New anti-mormon dvd released on 3/25

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Solon

Accurate, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.

Jesus was considered an apostate Jew.

Yep and both my eyes say it's right.

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I know, I know, you do it all under the guise of seeking further light and knowledge and seeing the hows and whys of what makes apostates tick.

Right.

You must really hate the Hugh B Brown talk that SIEQ posted on this site. How do you square this talk with your claims that people should not make an honest inquiry into the church to gain further knowledge.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

You must really hate the Hugh B Brown talk that SIEQ posted on this site. How do you square this talk with your claims that people should not make an honest inquiry into the church to gain further knowledge.

I've already stated equivocally and clearly that I don't bemoan those who seek further light and knowledge...while I find the lengths that some people go to a little odd, I don't begrudge them for an honest search. I've always felt that relying on the arm of flesh like so many do isn't as good as relying on the spiritual armor that they've been counseled to use and there are many ways to increase one's faith and knowledge. It's simply my opinion that many of the "intellectuals" don't realize when they've got caught in a web. I think Hugh B. Brown's final testimony is a wonderful thing to read. I even posted in the thread thanking SIEQ for posting that. Knowledge and the pursuit thereof is a worthy goal, but it takes spiritual vigilance to realize when one is getting caught up in something that they don't realize is tearing down instead of building up their testimony. Some don't like my point of view there and that's fine. This is simply my opinion.

As I've already said in this thread the 2 people I've identified on here when it comes the LDS Faith are not doing this. They are seeking to do just the opposite, only one does it with more intelligence and style over the other, but in the end their desire is to get the same result and that result is simply to tear down personal convictions.

So for the 8912583205982305 time I've made that clear.

[Indy Coug]

Person A

Has a doctrinal or historical question. They post something attempting to look at the issue from more than one angle; taking a balanced approach without using inflammatory language.

Person B

Has a personal doctrinal or historical pet topic they like to hammer on over and over. They post stuff that makes it readily transparent how they believe on the subject and they seek to directly or indirectly denigrate those that believe differently. When they are called on it, they pull out some laminated card with their standard "search for knowledge" mantra.


The problem isn't with the search for knowledge, it's with the intellectually disingenuous that claim to be searching, but in reality are just propagating their own authoritative intellectual dogma.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Person A

Has a doctrinal or historical question. They post something attempting to look at the issue from more than one angle; taking a balanced approach without using inflammatory language.

Person B

Has a personal doctrinal or historical pet topic they like to hammer on over and over. They post stuff that makes it readily transparent how they believe on the subject and they seek to directly or indirectly denigrate those that believe differently. When they are called on it, they pull out some laminated card with their standard "search for knowledge" mantra.


The problem isn't with the search for knowledge, it's with the intellectually disingenuous that claim to be searching, but in reality are just propagating their own authoritative intellectual dogma.

You apparently believe there is only one legitimate way to explore arguments and to search for knowledge. Thanks for playing loaded arguments for 1000 Alex.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You apparently believe there is only one legitimate way to explore arguments and to search for knowledge. Thanks for playing loaded arguments for 1000 Alex.

No, I'm saying that there are certain individuals that purport to do the above when it's really transparent that they aren't; and I find it intellectually insulting when they claim their posts are some 'honest search for the truth'.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, I'm saying that there are certain individuals that purport to do the above when it's really transparent that they aren't; and I find it intellectually insulting when they claim their posts are some 'honest search for the truth'.

Not all posts are honest searches for the truth. Any intelligent person can discern that by the spirit of the post. However, even a disingenuous post can show insight how others might view a particular belief or aspect of belief. In my observation, believers often are too defensive too quickly.

Take for example the Islamic response to even the image of Mohammed being made in cartoons. That response was downright outrageous.

The rhetoric requires one to wrestle vigorously with falsehood in order to discern truth.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I find it intellectually insulting when they claim their posts are some 'honest search for the truth'.

But hammering the "apostates" for unbelief or vigorously professing undue (and unreasoned) outrage at perceived (perhaps real) attacks is the other side of the same coin: shrill hysterics rarely explain, convince, or persuade. They just piss people off. Whether it's as a champion of the faith, or an insidious subversive, these types of broad generalizations, willingness to give and take offense, and stubborn adamancy foster neither an environment of honest discussion and inquiry, nor attitudes of respect.

It is possible to respectfully disagree.

If you think someone's "search for truth" is disingenuous and mean-spirited, don't stoop to that level by hurling irrational insults. Neither side stands to gain anything from such intercourse.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not all posts are honest searches for the truth. Any intelligent person can discern that by the spirit of the post. However, even a disingenuous post can show insight how others might view a particular belief or aspect of belief. In my observation, believers often are too defensive too quickly.

Take for example the Islamic response to even the image of Mohammed being made in cartoons. That response was downright outrageous.

The rhetoric requires one to wrestle vigorously with falsehood in order to discern truth.

Speaking of rhetoric......

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Solon

But hammering the "apostates" for unbelief or vigorously professing undue (and unreasoned) outrage at perceived (perhaps real) attacks is the other side of the same coin: shrill hysterics rarely explain, convince, or persuade. They just piss people off. Whether it's as a champion of the faith, or an insidious subversive, these types of broad generalizations, willingness to give and take offense, and stubborn adamancy foster neither an environment of honest discussion and inquiry, nor attitudes of respect.

It is possible to respectfully disagree.

If you think someone's "search for truth" is disingenuous and mean-spirited, don't stoop to that level by hurling irrational insults. Neither side stands to gain anything from such intercourse.

No matter how it's worded...if I said..."Oh bullshit what you're doing is obvious,,,etc,,etc,,,etc,,," They'd get offended.

If I said it in a more civil manner..."You're being disingenuous and I think that you aren't being honest in what you claim is a search for truth as opposed to break down what one believes" They'd get offended.

Either way Archaea,,,Champion of the Persecuted will run to their aid.