Journal pudge's Journal: Mormonism is a Cult, and So is Radical Atheism 68
There are two definitions of "cult." The more common one is pejorative, and is intended to imply that the religion is bogus (or seriously questionable at best), and perhaps that its adherents are brainwashed or duped.
That is not the definition I am using.
The traditional definition I am using, and that many scholars use when they call Mormonism a cult, only refers to the actual beliefs of a particular sect in relation to its parent religion. Mormonism is a cult of Christianity because Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity that is different in significant enough ways that you can't really call Mormons Christians.
So for example, Mormons believe that there are multiple Gods; that God was once a man; that the Trinity is three separate Gods; that Jesus was not born of a virgin; and so on. Mormons simply are not Christians. Or at least, they do not share the same essential religious beliefs as Catholics and Protestants.
So because Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, yet it is not Christianity, Mormonism is therefore a cult of Christianity.
In a similar way, many people think Christianity is a cult of Judaism. The case is a bit less obvious in some ways, but you could just note the fact that Jews do not believe Christ is the Messiah, and Christians do.
This is not a value judgment of the particular religious views. It is a mostly objective look at the differences between related views, with the only real subjectivity of the matter coming in saying whether the differences are significant enough to call one a cult of the other.
I just throw this out there for two reasons. First, because Al Sharpton said Mormons are Christians. They aren't. He does not understand one or both religions to claim that.
Second, because the word "cult" gets thrown around a lot, and sometimes people take offense to it when they shouldn't. I could make the case, for example, that Christianity is not a cult of Judaism because it is a mere fulfillment of Judaism. Many Jews, of course, would disagree. But I shouldn't take an assertion that Christianity is a cult of Judaism as an offense; it's merely a claim that Judaism disagrees in some fundamental ways with Christianity.
Of course, some people probably do call Mormonism a cult in the pejorative sense. But some people say that George Bush is Hitler, so what some people say can be pretty stupid.
I am watching Christopher Hitchens on CNN right now. He says we would be better off without religion. Too bad he can't actually rationally argue the point, since all of his examples are neither unique nor universal to religion. It would be like me pointing out all the ills of Democrats and saying we would be better off without Democrats. Except, of course, that not all Democrats think or do those stupid things, and if we did get rid of the Democrats, other people would come along and do the same stupid things. Without religion, we would still have people doing the same stupid things, just for different reasons.
For example, Hitchens says religion has to "try and impose itself on others." This is quite clearly not true; some religions are not at all evangelical, and most people -- in this country -- don't think merely offering to discuss religion is a serious imposition. And of course, this is not dissimilar from any special interest group, from the ACLU to the NRA to PETA. It's not a religious thing.
He gives an example of the Pope saying we shouldn't give people condoms in Africa to combat AIDS. But that is not religion. That is one man's view of how religion should be implemented. Someone could have the opposite view, that religion dictates we should give them condoms to combat AIDS. And an atheist could have the view that we should simply let them all die and not waste our time and money.
He talked about death threats for cartoonists in Denmark. Yet enviromental terrorists have killed, completely apart from any religious beliefs, and most religious people would never consider threatening anyone's life for drawing a cartoon.
Hitchens made not a single valid claim against religion, or the nature of religion, but merely certain cherry-picked implementations of religion. Of course, the same goes for every single person who has ever tried to attack religion as a whole.
Hitchens and Dawkins and the other irrational haters of religion are a cult, too. But in the pejorative sense: their views are bogus, and most of the adherents to the view are duped.
correction (Score:2)
I think that one could make a solid argument for most of your list of LDS beliefs, though you've done a solid job of concentrating on distinctions that Mormons themselves spend very little time or thought on. But the claim that Mormons don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin would be pretty hard to support.
Also, the issue of whether Mormons are Christian is more complicated than you make it out it be. Yes, Mormonism does differ from traditional Christianity. It doesn't fit into the Catholic/P
Re: (Score:2)
you've done a solid job of concentrating on distinctions that Mormons themselves spend very little time or thought on
If someone believes with me on every single political issue, except one, most people would say, well, we are political allies. But what if that one issue -- which he doesn't spend much time on -- happens to be that he believes that children up to three years old can be killed and eaten for fun? Obviously, I would avoid this person like the plague and seek to disassociate myself with him in every way possible.
