Yes. That’s how intellectual honesty works. That’s called intellectual dishonesty, and yes that’s what MG’s comments indicate. Well it is a discussion board after all. Isn’t that why everyone comes here? Unless the object of participation is…well…simply to troll. MG isn’t here to discuss things with you, he’s here to tell you he’s right and you’re wrong. We are back to our good old friend intellectual dishonesty.
Troll indeed. Look at his last new discussion thread. Showering accolades on the newly anointed apostle while simultaneously not inviting open discussion. It was a deliberate jab to provoke and to show how superior the Mormon lifestyle and intellect is.
Huh? You can say whatever you want to. And you have. Isn't that what an open discussion is? I took a particular position. You are free to show how my position is somehow 'less than' or at least 'different than' a position you take. It happens all the time here.
This word 'troll' has been overused and it really has no meaning except for being a pejorative at this point.
Essentially your claim is that clarity beyond a certain point makes faith impossible, but you haven’t justified that claim. Why would greater revelation eliminate trust?
To save me a little time, could you go back and quote what I said in complete context? There are some things I miss because of other things going on or I get distracted and forget to come back to a given question or point. And there are some posters that I gloss over and/or do not personally respond to because of past history.
And I may get them mixed in with someone else I'm having a conversation with.
If I missed your point and you felt it was important enough to repeat here, please refresh my memory. Please use my actual words contextually.
Troll indeed. Look at his last new discussion thread. Showering accolades on the newly anointed apostle while simultaneously not inviting open discussion. It was a deliberate jab to provoke and to show how superior the Mormon lifestyle and intellect is.
Huh? You can say whatever you want to. And you have. Isn't that what an open discussion is? I took a particular position. You are free to show how my position is somehow 'less than' or at least 'different than' a position you take. It happens all the time here.
This word 'troll' has been overused and it really has no meaning except for being a pejorative at this point.
Regards,
MG
How many believers post here? You know most people are critical of many aspects of the church yet you portrayed Clark Griswald as the pinnacle of leadership despite knowing he was a tyrant at BYU wreaking havoc on the professional careers of many people. You knew that yet you were hell bent on portraying him as a Christ's protégé. It is blatantly clear you are somehow trapped in some sort of weird feedback loop where drops of dopamine motivate you and your logic jumps from general blandness when confronted with troubling information to even weirder Rube Goldberg excuses.
Essentially your claim is that clarity beyond a certain point makes faith impossible, but you haven’t justified that claim. Why would greater revelation eliminate trust?
To save me a little time, could you go back and quote what I said in complete context? There are some things I miss because of other things going on or I get distracted and forget to come back to a given question or point. And there are some posters that I gloss over and/or do not personally respond to because of past history.
And I may get them mixed in with someone else I'm having a conversation with.
If I missed your point and you felt it was important enough to repeat here, please refresh my memory. Please use my actual words contextually.
Thanks.
Regards,
MG
You’ve argued that if God intervened too openly or too often, it would undercut ambiguity and therefore undermine the conditions necessary for faith and moral growth. You also suggested there is a threshold beyond which faith becomes impossible.
Why would greater clarity eliminate trust rather than simply relocate the arena of trust? People in scripture experience significant revelation and still exercise agency, doubt, even rebellion. So it’s not obvious that increased revelation collapses faith.
Huh? You can say whatever you want to. And you have. Isn't that what an open discussion is? I took a particular position. You are free to show how my position is somehow 'less than' or at least 'different than' a position you take. It happens all the time here.
This word 'troll' has been overused and it really has no meaning except for being a pejorative at this point.
Regards,
MG
How many believers post here? You know most people are critical of many aspects of the church yet you portrayed Clark Griswald as the pinnacle of leadership despite knowing he was a tyrant at BYU wreaking havoc on the professional careers of many people. You knew that yet you were hell bent on portraying him as a Christ's protégé. It is blatantly clear you are somehow trapped in some sort of weird feedback loop where drops of dopamine motivate you and your logic jumps from general blandness when confronted with troubling information to even weirder Rube Goldberg excuses.
