|
Post by nausea on Mar 19, 2009 16:21:57 GMT -5
Sky,
A lot of what I see in those particular videos - and what your link seems to suggest - is more of a difference of tone and attitude than of content. I haven't seen all of "The Godmakers," and I didn't read all of the rebuttal, but what I have seen does lead to this conclusion. For example, Mormons do in fact claim that God was at one point a man who has been exalted and glorified. That's not in contention. What is in contention is really a matter of tone - the video regards this notion as heretical and defamatory, the Mormon church as normal.
It's essentially similar to debates about Christ's divinity in fact. Neither Muslim nor Christian debate over whether Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God - they argue over how we should respond to such a notion. Is it demeaning that a God should have a son? Glorifying?
Would you say for the most part that the representations of Mormonism given by that video are for the most part accurate or inaccurate? By this I mean, do they reflect actual beliefs, whether or not shown in a positive light? It seems to me that all the video does is present a belief and then expect the audience to feel scandalized that people might hold it to be true.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Mar 19, 2009 16:22:26 GMT -5
Skyfire, it might help if you also post links to site/articles critizing the "The Godmakees" that are not directly afficiated with the Mormon faith. Agreed. Sky, right now, to anyone who isn't a Mormon, it simply looks like the church is demonizing him as a means of character assassination. We are not apt to believe the church, or yourself espousing the church's view. Remember, you are dealing with a board comprised of mostly skeptics. You're going to need something solid.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 16:25:19 GMT -5
Like so many apologetics, attacking the person, rather than the facts presented is a great diversionary tactic, which does nothing to dispell the truth or untruth of the presented material. Freud was a cocaine addict, Einstein was a womanizer. Are we to assume then, that their life's work is invalid? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 19, 2009 16:56:41 GMT -5
I enjoy this thread a great deal and propose it be stickied.
Ironbite-all in favor?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 19, 2009 17:10:17 GMT -5
That would be a "no", Ironbite. We don't think the thread is important enough to sticky.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 17:11:26 GMT -5
That would be a "no", Ironbite. We don't think the thread is important enough to sticky. I concur.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 19, 2009 18:10:04 GMT -5
While Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of Allah, I had thought the Mormons believed he died on a cross for the sins of humankind, which would be the primary foundation of Christianity as followers of Christ. Also... quote attribution is not too easy here... No, they do not believe in the crucifixion those terms .
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2009 18:55:14 GMT -5
I enjoy this thread a great deal and propose it be stickied. Ironbite-all in favor? Seriously, get a better hobby than taunting Skyfire. Now then, as for the poll, South Park all the way. I also loved "Trapped in the Closet" you know, the Scientology one and "Go God Go" which mocked atheism (it also has this gem).
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 19, 2009 19:12:55 GMT -5
It's not christian and it is weirder, a lot weirder. I used to believe the same thing, but I'm rather inclined to ask - why not? You'll forgive me if my knowledge of Mormon doctrine isn't perfect, but they do believe that Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins and thus bring salvation. This is pretty much the minimum requirement to be a Christian as far as I'm concerned. As far as weirder... again I don't know. I think most mainstream Christians are more apostate and thus don't engage in some of the more bizarre strictures of the religion, but then the girl Lady Renae described doesn't sound unlike a few more conservative xians I've known in my time. Don't get me wrong, Mormon theology and practice is evidently different from the Christianity I was raised in (Lutheranism), but that doesn't make it necessarily unchristian. Catholicism and deliverance pentacostalism (i.e. exorcisms) are also both very different from Lutheranism in many ways. I'd say the criterion to be a Christian is a belief in Christ, and the Mormons seem to fit that. The debate as to whether Mormons are Christians is very, very important to a lot of Christian people with an overriding need to classify every human being on the planet in the categories "US" and "THEM". Many claim that Mormons aren't Christian, mainly because of the various non-canonical books they use, and also they wear magic underwear. Myself, I'm not fond of telling somebody what they do or do not believe no matter what they think they believe.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 19, 2009 19:32:43 GMT -5
