Tycho, I think your example is a little unfair. For one, it's playing on human inabilities to see our own failures.

If I may, I think a closer example would be thus; you have a friend who has a great credit rating. You know this. You guys get really close, you spend time together, and he establishes a rapport as you as being tremendously honest, friendly, dependable, and self-sacrificing. This is a guy who always puts others before himself.

The guy hits a financial rough spot. He comes to you and asks to borrow ten thousand dollars. It's a lot of money, but he's investing it such-and-such, and he gives his personal guarantee he'll repay you plus interest. The only reason he's asking is because the bank won't extend him credit (perhaps because he's God and doesn't carry ID ;P )

The evidence suggesting his financial trustworthiness is now gone, but you have a relationship and a history to build off of, which is its own evidence.

Tycho:  The "assumptions" I made were only in things that are essential to salvation and thus necessary to argue the rest of the points (i.e., the premises).  If God doesn't exist, then none of the other stuff matters...period.  I am laying a framework, not stating absolute facts.  You could say the same thing about Buddhism or any religion.  What are the essential facts for that religion's salvation?  Okay, now what are the non-essential facts?  What happens if some of the non-essential facts are not true?  SHOULD (and I keep emphasizing the word SHOULD) a person lose faith if non-essential facts are simply errors, mistranslations, or figurative speech?  I doubt it.


In reply to katisara (msg # 108):
I don't think you've exactly got it, but it makes a good launching point.  Those facts are not relevant to salvation.

Would it affect my faith?  It would probably test it, but those facts alone would not alter my behavior because they are not codes of conduct, ordinances, or other commands from God necessary for salvation.  So then the only question is whether I could survive the test of faith.  That question is completely separate and apart from the factual statements you make.  So, yes, those facts are irrelevant.



Wrong facts that are not essential are like tree branches that have grown at a bad angle.  You simply cut them off and the tree lives on.  If the fact is critical to salvation, it is like a disease in the roots or trunk.  You then would have to cut down the whole tree.  If you cut down the whole tree because one small branch was diseased, that wouldn't make any sense to me.  The same is true of religions.

But why would you trust a god that lies to you about what it takes to be saved?

I think Heath's point is:
1) You wouldn't trust a god that lies about the requirements to salvation; that's a critical principal, so grounds for invalidating faith; and
2) The state of Mary's maidenhood is not a point regarding salvation.

That's not what I'm understanding his argument to be, which would seem more like:

a) God can lie all he wants, because it doesn't effect the route to salvation.
b) Mary was probably a virgin prior to God getting horizontal with her, so the point is moot.

Yes, exactly.  The key, though, is that we don't know whether God exists.  It's an open question that people need to reach some conclusion on in order to even worry about the salvation stuff.  So anything that makes a person doubt that God exists is a "salvation" issue, because it may cause them to abandon the stuff that is essential for salvation if God is real.


I think there are two issues that are tripping us up here:
1.  You're focussing exclusively on "non-essenial" that are "simply errors, mistranslations, or figurative speech."  I think we can largely agree on those.  The question is about out-and-out lies?  I know you don't feel someone making up a story about conversations with angels qualifies as a lie, but many others do.  We might not get much further on changing each others mind about the specific example, but it would be useful to at least hear your position on cases if they really were straight-up lies.  Then we'd at least be at the point where we could both say "okay, we disagree that this is a lie, but if someone changed our mind on that, we could agree with the rest of what the other person says."  So, if there were intentional deceptions (not just honest mistakes or mistranslations, etc) in the bible related to Jesus' miracles, would you agree that it would be rational for a person to doubt other claims it makes??
2.  I think the word "should" is being used in two different ways here.  I think you're using it in the "given that we believe God exists and that faith is the key to salvation, will they be better off making this decision?" sense.  And under those assumptions, the answer is indeed that they should keep the faith.  But I'm using "should" in the sense of meaning "is this the best decision given the limited information they have available to them?"  Does that sound about right?  You're talking about the costs/benefits of a decision, whereas I'm talking about making a decision based on limited evidence?  I think we're getting tripped up on this because you're saying they "should" keep on believing as they do (because that belief is critical for getting into heaven), whereas I'm saying they "should" change their minds (because they no longer have good evidence that heaven actually exists).  We're both using the same word ("should"), but meaning slightly different things by it.  We seem to be talking about different aspects of the question, with me focussed on making a rational decision with limited data, and you focussed on obtaining salvation.


But IF you didn't "survive" your test of faith, wouldn't your actions change?  Would you still make covenants with a God if you didn't believe He existed?


