1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's what I'm getting at. This is about names in the masonic, hermetic and theurgical platonic traditions.

I have no doubt- that is clearly true.  And Freemasonry adopted some of the elements but these elements are much much older than Freemasonry.

It is as if the original truths of God were a perfect crystal - perhaps a hologram that can reproduce the whole of the image under the right conditions- that got smashed with a hammer perhaps represented by the story of the Fall or the "Tower of Babel" and the shards of the crystal keep being found again at various stages of history and an attempt is made to "restore" these symbolic representations of God's truth without complete success.

I recall the first time I experienced the temple- my first reactions were somewhat true and somewhat odd at the same time- I thought "Hmmm- graduation, and the game "Simon says".....

I am still not totally convinced that those first impressions were totally" wrong,"  though my interpretations have advanced just a  tad since then, now nearly 40 years later.   

 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:18 AM, Josh Khinder said:

Doesn't the Trinity teach the Father and Son are separate and Distinct persons ?

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

 

The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines:

The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal

When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.

We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature  of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance )  of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit  p 24

 

“The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God”  p 153

 

Trinity

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ]

 

One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's.

 

All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE  but DISTINCT IN PERSONS

 

  John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism]

Page 104-105

1. There is Only One God

2. The Father is God;

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God

4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God

5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

 

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

1.       (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

 

 

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

(White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

 

Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity

 

We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6.

 

 

http://www.btea.org/whatwebelieve.asp

Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008)

 

While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct.

 

The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added).

 

The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4).

 

The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God.

 

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s.

 

 

For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).

 

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

 

Deuteronomy 6:4

 

 

 

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

Matthew 28:19

 

https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg

Substance theology is based on pagan Neoplatonic philosophy and is totally non-Biblical.

It has been replaced by the Restoration.  In order to believe in substance theology you have to believe in transubstantiation.  Good luck with harmonizing that to the LDS gospel.

The Godhead is a family which is one in purpose, not ever in "substance" which is a meaningless word which explains nothing.   And the Nicene Creed says "consubstantial"- 

The whole concept was a philosophy mingled with scripture after the apostasy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/homoousios

[Spammer]

It's important to note that when thinking about the term 'one substance' (homoousious) in the creeds, substance must be understood as something not made of matter and not located in time or space. The English word 'substance' is bound up with materialism and this can lead to confusion about what Catholics mean by God, especially if the imagination is employed to try and picture God in the mind (an impossibility, in principal).  

Carry on and Merry Christmas!

Edited December 25, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

It's important to note that when thinking about the term 'one substance' (homoousious) in the creeds, substance must be understood as something not made of matter and not located in time or space. The English word 'substance' is bound up with materialism and this can lead to confusion about what Catholics mean by God, especially if the imagination is employed to try and picture God in the mind (an impossibility, in principal).  

Carry on and Merry Christmas!

That is precisely the problem.

It is literally no-thing.

Merry Christmas

[Spammer]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is precisely the problem.

It is literally no-thing.

Merry Christmas

It's only a problem if one is committed to philosophical materialism. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

It's only a problem if one is committed to philosophical materialism. 

No, one only need to be committed to definable non-circular sentences with meaning. 😀  Virtus domitiva. 

Edited December 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, one only need to be committed to definable sentences. 😀

If only there was an objective ground for one's definitions, and thus one's presuppositions. If you find it, let me know. 🤓

 

Edited December 25, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

If only there was an objective ground for one's definitions, and thus one's presuppositions. If you find it, let me know. 🤓

 

I said nothing about objectivity. 

It is logical coherence. 

Substance in that context is a word made up to pretend to be an explanation. 

It is like the Virtus dormitva which explains nothing. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

The Trinity is one by means of a magic undefinable stuff called substance.

One in love, is coherent.

One in purpose is coherent.

One as a family us coherent.

None if those are objective, yet they are explanations.

One in stuff that makes them one is incoherent and says nothing, explains nothing and is circular.

Edited December 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I said nothing about objectivity. 

It is logical coherence. 

