The Problem Of Historicity

[ERayR]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/12/bilbo-i-mean-adam-was-a-historical-person-and-ken-ham-has-a-poster-to-prove-it/

 

 

Were Adam and Eve historical?

 

I choose to believe so.

[Calm]

Still, I know that something besides myself exists and that my thoughts and concepts are mysteriously related to my experience of it.

How do you know this?

[Spammer]

How do you know this?

That's like asking how do I know my wife or my bicycle exists and that my concepts about them are related to them.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Radical materialists just fail to grasp what Kant understood and what he unleashed on the world of the late XVIIIth through XIXth Centuries:  There are more ways to comprehend/apprehend phenomena than five, and the senses are not as reliable as the Enlightenment thought they were.  The implications of this brought down empires and destroyed what was then left of feudalism [thought it took a while].

 

It isn't a question of irrationality . . . the question is one of humility in the face of the limits of our rationality.

 

This is my biggest knock on the radical materialists . . . the arrogance.

Wonderful point!  Yes, after Kant and Schopenhaur it was all over for the Enlightenment and yet the man in the street and the materialists still are arguing about philosophy that has been dead for 200 years.

 

When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he really believed it, but the only God he killed was the ineffable, transcendent  god of the sectarians, not the God who is a friend of man because he is a man himself.  Poor old Nietzsche never had a clue about that.  He is exactly like the ex-Mormons on these boards, poor bas, um, fellows that they are.

 

I find it totally ironic that we have atheists now preaching what it would be like to have a God who is a "friend" and here he is waiting for them while we are scaring them away with our silliness and our 300 year old understanding of truth that no one else in the world can relate to!

 

Scriptures and prophets tell us again and again that truth of is knowledge of things as they are- and that means experience as we experience it complete with the wonder of nature and awe of creation. When you look out at a starry night, and behold God's glory THAT is "things as they really are"  NOT some reductionist statement about particles and waves and angstrom units.

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

Edited August 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Well, if you keep to the caveat as I intended it, then what I said stands.  Forget someone else's report about something you can't see or verify for yourself.  Do you have kids?  Think of the event "my child was born".  I'm referring to events like that or to the fact of your child's existence or to the fact of a place you know exists on authority, because you have pictures and the authority is reputable, but haven't personally visited (for me, that would be New York City or the ruins of ancient Carthage).  If you have a kid, his/her existence is not subject to interpretation.  The same goes for the existence of NYC or the ruins of ancient Carthage.

I can picture exactly where I was when a certain life altering for many event took place. I was in my high school psych class. I can hear the conversation, see the reactions, etc.

Problem is, the date for the event is two years after I took that class.

I didn't realize this until about five years ago, almost forty years after the event.

My kids tell me I have watched three movies I have no memory of. And I wasn't sleeping through them but talking, etc.

My mom tells me she spent six weeks with me 20 years ago while my husband and son were in Russia. We both ave the pictures to prove it. I have no memory of the experience.

[mfbukowski]

I choose to believe so.

Each of us is historical and each of us is adam and eve.  There had to be the first of our race somewhere sometime. 

Edited August 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I put a lot of effort into explaining myself clearly the first time. I'll start a new thread when my ideas are good and ready. I need to be confident I won't be wasting my time having tangential conversations that aren't relevant to the philosophical mysteries I struggle with. I like to build my case in a way that anticipates and addresses as many objections as possible, while presenting the primary contention as simply as possible. Line upon line.

I have to say, too...

I can't help but be extremely intrigued by your unresponsiveness to the points made in my last post. Could be nothing... Just thought I should propose you express your thoughts on them...?

I won't be nagged into responding.  If what you write provokes a response, you will have it.  Elaborate on superman.  I am glad you take time to write your posts- we all do.  If people respond, they respond, if they don't they don't.  It's a risky world and not everyone gets what they want.

[mfbukowski]

Back to the grindstone- that boss of mine is merciless....  

[Spammer]

I can picture exactly where I was when a certain life altering for many event took place. I was in my high school psych class. I can hear the conversation, see the reactions, etc.

Problem is, the date for the event is two years after I took that class.

I didn't realize this until about five years ago, almost forty years after the event.

My kids tell me I have watched three movies I have no memory of. And I wasn't sleeping through them but talking, etc.

My mom tells me she spent six weeks with me 20 years ago while my husband and son were in Russia. We both ave the pictures to prove it. I have no memory of the experience.