I think this is a fundamental difference in how you view the question of religion and how I (and possibly katisara) do.  I tend to ask "do I have good reason to believe that the supernatural claims of this religion are true?  Does its afterlife actually exist?  Will following their instructions actually lead me to that afterlife, etc?"  The very first thing is to figure out if I believe it or not.  So anything that calls into doubt the credibility of those making claims about the religion is a pretty big deal.  Because if someone lies to me about the little stuff, I'm not going to believe their claims about the big stuff.

In your analogy, all I can see are the branches of the tree (or, perhaps just the leaves), and someone is telling me about how great the leaves are because the trunk is so great.  I can't actually see the trunk myself, I just have to listen to this person's stories about this amazing trunk, and look at the leaves.  But if I see that the leaves are diseased, and not at all like what the person told me the leaves were like, I'm really not going to believe them when they tell me that the trunk is great.  It's not that I'm saying "an amazing trunk is fine, but I won't take an amazing trunk with bad leaves!"  Rather, I'm saying, "this guy lied about the leaves, he's probably lying about the trunk too.  I'm guessing it's diseased all the way down to the roots based on what I can see."

On the other hand, you seem to be taking the trunk as given.  In your analogy you can see the whole tree, from roots to trunk, to branch, to leaves.  You feel like you've inspected the trunk, and know that it's sound.  So you can prune a few bad branches and still not be worried about the overall health of the tree.

Basically, you consider the whole tree to be "visible," where I consider the majority of the tree to be hidden from sight.  How one reacts to bad leaves in those two cases would be different.

Just thought of another way to highlight the "should" issue.

In the story of jack and the beanstock Jack sells the family cow for a handful of magic beans.  His poor mother is pretty disappointed with this, calls him a fool, and throws the beans out the window.  Overnight a beanstock grows into the sky, Jack climbs it the next day, gets a goose that lays golden eggs or something, and eventually lives happily ever after.

We can look at the decision jack made to sell the cow for magic beans in two ways:
1.  did he end up living "happily ever after" because of it?  Yes?  Well, then it was a good decision and he "should" have done just what he did.
2.  would a rational person expect a good outcome from the decision?  No?  Well, then it was bad decision and he "shouldn't" have done what he did.

#1 is more like what Heath is saying, #2 is more like what I'm saying.  Both are valid uses of the word "should," but they mean slightly different things in each context.

Again, that's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is to remove the individual out of the picture completely, okay?  This will remove all subjectiveness and indirect influence.

Now, looking at the doctrine of a religion, each has a "path" to salvation (tenets of the faith that are necessary, codes of conduct, rites, etc.)  Everything the religion says is necessary on that path is what I am referring to.  It is pure dogma without individual prejudism or subjectiveness.

You are looking at the individual independently from the religious dogma. This is why we have problems of "SHOULD."  According to the religious dogma (not the individual's beliefs), SHOULD a person be affected by A, B, or C?  If not, it is not necessary to salvation.

This is not "outcome oriented," as you suggest.  It is ideologically oriented based on the path set forth by the religion.

So, for example, if you took out every reference in the Bible of Mary being a virgin (and it didn't say anything one way or the other), would the Bible still be enough to lead a person to salvation?  If not, then it is an "essential" fact.  If not, then it is not "essential."

This is why we look at core concepts that drive behavior in the religion, including the ordinances, codes of conduct, etc.

If you think of the following question, you will understand exactly my point:

"If the Bible did not reference the mother of Jesus in any way, shape or form, would it still be sufficient to lead one to salvation?"

I think I see what you're saying, Heath, it just doesn't seem to have much point to me.  "Removing the individual" takes away the whole part that's of any interest to me.  I think that's really why we're talking past each other.  You're looking at it from the point of a view of the religion, I'm looking at it from the point of view of the individual following the religion (or deciding not to follow it).

From my point of view, this all started when you said that people were wrong to care whether or not Mary was a virgin.  For me, you can't take the individual out of it once you make that claim.  The claim is fundamentally about individuals, and what they should or shouldn't do.

I understand that if faith in Jesus is the key to salvation, then someone could believe Mary was or wasn't a virgin, and it wouldn't impact their salvation at all.  I get that, and I can agree with it.  I think for me, though, is going from that to "someone is wrong if their faith requires Mary to be a virgin."  Because I think it's entirely rationally for someone to distrust sources that lie to them.

For your quote, I could totally agree that if the bible never said anything about Mary, that wouldn't be a problem for the religion.  But saying nothing, and containing falsehoods are very different situations.  Perhaps not for what you're looking at, but absolutely for what I'm looking at.

I guess the way I'd summarize what I'm saying in one line would be:
"if Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, didn't actually perform any miracles, and didn't actually claim to be the son of God, would you still trust the bible enough to follow it's path to salvation?"  [note, for clarity, it could still be the case that Jesus died for your sins in this hypothetical, the question is whether you'd actually believe he did without all the miracles]

That only makes sense if the Salvation process (Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3) is assumed to be true whether any of the other things are true.

