Rorty And Mormonism

[3DOP]

Hi The Grimace,

Your latest post is probably scratching the surface. I do not say these problems are insoluble. I am saying that modern philosophy has yet to seriously consider a God who isn't transcendent.

If they ever do, they'll find all kinds of problems that I couldn't think up. One of the reasons why we Catholics believe that the human soul is immortal is because it is immaterial. Things made out of matter have susceptibilities that seem incompatible with deity, like being blown up with bombs. I am not being deliberately irreverent when I wonder if a non-transcendent God could need something like the Secret Service. I have never expressed such reservations. But these kinds of concern are the reasons behind why I have posited, following a friend of mine who is also non-LDS, that the best route for Mormons to take is to admit that corporeality is not essential to the divine nature. The LDS God can and does have a body then, but it isn't like He will be blind if He is blindfolded. He "sees" without bodily eyes, He "hears" without bodily ears, and He is present without being in the vicinity in bodily.

I think they need to go for a God the Father who has a body, but was and is God, body or not. After all, the Holy Ghost is God without a body. If they persist in distancing themselves from transcendence and attract some attention, the same philosophers who have rejected a "transcendent God" will find ways to think they should reject an "immanent God". Don't anybody ask for proof of what the philosophers would do. It is an assertive prediction to someone who seems likeminded and not intended as an argument to anyone who takes a different view.

3DOP

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

First, the god you are defending, the god of Mormonism, is omnipresent, according to the canon. Marion G. Romney said God is omnipresent in General Conference, 1976.

But enough of that. You aren't really making an argument so much as you are quoting other philosophers with whom you may agree.

There are a problems with the Mormon concept of a physical God:

1. A physical God must occupy a physical space. If that is the case, it is conceivable that God is detectable by suitable technological means.

2. A physical God must abide by the laws that govern the universe. If this is the case, then he must reside near this planet in order to intervene in the affairs of mankind.

Sure, one can say that 'suitable technological means' have not been developed. But consider, in order for light to travel from the sun to the earth, 4 minutes must pass. If God is closer than the sun, and intervening in human affairs, he must do so within a reasonable amount of time, brining him sufficiently close to the earth to be detected by today's technology.

Maybe God knows how to manipulate the laws of the universe so that he can be very far away while responding to prayer instantaneously. But let's make sure there is some support for that argument, and that we are not simply playing a game of "Well, if God needs to fly, then lets say he has wings".

Your claim that Mormonism's concept of God is simpler than a transcendant explanation is not sound.

Nah, you are just not getting this. You appear to me to be a fundamentalist in your understanding of what religion is about. I am not.

Does God have a body? Yes I affirm this on faith. I find it to be the best metaphorical model which allows an understanding of his nature and attributes, and this model has been justified for me by personal revelation. In other words "I have a testimony that the church (which teaches this) is true".

Sure, one can say that 'suitable technological means' have not been developed.

Yes and that is the crux of the issue isn't it? That gives your argument away right there. Then we have "spirit matter" and "refined matter " and all that

People don't turn water into wine, or resurrect from the dead either, do they, but gosh Mormonism gets a bum rap from folks like you for believing that God has a body.

Oh by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, most Christian denominations also believe that the resurrected Jesus also has a body. In other words, they have the same problem if indeed it is a problem.

But of course, words tend to be problematic about such things, don't they?

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.....

One thing that led Susskind to this conclusion

is his principle of black hole complementarity,

which holds that there is an inherent

ambiguity in the fate of objects that

fall into a black hole. From the point of view

of the falling object itself, it passes without

incident through the hole’s perimeter, or horizon, and is destroyed when it reaches

the hole’s center, or singularity. But from

the vantage point of an external observer,

the falling object is incinerated at the

horizon. So what really happens? The

question, according to the principle of

black hole complementarity, is meaningless:

both interpretations are valid.A related idea favoring antirealism is

the holographic principle that Susskind

and Nobel laureate Gerard ’t Hooft of

Utrecht University formulated in the mid-

1990s. It holds that what happens in any

volume of spacetime can be explained by

what happens on its boundary. Although

we usually think of objects as zipping

around three-dimensional space, we can

equally well think of them as flattened

blobs sliding across a two-dimensional

surface. So which is the true reality: the

boundary or the interior? The theory

does not say. Reality, in this holographic

conjecture, is perspectival.

http://www.scientifi...-boy-of-physics

So we are definitely bumping up against the boundaries of what language can do here- in physics. The "truth" is perspectival in physics.

