Journey of Faith: The New World review

[_beastie]

Manfred and Structure -

Personally, I don't take anything Will says seriously, ever. Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that someone who behaves the way he does on this board - including gloating over the idea that nonbelievers will suffer in the next life - has genuine religious beliefs, anyway. I think he's always playing various "roles", and who knows if any of those roles have much to do with who Will actually is, or what Will actually believes.

If I am incorrect in my current beliefs, and there really is a loving God, I have complete confidence that God would know my heart, and know that I have always been sincere in my search for truth.

[_William Schryver]

Manfred and Structure -

Personally, I don't take anything Will says seriously, ever. Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that someone who behaves the way he does on this board - including gloating over the idea that nonbelievers will suffer in the next life - has genuine religious beliefs, anyway. I think he's always playing various "roles", and who knows if any of those roles have much to do with who Will actually is, or what Will actually believes.

If I am incorrect in my current beliefs, and there really is a loving God, I have complete confidence that God would know my heart, and know that I have always been sincere in my search for truth.

I wonder if He will be as persuaded by your claims of sincerity, and seeking for truth, as you are?

It has been my observation that your "scholarly" pursuits have little or nothing to do with truth, per se, and everything to do with proving to yourself and others those things of which you are already convinced.

[_beastie]

I wonder if He will be as persuaded by your claims of sincerity, and seeking for truth, as you are?

If God truly sees into the heart, then, yes, He would be.

It has been my observation that your "scholarly" pursuits have little or nothing to do with truth, per se, and everything to do with proving to yourself and others those things of which you are already convinced.

Your observation is flawed.

My search for truth has, at various points in my life, led me to reject former stances. The most obvious example is that, at one point in my life, I was already convinced the church was "true". And yet I went through an extended - and painful - process in which I had to admit that I had been wrong about my most cherished belief.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

Oh my. Is this "Doctor" Peterson really a doctor? This, in my casual observation, has to be a hoax as exhaustive at it would seem. He clearly lacks the ability to engage anyone in any kind of substantial debate in the topics he chooses to participate. This is a clear indicator of someone who is left wanting. Pardon my adversarial tone, but he clearly is out of his element and depth when it comes to discussing anything with someone like this Beastie character.

Perhaps he and this William Schryver are the same person? A humble suggestion...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

He's a real person with a real doctorate. If DCP has ever engaged in substantive discussion, it was too rare and too long ago for me to remember. It's just his thing - no substance, but plenty of time spent on sarcastic quips, and PLENTY of time spent on the inadequacies of various critics.

[_harmony]

He's a real person with a real doctorate. If DCP has ever engaged in substantive discussion, it was too rare and too long ago for me to remember. It's just his thing - no substance, but plenty of time spent on sarcastic quips, and PLENTY of time spent on the inadequacies of various critics.

He only spends LOTs of time of on those critics who get under his skin for some reason. He'll deny it, of course, but still...

[_William Schryver]

Hello Everyone,

Oh my. Is this "Doctor" Peterson really a doctor? This, in my casual observation, has to be a hoax as exhaustive at it would seem. He clearly lacks the ability to engage anyone in any kind of substantial debate in the topics he chooses to participate. This is a clear indicator of someone who is left wanting. Pardon my adversarial tone, but he clearly is out of his element and depth when it comes to discussing anything with someone like this Beastie character.

Perhaps he and this William Schryver are the same person? A humble suggestion...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I'm so routinely accused of being someone besides who I am that I've grown jaded to it all by now. I've been accused of being:

- Lou Midgley
- The poster named "Wheat"
- Some other poster on the MAD board (I forget the name now)
- a Pahoran sockpuppet
- John Twedtness
- Bill Hamblin
- and now Dan Peterson

I'm sure Dan is not too flattered by the comparison.

[_RockSlider]

I'm sure Dan is not too flattered by the comparison.

lol ... no doubt an understatement.

[_William Schryver]

... he clearly is out of his element and depth when it comes to discussing anything with someone like this Beastie character.

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of the exmormon world is how little they really demand of their intellectual champions when it comes to credentials and demonstrated expertise. Only in their world can people like beastlie and Brent Metcalfe enjoy the reputations they do.

Indeed, I am convinced that I could achieve a meteoric rise in credibility in their world; I could become a bona fide "intellectual" of considerable standing among them, if only I were to announce that I had become convinced that Mormonism is not what it claims to be, and then immediately set out to employ my talents in advocacy for those things the exmormon believes. I could probably have a Signature book deal within a few weeks, and even get a prime-time speaking slot at an upcoming Exmormon Foundation conference.

And no one would ever ask to see my curriculum vitae.

Now, I'm certain that this claim will arouse the ire of many of my erstwhile brethren and sistren here in the GSTP™. They will immediately follow this post with others of their own denigrating my arrogance and seeking to inform me that, even were I arguing for the right things, I just don't "have what it takes" to be a respected intellectual among them, or anyone else for that matter.

But I've already seen the caliber of "intellectual" that can easily obtain stature among these people. I've already seen how discriminating they aren't. I've been to an exmo conference and seen what passes for "scholarship" and "deep thinking" among them. And, as a result, I have absolutely no doubt of the relative ease with which one could "rise to the top" of that sorry-ass group. The only problem I would have would be learning how to hold my liquor. The way things currently stand, even Kimberly Ann could drink me under the table in no time at all. And it would take me at least three nights to drink as much beer as Tal Bachman can salt away in a couple hours. So, I do have some skills that would need burnishing, but by and large I think I already possess as much in the way of "credentials" as they would ever be inclined to demand.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Would any serious person come here as a principal place for rigorous, substantive discussion?

For heaven's sake, why?

Good grief. There are places where such conversation goes on, orally and in print. But this one isn't very high on the list.

Get real, folks.

This place is interesting in its way, often amusing, sometimes infuriating, very often just irritating. But a venue for informed academic debate?

LOL.