Showing posts with label ostler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ostler. Show all posts

Monday, August 4, 2008

Of God and gods

Rating:★★★★
Category:Books
Genre: Religion & Spirituality
Author:Ostler, Blake
While reading the latest installment of Blake Ostler’s “Exploring Mormon Thought” I was starting to become disappointed. Mainly, it was because he was treading ground that I have already explored. The first chapters deal with the Council of the Gods. While I know that among some it was a new concept, I have read quite a bit about the topic. As others have stated, most of the current scholarship is going down this route, (http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=644)

What was of slightly more interest to me was his discussion on “Kingship Monotheism” and how that is the type of theism expressed in the OT and in the NT. Those are more convincing arguments, and a view that I already hold. Some of these are quite extensive and actually reference Ugaritic texts as well as DSS manuscripts (another set of writings I long to investigate). Since this is not anywhere near an exhaustive, or even anywhere close to a professional review, I’ll leave it to the reader to actually get into the text.

Then, after a month-long break, I decided to take the book up again. Really, I wasn’t nearly as excited about this book as the previous books. Now he started taking on the trinity. In the previous books he took on the ontological theories on the trinity and really slammed them in my opinion. This book seems to take on the identity questions about the trinity. I quote from the first paragraph on “The Latin Trinity, Logic, and Scripture”.

It is not uncommon to find traditional Christians who assert that Mormons must be excluded from the true Christian faith because of an erroneous ideal of the Trinity. However, irony abounds in such assertions. Rare indeed is the person in traditional camps who can elucidate the notion of the Trinity without falling into one of the many so-called heresies that lurk in the graveyard of Trinitarian theories. In fact, I have never seen a carefully spelled-out statement of the doctrine of the Trinity that did not commit either the heresy of modalism or of tritheism unless it simply propounded an unintelligible position or reveled in mystery. However, a person who asserts that Mormons must somehow get the doctrine of the Trinity right as a condition for salvation can hardly take refuge in unintelligibility or mystery, for a person must be able to understand what is asserted in a doctrine to be able to believe it and, even more importantly, to be mistaken about it in a way that merits exclusion from the body of the saved. If the ability to elucidate an intelligible doctrine of the Trinity that does not commit heresy is a condition for salvation, the number of saved will be very small indeed. Such a requirement would undoubtedly exclude all those poor souls who considered themselves Christians but just didn’t have the intellectual acumen to express an outright contradiction intelligibly. If it appears that I am trying to hide a thinly veiled contempt for the imposition of such a condition on Latter-day Saints, I am not trying to conceal anything; rather I am expressing my contempt forthrightly for the non-sense that it is.

The last several chapters dealt with theosis and the superiority of the LDS position, otherwise known as “Robust Deification”. He spent some time on the contradictions on some of the theologians take on the doctrine but overall he said that those who hold the creator/created paradigm cannot claim theosis as a valid doctrine, as we cannot approach God on his own terms. That also applies to the EOC take on sharing of the divine energies. If you ultimately believe that we are “other” in relation to God, we cannot share in what he has, on the same terms, as is spelled out in scripture.

The same problem exists for those that hold Creation Ex Nihilo. It demands that we are different than God and we can be obliterated by God at any time, therefore deification is not possible, because we don’t really share any of the nature of God when viewed in those terms. “What deification gives man, Ex Nihilo takes away.”

I did bypass some sections of the book, as they delved into weaknesses of other theories, most of which I was unfamiliar with. Overall, I enjoyed the book.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Questions Christians can't answer

One of the main reasons that I'm mormon is that I think that some questions are answered by the LDS theology that can't be answered in traditional theology.

Case it point:

http://www.christiansonline.cc/forum/reasoned-debates/2665-who-jesus.html

and

http://www.christiansonline.cc/forum/comparing-notes/3675-atonement.html

I view these as fundimental to christian belief, and they simply aren't addressed coherently. I admit that I have to think about things a bit more but that is one reason why I'm intrigued by Ostler.

Monday, April 14, 2008

A Return to Logic: Blake T Ostler among Mormon Theologians

Rating:★★★★
Category:Other
While I didn't really pay attention to the presentor, I really liked Blake's response. He touches Heavenly Mother. He stated that Joseph Smith didn't mention or teach Heavenly Mother and that Eliza Snow "made it up". Whether he believes it, he didn't say.

This was just a good talk. I highly recommend it.

http://sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL04225.mp3

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Exploring Mormon Thought: The problems of Theism and the Love of God.

Rating:★★★★
Category:Books
Genre: Religion & Spirituality
Author:Blake Ostler
Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God.

I wish I could have the patience to write all my feelings and thoughts about the book. Aside from the fact that much of this book went over my head, I think the series contains some of the most important essays and studies of mormon ideologies I have ever encountered. That isn’t to say that I necessarily agree with the author in all respects either.

The first book in the series took on the nature of God and showed how logically, the theology of “orthodox Christianity” is not supportable by scripture nor logic. This book takes on such things as the nature of sin, soteriology and grace. This book has some pretty strong chapter headings: “The Implausibility of Original Sin”, “Self-Deception and Justification by Faith” and “The Problem of Grace”. While I don’t pretend to understand all his arguments, it certainly has made me look at things differently.

My favorite chapters deal with original sin (“Guilt cannot be imputed.”) and the atonement (“Guilt cannot be imputed.”). I will only focus on a few of his arguments on the atonement and the simple refutation of traditional explanations.

Ransom Theory
This is based on being slaves to sin and in captivity to the Devil. Jesus paid the price to get us out of this situation. (1Cor 6:20 and Mark 10:45). “..it fell out of favor because it assumed that God had to resort to trickery to free sinners. Worse, it assumed that God could not simply overpower Satan any time he wanted to.” Pg 261

Satisfaction Theory
This is along the lines that God’s honor has been wronged and needs to be repaired.
“The demand to repair God’s honor seems to be a snobbish self-centeredness that reflects God’s concern for himself and total disregard for our interests and well-being…It assumes that one can amass superogatory moral merit so that one has more moral ‘cash’ than one needs for one’s self. However, moral virtue is not like a bank account that can be saved up and spent. And finally, the notion that God makes a demand to satisfy his honor by punishing the only person who fully honored him is contrary even to the feudal code of honor because it is dishonorable to punish an innocent person to obtain satisfaction.” Pg 263.

Moral Influence Theory
This is based on an error in satisfaction theory, that God can’t commune because of his wounded honor, when it is really our sin that is causing the problem. It is correct in as far as it goes but does not explain how Christ bears our sins nor why Christ’s suffering makes forgiveness possible. Pg 264.

Governmental Theory
LDS might know this as the laws of Justice and Mercy. This is more like a precursor to that theory. Laws are violated and Jesus satisfied the Law while showing mercy.

Penal Substitution Theory.
Developed primarily by John Calvin. God set up laws and he can’t forgive us because his laws must be obeyed. Ostler set up 5 main arguments against this position

1) The penal theory posits a conflict between Father and Son. A loving forgiving Son must persuade the Father to turn away his wrath.
2) The penal theory erroneously assumes that guilt, or righteousness, can be transferred. Innocents being punished for the guilty is not acceptable in any legal system.
3) The penal theory is unjust. This view assumes that the humans who deserve to be punished escape it while the only person in the history of the world who does not deserve punishment is punished in our place.
4) The penal theory limits God’s power to forgive. It fails to explain why we can forgive each other but somehow God is incapable of doing it himself.
5) The penal theory entails a legal fiction as the basis for our reconciliation. It entails that God in fact overlooks our sinfulness and instead regards us as righteous because Christ is—even though it is not true that we are in fact righteous.

He calls his theory of atonement as the Compassion Theory of Atonement. That sin is real in that it separates us from God, from developing a loving relationship with him. Christ’s atonement is His pain in forgiving us. His need or desire to reestablish that relationship and the pain he feels in doing that.

I’m not necessarily sold on this yet, but it is intriguing. I can’t even say that I even have the ability to defend it. I still think it is dangerous that he uses philosophy to defend his views, in that most LDS view that as the prime reason for the departure of early Christianity from the Gospel.

http://www.christiansonline.cc/forum/comparing-notes/3675-atonement.html

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

"Book of Mormon Historicity: Implications of the Various Views." -- Blake Ostler

Rating:★★★
Category:Other
http://sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL86001.mp3
Ostler, Blake T. (as panelist), and others. "Book of Mormon Historicity: Implications of the Various Views." Sunstone Salt Lake Symposium [Audio Recording: August 20, 1986]. Available from http://sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL86001.mp3; Internet; accessed January 17, 2008.

I am not one to work too much with the Book of Mormon. I doesn't hit me as much as other works of JS. This recording seems to wander around but it does offer some insight into Mr. Ostler. He is quite opinionated and doesn't seem to suffer fools very well. He is a believer though, and many of his critics at Sunstone aren't...which makes me kind of wonder about their sanity.

Then again, I'm not Hindu and I still like to read about it.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Blake Ostler - Mormon Finitism and Absolutist Preconceptions & The Adequate Object of Religious Worship

Rating:★★★
Category:Other
From http://www.blakeostler.com/complete_works.html and http://sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL82019.mp3

An interesting talk on how we deal with God, like asking for things in prayer, and how this conflicts with "traditional" theology. It specifically addresses things like omnipotence is really impossible under current logic and philosophy.