Rorty And Mormonism

[Ahab]

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.

If one goes, they all go, right? Jesus Christ was killed, physically. Now you tell me if the Godhead can be killed, physically.

[Vance]

You think I am inconsistent.

Well, in a word, yes.

An inability to comprehend a theoretically transcendent God does not imply that everything else is incomprehensible.

Nor does it imply that everything else is comprehensible. It says nothing about the comprehensiblity of everything or anything else.

If anything, it should imply an unique difference to everything else.

Why? I see no reason or way that is implied.

All phenomena have increasing or decreasing degrees of comprehensibility.

Ok

No, because Godhead/divine nature lives independently of a physical body as I think we both believe.

So? That says nothing about the possibility of it being destroyed. The whole concept of "immaterial" is based upon dark age concepts. Wind, breath, and spirit were all considered "immaterial". All are within the meaning of the Greek word "pnuema". Modern science has learned that neither wind nor breath are "immaterial" but are composed of elements. So, given that "pneuma" can NOT mean "immaterial", why is it assumed (or presumed) that the spirit is "immaterial"?

It looks to me like someone needs to update their theology.

Just sayin.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Vance

[pmccombs1]

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.

Why?

Because, therefore language itself, incapable as it is of representing reality with fidelity, never perfectly conveying that which it only pretends to represent, is also irrelevant. Let us all close our mouths and cease our efforts at communication, for it is all vanity.

This argument is nonsense, of course. If we cannot know God in full, perhaps we might know Him in part. And if we cannot know Him in part, we might at least stretch ourselves in the attempt. To have a shadow, a glimpse, an echo, a projection, a sense, a manner, a likeness, or a feeling, is to have something genuine if not a fullness. Perhaps the painter of flatland casts his shadow upon it even as he paints, though his creation cannot comprehend a being who himself is not painted. And if such an impossible God could likewise not know us, then perhaps he might have the power (if only we were omnipotent!) to make himself flesh and come among us so that he might know how to succor his children according to the flesh. It could happen. Why would it be irrelevant?

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.

But that isn't it at all. The master raises his baton--and from silence, music! At every moment there is music so long as the arm is raised; at every moment creation stands in opposition to emptiness and to nothing. This is the meaning of ex nihilo, that at every moment existence is from nothing. That there is a cause as opposed to no cause, that there is something as opposed to nothing. There must be opposition in all things. The maestro doesn't kick off the concerto and leave the scene. If we cannot comprehend the man, at least we can hear his Music. Does it convey the master as he really is? Whatever it does, it makes all the difference, even to those who don't have any idea what it means.

Do you know, there is a certain type who lets his critics teach him what his own doctrine means? I have heard from ex-believers the most absurd caricatures of their former faith. Do you mean to tell me there are creedal Christians who believe in some ineffable deity who kicked off the Universe and floats around being all mysterious and unapproachable? That this is the meaning of creation ex nihilo, and the nature of God? Well, no wonder some of them apostatize. They don't understand their own doctrine. They have let an intellectual make a caricature of it, and then provide them with some other answer. I suppose there is some blame to be laid on the nominalists and others of the scholastic period who opened the doors to this sort of understanding, what with the univocity of being and so forth.

Christianity is an ancient religion, and as all faiths of antiquity, was first a doctrine of being and not of knowing. When men began to think they needed to know things about God, that is when they despaired of knowing anything at all. That is the cue for salesmen to appear on the scene and mock the ineffable God of the flatlanders, offering them very desirable answers in their own image. We aren't in the image of God, he is in ours! These teachers are full of slogans and billboards, claiming authority, ever anxious to live in the world and not be of it; and they build up Churches that PR their alms before men and talk endlessly about themselves. But we are to know God because we are His children and live within his creation.

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.

No, there are no impartial spectators that are human, that is true. That is why we try to make them from our machines, and although we can get closer to the ideal perhaps we still do not achieve it. There is always something of us in everything we do. Whereas two men may argue the color of a stop light, the spectrometer with its determinism may label the wavelength according to pre-defined rules and thus bring us closer to settling the question. When a truth lies beyond our ability to validate with our impartial machinery, and with our deterministic models and testable predictions, that is where arguments arise. We are foolish to apply our epistemology to things beyond our limited capacity for reliable knowledge. Subjective knowledge is not reliable and is not worth holding up as "the truth" in the way we have come to understand and expect it today. We expect truth to say something about a reality of which nothing can be said.

