Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 172

Thread: Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

  1. #1
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

    http://godneversinned.com/

    I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

    I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

  2. #2
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    http://godneversinned.com/

    I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

    I hope this video brings Christians to tears.
    This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

    I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.

  3. #3
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

    I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.
    Yes, but you have to create a new account and then only post a new thread with a video link. It seems, for Aaron, that this is not a 'discussion' forum but a billboard for his anti-mormonism agenda.

    Maybe I will make a video asking Evans when life begins. Or maybe ask them what God was doing before He created everything. Then we can take all the conjecture and speculation, put it to music, and portray all their ideas as the doctrinal beliefs of the Evan churches.

  4. #4
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

    I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.
    Fig,

    The video was very interesting. This is what I saw:

    1) Faithful saints being asked a seemingly simple question.

    2) A non-LDS appearing to ask a simple question which ties closely to what we understand to concern the nature of Heavenly Father.

    This allows a few things to take place:

    1) The faithful saint has no idea what just happened.

    2) A non-LDS happily distributes his video as "evidence" to "prove" something HE doesn't understand.

    Here is the Truth:

    1) We have been taught that God was once like us. What does that mean? I personally do not know exactly. I have some ideas: We were all "intelligences". Heavenly Father was the most supreme Intelligence. He was able to organize us in our "intelligence" state of being. This is something we never could have done without Him.

    I think this is what God means when He teaches us He was once like us. He is referring to our "intelligence" state. But we will never be the supreme God because He was the first. How this all came about is unknown. This is just supposition on my part. How did God obtain His body? I don't know. Was He also born of a virgin and go through the same process as Jesus - only before Jesus? That does not reconcile in my mind because it creates more questions which I cannot answer. Again, supposition on my part. All I do know is Father and Son are without sin.

    Likewise, for example, I don't think any non-LDS Christian can come up with an answer to a question like "where did God come from". So I do not understand what all the hooplah is.

    2) We have been taught that we have the potential to become a God like Him. This is not explained exactly either. I do know that He prepared worlds without end. He has also told us that He wants to share all that He has with us. I don't think it is a stretch, therefore, to think that the worlds without end will be shared with us. To become a God, would you expect to be able to be a God over something? The worlds without end come to mind.

    3) Most worshipers do not delve into this type of depth in the exact meanings of beliefs and how they are accomplished. Look at Heavenly Father as an example. If you ask 100 people of any denomination to describe who God is and where He came from, you will get 100 different answers as they each struggle to come to grips with verbalizing something that is not even clear to them.

    4) Our own Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Lord and creator of our world came to earth and obtained a physical body. He is the Son of the Father. We have been taught we can become Gods also and share all the Father has--certainly He has the worlds without end which He created. We have also been taught God was once as we were (but the typical worshiper has not even tried to figure out what that looks like). Now insert these questions: "Do you think God went through the same process we are going through/is it possible God sinned?"

    I am not surprised at the answers. Nor was the person who asked them while he cheered silently to himself "gotchya!". I would also like to add, most people stopped like that, untrained in what is really happening when they are asked questions like that, are not going to give an answer that even is a complete or thought-out depiction of what they believe...especially while on their way someplace when stopped and quickly asked this seemingly simple question. They are briefly familiar with the knowledge that they have the potential to become Gods....not with what that has to do with how Heavenly Father may or may not have become the Supreme Almighty God that He is. They were not able to easily come up with a way to explain God possibly could have sinned. They are also more focused on worshiping, keeping the commandments, and following the example of their Savior, Jesus Christ. Father is perfect, just as the Son is perfect. They are without sin.

    Conclusion: Deception at its best.

    SavedbyTruth
    Last edited by SavedbyTruth; 04-06-2009 at 05:36 PM.

  5. #5
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Good to see you again too, FBT.

  6. #6
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Good to see you again too, FBT.
    FBT???? what does that mean?

  7. #7
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth View Post
    FBT???? what does that mean?
    Fig-bearing Thistle. We're pretty close. FbT SbT.

  8. #8
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    Fig-bearing Thistle. We're pretty close. FbT SbT.
    Hi Fig,

    I am soooo glad I didn't run with that......

