Those Poor Backwards Materialists

[wenglund]

Even though I can't see the wind, I can feel it. Because I can feel it, isn't the wind then, by definition, tangible?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Ok, fair enough.

 

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

 

Hope you're feeling better.

[Tacenda]

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.

(bold mine)

 

MF, have you ever been over to "Mormon Discussions"?  BCSpace could probably use your help.   I'm not a member of that board, but will visit it and there is BC, trying his hardest to defend the faith!!

[wenglund]

(bold mine)

 

MF, have you ever been over to "Mormon Discussions"?  BCSpace could probably use your help.    I'm not a member of that board, but will visit it and there is BC, trying his hardest to defend the faith!!

 

Little if any good can happen from swimming in a cesspool, though I don't fault BCSpace for trying.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 31, 2014 by wenglund

[3DOP]

Even though I can't see the wind, I can feel it. Because I can feel it, isn't the wind then, by definition, tangible?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, for sure Wade. The Scripture also mentions that we "heareth the sound thereof". It seems to this "immaterialist" that Materialism wins that argument.

[3DOP]

Ok, fair enough.

 

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

 

That satisfies me, not that you were obliged to satisfy me.

 

Get well. See you around.

 

Rory

[saemo]

Yes, for sure Wade. The Scripture also mentions that we "heareth the sound thereof". It seems to this "immaterialist" that Materialism wins that argument.

Tangible effects of the intangible spirit. There are volumes written on it, not all by Catholics, some freely available with just a quick search at scholar.google.com.

Sorry you got put in the middle of bukowski's obsession.

[saemo]

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

Look, I'm not your doormat. I respond to nothing of yours, at all, except what you direct at me, which are always not so clever insulting quips. You're like a freaking five year old. Don't want me to reply to your insults, stop insulting me. Easy. Otherwise, expect that I will defend myself, which is not a case of me bothering you, it is me defending against your insults.

Yes, the bully is the one who throws insults around and then whines when he gets a response that he is being picked on. Call the wambulance!

Edited April 1, 2014 by saemo

[MiserereNobis]

Hello all reading this thread,

 

I don't really want to get into the philosophical issues here.  I've hashed them out before.  I certainly understand the enjoyment of philosophical argumentation (yes, one of my degrees is a B.A. in philosophy!); however, it's just not what I want to do on this board.

 

Despite my reluctance to engage now, I do want you all to know that I believe that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrines of Christ and I assent to those teachings.  I am not trying to proselytize here, but given some of the posts that have been made I felt the need to weigh in and "bear my testimony" so to speak.

 

I would wager that all religions, including Mormonism, teach ideas that seem counter-intuitive.  In our contemporary worldview, which is obviously (post-) modern, the philosophical underpinnings of the explanations of Catholic dogma may seem quaint or antiquarian or destined for the (academic) dust bin.  This is perhaps even more true in America, with our protestant cultural underpinnings.  All I ask is before you ridicule such ideas as nonsense, irrational, or whatever epithet you wish to use, remember that (1) some of the most impressive geniuses of Western Civilization believed and defended these ideas, and (2) there are also ideas in Mormonism which appear to the contemporary worldview as at least ridiculous, if not more so.  I only share these two points in the hope to foster respect for our beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

 

Rory, I appreciate your steadfastness in the Catholic faith, and I was quite surprised (to say the least) to find a traditional Catholic on a Mormon board

 

Saemo, I appreciate your dedication to Catholicism.  I do think, however, that your tone could be modified a bit because this is, after all, an LDS board.  I do support you when you defend Catholic dogma, even if I don't respond in a thread.

 

Mark, as I put it in one post, I enjoy bantering with you.  I decided upon my return to the board that I would not engage in philosophical arguments; instead, I'll poke fun at you and me here and there as I feel   I'm sure you understand that my position is that of Holy Mother Church.  I hope your shoulder heals -- I've had a couple of dislocated shoulders and it ain't much fun.

 

May God bless us all to come to a more complete understanding of the truth (or, better put, the TRVTH )

Edited April 1, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

(bold mine)

 

MF, have you ever been over to "Mormon Discussions"?  BCSpace could probably use your help.    I'm not a member of that board, but will visit it and there is BC, trying his hardest to defend the faith!!

Been there, done that.  Go ahead and do a search on my moniker.  It is a total dump.

[mfbukowski]

Hello all reading this thread,

 

I don't really want to get into the philosophical issues here.  I've hashed them out before.  I certainly understand the enjoyment of philosophical argumentation (yes, one of my degrees is a B.A. in philosophy!); however, it's just not what I want to do on this board.

