Robert Millet, Former Dean of Religious Education At BYU, Now With Church Public Affairs, Teaches Future Missionaries How To Deal With Anti-Mormons!!
I came across this video back in January and I just wanted to share it with all of you guys and those of you that have the time and desire to watch it.(43 minutes long) I will also be including a permanent link to this post in my link section, so that everyone will be able to easily find it in the future or refer others to it.
In this video, Robert Millet is speaking to the Mission Prep Club(pathetic I know) at BYU, on March 11, 2004, about how to handle the tough anti-Mormon questions missionaries may face, while on their missions or afterward. I guess they are getting pretty desperate, aren't they?
Here is some background info on the guy:
Brother Robert Millet was Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 30 December 1947 and served in the Eastern States Mission from 1967-69. He married Shauna Sizemore in 1971; they have six children. Brother Millet received B.S., M.S. degrees in Psychology from BYU and his Ph.D. from Florida State University in Religious Studies.
He worked with LDS Social Services, LDS Seminaries and Institutes, and joined BYU Religious Education faculty in 1983. While at BYU, he has served as Ancient Scripture Department Chair and as Dean of Religious Education. He now holds a joint appointment with Church Public Affairs (Manager of Outreach and Interfaith Relations).
This guy is a first class chump and is just teaching these "future missionaries" how to lie and be an apologist like him, by not answering the tough questions that people ask, rather answering the questions that they want people to ask, which they didn't ask(insane, I know).
In other words, "the church is the only true church on earth" and anyone that thinks differently, or asks good, tough questions, based completely on truth, reality and facts; are evil liars and anti-Mormons and they should just be ignored. If they ask you about the racism, tell them about the First Vision, right?
There are an entire slew of great comments by this guy, such as:
"We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions."
Yeah, I would add; especially if they are tough questions, that make the Mormon church look like the fraud and cult that it truly is. Robert Millet shares an example from the Book of Mormon, confirming that those who ask these questions, are "from the Devil."
I guess this would confirm Brigham Young saying that us ex-Mormons are all anti-Christs and then Boyd K. Packer saying that we should be avoided, because we are "full of darkness" and "disease germs." Good to see that they think so highly of us, isn't it?
Another great quote is:
"As Latter-Day Saints, you already know more about God and Christ and the Plan of Salvation, than anyone who will attack you, take my word for it....and you and I should take some degree of confidence in that."
What arrogance and people accuse me of being too sure of what I know? When I went to that Stake Conference with M. Russell Ballard last year, he basically said the same thing; that "Latter-Day Saints know more about Jesus and the next life, than anybody else on the planet." He said that the world needs Mormons to educate them about "the truth" of things, because Mormons are the only ones that have it.
Again, this is flat out arrogance, condescending as hell and how does this bring others to Mormonism or show their supposed love and acceptance of others, that don't believe as they do or those of other religions? Oh that's right, it all started with the "I'm greater than Jesus Christ" Joseph Smith and the teaching that all churches are an abomination with false preachers and corrupt doctrines.
Then you have the BOM teaching that there are only 2 churches, God's and the "whore of all the earth" or the "mother of harlots", etc. Yes, this shows how much the Mormon Hierarchy love and accept others that don't believe as they do, doesn't it?
Do they actually think that people won't be smart enough to put all this together and expose them? Are they really that naive or are they just dumb? Maybe that's why an estimated 125,000 people resigned last year, eh?
Robert Millet basically states that because people are opposing Mormonism, it proves that the church is true; so the opposition proves the veracity of the Mormon church. So, I guess based on that ridiculous logic, Communism is true, Terrorism is true and so on.
No wonder missionaries act so arrogantly and cocky and I should know, because I was one. I believed that we had the only truth on earth and that everybody else was wrong and that is what I taught every time I shared the First Vision story.
He talks about how nobody will remain neutral and will either be for or against the Kingdom of God. In other words, people will either be for or against Mormonism and those who reject it, are evil and screwed in this life and the next.
He quotes Brigham Young as saying:
"Every time we announce the building of a temple, all the bells of hell begin to ring and oh how I love to hear those bells." (The future missionaries laugh!!)
This is truly pathetic and a fine example of the kind of BS the Mormon Hierarchy is trying to spew to the world and the deceptive means and individuals that it uses to do it.
Robert Millet and everything he says in this video, is fully condoned by the Mormon Hierarchy and he has served as the Ancient Scripture Department Chair and as Dean of Religious Education at BYU. Robert Millet is exactly the kind of man(sucker), that the Mormon Hierarchy are looking for, to spread their BS all over the world.
I'm really glad that this video exists, in order to show everyone that us antis aren't insane or imagining some inexistent conspiracy; which is, that they are teaching the members and missionaries to flat out lie about what the Church actually believes and has taught in their dark past. In some cases, this would include their dark present teachings as well.
This video shows exactly what their plans of deceit are and how they want to suck innocent people into their web of lies and closet of skeletons.
This man needs help and is a completely arrogant, delusional, Mormon apologist in my opinion!! He should go hang out with the likes of Van Hale, Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay and the others as they would be best friends I'm sure, if they aren't already. You guys did notice that he now works with the Mormon Hierarchy's "public affairs department?" What a shocker!! LOL!!
Anyone want to argue with me that he isn't doing and saying exactly what they want him to, with their implicit approval?
This video, along with the 50,000+ brainwashed Mormon missionaries, being taught to lie and deceive the world, is the perfect example of why us ex-Mormons need to keep doing what we're doing and spreading the truth and reality of the Mormon cult to the world.
I look forward to everyone's comments,
Samuel the Utahnite
Labels: Mormon, Mormon LDS Mormonism cult brainwashing indoctrination fraud lies liars criminals joseph smith pedophile child rape adultery Thomas Monson Henry Eyring crooks vile assholes TBM apologists prophet evil
posted by Samuel the Utahnite @ 5:56 PM
46 comments
46 Comments:
Mr. Millet was a good friend of my mission Pres, Joseph Fielding McConkie. They wrote several books together. If you baptized 5 people in 3 months, you got a personalized book from him. I could never get through one book as they were so boring, so arrogant. I had to look deep into the man that had written this and feel deep sorrow for a man who grew up without a father, who wanted nothing more than to be like him and rise up the ranks of the church, but who as yet hadn't. He lived wanting so much to give love, but just when he did, it was as if his deceased father would pull him back and tell him to cut that part of him off. I had a couple of real conversations with him and it pained me to see the pain behind the eyes of this man. His mouth was spewing the same things Mr. Millet was saying, his father was saying, the church was saying, but his heart was weeping. I hope the day comes that he gets in touch with that.
I'm so sad that after all of these years the same vomit is still being spewed from these men. How boring it must be to listen to themselves.
Thanks Samuel.
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
Hey all...
I know everyone hates me and thinks I make blanket condemnation statements....but thats besides the point of why I am here.
ATTN...
Samuel and everyone else who has a passion for exposing the Mormon church:
Jerald Tanner of the "Utah Light House Ministry" passed away last night.
To those that believe in prayer, please pray that Sandra is comforted in this time and that God may be close by her side right now.
The Tanners Christian ministry to persue truth and call the mormon church to truth is awesome!! They have done the Lord God a great service.
God Bless...
John 8:32
-Eric Hoffman
Interesting video but I am a little disappointed. I thought the guy was actually going to answer the tough questions. His basic message was teach and testify. His statement, "never use meat when milk will suffice" should be replaced with "never use meat, period" LOL So basically, I felt that his talk was pointless... he didn't actually teach anyone how to answer any tough questions. Instead, he taught them to answer the question that SHOULD have been asked.
For example:
Q: Hi Samuel, how are you?
A: My wife is great, thanks.
In other words, dance around the question and avoid it just like the leaders do.
How screwed up is this logic? Opposition to something is evidence that it is true! Samuel covered this in the blog, but WTH? That is the most insane and ridiculous logic I have ever heard.
===========================
Thanks for the news, Eric. I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't hate you! Obviously, I agree strongly with Samuel on most issues. Just because we disagree most certain issues does not mean I hate you. You should come hang out with us sometime.
On my mission we got fed HOURS of this sort of "logic". It was just boring nonsense.
My condolences to the Tanner's. He had more courage in his little finger than most men do in their whole bodies in the morg. Crap, Steve Irwin and now Mr. Tanner. I swear, this has been quite a fricken month!
Eric, I don't hate you either. I used to really, really enjoy listening to your podcasts until you became so incredibly self righteous and judgemental. Your insights into the church however were interesting. I just have no desire to be converted into anything or to have my family that are still TBM to be condemned to eternal death by your words. Other than that, as I said, I used to really enjoy what you had to say. I'm saddened that you and Samuel had such a falling out. For a time, as a team, you two were really powerful. I feel more comfortable over hear simply because I'm not being attacked and my family is not being attacked and I'm not having yet another religion forced down my throat.
Thanks for the info.
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
Samuel,
Thanks for sharing this video and your comments. This is exactly why I could never return to the Church. Even if I believed it was true, I wouldn't be able to stomach being on a mission or in a Sunday school or priesthood meeting ever again. But you have to admit that it is rather brilliant of them to give this kind of training to the missionaries. As we all know, the only way to prevent a loss of faith is to refuse to listen to anyone else!
Also, thank you for teaching me a new word: inexistent. At first I thought that was a mistake, but a quick run to Webster's proved otherwise. I love learning new words :) Now I have another word to add to my list of things to call the golden plates, the Mormon gods, the celestial kingdom, etc. haha
--------
Eric,
Thanks for the post. The Tanners are two of the most highly respected people in my eyes. Their dedication is admirable, especially over there in enemy territory, lol.
BTW, I don't hate you either. I think you have a lot to contribute, but from what I have read, you also (ironically) advocate some unbiblical doctrine of your own. For example, you once said something along the lines of, "Anyone who believes in Joseph Smith is unChristian and is going to hell." Can you cite a biblical source for that? It is my experience that people can be Christians as well as members of the LDS Church. Jesus will save a Mormon even if he believes that the Church is true. I'll wager that Jesus will save you too, even though you believe that your church is true. :) Unless the Bible has rewritten itself since last time I checked, John 5:24 and Romans 10:13 are backing me up on this one.
--------
"Crap, Steve Irwin and now Mr. Tanner. I swear, this has been quite a fricken month!" Quite a fricken month indeed!
123 you stated...
"Can you cite a biblical source for that?
Galations 1:8
Romans 10:1-4
Luke 17:2
2 Corinthians 11:4
Matthew 7:13-14
If a Mormon truly believes that God was a man and now is an exhalted being...If a Mormon truly believes that Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer...If a Mormon truly believes that Jesus Christ is not Lord and just some created being that God made in order to attone for the worlds sin....if Mormons truly believe that they can get right with God by there own righteous acts....If Mormons truly believe that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to cleanse all sins(Not Just Some)...then yes. According to scripture they are following a false God that is no God at all and God has warned those who have followed other gods.
It is not by righteousness but by Christ's righteousness that I have been saved.
The gospel is: you are more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe yet you can be more accepted and loved than you ever dared hope at the same time because Jesus Christ lived and died in your place. . . .
“True faith saith not: ‘What have I done? . . . What do I deserve?’ But it saith: ‘what hath Christ done? What doth he deserve?’ . . . Therefore he that apprehendeth Christ by faith . . . may be bold to glory that he is righteous. How? Even by that precious jewel, Christ Jesus, which he possesseth by faith.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians)
Irreligious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through irreligion, “worldly” pride. (“No one tells me how to live or what to do, so I determine what is right and wrong for me!”) But moral and religious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through religion, “religious” pride. . . . Both irreligion and religion are forms of self salvation.
To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus’ record for a relationship with God. The irreligious don’t repent at all, and the religious only repent of sins. But Christians also repent of their righteousness. That is the distinction between the three groups—Christians, moralists (religious), and pragmatists (irreligious).
