perhaps we should first look at how Jesus responded to the question raised about the prophet Moses allowing the writing of the divorce certificate, Jesus firstly gave the reason why Moses did this and then reminded the Church of his day that ‘it was not so in the beginning when he made them male and female†so was Jesus talking about the creation of the natural world world, or was his focus still on the beginning of the human race as a result of the union of Adam and Eve as man and wife?
Today, if we accept the growing body of evidence for Darwin's original theory of Natural selection we begin to have a workable explanation that has been overdeveloped by such atheists as Richard Dawkin's, who has produced his own 'Meme' theory as an attempt to explain the transfer of cultural information as psychological ‘packets†or ‘units†of information and so take God out of his own atheistic reasoning. In this respect I find it very helpful to keep in mind that the Bible has preserved the original template for human socialisation, which comes into its own when we look at the beginning of the new life as a free people apart from the darkness of 400 years slavery in Egypt that Moses led his people out of.
When I say 'begin to have a workable explanation' I mean one that also works with the language of symbolism that all the Bibles prophets used to communicate the same message From which it becomes arguable to suggest Moses also re wrote the pre existing Sumerian creation story for the same reason as he allowed the divorce certificate, he re wrote it not about the age of Biological man or the natural world, but to emphasis the new beginning as a people free from slavery just as Christians are when on exodus from the cross.
The Sumerian creation story was examined by Kraymer for about 20 years from which he points out the obvious comparisons with Genesis but does not explore it further in the light of Moses rewriting it because his Egyptian upbringing would have had made him very aware of the long term health problems of incest and close relative marriages, that was common practice in Egypt. Is it then to much a stretch of logic to say that Moses rewrote the Sumerian creation story to allow for the hardness of the heart? In the Sumerian story the god Enki was a serial paedophile and had no conscience about incest with generation after generation of his own family and Moses obviously had a vested interest in a legacy that protected his own culture, from the long term biological health problems of incest.
Anyone who is not sure about the need today for the Bibles original template for human socialisation need look no further than the experiment Kellogg made rearing his son alongside a chimp, or the compelling evidence of the feral children that has come to light in recent decades, and not least in the deterioration of social behaviour so often compared with the days of Noah. One thing atheists cannot dispute is that human speech is not written into any genetic code it has to be re learnt by each new generation and it makes no difference at all if one has a full set of mirror neurones because they still have to be programmed by the socialising experience of the 5 senses, the Bibles socialising template is the software for normal behaviour in the Kingdom of God where the causes of Genetic diseases are excluded for our future generations, as the product of normal union –one man one woman-as it was in the beginning of Marriage. Jesus may no more approve of some of the things Joseph smith allowed to be written into the original Law of Moses than he approved of Moses allowing the writing of the divorce certificate, yet he exonerated Moses.]]>The title of this site being ‘Exonerating Joseph smith’ perhaps we should first look at how Jesus responded to the question raised about the prophet Moses allowing the writing of the divorce certificate, Jesus firstly gave the reason why Moses did this and then reminded the Church of his day that ‘it was not so in the beginning when he made them male and female’ so was Jesus talking about the creation of the natural world world, or was his focus still on the beginning of the human race as a result of the union of Adam and Eve as man and wife?
Today, if we accept the growing body of evidence for Darwin’s original theory of Natural selection we begin to have a workable explanation that has been overdeveloped by such atheists as Richard Dawkin’s, who has produced his own ‘Meme’ theory as an attempt to explain the transfer of cultural information as psychological ‘packets’ or ‘units’ of information and so take God out of his own atheistic reasoning. In this respect I find it very helpful to keep in mind that the Bible has preserved the original template for human socialisation, which comes into its own when we look at the beginning of the new life as a free people apart from the darkness of 400 years slavery in Egypt that Moses led his people out of.
When I say ‘begin to have a workable explanation’ I mean one that also works with the language of symbolism that all the Bibles prophets used to communicate the same message From which it becomes arguable to suggest Moses also re wrote the pre existing Sumerian creation story for the same reason as he allowed the divorce certificate, he re wrote it not about the age of Biological man or the natural world, but to emphasis the new beginning as a people free from slavery just as Christians are when on exodus from the cross.
The Sumerian creation story was examined by Kraymer for about 20 years from which he points out the obvious comparisons with Genesis but does not explore it further in the light of Moses rewriting it because his Egyptian upbringing would have had made him very aware of the long term health problems of incest and close relative marriages, that was common practice in Egypt. Is it then to much a stretch of logic to say that Moses rewrote the Sumerian creation story to allow for the hardness of the heart? In the Sumerian story the god Enki was a serial paedophile and had no conscience about incest with generation after generation of his own family and Moses obviously had a vested interest in a legacy that protected his own culture, from the long term biological health problems of incest.
