Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Broker

Children of "A" Heavenly Father

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vance said:

How do you know that anyTHING "immaterial" exists? 

Perhaps the same way we might know dark matter exists...by its effects on what we know/believe (since it is possible it is matter that is the illusion) exists.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

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

   

 

I'm deeply sorry to have offended you as badly as I have apparently. I think what you do not understand is that all I am criticizing is the words involved in describing what Catholics feel.

I believe that the only rational explanation for any religious Faith Mormon or Catholic does not exist.

I am a true Mystic in that sense in the spirit of Teresa of Avila, and Wittgenstein who understood these principles as well. And incidentally Wittgenstein attended Catholic services often and was close to the church in many ways.

The term "Spirit matter" is simply a good way to get around this impasse, but no one really knows what that means. Scientifically we know that matter and energy are linked at at some point are the same thing. Using at words I do not fully understand myself I think that Spirit matter is like some kind of an energy field or plasma.

But to even discuss it is to make a category error of trying to make religion into science, assuming that words can possibly reflect reality. They cannot.

Postulating Spirit bodies does the same thing functionally in the argument, as substance, that gives a name to what cannot be described.

Had spammer or you brought that up I would have conceded it is true.

We are replacing one unintelligible postulate with another that sounds better. But that is exactly what metaphysics is about. We live in a scientific age and it is easier to postulate something sounding quasi-scientific with something that sounds totally unscientific. But neither terminology really makes too much sense

I think God can spiritually affirm either point of view from his point of view because they're both feeble human attempts to put the ocean into a hole in the sand.

I think frankly that all he cares about is that we love him and try to understand him even though it is impossible for us to do so, while we do our best to do what we think he Wills.

So I thought I was demonstrating that we what we were discussing was words and yet I did not realize that you were taking the discussion that seriously.  I did not mean to attack your core beliefs but simply to discuss the languages which they were expressed.

I feel terrible now that this has had the effect that has upon you, that you would think therefore that we are satanic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Postulating Spirit bodies does the same thing functionally in the argument, as substance, that gives a name to what cannot be described.

Had spammer or you brought that up I would have conceded it is true

I agree. No one has been able to define what “refined matter”’or more pure matter actually is. What is impure in carbon for example that makes it physical matter rather than spirit matter?  Most who have casually thought about it seem to see it as somehow smaller or more energetic particles in conversations I have had, but I suspect many/most don’t even get that far. Nor does impure matter being physical and more refined spirit matter make much sense imo since resurrected bodies are perfect and therefore must be pure.  Now perhaps mortal matter vs eternal matter works there (though still no clue what it is that is impure in mortal matter or what is the difference in structure), but that runs into problems with using "matter" in different ways than physics, etc does, imo.

We get pretty quickly to ‘it is unknown/a mystery’ as well.  I think the difference is we don’t see the mystery as something remarkable or awesome (there seems to be a level of respect when talking about unknowns withnonLDS Christians in my experience, but perhaps I am reading that into comments), instead we will eventually possess the knowledge.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

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

Yes that is a problem in the theory as well

Does Jesus still have his body?

Is it immaterial? What kind of material is it? 

Of course those are still problems with the description only, but nevertheless they remain unanswered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm deeply sorry to have offended you as badly as I have apparently. I think what you do not understand is that all I am criticizing is the words involved in describing what Catholics feel.

I believe that the only rational explanation for any religious Faith Mormon or Catholic does not exist.

I am a true Mystic in that sense in the spirit of Teresa of Avila, and Wittgenstein who understood these principles as well. And incidentally Wittgenstein attended Catholic services often and was close to the church in many ways.

The term "Spirit matter" is simply a good way to get around this impasse, but no one really knows what that means. Scientifically we know that matter and energy are linked at at some point are the same thing. Using at words I do not fully understand myself I think that Spirit matter is like some kind of an energy field or plasma.

But to even discuss it is to make a category error of trying to make religion into science, assuming that words can possibly reflect reality. They cannot.

Postulating Spirit bodies does the same thing functionally in the argument, as substance, that gives a name to what cannot be described.

Had spammer or you brought that up I would have conceded it is true.

We are replacing one unintelligible postulate with another that sounds better. But that is exactly what metaphysics is about. We live in a scientific age and it is easier to postulate something sounding quasi-scientific with something that sounds totally unscientific. But neither terminology really makes too much sense

I think God can spiritually affirm either point of view from his point of view because they're both feeble human attempts to put the ocean into a hole in the sand.

I think frankly that all he cares about is that we love him and try to understand him even though it is impossible for us to do so, while we do our best to do what we think he Wills.