God Bless...
-Eric
Eric:
Galatians 1:8 is a warning against and condemnation of false teachers.
Romans 10:1-4 teaches that any who seek justification by Christ will receive it.
Luke 17:2...add verse 1 in there too and you have a solid case against Joseph Smith ;)
2 Corinthians 11:4 does not by any stretch of the imagination condemn your typical Mormon.
Matthew 7:13-14 also does not condemn your run-of-the-mill Mormons.
Reading the Bible, I don't understand how you can believe that your typical Mormon is condemned to hell just because they belong to a cult and hold heretical beliefs. Even if you did believe that, I don't see where you are receiving sufficient justification for that belief to feel comfortable telling people that they and their families are condemned to hell for believing incorrect doctrines. Again, as far as my studies have shown me, the New Testament clearly teaches that those who believe in Christ are saved by his grace. There are no elaborate details given as to what that means, so your conclusions are clearly extrapolations from the Bible. (Unless you're an apostle, I believe you're disqualified from doing that.) I suppose you could make an argument that baptism is also required, but that's not as strongly emphasized. And the requirement of not believing heresies or having misconceptions about God is not supported anywhere in the Bible.
Now I feel like a Mormon apologist, yuck! And right after I tried to convince Samuel that I'm not one. Haha
Welcome back, Eric. Here's my thoughts on your last comment...
Christians of all sorts read and believe in the Bible. They all intrepret it differently, but believe in the same God. As long as they fear God, why does it matter if they disagree slightly on a few points of doctrine?
Is God really that cruel and heartless that he will condemn everyone who didn't have a perfect understanding of the Bible and it's true, intended message?
So someone believes God has blonde hair and someone believes he has dark hair. God actually has red hair so does that mean these two people believe in a false God and are damned? I know it's a dumb example, but you know what I'm getting at.
Honestly, the religion you describe scares me. Even if you were totally right and everyone else was wrong, I would not want to be saved and live with such a heartless god. It almost sounds like your curtains need to be a certain color or you're damned.
If god loves all people, as you believe he does, why is he so merciless and quick to damn those unworthy souls who happened to believe God had dark hair and yet were still good people?
If this is not what you have said, please correct me. I agree with you that the Mormon religion is false. But I can never believe that someone will be damned JUST FOR BEING MORMON, or Catholic, or Baptist, or anything else but your religion. There are many God-fearing people in many religions. Many of them are sincere, true believers. I will never worship a god who will damn good, innocent people just because of their "false" or "incorrect" beliefs.
God looks at the heart. You of all people should know this.
Thanks,
Ray
See, the thing is,...is *I* used to be as TBM as my family still is. I didn't realize at the time that I was being brainwashed, or told absolutle lies whatsoever. I thought I had the truth! If you (Eric) had come to my face and told me I was going to hell, it would have only served to make you less in my eyes, and solidify my position as I was being persecuted for my faith, therefore it was true.
No, the only way for a human to change their position on religion is not to condemn, but to treat them with absolute respect that they have a brain and have humanity and it would serve them well (this has to be their choice) to look at the realities of what they believe. Let them come to the table, don't drag them there with a iron chain around their necks after you've starved them for months, flogged them with stinging barbs, cut out their tongue and castrated them. You must give a person the space to learn how to walk without the shackles of the only thing they've ever known possibly their entire lives.
What sort of god do you believe in anyway that would threaten "his" people so? That is the number one reason why I studied myself right out of Christianity.
Thanks,
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
123 stated:
"Again, as far as my studies have shown me, the New Testament clearly teaches that those who believe in Christ are saved by his grace. There are no elaborate details given as to what that means, so your conclusions are clearly extrapolations from the Bible."
Well my friend you need t study the Gospel more. Its in there...
1st John....gnostics believed in Jesus, there false doctrine disqualified them.
Romans 4:4-8
Romans 9:30-10:4
Gospel of John....where some believed in Jesus but weren't saved because they truly didn't know Him.
Or how about Colossians....more gnostics denied the deity of Christ.
-----------------
Lori,
I understand that you are upset by religion in general....but a relationship with Jesus Christ is much more than some man made religion.
Jesus loves you Lori.
Peace to you...
-Eric
Jude 1:2
You know....I really didn't feel like weighing in on this topic again or responding to Eric, because I'm sick and tired, like all of you are, of Eric's hateful, pathetic beliefs and condemnations, all wrapped up in the disguise of "God's love."
I've made myself plenty clear of where I stand in reference to Eric and his BLANKET CONDEMNATION OF ALL MORMONS AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE AS HE DOES AND IT IS TIRED!! However, he did come here and engage us, by starting off his post with:
“I know everyone hates me and thinks I make blanket condemnation statements....but thats besides the point of why I am here.”
If it was “besides the point”, and had nothing to do with why he was here, then he didn’t even have to say it, right? I mean nothing like accusing everyone here of hating him, before telling us why he was really here, right? The truth is, that he wanted to stir things up, piss all of us off and get a dialogue going, which I think is good, because it may just be his cry for help and intervention, that he so desperately needs. Up until now, he hasn’t had the courage to come in here and engage us directly, so maybe this is a good thing. Someone has got to help this guy, who is lost in the twilight zone of fanatical Christianity.
===============================
All I can say Eric, is different day, time, month and post, but it's the same old Eric and the same old bullshit and justified hate, spewing out of your mouth and cold heart, if you even have one. I don't have a clue how you can justify what you say or feel good about who you are, as the ultimate judge of all people in the world, when you don't have that authority to judge anyone, or have the slightest clue as to what the hell you are talking about.
I mean, did Jesus Christ come down personally and call you on this crusade or have you just taken it upon yourself? If you’ve had a personal visitation of God/Jesus, then we need to now about it? If you are Jesus Christ/God himself and this is the 2nd coming, we need to know that too. Have you forgotten where you came from Eric and what it was once like to "not be saved" and "have the only truth on earth?" Apparently you have!!
Did you learn nothing; no compassion, no love, no sympathy or understanding of others from what you've been through in your own personal life? It appears that your life before Christianity was a complete waste and worthless, as you appear to have learned nothing from it. What a tragedy!! What a shame!!
Eric, you are more hateful and judgmental, and condemning than any Mormon or almost anyone that I've ever known, in my entire life. How you try to convince people that you have the authority of your God to do it and that he and you, love the Mormon people and condemn them "in love" is sadly laughable and truly pathetic. I truly feel sorry for you pal as you live a very sad existence of hate mongering and condemnation. How could you possibly feel any happiness at all? You expect us to believe that you are actually happy with who you are and your actions of condemning everyone, even innocent people, that are just trying to live their life and be happy, the best they can, just like you?
I also feel sorry for you that you think your loving God, that is so amazing, that is so full of grace and has such a huge heart; thinks that you are a "complete pile", to quote you directly. Would you ever tell your own children that they are “complete piles” and completely and utterly worthless before you? Yeah, I’m sure if you did, they’d grow up with great self-esteem, right? All of this religion and born again BS, has really screwed you up man.
I mean, Wow, if God thinks that you, his die-hard, fanatical follower, who condemns the whole world on his behalf, is a complete pile; imagine what your God must truly think of all these Mormons and the countless billions of other people, all over his planet, of all different faiths(which God allowed to happen), that are gonna burn in hell forever with Satan and his angels?!! I shudder just to think of it!! God must spit on them from heaven, in true disgust and disdain.
You made the statement:
"I know everyone hates me and thinks I make blanket condemnation statements."
First of all, nobody "hates" you Eric, we just strongly disagree with your pious, hateful and horrific rhetoric and blanket condemnations of ALL MORMONS and ALL PEOPLE, that don't believe what you do. We find it disgusting and sickening!! But of course, we are to believe you, when you say that you condemn them “in love” and have a “HUGE heart for the Mormon people.”
Second of all, YOU DO make BLANKET CONDEMNATIONS and then you stood by them, giving examples of why they were true and then even making the punishment worse than it was before, after you had time to study more about what would happen to them. It went from simply “losing their soul forever”, to “burning in the flames of hell, with gnashing of teeth”, etc, for all eternity. Good luck to your Dad then, if he never leaves Mormonism to follow you and I hope he has fun burning in flames and gnashing his teeth. Have you shared your feelings with your Dad about this and what was his response? Does he think you're insane?
Thirdly, any hate that is going on toward other, common people, is coming from you pal, not the other way around. Most of us here strongly disagree with the Mormon Hierarchy and they are at the top of my shit list for sure, but you and anyone like you, certainly isn’t far behind, if not equal with them.
At least we aren't singling out other innocent people from your Church or Catholics or SDAs, or JWs and condemning them to burn in hell forever, with Satan, as you do. You really think you've got the better, more loving plan? If so, where exactly is the love, because I can’t see it?
There is more love and tolerance among us ex-Mormons, right here in Mormon Truth alone, than will ever exist in your pinkie and your so called “only truth.” Unless you truly have a big change in your heart and realize and admit how truly wrong you are and have been and apologize for your offensive blanket condemnations, which I don't see happening anytime soon, and unless there is some type of intervention by somebody in your life that loves you, I can only see heartache and tragedy ahead for you, in every single aspect of your life. You will have to completely bottom out before understanding the errors of your ways and we are only trying to help you now, so that it doesn’t have to get to that point.
You see, most of us here have suffered and been victims of the Mormon cult and we are relieved to be out of the cult. So, we start looking around, studying and trying to figure out what we now believe and where to go from here, after our entire spiritual life collapsed. Do you honestly think Eric, that someone like us, who just escaped a brainwashing cult, and who finally has freedom, is gonna read your words of hate and utter condemnation for us, and say, “yep, that’s where I want to go?”
You just don’t get it, you don’t have a clue and it is you pal that are completely wasting your time, by thinking that you will get others to follow you, right after leaving Mormonism. If they do think you’re great, it’s because they don’t know what you truly believe yet and once they do, they’ll be history. Once they realize that you are openly and blatantly condemning their loved ones and friends, to burn in the flames of hell for eternity; they will not listen to you any longer and will realize that you are nothing but a fanatic Christian nutjob. You are helping nobody and destroying your own life in the process.
Eric, I was also keeping up with your personal issues over on the Concerned Christian board, where I like to check in once in a while, and notice that I didn’t say a word publicly about your job problems here on my blog, out of respect for you. I then read how you condemned all Mormons for what you were going through. I then read that you had your buddy Brian, from the OxyMormonic Podcast, create a page that you approved and linked to, describing your situation and problems, and then asking for donations for your” legal defense fund” at the end.
Now, please allow me to show everyone here, that probably never saw this, what you and Brian said to the world, about the Mormon people that you purport to love so damn much, okay? Are you gonna try and deny that this page existed? I can prove otherwise if I need to.
In this one page BS piece, that Brian wrote, with Eric's full support, if not direct assistance with the actual wording, he said:
OUTRAGE IN UTAH
FREE ONELIVINGTRUTH NOW
Who is Anti-Mormon? Who is Anti-Truth? Who is Anti-American?
Is there freedom of speech in Utah? If you think so, keep reading.
The image above is what the OneLivingTruth website used to look like...before the owner-operater Eric Hoffman was told to pull the site down or lose his job.
Eric lives in Utah, this type of silencing of non-LDS free speech is constant, and the clout of the Utah-based LDS church is wielded with fear and terror like...well, like a radical, religious terrorist organization. Where Al Qaeda uses suicide bombs, the LDS church uses fear and intimidation, silencing dissent, through a tightly knit network of operative cell--commonly known as "church members"--who operate in apparent autonomy, allowing the LDS church corporation to skirt direct blame for the seemingly random and unauthorized behavior of its membership.
