When Prophets and Professors collide. A survey

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligentsia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligentsia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligencia)?

Yes.

And btw, I define a "prophet" as a man who reveals some truth that he has learned from God, directly, and I know whether or not a man is a prophet by God by God personally ***uring me that man was or is a true prophet of God.

A professor, to me, is simply someone who "professes" something, and what he or she professes is not necessarily true.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

Yes.

And btw, I define a "prophet" as a man who reveals some truth that he has learned from God, directly, and I know whether or not a man is a prophet by God by God personally ***uring me that man was or is a true prophet of God.

A professor, to me, is simply someone who "professes" something, and what he or she professes is not necessarily true.

Thanks. Any one else care to give it a shot? BrianH perhaps?

[PostTribber]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

"I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

as far as mainstream intelligencia and scholarship are concerned, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans 14:11)

Jesus is not only King of kings, and Lord of lords; He's also Professor of professors and Prophet of prophets!!

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by PostTribber

"I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)

as far as mainstream intelligencia and scholarship are concerned, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans 14:11)

Jesus is not only King of kings, and Lord of lords; He's also Professor of professors and Prophet of prophets!!

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

does BrianH have an answer to this question?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligencia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligencia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

---I have found that historically, prophets have a track record of being right on the issues they speak about more often than academics are on the topics they speak about, so I tend to go with the prophet.

[PostTribber]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

And so your clear answer is? What? You follow the prophet, even though intelligentsia may conflict?

I follow Christ: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:16-18)

the intelligentsia may conflict, no problem: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." (1 Corinthians 1:27)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by PostTribber

I follow Christ: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:16-18)

the intelligentsia may conflict, no problem: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." (1 Corinthians 1:27)

Thanks, PT. I tend to agree.

So far we can say that 1 out of 1 Evangelicals agree that when Prophets (they believe in) and Professors (mainstream intelligentsia) collide, they side with the prophets.

And 3 out of 3 Mormons also hold that conclusion.

Still waiting for BrianH to respond.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

1. Do you trust your prophet, and believe that he is more correct than your professor (mainstream intelligentsia)?

2. Do you trust your professor (mainstream intelligentsia), and believe that he is more correct than your prophet?

3. Do you begin to doubt your prophet until you can find a professor somewhere to validate what the prophet said?

4. Do you begin to doubt your professor at least until you can reconcile his opposing but reasonable idealogy in your own mind.

5. Deny that this has ever happened or could ever happen with your prophets.

6. Or is there some combination of these or an entirely different approach you use?

Please answer this from the standpoint of 'your prophet' being one that YOU believe in.

Thanks.

I am really disappointed that more critics have not responded to this question. Can it be that the critics are afraid that their response may defeat one of their biggest criticisms against the LDS?

[BrianH]

What is your reaction when the word of professors (mainstream intelligencia and scholarship) collide with the words of a prophet that YOU believe in?

The answer to each of your questions depends on what both (prophet and professor) are claiming.

For example, my biology professor would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms. OTH, Moses and the biblical prophets tell me that God consciously created living things.

Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

For another example, my physics professors were all scrambling like crazy to try to establish a material primary cause for the existence of the physical universe. But a non-material primary cause of the universe makes sense while a material cause for the existence of the phyusical universe is a blatant self-contradiction.

Since there is no way to test either claim that will result in a cartesian certainty, I can only go with that which makes sense. The Bible describes a non-material cause for the existence of the universe, and since that at least makes sense (compared to the alternative), I believe the Bible.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

The answer to each of your questions depends on what both (prophet and professor) are claiming.

For example, my biology professor would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms. OTH, Moses and the biblical prophets tell me that God consciously created living things.

Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

For another example, my physics professors were all scrambling like crazy to try to establish a material primary cause for the existence of the physical universe. But a non-material primary cause of the universe makes sense while a material cause for the existence of the phyusical universe is a blatant self-contradiction.

Since there is no way to test either claim that will result in a cartesian certainty, I can only go with that which makes sense. The Bible describes a non-material cause for the existence of the universe, and since that at least makes sense (compared to the alternative), I believe the Bible.

-BH

.

Thanks, Brian. I found what you said very interesting and though provoking.

When you said:

Since there is no way to test either claim in any conclusive way, I will believe the Bible since it is self evident that living things do not spontaneously generate out of dead matter.

I could not help but think of that word "paradigm". (I'm getting tired of it, so I'll interchange the term with "framework" and "starting point".)

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?

Don't mistake what Brian's biology professor actually said with what Brian thinks or recalls from memory concerning what his biology professor said, Fig.

I know of no biology professor who would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms.

[BrianH]

Do you think it possible that your old biology professor, coming from his framework, could also decide that what he taught the cl*** was "self evident"?--at least for him?

