Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:47:35 PM EDT
Starting fresh from a previous thread that has pretty much been beat to death. In the previous thread, some Mormons claimed that there was archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. Now, my personal opinion is that the BofM is a pretty fanciful tale that is impossible to connect to any real world events and places, even assuming some parts of it were true. My opinion is that none of it is really true and it is just the made up ramblings of some guy who, for his own reasons (sleeping with multiple wives, maybe?) wanted to start his own religion and, therefore, concocted a wild tale. I think any halfway objective reading of the tale would conclude that it is just a tale and the only real reason it persists with any significant numbers of believers is because there is a huge Mormon church that would literally fall apart if anyone admitted the obvious truth. I have an entirely amateur interest in archaeology and similar realms of study and I have never heard nor seen of any reputable person in any related field who thinks the Book of Mormon has any validity at all. If there is such a person, I have never run across them. But, with all due respect to the Mormon religion, there are Mormons on the board who claim that there is real archaeological evidence to support it, and that my opinion is just plain wrong. Could be, I guess. I admit that I am not a world-renowned expert on the subject. So, if there is evidence to support it, let's trot it out and have a look at it. I have been wrong before (once, about forty years ago or so) and it is just possible I am wrong again. If so, I would be just as interested to hear about as anyone else. So, I invite the Mormons, or any other interested person, to present the evidence on this thread. (But I won't hold my breath waiting, if you know what I mean.)
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 5:51:23 PM EDT
The Smithsonian has rejected the BoM as an archaelogical reference.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 5:57:01 PM EDT
Much more than I ever wanted to know about Mormons: [url]http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:08:05 PM EDT
The "Ancient Tablets" mysteriously disappeared along with the special glasses that enabled the reader " Joseph Smith" the ability to translate them. How convenient.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:12:08 PM EDT
WOW! A Mormon get his own planet? I gosta get me one of them! Maybe then I can get some class 3 rifles.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:31:21 PM EDT
Live and let live.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:38:38 PM EDT
The athanasian creed, as well as the apostles creed is more fanciful than the Book of Mormon.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:40:59 PM EDT
Ok, lets do this right the first time out. How about anyone who would like to bash anyone elses religion, first state what religion they are so we can pick thiers apart too. Sounds fair to me, I can't wait to see what religion you all are.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:43:12 PM EDT
Post from wolfman97 -
I admit that I am not a world-renowned expert on the subject.
View Quote
On precisely what subject are you a world-renowned expert? Droogs?
I have been wrong before (once, about forty years ago or so) and it is just possible I am wrong again.
View Quote
Yeah, we can all believe that! If it occurred only once, then it's a non-stop eternal event! Without beginning or end! Eric The(SortaLikeAPerpetualMotionMachineOfErrors)­Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:48:23 PM EDT
Post from SPECTE -
How about anyone who would like to bash anyone elses religion, first state what religion they are so we can pick theirs apart too.
View Quote
Sorry, [b]SPECTRE[/b], but [b]wolfman97[/b] is probably not a believer in anything larger than a breadbox or smaller than a bong. He's a non-believer, I suppose. Sorry, if I said anything on that other thread that you found offensive. I probably didn't emphasize my admiration sufficiently enough for how I know most LDS members live their lives. Eric The(Repentant)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:50:47 PM EDT
Eric: Do you believe that Mormons are Christians?
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:55:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:56:25 PM EDT
Sure, [b]Red_Beard[/b], they believe in [b]Jesus Christ[/b], do they not? Who am I to try and dispute that their belief in [b]Jesus Christ[/b] is sufficient to qualify them as Christians? If they do not admit the essential [u]divinity[/u] of [b]Jesus[/b], then they are simply the same as a few of the mainline Christian denominations. It's a pity, but I do not judge them for this. Eric The(AwaitingHisOwnJudgment)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:58:06 PM EDT
like most of you, i've thought all of the mormons i've met (except two) were great guys but how do you get that this is a "trolling" thread I think it's a pretty good question I've been reading a few books about Christianity that address similar questions. One is called "the case for Christ", which so far seems pretty good. Is there anything similar for the book of Mormon?
