406 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Storm Rider, on 19 September 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

Why is this topic of value?  Does the Bible clearly spell out a doctrine on the matter?  Of course not!  And yet Rob would like to argue about it?

Excuse me, but if you don't see any value in this topic, that's your business. Other Mormons here seem to think it's very important--and they're right. The issue of the nature of spirit and its relation to matter (and/or to the physical world) is extremely important because it is part of a larger worldview that shapes the way we think about God and ourselves.

Wade had cited 1 Kings 22 in support of his belief that spirits have spirit bodies. This thread was a response to his argument. The topic, therefore, originated from a Mormon, not from me.

[Vance]

mfbukowski, on 20 September 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

This video makes the point perfectly.  William Lane Craig is of course Rob's idol.

Note that none of this applies to the LDS conception of God, which places him as a material being with a glorified body of flesh and bones and who interacts with his children.   We escape all the criticisms this video makes of the concept of an "immaterial being".

We don't believe in such things.

Craig walks right into the trap

That was very interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

Mr. Bukowski,

In general, I am ignoring your posts, given your repeated hysterical cries against anyone here engaging me in discussion lest (horrors!) their doing so might result in me being more accurate in what I say about your religion. But I feel I must comment on the following snide remark:



Bill will be surprised to hear that.

Bill is an Arminian; I am a Calvinist. Bill and I hold differing views on a number of issues, including God's relation to time. Bill is a respected colleague of mine, not an idol.

Just imagine what outrage would be expressed here, were I to suggest that Joseph Smith was your "idol."

May I recommend you read and reflect on Proverbs 18:13 and Matthew 7:12.

In past discussions you have repeatedly used Craig's theology; now you are saying you disagree with him, but still won't reveal your position.

Regarding doing unto others, I would be pleased if you would actually answer my questions, as I am "doing unto you"

And of course, as the Proverbs quote suggests,  I need to respond to what you might have said to me since you won't say it.

You still have not even defined the terms in the OP which makes it a little hard to respond to your non-position.

Edited by mfbukowski, 20 September 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

maklelan, on 19 September 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

My entire point for this tangent is aimed at this statement of yours:

Quote

Your own characterization clearly won't fit the Mormon view, since Mormons don't think the "divine council" is a "physical event" but is rather an event involving spirit beings in the celestial kingdom. Spirit beings, according to LDS doctrine, are "material" but not "physical." This isn't a mere semantic point, because construing the vision as meaning that spirits are literally embodied entities does imply that they are physical beings.

I hope you see that my characterization does actually fit the "Mormon view." We've parsed it down as far as it will go, and I still hold that you've unfairly interpreted the relevant texts. I've asked for other Latter-day Saints to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, but so far all that have commented agree with my reading and not with yours.

It seems that your point is that when you used the term physical you meant what Mormon leaders and theologians usually identify using the term material. Very well; I accept that clarification.

There is an irony in your claim that I have been "unfairly" interpreting "the relevant texts." On another thread, other Mormons have been insisting that texts (such as biblical texts) are subject to diverse interpretations and cannot establish one view as correct. Wade, whose argument was the catalyst for this thread, maintains that both Mormon and orthodox interpretations of the biblical texts can be reasonable. This seems to be the usual view, especially when the Bible is the subject. If interpretation is so subjective and the meaning of texts is not determined from the texts themselves, then interpretations cannot be "fair" or "unfair"; they just are what they are. Perhaps you and your fellow Mormons could have some interesting discussion about this whole question about the interpretation of texts.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

mfbukowski, on 20 September 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

In past discussions you have repeatedly used Craig's theology; now you are saying you disagree with him, but still won't reveal your position.

No, actually, in past discussions you attempted to use Craig's theology to challenge mine. I simply offered my own explanation of what Craig was saying.

You wrote:

Quote

Regarding doing unto others, I would be pleased if you would actually answer my questions, as I am "doing unto you"

I am not going to engage you in discussion about theological issues or anything else of that kind until you apologize for your various recent outbursts complaining that forum members by engaging me in discussion are helping the enemy (and other complaints and attacks against me of a similar nature). Such posts can be found in this very thread, such as here and here. (Then there's this post here, where you said you would stay away from this thread for the duration.) If you can convince me that you sincerely retract all such comments and that you are now ready to participate in civil discussions with me, I will be happy to do so.

[maklelan]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

Dan,

You wrote:



It seems that your point is that when you used the term physical you meant what Mormon leaders and theologians usually identify using the term material. Very well; I accept that clarification.

There is an irony in your claim that I have been "unfairly" interpreting "the relevant texts." On another thread, other Mormons have been insisting that texts (such as biblical texts) are subject to diverse interpretations and cannot establish one view as correct. Wade, whose argument was the catalyst for this thread, maintains that both Mormon and orthodox interpretations of the biblical texts can be reasonable. This seems to be the usual view, especially when the Bible is the subject. If interpretation is so subjective and the meaning of texts is not determined from the texts themselves, then interpretations cannot be "fair" or "unfair"; they just are what they are. Perhaps you and your fellow Mormons could have some interesting discussion about this whole question about the interpretation of texts.