I have two sons. If I ever contract Alzheimer's and forget them, that changes nothing about their objective existence.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No more flood theory. I will flag every post for the mods to delete. Take your silliness somewhere else.

 

Well that didn't work, but fine, I will stop the useful topic that promotes scientific progress, and reconciles to religion.

You are the one that started that topic.  

Edited August 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[USU78]

I have two sons. If I ever contract Alzheimer's and forget them, that changes nothing about their objective existence.

 

Does that matter?

[danielwoods]

When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he really believed it, but the only God he killed was the ineffable, transcendent  god of the sectarians, not the God who is a friend of man because he is a man himself.  Poor old Nietzsche never had a clue about that.  He is exactly like the ex-Mormons on these boards, poor bas, um, fellows that they are.

 

 

The transcendent god has always been a friend of man. Nothing has changed. 

[Spammer]

Does that matter?

 

If I get Alzheimer's, I'm sure (I hope) that it will matter to them. 

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[USU78]

If I get Alzheimer's, I'm sure (I hope) that it will matter to them. 

 

If you are so far gone that the existence of your sons is lost to you, then they no longer exist for you.

 

Of course, G-d's mercy is such that all that is lost will be restored in a glorious Resurrection.

 

For whatsoever from one place doth fall,

Is with the tide unto an other brought:

For there is nothing lost, that may be found, if sought.

 

E. Spencer, The Fairie Queene

[teddyaware]

The transcendent god has always been a friend of man. Nothing has changed.

Hello again Daniel,

I have what I think are two very interesting questions for you. But first a preface:

If the person of God the Son possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," making the Son equal with the person of the Father in all things divine, it would seem to me that the personage of the Son has a distinct and very real advantage over the person of the Father. The reason being that in addition to the eternal Spirit, the Son also possesses a body that enables him to relate to and interact with the human race in very meaningful and joy-inducing ways, with intimate, impactful interactions the person of the Father is unable to participate in and enjoy because, according to your belief, he lacks a human body.

So I'm sure you get my point: The Son is everything the Father is except for the fact that the Son has the added advantage of forever possessing a tangible material a body of flesh and bone; a body that enables Him to converse with, laugh with, cry with, eat with, embrace, physically comfort and otherwise intimately interact in all ways with His saved brothers and sisters in the physical realm.

So, if the Son is in all ways like unto the Father, except for the fact that the Saviour possesses a glorified body, would not the person of the Son have very real advantages over the unembodied person of the Father?

And if it's true that the Son's body provides advantages to Him that the Father cannot enjoy, why wouldn't the Father also want to have a body as well? After all, the scriptures indicate the Son's body neither diminishes nor detracts from His divinity in any way...

Edited August 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[Spammer]

If you are so far gone that the existence of your sons is lost to you, then they no longer exist for you.

 

Of course, G-d's mercy is such that all that is lost will be restored in a glorious Resurrection.

 

 

 

 

E. Spencer, The Fairie Queene

 

Good quote. 

 

My boys no longer exist for me, but they exist for themselves and for God.  Their existence is independent of my mind.  Thus, whatever I think about them prior to my hypothetical illness corresponds with concretely existing, historical persons.  Correspondence theory, and thus historicity, has relevance to what I believe about what concretely exists in the world.  It has relevance to everything that concretely exists in the world.  Existent things continue to exist and non-existent things continue to not exist regardless of what I happen to believe about them.  It doesn't matter if my mental state precludes knowing existing objects.  The historicity of those objects is still relevant since they really do exist independent of my mind.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[ERayR]

Hello again Daniel,

I have what I think are two very interesting questions for you. But first a preface:

If the person of God the Son possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," making the Son equal with the person of the Father in all things divine, it would seem to me that the personage of the Son has a distinct and very real advantage over the person of the Father. The reason being that in addition to the eternal Spirit, the Son also possesses a body that enables him to relate to and interact with the human race in very meaningful and joy-inducing ways, with intimate, impactful interactions the person of the Father is unable to participate in and enjoy because, according to your belief, he lacks a human body.

So I'm sure you get my point: The Son is everything the Father is except for the fact that the Son has the added advantage of forever possessing a tangible material a body of flesh and bone; a body that enables Him to converse with, laugh with, cry with, eat with, embrace, physically comfort and otherwise intimately interact in all ways with His saved brothers and sisters in the physical realm.

