Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

Yeah...sort of. Though I believe what I said was something like, "If someone were to say X, wouldn't that be much worse?" Sneaky, I admit, but you owned it immediately. I never said that you did in fact say that. And it's not like I saved all those messages. I don't have them. There would have been no way for me to prove it even if I wanted to, had you denied it. It would have been your word against mine, I wouldn't have pushed it. I wonder who DCP would have believed? (as an aside)

I would not have denied it even if I thought there was a way out. I knew Cal remembered this episode too, but she never raised it with me. Maybe because she realised I had long changed. It was obviously not subsequently as important to them as it was to you.

But let's not blame my anti-Mormonism for it (are you even Mormon, Ray?).

You admitted on MDB in the past you are an anti-Mormon, without a blink.

I admit that it may have been a bit on the unethical side. I had held off for years, but good Lord Ray, your violent verbal attacks, crude language, and uncalled for inflamed accusations at the harm "anti-Mormons" are going to do to the world (with literal physical harm and all) pushed my already low moral fiber to the max. There are plenty of committed Mormons (are you even technically Mormon, Ray?) I know things about from being a ZLMB mod, and the thought of making any of it public doesn't even cross my mind or interest me. Most of it I've forgotten. If there is a God, then your situation was the trial of Abraham, given the extreme over-the-top hypocrisy in addition to the fact that your "personal correspondence" meets the criteria of "correspondence" on the utmost minimal level. It was A) to a group of at lest 5-10 who had access B) completely uninvited C) not responded to and D) basically threatening hate-mail that was not part of any kind of conversation between yourself and the moderators. No one was having a conversation with you Ray.

Let me ask you a question. If an anti-Mormon on this forum, out of the blue, sends you a series of 4 or 5 PMs, all with one or two line threats and nothing more, including the intent to do bodily harm to somebody, and all these PMs you just ignore and you do not in any way engage in a conversation with the sender, are you really going to consider that "private correspondence" that needs to be guarded with the utmost principled devotion?

Of course they should have been concerned. I have been threated with death through email, but I didn't take it seriously because I knew the person was also in an angry frame of mind, and was thousands of miles away.

As for Scratch, if it becomes revealed that he lied, I will publicly call him to repentance and state my disapproval.

Get your disapproval speech ready.

As for the threats by anti-Mormons, can you name a few? I'm just not seeing them.

Do you look for them? I posted several in one thread on the old MDB, but I don't think you were there, and these are saved on my old PC, not this one. But I'm quite certain I can find current ones.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well then, how about addressing the issue of LDS academic embarrassment?

There is no such issue. There is no such embarrassment.

And I don't do serious discussion with the likes of you.

No matter how much you whine and beg and no matter how desperately you want it. You're mendacious, malevolent, and, it would seem, incapable of serious substantive discussion.

You'll just have to struggle through the Christmas season without the soul-satisfying experience of validation from me as a worthwhile discussion partner.

[_Mister Scratch]

Again, I don't know Hamblin. I don't think I've even read anything he wrote.

Actually, you have. Here it is, just for your reference:

Bigotry
All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size: "I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em--six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts." It simply won't do to insist that you're not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think their not bigots either--what they believe about Jews is really true: "I'm not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy."

This is what you've been defending, Nehor.

Nice anecdotal rejoiner. I assume you were lying with yours then and not actually presenting information. I always assume I win when my opponent makes stuff up. I'll just call checkmate then. Night.

You have no more reason to assume I made anything up that I do about you. G'night to you, too. I enjoyed kicking your butt.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well then, how about addressing the issue of LDS academic embarrassment?

There is no such issue. There is no such embarrassment.

Then where are the frank and open articles discussing Book of Mormon history? Where are the articles dealing with cureloms and cumoms? They do not exist. Apologists are far, far too terrified to submit this kind of stuff to secular academia. You have zero contrary evidence. I rest my case.

[_Ray A]

Come now, Gad---Ray doesn't care in the least about guarding "private correspondence." Just look at what he wrote to me before flipping out and posting stuff I'd written:

If you are prepared to tell me more about your grievances, and your background, I am prepared to listen, and keep it private. I have NO correspondence with DCP, and haven't for a long time. But I'm genuinely interested in learning what motivates you. And I DO NOT share the content of private emails.

(emphasis added)

In actuality, notions of "honour" do not govern what Ray does or not do; rather, it is his temper (or lack of control thereof) which determines Ray's morality and ethics.

All of this is factual. I had no correspondence with DCP for a long time. And as he said, we corresponded "off and on". I said I do not share PMs on forums, or publicly on boards. I revealed what you wrote by PM, on the board, because you initiated this, not me.

I would have kept private anything you told me by PM, and I didn't post anything until you wore out my patience.

