Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. Agree. There are actually parents who shower with their kids while teaching them how to wash properly. No biggie. Who told them they were naked? I seem to remember that quote from somewhere.... So there's nothing wrong with a woman nursing in public, but let her walk around her own home with exposed breasts and she possibly goes to jail? So are breasts sexual or not? What kind of insanity is this?
  2. Yeah but who's counting? Sure it wasn't just one? You seem to have remembered the story well.
  3. Ah, now fat shaming the deplorables are we? Of course nobody in the ward looks like anyone at Walmart, so we are lucky because appearance is the major factor in having a successful celestial marriage. We all look like movie stars! No wonder we have so many kids!
  4. I agree with the spirit of this thanks Just to be totally "philosophically correct" though in my view only sentences or statements ("propositions") can be true or false. One might say that "Connecting with others is spiritually important" and then I would say that that statement is "true". Just being a little pedantic I suppose.... But this is an idea you should look at if you have not studied it: Perichoresis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis Often the notion of a "sacred dance" is connected with it. Think of a certain circle made in the temple.
  5. How could you possibly know? So womansplain what men find erotic then won't you? Sorry but that's the harsh reality. Tell Hugh Hefner that men do not find women's breasts "erotic". He built an empire on it. Sure it's cultural- so what? What else would it be? I do not live where women walk around on the street topless. In a culture where women wear burkas, I guess a woman's hair is seen as erotic. But are you going to tell the men in that culture to get over it? You are free to do so but as far as changing the culture that way? Let's try a "topless mall" and see how it changes the culture. I think you will have tons of male customers to experiment on. Of course like just reading the articles in Playboy, the men will just be there to find good deals on lawn mowers. Dream on.
  6. This is more about a culture of weirdness about nudity- only in Utah...... Her step kids doing this? Just plain bizarre. The kids ask about it and now she goes into the whole feminist thing about breasts? Reminds me about the old joke about a kid who asked his father where he came from. Dad gulps and goes on and tells the birds and the bees in detail. At the end he says- "Well Bobby do you have any questions?" Bobby says "Uh, I guess not dad. It's just that my friend Johnny came from Cincinnati and I just wondered where I came from too". She couldn't have just said "Oh- it was hot and we took our shirts off. We worked hard today! Now where should we go for dinner?" ? A 13 year old and a 10 and 9 year old went after their parents because of this? It says a lot more about family weirdness than anything else
  7. Let me explain something to you. When you reply this way, you are putting down the spiritual abilities of the person to whom you are speaking and showing PRIDE that you are spiritually more profound than he is. It's like saying "Well when you are as good as me, you will understand" But you even saying that shows that you are prideful and un-Christlike. Can you imagine Jesus saying something like that? "Oh don't worry about it- when you are as righteous as I am you will be able to work miracles too". Perhaps no one has ever taught you that that is improper behavior, so when you get as righteous as I am you will understand. How does that feel?
  8. Thanks for these references. In my private interpretation of the atonement I find myself leaning more and more away from the view that Christ's sacrifice was to" pay for our sins" and instead more toward the view that it was or toward becoming fully human and understanding every pain and despairing moment that humans had ever been through or would ever feel in the future. He needed to do this to be able to comfort his children regardless of what depths of Despair they were experiencing. And short the mission was to fully give up Transcendence and become fully human. We recall of course on the cross where Jesus it feels totally forsaken by his father, possibly meaning the Father Figure inside of him, the role of the organizer of universes, to understand the most pathetic human who would ever live. If anyone has been in a leadership position they know that fully within themselves they are still fully human. The leadership role can be taken on while still experiencing all of the pain and sufferings that any human has. " Surely someone like the prophet never experiences the kind of Despair I experience", one might think yet of course we know that that is not true. Joseph wrote about experiencing just these kinds of issues. And so the Creator and organiser of universes came down to mirror the exact feelings of the most pathetic human who ever lived or would live. For me that is the great sacrifice of the atonement. It has nothing to do with paying some kind of bill balancing Justice vs. Mercy as if they are comprable. It is about falling from a position of transcendence to a position of full immanence.
