Those Poor Backwards Materialists

[MiserereNobis]

Nice dodge.

 

 

Yup.  I just don't feel like hashing it all out again and again, so I'll just make silly comments here and there to augment your philosophical explanations

 

Ahab has a face! Love you, dude.

 

Yeah, it startled me.  I was used to talking to a Mason!

[mfbukowski]

While I understand there is a tendency and acceptance among Mormons to speculate endlessly and make stuff up regarding scripture, it is not something I do. I accept the authority of Christ's Church to interpret scripture, because I believe Christ established His Church and gave to his Bride the authority to do so.

It would be easy for you to actually study various times that a metaphor of wind and breath were used in the Bible, and what the authors were conveying. To believe ancient peoples viewed breath and wind as tangible, is not only a stretch, it is applying what you want to believe to the intent and meaning of others. Start with Job, who says he is wind. Well, what does that mean? Is he saying he is a tangible God in the making, or is he bemoaning his nothingness?

I understand he is bemoaning his nothingness, so therefore, the metaphor of wind in this case means "nothing". Is a material object, nothing? If you say it is, then I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

Your smugness is astounding especially when mixed with such poor argumentation.

More later, I promise.

[Tacenda]

Ahab has a face! Love you, dude.

It would be nice for all of us to put out our face wouldn't it.  My problem is that I've discovered I know a poster because they put out their real name, and I was in a former ward with them.  Now if I put my face up, I'll be such a big disappointment to them! 

[Ahab]

Ahab has a face! Love you, dude.

Love you too, bro. My dear mski.

[Ahab]

It would be nice for all of us to put out our face wouldn't it. My problem is that I've discovered I know a poster because they put out their real name, and I was in a former ward with them. Now if I put my face up, I'll be such a big disappointment to them!

Nah. Or at least they should not think any less of you. With or without material substance, speaking as if the latter is even possible, we are still who and what we are in principle. And all of us mortals still have a lot we can do to improve ourselves.

[saemo]

Your smugness is astounding especially when mixed with such poor argumentation.

More later, I promise.

Oh I can hardly stand the suspension. What will it be? More insults?

I wasn't being smug, but I understand you have to deconstruct everything to fit what you want to believe, including what you want to believe about me. Whaaaat, there might be *something* to what I am asking?

Edited March 29, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Not right now. My spirit would need to separate from my mortal body, which is what we call death, and I'm not going to do that right now just so you can see me, or my spirit. You can just wait until you die and then look at your own spirit. Or maybe someone who has died could come visit you, before their own resurrection, while allowing you to see them.

Your spirit is what animates your mortal body, and every person has a spirit within their mortal body otherwise their mortal body would be dead. Scientists usually refer to a spirit as a conscience, and they know how to tell when a mortal body is dead.

Think about what you will be when you leave your mortal body. Do you really believe "you" will be nothing at all, with no substance whatsoever? For you to exist at all at that point there would have to be something that consists of what you are, and not just a memory of you.

Thanks, but I'm asking for tangible evidence of your tangible spirit.

I don't know what I'll be after I'm dead. Logically, I can't imagine that we go on thinking and contemplating memory, because really, both of those require a brain that has firing synapses. I make this observation about both Catholic and Mormon understanding of soul or spirit. I think the ancient concept of soul sleep makes more sense than cognitive ghosts. But, being Catholic, I go along with souls hanging about, thinking and contemplating, because it makes sense in the scheme of heaven, prayers, etc. I have no delusions about how awfully darn smart I am when it comes to the supernatural.

All that being said, the idea that two material things are existing in the exact same space is less probable to me than an immaterial soul. An immaterial soul at least provides a plausible explanation for not being able to detect a material soul. I reject the LDS idea of the body as a glove with a soul slipped into it. I believe we are as God made us, human, which consists of BOTH body and soul, together, like water added to wine. There is no demarcation as to where the water ends and the wine begins.

Edited March 29, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

While I understand there is a tendency and acceptance among Mormons to speculate endlessly and make stuff up regarding scripture, it is not something I do.