So, if the Son is in all ways like unto the Father, except for the fact that the Saviour possesses a glorified body, would not the person of the Son have very real advantages over the unembodied person of the Father?

And if it's true that the Son's body provides advantages to Him that the Father cannot enjoy, why wouldn't the Father also want to have a body as well? After all, the scriptures indicate the Son's body neither diminishes nor detracts from His divinity in any way...

 

You must not be LDS or you have a very limited understanding of LDS doctrine.  LDS very much believe the Father has a glorified physical body.

Edited August 15, 2014 by ERayR

[danielwoods]

Hello again Daniel,

I have what I think are two very interesting questions for you. But first a preface:

If the person of God the Son possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," making the Son equal with the person of the Father in all things divine, it would seem to me that the personage of the Son has a distinct and very real advantage over the person of the Father. The reason being that in addition to the eternal Spirit, the Son also possesses a body that enables him to relate to and interact with the human race in very meaningful and joy-inducing ways, with intimate, impactful interactions the person of the Father is unable to participate in and enjoy because, according to your belief, he lacks a human body.

So I'm sure you get my point: The Son is everything the Father is except for the fact that the Son has the added advantage of forever possessing a tangible material a body of flesh and bone; a body that enables Him to converse with, laugh with, cry with, eat with, embrace, physically comfort and otherwise intimately interact in all ways with His saved brothers and sisters in the physical realm.

So, if the Son is in all ways like unto the Father, except for the fact that the Saviour possesses a glorified body, would not the person of the Son have very real advantages over the unembodied person of the Father?

And if it's true that the Son's body provides advantages to Him that the Father cannot enjoy, why wouldn't the Father also want to have a body as well? After all, the scriptures indicate the Son's body neither diminishes nor detracts from His divinity in any way...

 

1. Does the Son have very real advantages over his Father? No. 

 

2. Why wouldn't the Father want to have a body?

 

The question or the answer is deeper than just having a body or not. The attributes of God as taught in the bible, are that he already is able to relate and to interact with the human race, having a body or not is irrelevant to God. 

 

The purpose of having a body for Christ was to be the lamb of God, to reconcile the world to himself. So, him having a body was/is for our benefit, so that it's easier for us to relate to him. 

[mfbukowski]

You must not be LDS or you have a very limited understanding of LDS doctrine.  LDS very much believe the Father has a glorified physical body.

off topic, but yes that is pretty weird. The first vision showed that

[teddyaware]

You must not be LDS or you have a very limited understanding of LDS doctrine.  LDS very much believe the Father has a glorified physical body.

I'm disappointed in you ERayR. It's obvious you completely misunderstood my post to Daniel! Read the post again, but this time keep in mind that non-member Daniel does not believe God the Father has a glorified body of flesh and bone, while I as a member of the LDS Church most definitely do believe the Father has a body. Then read Daniel's response, because his retort makes it clear he did understand the thrust of my post. See the capitalized and bolded and portion of the following excerpt from my post and you'll see where you went wrong:

"If the person of God the Son possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," making the Son equal with the person of the Father in all things divine, it would seem to me that the personage of the Son has a distinct and very real advantage over the person of the Father. The reason being that in addition to the eternal Spirit, the Son also possesses a body that enables him to relate to and interact with the human race in very meaningful and joy-inducing ways, with intimate, impactful interactions the person of the Father is unable to participate in and enjoy because, ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF, he lacks a human body."

 

The purpose of my post was to demonstrate to Daniel that if the embodiment of Christ does not diminish nor detract from His divinity in any way, but rather Christ's glorious body appears to be a very great blessing that actually enhances His divinity as well as the enjoyment of His life, then one would expect God the Father to possess, or at very least want to possess, a body Himself. You see, according to non-LDS Christian belief Christ's arms, hands and fingers would allow Him to quite literally "wipe the tears" from our eyes, but because non-LDS Christians believe the Father does not have a body (no arms, hands and fingers), He is, therefore, unable to do some things Christ can do, in this instance wipe away tears.

 

So if Christ is everything the Father is, but with the exception that Christ also has a body (remember I'm presenting these things as people who believe like Daniel would see them) then I would say the Son is superior in His attributes when compared to the Father, at least insofar as his ability to interact with the human race and function in the material realm is concerned.