 

Despite my reluctance to engage now, I do want you all to know that I believe that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrines of Christ and I assent to those teachings.  I am not trying to proselytize here, but given some of the posts that have been made I felt the need to weigh in and "bear my testimony" so to speak.

 

I would wager that all religions, including Mormonism, teach ideas that seem counter-intuitive.  In our contemporary worldview, which is obviously (post-) modern, the philosophical underpinnings of the explanations of Catholic dogma may seem quaint or antiquarian or destined for the (academic) dust bin.  This is perhaps even more true in America, with our protestant cultural underpinnings.  All I ask is before you ridicule such ideas as nonsense, irrational, or whatever epithet you wish to use, remember that (1) some of the most impressive geniuses of Western Civilization believed and defended these ideas, and (2) there are also ideas in Mormonism which appear to the contemporary worldview as at least ridiculous, if not more so.  I only share these two points in the hope to foster respect for our beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

 

Rory, I appreciate your steadfastness in the Catholic faith, and I was quite surprised (to say the least) to find a traditional Catholic on a Mormon board

 

Saemo, I appreciate your dedication to Catholicism.  I do think, however, that your tone could be modified a bit because this is, after all, an LDS board.  I do support you when you defend Catholic dogma, even if I don't respond in a thread.

 

Mark, as I put it in one post, I enjoy bantering with you.  I decided upon my return to the board that I would not engage in philosophical arguments; instead, I'll poke fun at you and me here and there as I feel   I'm sure you understand that my position is that of Holy Mother Church.  I hope your shoulder heals -- I've had a couple of dislocated shoulders and it ain't much fun.

 

May God bless us all to come to a more complete understanding of the truth (or, better put, the TRVTH )

I have tremendous respect for the Catholic church and Catholics-most of my family are Catholic.

 

I honestly think there is virtually no difference in devotion to Christ between the churches, and I think the "gut" feelings of most of the general membership of both churches is identical.

 

I have a big problem with Neoplatonic philosophy, but that is all.  I think it has poisoned Christianity, and necessitated a restoration- indeed that is why I left Catholicism.

 

This is a philosophical position, and not a religious one.

 

I really respect you and appreciate your friendship, and I think we understand each other well because we understand the difference between philosophical differences and "real life".

[saemo]

Hello all reading this thread,

 

I don't really want to get into the philosophical issues here.  I've hashed them out before.  I certainly understand the enjoyment of philosophical argumentation (yes, one of my degrees is a B.A. in philosophy!); however, it's just not what I want to do on this board.

 

Despite my reluctance to engage now, I do want you all to know that I believe that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrines of Christ and I assent to those teachings.  I am not trying to proselytize here, but given some of the posts that have been made I felt the need to weigh in and "bear my testimony" so to speak.

 

I would wager that all religions, including Mormonism, teach ideas that seem counter-intuitive.  In our contemporary worldview, which is obviously (post-) modern, the philosophical underpinnings of the explanations of Catholic dogma may seem quaint or antiquarian or destined for the (academic) dust bin.  This is perhaps even more true in America, with our protestant cultural underpinnings.  All I ask is before you ridicule such ideas as nonsense, irrational, or whatever epithet you wish to use, remember that (1) some of the most impressive geniuses of Western Civilization believed and defended these ideas, and (2) there are also ideas in Mormonism which appear to the contemporary worldview as at least ridiculous, if not more so.  I only share these two points in the hope to foster respect for our beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

 

Rory, I appreciate your steadfastness in the Catholic faith, and I was quite surprised (to say the least) to find a traditional Catholic on a Mormon board

 

Saemo, I appreciate your dedication to Catholicism.  I do think, however, that your tone could be modified a bit because this is, after all, an LDS board.  I do support you when you defend Catholic dogma, even if I don't respond in a thread.

 

Mark, as I put it in one post, I enjoy bantering with you.  I decided upon my return to the board that I would not engage in philosophical arguments; instead, I'll poke fun at you and me here and there as I feel   I'm sure you understand that my position is that of Holy Mother Church.  I hope your shoulder heals -- I've had a couple of dislocated shoulders and it ain't much fun.

 

May God bless us all to come to a more complete understanding of the truth (or, better put, the TRVTH )

eh, well, the only tone I have is to present the Catholic POV. People read into it what tone they want.

[Calm]

eh, well, the only tone I have is to present the Catholic POV. People read into it what tone they want.

