Ahab Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Ok, one more... but I believe the point is pretty clear. I just don't see how these can be dismissed away... Chapter 18.27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my aFather that I may fulfil bother commandments which he hath given me.35 And now I go unto the Father, because it is expedient that I should go unto the Father afor your sakes.Yes, you're right, all of your examples from the Book of Mormon are perfectly clear and should leave no doubt for confusion. It's just that some other scriptures are not as perfectly clear.
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Am I correct in presuming that by taking a cue from the above you don't put much credence in the scriptural testimony that Christ turned water into wine and likely changed some other form of matter in to baked bread and cooked fishes?Oh my gosh why would you conclude that???? Philosophy is not science. Philosophy, believe it or not, creates the logic that science uses, and you are not seeing the distinctions here at all. God can do anything he wants because he would not want to do anything he can't.
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) But you ignore the plain meaning of the scriptures I quoted that say God, not just His influence, is omnipresent. Why do so many scriptures present a personal omnipresent God, rather than just simply make it clear God is not omnipresent, but only His influence. The writers of scripture could have very easily made that point clear, but they didn't. The question is why? And I ask this question as one who believes God's body occupies a very limited space in a seemingly infinitely vast universe There must be some important reason why the scriptures teach a personal God is round about and in and through all things. And yes, Brigham H Roberts really did say that in Mormon Doctrine of Deity. I guess he was remiss in putting the testimonies and plain words of the prophets ahead of the philosophy of the unordained Immanuel Kant.Of course I ignore the plain meaning of the scriptures. What right minded person would not? I do not believe in a global flood, I do believe in evolution and quantum mechanics. But tomorrow I might change on any or all of those. So what? I am looking for the best theory to make me the best possible person and to help me put together the best view of the universe and my place in it that my little brain can help me put together with God's help. Who do you think wrote the scriptures? We don't even know in most cases. Some guy teaching us inspired principles. Good for him. Use Alma 32, take what's there you can profit from and move on. I would not look to BH Roberts to do brain surgery no matter how inspired he was, and I certainly would not look to him to understand philosophy any more than brain surgery. For some reason everyone thinks that philosophy is just old guys giving out words of wisdom and one word of wisdom is as good as another. It is not. It is a highly rigorous discipline with 2000 years of disciplined thought by the best minds of humanity, not some guys sitting on the back porch trying to hit the spittoon. Edited January 15, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Catholics and Orthodox don't believe the divine "substance" is comprised of matter, therefore God is not made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. We believe God is immaterial, a being of pure, infinite spirit, a transcendent being - meaning he's outside and beyond any and all universes, outside all times and spaces. God only acquires protons, neutrons, and spatial coordinates when he takes on matter and enters time and space, as Christ, the divine Logos, did through the Incarnation when he took human flesh and was born in Bethlehem. The same thing happens on the altar at every Mass and Divine Liturgy, where Christ is incarnate in the consecrated bread and wine (Catholics and Orthodox believe the same thing about the Eucharist, though the Orthodox don't accept and use Aquinas' substance theology to explain the change). Just wanted to clarify our belief.Yes, thanks for that and I respect your beliefs highly. Were I not Mormon I would probably be Orthodox myself, but a mystic who spends most of my time in adoration, not trying to defend substance theology, which I think is indefensible, and I am not the only one. Wittgenstein himself was a Catholic but didnt talk about it because he knew better than to try. I would do that too were I Catholic or Orthodox- but I agree your model makes more sense to me. A truly transcendent God as you describe him, is incapable of becoming human because the characteristics necessary to be human are directly the opposite of the very words with which you described God. We believe God is immaterial, a being of pure, infinite spirit, a transcendent being - meaning he's outside and beyond any and all universes, outside all times and spaces. I don't know any humans who fit that description and that is the problem. If God is transcendent, as above, he is not immanent- a thing like a human being. That is why the incarnation is a "mystery" for you folks- because the two ideas are contradictory, hence all the "logos" stuff that really is not logical, and not intended to be I know- God is too hard for our little minds to understand. Fine. Been there done that. But I think God is smart enough to represent himself in ways we can understand - because even I can teach kids what they need to know in ways they understand. Sorry- I just like stories that make sense, so I make my own story that does. It's called Mormonism. Edited January 15, 2015 by mfbukowski
