Who's Coming To Dinner?

[Programmer]

Complete and utter gibberish. A person cannot be more than one "being" and a "being" cannot be more than one person. Volumes have been wasted on this absurd concept. It is a pure invention; a fiction fabricated by conjoining two mutually exclusive concepts and slapping on a coat of semantic nonsense to hide the seams.

I can't believe it, but I agree whole heartedly with what M.C. just said here.

The Creeds are utter confused gibberish, that has paralyzed the christian world for a century and a half. In Nicea in 325 A.D. the christian leaders should have just prayed for a revelation to answer their question, instead of arguing and bickering over some creed. If there and been an apostle in their house, they probably could have gotten an authoritative answer that would have solved all their troubles once and for all. But they didn't, and now they are stuck with an embarrassing creed that puts codified limits as to how far they can go in their knowledge of God. I have news for them: The Godhead transcends their limited creeds, and they will be in for a major surprise when they see God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ the Savior of the world.

[Programmer]

It was made simple for me by an evangelical friend...

The answer is mathematical. It's a matter of addition and multiplication.

1+1+1=3

but

1x1x1=1

Mormons add, "Christians" multiply.

Now that that's settled....

Bernard

Baloney:

standard christians are one dimensional:

they multiply on the X axis

Latter Day Saints are two dimensional:

they multiply on the X axis, and add on the Y Axis.

Their creeds are like Aristotles science: They sound nice until the time comes to prove them.

[juliann]

CFR on these Internet EV's who are going towards social trinitarianism.

CKS

Right here with your refusal to answer a question that was formulated by a trinitarian .

"If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were coming to dinner, how many places would you set?"

Feel free to comment on my spelling instead. No one will notice.

[Tsuzuki]

"If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were coming to dinner, how many places would you set?"

I would set as many as I could, just in case they decided to invite Zeus, Odin, Buddha, and the rest of the gang.

[cksalmon]

Right here with your refusal to answer a question that was formulated by a trinitarian

I'm assuming at this point that you can't specify the question in a meaningful manner.

You wrote: "So how many places would our trinitarian critics set at the table for their three personages?"

That's your question. I guess you're a "trinitarian" in the sense you mean here?

For the last time, specify, focus, delimit your question in a meaningful manner from a determinate perspective if you expect an answer from me.

Your insistence that I'm refusing to answer with an ambiguous answer your ambiguous question is just silly, frankly.

Your apparently-contented disregard for basic English trinitarian terminology is a much bigger issue for me than your confusion of "imput" for "input" or "impute," or whatever you might have actually meant.

I suspect you'll post yet again about my refusal to answer your question ("So how many places would our trinitarian critics set at the table for their three personages?"). At this point, we can disregard, as far as I'm concerned, at least some of the questions I've posed to Juliann that she's "refused" to answer.

So, dear readers (including, once again, Juliann herself), mark my words carefully here: I will answer Juliann's question when she finds it useful to delimit and specify her question in a meaningful way from a determinate viewpoint. She hasn't seen fit to do so yet. And I don't think she will, frankly. I'm not sure, based on her basic, evidenced confusion, that she's even able to do so.

But, before we get to that, CFR that trinitarians have only just recently begun to emphasize the three-in-oneness of the Godhead and that this is a recent semantic game played by folks who insist they believe in three distinct beings. That's what your OP claimed. Frankly, I don't believe either of those claims. I'd love to see evidence of either or both. Can you provide evidence of either or both?

Perhaps you can answer a few of my questions--questions I implicitly posed in my initial response to you. DCP hasn't answered them. But, perhaps you can?

CKS

[Bond...James Bond]

If God is coming to dinner I'm setting at least 8 spots. Here's the reasoning:

2-Me/date (If I'm hosting a dinner that God is coming to, I'm roping someone into a date. There is no going stag at a dinner for God)

2-God/date (Holy Mother perhaps?)

2-Jesus/date (Um....I'm thinking the Savior can rustle up a date)

2-Holy Ghost/date (holy Ghostess perhaps?)

Anyway, I would set as a minimum 8 spots. My reasoning is that since God can do whatever he wants (he is God after all, and that is a perk) he would naturally want to split himself into 3 separate beings for the night, so as to allow for my 8 set spots to be filled (God wouldn't want to insult me now would he?).