I find a significant difference in tone between your comments and MiserereNobis as well as 3DOP and several Catholic friends I have. Are you suggesting they are not presenting the Catholic POV? Why would I want to read a different tone in your writings than all the rest of the Catholics I have consistently engaged over the years. To place blame on others when it is obvious that those on the board react differently to you than other Catholics is an interesting way to shift responsibility for your own choices.

[mfbukowski]

Even though I can't see the wind, I can feel it. Because I can feel it, isn't the wind then, by definition, tangible?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ask a victim of hurricane Katrina if the wind is "tangible".  The argument that it is not, is just absurd, and in my opinion, not worth addressing.

[MiserereNobis]

Ask a victim of hurricane Katrina if the wind is "tangible".  The argument that it is not, is just absurd, and in my opinion, not worth addressing.

 

kamikaze = divine wind

[wenglund]

Yes, for sure Wade. The Scripture also mentions that we "heareth the sound thereof". It seems to this "immaterialist" that Materialism wins that argument.

 

My intent isn't to win, but to better understand. I respect that people believe in an "immaterial" God. In a way, I, too, believe in a non-anthropomorphic God.

 

I believe in a God whose spirit, which is God, is infinite and present everywhere.

 

To me, this doesn't conflict with my belief in an anthropomorphic God any more than believing that the Sun has a body of limited size, conflicts with the belief that the Sun's light, which is Sun, exist and shines throughout the universe.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 1, 2014 by wenglund

[Vance]

I have no problem with the Catholic position being presented, or even defended.  And I have no problem with Catholics believing in the supremacy or at least equivalence of Catholic Church tradition with respect to scripture.

 

My problem lies with someone claiming that scripture teaches (clearly an unequivocally) something that it does NOT, and to attempt to use that falsehood as a bludgeon against our position.

 

The scriptures do NOT teach the immateriality of spirit.  And the Bible does not clearly and unequivocally teach the materiality of spirit either.  It only implies the materiality of spirit in a few places.  Something that Latter-Day revelation clarifies.

 

And clearly Christ (who is fully God, to use Catholic terminology) has a material body of flesh and bone, according to the Bible, so the argument that God (which in some mysterious way, includes the material Jesus) is immaterial just is NOT persuasive to us "Materialists". 

[3DOP]

Hello all reading this thread,

 

I don't really want to get into the philosophical issues here.  I've hashed them out before.  I certainly understand the enjoyment of philosophical argumentation (yes, one of my degrees is a B.A. in philosophy!); however, it's just not what I want to do on this board.

 

Despite my reluctance to engage now, I do want you all to know that I believe that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrines of Christ and I assent to those teachings.  I am not trying to proselytize here, but given some of the posts that have been made I felt the need to weigh in and "bear my testimony" so to speak.

 

I would wager that all religions, including Mormonism, teach ideas that seem counter-intuitive.  In our contemporary worldview, which is obviously (post-) modern, the philosophical underpinnings of the explanations of Catholic dogma may seem quaint or antiquarian or destined for the (academic) dust bin.  This is perhaps even more true in America, with our protestant cultural underpinnings.  All I ask is before you ridicule such ideas as nonsense, irrational, or whatever epithet you wish to use, remember that (1) some of the most impressive geniuses of Western Civilization believed and defended these ideas, and (2) there are also ideas in Mormonism which appear to the contemporary worldview as at least ridiculous, if not more so.  I only share these two points in the hope to foster respect for our beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

 

Rory, I appreciate your steadfastness in the Catholic faith, and I was quite surprised (to say the least) to find a traditional Catholic on a Mormon board

 

Saemo, I appreciate your dedication to Catholicism.  I do think, however, that your tone could be modified a bit because this is, after all, an LDS board.  I do support you when you defend Catholic dogma, even if I don't respond in a thread.

 

Mark, as I put it in one post, I enjoy bantering with you.  I decided upon my return to the board that I would not engage in philosophical arguments; instead, I'll poke fun at you and me here and there as I feel   I'm sure you understand that my position is that of Holy Mother Church.  I hope your shoulder heals -- I've had a couple of dislocated shoulders and it ain't much fun.

 

May God bless us all to come to a more complete understanding of the truth (or, better put, the TRVTH )

 

That was very well said. I've been thinking about it a lot today. Here you are having studied philosophy and trying to avoid discussion of it. I have tried to more or less fake my way. Sometimes it works. My experience is some introductory stuff and then reading some Gilson and Maritain and a Brother _____. Brother ______ was a Lebanese Catholic that was attached to the St. Benedict Center. His tapes were helpful to me I thought. I was thrilled by his stuff on physics and psychology. But I don't know how to thrill anybody else with it. Regardless, I can't be persuaded that modern philosophy has completely overthrown "Philosophia Perennis". Regardless of that, I probably don't have much business talking philosophy. I am going to try to avoid it in future too unless somebody is just asking for ideas without a view to me proving anything. 

