Jump to content

Spammer

Members
  • Content Count

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

550 Excellent

4 Followers

About Spammer

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,314 profile views
  1. This. You've succinctly communicated what I was trying to say in lots of posts in and did it in just a couple of sentences. The claim that orthodox Catholic teaching is based on Greek philosophy is false and is a conclusion that can only be reached by someone who hasn't bothered to read the church fathers whose writings have been affirmed by the church to be orthodox. Greek philosophical cosmology (and LDS cosmology) posits eternal matter and eternal spirits/souls; orthodox Catholic philosophical cosmology, including that of Aquinas, posits ex nihilo creation of matter and souls. That's really all there is to it. Understanding what Catholics mean by such terms as ousia, hypostasis, physis and the the English translation of ousia - 'substance' - isn't difficult. When Aquinas and other Catholic church fathers use 'substance' they mean it in the ex nihilo sense, not the Greek/LDS philosophical sense. Saying Catholic teaching is based on Greek philosophy because the word 'substance' is used to talk about God only shows that the person making the claim has forgotten, doesn’t know, or doesn’t care to acknowledge that Catholics and pagan Greeks are talking about totally different things when they use the same word to talk about the divine. This will be my final post on this topic. I apologize in advance if someone wants to respond to what I just wrote. I have to stop, for reasons I’m about to explain. I think this conversation has gone about as far as it can go. To all that have contributed, I really enjoyed it. Mark, Pogi, 3DOP, Miserere, Vance, Calm, have I missed anyone?, thank you. I need to take a break. I get sucked into these conversations so easily and I end up spending lots of time better spent elsewhere sitting in front of the computer or texting away on my iphone. That's why I disappear from time to time. There's another, more important, reason I have to stop spending so much time posting here. My wife has just been diagnosed with breast cancer, and this following some awful menopausal stuff that's kept her out of work for a month. She's devastated. There have been a few times when she's asked for help with something and here I was, typing away, rapidly trying to finish the thought, when I should have just closed the browser instantly and gotten up to help her. I ask God's forgiveness for this selfishness. It's time to break away - replacing time spent here with time spent with my wife and in prayer. I ask for the intercession and prayers of our Lord's Blessed Mother on behalf of my wife and ask our Lord to heal her and that he send his Holy Spirit to comfort her at this difficult time. She has also received a blessing by two local LDS priesthood holders. The prognosis is good, but we can use all the help we can get. Please pray for her my LDS and Catholic brothers and sisters. Thank you.
  2. Whether it’s self-evident that only material ‘things’ exist depends on prior philosophical commitments.
  3. It seems you’re suggesting that: 1) science has demonstrated that only the material exists. 2) the spirit as breath and wind in scripture is to be taken literally, not figuratively. If so, then regarding the above claims: 1) when and how did science accomplish this? and 2) says who?
  4. Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists?
  5. Ok. It’s been fun. Have a great day! (sent to you from the DC Temple visitors center. )
  6. My point is that Greek philosophy is closer to the teachings of Joseph Smith than to Catholicism. You don't think it's a big deal that Joseph might agree with Aristotle or the neoplatonist Gnostics, while you think Catholicism's agreement with Aristotle is a sign of apostasy. Seems like a big double standard to me.
  7. Aristotle was ex nihilo? No. He was ex materia, as in Greek philosophy generally, including Neoplatonists. Matter is preexistent and eternal for Aristotle, the same as in LDS teaching. Greek philosophers, Gnostics and Joseph Smith would get along swimmingly. Nothing can come from nothing. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
  8. Alright, so keeping the focus on how introducing substance theology changed church doctrine, which doctrine(s) do you think were changed? Do you mean Transubstantiation? If so, there was no change in doctrine. All that changed with Aquinas was a change in terminology used in the Latin Church’s descriptions of how the bread and wine are also the Body and Blood of Christ. The underlying doctrine (Eucharist=Jesus) was the same before and after Aquinas introduced ‘substance’ and ‘accidents’ into church discourse, the exact same doctrine accepted by the Eastern churches that rejected Aquinas’s terminology.
  9. I thought we were discussing the more general issue of whether/ how Greek philosophy influenced church doctrine?