I actually agree with you Heath, that if there is some sort of Objective Salvation Process that exists, independant of any facts, then those facts are non-important.

But the existence of that Objective Salvation Process can only be taken on faith if you don't care about the importance of the facts.  It is an assumption that must be held first in order to neglect the importance of the facts like you do.

So, yes, you could be right.  There could be an Objective Salvation Process that exists that will always exists regardless of all sorts of other non-Salvation important facts.  The problem is most people are not willing to hold that assumption without some facts to first lead them there, and keep them there.

You can if you want to be objective as to the requirements for salvation of a religion.  If you want to stick to the subjective, then it would be just as easy to say that any true religion must stone adulterers because that's what it says in the Bible. But again, that would be a misunderstanding of the Bible, and not objective or reasonable.  So also are those who claim that Mary must be a virgin for the religion to be true, even though Isaiah simply prophecies that she would be a young woman.

So if you accept any individual's interpretation of the writings, no matter how different they vary from what was intended, then we are no longer talking about a "religion," but about a "person."

Again, this focuses on the "person," not the "religion," and is entirely subjective.  If you believe that Methusalah lived exactly the number of days stated in the Bible or else your entire religion is wrong, then that is the "individual," and it only affects THAT INDIVIDUAL'S salvation.  What I am talking about are the things in the religion that are critical to EVERY PERSON'S salvation.

I agree with you Heath, but that's only true if you assume that the religion is true before you look at the facts.

That's pretty much backwards to the way most people interact with the world.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 120):

Not necessarily.  I can do the analysis under Buddhism or any religion without actually "believing" it.  It's just dissecting the tenets of the faith.

The problem is the converse of what you are stating.  People become so ingrained in their own religion that they can't see the forest for the trees and dissect their own faith, or accept anything might be open to discussion.

So my analysis works best when you "don't" believe in the religion and can dissect its elements without bias.

I'm not sure I understand.  I agree that what you claim is a problem (regarding people becoming ingrained in their own religion abnd struggling to see other perspectives), but I'm not sure how first assuming a position of salvation helps that.

You dissect the religion.  What does the religion say is required for salvation?  What other codes of conduct are required?  Etc.  Anything that is outside of these codes is simply fluff.  You don't have to believe anything to make this analysis.  And belief might actually obscure the analysis due to personal bias.

So Religion A says that the road to Salvation requires one to take 100 steps in a row to the East.

It also says that the prophet Eastman could shoot lasers out of his eyes and was the one who said that walking East would bring salvation.

We find out that the prophet Eastman could never shoot lasers out of his eyes, but in your mind that's not important to the Salvation process because it's only a fact, while all that is important is that walking 100 steps to the East is the point?

Does that sound correct?

Yes, that is correct.  Because if the religion itself holds out to be true in the endgame, the other facts will not have mattered.  All that will have mattered is if you took the 100 steps according to the salvation dictates of that religion.

In reply to Heath (msg # 125):

The wrinkle to your example is if the religion also said something like, "In order to be saved, you must also believe that Eastman shoots lasers out of his eyes."  Then it becomes a principle of salvation and an essential fact.

I am aware of no commandment requiring such an acceptance of Mary as a virgin in order for an individual to receive salvation.

In other words, if a person believes everything in the Bible to be true except the Mary is a virgin part, would that person be damned according to Christian beliefs?  If not, then it is not essential to salvation.

Fair enough.  In this case you are using the religion (or the texts that speak about it) as the basis for deciding what is essential or not, but if those same texts can't be trusted on basic facts about things like virgin birth, then why should they be used as the standard for what is essential for salvation?

Religious Text A says the way to salvation is through 100 steps.
Religious Text A says Eastman shoots lasers out of his eyes.
Religious Text A says Eastman is the one who says salvation is through the 100 steps.

We find out Religious Text A is historically wrong about the lasers.

That should erode our confidence in both of the other points in my view (it does not have to eliminate confidence for sure, but just erode it), but not in your view.

It's a fundamental difference in how we view evidence.

When you add on the fact that many people believe the Religious Text itself claims it is 100% without error it becomes even more fantastically critical that not just most facts, but every fact, is 100% true.

I don't think the Bible necessarily spells out Mary's virginal status after Jesus was conceived.

In the LDS faith, in the Book of Mormon, Alma (Alma 7:10) says that Mary would be a virgin, that she would conceive and bear a son.  After that moment of conception, however, while she was bearing that son, was she still a virgin from our modern day point of view?  How exactly was she "overshadowed" to conceive Jesus?

I think everyone can agree on one thing, that Mary was likely a virgin before Jesus was conceived.  Given the social climate of the times, it's quite likely that any given young woman would still be a virgin when it came time for her to be married.  Women were married young, premarital sex was really frowned on, and kids (girls especially) just didn't get time off to themselves in mixed company.  There was usually always some sort of chaperon or guardian, because people wanted to guard against a daughter becoming "spoiled" before marriage.  Wouldn't most women have still been virgins?

