Re: descendans bovine etc.
Robin Mandell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:31:21 -0600
>>Let me assure you that my 'locking in' was not done by whimsy. I have
>>studied this area for almost 30 years looking for solutions. The problem I
>>have is that we apply one standard of truth to the real world and another
>>to religion. Cases in point. No one would say that the Ptolemaic system is
>>scientifically false, but communicated the truths that Ptolemy wanted to
>>deliver to us. No one would say that panspermia (the genetic inheritance
>>theory that Darwin believed in) was scientifically false, but it told us
>>great truths of the biological realm. No one would say that the ether (the
>>stuff through which light was supposed to travel) is scientifically false,
>>but presents a beautiful picture of light's relationship with the universe.
>>But, in religion we will gladly say The first chapters of Genesis are
>>historically false, but they present beautiful truths of Gods relationship
>>Now, the obvious out is to say that religion is a different realm of
>>knowledge than science and the rules are different. But this can be shown
>>to be a very weak argument and position because it leaves us without any
>>basis to criticize other religions. We Christians are told to be consistent
>>in the way we judge things. By the standard we judge we will be judged
>>(Matt. 7). A case in point:
>>I have criticized the Book of Mormon for the following fallacies--
>>It has horses in the New World prior to Columbus--no evidence for that
>>It has chariots in the New World when the Americans didn't invent the wheel
>>It attempts to sound like King James English when it was writen 300 years
>>It says Jews were in the New World when there is no evidence of them.
>>I can with consistency criticize the Book of Mormon because I hold the
>>Bible to the very same standard--it must match history.
>>But if you take the other approach and hold that TRUTHS are all that is
>>needed you can't criticize the Book of Mormon and remain consistent.
>>If you believe that the Bible can be non-historical but TRUE, then you must
>>(by consistency) extend that courtesy to other books of religion. By that
>>rule, the Book of Mormon, can be non-historical (no horses) but still be a
>>true revelation of God. This leaves one with no criteria by which to say
>>another religion is false. The Mormon can say that the chariots were
>>images of God carrying us through our troubles and the horses were the
>>angels that cared for us. Bingo! The Book of Mormon is TRUE, even though it
>>is historically false.
>>Is this the standard of truth we wish to live by? I don't. I'll go be an
>>atheist before I live by that kind of standard.
>>For those who would respond to this, I have a question. WHAT FACT WOULD
>>CONVINCE YOU THAT THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE? Don't get me wrong, I do believe
>>the Bible is true, but it must be true in a REAL sense, not a trivial sense
>>in which anything it says is true regardless of what it is. Mao Tse Dong
>>was never wrong. Every thing he said was TRUE. Stalin was never wrong;
>>everything he said was TRUE. But they were correct ONLY in the most
>>trivial of manners. If there is no fact that would convince one that the
>>Bible is not true, then they have an unassailable faith. A faith everybit
>>as unassailable as the faith of Mao's and Stalin's sycophants. But it is
>>also a faith that can't be tested. Nothing could possibly be false.
This is a question, not meant as a rebuttal to your very formidable reply
but rather to help me.If the Book of Mormon was historicaly unassailable
yet made spiritual assertions that differed from the Bible which does have
some tough areas historically( I mean having to postulate
a 5 million year spread in a genealogy is a tough area) would you then go
with the better history and move to Utah?the hypothetical weakness here is
clear but do you get what I am wondering? >>