And then of course there is the Copenhagen Interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.^[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Linguistic descriptions of physics depend on models- ways of seeing things- perspectives- and putting them into language.

Do you think religion might be just a tad less precise and more poetic than physics? In case you don't know the answer, it is.

And just for the sake of grinding the point into the dust, I will repeat all the usual arguments about those comments NOT being canonical - we have the usual ambiguity about doctrine for one thing, and secondly the issue of whether or not conference addresses are completely prophetic utterances, and whether or not everything that even a prophet says is correct, etc etc etc.

And then we have the whole issue of what Elder Romney meant in that context by "omnipresent" because he is talking about God's INFLUENCE not really his presence.

So we have the issues of

1-your literalism in the face of ambiguity,

2-the issue of physics itself's ambiguity, in linguistic expression

3-the ambiguity of doctrine about "spirit matter" and "refined matter"

4- the ambiguity of what Romney "really meant" and

5-whether or not it is a "canonical" statement AND

6- your admission that, EVEN IF GOD IS DISCOVERABLE SCIENTIFICALLY, which I do not believe, the technological means to do so may have not yet been discovered.

And notice that all of these points are cumulative- meaning that even if ONE is correct your argument fails.

Long story short, I don't think your case is too strong.

Edited February 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[The Grimace]

Nah, you are just not getting this. You appear to me to be a fundamentalist in your understanding of what religion is about. I am not.

LOL. Fundamentalist? Not by a mile. I'm merely questioning.

Does God have a body? Yes I affirm this on faith. I find it to be the best metaphorical model which allows an understanding of his nature and attributes, and this model has been justified for me by personal revelation. In other words "I have a testimony that the church (which teaches this) is true".

I think 'God as metaphor' works better then either the transcendent or the physical models of God.

Yes and that is the crux of the issue isn't it? That gives your argument away right there. Then we have "spirit matter" and "refined matter " and all that

No, not really. Most religious folks, you included, pile attribute upon attribute on god to get around arguments. God can't make winged potatoes? Why, of course he can, in fact, he did so on other planets.

People don't turn water into wine, or resurrect from the dead either, do they, but gosh Mormonism gets a bum rap from folks like you for believing that God has a body.

You are right, people don't turn water into wine or resurrect the dead either. But people tell stories of those happening as though they are actual things that happened.

Oh by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, most Christian denominations also believe that the resurrected Jesus also has a body. In other words, they have the same problem if indeed it is a problem.

Correct.

And then we have the whole issue of what Elder Romney meant in that context by "omnipresent" because he is talking about God's INFLUENCE not really his presence.

Is that what he meant when he said god was an "omnipresent person"?

So we have the issues of

1-your literalism in the face of ambiguity,

2-the issue of physics itself's ambiguity, in linguistic expression

3-the ambiguity of doctrine about "spirit matter" and "refined matter"

4- the ambiguity of what Romney "really meant" and

5-whether or not it is a "canonical" statement AND

6- your admission that, EVEN IF GOD IS DISCOVERABLE SCIENTIFICALLY, which I do not believe, the technological means to do so may have not yet been discovered.

Ambiguity - seems that allows a whole range of beliefs, huh?

[3DOP]

bukowski

Oh by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, most Christian denominations also believe that the resurrected Jesus also has a body. In other words, they have the same problem if indeed it is a problem.

3DOP

For us, any problem is modified by the fact that Jesus only happens to have a body now. For us, corporeality is not essential to Jesus as God either before or after He took a body of flesh.

