled Blessed are the Cynical which deals with the removal of the biblical notion of original sin from American society and it's impacts, and that got me wondering about what you all think.


Ah, Original Sin. Now there is a topic. William Blake said it best, and no one has improved upon him:


Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.
As the caterpillar chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.


Who stands to gain the most from the uses of Original Sin than the priest himself?

EDIT: I had to edit this post, as I felt I was being more cynical than even the subject himself and who is "blessing the cynical." That may or may not be a bad thing. Was I more of a cynic than the cynic? I guess cynics may be blessed and cynicism is OK as long as it's not directed at our own particular "sacred cows." So, since we are discussing reward and punishment, I will turn to Blake once more:

Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed & govern'd their Passions or have No Passions, but because they have Cultivated their Understandings. The Treasures of Heaven are not Negations of Passion, but Realities of Intellect, from which all the Passions Emanate Uncurbed in their Eternal Glory.

So much for cynicism....

The main reason we do not go out and do exactly what we want, be it stealing, raping or pillaging is that we consider possible punishments greater than the possible reward. I think you go to far, here. While punishment most assuredly does deter many crimes, fear of punishment is not by any means the only reason for following the law. The reason I've never committed rape is not because I fear punishment. It is because I wouldn't want to be raped myself. I don't steal because doing so would hurt my victim. I don't pillage because doing so would hurt my victim. While there are people who do require such deterrents, such people are rare. If people were really this selfish, humans would never display self-sacrifice. Fathers would never sacrifice their lives for their children, holocaust-surviving professors would never sacrifice their lives for their students, soldiers would never sacrifice their lives for their comrades. Self sacrifice is actually quite common. Hell, even animals often display such self sacrifice. As a species, we are all inherently selfish, yet most of us grow beyond it.

First off, I believe that Original Sin happened, but it is only between Adam and Eve and God. We are not accountable for their first sin. We will screw up enough on our own, without having to answer for the sins of our ancestors. That takes it out of the equation for this discussion.

I believe mankind is born inherrantly good, pure, and friggin' stupid.

I love that line, and it sums up my thoughs much better than I can express them.

As for the second question, We start out with a spiritual connection to God and the pre-mortal existence, even though our memories are wiped, we can still feel right from wrong, the love of and for our families, and the like. This fades over time, and is replaced by what we learn, first in the home (Parents, siblings, extended family), then to Community (church, school, state or neighbourhood).

That being said, a lot of human behaviour is not witnessed in animals, or at least not frequently

Greater capacity of mind, greater opportunity for extremes of behaviour.

I don't really like good and evil for describing people. They are way too simplistic.

Agreed. It's not people that are good or evil, but that which they do that is judged as such.

Is one path (good or evil) easier to follow than the other?

Evil seems a lot more fun, and makes the path of good seem much harder (like repentance, or sobriety). If you can train yourself to do that which is right, then it becomes almost natural (like declining alcohol or weed when offered, excusing myself from the room when pornography is prominently displayed). It was suggested that the term 'evil' be replaced with 'selfish' for this discussion. That sounds more accurate, as many "sins" come with an immediate gratification.

The elderly. They are commonly seen, at least in the US, as having 'done their duty' and most any actions by them are excusable.

They have their several decades of experience. There is much to learn from them if they care to share what they know. If you don't like what they've become, look to them as a warning, rather than an example.

The exceptionally rich. These people are capable of removing themselves from the social bonds to a greater degree than perhaps any of us. Not only that, but they are also capable of fulfilling their desires better and fuller than any of us.

Self gratification is so much easier when you can go forth and buy the material things you desitre, and bribe others to go along with you. I would imagine the desire to fulfil your desires and others be damned would be more pressing on a rich man because they can, as opposed to the rest of us who don't have that financial clout.

The exceptionally poor, especially the homeless. These people, like the elderly, are generally given excuses for just about anything they may do.

They may be the ones that most need help, but they are not above such desires. I've heard that some panhandlers make more in a year than many working people. With lower expenses, they are free to do as they please with the meagre funds they receive. This casts aspersions on the ones in more legitimate need. Society needs to look more closely at this segment to determine what they can do to help.

You are neglecting a fifth group: The Mentally challenged or mentally ill. There may be some that can't learn right from wrong, or may see these things incorrectly. To what degree are they accountable for their actions?

good by nature but needing grace to be saved from evil.

Christ extends his hand, we still have to reach out to grab it.

Who stands to gain the most from the uses of Original Sin than the priest himself?

And for centuries, they have handled it in the worst way...

If people were really this selfish, humans would never display self-sacrifice...As a species, we are all inherently selfish, yet most of us grow beyond it.

Ideally yes, but how many people actually do? Even some acts of self sacrifice may be for more selfish reasons--like sitting through a movie you don't like hoping for sexual gratification from the woman you went to the show with?

Drew, you obviously did not read my post or at least you did not understand it. I probably used the word punishment wrongly because you seemed to think only of prisons and fines. You are even proving my point by yourself, you say you do not rape because you do not want to be raped yourself. In there you have agreed with the principle of what I was trying to say. It is the self interest of society, we dont treat others too badly because we dont want to be treated, it is in our own self interest and I dont know why I am repeating and replying, you didnt reply to my post, you adressed it to me but you dont seem to have read what I wrote.

Proteus:
From your statement, it sounds like you would consider such things as rape and murder to be evil (agian, this doesn not have to be a religiously moral definition). You also seem to suggest that, while humans are animals, we have risen above (or perhaps sunk below) the position of other animals. Is this correct or am I reading into it? If we are 'just animals', how do you explain the many unreasonable, unproductive acts that humans commit? How do you explain serial killers, torturers, etc.? Are there reasonable, natural purposes behind these acts? Assuming that not all of them are mentally ill, that is.

Well, I would say we are both more and less than animals.

You know when you see movies involving hostile aliens, and the humans win, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy feeling of pride that the noble humans won? Looking at what we do to each other, I dont think we should be proud at all. If an alien race came to me asking whether they should initiate contact with our race, I would probably tell them to leave us alone for their own safety.

Yes, some humans are capable of unbelievable compassion and kindness. Unfortunately, our race as a whole is not compassionate or kind - sometimes the opposite. Some members of our race are capable of the most depraved and evil acts (torture etc), while most of the rest of us are apathetic towards fellow humans at best.

Ideally yes, but how many people actually do? Even some acts of self sacrifice may be for more selfish reasons--like sitting through a movie you don't like hoping for sexual gratification from the woman you went to the show with?This is not an example of self sacrifice. Self sacrifice is when you do something against your own self interest for the good of someone else. Risking your life to save your child, jumping on a grenade to save your comrades, sacrificing your dreams to care for a sick relative...these are examples of self sacrifice. Sitting through a chick flick in order to get laid, while commendable, is most assuredly not an act of self sacrifice.

Drew, you obviously did not read my post or at least you did not understand it. I probably used the word punishment wrongly because you seemed to think only of prisons and fines. You are even proving my point by yourself, you say you do not rape because you do not want to be raped yourself. In there you have agreed with the principle of what I was trying to say. It is the self interest of society, we dont treat others too badly because we dont want to be treated, it is in our own self interest and I dont know why I am repeating and replying, you didnt reply to my post, you adressed it to me but you dont seem to have read what I wrote.Simmer down, Sugar! I understood your point just fine. I just disagree with it. I only quoted a small portion of your post in order to save space. In it, you assert that The main reason we do not go out and do exactly what we want is that we consider possible punishments greater than the possible reward. I disagree with this on the grounds that risk-reward never comes into the equation for me where theft, murder, arson, or any other social vice is concerned. The reason I don't do these things is that I don't want to hurt other people. Not out of some grand respect for the self interest of society or fear of reprisal, but a simple desire not to hurt other people. Even if murder, theft, or rape were legal and acceptable, I would not commit such acts.

You further assert that a man in a war zone will very soon have no problem with gang raping children and killing their parents for resisting. While an alarming number of soldiers do a great many horrible things during war, it is by no means a majority of them. Even under extraordinary duress, most soldiers do not commit such atrocities.

If you were to apply your template to a small microcosm of society I'd have no problem with your arguments, but I feel that you have painted with too large a brush, here.

Risking your life to save your child, jumping on a grenade to save your comrades, sacrificing your dreams to care for a sick relative...these are examples of self sacrifice.

Again, for some, that seems more automatic, but for most, that's either something they wouldn't think of or simply wouldn't do.

Sitting through a chick flick in order to get laid, while commendable, is most assuredly not an act of self sacrifice.