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:58:07 PM EDT
I wish my religion had a secret handshake.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:59:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Sure, [b]Red_Beard[/b], they believe in [b]Jesus Christ[/b], do they not?
View Quote
from what I can gather it seems to be a different Jesus Christ than the one I read about in the Bible
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:00:36 PM EDT
I probably didn't emphasize my admiration sufficiently enough for how I know most LDS members live their lives. Eric The(Repentant)Hun[>]:)][/quote] Copy that. I have yet to meet a Morman I didn't like or admire. I must admit they seem more self disiplined than I tend to be.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:03:57 PM EDT
Blah, blah, blah......you can ask for and receive any amount of "evidence" you want regarding ANY religion and there will still be people who will pick it apart. The one common thread that binds ALL religions together, no matter what they believe, is FAITH !!!! Because in the end, no matter how much PROOF is given to support ANY religion, it still comes down to.....Do you, or do you not, believe in a higher power that you can never see, feel or touch and cannot PROVE to anyone that this deity ACTUALLY EXISTS !! So hey wolfy......what religion are you ???
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:04:04 PM EDT
Well, [b]Red Beard[/b], I am a member of a very fundamentalist group of Christians and I'm not certain that my apprehension of the nature of Christ is the same as those in the United Methodist Church, or any of the other mainline Protestant churches. You know, the ones shrinking in numbers, as the numbers of fundamentalists and ecumenicals rise and rise and rise! So, I will not fault them, and will leave it up to the Righteous Judge to determine His own. Eric The(Believing)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:11:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:26:43 PM EDT
A speaker came to my university a few quarters back, to lecture about genetic research related to the Book of Mormon (something to do with Native Americans being long-lost Israelites or something to that effect). He found there was no evidence to suggest that was the case. The church heirarchy back in SLC was considering ex-communicating him.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:28:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Blah, blah, blah......you can ask for and receive any amount of "evidence" you want regarding ANY religion and there will still be people who will pick it apart. The one common thread that binds ALL religions together, no matter what they believe, is FAITH !!!! Because in the end, no matter how much PROOF is given to support ANY religion, it still comes down to.....Do you, or do you not, believe in a higher power that you can never see, feel or touch and cannot PROVE to anyone that this deity ACTUALLY EXISTS !! So hey wolfy......what religion are you ???
View Quote
Delicately put [:D] I do somewhat agree though, none of us can prove for a fact that we are right. I respect most of the Mormons I've met, seem nice folks. (My earlier "Planet" post was just poking a little fun)
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 7:33:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2003 7:35:02 PM EDT by Red_Beard]
i guess the post comes across as arrogant, but hardly "trolling" I don't see how you can pose these sorts of questions, of any religion, without implying that "your religion is a bunch of crap but go ahead and prove me wrong you dope" as for the business about the use of the word "Christian" ... When someone says "this is Christianity" they're saying "this is how to follow and live by the teachings of Jesus Christ". If two sources make that claim, but contradict each other in what they say those teachings are, then one must be wrong. people not interested in bible quotes can skip the rest of this . . . Paul says: "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." i.e. look at things written by men, and determine whether or not they jive with God's word I don't see how you can do that without offending some people, so I don't consider it trolling
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 8:01:04 PM EDT
The BoM has the benefit of being a recent work of fiction and therefore, much like Scientology, has more current and plausible bullshit. The older religions needs to be revised or "interpreted" to try and keep up with current science.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 8:06:25 PM EDT
Clearly there's no reputable support for the BoM and Smith's golden tablets along with his magical rock glasses were conveniently lost, but that doesn't make Mormonism any more fanciful and far-fetched than any other Christian religion. Mormons are a little wacky, but so are many fundamentalist Christians. That doesn't make 'em bad people.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 8:17:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: The BoM has the benefit of being a recent work of fiction and therefore, much like Scientology, has more current and plausible bullshit. The older religions needs to be revised or "interpreted" to try and keep up with current science.