LDS have the same solution to any problems if you would admit that corporeality is not a necessity, and it is especially compatible with your faith when you consider that the Holy Ghost is currently unembodied! Is there some text in the Standard Works that forces you in your opinion to affirm that without a body, there is no God? Unless there is, without further revelation, such a school of thought as I suggest is not incompatible with Mormon doctrine.

[Vance]

One of the reasons why we Catholics believe that the human soul is immortal is because it is immaterial.

I can understand that you believe that. But I can find no scriptural basis for it. Which, of course, isn't a problem for Catholics. But it is a problem for "sola scriptura" Protestants.

Just saying.

[Vance]

For us, any problem is modified by the fact that Jesus only happens to have a body now. For us, corporeality is not essential to Jesus as God either before or after He took a body of flesh.

For Mormons, corporeality is not essential to Godhood either. But it is essential for a "fullness of joy" or a state of completeness or "perfection".

LDS have the same solution to any problems if you would admit that corporeality is not a necessity, and it is especially compatible with your faith when you consider that the Holy Ghost is currently unembodied! Is there some text in the Standard Works that forces you in your opinion to affirm that without a body, there is no God? Unless there is, without further revelation, such a school of thought as I suggest is not incompatible with Mormon doctrine.

There are Biblical scriptures that indicate that the body without the spirit is dead. So the question arises, if Jesus "gives up the ghost" again or in other words, His spirit leaves His body, wouldn't that mean that He dies again? And wouldn't that negate some of the statements about Him dying only once?

Then even more questions are begged. Why resurrection in the first place? What purpose does resurrection even serve?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Vance

[3DOP]

For Mormons, corporeality is not essential to Godhood either. But it is essential for a "fullness of joy" or a state of completeness or "perfection".

There are Biblical scriptures that indicate that the body without the spirit is dead. So the question arises, if Jesus "gives up the ghost" again or in other words, His spirit leaves His body, wouldn't that means that He dies again? And wouldn't that negate some of the statements about Him dying only once?

Then even more questions are begged. Why resurrection in the first place? What purpose does resurrection even serve?

If death of the body doesn't destroy "Godhood", as you say, I think any problems that I might have mentioned are solved. We are agreed then that the Godhood of neither the Father nor the Son can be killed.

[Vance]

If death of the body doesn't destroy "Godhood", as you say, I think any problems that I might have mentioned are solved.

Certainly Jesus dying didn't decrease or negate His "Godhood".

We are agreed then that the Godhood of neither the Father nor the Son can be killed.

As far as death of the body is concerned, yes. But there might be other methods/events that could do it. Could God willingly kill his own "Godhood"?

[mfbukowski]

Ambiguity - seems that allows a whole range of beliefs, huh?

Uh, well yes of course. What did you expect? A huge encyclopedia of "The Exact Way Everything Is, Perfectly Explained Without Ambiguity"?

Keep looking. You will never find it.

And following Kevin I would refer you to the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development, which essentially says that as one develops intellectually one learns more and more how to tolerate ambiguity. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

I will leave it at that.

[3DOP]

Certainly Jesus dying didn't decrease or negate His "Godhood".

As far as death of the body is concerned, yes. But there might be other methods/events that could do it. Could God willingly kill his own "Godhood"?

Not with anything physical.

[mfbukowski]

I think 'God as metaphor' works better then either the transcendent or the physical models of God.

The problem there is that you are applying it only to God without understanding that any linguistic utterance is a metaphor. That's why I mentioned fundamentalism. Scientific utterances also are ambiguous, just less so. Note the references I gave above about physics not being able to describe "what is".

[cdowis]

Mr. Bukowski,

There are a problems with the Mormon concept of a physical God:

1. A physical God must occupy a physical space. If that is the case, it is conceivable that God is detectable by suitable technological means.

OK, but what is theoretically possible may not be possible in the real world that we inhabit.

2. A physical God must abide by the laws that govern the universe. If this is the case, then he must reside near this planet in order to intervene in the affairs of mankind.

