Christological question

[Henzelli]

...and I'm stickin' to it!

Haha! My thoughts exactly on the Trinitarian view. ^.^

As for the...many...posts by mfbukowski, (seriously....write novels like the rest of us ) I have to say that you need to stop thinking like a Mormon.

The reason the Catholic Church maintains the usage of "substance," "being," "essence," et-cetera in discussions of the Trinity is because when those words were originally being laid down in the definition of the Trinity, they were of a much more concrete understanding. Today they are more abstract, but because the Catholic Church has always taught the Trinity using those terms, those who grew up in the RCC are able to understand the more concrete meaning without a need for a definition. So....Imma try and give a more concrete argument for the Trinity and cut out some of the vagueness....hopefully it helps a little. :/

In scripture, it says that (paraphrasing) in the beginning there was the word and the word was God, and the word was made flesh. This equates the Old Testament God with the physical manifestation of Christ (something that has been posted a number of times concerning the LDS view of Christ). Understanding that in the OT no distinction is made between the God of the Earth and the God of Heaven, the Church Fathers necessarily and logically understood that there is ONE (1) God in the OT, and that there are no other gods but Him (first commandment, yo!). So when the word is made flesh, it is quite obvious that God manifested His own divinity in the person of Christ, but as the agony in the garden and the passion point out, Christ had a human nature as part of his divine nature (Father, take this cup away from me, why have you abandoned me, etc. etc.). This makes Christ a distinct personage aside from God, whilst sharing in the same divinity (think pouring milk from the same carton into two glasses). Upon Christ's resurrection and ascension, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, and the Spirit was promised to remain with man forever until Judgment Day. This Spirit being bestowed upon man via the blessing of Christ, and originating with the person of God the Father, we have that same original divinity manifesting in a third way (pour the rest of that milk into a third glass!).

Now we have the complete Trinity. As in the milk example, you cannot argue that the milk in the three glasses has become distinct milk. It all came from the original carton (OT God) and was divided up into three glasses. You do not look at the carton and say "There are three different milks that are similar to each other," but rather "this carton is full of milk," understanding that the milk is a homogeneous solution. At the same time, you do not look at the three glasses and say "this homogeneous milk solution has suddenly transformed into three different, yet similar, milk solutions," but you rather understand that the same homogeneous solution of milk exists in all three glasses. But you CAN argue that the three glasses are distinct from one another. The one on the left cannot be the one on the right anymore than the person of Christ can be the person of God or the person of the Holy Spirit. Within them is the same divinity, the same homogeneous divinity solution*.

Now, to get a little bit graphic (but still PG), God being formless (and this is a fundamental difference between Catholic teaching and LDS teaching), He obviously lacks the bits necessary to become a father the way you or I might father a child. So the Holy Spirit (already being dispensed by God) is dispensed upon Mary that she might bear a child whilst remaining a virgin. Therefore, the usual patrilineal relationship between father and son is lacking, as God has given unto the child in Mary's womb the very stuff he's made of, and created a mortal version of himself. Almost akin to identical twins--they share the same genetic material, yet you would not argue that they are the same people. The very "essence" of their existence is identical, yet they are distinct from each other as people.

I hope this isn't "too Catholic." I understand that a foundational problem in explaining either side is the fact that LDS teaching holds that God the Father has form, and Catholic teaching holds that He does not. Accepting the former as given, the LDS view of the godhead makes perfect sense. Accepting the latter as given, then the Trinitarian view of the godhead makes perfect sense, and neither view can be imposed on the other because of this distinction between the form/formlessness of God. But I hope you can at least understand how the Catholic view of the godhead does not require Thomas Aquinas at all, and can still make sense using language of today.

*I'm going to market this. I'll make a killing.

[justdreamin]

I enjoyed that explaination. I have a question. Why is God formless? Is there a scriptural basis for this or is it just assumed? (I am not challenging you, I really want to know.)

[Henzelli]

I cannot authoritatively state why God is formless (I will certainly look up an official Catholic statement on the issue though), but here is my understanding:

John 1:1 states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New American)

Taking this, and utilizing our knowledge that prior to creation, all was void, we understand that the Word "logos" is God and it was all that existed in the beginning prior to creation. This is not to say that the "logos" is void, but rather that Genesis deals specifically with physical creation, and so the universe was naturally without physicality. All that existed was "the Word" which is God.