That's actually my point there. Many will do "the right thing", but only if they see something in it for themselves. I see self sacrifice as being more rare these days...

Gnarff, if you think sitting through a chick flick is an example of "doing the right thing", you are indeed a truly deplorable human being. Watching chick flicks leads to the creation of more of them! If we (men) continue to attend, rent, or tune in to these modern day incarnations of Dirty Dancing or Ghost, they will continue to produce even more of these abominations! No, my friend, doing the right thing would mean refusing to even attend theaters or watch TV stations that have shown chick flicks. Indeed, we should even refuse to purchase service from cable or satelite providers that carry, or have ever carried, the lifetime channel. ;)

While I believe in God, I don't necessarily belive that God is objectively good... God simply *is*, and it's mankind who applies labels in an effort to wrap our limited minds around the Infinte. That said, you can pretty well guess that I don't believe in the existence of Satan - that's a human-created myth, intended to frighten children into not being naughty (Satan... Santa... two sides of the same coin, hmmmm? ;) :roll:)

Human life is a constant struggle between our good inclinations, the yetzer tov, and our tendency to do wrong, the yetzer hara. How we tip the scales is a complex mix of society and religion and personality, but I think it's an individual struggle, not one that's pre-ordained or influenced by any sort of external, objective entity.

If I was a zebra, I'd view lions as the most evil creature on the planet. If I was a lion, I'd view zebras as lunch. That wouldn't make me evil; that would make me hungry.

I don't like the word 'believe'...but for the sake of convenience in conversation I can say I believe in power. So, are there external forces affecting our decisions? Most assuredly, but also completely dependant on how and what you define external to be. I don't believe in anything supernatural for instance, but it's only a question of definitions. For me, if something can happen and it happens it is the most natural thing, albeit a thing that happens only once, extremely seldom, or only in certain rare and extremely specific circumstances is usually called supernatural. But when it's tagged and labeled that, it usually means that the person defining the occurence as that questions the occurence or the beliefs concerning the occurence only up to a point. This point is rather arbitrary, but within the frames of personal psychology, biology and culture.

How believing in power could be understood, and in most cases it is understood, is that good and evil are arbitrary and that in the end it is might which makes right. Now before you go and start moralizing this seemingly amoral point of view, I'll make it clear that I think that there's far more power and far more potential power in the action which the majority of people, religions and ethical thinkers would commonly denominate as 'good'.

The ultimate cynic, Kurt Vonnegut, in Sirens of Titan:

If God exists, he doesn't care.

I actually agree with this. If you accept the existence of God but don't accept the usual explanations for why he doesn't make the world a better (most of which are full of contradictions, themselves explained by "he is God so we cannot understand him"), then take a look at said world, "he doesn't care" would be about the only possible explanation for the state of things.

if you think sitting through a chick flick is an example of "doing the right thing", you are indeed a truly deplorable human being.

Actually, keeping peace with one's significant other (or prospective significant other) is the right thing to do. Chick flicks may be the less pleasant aspect of the job. Much like changing a baby's diaper is a less pleasant part of caring for a child. Come to think of it, The back-loaded diapers have similar content to most chick flicks...

If you accept the existence of God but don't accept the usual explanations for why he doesn't make the world a better

God made the world, and told us how to care for it and make it better. It's not His fault that the people on it won't do as they were told--or even challenge the instructions given...

God made the world, and told us how to care for it and make it better. It's not His fault that the people on it won't do as they were told--or even challenge the instructions given...You know, Gnarff, in all my 30 years, God has never talked to me. Not even once. How can I "do what I'm told" if God isn't talking?

You know, Gnarff, in all my 30 years, God has never talked to me. Not even once. How can I "do what I'm told" if God isn't talking?

It's in the manual, you know, the Bible...

You mean that book put together over hundreds of year from the various ravings and mumblings of any guy in the area who either spent too much time thinking or were just plainly loony. Which then was extensively edited, changed and generally tampered with by a whole bunch of political bodies doing so for political reasons.

You are telling us that the ULTIMATE TRUTH is composed of the ideas and thoughts of a bunch of tribal shamans who had too much time on their hands sitting around thinking about how stuff worked and then added and edited by anyone who felt like writing it down for hundreds of years until a group of middle aged men thought their people needed some structure and locked the book in place?

I guess that is what they call a leap of faith. :)

It's in the manual, you know, the Bible...Are you sure it's the bible? What about the Koran? What about the 35+ non-canonical gospels that the human beings running the Catholic church elected not to include in the bible or the apocryphal books taken out of the old testament around 60AD? What about the Baghavad Gita, the Tao-te-ching, Spring and Autumn Annals, the I Ching (Book of Changes ), the Book of Rites, the Book of History, the Book of Songs, the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Tantras, the Puranas, the Epics, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Analects, or the hundreds of others I left out? Are you sure the bible is the right one? Unless God decides to tell me which book is the "right" book, I'm inclined to believe that God, if there even is a God, doesn't really care what I think.

You mean that book put together over hundreds of year from the various ravings and mumblings of any guy in the area who either spent too much time thinking or were just plainly loony.

How about actual prophets? Assuming that God exists and did show himself to selected messengers.

Which then was extensively edited, changed and generally tampered with by a whole bunch of political bodies doing so for political reasons.

That's their sins to answer for, but the basics have not changed.

I guess that is what they call a leap of faith.

It does require that.

What about the Koran?

It denies the atonement of Christ, thus condemning mankind from the start.

What about the 35+ non-canonical gospels that the human beings running the Catholic church elected not to include in the bible or the apocryphal books taken out of the old testament around 60AD?

No doubt some valuable information, but if it was that important, wouldn't it be wider known?

What about the Baghavad Gita, the Tao-te-ching, Spring and Autumn Annals, the I Ching (Book of Changes ), the Book of Rites, the Book of History,

Never heard of them, and can't speak for them.

the Book of Mormon,

A Highly reccommended read, along with the Doctrine and Covenants, but again, they do not replace the Bible.

Unless God decides to tell me which book is the "right" book, I'm inclined to believe that God, if there even is a God, doesn't really care what I think.

Joaqin mentioned a leap of faith. This requires that you make one, to reach out to God. In Christianity, you'd have heard about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It is by the Holy Ghost that you will find peace when you get it right.

Honestly, most of it won't seem foreign to you...

Fine, the Bible it is... which translation? :good: :holy: :angel:

:evil:

Rally, if God isn't objectively good, what is he/she/it? Or are you saying that there's no such thing as 'objectively good'? What exactly do you believe about this 'God' in that case? Is he/she/it perfect, by any definition of the term? Did he/she/it make everything in existence? Does he/she/it rule over said everything? If so, can it be argued that he/she/it has the right to define 'objective, absolute good' as he/she/it sees fit?

Gnarff, Drew, settle down. Gnarff, you said you pretty much believe humans are born good, innocent, and stupid. I liked that quote, too, but it isn't in line with the theology of original sin. What does the Morman Church teach about that doctrine? What do you believe?

Drew, you've said there's no such thing as good or evil, yet causing harm to others is 'wrong'. What is the difference between this 'wrong' and 'evil'? Do you just dislike the way the term 'evil' has been used in the past (justify holy wars, witch hunts, persecution of women, etc.), or is there another connotation that you don't like to associate with your beliefs of 'wrong'.

As for the analysis of children, certain adjustments have to be made. Young children have yet to develop a concept of the perspectives of others, and are thus necessarily egocentric in all their actions. I don't classify this a greedy, its just the way they think. Have any of you really watched, however, how children interact with each other? How often do they resort to reason or sharing to solve disputes without outside influence? How often do they resort to violence? Lying? Trickery of some kind or another?

@NOG: There are things we can all agree are bad. Killing babies, nuking Japan (oh, wait...we don't all agree on that one), genocide...we agree that these things are bad. The question, though, is are they evil? To be truthful, I have little problem with the terms good and evil being applied to actions, but we don't use them that way. We apply these terms to people. From a Christian perspective Christs admonishment to "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is especially applicable. From that Christian perspective, only the LORD has the right to judge the hearts of men, so we mere humans should eschew such terminology when referring to other people.

From my secular perspective (I don't presume to speak for all secularists), Good and Evil are simply not constructive concepts. If a man is Evil, that means everything he does is guided by some sort of malevolent intent. This is a bad assumption to make, since the only person who knows why I do anything is me. A person may do great things for the most selfish of reasons or horrible things with the noblest intentions. It is OK to judge the actions, but not the person.

It denies the atonement of Christ, thus condemning mankind from the start.Muslims would differ, saying that the Christians went wrong in deifying Christ, thus condemning the from the start. Can you prove that the Muslims are wrong and the Christians are right?