But I think the seating arrangement would be a tad down the list. A more pressing issue would be the entree? What do you serve the Creator of all things? Chicken? Steak? Lobster? A Roast? What? What? What? I mean you'd think that after a long hard day of being God he wouldn't want to have to face his work...so I'm guessing he'd want something synthetic, like a couple of Twinkies or other substances which are unGodly.

The next issue is the place settings themselves. What do you serve food on to God? Once again...the same old issues appear. He created the silverware and teh crystal and the crockery, so what is left? Once again, we have to turn to manmade stuff. And that means styrofoam plates and plastic utensils. But what about the utensils? God created the fork, knife, and spoon.....so what's left? The spork of course!

Now we're confronted with the issue of serving God (and other such luminaries as Jesus and the Holy Ghost [not to mention the women {or men?} of their lives]) twinkies on stryofoam plates. Do you really think that the place setting is something worth worrying about? And who says it's going to be a traditional dinner party? My bones suggest that after a long hard day of being God, God might just want to munch on a couple of twinkies in the den while chitchatting about how the Football season is going (Do you think God cheers for any other team besides the Saints?). And how do you know he'll even accept your invitation? I mean he's God. He's got quite a heavy schedule, not to mention that he probably does plenty of entertaining on his own. What makes you think he's going to show up at your 3 bedroom house when he could be dining at The White House?

(I could go on like this for days....suffice to say. If there is a truly all powerful God odds are he can do whatever he wants, so why worry about setting the table?)

[soren]

When you say it can't be imagined, you're admitting that it can't be comprehended.

When I say it cannot be imagined I mean that imagination it the lowest activity of the intellect, and that a higher modes of thought are necessary to make sense of it. That mode is pure understanding. It is absolutely essential to recognize a distinction between imagination and understanding.

One can prove from a diagram of a single triangle that the interior angles of that triangle add up to 180 degrees. One can also know by this proof that this is universally true of all triangles. Yet how does one make the step from one triangle to all the others? One must abstract from the individual example what the essential reason is why the angles are as they are. One must then apply this abstraction to the uncountable other triangles as a universal understanding. Yet neither the universality of the rule nor the underlying reasons for the truth of the theorem in the individual case are susceptible to the imagination. They are, however, known to a different faculty of mind which is the understanding. God can be known with the understanding, but not with the imagination.

I do, however, freely admit that God cannot be comprehended, though for an utterly different reason, and even with a different meaning of the word than you impose thus:

The reason it can't be comprehended is because it is a contradiction in terms. You might as well be talking about a square circle. "It is fully square, yet it is also fully circular." Just don't go calling it a circular square, because that's totally different.

The reason it cannot be comprehended is because it is infinite. Consider very strictly what â??comprehendâ? means. Literally it means â??to encloseâ? of â??to engrasp.â? To demand God to be comprehensible is to demand that he be finite.

It should be noted that God is perfectly comprehensible to Himself, and that his incomprehensibility is relative only to creatures, who see him through a glass darkly. The perfect comprehensibility of God to Himself, which is basic to Trinitarian theology as it pertains to the generation of the Son, requires that God is, in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, â??the pure intelligible.â? In his essence, God is more knowable, and in fact simpler, than any other thing that can be known. God is difficult to describe not because the truths about him are unclear, but for the opposite reason, because they are precise. The expression of precise thinking requires care and specificity, and often, therefore, a lot of words.

For me, the Trinity is easier to understand than most things, because I have gone deeply enough into learning it for the initial illusion of complexity to vanish. For it is really only the words that are complex, once their meanings are apprehended and the baggage of finite categories is stripped from the mind, God is abundantly clear. Only a prayer study can achieve this.

Another nonsensical statement. Where do you get the idea that something can have "more existence than matter"? What does that even mean? How does one go about measuring amounts of existence?

Matter receives its existence from God. Therefore God has more existence than matter does. Since a thing cannot give what it does not have, God, by being the cause of matter, proves that he has being. That matter exists by receiving being from another is evident from the fact that matter is always in a state of change: First it is one thing, then it becomes another; it is in one place, then it moves to another. That which has undergone change has been caused, and to be caused is to be contingent.

By contrast, God is not a contingent being, but exists from everlasting to everlasting. He has no cause, but exists because it is His nature to exist. God has more being than matter not by â??measureâ? or degree, but in kind. God has a greater kind of being, for the existence of all things, anything at all that is not God, exists because God made it.