Do you want me to share the rest of it Eric? So, you and your buddy Brian, consider Mormons to now be “like a radical, religious terrorist organization?” You guys compare the terrorists suicide bombs to the LDS church using fear, intimidation and silencing dissent through their network of cells(which you are essentially calling Mormon terror cells), which are comprised of everyday “Mormon church members?” Now, you did link to this piece, told everyone to go read it and you therefore fully approved of it. I never saw anything publicly from you, saying that you didn’t approve of what he said, and actually, on the contrary, you trashed those that criticized what I just quoted above and defended it, like everything else you say or do. You will never admit when you are wrong or have stepped over the line.
So, let me ask again; you expect us or anybody else, to believe that you, Eric(who believes Mormons are now radical, religious, terrorists, equal with suicide bombers), “have a huge heart, so much love and that you just want to help the Mormon people”, I mean the operative cells comprized of members, better known as radical, religious terrorists?” Do you think we are all stupid? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Eric; you need some serious help and intervention before it’s too late. You are getting more and more extreme as each month goes by and at this rate, you will be all alone, with just your Jesus/God and Calvary Joe preacher dude, as your friends. I’m being serious when I say that you seriously need to get some help, before it’s too late and I’m sincerely worried about you, as I’m sure many others here are also.
You are not even close to the same person I met back in February of this year and that’s sad. You were a nice, easy going, friendly, normal guy back then and now you are on a crusade of hate and intolerance, for anyone that doesn’t believe as you do. I can only imagine the personal toll it must be taking on your family and loved ones, as I don’t know how any of them could stand what you now represent, or to even be around you. I’m a pretty tolerant and forgiving guy with people in my life; but even I could no longer remain your friend, after you personally condemned me to burn in hell for all eternity, among just a few awful things and lies you’ve said to me and about me personally and publicly.
It truly hurt me and shocked me, that our friendship had to end the way it did, because I really thought we were friends, until I could no longer tolerate your utter hate and disdain for me, my loved ones and friends, the Mormon people and all people that don’t believe exactly as you do. I have no room or time in my life for people like you, that hate and condemn innocent people in the name of your God. Whatever it is that you’ve found, is not from any God and contains nothing that would be attractive to anyone else, unless they too, support complete hate for all mankind that doesn’t follow them and believe exactly as they believe.
Also, please stop with all of the stupid scripture references that you use, to help in backing up, supporting and justifying your hate and also the "Jesus loves you" and "Peace to you" and "God bless", because they and you are as phony as anyone can possibly be.
Besides, God doesn't love you, he "thinks you are a complete pile, nothing and worthless", remember?
What a damn shame, that you couldn't rise above yourself and condemnations and have just come here and reported the sad death of Jerald Tanner. If you had simply done that, my response and everyone else's, would have been vastly different. Like I said though, this is exactly and precisely what you wanted in the first place and why you said what you said.
Hey, at least I didn't censor your comments and boot your ass out of here, while trashing you, like you would do to us, over in your Christian fantasyland, that is straight out of hell, right?
Best wishes and get some help,
Samuel
But Eric, I don't love him. I don't know him. I know heresay that has been buthered over hundreds of years. I don't trust anything blindly, nothing. Not he, nor his spirit nor anything thing about "him" was with me when I went through the most horrible parts of my life. His teachings taught me to be co-dependent, critical, arrogant and unable to love humanity, both the good and the bad. It made me terribly judgemental and unable to really connect with people...like you are doing now.
I see Jesus as a made up fictional character that was made up by a bunch of men for the intent of controlling the masses, getting money and teaching co-dependence. To me Jesus is no more real than Zeus or Ares or Xena. I refuse to talke to invisible ghosts. I'd much prefer to talk to living breathing human beings that are experiencing this life right along with me. On a side note, I am agast at the hideous verbal abuse this fictional character spills on people telling them they are absolute nothing without him. Can you not see how absolutely controlling that is? You are much better than that I think Eric. Give yourself a little credit man. Don't hide the fact that you are scared of the amazing human being that you are and all of us are by hiding behind a system of abuse, death and criticism. You are more than enough on your own.
Because you are trying so hard to defend your Christian belief, you haven't spent any time asking any genuine questions about me or my life. But then, I don't trust you right now to answer you because I know you have alterier motives. That is the problem with religion and MLM schemes. You can never really have friends because you are too busy waiting for them to stop talking so you can tell them they are wrong and your way is right.
I won't ever presume to tell you Eric how to live or what to believe in, but as you have never met Christ, never spoken to him never heard an audible word come out of his mouth, how on earth do you know he loves me????? How do you know he loves you???? You are certainly doing a lot of unpaid labor for him and I hope he is paying you well in some sort of tangible way. Because getting beat up from people who don't want to be told about your brand of religion cannot be fun. Trust me, I've been there.
Be good to you, nurture you, take care of you, and most importanly, love yourself regardless if anyone else loves you.
Eric, I like you, I really do. Underneath all the vabrato and blustering, I see a man who is trying to come to terms with his own life just like we are. You aren't so very much different than the rest of us. It sounds like you lost a family member to the LDS church and that loss has really hurt you as it does all of us. We all do what we have to do to deal with that sort of pain. Some of us leave religion entirely, some of us jump into another set of belief systems just to dull the blistering pain. But still, underneath it all we are all the same.
I can't tell you that anyone else living, dead, mythical, imaginary or otherwise loves you, but I can tell you that I like you and hope with time you will mellow on condemning people and see that that just never ever works...ever.
Samuel....
Again I invite you on my podcast. I dont think you have the courage to say any of this to me over the phone or in person. Thats why these types of blogs and yes, even my own forum bother me sometimes. People just dont talk like this to eachother in person. But the internet....thats a different story. So, again I invite you to chalenge, debate, dialogue...whatever you want.
Until then, I will stay off your blog and wont post here any longer. As for what happened here at my job...go for it!! I encourage you to let all know what happened to me. Its unlawful and rediculous. And if you cant agree with that then I dont know what to tell you.
Samuel...a Proverb that you should read.. Proverbs 18:2
Samuel... deep breaths! And I posted a comment on the podcast blog - because I have news. So email/call/skype whatever. Por favor, mi amigo.
I'm going to assume that I'm the only one reading the verses that Eric is posting, so I'll lay out the groundwork of them for you.
The ENTIRE book of 1st John is a message of the peace and love that a Christian life will bring. To summarize, it says that anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not show love to others--even pushes them away by their words and actions--has nothing to do with God but is working on behalf of the devil (hate). If someone wants to live a life of love and happiness, they need to follow God's commandment to "love one another."
Romans 4:4-8 says that doing good works is not going to get you a reward because as human beings we are obligated to be good to one another. It also talks of God's love and mercy. He will not consider anyone guilty who tries to do good and trusts in him (a million interpretations as to what "trust" means, but none of which support Eric's).
Romans 9:30-10:4. Again, same thing as the Romans 4 reference. This one further blows a hole through Eric's argument that people have to believe in a set of narrowly interpreted creeds.
Gospel of John: Also known as the Gospel of Love or the Gospel of Philosophy by scholars. Hmm... do you think it would be called by those names if it were condemning everyone to hell? I would go into specific detail as to why Eric's conjecture is transparently false, but I already showed a reference to John, and anyone interested will go ahead and read it in its full context.
Collossians? Give me a break! From the very opening statements until the end Paul is preaching of the grace, peace, love, and joy that comes from Christ.
In case any of you haven't realized, Eric is simply rattling off a slew of Bible verses that in NO way support his misconstrued beliefs, hoping that none of us will actually bother reading them. Again, I would like Eric to show me where his Biblical source for condeming all Mormons to hell is coming from. I stand by my statement that his "conclusions are clearly [incorrect] extrapolations from the Bible" until he can prove otherwise. I fail to comprehend the logic he is employing. I'm sure he is just appalled by what Joseph Smith did with the Bible, but even Joseph Smith didn't pervert the original teachings THAT bad.
Lastly, Eric: Who made you God? Not even Jesus came to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:16-17). I wonder where you feel that this authority is coming from. Maybe you should accept Christ's Great Commission, rather than defying his core teachings. Maybe then people would listen to you. In closing, for now, I want to make it abundantly clear that what you are doing is unacceptable, especially if you consider yourself a Christian. You are pushing people away from Christ and preaching a false gospel, which, is really no gospel at all. (Galatians 1:6-7...which you should be familiar with..) You are perpetuating the idea that the Bible is a book of hate and intolerance, rather than a book that speaks of love and happiness and encourages the reader to seek it in his own life.
Oh, and it is only RIGHT for people to be angry with you. How can anyone be indifferent towards hate?
Because Eric doesn't have the backbone to post it directly:
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
~Proverbs 18:2
Yeah...considering the false teachings that you claim to be deriving from the Bible, Eric, the same could be said of you, albeit accurately.
I dont think you have the courage to say any of this to me over the phone or in person.
What is this third grade?
What on earth would motivate anyone to go on your show, Eric??? Especially after Samuel made is opinion of your attitude and your show perfectly, CRYSTAL clear.
I mean, did you even read what he wrote? At no time did I get the impression that he held your show in high regard.
And now you're accusing him of being cowardly??? Samuel??? And you say he doesn't have the courage to express himself to you??? Samuel??? Samuel, the Utahnite???
Whatever, I don't need to speak for him. He does a fine job himself.
I for one am glad that I am away from that podcast and off of that message board. I have completely severed my ties with the Living Truth podcast. I deleted all the shows off my hard drive and I had my login canceled.
....debate you! Get over yourself, dude.
"I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw
Eric, I have to definitely agree with you on that; it is unlawful. In fact it is amazing! The Mormons scream and cry for religious tolerance, and then they turn around and take it away from everyone else. I think you have a great chance at winning in court, so long as you don't have a Mormon judge! Good luck with that. Hope it works out for you.
Now I'll just say one last comment and then I'll let it go. Everyone is tired of talking about it and hearing about it.
Eric, almost everyone here was where you are now not very long ago. We believed with all our hearts that we had the only truth and the whole world needed to hear it. Nothing anyone could ever say would possibly convince us that it was not true. But once we quit living in a fantasy world and took an objective look around, we realized that we were completely wrong. WE WERE IN A CULT AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! All of us here can see that exact same thing is true for you. It's wonderful when you truly think you have the only truth; it makes you feel important, doesn't it? Well guess what, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.
These are the facts that you will someday have to come to terms with:
1) There is no such thing as a "one true church".
2) Jesus is a mythological character and the Bible is fiction.
3) You are in a cult. All organized religion is a cult and/or a business.
4) No one likes being told they are wrong, especially in religious matters.
I just have one small request of you, Eric. Before you just disregard all the comments we have left for you because you KNOW you have the truth, take them to heart. Think about them. Ponder them. I ask this of you because I and most everyone here had to do it ourselves. The Jesus I used to believe in would never condemn true hearted, sincere individuals to hell forever. Like the injustice done to you recently at your work, this belief is ridiculous.
Exactly how do you know you have been called to testify? Lots of people have asked you but I haven't seen a reply anywhere. Have you seen Jesus, God, or an angel? Exactly how do you know for certain that your truth is the only truth? The answer, is that you haven't seen God, Jesus, or an angel and you only think you know the truth. I mean, if you are god's lone warrior here in Utah, why have you had such a run of bad luck? Just like we ask Gordon B. Hinckley why he never prophesies, we are asking you why didn't God warn you that someone at work would connect you with your web site?
Like I've said before, if there was only one true church, and God wanted everyone to know it, then everyone would know it! The leaders would do what leaders of a true church would be expected to do: predict the future, move mountains, heal the sick, etc. Does your leader do this?
I could go on and on but the bottom line is that you could be much more effective in your "calling" if you would ease up on the hard-core god who loves to damn everyone, and start preaching a more loving message. Think about it; even IF you are totally right and everyone except you is damned forever, don't you think you could get people to listen to you better if you stop with the blanket condemnations and preach a more loving message? And I don't care what you think it is, it IS a blanket condemnation.
