|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 19:58:39 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. Leave off the stuff with ironbite, OK? Most people recognize it for what it is, there's no need to keep after it.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Mar 19, 2009 20:01:00 GMT -5
(Ok, it isn't a totally perfect restore, but I figure missing one nested quote isn't going to kill anyone... sorry for the mix up. I'm going to be a bit more careful from now on, but for future reference, please label your quotes if it's possible they could be misconstrued into something actionable so this doesn't happen again. ~ Lady Renae)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). You're the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog. Congradulations. /south park
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 19, 2009 20:18:09 GMT -5
Sky, it would be great if your rebuttal contained more citations, and less nitpicking. When I read a rebuttal that is critical of the initial source, but does nothing to illustrate why the rebuttal is any more credible, it looks more like a "Nuh uh! Yuh huh!" Fight.
Realistically, this rebuttal offered little.
A few other things I'll add:
You've painted Mormons with the same broad brush you paint everyone else. Considering that Mormons as a group have a wider set of beliefs than you do, it's particularly useless to use yourself as an example or to try and pretend nobody believes in things because you specifically do not.
It's interesting that you think pointing out that Smith recanted some of his own claims due to lack of popularity to be a good comeback, because it actually makes Mormonism look even shakier. Are Mormons okay with legal drugs? That seems to be the message when you dispute the Coca Cola bit. Why are Coffee and Tea bad, if not for the caffeine?
Does it matter if the image is at night? They could have shown a group of Mormons looking through geneology reports, and it would have still sounded insidious.
Polygamy has been recanted officially, but was a part of the doctrine before another retcon due to popularity. Aside from the question of why God's word needs so much revision, you've already said in your rebuttal that "you" believe you can ascend to divinity. Is the polygamy part only worthy of earning someone a pejorative because they're using the old version of the Word of God?
Would not "Ode to Joy" have also demonstrated bias? Seems odd to pick that as an example of what he could have used.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 19, 2009 20:28:36 GMT -5
Skyfire:
About the not having polygamy, I know for a fact that my BIL has three celestial brides; his ex, my sister, and a friend of my sisters who never married. In fact I know that the Mormon view on divorce is that a sealed man that divorces can remarry, but a sealed woman has to become unsealed before she can remarry (In fact I'm not even sure that is possible, as I've never met a Mormon woman who remarried).
I would like to see references to the National Council of Christians and Jews and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 19, 2009 20:33:54 GMT -5
Skyfire: About the not having polygamy, I know for a fact that my BIL has three celestial brides; his ex, my sister, and a friend of my sisters who never married. In fact I know that the Mormon view on divorce is that a sealed man that divorces can remarry, but a sealed woman has to become unsealed before she can remarry (In fact I'm not even sure that is possible, as I've never met a Mormon woman who remarried). I would like to see references to the National Council of Christians and Jews and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith The limit is only supposed to be two (the first spouse and, if widowed, another one). If what you state is the truth, then someone needs to get the clergy involved as something's gone quite wrong. For the items, the lengthy review I posted the link to had the text of the letters as an appendix. letter from the Anti-Defamation Leagueletter from the NCCJ
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 19, 2009 20:47:58 GMT -5
You've painted Mormons with the same broad brush you paint everyone else. Considering that Mormons as a group have a wider set of beliefs than you do, it's particularly useless to use yourself as an example or to try and pretend nobody believes in things because you specifically do not. I sometimes use myself as an example because I'm so bloody opposite to what the common stereotype is that few people would actually believe me to be Mormon if they met me in real life. I'm also somewhat unorthodox at times, and in fact have gotten away with things that, if the critics were to be believed, would have resulted in my getting severe sanctions. It's something I make no secret about, and in fact my Deviant Art gallery hosts my own personal version of "Skippy's List," 90% of which is stuff I've actually personally done. No, I didn't make such a statement. Did you confuse a few of the items on my list? D&C 89 merely refers to "hot drinks." It's actually up to the membership itself to determine where to draw the line. Hence, why I say that Coke isn't banned per se but many