There is no form of "humanity." "Humanity" is a term of linguistic convenience. It is a useful fiction that makes helps us generalize and simplify reality. We take a group of organisms with shared genetic ancestry and physical similarities and stick them all under one heading, but that doesn't make the category we've created an immutable platonic form.

If that is true, then there is no knowledge, to reason, no science, no truth. If that is true, even the theorem about the triangle could have no universality. There can also be no moral law, since law implies universal application of form. Furthermore, you could not claim a contradiction between â??one beingâ? and â??three persons,â? for by attributing no reality to abstract words but fictitious utility, you have removed everything real in the statement but the words, which are different from one another and therefore cannot contradict each other. Unless I say something formally contradictory like â??A is non-Aâ? you cannot accuse me of contradiction while still maintaining a nominalist notion of form and language.

I donâ??t speak about immutable platonic forms. I am actually an Aristotelian. Albeit, there is a better case to be made for the forms than many people even think about. In any case, My reasoning does not require that a library of forms exists in heaven. I require only that form has reality. That is a sufficient proposition, and evidently true, for if there is no form of humanity, we could not distinguish a man from a puppy.

You've defined "person." (A being that thinks and acts) But you didn't define "being."

No. I have defined neither person nor being. I simply distinguished them by saying person implies rationality and individuation while being does not. This point of distinction was sufficient for my purposes at the time. I will explain the definitions lower down.

For most people, the term "being" is a thing that thinks and acts. "I saw three beings appear over my bed." What did I see? Three rocks? Three toasters? No...when you read "I saw three beings," you immediately imagined three persons, because in virtually every case, "being" is synonymous with "person."

That is not true. A rock is a being. Do you think a rock is a non-being? You could say a rock has less being than a person does, but of person meant being, a rock would not be a being.

Even so, the way most people use the word is of no importance to me, since my theme is orthodox Trinitarianism, not common parlance. What matters is what the great thinkers and teachers of the Trinity over the centuries have intended the word to mean. When we talk about non-Trinitarian ideas, then other definitions can be used to discuss those ideas. Everybody gets the benefit of defining his own terms.

If you define "being" more broadly--something like "that which exists," you still run into problems. How can something be "one being"? Again, we run into semantic problems stemming from methods of categorization. If a rock is "one being," what happens if we break the rock in half? Do we still have "one being" or have we created two beings?

â??Again we run into semantic problemsâ?? You have not established any semantic problem in the first place. You have asserted that the Trinity is purely semantical, but you have provided no justification beyond that bare assertion. If you cannot distinguish an assertion from an argument, it is little wonder you dismiss my attempts so explain myself so bluntly.

My answer to the question of the rock is that one being is divided into two. Yet I add that the oneness of the rock is not an analogy to the Oneness of God, because it is a finite unity, rather than an infinite one. This is precisely because the rock is divisible. If you asked , â??What if we broke God into two parts?â? I would answer differently. I would say, â??Anything than can be broken is divided, and any division is a boundary. Yet to have a boundary is to be finite. God however is infinite. This yields the contradiction of claiming that the infinite is finite. There is no answer to this question because it is a genuine contradiction in terms.

With respect to God, I define â??beingâ? as simultaneously indicating substance and existence. Substance is the primary reality of the thing which is and existence is the act of being. (In created beings substance and existence are distinct, but they are not in God.) A person is an individual who possesses a rational nature or subsistence.

Oh yeah..."immaterial being"--another contradiction in terms.

â??Immaterial matterâ? is a contradiction in terms, as is â??non-existent being.â? â??Immaterial beingâ? is not a contradiction in terms. You may assert that, as a point of fact, only matter has existence, but that has nothing to do with whether a contradiction appears in this concept.

Given that I raised the issue of philosophical materialism in my previous post, donâ??t you think a better response is in order than a mere counterassertion?

The whole trinitarian tower is just floor after floor of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo like this.

What is mumbo-jumbo? Iâ??ve been asking myself that since I first read your post. As far as I can tell, from context and common usage, â??mumbo-jumboâ? indicates a thing that is known to be false because it is not easy to understand. I do not believe in mumbo-jumbo.

