Squaring Church with life

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

What would MFB say?  "There are no such things as facts, only interpretations."

 

Of course, that's just his interpretation...

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Or you can go to a Catholic Latin High Mass where not only is everything sung/chanted, but it's in Latin, so just don't look in the missal (where the translation is) and you won't have a clue what's being said

Been there too friend. I went to a Catholic High School, and mass was mandatory, although I normally did not take the communion. I am fairly familiar with Catholic services and theology. However, I prefer to understand what is being taught... I believe that is better for the soul. There is no magic in any one language. However, I believe we have lost much from inability or lack of properly translating the Hebrew. God uses names and titles for a reason. They reflect what He makes Himself for our sake... such as our Rock. Unfortunately by the time that gets translated into the KJV, not much is left of the original meaning. What I am saying is the English tends to translate various different Hebrew titles into God or gods, and we lose the intended message of the title or name. I have this frustration somewhat with the Greek NT as well. The Greek Kurios gets used it seems generically for YHWH or Lord - and it is virtually impossible to know which. Only the Syriac Peshitta Matthew gives any  hint. So there is something to be said for understanding the meaning of words in the original language... I am not intending to single out Latin, but I don't find the Latin translations to do any better in this regard. In fact i rather dislike Jerome's version. So the Catholic resistance to translating into other languages has always been curious to me. My time spent in those mass services did not enrich me, because I did not understand what was going on, except when they used English. I do enjoy some chants, but again when in Latin they don't do much for me. I usually enjoy a fuller musical experience. My mother and father took us to a musical Catholic service. It was much like other modern musical services. I've tried it myself, but quickly decided it wasn't for me - occasionally is fine, but not every week. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What would MFB say?  "There are no such things as facts, only interpretations."

 

And M would call that a facile distortion of epistemology.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And M would call that a facile distortion of epistemology.

And P would say, what is epistemology but a field of varying interpretations? 

[Ahab]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

And P would say, what is epistemology but a field of varying interpretations? 

And A would say,  if everything is an interpretation does that mean God is an interpretation and if so what is God interpreting when he tells us something is true?

A likes to say things in the form of questions, sometimes, while leaving the answers up to personal interpretations.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

And P would say, what is epistemology but a field of varying interpretations? 

Which one is nihilising into a void of meaninglessness? Not M. I'd prefer to not chuck out usefulness as a temporary means to an end.

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Which one is nihilising into a void of meaninglessness? Not M. I'd prefer to not chuck out usefulness as a temporary means to an end.

"And I'm gonna go to an even darker place of nothingness. From an even farther, more extreme nothingness on my own!  Who needs you guys?" -- I Heart Huckabees

 

 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

if everything is an interpretation does that mean God is an interpretation...?

Man's version and understanding of God is an interpretation only.

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

...what is God interpreting when he tells us something is true?

Because God has an absolute perspective, He sees and knows every piece in the puzzle of everything, and because he sees and knows every variable in the equation of eternity, he sees things as they are.  His truth is objective and absolute.  Man's truth is relative to his limited perspective.  Without an absolute perspective of eternity, man is stuck with interpretations only. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

His truth is objective and absolute. 

Which can also mean that for God, there is no difference between objective and subjective, but since He is three Persons (Trinitarian) OR a Person (non-Trinitarian) there must be subjectivity, so then all of existence is part of God's great subjectivity.

Or at least so the mystics say

 

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Which one is nihilising into a void of meaninglessness? Not M. I'd prefer to not chuck out usefulness as a temporary means to an end.

There is nothing nihilistic about my perspective.  I actually find it quite useful to acknowledge our limitations and limited perspective, giving us each a unique interpretation of what is.  It gives me hope for something greater than the "facts of life".   What one finds meaningful is subjective. 

 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Which can also mean that for God, there is no difference between objective and subjective, but since He is three Persons (Trinitarian) OR a Person (non-Trinitarian) there must be subjectivity, so then all of existence is part of God's great subjectivity.