Spammer Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Yes, thanks for that and I respect your beliefs highly. Were I not Mormon I would probably be Orthodox myself, but a mystic who spends most of my time in adoration, not trying to defend substance theology, which I think is indefensible, and I am not the only one. Wittgenstein himself was a Catholic but didnt talk about it because he knew better than to try. I would do that too were I Catholic or Orthodox- but I agree your model makes more sense to me. A truly transcendent God as you describe him, is incapable of becoming human because the characteristics necessary to be human are directly the opposite of the very words with which you described God.I don't know any humans who fit that description and that is the problem. If God is transcendent, as above, he is not immanent- a thing like a human being. That is why the incarnation is a "mystery" for you folks- because the two ideas are contradictory, hence all the "logos" stuff that really is not logical, and not intended to be I know- God is too hard for our little minds to understand. Fine. Been there done that. But I think God is smart enough to represent himself in ways we can understand - because even I can teach kids what they need to know in ways they understand. Sorry- I just like stories that make sense, so I make my own story that does. It's called Mormonism. I hear ya, MFB. If it works, it works. I wouldn't be Orthodox if it didn't suit me better than anything else. For me, I have no problem believing that a God who is transcendent in essence can be immanent in his energies, including uniting with matter in the person of the God-Man. You can thank Palamas (or not ) for coming up with the language to make that reconciliation. Following Palamas, the Orthodox officially rejected neoplatonism and preserved the ancient teaching that the unknowable God made himself known through the Incarnation. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the energies-essence distinction works for me. Edited January 15, 2015 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I hear ya, MFB. If it works, it works. I wouldn't be Orthodox if it didn't suit me better than anything else. For me, I have no problem believing that a God who is transcendent in essence can be immanent in his energies, including uniting with matter in the person of the God-Man. You can thank Palamas (or not ) for coming up with the language to make that reconciliation. Following Palamas, the Orthodox officially rejected neoplatonism and preserved the ancient teaching that the unknowable God made himself known through the Incarnation. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the energies-essence distinction works for me. Interesting- was not aware of that, thanks- I will check it out. But I am not sure that it would fly for a Wittgensteinian. But God bless you- I know you are a thoughtful person who has thought it through well and that is all that matters.
Spammer Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Interesting- was not aware of that, thanks- I will check it out. But I am not sure that it would fly for a Wittgensteinian. But God bless you- I know you are a thoughtful person who has thought it through well and that is all that matters. St. Gregory Palamas is important to us. We celebrate his feast day on the second Sunday of Great Lent. The first Sunday of Lent we call the Triumph of Orthodoxy. That's the day we commemorate the church's 8th century victory over the iconclasts who sought to demolish and forbid all portrayals of Jesus and the Saints. On that day, we circle the church building three times in procession while holding icons aloft and singing hymns. St. Gregory's feast day is the church's second celebration of the triumph of Orthodoxy. In this case, his efforts resulted in victory over both neoplatonist and Catholic scholastic influences, the latter of which are represented by an Orthodox monk named Barlaam from Italy who sought to introduce Aquinas and scholasticism into the Orthodox Church. Barlaam argued that God cannot be known through direct experience but could only be known propositionally. This contradicted the ancient hesychastic tradition of the Greek church by which God could be experienced personally through prayer, fasting, and purification. Purification cleanses the inner temple, paving the way for direct contact with the divine, or divine union (theosis). St. Gregory engaged Barlaam to defend these beliefs and Barlaamism was defeated. It's more than just the filoque and papal supremacy that separates Rome from the Orthodox. Thanks for the response, mfb. God bless you too! I really enjoy our conversations. Speaking of which, what would you recommend for a Wittgenstein neophyte who wants to understand him? I see mixed recommendations. Some suggest reading the Tractatus, then his Philosophical Investigations, to capture the full development of his thought. Others suggest only focusing on the latter, as it represents the culmination and pinnacle. Edited January 15, 2015 by Spammer
