Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Ontology, the Transcendence of God, and Theosis


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Sounds gooey.  Or it could be the stuff (honey?) on top of the bread.

The KJV makes this even more fun, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)   Now I feel like having a faith sandwich. 

Yeah, I don't know Greek but that translation was probably influenced by Aristotle through Aquinas. They were the substance boys! Every thing was "substance", unfortunately that can mean anything!

Does that have substance?

How do we measure it? ;)

Hmm 14 kilowhasis of substance. Not too much!

Posted
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, I don't know Greek but that translation was probably influenced by Aristotle through Aquinas. They were the substance boys! Every thing was "substance", unfortunately that can mean anything!

Does that have substance?

How do we measure it? ;)

Hmm 14 kilowhasis of substance. Not too much!

They were men of much substance. 

Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2023 at 3:00 PM, InCognitus said:

I have a very thoughtful and respectful Christian friend, and he and I share an interest in the writings of the early Christian fathers.  Recently we have been discussing the Latter-day Saint views on exaltation (as discussed in the Gospel Topic essay:  Becoming Like God) as compared with the early Christian views on deification or Theosis (or divinization, as some call it), which is the early Christian teaching that men can become "gods".  The early Christian views on Theosis that we have been discussing are all from within the second century AD (or pretty close to that).  Our recent discussion has centered on differences in ontology (i.e. the nature of being) between humanity and God, and the difference between the "created" and the "uncreated".  

There are a lot of historical and theological contexts that I believe are necessary to understand when trying to interpret what the early Christians meant when they taught that men can become gods in the second century AD, and so the discussion I have been having with my friend has gotten into a lot of complicated historical details that I may bring up later in this thread (I don’t want to over complicate this opening post).  But I explained to my friend that just as it would be wrong for me to read all of my Latter-day Saint views back into the early Christian writings, it would be equally wrong for him to read fully developed modern Christian theology back into the writings of the Christians in the second century AD, since there were a lot of doctrinal developments going on in that period of Christian history.

But I wanted to start out this thread by discussing one of the paragraphs in the Gospel Topic essay that started our discussion on the topic I used for this thread.   This is the paragraph in question (emphasis mine):

My friend sees a big difference here (and rightly so, from his modern Christian perspective) in the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that all humans inherently have a “divine nature”, and this is in contrast to the early Christian view (in his thinking) that humans and God have a completely different nature and are a completely different category of being, because they talked of God as the “uncreated one” and humans as the “created”. 

I explained to him that we also see a difference between the “created” and the “uncreated” from our perspective now, here on earth, but we also mean something different than modern Christians when we say we are “created”, since we don’t accept the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (and he is aware of this too, because we have previously discussed that doctrine.  He is also aware of the Gospel Topic essays on Premortality and Creation).  So making a distinction between the “created” and “uncreated” alone (without more theological and historical context) is not sufficient to indicate a vast difference in meaning between the early Christian teachings and Latter-day Saint teachings (although I do recognize that they probably did mean something different depending on the time period of the writing.  But at face value it isn't a difference).  There are many more details from our discussion that I’m leaving out (for now).  

But this got me thinking about the Latter-day Saint views on the transcendence of God (or if we even have any views on it), and how we view the differences between man and God relative to creation.  Part of the problem is that “transcendence” can be a relative term (and has different meanings).  But since we don’t adopt any of the philosophical ideas and language of modern Christianity, it’s hard to identify any Latter-day Saint teachings on the subject.

So the first question I have is, how do each of you view the difference between God (as the uncreated) and humans (as the created)?  And are you aware of any Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic?  And how do you see our inherent "divine nature" as fitting into the distinction? 

I’m also interested in how the non Latter-day Saints on the board see our views on this topic as well.

   Sorry to be late with this, From my LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, son of Thunder, Kryptonian  Archives  http://www.amazon.com/dp/1544689152/ 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Anakin7
Posted
On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm going to try to respond to the Latter-day Saint portion of your post now that it's not close to bed time and maybe I can process what I'm thinking :) 

From what I understand of your point of view (and I think I summarized this in an earlier post), your definition of "eternal" is that only God is eternal (without beginning, without end, self existent).  Consequently if matter was said to be eternal (or anything else, really), then it would be "God".  (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That definition is totally foreign to Latter-day Saint thinking.