View Quote
As the character of Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in the John Ford classic Western, The Searchers, said, 'That'll be the day.' Why in the world would any religion need to be revised, reinterpreted, or try to keep up with science? This is not some game or contest to see which religion most faithfully reflects current scientific understanding. The moral principles laid down by [b]Jesus Christ[/b] almost 2,000 years ago, have yet to be improved upon by anyone. As would befit the teachings of the Son of God. Want to compare scientific understanding from 2,000 years ago to scientific understanding today? Eric The(IThoughtNot!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 9:23:38 PM EDT
There is a book called "Kingdom of the Cults" which can be found at your local Bible store. By, I believe, Walter Martin. Very interesting, but not for Unitarians....
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 10:33:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: The BoM has the benefit of being a recent work of fiction and therefore, much like Scientology, has more current and plausible bullshit. The older religions needs to be revised or "interpreted" to try and keep up with current science.
View Quote
As the character of Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in the John Ford classic Western, The Searchers, said, 'That'll be the day.' Why in the world would any religion need to be revised, reinterpreted, or try to keep up with science? This is not some game or contest to see which religion most faithfully reflects current scientific understanding. The moral principles laid down by [b]Jesus Christ[/b] almost 2,000 years ago, have yet to be improved upon by anyone. As would befit the teachings of the Son of God. Want to compare scientific understanding from 2,000 years ago to scientific understanding today? Eric The(IThoughtNot!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Lordy... Are you actually suggesting some religions have NOT evolved over the years to keep up with Science? Earth was flat ring a bell? How about the Earth is the center of the universe? As for Science (proven facts), what was science 2,000 years ago is true today. Now there were scientific "theories" aka "best guesses based upon the evidence of the time (not to mention limitations imposed by the Church - Galileo anyone?)" that turned out to be in error. It is also likely that current "theories" will be proven to be in error. But those are not the same as scientific FACTS.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 10:44:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: The BoM has the benefit of being a recent work of fiction and therefore, much like Scientology, has more current and plausible bullshit. The older religions needs to be revised or "interpreted" to try and keep up with current science.
View Quote
ditto that
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 11:20:29 PM EDT
actually I remember a post on here not too long ago, about a tablet found at a native american site inscribed in hebrew with the characters for the word "masada" on it. This fits with stuff in the book of mormon I think (I wouldnt know, I'm a Catholic)
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 11:41:06 PM EDT
ETH, I think the point (not well made) of the thread is the lack of [b][red]any[/b][/red] archaeological evidence relating to the BofM, as opposed to the Bible. The Old Testament speaks of the Egyptians having Hebrew slaves under Ramses. Archaeologists have found inscriptions on monuments from Ramses' time that talk about having Hebrew slaves. The recent James osuary with the Aramaic inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. That's my take on it. As for Mormons being good people, that's undisputed. TS
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 12:16:52 AM EDT
Why do people mess up a good thread with personal beliefs? Because they are idiots. Way to go.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 12:35:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: The moral principles laid down by [b]Jesus Christ[/b] almost 2,000 years ago, have yet to be improved upon by anyone.
View Quote
lets not forget that most (not all) of them were not original, other faiths had pretty similar rules already in place. It's not like humanity was a big pile of anarchy that Jesus suddenly ended.
Want to compare scientific understanding from 2,000 years ago to scientific understanding today?
View Quote
I'm interested in where you are going with that one. Are you hinting that science of 2000 years ago was more advanced than it is today?
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 2:57:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By prk: There is a book called "Kingdom of the Cults" which can be found at your local Bible store. By, I believe, Walter Martin. Very interesting, but not for Unitarians....
