quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Replace 'supernatural' with 'intangible', then. You can't argue that the ancient religions were able to point to their spirits and touch them, whether or not they believed them natural.
It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either. Or the "humours" theory of medicine, or the theory of gravity.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
I agree completely. I think that's why some atheists like to include it in the definition of religion -- it makes all religion wrong by definition.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either.
And had they then attempted to answer the big questions (i.e. your Point One) based on these things, and these things stubbornly resisted verification by any standard, they'd be religions today. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's still not a defining characteristic of religions though, because the first people to think of germs as a possibility for the cause of disease couldn't point to or touch them either.
Certainly they could; that's what microscopes are for. Humours and gravity fail the other test, that of addressing existential questions; you do need both.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, it was not me--I have never mentioned BlueLetterBible.org. Biblegateway.com is the Internet site I have gone to on occasion. Most of the time I consult the sixteen versions of the Bible I have on my own computer. I use SeedMaster software, which allows me to get a Strong's number for any word in the KJV, then click on the number to see the entry in Thayer's Bible Dictionary. Among the versions I have on my computer are two Greek versions, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Alland. I can read Biblical Greek a little--took some courses in college.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think KoM is referring here to falsifiability. While they couldn't see germs, they could produce testable theories about germs -- and then, when microscopes were invented, they could actually see germs.
Religion doesn't have the same predictive utility; neither is it expected that religious claims might someday become testable in this universe.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, under your definition much of 10th century liberal protestantism is not religous. Nor is a good slice of 20th century neo-orthodoxy.
By linking the definition of religion to pre-scientific worldviews which were not exclusive to relgion you make it impossible for a religion to extricate itself from those pre-scientific world views. I'm more inclined to let people who actually practice a religion decide what is central to their religion and what is historical baggage.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We appear to be operating from different conceptions of when germs were first theorised as the source of disease; I had the impression it was after the invention of microscopes and subsequent discovery of 'animalcules' in water. In any case, germ theory makes no attempt at existential questions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: then as far as a tribe that shared a common sensory experience that convinced everyone in the tribe spirits existed was concerned, their beliefs wouldn't be religious. After all, everyone was able to falsifiably test the existence of the spirits to the extent of the capabilities they had access to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13, Gregor Mendel only deduced the existence of genes (he called them "hereditary factors"), and he determined that they are doubled in some way, so that dominant genes are expressed if they exist only on one side, while recessive genes must be doubled on both sides to be expressed. This was brilliantly insightful, considering the limitations of scientific knowledge in his time.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, it was not me--I have never mentioned BlueLetterBible.org. Biblegateway.com is the Internet site I have gone to on occasion. Most of the time I consult the sixteen versions of the Bible I have on my own computer. I use SeedMaster software, which allows me to get a Strong's number for any word in the KJV, then click on the number to see the entry in Thayer's Bible Dictionary. Among the versions I have on my computer are two Greek versions, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle Alland. I can read Biblical Greek a little--took some courses in college.
Okay, Biblegateway has a Hebrew text version. Here’s Psalm 110:1. The work in question is the fifth from the right in the first line.
אדני
Here’s 97:5. The word is seventh from the right in line 5.
אדון
They have the same Strong's number because they have the same root, but the difference in the forms is in the consonants, not just the vowels.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is an experiment whose name I do not recall, showing how humans can convince themselves of anything they like; it goes as follows. You put five people in a room; only one is an experimental subject, but he thinks the other four are, too. You ask them, "which of these lines is longer", with two lines where one is a lot longer than the other; and the four confederates answer first, and give the wrong answer. A surprisingly small fraction of humans will go against the apparent consensus of the group and answer that line B is longer, even though this is really true. And what's more, a considerable fraction of them, asked about this later, will argue that line A really was shorter; they will literally edit their own memories against the evidence of their own eyes, and convince themselves of falsehood, to go along with a group of random strangers on an unimportant question!
I'm aware of that experiment as well. But not everyone does that. It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever. I would think the fact I choose to discuss these things on this forum rather than on some "Lets all talk about how great the bible is forum" is likely indicative that I like opposition for its' ability to refine what I believe.
Furthermore, I don't feel "icky" towards other religions. Were I completely without religion and investigating Mormonism I wouldn't have to be baptized, attend church, etc in order to know if there is good in it. I think it's objectively good that Mormonism encourages people to seek out whatever is good or, 'of good report' and hold fast to it. It's important to not get hung up no the source of a good idea and therefore reject it. I have read parts of the Koran, (I have no objections with reading it cover to cover if I were to secure a copy) I'm quite familiar with Buddhist philosophy. There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
quote:you have to do is answer the question, which you claim always to be willing to do.
I am always willing to answer to the best of my abilities granted at the time. I don't pretend to always have the answer. Our discussions would go alot further if you exhibited some good will even if it was simply acknowledging that religion also directly influences good behavior as well as evil.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were I completely without religion and investigating Mormonism I wouldn't have to be baptized, attend church, etc in order to know if there is good in it.