No doubt some valuable information, but if it was that important, wouldn't it be wider known?You seem to have missed the reason I brought the non-canonical books up. I brought them up to make you aware that a group of humans -around 300 years after the death of Christ- decided what books would and would not be included. I bring this up not to sway you in your faith (which I am in no way trying to do), but to justify my skepticism.

@NOG: God is infinite. To try to describe God any further would be to limit that infinity. Texts and religions and canon laws and prophets, etc., etc., etc., are nothing but human attempts to control how other people relate to the infinity that is God. Yes, I believe that God is the prime mover behind creation of the universe, but beyond that I think that every individual must decide for him or herself just how big a role God plays in "ruling" that creation.

Value words like "ggod" and "evil" are more human creations. They've become rather standardized over the millenia of civilization, but they are by no means static.

Fine, the Bible it is... which translation?

With an obvious bias, I reccommend the Joseph Smith translation (you can find information, if not an online source at www.lds.org), but for the most part, the King James version is probably not that far off.

Gnarff, you said you pretty much believe humans are born good, innocent, and stupid.

Actually that was Kitrax at first (ironically, born and raised Mormon, but not active), but I quoted it because it summed it up nicely.

I liked that quote, too, but it isn't in line with the theology of original sin. What does the Morman Church teach about that doctrine? What do you believe?

First off, an explicit statement from the Chrurch (Article of Faith #2)

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression

Secondly, the original sin was something that had to happen, so that we, the decendants of Adam could learn good from evil, and right from wrong. Basically, Adam and Eve were innocent and pure until they did commit that sin, and thus knew no concepts like good or evil. They had to learn those concepts before they could teach their offspring.

nuking Japan (oh, wait...we don't all agree on that one),

I think that everyone underestimated the atomic bomb until those dreadful days in August of 1945, and since then have looked to them as a wake up call...

Muslims would differ, saying that the Christians went wrong in deifying Christ, thus condemning the from the start. Can you prove that the Muslims are wrong and the Christians are right?

Without some condition for forgiveness of our sins in their text, we would automatically be condemned, and thus, have no further reason for compliance. Thus it would be tuned out, regardless of the value of it's teachings. In Christianity, that condition is given, thus that message of damnation would be less likely to tune people out. A fire and brimstone sermon might still have that effect, mind you.

I brought them up to make you aware that a group of humans -around 300 years after the death of Christ- decided what books would and would not be included. I bring this up not to sway you in your faith (which I am in no way trying to do), but to justify my skepticism.

Again, I believe that if this was truly important, God would reveal this to prophets again to have this brought forth for the enlightenment of those that would follow Him. I am not ruling out future revelation regarding these works.

I think that everyone underestimated the atomic bomb until those dreadful days in August of 1945, and since then have looked to them as a wake up call...Sorry, but no. We tested the weapons, after all. We knew exactly what they would do.

Without some condition for forgiveness of our sins in their text, we would automatically be condemned, and thus, have no further reason for compliance. Thus it would be tuned out, regardless of the value of it's teachings. In Christianity, that condition is given, thus that message of damnation would be less likely to tune people out. A fire and brimstone sermon might still have that effect, mind you.That's all well and good, Gnarff, but this in no way proves that the Christians were right in deifying Christ or that the Muslims were wrong in denying his divinity.

Again, I believe that if this was truly important, God would reveal this to prophets again to have this brought forth for the enlightenment of those that would follow Him. I am not ruling out future revelation regarding these works.Yes, but to accept this, I would have to actually believe that God speaks to man through prophets. I do not believe that God guided the hands that wrote the bible and, having never personally been spoken to by God, am inclined to believe that God speaks to no one. I think that, of all the disciples, Thomas was the wisest.

With an obvious bias, I reccommend the Joseph Smith translation (you can find information, if not an online source at www.lds.org), but for the most part, the King James version is probably not that far off.

*sigh*

Did you deliberately miss my point? Now, you're not only trying to dictate which holy book all people have to adhere to, but also the specific version... that's arrogance of the highest order. Oh wait, doesn't that count as Pride, one of the seven deadlies? Into the pit of fire with you!

So Rally, do you believe in an active God, one that is involved in any current way with the world, or do you believe in a kind of Domino Effect God, one that just set everything up and lets it run its course? You said that good and evil are human constructs, but if God is active and has a will for the world, isn't the definition of evil the opposition of that goal? On the other hand, if God just set everything up, then I can understand your position.

Gnarff, what does the Mormon Church teach about the death of new-borns, then? Do they teach that these people are sinless and go to heaven? What about the statements in the Bible about everyone's sin (all have fallen short of the glory of God and all that)? While we may not be punished for Adam's sin directly, do you believe it has altered the natural state of mankind?

Drew, ok, so let's say that we aren't talking about the actual nature of the people, but rather of their acts. Can we say that evil influences men to do evil acts without saying the men themselves are inherrantly evil?

As for judgement, I would remind you of the rest of that verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged, for if ye judge, so ye shall be judged, and in that same measure as ye judge." This is not a prohibition against judging, but rather an admonishion to be careful in the act, lest you be judged likewise. Also remember that there is a difference between judgment and punishment. When Christ tells us, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.", he isn't telling us not to judge, but to offer forgiveness instead of punishment.

For all, my position, as I believe it is spelled out in the Bible, is that mankind, and all creation with it, was initially created perfect and in complete accord with God's Perfect Will. When man fell, he took creation with him, because he had been given authority over it, and so man's perfect nature was corrupted by evil, and the world was twisted away from God's Perfect Will. From this point on, the new nature of man was one of both evil and good, and man and creation began to live in God's Permissive Will, what He would allow in the process of repairing everything. To that effect, men and women are born into the world 'perfect', but with evil corruption as an inherrant part of our being. In the world, we are influenced by both good and evil, from both mankind and the supernatural. True perfection, however, is outside of our grasps without the intervention of God. Essentially, and for the simplicity of it, we are born evil and are 'corrupted' by the partial good of others, but only the perfect good of God can set us right.

Drew, ok, so let's say that we aren't talking about the actual nature of the people, but rather of their acts. Can we say that evil influences men to do evil acts without saying the men themselves are inherrantly evil?No. Good and Evil are concepts. Evil doesn't influence people because Evil does not have a will of its own.

That's all well and good, Gnarff, but this in no way proves that the Christians were right in deifying Christ or that the Muslims were wrong in denying his divinity.

First, Christ had to be divine in order to die for our sins. If Islam denies the divinity of Christ, then ultimately, they are mutually exclusive, despite an overlap in many of their teachings. Once again, you demand proof of the unprovable. I have put my faith in Christ and decided to get on with my life.

I do not believe that God guided the hands that wrote the bible and, having never personally been spoken to by God, am inclined to believe that God speaks to no one.

I've never had AIDS, there fore nobody must have AIDS. Sorry, that proves nothing. Further, in many instances, it is the Holy Ghost, one third of the Godhead (or Trinity) that addresses mortals. To those that don't know what to expect, they could miss it entirely, or not realize who is speaking...

Now, you're not only trying to dictate which holy book all people have to adhere to, but also the specific version... that's arrogance of the highest order.

LMAO. You ask me a question, then get pissed at me when I give the best answer I can think of? What, then, was the point of the question?

what does the Mormon Church teach about the death of new-borns, then?

Since we don't practice Baptism until the age of 8 years, ALL children who die before that point are redeemed through the atonement of Christ.

What about the statements in the Bible about everyone's sin (all have fallen short of the glory of God and all that)?

This is exactly why Christ was sent to die for our sins. Without an atonement, justice can never be satisfied. Because Christ has died for our sins, He can act as a mediator for us, allowing mercy to be extended unto all of us. All that is asked in return is faith in Christ, and that we do our best to follow His example.

While we may not be punished for Adam's sin directly, do you believe it has altered the natural state of mankind?

When Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden, they came into a world that was less than paradisical. They also came to a world where Satan and those that followed him when he was cast from Heaven (See Isaiah 14:12) could tempt us toward sin, and away from God. Because so many of these sins come complete with temporal pleasure, they are a natural course for most of us.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged, for if ye judge, so ye shall be judged, and in that same measure as ye judge." This is not a prohibition against judging, but rather an admonishion to be careful in the act, lest you be judged likewise.

It is also a warning to those who are judged that if they feel the judgement is not fair, that they risk rendering a similarly unfair judgement against that person.

First, Christ had to be divine in order to die for our sins. If Islam denies the divinity of Christ, then ultimately, they are mutually exclusive, despite an overlap in many of their teachings.Gnarff, Muslims don't believe that Christ died for our sins.

