« Do Humans Really Have Free Will? | Main | Take Christians to Mosques & The Church's Secret to a Joy-Filled Life »

July 15, 2014

Comments

Wow. And, you even helped them out a little by distinguishing between the belief in the Trinity and the Mormon view.

Gotta share this with people.

Excellent and scary at the same time - It also made me think how I would respond as I would have started the same way they did!

I did notice very early though the mis-characterisation of the Trinity - 3 persons, 1 person and 3 beings, 1 being. Rather than the 3 persons, 1 being.

There were two things I found disheartening.
First, the gentleman who kept requesting "Amens" for heretical views.
Second, the aggressive and superior attitude of the majority of the "questioners."

While there were some challenges offered by the audience, the one that I thought should have been offered is the lack of grounding in history that the Book of Mormon offers. There seems to be nothing to support the claims that it is tied to ancient American history, while the Bible has oodles of supporting evidence for its historicity.

This is something that sets the two apart in a sort of fundamental way and to claim that they belong to the same category of work...well, it just does not seem to be the case.

"oodles" Louis? I wouldn't mind bringing up the historicity of the BofM to an LDS proselytizer simply because they believe in the literal truth of the story and I don't see how Joseph Smith's fanciful stories of early American "Judaism" work.

But I also don't go so far as to claim that the Bible is a history book either, with a global flood and ark, giants, people who live well into their 160s, etc. We live in a natural world and people of the past needed stories to explain the past.

RagTime

""oodles" Louis? I wouldn't mind bringing up the historicity of the BofM to an LDS proselytizer simply because they believe in the literal truth of the story and I don't see how Joseph Smith's fanciful stories of early American "Judaism" work. "

Apparently you have never been to Hill Cumorah Pageant in which an ancient American civilization is depicted, for which we have absolutely no archeological evidence. The same cannot be said of the New Testament setting in history. So, there is a huge difference.

"But I also don't go so far as to claim that the Bible is a history book either"

Then you certainly disagree with historians.
But you do agree with many who do not accept the accounts of the miraculous. So, if one were to take out the miraculous, it tracks pretty well with other historical works.
As to your insistence that people needed stories to explain the past...it would seem to me that we do today also. That is why folks are on the lookout of personal journals of those who fought in the civil war and their experiences during it. Of course those are stories also. But if you wish to attach the word "fiction" to them, you are welcome to call narrative fiction. Just don't expect the rest of us to take your claims seriously when you do.

Of course, a civil war diary can be judged against other provable historical events. And yes I think most historians agree that there was someone named Jesus in the time of the Roman occupation of Judea, that was ruled by a prefect named Pilate. And there are other historical points of fact here and there.

Everything else enters what we Orthodox call "the Mystery of Faith."

What Brett said (as a faux Mormon) about Revelation 22:19 is absolutely true and should be heeded by more Christians. That it appears at the end of the last book in a compilation does not make it apply to the entire canon.

RagTime

Since you have not challenged my original, much more modest, claim, I take it that you agree that while there is a historical basis for the New Testament time culture and geographic locations that have been found through archeology, no analog of an ancient American civilization in support of the Book of Mormon exists? Is that right?

It just seems to me that we have both come to that same conclusion and that while I have voiced it, you remain silent without actual denial or even challenge.

Sad, really, not only how little modern Christians know about our faith but how they don't hear(or don't listen) when they are in discussion. Much admiration for Brett's patience with people who are so rude and unreasonable

Interesting video...

There was one gentleman who I believed was doing a great job early on. He correctly articulated the orthodox view of the Trinity being three persons, one God. Brett pretty much ignored him and kept going, which I guess helped keep the fun going.

One thing that I find frustrating was how people were unable to distinguish between the terms "God," and "God the Father." It makes the concept of the Trinity a lot more confusing. I notice that many Christians I know do this as well-- they will talk about Jesus and God as if they are two different persons, but then also say that Jesus is God. This only exacerbates the misunderstandings associated with the Trinity. We should use the terms "God the Father," and "Jesus" or "God the Son," recognizing that they are both God.

The comments to this entry are closed.