Yes, the Lord cannot violate natural laws. And "how near" does he have to live to that planet?

I have the feeling that you do not have a correct understanding of the meaning of "natural laws" in this context. A very simple example -- does FTL communication between entangled particles follow natural laws?

Sure, one can say that 'suitable technological means' have not been developed. But consider, in order for light to travel from the sun to the earth, 4 minutes must pass.

Are you serious? On a very basic level, how long does it take for entangled particles to be able to communicate their state with each other in that same distance.

If God is closer than the sun, and intervening in human affairs, he must do so within a reasonable amount of time, brining him sufficiently close to the earth to be detected by today's technology.

This would almost be funny if you were not so *serious*. Do you actually think a being who created the universe, an infinite number of planets and solar systems and galaxies is limited by time and space as we know it? You somehow think "natural law" has the same meaning to the Creator as it does to our puny minds.

Maybe God knows how to manipulate the laws of the universe so that he can be very far away while responding to prayer instantaneously. But let's make sure there is some support for that argument, and that we are not simply playing a game of "Well, if God needs to fly, then lets say he has wings".

He created an infinite universe, created infinite populated planets, was involved in their affairs. He is not bound by the speed of light.

Edited February 11, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

bukowski

Oh by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, most Christian denominations also believe that the resurrected Jesus also has a body. In other words, they have the same problem if indeed it is a problem.

3DOP

For us, any problem is modified by the fact that Jesus only happens to have a body now. For us, corporeality is not essential to Jesus as God either before or after He took a body of flesh.

"Not essential"- there you go again with the metaphysics What do you mean by "essential"? I would suggest then, that Catholics should have no problem with an embodied God if Jesus' perfections are not limited NOW by having a body

I will tell you an absolutely true story and I have witnesses to this and have discussed it recently with another person who was there corroborating my memory, though the incident happened 25 years ago.

One of my Mormon friends became a friend of a Catholic priest and invited him to discuss Mormonism with us, and then my friend invited me to participate. One of the points the priest brought up was the whole Greek notion that God could not have a body because that would limit his states of perfection- that he could not then be omnipresent, omnipotent etc. In other words, we were discussing exactly this point.

So of course I brought up the question then of the resurrected Jesus and whether or not HIS perfections were limited by having a body.

The priest of course could not respond. That was 25 years ago and as far as I know, from my friend, he has still not responded. That does not mean he didn't know how to respond, perhaps he simply chose not to- I don't know.

There may be solutions to this but I have not heard any, and actually your point is as good as any I have heard (but of course it does not work for me)

Again- this is not meant as an attack on Catholicism- just on the incorporation of Greek philosophy INTO Catholicism. This issue of transcendence vs immanence is a huge issue for Neoplatonism.

LDS have the same solution to any problems if you would admit that corporeality is not a necessity, and it is especially compatible with your faith when you consider that the Holy Ghost is currently unembodied! Is there some text in the Standard Works that forces you in your opinion to affirm that without a body, there is no God? Unless there is, without further revelation, such a school of thought as I suggest is not incompatible with Mormon doctrine.

I am not quite sure that I follow what you are saying here, but I will try to respond. I have a problem with the whole idea of "necessary conditions" in the Greek metaphysical sense, which is how you, I think, are using the term.

But certainly in the LDS picture of cosmology, there is no need for one who has attained Godhood to be embodied. Jesus himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, was a spirit who had attained Godhood without a body, as is the Holy Ghost today. Does that answer your question?

[3DOP]

"Not essential"- there you go again with the metaphysics What do you mean by "essential"? I would suggest then, that Catholics should have no problem with an embodied God if Jesus' perfections are not limited NOW by having a body

I will tell you an absolutely true story and I have witnesses to this and have discussed it recently with another person who was there corroborating my memory, though the incident happened 25 years ago.

