 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2005 1:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | Repost from end of thread discussions...
------------------------------------
Givens:
1) Seven points amended:
--God IS love. Not God is "loving" God IS love.
--God is completely omnipotent. God can accomplish whatever God wants to accomplish that doesn't a) violate the laws of logic (including the metaphysics of love) and b) does not go against God's necessary essential existence.
--God REALLY wants display His glorious nature to beings OTHER THAN God and have it represented back to God by that something.
--God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
--God REALLY wants all sentient beings in Creation to embody and reflect God's glorious nature to God and each other forever...extending the "dance of the Trinity"
--God REALLY DOESN'T WANT any sentient being to experience eternal destruction. Not only because it's bad for the sentient beings...but because that would TAKE AWAY from God's own aesthetic experience of contingent reality.
--If there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that God can actualize God's own divine disposition and intentions, God will do so.
2) The actualization and internalization of loving acts and/or loving intentions are metaphysically impossible without self-determining agency, via libertarian free will (Metaphysics of love)
3) From the perspective of sentient creatures, all loving relationships must be initiated, sustained, and consummated by the actualization of loving acts and/or loving intentions in order to be genuine. (Metaphysics of love)
4) There must be enough epistemic distance to allow for SOME ambiguity on a sentient being's understanding of the God/creature relationship. ("trust" factor)
5) If it is obvious that a sentient creature is making choices out of a dysfunctional, compulsive frame of mind just prior to a point-of-no-return such that...
a) sound, reality-based rational and moral deliberation is not present [they are trapped in self-deceit and erroneous cognitive maps]
b) their own qualitative ultimate harm (whatever that may be) is an imminent risk, and
c) all non-forceful persuasion is not working...
then it is in alignment with perfectly loving character to try to assertively INTERVENE on that person's behalf, even to the point of heavily restricting that person's freedom to choose, in order to help them discover their dysfunction for themselves, to help them discover their TRUE motivations, and to empower them to replace their old life-denying thoughts/interpreations with life-affirming mental frameworks that help them make the best choice possible. (Proposed moral dictum)
In other words, I argue that a perfectly loving being would not fail to enact a freedom-constricting intervention on a beloved person that prevents said beloved person from falling into ultimate harm, while it's in his/her genuine ability to do so.
--------------------------------
Starting at Step 1:
A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
At this point, a sentient being is pretty close to the "point of no return" with regard to eternal self-destruction. By this time, they have wasted much of their lives and possibilities in futility. They have contributed hardly anything to themselves, Creation, or God but problems. They may think that they are "happy", but in truth, they are completely bound to sinful desire and their choices are now little more than dysfunctional compulsions acted out. These people are FAR from what God created them to be. If God doesn't intervene, this people will be fit for nothing BUT eternal destruction.
Moving on to Step 2:
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
God intervenes and God begins to give the "optimal grace" ala Walls in order to empower the sentient being and free them from their bondage so they can make a choice UNHINDERED by the former bondage to sinful desire and dysfunctional compulsions. (Note: this is NOT the same things as bestowing moral perfection upon them! This is a cognitive reframing of their skewed belief systems that previously made reality-based deliberation impossible) This is ONLY possible because of the dispositional reality created within all creations.
Moving on at Step 4:
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
At Step 5, an interesting type of relationship is created between God and the sentient being. If I can use Walls' language, this would be the point where there is the "initial sense" of being "fully informed" about God. Let's just refer to this as the head-knowledge relationship. Steps 2-4 have provided the being with a SERIOUS reality check...and it now knows without doubt that it's former activity has been utterly futile. It's been shown the extent of it's folly. Not too pretty of a discovery. The being also discovers that the only way to truly fulfill it's own felt ultimate self-interest is in loving relationship with God. All of this is cognitively understood. Head knowledge.
