What happens when you "win"?

[Matthew_Light]

What I wrote is an accurate summary of the Mormon view of God.

They explicitly deny classical theism and hold that god is a created being who was elevated to ‘godhood.’

Yes, I’ve done quite a bit of reading about Mormonism, Joseph Smith, the history of the CJCLDS, read the Book of Mormon, lots of their beliefs, mormonthink, the whole nine yards.

I still like Mormons very much and I still think their values are good, even if I don’t agree with everything about their religion and it’s history.

 

[AbideWithMe]

http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/0074/0074_13.gif
Jack chick

Techno2000—I’m not sure of your point? If your point is to show Jack Chick as a prime example of what I called “aggressive undermining/destructive/tear someone else’s house down type of apologetics”, then yes, he’s been one among those in my mind during this whole thread. Laughable and delusional as he is to many people, still he believes he’s acting out of a need to proclaim the Truth, even when he does it in a destructive manner.

So, if Jack Chick earnestly believes he knows the Truth and must proclaim it, and will go on the offensive to tear down others’ faith houses to get through to them, how does that differ—conviction-wise and motivation-wise—from, say, an aggressive, going-on-the-offensive (not just defensive) Catholic apologist who sees no problem in tearing down others’ faith houses to get through to others with the Truth which the Catholic believes **he **possesses?

 

[iepuras]

What I wrote is an accurate summary of the Mormon view of God.

They explicitly deny classical theism and hold that god is a created being who was elevated to ‘godhood.’

I know. I was born and raised Mormon. When I was Mormon, I absolutely believed that Heavenly Father was simply a highly-evolved human.

My point is that Mormons won’t listen to anything they deem to be “anti-Mormon”. Anything that sounds bad, even if true, could be deemed to be “anti-Mormon”. Heck, just two years ago, I was “anti-Mormon” for simply stating that Joseph married a 14 year old girl and married many of his wives behind Emma’s back. Now, the LDS church admits as much in one of their latest essays. So who is the anti-Mormon now?

 

[Allegra]

Techno2000—I’m not sure of your point? If your point is to show Jack Chick as a prime example of what I called “aggressive undermining/destructive/tear someone else’s house down type of apologetics”, then yes, he’s been one among those in my mind during this whole thread. Laughable and delusional as he is to many people, still he believes he’s acting out of a need to proclaim the Truth, even when he does it in a destructive manner.

So, if Jack Chick earnestly believes he knows the Truth and must proclaim it, and will go on the offensive to tear down others’ faith houses to get through to them, how does that differ—conviction-wise and motivation-wise—from, say, an aggressive, going-on-the-offensive (not just defensive) Catholic apologist who sees no problem in tearing down others’ faith houses to get through to others with the Truth which the Catholic believes **he **possesses?

Jack Chick publishes intentional and blatant lies in an almost comical effort to fool people. I certainly haven’t seen anything that even approaches that level on this forum. If this is the kind of “tearing down” that the OP is talking about, I have to say, I don’t think it’s a real problem on this forum. Pointing out and discussing real issues with different belief systems is a completely different scenario than intentionally lying in order to defame another faith. If you are honestly seeking the truth, you don’t need to lie in order to do it.

 

[arthra]

Randy Carson posted a photo of Baha’u’llah and wrote:

“I know. However, Mr. Nuri sat with a photographer willingly,”

The photo was for a passport…

“There are two known photographs of Bahá’u’lláh, both taken in the same photo shoot in 1868 while he was in Adrianople (present day-Edirne). The one where he looks at the camera was taken for passport purposes…”

Baha’u’llah was essentially under house arrest under the Sultan AbdulAziz of the Ottoman Empire at the time…

“The Bahá’ís, including Bahá’u’lláh and his family, left Adrianople on 12 August 1868, and, after a journey by land and sea through Gallipoli and Egypt, arrived in Akká on 31 August and were confined in the barracks in the citadel in the city.[47] The inhabitants of Akká were told that the new prisoners were enemies of the state, of God and his religion, and that association with them was strictly forbidden.”