One of my Mormon friends became a friend of a Catholic priest and invited him to discuss Mormonism with us, and then my friend invited me to participate. One of the points the priest brought up was the whole Greek notion that God could not have a body because that would limit his states of perfection- that he could not then be omnipresent, omnipotent etc. In other words, we were discussing exactly this point.

So of course I brought up the question then of the resurrected Jesus and whether or not HIS perfections were limited by having a body.

The priest of course could not respond. That was 25 years ago and as far as I know, from my friend, he has still not responded. That does not mean he didn't know how to respond, perhaps he simply chose not to- I don't know.

There may be solutions to this but I have not heard any, and actually your point is as good as any I have heard (but of course it does not work for me)

Again- this is not meant as an attack on Catholicism- just on the incorporation of Greek philosophy INTO Catholicism. This issue of transcendence vs immanence is a huge issue for Neoplatonism.

I am not quite sure that I follow what you are saying here, but I will try to respond. I have a problem with the whole idea of "necessary conditions" in the Greek metaphysical sense, which is how you, I think, are using the term.

But certainly in the LDS picture of cosmology, there is no need for one who has attained Godhood to be embodied. Jesus himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, was a spirit who had attained Godhood without a body, as is the Holy Ghost today. Does that answer your question?

LDS don't use the word essential? How can I communicate? I noticed the smiley face of course. I am not insulted. Frustrated? Yeah, a little. Anyway, I also used the word necessary. That is too packed with Platonism too? You used the expression "no need". Surely you mean what I intend if I use the expression "unnecessary" or "non-essential"? I seem to understand you. I really try not to use our lingo. That is why I am talking about "Godhood". I just want to communicate.

I have not proposed that there are insoluble problems with saying God the Father has a body. It is not a problem unless you insist that it is completely needful to what Vance called Godhood.

The simple answer for the priest was to admit that the Incarnate Son was not limited by a body, and to concede that the LDS Father is not limited by a body. So easy, unless you are committed to a faulty apologetic. All he should have said was: "You're right. I'm wrong."

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

After all, the Holy Ghost is God without a body. If they persist in distancing themselves from transcendence and attract some attention, the same philosophers who have rejected a "transcendent God" will find ways to think they should reject an "immanent God".

This is not a problem.

God could be a spirit and still be immanent. Even for Catholics this is the case. Souls of the deceased for example are spirits, but they are certainly not transcendent. They are of this earth and concerned with it, and their fates are influenced by our prayers, etc.

You are thinking as a Catholic and not as a Mormon. In fact, for Mormons, God's influence can be felt everywhere and so he can be said to be "omnipresent" in a sense, he is able to do all things any being can do, and therefore is "omnipotent" in a sense, and he knows all that can be known and is therefore "omniscient" in a sense.

Edited February 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

LDS don't use the word essential? How can I communicate? I noticed the smiley face of course. I am not insulted. Frustrated? Yeah, a little. Anyway, I also used the word necessary. That is too packed with Platonism too? You used the expression "no need". Surely you mean what I intend if I use the expression "unnecessary" or "non-essential"? I seem to understand you. I really try not to use our lingo. That is why I am talking about "Godhood". I just want to communicate.

I have not proposed that there are insoluble problems with saying God the Father has a body. It is not a problem unless you insist that it is essential (necessary) to what Vance called Godhood.

The simple answer for the priest was to admit that the Incarnate Son was not limited by a body, and to concede that the LDS Father is not limited by a body. So easy, unless you are committed to a faulty apologetic. All he should have said was: "You're right. I'm wrong."

OK in that sense, having a body is clearly not essential to Godhood.

But I think that for Catholics that is a more important question than you realize theologically.

[pmccombs1]

Thanks for the post. I must admit that I am weak in my knowledge of theology since my training has been in philosophy at secular universities where theology is not thought, erroneously I think, to be not "rigorous". That's their problem, but I do not claim to be an expert in all that is happening in theology, so admittedly I have a lot of catching up to do there.

