From my perspective, OSC has been writing this way for years. I'm somewhat surprised that people are surprised by this. Is it because he's writing about religion, as opposed to the other subjects which he has treated in this manner?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is an aspect of human nature to retire from the effort involved in participating in an understanding of God
I'm not sure I agree. I look around and see a whole lot more humans trying to understand God than trying to understand physics.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right now, I feel like we CAN understand Him-- if anything is possible with God, than so is that.
This is a very interesting point, Scott.
quote:The thing that bothers me about Scott and pooka's participation here is that they really don't seem to me to be looking to understand how other religions see things, btu rather looking for avenues to attack them. Maybe that's not their intent, but it does seem that way to me.
Squicky, I guess you're not seeing all the places I point out that Mormonism is subject to the same ecology of pride and detachment of form from function.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess you're not seeing all the places I point out that Mormonism is subject to the same ecology of pride and detachment of form from function.
I don't see why that would affect your intention of attacking, rather than understanding others' religions that I am seeing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, if that's not what you are doing, then that's fine. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides. God is more interesting than physics.
Could not disagree more. Physics is so much cooler!
Au contraire-- as a system of thinking, ideas, and examination, and fact, physics' temperature is...well, non-existant.
From the Mormon point of view, since God has a physical body, He can tentatively be said to have a measurable temperature. Since some temperature is both cooler and warmer than a non-existant/non-possible temperature, God is cooler (and hawter) than physics.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you prefer to do it? What ways of understanding God have you found to be the most rewarding?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you understand. You are treating understanding the divinity like it is a separate, distinct act. For me, it's not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not ducking the question. If you are not going to respect my beliefs, why the heck should I entertain your requests?
Try thinking about what I've said. You don't understand it right now and your questions aren't productive for you because of that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't said anything straight and you are ducking the question. Stop dancing around and give a straight answer that isn't just wiggling or insults.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If its any consolation Dana, I felt exactly the same way. OSC does to mainstream Christianity in this essayexactly what we Mormons complain about when other Christians do it to us. I am always dismayed when I see members of my church doing this. I was particularly disappointed and a bit surprised to read it from OSC.
Rabbit, it's a consolation to hear you say that, and not surprising in the least - based on your previous posts on the subject, I would have been shocked had you approved of those aspects of the article. Your desire to understand other religions is abundantly clear, even when you are confronting those who aggressively misunderstand yours.
There are numerous other Mormons on the board who also seek to understand. I certainly don't think OSC is representative of Mormons in this regard.
The reason I wasn't surprised by OSC's latest article was because of this post he made in response to a correction I sent him concerning the beliefs of Catholics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: What, exactly, do you do or think or feel when you want to understand God?
I know this is not meant for me, but hey, it's a public forum, so ...
I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.
posted
Mircea Eliade described a major aspect of religious thought as a separation of the sacred from the profane. While this is certainly evident in many of the world's religions and it seems to work for many people, I don't accept this distinction.
Terry Pratchett has a character say something much more in line with the way I see it: "Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.
I choose to believe that they are holy.
You are asking my questions from the sacred/profane background assumption. They don't really make sense with the latter perspective.
I've given you what answers I can. If you want to understand, you're going to need to change how you think about them.
---
Plus, I don't think there is a single active member of Hatrack who would think that you are asking these questiongs in good faith or with a sense of respect.
---
edit: Because I'm pretty sure most people here would need to know me better to get this off the bat, the juxtaposition of Eliade and Pratchett (especially who they are) is a deliberate part of my answer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure that Squick thinks of divinity in a manner fairly close to Kate.
I think this is only true in the manner of general approach. Our specifics seem to me to be very, very different.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: What, exactly, do you do or think or feel when you want to understand God?
I know this is not meant for me, but hey, it's a public forum, so ...
I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.
A.
Charles Ives: "The Unanswered Question". Take a listen, I think you will find it to be a good match for your feelings.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Charles Ives: "The Unanswered Question". Take a listen, I think you will find it to be a good match for your feelings.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Mircea Eliade described a major aspect of religious thought as a separation of the sacred from the profane. While this is certainly evident in many of the world's religions and it seems to work for many people, I don't accept this distinction.
Terry Pratchett has a character say something much more in line with the way I see it: "Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.
I choose to believe that they are holy.
You are asking my questions from the sacred/profane background assumption. They don't really make sense with the latter perspective.
That makes sense to me. It doesn't appear to me to be "ducking" anything.
And I agree with it.
If think that MrSquicky understands my theology (at much as I do anyway); I don't think he agrees with it.
oooo! have you hear Peter Mayer's song "Everything is Holy Now"? It is one of my favourites and I think you would like it. At least the ideas if not the tune.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.
I dislike the extreme nature of that sentence, but I'm not going to build an argument around the extremes.
I think that most moments are neither holy nor profane. I think that they're events, and that they're neutral in that respect.
That is-- the birth of my children is not holy. The moment of my marriage isn't sacred. The days and years of my marriage are not intrinsically holy.
Unless I make them so. The world happens; glory and holiness, tragedy and profanity are thrust upon it by those who act within it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.
You're not the first person I've heard that from, and it always leaves me not quite knowing what to say.
The closest I can come to understanding is how people talk about music - how it's transcendent. In August Rush, the kid says he believes in music the way others believe in fairy tales. I've certainly tried to listen, and taken years of lessons, and done my best, and I still always try, and while I can hear that it's beautiful, it never clicks the way...the poetry or science or visual arts do.
I imagine it's something similiar. I don't get answers all the time or even most of the time, but I've had enough glimpses and enough miracles that I'm very sure of the Lord's existence even when I don't see or hear him at the present time.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.
Well, I'm sorry that previous digressions have made anything I want to say likely to be misunderstood.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons talk a lot about God's perspective. It seemed like very often they meant he was very far away. But I think part of what makes God so amazing is that he can see us all and still see each of us closely.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very rarely hear of "God's" perspective. I often hear about taking an "eternal" perspective, but I think that's different. That's putting this life in the context of our lives before and after.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm...I thought I just posted this. Oh well, I'll try again.
quote:But you (Squick) are saying one has a choice whether to see one's life as sacred or profane?
While I'd agree that people have that choice, that's not the one that I was talking about.
Rather, I was talking about the choise between seeing a distinction between the sacred and profane versus not seeing one.
---
edit: One thing that I'd like to mention is that, from my perspective (though definitely not from the s/p view), the choice one makes is much less important than the choosing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[JH] No one has ever talked about eternal perspective in a way that made me think my problems were as big as they seemed to me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
When holy water was rare at best It barely wet my fingertips But now I have to hold my breath Like I’m swimming in a sea of it It used to be a world half there Heaven’s second rate hand-me-down But I walk it with a reverent air ‘Cause everything is holy now
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: The closest I can come to understanding is how people talk about music - how it's transcendent. In August Rush, the kid says he believes in music the way others believe in fairy tales. I've certainly tried to listen, and taken years of lessons, and done my best, and I still always try, and while I can hear that it's beautiful, it never clicks the way...the poetry or science or visual arts do.
I can personally attest to getting rather extreme emotional rushes while listening to trance music. I have to be in the right state of mind though.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I'm typing this on my wii so forgive the shortness. I think the geometry metaphor was more a comprehensive comparison of the dialogue that goes on when mormons and TC converse on the topic of the trinity. Before joining hatrack all discussions I had about the trinity were very similar to Cards mock dialog. Having said that I was not impressed with the overall message of the post. I remember Mr. Card's response to your question and found it a bit dismaying. He sounds so pleasently kind when he speaks but comes across as quite sour in his opinion writing. And now my wrist hurts Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the geometry metaphor was more a comprehensive comparison of the dialogue that goes on when mormons and TC converse on the topic of the trinity. Before joining hatrack all discussions I had about the trinity were very similar to Cards mock dialog.
If that was his intent - and I don't doubt that such conversations happen regularly - then he did not make that at all clear in his writing. It's presented as "a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS)."
If he added "conveniently selected inarticulate and ill-informed" before "traditional Christian" he might have been accurate. But he presented it as the traditional Christian view.
This is especially frustrating from a man who very recently decried the "standard biased-media methodology" that "[g]ive[s] a quote (usually inadequate or inept) from the side you oppose, then finish the piece with an eloquent quote from the team you're on."
quote:And now my wrist hurts
I'm glad this isn't an ona...
er, thanks for braving the wii to reply. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If he added "conveniently selected inarticulate and ill-informed" before "traditional Christian" he might have been accurate. But he presented it as the traditional Christian view.
If he added "a conviently simplistic and uninformed" before "Biblical Christian" (LDS), it would be even more accurate. The LDS church and scriptures also teach that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are both three and one. We differ from creedal Christianity in that we specify in which ways they are three and in which ways they are one and not that we claim they are three period.
I just looked up Trinity in the Catholic Encyclopedia and it begins
quote:The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
I think those statement are reasonably compatible with the LDS understanding of the Godhead.
Of course if you dig much deeper, the views start to depart. Most notably Catholics describe the Trinity as a mystery which cannot be clearly understood, while Mormons believe they have a very clear understanding of how the members of the Godhead are both three and one.
To be fair however, I do know Christian theologians who do view God pretty much as OSC describes. In fact, much of what he said stems from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) which reads
quote:There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute . . .
I know that many Mormons confuse this confession with the creeds and presume it is authoritative in all creedal Christian denominations. I have no idea how widely accepted it is in Christian denominations. It is accepted by the Presbtyrian church of America but I don't know if it is recognized currently by any other denomination. I do know of other Christian theologians who espouse this view of God. I spent a week this summer with a Benedictine monk who had very similar view of God.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
