Ex-something detractors...

Here is a quote from the thread "Mormons":

Originally posted by the Darkone
I'm about to finish a book on a former Mormon preacher "God Maker", who even says that Mormons faith, church is a false doctrine. After reading other books and watching DVD the mormon faith and church is false, this is not a attack on mormon people what so ever I believe they are good moral people but they are being led

Here is my question:

From a religious stance can you ever trust a detractor?

Biblically Satan often lies, but isn't he just an ex-God thing? An ex-anything seems to be a poor choice of basis for decision making.

Yet people often listen to detractors, at least when examining another 😉

FYI:
Immediately prior to the God-Maker video Ed Decker left the Mormon faith due to his inability to maintain the standards the LDS church requires of its members. His book and movie do not represent an accurate portrayal of Mormon beliefs upon a proper inspection of our doctrine. Many statements are accurate but not in proper context nor always the LDS belief on the subject. His material does not accurately portray what Mormons believe.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a quote from the thread "Mormons":

[b]Here is my question:

From a religious stance can you ever trust a detractor?

Biblically Satan often lies, but isn't he just an ex-God thing? An ex-anything seems to be a poor choice of basis for decision making.

Yet people often listen to detractors, at least when examining another 😉

FYI:
Immediately prior to the God-Maker video Ed Decker left the Mormon faith due to his inability to maintain the standards the LDS church requires of its members. His book and movie do not represent an accurate portrayal of Mormon beliefs upon a proper inspection of our doctrine. Many statements are accurate but not in proper context nor always the LDS belief on the subject. His material does not accurately portray what Mormons believe. [/B]

Yes. I trust ex-somethings because there must be a good reason why they are ex-that, as far as religious order goes.

You don't have to take their word as a gospel, but it is something to keep in mind.

Everything else, is spirituality, so whatever makes you happy. Noone can really tell you what is gonna make YOU spiritually fullfilled.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes. I trust ex-somethings because there must be a good reason why they are ex-that, as far as religious order goes.

You don't have to take their word as a gospel, but it is something to keep in mind.

Everything else, is spirituality, so whatever makes you happy. Noone can really tell you what is gonna make YOU spiritually fullfilled.

What do you mean? You trust them because they are not part of the religion anymore? I would rather use the same argument to speak against their unbiasedness.

Please better define a detractor. Depending on the point of view, both sides of an argument could be considered a detractor of the other point. Are you talking about a third part that does nothing but put some belief down?

ex-something in itself is irrelevant and suggests nothing.
sure, one could be irrationally bitter and seek retribution through slander,
but at the same time they could have had a genuine epiphony and realised
that what they were following was wrong. plus being a member of a certain group does not suggest that one is an expert on every aspect of that group.

thats why i feel it has no place in
an argument on either side. such an assumpion can lead to the blowhardish implication that an ex-whatever has more credibility than someone who has properly researched the topic, but was not a part of the group in question. on the other side of the coin, it could lead to baseless accusations of motive to lie and decieve for the sake of resentment. all ad hominem horseshit which draws attention away from the topic imho

Change can be a good thing sometimes. Maybe they had a good reason or maybe not. We will need to be then to know I think.

I personally feel that a detractor is not a trustworthy source, a detractor is someone that no longer believes in the topic he is speaking on. His statements must be taken with a grain of salt and verified before accepting as accurate. A proper study of the subject must be done before accepting as accurate the statements of a detractor or a proponent of any idea, particularly on the subjective subject of religion, imo. A detractor thus may be valuable in that he should be the impetus for a more thorough researching of a topic, but in himself he is not a valuable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please better define a detractor. Depending on the point of view, both sides of an argument could be considered a detractor of the other point. Are you talking about a third part that does nothing but put some belief down?

de·tract (d-trkt)

VERB:
de·tract·ed , de·tract·ing , de·tracts
VERB:
tr.

1 To draw or take away; divert: They could detract little from so solid an argument.

2 Archaic To speak ill of; belittle.

VERB:
intr.

To reduce the value, importance, or quality of something. Often used with from: testimony that only detracts from the strength of the plaintiff's case.

Thus, detractor as I am using it is defined as someone who attempts to to draw or take away, divert, from a religious idea. Particularly an individual who once was a part of said religious view.

A detractor, as used in the example I provided in the initial post, refers to someone who attacks another system of belief that they are not a part of in an attempt to diminish that system. A proponent would not be attacking another system, but would be presenting the benefits of their system. A proponent could behave as a detractor, but for the purpose of this thread the two were considered separate by myself.

^ Thank you. A person's intent is the most important thing. I would agree with you, then.

Originally posted by PVS
ex-something in itself is irrelevant and suggests nothing.
sure, one could be irrationally bitter and seek retribution through slander,
but at the same time they could have had a genuine epiphony and realised
that what they were following was wrong. plus being a member of a certain group does not suggest that one is an expert on every aspect of that group.

thats why i feel it has no place in
an argument on either side. such an assumpion can lead to the blowhardish implication that an ex-whatever has more credibility than someone who has properly researched the topic, but was not a part of the group in question. on the other side of the coin, it could lead to baseless accusations of motive to lie and decieve for the sake of resentment. all ad hominem horseshit which draws attention away from the topic imho

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Thank you. A person's intent is the most important thing. I would agree with you, then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean? You trust them because they are not part of the religion anymore? I would rather use the same argument to speak against their unbiasedness.

Originally posted by Regret
Ex-something states that the individual in question is biased in perhaps a more educated manner than another that had not immersed themselves in the subject.

no it doesnt. thats purely based on your own bias for the subject of this thread.
whether or not his words/thoughts on the topic are well founded and whether he is educated on the subject is certainly relevant, and completely removed from whether or not he was a follower.

So a good example of a detractor would be someone who escaped the grasp of scientology and started telling secrets of there bull shit.

And we shouldn't trust him because he learned what was being told was false and got out alive and is able to tell people about it.

Sounds to me that a detractor is just someone who couldn’t be brainwashed, I would trust one.

Arguing that the argument of a detractor is biased is an Appeal to Motives in place of support.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean? You trust them because they are not part of the religion anymore? I would rather use the same argument to speak against their unbiasedness.

I said I trust them as far as religous order goes, but I also said that I do not take their word as a gospel, but something to keep in mind.

What I initially mean by that is, just because they are ex something does not mean their arguments should be discarded whatsoever.
That is as far as religious order goes.

As far as spirituality goes, you can't really take anyone's asnwer - because different things make different people spiritually fullfilled.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a quote from the thread "Mormons":

[b]Here is my question:

From a religious stance can you ever trust a detractor?

Biblically Satan often lies, but isn't he just an ex-God thing? An ex-anything seems to be a poor choice of basis for decision making.

Yet people often listen to detractors, at least when examining another 😉

FYI:
Immediately prior to the God-Maker video Ed Decker left the Mormon faith due to his inability to maintain the standards the LDS church requires of its members. His book and movie do not represent an accurate portrayal of Mormon beliefs upon a proper inspection of our doctrine. Many statements are accurate but not in proper context nor always the LDS belief on the subject. His material does not accurately portray what Mormons believe. [/B]

I assume that the testimony of any and all ex-gays will be held to this standard from now on.

As for me, I don't take anything away from the validity of the Mormon church because of what they teach. I base a lot of my opinion on the man who found(no pun intended) the religion, or that particular sect of christianity. The man was a con artist. I'm glad it's worked out well for those of you who have decided to subscribe to it. But I consider it just as valid and believable a mythology as the one touted by the Catholics.