The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Marcus]

What do you mean "It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament."? Do you have a choice in what to believe?

Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass. There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20).

Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved? (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).

Is not today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared? Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their willful stubbornness they would not listen.

Whoa. I’ve been out for a very long time. seriously, Mormons still believe in a literal Noah’s flood? That’s just nuts.

[MG 2.0]

I’ve been out for a very long time. seriously, Mormons still believe in a literal Noah’s flood? That’s just nuts.

Look at my last post.

There are divergent views among LDS folks. Not so nutso as you would make us out to be. But as in any large group of religionists you’re going to find people spread along a spectrum of thought and belief. And within the LDS tradition that includes its leaders.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

Fine tuning is an argument for intention. The concept is that the state of the universe was selected intentionally so that life could evolve and, by extension, human beings.

When a person cites it as evidence for faith, it is initiating a conversation not ending it. The next requirement of that person (you, in this case) is to then counter the overwhelming evidence against the universe being guided towards the creation of human beings as a destination in creation rather than an apparently insignificant blip on the timeline and geography of space-time of the existence of the universe.

You initiated the argument that there was intention evident in the form of the universe by citing fine tuning. Then you backed out because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the argument overall.

Also, while you claim sharing other's concern for the loss of innocent life and cast doubt on the role of a just god in commanding murder of innocents, you have many other conditions where you morally do harm to others with zero qualm in the name of your god. You are here on this board essentially as a testimony "suicide bomber" in the jihad against liberalism, putting your secondhand morality above genuine care or concern for human beings. Homosexual? Engage in sex acts outside marriage? Publicly dispute the existence of the creator god? Condemnation and dusting of your shoes is your explosive vest, your conviction in your rightness overwhelming your ability to form an ethical thought of you own.

Go play with your grandchildren, MG.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’ve been out for a very long time. seriously, Mormons still believe in a literal Noah’s flood? That’s just nuts.

Look at my last post.

There are divergent views among LDS folks. Not so nutso as you would make us out to be. But as in any large group of religionists you’re going to find people spread along a spectrum of thought and belief. And within the LDS tradition that includes its leaders.

Regards,
MG

-_-

[Marcus]

Look at my last post.

There are divergent views among LDS folks. Not so nutso as you would make us out to be. But as in any large group of religionists you’re going to find people spread along a spectrum of thought and belief. And within the LDS tradition that includes its leaders.

Regards,
MG

-_-

I know, I don’t get it either. Is the argument that LDS leaders don’t agree on their beliefs? The quotes about the flood were from a Prophet and I think at least one Apostle. And we’re not talking about “any large group of religionists”, we’re talking about a very, very tiny religion. Mg2, are you suggesting the leaders and followers of your small group don’t agree on beliefs?

[MG 2.0]

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

Fine tuning is an argument for intention. The concept is that the state of the universe was selected intentionally so that life could evolve and, by extension, human beings.

When a person cites it as evidence for faith, it is initiating a conversation not ending it. The next requirement of that person (you, in this case) is to then counter the overwhelming evidence against the universe being guided towards the creation of human beings as a destination in creation rather than an apparently insignificant blip on the timeline and geography of space-time of the existence of the universe.

You initiated the argument that there was intention evident in the form of the universe by citing fine tuning. Then you backed out because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the argument overall.

Also, while you claim sharing other's concern for the loss of innocent life and cast doubt on the role of a just god in commanding murder of innocents, you have many other conditions where you morally do harm to others with zero qualm in the name of your god. You are here on this board essentially as a testimony "suicide bomber" in the jihad against liberalism, putting your secondhand morality above genuine care or concern for human beings. Homosexual? Engage in sex acts outside marriage? Publicly dispute the existence of the creator god? Condemnation and dusting of your shoes is your explosive vest, your conviction in your rightness overwhelming your ability to form an ethical thought of you own.

Go play with your grandchildren, MG.

Your contributions are always appreciated honor. Have a nice rest of the week.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Look at my last post.

There are divergent views among LDS folks. Not so nutso as you would make us out to be. But as in any large group of religionists you’re going to find people spread along a spectrum of thought and belief. And within the LDS tradition that includes its leaders.

Regards,
MG

-_-

Nice of you to chime in Doc. Have a nice rest of the week.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mg2, are you suggesting the leaders and followers of your small group don’t agree on beliefs?

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions.

You have been out for a while haven’t you? I find myself questioning whether you were ever fully ‘in’.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

Fine tuning is an argument for intention. The concept is that the state of the universe was selected intentionally so that life could evolve and, by extension, human beings.

When a person cites it as evidence for faith, it is initiating a conversation not ending it. The next requirement of that person (you, in this case) is to then counter the overwhelming evidence against the universe being guided towards the creation of human beings as a destination in creation rather than an apparently insignificant blip on the timeline and geography of space-time of the existence of the universe.

You initiated the argument that there was intention evident in the form of the universe by citing fine tuning. Then you backed out because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the argument overall.

If people want to just cite their faith, that would be fine, but I agree, the attempt at arguing fine tuning on the basis of logic failed.

(I suspect the argument about triaging deaths of innocents against deaths of those who deserve it was just an attempt to stir up a response, and not really a serious point. )

[honorentheos]

Mg2, are you suggesting the leaders and followers of your small group don’t agree on beliefs?

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions.

You have been out for a while haven’t you? I find myself questioning whether you were ever fully ‘in’.

Regards,
MG

While more recently the church has had to back off of making assertions about the flood being a global event, the doctrine was that the earth had to be baptized by immersion, even as we were, such that the very top of the tallest mountain was covered. And that it will receive its paradisical glory, being baptized in the spirit at the second coming. Someone sitting in a Sunday School class with heretical views about a local flood, or a metaphorical flood, would not have been in line with the doctrine.

"Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. These forms are strictly man made and not part of the gospel ordinances." ~ Joseph Fielding Smith