To save me a little time, could you go back and quote what I said in complete context? There are some things I miss because of other things going on or I get distracted and forget to come back to a given question or point. And there are some posters that I gloss over and/or do not personally respond to because of past history.
And I may get them mixed in with someone else I'm having a conversation with.
If I missed your point and you felt it was important enough to repeat here, please refresh my memory. Please use my actual words contextually.
Thanks.
Regards,
MG
You’ve argued that if God intervened too openly or too often, it would undercut ambiguity and therefore undermine the conditions necessary for faith and moral growth. You also suggested there is a threshold beyond which faith becomes impossible.
Why would greater clarity eliminate trust rather than simply relocate the arena of trust? People in scripture experience significant revelation and still exercise agency, doubt, even rebellion. So it’s not obvious that increased revelation collapses faith.
That’s the point I’m asking you to justify.
I don't think I'm arguing that "increased revelation collapses faith". That's what the whole Restoration narrative is built upon. Even at that there are plenty of people that "still exercise agency, doubt, even rebellion".
What do you think, as a non-believer in the restoration, would be that "threshold" at which faith would become impossible?
As it is, it seems as though for many, that threshold may have already been reached.
I don't think I'm arguing that "increased revelation collapses faith". That's what the whole Restoration narrative is built upon. Even at that there are plenty of people that "still exercise agency, doubt, even rebellion".
What do you think, as a non-believer in the restoration, would be that "threshold" at which faith would become impossible?
As it is, it seems as though for many, that threshold may have already been reached.
Regards,
MG
I don’t think more revelation makes faith impossible. It just removes doubt about whether God exists. Faith would still be trust in His character and a choice to align with Him.
I don't think I'm arguing that "increased revelation collapses faith". That's what the whole Restoration narrative is built upon. Even at that there are plenty of people that "still exercise agency, doubt, even rebellion".
What do you think, as a non-believer in the restoration, would be that "threshold" at which faith would become impossible?
As it is, it seems as though for many, that threshold may have already been reached.
Regards,
MG
I don’t think more revelation makes faith impossible. It just removes doubt about whether God exists. Faith would still be trust in His character and a choice to align with Him.
OK. Thanks for your response...or non response to what I actually said. I think I'll let others jump in at this point and I'll step back. We may be talking around each other.
I don’t think more revelation makes faith impossible. It just removes doubt about whether God exists. Faith would still be trust in His character and a choice to align with Him.
OK. Thanks for your response...or non response to what I actually said. I think I'll let others jump in at this point and I'll step back. We may be talking around each other.
Regards,
MG
Wow you are all fired up today! Must have been a particularly inspiring day at church—you seem ready to chew up some unsuspecting Korihor investigator! How do you grade yourself on bearing testimony to investigators today?
OK. Thanks for your response...or non response to what I actually said. I think I'll let others jump in at this point and I'll step back. We may be talking around each other.
Regards,
MG
Wow you are all fired up today! Must have been a particularly inspiring day at church—you seem ready to chew up some unsuspecting Korihor investigator! How do you grade yourself on bearing testimony to investigators today?
Sincerely though, you ok?
Ha! I'm fine. Good day at church. If I've come across as bearing testimony, that's not my intent. At least not in a traditional sense. I like to throw ideas around but when I can see things are either going in circles or nowhere at all...I lose interest. I've spent to much time over the years going up blind alleys and down rabbit trails that I see as having little or no real value.
Nothing against you personally except for the fact that I see a bit of circumventing going on again as I did the last few days.
I don't see that as being very productive. It's like whistling in the wind. Only bits and pieces being heard.
If I offended you, I'm sorry. Really, I'm good. Sitting here reading a book called "How To Test Negative for Stupid' written by John Kennedy, Senator from Louisiana.
What a character! And smart as a whip. Watching him question people during committee hearings is pure joy/entertainment.
