Children of "A" Heavenly Father

[Spammer]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well then we had Aristotle with ex nihilo caused by the nature of substance as unmoving, needing Something to kick it into gear.

And the Trinity with consubstantial persons.

And I would of course debate the literalness intended in "this is my body" requiring transubstantiation. 

But other than those 3 core doctrines, we are pretty much in the clear.

 

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/

Edited July 14, 2019 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Spammer said:

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/

Good point, Its complicated and there are real problems with Aristotle's hylomorphism and how forms supposedly instantiate themselves in matter

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/suppl1.html

But it is beyond debate that the Prime Mover argument comes from him.

And I don't see it as a big deal that Joseph Smith might agree with Aristotle.

I mean what is that supposed to show?

I am supposed to reject the idea of moderation in all things for example just because Aristotle advocated it? What kind of sense does that make?

And yes Joseph agreeing with gnostics is simply proof that arcane ceremonies occurred in the Primitive Church. I don't know why you think that supports your argument.

Plato himself was an initiate into Pythagorean Mysteries. 

Edited July 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good point, Its complicated and there are real problems with Aristotle's hylomorphism and how forms supposedly instantiate themselves in matter

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/suppl1.html

But it is beyond debate that the Prime Mover argument comes from him.

And I don't see it as a big deal that Joseph Smith might agree with Aristotle.

I mean what is that supposed to show?

I am supposed to reject the idea of moderation in all things for example just because Aristotle advocated it? What kind of sense does that make?

And yes Joseph agreeing with gnostics is simply proof that arcane ceremonies occurred in the Primitive Church. I don't know why you think that supports your argument.

Plato himself was an initiate into Pythagorean Mysteries. 

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.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

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.  

Disagree 

This is pointless.

[Spammer]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Disagree 

This is pointless.

Ok. It’s been fun. Have a great day!

(sent to you from the DC Temple visitors center.   )

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Ok. It’s been fun. Have a great day!

(sent to you from the DC Temple visitors center.   )

Nap time for me.Maybe less grumpy later

 

[Vance]

On 7/13/2019 at 6:34 PM, Spammer said:

I think the problem lies in understanding the nature of Plato's third realm, where the universals ‘dwell.’ Does this immaterial realm of abstractions ‘exist’ for Plato like we say that immaterial spirit exists independently of the material? My understanding of Plato is that the Third Realm doesn’t really ‘exist’ but is an intellectual ‘space’ that reason perceives, like immaterial mathematical laws. I think whether Plato was actually a materialist hinges on whether he thought the realm of abstractions exists independently of human minds. Maybe he wasn’t a materialist in the philosophical sense, but he was in the sense that he was not into ex nihilo. Formless matter is prexistent for Plato, which is the materialist creation theology I’m talking about - and IMO whether ex nihilo and the idea of immaterial, personal spirits comes from Greek philosophy is the crucial issue for the conversation in this thread. 

It is my understanding that when the word "immaterial" was first used it included such "things" as the wind, breath, and spirit.  (Perhaps from the Greek pnuma).

Perhaps the theology should be updated to account for the advancements of science.

 

immaterial,  "you keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means".

[Spammer]

3 hours ago, Vance said:

It is my understanding that when the word "immaterial" was first used it included such "things" as the wind, breath, and spirit.  (Perhaps from the Greek pnuma).

Perhaps the theology should be updated to account for the advancements of science.

 

immaterial,  "you keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means".

Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists? 

[Vance]

19 hours ago, Spammer said:

Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists? 

Science has demonstrated that breath and wind are material.  Given that, how can you say the spirit is immaterial?

[Spammer]

56 minutes ago, Vance said:

Science has demonstrated that breath and wind are material.  Given that, how can you say the spirit is immaterial?

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?

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Spammer said:

Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists? 

Where and how should they proceed with this quest?

How does one measure what is "immaterial"?

[Spammer]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where and how should they proceed with this quest?

How does one measure what is "immaterial"?