Anyone who is not sure about the need today for the Bibles original template for human socialisation need look no further than the experiment Kellogg made rearing his son alongside a chimp, or the compelling evidence of the feral children that has come to light in recent decades, and not least in the deterioration of social behaviour so often compared with the days of Noah. One thing atheists cannot dispute is that human speech is not written into any genetic code it has to be re learnt by each new generation and it makes no difference at all if one has a full set of mirror neurones because they still have to be programmed by the socialising experience of the 5 senses, the Bibles socialising template is the software for normal behaviour in the Kingdom of God where the causes of Genetic diseases are excluded for our future generations, as the product of normal union –one man one woman-as it was in the beginning of Marriage. Jesus may no more approve of some of the things Joseph smith allowed to be written into the original Law of Moses than he approved of Moses allowing the writing of the divorce certificate, yet he exonerated Moses. ]]>
Jeff, you look at the world around you and you see things. You see evidence. That evidence includes fossil records, a strong consensus of scientists, and other things. You weigh that evidence, and you reach a conclusion about how the world was formed and how life came into being. You’re very confident about your conclusion. In fact, you’re so confident about it that you say (above) that you’re *embarrassed* by people who don’t reach the same conclusion.
There are other people who also look at the world around them. They consider the same things you’re considering. They look at the evidence. They also consider other forms of evidence. Among those forms are the testimonies of ostensibly reliable witnesses about the reliability of the scriptures, and the spiritual witnesses they feel regarding the scriptures. They also consider that the body of scientific knowledge is constantly changing and frequently wrong (and they’re proven right about that every time a new scientific discovery is made). They see that scientists used to laugh at theologians for believing that the universe came into existence in an instant, and now scientists are propounding the theory that the Big Bang was essentially just that–a creation of all matter, time and space out of near-nothingness, in an instant. They assume, very reasonably, that there are millions of things that human beings don’t understand about the universe. They consider those things, too. They weigh the evidence. And some of them reach a conclusion very different from yours.
Now, I don’t know why, but you don’t seem to be able to tolerate this. You simply can’t imagine that people are looking at evidence and not reaching *your* conclusion. It’s just too inevitable, in your mind, for anyone to miss. You therefore apparently conclude that they *aren’t* considering evidence, but simply disregarding it. You decide they’re *delusional.*
I don’t have a problem with a Latter-day Saint believing as you believe, with regard to life. I also don’t have a problem with a Latter-day Saint believing that the universe was created in a very different way from the one you imagine, and a way which we don’t understand. I tolerate both. I wish you would, too.
]]>only 20% of Latter-Day Saints feel that evolution is the best explanation for human life.
Sorry Kim, I do realize you are among the 20%. I’m still surprised at that number.
]]>Honestly, I didn’t think Mormons were particularly fond of the literal interpretation of the story, but I now stand corrected (at least concerning those of you that comment here).
Woah, Nelly. I have commented here, and I did not say I am fond of the literal interpretation of the Creation. To be clear, I look at it figuratively.
]]>And what you’re calling delusional isn’t necessarily delusional, no matter what you call it.
I am not sure I even wanted to call anyone delusional. I did say it, in a round-about way, so here we go.
What is delusional? Well I think we are in agreement that a delusional person holds an erroneous belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.
All of the evidence indicates that evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of species. Therefore, holding onto an erroneous belief that God created all life within a six day period in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is, by this definition, delusional.
Honestly, I didn’t think Mormons were particularly fond of the literal interpretation of the story, but I now stand corrected (at least concerning those of you that comment here).
“when you are dismissing people as delusional, you’re doing so because their beliefs are different from yours”
My beliefs coincide with the evidence, therefore, as explained before, there might be a correlation but it’s not causal. You do understand what that means, right?
]]>Continuing to tell me that I am assuming if anyone doesn’t think the way I do, I automatically dismiss them as delusional is getting old.
I really should have read that comment more carefully when I responded above. Let’s see if I can do better:
I haven’t said that you automatically dismiss everyone who doesn’t think the way you do as delusional. What I have said, and do say, is that when you are dismissing people as delusional, you’re doing so because their beliefs are different from yours. You have no good reason for thinking that they suffer from delusions, or that their beliefs are based on such.
