Search not the Book of Mormon for truly great allegory.

[Solon]

This is a pretty stupid discussion all around. FARMS is inadmissible in academic circles. No matter how brilliant or dull its authors and their intellects, FARMS' fundamental approach is incompatible with secular academic inquiry. Believers, however, find FARMS' work engaging and interesting (obviously depending on subject, personal taste, etc.)

Believers believe and then search for supporting data.
Secular scholars demand supporting data, then they might believe.

There's no happy medium. I'll beat up on FARMS in the Religious Studies category, but if their work reaffirms someone's faith, then they're probably happy with that result.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

This is a pretty stupid discussion all around. FARMS is inadmissible in academic circles. No matter how brilliant or dull its authors and their intellects, FARMS' fundamental approach is incompatible with secular academic inquiry. Believers, however, find FARMS' work engaging and interesting (obviously depending on subject, personal taste, etc.)

Believers believe and then search for supporting data.
Secular scholars demand supporting data, then they might believe.

There's no happy medium. I'll beat up on FARMS in the Religious Studies category, but if their work reaffirms someone's faith, then they're probably happy with that result.

To the extent a FARMS article takes a linguistic or historical approach, I may find it interesting, but it hasn't nothing to do with my faith.

I would encourage FARMS to become more academic in its approach.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

This is a pretty stupid discussion all around. FARMS is inadmissible in academic circles. No matter how brilliant or dull its authors and their intellects, FARMS' fundamental approach is incompatible with secular academic inquiry. Believers, however, find FARMS' work engaging and interesting (obviously depending on subject, personal taste, etc.)

Believers believe and then search for supporting data.
Secular scholars demand supporting data, then they might believe.

There's no happy medium. I'll beat up on FARMS in the Religious Studies category, but if their work reaffirms someone's faith, then they're probably happy with that result.

religious studies is a silly enterprise to begin with, but sometimes it can be really fun.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To the extent a FARMS article takes a linguistic or historical approach, I may find it interesting, but it hasn't nothing to do with my faith.

I would encourage FARMS to become more academic in its approach.

No, but you might (and I'd guess many do) find it interesting because you believe. Few people base their testimonies on FARMS (for good reason, IMO).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

No, but you might (and I'd guess many do) find it interesting because you believe. Few people base their testimonies on FARMS (for good reason, IMO).

I am interested in the subject matter because I believe. Yes.

If I didn't, I probably wouldn't care, but I do care about a lot of historical stuff, so maybe I would.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

This is a pretty stupid discussion all around. FARMS is inadmissible in academic circles. No matter how brilliant or dull its authors and their intellects, FARMS' fundamental approach is incompatible with secular academic inquiry. Believers, however, find FARMS' work engaging and interesting (obviously depending on subject, personal taste, etc.)

Believers believe and then search for supporting data.
Secular scholars demand supporting data, then they might believe.

There's no happy medium. I'll beat up on FARMS in the Religious Studies category, but if their work reaffirms someone's faith, then they're probably happy with that result.

Was Copernicus an idiot, wasting his time trying to convince religious people that the earth is not the center of the universe? I think it's tragic that people live lives deluding themselves with a fanciful and chauvenistic perspective on the past and their physical environment. But I'm weird that way, I guess.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't see some grand conspiracy by Greeks to pollute the pure doctrine.

Robinson didn't say that either.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, this assumes that the authentic Church existed in substantial numbers and that those members knew and understood various doctrines. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

I assume a small body of persons actually knew Christ, a smaller body actually understood him and an even smaller body understood, believed and followed him. From this third group, we had various levels of faith and belief.

As the membership branched out, consistency within the doctrines would be difficult, especially in that age, to correlate. Hence a difference of opinions would arise, as on central organization existed in the form which we know of, today. Without the gravitational affect of a central organization, the teachings and principles were bound to morph, if they were ever clearly understood and written down, a fact I doubt.

People understood the Hebraic code, to some extent, as they lived it. Non Jews understood other paths. However, the Master did not live long among the Jews nor did he develop a huge enough following to ensure a broad understanding of all his doctrine. Hence repent and be baptized were central themes. Keep it simple with a short time.

Thus many unanswered questions arose, and thus ambiguity existed.

I don't see some grand conspiracy by Greeks to pollute the pure doctrine.

You think you're defending Seattle, but you're not. He's calling the whole thing a crock of shit. He calls the whole Christian gospel a story someone made up under heavy influence of Greek thought. So of course it's ludicrous to say that story went "apostate" due to some further mingling with Greek thought. You're not defending him unless you agree with that.

What you're saying is not much of consequence and not worth arguing over. Robinson doesn't call Greek culture the great and abonimable church. In fact you repeat what he said as part of your argument against him.

Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements. Some Jewish Christians couldn't let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything, he didn't like. And all of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Was Copernicus an idiot, wasting his time trying to convince religious people that the earth is not the center of the universe? I think it's tragic that people live lives deluding themselves with a fanciful and chauvenistic perspective on the past and their physical environment. But I'm weird that way, I guess.

No, I don't think he's an idiot, and I definitely don't think you are. I just see the debate as ultimately unresolvable.

I'm a humanist and don't put a lot of credence in religiously oriented pseudo-scientific or pseudo-academic writing. FARMS is a joke in the academic sense, but if people like it or if it sparks some interest or belief or it's fun to flip the pages, I don't really care. It's ultimately deceptive to dress up belief as knowledge, but probably not as harmful as taking a speedball.

I'll read Biblical Archaeology Review in the doctor's waiting room, but I'd never cite it for a conference paper.

SU has a lot of Socrates' gadfly in him, and I like that about him. He's still willing to sting the big lazy horse.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You think you're defending Seattle, but you're not. He's calling the whole thing a crock of shit. He calls the whole Christian gospel a story someone made up under heavy influence of Greek thought. So of course it's ludicrous to say that story went "apostate" due to some further mingling with Greek thought. You're not defending him unless you agree with that.

What you're saying is not much of consequence and not worth arguing over. Robinson doesn't call Greek culture the great and abonimable church. In fact you repeat what he said as part of your argument against him.

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.