View Quote
Walter R. Martin was an idiot who held a shotgun to his first wifes head. It says that right in the divorce decree.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 3:50:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: The BoM has the benefit of being a recent work of fiction and therefore, much like Scientology, has more current and plausible bullshit. The older religions needs to be revised or "interpreted" to try and keep up with current science.
View Quote
As the character of Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in the John Ford classic Western, The Searchers, said, 'That'll be the day.' Why in the world would any religion need to be revised, reinterpreted, or try to keep up with science? This is not some game or contest to see which religion most faithfully reflects current scientific understanding. The moral principles laid down by [b]Jesus Christ[/b] almost 2,000 years ago, have yet to be improved upon by anyone. As would befit the teachings of the Son of God. Want to compare scientific understanding from 2,000 years ago to scientific understanding today? Eric The(IThoughtNot!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Lordy... Are you actually suggesting some religions have NOT evolved over the years to keep up with Science? Earth was flat ring a bell? How about the Earth is the center of the universe? As for Science (proven facts), what was science 2,000 years ago is true today. Now there were scientific "theories" aka "best guesses based upon the evidence of the time (not to mention limitations imposed by the Church - Galileo anyone?)" that turned out to be in error. It is also likely that current "theories" will be proven to be in error. But those are not the same as scientific FACTS.
View Quote
I agree with Eric and yes (concerning the BIBLE) it has not "evolved" over the years. Understand that many of the things you state like the flat earth theory are ideas of men. Where does or ever has the bible said this? The bible makes no mentions of this nor does it mention if the "earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth". The [b]REAL PROBLEM[/b] is when people make statements about things which the bible has not stated. These are the ideas of [b]MEN[/b] not biblical ideas but the ideas of men. Its when people inject their [b]OWN[/b] ideas things become distorted.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:11:03 AM EDT
Post from SteyrAUG -
Lordy...
View Quote
[b]SteyrAUG![/b] I had no idea you were a religious fellow! [:D]
Are you actually suggesting some religions have NOT evolved over the years to keep up with Science?
View Quote
First off, I have no expertise in anything that relates to any religions [u]other[/u] than Judaism and Christianity. Second, I know of nothing in either Judaism or Christianity that is a substantial matter of faith that has changed in the last, say, four millennia.
Earth was flat ring a bell? How about the Earth is the center of the universe?
View Quote
Neither incorrect belief is formulated in the Old or New Testament, but were commonly held views among [u]all[/u] the peoples in the world. What is uniquely 'Jewish' or 'Christian' about either of those beliefs? Nothing. They were just common misconceptions that were held jointly by all peoples until, well, beginning around the Sixth Century BC in Greece and Egypt, an inkling of a contrary idea arose.
As for Science (proven facts), what was science 2,000 years ago is true today.
View Quote
Are you saying that what the 'scientific folks' [u]thought[/u] two thousand years ago, is still true today? What does your doctor say about your 'black bile' count, when you go to see him? Does he inspect your 'humours'? Get 'bled' often, lately, to release the bad humours? Had your 'phlegm' examined? And even the great Aristarchus of Samo thought that the Sun was only 18-20 times the distance from the Earth as the Moon was! (Try approximately 324 times the distance!)
Now there were scientific "theories" aka "best guesses based upon the evidence of the time (not to mention limitations imposed by the Church - Galileo anyone?)" that turned out to be in error.
View Quote
Oops, you said the magic word, 'Galileo'! Now, my well-read friend, tell us of Galileo's miserable treatment at the hands of the Catholic Church! Was he burned at the stake? Beheaded? What? How about confined in his small palace, under house arrest, but with no guards? With all of his scientific books, writings and instruments left with him! I doubt he felt constrained at all! But I know how you must still 'feel his pain' after all these years!
It is also likely that current "theories" will be proven to be in error. But those are not the same as scientific FACTS.
View Quote
Well, a scientific 'fact' is still a fact, even if it is unknown to current or ancient scientists. Now, explain to our audience what great strides in human understanding, in ethics, and in morality, have occurred that make the Teachings of [b]Jesus Christ[/b] as outdated as those nostrums found in Galen's medical treatises? Blood letting (a Galen favorite) anyone? Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:16:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi: The [b]REAL PROBLEM[/b] is when people make statements about things which the bible has not stated. These are the ideas of [b]MEN[/b] not biblical ideas but the ideas of men.
View Quote
Remind me again who wrote the bible?
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:17:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2003 6:19:36 AM EDT by Grock]
Please excuse the topic drift, but the science presented in the Bible is still today without refute, and has not been "adjusted". Reference the following for a thorough review of the facts: [url]http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml?main# [/url]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:22:20 AM EDT
Post from NoVaGator -
Remind me again who wrote the bible?
View Quote
Who wants to know? [:D] It's pretty self-explanatory. The author's name usually appear in the title of their work. Who wrote the Bible? Righteous men under the direction of the Holy Spirit! That is sufficient enough for me. I see you likely differ. Fine. Eric The(Humble,Lowly)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:23:44 AM EDT
Wolfman, I was hoping to gain some knowledge from this thread. So far, I have learned: The opinion of some is that you like the bong; Nobody here can / is willing to answer your question directly. Two pages of lack of answers. Bummer
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:35:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2003 6:55:25 AM EDT by atomicferret]
It is the opinion of some that the BoM is a work of fiction, well, It is my opinion that this Book is completely true. Its' words were written by prophets, just like the bible was written by prophets. As for archeolgical evidence, The LDS church has never claimed that the BoM is a archeological guide. It is a book of scripture. Many people also criticize the beginnings of the LDS church (what with the boy who say God the Father and Jesus Christ, the gold plates, "magic rock glasses", and so on). But think about some of the things you accept in the bible: a man who could divide water, men who were thrown into a fiery furnace and were not burned, a Man who turned water into wine, and probably most remarkably, a Man who died and then came back to life 3 days later. If anything religions stay the same, it is science that changes.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:58:39 AM EDT
Post from Sumo2000 -
lets not forget that most (not all) of them were not original, other faiths had pretty similar rules already in place. It's not like humanity was a big pile of anarchy that Jesus suddenly ended.
View Quote
Oh, but it was, my friend. Please tell us the 'un-original' thoughts of Jesus, if you will. And then tell us the criteria that YOU used to determine whether the 'rules' predated Jesus or not. Should be easy, eh?
I'm interested in where you are going with that one. Are you hinting that science of 2000 years ago was more advanced than it is today?
View Quote
Yeah, right. Eric The(Zounds!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 7:07:23 AM EDT
somethings got to be said about the Federal goverment declaring war on the Mormons Back in the 1830's My church has a network and a supply chain and a milita . We are prepaired to defend our faith and our own. You couldnt get three members of most churches together long enought to learn your name , much less step in with out question to help a fellow member. Dont try to understand its a mormon thing MONGO
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 7:39:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Originally Posted By misterhemi: The [b]REAL PROBLEM[/b] is when people make statements about things which the bible has not stated. These are the ideas of [b]MEN[/b] not biblical ideas but the ideas of men.
View Quote
Remind me again who wrote the bible?
View Quote
The Council of Trent
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:04:24 AM EDT
Post from RockRidge -
Dont try to understand its a mormon thing
View Quote
Yeah, so was the Mountain Meadows Massacre. And the hands of the Prophet were blood red, and his fingerptints all over this outrage. Look it up. Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:19:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from NoVaGator -
Remind me again who wrote the bible?
View Quote
Who wants to know? [:D] It's pretty self-explanatory. The author's name usually appear in the title of their work. Who wrote the Bible? Righteous men under the direction of the Holy Spirit! That is sufficient enough for me. I see you likely differ. Fine. Eric The(Humble,Lowly)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Which version of the bible to you "prefer" ETH?
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:25:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi: I agree with Eric and yes (concerning the BIBLE) it has not "evolved" over the years. Understand that many of the things you state like the flat earth theory are ideas of men. Where does or ever has the bible said this? The bible makes no mentions of this nor does it mention if the "earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth". The [b]REAL PROBLEM[/b] is when people make statements about things which the bible has not stated. These are the ideas of [b]MEN[/b] not biblical ideas but the ideas of men. Its when people inject their [b]OWN[/b] ideas things become distorted.
View Quote
So it is your assertion that the Old Testament of the King James Bible are the complete uneditted text of the original scrolls from which they were drawn? Are you saying that the current King James Bible is exactly like the version first offered by the "new" Church of England and that it in no way differed from that of the Greek Orthodox? And no you are correct the Bible doesn't say the Earth was flat, the Church said that. And the Church's view on things (ie Religion) changes time and time again. See the Church is forced to "interpret" the Bible because the Bible is painfully vague on details and frequently contradictory.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:35:52 AM EDT
Guys, this is the only post for me on this topic. I have read responses on two separate discussions, both appear to me to inflame and bash a religion, not ask legitimate questions. I have read good comments on Mormons and outrageous comments on Mormons. At least two other discussions were started by spectre on the GD board, both in reference to the topic "what's up with Mormons are they whacko?", or something to that effect. Reposes to Spectres post included, "What's a matter, are your sacred panties in a knot?" Spectre correct me if I am wrong, but the purpose of these post was to illustrate the stupidity of asking an inflaming question about a person religion. Everyone here think about this, if I slammed your church and called you a whacko or cultist or heathen, you would be pissed and attack me. Those who do not believe in God or a higher power, if I called you a sinner and told you that you were going to hell, you would attack me back and say those are my beliefs and that you are doing just fine. You know what, belive in God or don't believe in God. Believe in Christ don't believe in Christ, whether you are a Fundamentalist, Catholic, Methodist, Jew, Dance with snakes, or don't believe anything, that's fine that's your right as guaranteed by the constitution. Why are we bashing each others religion on a board that we come to to learn about the AR15. You know what, you want to learn about each others religion, go to your neighbors or their church leaders. Why would you want to learn about a persons belief from a board that has members located around the world. Sean(I am a convert to the LDS faith, but do not care how you worship)Vanover
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:42:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from SteyrAUG - [i]Earth was flat ring a bell? How about the Earth is the center of the universe?[/i] Neither incorrect belief is formulated in the Old or New Testament, but were commonly held views among [u]all[/u] the peoples in the world. What is uniquely 'Jewish' or 'Christian' about either of those beliefs? Nothing. They were just common misconceptions that were held jointly by all peoples until, well, beginning around the Sixth Century BC in Greece and Egypt, an inkling of a contrary idea arose.
View Quote
Actually it was the ancient Greeks who observed the curved shadow on the Moon and deduced the Earth was round LONG before the Church (which served as the basis for disemination of information in ancient times) recognized that fact.
What does your doctor say about your 'black bile' count, when you go to see him? Does he inspect your 'humours'? Get 'bled' often, lately, to release the bad humours? Had your 'phlegm' examined?
View Quote
Ahhh but those are medical practices and more important those are medical practices based upon scientific "theories" and not upon science (known facts). That is the wonderful thing about science, it is ONLY science if it is proven to be a fact. And "theories" that are proven to be incorrect are discarded. This is because Science is a search for truth. Incidentially, if the day comes that your religious beliefs are "proven" as FACT they too would become "science." I just don't think it's gonna happen.
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Oops, you said the magic word, 'Galileo'! Now, my well-read friend, tell us of Galileo's miserable treatment at the hands of the Catholic Church! Was he burned at the stake? Beheaded? What? How about confined in his small palace, under house arrest, but with no guards? With all of his scientific books, writings and instruments left with him!