I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
quote:But not everyone does that. It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever.
Yes, but the experiment runs on measureable, quantifiable things that you can see with your own eyes. And still about two-thirds of humans will conform! And so when you say that intangibles like feeling that life is better when you follow your religion's precepts is evidence for your religion's truth, well, no. Just no. You can't make that argument. Of course you feel better when you conform to your parents and friends and entire society! This would still be true if they were all Satanists; it would be true if they insisted on Hoerbiger's ice-moon theory. It is just completely orthogonal to the question of what is true.
quote:There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
Is a Mormon newbie, someone who is thinking of converting, advised to 'get a PhD' in the faith? Of course not. He is advised to pray, to think about the precepts and see whether they make sense, to try living by the rules for a while and seeing if he feels better. It is this procedure that you have not given a good-faith try for Islam, not some strawman PhD program. And again, the question is not 'good' but 'true'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's not as if you simply get enough people to say one thing then everyone believes it forever and ever.
Actually, people usually will, unless they explicitly set out to try and prove what they believe is wrong.
How many people do you think believe that Saddam Hussain was behind 9-11? How many people think that active WMD were found in Iraq?
It's hard enough to change dry facts in people's heads. But ideas that people become emotionally attached to? It can be impossible to change people there.
quote:I have read parts of the Koran, (I have no objections with reading it cover to cover if I were to secure a copy) I'm quite familiar with Buddhist philosophy. There's quite a difference between observing good where you see it then adopting it, and getting a PHD in every religion.
I doubt that anyone has expected you to merely master the doctrine of Islam. The question is, have you sufficiently opened your heart to Islam, seeking to hear God telling you that Islam is the true religion? Have you done so with the openness and persistance that you think that skeptics would require to feel the truth of your own religion? I think for starters, it would require to you try living the belief that Jesus wasn't the son of God, and that Joseph Smith was not the prophet he claimed to be, because you can't entertain Islam while believing those things.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as an additional data point, my parents weren't Catholic. They did not have me baptised or give me any particular religious training (though they support any I choose for myself) or example. I wasn't raised Catholic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
I'm not ignoring it, while you find truth to be more interesting I still find goodness to be a worthwhile thing to search for. There's truth in Mormonism too, for instance the guidance to not smoke or chew tobacco came years before science verified the prudence of such direction.
quote:Yes, but the experiment runs on measureable, quantifiable things that you can see with your own eyes. And still about two-thirds of humans will conform! And so when you say that intangibles like feeling that life is better when you follow your religion's precepts is evidence for your religion's truth, well, no. Just no. You can't make that argument. Of course you feel better when you conform to your parents and friends and entire society! This would still be true if they were all Satanists; it would be true if they insisted on Hoerbiger's ice-moon theory. It is just completely orthogonal to the question of what is true.
You're conflating doing something because society dictates it ought to be done, and doing something because you yourself observe its' good effect on your person. You can observe yourself, as can others, the effect a lifestyle has on you. No you can't simply say, "It feels good, therefore it's right." I've said many times that system of ethics leads to ruin. But we're just reaching the same impasse where you say that unless God fits into an experimental model that has nothing to do with feeling his presence that anything else is unreliable for identifying his presence much less His intentions.
quote:Is a Mormon newbie, someone who is thinking of converting, advised to 'get a PhD' in the faith? Of course not. He is advised to pray, to think about the precepts and see whether they make sense, to try living by the rules for a while and seeing if he feels better. It is this procedure that you have not given a good-faith try for Islam, not some strawman PhD program. And again, the question is not 'good' but 'true'.
Except that as far as I know Islam does not have such a procedure for verifying the truthfulness of its' claims. It does not identify how one can know the truthfulness of the matter or the falsehood whereas Mormonism describes both. Furthermore, as I am of the opinion that God has already verified the truthfulness of Mormonism, I do not need to keep praying and asking him to reconfirm. -----
swbarnes2:
quote:Actually, people usually will, unless they explicitly set out to try and prove what they believe is wrong.
How many people do you think believe that Saddam Hussain was behind 9-11? How many people think that active WMD were found in Iraq?
It's hard enough to change dry facts in people's heads. But ideas that people become emotionally attached to? It can be impossible to change people there.
I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years. But I suppose to an atheist the fact that religion which is wholly devoid of truth lasting for thousands of years necessitates disagreeing with me. I'm hard pressed to find another idea that has lasted for so long.
quote:I doubt that anyone has expected you to merely master the doctrine of Islam. The question is, have you sufficiently opened your heart to Islam, seeking to hear God telling you that Islam is the true religion? Have you done so with the openness and persistence that you think that skeptics would require to feel the truth of your own religion? I think for starters, it would require to you try living the belief that Jesus wasn't the son of God, and that Joseph Smith was not the prophet he claimed to be, because you can't entertain Islam while believing those things.