Once again, you demand proof of the unprovable. I have put my faith in Christ and decided to get on with my life.Actually, Gnarff, the fact it is unprovable was my point to begin with.

I've never had AIDS, there fore nobody must have AIDS. Sorry, that proves nothing. Further, in many instances, it is the Holy Ghost, one third of the Godhead (or Trinity) that addresses mortals. To those that don't know what to expect, they could miss it entirely, or not realize who is speaking...Gnarff, I don't need to die of AIDS to see that other people have died of AIDS. I have met many people who seem to think they can talk to God, but I've never met one who can prove it. Without such proof, I shall remain a skeptic, neither believing nor disbelieving in God. If you have a problem with it, that's fine, but it's you're problem. Not mine.

LMAO. You ask me a question, then get pissed at me when I give the best answer I can think of? What, then, was the point of the question?You really need to check out this link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question) It'll save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

Thanks for having my back with that link about rhetorical questions, Drew.

@Gnarff: I'm not "pissed" at your answer, I was merely using the question to further drive home the point that Drew was also working on: that there are many, many "holy" books that arise from many different walks of human existence. To arbitrarily declare one as more holy than any other - let alone to single out a particular version of that single work! - is as human an action as was writing those books in the first place.

@NOG: Yes, I believe in a God who pulled the trigger on Creation and sat back to watch the show. God is infinite, therefore God doesn't need agents to involve God-self in the workings of the universe, God's already part of it! IMO, religion is all about how people tune in to that infinity.

Muslims don't believe that Christ died for our sins.

And with no mediator, there can be no forgiveness, and thus condemnation for all. With a restrictive set of rules, we're bound to sin...

Without such proof, I shall remain a skeptic, neither believing nor disbelieving in God. If you have a problem with it, that's fine, but it's you're problem. Not mine.

I beg to differ, but I can't prove it until it's too late...

You really need to check out this link. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

That was a poor example of a rhetorical question. Rally should have known I'd have an answer for that question.

I was merely using the question to further drive home the point that Drew was also working on: that there are many, many "holy" books that arise from many different walks of human existence.

And I was speaking for my particular choice of Holy book. What good is a Holy book if I claim to believe it, but don't advocate it? And unlike you, I actually am curious to what you're going to say...

To arbitrarily declare one as more holy than any other - let alone to single out a particular version of that single work! - is as human an action as was writing those books in the first place.

First, the decision is not arbitrary. It is what I actually believe. You make it sound as though I put the titles on a big "crown and anchor" wheel, gave it a spin and picked the one that came up. Secondly, I again state that I believe that the Bible was originally inspired by God, despite the various butcher jobs done by translators, the key components preserved by divine providence, and in the case of the JST, restored by God's will. Not act of man, but of God.

I believe in a God who pulled the trigger on Creation and sat back to watch the show.

If that is all, then that's like absolving the father of all responsibility after having sex...

therefore God doesn't need agents to involve God-self in the workings of the universe, God's already part of it!

But what if human actions were intended as part of that plan? Shouldn't we then have instructions given on what we're supposed to do?

religion is all about how people tune in to that infinity.

Are you suggesting that we try to understand God, but he doesn't care? My liver and lungs wouldn't be able to handle the booze and weed I'd need to live under that belief...

And with no mediator, there can be no forgiveness, and thus condemnation for all. With a restrictive set of rules, we're bound to sin...They don't believe that either.

I beg to differ, but I can't prove it until it's too late...Whatever. It makes little difference, since I have nothing nice to say about a God who judges men by what they believe (or refuse to believe) instead of by what they do. Pardon my blasphemy, but I want no part of a God who condemns to hell anyone who doesn't believe that the 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin turned water into wine, fed 1000 people with a fish and some breadcrumbs, walked on water, revived a dead man, and personally came back from the dead himself only to then ascend bodily into heaven - and then ask for the intercession of the aforementioned 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin - without any corroborating physical evidence.

That was a poor example of a rhetorical question. Rally should have known I'd have an answer for that question.Actually it was embarrassingly obvious. If you still can't recognize it now, you may want to consider enrolling in some remedial English classes. I'm not joking.

First, the decision is not arbitrary. It is what I actually believe.Gnarff, did you come to Mormonism after examining the great bulk of the world's various religions and reading their holy books or were you simply brought up in the LDS church? Did you individually weigh the merits of the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, Dianetics, the Vedas, he Tantras, the Puranas, the Epics, or the Analects against the book of Mormon in the process of choosing your faith? By your own admission, you most assuredly did not. Without examining other religions in any depth, you ultimately decided that the religion in which you were raised was the right religion. My friend, that is the very definition of arbitrary.

This doesn't mean that your religion isn't THE ONE TRUE PATH ®, or that you are wrong, but your decision of which faith to follow was arbitrary. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, Gnarff. Just own it and move on.

@Gnarff: I understand that your answers are based on your sincere beliefs. Here's the part you don't seem to get from me - I'm glad that you've found a path to God that works for you. Could you possibly find it in your heart to do the same for me, even though I read a different Bible and pray differently than you do?

How can he when you condemn yourself with your heresy? He's merely trying to save your benighted soul! ;)

:lol: I have SO been waiting for that to crop up! Thanks for not letting me down, dude! :lol:

since I have nothing nice to say about a God who judges men by what they believe (or refuse to believe) instead of by what they do.

But we ARE judged by actions, but mediation comes through faith.

Pardon my blasphemy, but I want no part of a God who condemns to hell anyone who doesn't believe that the 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin turned water into wine, fed 1000 people with a fish and some breadcrumbs, walked on water, revived a dead man, and personally came back from the dead himself only to then ascend bodily into heaven - and then ask for the intercession of the aforementioned 33 year old son of a 14 year old virgin - without any corroborating physical evidence.

Did you ever think that the point of this lack of corroborating evidence is intentional? Surely you'd want your children to behave as you've taught them when you aren't there with them. That's the same thing with God (our Heavenly Father). Give out absolute proof, and there's no faith, and no testimony of the rightness of what's been taught. Just a regurgitation of book answers with no personal understanding or conviction.

did you come to Mormonism after examining the great bulk of the world's various religions and reading their holy books or were you simply brought up in the LDS church?

My decision to return to the faith was made after looking at various other philosophies and psychological theories. I was inactive for 12 years, and that was during my college days...

Could you possibly find it in your heart to do the same for me, even though I read a different Bible and pray differently than you do?

Ultimately, I have to, but that does not absolve me of the commandment to speak up. Once the words are typed, what you do with them is your business...

This doesn't mean that your religion isn't THE ONE TRUE PATH ®,

We hold no monopoly on truth, but we believe that other faiths have slight mistakes or omissions that ultimately fall short...

But we ARE judged by actions, but mediation comes through faith.Faith in Jesus. Everyone who places their faith in the wrong invisible friend will burn...

Did you ever think that the point of this lack of corroborating evidence is intentional?Not even for a second. There are thousands of religions out there. If God really cared which one I practiced, she'd send me a memo.

Surely you'd want your children to behave as you've taught the when you aren't there with them. That's the same thing with God (our Heavenly Father). Give out absolute proof, and there's no faith, and no testimony of the rightness of what's been taught. Just a regurgitation of book answers with no personal understanding or conviction.What are you talking about? If the God of Abraham were an absolute and incontrovertible fact of life, who wouldn't worship him? I mean, this psycho has torched cities, ordered genocides...hell, he even killed some guy's entire family on a bet! This is one mother****er I would not want to piss off!

We hold no monopoly on truth, but we believe that other faiths have slight mistakes or omissions that ultimately fall short...Yawn. Other faiths say the exact same thing about your faith. Tell me something new.

If the God of Abraham were an absolute and incontrovertible fact of life, who wouldn't worship him? I mean, this psycho has torched cities, ordered genocides...hell, he even killed some guy's entire family on a bet! This is one mother****er I would not want to piss off!

Two small points: I am not aware of God killing some guys family on a bet, and I would have definitely used the term "bad mother****er" (think Pulp Fiction) or mayhaps simply bad mo'fo'.

@AFI: See the story of Job. He was visited with all sorts of miseries as a test of his faith, after a discussion/bet between God and Satan.

I figured it was the Book of Job Drew referred to, but Job didn't lose his entire family.

42:16 After this Job lived 140 years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 42:17 And so Job died, old and full of days.

Source: NET Bible (http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm)

However I must say that I wouldn't love a "Heavenly Father" who visited me with all sorts of miseries just to prove He could get away with it - though I would probably worship Him out of fear.