Why worry about "knowing" God as he really is? Religion is a thing to be sung and danced; certainly to be lived. Be wary of the Church that emphasizes knowing above being, for it may be that if we are ever to know God more fully, it will only be because we have somehow ourselves become more like Him, even if in our limited, imperfect, and analogous way. Maybe that is all that is meant for this life.

Edited February 11, 2013 by pmccombs1

[mfbukowski]

In a response to another thread, Dr. Peterson made an blog entry which is relevant here to Aristotle and the unmoved mover argument, showing that indeed in an Aristotelian universe, the unmoved mover cannot be "moved" by prayer

The UM, whom Aristotle explicitly calls God, does not return the love of the spheres, or philosophers, or whoever might worship it, because it does not know we exist, or care.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/02/all-men-by-nature-desire-to-know-wrote-aristotle-unfortunately-though-some-who-think-they-do-just-dont.html

[mfbukowski]

Mr pmcombs

I think you didn't understand my point. I will get back to you as soon as I can

Edited February 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[pmccombs1]

Mr pmcombs

I think you didn't understand my point. I will get back to you as soon as I can

Like I said, I'm out of my league here...

[mfbukowski]

Like I said, I'm out of my league here...

I don't think so- this is not easy stuff and I probably am not taking enough time to explain where I am coming from.

[mfbukowski]

Why?

Because, therefore language itself, incapable as it is of representing reality with fidelity, never perfectly conveying that which it only pretends to represent, is also irrelevant. Let us all close our mouths and cease our efforts at communication, for it is all vanity.

No the problem is- how can we KNOW that it IS "representing" reality if all we have? How can we check it? Somehow we would have to get outside our perceptions and our representations and see "things as they really are" and then report back and say "Yep- that language stuff represents reality all right!"

There is no way to check it. Suppose we were all born with rose colored glasses and you were saying that all reality was NOT rose colored at all. How could you prove that? How could you know that? There would be no way to show or see what "true colors" were- so the whole idea of "true colors" would become irrelevant. Remember the Moody Blues?

Cold hearted orb that rules the night,

removes the colours from our sight.

Red is grey, and yellow, white,

but we decide which is right,

and which is an illusion.

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

The problem is that we cannot TELL which is right and which is an illusion when all we have is what we see, and all we can speak about is in language.

This argument is nonsense, of course. If we cannot know God in full, perhaps we might know Him in part. And if we cannot know Him in part, we might at least stretch ourselves in the attempt. To have a shadow, a glimpse, an echo, a projection, a sense, a manner, a likeness, or a feeling, is to have something genuine if not a fullness.

But how do you know that what you have IS correct at all? How do you know if there IS more? You cannot know- all you can know is what is in your heart!

Perhaps the painter of flatland casts his shadow upon it even as he paints, though his creation cannot comprehend a being who himself is not painted.

Yes! But he is still trapped in flatland! Even if he sees an apparition, it is not "as it really is"- it is limited to his little flatland perceptions! The rest he takes on faith!

And if such an impossible God could likewise not know us, then perhaps he might have the power (if only we were omnipotent!) to make himself flesh and come among us so that he might know how to succor his children according to the flesh. It could happen. Why would it be irrelevant?

It would not be irrelevant! And I never said that it would be! I said that the flatlander would not have ANY experience at all of God at all! There IS no "shadow, a glimpse, an echo, a projection, a sense, a manner, a likeness, or a feeling," available from a God like Aristotle's god. He is irrelevant. He is not experienceable. He floats implacably ignoring his children and neither loves nor cares for them.

Do you know, there is a certain type who lets his critics teach him what his own doctrine means? I have heard from ex-believers the most absurd caricatures of their former faith. Do you mean to tell me there are creedal Christians who believe in some ineffable deity who kicked off the Universe and floats around being all mysterious and unapproachable? That this is the meaning of creation ex nihilo, and the nature of God? Well, no wonder some of them apostatize. They don't understand their own doctrine. They have let an intellectual make a caricature of it, and then provide them with some other answer. I suppose there is some blame to be laid on the nominalists and others of the scholastic period who opened the doors to this sort of understanding, what with the univocity of being and so forth.

My point is that the Neoplatonist intellectuals tried to graft Aristotle's impersonal God into Biblical Christianity and THAT simply doesn't work so the theology doesn't work.

