On The Deflationary Theory

[Ahab]

Wait a minute. Is God the Father a perfect man with flesh and bones or not? If so, he's located in space. If he moves from place to place, is now here when he was once there, then he's in time. Unless, on the other hand, he can cast off that material body at will and become something able to simultaneously be physically present in all spaces and times at once, as he chooses. If so, then that's a very Orthodox view. I realize these are just words, but the words do mean something, don't they? Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bones or not? And once He acquired it, has he always had it since and will He always have it now and forever? That's the Mormonism I was taught and know (same as for every other Mormon I know). If the Father is both embodied and disembodied as He wills, that's some other kind of new Mormonism I'm unfamiliar with.

What do YOU mean by flesh?

What do YOU mean by bone?

What do YOU mean by have?

What do YOU mean by God the FATHER?

He does but what we mean may not be what you think we mean.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

The problem here is in your paradigm!!

 

Look at this first sentence:

 

I do think you're on to something at a practical level, though.  Today's world is materialist and pragmatic.  I agree that the old model doesn't speak to a pragmatic materialist.  Oh well.  It speaks to me better than the notion of a god made out of matter always and forever stuck in time and space.  That's because I'm a pragmatic materialist who perceives a contradiction between asserting that 1) a finite, material being stuck in time and space is also 2) without limit, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  I perceive 1) and 2) to be mutually exclusive.

God is NOT "made out of matter always forever stuck in time and space" nor IS he any of the rest of it!!

 

You PERCEIVE CONTRADICTION in the ASSERTIONS  That is the point- you perceive it, and the contradiction is in the assertions!! 

 

Assertions about the "reality" of anything including God DO NOT WORK.  You are right- all those assertions contradict each other.

 

So what?

 

The problem is in the abstract assertions- IN THE LANGUAGE you are using!!

 

This is like the Mars radiolab podcast. 

 

You are stuck in a paradigm and can't get past the categories you see as absolute categories.  If you want to say "God is omnipotent" or "God is not omnipotent" that's fine- he is both.

 

Got that?

 

BOTH.

 

Why?  Because it is only words and highly ambiguous words.  It depends on what you MEAN by "omnipotent".  No he cannot make a boulder so big he can't lift it.  He cannot contradict himself.  OOPS I guess he is NOT omnipotent.

 

He can do everything he wants to do and wills to do.  Uh oh, I guess now he IS omnipotent.   He cannot break commandments.  Why? Because he doesn't want to.  Because it would contradict his purposes.

 

However you want to say that, fine but know it is in your head and your language.  You can make it as complicated as you want or as simple as you want- you create your reality through the words in your head.

 

The whole post is words in your head contradicting each other.  You made up the words, not me, not anyone else. You made up those categories, or worse, "bought into them" because someone told you God has to be "Omnipotent Omnipresent and OMNI EVERYTHING" without understanding that those were contradictions, and YOU accepted those words in you head.

 

Look I agree with you that Orthodoxy is far better at this stuff than Mormonism.  If Mormonism went poof tomorrow, I would probably be "Orthodox" but I would not accept all that mumbo jumbo.  I would believe everything I do today - including accepting the Standard Works as scripture, and probably some other non-standard works I now accept as "scripture" whatever that means (The Didache for sure is scripture as far as I am concerned- it is first century pragmatism in action- the TWO WAYS- look it up if you are not familiar with it.  Original Christianity was Pragmatism, but that is another thread)   We as humans need a faith community in which to serve, so I would probably be a very weird unorthodox Orthodox.    Orthodox churches also preach theosis- an essential to my way of seeing stuff.  So I could do that if I had to.

 

But I don't have to!!  The perfect formulation is right here.  Conceive of God as an immanent, perfected Human and all those alleged "problems" go away.

 

Wittgenstein saw that but could not find it.

 

Rorty saw that but would be out of work if he accepted it.

 

William James saw that but he was back east- and who wants to move to the wilds of Utah? 

 

Very faithful people- that's who!!

[mfbukowski]

I don't have time for playing with the quote codes, will wait til it is fixed

If it is my problem please PM me with solution, thanks

[Ahab]

Sometimes the problem is having a false idea, regardless of the words that are used to convey it.

[Mars]

to get around using the quote button, just highlight and copy the portion you want to quote

 

then do [ quote ] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. [ /quote ]

 

only remove the spaces between the []'s and the quote or /quote part.

[Mars]

like this

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes the problem is having a false idea, regardless of the words that are used to convey it.

The view I espouse says there are no ideas independent of language. Tell me one.