 

WOW!!  just WOW!!!

 

I accept the authority of Christ's Church to interpret scripture, because I believe Christ established His Church and gave to his Bride the authority to do so

 

Ok, so you can't provide a bilbical reference.   Oh, well, that is what happens when THERE ISN'T ONE.

 

It would be easy for you to actually study various times that a metaphor of wind and breath were used in the Bible, and what the authors were conveying. To believe ancient peoples viewed breath and wind as tangible, is not only a stretch, it is applying what you want to believe to the intent and meaning of others. Start with Job, who says he is wind. Well, what does that mean? Is he saying he is a tangible God in the making, or is he bemoaning his nothingness?

I understand he is bemoaning his nothingness, so therefore, the metaphor of wind in this case means "nothing". Is a material object, nothing? If you say it is, then I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

 

Ok, So there isn't any scripture that supports your claim. 

 

But we do have your necromancy.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Ancient people believed wind and breath to be intangible. Can you hold it on your hand?

 

Right, they couldn't feel the wind on their face, or see their breath on a cold damp morning.

 

Could they lay it out on a table and inspect it?

 

They could do that with the moon either.  I guess that makes the moon intangible as well.

 

Modern science can, but prior to the modern era no one could. I don't know why it is such a difficult concept.

Beyond that, I would be interested in seeing a photograph of your spirit. No? A scientific reading? Where does the material of your body end and the material of your spirit begin? How exactly are two material things occupying the exact same space? Is your spirit one mass of matter or pieces of matter existing in cells? Give me something tangible and then I'll change my mind about spirit being intangible.

 

You actually have me speechless with that one.

[saemo]

While I understand there is a tendency and acceptance among Mormons to speculate endlessly and make stuff up regarding scripture, it is not something I do.

WOW!! just WOW!!!

I accept the authority of Christ's Church to interpret scripture, because I believe Christ established His Church and gave to his Bride the authority to do so

Ok, so you can't provide a bilbical reference. Oh, well, that is what happens when THERE ISN'T ONE.

It would be easy for you to actually study various times that a metaphor of wind and breath were used in the Bible, and what the authors were conveying. To believe ancient peoples viewed breath and wind as tangible, is not only a stretch, it is applying what you want to believe to the intent and meaning of others. Start with Job, who says he is wind. Well, what does that mean? Is he saying he is a tangible God in the making, or is he bemoaning his nothingness?

I understand he is bemoaning his nothingness, so therefore, the metaphor of wind in this case means "nothing". Is a material object, nothing? If you say it is, then I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

Ok, So there isn't any scripture that supports your claim.

But we do have your necromancy.

Well, I am not sola scriptura, and neither do I believe approaching scripture using out of context snippets expresses an authentic approach to the Word of God.

Your assertion that the ancients believed in a tangible spirit because they understood wind and breath to be tangible, is a belief with no historical or scriptural support. Ie, making stuff up. WOW.

Edited March 29, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

So, it is actually NOT the Bible that conveys the concept of "immaterial" but rather the Catholic Church's theological view read in to it.

 

You should have said that the first time.

[Vance]

Well, I am not sola scriptura, and neither do I believe approaching scripture using out of context snippets expresses an authentic approach to the Word of God.

 

No, you just make stuff up.

Your assertion that the ancients believed in a tangible spirit because they understood wind and breath to be tangible, is a belief with no historical or scriptural support. Ie, making stuff up. WOW.

 

And your assertion that the ancients believed in an intangible spirit because they understood wind and breath to be intangible, is a belief with no logical or scriptural support. Ie, making stuff up. WOW!!!

Edited March 29, 2014 by Vance

[saemo]

So, it is actually NOT the Bible that conveys the concept of "immaterial" but rather the Catholic Church's theological view read in to it.

 

You should have said that the first time.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture work together. Theology is but a tool used to understand and describe both.

But, whatever! You have neither history, Scripture or Tradition to back up your assertion that the ancients believe wind and breath to be metaphors for things that are tangible. Let alone that wind and breath itself were tangible things.

