Trevor wrote: Why anyone would want to respond the utter nonsense over there completely escapes me.
I don't believe it's "utter nonsense". The point that escapes you, Trev, is that Metcalfe, et.al. have spent enormous amounts of time "responding". What do you think New Approaches was?
Whenever I choose to respond to it, I do so for the benefit of individuals who are looking for information to enable them to better evaluate these claims. Perhaps I got 'cursed' with this quasi-obsession years ago, when my sister was looking for information about the Book of Mormon, went to FARMs, and had no way to evaluate the validity of the FARMs claims. I think she deserved to have more information. That's what I'm trying to do. I never, and I mean never, expect the FARMers to actually change their minds in response to me.
by the way, some kind fairy fixed my tagline!! Thanks!! :)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Ray A wrote:I don't believe it's "utter nonsense". The point that escapes you, Trev, is that Metcalfe, et.al. have spent enormous amounts of time "responding". What do you think New Approaches was?
I presume you've read that book?
You presume correctly. I have read it. Much of it could have been written without reference to a single thing written for FARMS and have been just as good. I know you don't believe it's utter nonsense Ray. That's cool. I do. We're different that way.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Ok, I made lots of changes. I combined home, intro and Table of contents into "home". Then I did the div tag on the harder to read pages. Some of the pages had such light backgrounds I didn't think it necessary, and it was a real pain in the butt, so I didn't bother on those pages. I also changed the font to ariel, 12 pt.
The only bug still left is the home page is off center for some reason, against the background, and for the life of me I can't figure out how to fix it.
Does it look better?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Trevor wrote:You presume correctly. I have read it. Much of it could have been written without reference to a single thing written for FARMS and have been just as good. I know you don't believe it's utter nonsense Ray. That's cool. I do. We're different that way.
Trev, are you aware of any statement from David Wright that the Book of Mormon is "inspired but not history"? I'm curious, because I'm positive I read this, but have been unable to find it on the Net.
Whenever I choose to respond to it, I do so for the benefit of individuals who are looking for information to enable them to better evaluate these claims. Perhaps I got 'cursed' with this quasi-obsession years ago, when my sister was looking for information about the Book of Mormon, went to FARMs, and had no way to evaluate the validity of the FARMs claims. I think she deserved to have more information. That's what I'm trying to do. I never, and I mean never, expect the FARMers to actually change their minds in response to me.
by the way, some kind fairy fixed my tagline!! Thanks!! :)
Not trying to attack you, beastie. I am simply taking the Robert Price view--i.e., it is perfectly legitimate to proceed on hypotheses that FARMSians don't agree with without re-addressing their bad arguments every time they make them. Responding to FARMS stuff in the more general sense of providing better arguments is fine. It's when it gets down to wrangling with them over every silly point that it becomes useless. I see their approach much as Coe does.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
That's fine. I'm just pointing out the weaknesses to those who think you can take on FARMS, like TD. And if you do decide to go down that path, you have some 28 years of reading to catch up on. I don't believe the evidences and arguments are so cut-and-dried. In any case it would be interesting to see if FARMS does respond. Even if they don't, perhaps your response blog will make for good reading.
I doubt that TD meant I could "take on FARMs" in regards to all of their Book of Mormon apologia, but rather just in regards to the Mesoamerican connection. To really deal with the Hebraic connections would require much more time and study than I'm willing to devote, particularly because I don't find ancient Israel as fascinating as the Maya. A good part of the reason I did this is because I'm fascinated by the Maya, and enjoy learning about them. I wouldn't have done it, otherwise.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:by the way, some kind fairy fixed my tagline!! Thanks!! :)
You're welcome. :-)
A good part of the reason I did this is because I'm fascinated by the Maya, and enjoy learning about them.
What's your opinion of the movie Apocalypto?
"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?"
Not trying to attack you, beastie. I am simply taking the Robert Price view--I.e., it is perfectly legitimate to proceed on hypotheses that FARMSians don't agree with without re-addressing their bad arguments every time they make them. Responding to FARMS stuff in the more general sense of providing better arguments is fine. It's when it gets down to wrangling with them over every silly point that it becomes useless. I see their approach much as Coe does.
Oh, yes, I definitely won't follow them down every rabbit trail. Part of the reason I won't post on MAD anymore is due to how maddening it was to be presented with all these silly points and being demanded to refute them.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I guess I should briefly explain why, although it's time for bed and I'm numb from sitting on this chair so long today working on the website.
The movie was riddled with misleading story lines. The thing that irked me most of all was that they presented this idyllic little "good guy village" versus the horrible "bad guy metropolis". The movie acted as if the inhabitants of the "good guy village" were totally separate from this strange, and scary, belief system of the bad guys, and had no idea what was happening to them. In reality, this religious worldview permeated Mesoamerica, and the good guy village would have been doing the same thing that the bad guys were doing.
I did not think it a coincidence that the movie's primary Mesoamerican source is an LDS archaeologist. I think he had a quasi Nephite/Lamanite story in his mind.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.