42:16 After this Job lived 140 years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 42:17 And so Job died, old and full of days.They were new kids from a new wife.

Not even for a second. There are thousands of religions out there. If God really cared which one I practiced, she'd send me a memo.

What if other humans are the ones bringing the memo out to those of today? Do you then dismiss them if it sounds ridiculous?

What are you talking about? If the God of Abraham were an absolute and incontrovertible fact of life, who wouldn't worship him? I mean, this psycho has torched cities, ordered genocides...hell, he even killed some guy's entire family on a bet! This is one mother****er I would not want to piss off!

Those victims posed a legitimate threat to a fledgeling faith that God wanted to develop. At the time of the Great Flood, there were a total of 8 righteous people (about 2000 years removed from the Garden of Eden), and Prophes could not find righteous people in Sodom and Gamorah. It was an act of protection. And if God was as proven as you say he was, then why were there so many unbelievers and sinners?

What if other humans are the ones bringing the memo out to those of today? Do you then dismiss them if it sounds ridiculous?If they can prove their word is God's word, sure, I'll hear it.

Those victims posed a legitimate threat to a fledgeling faith that God wanted to develop. At the time of the Great Flood, there were a total of 8 righteous people (about 2000 years removed from the Garden of Eden), and Prophes could not find righteous people in Sodom and Gamorah. It was an act of protection. And if God was as proven as you say he was, then why were there so many unbelievers and sinners?Yawn. There's an old expression that comes to mind about only the winners getting to write the history, but I'll ignore that for now. I'll also ignore your implication that, 2000 years after Eden, everyone in the world knew absolutely that the God of Abraham was a real and living entity (there is no scriptural reason to believe this). Other than that, I think you are forgetting something. Unlike you, I don't believe that the bible is revealed history. Biblical arguments will not sway me, not even poorly crafted biblical arguments full of holes and circular reasoning.

Those victims posed a legitimate threat to a fledgeling faith that God wanted to develop. At the time of the Great Flood, there were a total of 8 righteous people (about 2000 years removed from the Garden of Eden), and Prophes could not find righteous people in Sodom and Gamorah. It was an act of protection.
An act of protection? We're talking about a being who can make it rain frogs, can destroy entire cities, floods the whole planet and kills everything on it because he was annoyed with a handful of people, kills without even the need to snap his fingers... hell we're talking about the being who presumably created everything, and can just as easily unmake it. He doesn't need protection. Nothing is a threat to such a being. This whole thing doesn't make any sense.

And while we're on the subject of the Flood... the Sumerians had a story in their mythology about the gods (notice the plural) getting annoyed at humans and flooding the planet to get rid of them. One of the more forward-thinking gods orders one man to build a boat and to take a couple of each animal so the gods can repopulate the planet afterwards. Sounds familiar? Guess what, this myth is older than Judaism (never mind the Bible)

And if God was as proven as you say he was, then why were there so many unbelievers and sinners?
That's a circular question if I've ever seen one.

I'll also ignore your implication that, 2000 years after Eden, everyone in the world knew absolutely that the God of Abraham was a real and living entity (there is no scriptural reason to believe this).

Remember that Abraham was not born until a few hundred years after the Flood...

He doesn't need protection.

He was the protector of those that worshipped him.

the Sumerians had a story in their mythology about the gods (notice the plural) getting annoyed at humans and flooding the planet to get rid of them. One of the more forward-thinking gods orders one man to build a boat and to take a couple of each animal so the gods can repopulate the planet afterwards. Sounds familiar? Guess what, this myth is older than Judaism (never mind the Bible)

Sumeria flourished about the time of Abraham, which was a few hundred years after the Great Flood. They would have been the decendants of Noah and his sons, but in the absense of his prophets would have ddrifted into polytheism and apostasy.

Guess what, this myth is older than Judaism (never mind the Bible)

Judaism was basically the institution of Religion by God after several societies devolved into polytheism and other forms of apostasy. Christianity was the reorganization of such religion after the coming of Christ, reflecting the fulfillment of the promises made to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. The Mormons believe that the Lord has again restored His desired order among the faithful after centruies of confusion and change.

Gnarff - if you are going to ignore accepted history which places Sumer well before the Jews came into the picture and are going to talk about things in relation to "The Great Flood" then I am not sure there is much of a point here.

Maybe it's my inner cynic coming through, but I find it difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Bible is entirely (or even mostly) historically accurate. Sorry.

@Gnarff: The Torah was modeled on many, many pieces of older literature from other Ancient Near East cultures. The flood story is only one example - I actually attended a study program on exactly this topic last year. If Jewish scholars can recognize this, why can't you?

Remember that Abraham was not born until a few hundred years after the Flood...Your point? Sure, maybe he wasn't called the God of Abraham before the birth of Abraham, but he most assuredly was the same God. Now, God may have been an incontrovertible fact to some people (the people to whom God spoke), but it does not logically follow that everyone else believed in (or even knew of) his existence. 2000 years is a long time. More than enough generations would have come and gone for the people to abandon and ultimately forget the superstitions of their ancestors and even to invent new superstitions to take their place.

@Gnarff: The Torah was modeled on many, many pieces of older literature from other Ancient Near East cultures. The flood story is only one example - I actually attended a study program on exactly this topic last year. If Jewish scholars can recognize this, why can't you?It's called fundamentalism. :rolleyes:

if you are going to ignore accepted history which places Sumer well before the Jews came into the picture

I'm fully aware that Sumeria would have been at the time of Abraham or possibly before, and that Israel did not emerge as a nation for a few Centuries beyind that. But Sumeria is not mentioned in the Old testament (that I'm aware of), so I really only have bits and pieces of their history.

and are going to talk about things in relation to "The Great Flood"

If the Sumerians had some record of the great flood (coloured through their cultural beliefs), then they must exist after the great flood. The Bible also lists Abraham as coming after the great flood.

then I am not sure there is much of a point here.

I'm not sure how we got off on the Flood either, or what this has to do with the original questions of this thread...

The Torah was modeled on many, many pieces of older literature from other Ancient Near East cultures. The flood story is only one example

In the instance of the Great Flood, wouldn't an incident of that magnitude be worth mentioning in the histories that the people keep? And if these histories are maintained in an oral form for generations before being recorded, how accurate can they be? People here have already mentioned the cultural slant on history...

If Jewish scholars can recognize this, why can't you?

You are talking about the Torah, I am talking about the Bible. This also means that prophets of God oversaw this. I don't know enough about the Torah to speak on this.

God may have been an incontrovertible fact to some people (the people to whom God spoke), but it does not logically follow that everyone else believed in (or even knew of) his existence. 2000 years is a long time. More than enough generations would have come and gone for the people to abandon and ultimately forget the superstitions of their ancestors and even to invent new superstitions to take their place.

That's exactly why the Earth was flooded in the first place. And it didn't take 2000 years for apostasy to creep in. The people of Israel, even as they were fleeing Egypt fell from the teachings and into Idolatry at least once within a generation of witnessing the plagues that beset Egypt (which would be PROOF of God's power). In areas where the prophets did not travel, who knows what their beliefs would look like. You even saw this in the early Christian Church, where, in the absense of the Apostles, wierd changes to the ordinances crept in to the point where it was no longer recognizable as the same church that was established in the time of Christ.

You are talking about the Torah, I am talking about the Bible. This also means that prophets of God oversaw this. I don't know enough about the Torah to speak on this.I can't believe that you didn't know that the Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) is the first five books of the old testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Seriously, if this is any indicator of how well they are teaching you folks, the LDS church seriously needs to overhaul its early religious education program. Any kid over the age of 12 who calls himself a Christian should know this.

That's exactly why the Earth was flooded in the first place. And it didn't take 2000 years for apostasy to creep in. The people of Israel, even as they were fleeing Egypt fell from the teachings and into Idolatry at least once within a generation of witnessing the plagues that beset Egypt (which would be PROOF of God's power). In areas where the prophets did not travel, who knows what their beliefs would look like. You even saw this in the early Christian Church, where, in the absense of the Apostles, wierd changes to the ordinances crept in to the point where it was no longer recognizable as the same church that was established in the time of Christ.Which brings us back to my initial point...that you were wrong in implying that God was an established fact for the people living on earth at the time of the flood. I'm glad you now see the fallacy of such an implication.

