nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
What level of importance is given the Hebrew bloodline connection for Mormons?
What level of importance is given the Hebrew bloodline connection for Mormons?
Faith & DNA
- Thread starter nbcrusader
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you realize the pandora's box this could open ...
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Regarding Mormons?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
read the entire article
basically all religions set themselves up for things like this
when they claim an absolute truth
the article suggest they will modify some of their claims
the greater Christian faiths have been doing this for centuries sometimes with proclamations
and sometimes by just letting their faith evolved into a more reasonable set of beliefs.
basically all religions set themselves up for things like this
when they claim an absolute truth
the article suggest they will modify some of their claims
the greater Christian faiths have been doing this for centuries sometimes with proclamations
and sometimes by just letting their faith evolved into a more reasonable set of beliefs.
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Utoo said:
Quite a universal Judeo-Christian-Muslim problem, eh?
Actually, no.
"Literal" and "inerrent" are two different matters.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I guess "literal" evolved into "inerrant" to improve the odds of survival.nbcrusader said:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
it's an awfully thin line.
i also like how Mormons become the punching bag of other brands and breeds of Christianity. it's wonderfully convenient.
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
That is getting to be a tiresome dodge to any thoughtful discussion. Raise an issue regarding Islam - Christianity diversion. Raise an issue regarding the Patriot Act - Christianity diversion. Lather rinse repeat. Wonderfully convenient.
If you want to discuss the difference between "literal" and "inerrent" - feel free.
If you want to discuss the difference between "literal" and "inerrent" - feel free.
nbcrusader said:
Nbc, I think I'm just confused as to how you think the difference actually plays out in real life.
Literal
According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
Inerrant
According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
Basically, when you take something literally, you take it exactly as it is. When you believe something is inerrant, you believe it is perfectly true.
Different words and different ideas, but in order to take something literally, one must believe it to be true--inerrant, if you will. If one doesn't believe the world was created in 7 days, one doesn't take the text literally. If one does believe it, well, then that person believes the statement to be inerrant. Sure, the Qur'an is taken absolutely literally by many---because they take the one line "This Book is not to be doubted" literally....the book is thus inerrant in their minds. Even though a great many people do not take the Bible absolutely literally and do not believe it to be inerrant, I don't think it needs to be pointed out that many people do take quite a large chunk of it quite literally. When it comes to faith, you don't interpret some text literally if you don't believe it to be inerrant...
Does the idea of Creationism exist because the Bible isn't taken literally? Or because it's believed to be inerrant? You need both in order to even think that Creationism makes sense. Would religious groups be against homosexuality if the Bible were not to be taken literally, or if it were not believed to be inerrant? Would some Muslims not believe that fighting for the sake of God is okay if they didn't take the section "Permission to take up arms...........God knows but you do not" literally, or if it were not inerrant? I can list more examples from Christianity, Islam, or Judaism...for hours...but I have to be somewhere in 20 minutes!Basically, I think any difference between "literal" and "inerrant" is great on paper & semantically, but when it comes to real life practice, the two are inseparable.
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Utoo said:
I would say "inerrant" says that the words used in Scripture are those of God, not man, and that there was no error when recorded. It speaks to the specific words used in the Hebrew and Greek. This avoids the problem of giving more value to words recorded by one writter over another.
"Literal" suggests that it means exactly what is says on its face. Creation is a good example. Genesis says that God created various things on different days. By imposing a literal meaning on the English translation - you are forced to go with a 24-hour period. The Hebrew word can mean a period of time - whether 12-hours, 24-hours or a longer period of time. Same principle can be drawn from the book of Daniel, which speaks of "weeks" when it really refers to periods of 7-years. The 7-year interpretation is internally correct.