 

Christ's body actually makes it possible for us to see Him smile at us in approval, but how can the Father smile if He has no face? Non-LDS Christians would answer by saying the Father has the same emotions that produce an approving smile, and that's true, but Christ has the same emotions plus the ability to actually express that smile with His face. This means that, according to non-LDS Christian belief, the person of Christ can do something the Father can not do. So (asking this question to a non-LDS Christian) would the fact that Christ can literally smile, but the Father can't, be evidence that the person of the Son enjoys advantages over the Father -- advantages that make Christ more advanced in His being when compared to the being of the Father?  My answer is a resounding yes! But we Latter-day Saints don't have to worry about this apparent inequity because we know God the Father already does have a glorious celestial body.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5)

 

... and one of those things Christ did that He saw the Father do was take on a body...

Edited August 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[brainburn]

Mf,

Nagging? :/

I just want to have some compelling conversation.

You didn't find any of the following "provoking" or relevant to your side of the story in this thread?

Heh. This thread is only a little bit left of center to the philosophical smoking hole that used to be the bright and burning core of the true believer's paradigm. I think you're absolutely correct in your resistance to focus on historicity because the case against Mormonism (and many other religious paradigms/cultures and their emotional gravity) is purely philosophical.

For the count, I, personally, have only met one Mormon who has expressed views in any way similar to yours. Big doubts as to whether there are many post-modern pragmatist Mormons, at all.

But my point is, a few posts in this thread demonstrate it almost as clear as can be... that the church is simply "True" could mean everything to a philosophically misinformed, culturally enmeshed TBM.

Because for some, when they really take in the principles of a post-modern approach... They are "unplugged from the matrix", as we like to say. "Truth" disappears from "Reality" and everything their own personal lizard brain thought was a part of "True Reality" becomes a bunch of really sacred networks of words attached to a mess of conflicting emotions about those words and their sense of what is "real". An honest thinker with the will to walk through the logic with their heart open could find that many of those sacred words include more than a few of the foundational cornerstones of Mormonism... "True Reality" disappears and there goes "True Revelations", "The True Priesthood", "The True Prophet", "The True Gospel", "The True Restoration" and catastrophically so on... Mf, honestly, you're getting better and better at preaching the good word. :]

I'm sure you have a retort by now... And I admire your logical talents. I really do. But could I wager a guess that you've quickly supposed I conveniently left out the possibility that there is one True candidate that "works" as a solid foundation for the Mormon paradigm? If so, don't worry, I've had it in mind all along...

I understand that we can truly, deeply, confidently, trust in one epistemically solid, capital T True Foundation for the Mormon paradigm:

Our testimony of a super-sensory experience and the narrative of how your super-charged senses (especially of critical super-senses of certainty, trust, belonging, etc) changed your life in a super-powerful way.

But, wait. You don't use the term "super"' do you? Hmmm.... What do I mean by "super"?

I'm here to answer questions :]... My version of the term is designed to be just as well defined as the term "spiritual", but without a spiritual paradigm necessarily attached.

And I use it to demonstrate a troubling mystery... Why are the terms "super sensory" and "spiritual" interchangeable but the possible paradigms they could be upholding aren't necessarily as interchangeable. Do you see where I'm going with this?

(...and seriously, you don't think we have a good history? We barely have any history, at all. What leads you to that judgement?)

[USU78]

Good quote. 

 

My boys no longer exist for me, but they exist for themselves and for God.  Their existence is independent of my mind.  Thus, whatever I think about them prior to my hypothetical illness corresponds with concretely existing, historical persons.  Correspondence theory, and thus historicity, has relevance to what I believe about what concretely exists in the world.  It has relevance to everything that concretely exists in the world.  Existent things continue to exist and non-existent things continue to not exist regardless of what I happen to believe about them.  It doesn't matter if my mental state precludes knowing existing objects.  The historicity of those objects is still relevant since they really do exist independent of my mind.

 

But not for you . . . and if they do not exist for you it doesn't matter to you whether they have independent existential significance, in and of themselves or dependent upon some outside force.

 

The alzheimer's anecdote is just an extreme for teaching purposes . . . light quanta that, when filtered through our sense of sight register as blue in our brains are phenomenologically of little significance, but the blue in my lover's eyes seen by me through her lashes as she glances down at her hands is of supreme significance . . . as is the reality of Zarahemla for me as I ponder the horrors of the kingmen's usurpation, as my faith family are forced from their homes upon their refusal to acknowledge the rightfulness of the restored Zarahemlite monarchy.  That means something.  Something profound.  Those people are real to me, as real or more real than today's Christians in Iraq on their lonely road to Kurdish country with whips at their heels.