Seriously. Force yourself to listen to that podcast. Without words, these people had no "ideas" about anything.

[mfbukowski]

to get around using the quote button, just highlight and copy the portion you want to quote

 

then do [ quote ] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. [ /quote ]

 

only remove the spaces between the []'s and the quote or /quote part.

Thanks. But my latin is no longer that good. 

 

No, seriously, I am aware of that.  It's just that I like the timestamps and the links back to the original context of the post and then you get to fiddle with that and then match up the layers of quotes with end quotes and all that.

 

I'm not a smart guy like you, and am too short on time to play with it. 

[Mars]

ah i don't blame you

 

there's supposed to be a way to embed user names and whatnot in there but IP Board does it different than other software packages

[Spammer]

    That is not the most important part of the Didache- the Two Ways is the most important part.

 

Living the commandments pragmatically leads to LIFE.  Breaking them leads to Death.  Sin and death are linked, righteousness and life are linked.  The Plan of Happiness says living righteously leads to a happy life.   That portion of the Didache is pure Mormonism.

 

But to explain the Mormon words which explain this, the belief is "The Glory of God is intelligence, namely light and truth".

 

God's INTELLIGENCE permeates the universe.  We do not know the mechanism.   He has a very good internet system monitoring all at once.  He is better than google.  ;)   He is in one place as an embodied being.

 

The mechanism is described as the "Light of Christ" which is a kind of Mormonised "aether" which permeates all things.  Perhaps it is related to dark matter- ironic for being called "light".  Of course dark matter is "dark" because it is invisible, but clearly there is something more "out there we don't know about".  What that phrase actually means is that our calculations don't add up.  There is Mystery in the universe.  

 

But we can't talk about mysteries can we??  That's why they are mysteries and certainly no one is asserting that all there is to know about God is known pefectly.  We see through a glass darkly, someday, face to face.

 

But what we cannot talk about- what's the sense in trying?  We don't know how all this works, but have faith that it does.  Which explanation communicates more clearly- that's all we can worry about.  Occams razor and all that!

 

So those are the Mormon words which attempt to explain this.

 

Being embodied does not limit one, no more that the resurrected Christ is limited in his perfections by his body, so that is also a non-issue.

The info on liturgy and baptism helps us pinpoint the tradition that produced the Didache and that tradition was early Catholic.  We need to know that so we place the Didache in its proper context for valid interpretation.  That said, the practical guidance found in the Didache is the most important.  Nothing matters more than the principles of the Gospel and their application in our lives.  The portion of the Didache you like is also pure Catholicism and pure Orthodoxy.  Living righteously leads to a happy life.  Good to know we all have that in common!

 

"Being embodied does not limit one"  Ok, I hear you saying that the Father can be omnipresent through the Light of Christ, Mormonized "aether", which permeates all things, although God Himself is localized and only in one place and time at a time.  Did I capture what your saying?  If so, I would modify what you wrote to say "Being embodied does not limit [God's ability to project His influence], but it does limit whether God Himself can be present everywhere and 'everywhen' at once.  For us, this is critical since we believe that at the consecration every Sunday God is materially present in the bread and wine simultaneously on every altar around the world.  Unlike the Mormon sacrament, which is symbolic and for remembrance only, we get to receive God every Sunday and take Him into ourselves, mingling his nature with ours, which is the "medicine of immortality" and the very means through which we are divinized through faith.  For us, that's the most important thing in the universe.  So...I might otherwise agree that at the practical level none of this matters, but if I adopted the LDS view I would lose the ability to unite myself intimately with the Divine Presence, mingling all of God's "atoms" with mine (not just whatever "atoms" are found in Mormonized aether), and would thereby lose the ability to live life Eucharistically.  No thanks!  Still, I acknowledge that Mormonism allows for a mechanism for God's influence and power to be omnipresent in the cosmos.  This is similar in a way to the essence/energies distinction in our theology.  Insofar as it doesn't matter to Mormons that God isn't materially present in the bread and water of the sacrament, then I agree that at the practical level within that paradigm that none of this matters.  Mormons have access to God and God can be present to them through that mysterious aether, whatever that is, the same as God is present to us in the Eucharist, however that comes about.  Both are mysteries and inexplicable. Still, I'd much rather receive God into myself every Sunday than sit there and just think about Him.  I need that help, unworthy sinner that I am!

Edited July 10, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

 

Sometimes the problem is having a false idea, regardless of the words that are used to convey it.

The view I espouse says there are no ideas independent of language. Tell me one.