I point our the distinction as the number of Christians who follow the "literal" translation (sometimes called "Young Earth" Christians) is statistically insignificant.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Mitochondrial DNA aside, this part of the narrative has never made much sense from a Jewish history perspective because Lehi--the father of Nephi and Laman, the one who allegedly set sail in 600 BC--is described by the Book of Mormon as being from the Tribe of Manasseh (Joseph's son; this was one of the "Lost Tribes" scattered by the Assyrians in 722 BC--Lehi's family purportedly escaped this fate because they were living in Jerusalem, a plausible enough circumstance). So, Lehi doesn't trace his ancestry through the Tribes of Judah or Levi (as all modern-day Jews do, on account on the loss of the other Tribes).
The problem this raises is that the practice of describing all Israelites, regardless of Tribal origin, as "Jews" (a term orginally referring *only* to members of the Tribe of Judah) does not come about until well into the Babylonian captivity (beg. 586 BC), which Lehi missed out on. Yet in the Book of Mormon, Nephi--purportedly speaking in his own voice--repeatedly describes himself, Laman and their people as "descendants of the Jews," a strange claim for a self-professed Manassite who could not have known about the terminology change to make. He also describes Lehi's language as being "the language of the Egyptians" (in accord with Mormon beliefs that Joseph Smith translated the Book from gold plates inscribed in "reformed Egyptian," comprehensible only through divine inspiration)--a very strange first language for a 6th-century BC Manassite living in Jerusalem to be speaking.
Can mitochondrial DNA really be "swallowed up"? It hasn't happened to the Jews, despite a similarly long period of diaspora and intermarriage.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
it's difficult not to point out hypocrisy whenever it rears it's head.
so be it.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Interesting, I thought this would be about the genetics of faith.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I really don't see what's inherently hypocritical about it...yall can question the bases of his beliefs...why is he not allowed to question theirs? If a person believes in some things which cannot be proven rationally (and who doesn't)...that's tantamount to forfeiting their right to question the purportedly rational bases of other beliefs? Belief in the absolute truth or rightness of some things (love? justice? freedom?) means you aren't allowed to question the absoluteness of other things ever? Culture would be a pretty impoverished animal if we always applied that standard.It is. It's about a scripture that stakes its authenticity on a claim to a traceable human ancestral lineage. Traceable to one particular individual who migrated from one precise location to another at one precise point in time. In the "literalist" version anyhow.
Last edited:
Maybe we should do a DNA test on Roman Catholic communion. After all, according to the concept of transubstantiation, the bread and wine literally becomes Jesus' body and blood (rather than the Protestant concept that Jesus is just present within the bread and wine).
I would love trying to see Cardinal Rat try to explain that.
Melon
I would love trying to see Cardinal Rat try to explain that.
Melon
Irvine511 said:it's difficult not to point out hypocrisy whenever it rears it's head.
so be it.
Christians don't want to acknowledge that their leaps of faith are no different in logic than that of their enemies. As such, they focus on the difference of substance.
Melon
AliEnvy
Refugee
Is this an Old Testament story?
I never really knew the origins of white supremacy. Wow.
Although I can relate to the notion of a group of people thinking they are superior through purity of blood. In some circles of francophone Quebec, if you can trace your lineage to the original founding families (I think there are a handful) of la belle province, you are considered "pure laine" (pure wool), and therefore a "true" quebecois.
AliEnvy said:
No. It's strictly from the Book of Mormon.
I wouldn't say that this is the origin of white supremacy. On the contrary, passages like this exist because of how prevalent white supremacy was back in the 19th century. All non-whites were primitive savages in need of "civilizing."
Melon
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
yolland said:
Thank you. Sometimes elements of gamesmanship replace intelligent discussion. I appreciate the insight you've offered in this thread.
AliEnvy
Refugee
melon said:
I'm a direct descendent of one of the Mayflower settlers. I wonder if that makes me a "true" American?
I'm a direct descendent of Robert Burns, the Scottish poet. I wonder if that makes me a philandering drunkard.
We both betray our blood...cheers!
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
In this case yes, and it is one that can be effectively falsified. I was really touching upon theyolland said:
The genetics of faith would probably be the basis of belief biologically. What conditions in human neurology lead to the imperitive of faith, how are these expressed (the ability to will a sense of pleasure for instance). I think that as these questions become better understood it will raise some extremely serious issues to the faithful, far more threatening to cherished beliefs than geology or biology. Faith is a behaviour, did it evolve or was it just invented.