  9. People do not understand that we accept scriptural descriptions which we regard as inspired- why? because we have a testimony of the truth of the scriptures. There is no way that one can know from history that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ- the annointed one, the Son of the Living God. Witnesses to the crucifixion walked by and said possibly- "Oh three more today- I wonder what they did" and knew nothing about the significance of what was happening. So we have the words of fallible humans as to "what happened" and the confirmation of the spirit. On this view we might have the hsitory wrong or right, but there is no way to know which except by testimony Testimony is a belief and certainty in a belief that is "true" because it brings warmth to our spirit, and peace within. Theologians are not prophets- they are philosophers putting together a paradigm that makes sense to them logically to explain their beliefs. And so one theologian thinks that his view of transubstantiation solves the need for a rational explanation of how bread and wine become the body of Christ. Another figures how what he interprets as three persons can be "One God" and comes up with the Trinity. Scriptures of course never use the word "trinity" or "transubstantiation" or "transcendent" or "immanent". These are all stories revealed- or made up- by the "philosophies of men"- they are stories invented to support the feeling of peace that the beliefs bring to us. And so from my perspective, thinking this way is perfectly compatible with being fully LDS or fully Catholic- or whatever paradigm the Lord leads us to as what fits with our spirit to give us significance in our lives. So in no way are such questions or beliefs "unfaithful" when faith itself is defined as "things HOPED FOR which are unseen". We put together a view which is confirmed by the spirit which I believe is the path the Lord is teaching us- the one which will get us closer to him according to our circumstances. If we are homeless, Godless and addicted and living on skid row, and the Salvation Army teaches me about Christ- I have absolutely no doubt that the LORD could very well be teaching me a true step that I need to learn in order to get closer to Christ. That means that yes, individually we can have different paths toward the "one true church" of Jesus Christ- and I do believe through testimony that the best paradigm- the "one true and living church" IS the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints And so I hope that no one misunderstands my comments here- but I see human ideas as just that- human descriptions of a "reality" that we cannot see at this time because "now we see through a glass darkly" and THAT is inevitably a result of being a mortal human. But then the scripture goes on - "THEN face to face"
  10. You know that's a really good point. So the church men had to make him transcendent and they did it by using neoplatonism to describe God, making him as ineffable as possible to avoid criticism. He was seen as weak so the rationale had to be to make the apparent weakness into a strength by calling it a sacrifice, and making him a supernatural magician. Dang. That's a really good point that I had never thought of.
  11. Joseph solved the problem by postulating that God was immanent just by showing Himself and his Son as having physical bodies thereby NOT making them vague spiritual entities filling the universe. I don't think our view of God makes him transcendent in any way. The church is not saying he is both.
  12. Well this is an attempt- or at least a way of looking at the story- which could provide an answer to that. By making him transcendent to start off with, those questions don't even arise. Most Catholics for example, might answer this with "immanence is not even an option for defining God" and yet we cannot image a transcendent God. Go figure! So it is an attempt TO understand how it is that he combines transcendence and immanence while, I think, giving a new twist on the atonement. As a transcendent being, yes, he could have created ex-nihilo but decided to do it "the hard way" instead of snapping his fingers so that he could better understand us as the limited beings we are. And we still do not know HOW he does any of it. Yes our doctrine just makes him immanent from the start, but this view solves the problem of the "back story" of how he got there. Folks who believe in an immanent God see such a being as naturally inferior to their transcendent magic God- and that position is straight pagan Greek philosophy. This allows that assumption but explains how becoming immanent voluntarily actually INCREASES his power by voluntarily giving up transcendence and still being God.
  13. Ok, good point! But how does that relate to this thread? Does it have anything to do with the fall?
  14. Hi Rory good to see you. I hope we do not get off on the wrong foot yet again, and take any of this personally. For context, I have quoted your whole post above, and now let's take it a bit at a time. Frankly this sounds like a sectarian disagreement here since there is obviously conflict between your statements and the pope's, since the Pope - in YOUR WORDS has a position "which seems insupportable in light of Catholic tradition." So the Pope says it is doctrine and you say it is not because the position of the Pope is "insupportable". THEN- though I do not understand the argument here- you say that YOU prefer some other Catechism endorsed by another Pope. Sorry. I am not getting into that one. I have no dog in that fight- all I know is what I quoted was endorsed by SOMEBODY to give it an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, I presume. I am not getting into Catholic squabbles about Catholic doctrine. OK well it seems again this is a sectarian squabble- I don't mean to minimize the problem but I do not fully understand the nuances. I think your position sounds to be more like the LDS position, which would be great if it is true, but I don't fully understand the issues And honestly I don't care about the nuances of transcendence- Do Catholics believe God is transcendent at all? Of course they do. This is about dictionaries more than doctrine or philosophy. "Transcendent" is usually defined as the opposite of "immanent" THAT is the point, nuance is irrelevant here. What Catholics "really believe" is irrelevant to my argument- I simply used those those quotes to prove that SOMEBODY- whoever wrote those words, understood "transcendence" and "immanence" to mean what I said they did. I was contrasting two concepts- this discussion is not about Catholicsm it is about the philosophy behind the contrast between transcendence and immanence. Thank you, that was my point, so where's the beef? I don't insist on anything- going back to the sources I quoted that is what THEY said. Yes I know the Catholic church has come up with ways to mitigate these extremes and I said in the first post that we could get into that later. I suppose this is it, but it doesn't make a difference because it is still the case that GOD IS TRANSCENDENT in many faiths and I think NO CHRISTIAN faith other than ours makes God immanent. I mean our God has a human body, exists in time and space, organizes matter rather than "creating it", I cannot imagine a better definition for characteristics which are "immanent", and that is the whole point. This is about an argument, a philosophical position about immanence and transcendence. A few early posts said essentially "no one believes that" and I cited sources that did to illustrate that YES some people do , and quoted them. This is not an attack on Catholicism- it is about finding a source saying that no one believes what this very good source obviously believes. I agree but I do not "fear" such ridiculous positions. But that IS the full definition of transcendence as I quoted it. OK now you have me confused. How does this:, Psalm 8 Show that no one believes that God is too transcendent to imagine that God might not notice us? It seems to show exactly THAT some may believe that, erroneously. But again I am just trying to follow your argument- it seems you have given me more reasons to think I was right that some people must see transcendence that way. This though is a thread about putting together ideas, not about what is "true" or "reality" It is about possible views people could have about God, and is totally a thought experiment!