I have had privileged opportunities to study a good deal of philosophy under men who knew how to teach it, and I have acquired over the years a good understanding of its importance and meaning, both in theology, ethics, and political society. Yet there is one philosopher I have never been able to understand. I speak of Hegel. This important philosopher, whose book Phenomenology of Mind is one of the loadstones not only for modern metaphysical philosophies, like existentialism, but also materialist philosophies like Communism. It has lots of difficult ideas expressed in sentences that say things like:

The result was the unconditioned universal, initially, in the negative and abstract sense that consciousness negated its one-sided Notions and abstracted them: in other words, it gave them up. But the result was, implicitly a positive significance: in it, the unity of â??being-for-selfâ?? and â??being-for-anotherâ?? is posited; in other words, the absolute antithesis is self-identical existence.

I only have hunches as to what Hegel is talking about here, and most of his 500-page book is no clearer than this. In the past nine years, I have attempted to read Hegel many times to no avail. On the basis of my failure to understand what he is talking about, I could possibly conclude that it is all nonsense, not worth knowing or thinking about. I could do that. I could call it â??mumbo-jumbo.â?

Yet alas, I am now a student of Biblical hermeneutics, and modern hermeneutics is heavily influenced by philosophers like Gadamer and exegetes like Bultmann who are deeply influenced by Hegel or the philosophers who followed after him. If I am to really understand a lot of the thought that is going on in my own field of study, I cannot dismiss Hegel by finger-pointing. And even apart from that practical reality, I cannot be sure there is nothing worth learning from him for its own sake. So I recently purchased another book that explains some basics to help me understand Hegel. Though I do not yet understand him, and even the introductory book is difficult, I expect to find coherent thought residing beneath this thicket of words. I do know that my current failure to understand Hegel is not a reason for me to dismiss him. In fact, it is a reason to give him more of my time. If I find fault with Hegelian philosophy, I will never take my lack of understanding as a basis for finding fault.

You see, if â??mumbo-jumboâ? existed, no one would ever learn anything. No one would ever grow beyond himself. My voice sounds like mumbo-jumbo to my ten-month-old daughter, but she still pays attention to it and can learn.

[Abulafia]

CK salmon,

I hope you don't mind me asking...I'm not particularly well versed on the development of trinitarian belief over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm trying very hard to follow your argument...

To me, at one level, it seems a perfectly reasonable question for Juliann to ask...

How many seats would you set?

Are you refusing to answer because of the issue of essence.

I can understand your reluctance to answer if you feel that God is not confined by a physicial body???

(Which is what the question assumes I suppose)....

FWIW, I no longer see God in physical terms. I'm sure God is much bigger than our bodies that have evolved to survive on this beautiful but dangerous planet...

Mary

[Tsuzuki]

One can prove from a diagram of a single triangle that the interior angles of that triangle add up to 180 degrees. One can also know by this proof that this is universally true of all triangles.

Not when you take into account the curvature of space-time.

[Programmer]

Not when you take into account the curvature of space-time.

I have a better answer. There are Euclidean spaces where such laws hold true, and there are non-Euclidean spaces where such laws are formulated differently.

[Programmer]

...

You see, if â??mumbo-jumboâ? existed, no one would ever learn anything. No one would ever grow beyond himself. My voice sounds like mumbo-jumbo to my ten-month-old daughter, but she still pays attention to it and can learn.

Wow, such a long post defending the Trinity. All of it in language foreign to the Bible, but springing forth from Greek Philosophy. That was more confusing than 10 Nicean creeds multiplied and added together.

Here is the LDS church's stance:

"I saw two personages standing above me in the air, one spake unto me, calling me by name saying: "Joseph, this is my beloved son hear him"

Simple isn't it?

To our eyes they may appear separate, but there are more senses than one. Their unity has to be in another way that is not obvious to the eyes. John Chapter 17 lays out the basic doctrine of HOW they are one quite cleanly and naturally. No mumbo jumbo greek words there.

So there, I have outlined a simple elegant rebuttal to your confused tangled Greek doctrine, and I have used the scriptures to back me up.

And since CKSalmon has a chip on his shoulder since he won't answer Julian's question,

I will ask it again:

"If God is Coming to Dinner, how many place's will you set at the Table".

Please just answer the question!

[Tsuzuki]

I have a better answer. There are Euclidean spaces where such laws hold true, and there are non-Euclidean spaces where such laws are formulated differently.

