Post by Josh on Feb 5, 2007 17:40:45 GMT -8
Originally posted 10/05:
I was talking with Michelle about the need for Christians to be consistant by applying criticisms of other belief systems to their own faith. For example, if early Mormonism can be criticized for trying to establish an earthly, theocratic state, what about criticisms that early Christianity did that as well? This example is a bit of a straw dummy, because I think there is a major difference: the founder(s) of Mormonism sought to enforce their beliefs militarily, whereas the founder(s) of Christianity taught just the opposite. It was later 'followers' of Christ who got entangled in the difficulties of theocracy. (Note, by the way, I don't necessarily think it's a given that theocracies are inherently evil, but they are often a source of contention)
This may be a simpler one, but there are more issues to take a look at. Here's a few for consideration:
1) If Joseph Smith's visions can be shown to be fabrications full of inconsistancies and contradictions, what do we do with the alleged discrepancies between the Gospel accounts? Are they different, or the same issue? And are consistant in our critique?
2) If Mormons are criticized for basing their faith on an inward feeling alone, what does that say about the Christian notion of "childlike faith"? Are they different?
3) If Joseph Smith seems fishy because of all his gratuitious revelations, how do we judge whether any revelation is true or not? The Bible records many instances where people received some kind of revelation, some that might also seem 'fishily' advantagous. (see Acts 10). How can one tell if a particular revelation is trustworthy?
These are just a few examples. I have some ideas about them, but I'd like to hear you guys chime in....
I was talking with Michelle about the need for Christians to be consistant by applying criticisms of other belief systems to their own faith. For example, if early Mormonism can be criticized for trying to establish an earthly, theocratic state, what about criticisms that early Christianity did that as well? This example is a bit of a straw dummy, because I think there is a major difference: the founder(s) of Mormonism sought to enforce their beliefs militarily, whereas the founder(s) of Christianity taught just the opposite. It was later 'followers' of Christ who got entangled in the difficulties of theocracy. (Note, by the way, I don't necessarily think it's a given that theocracies are inherently evil, but they are often a source of contention)
This may be a simpler one, but there are more issues to take a look at. Here's a few for consideration:
1) If Joseph Smith's visions can be shown to be fabrications full of inconsistancies and contradictions, what do we do with the alleged discrepancies between the Gospel accounts? Are they different, or the same issue? And are consistant in our critique?
2) If Mormons are criticized for basing their faith on an inward feeling alone, what does that say about the Christian notion of "childlike faith"? Are they different?
3) If Joseph Smith seems fishy because of all his gratuitious revelations, how do we judge whether any revelation is true or not? The Bible records many instances where people received some kind of revelation, some that might also seem 'fishily' advantagous. (see Acts 10). How can one tell if a particular revelation is trustworthy?
These are just a few examples. I have some ideas about them, but I'd like to hear you guys chime in....