As long as you still believe in your cult, you will have a hard time fitting in around here. However, if you want to learn how to free yourself from the burden of your self appointed calling to save the whole world, there are plenty of people here who can help you out and give you advice.
Ray:
What you said was true, for the most part. But your "facts" are just as much based in fantasy as anything Eric has said, except perhaps point four.
1) There is no such thing as a "one true church": If you're speaking of "church" in the sense of an organizational with a hierarchy like the LDS Church, then you may be right. But when Jesus speaks of *his* church (and really. he's the only authority on this, since he came up with the term), he is speaking of a body of believers. So in that sense, yes, there is absolutely a single true church: those who accept the teachings that Jesus taught and try to carry out those teachings (as opposed to those who claim to be Christians, like Eric, but fail to understand the fundamentals of Christ's message).
2) Jesus is a mythological character and the Bible is fiction: Just because you don't believe in Jesus' teachings doesn't mean that he didn't exist. No historian worth his salt, that I am aware of, will agree with you that Jesus is a mythological character. In fact, his existence is one of the most well-documented facts in all of history. While it's true that there are many mythological beliefs about Jesus (Read: beliefs without any historical basis) like those of the Mormons or of Eric, that doesn't mean that every Christian belief is without its justification. As for the Bible, I think you know that a statement like that is only intended to create controversy. There are clear indications that some of the stories in the Old Testament are not objectively true, but most honest theologians agree that those were always intended to be understood as myth anyway. As for the New Testament, it is the most trustworthy historical source that I am aware of. It contains some of the most well-documented events of ancient history and is corroborated by many reliable secular sources as well. Whether you believe in Judaism or Christianity is one thing, but arguing that they have no basis is another one entirely. I challenge you to find a more well-grounded religion than either of those.
3) You are in a cult. All organized religion is a cult and/or a business: I guess you could call Eric's religion a cult in the sense that it is self-destructive and unfounded, but it seems that you will have a difficult time proving that *all* organized religion is a cult and/or business. Certainly some businessmen get some mileage out of religion, but does that mean that all organized religions are cultic or profit-seeking? Surely not. Christianity (as in the gospel Jesus taught, not the junk that Eric is advocating) is neither cultic nor profit-seeking. As proof, look at the life of the founder.
4) No one likes being told they are wrong, especially in religious matters: This is one point where you are probably right. I've learned not to mind it, though. Hopefully when someone says that I'm wrong they can show me how to correct myself. I'm trying to seek truth. A false religion does nothing for me, after all.
Point 1 I can agree with if there really was a person named Jesus who started a church.
Point 2: It is possible that Jesus was a real person. But I strongly believe that his "story" evolved over time until he became what most people believe today; just like the Mormon stories evolve. Stories, when given enough time, evolve. That is a fact. I am certainly no expert in history, but I don't think the world remembers Jesus the way it remembers Alexander the Great, or Napeolian, or Martin Luther King. If you claim his existance is well documented, I would love to see those sources. The only document I am aware of that talks about Jesus is the New Testament, and that was altered and perhaps even written by the early church. And your comment about certain events in the Bible being mythological was my point exactly. Doesn't a lie look better when it is wrapped around a little truth? Why would actual historical events be mixed with stories that "are not objectively true"? But your comment about Jesus' existance being well documented is something I am definitely interested in checking out because all the evidence I have ever seen, which is not a whole lot I admit, shows he may have been a man with good teachings, but nothing more. You also mentioned well documented ancient historical events as described in the Bible. Can you give me an example of some of them? I'm not doubting they are there; I am genuinely curious as to what they are. It is not a fact either way that Jesus was what the Bible claims, but I have come to understand personally that he is nothing more than a modern mythological character. I don't deny his teachings are beneficial; I believe and live by most of them.
Point 3 I can agree with mostly. I will restate: "All religions claiming to have the one and only truth or only way to God are cults and/or businesses, especially if they want your time and money."
Point 4. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I suppose to call them "facts" was going a little too far, since a fact is an idea that most everyone understands to always be true and has been proven to be true again and again. Thank you for pointing out my error.
I have never read anything about Jesus in a history book. Has anyone else?
I have never read anything about Jesus in a history book. Has anyone else?
I'm learning about him in my World Civilizations class right now, dude.
I have to study for some exams coming up, Ray, but I will be sure to answer your questions about Jesus as a historical figure when I get the chance. I'll also be sure to explain what I mean by "myth" since you seem to have misunderstood.
As for your second post, yes, I have read about Jesus in every world history book I have encountered, as well as history books on Palestine, the Middle East, the Roman Empire. You'll also find contemporary histories about Jesus in India, although far fewer in number.
It looks like my earlier comment didn't make it through ... probably because of something stupid I did, so I'll retype it as best as I can.
Ray,
I can understand that you don't accept Jesus as the Savior. I can certainly see how you could choose not to believe He rose from the dead or that he is the Son of God.
But to deny he ever existed? That He ever walked the earth? To say he is a mythical character? That's just plain ignorant, and you don't strike me as the type of person who doesn't do his homework.
There are plenty of non-Biblical, non-Christian sources that refer to the existence of Jesus.
The Romans kept extensive records and historical texts. Some of them even refer to the reports of Pontius Pilate and the events of the night of the crucifixion, including one report that describes the darkness that fell over the earth at the time of His death.
The Jewish Pharisees also kept extensive records and these too refer to Jesus.
In addition, there is also physical evidence of not just His existence, but also fo the resurrection: the shroud of Turin, the Veil of Veronica, the empty tomb, the Sudarium of Oviedo ....
If you want to deny the Bible, that's your choice. If you choose to deny Jesus as the Christ, certainly that's up to you. But to deny He even existed? Even in the face of non-Biblical, non-Christian historical texts? What could you possibly have to gain from that?
We can disagree on theological matters and matters of faith and that's fine, but I never thought of you as someone who was prone to ignorance.
Eric, you aren't worth my time and the only reason that I even said another word about you, was because you came in here, to my blog, saying that everyone “hated you” and we responded. Like I said, it's just too bad that you couldn't rise above yourself and just report the sad news you had, without your ever present agenda rearing it’s ugly head. You started the discussion and if I have to end it, that's fine with me.
Of course, we all know that your motive was to engage us, in an effort once again, to convert us to your beliefs, while telling us again, how wrong we are in what we currently believe, and that we’re all going to hell, to burn forever...blah...blah...blah!! I know that you feel you were just doing your duty to your God, to testify once again to all of us poor creatures, that don’t know or believe in your version of God/Jesus.
So, are you telling me to man-up again, and basically saying that I'm a pussy if I don't come on your podcast, like you did before? Like Cernovog said, “what is this, third grade?” I would say every single word that I've said on my blogs or on my podcasts, straight to your face or your ears, just like I’ve said them to your eyes and it's obvious that you have no idea who I am, if you think I wouldn't. What exactly is your learning curve Eric? I would think by now, just maybe, that you would know that nobody intimidates me, especially you and your mission of hate, especially when I have truth and common logic and decency on my side. I’m absolutely right in my intolerance of your hate and blanket condemnations and you are absolutely wrong!! NOTHING justifies your condemnations!!
But, do you really think that I'm intimidated by you, or that anybody is, as if you are really some superior, supreme being or God or that I'd go all soft and mushy, and become afraid and terrified, just because your voice was in my ear during a podcast or if you were standing in front of me? What would lead you to believe this? I do talk to people this way, in person and over the phone, especially when they are so far out of line and condemning both me and the people that I love and care about. You wouldn’t stand up for your loved ones and friends? If that’s true, then I feel sorry for you. You definitely bring out the very worst in me, that’s for sure.
But, you have no right to condemn anyone Eric and like I’ve said and others have said, “Just who the hell do you think you are?” I continue to be astonished at your outright arrogance, condescending attitude and horrible judgments of innocent people you don’t even know. Just a clue; it may be the people you are keeping company with and you need some new friends and a new church, you really do.
I'm absolutely outraged and disgusted by your hate-filled beliefs and you are a disgrace to all organized religion, especially Christians!! Someone like you, is the very reason people no longer want to even associate with an organized religion. How blind can a person be? You give all religion a very VERY bad name!!
Eric, in a word, your beliefs are pathetic!! You are the one running and hiding, not me. I live here, in Mormon Truth, in an open, uncensored environment for all, while you hide out in your pathetic Christian, Calvary cave, where debate is not welcome and those that do debate and have their minds made up, are shutdown and booted, as we all know.
What is your obsession anyway, with having to debate your pathetic, condemning views on a podcast with me? Are your writing abilities or ways of expressing yourself here, that weak, that you feel you can't hack it with us? Even when I left comments on your message board, you really didn’t want to get into it or respond very much and told me to call you. Why is that?
You Eric were the one that kept calling me, emailing me, basically begging for me to call you, begging for me to still be your friend, telling me that you still loved me as a brother and that you’d always be there for me, etc, while saying even more outrageous things in your Voicemails, and on your message board, which I won't even bring up at this time. You think I don't have proof of the things you said to me Eric? Again, you obviously don’t really know me, do you? Are you going to tell me once again, basically threatening me, “that if you were me, you’d keep your mouth shut?” Now that doesn’t sound very Christlike, does it?
I truly believe that isn’t a road you want to go down, or at least I hope it isn’t. So, let it go man......move on as I have....and go live your life independent of us. You may need us, but we don’t need you. Do what Cernovog did with your site and just go away and don’t come back, if you think we are so wrong in our views. After all, I’m the one with a pornographic picture on my Mormon Truth Uncensored site and blogs full of “four letter words”, right? Do you really want to associate with such trash, that will eventually burn in hell forever? LOL!!
So Eric, are you afraid that you won't be able to adequately defend yourself in the line of fire, here in Mormon Truth, without your safety nets? I mean bring in your pathetic preacher Joe buddy if you have to, who is your shadow and master, who is currently helping to destroy your life and teach you how to hate everybody. Bring in his backup too, that joke you've had on your podcast a couple of times, who sounds like he’s a used car salesman and knows everything there is to know about God; or any of your other supporters and let's go at it. Tell all of us, why you are so justified and feel so good about your outright hate and condemnation, of everybody else in the entire world, that doesn’t believe what you do. We will all be waiting if you want to do that, okay?
Again, you came in here and stirred things up, accused everyone of hating you, just when we had thankfully forgotten about you, put the subject to bed, moved on and we were glad that you'd gone away into your hole. You must be desperate to talk to someone and that's why I'd hoped maybe it was time for your intervention and that you were just reaching out to us for help, in a desperate moment, or that your life was falling apart and you had no where else to turn, because your loved ones don’t want anything to do with you and your mission of hate.
The fact is, you need listeners and subjects at this point and I'm sure and doing a podcast with me, would certainly get you some additional listeners, and publicity, just like last time, at least for one podcast. The nice thing is, I don't need to do a podcast with you to get listeners, as I have plenty and in fact, it would probably drive them away, as nobody wants me to debate someone that doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially you. Quite frankly, it is and would be highly embarrassing for you, so I'm showing you mercy Eric and taking the high road, as you claim to have done, which your buddy Joe brags about. I also respect my listeners so much, that I wouldn’t put them through such a ridiculous circus, which a podcast with you would clearly be. I don’t want to waste their time, nor my time, with painful recycled garbage.
Any decent human being, with common sense and logic and a heart, already knows that I'm right, in that you, nor anybody should openly condemn innocent people with a blanket and that you are wrong for doing it. The only people that support you now or listen to your podcasts, on your fanatical, obsessive mission of hate and condemnation of innocents, are the innocents themselves or those that don’t yet know your motives, or those that fully support your motives and it’s a very sad tale, to say the least.