Exactly.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Spammer said:

Exactly.

So that was all about the point that science could not prove that immaterial entities exist?

That is an axiom like A=A and we did not need to go through that little exercise.  But the problem remains because of course science cannot prove the non-existence of immaterial objects.  It cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

That is like asking about the color of Beethoven's Fifth and then being proud that no one knows what color it is, and then using that to prove your religion is true because no one knows what color music is.

It is a category error to even ask the question in the first place and so proves nothing about the existence OR non-existence of immateriality.

The problem is that it is a logical contradiction from the beginning.

Existence IS materiality unless we are making a category error.   We cannot even understand what immateriality would be like!

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/15/2019 at 5:13 PM, Vance said:

 

immaterial,  "you keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means"

Yep. It means "no-thing" to start off with so its a kind of non-sequitur 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/15/2019 at 8:33 PM, Spammer said:

Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists? 

It doesn't have to.   It is self-evident that no-thing is no-thing.

[Spammer]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't have to.   It is self-evident that no-thing is no-thing.

Whether it’s self-evident that only material ‘things’ exist depends on prior philosophical commitments.  

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't have to.   It is self-evident that no-thing is no-thing.

This is scientism pure and simple. Material does not equal all reality unless you subscribe to scientific materialism, a belief that science itself cannot support. 

Science deals with the material. By definition science cannot deal with the immaterial. However, it does NOT therefore follow that the immaterial does not exist or that the immaterial cannot be known. 

Let’s not reduce ontology and epistemology to science, since science itself cannot support such a reduction. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is scientism pure and simple. Material does not equal all reality unless you subscribe to scientific materialism, a belief that science itself cannot support. 

Science deals with the material. By definition science cannot deal with the immaterial. However, it does NOT therefore follow that the immaterial does not exist or that the immaterial cannot be known. 

Let’s not reduce ontology and epistemology to science, since science itself cannot support such a reduction. 

Fine. 

Then someone give me  CLEAR explanation of an immaterial substance 

I don't even think that science can deal with "all reality"

Science doesn't deal with reality at all it deals with our construction of what we think might be out there. It is more about human perceptions than anything else.

Language doesn't work to explain the immaterial 

I'm ok with it being a religious mystery but don't tell me it has anything to do with coherent epistemology or ontology.

You will only see that in Catholic universities that teach Scholasticism 

It's about language, not science.

And yes LDS theology is materialist, but it has nothing to do with present science. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

Whether it’s self-evident that only material ‘things’ exist depends on prior philosophical commitments.  

Of course. What philosophy doesn't depend on prior philosophical commitments?

[3DOP]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:33 PM, Spammer said:

Has science demonstrated that nothing immaterial exists? 

The Word became flesh. Prior to becoming flesh was "the Word" made out of matter? Is it completely ridiculous to think that God is trying to reveal to material beings, that there also immaterial beings, and that God is immaterial? I can understand someone thinking it is wrong. But I KNOW it isn't ridiculous.

----------------

I think I understand what LDS believe and I think it is coherent and consistent. But to LDS, it seems that we are just babbling. We are incoherent. We don't make any sense. We believe and say things that are self-evidently false and absurd. 

I had given up some time ago on trying to discuss metaphysics with our friends by myself. I wouldn't be lured back without some help. I thought you brought new data that shows how little the Church Fathers followed the beliefs of those whose terminology they borrowed to express their anti-hellenistic beliefs. It was fun last weekend, having hope that the LDS might give us the intellectual respect which an enlightened Catholic can give them. 

I guess it isn't our fault if they are happier to imagine that we worship an "energy blob" as one unguarded observer recently blasphemed. They zealously believe that our God isn't good. I know they like us. You and me, and Miserere too. Of course they don't know our God. They have heard of Him, and have been turned away from Him by philosophies of men, and not of Christ. This material religion of theirs makes it so they really can't love our God and they think they never could.