Seriously. Force yourself to listen to that podcast. Without words, these people had no "ideas" about anything.

 

 

How can we get outside of our own ideas to determine which ones are false?  It's impossible using words, argument, philosophy, etc.  The ideas must be lived and put to the test.  The empirical approach is the only way.  Even then, we can't get outside of our experiences to determine which are 'truer' to reality.  We're still out of luck.  Whatever truth is out there (x-files!), we'll never know it until that Truth decides to reveal itself (Himself) to us in a direct way.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Spammer

[Ahab]

Sometimes the problem is having a false idea, regardless of the words that are used to convey it.

The view I espouse says there are no ideas independent of language. Tell me one.

Not my idea. My idea is that some ideas are false ideas. Like when people are wrong. Even when they use language to express their false ideas.

Being able to convey an idea with language doesn't mean the idea is true, even when people think a false idea is true.

Seriously. Force yourself to listen to that podcast. Without words, these people had no "ideas" about anything.

Meh. I already have enough to deal with from the people who are using words to convey their false ideas.

[Mars]

your loss, Ahab.  it's a great podcast episode.

[Mars]

i mean, i still love you, big guy

 

but seriously.

 

it's worth a listen.

[Mars]

 

Not my idea. My idea is that some ideas are false ideas. Like when people are wrong. Even when they use language to express their false ideas.

Being able to convey an idea with language doesn't mean the idea is true, even when people think a false idea is true.

 

 

it's happened to me - on both sides - where some shared ability to observe or perceive would invalidate the thinking or conclusions drawn.  when i'm being honest and when the other guy's being honest about our thinking and we both agree to the rules of what constitutes true and false in the realm of these ideas, convincing or being convinced of true/false is pretty straight forward

 

i'm a an engineer, right?  the entire discipline is based on basic logical functions

 

AND:

T and T = T

T and F = F

F and T = F

F and F = F

 

and that's just AND.  there's OR, XOR, NAND, NOR, NOT, and...  well, you get the idea.  if people started questioning those relationships, the entire discipline would be changed.  they work though because we all buy in to the rules of the game.

 

but even this is an exercise in language. you don't even need T and F to be TRUE and FALSE.  You can use 0 and 1.  A and B.  Ham Sandwich and Cheese Danish.  You just need to be persistent about the <THING1> AND <THING2> = RESULT

 

in a similar fashion, outside the realm of hard math/logic, it's a question of the rules of the game.

 

in matters of politics, religion, philosophy, child rearing, etc...  it's more fuzzy.  people aren't WRONG, imo, they just disagree over what is relevant to the problem or what the different interactions are between elements within the problem.  until they experience something that causes them to reconsider the scope of what's relevant or the relationship between relevant elements, then they aren't WRONG.  they just haven't been induced to change the way they see things.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mars

[Mars]

edit to add:

 

even though i may feel they are wrong because they haven't considered certain things, and i may have a really strong case for it, until they do consider...  it's just useless to think about them as being wrong.  philosophically speaking, i guess

 

i'm kind of out of my element here, tho...  i could be wrong.    (pun kinda intended)

[Ahab]

edit to add:

even though i may feel they are wrong because they haven't considered certain things, and i may have a really strong case for it, until they do consider... it's just useless to think about them as being wrong. philosophically speaking, i guess

i'm kind of out of my element here, tho... i could be wrong. (pun kinda intended)

Well, as proof positive of the principle that some people are wrong or have false ideas about some things, sometimes, and that it is the idea itself that is wrong, you can try it out on yourself, just like I can try it out on myself, without regard to any other guy or gal that may be "out there" somewhere.

I know I have had some false ideas, in the past, sometimes, while thinking I was right when I was wrong. And according to what some other people have told me I am not the only one who has ever been wrong.

Kinda weird when we realize it actually happens to us but it is proof positive that some people can have some false ideas about some things, sometimes.

[mfbukowski]

 

    That is not the most important part of the Didache- the Two Ways is the most important part.

 

Living the commandments pragmatically leads to LIFE.  Breaking them leads to Death.  Sin and death are linked, righteousness and life are linked.  The Plan of Happiness says living righteously leads to a happy life.   That portion of the Didache is pure Mormonism.

 

But to explain the Mormon words which explain this, the belief is "The Glory of God is intelligence, namely light and truth".

 

God's INTELLIGENCE permeates the universe.  We do not know the mechanism.   He has a very good internet system monitoring all at once.  He is better than google.  ;)   He is in one place as an embodied being.