    SbT

  9. #9
    maklelan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    http://godneversinned.com/

    I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

    I hope this video brings Christians to tears.
    You start off with the No True Scotsman fallacy and then proceed to take advantage of well-meaning people with a slimy little trick. It's all an appeal to emotion, which is another fallacy, and betrays absolutely abject ignorance of the religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments was developed and transmitted. You're not at all showing any conflict between Mormonism and the Bible, or Mormonism and absolute truth, but rather between Mormonism and contemporary fundamental Christian theology, which is demonstrably alien to the theologies of both the Old and New Testaments.

    You can't defend yourself against someone who knows better, which is why you won't at all engage my statements, but you're not concerned with the truth so much as impacting as many people as possible with your fallacious rhetoric, irrespective of the truth. I find your video abominable not only as a Latter-day Saint, but as a person who loves God and my neighbor.

  10. #10
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

    I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.

    Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?

    If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.
    Last edited by aaronshaf; 04-06-2009 at 09:19 PM.

  11. #11
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

    I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.

    Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?

    If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.
    Do you have the permission of those you questioned to use them in your video?

  12. #12
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.

    I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.

  13. #13
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth View Post
    Do you have the permission of those you questioned to use them in your video?
    Aarons tactic is as follows:

    Put on a white shirt, and tie possibly. Shave, get a good hair cut, wear an undershirt, and present yourself as a faithful LDS member. (But never really say so).

    Then pose questions to the interview-ee that seem like a questions that an LDS person would ask. Then take those answers, and craftily ***emble them in a video that is in a completely different context than what the interview-ee was lead to believe would be presented.

    Then go about to different internet sites, and advertise.

  14. #14
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.

    I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.
    Actually, it is not embarr***ing. I saw it right away for it was. That is why I exposed you in my response.

    I was asking about getting their permission because it could prove startling to come across themselves on the Internet.

    I was mistaken to think you would consider that the proper thing to do. It doesn't make any difference that it was on public property. The purpose of your video was not disclosed to them, which is self explanatory.

    You speak of conscience as if you knew what that was. That is also self explanatory.

    When you are called before God to answer for this video, make sure you have a copy of this thread to show Him. Good luck.

    SavedbyTruth

  15. #15
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    I think this is what God means when He teaches us He was once like us. He is referring to our "intelligence" state
    It's nice to hear your personal, unauthoritative opinion, but many Latter-day Saints don't share the ***umption over what is chiefly meant by "as man is God once was". Many LDS I talk to think it chiefly refers to a mortal probationary experience that could have historically included God the Father's sinning.

    But we will never be the supreme God because He was the first.
    I'm not sure if you mean to communicate Oslterian implications here by "He was the first", as some LDS think this is absolute, while many others (taking the more traditional view of Smith [cf. the Sermon in the Grove] and Young) relativize it to this particular dominion under our particular spirit-father (not precluding that there was an infinite regression of gods).

    All I do know is Father and Son are without sin.
    Do you mean to ambiguously apply this statement to God's past? If so, thank you for sharing more of your personal, unauthoritative, non-mainstream, minority opinion. It's nice to know what LDS internet armchair apologists believe.

    If you ask 100 people of any denomination to describe who God is and where He came from, you will get 100 different answers as they each struggle to come to grips with verbalizing something that is not even clear to them.
    All of traditional Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam (i.e. cl***ical theism) teaches and believes that God did not "come from" somewhere, as though he was ever was less than he fully is now in all of his attributes.

    Now insert these questions
    What do you mean "insert"? Do you want me to ***ume that ins***utional Mormonism and mainstream Mormons all share these personal opinions of yours, including the apparent supposition that God the Father was the very "first"? No thank you. The research and evidence really are yielding that mainstream Mormons generally (but not uniformly) believe that God may have lived a mortal probationary experience in which he sinned.

    One of the interviewees is a Mormon apologist who has worked with FAIR. I won't tell you his name out of respect for him and his willingness to participate. But he has thought through this stuff more and (even to my surprise) didn't give a much different answer than the others.

    You say that Latter-day Saints are not really familiar with "with how Heavenly Father may or may not have become the Supreme Almighty God that He is", but isn't that the point? Their unfamiliarity with whether God the Father was a sinner or not is precisely what I'm aiming to expose.