  15. Well I think you are on to something, but I am having trouble understanding your argument No doubt that accepting law makes one free- see Isaiah Berlin- "Two Concepts of Liberty." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty But I am glad you caught the Adam/God connection here. It would be an interesting idea to enable one to have only ONE being - presumably Jehovah/Jesus/Adam- all perhaps separate name/titles for the same individual who underwent ONE huge sacrifice for us told as three different stories. Just speculation of course. I see all of these stories as just that- ways of tacking together various doctrines which are more abstract. Of course they could be literally true as well in the right contexts.
  16. 1- Father's sacrifice "Christians" in general accept only some kind of mix between transcendence and immanence. If God is not transcendent in some sense, he cannot be omniscient, omni-present, and all the other "omni's" that are usual seen in God. The advantage of the belief that God WAS completely transcendent but then voluntarily gave it up- is that there is one cohesive story how God is both transcendent- He had to be to give it up- and immanent- he chose to be immanent so that he could communicate with his children and fully understand what it is to be an earthly Human. So that puts us closer to traditional Christianity when we need an explanation for why our God seems somewhat limited and "created" for other Christians. I recall a conversation with a Catholic priest about this issue and he was insisting that if God had a body, he must therefore be imperfect because matter is of a lower order than spirit- so I instantly asked him how then the resurrected Christ has a body and remains God. He could not answer So this explains how Eloheim performed a sacrifice like the savior's and yet did not have to somehow be "reincarnated" - to explain why the savior "only did what his Father did" We know from the temple that Father did have some kind of "fall" as well - and that he somehow learned the difference between good and evil through it. If that is the way Father gained his knowledge - as it says- then there must have been some kind of fall for him as well. 2- The Savior's sacrifice If we view the atonement from the point of view that Christ did all he did for us to gain knowledge of every human pain so we can go to Him for solace, we have less emphasis on the economic view that somehow he had to "pay for" all our sins, and the strange idea of scales of justice that for every evil there has to be a compensating good to be paid for. Who is the tax collector who demands the payment? How can one person pay the debt for another's sins? How can the cost of a sin be measured against the payment of another good work? This view allows for this balance to somehow still be maintained but puts the emphasis on the savior's sacrifice on his desire to undergo all of humanities problems so that he can overcome them all and provide solace for us. 3- I think we are probably very close to agreeing on this one. That is because it is pretty clear LDS doctrine
  17. Well yeah I don't think I said that though I think the catechism said that. I was trying to show my understanding of the Catholic position.
  18. Ok. Easily solved Apparently in your opinion I exaggerated the Catholic view of transcendence. That's something we can easily just agree to disagree on. It's not even relevant to the thesis I think. My real question is is there value in seeing these as different Falls.? Is there an important parallel between 1-Eloheim's voluntary fall from Transcendence and His sacrifice 2 -the voluntary sacrifice of the atonement of Christ and his acceptance of a human death and 3-the fall from innocence of Adam and Eve to also accept death, making a sacrifice in order to obtain a possibility of exaltation? Was it three Falls or was it simply three different stories about one huge sacrifice? And did Brigham Young at least get part of it right about Adam being God? Perhaps figuratively making a similar sacrifice?
  19. I guess I did not make my point clear- YES LDS theology teaches that God is immanent and so has "condescended". So it DOES fit into LDS doctrine - it IS LDS doctrine That's what makes possible my assertion that God surrendering transcendence to BE "immanent" was a sacrifice. That means He as Christ came down a level to BE an "immanent" human. YES all of LDS theology is set up as an explanation of the IMMANENCE of God, He has a body, He is our Father, He organized the world out of matter using natural law, He gives us personal revelation at our request, we can become like him because we also have a spark of divinity etc. Regarding where most of the scriptures are showing God to be immanent, I will just quote the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (sic) and you can see the references it finds to be important and where they are located.
  • Create New...