]]>I do not believe in miracles, so I can say with all sincerity that I believe that people who do, are delusional. It makes sense, if you put yourself in my position.
It seems much harder to argue delusional thinking from the standpoint of a person who already believes in miracles, and I think that may be the barrier which you appear to be running up against, Jeff.
It’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
]]>Continuing to tell me that I am assuming if anyone doesn’t think the way I do, I automatically dismiss them as delusional is getting old.
Which makes it no less true. Your only apparent basis for dismissing others as delusional is that their beliefs differ from yours.
If you want to dismiss mountains of evidence that evolution exists, that’s your prerogative.
Since I have never done that, I don’t quite see why you make this comment.
Delusional is delusional, regardless of what I think.
And what you’re calling delusional isn’t necessarily delusional, no matter what you call it.
It’s disappointing when a church that encourages lifelong education can have a membership that uniformly dismisses science because they insist on interpreting literally.
I can’t think of an example of what you’re describing. You clearly have no basis for claiming, for example, that the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “uniformly dismisses science.”
The church doesn’t even take a stand on [whether cherubim are literally existent beings or whether the serpent was literal]
Which is a good reason to respect people’s right to believe in their own way, rather than dismiss outright everyone who believes that something they’ve never seen before can exist. I’m not claiming that everyone must believe cherubim are literal beings, or that everyone must believe an actual serpent spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden; all I’m claiming is that people aren’t being “delusional” if they do so believe.
As for my own belief, I can’t say with certainty whether cherubim are existent or only figurative. I also can’t say with certainty whether the serpent in the Eden story is real or figurative. I keep my mind open to the possibility of either. But your certainty is so absolute that you condemn anyone who maintains the possibility of these things as having a mental defect.
The possibility of speech from a snake, in all seriousness, would require it to possess some kind of vocal chords.
Would it? I really can’t say for certain, because I don’t pretend to have all knowledge about how miraculous or “supernatural” events work. I don’t close my mind to the possibility that there’s a way God or Satan can do such a thing–a way that I don’t yet understand.
Doesn’t the church teach that everything God does, he does within the laws of physics?
I don’t know–is that an official Church doctrine? I suppose I could probably find a comment that says somehting close to that by a general authority, but I doubt it would say exactly that. Regardless, here’s what I think: I think when God performs a miracle, or for that matter when Satan does a thing we can’t understand, the “laws of physics” are not being violated, but are rather being used in a way we don’t understand.
Turning water to wine and walking on the Sea of Galilee apparently violate the laws of physics, just as much as a talking snake does. Wouldn’t you agree? So I don’t see why you have any more reason to vilify people who believe in the existence of a being called a cherub (about which we know virtually nothing) or who maintain that a snake might or might not have been involved in the temptation of Eve.
]]>Delusional is delusional, regardless of what I think.
If you want to dismiss mountains of evidence that evolution exists, that’s your prerogative. It’s disappointing when a church that encourages lifelong education can have a membership that uniformly dismisses science because they insist on interpreting literally. The church doesn’t even take a stand on this; it’s the membership that continues to propagate it.
If the church didn’t have a stand on the literal interpretation of a man healing the sick or blind, turning water into wine, etc, then yes, I’d be critical of the membership in the same way.
The possibility of speech from a snake, in all seriousness, would require it to possess some kind of vocal chords. Doesn’t the church teach that everything God does, he does within the laws of physics?
]]>You believe cherubim can’t be real, and that it’s impossible for an actual serpent to have had even a brief and miraculous ability to speak to a woman. Therefore, because you don’t believe in those things, you’re absolutely confident that anyone who does believes in them–anyone who believes in the existence of a being of some type that goes by the name of cherub, or who believes that the means by which Satan tempted Eve could indeed have been a snake–can hold those beliefs only if that person is “delusional.”
In other words, you assume that if I believe in what you don’t believe in, I can’t be taken seriously and I can’t be thinking rationally. My beliefs must be delusions.
But Jeff, by the same reasoning you’ve offered in your last comment, don’t you have to conclude that anyone who believes in a man healing the sick or blind by mere touch, or who turns water into wine, or who walks on water, or who lies dead in a tomb and rises on the third day, showing his wounded body to friends, and then rises up into the sky in the presence of his followers, must also be delusional? Aren’t all those beliefs held “in the face of evidence to the contrary”?
Aren’t all those events just as miraculous, or more so, than the possibility of speech coming on a single occasion from a snake, or the possibility that there’s a being somewhere in the universe called cherub that you’ve never seen?
]]>