Logos is necessarily an abstract. It is without physical form. It is wisdom, it is knowledge, it is will, it is God. God creates the world through simple commands: "Let there be light," etc. etc. Simply by God's act of speaking, the physical world comes into being. And so the Word becomes more the definitive will of God and less the simple combination of monemes and phonemes that make up words. And so, necessarily, by John stating that "the Word was God" (in the beginning, before creation), is stating that God is Will. Will is without form. You cannot see it, you cannot touch it, smell it, hear it, whatever it. You can only experience it. When your master commands you do something, you are doing his will. When you have a discussion with someone, you are willfully talking with them. Everything is an act of will (except when it's coerced, but that's where things get tricky and tengential). So, by definition of what God is, we can necessarily rule out what he is not--and that is form.

Because the Word is the Will, and the Word is God, God does not have form except the formed expression of His will--creation--and the formed expression of His divinity--Christ.

Again, I cannot authoritatively state why the Catholic Church believes God to be formless, but this is the best explanation I can come up with at six o'clock in the morning (I really need to get to bed!).

[mfbukowski]

Haha! My thoughts exactly on the Trinitarian view. ^.^

As for the...many...posts by mfbukowski, (seriously....write novels like the rest of us ) I have to say that you need to stop thinking like a Mormon.

The reason the Catholic Church maintains the usage of "substance," "being," "essence," et-cetera in discussions of the Trinity is because when those words were originally being laid down in the definition of the Trinity, they were of a much more concrete understanding. Today they are more abstract, but because the Catholic Church has always taught the Trinity using those terms, those who grew up in the RCC are able to understand the more concrete meaning without a need for a definition. So....Imma try and give a more concrete argument for the Trinity and cut out some of the vagueness....hopefully it helps a little. :/

I am honestly honestly trying to be as respectful as I can.

I would like to suggest other reasons for us not having a "concrete understanding" of those words today. The reason is that those words come out of a philosophical tradition which is no longer in use, because it has been supplanted by philosophical systems which are much clearer.

I don't know if you are acquainted with the history of philosophy or not, but if not, perhaps you might read up on it. Catholicism is based on Platonic philosophy, and there are no platonists any more outside of Catholic universities. That's ok, because there are no Book of Mormon archaeologists outside of BYU. But the analogy I think is a good one.

Face the facts: Catholic philosophy makes no more sense to outsiders than BOM archaeology does to non-Mormons. That is just simply true.

Now let's get to "substance". Of course I get the milk analogy, but it is just a bad analogy. It does not define what "substance" is.

Notice I am not attacking your theology here, just the analogy. I will perhaps attack the theology later. You wanted a novel, you got one! No one reads long posts, but this is for you anyway, if you like them!

The analogy breaks down because from the beginning you chose the same "substance"- milk- to prove the point. You are arguing backwards. You still have no argument against anyone who disagrees that the three glasses are in fact wine, milk and water.

Suppose we looked at three glasses- wine, milk, and water, and I said that they were three substances and you said they were one.

How could we determine which is right? We could not. "Substance" doesn't mean anything definable in this context. There is no such THING as "substance". The word is a generic word used to describe the material which makes something up.

There is also no such THING as "being", especially when used virtually synonymously with "substance".

It is precisely the same thing as saying that red things are red because they have a property of "redness". But there is no such thing as "redness" existing on its own. Redness is not a "thing" either.

There are red things, there are substances, there are beings, but there is no such thing as "redness" or "substance" or "being". They are unreal abstractions.

It's like trying to tell what color courage is. Doesn't work

[mfbukowski]

Again, I cannot authoritatively state why the Catholic Church believes God to be formless, but this is the best explanation I can come up with at six o'clock in the morning (I really need to get to bed!).

They believe him to be formless because Pythagoras, Parmenides and Plato, and some other Greek philosophers thought that it was more "perfect" to be formless than to have form. Neoplatonism became influential in Catholicism almost immediately, and certainly by the time of the end of the first century. Later, Augustine and still later, Aquinas brought these ideas into Catholic theology. We call this whole process "the apostasy".

Starting with Pythagoras (among the Greeks anyway)-(remember him from Geometry class- the Pythagorean theorem - right triangles and all that?) the ideas of Geometry (for example) are more "perfect" than their earthly manifestations. If you draw a triangle with a crayon, for example, the angles will be imprecise, there will be thickness to the line etc making it difficult to measure relationships. Obviously drawn with a sharp implement, the triangle will be more "perfect" for purposes of measuring than if it is drawn with a crayon. But for him the "most perfect" triangle would be one which exists mathematically only in your mind, where the relationships between the imaginary lines are theoretical and "perfect".