Now, at this point, we have a crucial part! Amid all of this realization, the being has the metaphysical ability to completely negate all of it's desires, all rationality, and all reason, and decide to continue it's trek into utter eternal self-destruction. This being could choose against God, "even though the person sees absolutely no good reason for doing so, has every reason not to do so, and has absolutely no compelling desire to do so." (Reitan, pg 136) To be sure, this would be an existential leap of drastic proportions. So much so, in fact, it would be hard pressed to call it a "free" choice in any meaningful sense. Nevertheless, it IS logically possible.
However, the odds are IMMENSELY against this possibility occuring (odds approaching 0), given the realization that has occured. In line with rationality, the being ends up with an unchangeable desire for a sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God. This being may not even know HOW to love yet. But it's willing to learn and grow towards that at this point. Again, this is not a LOVE relationship per se, at all. This is a relationship born of awareness, recognition, and in some real sense, repentence. Right now, beings are just acting on what they hold to be true. This relationship with God is one of acknowledgement and response
Next, Step 6:
God increases epistemic distance as to not determine all movement of the sentient being.
Epistemic distance for the hell-people is increased such that there is room for free choice of HOW to respond to their empowered rationality.
Then we have Step 7: Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous. Sometime in the post-rock-bottom process, the sentient being begins to actually receive (rather than reject) God's love...internalizing it. For some beings, PERHAPS for the first time in a very long time. Then, the being makes the "leap" and freely actualizes a loving act or loving inclination towards God. It is HERE that the relationship TRANSFORMS and a God/creature love relationship actually begins. This actualization comes solely from the self-determining sentient being...and therefore qualifies as genuine love. Remember, this would not occur without libertarian free will. It must be said. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that this initial decision to love would never take place, because of libertarian free will. However, as before, the odds against this, all things considered, are SO REMOTE at this point, they become quite negligible and not a concern. Anyways, from this point, a NEW type of knowledge emerges: lived, experiential knowledge. This knowledge formulation is growing towards what Walls' calls the "ultimate sense" of being fully informed about God where..."it means to know with profound clarity in the depths of our being and at all levels of our character that God is perfectly good and wise and that he is the indispensable source of our happiness and fulfillment."(page 117) This can ONLY be done by self-determining agents actualization loving activity with God. Only after concretely experiencing the internalization and reciprocation of God's love is growth in this area possible. A type of knowledge spiral forms. A snowball effect, if you will. To know God is to love God is to know God, etc. The beings, at this point, not only know at a cognitive level that their ways were futile, they know it know on an even deeper level...as they experience more and more love sharing with God. Over time, we get to steps 8 through 10: Step 8: Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
Step 9: Over more time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, moves from Step 7 to consciously pursuing the love relationship with God for God's sake.
Step 10: Over Steps 8 through 9, solidification towards God is taking place, as the character gets more and more developed towards God. Finally, completely solidification in God takes place.The culmination of this whole thing is a sentient being who has learned and grown in love to the point of solidification in God's love. This being would be a Johnny-come-lately par excellence...with little to show from it's earthly existence...but it's reconciled nonetheless. Now, from what I'm gathering here, the ONLY aspect in this whole thing that might be objectionable to a libertarian free willer would be what occurs in Step 5 (as Tom has already done). A libertarian free willer may say that unless the very DESIRE to want a loving relationship with God is a product of "free" choice, the entire enterprise cannot be called a genuine love relationship. At this point, I would raise Reitan's very good arguments about what a "free" decision requires...and theorize that it may be not be possible for God to LIBERATE a person's ability to choose WITHOUT making things so "overwhelming" that sentient beings are no longer able to deceive themselves concerning their need for God. The level of self-deception, may be so powerful in the sentient being that, even though they are not yet solidified against God, they are not able to break themselves out of the grip of lies. If it's not possible, then I submit that God would perform the "liberating" activity anyway, because people of loving character INTERVENE to help desperately endangered people who do not have the ability to help themselves, insofar as they are able...and God is a loving being. Because Step 5 does NOT 1) remove the metaphysical ability of the person to solidify against God [the probability remains between 0 and 1] and 2) constitute a loving act or loving inclination, it is NOT a violation of the metaphysics of love. If all this is acceptable then we can say the following: God views our ultimate harm via eternal self-destruction as so UNACCEPTABLE to God's divine purposes, that he has made a way such that the mere possibility of any sentient being experiencing eternal self-destruction does exist...but is rendered EXTREMELY REMOTE, to the point of being negligible for all intents and purposes. This leads to the idea of inevitable universal reconcilation. Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/18/2005 1:20:38 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/18/2005 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: The level of self-deception, may be so powerful in the sentient being that, even though they are not yet solidified against God, they are not able to break themselves out of the grip of lies. If it's not possible, then I submit that God would perform the "liberating" activity anyway, because people of loving character INTERVENE to help desperately endangered people who do not have the ability to help themselves, insofar as they are able...and God is a loving being.