I'm fully aware that Sumeria would have been at the time of Abraham or possibly before, and that Israel did not emerge as a nation for a few Centuries beyind that. But Sumeria is not mentioned in the Old testament (that I'm aware of), so I really only have bits and pieces of their history.
I'm going to ignore your insistence on tying in anything historical to the Old Testament and instead focus on your last statement. You may only have "bits and pieces" of their history, but that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on their history and the facts of their existence. You cannot simply discard an entire civilisation's existence and mythology (and the effect of that mythology on other civilisations and religions) just because your chosen religion does not mention them.

If the Sumerians had some record of the great flood (coloured through their cultural beliefs), then they must exist after the great flood. The Bible also lists Abraham as coming after the great flood.
Oh for the love of... are you even looking at the stuff you're writing? "Coloured through their beliefs"? The Sumerians are older than the Old Testament, older than Judaism, older than the concept of a monotheistic religion, and older than God/Jehovah/etc. Why are you unable to accept the idea that the writers of the Old Testament were influenced by Sumerian mythology when you so readily accept that the opposite is true, even though the Sumerians (and their myths) chronologically came first?

I like to think of myself as completely open when it comes to other people's religious beliefs, mainly because I have none and do not feel the need to have any or to discard other people's because they conflict with mine. But the callousness and arrogance with which some people discard history and entire civilisations just because they are convinced that the Bible is true history drives me nuts.

I can't believe that you didn't know that the Torah is the first five books of the old testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

I've only ever heard them called the Books of Moses.

that you were wrong in implying that God was an established fact for the people living on earth at the time of the flood.

Just because people didn't know about Him or believe in Him doesn't mean he's not real. I believe the Flood established that as a fact...

You cannot simply discard an entire civilisation's existence and mythology (and the effect of that mythology on other civilisations and religions) just because your chosen religion does not mention them.

That only explains why I only have bits and pieces of their history.

The Sumerians are older than the Old Testament, older than Judaism, older than the concept of a monotheistic religion, and older than God/Jehovah/etc.

I question that statement. If God is the creator of all things, then He predates the Sumerian culture, which obviously evolved after the Great Flood, since they have a myth about it.

Why are you unable to accept the idea that the writers of the Old Testament were influenced by Sumerian mythology when you so readily accept that the opposite is true, even though the Sumerians (and their myths) chronologically came first.

Events such as Creation and the Great Flood would qualify as major events, and as such, any culture developing beyond that time would have some form of myth similar to the other such records or myths that would exist on the same topic. This serves as a witness that these events would have actually happened. Where the difference comes in is that The Old Testament was recorded by prophets under the direction of God, who was there to witness these events, and revealed them to the prophets at the time. Sumerian culture evolved outside the influence of these prophets, and the truth at the basis of these events would have been distorted without the truth to preserve them.

But the callousness and arrogance with which some people discard history and entire civilisations just because they are convinced that the Bible is true history drives me nuts.

There's obviously something there, And I don't discard their history, but I disagree with the polytheistic philosphies of the time.

Events such as Creation and the Great Flood would qualify as major events, and as such, any culture developing beyond that time would have some form of myth similar to the other such records or myths that would exist on the same topic. This serves as a witness that these events would have actually happened. Where the difference comes in is that The Old Testament was recorded by prophets under the direction of God, who was there to witness these events, and revealed them to the prophets at the time. Sumerian culture evolved outside the influence of these prophets, and the truth at the basis of these events would have been distorted without the truth to preserve them.Gnarff, after professing such a high degree of ignorance about this period of history, you have got to have some dinosaur sized balls to make an assertion like this.:rolleyes:

you have got to have some dinosaur sized balls to make an assertion like this.

Thank you.

Those victims posed a legitimate threat to a fledgeling faith that God wanted to develop.


Ever hear the expression "winners write the history books?" If the Nazis had won WW2, kids would be taught about how the great and wondrous Hitler saved humanity from the evil, baby-sacrificing Jews.

Ever hear the expression "winners write the history books?" If the Nazis had won WW2, kids would be taught about how the great and wondrous Hitler saved humanity from the evil, baby-sacrificing Jews.

This is scrapping history because you don't like who wrote it. Isn't that what I've been accused of?

Somehow I don't think you realize you just made his point.

I have to weigh in on this sort of thing. I took a seminar on Ancient Near Eastern religions and learned a bit about the Sumerians, the Hittites, the Egyptians, and a few other Near Eastern civilizations. When you compare some of their poetry it predates the actual writing of many Old Testament books, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that when an Old Testament poem or passage very closely resembles an earlier (I'll use Sumerian as an example) Sumerian work that the Old Testament writer was influenced or even just plain plagiarized the Sumerian. That's not a problem for me, because . . .

I believe, as most Mormons believe, that the scriptures are inspired by God. I don't have the exact quote with me at the moment, but a Mormon leader once said "undoubtedly all religious practices spring from the practices taught to Adam and Eve by God." As time went on, those practices were transmitted and corrupted by various groups and religions, but they still, in the Mormon mindset, have the same root. Old Testament writers using poetic forms, ideas or images from those other cultures does not mean that God does not exist.

That said, belief in God does not come from academic study. It comes from an act of faith influenced by personal revelation from God. Since I am in no position to say whether or not God has touched the heart of a given individual yet, I endeavor as strongly as possible not to give offense to those who do not believe in God. I cannot help it if some people are offended by my personal belief in God, however.

That said, belief in God does not come from academic study. It comes from an act of faith influenced by personal revelation from God. Since I am in no position to say whether or not God has touched the heart of a given individual yet, I endeavor as strongly as possible not to give offense to those who do not believe in God. I cannot help it if some people are offended by my personal belief in God, however.
There is nothing wrong with this attitude. As far as I'm concerned everyone should be free to believe in whichever religion they want (I'm discarding extremism here though, that's a completely different topic), and if other people have an issue merely because of your religious belief then too bad for them. If you want to believe that all religions have the same root that's fine. I for one do not believe that this root is in God, but that's fine as well. What I do have a problem with is someone discarding an entire civilisation in order to force history to fit their religious belief. You seem to have made the distinction between the religious text as a symbol and the religious text as a true history of facts that occurred. Gnarfflinger has not.

There are some Mormons who believe the first five books of the Old Testament (Torah) are absolute fact, and some who believe those books have a significant amount of metaphor. Gnarff is one of the first group. Of course, the same can be said of Christians everywhere, some believe the Bible to be factual in every detail and some believe it to be padded with metaphor and parables.

Archeological records, carbon dating, tree ring dating, and stratagraphic analysis have absolutely no impact on those who believe the Bible to be a factual and accurate list of events. It is useless to argue such things....

Well said, T2Bruno. I've noticed only thing you can get from those arguments is a mighty fine headache. The people think on so different levels on this matter that it's just impossible to reach a conclusion that satisfies both with both still standing behind their views.

Somehow I don't think you realize you just made his point.

So his point is that history is too vague to be authoritative?

What I do have a problem with is someone discarding an entire civilisation in order to force history to fit their religious belief.

I have not denied the existance of the Sumerians. I believe that they did exist, but I disagree witht eh polytheistic philosphies of the day. I look at their record of the great flood as a second witness that it did happen...

There are some Mormons who believe the first five books of the Old Testament (Torah) are absolute fact, and some who believe those books have a significant amount of metaphor.

I'm somewhere between the two camps. I believe that it's not as detailed as many people will demand (again, going back to LKD's post), as much of Genesis was dictated to Moses by inspiration so that it could be recorded. Think about it, 2300 years or so in 50 chapters? There has to be a lot left out or glossed over. I've said that the first chapter of Genesis tells the basic story, but leaves out the details, because the results of creation are much more complicated. That said, the basic stories are there, and I believe them to be factual.

Gnarff, there is just one thing I would like you to answer and which truly baffles me completely when it comes to religious people. On what grounds did you decide that Joseph Smith and the ancient bible writers were for real and not a bunch of loonies spouting crap? You must use some kind of evaluation to decide that they are for real and that Mohammed, scientologists, Buddha, the crazy guy predicting the end of the world, new agers and thousands upon thousands of other people claiming to have heard teh word of god or figured out the meaning of life are full of crap? I would like to know how you can know that just the people you believe in are for real and everyone else is making stuff up as they go along? From my perspective Jesus, Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Buddha, the moonies, children believing in Santa Claus all have the exact same credibility. They claim something and their proof is that they claim it. I am honestly interested in how you decided that just your guys were the ones sitting with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I hate to say this, but you all can be real idiots some times, you know that? And I don't mean to be insulting, I really don't, I just can't help but notice this. I don't have time to break down and analyse all the baseless assumptions, misunderstandings, and petty arguements that seem to have occurred here on all sides, but let me take this as an example:

The Flood:
The Sumerian writing of the story of a flood predates the biblical one. The Sumerian culture predates the Jewish one. Now let's ignore the fact that we don't actually know when either of these were written, they're far enough apart that we can safely say they came in this order, regardless of exactly how much time was between them. You're still only talking about the actual writting of the story, not the origin of it. You all do realize that these people had very strong and accurate oral traditions before they developed writing, don't you? Now you may not realize how accurate this tradition was, so I'll fill a few things in. Learning to read actively changes the way the brain stores information and the way the mind thinks. Societies that develop and flourish without writing have a much better ability to remember word-for-word conversations and descriptions than those that develop with it, while those that develop with it gain the ability to remember generalities about a vast amount of information without actually remembering the details.