So formlessness is more "perfect" than something having form. Abstract plans for a building are more "perfect" than the completed project, because the actual building is but a "reflection" of the perfect plan for a building. Real buildings can be damaged, rust away and eventually crumble to dust, but the plan is perfect and formless and eternal. The problem is it is also not "real". It is a drawing of someone's idea. It has no "reality" outside of someone's mental picture.

All abstractions are are mental pictures of one or many individuals, they have no existence outside of someone's mind. That is not my God. So I will be glad to keep thinking as I am.

So on this logic, God has to be formless, or he would not be as "perfect", completed, unchangeable, as something made of matter.

But the underlying assumption is somehow that abstraction is more perfect than the real. The abstract idea of "substance" is more perfect than the analogy of the milk.

The problem is that abstractions are NOT "real". They are in our minds, and we create them out of many examples of the concrete reality.

There is no "redness" - only we know many things which are red, and we take that one feature out of the object mentally to create some kind of mental notion of "redness", and can say when comparing colors "Well, this is more 'red' than that- that one is more 'pink'"

But there is no such THING as "pinkness" or "redness" or "substance" or "being". And using those terms describes literally "no-thing".

[Vance]

<snip>

I find your analysis very interesting and well worded.

[mfbukowski]

I find your analysis very interesting and well worded.

It would have been better if I had a 5 year old draw the first triangle with a crayon. Then it wouldn't even be straight, giving it a further step of imperfection from the "ideal".

But thanks!

[Henzelli]

I am honestly honestly trying to be as respectful as I can.

I have found you to be very respectful.

As to the milk analogy, if we know the liquid in the glasses to be identical because we witnessed it being poured out of the pitcher in the first place (imagery necessary in the analogy), then it doesn't matter how you want to describe the liquid, you know it to be the same in each of the glasses. In the same way, we have the Gospels and Acts and all the other apostolic writings that attest to personal witness of this divinity, this "substance," being poured out into the different persons of Christ and the Holy Spirit. There is no need beyond that to incorporate Pythagoras (whom I have never heard referenced in Catholic philosophy) or Plato (who is the originator of the idea that something perfect has no form) except to utilize language and idiom that the people of the early Church would have understood. The Church utilized neo-Platonic thinking not because they needed an outside authority to explain doctrinal beliefs, but because they needed a way to simply state in a familiar way how the Church thought about God. And if you have read Thomas Aquinas, you should be aware that Aquinas abandons neoplatonism and is one of the first Church writers to use almost exclusively inductive reasoning (Plato was a fan of deductive reasoning--huge differences in logic used). And seminarians read Aquinas, not Plato.

The analogy breaks down because from the beginning you chose the same "substance"- milk- to prove the point. You are arguing backwards. You still have no argument against anyone who disagrees that the three glasses are in fact wine, milk and water.

Actually, arguing backwards is presenting the glasses already poured and an empty pitcher, and asking someone to judge whether or not the liquid came from the pitcher or three different pitchers. In the case of the Apostles, they witnessed this dispensation and there was no need to deduce where this divinity came from.

However, and I feel some will read this as a cop-out, arguing about God in concrete terms diminishes the infinite nature of God. We cannot pin down the entirety of God in human language, because he is so great and so powerful. There is a reason that he is "I Am," "YHVH," and simply "God." All the names of God in the Bible are abstract in nature because to place a name on something is to have dominion over it. In Russian, the word for bear, medved, is literally a contraction of the old Russian word for 'honey eater' because the bear was so sacred to them that they could not give it a proper name, only a descriptor. The bastardization of YHVH into Jehovah is a much later development, as Jehovah is only found in translations of the Old Testament, and you will find no Jew who calls his God Jehovah.

So when you are dealing with something that can only be understood in abstraction, it makes sense to discuss it in abstract terms. Trying to pin it down further misses major points concerning the nature of such a thing and limits it to our limited field of understanding, which denies God His proper place in the Heavens.

[3DOP]

3DOP

I love you, but the problem is neoplatonism.

Abstractions like "being" "Substance", "essence", etc. have absolutely NO meaning to us. We do not have the cultural context you do. You even said it yourself- you complained about English.

Just imagine Wittgenstein taking on this problem about "Being" or "Essence". The entire problem is incompatible with modern linguistic philosophy and is only intelligible to a Thomist. Honestly.

We are theologically a modern invention with no greek context. Their distinctions just don't fit.

We need another vocabulary to speak about it, but I am not sure we can get there.