canard78 Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Again, I'd say they're passages that are clear to us. There are comparable passages in the Bible and yet many millions of Christians still have a trinitarian belief. So they're not completely unambiguous (especially compared to later LDS scripture) What immediately comes to mind is 3 Nephi 11: 7 Behold my aBeloved Son, bin whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him. 8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they asaw a Man bdescendingout of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them. 9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: 10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. 11 And behold, I am the alight and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter bcup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in ctaking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the dwill of the Father in all things from the beginning. Compare... Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. and John 12:2828 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. John 17:55 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Or chapter 19. It seems amazingly clear to me... 19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and abowed himself to the earth, and he said: 20 Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have achosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world. 21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words. 22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in ame; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. 23 And now Father, I apray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them bas thou, Father, art in me, that we may be cone. Compare: John 11:4141 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. Ok, one more... but I believe the point is pretty clear. I just don't see how these can be dismissed away... Chapter 18. 27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my aFather that I may fulfil bother commandments which he hath given me.35 And now I go unto the Father, because it is expedient that I should go unto the Father afor your sakes. Similar to: John 20:1717 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 St. Gregory Palamas is important to us. We celebrate his feast day on the second Sunday of Great Lent. The first Sunday of Lent we call the Triumph of Orthodoxy. That's the day we commemorate the church's 8th century victory over the iconclasts who sought to demolish and forbid all portrayals of Jesus and the Saints. On that day, we circle the church building three times in procession while holding icons aloft and singing hymns. St. Gregory's feast day is the church's second celebration of the triumph of Orthodoxy. In this case, his efforts resulted in victory over both neoplatonist and Catholic scholastic influences, the latter of which are represented by an Orthodox monk named Barlaam from Italy who sought to introduce Aquinas and scholasticism into the Orthodox Church. Barlaam argued that God cannot be known through direct experience but could only be known propositionally. This contradicted the ancient hesychastic tradition of the Greek church by which God could be experienced personally through prayer, fasting, and purification. Purification cleanses the inner temple, paving the way for direct contact with the divine, or divine union (theosis). St. Gregory engaged Barlaam to defend these beliefs and Barlaamism was defeated. It's more than just the filoque and papal supremacy that separates Rome from the Orthodox. Thanks for the response, mfb. God bless you too! I really enjoy our conversations. Speaking of which, what would you recommend for a Wittgenstein neophyte who wants to understand him? I see mixed recommendations. Some suggest reading the Tractatus, then his Philosophical Investigations, to capture the full development of his thought. Others suggest only focusing on the latter, as it represents the culmination and pinnacle. Very cool stuff- thanks for that! Yes experiencing God directly is what it is all about, and of course see that as Moroni 10:4 and Alma 32 and several other scriptures. God cannot possibly be known propositionally because the experience of God cannot be "contained" in language, any more than the experience of blue can be expressed propositionally, or the sound of a trumpet can be expressed propositionally. But that is a very Wittgensteinian notion in itself. W essentially thought that all problems of philosophy were caused by "semantic problems" and could be solved by analyzing the way we speak about things. The way we speak is the way we think, so to understand the way we speak is to understand the way we think, and linguistic confusions become thought confusions. Do not start out with the Tractatus- in fact I have never read it and never plan on reading it. He repudiated it in his later years, though kept some central tenets for all his life. I would start with the Investigations and the Blue and Brown books. It is important you understand that his philosophy is not "philosophy" in the traditional sense. He does not offer arguments for a position in these later works- what he does is offer a THERAPY for analyzing language, in almost a Socratic style, asking the reader questions to help the reader come to his own conclusions. That is perhaps he is seen as "difficult" because people do not understand what he is doing or why he is doing it. His goal in the Investigations is to teach you to analyze language- it is not a systematic presentation of ideas. But for me it was life changing. It turned around the whole way I thought about language, and therefore everything expressed in language- in other words- everything! Here is a pdf of the Investigations to get you started to see if you want to explore it further. http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf It might be worth noting that GEM Anscombe was a life-long female "partner" of Wittgenstein who became an important Catholic philosopher in her own right. She also was named executor of his estate and the one responsible for all his posthumous papers and notes. You can note that right at the beginning of The Investigations it begins by discussing passages from St. Augustine. Questions related to religion pervaded his life, but he seldom wrote directly about religion and certainly never anything that could remotely be construed as "theology" Check it out and see if it rings your bell.
