Where Have All The Apostates And Anti-Mormons Gone?

[hosemonkey]

Speaking of abacadabra, mr latin scholar, did you know that “hocus pocus” comes from “hoc est enim corpus meum”?

And your point is?

 

[zerinus]

You still didn’t respond to my statements…

(Crickets chirping in background)

I think I did. That was all the response that your post needed or dserved!

zerinus

 

[1holycatholic]

Did you not read my previous post???

**Describe the color red to a blind person.
**
I am not going to say it again. It cannot be described. That is all there is to it. When you have seen it, you know it.

Read this to them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red

:coffeeread:

 

[AMDGtoo]

ski–don’t get all bent out of shape. We all have “feelings”–some stronger than others–some acted upon–some not–some more complex–some just fleeting moments. They are just that. No need to think that somehow that makes you “special”. Now there is nothing wrong in adding verifiable evidence to the “feeling”. That’s what we can do. Thing is, you guys can’t and it matters.

 

[Jerusha]

ski–don’t get all bent out of shape. --…some just fleeting moments. They are just that. No need to think that somehow that makes you “special” Now there is nothing wrong in adding verifiable evidence to the “feeling”. …

Just because the Book of Mormon has fleeting moments of truth does not mean it is all true. Just because the Book of Mormon is written in King James English and contains quotes from the Bible does not make it true. Without the Book of Mormon, Mormonism will fade into mainstream America.

 

[scipio337]

I am coming from a Wittgensteinian background and I have problems with words like “being” and “substance” and “nature”

I just don’t really know what they mean. It is like asking what color love is. Don’t know. The word “substance” magically allowed Thomas Aquinas to create “transubstantiation” by saying that the substance of flesh stayed the same under the appearance of bread. Now that was a good linguistic trick. Reverse the coils, captain Kirk and now we can go into warp drive."

You should be thinking more Heidegger and monisticly. I can understand why your current view would make a creature/Creator dualism impossible.

Deus ex machina at its best-- almost literally!!

Heh. I think you misunderstand Aquinas’ methods.

But what does that mean?

I get the idea that theosis is a change to a lesser degree than what we would see as “exaltation”. But what about 1 Cointhinans 15 where Paul talks about a difference of bodies? Celestial Terestrial and Telestial? Are those different “species” as well? He talks there about fish and animals, so is that your interpretation?

There is nothing different in degree, but in kind. My interpretation is that Paul is using this analogy of the “difference of bodies” in the animal kingdom, and in nature, to outline the change taking place in the resurrenction, and G*d’s ontological difference to us.

1 Corn 15:50 outlines it best. The gulf between creature and Creator is so great that only G*d of capable of bridging that gap.

That catechism quote sounds a lot like section 84 of the D&C where it talks about the oath and covenant of the priesthood

“33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.”

barring ontological differences.

YOU:“The several hypothesises that Gd created the world out of existing “matter” to me doesn’t argue for either a time there was no Gd, nor an “eternal” matter, nor a “pre-existence”.”

I would like to explore this.

I was never arguing for a “time” that there was no God. I was arguing that God is outside of time.

The problem is that it is ambiguous to talk about a “time before time”. I actually talked about this once in a meeting with a member who later went out and made a movie called "“the land before time”.

This is the source of the apparant conflict seen by non members who take literally the statement “God was once as we are now”

In one sense, it is true. He “once” was.

But when you take that and say “HA HA you believe in more than one god, and god is just a man” THAT is not correct.

If you want to look at it this way, let’s postulate that there are multiple “eternities” the existance of which we cannot in principle know-- so this is strictly metaphysics based on faith

But God is eternal in THIS eternity, in this time. But there were other eternities (let us hypothesize) God organized the worlds we can know - perhaps this “big bang”.

So in one sense, it is possible that he was “once” as we are now, but is now an exalted being. But in a real sense, “once” doesnt make sense because it is a temporal concept, and God created time as we know it.

It is a paradox that can only be solved by jumping to another level, just like bertrand russel and the lying slave paradox.

So I am not sure how the above realates to your quote

I suppose it all comes down to a name. The Tetragrammaton is not just a personal of G*d. In Jewish thought, a name is not merely an arbitrary designation, a random combination of sounds. The name conveys the nature and essence of the thing named. (sorry to go back to terms you don’t like, but you do know that ousia also has the same meaning as the following name in discussion). The traditional translation of YHWH is "I AM, and is derived from the third person singular imperfect, which will include the imperfect “will be”. Of course, such an entity defined by being would naturally be transcendent of time.

In Judaism, Gd’s very nature is “existing”, in other words, as an unchanged, uncreated being. Ceasing to be such would no longer “be”, and no longer “be” Gd.

I can’t wrap my mind around your “multiple “eternities”” theory. According to his nature of being, G*d would have transcended this, too, even if there are multiple parallel universes, dimensions, etc.

Interesting response, though. I went to a religious forum, and a philosophy debate broke out!

 

[RebeccaJ]

OH my. No, no hostility here at all.

It was not hostile. A serious question that you obviously cannot answer.

 

[dzheremi]

What I don’t understand about the whole “burning in the bosom” Mormon testimony thing is how do they reconcile it with verses in the Bible like Jeremiah 17:9 where we are told not to depend on such things?

 

[scipio337]

What I don’t understand about the whole “burning in the bosom” Mormon testimony thing is how do they reconcile it with verses in the Bible like Jeremiah 17:9 where we are told not to depend on such things?

That’s easy:

The Scriptures have been corrupted by the Catholic Church.

thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

1 Ne 13:26

Which is why the Bible is scripture “as far as it is translated correctly”. How can one tell what has been taken out, and what the “great and abominable church” has inserted, you ask?

More burning of the bosom!

Isn’t circular logic fun?

 

[rpp]

I didn’t defeat them all by myself, did I!

zerinus

No. The reason you do not get many people responding to your habitually insulting lies, gross distortions and inflammatory posts is that you are on so many people’s Ignore list. I mean, just look at the title of this thread. Most of us longer term members do not see your posts because you are not worth responding to because of your dishonesty.

 

[dzheremi]

That’s easy:

The Scriptures have been corrupted by the Catholic Church.

1 Ne 13:26

Which is why the Bible is scripture “as far as it is translated correctly”. How can one tell what has been taken out, and what the “great and abominable church” has inserted, you ask?

More burning of the bosom!

Isn’t circular logic fun?

Hahaha. Oh, okay. So a burning in the bosom is an accurate way to judge the truth of a given set of claims? Cos reading threads like this one gives me bad heartburn (and a headache, and dry heaves, and I’m pretty sure I’ve lost a few brain cells from reading Zerinus’ posts alone), so I am glad that Mormons will take that as legitimate evidence that their doctrines are flat out false!

Thanks for setting me straight, scipio337!

 

[mfbukowski]

You should be thinking more Heidegger and monisticly. I can understand why your current view would make a creature/Creator dualism impossible.

Heh. I think you misunderstand Aquinas’ methods.

I would actually rather read Aquinas than Heidegger!!

Ontology in general doesn’t make sense to me either. I think only epistemological issues make sense. This is why I have trouble with all this “being” stuff. I can’t define “being”.except in context, like “human being”. “Qualitatively different” I understand because it is in principle measurable. “Ontologically different” just muddies the waters as far as I am concerned.

There is nothing different in degree, but in kind. My interpretation is that Paul is using this analogy of the “difference of bodies” in the animal kingdom, and in nature, to outline the change taking place in the resurrenction, and G*d’s ontological difference to us.

1 Corn 15:50 outlines it best. The gulf between creature and Creator is so great that only G*d of capable of bridging that gap.

Now I think you are on to something. I think it is Christ and his resurrection that bridges that gap and actually allows us after an eternity or two of perfecting, to become like Him. We become that new species, or in Paul’s terms, receive a celestial body. We are so used to thinking that species do not transform into eachother, but when you look at the fossil record, the lack of “missing links” seem to indicate otherwise. If we postulate that Adam was one of these changes and the “second Adam” is another, I think we go a long ways to harmonizing traditional biblical christianity with something we haven’t really gotten to yet.

I can’t wrap my mind around your “multiple “eternities”” theory. According to his nature of being, G*d would have transcended this, too, even if there are multiple parallel universes, dimensions, etc.

Interesting response, though. I went to a religious forum, and a philosophy debate broke out!

Well I don’t know if it is really “philosophy” to a philosopher but it is an interesting way line of thought.

I understand what you are saying about God’s transcendence, but to me it becomes a linguistic issue. To me, God is completely transcendent. What gets tricky is how we talk about him.

He is so far above language and our mode of thinking, we really cannot discuss the metaphysics without paradoxes. That is why Mormons appear to be polytheists and to belittle God.

As I have said before, we seek to answer questions others don’t even ask. That is why such a clear understanding of where we are linguistically is crucial. I honestly think that unless you are used to thinking this way, it is almost impossible to communicate it. That is why 90% of the arguments on these forums break out, because people don’t understand what the other one is talking about.

 

[hosemonkey]

I am coming from a Wittgensteinian background and I have problems with words like “being” and “substance” and “nature”

I just don’t really know what they mean. It is like asking what color love is. Don’t know. The word “substance” magically allowed Thomas Aquinas to create “transubstantiation” by saying that the substance of flesh stayed the same under the appearance of bread. Now that was a good linguistic trick. Reverse the coils, captain Kirk and now we can go into warp drive.

 

[Jerusha]

Mr. Bukowski, you do seem to be evolving beyond standard Mormonism. It is a very fluid religion. You may eventually get back to Cathoicism, if you continue thinking.

 

[BartBurk]

:yawn: :shamrock2:

 

[zerinus]

No. The reason you do not get many people responding to your habitually insulting lies, gross distortions and inflammatory posts is that you are on so many people’s Ignore list. I mean, just look at the title of this thread. Most of us longer term members do not see your posts because you are not worth responding to because of your dishonesty.

I was just being facetious, because the place had gone dead quiet, and nobody had been posting anything days. How is that dishonest?

zerinus

 

[Matariel]

I think I did. That was all the response that your post needed or dserved!

zerinus

Typical non-answer. What, did the dog eat your homework, Zerinus?

Besides, it’s “deserved” not “dserved”. You’re spelling’s off today. :yawn:

 

[rmcmullan]

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox Church came into being from us in about 1054…

Ha, good one! Accuse the other pope of being the apostate!

Look, I’ll agree that the two of you are “not in full communion”. Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity and you’ll see that there’s a lot of cracks in the church roof. The Assyrian Church and Oriental Orthodoxy emerged before the “Great Schism” in the 11th century when the Roman Catholic church was founded. By a pope. Not a prophet. Jesus did not start the Roman Catholic church and he never called a pope. He called Apostles.

After the Eastern Orthodoxy, there were still all sorts of schisms. The Eastern Rites was formed and the Western Rites (Roman Catholics) again split during the reformation when all the Protestant churches formed. Last were the Restorationists which sounds like the LDS church and their followers.

Look, I don’t care if you guys think you’re the One and Only True Church and are favoured by God himself. Most people believe that about their church. But it really annoys me when people cut down our prophets and insult Joseph Smith all the while hiding behind their “Well, Jesus started our church!” veil. It’s about time I lifted that veil. You’re just another church that was started by a man and is currently headed by a man.

 

[RC_Matt]

I was just being facetious, because the place had gone dead quiet, and nobody had been posting anything days. How is that dishonest?

zerinus

Yeah, when I saw this tread I figured you were bored - and did recognize a discretely affable intent. You may be a heathen, but I don’t think you’re ALL bad….

 

[dzheremi]

Blahblahblahblah more Mormon tu quoque arguments. I would rather emphasize the common teachings among the Catholic and the Orthodox which YOU don’t share as a Mormon, and then we can talk about how your church is supposedly “restorationist”. What a joke!