I Am Who AM

[3DOP]

I want to say that what the Catholic Church teaches about God and man is true, is impossible to believe naturally. It is so paradoxical as to seem illogical. The Catholic faith is incredible by the light of reason (incredible in the strict sense of the word, unbelievable, not Larry Bird telling Xavier McDaniel how he was going to shoot the last shot in his face and win the game kind of "incredible". I wish all people and especially journalists would not abuse the word "incredible", heh. What Larry Bird did was amazing, but it was credible, not incredible, according to the light of reason. Nobody needs faith to believe what they see great athletes do.

Here is the the Whopper Jr. that Catholics believe, but not according to the light of reason:

We think that when Moses asks God what His name is, when being commanded to lead to the children of Israel out of Egypt, we think it means that God is the source of all existence. He IS existence. That is how we understand Ex. 3:14. Yes, we believe in creation out of nothing. (Question for LDS might be: "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?"

But that is only the beginning, for through the mysteries of Adam's sin, the Incarnation of Christ, and Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. all souls are invited to become children and friends of this God who revealed Himself to Moses, and fellow brothers and sisters, fellow heirs with Jesus Christ, God's Son. Here is the Whopper:

"We no longer stand face to face with the transcendent God; now we are included in the inner life of the divine Persons in their relationship to each other. In the Holy Spirit and through the Son, we say "Father" to God. The Triune God lives in us and we live in God the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. God is not only a transcendent vis-a-vis, but an immanent indwelling of the human being, wherein the love that is God is our life in fullness."  (I could not figure out how to put the accent mark above the "a" in vis-a-vis which I understand to mean at least loosely, face to face )

---Gerhard Cardinal Muller, True and False Reform, What It Means to Be Catholic, English translation published by Emmaus Academic, (2023), p. 175, describing deification of the creature

That the God Who Is Who Is, would desire to communicate the divine life to created beings, wholly dependent on Him for existence is I know, foolishness to a lot of clear thinking people. I remember being told here that such a God would not hear our prayers.  I understand that it seems impossible to philosophically reconcile transcendence and immanence. It strains our vocabulary. But the Catholic faith leave philosophy behind here. The Catholic thinks this is what the transcendent God of Moses at the burning bush has subsequently revealed regarding His immanence. (So many of you don't have to look up the meanings, transcendence means unattainably far beyond, immanence means very truly near and intimate. This unfathomable "Existence" unites Himself intimately with his creature through the incarnation of His Son, the God-Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and glory now and forever. 

I can't argue that unbelievers in this are irrational. But I think it fair of me to say that Catholics are following neither Plato nor Aristotle. Our beliefs do not spring from reason. They are beyond reason. 

Any response will probably need to be tomorrow. Happy Labor Day to all of us laborers on a much appreciated civil holiday tomorrow, at least here in the US where I am intending to only mow the back yard and do a big barbecue. And maybe make a post or two if it seems fitting.

Rory     

Edited September 3, 2023 by 3DOP

[CV75]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I want to say that what the Catholic Church teaches about God and man is true, is impossible to believe naturally. It is so paradoxical as to seem illogical. The Catholic faith is incredible by the light of reason (incredible in the strict sense of the word, unbelievable, not Larry Bird telling Xavier McDaniel how he was going to shoot the last shot in his face and win the game kind of "incredible". I wish all people and especially journalists would not abuse the word "incredible", heh. What Larry Bird did was amazing, but it was credible, not incredible, according to the light of reason. Nobody needs faith to believe what they see great athletes do.

Here is the the Whopper Jr. that Catholics believe, but not according to the light of reason:

We think that when Moses asks God what His name is, when being commanded to lead to the children of Israel out of Egypt, we think it means that God is the source of all existence. He IS existence. That is how we understand Ex. 3:14. Yes, we believe in creation out of nothing. (Question for LDS might be: "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?"

But that is only the beginning, for through the mysteries of Adam's sin, the Incarnation of Christ, and Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. all souls are invited to become children and friends of this God who revealed Himself to Moses, and fellow brothers and sisters, fellow heirs with Jesus Christ, God's Son. Here is the Whopper:

"We no longer stand face to face with the transcendent God; now we are included in the inner life of the divine Persons in their relationship to each other. In the Holy Spirit and through the Son, we say "Father" to God. The Triune God lives in us and we live in God the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. God is not only a transcendent vis-a-vis, but an immanent indwelling of the human being, wherein the love that is God is our life in fullness."  (I could not figure out how to put the accent mark above the "a" in vis-a-vis which I understand to mean at least loosely, face to face )

---Gerhard Cardinal Muller, True and False Reform, What It Means to Be Catholic, English translation published by Emmaus Academic, (2023), p. 175, describing deification of the creature

That the God Who Is Who Is, would desire to communicate the divine life to created beings, wholly dependent on Him for existence is I know, foolishness to a lot of clear thinking people. I remember being told here that such a God would not hear our prayers.  I understand that it seems impossible to philosophically reconcile transcendence and immanence. It strains our vocabulary. But the Catholic faith leave philosophy behind here. The Catholic thinks this is what the transcendent God of Moses at the burning bush has subsequently revealed regarding His immanence. (So many of you don't have to look up the meanings, transcendence means unattainably far beyond, immanence means very truly near and intimate. This unfathomable "Existence" unites Himself intimately with his creature through the incarnation of His Son, the God-Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and glory now and forever. 

I can't argue that unbelievers in this are irrational. But I think it fair of me to say that Catholics are following neither Plato nor Aristotle. Our beliefs do not spring from reason. They are beyond reason. 

Any response will probably need to be tomorrow. Happy Labor Day to all of us laborers on a much appreciated civil holiday tomorrow, at least here in the US where I am intending to only mow the back yard and do a big barbecue. And maybe make a post or two if it seems fitting.

