I accept the challenge

[_Coggins7]

Coming from a snail that's quite a compliment.

I thought I was an Eskimo Pie head???

Well, Snails are people too.

[_harmony]

Neither of you have ever, to the best of my knowledge, ever submitted anything of any actual philosophical substance here in any case, so consider yourselves both disinvited.

This is especially true of JAK, who's still suckling from the CNN ninny even in adulthood, when he should have grown up intellectually and moved out of the baby pool. And you expect to be given intellectual respect, taking CNN, Larry King, and Bill Maher seriously?

Oh the pain...

I see that JAK has joined your thread in the CF. Try to stay on the horse, Loran. Just a suggestion...

JAK is trying to derail Loran's thread into a discussion on God's existence (or the reliability of spiritual witness, if you're amantha), instead of actually discussing the topic of the thread: man's ability to progress to being God (In other words, the King Follett sermon). In other words, JAK is NOT helping. He's hindering. He's off topic. Again. He does this often. He tries to move every thread he participates on into a discussion on proofs of the existence or nonexistence of God.

[_Gadianton]

so consider yourselves both disinvited.

You can't disinvite people on this forum.

[Guest]

Neither of you have ever, to the best of my knowledge, ever submitted anything of any actual philosophical substance here in any case, so consider yourselves both disinvited.

This is especially true of JAK, who's still suckling from the CNN ninny even in adulthood, when he should have grown up intellectually and moved out of the baby pool. And you expect to be given intellectual respect, taking CNN, Larry King, and Bill Maher seriously?

Oh the pain...

I see that JAK has joined your thread in the CF. Try to stay on the horse, Loran. Just a suggestion...

JAK is trying to derail Loran's thread into a discussion on God's existence (or the reliability of spiritual witness, if you're amantha), instead of actually discussing the topic of the thread: man's ability to progress to being God (In other words, the King Follett sermon). In other words, JAK is NOT helping. He's hindering. He's off topic. Again. He does this often. He tries to move every thread he participates on into a discussion on proofs of the existence or nonexistence of God.

Harmony,

I respect your desire to discuss the notion of human kind's ability to progress into godhood in the CF. I noticed, however, that you haven't made any comments about the OP. You have spent your time criticizing other people's take on the OP. Your time would be better spent offering your own opinions. Please feel free to ignore my thoughts on the matter.

I am not in support of the viewpoint that humans progress into godhood in the way that the King Follet discourse presents it. I am addressing what I believe to be the relevant issues with regard to such a belief.

I do believe, however, that human beings can progress toward the ideal that they typically associate with the perfection connected with "godhood." I may share some of those viewpoints as the thread progresses.

[_JAK]

Neither of you have ever, to the best of my knowledge, ever submitted anything of any actual philosophical substance here in any case, so consider yourselves both disinvited.

This is especially true of JAK, who's still suckling from the CNN ninny even in adulthood, when he should have grown up intellectually and moved out of the baby pool. And you expect to be given intellectual respect, taking CNN, Larry King, and Bill Maher seriously?

Oh the pain...

I see that JAK has joined your thread in the CF. Try to stay on the horse, Loran. Just a suggestion...

JAK is trying to derail Loran's thread into a discussion on God's existence (or the reliability of spiritual witness, if you're amantha), instead of actually discussing the topic of the thread: man's ability to progress to being God (In other words, the King Follett sermon). In other words, JAK is NOT helping. He's hindering. He's off topic. Again. He does this often. He tries to move every thread he participates on into a discussion on proofs of the existence or nonexistence of God.

Harmony,

What an absurd comment.

harmony:

JAK is trying to derail Loran's thread into a discussion on God's existence (or the reliability of spiritual witness, if you're amantha), instead of actually discussing the topic of the thread: man's ability to progress to being God (In other words, the King Follett sermon). In other words, JAK is NOT helping. He's hindering. He's off topic. Again. He does this often. He tries to move every thread he participates on into a discussion on proofs of the existence or nonexistence of God. (bold emphasis added)

Don’t you see the assumption God in your statement. You can’t just make such an assumption and not expect to be challenged. It require definition, detail, particulars. Otherwise, what are you talking about? There is no “rail” on which to ride your train absent full and complete disclosure of what you mean by God claim or claims.

What are they? You can spit in the wind all you like, but it’s meaningless absent clarity of meaning for terms used. You’re making the claim here. I am challenging you to clarify the claim. That’s not a “derail,” it’s an attempt to get a “rail” which is transparent.