Substance in that context is a word made up to pretend to be an explanation. 

It is like the Virtus dormitva which explains nothing. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

The Trinity is one by means of a magic undefinable stuff called substance.

One in love, is coherent.

One in purpose is coherent.

One as a family us coherent.

None if those are objective, yet they are explanations.

One in stuff that makes them one is incoherent and says nothing, explains nothing and is circular.

If you relax the implicit assumption that matter/energy/the material cosmos is self-existent, the 'whole show', the word 'one' and notions of logical coherence take on additional meanings.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Spammer said:

If you relax the implicit assumption that matter/energy/the material cosmos is self-existent, the 'whole show', the word 'one' and notions of logical coherence take on additional meanings.

I am sorry but that was quite vague.

Obviously also if you assume from the beginning that God created it all POOF that as well requires assumptions, and so there is nothing more to talk about unless we discuss the assumptions.

That is up to you at this point.  

But you know I love orthodoxy and could even accept a lot of it on a mystical base and that would be a good Wittgensteinian thing to do.   But to try to actually make philosophical sense of the Trinity using Aquinas as a competitor to contemporary philosophy just isn't fair.

The most brilliant warrior from 1200 AD could be taken out today by a school boy with a .22 caliber rifle and so it is with philosophy as well.   Scholasticism is now pretty much taught only in schools where there is no other option because of religious prejudices in favor of it, or as a history lesson in the evolution of philosophy.

But there isn't much to argue about if that is where God has led you, I would support that point in all times and places.   If thinking that way works to bring you to Christ, it is the best path in the world for you.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Spammer said:

It's only a problem if one is committed to philosophical materialism. 

Really the bigger question is in what sense any metaphysics, materialist or not, can be considered "true".    That would be the bottom line for me or any analytical philosopher.

I am strictly a pragmatist.   If it works in my life, that's fine but it has to be based on coherent arguments without circularity.   I don't care if one is a materialist or not- it is all about having a theory of truth to support one's beliefs.

Edited December 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Really the bigger question is in what sense any metaphysics, materialist or not, can be considered "true".    That would be the bottom line for me or any analytical philosopher.

I am strictly a pragmatist.   If it works in my life, that's fine but it has to be based on coherent arguments without circularity.   I don't care if one is a materialist or not- it is all about having a theory of truth to support one's beliefs.

All our narratives boil down to those pesky unprovable assumptions. It's no different for Wittgenstein vs Aquinas. If, in principal, no metaphysics can be shown to be 'true' on non-subjective grounds, then there's no basis for comparing whether one is 'truer' than the other and better aligned with the reality outside our brains. The principles of pragmatism and Alma 32 took you into the church and they took me out of it and into the hands of Aquinas. I've adopted different assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality, employed the corresponding linguistic terminology and spiritual practices, and my life is better for it. Alma 32 works. 

However, with no objective criteria for us to use to test whether your or my experience is the one that is truly God-sourced or receives the divine stamp of approval as 'the best', then both are equally the best; or equally the worst. We'll never know. One thing about Aquinas I appreciate, is that he allows me to point at a tree and say 'yep, that's a tree.' Pragmatism lets me point at a tree and say 'that sure looks like a tree, but the contingency of language and concepts forbids me from concluding that it really is a tree, since I really only perceive my perceptions, not the object itself. I can never know what it really is, let alone know - really KNOW - whether my spiritual experiences truly are God-sourced. In principle, that's ruled out.

If our knowledge is determined by our perceptions, and not the object known, there can be no knowledge. Pragmatism corrodes all truth and leaves us trapped in our brains in a prison of pure subjectivity.  None of us really lives that way, however. Who can?  What pragmatist sees a tree and behaves as if it might be something else - and in principle it might be, since 'tree' is a contingent linguistic convention rooted in a mystery object that we both perceive and agree to call 'tree' but who knows what it really is, since we can't directly experience it? What the object is in itself is totally unknowable.