For himself, sure. The problem is, like most biology and even most science professors, he is not sufficiently educated in matters of philosophy to recognize his own ***umptions. The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Don't mistake what Brian's biology professor actually said with what Brian thinks or recalls from memory concerning what his biology professor said, Fig.


LOL!!! Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me.

I know of no biology professor who would have said that life was the result of purposeless, accidental collisions of molecules that just happened to turn dead matter into living organisms.

What an ignoran t thing to say. It is apparent that you don't know many (if any) biology professors, or else you are simply uninformed on matters of evolutionary theory. The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

-BH

.

Something you could never do, of course.

So why didn't you tell him how he was all wrong, and convince him otherwise? If you are right, then he should naturally and easily agree with you. Right?

[BrianH]

BH>>The result is he made errors in REASONING. He also failed to account for the EVIDENCE that refutes his conclusions.

F>Something you could never do, of course.

Try me.

So why didn't you tell him how he was all wrong, and convince him otherwise? If you are right, then he should naturally and easily agree with you. Right?

At the time I was an undergrad, and I was not sufficiently educated to refute his ***umptions. Moreover, I ultimately just didn't really care.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

At the time I was an undergrad, and I was not sufficiently educated to refute his ***umptions. Moreover, I ultimately just didn't really care.

-BH

.

But if you were to approach him today, you would naturally be able to convince him of his erroneous ideas. Right?

[BrianH]

But if you were to approach him today, you would naturally be able to convince him of his erroneous ideas. Right?

That depends on his ability to examine his own a-priori ***umptions.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me.

The theory of evolution, naturally, which proposes that all life on Earth originated from some very basic life form from somewhere else... not from dead matter.

The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.

Here you are again showing that you don't correctly understand the theory of evolution, Brian... as it is understood by those who at least understand it.

Hint: Get rid of the word "dead" in front of the word "matter".

[BrianH]

BH>>Okay "Batman" suppose you explain what my biology professor told me

BM>The theory of evolution, naturally, which proposes that all life on Earth originated from some very basic life form from somewhere else... not from dead matter.

WRONG. He did NOT say that. In fact he never said ANYTHING about life supposedly arriving from 'somewhere else'. Neither did Darwin, BTW. Wanna try again?

BH>>The ***umption that dead matter became living things apart from any non-physical cause at some point in the distant past is at the very heart of Darwinism - a worldview ***umed by most biology professors.

BM>Here you are again showing that you don't correctly understand the theory of evolution, Brian... as it is understood by those who at least understand it.

Hint: Get rid of the word "dead" in front of the word "matter".

Oh brother! YOU are the one who has no idea what he is talking about, "Batman". If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today. Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evoloved our of NON living (ie "dead") things. If you knew ANYTHING about evolution you would know at least that much.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by BrianH

WRONG. He did NOT say that. In fact he never said ANYTHING about life supposedly arriving from 'somewhere else'.

I seriously doubt that your biology professor didn't know and understand the theory of evolution, BrianH. I think it's far more likely that you didn't hear him correctly when he was describing and explaining the theory of evolution as it is now understood in our day and age.

... and rather than try to teach you the theory of evolution as it is taught by any professor of biology who has been properly "trained" to teach it, I suggest you pick up a book somewhere, perhaps at your local library, while focusing mainly on how the "primordial ooze" on this Earth was supposedly infused with some particle of life from somewhere else.

If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today.

Ta da !

That's what all forms of life on this planet are believed to be now, BrianH, by those who accept the theory of evolution as it is taught today.

Some very simple particle of life which supposedly started the whole she-bang on this planet has now supposedly somehow morphed into all of the various forms of life we now see on this planet, with that "essence" of life supposedly living on in each one of us on this planet.

Some people just don't know how dead wrong they are to believe that, but the fact that they believe it is actually true.

Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evolved our of NON living (ie "dead") things.

Not from dead things, BrianH.

Nobody would be so gullible to believe that life evolves from dead things.

Even Satan knows that much.

You've got to add at least a spark of life to get people to believe in evolution.

If you knew ANYTHING about the people who believe in evolution you would know at least that much.

[BrianH]

I seriously doubt that your biology professor didn't know and understand the theory of evolution, BrianH.

No, he understood it, but YOU sure dont. The theory of evolution does NOT postulate or even ***ume that life on earth began "somewhere else". YOU are the one who needs to pick up a book, sonny. You have apparently mistaken the scientific theory of evolution for some stoooopid, new age/UFO claptrap fantasy.

Now ...YOU said that you could tell me what my bio teacher told me. You have FAILED twice now. You get one more chance. TELL ME what my biology teacher told me smart guy.

BH>>If the material out of which living things supposedly evoloved was already ALIVE, then it would STILL be alive today.

BM>Ta da !

That's what all forms of life on this planet are believed to be now, BrianH, by those who accept the theory of evolution as it is taught today.