Jeff: I would say loving persons intervene, insofar as they are able, to help people who need help, PERIOD. Not JUST when they're DESPERATELY endangered. That's why I keep saying the HERE and NOW is hard to reconcile with the view of love you're advocating. Why doesn't God decrease the epistemic distance PRE-MORTEM if that would HELP people?
Isn't that why you have always been so distraught at natural evil? Because it INCREASES epistemic distance (apart from the physical destruction, that is)? And because that increase seems to actually HURT rather then HELP people? So your posited TELOS just makes more questionable our understanding of God's power in the HERE and NOW, to me. Help me understand this.
But that's not all. It IMPLIES that texts written by people who God supposedly "approved with signs and wonders" actually LED US ASTRAY. So it's not just adding confusion--it IMPLIES, at face value, that God DECEIVED us, to some extent. I can't reconcile this with a loving person.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/18/2005 7:41:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/18/2005 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, cool! Thanks for starting this thread, Meph. I'll get back to this tonight after church part deux.
Now just to make sure, you don't mind discussing this topic a bit further, do you? If you're REALLY not too interested in discussing this further, feel free to let me know, no hard feelings here at all--I don't want this to seem to you like it's driving a dead horse into the ground, so to speak.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 12/18/2005 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph: The level of self-deception, may be so powerful in the sentient being that, even though they are not yet solidified against God, they are not able to break themselves out of the grip of lies. If it's not possible, then I submit that God would perform the "liberating" activity anyway, because people of loving character INTERVENE to help desperately endangered people who do not have the ability to help themselves, insofar as they are able...and God is a loving being.
You may intervene against their will once or twice but NOT forever and ever. That's coercion and you'd effectively be putting them in a prison forever. Not very loving, imho.
Do we lock all suicidal people up until they die?
God wants WILLING participants, not prisoners......
One way scripture portrays it is as our marriage to Jesus.
How long does one pursue women that weren't interested in us?
Did we "intervene" as they are obviously self-deceived as to what is best for them?
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 12/18/2005 7:44:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2005 9:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I would say loving persons intervene, insofar as they are able, to help people who need help, PERIOD. Not JUST when they're DESPERATELY endangered. That's why I keep saying the HERE and NOW is hard to reconcile with the view of love you're advocating. Why doesn't God decrease the epistemic distance PRE-MORTEM if that would HELP people?
Isn't that why you have always been so distraught at natural evil? Because it INCREASES epistemic distance (apart from the physical destruction, that is)? And because that increase seems to actually HURT rather then HELP people? So your posited TELOS just makes more questionable our understanding of God's power in the HERE and NOW, to me. Help me understand this
Ok. At this point, we need to remember all the stuff that Doc argued in SATPOE. I don't diminish any of those perspectives that he says may play into the problem of evil, including the limitations of nature, "soul-making", and all that. ALL those arguments have to play some part in our theodicies to be complete, I believe. (including the idea of probationary periods)
What I hear you saying is that there should be absolutely NO difference from the way God acts post-mortem, post-rock bottom...and the way God acts now. But this is to deny the possible existence of probationary periods in which God works differently. We don't have to do that. If you have it, check SATPOE on this again.
