mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2017 Posted November 10, 2017 2 hours ago, MosiahFree said: I was just consulting J.N.D. Kelly's authoritative "Early Christian Doctrines" and I'm starting to come around to Dr.Bukowski's idea that Neoplatonism has a hand in the apostasy taking place after the Apostles ended their earthly duties. Well thanks I am glad you are beginning to see that. I think it is pretty well established But one thing I have to correct is the impression that I got my Phd- I did not. I never wanted to teach philosophy. I wanted to study it- so I have been for 50 years or so now. I have picked up a thing or two on the way. Honestly I believe that Wittgenstein "solved" all the problems of philosophy with his language game methodology- all that is left is applying the method when someone brings up a linguistic confusion and that is kind of what I think I am doing on this board.
MosiahFree Posted November 10, 2017 Posted November 10, 2017 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well thanks I am glad you are beginning to see that. I think it is pretty well established But one thing I have to correct is the impression that I got my Phd- I did not. I never wanted to teach philosophy. I wanted to study it- so I have been for 50 years or so now. I have picked up a thing or two on the way. Honestly I believe that Wittgenstein "solved" all the problems of philosophy with his language game methodology- all that is left is applying the method when someone brings up a linguistic confusion and that is kind of what I think I am doing on this board. I apologize for the mistake, I sometimes mix people up. If you have a moment and it isn't too much of a derail, I'd be interested in reading the link between William James/Pragmatism and Wittegenstein's Philosophy as it relates to Mormon practice and theology.
mfbukowski Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, MosiahFree said: I apologize for the mistake, I sometimes mix people up. If you have a moment and it isn't too much of a derail, I'd be interested in reading the link between William James/Pragmatism and Wittegenstein's Philosophy as it relates to Mormon practice and theology. I will be glad to go into it and some detail but not particularly today. The shortest and most direct but possibly the most vague answer I could give you is that both see reality as direct Human Experience. By that I mean there is no definable difference between appearance and reality. To put a crudely what you see is what is and what you get. The problem we all face is defining that direct personal experience in language. The best we can do is come up with words that a proximate experience but never correspond directly to any experience. Direct experience is undefinable. Imagine describing the color blue or red to a blind person who has never seen the colors. It simply cannot be done. Imagine the experience of listing to a piece by Mahler for example and trying to put that feeling into words. That is also the nature of religious experience. It defies linguistic expression. The best we can come up with is an approximation that works. Think of Alma 32 trying to describe the perfect experience of having what he calls the seed growing in your heart. We speak of the spirit as causing a burning in the bosom. There is no actual sense of warmth or heat it is simply a sense of peace and a sense of joy. But even that description doesn't describe it. So personal experience which is direct can never be described in a rational way. Any more than you can describe the color red to a blind person. If you have not experienced it you don't know what it is. That is the nature of direct knowledge. Direct knowledge is personal experience. When the scriptures speak of knowing one's wife English really does not have a word that describes that adequately the sense of an intimate knowledge of the person as a person and as an other, knowing their history knowing their nuances of their personality what a single flicker at the eye means in a certain contacts. And of course it connotes as well as a sexual relationship, because that is the ultimate intimate act between two people who love each other. Language and rationality have nothing to do with these kinds of feelings or this kind of expression. All we can Define is what works for us been growing closer to God, as Alma does describing the seed which grows. Direct personal experience is never simply rational it is extra rational it includes all of our being as a sensing unit. We cannot separate the rationale from the emotional the feelings from the context. All of these factors enter into every experience of every day. When these ways of thinking are described and relating to religion this is described as fideism Both Witt. and James were fideists. That is the short description. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism Mormons are essentially fideism. We affirmed the Primacy of a direct relationship between God and man including direct personal revelation. Direct personal revelation is what we call a testimony. Our entire faith is based on having a testimony at direct personal experience that God affirms that our faith is true. This is precisely what is meant by fideism. God is invisible we cannot have a scientific understanding of God. We cannot observe him we cannot see him we cannot observe his characteristics or know anything about him by direct observation. The mere fact that he exists can only be known by direct personal revelation. This was dictated please excuse the obvious typos. Edited November 11, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Five Solas Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 On 11/9/2017 at 7:47 AM, Jane_Doe said: An example answer phrasing: "I, Five Solas, believe _______ to be the word of God. ______ is not the word of God, but the work of men. Bible which include _____ are corrupt in that they have added to the word of God. As a sola scriptura person I believe that the Bible is the only source of authority and the Bible tells me which books should be included here: ____________". (Again, the point of example phrasing is to convey what I'm looking for here, not to box you into it). I'm REALLY not trying to be difficult here and REALLY do want to understand you. I am growing frustrated though. Whenever you give a "it doesn't matter which book are in the Bible" answer it gives me the impression that you don't care/know which books are the word of God-- a definition which seems like it would be foundational to a sola scriptura person. Whenever you go down a history lesson, it gives me the impression that you're taking authority from tradition/history instead of scripture--- which is a fine answer from someone (like a Catholic) that believes Tradition is authoritative, but seems completely contradictory to the sola scriptura view point. I know you're not dumb (obviously) and you faith is well thought out, which is why I'm trying to understand your thoughts here. Whenever a non-LDS tries to tell an LDS what LDS believe--it tends to go poorly for the non-LDS around here. LDS are predictably scandalized and a good deal of piling on tends to follow. But when the roles are reversed (as you are doing to me)--cue the gentle sound of crickets (or maybe that's just the sound of LDS clicking on the "like" icon). Honestly though, it doesn't offend me. To tell you the truth, I find the double-standard amusing. But if I were LDS, I'd be at least a little concerned about the message being sent to any non-partisan readers out there. That said, I'm going to do my best to play it as you would have it. Here's your template, taking it as far as I can go-- I, Erik, believe the 39 books of the Old Testament together with the 27 books of the New Testament to be the Revealed Word of God. The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books that are sometimes included with translations of the Bible are not on par with the aforementioned 66, but are none-the-less worthy of study and consideration. I'm very comfortable with their inclusion therein, as was generally the case in both Protestant and Catholic translations alike until the 19th century. The inclusion of the Apocrypha in a bound volume in no way diminishes or compromises the other books therein. If someone believes such inclusion tarnishes the other books therein or otherwise causes offense--that's their problem, not mine. As a Protestant who affirms Sola Scriptura, I hold Scripture (the aforementioned 66 books) as the highest authority in all matters pertaining to faith and Christian practice. Jesus affirmed the books of the Hebrew Bible, explicitly referring to its first two sections, The Law and The Prophets, as well as books from the third section (The Writings), Psalms, Job, etc. Jesus authorized his apostles--and they wrote the New Testament (the question over authorship of Hebrews notwithstanding). The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books were neither affirmed nor written by those authorized, and therefore cannot be considered to have equivalent standing. And while Scripture is the highest authority, it is not the only authority. I recognize the authority of the Elders in my Church as well as authorities outside the church including government, my employer, my doctor, and many others besides. Sola Scriptura does not imply the absence of any other authority which would imply anarchy and be against Scripture (e.g., Titus 3:1). Does that help, or am I just fueling your fire at this point? --Erik _______________________________________________________ Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us --The Ramones, 1977
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 I have no problem with you telling us what you believe. I have big problems with you telling us what we believe.
Jane_Doe Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: Whenever a non-LDS tries to tell an LDS what LDS believe--it tends to go poorly for the non-LDS around here. LDS are predictably scandalized and a good deal of piling on tends to follow. But when the roles are reversed (as you are doing to me)--cue the gentle sound of crickets (or maybe that's just the sound of LDS clicking on the "like" icon). Honestly though, it doesn't offend me. To tell you the truth, I find the double-standard amusing. But if I were LDS, I'd be at least a little concerned about the message being sent to any non-partisan readers out there. \ I was in no way attempting to tell you what you believe- quite the opposite actually-- I was/am trying to have you explain your beliefs. Hence why my many disclaimers of "I'm not tying to box you in" and things like that-- I was/am specifically trying to not speak for you. I'm sorry if that intent not convey. (Big response to your post before getting into the details) Thank you for responding and trying to communicate and actually addressing my questions (thank you very much for that, actually). I am still not completely understanding (hence the follow-up questions), but this was a good step in the right direction. 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: I, Erik, believe the 39 books of the Old Testament together with the 27 books of the New Testament to be the Revealed Word of God. The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books that are sometimes included with translations of the Bible are not on par with the aforementioned 66, but are none-the-less worthy of study and consideration. But are the apocrypha the word of God, in your beliefs? 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: I'm very comfortable with their inclusion therein, as was generally the case in both Protestant and Catholic translations alike until the 19th century. The inclusion of the Apocrypha in a bound volume in no way diminishes or compromises the other books therein. If someone believes such inclusion tarnishes the other books therein or otherwise causes offense--that's their problem, not mine. You're sounding like you're ok with flexibility of what is considered the word of God... is that correct? (I feel like I'm very much misunderstanding something here). 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: As a Protestant who affirms Sola Scriptura, I hold Scripture (the aforementioned 66 books) as the highest authority in all matters pertaining to faith and Christian practice. Jesus affirmed the books of the Hebrew Bible, explicitly referring to its first two sections, The Law and The Prophets, as well as books from the third section (The Writings), Psalms, Job, etc. Jesus authorized his apostles--and they wrote the New Testament (the question over authorship of Hebrews notwithstanding). The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books were neither affirmed nor written by those authorized, and therefore cannot be considered to have equivalent standing. Again, thank you for actually addressing my question. Can you point to some specific scripture references here, to further my understanding of your beliefs? 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: And while Scripture is the highest authority, it is not the only authority. *Wait* Stop-- big big question here. How is this sentence not a complete self-contradiction? "Sola scriptura" literally translates into "Scripture alone". 56 minutes ago, Five Solas said: I recognize the authority of the Elders in my Church as well as authorities outside the church including government, my employer, my doctor, and many others besides. Sola Scriptura does not imply the absence of any other authority which would imply anarchy and be against Scripture (e.g., Titus 3:1). Obviously the government is the authority for speed limits, but we're not talking about speed limits here. We're talking religious matters, specifficaly. This explanation here does not alleviate my confusion about the apparent self-contradiction above.
Five Solas Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: I was in no way attempting to tell you what you believe- quite the opposite actually-- I was/am trying to have you explain your beliefs. Hence why my many disclaimers of "I'm not tying to box you in" and things like that-- I was/am specifically trying to not speak for you. I'm sorry if that intent not convey. (Big response to your post before getting into the details) Thank you for responding and trying to communicate and actually addressing my questions (thank you very much for that, actually). I am still not completely understanding (hence the follow-up questions), but this was a good step in the right direction. But are the apocrypha the word of God, in your beliefs? You're sounding like you're ok with flexibility of what is considered the word of God... is that correct? (I feel like I'm very much misunderstanding something here). Again, thank you for actually addressing my question. Can you point to some specific scripture references here, to further my understanding of your beliefs? *Wait* Stop-- big big question here. How is this sentence not a complete self-contradiction? "Sola scriptura" literally translates into "Scripture alone". Obviously the government is the authority for speed limits, but we're not talking about speed limits here. We're talking religious matters, specifficaly. This explanation here does not alleviate my confusion about the apparent self-contradiction above. I don't consider the Apocrypha to be the "word of God" written. I share the sentiments of Martin Luther as he expressed them towards the apocryphal Book of Tobit that I quoted for you back on page 17. Here it is again, and the implication is important. I think Luther's perspective on Tobit can be extended broadly (and without much controversy among Christians, Protestant or Catholic) to many of those books--although no doubt to some more than others. There is no "flexibility" in what is considered to be the word of God written (not to be confused with the word of God incarnate--Jesus). For an in-depth treatment of why the 66 books and not others, F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture is thoughtful and well written (it was assigned reading for me in a class I took ~ 10 years ago). For a quick hit on the topic, Google is your friend - and this provides a quick overview along with some Scripture references you requested: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1#WhichBooks. There's not a smoking-gun verse that enumerates all the books, but I think the evidence taken in total is compelling. Regarding the "self-contradiction" you perceive in Sola Scriptura - it helps to understand the historical context. Sola Scriptura is a response to the Roman Catholic view that authority is a three-legged stool consisting of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - all with equal parts. Sola Scriptura denies this view and instead asserts Scripture is the highest authority - alone (meaning without those other two). It does not mean or imply that Elders/Pastors and Deacons in the Christian Church are without authority. Indeed, those positions, qualifications, authority and responsibilities are enumerated in the New Testament. Hopefully this is helpful. I confess I thought you might be trolling me a bit back there. But if you're unfamiliar with Protestantism & its history and your religious worldview was shaped elsewhere, concepts like Sola Scriptura can seem alien, I'm sure. My apology for previous tension. --Erik PS. In hindsight, we probably should have just opened a new thread on the topic of Sola Scriptura, rather than spend this kind of energy near the end of a 19 page thread. ;0)
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 Martin Luther didn't like the Book of James much either. He considered it a book of straw. 1
Jane_Doe Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: I don't consider the Apocrypha to be the "word of God" written. I share the sentiments of Martin Luther as he expressed them towards the apocryphal Book of Tobit that I quoted for you back on page 17. Here it is again, and the implication is important. Do you likewise share Luther's opinion on the Book of James? 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Google is your friend - and this provides a quick overview along with some Scripture references you requested: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1#WhichBooks. There's not a smoking-gun verse that enumerates all the books, but I think the evidence taken in total is compelling. So.... you're ok with the Bible being defined not by the Bible itself, but by compelling argument? Doesn't that make compelling argument the greater source of authority? 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Regarding the "self-contradiction" you perceive in Sola Scriptura - it helps to understand the historical context. Sola Scriptura is a response to the Roman Catholic view that authority is a three-legged stool consisting of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - all with equal parts. Sola Scriptura denies this view and instead asserts Scripture is the highest authority - alone (meaning without those other two). It does not mean or imply that Elders/Pastors and Deacons in the Christian Church are without authority. Indeed, those positions, qualifications, authority and responsibilities are enumerated in the New Testament. So... for you "sola scriptura" doesn't mean "Scripture alone", but instead "scripture above tradition and magisterium".... your very screen handle is a misnomer? Why would you adopt a misnomer to represent you? (I got other questions too, but this is the big one). 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: I confess I thought you might be trolling me a bit back there. But if you're unfamiliar with Protestantism & its history and your religious worldview was shaped elsewhere, concepts like Sola Scriptura can seem alien, I'm sure. My apology for previous tension. There's a difference between being familiar with a faith and understanding it. I have attended various Protestant churches for many years, but it... frankly struggled to understand the logic therein- honestly it appears extremely self contradictory to me (no offense intended, that's just my view). But my views are besides the point, cause here I'm trying to try to understand YOUR views. And I am excited cause it seems I ACTUALLY found a sola scriptura person who can actually address a basic question for me ("basic" being basic in my mind). I have literally tried for years to get answers and always been shut down... it is most frustrating. But I am excited now. 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: PS. In hindsight, we probably should have just opened a new thread on the topic of Sola Scriptura, rather than spend this kind of energy near the end of a 19 page thread. Lol. Heh, here we are, making progress, and I'd rather be lazy and not move.
Five Solas Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: Do you likewise share Luther's opinion on the Book of James? No. And given I've repeatedly (at least half a dozen times in the past 3 pages) told you I consider the 27 books of the New Testament to be Scripture--you already knew (or at least you had reason to know) the answer to that one. What is the purpose of this question? Are you hoping to impeach Luther's opinion on Tobit with his opinion on James? To what end? 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: So.... you're ok with the Bible being defined not by the Bible itself, but by compelling argument? Doesn't that make compelling argument the greater source of authority? I said the "evidence" was compelling, Jane_Doe. That evidence is from Scripture (see the link I provided--it contained numerous references therein). Nothing I wrote suggests "argument" transcends Scripture. This is pure distortion on your part (and every reader can see it). So now how about you answer a question: What is your purpose in so doing? 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: So... for you "sola scriptura" doesn't mean "Scripture alone", but instead "scripture above tradition and magisterium".... your very screen handle is a misnomer? Why would you adopt a misnomer to represent you? Why are you determined to twist this into something it's not, Jane_Doe? This isn't merely my position, it's Protestantism 101. How about you look into the history yourself, if my opinion counts for so little? 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: here's a difference between being familiar with a faith and understanding it. I have attended various Protestant churches for many years, but it... frankly struggled to understand the logic therein- honestly it appears extremely self contradictory to me (no offense intended, that's just my view). But my views are besides the point, cause here I'm trying to try to understand YOUR views. And I am excited cause it seems I ACTUALLY found a sola scriptura person who can actually address a basic question for me ("basic" being basic in my mind). I have literally tried for years to get answers and always been shut down... it is most frustrating. But I am excited now. Color me flattered. ;0) --Erik ______________________________________________ Please beware of them that stare They'll only smile to see you while Your time away And once you've seen what they have been To win the earth just won't seem worth Your night or your day Who'll hear what I say? --Nick Drake, 1971 Edited November 12, 2017 by Five Solas grammar
Jane_Doe Posted November 13, 2017 Posted November 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Five Solas said: No. And given I've repeatedly (at least half a dozen times in the past 3 pages) told you I consider the 27 books of the New Testament to be Scripture--you already knew (or at least you had reason to know) the answer to that one. What is the purpose of this question? Are you hoping to impeach Luther's opinion on Tobit with his opinion on James? To what end? I was exploring your relationship with Luther and his opinion of different books, since you cited his opinions on Tobit, but reject his opinion on James. It is an interesting dynamic. 15 minutes ago, Five Solas said: I said the "evidence" was compelling, Jane_Doe. That evidence is from Scripture (see the link I provided--it contained numerous references therein). Nothing I wrote suggests "argument" transcends Scripture. This is pure distortion on your part (and every reader can see it). So now how about you answer a question: What is your purpose in so doing? Clarification: I'm not using the word "argument" like 'to argue' something, rather as to "stating his position and interpretation". In 20/20 hindsight I could/should have used a better word from the start then, my apologies. And yes, the link is a person stating their interpretation and position-- that's simply a statement of fact, not a twist either way. 15 minutes ago, Five Solas said: Why are you determined to twist this into something it's not, Jane_Doe? I have stated "no" to that question many times, and it's still "no". 15 minutes ago, Five Solas said: How about you look into the history yourself, if my opinion counts for so little? I am not discounting your opinion, and have thanked you many times for sharing it. I do appreciate the explanation as to the "why" you opinion is thus.
Recommended Posts