So I thought I was demonstrating that we what we were discussing was words and yet I did not realize that you were taking the discussion that seriously.  I did not mean to attack your core beliefs but simply to discuss the languages which they were expressed.

I feel terrible now that this has had the effect that has upon you, that you would think therefore that we are satanic.

Dear Mark,

Please be assured that you had no part in offending me.

I was not offended, nor am I now offended, nor do I consider likely that I will take offense in the future.

It is very difficult for Mormons and Catholics to communicate in general. Very difficult. You and I are uniquely perhaps unable to understand each other. I am always astounded when you think I have taken offense because of some, I thought innocent and sincere remarks. But I can't be offended that you can't understand me. But I won't give up. Here goes.

This is what apparently prompted you to believe you had offended me. I will try to interpret why I wrote what I did.

Rory said: 

"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"

You had offered in a compassionate tone to answer questions that you assumed you missed that Spammer or I might have asked. That wasn't the case. In my opinion, you answered the questions in a way that revealed you didn't understand the questions. At least once you stated that one or the other of us wasn't making any sense, and you couldn't follow. Therefore I needed to explain that it wasn't something missed in the hubbub of the thread. But also I needed to explain that I don't think we could hope for any improvement. I don't think you can understand why we think as we do about the words that have entered into theological vocabulary. I don't think you can see how significant it seems to us that the Greek speaking Christians adapted themselves to the language of the day to express Christianity, NOT to express hellenism. We don't see any reason not to have a certain veneration for these early churchmen, and why you should find them guilty of deliberately ignoring revelation. I can tell that you cannot bring yourselves to consider that the early church simply erred by misinterpreting the Scripture.

So anyway. That was the thought behind conceding that you could not answer any other way. Mormons apparently believe the Scripture alone clearly teaches what they believe. Otherwise, you could cut those guys a break and give them the benefit and just say they were wrong, not deliberate enemies of God. That might explain the first line.

The second line was an attempt to express my satisfaction with an apparently urgent and even compassionate tone with which you made an offer to answer other questions. I did not care to be effusive, but I thought I made a concise and clear statement of my feelings at the time. I wasn't angry, I appreciated what you said and the way you said it.

Sometimes I don't sign my name. (I can't remember what you call those things at the end of a letter: Sincerely, Best wishes, God bless.) Anyway, I decided to say "Regards" to try to show that I had regards for you and your gesture. It was a nice offer and that is how I took it. I wanted to personalize it even more, so I signed my real first name, instead of 3DOP which might indicate less of an outreaching to the other party, or no name at all, which could be misinterpreted as a sign of disrespect given my customary use.

I truly hope this will relieve of thinking you had said something wrong. I am good with you and everyone here. I think more than ever. I have to go see the chiropracter. I am down to once a week now. Yay. Maybe I will try to express the nuances in my view of the LDS religion, which has been developing for years and indeed decades another time. I trust you can see that it does not mean I have any ill will towards you all. On the contrary, I wish you and your fellows every blessing of God.

Take care,

Rory  

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Spammer said:

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.

God bless Mrs. Spammer.

 

18 hours ago, Spammer said:

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.

God bless you, and your little ones. and us older ones. May Mrs. Spammer be okay. But if not okay today, more okay tomorrow, and the next day, and forever.

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Spammer said:

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.

All my best- I am so sorry to hear that.

There is so much that can be done medically today and then there really are healing miracles regardless of how we silly humans want to make up words to "explain" how they happen.

All my VERY best to you and your wife, and we will be praying for you and put you on the temple rolls where all who visit will pray for your intentions.   I don't know your real names but the Lord does!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I was inappropriate in my last post and I am ashamed of its remarkable lack of consideration for where I was. I am grateful that nobody has mentioned it. It seems like some of you had to see it and though it brought a frown, you graciously overlooked it. Thanks.

I intend to delete what I do not like, and would assume that those who "liked" it may "unlike" it. (You were reading too fast!)

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/17/2019 at 5:38 PM, Calm said:

Perhaps the same way we might know dark matter exists...by its effects on what we know/believe (since it is possible it is matter that is the illusion) exists.

It's interesting to think that unicorns "exist" in a sense as well.  We have a lot of literature about them and everyone knows what it is when one sees a picture.  They certainly "exist" as a myth/story/symbol.

In what sense do they NOT exist?

We can imagine other such "entities"

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

would assume that those who "liked" it may "unlike" it. (

Even if a small part of a post, if something is said that I think is important, I give points for that even if I might not agree with other stuff in the post. 

I think it is important to recognize how difficult it can be to communicate from different faith viewpoints when fundamental assumptions may be dramatically different.  I gave points for that comment.

There may have been other stuff I thought deserved a point, but that is the one that stuck in my head as prime motivator.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...