 

I am very glad for your company here Miserere. Don't be a stranger again! God bless,

 

Rory

Edited April 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I have no problem with the Catholic position being presented, or even defended.  And I have no problem with Catholics believing in the supremacy or at least equivalence of Catholic Church tradition with respect to scripture.

 

My problem lies with someone claiming that scripture teaches (clearly an unequivocally) something that it does NOT, and to attempt to use that falsehood as a bludgeon against our position.

 

The scriptures do NOT teach the immateriality of spirit.  And the Bible does not clearly and unequivocally teach the materiality of spirit either.  It only implies the materiality of spirit in a few places.  Something that Latter-Day revelation clarifies.

 

And clearly Christ (who is fully God, to use Catholic terminology) has a material body of flesh and bone, according to the Bible, so the argument that God (which in some mysterious way, includes the material Jesus) is immaterial just is NOT persuasive to us "Materialists". 

 

Vance, no one is saying that someone who is God must necessarily be incorporeal. Catholics have to acknowledge that corporeality is compatible with divinity because of Christ Incarnate. It seems to me that Mormons have to allow that incorporeality (which still allows a Mormon to propose spirit as "fine matter") is compatible with divinity because of the Holy Ghost.

[3DOP]

I have no problem with the Catholic position being presented, or even defended.  And I have no problem with Catholics believing in the supremacy or at least equivalence of Catholic Church tradition with respect to scripture.

 

My problem lies with someone claiming that scripture teaches (clearly an unequivocally) something that it does NOT, and to attempt to use that falsehood as a bludgeon against our position.

 

The scriptures do NOT teach the immateriality of spirit.  And the Bible does not clearly and unequivocally teach the materiality of spirit either.  It only implies the materiality of spirit in a few places.  Something that Latter-Day revelation clarifies.

 

And clearly Christ (who is fully God, to use Catholic terminology) has a material body of flesh and bone, according to the Bible, so the argument that God (which in some mysterious way, includes the material Jesus) is immaterial just is NOT persuasive to us "Materialists". 

 

I am in agreement with what you say about what the Scriptures do and do not teach. Allow me to toot my own horn. My saying: "The Scriptures alone (73 Books or fewer) are always inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." With Latter-day revelation you see implications your way. Fair enough. Controversy resolved. With Tradition, we see implications our way. Controversy resolved. Agreed that the things about which we argue most cannot be made clear and unambiguous with Scripture (73 Books or less) only. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

My intent isn't to win, but to better understand. I respect that people believe in an "immaterial" God. In a way, I, too, believe in a non-anthropomorphic God.

 

I believe in a God whose spirit, which is God, is infinite and present everywhere.

 

To me, this doesn't conflict with my belief in an anthropomorphic God any more than believing that the Sun has a body of limited size, conflicts with the belief that the Sun's light, which is Sun, exist and shines throughout the universe.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hi Wade.

 

I hope it was obvious that I was not conceding that my position was false. I just meant I had to concede that wind was tangible. As I see it, as per usual, when all sides are letting down their guards, we are closer than it seems when we are in "defense mode".

Edited April 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

I am in agreement with what you say about what the Scriptures do and do not teach. Allow me to toot my own horn. My saying: "The Scriptures alone (73 Books or fewer) are always inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." With Latter-day revelation you see implications your way. Fair enough. Controversy resolved. With Tradition, we see implications our way. Controversy resolved. Agreed that the things about which we argue most cannot be made clear and unambiguous with Scripture (73 Books or less) only. 

 

Well, my revelation can beat up your tradition...controversy resolved. 

 

Don't take the above seriously.

 

But seriously  , out of curiosity, what is it about tradition in Catholicism that makes it untouchable, so to speak?

In Mormonism, revelation can be traced back to the dictates of the Lord.  In Catholicism, where does tradition trace back to?  It had to begin somewhere right?  What I am trying to say is, how long did it have to be around for it to gain the gravity and weight of "tradition", becoming untouchable?  At the origination of the tradition, before it was considered a tradition, what was it exactly?  Did it have as much weight as other traditions?  What gave it authority in its infancy if not revelation or tradition? 

Edited April 1, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

Well, my revelation can beat up your tradition...controversy resolved.