Also (I hope) obviously, I am not saying Mormons are bad people, and I am not comparing them to c
Re: (Score:2)
You can drag out all sorts of obscure Brigham Young speculation to make Mormons look silly. Sometimes I do that myself.
Do Mormons believe that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus? Yes. Does that mean that Mormons think Mary wasn't a virgin? No. To answer the obvious question, yes God the Father can be the father of Jesus without intercourse. I'm happy to admit that you can find some statements that might make this a matter of confusion, especially if you are looking only for statements
Re: (Score:2)
Do Mormons believe that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus? Yes. Does that mean that Mormons think Mary wasn't a virgin? No. To answer the obvious question, yes God the Father can be the father of Jesus without intercourse.
Again, what I said: Maybe Mormons call this a "virgin birth," but ... their view certainly is opposed to the Protestant/Catholic definition of "virgin birth." What you said above confirms my claim. What you just said Mormons believe is very clearly opposed to the Protestant/Catholic definition of "virgin birth." Fine, you say it wasn't physical, but that is obviously beside the point (unless perhaps you just don't understand the Protestant/Catholic view?).
I would argue that absent the creeds (not part of the Bible last time I checked) the Mormon understanding of the Godhead is a biblical one. This is a matter of interpretation.
My point is NOT what is "biblical." My point i
George Bush is Hitler (Score:1)
That is not the definition I am using.
The traditional definition I am using, only refers to his actions. Bush is Hitler because they're both so similar in significant ways that you really can call him Hitler.
Pretty stupid indeed. I don't care if Mormons think Jesus came from Mars, if they believe in Him as their Savior, then they're Christians.
This is similar to how atheists like to pick apart the Bible. But what about this seeming co
Re: (Score:2)
There are two definitions of "Hitler". The more common one is perjorative.
That is not the definition I am using.
The traditional definition I am using, only refers to his actions. Bush is Hitler because they're both so similar in significant ways that you really can call him Hitler.
Pretty stupid indeed.
So ... you are attempting to deny the plainly true fact that the word "cult" has two distinct meanings? In fact, the meaning I am using predates today's more common definition by many years. It's sorta like the word "gay:" it originally meant something completely different. And as long as I explain the way in which I am using it, there's nothing remotely invalid about its use.
In 1955, Walter Martin wrote, "By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christ
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm attempting to deny the plainly anachronistic and therefore almost completely irrelevent true fact that "cult" and "being compared to Hitler", while in the ancient past may have not been pejorative, have been for so long that to employ their antiquated definitions today is of little use. Even "sect" is not completely neutral. I'd call the angle you're describing something like "significantly distant
Re: (Score:2)
I'm attempting to deny the plainly anachronistic and therefore almost completely irrelevent true fact that "cult" ... while in the ancient past may have not been pejorative, have been for so long that to employ their antiquated definitions today is of little use
It is plainly not anachronistic. The term is still in widespread use. The Kingdom of the Cults [amazon.com] by Walter Martin (which I already noted, predates today's common use of the term) remains one of the most important and relevant books on the subject. Indeed, one of the reasons I point this out is because many Christians see books like Martin's and think he is using it pejoratively, which isn't the case. Because the word is used nonpejoratively still today, in many (mostly scholarly) circles, it remains impo
Re: (Score:1)
It does to me. Christian == saved. The day one accepts Christ, s/he becomes both, simultaneously. If one later rejects Christ (I don't know if that's possible), they cease to be both, simultaneously.
I am talking about language and associations. Not who will go to heaven, but whether, according to the "parent" religion, the "child" religion's views are compatible.
And I'm suggesting is that
Re: (Score:2)
God very well may welcome Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons into heaven. But that doesn't mean Mormons are Christians.
It does to me. Christian == saved.
That is a completely separate discussion.
I am talking about language and associations. Not who will go to heaven, but whether, according to the "parent" religion, the "child" religion's views are compatible.
And I'm suggesting is that really what's important?
It is the context of the discussion. If you do not think it is important, then fine; you have no obligation to participate in this discussion.