And I am likewise out of my league, having no formal training in practically anything at all. But MIllbank is a student of Philosophy at least, and likely has a good deal of mastery of the subject from what I have read. One premise of radical orthodoxy, of course, is that you can't properly extract the Theological from any discipline. I found one interesting claim, in my readings on the topic, was that God worked through the philosophers and in this way brought much truth and development to Christian theology. Continuing revelation, if you will.

That is because LANGUAGE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD. It communicates our perceptions to others with similar perceptions but that is about all it can do. If I don't "know what you're saying" no communication can happen. Even the words "The cat is on the mat" presume that you know what the word "cat" means, that you have perceived cats before as opposed to dogs or an ostrich, or that you have at least seen pictures of cats or their descriptions or seen pictures of them.

I think there are levels of separation from "Reality." Language is at least twice removed, for it must imperfectly represent our experience and understanding. But experience itself is removed from reality, for it is perception that is limited by our capabilities. We might experience things that entirely misrepresent reality. Evidence and experience are insufficient, as is language; we are always looking "to get outside" of things and to thus remove them from the realm of subjectivity. The best way to accomplish it is to create the perfect "Impartial Spectator." We attempt to do this with varying degrees of success through our sensing and measuring machines, but it is impossible to know how well we are succeeding really. Sometimes we don't know that we don't know, and that we don't even have tools to find out. And there are, unfortunately, a class of things entirely unsuited to this sort of "objective" investigation. Many religious claims of truth fall into this category, and they can only be experienced subjectively and can never be validated as objectively legitimate. These are things about which one can never have a justified knowledge so long as they can only be subjectively perceived.

But this is not a problem to "Neoplatonic philosophy," as I understand it. Radical Orthodoxy at least, informed by Neoplatonism as it is, acknowledges this difficulty of language. Language is removed from reality, yes; and we have third-order ignorance. Thus, language can only be analogical when it is positive. Thus apophatic theology when it is negative; we speak more certainly of what God is not. Ultimately there is an ontologicqal realization suggested by this very problem you describe, that God cannot exist as we do and is therefore transcendent.

[mfbukowski]

And I am likewise out of my league, having no formal training in practically anything at all. But MIllbank is a student of Philosophy at least, and likely has a good deal of mastery of the subject from what I have read. One premise of radical orthodoxy, of course, is that you can't properly extract the Theological from any discipline. I found one interesting claim, in my readings on the topic, was that God worked through the philosophers and in this way brought much truth and development to Christian theology. Continuing revelation, if you will.

I think there are levels of separation from "Reality." Language is at least twice removed, for it must imperfectly represent our experience and understanding. But experience itself is removed from reality, for it is perception that is limited by our capabilities. We might experience things that entirely misrepresent reality. Evidence and experience are insufficient, as is language; we are always looking "to get outside" of things and to thus remove them from the realm of subjectivity. The best way to accomplish it is to create the perfect "Impartial Spectator." We attempt to do this with varying degrees of success through our sensing and measuring machines, but it is impossible to know how well we are succeeding really. Sometimes we don't know that we don't know, and that we don't even have tools to find out. And there are, unfortunately, a class of things entirely unsuited to this sort of "objective" investigation. Many religious claims of truth fall into this category, and they can only be experienced subjectively and can never be validated as objectively legitimate. These are things about which one can never have a justified knowledge so long as they can only be subjectively perceived.

But this is not a problem to "Neoplatonic philosophy," as I understand it. Radical Orthodoxy at least, informed by Neoplatonism as it is, acknowledges this difficulty of language. Language is removed from reality, yes; and we have third-order ignorance. Thus, language can only be analogical when it is positive. Thus apophatic theology when it is negative; we speak more certainly of what God is not. Ultimately there is an ontologicqal realization suggested by this very problem you describe, that God cannot exist as we do and is therefore transcendent.

The only problem with that being, as I have said, that we cannot know him, nor can he know us. In other words, he becomes irrelevant.

If we cannot know him at least in some sense "as he is" and perceive him directly with our senses (including "our hearts", subjectively) then he is irrelevant to our lives.