There's plenty I agree with here. I think we're making some progress.

I want to clarify, though, a little about my understanding that God is undivided, and that God is beyond time and space. I'll say more about both of these ideas when I comment on the John 17 passage to which you allude.

I agree with God being without beginning, without end, and being self-existent. I would put forward, though, that matter, by definition, is material, and that it therefore is created and is not Creator. That's another way of saying that matter exists in time and space. I appreciate that you may disagree with my view--no problem. Just know that if you draw an example to illustrate something being eternal, and you choose matter, or really anything that is in time or space, on my end there are multiple category errors.

I'll also say a little on God being undivided. In my understanding, God being undivided is central to references to God, the Trinity, the disciples, the Church, etc. being "One," in Scripture, in the creeds, and in many other places. When God is said to be "Love," "Truth," "Good," "Beauty," etc. there is a usually unstated acknowledgement that we're running into the limits of language to describe God, because ultimately God is one, and is not divided.

   

On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

We define "eternal" in a similar way but without the "God" part of the definition.  We define eternal as:  Without beginning or end and self existent.  As for how we define God, he is the Supreme Being, the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6).  The intelligences or spirits that co-exist with God have been "organized" by God and begotten by God (he is the Father of spirits - Hebrews 12:9) to enable them to progress to become like he is.  This is the "becoming" part that you mention above.  But even for God (the Supreme Being), he increases in glory as he creates new worlds (by organizing the "eternal fabric" of the worlds) and as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

In this area there are important, even fundamental, differences in our definitions and understandings. For me, "Being" has an unstated "Supreme" to it, as God is "Being," is all-powerful, is eternal, etc. If the understanding is, instead, that "Supreme" is an adjective/adverb that modifies "Being" and that therefore there are other "Beings" that are not "Supreme" then I'm again running into the division problem, and am confused about "Being" as a concept.

Latter-day Saints seem to use "Being/being" somewhat interchangeably with "Person" (Personage?). Such usage is boggling on my end, and can be difficult to keep track of. I'm trying, I really am. I appreciate that you're trying to wade through my terminology and usages too.

"Becoming" does have a place in my theology, ultimately in relation to the Incarnation:

Quote

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

and this relates to "One," to adoption, and to reconciliation with God. Theosis is intertwined in these ideas, at least in my thinking.  

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

I think this is similar to what you are saying about the Latter-day Saint view above, but I wanted to make the differences clear.

I think this is confusion over the term "being" (perhaps), but also not helped by the definition of how God the Father and Jesus Christ are "one" in the Nicene Creed.  

Spot on. 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

When we say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, we mean that they are separate and distinct living and intelligent entities.  We are not referring to their essence or nature, since all three of them are eternal in their nature and they share the attributes of deity (sinless, perfect, complete, omnipotent, omniscient, and even omnipresent in their power and influence).  We don't accept the "homoousious" definition of the oneness of God as defined in the creed, at least in the sense it has come to be understood today. 

I'm tracking with you here. When you indicate "separate beings," for me you're running into the division issue.

One way to continue to discuss these concepts could be through the lens of theophanies. I believe that what I'm about to suggest would be a radical change in LDS theology, but if what Joseph Smith Jr. experienced was a theophany, and not actually the fullness of God--or the fullness of "Being" as I'd define it--then I would have all sorts of thoughts. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith might take notice. I think there would still be fundamental theological snarls, but there would be an abundance of publications and discussions, to be sure.

On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

As you probably know, we do say the three members of the Godhead are "one God" in unity of will and attributes of perfection, but this is the same kind of oneness that Jesus prayed for to the Father for his disciples in John 17:20-23, "that they may be one, even as we are one".  We see this as sufficient revealed evidence for how the Father and Son are "one God" and don't need any further explanation. 

And what you've written here is crucial to the division issue. I'm perceiving an assertion of unity of will and attributes of perfection, and I'd agree with those. And at the same time, I'm perceiving a division in Being--in fact, a positing of Beings/beings--at a fundamental level (material, in time and space, not eternal, etc.), and that division is fundamental.