JAK

[_harmony]

Don’t you see the assumption God in your statement. You can’t just make such an assumption and not expect to be challenged. It require definition, detail, particulars. Otherwise, what are you talking about? There is no “rail” on which to ride your train absent full and complete disclosure of what you mean by God claim or claims.

What are they? You can spit in the wind all you like, but it’s meaningless absent clarity of meaning for terms used. You’re making the claim here. I am challenging you to clarify the claim. That’s not a “derail,” it’s an attempt to get a “rail” which is transparent.

JAK

That's my point, JAK. You're operating from a point of view that is so foreign to the discussion, it's meaningless.

Even those who no longer believe in the doctrines of the LDS church or have left faith behind completely know the definitions. We all know what an LDS believer means when he/she says "God". Our discussions start there. Your continually trying to take the discussion back another step or two, to continually hash out whether God exists, derails every discussion you enter, because we've already agreed that He does (or at least that Mormons believe he does) whether or not we agree on anything else, and we start from that point!

If you want to hash out whether or not God exists, start your own thread. Quit derailing every other thread with your continual rehashing of that subject. We know what you think and guess what! We don't care! When we want to discuss the nature of God, we don't want to rehash again your ideas that he doesn't exist. We already know them! We want to discuss something else! For pete's sake, man! Get a clue! The existence of God isn't hidden in every thread! In most threads, it's a given. Either start with the given, or stay out of the discussion. Your "contributions" aren't contributing to the subject of any thread outside of one about the existence of God.

Jersey's says you're pretty smart. Well, good grief! Show it!

[_harmony]

I respect your desire to discuss the notion of human kind's ability to progress into godhood in the CF. I noticed, however, that you haven't made any comments about the OP. You have spent your time criticizing other people's take on the OP. Your time would be better spent offering your own opinions. Please feel free to ignore my thoughts on the matter.

You and JAK set out to derail the thread into two entirely different concepts than the OP. Reliability of spiritual witness (your comments) and existence of God (JAK's comments) have nothing to do with the OP.

Loran went out on a limb and posted a serious thread in the CK, and what happens immediately? Immediately, you and JAK went off on tangents that had nothing to do with the subject. That's what I objected to. And I still do.

I am not in support of the viewpoint that humans progress into godhood in the way that the King Follet discourse presents it. I am addressing what I believe to be the relevant issues with regard to such a belief.

I do believe, however, that human beings can progress toward the ideal that they typically associate with the perfection connected with "godhood." I may share some of those viewpoints as the thread progresses.

Then say that, instead of going off on the reliability of spiritual witness stuff. The reliability of spiritual witness has nothing to do with the progressing to godhood.

[_amantha]

I respect your desire to discuss the notion of human kind's ability to progress into godhood in the CF. I noticed, however, that you haven't made any comments about the OP. You have spent your time criticizing other people's take on the OP. Your time would be better spent offering your own opinions. Please feel free to ignore my thoughts on the matter.

You and JAK set out to derail the thread into two entirely different concepts than the OP. Reliability of spiritual witness (your comments) and existence of God (JAK's comments) have nothing to do with the OP.

Loran went out on a limb and posted a serious thread in the CK, and what happens immediately? Immediately, you and JAK went off on tangents that had nothing to do with the subject. That's what I objected to. And I still do.

I am not in support of the viewpoint that humans progress into godhood in the way that the King Follet discourse presents it. I am addressing what I believe to be the relevant issues with regard to such a belief.

I do believe, however, that human beings can progress toward the ideal that they typically associate with the perfection connected with "godhood." I may share some of those viewpoints as the thread progresses.

Then say that, instead of going off on the reliability of spiritual witness stuff. The reliability of spiritual witness has nothing to do with the progressing to godhood.

I disagree.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

And this thread is about???

[_JAK]

Don’t you see the assumption God in your statement. You can’t just make such an assumption and not expect to be challenged. It require definition, detail, particulars. Otherwise, what are you talking about? There is no “rail” on which to ride your train absent full and complete disclosure of what you mean by God claim or claims.

What are they? You can spit in the wind all you like, but it’s meaningless absent clarity of meaning for terms used. You’re making the claim here. I am challenging you to clarify the claim. That’s not a “derail,” it’s an attempt to get a “rail” which is transparent.

JAK

That's my point, JAK. You're operating from a point of view that is so foreign to the discussion, it's meaningless.

