SeN: "Hope for immortality" is a Useful Salve for Childhood "rape and strangulation."

[Philo Sofee]

Mental
And to think of God as a six foot tall white guy with a beard does stretch credulity, I admit.

Yeah, everyone secretly knows God is only 4'5" tall and sort of a scrawny, useless runt...

[Chap]

Returning to the First Vision. If it happened, then we do know that God has form. And that God is light/energy. Beyond that, it’s speculation even down to Joseph's ‘flesh and bone’ statement.

No. Assuming that there is a person who is the transcendent reality behind the world we perceive (and let's assume we are referring to the deity of the Abrahamic religions), then if that person chooses to let a human being have some kind of personal encounter with him, the fact that the human being in question recounts the encounter in terms of seeing some kind of human entity tells us nothing about the essential nature of the person who permits the encounter to occur.

In the first place, since the entire cosmos and its categories are entirely the creation of the person in question, we can no more use any of its categories to characterise the person that we can use the categories of the board game Cluedo to categorise the creator of that game (is he Colonel Mustard? is he in the library?). Light? Energy? Matter? He made them all.

Secondly, the terms of such an encounter would be entirely up to the person in question. Maybe the only way he can allow a human brain to encounter him is to let that brain form an image of a human male shining with light and wearing white garments? But 'human', 'male', 'shining' and all the rest of it? They are inventions of the creator, and the idea that a human being can ever perceive the creator (if there is one) for what he is seems ... worryingly over-ambitious.

[mentalgymnast]

Returning to the First Vision. If it happened, then we do know that God has form. And that God is light/energy. Beyond that, it’s speculation even down to Joseph's ‘flesh and bone’ statement.

No. Assuming that there is a person who is the transcendent reality behind the world we perceive (and let's assume we are referring to the deity of the Abrahamic religions), then if that person chooses to let a human being have some kind of personal encounter with him, the fact that the human being in question recounts the encounter in terms of seeing some kind of human entity tells us nothing about the essential nature of the person who permits the encounter to occur.

If I’m not mistaken that is pretty much what Blake Ostler is saying in the essay that I referred to up thread. The essential nature of God would be beyond the natural mind to fully understand. So we do the best we can with what we believe we’ve been given or what we can conceptualize.

In the first place, since the entire cosmos and its categories are entirely the creation of the person in question, we can no more use any of its categories to characterise the person that we can use the categories of the board game Cluedo to categorise the creator of that game (is he Colonel Mustard? is he in the library?). Light? Energy? Matter? He made them all.

Unless it is revealed in some manner.

Secondly, the terms of such an encounter would be entirely up to the person in question.

Indeed.

Maybe the only way he can allow a human brain to encounter him is to let that brain form an image of a human male shining with light and wearing white garments? But 'human', 'male', 'shining' and all the rest of it? They are inventions of the creator, and the idea that a human being can ever perceive the creator (if there is one) for what he is seems ... worryingly over-ambitious.

When trying to conceptualize of God I don’t think it’s anywhere near out of bounds to consider the possibility that we are created in his image and likeness. Overly ambitious? I don’t think so.

Other conceptualizations I’ve heard and read about in regards to God‘s nature and characteristics don’t seem to hold any more water, and in most cases much less, than thinking of a God who created us in his image.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

Mental
And to think of God as a six foot tall white guy with a beard does stretch credulity, I admit.

Yeah, everyone secretly knows God is only 4'5" tall and sort of a scrawny, useless runt...

It is indeed very difficult to conceptualize of a 3-D God. Until something better comes along, I am willing to go with it. Although my guess is that this 3-D God would be more than able to slip in and out of other dimensionality’s.

Don’t ask me how.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

When trying to conceptualize of God I don’t think it’s anywhere near out of bounds to consider the possibility that we are created in his image and likeness. Overly ambitious? I don’t think so.

Other conceptualizations I’ve heard and read about in regards to God‘s nature and characteristics don’t seem to hold any more water, and in most cases much less, than thinking of a God who created us in his image.

When we were (so far as we knew) the only intelligent beings on the only planet at the centre of the only world the supposed creator made, it might make some sense (I only said 'some') to think that he might in some way resemble us in physical attributes.

But now ... look out there at all the stars on a winter's night. They are only a tiny fraction of the stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies, which move like a cloud of bees on the flowers in a meadow, each the home to uncounted worlds. And beyond them, there are other clusters, above which there are clusters of clusters.

And the creator of all that just happens to resemble one particular species who for a brief period in the life of the cosmos he created happens to be living on one planet going round an undistinguished star somewhere in a not unusual corner of this cosmos? I don't think a reasonable person would bet on that.

[mentalgymnast]

When trying to conceptualize of God I don’t think it’s anywhere near out of bounds to consider the possibility that we are created in his image and likeness. Overly ambitious? I don’t think so.

Other conceptualizations I’ve heard and read about in regards to God‘s nature and characteristics don’t seem to hold any more water, and in most cases much less, than thinking of a God who created us in his image.

When we were (so far as we knew) the only intelligent beings on the only planet at the centre of the only world the supposed creator made, it might make some sense (I only said 'some') to think that he might in some way resemble us in physical attributes.

But now ... look out there at all the stars on a winter's night. They are only a tiny fraction of the stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies, which move like a cloud of bees on the flowers in a meadow, each the home to uncounted worlds. And beyond them, there are other clusters, above which there are clusters of clusters.

And the creator of all that just happens to resemble one particular species who for a brief period in the life of the cosmos he created happens to be living on one planet going round an undistinguished star somewhere in a not unusual corner of this cosmos? I don't think a reasonable person would bet on that.

I see myself as a reasonable person. I’d be willing to bet on it.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

The essential nature of God would be beyond the natural mind to fully understand. So we do the best we can with what we believe we’ve been given or what we can conceptualize.

When trying to conceptualize of God I don’t think it’s anywhere near out of bounds to consider the possibility that we are created in his image and likeness.

[mentalgymnast]

The essential nature of God would be beyond the natural mind to fully understand. So we do the best we can with what we believe we’ve been given or what we can conceptualize.

When trying to conceptualize of God I don’t think it’s anywhere near out of bounds to consider the possibility that we are created in his image and likeness.

But even then I think it’s beyond expectation that we can conceptualize of his essential nature. Methinks you might be getting hung up on the meaning of “essential”?

Image/likeness=form

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

When we were (so far as we knew) the only intelligent beings on the only planet at the centre of the only world the supposed creator made, it might make some sense (I only said 'some') to think that he might in some way resemble us in physical attributes.

But now ... look out there at all the stars on a winter's night. They are only a tiny fraction of the stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies, which move like a cloud of bees on the flowers in a meadow, each the home to uncounted worlds. And beyond them, there are other clusters, above which there are clusters of clusters.

And the creator of all that just happens to resemble one particular species who for a brief period in the life of the cosmos he created happens to be living on one planet going round an undistinguished star somewhere in a not unusual corner of this cosmos? I don't think a reasonable person would bet on that.

I see myself as a reasonable person. I’d be willing to bet on it.

Regards,
MG

If you are simply talking to yourself, that response will no doubt be fine.

The point, however, since we are on a discussion board, is to convince others. Somehow I don't think your response will cut it.

Very few people think of themselves as anything other than 'a reasonable person', but in deciding whether others are in fact reasonable persons, we can only look from the outside at how they make judgements. And your decision to ignore the huge unlikelihood of the creator of the universe having a physical resemblance to one species (which just happens to be your own species, one of out uncounted others he created) on one particular planet (which just happens to be your planet, one of out uncounted others he created) will inevitably lead your reader to conclude that in this particular instance at least, your faith in Joseph Smith Trump's any exercise of your reasoning powers.

Surely it would be franker, and more likely to elicit the respect of others, to come right out and say, in the words of that song that made such an impact on Broadway a few years back "I am a Mormon - and Mormons just believe!"?

[mentalgymnast]

...your decision to ignore the huge unlikelihood of the creator of the universe having a physical resemblance to one species (which just happens to be your own species, one of out uncounted others he created) on one particular planet (which just happens to be your planet, one of out uncounted others he created)...

Unlike you, I don’t see this as an unlikelihood. Although I’m willing to take on some other possibilities for fun.

Suggestions?

Surely it would be franker, and more likely to elicit the respect of others, to come right out and say, in the words of that song that made such an impact on Broadway a few years back "I am a Mormon - and Mormons just believe!"?

If I came at things with that strict POV, I would expect disrespect rather than respect. In fact, I respect those that put in the time and effort to seek that which is true over the course of a lifetime. OTOH, I don’t have as much respect for those that put in minimal effort at doing the same.

Regards,
MG