Here's what I regard as an insightful approach to the John 17 passage that you've referenced. For me, it illuminates notions of "One/one" that we've been discussing. I'm interested in what you think of it. It's from St. Augustine:

 

Quote

 

TRACTATE CX

Chapter 17:21–23.

1. After the Lord Jesus had prayed for His disciples whom He had with Him at the time, and had conjoined with them others who were also His own, by saying, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word,” as if we were inquiring what or wherefore He prayed for them, He straightway subjoined, “That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us.” And a little above, while still praying for the disciples alone who were then with Him, He said, “Holy Father, keep in Thine own name those whom Thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (ver. 11). It is the same thing, therefore, that He now also prayed for in our behalf, as He did at that time in theirs, namely, that all—to wit, both we and they—may be one. And here we must take particular notice that the Lord did not say that we all may be one, but, “that they all may be one; as Thou Father, in me, and I in Thee” (where is to be understood are one, as is more clearly expressed afterwards); because He had also said before of the disciples who were with Him, “That they may be one, as we are.” The Father, therefore, is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, in such a way as to be one, because they are of one substance; but while we may indeed be in them, we cannot be one with them; for they and we are not of one substance, in as far as the Son is God along with the Father. But in as far as He is man, He is of the same substance as we are. But at present He wished rather to call attention to that other statement which He made use of in another place, “I and the Father are one,” where He intimated that His own nature was the same with that of the Father. And accordingly, though the Father and Son, or even the Holy Spirit, are in us, we must not suppose that they are of one nature with ourselves. And hence they are in us, or we are in them, in this sense, that they are one in their own nature, and we are one in ours. For they are in us, as God in His temple; but we are in them, as the creature in its Creator.[1]

 

[1] Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 408.

 

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, InCognitus said:

 

And yes, this can possibly be viewed to be teaching that the Father and Son are separate and distinct Gods who are one God in unity, but I think this is also clearly shown in the New Testament where God the Father is taught to be the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3,  2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3) and even the resurrected Jesus refers to God the Father as "my God" no less than four times in Revelation 3:12.

I think it makes complete sense, scripturally, reading the scriptures for what they say.

Does that help at all?

This last portion leads my mind to a discussion of the Divine Persons, and particularly to the Son having two natures (fully God and fully human).

We can certainly continue in this and in other directions.

What you've written helps immensely. Thank you.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I agree with God being without beginning, without end, and being self-existent. I would put forward, though, that matter, by definition, is material, and that it therefore is created and is not Creator. That's another way of saying that matter exists in time and space. I appreciate that you may disagree with my view--no problem. Just know that if you draw an example to illustrate something being eternal, and you choose matter, or really anything that is in time or space, on my end there are multiple category errors.

I might suggest that there are no category errors here that I can discern.

I just don't see them. Maybe you could show details at some point?

I am not seeing that material has anything to do with time, or any "definitions" which would indicate that, except perhaps some long accepted traditions which perhaps represent a habitual way of thinking.  

I believe that all of language is a human construction and therefore only represents other human constructions.

As an example, Matter and energy as interchangeable, perhaps collapsing into black holes, then exploding into a "new universe" forever sounds like at least a plausible theory even if only a human construction.

I see no LOGICAL category errors there.

Science, I think, sees no category errors in that paradigm either.

That's only one example 

And what if time is only the way we humans see things as very finite beings?  We think of our lives sequentially because that is the way we live them.  I see nothing to indicate that time is NOT a human construction simply because we experience things that way.

??

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with God being without beginning, without end, and being self-existent.

On the other hand, I have no problem with this either, and if I can think that about God, I can think about that as possible for godlings. 

Especially if we attach with it, human sequential experience, and how different this world seems to me now, than how it seemed to me at age 5.

Has the real world grown up as I perceive it happening?

That's "time" for you.

Oops, gotta catch the 8:30 train, so the world of time is catching up with me!

Amazing how retirement changes your perception of time.  This is Thursday, right?

Oh wait; no it's Tuesday.