That says nothing about the earnest beliefs of rank and file Christians, who I am certain feel inspiration and the light of Christ burning in their hearts. Most people do not worry about theology at all and philosophy even less. Good for them!

Unfortunately there are a few of us who are afflicted with a need to question everything and define it for ourselves. For for those of us so afflicted, we cannot help ourselves!

Why worry about "knowing" God as he really is? Religion is a thing to be sung and danced; certainly to be lived. Be wary of the Church that emphasizes knowing above being, for it may be that if we are ever to know God more fully, it will only be because we have somehow ourselves become more like Him, even if in our limited, imperfect, and analogous way. Maybe that is all that is meant for this life.

This is MY point exactly! I agree!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Edited February 13, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[pmccombs1]

No the problem is- how can we KNOW that it IS "representing" reality if all we have? How can we check it? Somehow we would have to get outside our perceptions and our representations and see "things as they really are" and then report back and say "Yep- that language stuff represents reality all right!"

There is no way to check it. Suppose we were all born with rose colored glasses and you were saying that all reality was NOT rose colored at all. How could you prove that? How could you know that? There would be no way to show or see what "true colors" were- so the whole idea of "true colors" would become irrelevant. Remember the Moody Blues?

http://en.wikipedia..../The_Day_Begins

The problem is that we cannot TELL which is right and which is an illusion when all we have is what we see, and all we can speak about is in language.

But how do you know that what you have IS correct at all? How do you know if there IS more? You cannot know- all you can know is what is in your heart!

I think I agree with all of this.

Yes! But he is still trapped in flatland! Even if he sees an apparition, it is not "as it really is"- it is limited to his little flatland perceptions! The rest he takes on faith!

It would not be irrelevant! And I never said that it would be! I said that the flatlander would not have ANY experience at all of God at all! There IS no "shadow, a glimpse, an echo, a projection, a sense, a manner, a likeness, or a feeling," available from a God like Aristotle's god. He is irrelevant. He is not experienceable. He floats implacably ignoring his children and neither loves nor cares for them.

My point is that the Neoplatonist intellectuals tried to graft Aristotle's impersonal God into Biblical Christianity and THAT simply doesn't work so the theology doesn't work.

I don't think that's how the Neoplatonist theologians see it, which is my point. Ineffable does not equate to impersonal, nor un-experienceable; a partial or analogical experience (which is how one approaches such a God) is genuine if imperfect/incomplete. Participation and analogy are the ways one comes to experience and understand God, to the degree possible. Being "like as" is the key. Things resembling their causes, and so forth. "What is truth," asks Pilate; and Jesus had already told him that those who are of the Kingdom of God will know it when they see it.

The Neoplatonists make the opposite claim as you; it is the univocal theology that doesn't work (God exists univocally with us, i.e. his "being" is the same as our "being"). This opened the door to secularism and ultimately atheism, for reasons well-explained in Radical Orthodoxy literature; for such a God is not necessary to the universe that exists univocally with us. Creation and intelligence are sufficiently observed in and explained by emergent and spontaneous complexity models, leaving aside an external First Cause beyond current possibilities for objective investigation (which is where the Neoplatonists like to play). It is the Neoplatonists who frustrate the New Atheists; everyone else's god poses no problem for them, apparently.

Then there is the theology that Eugene England taught, developing along the lines of some early thinking from LDS Church leaders that has since fallen out of favor. It's almost opposite Neoplatonism and Radical Orthodoxy. I like it very much also. I think it works too, but it describes a God who is not omnipotent nor omniscient, and who becomes a straw man for the antis to burn down. We have an in-between God right now; one that tries to be both the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent First Cause as well as the fatherly, fleshy Man who is in many ways just like us, only "more". It's like the paradoxical theology that arose in the early centuries in response to both docetism on the one hand, and the doctrine of the Ebionites on the other. To deny them both, Jesus had to become simultaneously human and divine. Oh, I suppose if they had that theory then, why can't we have it now? I think it's maybe nonsense, but I suppose I'm digressing.

That says nothing about the earnest beliefs of rank and file Christians, who I am certain feel inspiration and the light of Christ burning in their hearts. Most people do not worry about theology at all and philosophy even less. Good for them!

Unfortunately there are a few of us who are afflicted with a need to question everything and define it for ourselves. For for those of us so afflicted, we cannot help ourselves!