You just keep on rockin' that belief that has no backing whatsoever. Making stuff up as you go along is an awesome approach.

[saemo]

Well, I am not sola scriptura, and neither do I believe approaching scripture using out of context snippets expresses an authentic approach to the Word of God.

 

No, you just make stuff up.

Your assertion that the ancients believed in a tangible spirit because they understood wind and breath to be tangible, is a belief with no historical or scriptural support. Ie, making stuff up. WOW.

 

And your assertion that the ancients believed in an intangible spirit because they understood wind and breath to be intangible, is a belief with no logical or scriptural support. Ie, making stuff up. WOW!!!

When you've actually studied the topic, let me know till then, goodbye.

[mfbukowski]

Oh I can hardly stand the suspension. What will it be? More insults?

I wasn't being smug, but I understand you have to deconstruct everything to fit what you want to believe, including what you want to believe about me. Whaaaat, there might be *something* to what I am asking?

You're not worth it. Please stick to your word and leave me alone.

[Vance]

But, whatever! You have neither history, Scripture or Tradition to back up your assertion that the ancients believe wind and breath to be metaphors for things that are tangible. Let alone that wind and breath itself were tangible things.

You just keep on rockin' that belief that has no backing whatsoever. Making stuff up as you go along is an awesome approach.

It is becoming obvious that you don't know what the word "tangible" (or intangible, for that matter) actually mean.

 

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

2.real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.

3.definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.

4.(of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

 

And here we have pneuma being described by Jesus.

 

John 3:8The wind (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vance

[saemo]

You're not worth it. Please stick to your word and leave me alone.

I hope you don't think that defending myself against your bullying insults constitutes bothering you.

[saemo]

It is becoming obvious that you don't know what the word "tangible" (or intangible, for that matter) actually mean.

 

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

2.real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.

3.definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.

4.(of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

 

And here we have pneuma being described by Jesus.

 

John 3:8The wind (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

You just proved my point.

[Vance]

You just proved my point.

Really?

 

So "pneuma" makes a noise when it interacts with other elements, thus making it tangible, and this somehow makes your point?

Edited October 16, 2014 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

I hope you don't think that defending myself against your bullying insults constitutes bothering you.

You can pull that stuff over at CAF but notice no other Catholics here are backing you up.

[3DOP]

You can pull that stuff over at CAF but notice no other Catholics here are backing you up.

 

I am banned at CAF, and not for anything as ugly as what you have said to saemo in this thread, Mark.

 

Don't call out saemo's fellow Catholics unless you want me to stand with her. I have admitted that I am guided by authority as has saemo. She gets beat up for it and maybe doesn't perceive it. I believe first too. I understand second too. I lean not to my understanding and see that I lose every argument. I don't care that you can beat up a housewife and me philosophically. I don't see you putting faith first. You start from your own understanding. You can prove to your satisfaction that we are...whatever...it isn't very flattering intellectually. Fine. I'm not offended, but I have been called out by you and here I am. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, and not because I even know what a neo-platonist means. I don't understand what you talk about. I know I don't. I appreciate your efforts in that regard. My intellectual confidence is maybe a little weaker for that.

 

My Catholic faith has never been stronger. I am a Catholic because of what happens when one obeys the Church. I believe in the science of virtue and holiness that no other faith has seemed to appreciate to this point. The science of the saints seems to be alien too others. My will belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother. I might really be just a dumb trucker, but there it is. My testimony. Ultimately, I expect the Mormons to say about the same thing. They don't get what you're talking about either. Not really. Anyway, Mark, no hard feelings, I truly mean that. But surely you can see that I couldn't leave dear saemo unbefriended when you talk to her that way when I am around. I am not saying she wins the argument. I don't even think I can "win the argument". But I am backing her up for whatever that is worth. Not much I am afraid.

 

Be a materialist if you must. I don't make fun of you for it. I have admitted that I could believe that it if I could think the Catholic Church was apostate, or if the Catholic Church taught it. Your side seems to be winning anyway by the 21st Century. As you have skilfully pointed out, all of modern philosophy is opposed to our beliefs. Take comfort and good cheer in that if it means a lot to you. God love you guys. God be merciful to us if we offend Him. Since you are so confident we are wrong, surely our feeble efforts can be expressed without any threat to the real truth.        

