"John W. Redelfs" wrote:

> 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.

No it's not. You have this wrong, John.

> 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.

I'm sorry if you've interpreted your background this way, but it's not necessary.
You're forcing a false dichotomy on people which is not only not necessary, but
presents a barrier to a deeper understanding of the scriptures.

> 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.

"Miracles" are all done according to natural law, it's just that we don't
understand how they were done. We are not like Protestants -- we do not believe God
is a supernatural magician.

> 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.
> John W. Redelfs                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Plenty of materials have been suggested for your consideration. I have yet to see
any indication that you are inclined to consider them. That is, of course, your
business, but your forced false dichotomies are stumbling blocks I believe you will
have to learn to overcome.

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we don’t want a
world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1950)

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor
those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///


Reply via email to