I often have interesting discussions with fellow Latter-day Saints regarding the interpretation of texts. Right now, though, there's another topic, and I believe the ball is still in your court regarding the nature of the divine council type-scene.

[Rob Bowman]

I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.

Yes, ours makes sense, which is why atheist arguments largely don't apply to us.

They ARE wrong, you know.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:



No, actually, in past discussions you attempted to use Craig's theology to challenge mine. I simply offered my own explanation of what Craig was saying.

You wrote:



I am not going to engage you in discussion about theological issues or anything else of that kind until you apologize for your various recent outbursts complaining that forum members by engaging me in discussion are helping the enemy (and other complaints and attacks against me of a similar nature). Such posts can be found in this very thread, such as here and here. (Then there's this post here, where you said you would stay away from this thread for the duration.) If you can convince me that you sincerely retract all such comments and that you are now ready to participate in civil discussions with me, I will be happy to do so.

Suit yourself.   A non-response is a non-response.

Edited by mfbukowski, 20 September 2011 - 11:36 AM.

[Zakuska]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.

An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism.

Satan is the only god who doesn't have a body, and thats why he trys to steal ours. He's fighting a great battle for it!

Jude 1
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

He lost his chance to have a body when he was kicked out of heaven.

Edited by Zakuska, 20 September 2011 - 12:59 PM.

[Zakuska]

I wonder how these verses might play into the topic...

1 Cor 15
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

[wenglund]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

If I am "confused," it is because several Mormons here see nothing strange about setting aside the consistent way in which their leaders have articulated the notion of two bodies, a spirit body and a physical body. But I don't think I'm confused as to what you and the others are trying to say.

I don't see anyone setting the notion of two bodies aside. I see people using two different legitimate connotations of the word "physical," and one of us (you) is confused by that, while the rest of us are not.

I mention this only because it seems to be a part of an overall pattern with you. You seem to be significantly challenged in understanding that people can reasonably think and interpret things differently than you. You seem only able to see things the way you see things (dogmatically), and you are not able to see lthings from other legitimate perspectives. This is, as previously intimated, a barrier to effective inter-faith dialogue. So, if you wish to improve your interactions here, perhaps you could consider trying better to understand differing perspectives--seek more to understand others and less to argue with them. Just a suggestion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.

I find it very illuminating that the concepts that the atheists reject are also the concepts NOT found in the Bible.

You know, like "immaterial".

So, the difference is, our concept of God is consistent with the Bible, and yours is NOT!!!

Who knew?  LOL!!!!!

[wenglund]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

Dan,

You wrote:



It seems that your point is that when you used the term physical you meant what Mormon leaders and theologians usually identify using the term material. Very well; I accept that clarification.

There is an irony in your claim that I have been "unfairly" interpreting "the relevant texts." On another thread, other Mormons have been insisting that texts (such as biblical texts) are subject to diverse interpretations and cannot establish one view as correct. Wade, whose argument was the catalyst for this thread, maintains that both Mormon and orthodox interpretations of the biblical texts can be reasonable. This seems to be the usual view, especially when the Bible is the subject. If interpretation is so subjective and the meaning of texts is not determined from the texts themselves, then interpretations cannot be "fair" or "unfair"; they just are what they are. Perhaps you and your fellow Mormons could have some interesting discussion about this whole question about the interpretation of texts.

Sorry, Rob. That was a transparently lame attempt at evasion. Were Dan countering what I have been arguing, then you may have a point. But, he isn't. He is countering your position. And, as yet I don't see you espousing the notion of biblical interpretations being subjective or that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the Bible. In fact, you seem to be arguing quite the opposite. So, in your case (unless there has been an unannounced about-face on your part), you don't have a point.  Dan's "fair" or "unfair" challenge applies to what YOU are arguing, though not to what I have been arguing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 20 September 2011 - 02:11 PM.

[Vance]

Zakuska, on 20 September 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

I wonder how these verses might play into the topic... 1 Cor 15 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Silly Zak, don't you know that those verses are anti-Mormon proof texts to show that in the creation the natural (physical) body is created first an then the spirit is created and put into it.

[Zakuska]

Vance, on 20 September 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Silly Zak, don't you know that those verses are anti-Mormon proof texts to show that in the creation the natural (physical) body is created first an then the spirit is created and put into it.

I always liked how Job explained it...  That he was a Spirit first and God clothed him with a meat suit.

Job 10
11 Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews.
12 Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.
13 And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that thisis with thee.
14 If I sin, then thou markest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity.

Edited by Zakuska, 20 September 2011 - 02:45 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Zakuska, on 20 September 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:

An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism.

It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists. I applaud your bravado in saying so.

You wrote:

Quote

Satan is the only god who doesn't have a body, and thats why he trys to steal ours. He's fighting a great battle for it!

Hmm, have we forgotten God the Holy Ghost, perhaps?

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Zakuska,

You wrote:

It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.

CFR

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Hmm, have we forgotten God the Holy Ghost, perhaps?

I can't find that description in my Bible.   What is a sola scripturist to do?

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 20 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.

Does the word "apostate" ring any bells?