Jump to content

With Malice Aforethought


Pahoran

Recommended Posts

Is Dr. Scratch for real??? Checked out the site, it is nothing more than a blog built on a wordpress template. I checked out the other blog and wow... how they tear apart Petersen, Hamblin, and others.

Do they really tear them apart or their arguments apart, or the silly strawmen they deem to be Petersen, Hamblin, and others apart?

strawman.jpg

Link to comment
nope...did not know it was the same book. Did not save the link. Have not been to CAF in quite some time

Y'know, there are some people that I've interacted with -- in both places, in fact -- who would take that opportunity to cast aspersions upon the honesty and "integrity" of their interlocutor.

But I'm not that petty.

so thanks!

I shall just content myself with wondering what makes someone "appreciate" a book that uses Mein Kampf methods to demonise his religious opponents and call for their cultural and religious annihilation.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Never said I would appreciate the book. I said I appreciated you bringing it to my attention. There are Books that you would consider anti that I have liked, and books you would coinsider anti that I have disliked (the Godmakers, for example. I read just a little of it and could not bring myself to read anymore.)

Link to comment

I was emailed a copy of this book a while back, but took one look at the chapter titles and decided it wasn't for me.

I had to laught at this. (Not in a bad way). My first impression is: why would any one waste their time trying to argue with any of these points made in this book. They are so over the top.

Your a good guy Chris.

Link to comment

Another classic example of anti-mormons taking a little truth and using it to tell great lies.

So sad as usual... :P

I don't think that there is even a little truth to some of these claims.

Link to comment

Just think of the hours out of someone's life that went into this piece of ...............literature.

Link to comment

Pot-Kettle

How about defending your book?

Bernard

Link to comment

Is Dr. Scratch for real???

No. He's a middle-aged anti-Mormon with an inclination for disturbing stalkish-obsessive behavior who gets his jollies from role-playing with the rest of his D&D club at the Great and Spacious Trailer-park.

Link to comment

I noticed that M.C.B is on here. Good, then maybe she would appreciate this (or not, but I frankly do not care).

I read his/her On Learning and Religious Fundamentalism. After reading this, I found it poorly written.

The most obvious error is that her introductory paragraph lacks any cohesive thesis statement. This leads to confusion as to what exactly does Christopher Columbus, his discovery (or, in light of recent discoveries, his re-discovery) of America, and Christianity in general have to do with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. He/She then makes an obvious error by stating the following: These newly discovered peoples appeared to be fully human, yet not descendants of Adam and Eve. His/Her reference is to those people who had occupied the New World before it's discovery. How does he/she know this? What evidence does she rely on? There is no substantiation to this.

Let us look at some basic facts here. The National Geographic is leading an extensive project called the Genographic project. This project is determining the origins of the Human Family. So far, the study has concluded that everyone has come from a group of African Ancestors about 60,000 years ago. This is based upon state-of-the-art laboratory and computer technology and DNA analysis. In fact, in Queens, New York, the National Geographic Society performed DNA testing on 200+ individuals and documented this in a show called the Human Family Tree (which is available on DVD). The process to determine this is follows:

The Genographic Project focuses on the Y chromosome in males, which is handed down intact from father to son, and on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which a mother passes to her offspring. Over generations, small, harmless mutations accumulate on these two snippets of DNA; to Wells and other scientists these genetic markers constitute a history book. As ancient human populations migrated out of Africa, splitting off from each other and entering new lands, they accumulated different patterns of markers that reflect that history. Each individual today retains such a pattern.

Him/Her assessment (and the fact that he/she claims to base this on current DNA testing and Science) is completely off base. Not only that, but it seems he/she bounces from Evolutionary theory to Christian doctrine and teaching. Further blinding the reader with too much confusion and no basis of facts.

Moving from the first paragraph to the second paragraph, he/she begins talking about Christianity and how Christian philosophy, doctrine, and history has evolved over time. That is fine, if that is what her premise is (which one still is completely unclear of). However, since there is no distinction as to the exact nature of what her premise is, we are left to guess. This is very problematic for her/him as a writer because, when you are not clear in your writing, and you leave your reader clueless, they have no interest in reading what you have presented. Regardless on what side of the debate one sits, the reader quickly presumes that the author has no significant knowledge as to what they are attempting to discuss.

Within the context of this second paragraph, the author makes a rather huge assumption about Restorationism and the Restoration movement. This assumption is stated as follows: The Restorationists, who sought to return Christianity to its original form, denied the wisdom of this evolution of Christianity. Again, where is the evidence for this conclusion? We are not offered any. Nothing more than a presumption without substance. Yet, he/she does not stop there. She continues to expound that those of the Restoration movement believed in continual re-baptisms and labeled Latter-day Saints (Mormons) as having a basis in this type of practice:

They taught the denial of the concept of original sin (Forsberg, 2004). Instead, taught baptism for the sins of the individual. Thus people became convinced of their sins, were baptized, and fell into sin again, were convinced that their first salvation and baptism did not take, then got re-saved and baptized repeatedly in an endless cycle. This is the origin of judgmental religions, particularly the LDS religion.

No definition as to what is a judgmental religion, in fact, I am not sure of ever hearing of this particular term.

It is not until we get to the end of the second paragraph that we discover the thesis of this 552 page work:

Today, that

Link to comment

No. He's a middle-aged anti-Mormon with an inclination for disturbing stalkish-obsessive behavior who gets his jollies from role-playing with the rest of his D&D club at the Great and Spacious Trailer-park.

Wow. Do you have evidence of this or is this just another attack from someone who claims to be a Mormon and hold to LDS ideals?

Link to comment
Pot-Kettle

Thank you MCB, for summing up my review so succinctly. An author who is so willing to adopt Hitler's methods of scapegoating and demonisation certainly has no business comparing anyone else to Nazis; that would indeed be a textbook case of pots and kettles.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
Wow. Do you have evidence of this or is this just another attack from someone who claims to be a Mormon and hold to LDS ideals?

Atticus,

I'm going to invite you to avoid cluttering up this thread with your provocative one-liners and veiled accusations. If you persist, then I am likely to respond in kind; then one of us may well end up being banned from the thread.

And given that I am the thread originator, it is unlikely to be me, however well you manage to camouflage your baiting and goading.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...