DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

sethpayne wrote:
Dear Sir,

Mega, huge, peer-reviewed, non-anecdotal -- you get my point -- CFR.
!

Sir,

Here is my reference for your CFR:

Anything posted by Mr. BCSpace, Mr. Droopy, Ms. Juliann, or Mr. William Schryver. In fact, anything posted by any believing Mormon on the appropriately named MADboard.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

My Kind Benevolent and Most Wise Sir,

Really? You base your bold assertion on a non-random sampling of self-selected posters on MADB? For your assertion to carry any weight at all you would first need to establish:

1. That MADB posters are representative of most of the members of the LDS Church.
2. Take a random sample -- much much much larger than the 4 member sample mentioned above -- of MADB members.
3. Define "harm" clearly and unambiguously.
4. Study, based on your random sample, if MADB participants are in fact "harmed."

Then, and only then, could you assert that there exists a correlation between "harm" and LDS Church membership.

Of course, considering that #1 above is, in all reality, not very likely you could conduct the following study:

1. Select a sufficiently large random sample of LDS Church members
2. Define "harm" clearly and unambiguously
3. Determine, based on your pre-established criteria of harm, whether or not harm exists within your sample.

Of course, even then you would have only established a possible correlation and certainly not causation. In order to prove causation you would need to study LDS Church members over a number of years, compare them to a control group or groups consisting of Catholics, Atheists , Buddhists etc.... in order to establish causation.

Of course, as a Doctor, you already know that.

Oh my!

Seth

beastie wrote:That is a dodge. Christian Identity is a religious theology. Is anti-Christian Identity immoral?

It is very simple. If an anti-Cristian Identity group protests, pamphlets, or publishes anti-Cristian Identity material, it is immoral.

To have an opinion is not immoral.

The only exception I am willing to make to this rule is if it can be shown that a faith group objectively causes harm; and since it would be very difficult to prove such a thing unless they are engaged in burning down buildings or shooting people, it is a safe exception to make.


-Young Skywalker, representative of the Most Holy CoDS

Dear Mr. Sethpayne,

If there were a large group of people who genuinely asserted Santa Claus exists, and in fact believed their eternal continuance were based on said belief, would you not question their psychological stability? Of course you would. They are clearly disturbed.

You and your ilk believe in a man-god who lives on a planet near the star Kolob who has literal sex with his harem. That, my friend, is a disturbing snapshot on your psychological and emotional stability. The idea that you are sitting there and demanding other people believe, respect, or do not dispute your fantasy is stunning. Of course Mormons are disturbed people. They believe in Mr. Eloheim and everything that goes along with that. That is a psychosis, friend.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Hi there, oxygenadam.

Just to clarify: you believe that *some* anti-religious commentary is *not* immoral, such as Dr. Peterson's remarks about Calvinism. Is that correct?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Dear Mr. Sethpayne,

If there were a large group of people who genuinely asserted Santa Claus exists, and in fact believed their eternal continuance were based on said belief, would you not question their psychological stability? Of course you would. They are clearly disturbed.

My Dearest Sir,

What does this have to do with your original assertion? I have asked you to substantiate your assertion with facts and you have failed to do so. I will take this as a tacit admission that you pulled this assertion squarely out of your ass.

You and your ilk believe in a man-god who lives on a planet near the star Kolob who has literal sex with his harem. That, my friend, is a disturbing snapshot on your psychological and emotional stability. The idea that you are sitting there and demanding other people believe, respect, or do not dispute your fantasy is stunning. Of course Mormons are disturbed people. They believe in Mr. Eloheim and everything that goes along with that. That is a psychosis, friend.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. If I may, please allow me to make a suggestion. Before posting responses such as above, it may be helpful to have idea of who you are talking to and what their actual positions and beliefs are. Google can be a useful tool in this type of situation. If you fail to even understand the most basic views of those with whom you converse, you appear lazy and a bit defensive.

Also, I'm still waiting a real reference to substantiate your assertion -- I'm not really interested in your opinion, i'm intersted in facts. Of course, your willingness to either retract or modify your assertion would be equally satisfying.

Oh MY!

Seth

Hello Mr. Sethpayne,

Well, I suppose a crazy person would not know he is crazy. Oh my... What a shame...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello Mr. Sethpayne,

Well, I suppose a crazy person would not know he is crazy. Oh my... What a shame...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Says the anonymous coward.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi there, oxygenadam.

Just to clarify: you believe that *some* anti-religious commentary is *not* immoral, such as Dr. Peterson's remarks about Calvinism. Is that correct?

Completely incorrect. Have you been following the threat that you started?

I wrote:It is very simple. If an anti-Cristian Identity group protests, pamphlets, or publishes anti-Cristian Identity material, it is immoral.

To have an opinion is not immoral.

The dishonest nature of your posts are very disappointing. You quoted someone else out of context in order to support your argument. This is beginning to turn into silly cherry picking like the last thread did. Yes, the author stated his opinion that

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous.

Then followed it with

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker.

Then followed it with

Yet I do not write, publish, or edit attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists. The only things I've ever published on the subject have been either positive or, at worst, neutral and explanatory. I participate in no "ministry" to counter Calvinism. I've never picketed any meeting of Calvinists, or opposed the construction of any Calvinist place of worship. I don't go on Calvinist message boards, or any other message boards, to criticize Calvinism.

So, until you can tell me where an LDS author or apologist has published anything remotely like following titles, your argument holds no merit.

The Changing World of Calvinism: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Changes in Calvinist Doctrine and Practice

The Counterfeit Gospel of Calvinism: The Great Divide Between Calvinism and Christianity

Calvinism, magic and Masonry

Calvinism--shadow or reality?

The Maze of Calvinism

Is the Calvinist My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Calvinism and Christianity

The God Makers: A Shocking Expose of What the Calvinist Church Really Believes

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello Mr. Sethpayne,

Well, I suppose a crazy person would not know he is crazy. Oh my... What a shame...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Either honor the CFR or go away. Your posts are not contributing anything but being blatantly offensive.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello Mr. Sethpayne,

Well, I suppose a crazy person would not know he is crazy. Oh my... What a shame...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

My Dearest Most Wise and Humble Doctor,

Again, Google is a wonderful tool. It would be worth your time to do a bit of research on those with whom your correspond before making assumptions that just make you, my dearest doctor, look silly.

Oh my!!!

Seth Payne