 

Heh. I don't see you and Vance getting a ton of rep points from other LDS in this thread either. Eh? This thread has gone a little sideways in my opinion. I am willing to hit the reset button with no hard feelings. Truly, truly. Not mad. Would a bunch of those smilies and things help? Just picture them. Take care, Mark.

 

Rory

[mfbukowski]

I am banned at CAF, and not for anything as ugly as what you have said to saemo in this thread, Mark.

 

Don't call out saemo's fellow Catholics unless you want me to stand with her. I have admitted that I am guided by authority as has saemo. She gets beat up for it and maybe doesn't perceive it. I believe first too. I understand second too. I lean not to my understanding and see that I lose every argument. I don't care that you can beat up a housewife and me philosophically. I don't see you putting faith first. You start from your own understanding. You can prove to your satisfaction that we are...whatever...it isn't very flattering intellectually. Fine. I'm not offended, but I have been called out by you and here I am. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, and not because I even know what a neo-platonist means. I don't understand what you talk about. I know I don't. I appreciate your efforts in that regard. My intellectual confidence is maybe a little weaker for that.

 

My Catholic faith has never been stronger. I am a Catholic because of what happens when one obeys the Church. I believe in the science of virtue and holiness that no other faith has seemed to appreciate to this point. The science of the saints seems to be alien too others. My will belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother. I might really be just a dumb trucker, but there it is. My testimony. Ultimately, I expect the Mormons to say about the same thing. They don't get what you're talking about either. Not really. Anyway, Mark, no hard feelings, I truly mean that. But surely you can see that I couldn't leave dear saemo unbefriended when you talk to her that way when I am around. I am not saying she wins the argument. I don't even think I can "win the argument". But I am backing her up for whatever that is worth. Not much I am afraid.

 

Be a materialist if you must. I don't make fun of you for it. I have admitted that I could believe that it if I could think the Catholic Church was apostate, or if the Catholic Church taught it. Your side seems to be winning anyway by the 21st Century. As you have skilfully pointed out, all of modern philosophy is opposed to our beliefs. Take comfort and good cheer in that if it means a lot to you. God love you guys. God be merciful to us if we offend Him. Since you are so confident we are wrong, surely our feeble efforts can be expressed without any threat to the real truth.        

 

Heh. I don't see you and Vance getting a ton of rep points from other LDS in this thread either. Eh? This thread has gone a little sideways in my opinion. I am willing to hit the reset button with no hard feelings. Truly, truly. Not mad. Would a bunch of those smilies and things help? Just picture them. Take care, Mark.

 

Rory

This goes back years.

 

And you are still not backing up her argument

 

Sincerely sorry I hurt your feelings but when someone attacks the church with arguments that are self contradictory I won't back down.  Someone needs to deliver rational arguments against the sectarian position or readers will think that good arguments don't exist.

 

I am giving rational arguments and you are responding emotionally.  You are taking it personally, where others here do not- they understand that a rational argument is a rational argument and handle these things with humor and rationality.

 

Others have left this board making emotional decisions based on someone "guilting" them into leaving when all they have done is defend the church. 

 

This board is not apologetic in nature any more- all the well-known apologists have left.   Someone has to speak up, and if I am the only one, so be it.  I am not interested in being popular- I am interested in being right.

 

I find it very ironic that the OP in this thread is about how "backward" we Mormon materialists are, and when we respond to that, I become a bully for standing up for the church and materialism of the Mormon variety.

 

Can't win for losing.  It must be that Mormon persecution complex saemo is so fond of citing.

Edited March 31, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I hope you don't think that defending myself against your bullying insults constitutes bothering you.

You have repeatedly told me you would "leave me alone".  I am not the bully here.

[3DOP]

bukowski

This goes back years.

 

3DOP

I was only going back to post #90.