[mfbukowski]

But not for you . . . and if they do not exist for you it doesn't matter to you whether they have independent existential significance, in and of themselves or dependent upon some outside force.

 

The alzheimer's anecdote is just an extreme for teaching purposes . . . light quanta that, when filtered through our sense of sight register as blue in our brains are phenomenologically of little significance, but the blue in my lover's eyes seen by me through her lashes as she glances down at her hands is of supreme significance . . . as is the reality of Zarahemla for me as I ponder the horrors of the kingmen's usurpation, as my faith family are forced from their homes upon their refusal to acknowledge the rightfulness of the restored Zarahemlite monarchy.  That means something.  Something profound.  Those people are real to me, as real or more real than today's Christians in Iraq on their lonely road to Kurdish country with whips at their heels.

Wonderful post!  Thanks!

 

 

By "raw feels" Rorty means sensations that defy adequate verbalization, like the pang that a piece of music gives you, or what sadness feels like before you know the word "sadness"; for you to have incorrigible knowledge of raw feels means that when you report that you have such sensations, no one else can claim to know better that you do not have them."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=cvT1cdyMPz0C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=rorty+raw+feels&source=bl&ots=sFmrQNhYKC&sig=RT3U3aaW9zYjF1Wro1QP0Q57V1k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gaXuU_LHIoPioASuvIHQBg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rorty%20raw%20feels&f=false

[Spammer]

But not for you . . . and if they do not exist for you it doesn't matter to you whether they have independent existential significance, in and of themselves or dependent upon some outside force.

 

The alzheimer's anecdote is just an extreme for teaching purposes . . . light quanta that, when filtered through our sense of sight register as blue in our brains are phenomenologically of little significance, but the blue in my lover's eyes seen by me through her lashes as she glances down at her hands is of supreme significance . . . as is the reality of Zarahemla for me as I ponder the horrors of the kingmen's usurpation, as my faith family are forced from their homes upon their refusal to acknowledge the rightfulness of the restored Zarahemlite monarchy.  That means something.  Something profound.  Those people are real to me, as real or more real than today's Christians in Iraq on their lonely road to Kurdish country with whips at their heels.

 

That's profound, but there's an asymmetry in your statement.  The existence of Iraqi Christians is not in doubt.  Only Mormons believe Zarahemla existed.  I understand that Mormons believe in Zarahemla with all their hearts.  To an outsider, though, to say Zarahemlites are more real to you than Iraqi Christians seems odd.  If I was Hindu, that would be like me saying that the Goddess Kali is real to me, as real or more real than my own mother.  If I believe in Kali with all my heart, then she's real.  To an outsider, though, it's a strange thing to say.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Mf,

Nagging? :/

I just want to have some compelling conversation.

You didn't find any of the following "provoking" or relevant to your side of the story in this thread?

 

Well I think it is much to do about semantics, frankly.  If you want to call the spirit "super sensory" that's fine with me, but how is that supposed to help us understand any of it?

 

It's just changing a variable in the equation "X" instead of "Y" but the equation remains the same.

 

It IS relevant to the thread in the sense that it points out that paradigms and how we understand them are based on a cultural context.  I suppose "super sensory" sounds more scientific than "spiritual" but in the final analysis I don't think a scientist would see it that way.   They don't believe in anything "super sensory".

 

Really I don't either.  I would all define that as a routine brain function we all have, like the "raw feels" Rorty talks about above.   The bottom line is that emotion and meaning are just as much a part of perception and the way we organize our individual worlds of experience as any scientific observation is- it's just that science presently strips away all of that which cannot be replicated by others.

Many have sought a "Phenomenological Science" which would include a scientific description of all of Being, as Heidegger sought to describe.   This is the sort of thing USU is talking about

 

For Heidegger, the things in lived experience always have more to them than what we can see; accordingly, the true nature of being is “withdrawal”. The interplay between the obscured reality of things and their appearance in what he calls the “clearing” is Heidegger's main theme. The presence of things for us is not their being, but merely their being interpreted as equipment according to a particular system of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails we cease to be aware of it. This is termed 'ready to hand', and Heidegger considers it an authentic mode. The 'time' in the title of his best-known work, Being and Time, refers to the way that the given features ('past') are interpreted in the light of their possibilities. Heidegger claimed philosophy and science since ancient Greece had reduced things to their presence, which was a superficial way of understanding them. Modern technology made things mere stockpiles of useful presence.

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