Not true. As a missionary I never asked anybody to live their life as if their current religion was completely false. People routinely read the Book of Mormon and went to the Miao to pray to their idols that same day. It was when they asked about whether the Book of Mormon was true that all the other logical steps can take place, i.e. Joseph Smith must then be a prophet of God, Jesus who the Book of Mormon testifies of must be the son of God and savior of the world, there is no other true religion.
If God wanted me to believe in Islam He would have to explain to me why he confirmed the truthfulness of Mormonism when in fact it was not what it claimed to be, "the only correct religion." Further he would have to confirm Islam to me in such a manner that it put all my prior spiritual experiences (which are of a powerful nature) to shame. Again, you can certainly acquaint yourself with Islam without first discarding all your beliefs in God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, since I cannot read Hebrew, and cannot tell whether vowel-pointings have been allowed to influence the word choice (including consonants) in modern Hebrew texts, I have to go by what qualified Hebrew scholars say. They say that the claim that the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5 are different words rests solely upon vowel-pointings. Nor have I seen where any qualified, recognized Jewish Hebrew scholar denies this.
Show me the Hebrew text from well before the seventh century A.D., such as from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I will believe you if you can then demonstrate that the words are different in the two verses.
Even if the words could be proven to be different, there is no Scriptural precedent I can find for King David to refer to Abraham (who had been dead for centuries in the time of David) as his "lord." The name Abraham does not even appear in Psalms. Nor do I find any case where anyone who is dead is referred to as lord. So I would have to suspect that the "rule" some people are trying to assert, that the "adoni" they say is the word in Psalms 110:1 can only refer to a non-divine human, is not a valid rule; they just made it up for use in this one case.
[ May 02, 2009, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13, I wasn't really arguing with what you said about Gregor Mendel and genes; only that he would not have used the word himself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They say that the claim that the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5 are different words rests solely upon vowel-pointings.
Citation, please. Citations, really, since you've claimed abundant numbers of these statements.
Also, you're perfectly capable of looking at the text, then looking up each of the little symbols and seeing what sort of symbol it is. You've even been helpfully pointed to the exact spots in the text you need to look at. Stop pleading incompetence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simply link to that post, then. Note that we need a citation for those specific points in the passages -- for those specific words (in their textual positions) not being different before. Not a general assertion that such behavior was going on without referring to those particular points in the passage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years.
It can take decades, or longer. How long did it take your church to start treating African-Americans as equal worshippers? How long do you think it will be before they deign to call a gay couple raising a child a 'family'?
Really, I don't think the argument "Religious people will eventually fix theological mistakes, even if it takes centuries" is a wise argument.
quote:It was when they asked about whether the Book of Mormon was true that all the other logical steps can take place, i.e. Joseph Smith must then be a prophet of God, Jesus who the Book of Mormon testifies of must be the son of God and savior of the world, there is no other true religion.
Okay, so have you honestly and openly asked if the Koran is true? How openly can you ask this question if you are committed to holding certain things as true that the Koran says are false?
Have you spent the same amount of effort trying to see if Islam and all the other religions of the world are true that you have spent confirming to yourself that your religion is true?
quote:If God wanted me to believe in Islam He would have to explain to me why he confirmed the truthfulness of Mormonism when in fact it was not what it claimed to be, "the only correct religion."
Maybe you were wrong about what God has or hasn't confirmed?
quote:Further he would have to confirm Islam to me in such a manner that it put all my prior spiritual experiences (which are of a powerful nature) to shame.
Since when do mortals say what God has to do?
Maybe truly honest people can recognize truth when they see it, and aren't distracted by spiritual special effects.
quote:Again, you can certainly acquaint yourself with Islam without first discarding all your beliefs in God.
But we aren't talking about 'acquainting'. We are talking about being truly open to recognizing error and embracing truth. Are you as open to accepting the truth of Islam as your converts are to accepting the truth of your religion?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to make a distinction which you consistently elide: Between 'good' and 'truth'. You argue that Mormonism has 'good' in it; it is a rare organisation that survives among humans without some measure of good. But you ignore the question of whether it has truth in it, which is much more interesting.
I'm not ignoring it, while you find truth to be more interesting I still find goodness to be a worthwhile thing to search for. There's truth in Mormonism too, for instance the guidance to not smoke or chew tobacco came years before science verified the prudence of such direction.
Without comparison otherwise, you do know who the other pioneers in this direction were, right? Throw enough predictions out there and you'll get one right by plain chance. But yes, I'll grant this is evidence in your favour. Not convincing evidence, but evidence.
quote:You're conflating doing something because society dictates it ought to be done, and doing something because you yourself observe its' good effect on your person. You can observe yourself, as can others, the effect a lifestyle has on you. No you can't simply say, "It feels good, therefore it's right." I've said many times that system of ethics leads to ruin. But we're just reaching the same impasse where you say that unless God fits into an experimental model that has nothing to do with feeling his presence that anything else is unreliable for identifying his presence much less His intentions.
