Does this list cover only Bible errancy?
Derek Pomery dpomery@cuc.edu
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:47:33 -0400 (EDT) (00923363253, Pine.LNX.3.95.990405163824.29775C-100000@helix.cs.cuc.edu)
The following is one part of a brief altercation between me and the fellow
this forward was from. I had posted the infidels.org links on Mormonism
to the slashdot.org message forums recently during a discussion there.
He responded to me directly, accusing first infidels.org, then me, of
"third grade whining". He also felt Mormonism has actual evidence behind
it. I didn't see much point in responding to the challenge on Mormon
doctrine, since he says at the end that a refutation would not change his
mind, but I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with the site he
kept referring me to:
www.farmsresearch.com
Also, if this list does qualify as a place to examine the errors in Holy
Scripts in general, I would be interested if there are any reponses to
this person, or indeed, if it is even worth the effort. This is the first
Mormon I have ever spoken to.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: mfarnbach@duo.land-5.com
To: Derek Pomery <dpomery@cuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Slashdot Conversation
FARNBACH
Sorry for not filtering out old conversation better, but as you said...
> > FARNBACH
> > HOwdy,
> >
> > Infidels.org has always been an interesting site. Some really good
> > points mixed in with what sounds like third grade whining sometimes. I
> > posted it on slashdot, but I thought I'd send it to you directly.
DEREK
> Odd, I find it to be a useful resource, and am at a loss as to what
> sections appear to be "third grade whining" to you.
FARNBACH
Love too, but that wasn't meant to be a point of debate, just my own
opinion of it. With more time on my hands I could try to start going
point for point, but I'm pretty busy trying to work out my own life to
start a big re-hash.
> > FARNBACH
> > But no answers to my questions.
> > Maybe another day then.
DEREK
> I am not familiar with what your questions were referring to, and I no
> longer have my copy of the Book of Mormon. Please post references if you
> really want to continue this, which seems exceedingly pointless to me.
FARNBACH
Why not go straight to the source? A good book with plenty of these
questions is "Since Comorah" by Hugh Nibley. Infidels quotes it
sometimes, but to appreciate it and see what I mean about infidels.org you
should start there. A more objective problem (and I'm sure you won't
disagree)
with infidels.org is the same problem with Rush Limbaugh. Its great at
presenting its evidence, and makes one look at things with a new light,
but it is very one sided.
> > FARNBACH
> > BTW, on the scholarly warzone level you will want to check
> > out
> >
> > www.farmsresearch.com
> >
> > Most of infidels.org is third grade whinning. But some
> > things have merit, and FARMS is
> > pretty good about being straight forward and not
> > apologistic to such critisisms. Go to
> > Insights to see a good sample of a few of the arguments.
DEREK
> You repeat the phrase "third grade whining" please give examples at this
> time.
FARNBACH
I'll simply suffice with explaining third grade whining. Everyone, no
matter what they believe is based on something beyond logic and reason.
The scientific method uses this when it starts out with all discovery
starts with a "Hypothesis". It is a useful thing but from then
on, until a new hypothesis is fomulated a person is tunneled to seeing
only what they are looking for.
In the playground of life, there are those who try to fill their
hypothesis with a formulation or concoction of attacks other peoples
hypothesis. This happens all the time from all sides of infidels.org.
As is a good thing in understanding the universethey apply
limited perspective to even others and try to construct a model.
All to often that model is used only as a straw-man to be torn down.
While some of it is useful in stress testing our own beliefs, and removing
scaffolding used to create grander mental understanding, it isn't the end
therof, and hasn't ended or concluded anything.
This limited perspective, parlayed by many people (I think the word is
ludosites?) are like third graders arguing about who's father can beat up
another kids father. Not only does the third grader use worthless
arguments (that actually do show some physical proof to their cause) but
since the fathers don't ever want to beat each other up it is a useless
argument.
> > FARNBACH
> > If you really think you have "the reasonable" logical
> > opinion go check these people who also
> > contend that they have "The" reasonable logical opinion.
> DEREK
> All religions feel they can defend their views in a reasonable and logical
> fashion. Odd that they are almost all contradictory, is it not?
> > FARNBACH
> > Just thought I'd share information. I'm not on that scale of the debate
> > at all.
> DEREK
> Very well, then why did you write me? I presume you are Mormon. Did you
> select this religion based upon these defences, or use the defences after
> you became Mormon? The difficulty is when people chose a position, locate
> the evidence for it, then focus their efforts on apologetics, on
> explaining away those contradictions inherent to their position.
FARNBACH
I selected my religion becuase it has proven itself in my pursuit for
truth. It is constantly challenged and reaffirmed, or in a way of
speaking I continue to "choose" it. To say I selected it at one time is
somewhat glib, and a point I use to demonstrate what I call third grade
whining. There is no defensive/offensive posture
in my mind about
religion. Its too limited to individual perspective of usefulness to
achieve any order in the chaos of community digestion. Such truth needs
to happen (I'm not appologizing, just stating time honored fact)
individualy. Or in other words the crucible of such ideas achieves
some heat
from debate, but the crucible is always an internal (not community)
mechanism. I don't defend my religion, I warn that it is true. Truth
defends itself. That is why its pursuit although individual is of upmost
importance in everyones life.
So that is why I don't usually join in. There are others who do, like at
FARMS if you want to pursue it. If you want I will describe this all by
developing terms of what absolute and relative truth mean to me, and why
they are often confused. But these things need to be taken in and applied
to understand them. It is like (but not used as proof) a seed needing to
be planted to see what it's potenial is rather than discecting and
mutilating it (see it has no potential now!). A limited analogy, used to
transport something that is true.
I'd still be interested if you found the answers to those questions, just
becuase no one has ever adequately tried yet, but I do not use there
existance as evidence of truth.