arndt@lymph.DEC (02/12/85)
Yosi, Yosi! (What a delicious name - Yosi Hoshen. It reeks of drama, heritage, and adventure.) Why call me 'Dear Ken Arndt'? Ken is enough. I got to my exhalted place by coming up through the ranks. So, at ease - smoke if you got'em. A few points. We agree it seems about the slant of the TV program by the 'funny mentalists' against the Mormans. It could have been better done. As for who claims to be what, why what if I claimed to be Yosi Hoshen?? Just because I make the claim, does that mean we can't decide?? Why, we can check the label in our shorts and SEE who is telling the truth, eh? The Mormans claim to be Christians. Not only that but as has been posted to the net they claim to be THE Christians. Oh dear, how can we 'prove' it one way or the other? I suggest we do the equivalent of checking our shorts. That is go to the sources (The New Testament and the Morman writings). As has been posted to the net the Mormans depart from the scriptures, if words mean anything (these included). Let me just pick the issue of the position of Christ. Since you know, by now the issues, I won't go into it. It is enough to say that Mormans and Christians differ on what scripture says is the touchstone of Christianity. I John 5:1ff. I merely mentioned the book JOYS of YIDDISH as a great book. I didn't think the saying about the camel came from yiddish. So I thought you were a half-Jew (a Christian would be a completed Jew). Turns out you don't even go that far. Sorry. I find your use of the word 'true' funny. In one sentence you say, "I don't understand what the word means." and then go on to use the word 'proven' as if you DO understand what it means! Really. Do you expect me to believe that you don't know what the word true means? You make statements all over the place about what is 'true' or not 'true' using other words for 'true'. How noble of you, how high minded, how MODERN of you to be against ANYONE who would dare to use 'coercion' or 'intolerance' against other views. Er, would you use 'coercion' to keep such behavior off the TV or are you 'intolerant' of such behavior??? Of course not. Somehow, when YOU exercise your judgment about tru. . ., sorry, what's proven it's only being 'critical'. Why don't we call bullshit by it's name?? Regards, Ken Arndt PS. I don't think you're stupid. Just inconsistent in your statements. I agree that the issues turn on what is the exact nature of truth and how that can be applied to any religious (or scientific, rationalistic) claim. Now be sure to take offense at my posting and ignore the fact that by YOUR manner and words you offend others who believe in religious 'truth'.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
> So I thought you were a half-Jew (a Christian would be a completed Jew). > Turns out you don't even go that far. Sorry. [ARNDT] I just love seeing an upholstered "Christian" defining Jewishness. :-? -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (02/19/85)
From Ken Arndt > >As has been posted to the net the Mormons depart from the scriptures, if words >mean anything (these included). From the discussions on the usent (by both sides) it is apparent that Mormons doctrine differs from mainstream Christianity. I am not trying to dispute this argument. My concern is the attempt by the Godmaker program to depict the Mormons as an evil cult. >So I thought you were a half-Jew (a Christian would be a completed Jew). >Turns out you don't even go that far. Sorry. There are two main faults in the Godmaker program, and the commercials that accompany it. First, it attempts to emotionalize the issue in propaganda like fashion. Second, it uses faulty statistics and bad experiences of some ex-Mormons to make generalized statements. To illustrate my point, I'll give you an example. Consider the following statement: "Ken Arndt is a Christian, therefore, all Christians are intolerant, bigots, inhumane, use filthy language, and keep chargin'" Clearly, the the conclusion clause of the above statement is a vile generalization. >How noble of you, how high minded, how MODERN of you to be against ANYONE who >would dare to use 'coercion' or 'intolerance' against other views. Er, would >you use 'coercion' to keep such behavior off the TV or are you 'intolerant' of >such behavior??? I did not say that the above program should be banned. I only wanted to show that the producers of the above program are irresponsible. The TV is a powerful medium, it is not usenet, and should be used with a greater care. The producers of the Godmaker should not be denied access to this medium. At the same time, we should not be silent at intolerance. >I find your use of the word 'true' funny. In one sentence you say, "I don't >understand what the word means." and then go on to use the word 'proven' I was referring to truth in the religious sense, and not the day to day common use of the word true. Again, let me give you an example. Consider the following statements: A. God created men in his own image. B. Ubizmo created men in his own image. C. Men created God in own image. D. Men created Ubizmo in his own image. Which statement is 'true'? You may believe that the first statement is the correct one. (Rich will probably disagree, claiming that the second statement is the correct one). I cannot 'prove' that statements A or B are false. yet, statements A and B seem to mutually contradict each other, whereas statements C and D are not inconsistent with each other. My rationalization is that statements C and D are more likely to describe the situation. The above discussion is an oversimplification of *my* thought process, but it may give you an idea how non-religious person judges issues of faith. My understanding is that you have a different way of rationalizing religion, 'truth', etc. I accept the fact that different people have varying perspective on religion and faith. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (02/22/85)
I received the following communication regarding suicide rate and drug abuse among teen-agers in Utah: >>=[previous Yosi Hoshen posting] >> There are two main faults in the Godmaker program, and the commercials >> that accompany it. First, it attempts to emotionalize the issue >> in propaganda like fashion. Second, it uses faulty statistics and >> bad experiences of some ex-Mormons to make generalized statements. >As I stated in an earlier letter, check the stats for yourself before >making these statements. Utah has one of the highest rates of suicide >and drug abuse among teen-agers. Ditto for my earlier statement about >women in Utah. Those are the FACTS. The producers of the "Godmakers" used statistics issued by the state of Utah. Every state/city has its own ways of providing statistics. For example, some years ago the city of Chicago reported a decline in crime. It turned out that the decline was only a statistical fiction. The police changed the method of reporting crimes, so that it would appear as if the number of crimes had been reduced. This is not surprising, since this is the kind of trick that one would expect from the Chicago politicians. Utah, unlike Chicago and many other states, is known for keeping good records. This is consistent with Mormon tradition (e.g. records of the dead). When the producers made their charges on the rate of suicide and drug abuse in Utah, it was apparent that they were using raw data tailored to prove their point. If the producers of the Godmakers were really interested in getting the facts, rather than producing anti-Mormon propaganda, they should have first compared the methods of statistical data reporting in individual states. To produce a valid statistical comparison, the producers needed a properly weighted data--something they did not have, and apparently did not bother to obtain. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho