UPDATE #1:I have just completed a dialog with one of WOTLs t professional Christian commenters that claims a lot of religious knowledge yet doesn't seem to like the fact that someone else has a better working knowledge of words than he.
I would be the first to recognize that just as there are some on WOTL with higher IQs I realize that that are plenty that could run linguistic rings around me.
Having said that the word "ontology" seems to have stumped a supposed authority on religion.
I suggested to "Pete" that he look up words he doesn't know because I have no intention of dumbing down my material if I Am aware of an appropriate word when writing a column.
If I intended to reach a mass audience I would then consider what used to be called the fourth grade audience mode that many read at.
When I write here the people I want to understand my material get it and if they don't they are no strangers to opening a dictionary. Except for "Pete" the ones who dont understand my writing kindly ignore it which is an appropriate response.
"Pete" seems attracted to my writing like a moth to a candle flame but then thinks he can somehow sell me what he peddles which is an extremely narrow perspective on Judeo-Christianity referenced to whatever Bible or Bibles he sources his diatribes from.
He has no conception of where I Am coming from, who I Am or what my agenda consists of. I doubt if he ever will.
I would like to repeat here that if any LDS member wants to clarify what I perceive of their plural gods teaching I would appreciate it since what I have mentioned here is only based on what I found in Wikipedia plus some other snippets. Hardly an orthocentric perception of the subject.
Note to "Pete": "Finding a definition of "orthocentric" might be a tad difficult but one does exist. I have only found one in the Oxford dictionary service.
Update #2 Monday, Decemer 7th.
Just finished replying to John and checking on readership yesterday of this column. it seems to have received a lot of interest byt the readership counter.
Hohn's reaction was a reminder of a mention I do occasionally of WOPTL being a "hot kitchen"
Those that come and can stand the heat remain. Many leave soon especially if they are not familiar with the level of dialog here.
The example of what can occur is well represented with this column's response from a self setyed authority.
He engaged me in another off line attempt to buy what he sells via internet.
He alsop mocked and derided my intelligence on that exchange and then as part of his dialog used the expression "you are a lot smarter than that"
This time he chose to attack me publically on WOTL, and since he has not made my "Nixon's List" I responded to the attack escalating the rhetoric as I deemed appropriate.
Althouigh like him I Am not a Mormon I have a lot of respect for some of their theology AND ONTOLOGY.
Having lived in the Palmyra area for many years and engaged local LDS adherants at their visitors center in dialog I Am no stranger to their Religion and way of life which I find fascinating.
From my catbird's seat as a Non-Christian I find myself in a unique position to learn of many religions without the bias associated with being an adherant of any of them.
I recently had a good dialog with a theologin from the Elim Bible institute in Lima N.Y. and have learned from debates with theologins at LeMoyne University, a Jesuit Colloge in Syracuse NY.
Most theologins impress me with their general level of intelligence but not all as it seems. I suppose a degree from a place like Bob Jones U or some mail order diploma mill is something I will encounter more as I learn of the wide variety of intelligence levels of those claiming expertise in Ontology.
Now onto my column and current commentary: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is another in my speculative spirituality series that was inspired after reading a response from Michael Christianson to a comment on one of his past columns.
For the moment will I assume that Michael is speaking for traditional LDS theology. I will stand corrected if this assumption is incorrect.
To quote Michael out of context "Contrary to what many other faiths take as axiomatic, God is not the first and only self existent being in the universe."
I Am not a theologian or even a well versed Bible student yet a casual read of Genesis doesn't seem to support that statement.
It does however increase my curiosity concerning another passage "I Am the Lord thy God , you shall have no other gods before me"
If this God "speaking" is the One that most of us refer to in modern times, then He seems to be implying the existence of others.
Although I could envision a hierarchy of gods as some faiths seem to speak of, especially ancient Hindu, Greek and Roman, I still would see such a divine social structure as having a Monad or singular principle that would represent the God I personally envision as "Creator and ruler of the Universe, the Alpha and Omega of reality.
The God I envision would have been the Creator or reason for the others to have any sort of reality rather than them being "self existent".
I will leave this open for others to chime in on and hope that it is seen not as a challenge to their or their church's beliefs but rather a sincere desire for knowledge and insight into the beliefs of others. In this case I expect this knowledge will involve some insights into the LDS spiritual perspective. I hope no one imagines that I arbitrarily dismiss such as totally invalid since I Am aware that truth can be viewed from many angles each requiring a certain understanding of its own.
© 2009 Matt 7:6 - 12/8/09