Would non-Euclidean geometry be considered a heresy?

[juliann]

For the last time, specify, focus, delimit your question in a meaningful manner from a determinate perspective if you expect an answer from me.

Your insistence that I'm refusing to answer with an ambiguous answer your ambiguous question is just silly, frankly.

CKS

Oh, I think if a question is clear enough for a Methodist teacher, it is clear enough for you. Just can't quite bring yourself to say ONE, can you?

Your apparently-contented disregard for basic English trinitarian terminology is a much bigger issue for me than your confusion of "imput" for "input" or "impute," or whatever you might have actually meant.

How many posts are you going to do about my bad spelling thinking you are masking your obvious dilemma? You haven't even mentioned my spelling "who's" as "whose". That should give you some more wiggle room.

So, dear readers (including, once again, Juliann herself), mark my words carefully here: I will answer Juliann's question when she finds it useful to delimit and specify her question in a meaningful way from a determinate viewpoint. She hasn't seen fit to do so yet. And I don't think she will, frankly. I'm not sure, based on her basic, evidenced confusion, that she's even able to do so.

Translation: I really believe the Trinity is three, not one. Give me an out here!

But, before we get to that, CFR that trinitarians have only just recently begun to emphasize the three-in-oneness of the Godhead and that this is a recent semantic game played by folks who insist they believe in three distinct beings. That's what your OP claimed. Frankly, I don't believe either of those claims. I'd love to see evidence of either or both. Can you provide evidence of either or both?

An anti-Mormon who refuses to say how many places he would set at the table if the Trinity came to dinner, a question asked of his confirmation students by a Methodist teacher! (He gave you the answer. )

And one more time as you flail about looking for anything to avoid the question, I said I have observed this preference of the "three" over the "one" during my time on the internet which spans many years. Not "recently".

[cksalmon]

CK salmon,

I hope you don't mind me asking...I'm not particularly well versed on the development of trinitarian belief over the past couple of thousand years, and I'm trying very hard to follow your argument...

To me, at one level, it seems a perfectly reasonable question for Juliann to ask...

How many seats would you set?

Are you refusing to answer because of the issue of essence.

Hi Mary--

Unspecified, the question strikes me as pointless. I'm not refusing to answer, really. I just need to know what it is that I'm supposed to be answering.

If all Juliann means by her question is how many physical bodies are part of trinity, then the answer is obvious: one. But, is that what she means with her table setting question? Unembodied persons don't typically sit at table. Surely, she must assume that I believe the Father and the Spirit to be unembodied. Now, would she really bother to pose such an asinine question to a traditional trinitarian? I hope not.

I might assume, then, that her question involves merely metaphorical place settings. Then, my answer would be four, as I believe in a three-personed God, and apparently I'm hosting the dinner.

Does that answer her question? Yes. To her satisfaction? Somehow, I doubt it; but without further specification, that's about the best I can do.

Best to you.

CKS

Oh, I think if a question is clear enough for a Methodist teacher, it is clear enough for you. Just can't quite bring yourself to say ONE, can you?

How many posts are you going to do about my bad spelling thinking you are masking your obvious dilemma? You haven't even mentioned my spelling "who's" as "whose". That should give you some more wiggle room.

Translation: I really believe the Trinity is three, not one. Give me an out here!

An anti-Mormon who refuses to say how many places he would set at the table if the Trinity came to dinner, a question asked of his confirmation students by a Methodist teacher! (He gave you the answer. )

And one more time as you flail about looking for anything to avoid the question, I said I have observed this preference of the "three" over the "one" during my time on the internet which spans many years. Not "recently".

See my answers to Mary above.

[cksalmon]

Duplicate post.

[Bernard Gui]

Yet alas, I am now a student of Biblical hermeneutics, and modern hermeneutics is heavily influenced by philosophers like Gadamer and exegetes like Bultmann who are deeply influenced by Hegel or the philosophers who followed after him. If I am to really understand a lot of the thought that is going on in my own field of study, I cannot dismiss Hegel by finger-pointing. And even apart from that practical reality, I cannot be sure there is nothing worth learning from him for its own sake. So I recently purchased another book that explains some basics to help me understand Hegel. Though I do not yet understand him, and even the introductory book is difficult, I expect to find coherent thought residing beneath this thicket of words. I do know that my current failure to understand Hegel is not a reason for me to dismiss him. In fact, it is a reason to give him more of my time. If I find fault with Hegelian philosophy, I will never take my lack of understanding as a basis for finding fault.