Or at least so the mystics say

 

I like it, and tend to agree with the mystics.  Similarly, I think that God's truth can also be accurately described as both relative and absolute. 

Man's truth is relative to his limited perspective.  God's truth is also relative.  God just happens to be relative to everything, making it absolute.  

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

if you say so. 

Nehor: "Your conclusion is based on the false premise that people follow the Spirit."

Then you followed that up by somehow disagreeing with yourself. 

"There is a happy medium between everyone listing to follow the Spirit and no one following the Spirit. "

So you went from people don't follow the Spirit to "I guess some might"

of course the Spirit exists to be followed.  If no one followed (as you claimed) the Spirit's existence would be meaningless. 

Anyway, thanks for your comments. 

Nope.

[Ahab]

I just got another epiphany.

The title of the thread is squaring Church with life.

Squaring.

Ring any bells for anyone else?

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

"And I'm gonna go to an even darker place of nothingness. From an even farther, more extreme nothingness on my own!  Who needs you guys?" -- I Heart Huckabees

 

 

"Come back....come back...."

Titanic

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

I just got another epiphany.

The title of the thread is squaring Church with life.

Squaring.

Ring any bells for anyone else?

Life is 4D, not 2D?

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing nihilistic about my perspective.  I actually find it quite useful to acknowledge our limitations and limited perspective, giving us each a unique interpretation of what is.  It gives me hope for something greater than the "facts of life".   What one finds meaningful is subjective. 

 

I also find the epiphany that "perspective is limited" is refreshing, and for the same reason. But I don't use that for deliberate ignorance of trouble areas. For me, Christ makes awareness of any truth a good thing. Truth need not be feared through Christ.

More perspective should be considered a blessing, not something to boxed away in semantics and relativity or anything else. And not just a blessing, but an opportunity life gives us, that therefore God gives us. And we should not waste His gifts.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Which can also mean that for God, there is no difference between objective and subjective, but since He is three Persons (Trinitarian) OR a Person (non-Trinitarian) there must be subjectivity, so then all of existence is part of God's great subjectivity.

Or at least so the mystics say

Yeshua and the Most High are one/echad something like father and son, which is why they use those appellations - or man and wife are one/ehad. So yes they are one elohim or house. They can also both be YHWH, which I believe is one of their great secrets. They both live the name. The whole trinitarian debate thing is unnecessary, and makes simple scripture an unknowable mystery. I just look for God in Scritpure.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Life is 4D, not 2D?

I was thinking of the sign of the square and what it represents to us on our garments of the holy priesthood and temple ordinances.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I also find the epiphany that "perspective is limited" is refreshing, and for the same reason. But I don't use that for deliberate ignorance of trouble areas. For me, Christ makes awareness of any truth a good thing. Truth need not be feared through Christ.

More perspective should be considered a blessing, not something to boxed away in semantics and relativity or anything else. And not just a blessing, but an opportunity life gives us, that therefore God gives us. And we should not waste His gifts.

This sounds an awful lot like an accusation of "deliberate ignorance", which begs the question, what are the "facts" that we are ignoring?  If I "feared" truth, would I be on this site considering arguments?  Have you ever considered that it might be your relative and subjective interpretation, and not the "facts" that we disagree with?

You feel strongly about your conclusions because of your personal, subjective experience and perspective, but you are failing to acknowledge that I have a different, personal, subjective experience and perspective which naturally causes me to arrive at a different interpretation from your own.  That is how relativity works.  It is a much more tolerant approach to truth.  It is less demeaning and judgmental then your objective tone is coming across.  Until my knowledge is perfect and absolute, my truth is relative.  I have faith in absolute and objective truth, but the difference between us is that I acknowledge that the objective truth I believe in is faith based and not fact based.  It is all interpretation via the spirit given to me. Line upon line, precept upon precept.   