By the way, If I'd been your company, I probably would have sued you for slander, after you trashed me on Internet chat boards. I noticed that you took down all the threads about it, plus the page that Brian wrote disappeared pretty quickly. Why was that? Did they read those too and it got you in worse trouble? The truth is, we don’t know both sides of the story here and we’ve only heard your side and you have certainly proven to not be reliable in your beliefs or understanding of things and life in general; so why would we trust that you are telling us the truth about what actually happened?
I obviously don't know all the details of your work problems or if you were openly evangelizing and condemning people(Mormons) at work, to burn in the flames of hell forever, but it sure wouldn't surprise me if you were, because you work for Jesus now, not anybody else, right? You punch a time-clock for Jesus, not some corporation, right? It was sheer genius to move to Utah and use your real name publicly, to start a mission of condemning all Mormons, to burn in hell forever, wasn’t it?
Did you actually think that people wouldn’t discover it was you? I agree that you shouldn’t be fired just for having a website/podcast of hate against Mormons or anybody else, but I wouldn’t disagree with a Mormon, like the returned missionary, who didn’t want to work under you, after discovering that you condemn all Mormons to burn in the flames of hell for all eternity. How could you be in charge of someone when he knows that you hate him and condemn him to burn forever in hell? Could you work under some guy who openly condemned all Calvary church members to burn in hell forever? That is a huge conflict and hopefully you worked it out or you’ve gotten enough money together for your legal defense fund, through donations from that brilliant page you and Brian created and put up on the Internet. Just a hint; don’t go into court with the Bible and telling the judge what Jesus said, because he won’t give a rip.
Of course, anything negative that happens to you in the process of "condemning the world for Jesus", just confirms the truth of what you are doing and that you are willing to suffer for Jesus and be a martyr for him and your cause, right? After all, he died on the cross for your sins, so why not lose a job for him. Wouldn't’t that be the least you could do for him and his/your cause? If anything, you should be out rejoicing in the streets that these things would happen to you, banging pots and pans together, lighting off fireworks, because now, Jesus knows even more, how much you love him.
Eric, you are clueless and full of hate toward all mankind that doesn't believe what you do and for some unknown reason; you can't even understand what we are talking about. It's my opinion that you are just another brainwashed cult member and that is why I think you need serious help and some type of an intervention by somebody that loves you.
Did you expect us to not be upset, really?
Anyway, you are not banned from here and if you don’t come back or respond again, that will be your choice and nobody else’s and it will be a self-imposed ban by you and only you. In any case, I appreciate you not calling and Emailing me any more, after my last message to you, since I was getting pretty damn sick of that. So please, continue TO NOT do those things, because I want nothing to do with you, just like I said before.
I appreciate everyone else’s comments and contributions on all my blogs and for sharing what you believe and for not being filled with hate and condemning innocent people to burn in hell forever. If only Eric could learn a little compassion, love and understanding from us ex-Mormons, right? Man, and I thought Mormonism was bad?!! Compared to what Eric believes, I’d rather go back to being a Mormon in a second, if those were my only two alternatives.
Now, that’s saying a lot, because you all clearly know how I feel about Mormonism!!
Take care everyone,
Samuel
Oh for the love of god--that video was sickening. Now I wondered if that was just a really bad joke or if it were real. It cannot be real, can it?
that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.
The Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph--good hell. That makes me SICK!
I want to say thanks for posting that because it is something I will share with my friends. I know they will be equally disgusted. If I had not already found out what a cult the LDS church is, THAT video would have sealed the deal for me.
Bonnie
I just read the posts above. Eric comes here and says God Bless like that should make everything OK. Eric, you are full of bull. You condemn more than the Mormons do. I used to listen to you as well, but no more.
I think you are as phony as the Mormons.
So take your god Bless and info about the Tanners (did you really think we would not see that info somewhere without needing YOU to tell us??)
You want air time. go away with your dumbass friends. You aren't a christian. If you were, you would never condemn others the way you do.
Do you think I, as a Mormon, am completely ignorant and inexcusably naive to live and believe my faith without having 100% conclusive material proof and a perfect answer to every question?
Also, Sam... what kind of implications has this had on your marriage and family? Are you doing OK? Have you recovered from your loss?
Hey Bonnie, it's good to see you commenting again, as I always love what you have to say and how straight forward you are. Thanks!! I hope you'll comment more often.
Now, as far as whether Jesus was a real guy or not. Well, from my research over the last 15 months and after watching too many hours of shows on The History Channel and National Geographic, I'd have to say that he did indeed exist, as there is a lot of evidence that he was a real man.
Now as to whether he really did all of the miraculous stuff that the Bible claims he did, is another question entirely.
It would be like disputing in the year 4012, if a guy name Samuel the Utahnite existed or 123 existed and if everything they wrote about us in the year 2076 or 2106, etc, was the complete truth or not. It's pretty hard to know, what is truth and what isn't, as the facts just aren't there and too many things completely contradict each other.
The accounts of Jesus in the 4 gospels, weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and most likely weren't even written until 70+ years after the death of Jesus and I'm being very generous in this time line. Many experts estimate it to be 100-300 years later.
Using 70 years, can you imagine if one of my mission companions friends or family members, wrote his mission journal, about our time together, in the year 2076. How much validity would it have? How much validity would it have if I myself wrote it, 70 or 80 years after the fact?
I thought I remembered a lot about my mission, until I re-read my journals last year. It was shocking to realize how much I didn't remember.
Also, what was the deal with Jesus anyway? Was he illiterate, lazy, what was it? I mean he couldn't write down anything himself? What, he didn't have time? I mean, damn, you would think that Jesus would have written down his own teachings, instead of relying on a few people to document it, since the illiteracy rate of his planet back then was astronomical!! Anyone got an answer for that one?
It all seems pretty strange to me, that God himself(as most Christians believe he was God), couldn't write down his own teachings and then protect them somewhere. How reliable is any 2nd hand account or even worse, 3rd or 4th hand, or 100th hand, multiplied by 70+ years?
If God wanted to tonight, he could beam himself in, or materialize right before the worlds eyes, on Fox News or CNN and tell the world what he wants. Nobody could dispute it or deny it. He could then just vaporize out of there or go out to the streets of New York and shake hands and then zoom up to the sky in a beam of light.
Why couldn't he do this, why doesn't he do this. Why doesn't he do a billion things that he should be doing. Oh yeah, because then we wouldn't need faith, right?
I mean if he could kick it back then with the people, why couldn't he kick it right now. He could head over to the Bronx, do some skateboarding tricks, show the guys how to do the greatest slam dunk of all time, etc.
Anyone ever play that game at camp or anywhere, where you start a story at one end and then pass it along, until it gets to the other end? Do the 2 versions ever resemble each other, even a little? No, they don't.
Also, how can anyone say, well....yeah, Noah's ark didn't really happen, and wasn't literal and neither did Adam or Eve, as they are just great stories to learn stuff from? Yeah, Goliath was just some big guy, but not literally a giant and it's just a really cool and motivating story....great for the kids...but probably didn't happen either.
Yeah, Sodom and Gomorrah probably didn't happen either and Moses didn't really slaughter innocent men, women and children at God's command, right after getting the 10 commandments with "thou shalt not kill" included. Also Saul's wife didn't really turn into a pillar of salt either, but isn't that a great story?
Saul also didn't impregnate his daughters in a cave, because they thought everyone else on the earth was dead and that they were basically going to have to re-populate the earth. I mean it goes on and on, all day long!!
However, when it comes to the New Testament and Jesus, it's all square man and everything happened exactly like it says just like they(whoever they are) say it did. How does this opinion have any credibility or validity at all?
You can't basically trash every main story in the Bible and chalk it all up to great story telling, but then say that everything Jesus did was the absolute truth. Why would the New Testament stories, be any more reliable than the Old Testament, faith promoting or destroying stories?
There are so many contradictions, that nobody has all the answers on these things. I know one thing; at one time, it was a crime to not be a "Christian", which was the chosen religion and so you could decide, death or Christianity. So it was basically forced on people with the sword and through the threat of their life. It's insane!!
What would the billion + Christians believe right now, if it hadn't been forced on the world back then? Who knows?
I also know that there were several Jesus' back then or Jesus like men, going around, performing so called miracles, like the illusionists of today and Jesus came out on top. Jesus was the David Copperfield of his day and got all the big crowds in the end while Mary and other women, bankrolled his endeavors.
I mean, he did need money, a place to sleep and did need to eat, along with his Apostles, and other followers, right? Then again, he was God and could just make food appear or multiply like crazy, so I guess he had that covered, but still needed money for some reason.
I also know of accounts where Jesus was thought to have sent his men, or they went on their own, to openly discredit these other Jesus like figures, so that Jesus would gain more followers.
This is not BS and is documented fact as it was literally a competition between them all and Jesus won. In the beginning, Jesus was one of the least popular Jesus figures.
There are many written accounts, of other men, doing just as many if not even more amazing things than Jesus did and some that even levitated and amazed and wowed the crowds. I don't recall Jesus levitating, unless you count Satan taking him all over the place like a rag-doll, from here to there and everywhere.
Here's another thought; does it really even matter if Jesus died for us or not? Does it really matter if he really resurrected or not?
If when we die, we really are still alive in another realm, or dimension and are indeed reunited with our loved ones; who cares what Jesus did or didn't do or if he was half man/half God or some supernatural being, born of a virgin? Does it even matter?
Can't we just read his teachings, learn from them and live a good life, hold on and have fun, as we slip into our new eternity? But, here's the good news; if for some reason we don't exist in the next life and are just dead when we die(which makes much less sense to me than if we are still alive in another realm), then nothing matters, because we won't even know we are dead, because we won't freaking exist.
So, the bottom line is to just live a good life and it will all come out in the wash...or not. Either way, we are covered, because we'll be happy, or won't even know what the hell just happened, because we won't be alive any longer!!
But, if that was the plan from day one, that everyone would die and live on for Eternity, then so be it. They say the salvation part is free for everyone, right? Now, where religion comes in, is to make it very important, what Jesus did or didn't do and whether we believe it or not. It is man that does this, not any being or any God.
If you believe it did all happen, exactly as they say it did, then you need to belong to a church and give them money(the "tithes and offerings for the Lord"), to show your faith and that you are a true believer, willing to sacrifice.
I think the funniest thing I've ever read on the Internet, which made me laugh my ass off, was a while back, when Ray challenged an angel of God to come kick his ass and set him straight and that he might then go back to Church..LMAO!!
I mean, if this almighty God loves us so much, why would he only leave us with a fatally flawed book(full of contradictions), that has passed through the hands of imperfect and corrupt men with agendas and need for money and power? This is the best God's got? This is all he left as a guide to our eternal salvation? You've gotta be kidding me?
Also, 123, I'd have to challenge you on whether all religions are for money and "profit-seeking." Have you seen how the leaders of most religions live? I'm talking palaces, limos, private jets and the royal treatment from A to Z, whether we are talking about Mormons, Catholics or any other "major" religion.
They don't just collect money to sustain the church, rather to live like Kings and Queens, take exotic trips to 5 star hotels, flying first class, while robbing the poor or average, hard working people.
Mormonism is the absolute perfect example of this and at every General Conference, they send some low-rung Seventy to the pulpit, as their "official tithing hit man", to bash the Saints over the head and throw out a guilt trip the size of the Grand Canyon. It is pathetic!! They are making these lower slugs do their dirty work for them and sadly, they do it with pride.
As tithing revenues drop every year, they are becoming more and more desperate, in your face and more and more hardcore and nasty about it. They truly know no shame.
What would be the other reason that somebody would start a church? I'm sure that there are some good, honest folks out there, that do it on their own dime or a few donations here and there, but we're talking about the big churches here, not Joe blow on the corner.