Perhaps I didn't lay out the steps of my argument clearly enough, because it seems to me you are arguing slightly over my left shoulder. I'll try again:
We both agree that religion must have evidence in its favour in order to be accepted, just like any other hypothesis.
You argue that the evidence lies in
Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation.
Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life.
Testimony of others to the same effects.
Possibly I've missed something.
The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends!
If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
quote:Except that as far as I know Islam does not have such a procedure for verifying the truthfulness of its' claims. It does not identify how one can know the truthfulness of the matter or the falsehood whereas Mormonism describes both.
In the first place, I think you'll find you are mistaken about Islam. Most religions do have this sort of conversion-manufacturing process, because it works; that's (partly) why I consider it orthogonal to the issue of truth. Most converts have at some point prayed to be told "Yes, it's true" and have received some such answer. I feel moderately confident that kmb did something of the sort when she converted to Catholicism, for example, although she would likely describe it in terms of thought and meditation rather than explicit prayer. And in the second place, in the spirit of taking the good from every religion, why not take this confirmation process from Mormonism and apply it to Islam?
quote:Furthermore, as I am of the opinion that God has already verified the truthfulness of Mormonism, I do not need to keep praying and asking him to reconfirm.
If Islam is true, then Mormonism is still partly true, although misguided in following an earlier prophet than Mohammed. (And possibly heretical in also believing there was a prophet after Mohammed.) It follows, presumably, that you would get a partial confirmation, as having taken a step on the right path.
quote:I was not denying that people will believe things when society pressures them to believe them. I was saying that ideas devoid of any truth eventually die, it can take minutes, or it can take years. But I suppose to an atheist the fact that religion which is wholly devoid of truth lasting for thousands of years necessitates disagreeing with me. I'm hard pressed to find another idea that has lasted for so long.
Did you really try? Slavery, duelling, feudalism, the divine right of kings, several different traditions of alchemy and magic, and astrology (which may border on religion) all lasted longer than any currently major religion. Astrology is still active, at that. Let's also note that Mormonism is less than 200 years old. Finally, in a world becoming more secular every year, is this really an argument you want to make?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps I didn't lay out the steps of my argument clearly enough, because it seems to me you are arguing slightly over my left shoulder. I'll try again:
* We both agree that religion must have evidence in its favour in order to be accepted, just like any other hypothesis. * You argue that the evidence lies in o Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation. o Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life. o Testimony of others to the same effects. o Possibly I've missed something. * The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends! * If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
The problem with this is that what I learn from praying/meditation and what I learn from observing the effect of religion on my life often conflict with what I've been taught since I was a small child. That's why some of my religious beliefs are not in line with the church's, and not really in line with anyone other than myself. How could this possibly be the case if, as you say, all I am observing is what I've been taught to observe?
Your assertion that everything boils down to accepting what we've been trained to accept is a reasonable sounding hypothesis, but it doesn't fit the data. Discovering new things through introspection, meditation, religious experiences, etc., that one hasn't been taught, is common among the religious.
As for your final point, I'd say the obvious explanation for why people from different religions report similar effects is that different major religions all observe many of the same basic truths. There is disagreement on God, but there is general agreement on the existence of the spiritual. There is disagreement on the details of right and wrong, but certain moral concepts are common to most major religions. I don't know of any major world religion existing today that I'd consider more wrong than right.
quote:How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
One note about this last question: I still don't see any reason for you to assume religion is any more "unlikely" or "extraordinary" than any other particular explanation of the world. The "likeliness" of religion can't be measured in a reliable way, in the way that the likeliness of a picking out a green M&M from a particular M&M bag can. And every explanation of the world that I can think of has "intangible" concepts, whether they be atoms or gods or mental dreams.
Each time this is pointed out, the discussion shifts to how religion is untestable. Regardless of whether that is true or not, being untestable does not in any way suggest something is inherently less likely or more extraordinary. It's a separate question.
posted
There is so much circular reasoning in Jewish attempts to justify their irresponsible alteration of the text of Psalms 110, that it is hard to pin down Jewish scholars; but observe that the distinction they are trying to make between the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and in Ps. 97:5 is derived from vowel pointings, and they will not deny it. I challenge anyone to produce a statement where a universally recognized authority on the Hebrew text of the Bible flat out denies that the supposed difference between the words in the two texts comes from vowel pointings.
The only difference between adoni and adonai is the vowels. Vowels were not in the original Hebrew inwhich Psalms was written. Is this not clear enough?
Here is another statement by someone conversant with Hebrew scholarship:
quote:This Psalm is short but very important. The text is one of the 134 texts altered by the Sopherim where Yahovah (wrongly termed Yahweh or Jehovah) was altered to Adonai. The text in 110:1 uses the form adoni, a fact that is used by Radical Unitarians to indicate that the Lord in issue is a human as it can refer to humans in the form of owner, master or lord. Even Strong lists this as the case. However, this contrived limitation is denied by Bullinger as it obviously refers to the Adonai at the Right Hand of God. The word used in 110:5 was originally Yahovah but was changed to Adonai in the same possessive form Adoni as that of 110:1 and means Adonai and refers to Yahovah.