I don't use relativity to box away or avoid a broader perspective.  On the contrary, I use it to avoid black and white reasoning which can inhibit further inquiry and blind us to the more nuanced reality of our relative perspectives which influence our interpretations of truth. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

This sounds an awful lot like an accusation of "deliberate ignorance", which begs the question, what are the "facts" that we are ignoring?  If I "feared" truth, would I be on this site considering arguments?  Have you ever considered that it might be your relative and subjective interpretation, and not the "facts" that we disagree with?

You feel strongly about your conclusions because of your personal, subjective experience and perspective, but you are failing to acknowledge that I have a different, personal, subjective experience and perspective which naturally causes me to arrive at a different interpretation from your own.  That is how relativity works.  It is a much more tolerant approach to truth.  It is less demeaning and judgmental then your objective tone is coming across.  Until my knowledge is perfect and absolute, my truth is relative.  I have faith in absolute and objective truth, but the difference between us is that I acknowledge that the objective truth I believe in is faith based and not fact based.  It is all interpretation via the spirit given to me. Line upon line, precept upon precept.   

I don't use relativity to box away or avoid a broader perspective.  On the contrary, I use it to avoid black and white reasoning which can inhibit further inquiry and blind us to the more nuanced reality of our relative perspectives which influence our interpretations of truth. 

I totally appreciate perspective and respecting perspective.  Yet I also understand the importance of objectivity.  You are talking to me and I am talking to you because of words.  Words are agreed-upon rules for describing ideas, ideas that cut apart and compartmentalized into more adaptable and transferrable bits.  These words are conveyed by the technology of computer operating systems that obey rules, these words are transmitted by machines powered in accordance with the known laws of cause and effect. 

You and I and all of us here are dependent on objective compartmentalisation and component-identifying of the known world. Functioning in the world together relies on mutual obedience to a whole host of rules.

So what I am resisting here in this conversation is the extreme reluctance to appreciate objectivity.  We need both objectivty and subjective perspectives.  I appreciate both and respect both.

I am glad that at least you and I seem to agree on one thing: you understanding that my perspective of the world is just as real to me as yours is to you, and me understanding that your perspective is just as real to you as mine is to me. This is one of the most edifying, most powerful, most charitable things we can do as human beings.  I apologize that I offended you.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So what I am resisting here in this conversation is the extreme reluctance to appreciate objectivity.  We need both objectivty and subjective perspectives.  I appreciate both and respect both.

What I am resisting here is the idea that objective facts prove Mormonism false, and that anybody who doesn't accept that is being "deliberately ignorant."  This simply shows a misunderstanding of what relativity really is. 

You would be wrong to perceive my position of relativity as an excuse to blow off whatever evidence might be presented to me to justify my favorite belief.  I don't play the relativity card that way.  I simply disagree with your interpretations and judgments of the evidence.  Your interpretations and judgments are relative to you, and mine to me.  That is a better explanation for our differences claims of being more "objective".  Until I have absolute and objective knowledge, absolute and objective truth is a matter of faith.  Until then, my judgments and interpretations are relative to my perspective which is based on previous experience and understanding.  You are no different from me in that way. 

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am glad that at least you and I seem to agree on one thing: you understanding that my perspective of the world is just as real to me as yours is to you, and me understanding that your perspective is just as real to you as mine is to me. This is one of the most edifying, most powerful, most charitable things we can do as human beings.  I apologize that I offended you.

I agree, and no offense taken.  I just have a hard time understanding how you can say that while at the same time accusing Mormons of being deliberately ignorant.  Either you believe in relativity or you don't.  If you do, then you agree that the "facts" are debatable and perceived in different ways by different people who have different histories and life experiences leading to different interpretations and judgments.

 

 

. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

What I am resisting here is the idea that objective facts prove Mormonism false, and that anybody who doesn't accept that is being "deliberately ignorant."  This simply shows a misunderstanding of what relativity really is. 

You would be wrong to perceive my position of relativity as an excuse to blow off whatever evidence might be presented to me to justify my favorite belief.  I don't play the relativity card that way.  I simply disagree with your interpretations and judgments of the evidence.  Your interpretations and judgments are relative to you, and mine to me.  That is a better explanation for our differences claims of being more "objective".  Until I have absolute and objective knowledge, absolute and objective truth is a matter of faith.  Until then, my judgments and interpretations are relative to my perspective which is based on previous experience and understanding.  You are no different from me in that way. 

I agree, and no offense taken.  I just have a hard time understanding how you can say that while at the same time accusing Mormons of being deliberately ignorant.  Either you believe in relativity or you don't.  If you do, then you agree that the "facts" are debatable and perceived in different ways by different people who have different histories and life experiences leading to different interpretations and judgments.

 

 

. 

As I have read your and other's thoughts on subjectivity, especially MB's, for more than a year here, it genuinely seems like an intentional way to ignore information or at the very least, avoid drawing conclusions about potentially problematic issues with the church and even theism in general.

That is how I have understood the various arguments' functionality in regard to Mormonism, and thus why I explicitly said that I cannot use it that way.

I won't presume to try to tell you what you believe or how your beliefs necessarily must amount to such and such. If so, it is only to explain how I examine the thing, not you.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Guest]

On April 17, 2017 at 3:13 PM, stemelbow said:

The Spirit directs us individuals, huh?

As some of you know and some of you have figured out, I have a tough time with Church.  I feel pretty torn.  The Spirit is pulling me away from Church more and more as I live my life these days.  It's tough.  I'm getting pulled away while I'm also wanting to hold on.  I hate to give up on the tradition that is church in my life.  It's always been there.  I don't know that I benefit from going, personally anymore, but I still go because it is that ingrained in me.  Wife would be happy to leave and would head for the hills as fast as she can if I said, "i'm not going to Church" or something like it.  I like to hold on to it, even though I really don't fit.  She often wants out, but stays gets rejuvenated after we address the issue and I give every reason I can come up with to stay.  So anyway, the Spirit prompted me out years ago.  If I were like Elder Rasband or thought like him I'd be gone, I guess.  I like to weigh in the balance what is prompting me and all other resources.  But as it is, maybe I'm being way too cautious this time.  Maybe I should just go with the promptings and be done with it.  I wonder what God would have in store for me.

Two things,

if your wife wants nothing to do with the Church and wants out now, and you can barely stand the Church, then leave. Nothing care be served by being miserable, and finding fault with Church leaders, and making many posts picking apart conference talks as previous thread have reflected. 

As to another comment, many never-mo's and ex-mo's post here. But as to one comment, not that long ago you posted many defenses of the Church on a Mormon website along with me. If you think joy can be found elsewhere and your spouse wants out...go be happy. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Two things,

if your wife wants nothing to do with the Church and wants out now, and you can barely stand the Church, then leave. Nothing care be served by being miserable, and finding fault with Church leaders, and making many posts picking apart conference talks as previous thread have reflected. 

As to another comment, many never-mo's and ex-mo's post here. But as to one comment, not that long ago you posted many defenses of the Church on a Mormon website along with me. If you think joy can be found elsewhere and your spouse wants out...go be happy. 

Thanks for your thoughts.  I would just add, I don't defend or criticize the Church exclusively.  I can do both and be both.  I can both see the virtue of Church and the problems. 

Beign happy is interesting.  Everyone is happy to one extent or another.  So I will take that advice. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  I would just add, I don't defend or criticize the Church exclusively.  I can do both and be both.  I can both see the virtue of Church and the problems. 

Beign happy is interesting.  Everyone is happy to one extent or another.  So I will take that advice. 

No, not everyone is happy, your comments suggest your wife is unhappy with the Church and would leave yesterday. Also, your comments suggest you don't want to be a member. The defense you once gave was on a website that we both visited often. Also, to what problems the Church is having that you refer too? In not her thread the only mention of General Conference was to pick apart an address, where you pointed out what you,perceived as contiditions. 

I do not say this in anger...go forth and find joy, you can still post here.