Yes, I understand; I can't help myself either. I like the idea that being and becoming trump thinking and knowing, but I first need to know at least to whom I belong. It is difficult to become a thing you do not wish to be. What is it that draws me? There are things that burn in the hearts of good believers that do not burn in mine. Why should that be?

[mfbukowski]

In existentialist hokey pokey you must determine for yourself what it is all about

:rofl:

[mfbukowski]

I think I agree with all of this.

I don't think that's how the Neoplatonist theologians see it, which is my point. Ineffable does not equate to impersonal, nor un-experienceable; a partial or analogical experience (which is how one approaches such a God) is genuine if imperfect/incomplete. Participation and analogy are the ways one comes to experience and understand God, to the degree possible. Being "like as" is the key. Things resembling their causes, and so forth. "What is truth," asks Pilate; and Jesus had already told him that those who are of the Kingdom of God will know it when they see it.

The Neoplatonists make the opposite claim as you; it is the univocal theology that doesn't work (God exists univocally with us, i.e. his "being" is the same as our "being"). This opened the door to secularism and ultimately atheism, for reasons well-explained in Radical Orthodoxy literature; for such a God is not necessary to the universe that exists univocally with us. Creation and intelligence are sufficiently observed in and explained by emergent and spontaneous complexity models, leaving aside an external First Cause beyond current possibilities for objective investigation (which is where the Neoplatonists like to play). It is the Neoplatonists who frustrate the New Atheists; everyone else's god poses no problem for them, apparently.

Then there is the theology that Eugene England taught, developing along the lines of some early thinking from LDS Church leaders that has since fallen out of favor. It's almost opposite Neoplatonism and Radical Orthodoxy. I like it very much also. I think it works too, but it describes a God who is not omnipotent nor omniscient, and who becomes a straw man for the antis to burn down. We have an in-between God right now; one that tries to be both the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent First Cause as well as the fatherly, fleshy Man who is in many ways just like us, only "more". It's like the paradoxical theology that arose in the early centuries in response to both docetism on the one hand, and the doctrine of the Ebionites on the other. To deny them both, Jesus had to become simultaneously human and divine. Oh, I suppose if they had that theory then, why can't we have it now? I think it's maybe nonsense, but I suppose I'm digressing.

Yes, I understand; I can't help myself either. I like the idea that being and becoming trump thinking and knowing, but I first need to know at least to whom I belong. It is difficult to become a thing you do not wish to be. What is it that draws me? There are things that burn in the hearts of good believers that do not burn in mine. Why should that be?

What I am saying is that indeed the Aristotelian God cannot interact with humanity. If Neoplatonic thinkers think that some blend is possible I disagree- and the way that has been done is to give God two "natures" which really doesn't work- because the word "nature", like "essence" is too vague a term to allow much propositional content for the whole idea.

But I think we are fine in seeing "omniscient" to mean something like "knowing everything" that is knowable in a human sense. The idea would be that God is in a sense the repository of all human knowledge and all that can in principle BE known to humans. Surely we believe that he understands scientific principles, for example, which remain unknown to us- the question is whether or not he can know what is unknowable- and that seems to be a contradiction, and God cannot contradict himself.

We can easily imagine a being like that- we can even imagine a theoretical computer which "knew" all of what mankind knows. Perhaps the total content of the internet is almost like that even now. Of course God knows all that we still DON'T know as well, but that which is discoverable.

He is "omnipresent" in the sense that his presence and knowledge and influence fill all of space and time. His consciousness is infinite at least in terms we can understand.

He is "omnipotent" in that he can do all that can be done. He cannot contradict himself nor the laws of nature he has voluntarily decided to keep- or else he would contradict himself and cease to be God. He has voluntarily limited himself in those ways- he is literally "Self-determined" in determining his own limits so that he could in fact be the kind of being who can be a loving Father to his children.

Don't we as human fathers kind of do the same things? Come home for dinner, don't have affairs, keep the word of wisdom, take care of our children responsibly etc? Haven't we taken these rules upon ourselves voluntarily so that we can be good fathers?

Of course in his case he is infinitely above us, but the principle, I believe is the same.

Anyway that's how I see it!