How long did she remain a virgin, however?  She was married to Joseph and sex during pregnancy isn't forbidden, and is encouraged, as I understand it.  While she may have abstained from sex with Joseph before Jesus was born, was she still technically a virgin anyway?

Heck if I know.  I don't think it's a very important part of the Bible, however, whether she had sex with Joseph before Jesus' birth, or if she was technically not a virgin anymore after Jesus' conception, that's not very important.  What is important is that she lived a morally clean sex-free life before Jesus conception.

I think the hypothetical we're being asked to consider here is actually that she wasn't a virgin when Jesus was conceived (which I guess could mean that EITHER there was premaritial sex going on, OR that Jesus wasn't conceived until after they were married rather than when the bible says he was).  What Heath is saying is that it shouldn't change anyone's beliefs if it turns out that Mary got pregnant with Jesus in an entirely-non-miraculous, just-like-every-other-pregnancy, way.  Others of us are saying that that would mean the stories about angels talking to Joseph and Mary, and about Mary being a virgin would all have been made up out of nowhere by someone, and still made it into the gospels, which calls into question the reliability of the gospels as sources of information about Jesus' divinity.

It sounds like the BoM also says that Mary would be a virgin, so in addition to calling the accuracy of the bible into question, Mormons would also have reason to doubt the BoM if they accepted that Mary wasn't a virgin before Jesus was conceived.  I know that Mormons are willing to accept that there are some errors in the bible due to human mistakes over time, but am I correct in thinking that the BoM is viewed as being "revealed," and thus free from factual errors (as opposed to typos and dated wording and such)?  Would directly contradicting the BoM be a "big deal" to Mormons?
This message was last edited by the GM at 11:18, Wed 26 Mar 2014.

Tycho, I think most, if not all, Mormons understand that the Book of Mormon is not 100% accurate in every little detail and nuance of wording, particularly since some of the passages are directly from the Bible and are based on Joseph Smith's reading of the Bible and his understanding at the time he did the translation.  So there would be some translation error that carries over.

That said, without other evidence, I think we tend to accept it as true in the facts since it is part of our canonized scripture.

But my point was that it does not "have" to be true since it is not related to one's salvation.

1st Nephi 11, in the Book of Mormon, Nephi was "caught away in the Spirit of the Lord" and had some sort of vision.  Among other things, he saw a virgin.  Then the phrase "the condescension of God" was mentioned, then that "the virgin" is literally the physical mother of Jesus.  Then after "a space of time" he sees the virgin again, bearing a child.  Whether she was actually still a virgin at this point or whether Nephi was using that phrase to refer to her, since he hadn't been told her name, well I think a person could take it either way.

Everyone is a virgin up until they have sex, right? ;)  For most Israelite/Jewish people at that time, they'd marry young and wouldn't have sex until marriage, as far as we know -- it was a very patriarchal society and girls just wouldn't have that many opportunities to go have sex.  So I think the idea that Mary hadn't had sex with any other man before Joseph is probably true.  The 500 years or so in Judah before Jesus were born were a fairly devout period, as far as we can gather from archeological sources.

I've been thinking about Joseph, and he wasn't going to stone Mary to death (as he could have) but was of the mind to put her away by herself for the rest of her life.  I could easily see him not wanting to have sex with Mary while she was sort of the baby-momma for someone else.

So, if you accept that Christ is half-divine, that his literal father is God the Father, and if you go by the viewpoint that it's mortal sex that loses virginity, rather than whatever happened with Mary, then I could see an argument being made that there was a virgin birth.

Bart, our earlier discussions before you arrived was how "virgin" in Old Testament times really meant "a young woman of marrying age" and not necessarily a sexually pure person (even though that might be implied).  Thus, the prophecy of Isaiah was mistranslated into Greek as meaning sexually pure, which was the narrow definition clung to by early Christians in their writings, and then becoming an ideology that a (sexually pure) virgin became pregnant, which continues to this day.

My point was that, whether she was sexually pure or not is not the issue; Isaiah's prophecy cannot be strictly construed as having only that meaning, and the later writers, including those of the New Testament and even Nephi (who, as you will recall, quoted freely from Isaiah) probably cannot be strictly interpreted to mean virgin in the meaning we ascribe it today, and if they were, it was likely derived from the early Greek mistranslation of Isaiah, which turned almost into its own religious movement -- the "Blessed Mary," etc.

Which is not to say she wasn't a virgin in that sense.  I just do not want to be someone who redefines words to meet my own ends.  Translation accuracy and allowance for multiple reasonable interpretations is important to me.