As I stated in the very recently deleted thread bashing Catholic belief, some forums I frequent often will have their random Mormon-basher show up, who spews forth lots of generic, circa 1970s (and even 1870s)anti-Mormon progoganda intended to Startle Us Into Repentance.
Sometimes, they drudge up 'obscure' historical facts that they are positive Us Ignorant Mormons Don't Know. "So and so said THIS! Can you believe that?!?!?!", etc.
Other times, they take somewhat legitimate doctrinal statements, and twist and contort and add in fabricated editorial intensifiers as they toss them out there in a way as to SHOCK and APALL. "Did you know MORMONS teach that JESUS and SATAN were BLOOD BROTHERS?"
Sometimes this is done with all the full gusto of a self-avowed Internet Evangelist.
Other times, it's done as a wolf in sheep's clothing. "I was thinking of joining your church, the people are so nice, and then I was told RANDOM OBSCURE QUOTE THAT IS ONLY AVAILABLE IN OUT OF PRINT NON-AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS, and I was shocked, do you really believe this? Please tell me, I am a humble seeker and I want to know the TRUTH!!! If this is accurate, then I am scared for our SOULS!"
Now, speaking as one who at one time attemped the Internet Anti-Mormon Evangelist route, I am still baffled. I never started threads with the intent to 'rile 'em up'. When discussions began, I would place in my 'clever, indefensible' barbs.
But I've grown up a bit since then, and realized that those who begin such threads are pretty much the internet equivalent of This Guy.
Do any people who are the target of these sorts odf ramblings ever take these guys seriously?
I can see that the self-professed Anti-Cult Internet Evangelists often get a noce group of already-converted head-nodders and yes-men there to agree and chortle along with them as he pronounces the damnation of any who claim belief in such vile things.
The thing is, these guys often either VERY quickly bow out when the 'opposition' actually politely and authoritatively responds, correcting their errors -- or they continue to fight back, CLEARLY ignoring anything the member of their Targeted Faith has said.
While most of Internet Evangelists are purported Matthew 7:20, which states, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
You may have good intentions, guys, but your fruit is all rotten and cruddy, and nobody is going to want to have anything to do with the tree from whence it came.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I realize that is basically just a clever way to make me feel stupid. And I realize my mistake. As I said, I am not Catholic, which means I do not understand Catholic doctrine. I was just thinking out loud. But apparently it was too loud, and I angered some people.
I would like to apologize to all those people, I may even make a separate thread about it.
If possible, will you forgive me without making me feel stupider than I already do? All of you. Any of you?
Edit: I would also like to add that I have also seen the light. But this light was shone forcefully into my eyes and it showed me that I should be more careful what I say and think and who I say and think it to. I can be sometimes reckless with my thoughts. I suppose I'm used to people just discounting everything I say, like they do at school. But I'd like to try and prevent that from happening here also.
Edit of the Edit( ): I would also like to say that I did not "bow out," but deleted the thread because I figured it would get removed anyway. I'd riled people up and someone had probably reported my post. I thought I would just save everyone the trouble and originate the origin of the offense. The thread, not me. I don't intend to cause myself any harm. Nor do I intend to cause anyone else harm.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I didn't see the thread in question, so this post is in response to the question stated here, particularly WRT to that guy in the photo, not to events which I missed.
It's possible they're not so much trying to "deconvert" Mormons or other religious members, as to "convert-proof" people who aren't already in the group.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I understood that you actually were confused about a certain aspect of catholicism, and while there was maybe some irreverent aspects to the way you worded things I didn't think it was disrespectful to ask.
I answered seriously, although I was flippant in the last sentence of my post. Everything is fair game for jokes in my book, and I don't think anyone should be offended by my making a play on words between canonized people and the worst NFL team playing right now. I thought the browbeating you received for starting the thread was reactionary and over-the-top. But then, religion will do that to people, especially if they viewed your post as an attack.
To me it seemed an honest request for information. But I have a thick skin about stuff like this.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
I highly recommend going to the above site and running through the various depictions there. It helps put everything into perspective.
-ron
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Steve, I didn't see your deleted post, but if you think Taalcon is the type to post "a clever way to make [you] feel stupid" then you need to get to know the man a little better.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah. He ain't the least bit clever!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
set... spike... *hi fives icky*
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Bleh, leftovers...this is what I get for reading BBC at work instead of the 'rack....always missing something
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Steve, I’m not saying this to make you feel stupid, but because I think you’re probably a good person and don’t want to look stupid or look like a jerk. If you’re confused about an aspect of someone’s religion, ask. Don’t write a long post detailing why you think they’re wrong and (in the case of a Christian denomination) anti-Christian and then think it’s not an attack because you end with “or am I missing something?”