Pragmatism traps us in our brains. Once this imprisonment is understood and accepted, though, we still have our lives to live and we live them as if Aquinas is right. We pretend. A tree is a tree and God has revealed the truth to me through the objects of my perception. I have yet to meet a Pragmatist who lives to the full the extreme skepticism that Pragmatism entails.

[Edit to add: I'm likely misunderstanding aspects of Pragmatism, but assuming I'm correct in my understanding that it's based on or incorporates the assumption that we only experience our perceptions of an object, not the object itself, then I see the extreme skepticism I mentioned as an unavoidable conclusion, with the realism of Aquinas as our only remedy.]

Edited December 26, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

All our narratives boil down to those pesky unprovable assumptions. It's no different for Wittgenstein vs Aquinas. If, in principal, no metaphysics can be shown to be 'true' on non-subjective grounds, then there's no basis for comparing whether one is 'truer' than the other and better aligned with the reality outside our brains. The principles of pragmatism and Alma 32 took you into the church and they took me out of it and into the hands of Aquinas. I've adopted different assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality, employed the corresponding linguistic terminology and spiritual practices, and my life is better for it. Alma 32 works. 

However, with no objective criteria for us to use to test whether your or my experience is the one that is truly God-sourced or receives the divine stamp of approval as 'the best', then both are equally the best; or equally the worst. We'll never know. One thing about Aquinas I appreciate, is that he allows me to point at a tree and say 'yep, that's a tree.' Pragmatism lets me point at a tree and say 'that sure looks like a tree, but the contingency of language and concepts forbids me from concluding that it really is a tree, since I really only perceive my perceptions, not the object itself. I can never know what it really is, let alone know - really KNOW - whether my spiritual experiences truly are God-sourced. In principle, that's ruled out.

If our knowledge is determined by our perceptions, and not the object known, there can be no knowledge. Pragmatism corrodes all truth and leaves us trapped in our brains in a prison of pure subjectivity.  None of us really lives that way, however. Who can?  What pragmatist sees a tree and behaves as if it might be something else - and in principle it might be, since 'tree' is a contingent linguistic convention rooted in a mystery object that we both perceive and agree to call 'tree' but who knows what it really is, since we can't directly experience it? What the object is in itself is totally unknowable.

Pragmatism traps us in our brains. Once this imprisonment is understood and accepted, though, we still have our lives to live and we live them as if Aquinas is right. We pretend. A tree is a tree and God has revealed the truth to me through the objects of my perception. I have yet to meet a Pragmatist who lives to the full the extreme skepticism that Pragmatism entails.

[Edit to add: I'm likely misunderstanding aspects of Pragmatism, but assuming I'm correct in my understanding that it's based on or incorporates the assumption that we only experience our perceptions of an object, not the object itself, then I see the extreme skepticism I mentioned as an unavoidable conclusion, with the realism of Aquinas as our only remedy.]

Yeah, love ya, but you don't get it.  You can't put God in a bottle. 

Think of Augustine and the little angel on the beach.

Even Aquinas gave up in the end.

 

[Spammer]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, love ya, but you don't get it.  You can't put God in a bottle. 

Think of Augustine and the little angel on the beach.

Even Aquinas gave up in the end.

 

Indeed, he did. And Augustine was trying to capture the Infinite within words and concepts, an impossible and futile act. The finite, limited LDS Heavenly Father is much more amenable to bottling.

So, how do we compare and determine whether your LDS spiritual experiences or my Catholic-Orthodox experiences, or something different, are objectively 1) God-sourced and 2) have the divine seal of approval as the 'best'? 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Indeed, he did. And Augustine was trying to capture the Infinite within words and concepts, an impossible and futile act. The finite, limited LDS Heavenly Father is much more amenable to bottling.

So, how do we compare and determine whether your LDS spiritual experiences or my Catholic-Orthodox experiences, or something different, are objectively 1) God-sourced and 2) have the divine seal of approval as the 'best'? 

Can't.

We all take matter unorganized and create our worlds.

At least the LDS recognize that. 