He kicked off the universe and then floats around being ineffable and there is nothing we can know about him. That is not MY idea of God at all.

And there is no such thing as an impartial spectator. Every perception ever made of anything was filtered through a human brain with all its foibles and prejudices.

Edited February 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

OK in that sense, having a body is clearly not essential to Godhood.

But I think that for Catholics that is a more important question than you realize theologically.

I should clarify that. What I meant is that the supposed limitations of God having a body as Jesus now does is a more important question for Catholic theology than I think you realize.

But again, all that is only philosophical talk, poetry. What you feel and know in your heart is what matters.

[Vance]

Not with anything physical.

How do you know? What evidence do you have?

[3DOP]

How do you know? What evidence do you have?

I just thought I was saying something you would agree with Vance. I don't think Godhood can be killed by a bullet or bomb or knife or anything physical. I think you asked if God could kill Himself. I don't think he could commit suicide like you or me with a shotgun. I don't have any evidence. You are free to disagree.

3DOP

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

Not with anything physical.

What if he had not done his/our Father's will at some point, like maybe not fulfilling his role as our Savior after our Father had sent him down here to do be our Savior for us. He would have being doing that "with" his physical "mortal" body, if he had rebelled against our Father like that.

Gotcha. You can pay me back now with giving me a rep point.

[Vance]

I just thought I was saying something you would agree with Vance. I don't think Godhood can be killed by a bullet or bomb or knife or anything physical. I don't have any evidence. You are free to disagree.

Well, since, as you have said earlier that one shouldn't besmurch someone else's "illogic" beliefs because there might be something beyond our ability to comprehend that would "solve" the condrum IF it could be known and comprehended, it seems reasonable then that there could very well be something or some "otherness" that is also beyond our abilitiy to comprehend that could be a God "killer".

It is even quite possible that there exists a being of some other incomprehensible power, perhaps even to God, that could swoop in and kill God and all his creations. Perhaps this being is even beyond comprehension to God and that God is totally unaware of its existence.

Once you go with the "beyond our ability to comprehend" the possiblities are endless.

Just saying.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Vance

[Ahab]

Once you go with the "beyond our ability to comprehend" the possiblities are endless.

No, no, no. There are limits to how that should be applied. It's not a term you can apply to any aspect of God without any restraint.

Generally they'll let you know you can "understand" the things of God, although you can't fully "comprehend" them.

Do you know the difference between understanding something, and comprehending it? It's a matter of degree, essentially.

[3DOP]

Well, since, as you have said earlier that one shouldn't besmurch someone else's "illogic" beliefs because there might be something beyond our ability to comprehend that would "solve" the condrum IF it could be known and comprehended, it seem reasonable then that there could very well be something or some "otherness" that is also beyond our abilitiy to comprehend that could be a God "killer".

It is even quite possible that there exists a being of some other incomprehensible power, perhaps even to God, that could swoop in and kill God and all his creations. Perhaps this being is even beyond comprehension to God and that God is totally unaware of its existence.

Once you go with the "beyond our ability to comprehend" the possiblities are endless.

Just saying.

You think I am inconsistent. An inability to comprehend a theoretically transcendent God does not imply that everything else is incomprehensible. If anything, it should imply an unique difference to everything else. I cannot say one thing is beyond our ability to comprehend unless everything else is equally beyond our ability to comprehend? All phenomena have increasing or decreasing degrees of comprehensibility. Comprehensibility is not equal. Regarding whether among an endless multiplicity of physical ways to attack Godhead, or as I would say, the divine nature, one method might be fatal? No, because Godhead/divine nature lives independently of a physical body as I think we both believe.

What if he had not done his/our Father's will at some point, like maybe not fulfilling his role as our Savior after our Father had sent him down here to do be our Savior for us. He would have being doing that "with" his physical "mortal" body, if he had rebelled against our Father like that.

Gotcha. You can pay me back now with giving me a rep point.

Ahab, I am afraid I am not following how this brings any light to the question of whether Godhead can be killed or commit suicide physically.