You want to think so much about all the ways others don't measure up
You are misrepresenting me. In fact, I made no such value judgment that could possibly be characterized as saying someone does not "measure up." Saying a dog isn't a cat does not imply the dog doesn't measure up to the cat.
Re: (Score:2)
It does when everyone knows you think only cats go to heaven. You can pretend not to be making a value judgment, but if you really aren't making a value judgment than you don't think Christianity is any better than non-Christianity. Do you care to stand behind that proposition?
Of course not. You're attempting to have it both ways. Claim to be "just making an observation" while blatantly attacking another belief system. "Oh, I
Re: (Score:2)
Saying a dog isn't a cat does not imply the dog doesn't measure up to the cat.
It does when everyone knows you think only cats go to heaven.
You're a liar. In fact, I stated quite clearly that I was making no such judgments about who goes to heaven, and I agreed with John when he said that is up to God.
You can pretend not to be making a value judgment, but if you really aren't making a value judgment than you don't think Christianity is any better than non-Christianity. Do you care to stand behind that proposition?
That is illogical bullshit.
You're attempting to have it both ways.
You lack simple comprehension skills.
Claim to be "just making an observation" while blatantly attacking another belief system.
You're a liar. I defy you to show a single example of a single attack I made against Mormonism. You cannot do it, so I will not hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I agree that you've managed to keep from making any explicit attacks. I just don't think anyone is fooled by your thin veneer of non-judgmentalism. When I asked the question that would have forced your hand: if you really aren't making a value judgment than you don't think Christianity is any better than non-Christianity. Do you care to stand behind that propos
Re: (Score:2)
You're a liar. I defy you to show a single example of a single attack I made against Mormonism. You cannot do it, so I will not hold my breath.
No, I agree that you've managed to keep from making any explicit attacks. I just don't think anyone is fooled by your thin veneer of non-judgmentalism.
I made no judgments, implied or otherwise. I defy you to show otherwise.
You are calling Mormons non-Christian. If there is no normative aspect to this claim, it means that you don't think Christianity it preferable to non-Christianity.
That is not remotely logical.
For all the games you want to play, however, it's cystal clear to anyone following this discussion that you are a die-hard evangelical.
And this, of course, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you are once again engaging in ad hominem.
You respect Walter Martin as a scholar
Of course. He is proven himself a scholar after many years of work.
and brook no criticism of the man or his credentials
False. I never did any such thing. I merely rejected the notion that yoru criticisms were relevant to the discussion. Feel free to criticize him all you like, in some context where such criticisms have some logical bearing.
Walter Martin commands absolutely 0 respect outside the circle of anti-cult evangelicals.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking credentials instead of the work itself is, again, a textbook example of ad hominem.
This is not how ad hominem works. If I say "Walter Martin is not a real scholar, therefore his conclusions are false" it is ad homineme. but simply saying "Walter Martin is not a real scholar" is not, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack. It never will be.
You've said, and continued to maintain, that Walter Martin is a scholar. If you look up "scholar" in wikipedia it will take you to the site of "
Re: (Score:2)
1. Ad Hominem
Attacking credentials instead of the work itself is, again, a textbook example of ad hominem.
This is not how ad hominem works. If I say "Walter Martin is not a real scholar, therefore his conclusions are false" it is ad homineme. but simply saying "Walter Martin is not a real scholar" is not, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack.
No, you didn't say "therefore his conclusions are false." You did, however, directly imply "therefore his conclusions don't matter." It was, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack.
You've said, and continued to maintain, that Walter Martin is a scholar. If you look up "scholar" in wikipedia it will take you to the site of "academia" and the first line is: "Academia is a collective term for the scientific and cultural community engaged in higher education and peer-reviewed research, taken as a whole."
So those are the two components: higher education and peer-reviewed research.
This is also a logical fallacy, argumentum ad wikipedium. Since when does Wikipedia define words?
A scholar is simply, as the Oxford dictionary says, someone who is a specialist in a particular branch of study. That's it. There are no specific qualifications required. The end.
Walter Martin, however, publishes in the evangelical press. This makes him not the equivalent of Nibley or Barker, but of other apologists on both sides of the issue who are categorize primarily by being those people who write books about religion and are not scholars.
