The belief system that's conquering the world

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've never said I read anything I didn't read. Show me the post where you claim I did. It is true that I have commented on some works that I haven't read such as Bushman's book and American Religion (I have read parts of it). I never claimed to have read either of them any more than I did. I have been very candid about what I have read and not read. Shame on you.

No, but you have commented upon a book through merely reading a summary, which is in and of itself weird.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, but you have commented upon a book through merely reading a summary, which is in and of itself weird.

I never said any book I didn't read is a good book or a bad book. I touched on what I understood was covered in a book while discussing the subject matter in a larger context, not passing judgment on the book per se. I said, for example, that Bushman is indebted to Fawn Brodie's groundbreaking research, that he purports to give a balanced view and in contrast to Brodie does not purport to reach a conclusion about the truth or falsity of Joseph's stories or his motives. Are these points in dispute? It certainly is fair game to obtain this much from a review and comment upon it in a larger context.

In contrast, many here, including Waters and yourself, have condemned Brodie's book as a bad book while never having read it.

I have read a lot of what Harold Bloom has said about Mormonism in American Religion and his other works. I have demmonstrated here, I submit, a better understanding of Harold Bloom's views on Mormonism than anyone here, inclduing Waters.

We all have to budget and allocate time devoted to reading. Some subjects are intresting but do not merit a multi-hundred page treatment. That is a value judgment that is unique to each one of us. I am not compelled to read the latest tome on Joseph Smith's life, though he does hold a certain level of interest for me. I think I get Joseph Smith and have gotten him for a long time. There are other subjects to tackle that facinate and may in an indirect way even shed light on Joseph Smith, though that is not my mission in reading these works.

Mormons would do well not to be so chuvenistic in their world outlook and their confused perception of the trinity is a good example. Perhaps a book on that subject would be in order for the book club.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I never said any book I didn't read is a good book or a bad book. I touched on what I understood was covered in a book while discussing the subject matter in a larger context, not passing judgment on the book per se. I said, for example, that Bushman is indebted to Fawn Brodie's groundbreaking research, that he purports to give a balanced view and in contrast to Brodie does not purport to reach a conclusion about the truth or falsity of Joseph's stories or his motives. Are these points in dispute? It certainly is fair game to obtain this much from a review and comment upon it in a larger context.

In contrast, many here, including Waters and yourself, have condemned Brodie's book as a bad book while never having read it.

I have read a lot of what Harold Bloom has said about Mormonism in American Religion and his other works. I have demmonstrated here, I submit, a better understanding of Harold Bloom's views on Mormonism than anyone here, inclduing Waters.

We all have to budget and allocate time devoted to reading. Some subjects are intresting but do not merit a multi-hundred page treatment. That is a value judgment that is unique to each one of us. I am not compelled to read the latest tome on Joseph Smith's life, though he does hold a certain level of interest for me. I think I get Joseph Smith and have gotten him for a long time. There are other subjects to tackle that facinate and may in an indirect way even shed light on Joseph Smith, though that is not my mission in reading these works.

Mormons would do well not to be so chuvenistic in their world outlook and their confused perception of the trinity is a good example. Perhaps a book on that subject would be in order for the book club.

I have read parts, but her fanciful story telling just leaves me laughing that I never finish, not that I haven't read the last page, as I usually read the last page after I read a first page. One of these days I'll trudge through the whole thing. I just need to take some meds to get through it.

SIEQ just suggested a fantastic one, with the Arius, Athanasius and Eusebius debates taking center stage.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have read parts, but her fanciful story telling just leaves me laughing that I never finish, not that I haven't read the last page, as I usually read the last page after I read a first page. One of these days I'll trudge through the whole thing. I just need to take some meds to get through it.

SIEQ just suggested a fantastic one, with the Arius, Athanasius and Eusebius debates taking center stage.

I saw that. The one I read called When Jesus Became God is also very good.

[Archaea]

BTW, the Rusch book cost me $2.88.

It really broke the bank. I also bought this work for 2.08.

The Christological Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought) Richard Alfred Norris

Shipping was more expensive that the two works.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The idea that everyone believed in God before modern science is ridiculous.

Shame on you SU.

You know, this post, while silly on its face, is kind of provocative the more you think about it. Of course everyone assumes what that New Yorker article states--that the illiterate masses of the Middle Ages, and probably all the clergy except maybe an anonymous monk or two laboring over copying and secreting away Epicurus and Democrates, believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

Here's what's provocative: Is it even possible to not believe in God and not know there is such a thing as science (the systematic and reason/empirical based study of the material world)? This is hard for me even to fathom--someone who does not know what science is and does not believe in God. I suppose it's possible that someone could conclude there is no God just form all the suffering, injustice and wickedness. But to decide all the world and the universe came to be from random happenstance and was in no wise created or organized you really need Epicurus, Democrates or Darwin.

Waters' claim is particularly strange coming form a guy who claims to believe we are all hard wired to be religious.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You know, this post, while silly on its face, is kind of provocative the more you think about it. Of course everyone assumes what that New Yorker article states--that the illiterate masses of the Middle Ages, and probably all the clergy except maybe an anonymous monk or two laboring over copying and secreting away Epicurus and Democrates, believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

Here's what's provocative: Is it even possible to not believe in God and not know there is such a thing as science (the systematic and reason/empirical based study of the material world)? This is hard for me even to fathom--someone who does not know what science is and does not believe in God. I suppose it's possible that someone could conclude there is no God just form all the suffering, injustice and wickedness. But to decide all the world and the universe came to be from random happenstance and was in no wise created or organized you really need Epicurus, Democrates or Darwin.

Waters' claim is particularly strange coming form a guy who claims to believe we are all hard wired to be religious.

Start from the Darwinian proposition and I can see whole communities not attributing anything to Deity, not even forming a belief system based on any deity.

Most agrarian, pre-industrial societies appear to posit religious belief, but I can imagine a hunter society not positing that.