*******************************
Jeff:
But that's not all. It IMPLIES that texts written by people who God supposedly "approved with signs and wonders" actually LED US ASTRAY. So it's not just adding confusion--it IMPLIES, at face value, that God DECEIVED us, to some extent. I can't reconcile this with a loving person.
Not really. It implies that our doctrines of inspiration have been different than we thought they were and that God's interaction with the inspired writers may have been more reliant on humanness that we first thought. That's all.
*********************************
ThatDarnCat:
1. You may intervene against their will once or twice but NOT forever and ever. That's coercion and you'd effectively be putting them in a prison forever. Not very loving, imho.
With the divine "reality check" I'm proposing, one time of intervention is ALL that's needed, really.
---------------------------------
Do we lock all suicidal people up until they die?
No, but we do all that we can to help empower them to see that their lives are important and worth living. We want them to see the TRUTH about themselves and their futures with God. We sometimes fail in our attempts. God DOESN'T fail in doing this.
------------------------------------
God wants WILLING participants, not prisoners......
Agreed. Look, "hell" is a big DETOX UNIT, ok? It's where self-deluded people are faced with the horrible reality of themselves and begin to "get clean". It's a prison...but one that specializes in rehabilitative justice!
----------------------
One way scripture portrays it is as our marriage to Jesus.
How long does one pursue women that weren't interested in us?
God is the Hound of Heaven who pursues us as long as it takes.
----------------------------------
Did we "intervene" as they are obviously self-deceived as to what is best for them?
What? I don't understand this one.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2005 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
Now just to make sure, you don't mind discussing this topic a bit further, do you? If you're REALLY not too interested in discussing this further, feel free to let me know, no hard feelings here at all--I don't want this to seem to you like it's driving a dead horse into the ground, so to speak.
Nah. It's no problem. It's just another chance to hone my ideas, I guess. It's cool.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 12/18/2005 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | |
With the divine "reality check" I'm proposing, one time of intervention is ALL that's needed, really.
A one time violation of their will or a one time chance, after they're dead, to make another decision?
Where do you get the idea people are still alive after they're dead? What changes after we die? Nothing? We still go on making choices and basing decisions upon the amount of faith we have that God exists and rewards those who seek Him? Isn't it pretty obvious He DOES exist and that rewards and punishment are real?
Where is there a shred of evidence that we have ANY choices after we die?
Do we lock all suicidal people up until they die?
No, but we do all that we can to help empower them to see that their lives are important and worth living. We want them to see the TRUTH about themselves and their futures with God. We sometimes fail in our attempts. God DOESN'T fail in doing this.
Guaranteed because He violates their will?
One way scripture portrays it is as our marriage to Jesus.
How long does one pursue women that weren't interested in us?
God is the Hound of Heaven who pursues us as long as it takes.
Any psychologist will tell you that we cannot, with finality, intevene forever with someone. Either they live free and choose their own course, or they are held as prisoners against their will.
If you love something enough, let it go. If it comes back to you, it's yours.
If it doesn't come back to you, then "hunt it down and kill it" says Mephi.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/19/2005 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: Nah. It's no problem. It's just another chance to hone my ideas, I guess. It's cool.
VFG: Great! Thanks!
Just think of it this way (this is what I say to Alan when I read his papers and ask questions about it) : when you can break it down to my level, then you'll be able to explain it to nearly anyone --theologians and non-theologians alike! 
Ok, just two small questions...
Meph: ...Within sentient beings, it is the posited reality that mediates possibility and actuality that forms the locus of...
VFG: What do you mean by "posited reality"? Here are my (probably incorrect) guesses: refering to the "posited 'spirit'" in the previous sentence; or, how we perceive reality; or, what is true about our dispositions...