Dude. Many apologists who publish in the evang
Re: (Score:2)
Never did read all of these replies, but it does in fact use it three times.
worst slashdot beating i ever took (Score:2)
basically when it was all said and done, i walked away realizing that the term Christian has been gutted of any real meaning beyond
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you might as well include Jews and Muslims in your definition.
As I said to Pudge, I think reasonable people can disagree on this issue. All I want is an acknowledgment of the complexity of it. Statements such as yours belittle the faith Mormons have in Christ as their personal Savior. Yes, Mormons are not creedal Christians. Obviously lots of other Christians weren't prior to the creeds or nobody would have seen the need for the creeds, would they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't a lot of complexity unless you are willing to ignore what christian meant for the last couple thousand years. it doesn't bother me too much. i just use terms that still mean what i am trying to convey. language is fluid so i can roll with it.
It is not a linguistic problem I've got with it, it's the assosciation problem. "Orthodox Christians" or whatever you want to call them have a reasonable interest in disassociating themselves, doctrinally, from Mormons, and in resisting attempts at association. If everyone could agree what the words meant, that Christian does not mean what it has traditionally meant, that would be one thing, but that isn't going to happen, and therefore the use of the label will necessarily imply to many people an associ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, in a nutshell, is what I am asking for. To make the slight effort to go one level deeper. I think in this case a little effort can bring a lot of clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether your standard is "what Christians have believed for the last 1500 years" or "what the original disciples of Christ believed". You believe that the two are the same, but a lot of historical research suggests otherwise.
That's why Harrison is right - the question is more complex. Mainstream Christians take it as an article of faith that the Creeds accurately reflect the early Christian church, but this i
As a member of radical Athiesm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A question (Score:2)
I've read the bible, and The Book of Mormon, and some other religious texts. What I took away from the Bible was that Jesus was very interested in his flock. He wanted as many of them to love him as possible, and he wanted to save as many of them as he could. So, to my way
Re: (Score:2)
if Mormon's love Jesus and hold him as their personal savior, Catholics love Jesus and hold him as their personal savior, and Protestants love Jesus and hold him as their personal savior; then isn't that the most important thing?
It depends on what they each mean by words like "Jesus" and "savior," doesn't it?
Would Jesus have been as concerned over the nuances of their worship as much as simply that they believe in Him and strive to honor Him?
I don't think saying that all men can become exalted, can become gods, that there are multiple gods, is mere nuance. My understanding of the Bible, of Christ, of the purpose and meaning of his sacrifice, is intrinsically tied to the belief that there is one God, that Jesus is that one God become flesh, that because of this his sacrifice was unique and uniquely powerful, both necessary and sufficient to cover our sins.
Mormons
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing the bible with creeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the creeds themselves are not mandated by the Bible or they would be redundant.
I believe they are so "mandated." That is, I believe the creeds represent the most proper understanding of the Bible. You, obviously, disagree.
This -- and my claim that Mormons are not Christians -- is no value statement on the legitimacy of the beliefs of Mormons. It is merely a statement that Christianity (not salvation, not truth, not relationship with God) is defined by certain beliefs, and that Mormons do not share those beliefs. I am describing nothing more or less than a human-defined category.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Its your opinion, and your perspective, and your faith, as one of the most personal decisions a person can make, is yours. That doesn't mean that it is fact, however, nor that anyone with a different opinion is ignorant of the different religions.
It seems to me that it is important to you that there is th
Re: (Score:2)
From my perspective, Mormons do not worship the God I worship, the single creator of all. They do not have Jesus, the-one-God-become-flesh, as their savior. I don't think this is mere nuance.
Indeed. Its your opinion, and your perspective, and your faith, as one of the most personal decisions a person can make, is yours. That doesn't mean that it is fact, however, nor that anyone with a different opinion is ignorant of the different religions.
Right. Why are you telling me this? I explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, that this was a subjective matter of perspective. I never stated or implied it was a fact, and in fact, I stated precisely the opposite.
It is a fact that from the Protestant/Catholic perspective, that Mormons are not Christians. That is entirely clear. But that is, quite obviously, as I stated, a subjective statement coming from a particular perspective.
