After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the
scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's
understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the assumptions
we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan said is
precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a "Signaturi" because
you don't understand how to read scripture.
I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Forced to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated.

It actually reminds me of the arguments of the atheists that I grew up with. Because of this or that it isn't necessary for there to be a God. Well... what does necessary have to do with it anyway? If it is real, if it happened, then necessity has nothing to do with it.

Now I now that there are a lot of blanks that we do not know how to fill today. Many of them are not going to be filled until the Second Coming. But I don't think we need to fill those blanks by denying the miracles of God. And yes, I think that suggesting that God did not part the Red Sea because "it isn't necessary" as long as the true message is communicated, is trying to force the miraculous, the divine, into a scientific mold. To say that something is not so because it isn't necessary, is bad logic in the first place. Lot's of things are so even though they are not necessary. It wasn't necessary for me to eat a big pizza yesterday, but I did.

There are those who want to deny the reality of the miracles reported in the Old and New Testaments. Some of them try to brush off the miracle by saying that it never happened, that it is just a figure of speech or an allegory. They point out all the symbolism that is in the scriptures. Fine. There is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I wouldn't have it any other way. But to deny miracles by assuming the record to be symbolism rather than literal, is a cop out, in my opinion. Such a person ought to just admit they don't have enough faith to believe the miracles reported in the scriptures.

"Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described
intellectuals" --Uncle Bob
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to