-------------------

Of course I know some LDS will be reading this as well. The above is why I have come to be persuaded that your religion, and its philosophical underpinning is Satanic. Catholics speculate that Lucifer fell when he learned that God intended to not only make material beings in the image of God, but that He intended to become incarnate Himself. What greater coup could the Enemy of all of our souls perform, than to try to shove matter in God's face, by fostering a religion that cannot believe in God, and cannot believe in the devil either, because the religion successfully forms people who become intellectually incapable of believing in anything that isn't made out of matter? I cannot otherwise explain the blindness that make it impossible to even appear to a Latter-day Saint to be rational on the subject of metaphysics. Spammer made good, sound, arguments last weekend. He asked reasonable questions that were not answered. I know this. There was not one begrudging acknowledgement that a single good point was made. There is a spiritual barrier between us that makes us incomprehensible to you. I guess that won't make any sense either. Such a barrier would be nothing at all because a barrier of any kind has to made out of matter!

I know you don't have seances and witchcraft. That is some of the devil's crudest work. LDS can't worship the true devil. He doesn't mind, as long as he can lead you to despise God. Anyway, I'll be around like always. I have come to have a fondness for many of you here. I think it is time that I admit what I have been thinking.   

Best,

Rory

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

The Word became flesh. Prior to becoming flesh was "the Word" made out of matter? Is it completely ridiculous to think that God is trying to reveal to material beings, that there also immaterial beings, and that God is immaterial? I can understand someone thinking it is wrong. But I KNOW it isn't ridiculous.

----------------

I think I understand what LDS believe and I think it is coherent and consistent. But to LDS, it seems that we are just babbling. We are incoherent. We don't make any sense. We believe and say things that are self-evidently false and absurd. 

I had given up some time ago on trying to discuss metaphysics with our friends by myself. I wouldn't be lured back without some help. I thought you brought new data that shows how little the Church Fathers followed the beliefs of those whose terminology they borrowed to express their anti-hellenistic beliefs. It was fun last weekend, having hope that the LDS might give us the intellectual respect which an enlightened Catholic can give them. 

I guess it isn't our fault if they are happier to imagine that we worship an "energy blob" as one unguarded observer recently blasphemed. They zealously believe that our God isn't good. I know they like us. You and me, and Miserere too. Of course they don't know our God. They have heard of Him, and have been turned away from Him by philosophies of men, and not of Christ. This material religion of theirs makes it so they really can't love our God and they think they never could.

-------------------

Of course I know some LDS will be reading this as well. The above is why I have come to be persuaded that your religion, and its philosophical underpinning is Satanic. Catholics speculate that Lucifer fell when he learned that God intended to not only make material beings in the image of God, but that He intended to become incarnate Himself. What greater coup could the Enemy of all of our souls perform, than to try to shove matter in God's face, by fostering a religion that cannot believe in God, and cannot believe in the devil either, because the religion successfully forms people who become intellectually incapable of believing in anything that isn't made out of matter? I cannot otherwise explain the blindness that make it impossible to even appear to a Latter-day Saint to be rational on the subject of metaphysics. Spammer made good, sound, arguments last weekend. He asked reasonable questions that were not answered. I know this. There was not one begrudging acknowledgement that a single good point was made. There is a spiritual barrier between us that makes us incomprehensible to you. I guess that won't make any sense either. Such a barrier would be nothing at all because a barrier of any kind has to made out of matter!

I know you don't have seances and witchcraft. That is some of the devil's crudest work. LDS can't worship the true devil. He doesn't mind, as long as he can lead you to despise God. Anyway, I'll be around like always. I have come to have a fondness for many of you here. I think it is time that I admit what I have been thinking.   

Best,

Rory

Oh my.

If I missed some questions you feel were unanswered, please ask again and I will do my best

 The word was the messenger.

He had a body of spirit matter as we all do. You call it the soul. That soul which was made of spirit matter was transformed into flesh with in Mary's within Mary's womb.

Substance theology is also a philosophy of man. Where else did it come from? It came from Aristotle.