It seems to me that it is important to you that there is this delineation between Christians and non-Christians, and I'm just curious as to why.
The issue was in the news, due to Mitt Romney and Al Sharpton. I com
here goes nothing (Score:2)
This is an example of blatant exceptionalism. You've admitted that Christianity fits the definition of "cult", but because you believe in your particular definition of Christianity you over-ride the impartial application of the definition with an application that is colored by your own faith. Just read what you wrote: the basis for excepting Christianity is that "it is a mere fulfillm
Re: (Score:2)
Just read what you wrote: the basis for excepting Christianity is that "it is a mere fulfillment of Judaism". This is not a historical fact, it's a mere assertion of Chrsitian dogma.
Without getting into the differences between dogma and doctrine -- I don't believe this is dogma at all, but doctrine -- so what? Where did I imply it was fact? What part of "whether the differences are significant enough to call one a cult of the other [is sub
Re: (Score:2)
Title of post: "Mormonism is a cult"
Actual content of the post: "Mormonism is a cult from the perspective of Catholics and Protestants."
The first claim is objective, the second subjective. So it's a bit of a bait and switch.
The pejorative term is more popular than the other, but the other is still widely used in scholarly circles. You can't wish away a word just because you don't happen to like it.
Sources? To the best of my knowledge
Re: (Score:2)
Title of post: "Mormonism is a cult"
Actual content of the post: "Mormonism is a cult from the perspective of Catholics and Protestants."
The first claim is objective, the second subjective. So it's a bit of a bait and switch.
Dude. If the title were sufficient to explain the content, there would be no content.
The pejorative term is more popular than the other, but the other is still widely used in scholarly circles. You can't wish away a word just because you don't happen to like it.
Sources? To the best of my knowledge scholars quit using the term after Waco. Hm. I took a class on cults after Waco. Using the longstanding primary resource on the subject, Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, which I referenced earlier in this discussion. That book is still in widespread use today.
And frankly, I question how you would even purport to know that scholars quit using that term, when
Re: (Score:2)
The traditional definition I am using, and that many scholars use when they call Mormonism a cult, only refers to the actual beliefs of a particular sect in relation to its parent religion. Mormonism is a cult of Christianity because Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity that is different in significant enough ways that you can't really call Mormons Christians.
This is your original definition (if you could call it that). Note that you didn't actually state the definition, only tha
Re: (Score:2)
This is your original definition (if you could call it that)
Of course.
Note that you didn't actually state the definition
Yawn. I certainly did.
only that it "refers to the actual beliefs of a particular sect in relation to its parent religion"
False. You even quoted the rest of it, "that is different in significant enough ways that you can't really call Mormons Christians." And, of course, I gave further clarification of the definition later in the post, and in comments.
Again, I am not even going to read the rest of your post. This was more than enough. You continue to misrepresent and miscomprehend and miss-the-point. I have better things to do than to spell things out that I've already spelled out.
Re: (Score:2)
You: "I certainly did."
Text in question: "The definition I am using...only refers to the actual beliefs of a particular sect in relation to its parent religion."
This is simply not a definition. It's gramatically impossible for it to be one. You said the definition refers to these things, but left out what the actual definition was. In any case, even if we account for sloppy grammar and take this to be a statement of the definition all we know is that it has
Re: (Score:2)
You call that a definition? Could we possibly get less specific? Define car. "It's like a truck, but different in significant enough ways to get called a car." Wow. Some definition.
Which scholars use this definition again?
Re: (Score:2)
I also have to say that actually reading the entire wikipedia entry on Walter Martin has been an eye-opener. He got his PhD from a diploma mill? And called himself "Doctor" even before that? This stuff looks bad, man:
Mormon. During the 1980
Re: (Score:2)
I could find not a single one where you gave a concise, direct definition of cult.
Wow, that is shocking, giving how well you've read and understood everything else I've written. /sarcasm
He got his PhD from a diploma mill? And called himself "Doctor" even before that?
You do realize the fact that you are committing the ad hominem fallacy, right? You really expect me to reply to things that are, by definition, irrelevant?
