Rich's Website

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

You concerns are vague, not very well articulated and seem exaggerated and undefined.

mikwut

Let me restate them for Rich, in hopes he will answer:

Rich,

Why do you feel it is necessary to attack other faiths?
Do you understand the problems with your own brand of Christianity?
Wouldn't it be better for your "ministry" to promote your particular sect rather than attack others?

[_Buffalo]

Simon,

You concerns are vague, not very well articulated and seem exaggerated and undefined.

mikwut

Let me restate them for Rich, in hopes he will answer:

Rich,

Why do you feel it is necessary to attack other faiths?
Do you understand the problems with your own brand of Christianity?
Wouldn't it be better for your "ministry" to promote your particular sect rather than attack others?

Why should other faiths be immune from attack? Faith is a viewpoint. All viewpoints are open for debate and yes - attack.

[_Simon Belmont]

Why should other faiths be immune from attack? Faith is a viewpoint. All viewpoints are open for debate and yes - attack.

Perhaps Rich can answer my question about knowing the problems inherent in his own particular sect.

[_Valorius]

Nonsense. I steer people away from music I don't like, but I don't hate the musicians.

Do you attack music that many people enjoy as something that creates "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives?"

Since you can't keep even your own arguments in order, why should I go off on this tangent with you. The POINT is, if you could but grasp it, that "steering people away" from something is not equivalent to hating the people involved in that something.

"Slightly different"? Haha. Mormonism and JWism are not "slightly different" from Christianity.

Here, you are demonstrating that you haven't taken the time to find out about Mormonism.

Here, you are demonstrating your penchant to jump to conclusions before obtaining any facts. You remember what facts are, don't you? Or has it been too long?

A "faith group" is people, so saying Rich has "hatred for other faith groups" is saying he does show hatred for other people.

Towards individual people, I doubt he shows hate. Towards certain groups of people, he does show hate: i.e. "what you believe in is false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives."

Make up your mind.

Maybe you mean he "shows hatred" for the beliefs of other groups. Since the ideas he is talking about, are "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives," you should join him.

If his "ministry" was one of love and Christianity I would have no problem with it.

That's a bigoted approach. Not all ministries are "of love and Christianity". Some are "of truth and Buddhism". Some, "of the Sacraments and Catholicism." No, you are just too narrow in the religious views you are willing to grant others the right to express.

... I accept that some leaders of my church have written or said some things against creedal Christians, but I have not.

You "accept" that!? My Lord, how condescending. Or is it ascending? You accept that the men you follow said those things, but you don't care if they apologize and you won't apologize for what they said as representatives of the Church; but you jump on some poor guy that isn't even a Mormon for daring to make a few honest observations about Mormonism that rubs you the wrong way personally!? Hey, Simon. It isn't all about you. It's about Mormonism. If you don't like people finding points to criticize in Mormonism, the way you "should" handle it is to fix the problem, not stone the messenger.

[_Simon Belmont]

Since you can't keep even your own arguments in order, why should I go off on this tangent with you. The POINT is, if you could but grasp it, that "steering people away" from something is not equivalent to hating the people involved in that something.

You brought it up.

Steering people away from something because it's "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives" is an attack, especially when it's a lie.

Here, you are demonstrating your penchant to jump to conclusions before obtaining any facts. You remember what facts are, don't you? Or has it been too long?

You claimed that there were "lies" in Mormonism, which means you haven't taken the time to find out much about it.

Make up your mind.

I have. Rich, I'm calling you out. Can you address my concerns or are you just a run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon?

That's a bigoted approach. Not all ministries are "of love and Christianity". Some are "of truth and Buddhism". Some, "of the Sacraments and Catholicism." No, you are just too narrow in the religious views you are willing to grant others the right to express.

Please show me where I indicated that I thought that all ministries are anything. Rich claims to be Christian, and to have a Christian ministry. So far, all I see is anti-thatotherguysreligion.

Further, only the false "ministries" of hate are of anti-Mormonism like Rich's.

You "accept" that!?

Do you deny it?

My Lord, how condescending. Or is it ascending? You accept that the men you follow said those things, but you don't care if they apologize and you won't apologize for what they said as representatives of the Church; but you jump on some poor guy that isn't even a Mormon for daring to make a few honest observations about Mormonism that rubs you the wrong way personally!? Hey, Simon. It isn't all about you. It's about Mormonism. If you don't like people finding points to criticize in Mormonism, the way you "should" handle it is to fix the problem, not stone the messenger.

Guess what? I am not "the Church." I am one guy, and I have said nothing anti-creedal Christian. I don't believe its right to be anti-someoneelsesreligion, and I don't believe in hate.

Rich's observations are far from honest, surely even someone like you can see that (unless, of course, you are so bent in your anti-Mormon ways that you cannot think critically any longer).

[_Buffalo]

Why should other faiths be immune from attack? Faith is a viewpoint. All viewpoints are open for debate and yes - attack.

Perhaps Rich can answer my question about knowing the problems inherent in his own particular sect.

All sects have inherent problems. That's why they're best left to the sectarians.

[_Simon Belmont]

All sects have inherent problems. That's why they're best left to the sectarians.

Exactly! Rich has no right to attack others without first recognizing and attempting to resolve the problems in his own. Its hypocritical.

[_mikwut]

If Rich's religion has "problems?", I can only assume you mean is has been shown false, or it has been discredited to such a level as to not warrant reliable belief, or something along those lines. But you than have destroyed the Mormon faith at the same time. That could be considered an attack on Mormonism by you. As a Christian the atonement, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the core beliefs. Do you think these have "problems"?

Start defining your terms Simon, this is the third time I am asking. What does hate mean to you in this context, what is the definition of "attack", how does one go about promoting a religion they believe is true without in some way at least implying that others are not?

Define your terms.

Why should I care that Richard Dawkins "attacks" my belief in God and Christianity if I think he is wrong? Why should you?

mikwut

[_Buffalo]

I don't believe in hate.

Now if only you'd give up your belief in cry babyism and Mormon exceptionalism.

[_Buffalo]

All sects have inherent problems. That's why they're best left to the sectarians.

Exactly! Rich has no right to attack others without first recognizing and attempting to resolve the problems in his own. Its hypocritical.

Of course he has the right to do that. So do you. Let the chips fall where they may.