That's why I am here in the final analysis.  You can't put reality into a bottle any more than you can put God into a bottle.   Even physicists know that now. 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

All our narratives boil down to those pesky unprovable assumptions. It's no different for Wittgenstein vs Aquinas. If, in principal, no metaphysics can be shown to be 'true' on non-subjective grounds, then there's no basis for comparing whether one is 'truer' than the other and better aligned with the reality outside our brains. The principles of pragmatism and Alma 32 took you into the church and they took me out of it and into the hands of Aquinas. I've adopted different assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality, employed the corresponding linguistic terminology and spiritual practices, and my life is better for it. Alma 32 works. 

However, with no objective criteria for us to use to test whether your or my experience is the one that is truly God-sourced or receives the divine stamp of approval as 'the best', then both are equally the best; or equally the worst. We'll never know. One thing about Aquinas I appreciate, is that he allows me to point at a tree and say 'yep, that's a tree.' Pragmatism lets me point at a tree and say 'that sure looks like a tree, but the contingency of language and concepts forbids me from concluding that it really is a tree, since I really only perceive my perceptions, not the object itself. I can never know what it really is, let alone know - really KNOW - whether my spiritual experiences truly are God-sourced. In principle, that's ruled out.

If our knowledge is determined by our perceptions, and not the object known, there can be no knowledge. Pragmatism corrodes all truth and leaves us trapped in our brains in a prison of pure subjectivity.  None of us really lives that way, however. Who can?  What pragmatist sees a tree and behaves as if it might be something else - and in principle it might be, since 'tree' is a contingent linguistic convention rooted in a mystery object that we both perceive and agree to call 'tree' but who knows what it really is, since we can't directly experience it? What the object is in itself is totally unknowable.

Pragmatism traps us in our brains. Once this imprisonment is understood and accepted, though, we still have our lives to live and we live them as if Aquinas is right. We pretend. A tree is a tree and God has revealed the truth to me through the objects of my perception. I have yet to meet a Pragmatist who lives to the full the extreme skepticism that Pragmatism entails.

[Edit to add: I'm likely misunderstanding aspects of Pragmatism, but assuming I'm correct in my understanding that it's based on or incorporates the assumption that we only experience our perceptions of an object, not the object itself, then I see the extreme skepticism I mentioned as an unavoidable conclusion, with the realism of Aquinas as our only remedy.]

If you recognize that "all narratives" (including your own) boil down to "unprovable assumptions", then why do you take confidence in a narrative that claims certain knowledge?  Doesn't that seem like a less intellectually honest approach?

In regards to your question regarding pragmatists and trees.  I don't think any pragmatist would see a "tree" and behave as if it was something else, unless they were on LSD or magical mushrooms or some other hallucinogenic.  A pragmatist would behave as if it was a "tree" because that is their experience of it, and that is what works for them.

[Spammer]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can't.

We all take matter unorganized and create our worlds.

At least the LDS recognize that. 

That's why I am here in the final analysis.  You can't put reality into a bottle any more than you can put God into a bottle.   Even physicists know that now. 

 

The LDS view is grounded on an assumption about eternal matter, the truth of which is objectively unknowable. If everything we can know is subjectively grounded, the question of whether the immaterial exists, LDS vs Catholic, is a matter of personal preference, like whether pumpkin or apple pie is best. 

[Spammer]

If there is no objective standard for comparing religious experiences to see which corresponds best with reality, then it might be an interesting topic to discuss, but it's really the same as arguing over pie. Fun, but pointless. I'll take pumpkin with a slice of Aquinas. Yummy. LDS materialist cosmology is like mincemeat pie. No thanks! 

[Five Solas]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

...

If our knowledge is determined by our perceptions, and not the object known, there can be no knowledge. Pragmatism corrodes all truth and leaves us trapped in our brains in a prison of pure subjectivity.  None of us really lives that way, however. Who can?  What pragmatist sees a tree and behaves as if it might be something else - and in principle it might be, since 'tree' is a contingent linguistic convention rooted in a mystery object that we both perceive and agree to call 'tree' but who knows what it really is, since we can't directly experience it? What the object is in itself is totally unknowable.

...