Pay attention sonny - this is NOT difficult to understand. LIVING things are NOW alive (like DUH!); if they were alive BEFORE they were alive, then obviously they were ALWAYS alive. This is NOT what ANY theory of evolution affirms (other than the rambling speculations of Oprah and Shirley Maclane).

Some very simple particle of life which supposedly started the whole she-bang on this planet has now supposedly somehow morphed into all of the various forms of life we now see on this planet, with that "essence" of life supposedly living on in each one of us on this planet.

"Particle of life"????

You are ***uming that evolution accepts that there was "a particle of life" (whatever that means) BEFORE there was any life on earth. Prove it. Show me a scientific evolutionary theory that says that life came from "somewhere else".

Some people just don't know how dead wrong they are to believe that, but the fact that they believe it is actually true.

"Some people" do indeed believe that life began "somewher else". No scientific theory of evolution does and CERTAINLY Darwinian theory (which, despite your pretense at omniscience really is what my bio teacher was talking about) absoltuely does not.

You've got to add at least a spark of life to get people to believe in evolution.

Evolution has not identified any such "spark". Evolutionists ***UME that some unknown but purely PHYSICAL energy modified DEAD matter and converted it into a living (metabolic, reproductive) thing. But they cannot admit to this "spark" being anything other than a natural, physical force of some kind.

BH>>Darwinian evolution ***UMES that living things evolved our of NON living (ie "dead") things.

BM> Not from dead things, BrianH.

YES from NON-LIVING (aka "dead") matter, BM! If all matter was already alive, then all matter would STILL be alive today. But all matter is NOT ALIVE! THINK will ya?

Sheesh!

Nobody would be so gullible to believe that life evolves from dead things.

Again you PROVE that you have no idea what you are talking about. That IS EXACTLY what evolutionists ***UME. READ DARWIN, boy! Read Dawkins. Read Crick! Read ANY prominent evolutionary theorist and you will find that they absolutely DO affirm that life came from NON-LIVING matter. Just R E A D, something ...before you embarr*** yourself even further.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by BrianH

No, he understood it, but YOU sure dont. The theory of evolution does NOT postulate or even ***ume that life on earth began "somewhere else". YOU are the one who needs to pick up a book, sonny. You have apparently mistaken the scientific theory of evolution for some stoooopid, new age/UFO claptrap fantasy.

As much as it pains me to tell you this, BrianH, the theory of evolution isn't even about the origin of life. The theory of evolution presupposes that there is already some form of life to begin with, with the theory of evolution focusing on how that life form evolved, or evolves, so to get to the question of how life originated you need to study up on abiogenesis.

Try this link, here.

It will at least give you some basic information to work with.

"Particle of life"????

Yes, as in particle physics, especially related to panspermia.

Try this link, here

It will at least give you some basic information to work with.

You are ***uming that evolution accepts that there was "a particle of life" (whatever that means) BEFORE there was any life on earth. Prove it. Show me a scientific evolutionary theory that says that life came from "somewhere else".

The universe did not come from this Earth, BrianH.

This Earth and all things on it came from somewhere else... FYI.

Bye, now.

<< Bat-Man mumbles as he walks away: "Why do I even bother ?" >>

[BrianH]

That was your third try and you have even abandoned the effort. Obviously you now realize the utter silliness of your claim that you could correct me on what my biology teacher told me. Just as obviously you CANNOT tell me any such thing. Strike three - yer OUT!

As much as it pains me to tell you this, BrianH, the theory of evolution isn't even about the origin of life. The theory of evolution presupposes that there is already some form of life to begin with, with the theory of evolution focusing on how that life form evolved, or evolves, so to get to the question of how life originated you need to study up on abiogenesis.

What an incredibly lame thing to say. Pay attention: I am talking about the ***UMPTIONS that must be made by evolutionists, Be-Em. As soon as an evolutionist admits that life did NOT arise out of non-life, he has admitted that there is something non-physical that caused life to exist. YOU said that the theory of evolution affirms that life came here from "somewhere else". You were wrong.

The universe did not come from this Earth, BrianH.

Allow me to contratulate you on your grasp of the obvious. I never said or implied that the universe DID come from this earth, kid.

This Earth and all things on it came from somewhere else... FYI.

YOU said that the theory of evolution holds that life came to the earth from somewhere else. No theory of evolution posits such a claim. There ARE evolutionists (like Crick, for example) who SPECULATE that is the case, but no recognized theory of evolution includes such speculation as any part of the hypothesis in the actual theory, and CERTAINLY Darwinian theory (which obviously YOU did not even know my bio teacher was talking about) posits no such thing.

Bye, now.

<< Bat-Man mumbles as he walks away: "Why do I even bother ?" >>

It would help if you would stop mistaking your ability to figure out how to use Google for actual scholarship. You clearly have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

-BH

.