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
I'm a direct descendent of one of the Mayflower settlers. I wonder if that makes me a "true" American?
Melon
We share more in common
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
[q] I really don't see what's inherently hypocritical about it...yall can question the bases of his beliefs...why is he not allowed to question theirs? If a person believes in some things which cannot be proven rationally (and who doesn't)...that's tantamount to forfeiting their right to question the purportedly rational bases of other beliefs?[/q]
[q]Thank you. Sometimes elements of gamesmanship replace intelligent discussion. I appreciate the insight you've offered in this thread.[/q]
Melon pretty much answered this -- it just seems hypocritical to question the leaps of logic by other religions when all of religion is a leap in logic.
i sensed that this thread was simply another way of trying to assert one's religion as being "more real/rational than thou" and doing that through attacking another religion.
also, and while i'm not terribly sympathetic to many of the teachings of the Mormon church, i am very sympathetic to many Mormons who are among the nicest people i know. i grew up in a town with a relatively high percentage of Mormons (for the East Coast) and it is interesting to hear how much they resent being, as i said, punching bags for other Christians. basically, those crazy Mormons are no more crazy than anyone else who bases their lives around irrational thoughts and ideas (again, not that there's anything wrong with that, as yolland pointed out, we all do it ... let's just not think that some of us are a little bit less irrational than others).
this is also why i have some sympathy for Scientologists -- not *Scientology* itself -- but for those who practice a certain belief system and are ridiculed often most viciously by those who are themselves of another strong faith. the ridiculing of one religion over another -- and this is distinct, i think, from the ridiculing of religion itself -- is a sign of doubt and weakness, not faith and strength.
[q]Thank you. Sometimes elements of gamesmanship replace intelligent discussion. I appreciate the insight you've offered in this thread.[/q]
Melon pretty much answered this -- it just seems hypocritical to question the leaps of logic by other religions when all of religion is a leap in logic.
i sensed that this thread was simply another way of trying to assert one's religion as being "more real/rational than thou" and doing that through attacking another religion.
also, and while i'm not terribly sympathetic to many of the teachings of the Mormon church, i am very sympathetic to many Mormons who are among the nicest people i know. i grew up in a town with a relatively high percentage of Mormons (for the East Coast) and it is interesting to hear how much they resent being, as i said, punching bags for other Christians. basically, those crazy Mormons are no more crazy than anyone else who bases their lives around irrational thoughts and ideas (again, not that there's anything wrong with that, as yolland pointed out, we all do it ... let's just not think that some of us are a little bit less irrational than others).
this is also why i have some sympathy for Scientologists -- not *Scientology* itself -- but for those who practice a certain belief system and are ridiculed often most viciously by those who are themselves of another strong faith. the ridiculing of one religion over another -- and this is distinct, i think, from the ridiculing of religion itself -- is a sign of doubt and weakness, not faith and strength.
AliEnvy
Refugee
A_Wanderer said:
It suggests the hardwired will to survive/live is stronger than acceptance of inevitable death.
A_Wanderer said:
The ability to will life after death.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
No, after brain death there is nothing, a brief but enjoyable trip as the brain shuts down, no thought or conciousness, might as well say that someone in a vegetative state is in a better place. Belief in the afterlife not only accepts inevitable death, it embraces it.
AliEnvy
Refugee
A_Wanderer said:
Hmmm, I would say it explains death in a way that makes it acceptable and provides a reason to embrace it...the biological urge is still life.
Life after death suggests not only what might happen to you when you die, but the legacy you leave behind to be continued on when you're gone.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
you know, as much as i hate to think it, you're probably right.
all other explanations seem like little more than smoke and mirrors.
a thought i once had -- there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation, there is simply the awareness of consciousness (and the dread of the ending of that consciousness) that all human beings possess for our brief period on earth.
Similar threads