 

The mechanism is described as the "Light of Christ" which is a kind of Mormonised "aether" which permeates all things.  Perhaps it is related to dark matter- ironic for being called "light".  Of course dark matter is "dark" because it is invisible, but clearly there is something more "out there we don't know about".  What that phrase actually means is that our calculations don't add up.  There is Mystery in the universe.  

 

But we can't talk about mysteries can we??  That's why they are mysteries and certainly no one is asserting that all there is to know about God is known pefectly.  We see through a glass darkly, someday, face to face.

 

But what we cannot talk about- what's the sense in trying?  We don't know how all this works, but have faith that it does.  Which explanation communicates more clearly- that's all we can worry about.  Occams razor and all that!

 

So those are the Mormon words which attempt to explain this.

 

Being embodied does not limit one, no more that the resurrected Christ is limited in his perfections by his body, so that is also a non-issue.

The info on liturgy and baptism helps us pinpoint the tradition that produced the Didache and that tradition was early Catholic.  We need to know that so we place the Didache in its proper context for valid interpretation.  That said, the practical guidance found in the Didache is the most important.  Nothing matters more than the principles of the Gospel and their application in our lives.  The portion of the Didache you like is also pure Catholicism and pure Orthodoxy.  Living righteously leads to a happy life.  Good to know we all have that in common!

 

"Being embodied does not limit one"  Ok, I hear you saying that the Father can be omnipresent through the Light of Christ, Mormonized "aether", which permeates all things, although God Himself is localized and only in one place and time at a time.  Did I capture what your saying?  If so, I would modify what you wrote to say "Being embodied does not limit [God's ability to project His influence], but it does limit whether God Himself can be ********.  For us, this is critical since we believe that at the consecration every Sunday God is************ Unlike the Mormon sacrament, which is symbolic and for remembrance only, we get to receive God every Sunday and take Him into ourselves,************.  For us, that's the most important thing in the universe.  So...I might otherwise agree that at the practical level none of this matters, but if I adopted the LDS view I would lose the ability to unite myself**************** and would thereby lose the ability to********.  No thanks!  Still, I acknowledge that Mormonism allows for a mechanism for God's influence and power to be omnipresent in the cosmos.  This is similar in a way to the essence/energies distinction in our theology.  Insofar as it doesn't matter to Mormons that God isn't materially present in the bread and water of the sacrament, then I agree that at the practical level within that paradigm that none of this matters.  Mormons have access to God and God can be present to them through that mysterious aether, whatever that is, the same as God is present to us in the Eucharist, however that comes about.  Both are mysteries and inexplicable. Still, I'd much rather**************.  I need that help, unworthy sinner that I am!

 

Vague words signifying nothing.  No clue what you are talking about, "really".  They are meaningless to me,

 

I have replaced them with asterisks, and bolded what I find important.  Maybe that will help you to see it as I see it.  Those other phrases might well be in Swahili as far as I am concerned.

 

I liked the "none of this matters" part the best.

[mfbukowski]

False ideas?

 

Please tell me one.  Remember you can't use language because then it would be a false sentence.

[Mars]

 

edit to add:

even though i may feel they are wrong because they haven't considered certain things, and i may have a really strong case for it, until they do consider... it's just useless to think about them as being wrong. philosophically speaking, i guess

i'm kind of out of my element here, tho... i could be wrong. (pun kinda intended)

Well, as proof positive of the principle that some people are wrong or have false ideas about some things, sometimes, and that it is the idea itself that is wrong, you can try it out on yourself, just like I can try it out on myself, without regard to any other guy or gal that may be "out there" somewhere.

I know I have had some false ideas, in the past, sometimes, while thinking I was right when I was wrong. And according to what some other people have told me I am not the only one who has ever been wrong.

Kinda weird when we realize it actually happens to us but it is proof positive that some people can have some false ideas about some things, sometimes.

 

 

oh, absolutely

 

i didn't mean to contradict that

 

for me, it's been less fruitful and useful to talk about someone as being wrong or right and more useful to talk about what they are or aren't considering.  if looked at things the way they did, i'd probably agree with them.  but i don't, so i don't.

[mfbukowski]

edit to add:

 

even though i may feel they are wrong because they haven't considered certain things, and i may have a really strong case for it, until they do consider...  it's just useless to think about them as being wrong.  philosophically speaking, i guess

 

i'm kind of out of my element here, tho...  i could be wrong.    (pun kinda intended)

Sounds fine to me, it's just an untested hypothesis at that point, if I understand you.  (a definite IF....)

