Goya wrote: The simple answer is that it has it has no relevance. That's as simple as it gets. You are asking as a way of avoiding addressing the larger issue of whether or not Dr Jenkins is actually showing bias.
I have a couple of questions. Does one 'show' bias? Always? Sometimes? Can an intelligent person mask/cover bias but they still come through either consciously or unconsciously?
I have NO idea whether or not Phillip Jenkins has a prejudice and/or bias that would inform his views in regards to Jesus being the Son of God. I would think that his views relative to Jesus may have bearing on whether or not he is a practicing Christian. I don't know if he is or isn't. What I would surmise, however, is that if he does have any biased opinion that disfavors Jesus as Son of God and this in turn influences any Christian practice that he would engage in...going to church for example...this may have some influence in regards to the way he views Christian movements/churches that have 'sprung up' over the last century or two. After all, if he doesn't believe in Jesus as the Son of God it would surprise me if this didn't influence his views towards the underpinnings of the LDS Church.
But then again, I really don't know much about this guy as far as his personal beliefs and how those might in any way create biases/prejudices inside his mind.
Just asking...
Regards, MG
Last edited by Guest on Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mentalgymnast wrote: I have a question...are any of the scriptural/sacred texts of the Bahai faith composed in narrative form where a story is being told that expands and/or takes place linearly over a period of time? Or are the texts more of an inspirational/homily nature?
Are you serious? How the hell does being in a narrative form mean anything special?
My gosh, people. Can't a guy ask a question? I thought this was a place where I could ask questions and learn something. If not, it's kind of a waste of time at least in one respect.
Question remains unanswered by someone that could probably answer it in a heartbeat...
mentalgymnast wrote:As I said towards the beginning of this thread...the Book of Mormon in some respects is unique/different/set apart from other scriptural/sacred texts that have been produced in recent times. To me, that makes the Book of Mormon worth a look. And a second look...
Is not the Book of Mormon most familiar to you than the texts of any other faith? Would not every faith have something about it that is unique?
I'm also wondering if you can produce some numbers for the audience here with regard to how much written material perceived to be 'in support' of the Book of Mormon has been written by members of the faith, versus non-members? If a large number of members produce literature affirming their chosen belief, does that make their particular belief more relevant or believable than any other faith system?
Last edited by Guest on Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
canpakes wrote:If you're going to use the analogy of an eye exam to dismiss my comment...
Hi canpakes, I wasn't trying to dismiss your comment at all. I was more or less trying to add a bit to what you said having agreed with you. I may have been inarticulate in doing so. Apparently it wouldn't be the first time I've done that around here.
I see 'bracketing', or taking a narrow/myopic view/emphasis as a relatively new phenomenon used, at least in Mormon studies, to either ignore or not have to confront some difficult issues. Religionists and Mormon apologists to this. It's rather obvious.
mentalgymnast wrote:As I said towards the beginning of this thread...the Book of Mormon in some respects is unique/different/set apart from other scriptural/sacred texts that have been produced in recent times. To me, that makes the Book of Mormon worth a look. And a second look...
Is not the Book of Mormon most familiar to you than the texts of any other faith? Would not every faith have something about it that is unique?
I'm also wondering if you can profuce some numbers for the audience here with regard to how much written material perceived to be 'in support' of the Book of Mormon has been written by members of the faith, versus non-members? If a large number of members produce literature affirming their chosen belief, does that make their particular belief more relevant or believable than any other faith system?
Yes, the Book of Mormon is more familiar to me than the texts of any other faith. Yes, I think that most if not every faith has something unique about it.
My guess is that there has been exponentially more material written about the Book of Mormon by those within the faith. If members are some of the only ones producing critical text/exegesis on the contents of the Book of Mormon, that, at the very least, helps folks understand the scriptural foundations of the LDS faith.
Believable? Relevant? That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
mentalgymnast wrote: I have a question...are any of the scriptural/sacred texts of the Bahai faith composed in narrative form where a story is being told that expands and/or takes place linearly over a period of time? Or are the texts more of an inspirational/homily nature?
Goya wrote:Are you serious? How the hell does being in a narrative form mean anything special?
mentalgymnast wrote:My gosh, people. Can't a guy ask a question? I thought this was a place where I could ask questions and learn something. If not, it's kind of a waste of time at least in one respect.
Some are narrative, as is the case in most scripture.
Now it's your turn:
Are you serious? How the hell does being in a narrative form mean anything special?