[3DOP]

What I am saying is that indeed the Aristotelian God cannot interact with humanity. If Neoplatonic thinkers think that some blend is possible I disagree- and the way that has been done is to give God two "natures" which really doesn't work- because the word "nature", like "essence" is too vague a term to allow much propositional content for the whole idea.

Among the opponents of the 5th Century Church Council that proposed two natures in Christ, none were proposing philosophical problems about God's inability to love us. They were saying that Jesus wasn't fully human.

-------------------------------------

I really don't think you have you any appreciation for those whose faith falls outside your philosophy. I don't understand it, but I grant that you have built up a mountain of argumentation against Plato and Aristotle. But I do understand the Catholic faith a little. I know what the Church teaches about human reason vs. faith. Your whole approach to the Catholic faith implies that it was always the priority of conciliar bishops and early church leadership to establish Plato and Aristotle in disregard for what their own Scripture says. I have offered biblical reasons from the Catholic canon to establish why we think we need to either believe in a transcendent God or renounce our own Scriptures. I have quoted a passage from volgadon's link to show how the Jewish community, using only the Old Testament agree with us. You haven't interacted with any of that. You know that Muhammed, that neo-Platonist, using our Scriptures and the Koran, believed in a transcendent God. Why can't you allow that the mistaken followers of all these religions are primarily following their own sacred writings? I presume the Jews are also guilty of demoting their Scriptures. What do you say about the Muslims?

Among the bishops of the Council of Nicea were many who were missing fingers and eyes. Others had only feared imminent arrest and torture, and others were absent because they had been killed. Why? Neither Diocletian nor Satan were furiously trying to disestablish Platonism, Neoplatonism, or Aristotelianism. The bishops had not been persecuted because of this commitment you seem to think they had for Greek philosophy. You agree with that much I hope. They loved the same Jesus Christ that you read about in the Gospels. They were tortured and others died because they refused to renounce His Holy Name. Now I am supposed to believe that less than a decade after the death of their human tormentor, these same heroes of faith who once suffered for Christ, renounced the Son of God as revealed by faith, and became devils of a different sort because of their total commitment to their own reason. I am not buying it and neither should you.

I don't have a problem with you saying we are wrong about how to interpret Scripture. But you do us an injustice in saying that our beliefs are the result of repeated abandonment of revelation for philosophy. I am wrong. Fine. We can still be apostate in your eyes because we misinterpret Scripture. But that isn't good enough for you. You seem completely unable to accept that a non-LDS bishop could interpret a biblical canon that differs from yours and believe that God is transcendent and that God loves us at the same time. Instead of his misinterpretation of Scriptures that few Mormons even know about that leads him astray, he has to have this all-encompassing commitment to these stupid* philosophers. You say that when our entire theological patrimony hinges upon the preeminence of revelation over philosophy! It is a most serious and unnecessary allegation to persistently villainize the early church by insisting that they deliberately inverted their own teaching which says that philosophy is the hand-maiden of theology.

What is the hardest part of all is that you do it with amiability and apparent conviction. I am perplexed with you. I could wish you were nastier. You appear to be blithely unaware of how repulsive the painting is that you draw of us. I know you were Catholic, an altar boy. I am sure you love your Catholic relatives. I am sure you respect your relatives. But I do not see how anybody can respect the Catholic Church when we are guilty of ignoring our own Bible and following a Christ-demoting philosophy. You say that it is impossible for Aristotle's God to love me. I say it should be impossible for somebody who believes what you do about us to respect us.

You have made the claim that my faith is founded on false fathers who were so completely given over to their own intellects as to place revelation from God beneath their own brains. I have offered a little history (Nicea). I have offered Scripture unique to us (Ecclesiasticus and 2 Maccabees). I have made mention of other religions that share some of the same Scriptures and I await your condemnation of the Jewish and Muslim religions as being born out of brains instead of sacred writings. if you want to be consistent, I await your willingness to include those groups as being faithless to their Scriptures too. But even better, as an exercise, put aside philosophy just once, and try to just read the passages of Scripture I have cited for this thread and ask yourself if the only way someone with those as a guide could believe in creatio ex nihilo or God's transcendence, is if he first loved Plato. I am suggesting that you have forgotten that we have revelation that you lack, and that it is possible to arrive at the beliefs we have embraced without much knowledge of philosophy. After all, you are the one who points out how we are inconsistent even to Aristotle, even to Plato, because we believe as surely as you do that God has loved us from the day He made us. How could we believe that, and be so committed as you say we are to those philosophers?