 

They don't have sufficient information to guess fully whether or not their solution is likely to solve the problem

Edited July 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mars]

mfbukowski i think it's possible to have false ideas

 

e.g. ideas that later prove to be incorrect but at the time you thought were completely true and valid

 

the idea that the earth is flat is a false one

 

but i suppose it's more accurate to say that the perceptions and observations that lead a person to conclude that the earth is flat are not the end of the story.  until the various observations and experiments that prove the earth is round were done, they were 'true.'  once performed, they became 'false.'  but i guess that kinda puts the kart before the horse, talking about the ideas that way.  you can't really separate an idea from where you got it.  or rather, you shouldn't...

[mfbukowski]

It's pretty hard to share God's atoms if he is not physical.

[Mars]

Sounds fine to me, it's just an untested hypothesis at that point, if I understand you.  (a definite IF....)

 

They don't have sufficient information to guess fully whether or not their solution is likely to solve the problem

 

i'm ok with that.

 

sometimes i think people are pretty certain they're right when they shouldn't be.  sometimes the information is ambiguous.

[Spammer]

That is not the most important part of the Didache- the Two Ways is the most important part.

Living the commandments pragmatically leads to LIFE. Breaking them leads to Death. Sin and death are linked, righteousness and life are linked. The Plan of Happiness says living righteously leads to a happy life. That portion of the Didache is pure Mormonism.

But to explain the Mormon words which explain this, the belief is "The Glory of God is intelligence, namely light and truth".

God's INTELLIGENCE permeates the universe. We do not know the mechanism. He has a very good internet system monitoring all at once. He is better than google. ;) He is in one place as an embodied being.

The mechanism is described as the "Light of Christ" which is a kind of Mormonised "aether" which permeates all things. Perhaps it is related to dark matter- ironic for being called "light". Of course dark matter is "dark" because it is invisible, but clearly there is something more "out there we don't know about". What that phrase actually means is that our calculations don't add up. There is Mystery in the universe.

But we can't talk about mysteries can we?? That's why they are mysteries and certainly no one is asserting that all there is to know about God is known pefectly. We see through a glass darkly, someday, face to face.

But what we cannot talk about- what's the sense in trying? We don't know how all this works, but have faith that it does. Which explanation communicates more clearly- that's all we can worry about. Occams razor and all that!

So those are the Mormon words which attempt to explain this.

Being embodied does not limit one, no more that the resurrected Christ is limited in his perfections by his body, so that is also a non-issue.

The info on liturgy and baptism helps us pinpoint the tradition that produced the Didache and that tradition was early Catholic. We need to know that so we place the Didache in its proper context for valid interpretation. That said, the practical guidance found in the Didache is the most important. Nothing matters more than the principles of the Gospel and their application in our lives. The portion of the Didache you like is also pure Catholicism and pure Orthodoxy. Living righteously leads to a happy life. Good to know we all have that in common!

"Being embodied does not limit one" Ok, I hear you saying that the Father can be omnipresent through the Light of Christ, Mormonized "aether", which permeates all things, although God Himself is localized and only in one place and time at a time. Did I capture what your saying? If so, I would modify what you wrote to say "Being embodied does not limit [God's ability to project His influence], but it does limit whether God Himself can be ********. For us, this is critical since we believe that at the consecration every Sunday God is************ Unlike the Mormon sacrament, which is symbolic and for remembrance only, we get to receive God every Sunday and take Him into ourselves,************. For us, that's the most important thing in the universe. So...I might otherwise agree that at the practical level none of this matters, but if I adopted the LDS view I would lose the ability to unite myself**************** and would thereby lose the ability to********. No thanks! Still, I acknowledge that Mormonism allows for a mechanism for God's influence and power to be omnipresent in the cosmos. This is similar in a way to the essence/energies distinction in our theology. Insofar as it doesn't matter to Mormons that God isn't materially present in the bread and water of the sacrament, then I agree that at the practical level within that paradigm that none of this matters. Mormons have access to God and God can be present to them through that mysterious aether, whatever that is, the same as God is present to us in the Eucharist, however that comes about. Both are mysteries and inexplicable. Still, I'd much rather**************. I need that help, unworthy sinner that I am!

Vague words signifying nothing. No clue what you are talking about, "really". They are meaningless to me,

I have replaced them with asterisks, and bolded what I find important. Maybe that will help you to see it as I see it. Those other phrases might well be in Swahili as far as I am concerned.

I liked the "none of this matters" part the best.

Of course you find the asterisked words vague and meaningless. You operate from within a different paradigm.