Don't take the above seriously.

But seriously , out of curiosity, what is it about tradition in Catholicism that makes it untouchable, so to speak?

In Mormonism, revelation can be traced back to the dictates of the Lord. In Catholicism, where does tradition trace back to? It had to begin somewhere right? What I am trying to say is, how long did it have to be around for it to gain the gravity and weight of "tradition", becoming untouchable? At the origination of the tradition, before it was considered a tradition, what was it exactly? Did it have as much weight as other traditions? What gave it authority in its infancy if not revelation or tradition?

Their misunderstanding of what our Lord said to Peter about the gates of hell not prevailing against what they think he meant by rock.

You can try to straighten them out on that idea, and some will accept the correction, but those that remain Catholic stick to their traditional understanding while refusing to believe their church is corrupt and apostate.

[MiserereNobis]

Their misunderstanding of what our Lord said to Peter about the gates of hell not prevailing against what they think he meant by rock.

You can try to straighten them out on that idea, and some will accept the correction, but those that remain Catholic stick to their traditional understanding while refusing to believe their church is corrupt and apostate.

 

Yup, you got it Ahab, I do refuse to believe that my Church is corrupt and apostate

[3DOP]

Well, my revelation can beat up your tradition...controversy resolved. 

 

Don't take the above seriously.

 

But seriously  , out of curiosity, what is it about tradition in Catholicism that makes it untouchable, so to speak?

In Mormonism, revelation can be traced back to the dictates of the Lord.  In Catholicism, where does tradition trace back to?  It had to begin somewhere right?  What I am trying to say is, how long did it have to be around for it to gain the gravity and weight of "tradition", becoming untouchable?  At the origination of the tradition, before it was considered a tradition, what was it exactly?  Did it have as much weight as other traditions?  What gave it authority in its infancy if not revelation or tradition? 

 

I can only speak of why it works for me, pogi. Thanks for asking.

 

The Christians of the first three centuries arouse my never-ending admiration for the way their lives and their deaths eventually evangelized pagan Rome and indeed the Roman Empire as a whole. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Whatever they believed is what I want to believe. Whatever church they identified with, I want as my own. St. Irenaeus (2nd Century) gave the clearest road map for how one in the position of choosing between competing doctrines should go, and that road leads directly to Rome, in my opinion. I cannot identify with an apostasy theory that either discredits Irenaeus' view of Tradition, or how those who followed his view behaved and believed during the first three centuries after Christ. I suppose it can be argued that Irenaeus made the wrong identification, but his theory of the authority of tradition, if it can be identified, seems to me to be beyond dispute.

 

Irenaeus held that any Tradition that should be considered authoritative had to be apostolic. Obviously tradition can be false, as Jesus condemned that tradition of men that the Pharisees had embraced. We believe specifically in Apostolic Tradition. All authoritative Tradition has to have its roots with the Apostles. When other patristic evidence points to doctrines that are more compatible with Catholicism than any of the churches which oppose us, it lends more confidence to the idea that the Traditions of the Apostles were indeed kept, especially in Rome. For me, these Traditions would include in no order of hierarchy...1) A high view of the Holy Eucharist, 2) Pedobaptism and variety of mode, 3) Apostolic Succession in the office of the Episcopate, 4) A high view of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 5) Liturgical Worship, 6) Primacy of the Church at Rome. I might think of more later but you probably get the idea. Numbers three and six have strong evidence and they are the most important to me. 

 

None of these practises or beliefs are proved apostolic by resorting to Scripture alone. None of them. But every Christian has to make a decision about them. Of course I am aware that the Empire may have also persecuted innovators  with Traditionalists. I am satisfied to follow those who appear to be in a continuous line of believers who seemed to take for granted that others before them would be appalled at the very idea of innovation. Innovators have a problem. They have a habit of innovating. Innovators never arrive at what they like and then propose a tradition. That kind of authority is only appealing to those who know they have consciously retained what was handed down to them. I am drawn to a church which at least claims to have a desperate aversion to innovation.

 

But those are only comforting reasons. I don't say that I have unassailable proofs of my faith. If the proofs were enough, why was I twenty-two before I became a Christian and thirty-nine before I became Catholic and forty-nine before I became a Traditionalist? Why do my "comforting reasons" seem irrelevant to most people? I guess its a journey and I sometimes wonder why out of all the people I have known and respected as a Protestant and then in an interim as one considering Restoration movements, that other than family, I alone took this path. The evidence can't be enough alone.

 

3DOP      

Edited April 2, 2014 by 3DOP