members avoid drinking it anyway. In my case, it's a moot point; I'm under doctor's orders to minimize my caffeine intake. People in a graveyard at night is, indeed, far, far more insidious than having people merely comb over genealogical records. In fact, one of the areas in which the church has become somewhat accepted by the mainstream is, indeed, in the fact that it's made the record collection open to the public. Actually, the US government was on the verge of exterminating the church over the issue; this is something that your average history book and critic of the church would rather pretend never happened. As a result, it was more "survival" than "popularity." Something similar to divinity. It's a very subtle distinction, but one that critics of the church routinely miss or deliberately gloss over when discussing the theology with others. As it is, the concept of the body of believers taking on an ascended form as a reward for their righteousness actually makes a few appearances in the Bible; I don't have time to post them right now, but if I can remember to do so I'll post the passages in the morning. It was the first thing that came to mind.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 19, 2009 20:55:17 GMT -5
The limit is only supposed to be two (the first spouse and, if widowed, another one). If what you state is the truth, then someone needs to get the clergy involved as something's gone quite wrong. For the items, the lengthy review I posted the link to had the text of the letters as an appendix. letter from the Anti-Defamation Leagueletter from the NCCJ The Clergy was involved. Hell the Temple in Cardston was involved, they sealed all three. My sister was previously married, but her first husband never got around to getting sealed to her. I know a lot of divorced (not Widowed) Mormon men who are sealed to a second woman. I'll go through the links you sent. Edit: You know it would be helpful if you didn't use lds links. They'd be taken more seriously www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htmwww.adherents.com/largecom/nccj.htmlNot that I bought the film, but as I said, I don't consider it any crazier (or saner) than any other Christian sect.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 19, 2009 21:16:49 GMT -5
No, I didn't make such a statement. Did you confuse a few of the items on my list? You did actually say something to that effect several times... Not necessarily changing his own teachings...but the religion in general: While only one is Joseph Smith himself, they give the impression of reversing teachings and or statements, and just from your short list of rebuttals. It's just strange to skeptics that the word of god should be imperfect in anyway, even if it's the word, "white."
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 19, 2009 21:24:04 GMT -5
Oh you're so cuuuuuuuuuuute when you think I'm stalking you.
Oh and the PM Sky mentioned? It concerned him comparing all the shit that's been piled on his little cult to the Holocast in regards to the whole Prop. 8 fiasco.
Ironbite-also involved his thoughts on the Unions that I felt needed...well blasting into oblivion.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 19, 2009 21:47:02 GMT -5
I sometimes use myself as an example because I'm so bloody opposite to what the common stereotype is that few people would actually believe me to be Mormon if they met me in real life. I'm also somewhat unorthodox at times, and in fact have gotten away with things that, if the critics were to be believed, would have resulted in my getting severe sanctions. It's something I make no secret about, and in fact my Deviant Art gallery hosts my own personal version of "Skippy's List," 90% of which is stuff I've actually personally done. That doesn't actually make what you're doing any better. If anything, it could be detrimental, since you're still not able to set yourself up as the standard, even in your own words. But the bottom line is one way or another, this kind of statement is utterly meaningless. You would be better off leaving them out. No? I'm aware of that. That wasn't my question. Why are they verboten? Why would it be up to interpretation, though? And you completely dodged my question about legal drugs. Caffeine is a drug. Is tobacco off limits? What is the reasoning behind that? Again, your personal case doesn't matter. What they're doing is creepy, period. At least normal people go to the graveyard to make out or smoke up some embalming fluid. Splitting hairs. Also, what's the phrase? "Citation needed." You keep making these claims that apparently have been kept out of history books, but that's conspiracy talk. Splitting hairs again. "But Mom! Jimmy was peeing in the gas tank, too!" I think you're playing to the wrong crowd here, Sky. I think Christianity is silly in general, so justifying it to me won't work. I'd imagine it will play out poorly with a group on a site called "Fundies say the darndest things." But again, you've failed to address the point. Are Mormons so powerful that they can revise their religion, even as it takes place in Heaven or what have you? Does survival of the Church on Earth mean that the entire things gets changed?