Now, given the above, who's story really came first? Both undoubtably pre-date the actual writting of the story by hundreds of years. Saying that the Sumerian version is the originial because it was written first is like saying the Book of John predates the Sumerian books and stories because it was first rendered in print, or because it was first typed up on a computer. We're only talking about the translation into a new medium of preservation.

Now, T2Bruno's comments about archeology, tree rings, and carbon dating is less an issue of the above and more simply a lack of knowledge. There is extensive archeological evidence backing up a wide variety of the biblical stories, and this body of evidence is growing continuously. There are dozens of cultures and historical figures that historians thought were just biblical myths until something was discovered that made mention of them, and suddenly those passages of the Bible become credible historical accounts.

Now I don't know what tree rings have to do with anything, but carbon dating has more than a few holes in it's accuracy claims.

You all do realize that these people had very strong and accurate oral traditions before they developed writing, don't you? Now you may not realize how accurate this tradition was, so I'll fill a few things in. Learning to read actively changes the way the brain stores information and the way the mind thinks. Societies that develop and flourish without writing have a much better ability to remember word-for-word conversations and descriptions than those that develop with it, while those that develop with it gain the ability to remember generalities about a vast amount of information without actually remembering the details.NOG, first of all, you're going to need citations for this. Unless you have research comparing the brain chemistry of members of modern literate vs modern illiterate societies, all you have is a hypothesis. Even if you do manage to prove that societies without writing have a better ability to remember word-for-word conversations and descriptions than those that develop with it, this in no way proves that oral histories aren't inaccurate. All you've proven is that they aren't quite as inaccurate as they could be.

Well Drew, perhaps you can give references to prove NOG wrong. I actually remember such claims being taught in Cultural Anthropology (in particular, the accuracy of verbal traditions among South American tribes). Most mythology and early accounts of history were oral. Eventually, those accounts got put in writing. Any inaccuracy would be in both accounts. Remember, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible -- Genesis and part of Exodus were oral histories before then.

There are a few references to great floods in archeology and histories. These are typically centered in flood plains. The most widely accepted (non-religious) version of the great flood is a mammoth flood that nearly destroyed the entire plains between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. This would account for BOTH the Sumerian and Hebrew flood records. However, there is no evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth in the past 1,000,000 years, let alone the past 6,000 years.

Of course, lack of evidence does not deter the faithful.

NOG: Tree ring dating is often used to account for famines and floods and is quite accurate to ~5,000 years. Tree ring data is also used to improve accuracy in carbon dating for such recent events. I've seen carbon dating off by as much as 20% -- this is due to the fluxuations of carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere due to various geological events. Tree ring data can account for those variations. Beyond the 5,000 year range, a 20% variation is considered acceptable. Finding human remains 30,000 years old ± 6,000 years is still pretty damning for the "expelled from the Garden of Eden in 4,004 BC" argument.

I would entirely expect there to be significant evidence of many things in the old testiment after Genesis. You'll be hard pressed to find any significant evidence supporting the Book of Genesis (and some of Exodus). The entire Old Testiment is a religious history of the Hebrews -- it contains a lot historic fact. Although I do believe some of the stories of the Old Testiment are parables or metaphor. For example; I do not believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Jonah, or the story of Job to be true.

The Mormons believe many of the archeological finds in Central and South America substiantiate the Book of Mormon. I disagree, the totality of the evidence does not support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Picking and choosing what to accept and what to throw away is a trademark tactic.

I'm actually with Drew on this one. How the heck can anyone know how accurate the non-written pre-recorded oral history of the Sumerians was? Even if one were to accept that people without written records placed a greater emphasis on the accuracy of oral history (that seems logical) it in no way means that the oral history is infallible. Even if the story changed only slightly from one generation to the next over the course of centuries between the event and their eventual written record there would be some differences. If you want to claim that the oral history from that time was more accurate than oral histories of today, I may be able to agree with it, but to say that they were completely accurate seems like a pretty big stretch.

Actually, I think you're on target with the "completely accurate" thing. Although oral traditions are extremely accurate over a few generations, they can change slightly to account for the ability or inability of the particular historian to understand the entire story.

In the case of the great flood, the oral traditions were handed down form generation to generation and the end results are remarkably alike -- the oral tradition worked. That the flood was a punishment of the Gods indicates how close these cultures were. A few names were changes -- let's face it "Zi-ud-sura" is a lot more difficult to say than "Noah" during a oral telling (Noah would be easier to remember as well).

Which is more accurate? Does the fact that minor details change over the course of generations mean the story is less accurate? The big picture is still there. The causes of the flood are slightly different because of the different beliefs and diety systems.

Well, I actually wasn't trying to prove that they were accurate, especially compared to written records. I'm not advocating an illiterate society for a second. I was just trying to show that the date of the writing of the texts in no way reflects the origin of the story. Even if oral histories were accurate, you have a significant difference between the oral history of the Sumerians and that of the Israelites, so, assuming they reference the same events, somewhere along the way, something got distorted, and badly.

As for a global flood, there's no hard evidence for it, but neither is there any against it, and there is some evidence much more severe flooding than is commonly attributed to these areas. For example, with the exception of the face which was re-carved within recorded history, the Great Sphynx has three types of identifiable erosion marks on it's entire body. Wind/sand erosion is obviously explainable, and vertical water erosion is understandable by knowing that this region was not always desert, but there is also a rather substantial amount of horizontal water erosion indicative of submergence in a powerful flow of water. This erosion is found over the entire body of the Sphynx (except for the face), which suggests that at some point there was such a flood as to completely cover the Sphynx! Anyone know how high that is above sea level?

To carbon dating, I will say this, there is some geological evidence that, up until 10,000 years ago, there was a layer of water in 'orbit' in the upper-upper atmosphere. I believe this was in vaporous form, though I can't find the source at the moment. You may ask what this has to do with carbon dating. Well, carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere when CO2 rises to very high levels and meets cosmic radiation, which excites the carbon and creates carbon-14. Water, especially water vapor, is one of the best radiation blockers known to man (in fact, as much as 95% of the Greenhouse Effect is due to water vapor). So, if up to 10K years ago, there was a large amount of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, blocking much of the cosmic radiation before it could interact with carbon, that severely reduces the amount of carbon-14 in circulation. This means that life would start out with far less carbon-14 in it, thus making it appear much older if we assumed it had roughly current levels. We're not talking 20% here, but much more. Coincidentally, if you look at carbon dating, you will find a great gap from about 9K years old to much, much older, which can be explained by this change in carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, as T2Bruno pointed out, tree ring dating (and other forms of dating) cannot be used to corroberate carbon dating at these ages.

By the way, I didn't know that about tree rings and carbon dating. That was interesting.

NOG, current theories of the "horizontal water erosion" point to natural changes in the rock itself due to long term exposure to air. Also, the Nile floods did partially cover the Sphinx at various times in history. Given the Great Flood of the Bible occurred before Moses led the people of Isreal out of Egypt, I think the time line might be a bit off.

Carbon-14 is actually formed in a reaction where a neutron (which is a by product of cosmic radiation) interacts with a nitrogen-14 atom. The amount of nitrogen in the air is fairly constant, so the production of carbon-14 is fairly constant. The concentration of carbon-14 as compared to total carbon changes with things like volcanic eruptions and vast temperature variation in the world (which affects how much carbon dioxide is released by plant life). A 20% variation is fairly accurate given the quantities of these elements we are talking about.

Water is an excellent shield for neutron radiation. So it is possible high amounts of water could interfere with the production of carbon-14, but I've never heard of this water based ionosphere (or whatever it is). However, carbon-14 dating can also be calibrated by using cave deposits back ~40,000 years -- this is not as accurate as tree ring dating, but is still quite good. It should be noted that calibrating carbon-14 dating needs to be done with local resources -- different plants have different capabilities incorporating carbon-14 and the animals ingesting those plants can give readings much older than is reasonable if local resources are not used for calibration.

