Paharon is an idiot

Post by **_dartagnan** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:37 pm

I also got a kick out of the claims over there that Walter Martin's arguments had been dealt with.

I remember about 10 years ago there was a website on SHIELD dedicated to refuting Walter Martin. It was a response to "52 arguments." At that time there had only been about 8 responses. Over the next few years there were maybe one or two added to the list. I can't even find it online anymore, but I doubt it was ever half way completed.

The fact is, Mormon apologists are more likely to bring up irrelevant things like his ordination, his doctorate or whether he died praying or pooping. A SHIELDS article was dedicated to proving Ed Decker had lied on radio by saying Martin had died in prayer. Apparently some Mormon decided this was worth investigating, and then got hold of the police report which said it appeared he died while using the bathroom. This was immediately rushed to the web for further proof that Martin's death was just as dishonorable as his life.

Good God people, is this the kind of trash you go out to research?

For the amount of time and effort it took to research this irrelevant issue, one assumes they could have written at least two or three responses to the "52 arguments."

Post by **_charity** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:39 pm

Kevin, I am sure you can be a little more creative with your epithets. Don't you know any other word than "idiot?"

And for all you talking about diploma mills. And how it doesn't really matter. Maybe a person can study and learn Greek or some other subject, but if they claim a diploma from a "give me $500 and you, too, can be a neurosurgeon" type of place, doesn't that show something about the quality of their intellect? That they are so "idiotic" they would believe we would be taken in by that.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:45 pm

dartagnan wrote:I also got a kick out of the claims over there that Walter Martin's arguments had been dealt with.

I remember about 10 years ago there was a website on SHIELD dedicated to refuting Walter Martin. It was a response to "52 arguments." At that time there had only been about 8 responses. Over the next few years there were maybe one or two added to the list. I can't even find it online anymore, but I doubt it was ever half way completed.

The fact is, Mormon apologists are more likely to bring up irrelevant things like his ordination, his doctorate or whether he died praying or pooping. A SHIELDS article was dedicated to proving Ed Decker had lied on radio by saying Martin had died in prayer. Apparently some Mormon decided this was worth investigating, and then got hold of the police report which said it appeared he died while using the bathroom. This was immediately rushed to the web for further proof that Martin's death was just as dishonorable as his life.

Good God people, is this the kind of trash you go out to research?

For the amount of time and effort it took to research this irrelevant issue, one assumes they could have written at least two or three responses to the "52 arguments."

Yeah, funny how they'd spend their time maligning someone/something.

Post by **_christopher** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:57 pm

Runtu wrote: I'm no fan of Martin's, but it doesn't matter to me where he got his PhD; what matters is whether his approach to Mormonism is honest.

I found the same thing regarding Dee Jay Nelson and his translating the Book of Abraham papyrus.

I think Nelson did the same thing later in life with the diploma to make himself look better, but when I started looking into this on my way out of Mormonism, I could never get a Mormon authority or even apologist to address the work that Nelson did, just his personal failings or weaknesses. Still to my knowledge, his translation is thought of as correct.

Chris <><

Post by **_dartagnan** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:00 pm

Kevin, I am sure you can be a little more creative with your epithets. Don't you know any other word than "idiot?"

For those who act like idiots, I try to keep it simple. Creativity would only confuse you more.

And for all you talking about diploma mills.

For all me talking about diploma mills?

And how it doesn't really matter. Maybe a person can study and learn Greek or some other subject, but if they claim a diploma from a "give me $500 and you, too, can be a neurosurgeon" type of place, doesn't that show something about the quality of their intellect?

No it doesn't. It says plenty about their level of "knowledge" and quite possibly their finances. I guess you don't know what "intellect" means - shocker!!. And I have never said it "didn't matter" if one doesn't have a valid education. I am saying that if you are not debating him on an issue pertinent to his alleged educational expertise, then why worry about it? It is just a diversion from his arguments.

No LDS apologist, short of D.Charles Pyle (who, incidentally, is self-taught in Greek) has ever tried to tackle James White on the issue of Greek translations. This is where his doctorate would come into play.

That they are so "idiotic" they would believe we would be taken in by that.

I think idiots would be more taken in my Nibley and Gee's Book of Abraham arguments.

Post by **_richardMdBorn** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:55 am

In all these arguments it's good to remember the old dictum that when the facts are on you side, argue the facts. When they're not, pound on the table. If the facts were on the side of the LDS apologists, why would they need to bring up personal aspects of critics?

Post by **_Trevor** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:02 am

richardMdBorn wrote:In all these arguments it's good to remember the old dictum that when the facts are on you side, argue the facts. When they're not, pound on the table. If the facts were on the side of the LDS apologists, why would they need to bring up personal aspects of critics?

It is called keeping true to the tradition. If Joseph Smith could unfairly malign Sarah Pratt to save his own bacon, it is a small thing for modern Mormons to smear others in defense of Mormonism.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:30 pm

This is funny, Kevin. After all, FARMS Review routinely publishes articles by wanks such as "Rusty" McG and Kerry Shirts, and from whence have these guys gotten their degrees? What credentials do they have which qualifies them to comment as they do?

Post by **_Calculus Crusader** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:18 pm

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Call him idiotic all you want, but the man can spell "Pahoran" correctly.

Pahoran is just a name Joe made up, so Kevin can spell it however he likes as far as I am concerned. (I suggest Pa-whorin)

Post by **_Calculus Crusader** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:20 pm

Trevor wrote:
richardMdBorn wrote:In all these arguments it's good to remember the old dictum that when the facts are on you side, argue the facts. When they're not, pound on the table. If the facts were on the side of the LDS apologists, why would they need to bring up personal aspects of critics?

It is called keeping true to the tradition. If Joseph Smith could unfairly malign Sarah Pratt to save his own bacon, it is a small thing for modern Mormons to smear others in defense of Mormonism.

Joe also maligned the three witnesses as "men too mean to mention" even though he expects us to accept their testimony.