why me wrote:Maybe so. But it is here that we have the 'problem' with MAD. An apologist can only bat around the same ideas for a certain period of time before numbness of the brain cells begins to occur. At this moment, the MAD board is in a state of self-imposed calm. The past year has been a ping pong game with no winners or losers. A breather on the board is necessary.
I don't know. I've had a lot of fun on MAD since yesterday. Pahoran made perhaps the most inane defense of the Book of Mormon I have ever heard, and it's been fun watching him dig a deeper hole for himself.
Runtu wrote:I don't know. I've had a lot of fun on MAD since yesterday. Pahoran made perhaps the most inane defense of the Book of Mormon I have ever heard, and it's been fun watching him dig a deeper hole for himself.
Can you be more specific? What exactly did he say?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Runtu wrote:I don't know. I've had a lot of fun on MAD since yesterday. Pahoran made perhaps the most inane defense of the Book of Mormon I have ever heard, and it's been fun watching him dig a deeper hole for himself.
Can you be more specific? What exactly did he say?
Here's Pahoran's post:
Sorry to interrupt the round of smug self-congratulation and pseudo-intellectual posturing and preening, but the OP is simply, obviously and glaringly wrong, because it starts from an utterly false assumption.
The Book of Mormon is not a disputed proposition to be proved.
The Book of Mormon is evidence. Hard, concrete, documentary evidence.
And as Hugh Nibley pointed out years ago--one of many points on which he has never been successfully refuted--having put The Book of Mormon on the table in good faith, we have satisfied any "onus" that might be upon us. The ball is now in your court. It is not up to us to "prove" the authenticity or accuracy of our documentary evidence. It is up to the naysayers to prove it false.
You've had 177 years to do it.
And you have failed. Completely and comprehensively.
Regards, Pahoran
And my response:
Maybe I'm at an intellectual disadvantage because my degrees are from BYU, but the Book of Mormon is hard, concrete, documentary evidence only that it exists as a book. It is not hard evidence of its own antiquity. It is not hard evidence of its divine origin. Its antiquity and divinity are indeed disputed propositions that call for evidence. It seems odd to criticize others for smugness and pseudo-intellectual posturing and preening just before making such a laughable statement. Not one of your better moments, Pah.
I admit it. I have completely and comprehensively failed to prove that the Book of Mormon does not exist. Now would you care to talk about whether it really is what it says it is? You've had 177 years to make your case.
Ahh, Pahoran committed the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof again.
Brilliant reply on your part, Runtu.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
liz3564 wrote:Unfortunately, the main reason, at this point, that you are being "punished" by them is due to your association here.
But then why aren't the punishing me, Doctor Steuss, or The Nehor?
Mok has been more vocal about being a supporter of this place than you, Steuss, or Nehor have. He has also had a longer association with Shades' board than any of you.
liz3564 wrote:Unfortunately, the main reason, at this point, that you are being "punished" by them is due to your association here.
But then why aren't the punishing me, Doctor Steuss, or The Nehor?
Mok has been more vocal about being a supporter of this place than you, Steuss, or Nehor have. He has also had a longer association with Shades' board than any of you.
I suppose this does furnish evidence for my treason in a MAD way of thinking. However, it is nice to be lumped with Asbestosman, Steuss and The Nehor. I do suspect Liz's analysis of the situation is essentially correct.
I had hoped that by Dr. Peterson posting over here, that they would have been able to let go of their anger towards Mormon Discussions. I guess not. When I described MD as the wayward sister of MAD, the mods bristled at that comparison. Can you imagine a family in which one sister is a bit untamed and definitely slutty but essentially kind while the other sister is chaste in every way, but also neurotic and mean?