Rommelator Lashes Out at Runtu, Ray A

[Anonymous]

I hope Chris is right that this might just be some early immaturity

Yes, the rhetoric is pretty thick--full of a sense of the great seriousness of his errand.

I predict that one of these days this kid is going to sit down, think really hard about what he's doing, and how it compares with the efforts of apologists for other, obviously not-true religions, and he's going to ask himself what exactly is the difference between them. I think it'll hit him one of these days, and he's going to flip over to the "dark side".

Don't laugh, it's happened to many a true believer, and I think it'll happen to him. The reason is that the church isn't really true, and it's actually possible to figure that out, whatever level of indoctrination one has suffered. All it takes is for someone like him to ask himself some really probing questions, and recognize the potential to answer them with bad arguments, and then refuse to accept that.

Who knows, he may dig himself into an intellectual hole so deep he never finds his way out of it again, but I don't think that's going to happen. The LDS church is not just not true - it's obviously not true - and some people just cannot prevent themselves from recognizing that fact forever.

Rommelator, if you're reading this, I'll just say this to you: however sophisticated you think you are in your apologetics, you're on the wrong side of the argument. I don't think you can deny that forever. If, or when, the time comes, and you realize, in your heart of hearts, that you're defending the indefensible, and justifying the unjustifiable, and making excuses that you'd never let apologists of other faiths get away with, just know this; it's going to be OK. The prospect that your beliefs are not true may frighten or horrify you, but just know that others have gone down that road, and it's not really as bad as you've grown up to assume.

[_Sethbag]

Also, I think it is worthwhile to compare Rom with LifeOnaPlate---another young Mopologist who is not that much older that Rommelator. LoaP is clearly far more bitter and angry, far more prone to personal attack, and far more sensitive to being laughed at than Rommelator. In other words, LoaP seems to understand a bit better just what, exactly, is at stake.

Actually, you might disagree with me, but I think that LoaP is already halfway toward the dark side already. He may or may not have had an inkling about this, and had to struggle to extinguish it, but if he hasn't, he will, and over time that inkling will grow, and he'll fear it, and he'll fight against it, but it will slowly rise up and force him to confront it - and then he'll either decide to accept the reality of the church as a manmade institution like all the other religions that have gone before, or he'll accept self-deception, and give himself over to it irretrievably. The outcome is far from certain. But I would bet anyone ten bucks that within 10 years or so, I'm proven right on this one.

[_Ray A]

I can't say that I disagree with anything you wrote, Ray. It seems to me that Rommelator is still in his "gestational" period as a Mopologist, which is to say that he still thinks that the main thing being defended is Church doctrine and history. In fact, that is not the case at all. Mopologetics is really much more about defending Mopologetics itself. I think that once he realizes this fact, he will pass over to the "dark side," and that he will become much more aggressive and angry in his approach.

That's left to be seen, Scratch. I think you're right that apologetics has become an "industry" (my term) in itself. That's more than likely why I grew tired of it in the mid-late-90s. It was all too predictable. You know how the Tanners have been acused of "trying" to be objective, yet always return to negative conclusions? Well apologetics is in inverse, after "thorough examination" of critical issues, it always returns to positive conclusions about the faith. Not people like Roberts, who very realistically, and almost "prophetically" warned of a coming disaster. He nailed this about 50 years before it happened.

Also, I think it is worthwhile to compare Rom with LifeOnaPlate---another young Mopologist who is not that much older that Rommelator. LoaP is clearly far more bitter and angry, far more prone to personal attack, and far more sensitive to being laughed at than Rommelator. In other words, LoaP seems to understand a bit better just what, exactly, is at stake.

I think LoaP has shown some, what shall I say for want of a better word, "progressive" thinking in some areas. But he hasn't gone any where near the thinking of someone like "Noah", who posted on Rom's thread. You just don't see this stuff coming from apologists. It's like chalk and cheese. I'll be doing a lot more analyses when I have some more time off on Wednesday, but once again the time is fast coming when I will have to pack it in for today.

[_Ray A]

One last observation for those interested, this is Noah's Blog, and note the title, "LDS Outsider". His views about the Book of Mormon are still a bit convoluted, and reminds me of a stage I went through.

His view that "Republicans are pure evil" is sure to sit well with BC, because according to BC, Noah is on his way to hell.
>
>
>
>

[_CaliforniaKid]

I invited Rom, as requested.

[_Runtu]

I invited Rom, as requested.

Thanks. I would have done so, but I'm kinda banned.

[_silentkid]

Feel free to join the CoC if you want.

The only CoC that matters. "Help me Jesus, help me clean my wounds. He said he cannot heal that kind."

[_CaliforniaKid]

Rom we will not be joining us. He thinks-- not without warrant, I might add-- that some of the things said about him here have been too over-the-top to merit a response. He did, however, ask me to let Runtu know that no personal attack or offense was intended.

[_Runtu]

Rom we will not be joining us. He thinks-- not without warrant, I might add-- that some of the things said about him here have been too over-the-top to merit a response. He did, however, ask me to let Runtu know that no personal attack or offense was intended.

Well, you can tell him that I wasn't concerned about personal attack. I was, however, dismayed at his picking two brief sentences to misrepresent what I said on my blog. I don't appreciate that.

[_Mister Scratch]

Rom we will not be joining us. He thinks-- not without warrant, I might add-- that some of the things said about him here have been too over-the-top to merit a response. He did, however, ask me to let Runtu know that no personal attack or offense was intended.

In other words, he is afraid. It is nice to see that these "crusaders" for Christ's Church are so brave in the face of criticism, even "over-the-top" criticism. Well, he can feel free to continue taking potshots at posters who have been banned and who cannot respond.