Again, we are trying to close the loop, but this time the divide is bigger than the Grand Canyon. And this issue gets directly to the bottom of it!

Hey bukowski,

I appreciate the love. Platonic right? See...you're not so immune yourself! Hah.

Seriously,

I know little of neo-Platonism or Wittgenstein. So the words in question mean nothing to you and have no utility in describing LDS teaching. I don't consider myself a philosopher at all. But these distinctions between person and being/nature/existence/essence/substance aren't that hard. I get it. I know I get it. What is helpful is to see that Christ the man is consubstantial with us in his humanity. He has the same nature. The Trinitarian formula is affirming what the livestock farmer and horticulturalist would imagine. Since all things reproduce "after their kind" as the Genesis record affirms, so Christ has the same being as His Father. It is the same rule that applies to camels and raspberries.

I believe you though if you insist it is a cultural thing. You wouldn't be feigning ignorance. I know that. But if our beliefs cannot be understood by outsiders, how could they be analysed and criticised? If we find a literary artifact that stems from an ancient civilization, we don't just sit back and call it incoherent because we don't understand the lingo. The Catholic Church has said that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. This means that when philosophical concepts lend themselves to explanations of the mysteries of faith, the Church uses them. But it would appear from what you are saying that modern philosophy is incompatible with Catholic theology. I don't find that surprising.

The Church has expressed Herself to the world in precise formulae that is now archaic, at least to those who are not Catholic. I know that there have been modern Catholic philosophers who have attempted to bridge the gap of which you speak. This seems to have been particularly the vision of St. Edith Stein and Pope John Paul II, both of whom studied under Edmund Husserl (I believe Heidegger was one of his students too) in the period between the wars. Stein has a work (I'll try to find in my current mess of books and give you a taste if I can), it almost reads like a play, where Husserl and Thomas Aquinas carry on a conversation about this apparent problem. Catholics want to be more easily understood in the modern world, but if it is as you say, if modern philosophy is an "unwilling handmaid", those who wish to understand more deeply, will simply have to acquaint themselves with our jargon. I don't think it can be too daunting.

You spoke of a vocabulary that would enable us to communicate which sounds hopeful to me...along the lines of Edith Stein. According to a Thomist with whom I was once acquainted who now teaches at Notre Dame, she failed, but she was perhaps the first to try and her work was cut short because the Nazis euthanized her in a concentration camp (she had been Jewish). On the other hand, you spoke about these words, comparing them to alchemy. I have a fear that maybe you think they have no relation to reality. If that is the case, I doubt that it would be worthwhile for us to attempt an accomodation with modern philosophy.

You asked how one could decide if we disagreed about the following:

I think plants and people are of the same substance. I think God and man are of the same substance. I think their essence is the same.

If I said they were of different nature or substance, both are true because we are using the same words, but with a different meaning. I can understand your meaning. You mean that every material thing shares common atom and molecule compounds. I agree with that. But there is a long historical use of the word to distinguish the plant from the animal and God from man. Is it so uncommon to refer to the essence of a thing as found not in what is common to all things, but in what distinguishes it from all other things? What about this thing puts it in a category called dog? That it barks, that it has locomotion, that it has a tail, and so forth. The essence of many things is not even material. Is it invalid in modern philosophy to identify categories of minerals, plants, and animals? (That is not rhetorical. I suspect perhaps you do not believe in anything except individual natures. That tree. That mouse. Not trees. Not mice.) If Thomists are confusing by calling the identifying factors, the nature or essence of a thing, what word would you suggest to designate those identifying factors, assuming you believe they are a reflection of reality as we do? Is our meaning so hard to understand? Or has your philosophy actually swept our meaning out of the realm of reality? If the latter, I would again not be hopeful for a common vocabulary.

Happy Turkey.

Fie. I just found out I get to work. The joys of truck driving. I'll be back though for afternoon bird and maybe a chance in the evening to take a peek at any response. But don't feel pressed. Continue at your leisure or not at all. I am willing to not have you shake me down like this philosophy professor at BYU did once over at ZLMB! Non sequitir. Non sequitir. Non sequitir. Well...I just revealed the secret to besting me in a debate. Very chivalrous of me, eh?

Rory

[mfbukowski]

I just found out I get to work. The joys of truck driving. I'll be back though for afternoon bird and maybe a chance in the evening to take a peek at any response. But don't feel pressed. Continue at your leisure or not at all. I am willing to not have you shake me down like this philosophy professor at BYU did once over at ZLMB! Non sequitir. Non sequitir. Non sequitir. Well...I just revealed the secret to besting me in a debate. Very chivalrous of me, eh?