Although, if it makes you feel any better (as a Lutheran and all), Martin Luther was much more offensive in some of his anti-Catholic writing.
But then he didn’t have to abide by the Hatrack User Agreement. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
As DKW said, asking respectfully wouldn't be a problem. It's when one accuses, and draws a conclusion stated as fact, and accuses another of being 'un-Christian', don't expect us to use the kid gloves.
Also: Martyrdom is also one of the usual reactions of the Intervangelists once they're called on the carpet.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
ballantrae, I've seen some of those before, but never really just browsed the whole site. some of them are pretty great.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I highly recommend going to the above site and running through the various depictions there. It helps put everything into perspective.
-ron
That is an extremely unfair and biased site, plainly a part of the International Theist Conspiracy to prevent the light of atheism from reaching the people. It shows the Deacon as a powerful, domineering figure, raising high the evil icon of his 'faith'; the atheist is caricatured as a coward shrinking from a mere cross, like some pagan vampire. I have sent the site manager a really scathing email, and meanwhile I demand that you cease linking to it until this matter is cleared up!
About the original thread that started all this, it seemed to me that people over-reacted just a tad. It's not as though comrade Steve was linking the relevant Chick tract (I can't be bothered to find the damn thing, I'm sure you've all seen it) for backup.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And Icarus wins the thread 2-0.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Do any people who are the target of these sorts odf ramblings ever take these guys seriously?
What guys do you take seriously that make you question your faith? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, I for one would like to come up with a new name for my faith so that I don't have to share the name with people like Pat Robertson. As much as I'd hate to lose control of the obvious "brand recognition" name of Christian, I do think that maybe it's time to just cede it to all the flaming jerks who use it as an in-your-face badge or as a way to raise money and pick a new name that like-minded faithful people can call themselves.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Shoot -- missed all the excitement again I guess.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
But aint it nice that we can pick up after ourselves sometimes? Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:As DKW said, asking respectfully wouldn't be a problem. It's when one accuses, and draws a conclusion stated as fact, and accuses another of being 'un-Christian', don't expect us to use the kid gloves.
By taking off the kid gloves, do you mean deleting and banning?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Well, I for one would like to come up with a new name for my faith so that I don't have to share the name with people like Pat Robertson. As much as I'd hate to lose control of the obvious "brand recognition" name of Christian, I do think that maybe it's time to just cede it to all the flaming jerks who use it as an in-your-face badge or as a way to raise money and pick a new name that like-minded faithful people can call themselves.
Amen, Brother Scopatz.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Edit:
quote:By taking off the kid gloves, do you mean deleting and banning?
Has Steve been banned? Did someone other than him delete his post?
No, taking off the kid gloves means you get called on the carpet for your offensiveness and (if I catch you) you might get a taste of your own medicine back, because I like vigilante justice
then, if you don't straighten up, your thread may get deleted...
I think I know of three or four people who have been banned, and at least one of those has been welcomed back...
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I never went for the Mormon-bashing thing. First of all, I find it distasteful. Second, I like Mormons. It was thanks to Mormons, in part, that I came to Christ at all.
But I do think Mormons are wrong on a number of essential issues. I don't believe what they teach. I think many of their distinctive beliefs are contrary to the truth and incompatible with Christianity.
That is all.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Do any people who are the target of these sorts odf ramblings ever take these guys seriously?
That guy's sign is hilarious! Among the groups he condemns, there's: "sports nuts", "rebellious women", "pencil necked weak kneed gutless men", "dikes on bikes" (is it more acceptable when they walk? ), "homos" (listed 3 times for triple the damnation ), and for some reason he saves Mormons for last, in big all capital letters, right between "homos" and "Jesus mockers". Crazy people are funny Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Taal,
I've taken him seriously.
I've gone and joined a Lesbians-only Harley Davidson club, just so they can twist my scrawny little neck.
--Steve
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooh! Can I be a "rebellious-woman-sex-addict"?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Taal, have you ever thought that maybe Joseph Smith was wrong?
Just sayin'...
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Taal, have you ever thought that maybe Joseph Smith was wrong?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
): I would also like to say that I did not "bow out," but deleted the thread because I figured it would get removed anyway. I'd riled people up and someone had probably reported my post. I thought I would just save everyone the trouble and originate the origin of the offense. The thread, not me. I don't intend to cause myself any harm. Nor do I intend to cause anyone else harm.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
), "homos" (listed 3 times for triple the damnation ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)