Keep up the bullshit, man. One more post that claims I've not done something I've done, or that commits blatant logical fallacies, or that misrepresents me, will get you Foe'd so you won't be able to post in my journal anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand what the term "ad hominem" means. It's isn't Latin for "put down". If I say "his PhD was fake, don't listen to what he said" that's (arguably) an ad hominem. But if you say "he was a scholar" and I say "no, he was a fraud, look at the fact that he got his PhD from a diploma mill" it's relevant. His scholarship was brought
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand what the term "ad hominem" means.
I absolutely do.
It's isn't Latin for "put down".
Correct. It is Latin for "to the man": arguing at the man instead of what he says. What you've been doing.
If I say "his PhD was fake, don't listen to what he said" that's (arguably) an ad hominem. But if you say "he was a scholar" and I say "no, he was a fraud, look at the fact that he got his PhD from a diploma mill" it's relevant.
No, it certainly is not.
His scholarship was brought into play (by you, not by my) and the fact that his PhD is a fake is relevant to that discussion.
Even if it is fake, no, it is not relevant. You apparently don't know what the term "scholar" means. It does not, in fact, mean "has a Ph.D." If I devoted myself to it, I could be a scholar of certain aspects of history, or of law, and so on, despite not having anything more than a B.A. in journalism. Pieces of paper are neither necessary not sufficient
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing the Latin words doens't mean you understand the logical fallacy it describes. Ad hominem means you are using an attack on a person to discredit their argument. This is a logical fallacy because who a person is has no impact on the veracity of what they say. The logical fallacy comes from the connection between source and information. It's the same type of fallacy as the fallacy of an argume
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's really not. It's the same old "evidence" over and over again, that was refuted in the second century and onward.
This is absurd. We, here in the 21st century, do not know preciesly what the argument in the 2nd century was. If we did, we would not have the field of biblical history. We would not be doing research and digging in the desert and writing books about what the early Christians believed. We would not have gotten
Re: (Score:2)
I claim no votes! But these people [lds.org] might get some in your eyes. None of this discounts the notion of a virgin birth, which as you state (and I stated early) the Book of Mormon supports.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing
Re: (Score:2)
The evangelicals get a ton of mileage out of the old "You worship Jesus, but is it the same Jesus?!?!?!" and I'm a little tired of it.
I could not possibly care less what you are tired of. If I think our theological views are fundamentally different, then I will say that we do not belong to the same religion. How you feel about that is irrelevant.
The only things I as a Mormon have to answer for are what is in the Standard Works.
I could not care less what you answer for. Again, I made no value judgments about what you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, if not very Christian of you.
I could not care less what you answer for. Again, I made no value judgments about what you believe.
But the one thing we do know about your definition of "cult" is that it involves belief. So you'd think that figuring out what Mormons believe would be somewhat crucial to knowing if they are a cult right? Or do you just call them a cult first and figure out the reasoning second?
(I've handled your "I made no va
Re: (Score:2)
I could not possibly care less what you are tired of.
Fair enough, if not very Christian of you. ;-)
You appear to be joking, but let me be clear: there's nothing un-Christian about it. Let's pretend there's a religion called Fooism, and Fooists claim to be Christians, but they do not believe Jesus existed. Jesus is only a metaphor.
So, I reply, then why do you call yourself a Christian, if you do not even believe in Christ? If the Fooist replied, The evangelicals get a ton of mileage out of the old "you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in Christ" thing and I'm a little tired of it, how should
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's probably not good enough for you.
2. Again, I noted that one could say Christianity is a cult of Judaism. You incorrectly accused me of asserting that it is not, when in fact, I said that both judgments -- that it is, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree (and have been trying to convince Pudge) that Mormons believe in the virgin birth.
I accept that. It is, however, quite obviously, according to you, a different virgin birth than what Protestants and Catholics believe in.
Pudge won't admit that Mormons believe Mary was a virgin
You're lying. I explicitly conceded it, and you read me saying it. I merely noted the fact that according to you, Mormons believe in a different virgin birth than what Protestants and Catholics believe in.
Instead he claims that when he says virgin he means something different than what Mormons say without defining the distinction.
That is obviously and totally false, in fact. I said that Mormons mean something different when they say "virgin birth," not when they say "virgin." And accordin
Re: (Score:2)
Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle. Come in kettle.