This psalm is clearly dealing with two divine beings one of which is the subordinate of the other at his right hand. The subordinate is also named Yahovah (refer to the paper The Angel of YHVH (No. 24)). The Sopherim changed the word to Adonai to conceal the fact of the divinity of the Messiah by association with Yahovah as the One True God. It begins with the identification that it is a Psalm of David. Thus, the verse is not referring to David but to David’s Lord. Hence, the being is Messiah. The rabbinical authorities use the text in the commentaries to refer to Abraham using the link of Melchisedek in verse 4 (see the Soncino commentaries to the Psalm (pp. 371-372) and note the Hebrew of the MT in both verses). However, Abraham tithed to Melchisedek so we must be speaking of Messiah and his order of priests of which Abraham is a subordinate. He is referred to as Yahovah (or some using Jehovah) in Psalm 110:5 and this was changed to Adonai as we will see.
Thus it appears that the word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 was not the only part of the text that was changed.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you read what you just posted, Ron. Even in the midst of the numerous drastic (far more than vowel) changes your quotation asserts, it says
quote:The text in 110:1 uses the form adoni
and only asserts other parts of the text were altered, and that part misunderstood.
So, you attempted to provide one example of someone saying 110:1 and 97:5 are different only based on vowel pointings, and failed.
Please provide a single scholarly source that says 110:1 and 97:5 are or ever were different in vowel pointings. We've already seen that in current texts (including ones relied upon by biblical scholars) there is a consonant difference.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot say or spell out the names of God you have listed above. The one beginning with a "Y". So for the sake of clarity, I will simply call it, "Y".
Jews do not say the name of Y. However, we also never alter the text. Thus, Y is always preserved in it's full form. Christians don't even say it. Whenever it says Y in the bible, the Christian bible says "Lord."
The claim that we altered an original text that read that Y was talking to Y, instead of Y talking to Adoni, is preposterous.
And again, there is a change in consonants, not vowel pointings.
There isn't much more to do to prove we are correct. We explain to you how we read, and you accuse us of forging and manipulating texts. On what basis? None. Theory. That's all. THEORY.
Do you know how insulting that is? The onus is on YOU. You don't even KNOW Hebrew and you sit here on this forum and claim a level of knowledge that no one else can combat, when you are the most ignorant! Do you realize how paralyzed you are without a basic knowledge of Hebrew?
I wish I had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls so I could shove em in your face. But then again, even if I DID have em in my basement, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO READ THEM!!!!
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, fugu13, you misread the statement. You seem to have a problem with accurately reading complex text. The author took the current reading as it appears in modern versions, and argued that it should have been adonai, no distinction should have been made, and noted how a few verses further on, the name for God was changed to adonai. The scribes changed the text. Even accepting the current incorrect word, "adoni," the context shows it does refer to Deity. So the word should not properly be pronouced as adoni at all.
This is where I find fault with Jewish scholarship in general:
(1) Using textual arguments based on text that has been deliberately altered for propaganda purposes, and not even having the candor to admit it.
(2) Serious disregard for the context. It seems almost like Jewish apologists do not even know how to take things in context. The second Lord in Psalms 110:1 could not possibly refer to Abraham.
By the way, fugu13, the quotation I gave was not an attempt to comply with your impertinent demands. You are a control freak and a lazy scholar. I make it a policy to ignore your demands. Nor will I do your scholarship for you.
Armoth, for you to insist that scribes have not altered the text shows how fundamentally ignorant you are of textual criticism.
It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments. Abraham indeed!
You would be surprised (and obviously you are) by how readily scholars can tell when word changes have been made in the text. It is a simple fact of Bible history that throughout the past 3,000 years, scribes routinely changed the text, usually to update the vocabulary to reflect changes in the meanings of words. Many scholars today can even tell where those changes were made. Thus scribes have a long history of changing the text however they saw fit, so it would convey the meanings they thought it should convey.
Yes, I wish you had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls too, and could show the relevant passages to me. I may not be able to read Hebrew, but I can recognize shapes well enough to see if two selected words are the same.
I do not appreciate attempts to deceive me. I want valid facts, and soundly reasoned arguments. I will not settle for less.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments. Abraham indeed!
Ron. If you use the words "vowel pointings" one more time...
The same way you say you will be able to recognize a difference in the Dead Sea Scrolls between the two psalms is the same way you should be able to recognize the difference now. It is a consonant difference, not a vowel difference.
You want to continue using the arguments that the scribes changed actual words? Cool. Keep making em. But seriously dude, stop with the vowel pointings.
And your silliness about how easy it is to detect when the scribes changed things? Yeah, apparently your homing beacon is whenever it'd be convenient to talk about Jesus - that's when the scribes probably did a little bit of messing.