Ahab Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Again, I'd say they're passages that are clear to us. There are comparable passages in the Bible and yet many millions of Christians still have a trinitarian belief. So they're not completely unambiguous (especially compared to later LDS scripture)Compare...andCompare:Similar to:Some people are just daft. Horse to water and all that.
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 This is true , Modalism is a heresy yet Mormons claim Catholics and Protestant teach that when Trinitarian teach 1X1X!=3 or three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GOD
canard78 Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Some people are just daft. Horse to water and all that.Perhaps you have a more sophisticated response?
Bobbieaware Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 ONE GOD or substance yet three separate persons 1X1X1=1 Jesus prayed to God the Father a separate persons, Trinitarians do not believe in modalismBluebell is right, most Catholic and Protestant laity present a Medalist explanation of the Trinity -- they don't know what it is they're supposed to believe -- then the Mormons throw their erroneous presentation of the Trinity right back at them.In reality, the main difference between the traditional explanation of the Trinity and the LDS understanding of the Godhead is that Mormonism defines the uniting substance as the uncreated Spirit of Truth, while the traditional explanation says the unifying substance is a an unexplainable mystery, So the LDS explanation simply takes the mystery out of the Trinity by defining what the unifying substance is, Since traditional Trinitarians can't define nor explain what the unifying substance is, for all they know it could be that the demystifying LDS explanation could be the right one. 1
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 This is true , Modalism is a heresy yet Mormons claim Catholics and Protestant teach that when Trinitarian teach 1X1X!=3 or three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GODDid you not see my post to you where I explained that a trinitarian taught me they were all the same person?It's not Mormons fault that some trinitarians don't understand their own doctrine and explain it in a way that supports modalism. Some Mormons are really bad at explaining our doctrine as well. It's annoying, but it's not the fault of those they are confusing. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Bluebell is right, most Catholic and Protestant laity present a Medalist explanation of the Trinity -- they don't know what it is they're supposed to believe -- then the Mormons throw their erroneous presentation of the Trinity right back at them.In reality, the main difference between the traditional explanation of the Trinity and the LDS understanding of the Godhead is that Mormonism defines the uniting substance as the uncreated Spirit of Truth, while the traditional explanation says the unifying substance is a an unexplainable mystery, So the LDS explanation simply takes the mystery out of the Trinity by defining what the unifying substance is, Since traditional Trinitarians can't define nor explain what the unifying substance is, for all they know it could be that the demystifying LDS explanation could be the right one.Totally wrong. For us, what unifies the Godhead is purpose and love.They are a family working together to raise the kids- us.That's it. Simple as that. No substance. That's ridiculous nonsense. 1
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The Trinitarian belief is never the same person, always three separate and distinct persons in the GODHEAD
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The Trinitarian belief is never the same person, always three separate and distinct persons in the GODHEAD Yep. I understand that. However, many people who claim to be trinitarians, and who belong to churches which claim to be trinitarian, explain their beliefs in a way that actually supports modalism. You can't blame Mormon's when they take those people at their word and respond accordingly.
Ahab Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Perhaps you have a more sophisticated response?Funny how you don't usually respond to those I have already offered.