[3DOP]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.

If I missed some questions you feel were unanswered, please ask again and I will do my best

 The word was the messenger.

He had a body of spirit matter as we all do. You call it the soul. That soul which was made of spirit matter was transformed into flesh with in Mary's within Mary's womb.

Substance theology is also a philosophy of man. Where else did it come from? It came from Aristotle.

I think you have already answered all questions I might have the only way you know how.  

I appreciate the gesture, Mark. Thank you.

Regards,

Rory

   

 

[Vance]

23 hours ago, Spammer said:

It seems you’re suggesting that:

1) science has demonstrated that only the material exists.

I neither expressed nor implied anything like that.

How do you know that anyTHING "immaterial" exists?  What is your source for making such a claim?

23 hours ago, Spammer said:

2) the spirit as breath and wind in scripture is to be taken literally, not figuratively.

What I am saying is that literally the same Greek word is translated as "spirit", "breath" or "wind" depending on the context.  Two of those are LITERALLY material.  How can you claim that the third is immaterial?  What is your basis for such a claim.

23 hours ago, Spammer said:

If so, then regarding the above claims: 

1) when and how did science accomplish this?

Irrelevant.

23 hours ago, Spammer said:

and

2) says who?

Irrelevant.

[Vance]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

They zealously believe that our God isn't good.

Whoa there cowboy.  Just because you have the "physical" (for lack of a better word) description of God all wrong, doesn't mean that He isn't good.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I know they like us. You and me, and Miserere too.

Well you and Spammer, I am not sure about Miserere. 😉

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Of course they don't know our God.They have heard of Him, and have been turned away from Him by philosophies of men, and not of Christ. This material religion of theirs makes it so they really can't love our God and they think they never could.

Speaking only for my self, I can't find your God in the scriptures, and I can't accept the fourth century concept that men develop of Him either.

So, I guess you are right.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

-------------------

Of course I know some LDS will be reading this as well. The above is why I have come to be persuaded that your religion, and its philosophical underpinning is Satanic. Catholics speculate that Lucifer fell when he learned that God intended to not only make material beings in the image of God, but that He intended to become incarnate Himself. What greater coup could the Enemy of all of our souls perform, than to try to shove matter in God's face, by fostering a religion that cannot believe in God, and cannot believe in the devil either, because the religion successfully forms people who become intellectually incapable of believing in anything that isn't made out of matter? I cannot otherwise explain the blindness that make it impossible to even appear to a Latter-day Saint to be rational on the subject of metaphysics. Spammer made good, sound, arguments last weekend. He asked reasonable questions that were not answered. I know this. There was not one begrudging acknowledgement that a single good point was made. There is a spiritual barrier between us that makes us incomprehensible to you. I guess that won't make any sense either. Such a barrier would be nothing at all because a barrier of any kind has to made out of matter!

That is interesting.

And IF the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones, just like the Son has a physical body of flesh and bones, THEN,

The philosophy that God is "immaterial" has the Satanic underpinnings.

Then does Lucifer, who is without a physical body (in another word, immaterial) become the real god of your  worship?

Interesting juxtaposition don't you think?

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I know you don't have seances and witchcraft. That is some of the devil's crudest work. LDS can't worship the true devil. He doesn't mind, as long as he can lead you to despise God.

And that could be turned around as well.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Anyway, I'll be around like always. I have come to have a fondness for many of you here. I think it is time that I admit what I have been thinking.

Best,

Rory

Well, it is only fair.

Glad you stick around.

And God bless you.

[Vance]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is scientism pure and simple. Material does not equal all reality unless you subscribe to scientific materialism, a belief that science itself cannot support. 

Science deals with the material. By definition science cannot deal with the immaterial.

Exactly!!!

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

However, it does NOT therefore follow that the immaterial does not exist or that the immaterial cannot be known.

"immaterial" is a philosophical construct, not a scientific or "real" world one.  It is/was philosophically constructed in the mind of men. So, can and does exist, in the mind.