Well let's see...I picked up on your remarks regarding KA's professed realization that Mormonism is polytheistic. None of what you have written below here has
anything to do with polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism. All of which were raised in the posts that you have replied to. The specific post that you are replying to below makes mention of polytheism, plurality of gods, multiple gods and again, nothing in your reply has anything to do with those. Nothing.
It's all blustering.
You claim repeatedly that you seek intellectual discussion/debate and yet you haven't followed through on that claim in your post below. I'll reply to it anyway.
Jersey Girl wrote:Sure, I'll get on with it. Your intentional avoidance of the polytheistic nature of Mormonism and attempt to misdirect via the use of the phrase "plurality of gods" makes you look less than intellectually honest. Whether you personally worship them or not, belief in multiple gods is belief in multiple gods.
When I posture, I'll let you know.
Droopy wrote:You're urinating into the wind, right into your own face, and I'm not going to be involved with that because its pathetic and adults should know better than to do it.
If I were "urninating into the wind" I'd be doing so right into my own
ankles. Please re-evaluate your understanding of anatomy. Having said that, the above is an
excuse.
Droopy wrote:You're pretending to debate with me but, in reality, as with so many here, you're only talking to yourself, and that insults my intelligence and just shows a general lack of respect for serious discourse and discussion.
Where are your on point remarks? The only pretender I see in these responses, Droopy, is you. I see a running commentary that has nothing whatsoever to do with polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism. Got topic?
Droopy wrote:If you think I'm going to involve myself any further with intellectually bottomless threads where critics of the Church cannot and will not logically and conceptually follow simple, clear, understandable arguments and explications of Church teachings from those who understand them, and insist on ignoring what should be easily grasped logical contrasts and comparisons in favor of alternative ideas taken from their own predigested scripts, no matter how intellectually fluffy, then you should think again.
Where are your on point remarks? The entire series of remarks above constitute nothing more than evasion. In other words, it's all blustering BS sans topic.
Droopy wrote:After this Nazi thread, I'm just about ready to leave this festering intellectual ghetto to those who are responsible for its creation and maintenance.
I didn't read the Nazi thread and have no intention of doing so. The above is another evasion. Has nothing whatsoever to do with polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism.
Droopy wrote:Frankly, I don't know why I've wasted so much time here in the first place, and I'll probably be saying goodbye very soon now, permanently.
Thanks for the heads up. Before you go, might you consider addressing polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism? That was our sub topic.
Droopy wrote:I've started to realize, and this Nazi thread made in painfully clear, that many of the people here are the kinds of people that I would never go anywhere near in my personal life. I've known many people, including those in my own family, who disagreed with my religious views, and on many occasions these were debated and discussed.
This isn't the Nazi thread. We were discussing polytheism, plurality of gods and henotheism. At least I was. I don't know what
you're doing with the sub topic.
Droopy wrote:But never, under any circumstances, would I tolerate the company of many of the people here I've met and interacted with. I wouldn't want to know them.
Opinion noted. When were you planning to discuss polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism?
Droopy wrote:The question then remains: if this is the case, why keep coming back here? Why do I associate with them? To defend the Church? To polish and refine my own arguments and understanding of the Gospel by fielding the conflicting claims and conflicting beliefs of others? Yes...in the beginning. But that's all gone now.
Introspection is a good thing. When were you planning to address polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism?
Droopy wrote:Soon, this place will be left to the critics alone, to become just another RFM; An intellectual, psychological, and moral ghetto who's only interest to serious apologists will be the interest of a gory car accident: a macabre spectacle that one wishes he hadn't seen even as he sets his eyes on the tragic horror itself
I'm not confident in your predictive powers in the above. I give this board a shelf life of about 3 years from inception before it winds down a bit. Having said that, could you knock off the
stone walling and address polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism?
I'm guessing no.