Even those who no longer believe in the doctrines of the LDS church or have left faith behind completely know the definitions. We all know what an LDS believer means when he/she says "God". Our discussions start there. Your continually trying to take the discussion back another step or two, to continually hash out whether God exists, derails every discussion you enter, because we've already agreed that He does (or at least that Mormons believe he does) whether or not we agree on anything else, and we start from that point!

If you want to hash out whether or not God exists, start your own thread. Quit derailing every other thread with your continual rehashing of that subject. We know what you think and guess what! We don't care! When we want to discuss the nature of God, we don't want to rehash again your ideas that he doesn't exist. We already know them! We want to discuss something else! For pete's sake, man! Get a clue! The existence of God isn't hidden in every thread! In most threads, it's a given. Either start with the given, or stay out of the discussion. Your "contributions" aren't contributing to the subject of any thread outside of one about the existence of God.

harmony:
That's my point, JAK. You're operating from a point of view that is so foreign to the discussion, it's meaningless.

Even those who no longer believe in the doctrines of the LDS church or have left faith behind completely know the definitions.

Humor me. I don’t know the definitions. I’m skeptical that you do. So demonstrate that you can provide clear, transparent definitions for the terms in the topic.

harmony:
We all know what an LDS believer means when he/she says "God".

I doubt it. Given the discussions here, I strongly suspect you would not get universal definition as you claim.

harmony:
Our discussions start there. Your continually trying to take the discussion back another step or two, to continually hash out whether God exists, derails every discussion you enter, because we've already agreed that He does (or at least that Mormons believe he does) whether or not we agree on anything else, and we start from that point!

I’m skeptical that even Mormons actually agree on a clear, transparent definition of God. The posts on this bb alone suggest they don't.

The definition unstated is a vague, mercurial notion absent clarity. If it is so clear and so transparent and all agree on the meaning, why can you not state it? Terms of a topic for discussion deserve clarity of definition. You’re evading definitions by personal attack. In the time it took you to make the ad hominem, could you have constructed a clear, transparent definition? If not, you don’t have one.

harmony:
If you want to hash out whether or not God exists, start your own thread.

It’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking you to provide a clear, transparent definition for the terms in the topic. I’m operating within this topic and asking questions about the terms used in the topic. You are providing nothing. Absent meaningful definition, terms such as the ambiguous ones in this topic are without meaning. What’s your problem with providing definitions for the terms you seem to feel are clear?

harmony:
Quit derailing every other thread with your continual rehashing of that subject.

An ineffective attempt at evasion, harmony. It fails. It’s the topic terms about which I inquire. And your attempting to evade response to questions about the terms in the topic. Why?

harmony:
We know what you think and guess what! We don't care!

Why are you not addressing the questions regarding terms in the topic? (You’re no more a mind reader than anyone else.)

harmony:
When we want to discuss the nature of God, we don't want to rehash again your ideas that he doesn't exist. We already know them!

So you make a God claim. I’m asking for clear, transparent evidence which supports your claim (or the claims in the topic). You act as if that’s unreasonable. Why?

The terms which I challenged are ambiguous. Your evasion makes them even more ambiguous as you refuse to address a straight-forward definition of the terms in the topic. It's an unreasonable position to defend.

harmony:
We want to discuss something else! For pete's sake, man! Get a clue! The existence of God isn't hidden in every thread!

Let’s see your discussion then.

harmony:
In most threads, it's a given.

On the contrary, any reference to a God myth is inherently ambiguous. Your ad hominem in no way ameliorates ambiguity. Your evasion strongly suggests that you’re unable to construct a meaningful, clear, transparent definition of this and other terms in the topic.

harmony:
Either start with the given, or stay out of the discussion. Your "contributions" aren't contributing to the subject of any thread outside of one about the existence of God.

More evasion, harmony. You convince me that you cannot construct definitions for terms in the topic. Any pretext at discussion of a topic which has no definition of terms is meaningless. So just proceed with your discussion. Let’s see what claims emerge in context. Just saying: yes, yes, Amen, Amen to the ambiguous is mindless. Perhaps that’s all the “Celestial” section is. You’re making a rather convincing case for it as a mindless, devoid of intellect section.

Had you spent some writing time responding to issues and questions of word meaning, I might have a different view. Your exasperation appears to be more with yourself than with me. Unable to address issues of meaning, you attack one who asks questions.

JAK