God can write straight with crooked lines.

[sock puppet]

Thank you for that response, Limnor. Out for a run and to do some other stuff. I may get back to you later.

If you do, let’s focus on how closely faith claims align to the historical record.

Also, from what I saw, Marcus seemed to be asking for clarification about what your response was supposed to demonstrate, not create a strawman.

Limnor, you really think that MG 2.0, the Troll-in-Chief, cares about the historical record or can posit an argument that does not involve a strawman?

[Limnor]

If you do, let’s focus on how closely faith claims align to the historical record.

Also, from what I saw, Marcus seemed to be asking for clarification about what your response was supposed to demonstrate, not create a strawman.

Limnor, you really think that MG 2.0, the Troll-in-Chief, cares about the historical record or can posit an argument that does not involve a strawman?

Straight up? No I don’t. I think his approach is to make as much noise as possible to cover gaping holes and maintain some semblance of belief.

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, you really think that MG 2.0, the Troll-in-Chief, cares about the historical record or can posit an argument that does not involve a strawman?

Straight up? No I don’t. I think his approach is to make as much noise as possible to cover gaping holes and maintain some semblance of belief.

To repeat, in regards to the topic being discussed, we're all in the same boat...accept it or not.

By the way, the Restoration Theology plugs up a myriad of "holes' that are rather large in traditional/creedal Christianity. Even down to the very nature and being of God.

You may see that as "noise", granted. Fine Members of the church know/think otherwise.

We also believe 'to each his or her own'. Even for those that believe the Bible is 'all He wrote'.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

By the way, the Restoration Theology plugs up a myriad of "holes' that are rather large in traditional/creedal Christianity. Even down to the very nature and being of God.

I think the difference may be that some of the things you see as holes in creedal Christianity weren’t necessarily problems to begin with, but were redefined as problems to justify Joseph’s claims. Ideas like creation from nothing or an immaterial God were reflect God as the source of existence rather than something within a system.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, the Restoration Theology plugs up a myriad of "holes' that are rather large in traditional/creedal Christianity. Even down to the very nature and being of God.

I think the difference may be that some of the things you see as holes in creedal Christianity weren’t necessarily problems to begin with, but were redefined as problems to justify Joseph’s claims. Ideas like creation from nothing or an immaterial God were reflect God as the source of existence rather than something within a system.

I suppose if there hadn't been a restoration of all things you would probably be right. Sort of. You don't know what you don't know.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think the difference may be that some of the things you see as holes in creedal Christianity weren’t necessarily problems to begin with, but were redefined as problems to justify Joseph’s claims. Ideas like creation from nothing or an immaterial God were reflect God as the source of existence rather than something within a system.

I suppose if there hadn't been a restoration of all things you would probably be right. Sort of. You don't know what you don't know.

Regards,
MG

“If the Restoration is true, then it reveals truths you currently cannot see. Therefore the reason you don’t see the answers is because you haven’t accepted the Restoration.”

[MG 2.0]

I suppose if there hadn't been a restoration of all things you would probably be right. Sort of. You don't know what you don't know.

Regards,
MG

“If the Restoration is true, then it reveals truths you currently cannot see. Therefore the reason you don’t see the answers is because you haven’t accepted the Restoration.”

This works just as well for every church/religion that either you or I reject.

By the way, do you accept the Roman Catholic Church as God's authority on earth or Eastern Orthodox? Or one of the other Romanic spin offs? If one or the other, why?

I know you have your reasons for rejection of the Restoration of the Gospel narrative...but what would be your reasons/rationale for rejecting any other religious narrative/interpretation (of scripture) other than your own?

But what I said essentially remains true. What you don't know you don't know. Sometimes part of knowing is experiencing. Would you agree?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

“If the Restoration is true, then it reveals truths you currently cannot see. Therefore the reason you don’t see the answers is because you haven’t accepted the Restoration.”

This works just as well for every church/religion that either you or I reject.

By the way, do you accept the Roman Catholic Church as God's authority on earth or Eastern Orthodox? Or one of the other Romanic spin offs? If one or the other, why?

I know you have your reasons for rejection of the Restoration of the Gospel narrative...but what would be your reasons/rationale for rejecting any other religious narrative/interpretation (of scripture) other than your own?

But what I said essentially remains true. What you don't know you don't know. Sometimes part of knowing is experiencing. Would you agree?

Regards,
MG

I said this earlier on another thread:

I believe salvation rests in Christ and probably extends beyond denominational lines. I don’t think anyone has it 100% right, but also don’t think that denominational equates to automatic damnation. I mentioned the idea in Romans that people have God written on their hearts—that’s as good a summary of my thinking as anything. I don’t assume God’s mercy is limited to those who get every detail right.

So I’m not really beholden to any single doctrinal system or institutional authority. My views tend to come from examining the historical record, the biblical text, and how the theology holds together logically.

I agree that experience can be part of knowing certain things. But the claim about ancient plates is a historical claim, and experiences don’t really determine whether a historical event actually happened. Experiences might influence how someone interprets the story, but they don’t make the event itself true or false.

[huckelberry]

I said this earlier on another thread:

I believe salvation rests in Christ and probably extends beyond denominational lines. I don’t think anyone has it 100% right, but also don’t think that denominational equates to automatic damnation. I mentioned the idea in Romans that people have God written on their hearts—that’s as good a summary of my thinking as anything. I don’t assume God’s mercy is limited to those who get every detail right.

So I’m not really beholden to any single doctrinal system or institutional authority. My views tend to come from examining the historical record, the biblical text, and how the theology holds together logically.

I agree that experience can be part of knowing certain things. But the claim about ancient plates is a historical claim, and experiences don’t really determine whether a historical event actually happened. Experiences might influence how someone interprets the story, but they don’t make the event itself true or false.

limnor, I certainly agree with your view about denominations. The point of life is certainly not winning the find the best denomination contest.

Your point about history and feelings and history is simple but I think we'll focused on the crux.

[MG 2.0]

This works just as well for every church/religion that either you or I reject.

By the way, do you accept the Roman Catholic Church as God's authority on earth or Eastern Orthodox? Or one of the other Romanic spin offs? If one or the other, why?

I know you have your reasons for rejection of the Restoration of the Gospel narrative...but what would be your reasons/rationale for rejecting any other religious narrative/interpretation (of scripture) other than your own?

But what I said essentially remains true. What you don't know you don't know. Sometimes part of knowing is experiencing. Would you agree?

Regards,
MG

I said this earlier on another thread:

I believe salvation rests in Christ and probably extends beyond denominational lines. I don’t think anyone has it 100% right, but also don’t think that denominational equates to automatic damnation. I mentioned the idea in Romans that people have God written on their hearts—that’s as good a summary of my thinking as anything. I don’t assume God’s mercy is limited to those who get every detail right.

So I’m not really beholden to any single doctrinal system or institutional authority. My views tend to come from examining the historical record, the biblical text, and how the theology holds together logically.

I agree that experience can be part of knowing certain things. But the claim about ancient plates is a historical claim, and experiences don’t really determine whether a historical event actually happened. Experiences might influence how someone interprets the story, but they don’t make the event itself true or false.

Fair enough.

Regards,
MG