*Stupid, in that they had no faith, only reason, without revelation from God

-----------------------

What you said about two natures in Christ is totally off the mark. How would that solve any supposed problem with transcendence? So God the Son started loving people in 4 AD? Oh yeah sure. Those numbskulls of the 5th Century were really reassured with that one! The problem was never posed. But if it had been, it doesn't take a philosopher to see that it is a truly ridiculous solution to it. Not only are we primarily philosophers, we are incredibly stupid philosophers!

Maybe Ash Wednesday makes me cranky. Anyway, I lovingly submit this rather passionate plea that you would stop to consider that not everybody, not even us Catholics, have in all places and times been as consumed with philosophy as you seem to currently think.

May the good God bless you bukowski. Be assured of my regard,

3DOP

Edited February 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Maybe Ash Wednesday makes me cranky. Anyway, I lovingly submit this rather passionate plea that you would stop to consider that not everybody, not even us Catholics, have in all places and times been as consumed with philosophy as you seem to currently think.

May the good God bless you bukowski. Be assured of my regard,

3DOP

I am truly, truly sorry you have taken this personally even though I have repeatedly said that I have nothing against Catholics or their beliefs, just Neoplatonism.

I am sorry that Neoplatonism cannot be made coherent with faith in a personal God no matter how hard people want it to be. I did not dream all this up, and indeed most of contemporary philosophy indeed agrees with what I am saying. I regret that you were not aware of this philosophical view, but it is not my fault that the world as a whole is moving away from a religious point of view, precisely base on this point of view. Religion in Europe practically does not exist any more because of this view

It is my belief that indeed it is possible to save religious belief if one would simply face these facts and confront them and see them for what they are and what their weaknesses are!

We need to affirm a view of religion which is philosophically robust and confronts the issues now attacking religion, and all I am doing is pointing out some views of philosophers who indeed see this as a viable possibility. And the reality is, that in my opinion, Mormonism is immune from many of these attacks if we adopt the right understanding of scriptural beliefs

Indeed this trend dates back farther than Nietzsche who was among the more bold and came out with the view that "God is dead".

This view grows directly out of his attack on classical Christianity- but does not apply- in my belief- to Mormonism

And the world as a whole has adopted his arguments, as transmitted through others.

Indeed I myself became an atheist because of these views, but found that the understanding of God found in Mormonism was potentially immune to these attacks since indeed Mormonism understands God (arguably) as an immanent being. Some of course may disagree with that.

Most attacks by atheists really apply only to a transcendent God- they do not even conceive of the possibility that one could postulate an immanent God, because the traditional view of God defined by the Greeks sees him as transcendent.

So, far from attacking Catholicism, I see this as a way to save the notion of a personal God from those who, like Rorty, see the notion of a transcendent God as totally untenable.

I certainly did not mean this to be an attack on religion, but to point to others who see this as a way to save it.

I find this very ironic that played out here is exactly the same problem that apologists are being accused of on other threads- the idea that by discussing the views of those who are anti-religion we give their ideas wider circulation among the faithful.

Yet someone wiser than me said something like "One cannot be disillusioned unless there are illusions to begin with".

Edited February 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

I am truly, truly sorry you have taken this personally even though I have repeatedly said that I have nothing against Catholics or their beliefs, just Neoplatonism.

I am sorry that Neoplatonism cannot be made coherent with faith in a personal God no matter how hard people want it to be.

You read my post and that is all you took from it? That I am insulted? No, not personally. You know I am ignorant about Plato. You like me. I know it. But you try to cast as historically convicted villains, people from long ago, who you know very little about, but who we know as heroes who suffered torture for Christ. You insult the faith of every other Jew, Muslim, or Christian who never cared to defend Neo-Platonism, but who arrived at his beliefs because of what is written in sacred writings. For them, and for my fathers, I admit to indignation. You are without good grounds detracting the reputations of defenseless people long dead, whose interior dispositions can never be proven to have been so corrupted as you claim. You have said that our beliefs are incompatible with Neo-Platonism. Maybe so! Who cares? If it is true, as you have said, that Neo-Platonism disallows what we believe about God's love for us how can you accuse them of being so fully committed to Plato? If they reject such an important aspect of Neo-Platonism, how can you accuse them of being driven primarily by Neo-Platonism?