But it's really hard to take you seriously. You talk about sound scholarship and stuff, but all it seems like you have is a subscription to a bunch of biblical journals. Secondary sources are fine and good, but only if you have examined the primary sources as well. If you know anything about scholarship it is that secondary sources are a dime a dozen. You can't know anything until you can plug it back into the primary source - and not only are you not doing this, you are INCAPABLE.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is not theory to note that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew that was all consonants. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for there to have been any difference in the true original for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 97:5. There is no theory about this, it is inarguable fact. It is you and all those trying to manufacture a difference by imposing vowel pointings and other actual word substitutions on the original text, who are trying to present your theories as arguments.
Ron, I am at this very minute, looking at the Hebrew text without the vowel pointings. Consonants only, and there is a difference between those two words.
In addition, vowel pointings don't change the shape of the letters, they are just little dots underneath the line of text (a few above, but most under). The consonants still look just like they did before the vowels were added. So I'm going to echo Armoth and say that if you want to argue that someone changed one of the texts, deliberately or through scribal error, make that argument but that has nothing to do with vowel pointing.Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say it seems very strange for someone who insists on biblical inerrancy to admit that the text could have been changed. Once you allow that, every claim of "X was prophesied" can be countered with "Yes, the text was changed in something AD". It blows every argument Ron has ever made for his faith utterly out of the water.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Someone may find this somewhat interesting. Some might laugh others call me an ass. The Catholic Church made sure that when doctors examined Padre Peo that an atheist doctor was always included.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Using textual arguments based on text that has been deliberately altered for propaganda purposes, and not even having the candor to admit it.
. . .
the IRONY. It BURNS! *whimper*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without comparison otherwise, you do know who the other pioneers in this direction were, right?
Actually I don't, if you know some I'd be happy to read about them.
From your list of evidences,
Praying/meditation and a feeling of confirmation.
Living by the rules and observing a good effect on your own life.
Testimony of others to the same effects.
Possibly I've missed something.
An extension of the tobacco argument would be to observe predictions and see if they come true. For example Smith's prediction that the US civil war would begin with the succession of South Carolina. So in addition to we could add,
Prophecies coming true.
Archeological evidence that confirms statements made in key historical texts i.e the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.
quote:The reason I do not consider these points sufficient evidence is that the third point produces the first two. Of course you feel 'confirmation' when praying "is it true?". Of course you see a good effect on your own life. How could you not? Since you were a child you have been told to expect these effects! The argument is not that you believe because others tell you to believe, although this effect does exist and I think you underestimate it. It is that your 'evidence' can be shown to be completely reproducible just by social pressure; nothing external is required. If people will believe that a long line is short because strangers tell them so, how much more will they believe that their lives are better when told so by family and friends? It might even be true just through (completely subconscious) better treatment from the same family and friends!
But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it. Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself. But clearly many people fall away from Mormonism, why aren't they kept into the fold by pure social pressures? I still summoned the will to not be strongly involved in my religion for some time despite having the same spiritual confirmation I constantly cite now. You also are not accounting for those who convert without any significant social pressure to do so, i.e. people who convert while despite the protestations of their family, friends, and neighbors.
quote:If you have two explanations, A and B, and some fact X which is to distinguish between them, then X is evidence in favour of A if, and only if, A is more likely to produce X than is B. Now I tell you that religions which you believe false produce precisely, in other people, the same effect that you cite as evidence for your own, and I give you the mechanism for their doing so. Does that not make it far more likely that your 'confirmation' is evidence only of the mechanism I have set out, rather than a god? We can produce such 'confirmation' reliably for propositions demonstrably false, for things that can be measured! How can you possibly advance it as evidence for so unlikely a proposition as a religion?
Because I disagree with the fundamental premise that they are exactly as likely. I do believe it's more likely that my experiences come from God and not from myself. The behavior of my experiences has not been consistent like a learned behavior. I don't feel overcome by the spirit every time I bear testimony. I don't get emotional every time I read the scriptures. I've prayed many times and spiritual responses are more the exception rather than the rule. Most often nothing happens and I continue going about my day, once in a while distinct thoughts of action come to my mind that I attribute to God, no other act produces that result, not even long period of pondering.
quote:In the first place, I think you'll find you are mistaken about Islam. Most religions do have this sort of conversion-manufacturing process, because it works; that's (partly) why I consider it orthogonal to the issue of truth. Most converts have at some point prayed to be told "Yes, it's true" and have received some such answer. I feel moderately confident that kmb did something of the sort when she converted to Catholicism, for example, although she would likely describe it in terms of thought and meditation rather than explicit prayer. And in the second place, in the spirit of taking the good from every religion, why not take this confirmation process from Mormonism and apply it to Islam?