 

bukowski

And you are still not backing up her argument

 

3DOP

About the wind? Vance, I thought made a good point that we hear the wind. I think he won that argument. But ultimately, I back up her position, which tries to understand what is proposed for belief, instead of insisting on understanding before faith can be admitted. 

 

bukowski

Sincerely sorry I hurt your feelings but when someone attacks the church with arguments that are self contradictory I won't back down.  Someone needs to deliver rational arguments against the sectarian position or readers will think that good arguments don't exist.

 

3DOP

You don't know me. My feelings are fine. As I admitted, I don't understand your arguments. I have no reproofs. You win the argument, whatever it is.

 

bukowski

I am giving rational arguments and you are responding emotionally.  You are taking it personally, where others here do not- they understand that a rational argument is a rational argument and handle these things with humor and rationality.

 

3DOP

I thought I had a duty. I don't even know what you and saemo are arguing about. I could at least understand what Vance was saying. Do you defend post #90 as a rational argument? It seems to me that you are capable of letting your emotions lead you too. You say I am taking it personally. Well...you talked about me. It doesn't make me angry. But you are the one who talked about saemo's "fellow Catholics". Is that not directed at least partially to me? I am not hurt or offended. I think you, in spite of winning arguments are the one with a little egg on your face. Why should I be hurt? Again, imagine a dozen smilies. I am fine.

 

bukowski

Others have left this board making emotional decisions based on someone "guilting" them into leaving when all they have done is defend the church. 

 

3DOP

What do I have to do with that? I don't know who or what you are talking about. If you feel guilty for anything, maybe you should repent? It doesn't sound like you have any guilt, so fine, defend the church.   

 

bukowski

this board is not apologetic in nature any more- all the well-known apologists have left.   Someone has to speak up, and if I am the only one, so be it.  I am not interested in being popular- I am interested in being right.

 

3DOP

This board needs "well-known apologists" to defend the attacks against Mormonism raised by saemo and Rory? I would have you search over ten years of my posts here to find where I have spoken against your faith. I stay out of Mormon stuff. Until somebody makes reference to the truth as I understand it in the Catholic Church, I usually have little to discuss. I hope no one here imagines that by confusing such "apologists" as saemo and 3DOP that the truth of the Catholic faith is disestablished.

 

I can't help it if others have left out of guilt feelings. I have no idea who or what you are talking about there. Do saemo or I bear some blame for this? 

 

Being right is important. Jesus was among many other things, right.

 

bukoswki

I find it very ironic that the OP in this thread is about how "backward" we Mormon materialists are, and when we respond to that, I become a bully for standing up for the church and materialism of the Mormon variety.

 

3DOP

I don't hold that you are backwards. I am not calling you a bully. I think you spoke rashly at least once, and you would do more for your cause by regretting it than defending it. It isn't all about winning arguments. The truth is sweet and beautiful. Truth cannot be presented bitterly. It is a distortion. Where bitter zeal is seen, the truth is lost.

 

bukowski

Can't win for losing.  It must be that Mormon persecution complex saemo is so fond of citing.

 

3DOP

I disagree. Sometimes "losing" is victory. Maybe it is some Mormon persecution complex that I have never spoken of so far as I know, in my life. As I said, I think this thread has gone sideways. I don't know what the argument is. Anyway, I hope you see this after a good night's rest. I wasn't aware that you were feeling a duty yourself of making up for a bunch of folks who have left. I know how you must feel. I have felt a little alone here once or twice but thinking I had a duty of sorts. It isn't like "well-known Catholic apologists" are all over this board either. It can be discouraging for sure and make one say things they shouldn't have said. Anyway...I thought you stumbled with saemo at post #90. It seems unbecoming of you and of your message. I hope you take that as a compliment overall.

 

I was content as you perceived to let this thread run until you mentioned saemo's fellow Catholics. I had to "close ranks" as they say at that point. You brought me back. If this thread is now personal, because of my involvement, you are the one who made it so.

 

Regards,

 

Rory   

Edited March 31, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Ok, fair enough.

 

Sorry I was in a lot of pain from a dislocated shoulder.  The fingers kind of took over.