Lon
Well-known member
She lives in Algood (about 70miles east from Nashville). Beautiful area. I'd move there in a heartbeat (her letters read about like you've typed here though, so you weren't far off).
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
She lives in Algood (about 70miles east from Nashville). Beautiful area. I'd move there in a heartbeat (her letters read about like you've typed here though, so you weren't far off).
patman
Active member
Last edited:
patman
Active member
Hang on, hang on. You know what God is like by your reasoning, and yet you spout out a sentence like "God cannot have any potentiality because absolutely speaking potentiality is posterior to act?" Do you see the irony?
Here's the thing. You have your reasoning, the guy next to you has his, his wife has hers, their friends have theirs, and at one point no one knows the same God if all they do is use their reasoning.
That is why he put it down in a book, for us to read about it.
It is easier to tell who you are talking to when you address the person by name, btw.
patman
Active member
We have relatives in Nashville. People over there still have a draw, too.
Did you ever reply to/see that post I sent you a few pages back?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1434813&postcount=6691
Pat, there are thousands of subjective interpretations of Scripture so whether there are words in a book, the Protestants and fundamentalists interpret any way they want.
That why the protestants and evangelists have different denominations in the thousands now from what I understand.
That why the protestants and evangelists have different denominations in the thousands now from what I understand.
patman
Active member
At the very least they look to the Bible. What do you have as a standard that I can place my faith in? I think God is able to designate a Book for his people and preserve it enough that we can find out about him.
Sorry to be grim, but your reasonings will be nothing but dust in the ground in 100 years. The Bible will last forever.
Lon
Well-known member
Hello Patman
Hello Patman
No, thank you for the bump. This board has moved over the past few days, so bumps are greatly appreciated
Have you ever seen me answer that way?
Hello Patman
No, thank you for the bump. This board has moved over the past few days, so bumps are greatly appreciated
Have you ever seen me answer that way?
Philetus
New member
I moved to New Zealand so you don't have to deal with that any more
Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, New Zealand for real? Closest I ever got to that was Zealand, Michigan.
Now I'm really jealous. I hear you can't live there if you can't pronounce that in five syllables or less.
Thanks TOL, My quest for knowledge has been satisfied with that one.
For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, “It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything ‘prior’ (before) or ‘posterior’ (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved (by) something that moves things without being moved; this will be something eternal...it will be an actuality ”
In other words, the unmoved mover (first or uncaused cause), must always have something, (the world) to move or else there would have to be a "time" when the unmoved mover would have started to move things which would be impossible because then it would not be the unmoved mover.
Last edited:
Now you on the right track here!
Agreed, as you said Aristotle believed that the cosmos and time were eternal. His idea was of eternal thought. He only dealt with these questions to a certain point of practicality. In today's terms just looking at physics.
Aquinas being a Christian and being confronted with the rediscovery of Aristotle and the threat it had on Christian thinking had to defend Christian thinking against Aristotle. Aquinas looked at being as being or ontology and defended Christianity of its understanding of God being immutable all knowing and all powerful.
Your whole argument that it was Plato or Aristotle who brought about this idea of an immutable God has just been rejected by your own statement.
It was always the view of Christians, ancient Hebrews and Jews that God was immutable, eternal (created time) all knowing.
Open theism, God being movable and in time is closer to Aristotle as your statement reveals!
Agreed, as you said Aristotle believed that the cosmos and time were eternal. His idea was of eternal thought. He only dealt with these questions to a certain point of practicality. In today's terms just looking at physics.
Aquinas being a Christian and being confronted with the rediscovery of Aristotle and the threat it had on Christian thinking had to defend Christian thinking against Aristotle. Aquinas looked at being as being or ontology and defended Christianity of its understanding of God being immutable all knowing and all powerful.
Your whole argument that it was Plato or Aristotle who brought about this idea of an immutable God has just been rejected by your own statement.
It was always the view of Christians, ancient Hebrews and Jews that God was immutable, eternal (created time) all knowing.
Open theism, God being movable and in time is closer to Aristotle as your statement reveals!
YOUR reasonings? What are your beliefs? Which group or leader holds to them? Your beliefs do not seem to be mainstream. Are you Christian or something else?
Posted by Lonster
Yes, I agree. Good correction. The dichotomy is interesting. The same problematic interpretations are levelled at both, would you agree?
I.E. God repented (1Sa 15:11,1Sa 15:35), God does not repent (1Sa 15:29)
Posted by Dave
Now we just have to look at the context of these scriptures to see what God repents of and what he does not repent of.
It "repented" God that he made Saul king, God would "not repent" (change not) of his decision to remove Saul from being king.
Yes, I agree. Good correction. The dichotomy is interesting. The same problematic interpretations are levelled at both, would you agree?
I.E. God repented (1Sa 15:11,1Sa 15:35), God does not repent (1Sa 15:29)
Posted by Dave
Now we just have to look at the context of these scriptures to see what God repents of and what he does not repent of.
It "repented" God that he made Saul king, God would "not repent" (change not) of his decision to remove Saul from being king.
Thanks. There seems to be a variety of Catholic beliefs. Are you conservative or liberal Catholic?
Would you say you know and love Jesus or are simply religious and practice rote ritual?
Does Molinism ring a bell? ('middle knowledge' alternative to Open Theism).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm
Opinion? (William Lane Craig is a non-Catholic who believes in middle knowledge).
Has anyone noticed how slow this thread has become? Not slow as in boring but slow as in literal performance. Sometimes when thread gets REALLY long it causes the database to struggle to move to the correct point in the data and therefore slows down the performance of the thread. I think this thread might need to be closed and we could open up a new one and start from scratch.
Why do I try? :bang:
I was wondering if it is widely accepted by Catholics.
I find Molinism confusing, problematic, and not adequate to resolve the issues of foreknowledge/free will. "Middle knowledge" still seems to undermine contingencies and freedom.
I still find Open Theism to be closer to the truth (2 motifs: God predestines, settles, knows some of the future; God leaves much of the future unsettled and known as possible vs certain in advance).
- Status