J
Jerusha
Guest
Go right ahead.
Rebuttal of apparent contradictions welcome, of course.
Rebuttal of apparent contradictions welcome, of course.
Contradictions witin Catholicism vs contradictions within Mormonism
- Status
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Jerusha,
I would be interested especially if there are any non-LDS who have read Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought and see contradictions within his systematization of LDS theology. IMO there are seeming contradictions all through Mormonism, Catholicism, and the Bible. The Catholic Church with its emphasis upon systematic theology and DOCTRINE has offer much on these issues. The CoJCoLDS with its emphasis upon a personal relationship with Christ to such an extent that this becomes for most the foundation of their knowledge that the CoJCoLDS is God’s will for their lives, has placed little to no emphasis upon these questions.
So, if this was a LDS board, 50 LDS could provide one seeming Catholic contradiction and swamp the 5 Catholics with things much addressed in the past. As this is a Catholic board I fear the converse.
So, I will offer one Catholic thing. I have not had a Catholic explain to me this ever. I will also look back on this thread sometime tomorrow (>24 hours from now) in order to discover what YOU the thread started thinks is the one most difficult contradiction within LDS theology. I will then address that (and likely use Ostler’s thought to do that unless I find Ostler’s thought not applicable).
I am reluctant to attempt to deal with the volume of other stuff that could be added by Catholics concerning Mormonism (though I might pop in). However, I would suggest GOOGLE to anyone who is genuinely interested in a response. I find that using Google while including “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Mormon” usually produces an apologetic response.
I will look for your acceptance or rejection of this proposal AND I will look for your TOP issue too.
Here is the issue I will offer. I choose it because of its simplicity.
At another place Aquinas claims that God can “see” human choices with a “divine sight.”
Of course this allows God to know what humans do only by denying #1.
I believe there are many other problems that are more undermining to informed/educated faith than this, but this is one of the most simple and straight forward problems to lay out.
Charity, TOm
I would be interested especially if there are any non-LDS who have read Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought and see contradictions within his systematization of LDS theology. IMO there are seeming contradictions all through Mormonism, Catholicism, and the Bible. The Catholic Church with its emphasis upon systematic theology and DOCTRINE has offer much on these issues. The CoJCoLDS with its emphasis upon a personal relationship with Christ to such an extent that this becomes for most the foundation of their knowledge that the CoJCoLDS is God’s will for their lives, has placed little to no emphasis upon these questions.
So, if this was a LDS board, 50 LDS could provide one seeming Catholic contradiction and swamp the 5 Catholics with things much addressed in the past. As this is a Catholic board I fear the converse.
So, I will offer one Catholic thing. I have not had a Catholic explain to me this ever. I will also look back on this thread sometime tomorrow (>24 hours from now) in order to discover what YOU the thread started thinks is the one most difficult contradiction within LDS theology. I will then address that (and likely use Ostler’s thought to do that unless I find Ostler’s thought not applicable).
I am reluctant to attempt to deal with the volume of other stuff that could be added by Catholics concerning Mormonism (though I might pop in). However, I would suggest GOOGLE to anyone who is genuinely interested in a response. I find that using Google while including “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Mormon” usually produces an apologetic response.
I will look for your acceptance or rejection of this proposal AND I will look for your TOP issue too.
Here is the issue I will offer. I choose it because of its simplicity.
- God possesses aseity (exists a se). He is impassible and immutable so unaffected/unchanged by that which is external to Him.
- Humans have free will and choose to act.
- God know what humans do because He is omniscient
The above three things I THINK are firmly part of Catholic theology. I do not believe they are COMPOSSIBLE. They cannot all be true at the same time.
At another place Aquinas claims that God can “see” human choices with a “divine sight.”
Of course this allows God to know what humans do only by denying #1.
I believe there are many other problems that are more undermining to informed/educated faith than this, but this is one of the most simple and straight forward problems to lay out.
Charity, TOm
B
BJRumph
Guest
How does the ability to perceive an outside action negate the possibility of being intrinsically/substantively unaffected by the observation?
Even in the most fluid of pop-science, the Observer changes the observed, but the observed has no particular affect on the observer…
Even in the cases, such as the OT refrences to such (like Moses) 'changing" God’s mind on a subject (like wiping out the isrealites), the ‘fact’ of point three in actuality creates the necessity of point one.
By being “omnicient”, He cannot, by definition, be ‘changed’ due to some factor of human free will due to its unforseen action or result (which, logically, is the only reason there would be the possible necessity of changing).
I guess, if one were to assume a panthiestic reality, then I could see a ‘problem’, but the Catholic Church rejects panthiesm, so I cannot see the contradiction you are proposing for the “Catholic” portion of the argument.
Even in the most fluid of pop-science, the Observer changes the observed, but the observed has no particular affect on the observer…
Even in the cases, such as the OT refrences to such (like Moses) 'changing" God’s mind on a subject (like wiping out the isrealites), the ‘fact’ of point three in actuality creates the necessity of point one.
By being “omnicient”, He cannot, by definition, be ‘changed’ due to some factor of human free will due to its unforseen action or result (which, logically, is the only reason there would be the possible necessity of changing).
I guess, if one were to assume a panthiestic reality, then I could see a ‘problem’, but the Catholic Church rejects panthiesm, so I cannot see the contradiction you are proposing for the “Catholic” portion of the argument.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think you are actually quite backwards here.
The painting of Joseph Smith reflects light rays to my eyes that become chemical signals that my brain interprets in certain ways. The painting is unaffected by this observation. It is the observer who is affected and not NECESSARILY the observed.
If you say there is no problem here, you seem to be asserting your understanding over Aquinas who seemed to recognize there was a problem.
Now, in case anyone is thinking about quantum mechanics, the idea that the observing of a phenomena affects the phenomena itself is a tenet of QM. This does not change the fact that the observer of the phenomena receives some data from the observation and draws conclusions from that info. Here the observer and the observed is affected.
Finally, it is not necessary to determine if God knew what the free action of the human was before, during or after the action for this dilemma to be real. If the human CAUSED the action (which those who embrace Libertarian Free Will and those who embrace Compatibalistic Free Will agree on), then either the action or the observation of the action or … caused the knowledge of the action. If God possesses this knowledge, then the only way it could come into existence is from the Free Action of the agent. This violates Asiety/Impassibility.
Charity, TOm
B
BJRumph
Guest
A bio-physical reaction to an observation is not a substantive change in the Observer, especially in the case of omniscience, wherein the “change” you supply is not actually caused by the action/event being observed.
Considering that the very faculties of observation are meant to process such outside information, we cannot truly call any activity within those faculties, such as ‘observing’ something, a fundamental ‘change’ to either those faculties, nor the overall entity who possesses said faculties. Being designed for such interaction, we cannot say their nature changes due to performing their existential function!
Were a Foot to process an image of Light, certainly a fundamental change. But an Eye to see the same? not in the least.
Further, the ‘contradiction’ requires a simplistic definition of omniscience that does not really meet the basic threshold of the totality of perception we attribute to God. The asserted changes due to simplistically assigned ‘cause and effect’ do not really occur when observing something prior to its actual happening, or even if it does, in fact, happen. We cannot know how long God knew he was going to create the World before he did, so can we assert He changed as a result of ‘observing’ something that occurs in said world?
Nor can I support the converse ‘contradiction’ that because God simply ‘knows’ what I am doing tomorrow means that He is abjectly controlling that to make it happen, thereby denying my ‘free will’ (as such a position would require an equally simplistic idea of the nature of “future knowledge” that supposes a linear and immutable nature to it which there is no observable fact nor modern logic to support said supposition).
In creating the World, you would have it that God “changed”; but the fundamental reality is that nothing in God’s substance or nature was changed in the process of creating the World, nor in the fact of its existence. Even in the case of an involved Theism, the very interactions God would have with the world would not themselves change God in any true sense of the notion of ‘change’ as used in scripture that defines God as “unchangeable”.
Adding a temporal, historical, element to the equation (and saying, ‘well God did this thing on this day, but not on any other day, therefore he has changed’) only serves to confuse the question, but does not, in fact, address the immutable nature of God or its supposed characteristics.
Aquinas certainly had to deal with a great many things in his time that none of us here ever give a second though to; and being among the first to have these philosophical questions be made a concern and addressed within a Christian context has both positive and negative baggage to go with it.
But, that’s just me. If you insist on seeing a contradiction, I cannot stop you; just as you will not be able to convince me there is a contradiction where I cannot see one. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m not going to get belligerent about the difference therein.
Considering that the very faculties of observation are meant to process such outside information, we cannot truly call any activity within those faculties, such as ‘observing’ something, a fundamental ‘change’ to either those faculties, nor the overall entity who possesses said faculties. Being designed for such interaction, we cannot say their nature changes due to performing their existential function!
Were a Foot to process an image of Light, certainly a fundamental change. But an Eye to see the same? not in the least.
Further, the ‘contradiction’ requires a simplistic definition of omniscience that does not really meet the basic threshold of the totality of perception we attribute to God. The asserted changes due to simplistically assigned ‘cause and effect’ do not really occur when observing something prior to its actual happening, or even if it does, in fact, happen. We cannot know how long God knew he was going to create the World before he did, so can we assert He changed as a result of ‘observing’ something that occurs in said world?
Nor can I support the converse ‘contradiction’ that because God simply ‘knows’ what I am doing tomorrow means that He is abjectly controlling that to make it happen, thereby denying my ‘free will’ (as such a position would require an equally simplistic idea of the nature of “future knowledge” that supposes a linear and immutable nature to it which there is no observable fact nor modern logic to support said supposition).
In creating the World, you would have it that God “changed”; but the fundamental reality is that nothing in God’s substance or nature was changed in the process of creating the World, nor in the fact of its existence. Even in the case of an involved Theism, the very interactions God would have with the world would not themselves change God in any true sense of the notion of ‘change’ as used in scripture that defines God as “unchangeable”.
Adding a temporal, historical, element to the equation (and saying, ‘well God did this thing on this day, but not on any other day, therefore he has changed’) only serves to confuse the question, but does not, in fact, address the immutable nature of God or its supposed characteristics.
Aquinas certainly had to deal with a great many things in his time that none of us here ever give a second though to; and being among the first to have these philosophical questions be made a concern and addressed within a Christian context has both positive and negative baggage to go with it.
But, that’s just me. If you insist on seeing a contradiction, I cannot stop you; just as you will not be able to convince me there is a contradiction where I cannot see one. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m not going to get belligerent about the difference therein.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not understand what you mean when you say, “the ‘change’ you supply is not actually caused by the action/event being observed.” Perhaps you mean that a picture cannot be the cause of something because it is not an agent. I am not convinced this is true, but I am specifically talking about an agent. I only used a picture to make a point.
I do think when you say “substantive change” you are hitting upon one of the key points in this. I do not believe my choice to love God or my choice to not love God changes what God is. I just believe that God notices and that my free actions causes Him to notice. God as defined by Aquinas cannot “notice” if I choose to love Him or if I choose to hate Him.” God as defined by Aquinas cannot “change” in ways that are not “substantive.” In fact Aquinas tells us that God has no accidental properties only essential properties (which ultimately is just the divinely simple God property, but that is another thing that must be grasped). So, God as defined by Aquinas cannot change in non-substantive ways because there is nothing non-substantive associated with God. God IS only ESSENTIALLY what God is and nothing more.
Again “FUNDAMENTAL” matters if you are speaking about you or me. We are not fundamentally changed by observing a yellow pencil or a red pencil. We are still TOm and BJ essentially, and only accidentally one who observed the yellow pencil or the red pencil. But God does not have accidental properties. He just IS the one who KNOWS. And if He exists “a se,” He cannot KNOW caused by anything outside of Himself.
In Aquinas’s thought, God has eternally willed to create and in fact timelessly created from an eternal now. This is a God-caused action that God eternally knew. This is a different problem.
God’s substance / nature / knowledge / omnipotence / … is just God in Aquinas’s thought. My nature does not change when I observe the pencil, but God does not posses accidental properties.
But, that’s just me. If you insist on seeing a contradiction, I cannot stop you; just as you will not be able to convince me there is a contradiction where I cannot see one. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m not going to get belligerent about the difference therein.
That is a pretty bold stance you appear to be taking. From today you can better understand how a contradiction Aquinas felt existed is not really there. I do not know what philosophical advances lead to making this statement more reasonable, but perhaps there are some.
I hope it is obvious to most here that there is a contradiction.
I also think that your inclusion of “substantive change” or “fundamental ‘change’” indicate that in truth you see it too.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
This is an aside, but …
As world renowned Orthodox scholar Jarsolav Pelikan said:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22
I personally reject this DEVELOPMENT and believe that God is unchanging just as the Bible teaches. The problem is not with the Bible if it is understood properly. The problem is in the DEVELOPED doctrine embraced by most of Christianity and Judaism today.
B
BJRumph
Guest
Forgive the additional intrusion, but it occurred to me that there is another issue that might be important to address regarding the philosophical aspect, which might help clear up the distinctions of conclusion being made:
Under the Catholic perspective, Theology informs, and is the (for lack of better terms atm) source material from which we must work in Philosophy. Theology/Revelation provides the a priori assumptions with which the philosopher must work.
Under the usual Philosophical perspective, Theology is a sub-set of philosophy, and therefore intrinsically subservient to it (ie, it must hold to the philosophical restrictions and conclusions).
As you can imagine, these two ‘perspectives’ are critical in both their distinctness and necessary conclusions.
As such, while a Philosopher will speak of the irreconcilable ‘contradiction’ between, say Mercy and Justice; a Catholic philosopher must begin their exploration of this conundrum with the fact that they are both mutually and eternally a part of God’s nature via the mandate of Theology. So, the Catholic’s conclusion that these “two” contradictions are but polarities of the same essence, and therefore are NOT contradictions will necessarily be different from the conclusions of a philosopher due to the very a priori ‘facts’ the two are starting from.
Under the Catholic perspective, Theology informs, and is the (for lack of better terms atm) source material from which we must work in Philosophy. Theology/Revelation provides the a priori assumptions with which the philosopher must work.
Under the usual Philosophical perspective, Theology is a sub-set of philosophy, and therefore intrinsically subservient to it (ie, it must hold to the philosophical restrictions and conclusions).
As you can imagine, these two ‘perspectives’ are critical in both their distinctness and necessary conclusions.
As such, while a Philosopher will speak of the irreconcilable ‘contradiction’ between, say Mercy and Justice; a Catholic philosopher must begin their exploration of this conundrum with the fact that they are both mutually and eternally a part of God’s nature via the mandate of Theology. So, the Catholic’s conclusion that these “two” contradictions are but polarities of the same essence, and therefore are NOT contradictions will necessarily be different from the conclusions of a philosopher due to the very a priori ‘facts’ the two are starting from.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
BJRumph,
You sound remarkably like a trend that I recently (about 8 months ago) discovered within Eastern Orthodox thought. Are you sure you have not imbibed of this thinking? The same EO thinkers who embrace this thought thoroughly condemn Western Christianity for utilizing philosophical reasoning extensively and erring mightily.
That being said, while not being as bold as some of the EO thinkers, you are saying that reason is not good past a certain point when trying to understand God.
This thread is about contradictions. I am fine if you recognize that there is a contradiction and would like to say that applying reason to this contradiction will be of little benefit and that instead we should accept the deposit of faith as it is revealed. BUT, that is acknowledging the contradiction not saying it does not exist.
Charity, TOm
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Tom,
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t quite understand what you are seeing as a contradiction.
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t quite understand what you are seeing as a contradiction.
B
BJRumph
Guest
Thats because I am not saying we ‘ignore’ the supposed contradiction; what I am saying is that, due to the difference in a priori assumptions, the philosophical conclusions will not lead to the same results. I’m not saying you don’t see a contradiction, only that I don’t see the same. Its not that I am ignoring it, nor that it is a non-issue; but it is that I do not conclude the same thing as you apparently have.
In the case of the EO and the RC, most, if not all, the a priori’s are the same or identical on some point or another, but even still, the conclusions made are not necessarily equally identical. Such is true of philosophers of any school or type. There is not a single conclusion that can be definitively reached through philosophy if worked by all philosophers. Some will assent to agree to others, but there will never be a unified consensus of any matter within philosophy (except maybe the desire to philosophize). As such, despite your sincere assertion of your belief there is a contradiction between omniscience and immutability, I do not have to, nor have I, agree to your conclusion.
At any rate, the place of revelation (and consequently, Theology) has a critical place in philosophy. Someone who starts with Revelation as the basis for philosophical investigation will necessarily and logically come to very different conclusions than someone who starts from a position that Revelation must be rational, and therefore that which cannot be reconciled rationally is not ‘true’.
In any case, it isn’t terribly useful to use one group’s misconceptions about another to define the latter’s positions. The EO have their own philosophical and theological patterns and assumptions; using their statement of confusion about the RC’s philosophical and theological differences to draw a conclusion about the nature of the RC is pretty pointless. At best, it can demonstrate how the EO perceives the RC; but not anything more substantive than that.
In the case of the EO and the RC, most, if not all, the a priori’s are the same or identical on some point or another, but even still, the conclusions made are not necessarily equally identical. Such is true of philosophers of any school or type. There is not a single conclusion that can be definitively reached through philosophy if worked by all philosophers. Some will assent to agree to others, but there will never be a unified consensus of any matter within philosophy (except maybe the desire to philosophize). As such, despite your sincere assertion of your belief there is a contradiction between omniscience and immutability, I do not have to, nor have I, agree to your conclusion.
At any rate, the place of revelation (and consequently, Theology) has a critical place in philosophy. Someone who starts with Revelation as the basis for philosophical investigation will necessarily and logically come to very different conclusions than someone who starts from a position that Revelation must be rational, and therefore that which cannot be reconciled rationally is not ‘true’.
In any case, it isn’t terribly useful to use one group’s misconceptions about another to define the latter’s positions. The EO have their own philosophical and theological patterns and assumptions; using their statement of confusion about the RC’s philosophical and theological differences to draw a conclusion about the nature of the RC is pretty pointless. At best, it can demonstrate how the EO perceives the RC; but not anything more substantive than that.
J
Jerusha
Guest
I first must define God.
God is love.
God is all-powerful.
God allows man to sin.
God created man in his image: spirit, mind, body.
God created the earth and the heavens above.
God created everything upon the earth.
God is always the same. Therefore, he is the same everywhere and everywhen. Therefore, God transcends time.
Then, I ask, why did God allow the Book of Mormon to be written. The same book that has given people excuses for racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and blood-feud? Simply so that when man has gotten fed up with those human sins of the past 178 years, the true meaning of the Book of Mormon might be exposed. It takes effort, to be sure, but, in the end, what good one can extract from it is that it is an allegory on the consequences of racism. See Moroni 9.
And that view of the Book of Mormon is held by very few LDS people, and is in contradiction to many Mormon teachings.
God knew how man would react, and therefore allowed that book, with its hidden story, which ended in 1472 AD, to be written through some strange, unknown series of events, in order to prevent worse. Otherwise, the story would never have been preserved for us.
God never changes. Only man’s understanding of His nature changes.
Thank you, friends, for setting the stage.
God is love.
God is all-powerful.
God allows man to sin.
God created man in his image: spirit, mind, body.
God created the earth and the heavens above.
God created everything upon the earth.
God is always the same. Therefore, he is the same everywhere and everywhen. Therefore, God transcends time.
Then, I ask, why did God allow the Book of Mormon to be written. The same book that has given people excuses for racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and blood-feud? Simply so that when man has gotten fed up with those human sins of the past 178 years, the true meaning of the Book of Mormon might be exposed. It takes effort, to be sure, but, in the end, what good one can extract from it is that it is an allegory on the consequences of racism. See Moroni 9.
And that view of the Book of Mormon is held by very few LDS people, and is in contradiction to many Mormon teachings.
God knew how man would react, and therefore allowed that book, with its hidden story, which ended in 1472 AD, to be written through some strange, unknown series of events, in order to prevent worse. Otherwise, the story would never have been preserved for us.
God never changes. Only man’s understanding of His nature changes.
Thank you, friends, for setting the stage.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Well, I am getting ready to be burned at the stake here, possibly by both sides – but what the heck - you only live once and might as well go down fighting.I first must define God.
God is love.
God is all-powerful.
God allows man to sin.
God created man in his image: spirit, mind, body.
God created the earth and the heavens above.
God created everything upon the earth.
God is always the same. Therefore, he is the same everywhere and everywhen. Therefore, God transcends time…
God never changes. Only man’s understanding of His nature changes.
Thank you, friends, for setting the stage.
Many years ago when I first started studying philosophy, I was enamored with the philosophy of Heraclitus, which unfortunately only survives as fragments. Remember him from philosophy 101? The guy who thought that metaphysical reality was like a river, an ever changing stream which was at once always changing and yet always the same? That change was THE constant in our experience?
His view stood and stands in stark contrast to the Platonic foms which exist “perfect” and unchanging (linguistically redundant).
I would propose that if we take another look at Heraclitus and indeed throw out Platonism once and for all, we will have a very different view of God than we have now.
If there ever was a science fiction story I would have like to have seen written, it would have been about a world where the philosophy of one like Heraclitus won out over the philosophy of one like Plato.
In my personal belief, God is eternal and transcendent, but constantly changing in his interactions with us, his children.
Relating that to the previous discussion, he is both the perceiver and perceived, and changed by both. As we take in information through perception we are changed by the perception and then those perceptions are actively “massaged” while we literally construct the world around us. Like witnesses at a car crash or a holdup, we are not passive robotic cameras but active participants in the construction of our own realities.
We take in “matter unorganized” to use an LDS phrase, and arrange that raw data into lamps, desks, and for the right kind of raw data, God. Experience is all we all have, and the act of experiencing is an active process which enables us to create our individual worlds.
And it seems we have a natural affinity for the process. We find it somehow enjoyable to look out over a shimmering lake and turning all the flashes of light and dark into patterns which we perceive as waves, and trees and white caps, and sometimes into Loch Ness monsters. We stare into flames almost hypnotized searching for patterns. Our brains love to organize these perceptions and to take the chaos around us and turn it into order.
We look at clouds and see castles and elephants, popcorn and faces. Faces we see everywhere! We love to find faces – even in the moon!
I would even suggest that psychologically, it is this desire to turn chaos into order which has led us to demand a God who is orderly and unchanging to the point of being fossilized.
Being an old hippie I remember a Jefferson Airplane lyric:
“Life is change
How it differs from the rocks
I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking”
I would suggest, almost unintelligibly briefly, that we consider a God patterned after the way Heraclitus sees the universe, eternal and transcendent, and in some sense unchanging, but unchanging in His very dynamism, constant if you will, in his change, like some unimaginably huge and placid eternal river, of “living water”, always changing but somehow always the same.
My God is profoundly “experiencable” since what He is corresponds so well to the nature of our experience itself, which has been refered to as a “stream of consciousness”.
I would suggest that such a God is highly compatible with the LDS notion of “eternal increase” which is accomplished through interaction with his children. His work and his glory is to bring us to be like him by giving us the ineffible gift to in fact be able to do so, as suggested in John 17, or in the LDS notion of exaltation or the Catholic idea of a radical theosis.
To me the Trinity consists of three persons unified by their purpose to bring to pass the eternal life of man. These active and dynamic individuals can be thought of as a “team” whos work is the unifying factor - their unity is their purpose. They are perfectly so unified and in constant communion. An analogy would be some perfectly operating consortium of individuals who work in perfect communication with eachother to achieve a goal, if one can imagine such an omnicient and all powerful group.
In such a conception, ontogeny replaces ontology.
Existence and “being” and “substance”, those unchanging constants, appear fossilized and static undeviating and unbending, and well, dead.
The model becomes life itself in its infinite variation. The solid unbending God of Platonism becomes a living breathing organic being.
Such a model also fits well with modern philosophy, in contrast to the philosophy of “substance” and “being” which is so based on Platonic, Aristotilian and finally, Thomist thought.
Pile on the sticks… Anyone bring matches?
W
why_me
Guest
What does this mean? I am not sure that I understand but I do know that it is a very common refrain. The god of the old testament had a very difficult time showing love. Just ask the poor soldiers who were drowned in the red sea. But yes, god does show also love. Also, god has been known to act in vengence. Is this love? And so, god is love can seem rather weak to some individuals.
W
why_me
Guest
I mihgt ask why did god allow the bible to be written since it has been responsible for many racist attacks throughout history. Just ask the poor native ameicans who were victims of ‘christian’ bigotry. And might I add the aborgines of Australia? Or the Maorie of New Zealand? Many civilizations have come under the whip because of the bible. Or was it just human imperfection?
W
why_me
Guest
If one researches into mesoamerican history one can see that the people of that world were rather blood thirsty. The book of mormon is just one witness of that blood thirst. However, to imply that the book of mormon has been responisible for racism, sexism, and religious bigotry is a mistake. However, many have claimed the same for the bible. Feminists have claimed that the bible is sexist. And certainly, if one speaks of church going slave owners in the southern united states during the 19th century, the bible has been a sorry excuse for slavery. And what about religous bigotry? Black churches and white churches in the south.
Such the contradiction of christianity in general.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
I can see your point about the allegory on racism, but as to allowing it to be written that is a different thing. Such things such as inspiring hate and racism can be said about many man made works from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Boettner’s Roman Catholicism.
If God were not to ‘allow’ such man made writings, then would he not (in the theology of the Mormons) simply have allowed Satan to triumph and force man to worship without the hassle of free will?
J
Jerusha
Guest
Man has a rebellious nature. God allows man to make mistakes-- opportunities for learning, if you will. Except some of the mistakes are so serious-- but God forgives, so long as we repent and learn. Once man tires of genocide, for example, man will begin adapting his definition of God.
Yes, without external guidance, man leans to his own understanding in the interpretation of scripture. Thus we have people who use the Bible, and other books, to justify such things as genocide. So what is new? That is the reason Catholics also depend on tradition, a guide to interpretation. Man has a tendency to see himself as god-- otherwise known as pride. Which is definitional of original sin, which you guys seem to deny. That is definitional to your belief system. Calling yourselves, living beings, as Saints!!! Baah, humbug.
Yes, without external guidance, man leans to his own understanding in the interpretation of scripture. Thus we have people who use the Bible, and other books, to justify such things as genocide. So what is new? That is the reason Catholics also depend on tradition, a guide to interpretation. Man has a tendency to see himself as god-- otherwise known as pride. Which is definitional of original sin, which you guys seem to deny. That is definitional to your belief system. Calling yourselves, living beings, as Saints!!! Baah, humbug.
J
Jerusha
Guest
T
TOmNossor
Guest
All,
I hope to shotgun a few comments here to tie up some loose ends.
Jerusha,
I think you have received some good responses from folks on your “contradiction” so far. My response would be along the lines of Why Me’s in general. That being said, there is no first order contradiction within your post. There is nothing that defies logic for God to produce a book that leads fallen humans to do things that are not in alignment with God’s will.
There are some logical problems of evil that are far better stated than your “if BOM from God, if God good, why do people do bad thing and say look at BOM.” When the logical problem of evil is well stated, I believe that the CoJCoLDS has not only a convincing response, but perhaps the only convincing response (at least when weighed against orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Here is a little article that I have not linked to in a long time:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=1644
JMJ_Coder,
Most of my thought is in the first post.
If an action is undetermined until an agent determines it, then I submit the knowledge of the action must be contingent upon the agent that determined what the action would be. Aquinas recognized this and said that perhaps God’s knowledge extends to His causation (this would mean that God was ultimately the agent that determined the action, but this is a problem for free will). Alternatively, Aquinas spoke of God using a type of “divine sight” to observe the action, but then the agent who performed the action is responsible for God’s knowledge and God lacks aseity.
This seems pretty clear, but perhaps there are holes I do not see. I accused BJRumph of falling back upon various qualifiers for God’s unchangingness (“substantive change” or “fundamental change”). IMO this departs from the DEVELOPED commitment within Catholicism that God is unchanging AND exists “a se” (and it is an implicit acknowledgement that the problem is real).
MFBukowski,
I really liked your post about Heraclitus. I think you have hit upon a very important truth. In addition to “creation ex nihilo” it is the commitment to a type of philosophy that has created big problems.
Catholic priest Father Thomas Hosinski claims in **** Stubborn Fact**** and Creative Advance: An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead that Aristotelian metaphysics produces profound difficulties with subject vs. object knowledge (leading to such horrors as Postmodernism). For this reason alone I would suggest there is warrant for re-visioning the underlying metaphysics that have produced such conundrums (that or perhaps we should be Postmodernists). And theologically if Aristotelian concepts of subjects and absolute perfection result in impassibility of a loving God, then there are theological reason to re-vision the underlying metaphysics.
Anyway, Father Hosinski’s book is the best intro to Whiteheadian metaphysics I have found. Ostler in his Exploring Mormon Thought series shows where very early LDS thought spoke of concepts later introduced by Whitehead and integral to Process Theology. Ostler while quite familiar with the philosophy of the councils has much sympathy (and I think generally builds upon IMO) Whiteheadian metaphysics rather than Aristotelian (or Platonic / neo-Platonic).
For more philosophy with a little theology Father Hosinski’s book is very good. For lots of LDS theology with philosophy, Ostler’s books are very good. I think he steers clear of some of the pitfalls of process theology while taking advantage of many of the opportunities presented. I have not read anything specifically by Hartshorne, but I think I should.
All,
I hope to rap up here, but I may fail.
Charity, TOm
I hope to shotgun a few comments here to tie up some loose ends.
Jerusha,
I think you have received some good responses from folks on your “contradiction” so far. My response would be along the lines of Why Me’s in general. That being said, there is no first order contradiction within your post. There is nothing that defies logic for God to produce a book that leads fallen humans to do things that are not in alignment with God’s will.
There are some logical problems of evil that are far better stated than your “if BOM from God, if God good, why do people do bad thing and say look at BOM.” When the logical problem of evil is well stated, I believe that the CoJCoLDS has not only a convincing response, but perhaps the only convincing response (at least when weighed against orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Here is a little article that I have not linked to in a long time:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=1644
JMJ_Coder,
Most of my thought is in the first post.
If an action is undetermined until an agent determines it, then I submit the knowledge of the action must be contingent upon the agent that determined what the action would be. Aquinas recognized this and said that perhaps God’s knowledge extends to His causation (this would mean that God was ultimately the agent that determined the action, but this is a problem for free will). Alternatively, Aquinas spoke of God using a type of “divine sight” to observe the action, but then the agent who performed the action is responsible for God’s knowledge and God lacks aseity.
This seems pretty clear, but perhaps there are holes I do not see. I accused BJRumph of falling back upon various qualifiers for God’s unchangingness (“substantive change” or “fundamental change”). IMO this departs from the DEVELOPED commitment within Catholicism that God is unchanging AND exists “a se” (and it is an implicit acknowledgement that the problem is real).
MFBukowski,
I really liked your post about Heraclitus. I think you have hit upon a very important truth. In addition to “creation ex nihilo” it is the commitment to a type of philosophy that has created big problems.
Catholic priest Father Thomas Hosinski claims in **** Stubborn Fact**** and Creative Advance: An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead that Aristotelian metaphysics produces profound difficulties with subject vs. object knowledge (leading to such horrors as Postmodernism). For this reason alone I would suggest there is warrant for re-visioning the underlying metaphysics that have produced such conundrums (that or perhaps we should be Postmodernists). And theologically if Aristotelian concepts of subjects and absolute perfection result in impassibility of a loving God, then there are theological reason to re-vision the underlying metaphysics.
Anyway, Father Hosinski’s book is the best intro to Whiteheadian metaphysics I have found. Ostler in his Exploring Mormon Thought series shows where very early LDS thought spoke of concepts later introduced by Whitehead and integral to Process Theology. Ostler while quite familiar with the philosophy of the councils has much sympathy (and I think generally builds upon IMO) Whiteheadian metaphysics rather than Aristotelian (or Platonic / neo-Platonic).
For more philosophy with a little theology Father Hosinski’s book is very good. For lots of LDS theology with philosophy, Ostler’s books are very good. I think he steers clear of some of the pitfalls of process theology while taking advantage of many of the opportunities presented. I have not read anything specifically by Hartshorne, but I think I should.
All,
I hope to rap up here, but I may fail.
Charity, TOm
- Status