Even most of the small churches today, are part of a bigger network, like the "Calvary Chapel Network" that Eric goes to. They've been full of documented corruption and sex scandals, just like most all big churches.
Their leader Chuck, is a complete nutjob(a very rich nutjob I might add), who keeps falsely predicting when Christ will return, then denying he made the prediction. Just another typical cult leader, what can I say about that?
The average minister pay in Utah, is right around $40,000...not too bad and we can see why they have to be so die-hard in what they preach...their job literally depends on it. I'm sure that they have bonus systems set up as well and that they get a percentage or bonus, if they achieve certain levels of donations.
It's always about the money for the guys at the top, but not for the members, who are the bottom feeders making these men richer and richer, day by day.
Anyway, that's all for now. Take care everyone and thanks for the great discussion and for moving the subject matter along, to something that actually matters and has importance to most of us here.
I hope that I didn't offend anyone, as I'm just stating facts as I know them and my opinion and conclusion on things, after a lot of personal study. I look forward to your comments.
Samuel
Also, Sam... what kind of implications has this had on your marriage and family? Are you doing OK? Have you recovered from your loss?
Thanks for asking McKay, as I've discussed this a few times, but I'll just say that it has had a dramatic impact on my life and the relationships with my family and friends. Some positive and some negative, but mostly negative. Grant Palmer described the pain of his discoveries and it's impact on him personally, as much worse and more painful, than the chemotherapy he went through, while battling cancer.
I haven't been through that, thank goodness, so I can't say, but it is for sure, one of the most painful things in my life to this point, other than losing loved ones to death. It impacts a person mentally and psychologically as well as emotionally, physically and spiritually and the impact is dramatic, as many here will testify.
Most people in my family, along with most of my friends, don't even know what I'm doing, other than I have some questions about the church and things that I don't like, that confuse me.
The best part is, they can't resolve the questions and are left wondering themselves. I've been cut off by several people, just for asking questions and wondering about certain things. Imagine if they knew what I was really doing?
So, I'm doing okay, but I'll never fully recover from my losses, because the pain has been too great. It's hard and very sad, to see lifelong relationships just end over Mormonism.
I've dealt with the reality now, of those that will no longer be in my life, probably ever again, but it still sucks. Whenever you lose a part of who and what you are or someone that was important in your life, whether through death or religion(they might as well be dead), you can't get that back. Lori knows all about this, as she lost her entire family over Mormonism.
It's not me ending things, but them. I can be tolerant and accepting of anyone belonging to almost any religion, but sadly, the Mormons can't tolerate my decision to no longer believe.
If I was fully open, to all my friends and family, about what I'm doing and how I really believe now, I'd probably lose about everybody. If somebody figures it out, then so be it and I'll deal with it.
Most of them, wouldn't ever be caught dead, even looking on a site like mine or listening to a podcast, being put on by an "evil anti-Mormon."
Good to see you back McKay and I hope that I answered your question. I can't be too specific for obvious reasons and I hope you understand that.
Take care,
Samuel
Yes Sam,... I understand totally.
I really would actually like to apologize. To Sam and Lori especially. After really thinking about it, I feel I may have been trying to force a point a view or had an attitude that I know more than you..because I have been where you are. Sometimes it takes a sincere introspective evaluation for me to understand my true intentions... I really wasn't trying to convert, but I was concentrating too much on telling my point of view than just understanding. There is no need for me to argue these points or convince you of anything. I would much rather just be a friend without passing judgement or having any other motive.
So there you have it... I just wanted to apologize.
My faith helps me in imeasurable ways to become a better person. I am very grateful for it. But obviously it is not that way for everyone.
When I here people like Eric and many evangelists.. I just dont know how these people get what they do out of the scriptures...are we reading the same thing?? I guess I just get something totally different out of it. It's an inward quite, contemplative, peaceful thing for me. Not a outspoken, in your face, judgemental thing. If I offer a testimony to anyone.. It will have to be just in quietly doing my best to live it.
Lori stated previously that she appreciates many of Christ's teachings although she does not accept Him as God. Well, I think in many ways she has a better grip on His message of charity than Eric or someone of the likes. It seems Ironic, yet obvious to me. Funny how that works isnt it?
I am sorry for your losses, I can't imagine the hurt that must be felt and the emptyness that can come from loosing a faith that is so all encompassing. I hope you can find a constuctive and positive way to fill the void.
Again, just know.. that while I cant speak for any other member. I would never reject you as a friend as long as you were a decent person and could respect my faith as well. Sam, sometimes you come across as very quick to condemn... and I was turned off by that as I felt misjudged, but when I really think about it. I can totally understand it. And there was probably an element of truth to your criticisms of me.
Cernovog, 123,
If it sounded like I firmly believe that Jesus never existed, then I must have either misspoke or just didn't clarify. Since you have both called me out, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. If you can show me legitimate sources documenting the actual existance of Jesus, then I will have to admit I was incorrect.
But first, let me clarify. When I said Jesus is a mythological character, what I meant (and should have stated) was that the story of the man Jesus has evolved until he becomes a god. I didn't deny the existance of Jesus. If it sounded that way, I apologize.
I suppose you are right, Cernovog. I must be ignorant in this case because I have honestly never read or even heard of any other documents that confirmed Christ's existance.
Samuel, you are always so much better at saying things than I am. Your comment about Jesus and the Bible was exactly what I have been poorly trying to explain. Thanks.
123, good luck with your exams. I just took 2 today. When you have time, I would greatly appreciate those sources. Again, I apologize to everyone. I didn't mean to stir up a big discussion with my ignorant statements. I will definitely check out everything you give me and will proceed to reform my conclusions.
Ray,
As I said before, there are many non-Biblical, non-Christian records of Jesus' life.
Take for example, the Roman historian Tacitus. He wrote:
"To dispel the rumor [of his having started the great fire which damaged Rome], Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals XV, 44).
He is also mentioned in the writings of another Roman, Pliny the Younger, the Governor of Bithynia, in a report to the Emperor Trajan.
Suetonius, in Lives of the Caesars, wrote that the Jews were expelled from Rome "because they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus" (25.4).
"Christus" is probably just a misspelling of "Christus".
A roundabout mention of Jesus may be found in a letter by Mara bar Serapion who mentions, along with Socrates and Pythagoras, a wise king of the Jews whom the Jews themselves later had killed.
Now there are other Roman records and records kept by the Jewish Pharisees that I haven't even touched yet.
For more information, checkout F. F. Bruce's Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament and R. T. France's The Evidence for Jesus.
Hi, just a few words about the historicity of Jesus:
Although cernovog quotes a few "sources" about Jesus, all these sources date after Jesus's death.
Therefore, if Jesus was just a fictional person or a myth, these sources are based on rumours and myths the people spread
in the first century.
By the way, the word "chrestos" means "handsome, practical" and was a common slave name, maybe similar to the sirname "Smith".
Therefore, connecting "chrestos" to "christos" is as far fetched as connecting any historical source which talks about a "Mr. Smith" to Joseph Smith jun.
However, I don't want to discuss the historicity of Jesus, because I do myself not doubt that Jesus was a historical person.
What I am sure (what I know in the literal, not the mormon sense) is that the stories in the four Gospels cannot be historical.
There are too many contradictions and details disproved by historians so the claim that they are historical documents is not realistic.
However, they were not intended as such. The text form of the bible is a "kerygmatic text". Kerygmatic, from greek kerygma=faith, means
"faith-promoting" text, that is, they express a doctrine, a detail of faith, by a story, a superficially historical text.
One example:
The pedigrees of Jesus are not historical. That becomes obvious if you compare the contradicting pedigrees in Matthew and Luke, or
calculate how old the people must have been before they got their children to spend the time from the Babylonian captivity
to Jesus in only thirteen generations.
However, the pedigrees have a theological point to make:
1) In the case of the gospel redactor now called "Matthew",
Jesus is the descendent of Abraham, the "father of the Jews". As Matthew mainly wrote for Jewish Christians,
he wanted to point out Jesus' noble jewish background.
2) In the case of the gospel redactor now called "Luke",
Jesus is the descendent of Adam, the father of all men. As Luke mainly wrote for Nonjewish Christians, he wants to point out
Jesus' general descendence from Adam.
While being historically nonsense, both pedigrees make theological statements, which were tailored to their relevant audience.
But now I want to talk about another interesting fact I found out recently.
At the moment, I am studying the Buddhist middle length discourses and found out that Buddha shared many teachings with Jesus.
From doctrines such as "love your enemy,turn to him who beats you the other cheek" to "even thoughts can be sinful, not only actions",
many teachings are identical or similar.
Moreover, we can find a high degree of similarity between the two persons itself:
Both were wandering ascetics in a time, in which wandering ascetism was fashionable.
Jesus started his spiritual journey at another wandering ascetics, nowadays called "John the baptist", and even went through
the rituals of that guy, namely baptism.
Buddha went to two spiritual teachers, from whom he learnt a lot, but who did not satisfy his spiritual yearnings.
Consequently, he left them and found liberation for himself, then becoming a teacher himself, and a very successful one.
Both the Buddha and Jesus taught by using similes and figurative speech. Sometimes, even their images are similar, for example their
description of hell.
Of course, Buddhism and Christianity differs in many points. But these points can rather be found in the underlying belief system in which the
two were born, the difference between Judaism and Brahmanism.
To be honest, when I read the sutras and found so many similarities between the two teachings, I was disappointed about Christianity,
I felt betrayed by the Christian teaching that Christianity is unique, when in reality the teachings of Buddha and Christ are so similar,
especially in their emphasis on love and compassion.
I am not sure yet, but I have the impression that maybe Jesus was some kind of Buddha and had similar ideas of how to make the world a better place,
only the historical conditions created so distinct religions out of these teachings.
What I also find interesting about Buddhism is the Mahayana tradition.
While in the older Theravada tradition, Buddha is only a mere human, now physically dead and residing in Nirvana,
Mahayana Buddhism deified Buddha and made a personalized principle out of him.
This is interesting, because it is identical to Jesus' deification by first century Christians.
For example, you find the "Pure Land Buddhism" in which prayer to Amithaba, (the "resurrected Buddha") lets you be reborn in his "western paradise",
which corresponds to the Christian heaven. "Grace by faith alone", this principle was also developed in Buddhism as well as by Martin Luther in Christianity.
Mahayana Buddhism also came up with a form of the trinity:
Dharma-kaya, Sambhoga-kaya,Nirmana-kaya.
Although the concept is not exactly the same,
dharma-kaya is some kind of principle of reality corresponding to God the father,
and Nirmana-kaya is the historical Buddha "who appeared on earth in a human body", which corresponds to Jesus the son.
The more I studied Buddhism, the more similarities I found between the two religions,
including "specifically Christian" stories as the "story of the prodigal son" to phrases such as
"He that has ears to hear, let him hear" or "the surrection of the kingdom of holiness".
So there are three possible alternatives:
1. Both religions stem from the same source, both teachers got insight from the same "reality", be it a principle like
the Dharma, or a person like God,.
2. similar to 1, but both Jesus and Buddha recognized and got to understand properties of the universe. Consequently,
they used commonsense, reason and maybe a good bit of insight to create their teachings which are so similar.
3. They copied! At the time when these two religions developed, the silk road existed. Consequently, ideas and concepts could have been
exchanged even between far countries. And when an idea or story is "in the ear", one religion or the other could have picked it up.
Of course, when we are talking about the traditional buddhist teachings, those were developed 500 years before Jesus lived,
so it was rather the Christians who copied from the Buddhists than vice versa, though some mahayana traditions developed roughly at the
same time as Christianity. Therefore, stories like the prodigal son could also have been copied in the other direction.
Ok, these are just a few thoughts of myself. I will continue my study of the sutras, and maybe in some time add a few interesting
parallels or differences between these two religions.