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 19, 2009 21:53:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 19, 2009 21:55:12 GMT -5
Oh you're so cuuuuuuuuuuute when you think I'm stalking you. Oh and the PM Sky mentioned? It concerned him comparing all the shit that's been piled on his little cult to the Holocast in regards to the whole Prop. 8 fiasco. Ironbite-also involved his thoughts on the Unions that I felt needed...well blasting into oblivion. Seriously, L.Ronbite, you might want to back off a little. People already called Sky on this, so trying to dig at him isn't going to go over well.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 20, 2009 2:07:42 GMT -5
Dear God, do you have to keep stiring up shit with Sky? It's getting pretty damn old. What is old is the idea that anything to do with mormonism is automatically linked to being a skyfire attack. And the fact that sky calls himself an authority on mormonism and is a fundie, and comes to this site, which is about people making fun of fundies, added to the fact taht he has in the past encouraged people to bring mormonism issues TO him, it wouldn't have been "wrong" for Julian to invoke Skyfire's name in this thread to begin with. Now since he DIDN'T bring up sky and you did, how is Julian "stirring shit up with sky"? The recent bullshit-storm special treatment of skyfire has ruined free-speech on this board and turned us suspicious or forced to walking on egg-shells instead of having fucking conversations about fundies and mocking said fundies. Am I lost or isn't that what this site is about? Maybe I'm just confused and thinking of some other site...
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 20, 2009 2:16:54 GMT -5
Again, I don't think Mormonism is any weirder than any other form of Christianity. I'm torn on that. Christianity is pretty ridiculous in and of itself, but the main reason groups like Scientologists and Mormons are mocked is that they weren't founded in ancient times where superstitious people bred and carried on with their generational indoctrination. That and claims that are demonstrably false, such as the claim that Natives are a lost tribe of Israel don't help, either. But then again, I'm sure if we could have empirically tested Christ's blood, it would be a similar result. And then we'd have Romans and Jews going "LOL blood of christ" and putting up Youtube vids saying "THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS REALLY BELIEVE!" I get you, but I think they aren't just different levels of crazy, they are different kinds of crazy in similar amounts. I mean, if mormonism was 2000 years old, a lot of the crazier stuff would be sort of accepted as things like Jonah and the whale/fish and the noah flood story. We all joke about it when we think and discuss it, but generally if I'm at a K-Mart or something, and there is a children's book about Noah or the birth of jesus, I'm not inclined to instantly laugh out loud where when I hear about wooden submarines or jesus in branson missouri it makes me guffaw because I'm not as used to that craziness yet. So I think a lot of it has to do with what is globally accepted. I don't think muslim talking ants are any goofier than moses' talking burning bush. The ant story is just newer and less established so it SEEMS that much goofier but it really isn't. To ME anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 20, 2009 2:26:19 GMT -5
Actually I would consider Ed Decker pretty obscure anyway, mainly because his primary target seems to be mormonism, which isn't really at the forefront of most people's minds at the best of times. I only know of decker because of sky. Then again, sky disregards anything not approved in advance by the mormon church and will dismiss out of hand all information from ex-mormons as he thinks that they just have an ax to grind. It's not surprising that he sees decker as something of a giant burr in his pajamas. Even sky's rebuttal was loaded with biased phrasing such as calling the women Decker was with "floozies", despite the chuckle that his slanted response gave to me. He attacked the character of the man as someone who can't hold a wife and a womanizer, as if that automatically equates "liar". He then attacked the character of the women he was with in a sort of Adam and Eve shift the blame move. He only felt it necessary to assassinate the people involved.
|
|