Spammer Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Very cool stuff- thanks for that! Yes experiencing God directly is what it is all about, and of course see that as Moroni 10:4 and Alma 32 and several other scriptures. God cannot possibly be known propositionally because the experience of God cannot be "contained" in language, any more than the experience of blue can be expressed propositionally, or the sound of a trumpet can be expressed propositionally. But that is a very Wittgensteinian notion in itself. W essentially thought that all problems of philosophy were caused by "semantic problems" and could be solved by analyzing the way we speak about things. The way we speak is the way we think, so to understand the way we speak is to understand the way we think, and linguistic confusions become thought confusions. Do not start out with the Tractatus- in fact I have never read it and never plan on reading it. He repudiated it in his later years, though kept some central tenets for all his life. I would start with the Investigations and the Blue and Brown books. It is important you understand that his philosophy is not "philosophy" in the traditional sense. He does not offer arguments for a position in these later works- what he does is offer a THERAPY for analyzing language, in almost a Socratic style, asking the reader questions to help the reader come to his own conclusions. That is perhaps he is seen as "difficult" because people do not understand what he is doing or why he is doing it. His goal in the Investigations is to teach you to analyze language- it is not a systematic presentation of ideas. But for me it was life changing. It turned around the whole way I thought about language, and therefore everything expressed in language- in other words- everything! Here is a pdf of the Investigations to get you started to see if you want to explore it further. http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf It might be worth noting that GEM Anscombe was a life-long female "partner" of Wittgenstein who became an important Catholic philosopher in her own right. She also was named executor of his estate and the one responsible for all his posthumous papers and notes. You can note that right at the beginning of The Investigations it begins by discussing passages from St. Augustine. Questions related to religion pervaded his life, but he seldom wrote directly about religion and certainly never anything that could remotely be construed as "theology" Check it out and see if it rings your bell. Thanks for the link and the interesting info on Anscombe. It's seems Orthodoxy's experiential spirituality and Wittgenstein have some compatibility. Perhaps W would deny that we could ever get out of our conceptual/linguistic prison? Just a hunch based on the little I know about him through hearsay and references, never having actually read him. I will say that the Orthodox believe that it is possible to transcend concepts and language and directly know the inner essences of things, but that knowledge comes only through revelation. Contra scholasticism, it does not and cannot come propositionally through contemplation. It results from the divine union. The idea is that the Christian who attains to theosis acquires God's own knowledge of objects exactly as God knows them, including knowledge of human beings. In my understanding, this is similar to the LDS view, especially the idea of growing into knowing as and what God knows. In the Orthodox tradition, spiritual fathers and mothers who attain to this state acquire almost clairvoyant powers about their spiritual children. Dostoyevsky touched on the topic of spiritual fathers in Brothers Karamazov in the character of Father Zosima, Orthodox literature is filled with references to spiritual fathers and mothers who through the Spirit are already aware of the sins and deepest needs of those who visit them. They already live the divine life while still in this life. The tradition of spiritual eldership is central to Orthodox spirituality. This tradition flows from our belief that theosis can happen in this life. I'll be starting Wittgenstein soon. I'll PM you with any questions or comments I may have. If you're amenable. Edited January 16, 2015 by Spammer
Bobbieaware Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Totally wrong. For us, what unifies the Godhead is purpose and love.They are a family working together to raise the kids- us.That's it. Simple as that. No substance. That's ridiculous nonsense.Do you believe the a Holy Spirit is a substance or immaterial?
MormonFreeThinker Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I've not seen anything yet. You won't see what you do not want to see. Clarity in the way that the 1838 version of the first vision describes the godhead for example. The 1838 account is not 100% unambiguous, your request is very challenging and unfair because the Trinity is "three distinct persons" It was specifically about whether the Book of Mormon offers clarity on the matter. I quoted teachings not found in the New Testament, ask HOLY CATHOLIC, he will tell you that the scriptures I quoted are not consistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same being, trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was not active when Jesus was on the Earth "But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9 One is clarified "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23) Jehovah is a man and a person, Jehovah is not three persons"Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16 God the Father and Jesus are not the same being "8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read" 1 Ne1:8 -11 Edited January 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Do you believe the a Holy Spirit is a substance or immaterial?The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. I presume made of "spiritual matter" whatever that is. We don't know yet. I will not get caught up in word games. How is that at all relevant?