Meph: ... the knowledge of the Creator resident in all sentient beings. [My added idea])
VFG: This statement's a bit vague; I see it can be interpreted two ways:
1) the KNOWLEDGE (of the Creator) resident in all sentient beings, i.e. internally we all possess knowledge of the Creator,
or
2) the knowledge of the CREATOR RESIDENT in all sentient beings, i.e. we all know the Creator resides in all of us.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2005 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
Meph: ...Within sentient beings, it is the posited reality that mediates possibility and actuality that forms the locus of...
VFG: What do you mean by "posited reality"? Here are my (probably incorrect) guesses: refering to the "posited 'spirit'" in the previous sentence; or, how we perceive reality; or, what is true about our dispositions...
Ok. What I mean is that the term "disposition" is not a formal term used in Hartshornean process theology, nor Whitehead's. There was no mechanism in the system to really mediate between possibility and actuality within "occasion". It was like everything emerged by their own self-creation (causa sui) from nothing at all. Doc argued rightly that this it nonsensical, but up until that time, nothing had been proposed to deal with the problem. Doc argued that the process metaphysic was basically on the right track, but needed SOME from of reality that wasn't quite possibility nor actuality that would meaningfully bridge the two. Synthesizing some ideas from Jonathon Edwards and C.S. Pierce, Doc proposed the "disposition", similar in principle to Pierce's "thirdness".
It is THIS posited reality that helps the process metaphysic become meaningful...AND gives ontological ground for the "freedom" that exists in all things. Incidentally, it was this idea that sealed the deal for me to be open to open theism. It was the locus of the LFW in human beings.
****************************
Violin:
Meph: ... the knowledge of the Creator resident in all sentient beings. [My added idea])
VFG: This statement's a bit vague; I see it can be interpreted two ways:
1) the KNOWLEDGE (of the Creator) resident in all sentient beings, i.e. internally we all possess knowledge of the Creator,
or
2) the knowledge of the CREATOR RESIDENT in all sentient beings, i.e. we all know the Creator resides in all of us.
Ok. One of the statements that we often make is that there is a "God-shaped vaccuum" in the hearts of sentient beings. That, deep inside, we all KNOW that there is a Creator. Hence, the ubiuqity of worship and feelings of self-transcendence in humanity. My thought is that this nebulous "knowing" is NOT merely some side-effect of consciousness nor an unexplainable activity...but that it's planted in who we are as sentient beings right in our "dispositions". In other words, part of our dispositional constitutions is an element that is made to "plug in" with God, as it were. It's the part of us that allows us to be spiritually united with God. And just like the stomach hungers for food, this aspect of the dispositional reality hungers for God...and that hunger shows up in various ways. That hunger can also be repressed, ignored, and explained away.
Again, the "spirit" of sentient beings is the BEST PLACE to postulate the existence of the ontological basis for the "God-shaped vaccuum" and it also coheres with what the biblical idea that EVERYONE has SOME knowledge of God already (Romans) as well as with the ubiquity of feelings of self-transcendence.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2005 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Bringing something over here from the other thread...
My concession, for the longest time, has been this:
God is love. In the end, God will be victorious over all of God's enemies. Everying aligned with the Kingdom of God will exist in God's presence and love. Everything that is not aligned with the Kingdom of God will be annihilated. And everything that can be possibly be salvaged by God will be.
What this means (as Doc alluded to in his post and what Tom indirectly affirmed as well on the other thread) is that the MAIN issue is not whether or not God WOULD try to redeem all sentient beings as long as there was something left to redeem. It was given that a perfectly loving God would genuine seek to save EVERYTHING that could be saved.
Thus the main issue was simply this: Is it the case that God could indeed create a LFW-possessing Creation such that it would be veritably guaranteed that there would ALWAYS be SOMETHING to redeem in sentient creatures. Could God have some way of assuring that some "remnant" however small would be left for God to work with unto restoration?