Rory     

I was reading John 17 just this week.

I’m not sure how things beyond reason can be reasonably discussed, much less shared, unless linked by an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion where “either you get it your you don’t” (is this an example of "passional reason"?).

I would only say that things a creator creates, and the creator of these things, no matter the source or substance of either, are by definition intimately united in and with each other’s existence without an intercessor. When I create a loaf of bread, I am in it (at the very least my thoughts and feelings are), and it (at least its "rising" into existence) is in my thoughts and feelings. Even more so if I prick my finger in making it, or when I see, smell, touch or eat it, or when I plan for or remember it. Even more so by virtue of each day of my life, and my ancestors’ lives, and each day of the bread’s ingredients’ existence and those precursors from day one leading up to each stage of union between the loaf and me. Neither my nor the bread’s existence really ever begins or ends (“nothing” is as “infinite” in this regard). Do we have an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion concerning creating bread?

If the baked bread were to change its nature, say to a stone, the intimacy, rather the joyous quality of intimacy, is lost since the change's inception was not instigated by the creator. An intercessor can change the non-bread back to bread, and this too is beyond reason. And if the intercessor is and always has been, and always will be, one with the creator (unlike the devil), all the better!

Edited September 3, 2023 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

I cannot speak for all LDS, and my views are often not in alignment with broader LDS thinking.

First, I think that Mormonism and Catholicism both share a bit of a challenge here - one which, generally speaking, neither organization is willing to admit. We both tend to prooftext the biblical text - we tend to decontextualize the text and then recontextualize it in the context of our own belief structure. There are reasons why this happens - and its probably not worth getting into the history of biblical interpretation (especially in a Christian context). But, let me provide some alternative contexts as a way of describing what I mean.

Mormonism as a whole tends to read scriptures in the context of revealed doctrine, without a lot of concern for historical context. More specifically, most LDS commentaries will tend to start from that traditional Christian understanding and then reinterpret in light of (now) traditional LDS views. So you can read here:

Quote

“I Am That I Am” is a form of “Jehovah,” one of the names of Jesus Christ. Moses and the Israelites understood the name to mean that God is eternal and not created by man, as were other gods of the day. This name was a way for the Lord to identify himself as the all-powerful true and living God. The Israelites came to greatly reverence this name and declared that speaking it was blasphemy.

The questions that you ask really aren't engaged all that much. That is, the two that you suggest - "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?" The second part isn't ever really discussed - Mormonism is perfectly happy to interpret the text as it reads in the King James translation. From that position, the question isn't so much about being correctly translated, but correctly interpreted. And from the first, there is a deep interpretive layer that beings by re-identifying the person of God referenced here with the pre-existent Jehovah/Jesus Christ. Rarely do LDS discussions take this sort of comment and extend it in a way that would both relate this interpretation to current LDS doctrine and also show how problematic such an interpretation is. That is, Jesus, in this text is a pre-existent spirit child of God the Father (just as all of humanity is). And in the same way that Jehovah is eternal and not created by man, so to is all mankind - sharing (at least in these terms) the divinity of Jesus Christ. (This isn't going to do any justice to the question of deification and the similarities and differences between Mormon and Catholic thought - but I am making these comments to sort of stir up a little introspection here).

For me personally, I run into a different set of issues - so here is my take on Exodus 3:13-15 -

"I am that I am" isn't a particularly good translation of the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. It just happens to have a lot of tradition. A better translation is: "I will be who I will be." And, in the context of the Exodus narrative, it is one of a series of three revelations of the name of God: (1) Ex. 3:13-15, (2) Ex. 6:2-8, and (3) Ex. 33:12-23, 34:6-7. So in Exodus 3:14 it isn't a statement about the existential nature of God. In some ways, it is to be understood (in the Hebrew narrative written thousands of years ago) as a statement that suggests that God will reveal himself to his people through the actions that he performs (and of which the Israelites will be witnesses). This becomes the preface for what we see in Ex. 6 and Ex. 33-34. For the record, I am aware of the challenges this sort of unifying interpretation has with various versions of the documentary hypothesis (one of whose early arguments was that these texts could be considered evidence because both Ex. 3 and Ex. 6 suggest that Israel was completely unfamiliar with the name of God before the events the text described happens). And then we have the problem of what the etymology of the name really is. Ex. 3 has AHYH (of course, that's the first person - anyone other than God who speaks would use the third person - just HYH). Ex. 6 uses YHWH. But, back to the translation - the reason why we have this "I am that I am" is because of the LXX translation of the Hebrew - "ego eimi ho on ... ho on" or, "I am the one who is ... the one who is". And since the LXX influenced the Vulgate, it leads to the tradition that we have. Later translation by both Theodotian and Aquila use the much more literal translation: "esomai hos esomai ... esomai" or "I will be who I will be ... I will be." This has received a lot of grief from a theological standpoint because it tends to create a temporal description of God's name rather than an absolute. This is a bigger problem in early Christianity than it was before Christianity. If we accept the idea that this isn't a statement of God's name or identity but rather the promise that God will (through his actions in the Exodus) prove to Israel who God is, then it creates a meaningful reading of the Hebrew text within the context of the ancient Israelite religion. And the later Christian interpretation of the passage is just that - a later interpretive reading. And the traditional Mormon view is merely an interpretation of that traditional Christian interpretation. I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign.

So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals.

[edit: I haven't seen Cardinal Müller's book that you reference here. I will take a look when I have some time. I have a couple of his books - On the Side of the Poor, and Benedict and Francis.]

Edited September 3, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was reading John 17 just this week.

I’m not sure how things beyond reason can be reasonably discussed, much less shared, unless linked by an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion where “either you get it your you don’t” (is this an example of "passional reason"?).

I would only say that things a creator creates, and the creator of these things, no matter the source or substance of either, are by definition intimately united in and with each other’s existence without an intercessor. When I create a loaf of bread, I am in it (at the very least my thoughts and feelings are), and it (at least its "rising" into existence) is in my thoughts and feelings. Even more so if I prick my finger in making it, or when I see, smell, touch or eat it, or when I plan for or remember it. Even more so by virtue of each day of my life, and my ancestors’ lives, and each day of the bread’s ingredients’ existence and those precursors from day one leading up to each stage of union between the loaf and me. Neither my nor the bread’s existence really ever begins or ends (“nothing” is as “infinite” in this regard). Do we have an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion concerning creating bread?

If the baked bread were to change its nature, say to a stone, the intimacy, rather the joyous quality of intimacy, is lost since the change's inception was not instigated by the creator. An intercessor can change the non-bread back to bread, and this too is beyond reason. And if the intercessor is and always has been, and always will be, one with the creator (unlike the devil), all the better!

Hi CV75. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Hopefully, I can make a satisfactory reply.

From the Catholic viewpoint, all knowledge is revealed by God. There are two categories of knowledge from which we may learn about all of the mysteries of creation.

1) From Creation itself.

Over the course of millenia mankind has discovered truths about nature, that has built an impressive storehouse of knowledge from generation to generation. This is called natural revelation. It is discernible by the light of reason. The Catholic Church teaches that through creation, men are accountable to discern the Author/Creator. In the loaf of bread you discuss, anyone would know that somebody made it, and by the use of their senses and reason, be able to discern some knowledge about the person who made it. The Church teaches that like your presence in the bread, so is the "presence" of God in everything He made. Here is St. Paul speaking about those in his own day, and why they are responsible to know that there is a God that created the world, with a notion of God's potency to act (his eternal power also, and divinity). This truth is not derivative from finding the right religion. It is a question of right reason.    

"Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

---Rom. 1:19, 20

2) From The Creator Himself.

It has pleased God to give all of his rational creatures a knowledge of His existence, with some hints that might lend itself to a belief in His goodness. But then there are truths about what He is like, why we should love, worship and adore Him, not for His benefit, but for our own well-being in the hierarchy of Creation. For this, God has to reveal Himself more directly. It would be more like CV74 introducing himself directly, if he were the baker in the back of shop, to those who complimented his bread. From him, his customers might receive a few tips about ingredients used and in what proportion. The Catholic Church holds that the God of all Creation has done the same thing. He began revealing Himself to mankind in a way adapted to our limited intellects. This is what we call supernatural revelation. It is beyond reason.  Reason takes one only so far when it comes to the knowledge of even created things. There are mysteries all around us. If there are mysteries beyond our ability to reason in Creation, how much more in the Creator? 

The word supernatural, as used here, in regard to God's revelation, must not be understood as it often is as "spooky", or "weird". "Supernatural", in this context simply means that a believing Catholic cannot attribute his faith to his unaided reasoning powers. What has been revealed to the Church is "beyond created nature", and we ought not to expect to fully grasp any of its mysteries entirely. Some of the truths are hard and seem deliberately so. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Of course LDS answer the question differently than the Catholics, but my point is that much of supernatural revelation seems like nonsense to those who shake their heads in unbelief at the hard sayings therein. Perhaps this is why we cannot accept it without heavenly help:

"No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him...

---John 6:44

I was prompted to start the thread when I read those lines I quoted above a few days ago, and recalled conversations over the years with numerous LDS who seem to perceive that if God is transcendent He cannot be a father to us, nor His Son a brother to us. I would change everyone's mind here if I could. I can't. But what I want to try to do is to help my friends here to understand why some Catholics find joy and peace of soul from the doctrine taught by the Church, which says that God wants to adopt us as His children, and communicate His very own life to us, to share the love and intimate union of the Holy and Blessed Trinity, and that all of creation is for that purpose. It is perhaps a hard saying to believe. But if one could think it is true, there are no words that I have that capture its sublimity. One author that I read even used the word "rash", to describe God's love for us, because, already supremely happy in Himself, he throws that away for a moment, to suffer for us miserable nothings in His Son, in order to bring us into his own bosom. 

"Now that the blessing has taken on earth the place once held by the Law, the servants of God have become sons and daughters. Even while living in the flesh, they bear evidence of their heavenly origin, by going on from virtue to virtue. Though sojourning in this vale of tears, they are ever on the ascent, approaching gradually nigher to the summits of holiness; they reflect in their lives the perfection of their Father, who, surrounded as He thus is in Sion by this noble family, is seen to be, in all truth, the God of gods."

---Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 11, commenting on the Introit (opening psalm reading of Ps. 84, for LDS, 83, for old Catholic numbering), from the 14th Sunday after Pentecost, which is just past. Here is part of the Introit reading and one more comment from the same source:

"Behold, O God, our protector! and look on the face of thy Christ! Thus begins the Church, as she advances toward the altar, whereon the holy sacrifice is going to be offered up. The Church is the bride of the Man-God; she is, as the apostle says, His glory; but the Spouse, according to the same St. Paul is both the image and glory of God, and the head of His bride. In all truth, then, and with full confidence that she will be graciously heard, the Church, in presenting her petitions to the Most High, begs of Him to look on the face of His Christ, who is also hers."

My hope is not that God and will look upon me and see a holy soul that I am not, but rather, that the Father will look upon me, and see the face His Blessed Son, without whom I can do nothing.   

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I cannot speak for all LDS, and my views are often not in alignment with broader LDS thinking.

First, I think that Mormonism and Catholicism both share a bit of a challenge here - one which, generally speaking, neither organization is willing to admit. We both tend to prooftext the biblical text - we tend to decontextualize the text and then recontextualize it in the context of our own belief structure. There are reasons why this happens - and its probably not worth getting into the history of biblical interpretation (especially in a Christian context). But, let me provide some alternative contexts as a way of describing what I mean.

Mormonism as a whole tends to read scriptures in the context of revealed doctrine, without a lot of concern for historical context. More specifically, most LDS commentaries will tend to start from that traditional Christian understanding and then reinterpret in light of (now) traditional LDS views. So you can read here:

The questions that you ask really aren't engaged all that much. That is, the two that you suggest - "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?" The second part isn't ever really discussed - Mormonism is perfectly happy to interpret the text as it reads in the King James translation. From that position, the question isn't so much about being correctly translated, but correctly interpreted. And from the first, there is a deep interpretive layer that beings by re-identifying the person of God referenced here with the pre-existent Jehovah/Jesus Christ. Rarely do LDS discussions take this sort of comment and extend it in a way that would both relate this interpretation to current LDS doctrine and also show how problematic such an interpretation is. That is, Jesus, in this text is a pre-existent spirit child of God the Father (just as all of humanity is). And in the same way that Jehovah is eternal and not created by man, so to is all mankind - sharing (at least in these terms) the divinity of Jesus Christ. (This isn't going to do any justice to the question of deification and the similarities and differences between Mormon and Catholic thought - but I am making these comments to sort of stir up a little introspection here).

For me personally, I run into a different set of issues - so here is my take on Exodus 3:13-15 -

"I am that I am" isn't a particularly good translation of the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. It just happens to have a lot of tradition. A better translation is: "I will be who I will be." And, in the context of the Exodus narrative, it is one of a series of three revelations of the name of God: (1) Ex. 3:13-15, (2) Ex. 6:2-8, and (3) Ex. 33:12-23, 34:6-7. So in Exodus 3:14 it isn't a statement about the existential nature of God. In some ways, it is to be understood (in the Hebrew narrative written thousands of years ago) as a statement that suggests that God will reveal himself to his people through the actions that he performs (and of which the Israelites will be witnesses). This becomes the preface for what we see in Ex. 6 and Ex. 33-34. For the record, I am aware of the challenges this sort of unifying interpretation has with various versions of the documentary hypothesis (one of whose early arguments was that these texts could be considered evidence because both Ex. 3 and Ex. 6 suggest that Israel was completely unfamiliar with the name of God before the events the text described happens). And then we have the problem of what the etymology of the name really is. Ex. 3 has AHYH (of course, that's the first person - anyone other than God who speaks would use the third person - just HYH). Ex. 6 uses YHWH. But, back to the translation - the reason why we have this "I am that I am" is because of the LXX translation of the Hebrew - "ego eimi ho on ... ho on" or, "I am the one who is ... the one who is". And since the LXX influenced the Vulgate, it leads to the tradition that we have. Later translation by both Theodotian and Aquila use the much more literal translation: "esomai hos esomai ... esomai" or "I will be who I will be ... I will be." This has received a lot of grief from a theological standpoint because it tends to create a temporal description of God's name rather than an absolute. This is a bigger problem in early Christianity than it was before Christianity. If we accept the idea that this isn't a statement of God's name or identity but rather the promise that God will (through his actions in the Exodus) prove to Israel who God is, then it creates a meaningful reading of the Hebrew text within the context of the ancient Israelite religion. And the later Christian interpretation of the passage is just that - a later interpretive reading. And the traditional Mormon view is merely an interpretation of that traditional Christian interpretation. I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign.

So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals.

[edit: I haven't seen Cardinal Müller's book that you reference here. I will take a look when I have some time. I have a couple of his books - On the Side of the Poor, and Benedict and Francis.]

 

[3DOP]

Mr. McGuire, you have read Cardinal Muller! I am impressed. I haven't finished one book by him yet. Hopefully this week. I would be keenly interested in any thoughts you might have about Benedict and Francis, but do not feel pressed, especially when I have yet to respond to your explanations of how you and your Church seem to see the things I brought up. Also, hopefully this week. Thank you for the time you took to explain your positions.

 

[CV75]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was reading John 17 just this week.

I’m not sure how things beyond reason can be reasonably discussed, much less shared, unless linked by an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion where “either you get it your you don’t” (is this an example of "passional reason"?).

I would only say that things a creator creates, and the creator of these things, no matter the source or substance of either, are by definition intimately united in and with each other’s existence without an intercessor. When I create a loaf of bread, I am in it (at the very least my thoughts and feelings are), and it (at least its "rising" into existence) is in my thoughts and feelings. Even more so if I prick my finger in making it, or when I see, smell, touch or eat it, or when I plan for or remember it. Even more so by virtue of each day of my life, and my ancestors’ lives, and each day of the bread’s ingredients’ existence and those precursors from day one leading up to each stage of union between the loaf and me. Neither my nor the bread’s existence really ever begins or ends (“nothing” is as “infinite” in this regard). Do we have an unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion concerning creating bread?

If the baked bread were to change its nature, say to a stone, the intimacy, rather the joyous quality of intimacy, is lost since the change's inception was not instigated by the creator. An intercessor can change the non-bread back to bread, and this too is beyond reason. And if the intercessor is and always has been, and always will be, one with the creator (unlike the devil), all the better!

Thank you 3DOP. It seems the inner strivings we have in common simply have different ways of outward expression through the religions we have chosen.

I describe your terms, natural revelation as the operation of light of Christ, and supernatural revelation as the operation of the Holy Ghost, which may also involve personal appearances by God (the Father and the Son together, or the Son alone) or heavenly agents, requiring at the very least spiritual, and often intellectual, and in many cases of personal appearances, bodily quickening by the power of the Holy Ghost. Both kinds of revelation are nonsense to the natural or carnal mind, but the good-faith mind is open to them, especially as witnessed and reported by others (faith comes by hearing).

I believe the good-faith mind brings peace and joy of soul no matter the object or subject of that faith; it keeps and treasures all it finds to be good. I realize that might open up a can of worms for any who find so much in this world that is not good, yet ostensibly provides the bad-faith mind peace and joy (semantics, hence my recognizing the role of the unspoken-yet-conveyed common passion). Jesus the Intercessor certainly stands between us and God in a good way, throughout the process of our ascent and becoming one until our eventual reunion with the Father and the rest of the Church of the Firstborn.

Why have we chosen different religions to express the same inner strivings for the same end? I like to combine and apply Jesus’ two explanations of other matters/mysteries: that “the works of God should be made manifest,” and a lesson from the Parable of the Laborers, “I will give unto this last, even as unto [the first].” Thus, we submit to our Intercessor’s good judgement to the best of our own, indicating there are natural and supernatural aspects of this also.

Edited September 4, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I cannot speak for all LDS, and my views are often not in alignment with broader LDS thinking.

First, I think that Mormonism and Catholicism both share a bit of a challenge here - one which, generally speaking, neither organization is willing to admit. We both tend to prooftext the biblical text - we tend to decontextualize the text and then recontextualize it in the context of our own belief structure. There are reasons why this happens - and its probably not worth getting into the history of biblical interpretation (especially in a Christian context). But, let me provide some alternative contexts as a way of describing what I mean.

Mormonism as a whole tends to read scriptures in the context of revealed doctrine, without a lot of concern for historical context. More specifically, most LDS commentaries will tend to start from that traditional Christian understanding and then reinterpret in light of (now) traditional LDS views. So you can read here:

The questions that you ask really aren't engaged all that much. That is, the two that you suggest - "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?" The second part isn't ever really discussed - Mormonism is perfectly happy to interpret the text as it reads in the King James translation. From that position, the question isn't so much about being correctly translated, but correctly interpreted. And from the first, there is a deep interpretive layer that beings by re-identifying the person of God referenced here with the pre-existent Jehovah/Jesus Christ. Rarely do LDS discussions take this sort of comment and extend it in a way that would both relate this interpretation to current LDS doctrine and also show how problematic such an interpretation is. That is, Jesus, in this text is a pre-existent spirit child of God the Father (just as all of humanity is). And in the same way that Jehovah is eternal and not created by man, so to is all mankind - sharing (at least in these terms) the divinity of Jesus Christ. (This isn't going to do any justice to the question of deification and the similarities and differences between Mormon and Catholic thought - but I am making these comments to sort of stir up a little introspection here).

For me personally, I run into a different set of issues - so here is my take on Exodus 3:13-15 -

"I am that I am" isn't a particularly good translation of the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. It just happens to have a lot of tradition. A better translation is: "I will be who I will be." And, in the context of the Exodus narrative, it is one of a series of three revelations of the name of God: (1) Ex. 3:13-15, (2) Ex. 6:2-8, and (3) Ex. 33:12-23, 34:6-7. So in Exodus 3:14 it isn't a statement about the existential nature of God. In some ways, it is to be understood (in the Hebrew narrative written thousands of years ago) as a statement that suggests that God will reveal himself to his people through the actions that he performs (and of which the Israelites will be witnesses). This becomes the preface for what we see in Ex. 6 and Ex. 33-34. For the record, I am aware of the challenges this sort of unifying interpretation has with various versions of the documentary hypothesis (one of whose early arguments was that these texts could be considered evidence because both Ex. 3 and Ex. 6 suggest that Israel was completely unfamiliar with the name of God before the events the text described happens). And then we have the problem of what the etymology of the name really is. Ex. 3 has AHYH (of course, that's the first person - anyone other than God who speaks would use the third person - just HYH). Ex. 6 uses YHWH. But, back to the translation - the reason why we have this "I am that I am" is because of the LXX translation of the Hebrew - "ego eimi ho on ... ho on" or, "I am the one who is ... the one who is". And since the LXX influenced the Vulgate, it leads to the tradition that we have. Later translation by both Theodotian and Aquila use the much more literal translation: "esomai hos esomai ... esomai" or "I will be who I will be ... I will be." This has received a lot of grief from a theological standpoint because it tends to create a temporal description of God's name rather than an absolute. This is a bigger problem in early Christianity than it was before Christianity. If we accept the idea that this isn't a statement of God's name or identity but rather the promise that God will (through his actions in the Exodus) prove to Israel who God is, then it creates a meaningful reading of the Hebrew text within the context of the ancient Israelite religion. And the later Christian interpretation of the passage is just that - a later interpretive reading. And the traditional Mormon view is merely an interpretation of that traditional Christian interpretation. I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign.

So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals.

[edit: I haven't seen Cardinal Müller's book that you reference here. I will take a look when I have some time. I have a couple of his books - On the Side of the Poor, and Benedict and Francis.]

I see at least a couple of kinds of “text,” one in terms of data/words and one in terms of content or theme. It seems to me that the content, theme or meaning of the better-translated phrase/name, "I will be who I will be ... I will be" was conveyed to the enslaved descendants of Israel by the contests and works that followed, showing that the god of this name was “not created by man, as were other gods of the day.” They did not use or understand the word “eternal” for a long time, but they probably understood the words of the name, and were compelled/invited, sooner or later (depending on individual perspectives), to feel and act as though it were synonymous with “eternal,” at least in comparison with the other known gods in their circle.

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I would be keenly interested in any thoughts you might have about Benedict and Francis, but do not feel pressed, especially when I have yet to respond to your explanations of how you and your Church seem to see the things I brought up.

I have a deep appreciation for Catholic theologians - and the few that I have had opportunity to spend time with have deeply impressed me. I think that there is some value in comparing Mormonism and Catholicism from the perspective that one is a mature organization that has existed for a very long time, and the other is a relative new-comer that has yet to begin experiencing much of the difficulty that was faced historically by Catholicism. I think that, given enough time, the two will continue to more closely resemble each other in some ways. Catholicism has found a way to find places for a larger number of roles within its organization than Mormonism has - although I think that Mormonism will move in that direction in the future. Time will tell.

I enjoyed the book. I think that it would be a more difficult read for many LDS members who don't have some familiarity with the language that is used (it tends to use a very formal and insider type language - even in translation). It also deals with a lot of past literature and philosophy - that will make parts of the text difficult for those who have little or no familiarity with those things.

From the outset, I think that I should be clear that I personally reject natural law theory almost entirely. This isn't a reflexive sort of response. A reasonable chunk of my personal library is devoted to discussions on natural law (and other philosophical ideas). The role of natural law in the development of modern society and religion cannot be understated. And I think that while its foundations are worth exploring, the actual application of it is frequently (in my opinion) seriously flawed (this should not come as a surprise given my philosophical orientation). But, even if I set aside my skepticism of natural law theory, the pragmatic application of natural law theory in Catholic doctrine seems problematic to me. This volume contains more than a little discussion involving natural law theory and its application.

Second, I thought that the arguments about separation of church and state were relevant. I think that they forwarded some ideals that are important. But in my notes, I find myself disagreeing with the way that Catholicism actually works - and I think that the Cardinal really glosses over the problems that exist when the Church becomes more of a participant in the non-religious sphere in which it normally operates. These are deeper questions that I think challenge religion across the board (naturally to different degrees). The Cardinal's discussion didn't help me understand why the Church should deserve special dispensation or protection of its religious values when it operates outside of that religious sphere.

The other thing that stood out to me was something he wrote early in the text: "The Christian faith does not alienate us from life and modern culture." This seems to be both true and not true. I think on the one hand, Catholicism (like Mormonism) tries to encourage the practical daily integration of religion into our lives and the way that we engage all of the spheres in which we operate. And in this sense, the Church encourages just the opposite of that alienation. I think that problems occur when the Church has difficulty understanding or working with modern cultural values in the process of doing so. Perhaps the most visible area for this at this time is gender issues (not LGBTQ+ type gender issues but the more routine M/F binary issues). When modern society promotes an aggressive gender equality in both theory and application, while the Church promotes gender equality mostly only in theory, this creates an alienation where the faith intersects modern culture. I am not meaning, in this critique to suggest that the Church needs to change its theology (or perhaps even its values) - I am suggesting that the Church should be considered with tradition that is kept merely for the sake of tradition. The very notion of "modern culture" implies change, and the Church should be willing to differentiate between what is closely tied to to theology and what is merely traditional (and which ought perhaps to change to conform more with modern culture).

Finally, I think that there are two topics in the text which are, I think, really good discussions (and from which Mormonism could take examples of how to improve). These are the theological discussions about the need for theology and the need for the Church to better articulate its call to liberate the poor (and what that means for the Church and its resources). I think that Mormonism will find a need (as it ages) to have greater discussions about the need for theology and its role in the Church (a part of the appeal to rational belief). And I think that the other is more immediately pressing as the LDS Church finds itself in possession of a lot of resources without much of a public discourse on how it should be using those resources in the furtherance of its mission and role as it sees it.

[3DOP]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:49 PM, 3DOP said:

I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign.

So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals.

The quote is not me. I don't know how to fix things like this, How does it make it seem like that was me, but Benjamin McGuire, to whom I want to address said:

Benjamin

"I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign.

So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals."

Rory

I am satisfied with admitting to the possibility that "no Israelite at the time of Moses would have understood..." what we in this time of greater revelation have received whether we be LDS, Catholic, or other Bible believers. Think of the Emmaeus Road, when the disciples hearts burned while Jesus opened to them the Scriptures. Surely those same disciples had heard or read those same Scriptures, but did not understand, until Jesus explained to them how they were about Him. Likewise, we have our Lord verbally affirming that those who said they believed in Moses, should also believe in Him. Why?

It isn't something that one could expect a faithful "Israelite at the time of Moses" to understand:

"Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." ---Jn. 5:34

"Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"---Jn. 5:45-47

Thank you again for your attention to my proposals...now a few weeks ago. I am suggesting now that what the "Israelite at the time of Moses" understood the Scripture, attributed to Moses, was valuable, but incomplete according to the Son of God. Not that the Israelite received no truth. But there was more. And according to Jesus Christ, Moses testified of Jesus, who the Israelites at the time of Moses will never be blamed for failing to understand in its full meaning.

Sorry to be so late. Anyway, Mr. McGuire, thank you for your prompt and articulate reply. But I think that it is plausible that the Christian is warranted for going beyond what the "Israelite at the time of Moses", could understand from the Pentateuch. Likewise that same Israelite is excused from his limited understanding.   

3DOP

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Sorry to be so late. Anyway, Mr. McGuire, thank you for your prompt and articulate reply. But I think that it is plausible that the Christian is warranted for going beyond what the "Israelite at the time of Moses", could understand from the Pentateuch. Likewise that same Israelite is excused from his limited understanding.

We certainly agree on this. I think it is appropriate for us to 'go beyond.' What is inappropriate isn't this reinterpretation or re-understanding of scripture in current contexts, but to read the text in a current context and to pretend that this is what the original text in its original context meant all along. And from my LDS background, I would further suggest that it is wrong to decide that our reading in our current context is the final reading of the text - that it will not change in the future with 'greater revelation'.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We certainly agree on this. I think it is appropriate for us to 'go beyond.' What is inappropriate isn't this reinterpretation or re-understanding of scripture in current contexts, but to read the text in a current context and to pretend that this is what the original text in its original context meant all along. And from my LDS background, I would further suggest that it is wrong to decide that our reading in our current context is the final reading of the text - that it will not change in the future with 'greater revelation'.

I mostly agree with you here, but the problem, as I see it, is that in addition to claiming greater revelation, we (Mormonism) also claim to be a restauration movement. Through, it seems we are abandoning much of what was considered "restored" by Joseph Smith. Things like polygamy, patriarchal priesthood, an actual gathering to Zion, millennialism and so on. When are we actually seeing with greater understanding and when are we abandoning plain and precious truths?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I mostly agree with you here, but the problem, as I see it, is that in addition to claiming greater revelation, we (Mormonism) also claim to be a restauration movement. Through, it seems we are abandoning much of what was considered "restored" by Joseph Smith. Things like polygamy, patriarchal priesthood, an actual gathering to Zion, millennialism and so on. When are we actually seeing with greater understanding and when are we abandoning plain and precious truths?

Cue @JLHPROF!

[pogi]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

When are we actually seeing with greater understanding and when are we abandoning plain and precious truths?

"He who has eyes to see..." 

That is all we have to go on in the end.  We can't just implicitly and blindly trust that all changes are progressive, rather than regressive.  Our own understanding can't always be trusted either.  It is a messy mist of darkness we are wading through, isn't it?   Feeling our way down the rod of iron is not as solidly sure as we may wish to believe. 

Edited September 22, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

16 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The quote is not me. I don't know how to fix things like this, How does it make it seem like that was me, but Benjamin McGuire, to whom I want to address said:

This usually happens when you quote someone’s comment from a quote in another’s post rather than the original one.  So my guess is you used the quote in this post 

 

rather than the original one here:

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I mostly agree with you here, but the problem, as I see it, is that in addition to claiming greater revelation, we (Mormonism) also claim to be a restauration movement. Through, it seems we are abandoning much of what was considered "restored" by Joseph Smith. Things like polygamy, patriarchal priesthood, an actual gathering to Zion, millennialism and so on. When are we actually seeing with greater understanding and when are we abandoning plain and precious truths?

 Notice a wisp of contradiction here.

You point to the renewed emphasis on personal revelation, and possible  conflict with that idea and restoration.  Yet we need personal revelation to know it REALLY IS a restoration.

The rest? Still there but with a more nuanced and real explanations. 

Less mystery magic and more logic.

Yet most of the members are stuck in mystery magic, because of what mommy learned in Utah Primary50 years ago.  If you think God really does not live on Kolob, out goes the baby with the bathwater.

Polygamy?  Still exists in the Celestial Kingdom,-- and IF needed on earth, after the world commits suicide, it could restore what's left of the population, and become a family based protective culture with multiple incomes, and still under "God's law" of Chastity, unlike other possible multi-member family configurations.

Patriarchal Priesthood?  Alive and well -- and anyone who has a calling bears delegated priesthood authority for that calling.  Lucky you!  Got a calling? Your authority is Priesthood authority!

Gathering? Ever heard a talk by President Nelson? 

Millenialism? Come on! For those in my ward, preparedness is a big deal, with expectations of society falling apart.

And Missouri? Heck the only places left where people believe in God are certainly not on the US coastlines!

The only place you can live in a culture of believers is in the middle of the US at least IN the US!  Not to mention buying a house!!  Where is  Independence Mo?

Smack in the center of the US!

(AND a good place to buy rental houses)!!

😏😉  No  magical mystery tour THERE !

 

[Navidad]

On 9/3/2023 at 3:01 PM, 3DOP said:

I want to say that what the Catholic Church teaches about God and man is true, is impossible to believe naturally. It is so paradoxical as to seem illogical. The Catholic faith is incredible by the light of reason (incredible in the strict sense of the word, unbelievable, not Larry Bird telling Xavier McDaniel how he was going to shoot the last shot in his face and win the game kind of "incredible". I wish all people and especially journalists would not abuse the word "incredible", heh. What Larry Bird did was amazing, but it was credible, not incredible, according to the light of reason. Nobody needs faith to believe what they see great athletes do.

Here is the the Whopper Jr. that Catholics believe, but not according to the light of reason:

We think that when Moses asks God what His name is, when being commanded to lead to the children of Israel out of Egypt, we think it means that God is the source of all existence. He IS existence. That is how we understand Ex. 3:14. Yes, we believe in creation out of nothing. (Question for LDS might be: "What do you gather from those words?" "Do LDS believe that those words are accurate and correctly translated?"

But that is only the beginning, for through the mysteries of Adam's sin, the Incarnation of Christ, and Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. all souls are invited to become children and friends of this God who revealed Himself to Moses, and fellow brothers and sisters, fellow heirs with Jesus Christ, God's Son. Here is the Whopper:

"We no longer stand face to face with the transcendent God; now we are included in the inner life of the divine Persons in their relationship to each other. In the Holy Spirit and through the Son, we say "Father" to God. The Triune God lives in us and we live in God the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. God is not only a transcendent vis-a-vis, but an immanent indwelling of the human being, wherein the love that is God is our life in fullness."  (I could not figure out how to put the accent mark above the "a" in vis-a-vis which I understand to mean at least loosely, face to face )

---Gerhard Cardinal Muller, True and False Reform, What It Means to Be Catholic, English translation published by Emmaus Academic, (2023), p. 175, describing deification of the creature

That the God Who Is Who Is, would desire to communicate the divine life to created beings, wholly dependent on Him for existence is I know, foolishness to a lot of clear thinking people. I remember being told here that such a God would not hear our prayers.  I understand that it seems impossible to philosophically reconcile transcendence and immanence. It strains our vocabulary. But the Catholic faith leave philosophy behind here. The Catholic thinks this is what the transcendent God of Moses at the burning bush has subsequently revealed regarding His immanence. (So many of you don't have to look up the meanings, transcendence means unattainably far beyond, immanence means very truly near and intimate. This unfathomable "Existence" unites Himself intimately with his creature through the incarnation of His Son, the God-Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and glory now and forever. 