    Thank you for simply repeating what I've learned and have intended to promulgate.

    Take care,

    Aaron
    Skype: aaronshaf

  16. #16
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Actually, I had (depending on the day) jeans or kahkis, and a polo shirt.

    Are you afraid of Mormons telling me things they wouldn't normally tell the general public?

    THAT is precisely why this video project is so impactful (and infuriating to LDS internet apologists).

  17. #17
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Expose me? I'm not sure what there is to expose.

    The interviewees knew the clip was being used for an internet project that showed LDS viewpoints in their own words.

    Because of crazy Mormons like you making insane and desperate accusations, I have already made the habit of using an MP3 recorder to capture the entirety of my excursions to Temple Square. So now I just chuckle to myself over your dire attempts to discredit me, making appeals to what you know nothing about. :-) Be careful what accusations you make.
    Last edited by aaronshaf; 04-06-2009 at 10:07 PM.

  18. #18
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Expose me? I'm not sure what there is to expose. It's all in the open already.

    The interviewees knew the clip was being used for an internet project that showed LDS viewpoints in their own words.

    Because of crazy Mormons like you making insane and desperate accusations, I have already made the habit of using an MP3 record to capture the entirety of my excursions to Temple Square. So now I just chuckle to myself over your dire attempts to discredit me making appeals to what you know nothing about.
    You may not feel exposed, but I am not surprised about that either.

    Did you give the interviewees the information on where they could see the finished project?

    Crazy Mormons? I didn't think Mormons had exclusive ownership of common human decency. But, maybe we DO.

    Regardless, it is YOU who will be called to task on this. Not me. Again, good luck. And you may as well have fun with it. You sure won't be laughing later.

    SbT

  19. #19
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Did you give the interviewees the information on where they could see the finished project?
    Yep, if they asked for it. I even gave my card out to a lot of them so they could e-mail me.

    So tell us SBT, how would you have answered the question I asked in under a minute or so? You seem to have already expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened yourself to the possibility that he could have been a sinner.

  20. #20
    maklelan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

    I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.
    Rhetoric has just as much to do with how something is presented as what is said. You're trying to make an emotive argument, which requires rhetoric. A while ago you made the ***ertion that Mormonism doesn't preclude the belief that God was a ****sexual transves***e. You even included a picture of a transves***e just to hammer the point home. That was emotive rhetoric, and quite juvenile at that. Bill Maher's film Religulous is also rhetoric, even though it claims to do nothing more than show religionists doing what religionists do.

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?
    It won't give you that notion, but a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner. Your perspective is a monolithic one of a normative and consistent theology, which is an absolutely untenable ***ertion in light of a decent grasp of the history.

    Originally, Israelites held to a four-tiered polytheistic pantheon like their neighbors. El and Yahweh were perceived as father and son, and only when the top tiers of this pantheon were collapsed into one, and the bottom tiers relegated to secretarial responsibilities (angels, seraphim, etc.), were El and Yahweh conflated. Before that Yahweh was a local deity over Israel (see original text of Deuteronomy 32:8-9) who sat in council with other deities over their respective nations. In Psalm 82 this council is described, but the inep***ude of the other deities causes El to destroy them all and promote Yahweh to a position of universal authority. At this point in Israelite theology Yahweh is exalted far above the other top-tier local deities, which end up (as the result of the collapse) in the biblical text as elements of nature over which Yahweh has power (the sea "Yam," death "Mot," the depths "Tiamat," etc.).

    Since religion in Judaism and even Christianity was primarily orthopraxic, there was no real normative theology, and a variety of ideologies (many of them conflicting) are present in the text. The idea that the Bible is purely monotheistic is absolutely ludicrous, since it is full of characters that inhabit the heavens (angels, seraphim, etc., as before). The dualism introduced around the beginning of the Second Temple Period also creates problems with the notion of strict monotheism. Your theology ignorantly ignores all this, which is at the root of your misunderstanding of the early Jewish concept of eternity and God's nature. The Hebrew never had a conception of philosophical eternity. 'olam, the word usually translated "everlasting," or "eternal," really just means "unknown time." It refers to time outside the immediate perspective of the subject, whether in the future or the past. This is why it usually is translated ancient times. The root is also the source for the Hebrew words for young man and young woman ('alam and 'almah), which mean a person who is not "knowing," or initiated into the practices of adulthood. The Bible leaves open the idea that God was once a man, and that he was once imperfect like the rest of us. Any ***ertion to the contrary is simply ignorant of the history of Judeo-Christian theology and culture. If you're like to show that you understand this reasoning and have a convincing rationale for rejecting it you may be my guest.