I argue that it IS the case by way of the dispositional realities (ie "spirits" in all sentient beings...and God's interaction with those realities (as specified in the "Steps" above)
So, then I do the math.
If there IS a possible world where eventual universal reconciliation is consonant with the "laws of logic" and the "metaphysics of love"...
...AND there exists an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator God...
..AND God genuinely desires a creation where ALL emergent sentient creatures would ultimately come to share in God's life and love eternally...
...then the all-loving God would NOT FAIL to actualize that possible world.
If we can agree that THIS is the formerly "possible world" that God chose to actualize, then we have reason to say that eventual universal reconciliation is true.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/19/2005 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph: ...Within sentient beings, it is the posited reality that mediates possibility and actuality that forms the locus of...
VFG: What do you mean by "posited reality"? Here are my (probably incorrect) guesses: refering to the "posited 'spirit'" in the previous sentence; or, how we perceive reality; or, what is true about our dispositions...
Meph: Ok. What I mean is that the term "disposition" is not a formal term used in Hartshornean process theology, nor Whitehead's.
VFG: What I was asking was what does the term "posited reality" mean? Does "posited reality" = "proposition"? Or is it that whenever you use the term "posited reality", you're referring to "disposition" as you just described it?
Sorry if my question was unclear. I'm just trying to get the exact definitions of the terms you're using.
----------
Meph: There was no mechanism in the system to really mediate between possibility and actuality within "occasion". It was like everything emerged by their own self-creation (causa sui) from nothing at all. Doc argued rightly that this it nonsensical, but up until that time, nothing had been proposed to deal with the problem. Doc argued that the process metaphysic was basically on the right track, but needed SOME from of reality that wasn't quite possibility nor actuality that would meaningfully bridge the two. Synthesizing some ideas from Jonathon Edwards and C.S. Pierce, Doc proposed the "disposition", similar in principle to Pierce's "thirdness".
VFG: Ok, I think I'm starting to understand what you mean. I asked Alan about the concept of thirdness (one of his fortes is he said he's a Pierce scholar too) and whoa, abstract stuff. But one thing he brought up is that it's strange that Doc said that the disposition was missing in Process theology considering that Hartshorne was a strong Pierce scholar himself. So a question would be, why would Hartshorne have omitted the principle of "thirdness" in his formulation of Process? I haven't read Doc's dissertation and Alan's only read the first couple of chapters so far.
****************************
Meph: My thought is that this nebulous "knowing" is NOT merely some side-effect of consciousness nor an unexplainable activity...but that it's planted in who we are as sentient beings right in our "dispositions". In other words, part of our dispositional constitutions is an element that is made to "plug in" with God, as it were.
VFG: Ok, cool. I have some other thoughts on this, but I have to get going, so I'll post later.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 12/19/2005 5:32:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/19/2005 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | (Ok, I don't have to go after all, yipee)
Meph: Thus the main issue was simply this: Is it the case that God could indeed create a LFW-possessing Creation such that it would be veritably guaranteed that there would ALWAYS be SOMETHING to redeem in sentient creatures. Could God have some way of assuring that some "remnant" however small would be left for God to work with unto restoration?
VFG: Sure... if God originally put an expiration date (or point) on LFW. (Which that's what you've been positing with the rock-bottom scenario, right?)
But then, at that point the expiration occurs, THE FOLLOWING would have to be given up: --God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/19/2005 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: My thought is that this nebulous "knowing" is NOT merely some side-effect of consciousness nor an unexplainable activity...but that it's planted in who we are as sentient beings right in our "dispositions". In other words, part of our dispositional constitutions is an element that is made to "plug in" with God, as it were.
VFG: Ok, this is your hypothesis. Great. But the question is, why accept this hypothesis? What's the support for accepting this hypothesis (that there is something originally planted) over some alternative explanation for the disposition?