When I read mfbukowski, I'm sometimes struck by how unpragmatic pragmatism must be.  Yes, it works pretty good when its purpose is to render the history & doctrines of the LDS Church unfalsifiable and thereby confound the critics (which in fairness is mfbukowski's only known purpose for it).  But to your point, could anyone actually live this way?  Imagine entering a contract with a business partner or a client with such views.  And now imagine there's a dispute and it lands in arbitration and the performance is being contested with the same sort of reasoning and arguments made on the forum.  Not likely to carry the day, is it?

--Erik

_______________________________________

Hey hey I saved the world today
Everybody's happy now
The bad thing's gone away
And everybody's happy now
The good thing's here to stay
Please let it stay

--Eurythmics, 1999

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you recognize that "all narratives" (including your own) boil down to "unprovable assumptions", then why do you take confidence in a narrative that claims certain knowledge?  Doesn't that seem like a less intellectually honest approach?

In regards to your question regarding pragmatists and trees.  I don't think any pragmatist would see a "tree" and behave as if it was something else, unless they were on LSD or magical mushrooms or some other hallucinogenic.  A pragmatist would behave as if it was a "tree" because that is their experience of it, and that is what works for them.

I take confidence in a particular narrative because it works best for me. I'm a pragmatist. It happens to be a narrative that claims to possess an objective standard - the existence of God can be rationally demonstrated. It also proposes a historical narrative that aligns well with the ancient documentary evidence. I've worked through the proofs and the evidence and it all makes sense to me. Pragmatism. Alma 32. Based on that, I agree there's an objective standard and can point you in it's direction. I'd be an atheist, otherwise. I'm a pragmatist, but not a Pragmatist. I believe an objective standard exists, against which our feelings and personal experiences can be compared.

Mormonism is the exemplar Pragmatic religion. It's truth claims are grounded solely on subjective experience, with no claim to possess an objective standard. It's like the tree example I mentioned. Whether the church really is true, or whether it's really a tree 'out there,' is in principle unknowable. Yet, church members (and analytic philosophers) act anyway as if their subjective feelings and experiences sre objective evidence. What else can they do?  Pragmatists  ascribe to a philosophy that leads to a corrosive skepticism, unless they choose to trust the sensory evidence (like a good follower of Aquinas) and act based on the assumption that it really is a tree 'out there.'  Wittgenstein informs their philosophy, but they put him on the shelf and pick up Aquinas when it's time to go about actually living. 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Spammer

[Spammer]

25 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

When I read mfbukowski, I'm sometimes struck by how unpragmatic pragmatism must be.  Yes, it works pretty good when its purpose is to render the history & doctrines of the LDS Church unfalsifiable and thereby confound the critics (which in fairness is mfbukowski's only known purpose for it).  But to your point, could anyone actually live this way?  Imagine entering a contract with a business partner or a client with such views.  And now imagine there's a dispute and it lands in arbitration and the performance is being contested with the same sort of reasoning and arguments made on the forum.  Not likely to carry the day, is it?

--Erik

_______________________________________

Hey hey I saved the world today
Everybody's happy now
The bad thing's gone away
And everybody's happy now
The good thing's here to stay
Please let it stay

--Eurythmics, 1999

Nope.  Indeed, I find it curious that Wittgensteinians say that ancient and medieval metaphysics is linguistic confusion and word games, yet exempt their own narrative from the same critique. It's true that that the irony of their situation is acknowledged, but they still go about talking about the good, better, and best as if there were an objective standard somewhere, which, in principle, they deny exists. What they should really be doing for consistency's sake, given Pragmatism's first principals, is sit on their hands and stay mum, cease discussing the good, better and best. 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Spammer said:

If there is no objective standard for comparing religious experiences to see which corresponds best with reality, then it might be an interesting topic to discuss, but it's really the same as arguing over pie. Fun, but pointless. I'll take pumpkin with a slice of Aquinas. Yummy. LDS materialist cosmology is like mincemeat pie. No thanks! 

