Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: To Yosi Hoshen re. Mormans and TV
Message-ID: <964@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 09:08:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.964
Posted: Tue Feb 19 09:08:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 06:44:21 EST
References: <547@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 67

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