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/19/2005 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | Here's an alternative explanation/hypothesis that could account for the disposition (of not being able to 100% self-solidify against God):
-We are made in the image of God; i.e. we are a derivative of God. (x vs. x1 or xn (take your pick...whichever))
-The original state of the derivative of God can only mirror the characteristics of God and not mirror the characteristics that God doesn't have. (eg, good can't beget evil, etc.) (this proposition can be a bit problematic though, I know. It would need to be spelled out a bit further.)
-The characteristics of that derivative can be limited by the original creator. (ie, creator can decide which characteristics of the original the derivative would and would not possess)
-The derivative cannot become wholly other from the original (unless it ceases to exist?). (yes, I know theologians have argued on this point. But I think that once the derivative becomes wholly other, it is no longer even a derivative, so this would be contradictory to the inherent properties of being a derivative.) i.e.-- xn is still derived from x. xn doesn't somehow become a y.
Thus, The derivative may be able to corrupt itself if certain characteristics are limited (such as not being omniscient, but having only limited knowledge), but cannot fully depart from the original image.
So here, you see we don't have to have something "implanted"... we could just posit that this is an essential characteristic of our being in the imago Dei. Sure, we could be a derivative of the derivative of the derivative... but still the nth derivative is still a derivative of the original...
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 12/19/2005 5:33:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2005 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Thus the main issue was simply this: Is it the case that God could indeed create a LFW-possessing Creation such that it would be veritably guaranteed that there would ALWAYS be SOMETHING to redeem in sentient creatures. Could God have some way of assuring that some "remnant" however small would be left for God to work with unto restoration?
VFG: Sure... if God originally put an expiration date (or point) on LFW. (Which that's what you've been positing with the rock-bottom scenario, right?)
But then, at that point the expiration occurs, THE FOLLOWING would have to be given up: --God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
I'm not positing an "expiration date" for LFW. LFW only fully expires when the sentient creature self-solidifies themselves either against God or for God. I am talking about an aspect of the disposition reality within sentient human beings that, under certain circumstances which God can bring about, enables a "wake up call" (as it were) to reality. This is distinct from talking about what you seem to be saying. I'm thinking that what I'm trying to say is articulated in the Steps above.
*********************************
Meph: My thought is that this nebulous "knowing" is NOT merely some side-effect of consciousness nor an unexplainable activity...but that it's planted in who we are as sentient beings right in our "dispositions". In other words, part of our dispositional constitutions is an element that is made to "plug in" with God, as it were.
VFG: Ok, this is your hypothesis. Great. But the question is, why accept this hypothesis? What's the support for accepting this hypothesis (that there is something originally planted) over some alternative explanation for the disposition?
and...
Here's an alternative explanation/hypothesis that could account for the disposition (of not being able to 100% self-solidify against God):
-We are made in the image of God; i.e. we are a derivative of God. (x vs. x1 or xn (take your pick...whichever))
-The original state of the derivative of God can only mirror the characteristics of God and not mirror the characteristics that God doesn't have. (eg, good can't beget evil, etc.) (this proposition can be a bit problematic though, I know. It would need to be spelled out a bit further.)
-The characteristics of that derivative can be limited by the original creator. (ie, creator can decide which characteristics of the original the derivative would and would not possess)
-The derivative cannot become wholly other from the original (unless it ceases to exist?). (yes, I know theologians have argued on this point. But I think that once the derivative becomes wholly other, it is no longer even a derivative, so this would be contradictory to the inherent properties of being a derivative.) i.e.-- xn is still derived from x. xn doesn't somehow become a y.
Thus, The derivative may be able to corrupt itself if certain characteristics are limited (such as not being omniscient, but having only limited knowledge), but cannot fully depart from the original image.
So here, you see we don't have to have something "implanted"... we could just posit that this is an essential characteristic of our being in the imago Dei. Sure, we could be a derivative of the derivative of the derivative... but still the nth derivative is still a derivative of the original...