Just a few words about the "Hoffman case":
As Buddhism and Christianity are so similar in their teachings, it is really nonsense to send one person to hell for
not believing in Jesus, yet, following most of his teachings, because they were taught by the Buddha anyway, and yet
sending a hateful bigot like Eric Hoffman to heaven, because, inspite of all his sins like judgementalism he believes in the correct
interpretation of the bible which is not historical anyway and which was developed decades after Jesus' death and compiled according to
the beliefs popular at that time.
For example, the idea that Jesus is both God and Man stems simply from the fact that the gospels were selected according to this belief.
Other gospels which were not promoting this belief but either the belief that Jesus was only man or that he was only God were simply
kicked out during the process of canonization. The "great harmony within the bible" about doctrines like the trinity is therefore
not because these doctrines are true, but because the bible was canonized according to these doctrines.
Buddhism teaches that one's life after death is determined by one's actions and volition ("karma").
Therefore, being Mormon, Evangelical, Buddhist, Muslim, Calvary Chapel (TM) or Atheist does not change a bit of one's destiny.
What changes one's destiny is one's good or evil deeds, one's good or evil thoughts.
If a Mormon, in good belief, is friendly and helping to others, he will be reborn in a heavenly realm.
If a Muslim, in good belief, is friendly and helping to others, he will be reborn in a heavenly realm.
If a Calvary Chapel church member, in good belief, is friendly and helping to others, he will be reborn in a heavenly realm.
If, on the other side:
A Mormon, judging nonmormons, looking down upon them, keeping superficial precepts while neglecting his family,
using his power as a bishop to enrich himself, treating missionaries bad, etc, he will be reborn in a hell realm.
A Muslim, having a distorted view of the quran, using it to support his "holy war" (jihad) against nonmuslims,
killing others and himself, he will be reborn in a hell realm.
A Calvary Chapel church member, misinterpreting the bible, condemning people who do not believe the same like him,
spending all his time uselessly only to convert others to his particular belief, creating a sectarian small group
which is paranoic about daemons and devils standing behind every person who is not Calvary Chapel and beliving that Jesus
will come back to earth in... err, that date already passed, well anyway.
Well, this person, because of his hatered and bad deeds and futile and egoistic deeds will go to the hell realm as well.
You see, Buddhism is very tolerant, the only thing Buddhism is intolerant towards is bad behaviour, behaviour which causes suffering.
So, instead of continually struggling about who has the correct interpretation of the bible, lets follow the Buddhist precepts:
"To do good,
to abstain from evil,
to purify the mind.
This is the advice of the Buddhas."
Greets,
Dharma12.
the idea that Jesus is both God and Man stems simply from the fact that the gospels were selected according to this belief.
Other gospels which were not promoting this belief but either the belief that Jesus was only man or that he was only God were simply
kicked out during the process of canonization.
Books of the Bible were not simply chosen and discarded at random. Like a police officer sorting through eye-witness testimonies, early church leaders looked for consistencies among the early texts that were later compiled into today's Bible.
The apocrypha all display common characteristics:
- ideaologies or stories that are not consistent with other testimonies
- non-public or private accounts or teachings
- no references to other books of the Bible
- no references from other books of the Bible
Whereas the books of the Bible are consistent with each other. They refer to each other and quote each other. They do not refer to the books of the apocrypha.
With regard to the similarities between Christianity and Bhuddism, this is not news to me. I've known about them for many years. My uncle was a Bhuddist monk.
It is known in the Catholic Church that Jesus spent His life traveling and preparing for His mission. At the time, as Dharma has mentioned, there was a significant amount of trading between the the Middle East and South Asia. Though we don't know for sure, it is certainly possible that Jesus spoke with Bhuddist who came to that area for trade or that he himself traveled. Some people say He traveled all the way to Kashmir. Who knows?
I don't see how similarities harm either religion. And I'm also not sure I understand how or why Dharma finds the discovery of these similarities to be hurtful. I think they are wonderful.
Finally, there has been a scripture in my head ever since we started talking about Eric.
Mark 9:38-40
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.
So this Scripture alone makes Eric's claims and especially his attacks on other Christians simply ridiculous.
"Whoever is not against us is for us."
Lastly, to address your criticism of my response to Ray's inquiry, there are many more sources in addition to the ones I specifically quoted. I personally am partial to the Roman sources because the Romans themselves kept very good records and also make for a credible third-party because of their disinterest and adversity toward Christianity.
I believe that a report from Pontius Pilate regarding Jesus' crucifixion still exists. This report certainly fits your criteria of being contemporaneous with Jesus' life. I'm not sure why you are being so adversarial in this matter, especially since you say you don't deny Jesus' existence.
And did I detect a tone of condecension in your response? Why the quotation marks when referring to my "sources"? What are we to infer from that?
Although I do respect Bhuddist beliefs, the mere philosophy "abstain from evil" is not always enough to guide us through life. We sometimes face many challenging decisions and what is good and what is evil is not always clear. The Catholic Church, as one example, has worked hard to come up with specific doctrintes that help us apply Biblical teachings to our modern lives.
Hello cernovog,
[/quote="cernovog"]
Books of the Bible were not simply chosen and discarded at random. Like a police officer sorting through eye-witness testimonies, early church leaders looked for consistencies among the early texts that were later compiled into today's Bible.
[/quote]
When I talked about the compilers choosing the biblical canon, I was referring to Bart D. Ehrman, a renown biblical scholar, who pointed out that the gospels were chosen according to whether they supported the doctrine "Jesus, true man, true God".
Thus, some gospels which are now called apocryphs were excluded because they seemed to promote Docetism,that is, the belief that Jesus was not a real human being but that he only appeared to be a human being, that is, his physical body was an illusion.
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
One gospel, if I remember correctly, the Gospel of Peter, was excluded, because in one verse, it stated that Jesus did not seem to suffer on the cross. This verse could be interpreted docetistic, wherefore it was excluded from the gospel.
If therefore, especially evangelical christians are slobbering over their bible which is "so consistent", I reply that it was compiled that way to appear more consistent. However, if you don't read the bible as a whole unit, but the books in themselves, you will find great discrepancies.
And these discrepancies led to the scientific evalutation of the bible called "historical-critical method".
When I was using the quotation marks for "sources", I indeed was condescending, because I don't like false scientific proofs.
Recently, Christians try to prove their faith scientifically, especially in the old idea of "intelligent design".
These proofs always turn out to be flawed.
Talking about Jesus' crucification record, I have to tell you bad news. Although the roman records are very precise and detailed, especially Jesus' crucification is not recorded anywhere. This is what I pointed out in my previous post.
There is not a single contemporary source, all sources refer to Jesus only when talking about the group of Christians, that is, after his death when mythification of Jesus already took place. Therefore, if a big group of people really was that audacious to invent the whole story, you would get exactly the same "historical sources". These sources do not prove the existence of Jesus but just the existence of a group called Christians, who refer to the otherwise not mentioned Jesus as their saviour.
"Abstain from evil" as a mere philosophy is not the center of Buddhism.
Buddhism is centered around threefold goal:
1) Do good, abstain from evil to create good in this world.
2) Do good, abstain from evil to gain a good rebirth.
3) Get insight about the world to leave the round of rebirth.
What makes Buddhism special in contrast to Christianity is that it has a hands-on description of how to become a better person.
This is the technique of meditation. By meditation, we become aware of our inner self, of both its good and bad sides, and by working on ourselves,
we can improve ourselves. Thus, we can not only shape our deeds but also our thoughts and feelings.
While Christianity only teaches us laws "Don't do that. Don't think that. Don't feel like that.", makind deeds, thoughts, feelings which don't fit to the moral code sins, Buddhism teaches insight meditation to change one's deeds, change one's feelings, change one's thoughts.
In my personal opinion, the Catholic Church often promotes unrealistic and even harmful doctrines, even if they are at their heart a good idea.
Take for example divorce: Divorce is of course a sad thing.
However, by oppressing divorced people, shunning them, discriminating against them, a broken marriage in which the husband and the wife don't love each other cannot be saved.
By excluding divorced or remarried couples from the eucharist, the catholic church is judgemental, as if Jesus did not die for the sins of divorced people.
All this shows that, although their intent is good, their ideals don't fit to reality. If a husband and a wife do not love each other, there is no sense in keeping a marriage which is only a farce.
Condemning divorce, premarital sex, the use of contraceptives and other "evils", the catholic church has a wrong understanding of what is good and evil and "strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel".
To finish, I just want to share a quote by Eric Hoffman which he posted on his forum:
"Dharma...repent of your Buddhism, spit it out of your mouth like poision and and find godly sorrow that you ever followed a false god called buddha."
If he isn't deluded, who is...
Dharma,
Would you consider yourself Buddhist? If you've been following our discussion for the last few weeks, then you've probably noticed that I have expressed an interest in learning more about it. I got a book from the library about basic Buddhism and it is very interesting.
Yes, I have also noticed that Christianity is full of "don't do's". That immediately sets up a prideful situation where people compare themselves to each other and get caught up in "who did what".
Buddhism teaches that worldly misery comes from the desire of worldly things. If you can train yourself to no longer desire worldly things, then you can be truly happy, no matter what outside circumstances are present. If your mind is calm and at peace, true happiness will be an automatic side-effect. All of this is accomplished by practicing dharma meditation.
If you have any advice for a beginner, it would be most welcome.
If you are interested in good resources on the internet,
I can suggest a few sites.
As I don't like reading huge texts on the computer, I have mostly downloaded audio-teachings in mp3 format.
They are easy to follow along.
First here is an introductory lecture by Bikkhu Bodhi:
http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm
It is a great introduction to Buddhism.
If you are interested in a good scientific introduction to Buddhism, I can suggest the Lecture on Buddhism offered by the Teaching Company, though you have to pay for it.
Currently, I am listening to a series of lectures about the actual Buddhist "bible", the Pali Canon, especially the middle length discourses, also held by Bikkhu Bodhi, an american monk who lived in Asia and is able to understand the original language Pali.
He gives a very thourough lecture, which I find very fascinating and interesting. But even more interesting than the lecture are the texts themselves. To me, Buddha does not appear to have lived in ancient India 500 BC, but he seems to have had all scientific insights we have nowadays.
He describes the big bang, "process orientation" and many modern ideas in these ancient texts, uses wonderful similes, etc. The pali canon is really amazing.
http://www.bodhimonastery.net/mntalks_audio.html
However, besides reading and thinking, it is important to establish a meditation practice, so maybe you should look for a place nearby to learn it, because especially the correct sitting posture is important in order not to get an aching back etc, so you should learn it by some Buddhist meditation group.
I cannot give much more advice, cause I am rather new to the subject as well, although I have read several books on the subject and have some practice in tea ceremony as well, which is connected to Zen Buddhism.
Greets,
Dharma12.
Hello everyone,
First I want to say that Robert Millet’s presentation is sickening. I especially love the part where his life was supposedly threatened by a ‘large African American.’ The guy was obviously yanking his chain, and Mr. Millet made himself out to be some kind of hero that he said the right thing to ‘save his own life’.
I’ve found the other posts very interesting…I hope you don’t mind me budding in and being ‘off topic’ here, and I apologize to Sam who probably would rather not bring in politics to any discussion, but I really want to get everybody’s opinion on this matter. Besides, it does relate to Mormonism, in a strange sort of way.
I’ve never been a conspiracy theory buff, but some of the latest theories about 9/11 have been very thought provoking. My TBM brother brought it to my attention in the first place, and my first inner reaction was “how can you examine your government so critically, but you can’t examine your faith just the same?” But when I took an honest look at some of the evidence and theories, I realized they have some very valid points. For those who haven’t heard of any of the controlled demolition theories concerning 9/11, take a look at these videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&pr=goog-sl
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change
So since these theories sound crazy at first, people often dismiss the advocates as nut jobs. But take a look for yourself. Anyway, a BYU physics professor named Steven Jones joined the league late last year of theorists who claim 9/11 was an inside job, and he’s become very well renowned amongst the conspiracy theorists (they practically grovel at his feet) since he is a higher esteemed individual joining their ranks (along with Charlie Sheen and others).
So what did BYU do? They put him on administrative leave and may fire him. http://oldthinker.wordpress.com/2006/09/08/byu-places-911-truth-professor-on-paid-leave/
I for one think Steve Jones has some very good points, and although I think it’s strange that he couldn’t look at the rest of his life with the same critical thinking process (ie: LDS faith), I have a lot respect for him for advocating for truth no matter the consequences. So why would BYU or the LDS church (since they are interconnected) have a problem with his advocating for truth? Why would they force him to take administrative leave? Because it makes them look bad in the public eye! They’re all about PR, folks! They don’t want to look bad since the conspiracy theorists are generally viewed as over-paranoid nut jobs.
My other point is that I think its funny how Mormons love this kind of stuff, because it supposedly makes the Book of Mormon’s description of the Gadianton Robbers true (even though the two cases are very different), so the BoM must be true, or it makes BY’s ‘prophecies’ about the constitution ‘hanging by a thread’ true. Maybe they all think Mitt Romney (www.runmittrun.org) is the heroic priesthood holder who is going to come into presidential office and ‘save the constitution.’ You’ve all heard that supposed prophecy, right?
Anyway, these are my thoughts. Once again, sorry for veering in a direction unrelated to Sam’s blog post or any of your comments.
~Brad
Dharma,
It is my belief that you are not giving enough credit to Roman historians. Your argument implies that as early as 100 AD Roman scholars and record keepers were duped into believing some heretical conspiracy about a man who never existed.
Are we to assume that Tacitus rose to a position of trust and scholarship in the Roman Empire by being a naive fool?
What you imply may be possible, but I find it unlikely. The Roman sources should be given more credence. Combined with other sources and physical evidence, the case is compelling, if not convincing.
Also keep in mind how much time has passed. There is still much evidence that has either succumbed to the passage of time or has yet to be discovered. The tomb of the high priest Caiaphus was only recently found and his is a name that is only mentioned in the Bible.
By your criteria, he shouldn't exist because the only record of him is Biblical.
But enough of that. To be honest, I'm tired of this debate because you've already admitted that you believe Jesus as being a real historical figure. I think at this point, just about everyone who participates on this blog does too.
Getting back to your direct criticism of Catholicism:
However, by oppressing divorced people, shunning them, discriminating against them, a broken marriage in which the husband and the wife don't love each other cannot be saved.
By excluding divorced or remarried couples from the eucharist, the catholic church is judgemental, as if Jesus did not die for the sins of divorced people.
Were you ever Catholic? Because I don't know where you are getting your information from. I have no problem with people who disagree with the Catholic Church. However, there are plenty of practices to disagree with without having to resort to inaccurate accusations of situations that don't exist.
The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states: Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.... Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.
So, in what way are divorcees shunned or oppressed?
Perhaps you have forgotten that Catholicism also teaches that we are all sinners, that none of us are perfect and that God's forgiveness and compassion are infinite. The cornerstone of our faith is the forgiveness of sins. There is never a point in one's life when one is beyond salvation.
The Eucharist is another matter in which you are inaccurate.
The Euchraist is not a reward for being good. Rather, it is a gift from Jesus to us to bring us closer to God, to help us in our time of need. When we are being sinful or weak is the time we are in most need of the Eucharist.
To be perfectly frank, I really don't see how it is the business of a non-Catholic to criticize how our Sacraments are conducted.
If you have some grand reason as to why we should accept your criticism, please enlighten me. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive or maybe you caught me in a bad mood, but I find this line of questioning an annoyance.
cernovog, you said:
"The Euchraist is not a reward for being good. Rather, it is a gift from Jesus to us to bring us closer to God, to help us in our time of need. When we are being sinful or weak is the time we are in most need of the Eucharist."
As far as I know, people divorced and remarried to other spouses are excluded from the Eucharist. Thus, "when they are sinful and weak, and it is the time they are in most need of the Eucharist", the pope and the priest deny them partaking. I find that a contradiction to the love and compassion you are claiming.
In Catholicism, only people who are obedient are allowed to take of the Eucharist. Sounds like Mormonism temple ceremony to me.
I know a woman who divorced and married another husband. Her pious catholic mother never accepted her new husband, and whenever she could, she intrigued against him by telling the womans children bad things about him.It took years and a lot of effort until she could accept the "great and abominable sin" of divorce.
But, I am not an expert and to be honest not interested in a religion which arouses so much hatered and violence as the Pope did recently.
The Buddha is said to talk about delicate topics only if he knows that it is the right time.
Pope Benedict obviously is not enlightened, as he aroused millions of people with his provocative speech in Regensburg.
Dharma12.
Sam,
After posting my previous comment, I saw where you posted on September 13 the interview with Steven Jones on Google video
Granted, in this interview Jones did a terrible job on the explaining his theories, and Tucker Carlson made him out to be a complete nut case, but take a look at some of the videos I linked before:
video 1
video 2
video 3
I think Jones and others have some very strong claims...so, before you dismiss Jones as a nut case (and myself for supporting him) see for yourself...watch the videos.
You said that Gordo put him on leave right after meeting with Bush? Could it be that there was a little pressure there from Bush (because the studies of Jones go against his agenda)? And since the so-called prophet doesn't really know the truth of all things, he believed him?
I would think that somebody like you, an advocate for truth, would take a closer look at the evidence before casting it all aside and calling Jones a clown. There are definitely questions that need to be answered, and I respect Jones for his courage in calling them on it.
~Brad
I'd originally written a long, detailed examination of what dharma12 has been saying, but I'm getting the impression that he either has absolutely no clue what he's talking about and doesn't want to learn, or he's deliberately trying to stir controversy with stupid comments--neither of which merit a serious response. Does anyone feel like he should be taken seriously when he says things like this?:
"He describes the big bang, 'process orientation' and many modern ideas in these ancient texts, uses wonderful similes, etc. The pali canon is really amazing."
Yeah...okay. Read the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Book of Abraham. Just because some spiritual leader with a wild imagination claims that (with a *very* liberal interpretation) any of these texts reveal scientific truths doesn't mean they have any credibility. Nearly all scripture uses "wonderful similes" and are "amazing." (Hell, listen to General Conference if all you want are absurd claims of scientific proofs, "wonderful similes," and "amazing" discourses.) Furthermore, the theory of process orientation is completely bogus. Process orientation doesn't even exist, since you're only augmenting your final goal into many goals, meaning that there is no focus on a process at all!
From a scholarly point of view, dharma12 is absolutely ignorant (as he himself admits). From a logical or philosophical point of view, the ideas he is advocating are completely naive. Maybe when he actually learns what the hell Buddhism tries to accomplish, then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. But for the time being, he's like the 8-year-old getting baptized who "knows" the Church is true and whatever else they claim these days, but hasn't a darned clue what he's talking about.
==
Brad, you should feel perfectly comfortable bringing whatever ridiculous or controversies to Mormon Truth you want. Read some of these other comments and you'll immediately understand why.
While the controlled demolition theory makes sense from what I've read of it, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the U.S. government was behind it. It doesn't even make sense why they would. We had plenty of justification for launching a "War on Terror" and invading Iraq and Afghanistan without the 9/11 attacks. If there was a controlled demolition, why not pin the blame on al-Qaeda? We already know that they got bombs around the base of the WTC back in 1993. Why not in 2001 as well?
==
Cernovog, I was wondering if I could discuss some of the things you've said over IM or email? Email me at 123blogger@gmail.com if you're interested.
Again, you are speaking out of pure ignorance.
Divorcees are not denied the sacrament of the Eucharist, rather, only those who divorce and then remarry.
You have to understand that we believe very strongly in the committment of marriage. It is a promise that you make to another person for life.
This socially accepted practice of continuous divorce and re-marriage is no better than polygamy. In fact, I find hard to understand why polygamy is illegal, but to have children with multiple partners and father a multitude of broken homes is perfectly okay.
Once you get married in the Catholic Church it is for life. It's not a committment we take lightly.
Life isn't always perfect and it is understandable that some marriages must end in divorce. In many cases, an annulment is possible. It is also possible to remarry if the spouse is not a baptised Christian.
However, it is wrong of you to judge the entire Catholic faith based on the actions of a single person who obviously was acting out of ignorance.
If the mother never accepted her daughter's new husband, then she obviously was not aware of the teachings of the Church to manifest an attentive solicitude and encourage participation in the Mass and in the Sacraments.
Your criticism of the Pope is again, made from ignorance. The Pope was using an old quotation as an example of what not to do. He was using it as an example of intolerance from the past that we must not allow to be repeated.
The media then took this quotation, and only the quotation out of context and attributed it to the pope causing this uproar over nothing.
I encourage you to listen to Father Roderick's podcast The Daily Breakfast, Episode #166 for more detailed information, including info on where you can read the Pope's entire speach and see the quotation used in context.
Your statements are judgemental, ignorant and, as a whole, inaccurate.
If you've got some legitimate concerns over the Catholic Church over an actual practice, you may find that I just might agree with you.
The Millet video makes me angry. I've been on both side of this issue. I was TBM, served a mission and employed most of tactics Millet speaks of. Now (15 years later) I see the all of this as a sales tactic for a theology that can't be sold at face value. He talks of pre-requisites. I have been a member for 30+ and still get this run around when I try to dicuss more difficult doctrines. The Church needs to realize that milk WILL NOT do-- only the truth will. At least give the members enough credit to be able to deal with the truth-- and let investigators judge mormonism by the information they feel is necessary.
"Answer the question they should have asked????!!!!" The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Basically the relig profs at the Y now teach missionaries to "dodge the question" and fire back with the first vision story. The same ol' white-washed story.
Dharma,
I hope that you'll read this, but I just noticed that Eric was challenging you to go on his podcast as well and you wisely declined. Then he asked if you would debate him either on the phone or a "Skype call."
I just wanted to give you a heads up that he has a recorder program, on all of his computers, which we used for our shows, that will record his Skype conversations, without you even knowing it, as there is no way to even tell.
He did this to me several times, and after we had chatted for a while, said that he was recording the conversation. So, I started doing it to, just in case I needed it down the road and had to fight fire with fire, as my trust in him took a nosedive. I thought we were just chatting "off the record", but I guess we weren't, not that I knew it.
Anyway, I'm sure you weren't going to do it, but as you said, I wouldn't trust him either and the likelihood that he would be recording the conversation, without your knowledge, would be very high. Why else would he suggest a "Skype phone call?"
I know he has a cell, a home phone, had an office phone number when he worked for his dad; so there would be no other reason to have a "Skype conversation." Just curious, did he boot you yet?
I noticed he got very offended at the "King of Calvary" comment and gave you your first warning, saying that the next time, you'd be gone. Wow, what a tolerant person, right? He can dish out blanket condemnations, but God forbid anyone say something hostile to our MASTER.
So, he can openly condemn anyone that doesn't believe as he does, suggest to me, in a voicemail, that I "should check into pedophilia as an alternative lifestyle", but then warns you for what you said? Like I've said, the guy needs some help man. Can you imagine saying that to someone? Does he apologize? No!!
Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up on the phone call thing, because he always has a motive and agenda, which always goes back to "you are gonna burn in hell" and he isn't, because "he has the only truth."
I didn't have an Email for you, but if you want to drop me a line, we can continue this in Email. I would have just Emailed you, instead of posting this here, but maybe it's a good thing, so that I can warn everyone about his methods.
Well take care and let us know if, I mean WHEN, you get the boot...LOL!!
Samuel
Post a Comment
<< Home