Quotes from the wikipedia article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h

 

[Techno2000]

Randy Carson posted a photo of Baha’u’llah and wrote:

“I know. However, Mr. Nuri sat with a photographer willingly,”

The photo was for a passport…

“There are two known photographs of Bahá’u’lláh, both taken in the same photo shoot in 1868 while he was in Adrianople (present day-Edirne). The one where he looks at the camera was taken for passport purposes…”

Baha’u’llah was essentially under house arrest under the Sultan AbdulAziz of the Ottoman Empire at the time…

“The Bahá’ís, including Bahá’u’lláh and his family, left Adrianople on 12 August 1868, and, after a journey by land and sea through Gallipoli and Egypt, arrived in Akká on 31 August and were confined in the barracks in the citadel in the city.[47] The inhabitants of Akká were told that the new prisoners were enemies of the state, of God and his religion, and that association with them was strictly forbidden.”

Quotes from the wikipedia article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h

I find it odd that somthing so Monumental as a Manafestion of God to appear in world and of such great importants for Mankind… and now nobody can get a look at this Manifestation.

 

[Matthew_Light]

and now nobody can get a look at this Manifestation.

That’s not at all accurate.

A reproduction of the passport photo has been available in William Miller’s book attacking the Baha’i Faith since 1931.

It’s also on the Wikipedia page for Baha’u’llah.

So anyone who wants to look at it can do so.

Baha’is simply feel that the photograph of Baha’u’llah should be treated with extreme respect (as Baha’is would ask for a photograph of Jesus if such existed).

Let’s get back to the subject of this thread, thanks!

 

[Techno2000]

That’s not at all accurate.

A reproduction of the passport photo has been available in William Miller’s book attacking the Baha’i Faith since 1931.

It’s also on the Wikipedia page for Baha’u’llah.

So anyone who wants to look at it can do so.

Baha’is simply feel that the photograph of Baha’u’llah should be treated with extreme respect (as Baha’is would ask for a photograph of Jesus if such existed).

Let’s get back to the subject of this thread, thanks!

Since Baha’u’llah warned you people that all Manifestations are the same, and not the slightest difference between them, there should be no issue of posting any of them including Baha’u’llah on a web forum.

PS nobody has ever heard of William Miller’s book.

 

[schaeffer]

PS nobody has ever heard of William Miller’s book.

They have now!

 

[Techno2000]

They have now!

Right

 

[schaeffer]

I think there is a difference between defending one’s own faith and “attacking” that of another.

One is sharing information, facts and comparisons, the other is trying to demean the person or their beliefs to the point where “give up”.

One tactic I see pretty often is “hey, let me tell you what you believe and why it’s wrong” and then the person misrepresents the other person’s belief…as a starting point for supporting their own.

Not very smart or effective. As soon as someone misrepresents what I believe and does not accept correction, I cannot take anything they say seriously from that point on. Because facts don’t matter to them, looking/sounding good or smart is their priority.

If there is going to be any meaningful discussion it has to be based on what the people actually believe, or what their religion teaches.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I think there is a difference between defending one’s own faith and “attacking” that of another.

Me too!

One is sharing information, facts and comparisons, the other is trying to demean the person or their beliefs to the point where “give up”.

Yes.

Or to use my earlier analogy, it’s like the difference between telling someone about a new home that they can move into, and offering to help them carry their possessions into it, versus burning down the house they are living in (even if the roof leaks and there are cockroaches in it).

The first is an admirable deed, the second an abhorrent one.

One tactic I see pretty often is “hey, let me tell you what you believe and why it’s wrong” and then the person misrepresents the other person’s belief…as a starting point for supporting their own.

Yes, I see that a lot. Extremely common during religious arguments for sure.

 

[iepuras]

Me too!

Yes.