I honestly have not heard that mechanism discussed in my myriad experiences with other religions. Mormons are notable for constantly bringing it to the front of their proselyting, but other religions just...don't. I believe you get a Christian to verify that prayer to God can reveal the truth of a matter, but beyond that I just haven't heard it. I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
Christians pray to their heavenly father, (so far so good) but do it in the name of Christ (the mediator between us and the father). I am already convinced that the religion of Islam if accepted wholesale is fundamentally flawed based on my own mediation, and experiences with prayer. Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it. I get that there are certainly explanations that are plausible that can explain who I could mistakenly believe what I do. Yet it's not impossible that what I said happened actually happened. What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
quote:Did you really try? Slavery, duelling, feudalism, the divine right of kings, several different traditions of alchemy and magic, and astrology (which may border on religion) all lasted longer than any currently major religion. Astrology is still active, at that. Let's also note that Mormonism is less than 200 years old. Finally, in a world becoming more secular every year, is this really an argument you want to make?
I confess I made that point and part of my mind said I wasn't thinking very hard, and I hit submit anyway, for that I'm sorry. Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.
Look I guess what I had in mind is that Joseph Smith clearly felt that there was something amiss in the fractured sectarianism of Christianity, and he just happened to make extraordinary claims about what the correct conclusion was to that dilemma. He restored a church and claimed that it would stand until Jesus comes again. If the Mormon church disappears for whatever reason then you will be proven absolutely correct on every single point we debate about.
I wish I could have given this post more thought but it took me a long time and I'm late for work now. I especially wish I could have responded better to the question of X explaining A or B makes it evidence for neither. Maybe when I get back from work.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, I never said I subscribed to the belief that the Bible is verbally inspired--a belief common to, for example many Southern Baptists. I have always maintained, as does my church, that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired. They served as God's penmen, not His pen.
Anyone who has gone to even some depth in Biblical scholarship and textual criticism is aware of the many changes routinely made in the transmission of Scripture--made necessary because the meanings of words change from generation to generation, so the vocubulary has to be updated regularly. I do not fault the scribes for doing this. It was necessary. God meant for the words He inspired to be understood.
But where I do charge scribes--especially the Masoretic scribes--with unfaithfulness is when they change the text to reflect personal preferred views, such as when they manufacture apparent differences between Psalms 110:1 and 97:5, in an attempt to counter the Christian use of Psalms 110:1 as a proof-text for the divinity of Jesus. That they did this is now incontrovertible--among anyone who knows what he is talking about.
Those who are of a mind to can cling to their self-deceptions and be content. Until God brings them into the Judgment, and they must answer to Him for the way they have treated His Word. I predict that one of the first things He will say to them, is "How dare you? It is MY Word, not YOUR word, to do with as you please! And MY Word is the standard by which the whole earth is judged." See Zechariah 5:1-4.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That they did this is now incontrovertible--among anyone who knows what he is talking about.
Careful when you use this caveat, since most would agree it would automatically exclude you based on the way you 'argue.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
In this, I agree with KoM. I think that calling God supernatural is misleading.
I have actually thought this, and I also think that "extra-sensory perception" is equally nonsensical.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it. Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself.
So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
quote:I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
quote:Christians pray to their heavenly father, (so far so good) but do it in the name of Christ (the mediator between us and the father). I am already convinced that the religion of Islam if accepted wholesale is fundamentally flawed based on my own mediation, and experiences with prayer.
And do you have an explanations for all the people for whom their meditation and experiences with prayer tell them that Islam is right, and Mormonism is fundamentally flawed?
You realize that the latter outnumber the former by a few magnitudes, right?
quote:Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Yes, this is the fundamental problem with determining religious truth with prayer. And this is why you won't ever try it.
quote:Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it.
I don't think you do. If you really understood that, you would be trying harder to make sure that that really was the case, by giving all those other religions that you weren't born into a serious try. But you haven't.
quote:What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
How about the fact that you can't produce any objective evidence that you are right?
That does count for something. In fact, it counts for a great deal.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: I feel like you and me (I'm borderline about this with KOM) can't talk about anything meaningful regarding religion as I feel a strong animosity from you towards me. I don't feel anything I can say or do will change that, as perhaps whether intentionally or not I've caused you to conclude that will always be the case. You talk as if you've been a constant observer as I've gone about living my life. Your words presuppose that you already know my state of mind as well as I do. You also seem to be have unshakably believed that I must be wrong. It feels like that sentiment is almost to the point that it would gaul you if there really was a God, and I was right about how which church He favors. Were I wrong about there being a God, I admittedly would be extremely disappointed, and I do not think I would be able to believe in much with any degree approaching certainty. You on the other-hand seemed determined to disagree with me purely because you don't like me, and you have a very low opinion of my intelligence, integrity, or beliefs.
I would like to talk about these things with you, but it has to be at least as acquaintances who while disagreeing on the points, still respect each other as honest in their convictions.