Go do your thing then and eventually you too will end up as Aquinas and Augustine did, knowing that whatever you think God is, it is only a paradigm that works for you with your puny human brain, just like the rest of us. 

I think on our deathbeds, everyone becomes a mystic.  You are sure not parsing reality from appearances I am positive of that.

"Is this a hallucination or reality?" on your deathbed?   Perhaps in your case that will be it?

I think on your deathbed as you see the tube of light open you are purely in the subjective.    There is no one to rely on but your own consciousness, no priests to ask, no  creeds to consult, no bible to look up answers.   At that point it's between you and the Boss.  

No one can do better than the best they can with the information they have available.   I think he has that one figured out.    Justice and mercy time.

And after that it doesn't much matter who was right or wrong, you are about to find out, or not find out. 

"Through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

But you really think you can have words "correspond to reality" NOW about all this?   That you can compare your words with others to find out what is "objectively true?"

After you pass, look up Aquinas  and Augustine. and see what they have to say about that.   I think they will stick with the "thru the glass darkly."

And we can sit on a cloud and have a laugh at all these stories. 

 

 

[Spammer]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Go do your thing then and eventually you too will end up as Aquinas and Augustine did, knowing that whatever you think God is, it is only a paradigm that works for you with your puny human brain, just like the rest of us. 

I think on our deathbeds, everyone becomes a mystic.  You are sure not parsing reality from appearances I am positive of that.

"Is this a hallucination or reality?" on your deathbed?   Perhaps in your case that will be it?

I think on your deathbed as you see the tube of light open you are purely in the subjective.    There is no one to rely on but your own consciousness, no priests to ask, no  creeds to consult, no bible to look up answers.   At that point it's between you and the Boss.  

No one can do better than the best they can with the information they have available.   I think he has that one figured out.    Justice and mercy time.

And after that it doesn't much matter who was right or wrong, you are about to find out, or not find out. 

"Through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

But you really think you can have words "correspond to reality" NOW about all this?   That you can compare your words with others to find out what is "objectively true?"

After you pass, look up Aquinas  and Augustine. and see what they have to say about that.   I think they will stick with the "thru the glass darkly."

And we can sit on a cloud and have a laugh at all these stories. 

 

 

Oh, I agree with all of that, and can and do parse appearances from reality. Augustine, Paul and Augustine were correct. We do see through a glass darkly. What I find curious is how those who reject the existence of objective standards still go on talking about truth, the good, better and best without caveating every statement with an admission that what is being said is merely 'my truth, no different than my pie preferences.' 

Assuming 1) God exists, and 2) Jesus is his Son and rose from the dead, it's inconceivable to me that we would be left without a standard against which we can compare subjective experiences to determine which best aligns with reality. 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Spammer said:

All our narratives boil down to those pesky unprovable assumptions. It's no different for Wittgenstein vs Aquinas. If, in principal, no metaphysics can be shown to be 'true' on non-subjective grounds, then there's no basis for comparing whether one is 'truer' than the other and better aligned with the reality outside our brains. The principles of pragmatism and Alma 32 took you into the church and they took me out of it and into the hands of Aquinas. I've adopted different assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality, employed the corresponding linguistic terminology and spiritual practices, and my life is better for it. Alma 32 works. 

However, with no objective criteria for us to use to test whether your or my experience is the one that is truly God-sourced or receives the divine stamp of approval as 'the best', then both are equally the best; or equally the worst. We'll never know. One thing about Aquinas I appreciate, is that he allows me to point at a tree and say 'yep, that's a tree.' Pragmatism lets me point at a tree and say 'that sure looks like a tree, but the contingency of language and concepts forbids me from concluding that it really is a tree, since I really only perceive my perceptions, not the object itself. I can never know what it really is, let alone know - really KNOW - whether my spiritual experiences truly are God-sourced. In principle, that's ruled out.

If our knowledge is determined by our perceptions, and not the object known, there can be no knowledge. Pragmatism corrodes all truth and leaves us trapped in our brains in a prison of pure subjectivity.  None of us really lives that way, however. Who can?  What pragmatist sees a tree and behaves as if it might be something else - and in principle it might be, since 'tree' is a contingent linguistic convention rooted in a mystery object that we both perceive and agree to call 'tree' but who knows what it really is, since we can't directly experience it? What the object is in itself is totally unknowable.