Its like you are completely stuck on this idea that the only possible way for a religious person to believe in a transcendent God is to reject their own Scripture in favor of philosophy. You write as though I should smile benignly while reading implications that the Councils that clarify Catholic Tradition were corrupted not by bad interpretation of Scripture, but an attachment to philosophy. If anybody with whom I have ever crossed paths is determined to force his faith to be compatible with his philosophy, it is you. I am afraid you impose your own obsession, and your own priority on everybody else. Have you even read the Koran or the entire Catholic Bible? Have you read Jewish commentaries on the Scriptures we have in common? I don't see how you can be comfortable about making such sweeping charges until you can demonstrate that their Scriptures were irrefutably incompatible with what they propose as faith.

Is it not possible that our faiths don't have this commitment to Neo-Platonism that you allege? I still urge you to read and ponder the Catholic Biblical selections which I have cited. Optimist that I am, I retain hope that maybe you will someday see why someone without philosophical training could be led to believe that their revelation points in a direction that, horror of horrors, resembles the thoughts of some Greek philosopher that you don't like. I remind you that Jews and Muslims have the same "problem" we have. Why in the world can't we all just be wrong in your eyes about how to interpret our own Scripture? Are you unwilling to believe that words conformable to our beliefs about God's transcendence can possibly be derived from the sacred writing of Jews, Catholics, or Muslims? You could even fall back on the fact that we don't have Latter-day revelation for why we are blind to the truths you embrace. Just give the benefit of the doubt to erring ancient peoples who mistaken though they were, at least knew that their faith was based on how God had revealed Himself unto them through their prophets, and how these writings moved them far more than some misplaced love for Plato.

3DOP

PS: I am back to work and have to be at 0230. I usually tone things down a bit and I don't have time right now. But I am satisfied that I should leave it as is. You are not unaware that the positions you take are far more damaging to my faith than the screwball running around screaming about the Whore of Babylon. You have not made your "sweeping charges" explicit. But they are there and I think you know it.

God be with you buk. See you maybe tomorrow evening. Long day tomorrow.

3DOP

Edited February 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

You read my post and that is all you took from it? That I am insulted? No, not personally. You know I am ignorant about Plato. You like me. I know it. But you try to cast as historically convicted villains, people from long ago, who you know very little about, but who we know as heroes who suffered torture for Christ. You insult the faith of every other Jew, Muslim, or Christian who never cared to defend Neo-Platonism, but who arrived at his beliefs because of what is written in sacred writings. For them, and for my fathers, I admit to indignation. You are without good grounds detracting the reputations of defenseless people long dead, whose interior dispositions can never be proven to have been so corrupted as you claim. You have said that our beliefs are incompatible with Neo-Platonism. Maybe so! Who cares? If it is true, as you have said, that Neo-Platonism disallows what we believe about God's love for us how can you accuse them of being so fully committed to Plato? If they reject such an important aspect of Neo-Platonism, how can you accuse them of being driven primarily by Neo-Platonism?

Its like you are completely stuck on this idea that the only possible way for a religious person to believe in a transcendent God is to reject their own Scripture in favor of philosophy. You write as though I should smile benignly while reading implications that the Councils that clarify Catholic Tradition were corrupted not by bad interpretation of Scripture, but an attachment to philosophy. If anybody with whom I have ever crossed paths is determined to force his faith to be compatible with his philosophy, it is you. I am afraid you impose your own obsession, and your own priority on everybody else. Have you even read the Koran or the entire Catholic Bible? Have you read Jewish commentaries on the Scriptures we have in common? I don't see how you can be comfortable about making such sweeping charges until you can demonstrate that their Scriptures were irrefutably incompatible with what they propose as faith.

Is it not possible that our faiths don't have this commitment to Neo-Platonism that you allege? I still urge you to read and ponder the Catholic Biblical selections which I have cited. Optimist that I am, I retain hope that maybe you will someday see why someone without philosophical training could be led to believe that their revelation points in a direction that, horror of horrors, resembles the thoughts of some Greek philosopher that you don't like. I remind you that Jews and Muslims have the same "problem" we have. Why in the world can't we all just be wrong in your eyes about how to interpret our own Scripture? Are you unwilling to believe that words conformable to our beliefs about God's transcendence can possibly be derived from the sacred writing of Jews, Catholics, or Muslims? You could even fall back on the fact that we don't have Latter-day revelation for why we are blind to the truths you embrace. Just give the benefit of the doubt to erring ancient peoples who mistaken though they were, at least knew that their faith was based on how God had revealed Himself unto them through their prophets, and how these writings moved them far more than some misplaced love for Plato.

