Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.DEC
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: To Yosi Hoshen re. Mormans and TV
Message-ID: <547@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 12:23:38 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.547
Posted: Tue Feb 12 12:23:38 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 07:35:13 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 59

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'.