Pragmatism traps us in our brains. Once this imprisonment is understood and accepted, though, we still have our lives to live and we live them as if Aquinas is right. We pretend. A tree is a tree and God has revealed the truth to me through the objects of my perception. I have yet to meet a Pragmatist who lives to the full the extreme skepticism that Pragmatism entails.

[Edit to add: I'm likely misunderstanding aspects of Pragmatism, but assuming I'm correct in my understanding that it's based on or incorporates the assumption that we only experience our perceptions of an object, not the object itself, then I see the extreme skepticism I mentioned as an unavoidable conclusion, with the realism of Aquinas as our only remedy.]

Since this has come up twice, let me correct it.

Pragmatism is about experience AS IT IS

It knows reality perfectly - AS EXPERIENCE which cannot be put into words.

YES I know what a tree "really is"- i have bumped into many of them and have stubbed toes to prove it.   What I bumped into was a tree as it really is.

If you cannot read the Rorty statement below and understand it, I cannot explain it better than he has.  Sorry.

The tree is the "CAUSE INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN MENTAL STATES"- out there, INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN MENTAL STATES

What is a tree "really"??   Is it really atoms of wood?  Who came up with the idea of atoms?   Are they the particles inside the atoms? Are trees conglomerations of energy and electric charges "in reality"???

Can't you see that the "scientific explanation" of what a "TREE" is is not about trees but about nuclear physics???  Which it self is hardly "complete" and never will be????

Do you read physics at all??

And then does nuclear physics describe trees as we see them?

Do you understand you do not see light waves or particles or whatever they are, and that color is produced by your brain??   DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Pragmatism explores how we speak and THINK CLEARLY about these issues and is not about "reality being subjective" AT ALL!!!!!!!!!

CAN YOU SEE that talking about TREES at all IS TALKING ABOUT HUMAN MENTAL STATES???

very very frustrating pardon me for losing my patience but it gets old 

very old

i suppose i should stop trying with this group and move on

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Oh, I agree with all of that, and can and do parse appearances from reality. Augustine, Paul and Augustine were correct. We do see through a glass darkly. What I find curious is how those who reject the existence of objective standards still go on talking about truth, the good, better and best without caveating every statement with an admission that what is being said is merely 'my truth, no different than my pie preferences.' 

Assuming 1) God exists, and 2) Jesus is his Son and rose from the dead, it's inconceivable to me that we would be left without a standard against which we can compare subjective experiences to determine which best aligns with reality. 

two for two

Since this has come up twice, let me correct it.

Pragmatism is about experience AS IT IS

It knows reality perfectly - AS EXPERIENCE which cannot be put into words.

YES I know what a tree "really is"- i have bumped into many of them and have stubbed toes to prove it.   What I bumped into was a tree as it really is.

If you cannot read the Rorty statement below and understand it, I cannot explain it better than he has.  Sorry.

The tree is the "CAUSE INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN MENTAL STATES"- out there, INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN MENTAL STATES

What is a tree "really"??   Is it really atoms of wood?  Who came up with the idea of atoms?   Are they the particles inside the atoms? Are trees conglomerations of energy and electric charges "in reality"???

Can't you see that the "scientific explanation" of what a "TREE" is is not about trees but about nuclear physics???  Which it self is hardly "complete" and never will be????

Do you read physics at all??

And then does nuclear physics describe trees as we see them?

Do you understand you do not see light waves or particles or whatever they are, and that color is produced by your brain??   DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Pragmatism explores how we speak and THINK CLEARLY about these issues and is not about "reality being subjective" AT ALL!!!!!!!!!

CAN YOU SEE that talking about TREES at all IS TALKING ABOUT HUMAN MENTAL STATES???

very very frustrating pardon me for losing my patience but it gets old 

very old

i suppose i should stop trying with this group and move on