"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: > >This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of > >Mormon > >deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a > >result > >of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the > >scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's > >understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the > >assumptions > >we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan > >said is > >precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of > >Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a "Signaturi" > >because > >you don't understand how to read scripture. > > I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on > this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to > suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because > one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the > Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. No it's not. You have this wrong, John. > Forced > to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to > straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in > scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it > doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated. > > It actually reminds me of the arguments of the atheists that I grew up > with. Because of this or that it isn't necessary for there to be a > God. Well... what does necessary have to do with it anyway? If it is > real, if it happened, then necessity has nothing to do with it. > I'm sorry if you've interpreted your background this way, but it's not necessary. You're forcing a false dichotomy on people which is not only not necessary, but presents a barrier to a deeper understanding of the scriptures. > > Now I now that there are a lot of blanks that we do not know how to fill > today. Many of them are not going to be filled until the Second > Coming. But I don't think we need to fill those blanks by denying the > miracles of God. And yes, I think that suggesting that God did not part > the Red Sea because "it isn't necessary" as long as the true message is > communicated, is trying to force the miraculous, the divine, into a > scientific mold. To say that something is not so because it isn't > necessary, is bad logic in the first place. Lot's of things are so even > though they are not necessary. It wasn't necessary for me to eat a big > pizza yesterday, but I did. > "Miracles" are all done according to natural law, it's just that we don't understand how they were done. We are not like Protestants -- we do not believe God is a supernatural magician. > > There are those who want to deny the reality of the miracles reported in > the Old and New Testaments. Some of them try to brush off the miracle by > saying that it never happened, that it is just a figure of speech or an > allegory. They point out all the symbolism that is in the > scriptures. Fine. There is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I > wouldn't have it any other way. But to deny miracles by assuming the > record to be symbolism rather than literal, is a cop out, in my > opinion. Such a person ought to just admit they don't have enough faith to > believe the miracles reported in the scriptures. > > John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Plenty of materials have been suggested for your consideration. I have yet to see any indication that you are inclined to consider them. That is, of course, your business, but your forced false dichotomies are stumbling blocks I believe you will have to learn to overcome. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland “The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we don’t want a world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ${list_promo}
