|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 20, 2009 2:31:07 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. way to turn this into another, "Everyone is picking on the mormon" derail. Aren't there rules against this? First Julian is accused of taunting him, then someone else is, then skyfire shows up and talks about himself. Somehow though, I feel I may be the one yelled at simply for pointing that fact out. *edit*
I saw that sky's behaviour was addressed so I rescind that statement. I'm not used to seeing him held accountable for what he says.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 20, 2009 2:36:52 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 Two people here have accused the resident tutor on mormonism of misleading or possibly even outright lies about the very subject he is supposed to be schooling US on. How is this behaviour NOT supposed to affect how he is treated? He is a proven liar and he is doing it now, unless AC and Jon are the ones lying. Say what you like about me, I don't purposefully try to mislead people who are honestly asking me questions, and do it under the banner of my self-important religion.
|
|
adoylelb90815
Full Member
I'm the feminist intellectual fundies warned you about
Posts: 120
|
Post by adoylelb90815 on Mar 20, 2009 2:54:00 GMT -5
I already mentioned that one of the many reasons why I'm going to hell (Outer Darkness according to the Mormons) is that I find South Park to be funny, especially the Mormonism episode. There was a ton of controversy with the last episode of Big Love where they featured a brief scene in the temple. To me, I think it was tastefully done, especially with the music in the background.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 2:59:30 GMT -5
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? You know, on the main page, fundies get mocked a lot over the way their holy book never changes to reflect new information... I find it interesting that, here on the forums, someone is being taken to task over the fact that their holy book DOES change to reflect new information... Just a little something to think over.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 20, 2009 4:04:48 GMT -5
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? You know, on the main page, fundies get mocked a lot over the way their holy book never changes to reflect new information... I find it interesting that, here on the forums, someone is being taken to task over the fact that their holy book DOES change to reflect new information... Just a little something to think over. Its not so much the fact that the BoM changes to reflect new information, it's how the new information gets put in there. Ironbite-usually in the form of retranslating the various "prophosies"(sp?)
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 4:45:12 GMT -5
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. No. It's because they believe in a different god and have different doctrines and cosmology.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 20, 2009 5:06:37 GMT -5
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? You know, on the main page, fundies get mocked a lot over the way their holy book never changes to reflect new information... I find it interesting that, here on the forums, someone is being taken to task over the fact that their holy book DOES change to reflect new information... Just a little something to think over. Are you seriously trying to make a point here? ?? I hope not. Biblical literalists and fundamentalists get mocked because it's WRONG, not because it was written as being the unchangeable word of God. That merely makes it a permanent record of how WRONG they are. These people get mocked because it was WRONG, and while some of it was written as being unchangeable, most of it was obviously made up on the fly, but it's still a permanent record of how WRONG they are, both then and now, but mainly that they're still making up whatever nonsense they think they can get away with.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 20, 2009 5:19:39 GMT -5
Crazalus, one of the "selling points" of Mormonism that missionaries use is the "truth never changes", except, of course, when the truth becomes embarrassing or illegal, in which case the truth can change! The brilliance of the Mormon religion is that they can change doctrines and beliefs at the drop of a hat, simply by Prophetic edict, er, revelation.
The "JS" translation of the bible is kinda fun, but changing the BoM seems mightily wrong, since it was translated directly (supposedly-ha) from the original gold plates using the magic glasses, into a perfect translation. There should be no need to change such a document, no? Unless, of course, the changes are made to mitigate the more ridiculous claims of the BoM.
DNA proves Mormon claims to be as ridiculous as they were thought to be in the 1830's. No amount of tinkering with holy writ will change that. Mormonism is a fraud, on a plane with Scientology, with less credibility, since the claims can be proven wrong by DNA. Scientology is just simply batshit, while Mormonism batshittery can actually be proven with science.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 20, 2009 6:25:54 GMT -5
RedhunterI concur. The one whose name shall not be invoked in debates about Mormonism has been shown, repeatedly, to be a liar. In the last lengthy debate of the subject (the "banned" cartoon clip), the apologetics consisted of evasion, ad-hominem attacks on the author of the script for the clip, outright lies concerning Mormon doctrine and smoke-screen tactics, used to obfuscate the relevant points made in the clip. Not a SINGLE doctrinal claim of the "banned" clip was successfully debunked by he whose name cannot be mentioned. Yet, this person claims to have "debunked" this clip, and claims it, and the clip about Mormon temple ordinances to be inaccurate. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, this is not the case. Some pigs are more equal than others, it seems, when it comes to providing actual proof. I can't be arsed to debunk the "debunking" again, suffice it to say, to those who are relatively new to this board, that he whose name shall not be mentioned in debate has been shown to be an outright liar, on a level with Carico or BCF, when it comes to matters of Mormon doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 7:41:21 GMT -5
Ok, Skyfire has not debucked the clip, and shown to be quite wrong on a number of things. What else do people want, a pound of flesh?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 20, 2009 7:54:30 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. Ironbite, Sky was told to knock it off. Now I'm telling you the same thing. Knock it the fuck off. Officially.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 20, 2009 8:04:25 GMT -5
You know, on the main page, fundies get mocked a lot over the way their holy book never changes to reflect new information... I find it interesting that, here on the forums, someone is being taken to task over the fact that their holy book DOES change to reflect new information... Just a little something to think over. I know. It's almost like...Different people...Have different ideas. Actually, the two really aren't contradictory. Remember, most religions hold scripture as immutable right up until the point that it becomes inconvenient. Ironbite-usually in the form of retranslating the various "prophosies"(sp?) Prophecies, Ironicbite. You know, almost every browser has a spell check these days. Ok, Skyfire has not debucked the clip, and shown to be quite wrong on a number of things. What else do people want, a pound of flesh? Mmmm...Flame-kissed Mormon....*droooool*
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 8:13:16 GMT -5
Mmmm...Flame-kissed Mormon....*droooool* Personally I was thinking fondue style!
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 20, 2009 8:30:01 GMT -5
Personally I was thinking fondue style! I was thinking four quarter pounders. You see, I imagine human flesh tastes nasty, so Burger King couldn't actually ruin it.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 8:33:29 GMT -5
The brilliance of the Mormon religion is that they can change doctrines and beliefs at the drop of a hat, simply by Prophetic edict, er, revelation. The brilliance of science is that it can change theories at the drop of a hat, simply by accepting new facts... I'm sorry, but when there are people on the main page who attack religions because they REFUSE to change their holy books based on new information, it becomes a farce when others attack a person because his holy book DOES change based on (what they will call) new information. You know, on the main page, fundies get mocked a lot over the way their holy book never changes to reflect new information... I find it interesting that, here on the forums, someone is being taken to task over the fact that their holy book DOES change to reflect new information... Just a little something to think over. Are you seriously trying to make a point here? ?? I hope not. Biblical literalists and fundamentalists get mocked because it's WRONG, not because it was written as being the unchangeable word of God. That merely makes it a permanent record of how WRONG they are. These people get mocked because it was WRONG, and while some of it was written as being unchangeable, most of it was obviously made up on the fly, but it's still a permanent record of how WRONG they are, both then and now, but mainly that they're still making up whatever nonsense they think they can get away with. And yet, there are still people on the main page who DO attack them based on their refusal to change... yet here we have people making an attack based on them changing. That is my point... our actions have turned it into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... where no matter what they do, even if it's what we DEMAND that they do, we'll still mock them for what they do. I hope you see the problem with that...
|
|