[_harmony]

And I don't do serious discussion with the likes of you.

Would you care to seriously discuss your own words?

Dan Peterson: "Islam did not spread by the sword..."

Muslim Imam: "The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam." (http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=en ... 3087&dgn=3)

Daniel Peterson: "…it was amazingly bloodless in many cases, when they invaded Egypt, for example, the Egyptians were so mad at the Byzantines that an Egyptian went down and opened the gates at Cairo…and let the Muslims come in, and let the Arab armies come in because they wanted to get out from under the Byzantines."

Historical Coptic account: "They killed and imprisoned many Christians. They captured Egypt and went to the City of Alexandria (now Cairo), around which there were six hundred inhabited monasteries. They killed all the inhabitants, plundered their possessions, and destroyed the monasteries. When the people of Alexandria heard what they had done, because of their fear, they opened the gates of the city for them...the Persian King went with his army to Upper Egypt. He passed by the city of Nikios. He heard that there were some seven hundred monks living in cells and caves around it. He sent men to kill them. He continued to kill and destroy until Emperor Heraclius conquered him and drove him out of Egypt." (Coptic Diary, Tubah 8:2)

Amazingly bloodless, eh?

Daniel Peterson: "The Muslims did not force conversions."

Muslim Imam: "The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger." (http://www.understanding-islam.com/rela ... id=1768%20)

"Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah." (http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html)

Daniel Peterson: "[if you were under Islamic rule] you can maintain your religion and maintain a slightly higher tax rate."
Coptic Bishop John: "And the Moslem took possession of all the land of Egypt, southern and northern, and tripled their taxes."

One hadith speaks of the dhimmi tax burden being twice that which was imposed on Muslims.(Malik ibn Anas, Muwatta’ Imam Malik, translated by Muhammad Rahimuddin, 2000 ch. 177, no. 661) An increase of 100%-200% is what Peterson calls "slightly higher"?

Daniel Peterson: "Islam has been more tolerant on minority religions than Christianity has been."

Jewish Historian, Cecil Roth: "Only in Rome has the colony of Jews continued its existence since before the beginning of the Christian era, because of all the dynasties of Europe, the Papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews of Rome and Italy, but throughout the ages popes were protectors of the Jews…The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude." (Lecture Feb. 25th, 1927).

Daniel Peterson: "Armed struggle in the Quran and in the traditional teachings of Muhammad is not to be lightly entered into-certainly not in an offensive posture and only in self-defense when in imminent physical danger... [the abode of war] is the war against such things as materialism, immorality, exploitation of women, and anything that can tempt a Muslim to forget his God."

Bernard Lewis: "The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Quran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms. According to Islamic law, it is lawful to wage war against four types of enemies: infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Although all four types of wars are legitimate, only the first two count as jihad. Jihad is thus a religious obligation...In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslims faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds - booty in this one, paradise in the next." (p.32)

For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetimes of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. (p.33)

Jihad is sometimes presented as the Muslim equivalent of the Crusade, and the two are seen as more or less equivalent...But there is a difference. The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history - in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate successors. It has continued throughout Islamic history and retains its appeal to the present day.(p.37)

Just wondering.

[_Mister Scratch]

Come now, Gad---Ray doesn't care in the least about guarding "private correspondence." Just look at what he wrote to me before flipping out and posting stuff I'd written:

If you are prepared to tell me more about your grievances, and your background, I am prepared to listen, and keep it private. I have NO correspondence with DCP, and haven't for a long time. But I'm genuinely interested in learning what motivates you. And I DO NOT share the content of private emails.

(emphasis added)

In actuality, notions of "honour" do not govern what Ray does or not do; rather, it is his temper (or lack of control thereof) which determines Ray's morality and ethics.

All of this is factual. I had no correspondence with DCP for a long time. And as he said, we corresponded "off and on". I said I do not share PMs on forums, or publicly on boards. I revealed what you wrote by PM, on the board, because you initiated this, not me.

I would have kept private anything you told me by PM, and I didn't post anything until you wore out my patience.

In other words, your morals and ethics are totally conditional. You are a blackmailer and a breaker of your word, mate. How ashamed you must feel!

[_Ray A]

The larger issue here is, Scratch: DID you lie? Did you alter the post where you called me a "deranged prick"?

[_harmony]

Did you alter the post where you called me a "deranged prick"?

Why is this such a problem? Is there some internal angst against being called a prick? or is the deranged part the problem?

[_Mister Scratch]

The larger issue here is, Scratch: DID you lie? Did you alter the post where you called me a "deranged prick"?

No, I did not alter that post. It was dated, going out of my Sentbox, on Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:37 pm.