Well we all know that debates are one thing and life another! In my honest opinion, all that counts for any of us Catholic or Mormon is the spirit of God working in our lives. All of this philosophical garbage really doesn't amount to a hill of beans where the important things are concerned.

I gave up academic philosophy precisely because I realized that it was no longer the pursuit of wisdom, but training in clear thinking- as well as the study of all the mistakes other people made in thinking in the past.

That is fine, but thinking is the same as language for the most part, which makes it training in speaking clearly. That says nothing about the spirit whatsoever, unfortunately. And clear thinking starts with clear premises, and premises are also never easy to come up with in the first place. It is all based on your life and experience anyway. So wisdom it ain't!

I only pull it out when somebody tries to hoodwink someone, or gets critical of Mormonism. Then they become fair game.

But as far as developing a common philosophical vocabulary, I think that notion of the "social Trinity" could go a long way to putting it together. So maybe read up on that one when you have time. It is the notion that God exists in a "family" situation- and I have found many Catholics on CAF who are willing to go with that idea- and it works excellently for Mormons.

But this "substance" stuff just plain doesn't work.

I will also have other concerns with family for the next couple of days, so have a good Thanksgiving - and that goes out to all.

[mfbukowski]

Henzelli

Honestly, I think you are on the losing side in this one. Again I am not attacking your trinitarian notion, but "substance" is just not going to make it. It just doesn't work well in modern times.

Check this out:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

Substance

(Latin sub-stare, substantia)

Substance, the first of Aristotle's categories, signifies being as existing in and by itself, and serving as a subject or basis for accidents and accidental changes.

The fundamentals of substance

Substance being a genus supremum,

Huh? Oh yeah- that's for Aristotle, right? So that is pre-Christian and 2500 years old. Not the greatest physics. Brilliant guy, but we have a few advantages.

cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance. Nothing is more evident than that things change. It is impossible for anything to be twice in absolutely the same state; on the other hand all the changes are not equally profound. Some appear to be purely external: a piece of wood may be hot or cold,lying flat or upright, yet it is still wood; but if it be completely burnt so as to be transformed into ashes and gases, it is no longer wood;

No, due to the chemical reactions, it is now ash, energy, in the form of heat, carbon, oxygen etc- for the chemists to figure out.

the specific, radical characteristics by which we describe wood have totally disappeared.

Yeah, that's because we no longer desribe what's left as "wood". It's burnt wood, ash etc.

Thus there are two kinds of changes: one affects the radical characteristics of things, and consequently determines theexistence or non-existence of these things; the other in no way destroys these characteristics, and so, while modifying the thing, does not affect it fundamentally.

Huh? Where is the way that the characteristics have not been destroyed? I don't see any wood- it is burnt into dust??!!

It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities

[Henzelli]

Huh? Oh yeah- that's for Aristotle, right? So that is pre-Christian and 2500 years old. Not the greatest physics. Brilliant guy, but we have a few advantages.

What does making it a point that Aristotle is referenced have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Arguing that the trinitarian view doesn't stand up because physical matter is made up of "substances" versus "substance" is anally splitting hairs. As I said before, we cannot concretely define God because in the Catholic view He is infinite. He limited Himself in the incarnation of Christ, and limited Himself in another, different way in the Holy Spirit. Both are limited versions of what we know as God. When we argue that the Trinity is three persons of one being, it is that God is Christ, God is the Holy Spirit, God is God. But this does not mean that Christ is the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit is Christ. All are God, and God is all. We necessarily have to abstract ourselves. We cannot measure the various substances that might make up God so instead of trying to define any different types of energy that might be present, we simply accept that the substance of God (remember my homogeneous divinity solution?) is the same substance of Christ is the same substance of the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I think you are on the losing side in this one.

Why would there be a losing side in a friendly exchange of ideas? Unless you are directly attacking what I am saying, there is no winner and no loser in this discussion.

As for the familial arrangement of the Trinity, yes, it makes sense in both the Mormon and the simplified Catholic view. But the Mormon understanding of the godhead ends there. It does not go beyond. Catholics, understanding that Christ and the Holy Spirit are both expressions of one God, must take it further, and once you move beyond the relationship-oriented view of the trinity that such a familial argument would possess, the familial argument falls apart. There is no example in the modern world you can give me of a single parent spontaneously creating a child, watching that child grow to maturity, and then the child issuing forth the description of a third emanation, and the parent spontaneously generating that emanation. It doesn't work. So as much as I have seen the position discussed on CAF, when you follow it into the Catholic understanding of the Trinity, it doesn't work. And the Trinity being dogma, it is not up to us to make the Trinity fit the argument, it is up to us to make the argument fit the Trinity, and the familial relationship doesn't.

[3DOP]

With all I have said in defense of Western Catholic thought...which I will defend with tenacity if need be...I tend personally toward Eastern foundations...social trinitarianism is born as I understand it...of beginning with the truth that there are three...and end up with the truth that there are one. God is One, and God is Three. Three leads to One and One leads to Three. I am happy to go with the Social Trinity. I don't care where we start.

[mfbukowski]

With all I have said in defense of Western Catholic thought...which I will defend with tenacity if need be...I tend personally toward Eastern foundations...social trinitarianism is born as I understand it...of beginning with the truth that there are three...and end up with the truth that there are one. God is One, and God is Three. Three leads to One and One leads to Three. I am happy to go with the Social Trinity. I don't care where we start.

Well now we are getting somewhere.

If Henzelli wants to stick with Aristotelian metaphysics, and worse, physics, it is certainly his privilege to do so. I think he is having trouble with the difference between "Substances" (plural) and "Substance" (singular) and calling it "splitting hairs", when it is anything but.

I will be glad to say that God is made up of "substances" if he wants to concede there is no difference. The whole point is that there are supposedly 3 persons with ONE substance.(singular) I also believe in a God with body parts and passions, and if one has a body, one presumes that it is material and made of various substances, so it appears that he now believes the same thing I do. I would even say that at least two members of the Godhead are made of the same "substances" I suppose. (Not counting the Holy Ghost who is a personage of spirit)

And the fact that God is infinite has no bearing on speaking about him clearly. We talk about infinity with mathematical precision when it is called for. Infinity is not the same as "mystery".

But I really don't think he wants to say that.

Anyway, I am tied up until probably at least for a day or so, so have a good Thanksgiving everyone. 3DOP let's talk about the social trinity next time we get together!

[justdreamin]

Henzelli

Honestly, I think you are on the losing side in this one. Again I am not attacking your trinitarian notion, but "substance" is just not going to make it. It just doesn't work well in modern times.

Honestly, this stuff was invented to explain changing physical states, like ice melts into water, but water is still water. Sure it is the same "substance" in plain English. Water is water. Snow is water, ice is water, steam is water. Physical states change.

But people are not composed of "substance" they are composed of substanceS- plural.

This stuff is straight out of alchemy: "You can change lead into gold because the only difference is the "accidents" like color etc, while the "substance" remains the same."

I am very sorry, but we have moved beyond that in science and in logic and in every possible way. There is no such thing as "substance".

You say that people are not composed of substance but of substances. So what are these substances? Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen? And when you break down these elements, what do you have? Atoms? And when you break down an atom what do you have? Protons, Electrons, Neutrons? And what are these ultimately composed of? ... Quarks! The Quark is theoretically the base substance of the universe. It's theoretical because while scientists assume it exists, it has never been observed directly. What do you think of this quote. "Because quarks are never isolated, their properties must be inferred by observing the larger particles they make up. There are six known quarks: the up quark, the down quark, the charm quark, the strange quark, the top quark, and the bottom quark. These names are purely arbitrary and do not suggest anything about each quark's properties." You might as well be trying to describe God!

And so people are composed of substance. And so it's not so difficult to ascribe this concept to God, the base substance, as it is practically scientific. Going beyond that, it's not even difficult to image God as formless. Does the universe have a form? Has anyone been to the outmost edge? I'm not even Catholic and I can understand this.

As an aside, you absolutely can turn lead into gold. I just sat through an explanation of the process as described by my son, a nuclear physicist (almost). The problem the alchemists had is that they didn't understand subatomic particles. They were attempting to make the change before they understood the true substance of which all things are made. (And they didn't have a nuclear reactor and a handbook.)

Hope you all are in a place to enjoy health, family, food and prosperity...or even just the blessing of life.

[justdreamin]

Come on back mfbukowski, I really want to hear a reply even if it plows me under.

[mfbukowski]

Come on back mfbukowski, I really want to hear a reply even if it plows me under.

Edit: I read this too fast and I thought the reply was from Henzelli. Of course he would have a problem with that reply in that he would NOT want to say that God is physical.

From an LDS pov, in principle, I would say you are on the right track. We know that spirit is matter of a "more refined" kind, so though I think spirit is not made of quarks, I think in principle it IS "material".

Of course science has no idea (yet, perhaps it might one day) about any of this.

So if the Catholics want to say that God is physical, I have no problem with "substance" defined as "immaterial matter" or "refined matter". But Catholics are not materialists. We are.

And look into string theory. I think it takes it beyond quarks.

[Honorentheos]

We know that spirit is matter of a "more refined" kind, so though I think spirit is not made of quarks, I think in principle it IS "material".

Of course science has no idea (yet, perhaps it might one day) about any of this.

For someone who cares about clarity of language in the pursuit of wisdom, I found this interesting.

[mfbukowski]

For someone who cares about clarity of language in the pursuit of wisdom, I found this interesting.

Gotta watch those lurkers out there. You just never know who might show up!

I was commenting on the notion in D&C that there is "no such thing as immaterial matter" and that "spirit matter is more refined" than other types of matter. I don't think anyone quite understands what that means exactly, but that is the essence (gotta love that word in this context) of what it says.

What I meant is that in principle at least, D&C is saying that spirit is "matter". But Aquinas "substance" is definitely NOT material.

When you look the problem right in the eye, we discover that LDS are in fact materialists. Catholics are not materialists. Big difference.

[Honorentheos]

Gotta watch those lurkers out there. You just never know who might show up!

No doubt.

I was commenting on the notion in D&C that there is "no such thing as immaterial matter" and that "spirit matter is more refined" than other types of matter. I don't think anyone quite understands what that means exactly, but that is the essence (gotta love that word in this context) of what it says.

What I meant is that in principle at least, D&C is saying that spirit is "matter". But Aquinas "substance" is definitely NOT material.

When you look the problem right in the eye, we discover that LDS are in fact materialists. Catholics are not materialists. Big difference.

I wouldn't disagree with this idea as you put it, especially in the last line above. I was principally commenting on the use of terms like "know", and that science has no idea on the questions involved in the thread at that point. Was is the material character of God? Cut me off a piece and we can get down to business...

Though I would also ask if we should reconstruct our dialog on eternity and matter since, in effect, I DO think that modern physics is more supportive of a notion of God that is immaterial rather than one that is both eternal and material. That whole "time" thing again, you know. In a universe where the four primary forces work on material "substances" without being substantial themselves, where light particles are, as you well know, "interesting", and all of the other things that science DOES have an idea about, I find it odd to see theists debating on such an abstract subject like this one as if one could prove their point to the other by sheer will it seems.

But then, will has no substance so I guess we're left to essences, et al.

I also suspect this thread for you is not too far off from my general participation on this board given your old catholic background. In some ways, I suspect this is all just sport.

[Sargon]

As per my understanding, Mormonism teaches that Jesus as the Son is a fundamentally separate being from God as the Father as opposed to the Trinitarian formula where God and Christ are the same being in different persons (a la the hypostatic union).

If it hasn't already, it should be pointed out that this is not the definition of the "hypostatic union." The hypostatic union attempts to describe the nature of Christ, that he is one person who possesses two conflicting and contradictory natures (God-nature and man-nature). It doesn't really attempt to describe Christ's relation to God the Father, as you appear to believe it does.

Forgive me if I've misread you.

Sincerely,

Sargon

[Sargon]

Concerning the outrageous ambiguity of the word "substance", perhaps the most telling reactions are those that occurred immediately after the Nicene Creed was penned (the document in which the word "ousia" was made official). The Arians were sickened, because they realized that their understanding of the Logos/Father relationship could not be described as "homo-ousia", but the Sabellians were jubilant, because they believed that "homo-ousia" effectively identified the Logos with the Father, thus resulting in the canonization of Modalism.

The same word (homoousia) was embraced by both the orthodox Trinitarians and the Modalists. What does that say about the ambiguity of the word?

[mfbukowski]

If it hasn't already, it should be pointed out that this is not the definition of the "hypostatic union." The hypostatic union attempts to describe the nature of Christ, that he is one person who possesses two conflicting and contradictory natures (God-nature and man-nature). It doesn't really attempt to describe Christ's relation to God the Father, as you appear to believe it does.

Forgive me if I've misread you.

Sincerely,

Sargon

"Nature" as in "human nature" is another of those words imo that means practically nothing, and in a theological context it illuminates nothing.

I mean what activity exactly is "against" human nature? We have as a race been guilty of the most horrendous crimes and on the other hand, of incredible selfless sacrifices.

I suppose flying like a bird is against our natures, but we do our best anyway by making airplanes. If it is imaginable, evil or good, someone somewhere will try it and probably eventually achieve it. Specifically, because this is the way we are, if anything is our "nature", it is the tendency to overcome our natural limits.

For that reason, I think at the bottom of it, we all want to be gods. So much for "fully human" being the opposite of "divine".

[mfbukowski]

Though I would also ask if we should reconstruct our dialog on eternity and matter since, in effect, I DO think that modern physics is more supportive of a notion of God that is immaterial rather than one that is both eternal and material. That whole "time" thing again, you know.

You know as I recall, I never bought into that whole thing. Instinctively, I think I believe in eternal matter and maybe I never discussed that directly with you. I think I kind of skirted the issue as I recall, because at the time I felt it was off the subject. I can be fairly slippery at times.

In a universe where the four primary forces work on material "substances" without being substantial themselves, where light particles are, as you well know, "interesting", and all of the other things that science DOES have an idea about, I find it odd to see theists debating on such an abstract subject like this one as if one could prove their point to the other by sheer will it seems.

I don't think they DO debate it anywhere outside of Catholic universities anymore.

I also suspect this thread for you is not too far off from my general participation on this board given your old catholic background. In some ways, I suspect this is all just sport.

Not sure about that one.

But on the other hand, there ARE reasons I left Catholicism, and this issue is a biggie. To me, it is a mass of confusion. No one could ever explain it to me, and no one has yet. I mean part of me wants to actually understand it, but I think a much bigger part is totally convinced that absolutely no one actually understands it. It's the emperor's new clothes. They tell analogies about milk in glasses and pretend it makes sense.

And I think God should be understandable. I think that that does not limit him one iota. HOW God does things, meaning the "science" of how he does things may always be a mystery to us, but WHO he is, and how he deals with his children has to make sense to humans if humans are to fully worship him. A grieving mother's question about where her dead baby's spirit resides, or what happens to people who never heard of Christ just HAS to be answerable by something better than "invincible ignorance"

A God who cannot explain his own characteristics and requirements to his children in a rational explainable way, even if it is just a story or analogy that actually makes sense to us, is at best a bad teacher. And I don't think God is a bad teacher. If he invented language, I can't imagine that he can't use it clearly.

[Honorentheos]

You know as I recall, I never bought into that whole thing. Instinctively, I think I believe in eternal matter and maybe I never discussed that directly with you. I think I kind of skirted the issue as I recall, because at the time I felt it was off the subject. I can be fairly slippery at times.

Hmmm, this creates significant inconsistencies within our previous discussion because you then either did not accept the Big Bang as valid or do not accept that in that singularity there was no such thing as "matter" as we understand it. And individual identity within a singularity becomes very, very problematic. At best. All of which may be one's belief, but they fail to be as modern as you argue the Aristotilian view is compared with the modern view as well. Very steady state Newtonian, IMO. Singularities do not exist in Newtonian physics for a reason. Actually, to be fair, they only exist under relativity without being understandable, too. They're more than a bit odd.

I don't think they DO debate it anywhere outside of Catholic universities anymore.

...and here, apparently.

But on the other hand, there ARE reasons I left Catholicism, and this issue is a biggie. To me, it is a mass of confusion. No one could ever explain it to me, and no one has yet. I mean part of me wants to actually understand it, but I think a much bigger part is totally convinced that absolutely no one actually understands it. It's the emperor's new clothes. They tell analogies about milk in glasses and pretend it makes sense.

And I think God should be understandable. I think that that does not limit him one iota. HOW God does things, meaning the "science" of how he does things may always be a mystery to us, but WHO he is, and how he deals with his children has to make sense to humans if humans are to fully worship him. A grieving mother's question about where her dead baby's spirit resides, or what happens to people who never heard of Christ just HAS to be answerable by something better than "invincible ignorance"

A God who cannot explain his own characteristics and requirements to his children in a rational explainable way, even if it is just a story or analogy that actually makes sense to us, is at best a bad teacher. And I don't think God is a bad teacher. If he invented language, I can't imagine that he can't use it clearly.

In all fairness, MFB, I think you would be one of the few here who should see the subjective, if real, nature of this relationship between your understanding of God under LDS theology and another's understanding of God under another theological view. I have made many, many an attempt to point out odd inconsistencies in the nature of the LDS God regarding justice, his commitment to agency, etc., on this board that have hit a flat wall of non-understanding.