Or to use my earlier analogy, it’s like the difference between telling someone about a new home that they can move into, and offering to help them carry their possessions into it, versus burning down the house they are living in (even if the roof leaks and there are cockroaches in it).

The first is an admirable deed, the second an abhorrent one.

Yes, I see that a lot. Extremely common during religious arguments for sure.

In the case of Mormonism, you are putting up a straw man with your second analogy. The house burns down on its own accord because of the faulty wiring. There is no arsonist involved at all.

From my own experience (and the experience of many other ex-Mormons I have come into contact with), my leaving Mormonism had absolutely nothing to do with a third party trying to tear down my Mormon faith. Mormons tend to not listen to people like that.

 

[Techno2000]

Me too!

Yes.

Or to use my earlier analogy, it’s like the difference between telling someone about a new home that they can move into, and offering to help them carry their possessions into it, versus burning down the house they are living in (even if the roof leaks and there are cockroaches in it).

The first is an admirable deed, the second an abhorrent one.

Yes, I see that a lot. Extremely common during religious arguments for sure.

We try to burn down the House now, so the Devil can’t burn it down later.

 

[Matthew_Light]

From my own experience (and the experience of many other ex-Mormons I have come into contact with), my leaving Mormonism had absolutely nothing to do with a third party trying to tear down my Mormon faith. Mormons tend to not listen to people like that.

Certainly there are lots of houses that burn down on their own.

But that’s not really related to the dozens of anti-Mormon threads on this subforum, most of which were not started by ex-Mormons seeking support.

And almost none of the anti-Muslim threads were started by ex-Muslims.

 

[Matthew_Light]

We try to burn down the House now, so the Devil can’t burn it down later.

Sometimes that seems to be the case, all winking aside, for some participants.

I prefer Pope Francis’ approach to interfaith relations, and see it as the approach so desperately needed in the world today by people of every religion and belief system.

 

[Techno2000]

Sometimes that seems to be the case, all winking aside, for some participants.

I prefer Pope Francis’ approach to interfaith relations, and see it as the approach so desperately needed in the world today by people of every religion and belief system.

I believe that God only put out a limited amount of information in the world, so that mankind would have use reason and logic to think their way to Heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson posted a photo of Baha’u’llah and wrote:

“I know. However, Mr. Nuri sat with a photographer willingly,”

The photo was for a passport…

“There are two known photographs of Bahá’u’lláh, both taken in the same photo shoot in 1868 while he was in Adrianople (present day-Edirne). The one where he looks at the camera was taken for passport purposes…”

Baha’u’llah was essentially under house arrest under the Sultan AbdulAziz of the Ottoman Empire at the time…

“The Bahá’ís, including Bahá’u’lláh and his family, left Adrianople on 12 August 1868, and, after a journey by land and sea through Gallipoli and Egypt, arrived in Akká on 31 August and were confined in the barracks in the citadel in the city.[47] The inhabitants of Akká were told that the new prisoners were enemies of the state, of God and his religion, and that association with them was strictly forbidden.”

Quotes from the wikipedia article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h

Was this a passport that he wanted? So he was willing to have his picture taken in order to get it?

Or was this a passport that the government required him to have and that he did not actually want? In which case the photo was taken against his will.

That’s a big difference.

Seriously. I can’t help feeling that you guys are just concerned that people will get a good look at a photo of a very ordinary man and come to the conclusion that he is just that.

And not God.

 

[arthra]

Randy…

The passport was required by the Ottoman authorities because they were moving Him and His party…family from Adrianople to Akka…this was not a pleasure cruise or a vacation…

• Art

 

[Techno2000]

Was this a passport that he wanted? So he was willing to have his picture taken in order to get it?

Or was this a passport that the government required him to have and that he did not actually want? In which case the photo was taken against his will.

That’s a big difference.

Seriously. I can’t help feeling that you guys are just concerned that people will get a good look at a photo of a very ordinary man and come to the conclusion that he is just that.

And not God.

Thats the exact impression I get.