The Ancients

[_Jersey Girl]

Chopping up harmony's post to bits

Yet many of us accept the ancients' words without question, giving them a free pass just because it's tradition.

I want to know why we do that

Because we were indoctrinated to do it.

Jersey Girl

Then why do we continue?

Maybe because we believe there is truth and wisdom to be found in it. I suppose when you consider the Bible, for example, you'd have to decide what you think the Bible is. In the Fundamentalist Christian mind, it's the literal word of God.


Jersey Girl

[_Fortigurn]

Chopping up harmony's post to bits

Yet many of us accept the ancients' words without question, giving them a free pass just because it's tradition.

I want to know why we do that

Because we were indoctrinated to do it.

Some accept it without question because they are indoctrinated. Not all accept it without question. There are so many generalisations and false assumptions in this thread, the wheat has to be separated from the chaff in almost every post. I regularly question my personal faith. I don't presume to speak for anyone else here, and I don't understand why some think they can speak for everyone else.

[_Fortigurn]

What of the ancients' can you verify?

For one particular group of 'ancients', sufficient for the basis of a rational faith. How specific do you want me to be?

[_harmony]

Chopping up harmony's post to bits

Yet many of us accept the ancients' words without question, giving them a free pass just because it's tradition.

I want to know why we do that

Because we were indoctrinated to do it.

Some accept it without question because they are indoctrinated. Not all accept it without question. There are so many generalisations and false assumptions in this thread, the wheat has to be separated from the chaff in almost every post. I regularly question my personal faith. I don't presume to speak for anyone else here, and I don't understand why some think they can speak for everyone else.

And yet you aren't saying much.

Generalizations? False assumptions? Wheat/chaff? Let me see if I can clear up what I'm talking about:

1. The Arab world, generally speaking, believes the Koran to be the word of Allah given through the prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is an ancient. Depending on their adherence, which is strict to medium strict, they follow the words of an ancient. Why are the words of an ancient used to replace their own conscious?

2. Our US president is a Bible-believing Christian. He follows the words of Biblical ancients. Why are the words of Biblical ancient worth so much to him that he leads this country based not on his own relationship with God, but based on words that are centuries out of date?

3. All tribal business stopped last week, when the son of a tribal leader died unexpectedly. Tribal traditions took over and the entire tribe followed in the ancient traditional way of dealing with death. These are modern, educated people, yet their adherence to ancient traditions is fascinating.

4. Many Christians believe wholeheartedly in the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, etc. They follow ancient ideas as if they were scientific truth.

Why?

[_Fortigurn]

And yet you aren't saying much.

That's because I'm only speaking for myself.

Generalizations? False assumptions? Wheat/chaff?

Yes. Apparently 'we' accept the ancients' words without question, apparently 'we' were indoctrinated to do it, apparently 'we' know the words we have in whatever tradition, be it oral traditions as many NA tribes have, or written in the Koran or the Bible, are suspect. These are generalizations. Apparently I trust the ancients more than I trust myself. That's not true. It was a false assumption.

Let me see if I can clear up what I'm talking about:

1. The Arab world, generally speaking, believes the Koran to be the word of Allah given through the prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is an ancient. Depending on their adherence, which is strict to medium strict, they follow the words of an ancient. Why are the words of an ancient used to replace their own conscious?

2. Our US president is a Bible-believing Christian. He follows the words of Biblical ancients. Why are the words of Biblical ancient worth so much to him that he leads this country based not on his own relationship with God, but based on words that are centuries out of date?

3. All tribal business stopped last week, when the son of a tribal leader died unexpectedly. Tribal traditions took over and the entire tribe followed in the ancient traditional way of dealing with death. These are modern, educated people, yet their adherence to ancient traditions is fascinating.

4. Many Christians believe wholeheartedly in the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, etc. They follow ancient ideas as if they were scientific truth.

Why?

These questions are usefully specific. There will be different answers to each of them. You would have to ask the individuals concerned. I've given the general reasons why.

[_harmony]

What makes you think he appeared to the ancients? Visited them by the agency of angels (whatever that means)? Showed them visions? Spoke to them audibly from the heavens? Supplied them with prophecies of the future?

As I said, it's a matter of faith.

Just because they said so?

No.