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the link and the interesting info on Anscombe. It's seems Orthodoxy's experiential spirituality and Wittgenstein have some compatibility. Perhaps W would deny that we could ever get out of our conceptual/linguistic prison? Just a hunch based on the little I know about him through hearsay and references, never having actually read him. I will say that the Orthodox believe that it is possible to transcend concepts and language and directly know the inner essences of things, but that knowledge comes only through revelation. Contra scholasticism, it does not and cannot come propositionally through contemplation. It results from the divine union. The idea is that the Christian who attains to theosis acquires God's own knowledge of objects exactly as God knows them, including knowledge of human beings. In my understanding, this is similar to the LDS view, especially the idea of growing into knowing as and what God knows. In the Orthodox tradition, spiritual fathers and mothers who attain to this state acquire almost clairvoyant powers about their spiritual children. Dostoyevsky touched on the topic of spiritual fathers in Brothers Karamazov in the character of Father Zosima, Orthodox literature is filled with references to spiritual fathers and mothers who through the Spirit are already aware of the sins and deepest needs of those who visit them. They already live the divine life while still in this life. The tradition of spiritual eldership is central to Orthodox spirituality. This tradition flows from our belief that theosis can happen in this life. I'll be starting Wittgenstein soon. I'll PM you with any questions or comments I may have. If you're amenable.Sure, anytime. And if you can figure out a way to communicate without language, let me know. Point or something. That's the whole idea. No language, no thoughts which are expressible. Seems almost tautologous to me. So we have direct experience and then there is language. That's about all there is. Each of us has direct experience of the world and then we talk about it. That's about the end of the story. Some talk gooder than others. but that's no too relevant to the great divide between experience and chatter. So just chatter as good as we kan, ok? So seriously, that's why I like Mormonism. Direct experience of the spirit is required- not just recommended. The language is simple. God is our Father. No ambiguity. No substance, no logos, no three in one. God is a family of three people unified in raising the kids. THAT is something even I can understand. Edited January 16, 2015 by mfbukowski
Spammer Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Sure, anytime. And if you can figure out a way to communicate without language, let me know. Point or something. That's the whole idea. No language, no thoughts which are expressible. Seems almost tautologous to me. So we have direct experience and then there is language. That's about all there is. Each of us has direct experience of the world and then we talk about it. That's about the end of the story. Some talk gooder than others. but that's no too relevant to the great divide between experience and chatter. So just chatter as good as we kan, ok? So seriously, that's why I like Mormonism. Direct experience of the spirit is required- not just recommended. The language is simple. God is our Father. No ambiguity. No substance, no logos, no three in one. God is a family of three people unified in raising the kids. THAT is something even I can understand. We're all stuck with language, I get it. My only point was that in our tradition it's believed that the experience of the divine is an experience of something beyond language, an experience independent of language, an experience that is a gift. In the world, we can't experience anything like that. That something from beyond breaks through and 'communicates' in a way that's without/beyond/outside/independent of language and concept. This, of course, is impossible, except under this sole condition of divine communication. The only proper response to the experience is silence since the experience is inexpressible. Sometimes Aquinas is mentioned in this context. He wrote what he wrote and then had this same kind of experience, which made him state that everything he had written was dross. After reporting that experience, he was done writing and trying to explain anything. So much for scholasticism. Really, I don't think we're saying anything different. Direct experience of the spirit is required, what St. Seraphim of Sarov called 'acquiring the Holy Spirit'. Only in our tradition, that experience, spirit communicating to spirit, is beyond language. The reason for this is that Orthodox thought includes the idea that each human being has a spiritual organ that simultaneously dwells in time and in eternity (the nous, also called the heart, eye of the soul, or spiritual center). The Fall resulted in that darkening of that organ. Purification is the process of cleansing that organ and, once accomplished, the Spirit comes and dwells there, communicating ineffably, without language. I've never experienced it myself, so for me it's just words, but that's what the Orthodox tradition teaches - that it's possible to have a direct experience that isn't mediated by language or concept. There is thus a difference between direct experience of the world and direct experience of the divine. Only one such experience has this trans-linguistic character - the experience of the divine. That experience is theosis. It's transformative and is a gift. Those in our tradition who claimed to have experienced it uniformly say that can't and won't attempt to describe it. They just invite people to follow the path to acquire that experience for themselves. Whenever you see an Orthodox monk walking along praying the Psalms or the Jesus Prayer on his prayer rope; fasting; or working while praying; or speaking with visitors while praying, he's laboring to purify his nous and achieve this experience of theosis. Yes, in our tradition it's believed you can be divinized - be a god - in this life. I'm just sharing the belief, independent of the question of whether we really can experience the divine in a way that's wholly unmediated by language. I'm curious what Wittgenstein might have said about that issue. As I said, I'll be reading what you provided. I suppose I'll find out soon enough. Edited January 16, 2015 by Spammer 1
Ham Clam Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 If pastors would just post a pdf file or some sort of link on their website/FB group explaining the trinity, it would be helpful for those in the congregation that don't get it or embarrassed that they don't know it very well.Does everyone take it as a mystery in general or are people afraid to speak up and say they don't understand?
Recommended Posts