Seriously Pudge, have you read any of the LDS works that you quote or are you cherry-picking?
Re: (Score:2)
It's odd to me that you are criticizing my supposed cherry-picking but not pointing out where I got anything actually wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly have a very well rounded knowledge of Mormonism.
Also, I don't think that we're in agreement on virgin birth, but obviously Mormons and other Christians disagree on the details of immaculate conception.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take that as a denial.
I denied only that I misrepresented Mormonism. Anything else you take as a denial, you do so without warrant.
...
You are making an ad hominem attack here. It is a logical fallacy to concern yourself with what I've read. The only matter of importance is whether I misrepresented Mormon views, and as you have not come up with a single example of me doing so
Also, I don't think that we're in agreement on virgin birth
We agreed that Mormons have a different view of it than Protestants and Catholics do. You said so yourself: Mormons believe that God was the physical
Re: (Score:2)
It is my opinion that you have a lopsided view of the LDS faith. I'm trying to discern whether you arrived at it through being given cherry-picked sound bites or if you've studied this in detail.
Given that you consistently represent a single side of the argument I
Re: (Score:2)
You are making an ad hominem attack here. It is a logical fallacy to concern yourself with what I've read. The only matter of importance is whether I misrepresented Mormon views, and as you have not come up with a single example of me doing so ...
It is my opinion that you have a lopsided view of the LDS faith. I'm trying to discern whether you arrived at it through being given cherry-picked sound bites or if you've studied this in detail.
Yes, and in doing so, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. What you should concern yourslef with is making a single actual point showing in what way you think my view is "lopsided."
Perhaps by that you only mean what you said at the outset, that I was addressing Mormon views that Mormons do not see as very important. But that is an extremely poor point to make, as I noted before. Just because you don't find it to be important, doesn't mean I shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still like to see any other scholars that back up this definition of cult. I have a feeling you just dip down into that whole sub-culture of evangelical apologetics, but none of it is scholarship. I mean a professor somewhere. Someone who has published in real journals, at real scholarly presses. Do you have any of those?
I'd also still like to see the definition of the cult. I mean you can just say "I posted it somewhere else" so I guess I'll have to go chase it down wherever it is
Re: (Score:2)
I have a few! ;-)
I'd still like to see any other scholars that back up this definition of cult. I have a feeling you just dip down into that whole sub-culture of evangelical apologetics, but none of it is scholarship. I mean a professor somewhere. Someone who has published in real journals, at real scholarly presses. Do you have any of those?
I'd also still like to see the definition of the cult. I mean you can just say "I posted it somewhere else" so I guess I'll have to go chase it down wherever it is, but how much trouble would it have cost you to just copy paste it for me?
Oh yeah, and I also want to know what university uses "Kingdom of the Cults" as a textbook.
I'd still like to see any other scholars that back up this definition of cult
Already done. Read. Use your eyes.
I have a feeling you just dip down into that whole sub-culture of evangelical apologetics, but none of it is scholarship.
Your feelings are based on ignorance and are therefore uninteresting.
I'd also still like to see the definition of the cult.
Already done.
Oh yeah, and I also want to know what university uses "Kingdom of the Cults" as a textbook.
Good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Addressed elsewhere. You've never given the concise, clear definition in any recognizable statement. If you really had, it would be trivial to cut and paste and make me look like an ass. What you've said is "my definition involves..." and given a vague and incomplete description, which is not at all the same as a definition.
Your feelings are based on ignorance and are therefore uninteresting.
Which would explain why the only "scholar" you can quote is an evangelical apolo
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you.
You realize that doesn't look good, right? The fact that I guess what univesity you attended and you refuse to answer. I mean if you really thought it was irrelevant to the discussion, you'd just post it.
No, I certainly would not. Maybe you would. Maybe most people would. I, however, as I am often reminded by family, friends, and colleagues, am not most people.
Indeed, if I think something is not relevant, I will go out of my way to not post it. Again, I have a tendency toward stubbornness (many would consider that an understatement).
I think this is the root of many of your problems here. You have a caricature in your mind of what you think I am. But it's not me. If I say I am not making value judgme
Is every child belief a cult of the parent? (Score:2)