Heck, Joseph Smith claimed the same, but you don't believe him, do you? Why do you believe what the ancients said?

There are significant differences between what Smith said and what the 'ancients' I trust said. The major differences involve verification. I can verify enough of what these 'ancients' said in order to provide sufficient basis for rational faith. This cannot be done for Smith.

What of the ancients' can you verify?

You (not the royal We) didn't answer me, Fort. What is verifiable from the ancients you place your trust in?

[_Fortigurn]

You (not the royal We) didn't answer me, Fort. What is verifiable from the ancients you place your trust in?

I did answer you:

For one particular group of 'ancients', sufficient for the basis of a rational faith. How specific do you want me to be?

See the question in that line.

[_harmony]

You (not the royal We) didn't answer me, Fort. What is verifiable from the ancients you place your trust in?

I did answer you:

For one particular group of 'ancients', sufficient for the basis of a rational faith. How specific do you want me to be?

See the question in that line.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are not understanding my question.

You said: "There are significant differences between what Smith said and what the 'ancients' I trust said. The major differences involve verification. I can verify enough of what these 'ancients' said in order to provide sufficient basis for rational faith. This cannot be done for Smith." I asked for what could specifically be verified from the ancients you trust, and you've been dancing ever since.

So one more time: what do you mean by "verification"? You say you can verify "enough." What specifically can you verify? What is "sufficient basis for rational faith"? And lastly, why do you trust the ancients' relationship with God more than you trust your own? Why do you believe them when they say they had visions, God visited them, angels visited them, etc.? Because they said so?

[_Fortigurn]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are not understanding my question.

I do understand your question. I'm asking you how specific you want me to be in my answer.

You said: "There are significant differences between what Smith said and what the 'ancients' I trust said. The major differences involve verification. I can verify enough of what these 'ancients' said in order to provide sufficient basis for rational faith. This cannot be done for Smith."

That's right.

I asked for what could specifically be verified from the ancients you trust, and you've been dancing ever since.

I haven't been dancing. I've asked you how specific you want me to be.

So one more time: what do you mean by "verification"?

By 'verification', I mean identifying evidence which validates (or 'verifies'), claims made 'the ancients' I trust.

You say you can verify "enough." What specifically can you verify?

I can verify:

* Sufficient of the Primary History (Genesis-2 Chronicles), the Secondary History (the rest of the history of the Old Testament), for the basis of a rational faith that it is historically accurate

* Sufficient of the prophets for the basis that they made genuine, successful predictive prophecy

* Sufficient of the history of the New Testament for the basis of a rational faith that it is historically accurate

* Sufficient of the prophecies in the New Testament that they are genuine, successful predictive prophecy

What is "sufficient basis for rational faith"?

It is the point at which evidence becomes so great that 'theory' becomes sufficiently reliable to be treated as fact even though it has not been formally proved true. Take as an example the 'general theory of relativity', which is technically a theory, but supported by sufficient evidence to be treated as fact due to its reliability (you will find people referring to the 'theory of evolution' in the same way). How much evidence does that take? What kind of evidence? That depends on the individual person.

And lastly, why do you trust the ancients' relationship with God more than you trust your own?

I've answered this. I do not trust their relationship with God more than I trust my own.

Why do you believe them when they say they had visions, God visited them, angels visited them, etc.? Because they said so?

I've answered this as well, and the answer was not 'Because they said so'.

[_Yoda]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are not understanding my question.

You said: "There are significant differences between what Smith said and what the 'ancients' I trust said. The major differences involve verification. I can verify enough of what these 'ancients' said in order to provide sufficient basis for rational faith. This cannot be done for Smith." I asked for what could specifically be verified from the ancients you trust, and you've been dancing ever since.

So one more time: what do you mean by "verification"? You say you can verify "enough." What specifically can you verify? What is "sufficient basis for rational faith"? And lastly, why do you trust the ancients' relationship with God more than you trust your own? Why do you believe them when they say they had visions, God visited them, angels visited them, etc.? Because they said so?

It's an interesting question to think about, Harmony. I think that the reason we regard what the "ancients" say as fact is that the Bible has been around for a very long time. It's been around MUCH longer than Joseph Smith, or any of his writings. Most who have a large investment in Christianity, right or wrong, accept the Bible as fact based on faith.