Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
You are lost in a vindictive of cycle of show me histrionics. I linked to the articles as an abstract connection to support the reality that there is no certainty in the knowledge of ancient peoples –even your beloved Mediterranean cultures. In this very forum you have unwittingly supported the notion of uncertainty with your citing of the numbers of Visigoths who may have sacked Rome!
You don’t want evidence; you want your innocence back. I can’t give either to you. Search, ponder and pray –or don’t. But don’t pretend that your mythos is anything more than a fictional and deranged view of the world ... such arrogance is unhealthy.
|
Of course it's uncertain. That's what science is all about. Why is that so hard for you to get? As soon as someone tells me they have all the answers I stop listening. But you need to give me a platform, some basis on which to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, or I'm not interested and I'm not going to hold out the possiblity of historicity any more than I would of Lord of the Rings', especially with all the impeaching evidence, as I have noted. If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about go to the Israel as occupiers thread and see Oxcoug's and my debate about historicity of the Pentateuch and the Iliad.
Let me as you a question: If your mantra is nothing is certain, why are you so certain the Book of Mormon is a historical account, absent even a mustard seed of evidence? Your certainty there's something out there (in the face, as I have noted, of a great deal of evidence impeaching the B of M), doesn't seem to jibe with "nothing is certain." Are you saying you're agnostic on the issue, just hoping?