3DOP

PS: I am back to work and have to be at 0230. I usually tone things down a bit and I don't have time right now. But I am satisfied that I should leave it as is. You are not unaware that the positions you take are far more damaging to my faith than the screwball running around screaming about the Whore of Babylon. You have not made your "sweeping charges" explicit. But they are there and I think you know it.

God be with you buk. See you maybe tomorrow evening. Long day tomorrow.

3DOP

Sorry- I don't think you are understanding me.

[3DOP]

mfb,

I tried harder and I see that you are not impugning those who happen to come from traditions that believe in a transcendent God.

You are convinced that such beliefs have been disproven in our times, and rather than atheism, you think you have discovered a way to salvage religion.

I offer my apologies for having assumed that you were taking up the charge of "hellenism" as used in some apologetics that posits that traditions like mine are philosophy driven.

I am especially sorry for having said that your arguments implied that you were making sweeping judgments about the interior dispositions of defenseless dead people. I retract all charges that follow that course of thinking. I very humbly beg your pardon.

------------------------------

Not being philosophy driven myself, I think you give too much weight to the philosophers. However, you are probably correct about the rising tide of atheism being due to the work of modern philosophy. Ideas have consequences.

I grant that your faith is consistent with your philosophy and surely that is very consoling.

As long as you admit that we believe what we do primarily because of our misinterpretations of Scripture, I have no bone to pick. It is important to me that faith would trump reason and that is why I am perhaps hyper-sensitive to any hint of an idea that traditions like mine start by giving too much weight to philosophy. I will try to be more careful about jumping to conclusions in the future.

See you around,

3DOP

Edited February 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

mfb,

I tried harder and I see that you are not impugning those who happen to come from traditions that believe in a transcendent God.

You are convinced that such beliefs have been disproven in our times, and rather than atheism, you think you have discovered a way to salvage religion.

I offer my apologies for having assumed that you were taking up the charge of "hellenism" as used in some apologetics that posits that traditions like mine are philosophy driven.

I am especially sorry for having said that your arguments implied that you were making sweeping judgments about the interior dispositions of defenseless dead people. I retract all charges that follow that course of thinking. I very humbly beg your pardon.

------------------------------

Not being philosophy driven myself, I think you give too much weight to the philosophers. However, you are probably correct about the rising tide of atheism being due to the work of modern philosophy. Ideas have consequences.

I grant that your faith is consistent with your philosophy and surely that is very consoling.

As long as you admit that we believe what we do primarily because of our misinterpretations of Scripture, I have no bone to pick. It is important to me that faith would trump reason and that is why I am perhaps hyper-sensitive to any hint of an idea that traditions like mine start by giving too much weight to philosophy. I will try to be more careful about jumping to conclusions in the future.

See you around,

3DOP

Hey, no problem at all- it was just a misunderstanding!

I know exactly how it feels to know what you know about a faith and be told that you are not "Christian" because you worship "another Christ" because of your philosophy! Your post helped remind me of all those pioneers of our faith trudging across mile after mile of nothing, pushing their handcarts and losing dear ones as some are "making sweeping judgments about the interior dispositions of defenseless dead people" and concluding that they cannot be saved by a loving Father and for example, doubting that our children can even be baptized!

So it all cuts both ways.

I for one need to learn to be kinder and more understanding of how offensive words can be- even if misunderstood!

Looking forward to more discussions!

[mfbukowski]

This thread would not be complete without this. In fact, forget the thread and just watch the video!

http://www.mormonchannel.org/video/mormon-messages?v=2119328537001#.URSIOmdxf3o.facebook

[stephenpurdy]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a little taken out of context.  Mormons view God as omnipresent in a certain sense, but not in the classical theistic sense.

 

It was Brigham Young who explained in what sense we believe God to be omnipresent, obviously long, long ago, ... long before 1976.

 

Provided here along with many other pertinent concepts:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

-stephen

Edited June 7, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Calm]

So Scott doesn' t have to....

 

 

Just an FYI in case it matters, you are responding to a poster who hasn't been on the board since two Decs ago.