Search not the Book of Mormon for truly great allegory.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wherein did I say I was defending SU? I did not.

I hate that excerpt as it's so oversimplified, it makes him look stupid. Marcion re-wrote scripture?

Give a f..ing break. Robison should stop writing if that is the quality of his thought.

So much happened but if it can be distilled in two or three sentences then believers are relieved.

I do not agree that Greek philosophies created falsities. If falsities arose, it was through the intermingling of many ideas. And although one might argue how Augustine intermingled philosophical traditions with religious thought, it was an effort at reconciliation. Gnostics in unspeakables? What the hell does he seek to imply?

He's trying to scare believers into rejecting and probably not to look at it, because it's "all dark and deathly."

Bring it to light and let's really look at what happened. Don't create some shitty recipe for ignorance.

I'm not defending the scholarly value of Robinson's article from an academic perspective. It's a good alternative to the "great and abonimable church of the devil" = Catholic church group. Robinson teaches in a flamboyant, borderline exaggerating style (as many teachers do) and it comes through in some of his language in this article. "rewrote" "boldly chopping" "dethroned God" etc.

You're entitled to your opinion of the article but all he's doing in my opinion is to say that some scripture was altered in the 50 - 150 AD time period and the culprit for church of the devil is not any one entity, it was the various schools of thought during that time period sans revelation--basically men thinking as men without the Holy Ghost or priesthood of God.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm not defending the scholarly value of Robinson's article from an academic perspective. It's a good alternative to the "great and abonimable church of the devil" = Catholic church group. Robinson teaches in a flamboyant, borderline exaggerating style (as many teachers do) and it comes through in some of his language in this article. "rewrote" "boldly chopping" "dethroned God" etc.

You're entitled to your opinion of the article but all he's doing in my opinion is to say that some scripture was altered in the 50 - 150 AD time period and the culprit for church of the devil is not any one entity, it was the various schools of thought during that time period sans revelation--basically men thinking as men without the Holy Ghost or priesthood of God.

Well there are scholarly articles that discuss how scripture became scripture, how orthodox church scholars altered scripture through inattention, through negligence and through personal interpretations that may have erred. If he had said that, he'd be on more solid ground, but that's not what he wrote. Bart D. Ehrman has several books, both scholarly and non-scholarly, but he would never write it in such flamboyant and misleading style.

If one wishes to speak in an apologia, do not create a false sense of academia by throwing around ancient scholars or theologians and dismiss them in such a shoddy or negligent fashion. Very independent scholarship exists, and these men and women are doing their level best, to present it in a legitimate fashion. Many of the ancient theologians were also doing their best at the time.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well there are scholarly articles that discuss how scripture became scripture, how orthodox church scholars altered scripture through inattention, through negligence and through personal interpretations that may have erred. If he had said that, he'd be on more solid ground, but that's not what he wrote. Bart D. Ehrman has several books, both scholarly and non-scholarly, but he would never write it in such flamboyant and misleading style.

If one wishes to speak in an apologia, do not create a false sense of academia by throwing around ancient scholars or theologians and dismiss them in such a shoddy or negligent fashion. Very independent scholarship exists, and these men and women are doing their level best, to present it in a legitimate fashion. Many of the ancient theologians were also doing their best at the time.

Bart Ehrman on the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...&itemId=124512

Colbert Report
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...&itemId=124512

speaking of the time he was an evangelical, he said, "I had balls back then."