Another problem with carbon-14 dating I've seen is dating fossils from the sea. This is really not a valid procedure (but commonly done by those trying to discredit dating techniques), carbon dioxide diffuses through the ocean much slower than through the air and corresponding levels of carbon-14 are much lower (and give highly inaccurate results). Experts in the field all agree carbon-14 dating in unreliable in oceanic fossils.

On what grounds did you decide that Joseph Smith and the ancient bible writers were for real and not a bunch of loonies spouting crap?

It's called a leap of faith. AS I've studied it, it made more sense than anything else. As I followed the teachings, I found the promises coming true. Other things I hear (Scientology, Islam, Secularism) seem to be the loonies spouting crap that you allude to...

They claim something and their proof is that they claim it.

If something happens, and you are the only one that saw it, does this make it complete crap? No, it does not. Joseph Smith, like many of the ancient prophets in the Bible, were alone when they received their revelation. If you want to call them liars, that's your right, but be ready to eat crow if they were telling the truth...

All you've proven is that they aren't quite as inaccurate as they could be.

But you claim there to be inaccuracies in these traditions. Should we, by this logic, discount it because of this? If that's the case, you would have to give me 65 of 66 books of the bible because they were recorded. The Book of Mormon was a record of an ancient people, and the plates of Brass and translator stones were shown to 11 other specific people, who all signed off on it at the begining of the Book of Mormon. Unless, of course, there is more to add to skepticism.

I actually remember such claims being taught in Cultural Anthropology (in particular, the accuracy of verbal traditions among South American tribes). Most mythology and early accounts of history were oral. Eventually, those accounts got put in writing. Any inaccuracy would be in both accounts.

I've heard of this, but can't document it. But again, it's not perfect.

Remember, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible -- Genesis and part of Exodus were oral histories before then.

This is where faith comes in. It is faith that it was given as revelation so that Moses would have accurate information to record.

Of course, lack of evidence does not deter the faithful.

Faith, by definition, requires a lack of evidence.

I do not believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Jonah, or the story of Job to be true.

I heard somewhere that Sodom and Gamorah may have been under or on the coast of what is now the Black Sea. Scripture states that Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. This could account for the high salt content of the Black Sea.

How the heck can anyone know how accurate the non-written pre-recorded oral history of the Sumerians was? Even if one were to accept that people without written records placed a greater emphasis on the accuracy of oral history (that seems logical) it in no way means that the oral history is infallible.

So it can be counted on for the big things, like creation or the Flood, but the little details would be subject to scrutiny...

A few names were changes -- let's face it "Zi-ud-sura" is a lot more difficult to say than "Noah" during a oral telling

Remember too that there would be differences in language. Another mythical example would be the Greek hero Odysseus being refered to as Ulysses in the Roman records.

Okay Gnarff, so your basis of deciding which prophet/liar out of thousands is for real is that you have studied one of them. I should start studying the possibility of my local football team signing Messi if studying things make them true. Me, I would be scared ****less if I was religious. If I had accepted the existence of the divine and that it has an earthly representation I would always be worried that I had choosen wrongly. No matter what you choose the odds are heavily against you. Almost admire your courage Gnarf.

I heard somewhere that Sodom and Gamorah may have been under or on the coast of what is now the Black Sea. Scripture states that Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. This could account for the high salt content of the Black Sea.

Oh...my...God. Have you ever taken a science class in your life? Or geography? The Bible places the two cities near the Dead Sea, the Black Sea is the other side of Turkey. Perhaps Lot's wife was divinely teleported to the Great Salt Lake as a testiment the Mormon church was true -- that would explain the high salt content there as well.

Hundreds of tons of salt are mined from the Dead Sea every year -- she must have been enormous.

Well, T2B, they were known for horrible sins. I doubt gorging was the worst of them :D

I saw a National Geographic video on the Dead Sea, it was quite interesting. One of the things that it stated was that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Lot's wife element was that it was a SYMBOLIC explanation for the saltiness of the Dead Sea. I have no doubts that Lot's wife was destroyed, and for more than merely "looking back", which is another idiom/figure of speech for disobedience. I don't think Gnarff is saying that one woman @ 300 pounds (I'm assuming she was a big woman ;) ) could LITERALLY account for the salt level of the Dead Sea. The biblical record is a piece of LITERATURE, inspired though it is, and is full of idioms, figures of speech, symbols and word plays. Mormons are fully aware of that and a look at any of our literature demonstrates that. Mormons also believe that it requires divine inspiration to understand what is literal and what is not in all scripture. That belief in inspiration is a tough pill to swallow for people who rely wholly on science, but I want to make it clear that that belief does not preclude a respect for science.

For another quick example, I'll take the creation. No serious, intelligent, Mormon who I know (and I know quite a few, obviously) believes that the world was created in a 72 hour period (6 days). The Genesis story that says that is quite obviously saying (to anyone who has studied either Biblical language or rudimentary science) that it took a lot longer. The term "day" is symbolic and poetic. That said, all the scientific facts that we can see from our narrow perspective does not change my belief that God was the power that created the earth.

I find this scientific assessment of the Genesis creation story (http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp)to be quite fascinating.

The Bible places the two cities near the Dead Sea, the Black Sea is the other side of Turkey.

That was a brain fart. I meant the Dead Sea. That would make more sense than what I wrote. But there is an example right there of how taking someone's retelling of a story can let an inaccuracy into the story over numerous retellings...

Hundreds of tons of salt are mined from the Dead Sea every year -- she must have been enormous.

Perhaps the rest of the two cities were turned to salt as part of the destruction process--but the survivors survived because they didn't stick around to find out!

I should start studying the possibility of my local football team signing Messi if studying things make them true.

You've got it backwards. The church is not true because I studied it, but the church is true, and I learned this after prayer, study and experience. It would still be true even if I never joined it and didn't believe.

Me, I would be scared ****less if I was religious. If I had accepted the existence of the divine and that it has an earthly representation I would always be worried that I had choosen wrongly.

Again, that is the role of faith. You have to have faith in something, be it a divine power, human intellect or aliens. If your faith is justified, then you will find a personal confirmation of your beliefs.

No matter what you choose the odds are heavily against you. Almost admire your courage Gnarf.

I don't consider a continual state of spiritual paralysis because you are afraid of the consequences any kind of life. We all take a side, whether we believe it or not. You've made just as big a risk in denouncing faith in general as I have by affiliating with a religion and trying to follow it as best I can.

Rally: That's not far off on what I've been taught in Mormon circles. Before the Earth was formed, there was "matter unorganized". This could be the result of the Big Bang. From there, the Earth was organized as described in Genesis 1.

The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

How's that from a man who lived about 3000 to 3500 years ago? Could this give Moses some credibility?

My risk makes sense as I do not believe in hte possibility of any negative spiritual consequences of whatever faith I, you or anyone have. You belive in the fact that there are negative repercussions for people who have chosen the wrong faith.

I am sorry Gnarff, I am sure you are a great guy but truly religious people just completely baffles me. I can not see how rational people can believe in what pretty much amounts to fairy tales and base their entire lives around it. It perplexes and almost offends me as it seems to contradict the idea that man is in essence a rational being. For me all kinds of religions are equally loony so dont feel singled out and yes in my eyes it is equally naive, silly and yes, stupid to keep your faith in Santa Claus in an adult age as to belive in mormonism, catholicism, islam or whateverofaith.

But there is an example right there of how taking someone's retelling of a story can let an inaccuracy into the story over numerous retellings...
Which again raises the question of why you'd believe story A was copied from story B, as opposed to B being copied from A. And "because B is the word of God" isn't an answer.

You've got it backwards. The church is not true because I studied it, but the church is true, and I learned this after prayer, study and experience. It would still be true even if I never joined it and didn't believe.
Again, that is the role of faith. You have to have faith in something, be it a divine power, human intellect or aliens. If your faith is justified, then you will find a personal confirmation of your beliefs.
These 2 quotes of yours seem to contradict each other. In the first one you're trying to convince us that the church is true regardless of your (or anyone's) belief and, really, that you are right and we are wrong. In the second one you're talking about personal belief and faith. So, which one is it? All of your previous posts seem to point to the first one.

The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
How's that from a man who lived about 3000 to 3500 years ago? Could this give Moses some credibility?
Erm... I can't find this statement you quoted in this thread, and I'm a little unclear about whether it means cosmology/paleontology/etc match the history of the world, or if the Bible matches cosmology/etc. Because if it means the latter then sorry, but the statement is completely, utterly, incredibly erroneous, hence this entire argument we're having. If it means the former then I understand it to mean the science and the wo