    For further reading, please see Shaye Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishna (primarily chapter 3), Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (primarily chapters 2 and 3), and Esther Hamori's When Gods Were Men.

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.
    I've dealt with this scenario too many times to believe anything worthwhile will come of it. You show me you can engage me intelligently by responding rationally and fully to the above comments and I'll think about it.

  21. #21
    maklelan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.
    "Ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing"? That may be rationalization for you, but if someone gets upset about your little project (about which you've obviously been misleading) that argument's not going to get you anywhere in court. I really hope you don't think perceived heresy is a legitimate cause to violate someone's privacy in this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.
    That's how you want it to be, anyway.

  22. #22
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    maklelan, if you had things your way, I'd be somehow putting a positive spin on the fact that so many Mormons believe God may have been a sinner. But that wouldn't be appropriate. Negative reality warrants negative presentation.

    a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner... The Bible leaves open the idea that God was once a man, and that he was once imperfect like the rest of us
    So far you're not convincing on this. All you're doing is arguing for a kind of henotheism. There's nothing in the Bible that would even hint of the possibility that El or Yahweh were ever sinful beings in need of forgiveness from another being.

    In fact, you need to demonstrate that the kind of henotheism the Bible supposedly has is a kind where the Most High has a being yet higher than him (since God the Father would need someone higher than himself to deal with his sin). But the Bible has no open door for the Most High having a Higher Most High.

    So you're not helping yourself. Maybe you need to consider going the more Ostlerian route.

  23. #23
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    I really hope you don't think perceived heresy is a legitimate cause to violate someone's privacy in this country.
    Privacy rights of adults who volunteered to be interviewed for a video internet project on a public sidewalk?

    Sorry, we don't live in Nauvoo anymore, and I'm not publishing the Expositor.

    It's 2009, we live in the United States of America, and we take fair use and free speech very seriously.

    I am highly confident that some Mormons would criminalize public criticism of Mormonism if they could.

  24. #24
    SavedbyTruth
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    Yep, if they asked for it. I even gave my card out to a lot of them so they could e-mail me.

    So tell us SBT, how would you have answered the question I asked in under a minute or so? You seem to have already expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened yourself to the possibility that he could have been a sinner.
    Well, aaronshaf, I am definitely going to copy this thread so that I can present to others how you have taken what I have said and come to the conclusion that I have expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened myself to the possibility that He could have been a sinner. BTW, I did change the lower case "h" to a capital "H" in recognition of God's Deity. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but for the most part, LDS show respect to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by using capital letters. We also pray using Thee, Thy, Thou, rather than you or your, in order to show respect for members of the Godhead.

    Since I missed the part where I opened myself for the possibility that God was once a sinner, please be so kind as to point it out for me. Please do NOT use the times I mentioned clearly that the Father and the Son are sinless.

    Since I am familiar with Apologetics, I would have recognized what was going on if you had approached me. I would not have bothered to answer your question at all. You would then be able to "prove" that I either believed God had sinned but did not want to admit it, or that I knew nothing about our beliefs. Yet, I still choose silence. You have shown you are quite capable of bringing on God's wrath upon yourself without my helping you to do so.

    SavedbyTruth

  25. #25
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    To quote you,

    How this all came about is unknown. This is just supposition on my part. How did God obtain His body? I don't know. Was He also born of a virgin and go through the same process as Jesus - only before Jesus? That does not reconcile in my mind because it creates more questions which I cannot answer. Again, supposition on my part. All I do know is Father and Son are [present tense] without sin.
    So given your rejoinder, are you trying to imply you don't believe God could have been a sinner? Be explicit and succinct, or you'll just look like a hedging child of Hinckley. If you don't believe God ever sinned, then how am I now to ***ume you're embarr***ed by your fellow brethren in the video?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •