Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[altersteve]

We speak in human terms and in ways that humans understand, because that is what we are. We cannot describe God, and that, is Biblical. LDS can't describe God without lowering Him to that of human. I'd rather let God be God, and not be able to describe Him, than make Him in the image of myself.

CFR, please, from the Bible, that we cannot describe God.

[saemo]

CFR, please, from the Bible, that we cannot describe God.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the LORD.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts.

You can't describe God, no matter how hard you try, you can't. You may describe attributes, as revealed in the Bible, but these do not describe God, wholly, and completely, as He is. What God describes about Himself is in relationship to us. So we can and do know God in this fashion, but it is not a complete knowing.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly;

but then face to face: now I know in part;

but then shall I know even as also I am known."

God knows us, we do not know God. Not fully. What is not known cannot be described.

[zerinus]

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

neither are your ways my ways,”

declares the LORD.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts.

You can't describe God, no matter how hard you try, you can't. You may describe attributes, as revealed in the Bible, but these do not describe God, wholly, and completely, as He is. What God describes about Himself is in relationship to us. So we can and do know God in this fashion, but it is not a complete knowing.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly;

but then face to face: now I know in part;

but then shall I know even as also I am known."

God knows us, we do not know God. Not fully. What is not known cannot be described.

I agree that in our present mortal condition it is impossible for us to fully comprehend God. The only way to fully comprehend God is to comprehend everything that God comprehends. But it does not mean that in the eternities when we are perfected, we cannot fully comprehend God. In modern LDS scripture the Lord has said:

D&C 88:

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

And I don't see that it contradicts the Bible any. The Bible talks about us becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). It talks about us becoming "one with the Father and the Son" in the same way that they are one (John 17:11, 22). It talks about sharing in the divine inheritance with Jesus Christ (Romans 8:17). It talks about seeing God as He is, and becoming purified as He is pure (1 John 3:2-3). Indeed, salvation itself is defined in terms of "knowing" God. The only way that that doctrine can have meaning in the context of eternal salvation is to know God fully. It means to fully comprehend Him, as taught in the quote from the D&C. It is a biblical principle that it is possible to fully know and comprehend God, without which salvation in fact would not even be possible. If you don't believe that God can be known, then you do not believe that man can be saved.

[Cobalt-70]

We speak in human terms and in ways that humans understand, because that is what we are. We cannot describe God, and that, is Biblical. LDS can't describe God without lowering Him to that of human. I'd rather let God be God, and not be able to describe Him, than make Him in the image of myself.

Of course the classical Christian God can be described. That's what the creeds do. The Bible is full of descriptions of God. He is, for example, described as a jealous god, he is merciful, and he is just. If the Bible says that he is above us and that his doings are incomprehensible, those are themselves descriptions of God.

Our cognitive minds work with symbols. If you cannot construct God in your mind with symbols which your brain can process, you cannot believe in him.

[saemo]

Of course the classical Christian God can be described. That's what the creeds do. The Bible is full of descriptions of God. He is, for example, described as a jealous god, he is merciful, and he is just. If the Bible says that he is above us and that his doings are incomprehensible, those are themselves descriptions of God.

Our cognitive minds work with symbols. If you cannot construct God in your mind with symbols which your brain can process, you cannot believe in him.

Yes, I agree. God can be described by what He has revealed to us about Himself. The most merciful Revelation, Jesus Christ. It is in Him, with Him and through Him that we know the Father.

Peace.

Edited September 30, 2011 by saemo

[altersteve]

Yes, I agree. God can be described by what He has revealed to us about Himself. The most merciful Revelation, Jesus Christ. It is in Him, with Him and through Him that we know the Father.

Peace.

No Latter-day Saint would disagree with you here.

[Vance]

Yes, I agree. God can be described by what He has revealed to us about Himself. The most merciful Revelation, Jesus Christ. It is in Him, with Him and through Him that we know the Father.

Peace.

Ok, so God, the Father, is a resurrected person with a body of flesh and bones! Got it.

Thanks.

[Vance]

You are mistaken.

Not hardly.

In modern popular (non-philosophical, non-theological) usage substance denotes the physical stuff or compositional element(s) of a physical object, hence dictionaries typically give as one of their definitions something like "that which has mass and occupies space; matter" or "the tangible matter of which a thing consists" or "physical material from which something is made." In this usage there is generally no distinction made between material and physical substance; this usage assumes that the substance is physical, even "tangible." However, the word substance also has non-material usages, most notably the usage defined as "essential nature; essence" or "ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change." "The philosophical term 'substance' corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means 'something that stands under or grounds things’" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The concept of an immaterial substance, in just those terms, is as old as Plato and Aristotle.

Yup!

"immaterial" is simply a CONCEPT!!! It has no basis in scripture, without being PRESUMED!!!

The word essence implies nothing about materiality or physicality. It derives from the Latin esse meaning "to be."

By the same token, the word implies NOTHING about "immaterial" or non-physicality. Yes, "to be", as in something real, as apposed to "immaterial" which is unreal.

Yes, but by this reasoning spirit beings must be physical beings, since breath is a physical phenomenon.

More accurately, spirit beings must be material, since breath is a material phenomenon.

But thanks for the implicit admission that NOTHING in scripture expresses or implies "immaterial".

The fact is that the word spirit is used to express the idea of something that is unseen and bodiless (breath and wind are both unseen, bodiless realities), not to suggest that spirits are physical entities.

Yup, something unseen BUT MATERIAL.

I find absolutely nothing in the Bible to indicate that spirit is a finer type of matter.

Nor do you find that it isn't.

As an adherent to sola scriptura, I must look at what the Bible does say about spirits and decide which view best comports with the totality of the biblical evidence.

So, then you must conclude that spirit has absolutely NOTHING to indicate, express, or imply "immaterial".

Got it.

I am not limited to accepting ideas that can be found in explicit statements using the exact terms in question. That would be a misunderstanding of sola scriptura.

So, "sola scriptura" means that you can impose your own dogmatic presumptions into the text to maintain your unbiblical theology?

Maybe I do misunderstand "sola scriptura". I thought that "sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive from scripture."

My bad.

[Vance]

We speak in human terms and in ways that humans understand, because that is what we are.

Absolutely. We live in a material world and our language is based on it.

All our word are material based. Even "immaterial" is using "material" to describe a unknowable concept. Even as Mudcat has pointed out, "nothing" is using "thing" to describe a concept.

We cannot describe God, and that, is Biblical.

And yet people use meaningless words like "immaterial" to describe Him.

Why not just take the descriptions of those that have seen Him at face value instead of using the philosophies of men?

LDS can't describe God without lowering Him to that of human.

Isn't that how Christ revealed Him to us? As a Sinless Man.

I'd rather let God be God, and not be able to describe Him, than make Him in the image of myself.

And yet that is exactly what you are doing. You are describing Him as NOT having a human image. Even though He has said that you were created in His image. And that is the image that Christ revealed.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You asked:

Would you please tell me "what" you think a spirit/ghost is?

... and if you tell me "nothing" I'm going to go shoot myself, figuratively speaking.

A spirit is a real, existing, immaterial and incorporeal being. A ghost is the appearance or manifestation of a spirit of a departed human being.

[altersteve]

Ahab,

You asked:

A spirit is a real, existing, immaterial and incorporeal being. A ghost is the appearance or manifestation of a spirit of a departed human being.

How can something be "real" yet be "immaterial"? If it's not made of any sort of material, then it stands to reason that it's not really real.

[zerinus]

A spirit is a real, existing, immaterial and incorporeal being. A ghost is the appearance or manifestation of a spirit of a departed human being.

There are two ways of understanding "immaterial". One way is for it to mean "nothing at all". The other way is for it to mean "not made of the elements or substances of this world," such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, Iron, copper, zinc, etc. Which one of these two definitions of "immaterial" did you have in mind?

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

How can something be "real" yet be "immaterial"? If it's not made of any sort of material, then it stands to reason that it's not really real.

That's a metaphysical assumption, not an argument. In fact, it is a metaphysical assumption of the Enlightenment. This is one way in which Mormonism is clearly rooted in Enlightenment skepticism.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

There are two ways of understanding "immaterial". One way is for it to mean "nothing at all". The other way is for it to mean "not made of the elements or substances of this world," such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, Iron, copper, zinc, etc. Which one of these two definitions of "immaterial" did you have in mind?

You know full well that I did not mean "nothing at all," since I was careful to say that a spirit is "real" and "existing." So your question is not a serious one.

[KevinG]

Real, existing and made of what?

For Mormons is it substance that is too pure and refined for us to divine with our mortal faculties.

(By the way) I am one of those Mormons who does not believe that an erronious belief in the nature of the Godhead = atheism. I think that is a polemic argument but not really a sound position. Robs presentation of this as a standard Mormon position is incorrect. We don't teach it in Sunday School or Sacrament meeting. It is non-doctrinal. I think most Mormons would find that position as silly as the argument that we worship a "different Jesus" because we differ in our understanding of tangential details about Him.

Edited September 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[zerinus]

You know full well that I did not mean "nothing at all," since I was careful to say that a spirit is "real" and "existing." So your question is not a serious one.

Okay, so I take it that you believe that spirits are made of something, though not out of matter as we know it. So what in your opinion are spirits made of? What are the properties of that "something" out of which they are made?

Edited September 30, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

That's a metaphysical assumption, not an argument. In fact, it is a metaphysical assumption of the Enlightenment. This is one way in which Mormonism is clearly rooted in Enlightenment skepticism.

The existence of anything "immaterial" is also a metaphysical ASSUMPTION!

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus and DaddyG,

I said that spirits are something, not that they are "made of" something. Angelic spirits are made or created by God, but God himself, who is spirit, is not made at all. Also, we don't have any information about the substance of angelic spirits other than that it is not physical in nature, is therefore by nature not tangible, not corporeal, and possesses no mass, and that (unlike God) it is finite. Spirit is a different category of being than the physical.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Comments like this from you are tiresome. It was not I who claimed that if something is immaterial then by definition it cannot be real. That is a dogmatic assumption with no reason or evidence to support it. I have reasons for believing in immaterial beings, but before we can even discuss those reasons, I must deal with the question-begging and flawed criticism that to be immaterial is by definition to be nothing or to be unreal.

The existence of anything "immaterial" is also a metaphysical ASSUMPTION!

[KevinG]

zerinus and DaddyG,

I said that spirits are something, not that they are "made of" something. Angelic spirits are made or created by God, but God himself, who is spirit, is not made at all. Also, we don't have any information about the substance of angelic spirits other than that it is not physical in nature, is therefore by nature not tangible, not corporeal, and possesses no mass, and that (unlike God) it is finite. Spirit is a different category of being than the physical.

I agree- they were not made they are eternal. I would have been better to say "what are they comprised of?" But where do you get the idea that they are not physical in nature, not tangible, not corporeal or posess no mass? Is this Biblical?

I myself plan to give a big hug to my Father in Heaven once I am resurrected and perfected through Jesus Christ.

Edited September 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[Vance]

I said that spirits are something, not that they are "made of" something. Angelic spirits are made or created by God, . . .

So, they are made and they are something, but they aren't made of something?

Oh, right, they are made of nothing.

Ok, so you are PRESUMING that. Got it.

Also, we don't have any information about the substance of angelic spirits other than that it is not physical in nature, is therefore by nature not tangible, not corporeal, . . .

Ok, so far.

and possesses no mass, . . .

Another PRESUMPTION!!!

. . . and that (unlike God) it is finite.

Another PRESUMPTION!!!!

Spirit is a different category of being than the physical.

Ok. And matter that is more refined than element satisfies this description.

[Vance]

Comments like this from you are tiresome.

Just like some peoples anti-Mormonism.

It was not I who claimed that if something is immaterial then by definition it cannot be real.

Well, since the very existence of any THING/STUFF/MATERIAL/MATTER/(or whatever word you want to use) "immaterial" is a PRESUMPTION, then any description of said THING/STUFF/MATERIAL/MATTER/(or whatever word you want to use) is also a PRESUMPTION.

Why are your PRESUMPTIONS more valid than his?

That is a dogmatic assumption with no reason or evidence to support it.

As is the existence of any THING/STUFF/MATERIAL/MATTER/(or whatever word you want to use) "immaterial".

I have reasons for believing in immaterial beings, . . .

I am sure you do.

. . . but before we can even discuss those reasons, I must deal with the question-begging and flawed criticism that to be immaterial is by definition to be nothing or to be unreal.

Ok, so please deal with the "question-begging and flawed criticism" by expounding upon YOUR PRESUMPTIONS which, for reasons unknown, MUST BE more valid than any other PRESUMPTIONS about the PRESUMED "immaterial" THING/STUFF/MATERIAL/MATTER/(or whatever word you want to use).

I will make an effort to be patient.

[zerinus]

zerinus and DaddyG,

I said that spirits are something, not that they are "made of" something. Angelic spirits are made or created by God, but God himself, who is spirit, is not made at all. Also, we don't have any information about the substance of angelic spirits other than that it is not physical in nature, is therefore by nature not tangible, not corporeal, and possesses no mass, and that (unlike God) it is finite. Spirit is a different category of being than the physical.

Thank you; but I fail to see why "made of" something should present such a big problem. After all, God made man "out of" something. The Lord actually tells us in scripture what that "something" is. It is the "dust of the earth:"

Genesis 2:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 3:

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

I take that to be a figurative statement meaning that God made man out of the materials of this world, such as carbon, and nitrogen, and hydrogen, and the rest. That is what the "dust of the dearth" I take to mean. So why should it be so difficult to conceive of spirits being "made of" something, but different from what man is made of? In fact, there is another metaphorical statement in scripture that tells us what spirits are "made of:"

Psalms 104:

4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Now I don't think that spirits are literally made of fire. I think that like the "dust of the earth," that is an equally figurative expression designed to give us some idea of what spirits are made of. Bear in mind that in those days people had no idea what "matter" was. The elements in the Periodic Table, and their physical and chemical properties, had not yet been discovered. So calling it the "dust of the earth" was the most intelligible way that God could have communicated to mankind at that time what man was made of. At that time (and still today) God has the same difficulty explaining to us what spirits are made of; because even though science has advanced enough that we now have a much better idea of what matter is than they did at that time, we are still in a conundrum with regard to understanding what a spirit is and what it is made of. But that fact that God has used a metaphor (in this case "fire") to tell us what a spirit is made of, in exacrtly in the same way that He used a metaphor to tell us what man is made of; it is reasonable to conclude that (1) spirits are indeed made of something (just as we are); and (2) that "substance," or whatever it is that spirits are made of, is quantifiable and has certain properties; and that some day when our knowledge has increased, we will be able to have as good an idea of the composition and properties of that spiritual "substance" as we now have of the material substance of this world. Don't you think that is a logical conclusion to draw from what the Lord has revealed to us in the scriptures?

Edited September 30, 2011 by zerinus

[KevinG]

Another assumption here is that our eternal spirits (intelligences) are separate from our mortal bodies made from temporal matter.

[saemo]

Ok, so God, the Father, is a resurrected person with a body of flesh and bones! Got it.

Thanks.

God is Spirit. Jesus is God Incarnate.