Sky, A lot of what I see in those particular videos - and what your link seems to suggest - is more of a difference of tone and attitude than of content. I haven't seen all of "The Godmakers," and I didn't read all of the rebuttal, but what I have seen does lead to this conclusion. For example, Mormons do in fact claim that God was at one point a man who has been exalted and glorified. That's not in contention. What is in contention is really a matter of tone - the video regards this notion as heretical and defamatory, the Mormon church as normal. It's essentially similar to debates about Christ's divinity in fact. Neither Muslim nor Christian debate over whether Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God - they argue over how we should respond to such a notion. Is it demeaning that a God should have a son? Glorifying? Would you say for the most part that the representations of Mormonism given by that video are for the most part accurate or inaccurate? By this I mean, do they reflect actual beliefs, whether or not shown in a positive light? It seems to me that all the video does is present a belief and then expect the audience to feel scandalized that people might hold it to be true. The first two are, indeed, highly inaccurate and deliberately misleading. rebuttal I did to the animated clip. I did this up about a year and a half ago, as someone over on another website kept trying to pull up the video whenever he wanted to try and pick fights with me. Note that a certain raptor had a habit of joining in, and even went so far as to send me a verbally abusive private message not too long ago. For the others, I've got my little nieces running about; owing to just how foul some of the anti-Mormon material I've seen in my time can be (I'm not kidding when I say I've seen stuff that runs afoul of even basic human sanity), I'll have to defer watching the remaining clips until they leave some time tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 19, 2009 19:34:33 GMT -5
I enjoy this thread a great deal and propose it be stickied. Ironbite-all in favor? Seriously, get a better hobby than taunting Skyfire. Sadly, based on his actions elsewhere I am of the opinion that the reason why he followed me here to the site is because he risked getting banned if he continued his antics where we first met; the moderators there were getting quite steamed over his constant harassment, with the final straw coming when he sent me a verbally abusive private message.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Mar 19, 2009 19:43:16 GMT -5
Seriously, get a better hobby than taunting Skyfire. Sadly, based on his actions elsewhere I am of the opinion that the reason why he followed me here to the site is because he risked getting banned if he continued his antics where we first met; the moderators there were getting quite steamed over his constant harassment, with the final straw coming when he sent me a verbally abusive private message. I can't speak of Ironbite's reasoning for coming here, however the rest is entirely untrue. Especially the part implying the staff was on the verge of 'banning him', with a private message being the 'final straw.' Your critics here have been asked not to drag out of context attacks into threads against you, I'd thank you to do the same, and stop flamebaiting Ironbite. -- I'm partial to the South Park video, I have a soundfile of the song somewhere, it's damn catchy.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 19:47:58 GMT -5
Sky, A lot of what I see in those particular videos - and what your link seems to suggest - is more of a difference of tone and attitude than of content. I haven't seen all of "The Godmakers," and I didn't read all of the rebuttal, but what I have seen does lead to this conclusion. For example, Mormons do in fact claim that God was at one point a man who has been exalted and glorified. That's not in contention. What is in contention is really a matter of tone - the video regards this notion as heretical and defamatory, the Mormon church as normal. It's essentially similar to debates about Christ's divinity in fact. Neither Muslim nor Christian debate over whether Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God - they argue over how we should respond to such a notion. Is it demeaning that a God should have a son? Glorifying? Would you say for the most part that the representations of Mormonism given by that video are for the most part accurate or inaccurate? By this I mean, do they reflect actual beliefs, whether or not shown in a positive light? It seems to me that all the video does is present a belief and then expect the audience to feel scandalized that people might hold it to be true. The first two are, indeed, highly inaccurate and deliberately misleading. rebuttal I did to the animated clip. I did this up about a year and a half ago, as someone over on another website kept trying to pull up the video whenever he wanted to try and pick fights with me. Note that a certain raptor had a habit of joining in, and even went so far as to send me a verbally abusive private message not too long ago. For the others, I've got my little nieces running about; owing to just how foul some of the anti-Mormon material I've seen in my time can be (I'm not kidding when I say I've seen stuff that runs afoul of even basic human sanity), I'll have to defer watching the remaining clips until they leave some time tomorrow. Your "rebuttal" of the animated clip was a joke. You refusal to address even the simplest questions in the thread on the old board was epic. As to the first two clips being highly inaccurate, the first one, as has been pointed out, you failed in an epic manner to rebut even one claim in the old forum. The second clip, in terms of showing the temple ordinances, in particular the penalties, was dead on accurate. Having been through the temple ceremonies many times, particularly the endowment ceremony, the ritual penalties proscribed and shown in the clip are 100% accurate. Since you, yourself, have not experienced a temple endowment, you are, once again, talking out of your ass. Just thought the air should be cleared on that point. *snip!* You already made your point, and you made it well. Don't be an ass.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2009 19:50:10 GMT -5
...particularly the endowment ceremony... Was this guy involved? (I know I'm fucking immature, but I don't mind)
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 19:54:47 GMT -5
...particularly the endowment ceremony... Was this guy involved? (I know I'm fucking immature, but I don't mind) I must be too, because I LOL'd at that. Endowment doesn't mean what you think it does, though, Vene, at least in the Mormon context.
|
|