Ever consider the possibility that Hegel was full of it?

Anyway, to ask Nibley's question, "Does the revealed truth require any such help at all? . . . It needs no special pleading, let alone battalions of technically trained experts, to render it effective. If men do not accept the gospel as it stands, there is no profit in dressing it up to make it more appetizing." Hugh Nibley, "The World and the Prophets."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

"Antispell One: Write Without Any Tense Of The Verb 'To Be'"

"Antispell Two: Eliminate Being From Speech"

"Antispell Three: Eliminate Being From Your Internal Dialogue"

Antispell Four: Eliminate Being from your Being.

Bernard

[jadams_4242]

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695234115,00.html

It isn't often I see something new about the trinity. In my sojourn on the internet, I have observed a movement toward emphasizing the "three" in the "one". This is a clever way to break through the semantic game that is played when trinitarians insist they believe in three separate beings.

This gave me a chuckle because it is so true and so ironic.

So how many places would our trinitarian critics set at the table for their three personages?

Whos coming to dinner, Hmmm, let me think, hhmmmmmmm... Sidney Poirtey?

[juliann]

If all Juliann means by her question is how many physical bodies are part of trinity, then the answer is obvious: one. But, is that what she means with her table setting question? Unembodied persons don't typically sit at table. Surely, she must assume that I believe the Father and the Spirit to be unembodied. Now, would she really bother to pose such an asinine question to a traditional trinitarian? I hope not.

I might assume, then, that her question involves merely metaphorical place settings. Then, my answer would be four, as I believe in a three-personed God, and apparently I'm hosting the dinner.

You are going to continue to pretend it is my question to swat it down, eh? It is a question from a Methodist to his confirmation class. Be as disdainful as you want about what Trinitarians are teaching each other....but it is not my question. Sorry.

And now we know why you did not want to answer. Three it is....and that is the emphasis I have been seeing. And frankly, I think a Methodist teaching a confirmation class is as reliable if not more reliable source than someone who spends his time running anti-Mormon websites.

[Tsuzuki]

Antispell Four: Eliminate Being from your Being.

Bernard

I think you've got the general idea.

[Bond...James Bond]

Whos coming to dinner, Hmmm, let me think, hhmmmmmmm... Sidney Poirtey?

Or Ashton Kutcher.

[cksalmon]

And now we know why you did not want to answer. Three it is....and that is the emphasis I have been seeing. And frankly, I think a Methodist teaching a confirmation class is as reliable if not more reliable source than someone who spends his time running anti-Mormon websites.

As I've maintained, without delimitation, the question (and my answer) is pointless--whether a Methodist asks his confirmation class or whether you pose it to critics here on MADB.

The underlined portion is, frankly, mind-boggling. I had no idea I ran even a single anti-Mormon website (because I don't)--let alone "websites." Your claim is false. I assume that you're simply misinformed rather than lying. Either way, stop spreading false information about me.

CKS

[juliann]

The underlined portion is, frankly, mind-boggling. I had no idea I ran even a single anti-Mormon website (because I don't)--let alone "websites." Your claim is false. I assume that you're simply misinformed rather than lying. Either way, stop spreading false information about me.

Well what do you do? I could be lying...or I could just be totally disinterested in yet one more anti-Mormon hawking his wares and chasing me down on message boards. You all tend to start looking alike. Sorry if I gave out wrong information....perhaps you could just correct it next time instead of having a meltdown. Just a thought.

[sean0scott]

Ever consider the possibility that Hegel was full of it?

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this...

As Mormons, would we really put out 3 places at dinner?

I would put out a place for everyone with a body... 2

I guess I would pray for guidance in deciding what the etiquette is when hosting spirits sans body...

[Bill Hamblin]

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this...

As Mormons, would we really put out 3 places at dinner?

I would put out a place for everyone with a body... 2

I guess I would pray for guidance in deciding what the etiquette is when hosting spirits sans body...

I think we would set four or more, assuming Ms. God would come along.

And Elijah always needs a seat too.

Antispell Four: Eliminate Being from your Being.

Bernard

Eliminate what from my what?