I can't argue that unbelievers in this are irrational. But I think it fair of me to say that Catholics are following neither Plato nor Aristotle. Our beliefs do not spring from reason. They are beyond reason. 

Any response will probably need to be tomorrow. Happy Labor Day to all of us laborers on a much appreciated civil holiday tomorrow, at least here in the US where I am intending to only mow the back yard and do a big barbecue. And maybe make a post or two if it seems fitting.

Rory     

Quick Question my friend: How is what you have declared here different from what you believed as a Baptist? In reading your post, the only thing I can think of is the efficacy or salvific nature of baptism. I don't think my Fundamentalist friends get too much into transcendence and immanence - but if they did, I think they would believe the same thing about God's transcendence and immanence as you have stated. Am I wrong? Best wishes.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:34 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism as a whole tends to read scriptures in the context of revealed doctrine, without a lot of concern for historical context. More specifically, most LDS commentaries will tend to start from that traditional Christian understanding and then reinterpret in light of (now) traditional LDS views. So you can read here:

Thanks. I think you nailed it on this comment. My experience of five years in the ward sunday school class was a very simple plain meaning of the text and then when and if there was interpretation it was only to interpret the Bible in light of and to validate LDS teachings, instead of the other way around. One of the reasons I enjoy being in a non-denominational mindset is that it gives me liberty to read, pray, study, ponder, and then interpret in light of the "truth" as I find it to be in light of the Scripture. I appreciate the Moravian position in all of that.

Take care. I always enjoy your posts. They cause me to think. I appreciate that.

[3DOP]

On 9/22/2023 at 2:36 PM, Navidad said:

Quick Question my friend: How is what you have declared here different from what you believed as a Baptist? In reading your post, the only thing I can think of is the efficacy or salvific nature of baptism. I don't think my Fundamentalist friends get too much into transcendence and immanence - but if they did, I think they would believe the same thing about God's transcendence and immanence as you have stated. Am I wrong? Best wishes.

At Hyles-Anderson, the emphasis was heavily utilitarian. It was more of a vocational training on how to build or maintain an independent Baptist church, than a seminary, which I presume would be more theological. 

So my answer would be that in my opinion, you are not wrong about your intuition regarding a great many of those who identify as Fundamental Baptist. 

Regards, 

Rory

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:01 PM, 3DOP said:

That the God Who Is Who Is, would desire to communicate the divine life to created beings, wholly dependent on Him for existence is I know, foolishness to a lot of clear thinking people. I remember being told here that such a God would not hear our prayers.  I understand that it seems impossible to philosophically reconcile transcendence and immanence.

I have changed my view on this and I think Rorty's version of anti-realism, perhaps ironically to some, solve the apparent paradox.

Anti-realism says, in brief, that we as humans are ALL blind to reality "as it is" because all we know or believe MUST be limited to our human perceptions.

We see only a blurry mirror of "reality" in human experience because our bodies limit our understanding and perceptions.

One example is color- is color "real"?

Yes and no! 

Our own science teaches us about different frequencies of light passing through our eyes and brains so that in one sense, yes color is real.  Yet color doesn't "exist" in the world, but simply in our personal experiences.

And then we also have to deal with the ambiguity of language.  Even with the color red, there are different shades of red, then we have crimson red, blood red, fire engine red, cardinal red etc.

So if we see "truth" as based on human experience only- which I think is the best solution, we can experience God as both transcendent AND immanent due to these two phenomena- one our brain filters and two- linguistic ambiguity.

But then what IS "Truth"? It has to be relative because we do not "see face to face"

Only God does see ANYTHING "as it is", but scripture tells us that " we see through a mirror darkly but THEN face to face"

So we are limited both in seeing "things as they are are" AND also SAYING/describing a perfect representation to anything.

So Catholics don't look quite as illogical- it's not their fault, it's just that they don't see relativism as the solution. 

 

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have changed my view on this and I think Rorty's version of anti-realism, perhaps ironically to some, solve the apparent paradox.

Anti-realism says, in brief, that we as humans are ALL blind to reality "as it is" because all we know or believe MUST be limited to our human perceptions.

We see only a blurry mirror of "reality" in human experience because our bodies limit our understanding and perceptions.

One example is color- is color "real"?

Yes and no! 

Our own science teaches us about different frequencies of light passing through our eyes and brains so that in one sense, yes color is real.  Yet color doesn't "exist" in the world, but simply in our personal experiences.

And then we also have to deal with the ambiguity of language.  Even with the color red, there are different shades of red, then we have crimson red, blood red, fire engine red, cardinal red etc.

So if we see "truth" as based on human experience only- which I think is the best solution, we can experience God as both transcendent AND immanent due to these two phenomena- one our brain filters and two- linguistic ambiguity.

But then what IS "Truth"? It has to be relative because we do not "see face to face"

Only God does see ANYTHING "as it is", but scripture tells us that " we see through a mirror darkly but THEN face to face"

So we are limited both in seeing "things as they are are" AND also SAYING/describing a perfect representation to anything.

So Catholics don't look quite as illogical- it's not their fault, it's just that they don't see relativism as the solution. 

 

Mark, we may never fully agree here below. But I acknowledge that you have influenced my thinking, especially in regard to the  imprecision of language. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, we may never fully agree here below. But I acknowledge that you have influenced my thinking, especially in regard to the  imprecision of language. 

 

Thanks, I'm honored. 🙂