  10. Yes, I know all that. The problem is that transubstantiation - Aquinas’s attempt to use Greek philosophy to account for how the bread and wine become Jesus - is a Latin thing exclusively. If that’s evidence of Greek philosophy introducing doctrinal corruption, that only applies to the Latin Church. Yet, the non-Latin Catholic churches also believe that the bread and wine are changed into Jesus and have from the early days of church. They didn’t get it from Aristotle, who they reject, along with Aquinas. So which Greek philosopher did they get the idea from? Also, St Justin Martyr called the change ‘transmutation’ in 165 ad. It’s the same idea Aquinas tried to account for 1100 years later using Aristotle’s substance terminology. Ignatius of Antioch defended the same idea 55 years before Justin. Where did they get the idea, if not from the apostles, which Irenaeus stated was the case in 180 ad? Btw Irenaeus said he got it from Polycarp (Ignatius’s pal), who got it from the Apostle John - who recorded Jesus’s Eucharistic discourse in John 6. Interesting stuff, don’t you think? Can you document a different provenance, linking the doctrine to a pagan Greek other than Aristotle?
  11. I just remembered that we’ve been here before. I dug up our old conversation on this very same topic back in 2015. Has it been that long!? I’ll paste what I said then below. If you recall, you did some digging and said the Timaeus is open to interpretation. I agree, though I haven’t changed my mind since then. I still don’t see ex nihilo in Plato. My old post follows. You asked for something from the Timaeus and this is what I posted: Creation in the Timaeus is the work of the demiurge (section 28), who brings order and harmony out of disorder (30a, 53,a-b, 69b-c), or who organizes or imposes a structure on preexistent chaos ('matter' unorganized). Sections 30, 48-53, and 69 contain the exposition on the process. For example, from section 53, which describes the process whereby the first step in organizing primordial chaos (matter unorganized) is marking out and imposing the four kinds of geometrical forms (Plato's 'atoms') on it: "So it was also with the Four Kinds when shaken by the Recipient: her motion, like an instrument which causes shaking, was separating farthest from one another the dissimilar, and pushing most closely together the similar; wherefore also these Kinds occupied different places even before that the Universe was organized and generated out of them. Before that time, in truth, all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure, but when the work of setting in order this Universe was being undertaken, [53b] fire and water and earth and air, although possessing some traces of their own nature, were yet so disposed as everything is likely to be in the absence of God; and inasmuch as this was then their natural condition, God began by first marking them out into shapes by means of forms and numbers. And that God constructed them, so far as He could, to be as fair and good as possible, whereas they had been otherwise..." The disordered state of the universe, the state before time when "all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure", is the preexistent chaos upon which the Demiurge imposes the mathematical forms to initiate the organization. From the Stanford piece below, "The argument from 47e3 to 52d4 gives Timaeus both the spatial matrix in which to situate, and the material substratum from which to constitute, the universe that he will fashion after its eternal model.The fashioning, however, is the process of bringing order to what was, prior to and apart from the Craftsman's intervention, a thoroughly disorderly state of affairs, and so the physical account begins with a description of that disorderly, “god-forsaken” (53b3–4) initial state." I see no ex nihilo in the Timaeus. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Tim.+53&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/ Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer
  12. I think what you say summarizes the crux of the matter for me. A mountain is made out of a terminological molehill - the appropriation and use of the Greek ousia is interpreted to mean that Catholic theology is founded on Greek philosophy. That’s a ridiculous assertion. All there is is the shared use of similar terminology in reference to the divine but what pagan Greeks and Catholics mean by the same terms is radically different! It’s the same thing with John’s use of logos in his gospel. Logos in John does not mean what logos means in Plato and Aristotle. But wait! John uses logos. He must have based his teaching on the philosophy of pagan Greeks. Guess what? Ousia is also found in the New Testament Greek. But it doesn’t mean there what the philosophers meant. Obviously. Same with John’s use of logos. Context is key. Sure, Catholics use the Greek philosophical term translated as substance but no Greek philosopher meant what Aquinas meant when he used substance in an attempt to use language to represent the immaterial, divine spirit who made everything out of nothing who is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Concluding that the use of similar terminology is evidence that Catholic theology rests on Greek philosophy only works if you remove the Creed from its Catholic context, which is centuries older than the Creed.
  13. I think I’ve confused things a bit for 3DOP. I called Plato a materialist. That was imprecise. I don’t mean philosophical materialism - only the material exists. My intent in using the word was to classify Plato with those, like the LDS church, who also believe matter is eternal. I hope I didn’t confuse things too much with my imprecision. Like I said, I’m no philosopher.
  14. I agree with this. I’m no philosopher. Don’t listen to me. Read some Plato.
×
×
  • Create New...