View Quote
No he fared better than most under the Inquisition. But I will tell you what DID happen to him. He was officially discretited by the Church. He was forced to renounce what he KNEW was true and as a result Man was deprived of knowledge and understanding. This is about the worst thing you can do to a man who just made a dramatic discovery that justified his lifes work. And more importnatly than what was done was WHY it was done. It was done to protect the image of the Church (ie religion). Just as when someone questions religion today many people feel the need to discredit them at any costs. The rest of the world doesn't mind that you may or may not accept modern science. We don't even mind if you hold ancient beliefs and most of us will defend your right to believe whatever. But isn't it funny how the reverse is often not true. The entire Middle East is at war because group A wants to force their ancient voodoo on Group B. And Group B simply doesn't want to be left alone, they want to force their ancient voodoo on Group A.
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I doubt he felt constrained at all! But I know how you must still 'feel his pain' after all these years!
View Quote
What a statement. A mans life work, one of the most important discoveries of his time, and he is forced to recant it and renounce his work by the Church. Yeah I can't see how that would have bothered him a bit. But to give you some pespective, what if the same thing had been done to Paul? Would that have been ok?
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now, explain to our audience what great strides in human understanding, in ethics, and in morality, have occurred that make the Teachings of [b]Jesus Christ[/b] as outdated as those nostrums found in Galen's medical treatises? Blood letting (a Galen favorite) anyone? Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Well I never cited your religion specifically did I?
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:44:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FAL_762: Wolfman, I was hoping to gain some knowledge from this thread. So far, I have learned: The opinion of some is that you like the bong; Nobody here can / is willing to answer your question directly. Two pages of lack of answers. Bummer
View Quote
Yeah, that's pretty much what I got, too. Just to summarize some answers to questions: 1) I am (for lack of a better term) "agnostic" on the subject of religion. Not that this really matters, because I recognize that all major religions have certain common elements which are clearly good for society (the "golden rule" for one). Also, my beliefs don't have much to do with the question. I am a skeptic on the Bible too, but I still recognize that there is hard evidence to support some of the events. 2) Someone said before on an earlier thread that there is archaeological evidence to support the BoM. I have also been told by Mormons themselves that belief in the book is essential to their religion. 3) While I may not be a devout believer in either the Bible or the BoM, I do recognize that there is archaeological evidence which supports various parts of the Bible. (Although, I understand -- contrary to what someone else said -- that there is NO evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt and NO evidence of wandering 40 years in the Sinai. Other things in the Bible can definitely be confirmed by archaeology, but the events of the Exodus cannot.) 4) My interest was a scholarly one. Yes, I am definitely a skeptic on the issue -- because I read some parts of the Book of Mormon and I don't see how archaelogical evidence could confirm it (as opposed to the Bible). But, there is always the opportunity to learn something new and I genuinely am interested in learning what (if any) archaeological support there might be for the BoM. 5) Mormons can believe whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. My main feeling with religion is that you can believe whatever suits you as long as you aren't trying to impose it on others. I have known a number of Mormons in my life. They were good people generally, maybe better than me in some cases, although their mode of life struck me as somewhat limiting, but that's their business if they want to live that way. While they would have definitely been pleased to convert me, I never got the impression that they were trying to force it on me personally, as some other religions have tried. In terms of lawmaking and lobbying legislators, it is something of a different matter. In that arena, I think the firmly religious types should take greater care not to force their beliefs on others -- but none of that is really relevant to the question I asked. 6) No, I don't like bongs. I don't even have one left over from my college days (where I didn't own one, either). and, finally, No, I never expected an intelligent response from ErictheHun. Name-calling and obscenities, yes, an intelligent response with real discussion -- no. Now, does anyone have any real information on the original question, or are you all just going to rant?
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 8:48:45 AM EDT
No. Archaeological evidence does not support the BOM.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top