Fergitaboutit that train... ;)

I'd be back in my dayless week eternal experience except my knees get a little more sore every month...

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted

Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young...

(Not Brigham...) on Time And Reality;)

"In the mornin' when you rise
Do you think of me, and how you left me cryin'?
Are you thinkin' of telephones, and managers
And where you got to be at noon?

You are living a reality I left years ago
It quite nearly killed me
In the long run, it will make you cry
Make you crazy and old before your time
And the difference between me and you
I won't argue right or wrong
But I have time to cry, my baby"
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Latter-day Saints seem to use "Being/being" somewhat interchangeably with "Person" (Personage?). Such usage is boggling on my end, and can be difficult to keep track of. I'm trying, I really am. I appreciate that you're trying to wade through my terminology and usages too.

Just as an example of linguistic usage, here is a site discussing "sentient beings"

I think it is clear that the use of "being" can vary, and that other usages are quite common.

That's all folks!  ;)

https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/sentience#:~:text=Evidence from multiple scientific studies,that matter to the individual.

And we have the ordinary dictionary definition:

be·ing

/ˈbēiNG/

noun

1.

existence.

"the railroad brought many towns into being"

Similar:

existence

living

life

animation

animateness

aliveness

reality

actuality

essential nature

lifeblood

vital force

entity

esse

Opposite:

nonexistence

2.

the nature or essence of a person.

"sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted

There is a great new paper, recently published by Interpreter, which discusses the subject of this thread in great detail.

I suggest we may read it, then "return and report".

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theosis-in-the-book-of-mormon-the-work-and-glory-of-the-father-mother-and-son-and-holy-ghost/

Posted
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a great new paper, recently published by Interpreter, which discusses the subject of this thread in great detail.

I suggest we may read it, then "return and report".

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theosis-in-the-book-of-mormon-the-work-and-glory-of-the-father-mother-and-son-and-holy-ghost/

Aw, man.  I wish I had read your post an hour ago, I would have listened to the MP3 of that article during my walk that I just returned from.  :) 

Thank you for pointing this out. 

And I appreciated your responses to Saint Bonaventure, because I have some of the same thoughts that you posted.  I still intend to add my own comments, but to be honest I get brain lock every time I try to wrap my head around the metaphysical jargon and I have too many distractions that have caused me to abort several attempted posts.

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Aw, man.  I wish I had read your post an hour ago, I would have listened to the MP3 of that article during my walk that I just returned from.  :) 

Thank you for pointing this out. 

And I appreciated your responses to Saint Bonaventure, because I have some of the same thoughts that you posted.  I still intend to add my own comments, but to be honest I get brain lock every time I try to wrap my head around the metaphysical jargon and I have too many distractions that have caused me to abort several attempted posts.

You SHOULD get brain lock from metaphysics because none of it ( no kidding) works out logically and THAT is from the undeniable FACT that all humans CAN KNOW is, wait for it, 😉, what the humans can experience!

By definition "meta-physics" as in "beyond physics" tries to study worlds BEYOND what humans can experience!

IS there a "reality beyond" what we can know?

Nobody knows because nobody by definition CAN KNOW!!!

So we postmodern pragmatists stick to what works, insisting that "metanarratives" - stories BEYOND ordinary experience - cannot be "true" if that requires us to know what cannot be known, like the correspondence theory of truth.

Works for me! ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Spellink.
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2023 at 9:32 AM, mfbukowski said:

There is a great new paper, recently published by Interpreter, which discusses the subject of this thread in great detail.

I suggest we may read it, then "return and report".

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theosis-in-the-book-of-mormon-the-work-and-glory-of-the-father-mother-and-son-and-holy-ghost/

Did you read the article?  I did.  It took me a lot longer to read it than it did for me to listen to it later, because I like to go down too many footnote rabbit holes!

The Book of Mormon portion is quite interesting but rather deep, and probably outside the scope of this thread (due to its Jerusalem / Book of Mormon 6th century BC setting and temple themes and complexity).  

But the first part of the article (down to the heading, "Theosis in the Visions of Lehi and Nephi") is right on point.  I like his distinction he makes between "soft (partial, limited) and hard (full, extensive) theosis".  (It reminds me of ordering soft serve ice cream compared to the good ol' fashion style Baskin Robins 31 Flavor version).  He describes it as follows:

Quote

Within orthodox Christianity, the eternal Trinitarian God may join humanity in history, incarnated as Christ, who mysteriously remains One with the Father who is outside of space and time.  But humanity can never transcend its contingent existence and join God as self-existent BEINGS, as true companions, whose existence is, like his, necessary and eternal.

Since that is true in the orthodox Christian view, a distinction must be made between soft (partial, limited) and hard (full, extensive) theosis. The word theosis is a coinage of Eastern Orthodoxy, by all accounts a branch of Christianity. In Orthodoxy, theosis denotes the beautiful, compelling idea that the proper telos of contingent human beings is to achieve, through the ministrations of Christ and the Holy Ghost, mystical union with God. It is not heretical to affirm that humanity may become maximally like God within the narrow confines of what is possible for a contingent being. But if God is the sole self-existent BEING who exists outside of space and time, it is heretical to affirm and logically impossible to cogently argue that contingent beings, the created creatures of the uncreated God, become — as Nephi and Joseph Smith indicate — fully like their creator. Soft theosis denotes Orthodoxy’s mystical union of contingent beings with the transcendent God. Hard theosis denotes the Restoration’s literal and complete transformation of humans — through Christ’s gracious atonement on which the transformation eternally depends — into beings who are in all material respects exactly like their divine Father, Mother, and Savior Brother. 

(Now I'm going to go eat some hard serve ice cream :))

Edited by InCognitus
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Did you read the article?  I did.  It took me a lot longer to read it than it did for me to listen to it later, because I like to go down too many footnote rabbit holes!

The Book of Mormon portion is quite interesting but rather deep, and probably outside the scope of this thread (due to its Jerusalem / Book of Mormon 6th century BC setting and temple themes and complexity).  

But the first part of the article (down to the heading, "Theosis in the Visions of Lehi and Nephi") is right on point.  I like his distinction he makes between "soft (partial, limited) and hard (full, extensive) theosis".  (It reminds me of ordering soft serve ice cream compared to the good ol' fashion style Baskin Robins 31 Flavor version).  He describes it as follows:

(Now I'm going to go eat some hard serve ice cream :))

Yes I agree.

The problem is. I believe, as usual, semantic.  Seeing God as both transcendent AND immanent is like believing both A and not A at the same time, or dead and alive at the same time, at least in "hard theology" using a fully logical usage.

God cannot be a father concerned with taking care of his children and being transcendent.

But this is a "mystery", for Catholics which to me is an adequate position I think for believers in that. We are talking about God here, who is supposedly beyond our understanding anyway.

But I like another position better, that the sacrifice of Jesus/Jehovah was to give up transcendence TO BECOME a Father AND take upon himself full immanence through his incarnation, being both Father and Son.  That is how the sacrifice of the atonement functioned imo. It was a double sacrifice for one person with two functions, both  Jehovah and Jesus.  Wow! What a gift!!!

Yes this causes problems with "Trinity theory" ,but I think the LDS position can get beyond that problem.  For us I think that both Father and Son are more ROLES than persons in our Godhead, and we can get past the "three in one" issue by placing, as we do, the Unity as being pragmatic or FUNCTIONAL.

Son of God AND Son of hu-MAN ity.

Like all humans, we can be both a father/mother to one and a son/daughter to another, while being the same person.  It becomes a kind of functional dualism, but fine for us since what unifies the Godhead is love and purpose, not substance.  The Godhead IS a family. In families we all bear different functions.

And then we have the Council of Gods as well, which already kinds of fogs up the entire notion of  a Godhead anyway- since we are functional polytheists as well.

Are all exalted people in a sense part of the Godhead?  Where does one draw the line, or IS there a line?

What difference does it make?

Does this theory cause conflict in the overall paradigm?

I think not.

All I know through personal spiritual experience is there is only ONE God out there to whom I bare my soul, mind and heart.

It's not a "party line" as we used to have in telephones of yesteryear. ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
On 5/16/2023 at 11:40 AM, mfbukowski said:

Just as an example of linguistic usage, here is a site discussing "sentient beings"

I think it is clear that the use of "being" can vary, and that other usages are quite common.

That's all folks!  ;)

https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/sentience#:~:text=Evidence from multiple scientific studies,that matter to the individual.

And we have the ordinary dictionary definition:

be·ing

/ˈbēiNG/

noun

1.

existence.

"the railroad brought many towns into being"

Similar:

existence

living

life

animation

animateness

aliveness

reality

actuality

essential nature

lifeblood

vital force

entity

esse

Opposite:

nonexistence

2.

the nature or essence of a person.

"sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others

I think we've just found another layer of misunderstanding, as I'm not trying to conform your definition of the word "Being" within the parameters of historic Christianity, or to a dictionary, or anything of the sort. What I am doing is asserting a relationship that can be understood mathematically, that is, in terms of formal logic. 

I'm saying that my approach--which is common and orthodox for my Church and tradition--draws a fundamental distinction with two sets (think of mathematical sets, and you'll be with me).

One set is "A." This set is God.

The other set is "Non-A." This set is not God. 

Logically, "A" cannot be "Non-A."

What I'm trying to convey is that my understanding of Latter-day Saint notions of being/beings is that they are "Non-A." That's a fundamental issue for me, and when a Latter-day Saint asserts that "Non-A" is "A" I'm perceiving a category error in their thinking. Maybe they are misunderstanding my thinking, maybe they are misunderstanding their own thinking, and perhaps both of these misunderstandings are in play. I could be wrong about this; I'm just trying to convey what I am experiencing.

Posted
7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

One set is "A." This set is God.

The other set is "Non-A." This set is not God. 

Logically, "A" cannot be "Non-A."

What I'm trying to convey is that my understanding of Latter-day Saint notions of being/beings is that they are "Non-A." That's a fundamental issue for me, and when a Latter-day Saint asserts that "Non-A" is "A" I'm perceiving a category error in their thinkin

I'm still confused.

You are saying that God then is a non-being?

Or a being?

I don't mean to make it complicated- God is neither CALLED a being or non- being for us, I think- I think we don't use the word very much because it IS so ambiguous.

Why is it important for God to BE or NOT be a "being"?

Sorry, I am feeling kinda dumb at not getting your point 🤔

Posted
7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What I am doing is asserting a relationship that can be understood mathematically, that is, in terms of formal logic. 

I'm saying that my approach--which is common and orthodox for my Church and tradition--draws a fundamental distinction with two sets (think of mathematical sets, and you'll be with me).

One set is "A." This set is God.

The other set is "Non-A." This set is not God. 

Logically, "A" cannot be "Non-A."

Ok, I see you DEFINING "being" as a category. Yes that's logical and I can go with that, but theo-Logically what does that do for us?

Are you inventing the distinction?  Ok too, but again, what does that show?

Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2023 at 3:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

I'm still confused.

You are saying that God then is a non-being?

Or a being?

I don't mean to make it complicated- God is neither CALLED a being or non- being for us, I think- I think we don't use the word very much because it IS so ambiguous.

Why is it important for God to BE or NOT be a "being"?

Sorry, I am feeling kinda dumb at not getting your point 🤔

What I'm saying is that I am defining God as set "A" and everything that is not God as set "non-A." 

Set "A" is a category of One because God is unique. A category of One goes well beyond exclusivity, though. It's fundamental to understandings of the Trinity, Creation, Incarnation, reconciliation to God (theosis), objective truth, etc. 

I'm also saying that when Latter-day Saints refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings, their descriptions, respectfully, strike me as belonging to set "non-A." Conversely, I believe it's possible that what I believe to be God, that is, set "A," a Latter-day Saint would consider to be in set "non-A." 

I'm going straight for formal logic--mathematics--so that sets "A" and "non-A" are mutually exclusive and can be accurately represented without polyvalent words. Textbooks in formal logic will sometimes present "A" and "non-A" as diagrams. If you tell me that what I'm saying is "non-A" then I'll have less trouble sifting through the different meanings our traditions have attached to words and will have a starting place for discussion.

Edited by Saint Bonaventure

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...