I'll respond to your statements, but a less than satisfactory response to this point will warrant that I respectfully decline to treat your words with anything beyond general courtesy.
quote:So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
No, I am saying that prayer must be done correctly, and if it is not, it does not work. It's no different than any other process except that personality affects the outcome.
quote:And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway. If a person has concluded that any religion that does not permit gay marriage must be wrong, I do not immediately fault them for not giving Mormonism the prayer check. If the person has ears to hear, let them hear. I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me, and most likely knows how to go about it better than anybody else. If I'm wrong about there being a God in the first place, I hope experience, and good people will set me aright.
quote:And do you have an explanations for all the people for whom their meditation and experiences with prayer tell them that Islam is right, and Mormonism is fundamentally flawed?
You realize that the latter outnumber the former by a few magnitudes, right?
Do you have reliable numbers on how many Muslims believe in Islam because of self described experiences with God, or through some other means? I doubt it. I'd wager (not a large sum) I've encountered more Muslims than you, and I am lead to believe that far too many are Muslim because they are coerced into being so, not because they have a real choice in the matter. Furthermore, you don't know what my own spiritual experiences are or what the experiences of these Muslims are. I've said many times I can conceive of a God who confirms to somebody that it is good for them to be a Muslim, without attempting to lead them astray. Perhaps it is best for them given the circumstance to live that life as best they can. But I don't try get into pissing contests with others who claim God has spoken to them because I cannot say with any degree of certainty how accurate they are in their descriptions. I only consider my own experiences for what they are.
quote:Yes, this is the fundamental problem with determining religious truth with prayer. And this is why you won't ever try it.
Well prayer done properly is not an attempt to impose one's will on "God" rather a request that one's will be aligned with God. I've asked God if many things I thought were absolutely right should be done, and gotten no positive response. I've been going about my business thinking of frivolous things and suddenly God has interrupted on a topic unrelated to my musings with instructions that turned out to be important. I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something. If it gets foggy prayer often settles the score, as if I don't hear anything from God, which is more often than not, I don't believe it's from Him.
quote:I don't think you do. If you really understood that, you would be trying harder to make sure that that really was the case, by giving all those other religions that you weren't born into a serious try. But you haven't.
I disagree, Mormonism being true is so important to me, I've dedicated my life to uncovering every single tenant of the religion and will spend the rest of my life studying it until it leads me to salvation or until I conclude it's wrong. There's is so much to Christianity that to spend a lifetime learning about it is not time enough. God speaks to me the more I actually live my religion, I have no reason to reject that benefit and try another religion wholesale. But I wouldn't need to do that anyway, I have time enough to examine other religions while keeping my own.
quote:How about the fact that you can't produce any objective evidence that you are right?
That does count for something. In fact, it counts for a great deal.
But I do have objective evidence. I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so. If I am not a zombie than there must be something genuine and extraordinary that has happened, that lead me to conclude that my religion was true. Unless I am lying about everything, or unable to interpret my own mind reasonably, than it must accepted that there is evidence that an outside force communicates with me.
The fact you absolutely will not consider the latter to be possible leads me to believe that one of us is more seriously emotionally invested in one of the conclusions than the other.
edit: What objective evidence could I produce in any case? For one thing it could not infringe on your free will by putting the question of God beyond dispute.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me...
For my part, I don't speak with God every day. But, if He exists, He knows where to find me. It's entirely His fault that I'm not religious.
quote:I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something.
How?
quote:I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so.
This argument fails for the same reason that Lewis' triune paradox is so worthless, you realize: there's a huge gulf between being completely right and a drooling, insane idiot -- and there's a huge gulf between being a truly free thinker and a brainwashed zombie.
Do you think that all the Catholics in the world are brainwashed zombies? Do you think the Catholic Church is the True Church? If not, why do they believe?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For my part, I don't speak with God every day. But, if He exists, He knows where to find me. It's entirely His fault that I'm not religious.
If you say so. I don't know the details of your entire life, but if you feel the fault lies with God for not yet revealing himself to you that does not bother me in the slightest. I feel very strongly that there are things that I expect God to explain to me in the next life. If I sort them out in this one, so much the better.
quote:How?
I just do, I know it sounds stupid but it's like asking a golfer how they control how far the ball goes when you, even when you hit the ball correctly fail to. I don't by any means pretend to have a perfect relationship with God, I still sin, I still make mistakes, after practice I feel the system involved with prayer and it becomes more comprehensible to me. I've also experienced a huge range of what my mind can do on it's own. The two experiences feel very different.
quote:This argument fails for the same reason that Lewis' triune paradox is so worthless, you realize: there's a huge gulf between being completely right and a drooling, insane idiot -- and there's a huge gulf between being a truly free thinker and a brainwashed zombie.
Do you think that all the Catholics in the world are brainwashed zombies? Do you think the Catholic Church is the True Church? If not, why do they believe?
I think the fact not all adherents to Catholicism are slathering idiots is indicative of important truths existing in the faith. Just as you existing is indicative to me that atheism does not necessitate moral bankruptcy. Whether effectively or not I am trying to demonstrate that I am not a fool, and that while there is a chance I am deluding myself into believing in God, that is not definitely the case.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.