One could, if one so desired, say that the aspect of the dispositional reality we are talking about, in fact, IS a facet of the the Imago Dei actually is. I personally chose not to go that route, because I didn't want to end up in the endless talking about what constitutes the Imago Dei (ontological, relational, etc) and all that. Besides, given what the dispositional reality IS...and it's importance to the system...whatever the "imago dei" actually is would be heavily influenced (if not pretty much determined) by the dispositional reality anyways.
In other words, your "alternative explanation" is not very far from my "hypothesis" at all.
Let's remember. The MAIN "hypothesis" is that God is able to create our dispositional realities such that there is a locus of creaturely intuition that produces the subjectively-felt "God-shaped vaccuum"...and that God can use to this to facilitate the "rock-bottom experience."
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2005 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Something else.
Let's also remember that we are just trying to find something that works. We are looking for the one proverbial NON-black crow that will disprove the maxim that "all crows are black". Meaning that all we are trying to do is find SOME way to say that eventual universal reconciliation is indeed compossible with a universe of LFW-possessing sentient beings AND the metaphysics of love.
It has been said that it was metaphysically impossible for God to enact universalism while 1) honoring the freedom of sentient beings and 2) not violating the metaphysics of love.
So, I believe I have come up with the "non-black crow" to say that's wrong. I think I'm doing pretty good with that.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/20/2005 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph: Thus the main issue was simply this: Is it the case that God could indeed create a LFW-possessing Creation such that it would be veritably guaranteed that there would ALWAYS be SOMETHING to redeem in sentient creatures. Could God have some way of assuring that some "remnant" however small would be left for God to work with unto restoration?
VFG: Sure... if God originally put an expiration date (or point) on LFW. (Which that's what you've been positing with the rock-bottom scenario, right?)
But then, at that point the expiration occurs, THE FOLLOWING would have to be given up: --God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
Meph: I'm not positing an "expiration date" for LFW. LFW only fully expires when the sentient creature self-solidifies themselves either against God or for God. I am talking about an aspect of the disposition reality within sentient human beings that, under certain circumstances which God can bring about, enables a "wake up call" (as it were) to reality. This is distinct from talking about what you seem to be saying. I'm thinking that what I'm trying to say is articulated in the Steps above.
VFG: I’m not sure if I was saying anything different from what you wrote. With God enabling a “wake up call”, would you say the person would continue to have LFW or, at the point when the wake up call is enabled, the LFW becomes CFW. In the previous threads, what I was understanding was that a person could not fluctuate for all eternity between choosing for and against God… that the wakeup call is what causes the person to become totally aware of their depravity and need for God… that God’s grace is no longer resistible (I’m not suggesting Calvinism though--only CFW) because now the person WANTS to repent and come back to God in large part BECAUSE of that enacted wake up call. But that’s why I said “at that point [or when] the expiration occurs” (or if it would be better for me to have said “at the time the rock-bottom experience/wakeup call occurs”). In this framework, it would seem that God, though He wanted those rock-bottomers to have come to Him with self-determination, desires even moreso that everyone come to Him, even if there is no other option left except for drawing them in by some coercion.
So to sum it up, is this what you are saying: God desires for all to come to Him as libertarianly free as possible (to share in His triune love)?
I could agree with this.
*********************************
Meph: One could, if one so desired, say that the aspect of the dispositional reality we are talking about, in fact, IS a facet of the Imago Dei actually is. I personally chose not to go that route, because I didn't want to end up in the endless talking about what constitutes the Imago Dei (ontological, relational, etc) and all that. Besides, given what the dispositional reality IS...and it's importance to the system...whatever the "imago dei" actually is would be heavily influenced (if not pretty much determined) by the dispositional reality anyways.
In other words, your "alternative explanation" is not very far from my "hypothesis" at all.
VFG: Ok, great! This is what I was looking for, because it’s one thing to posit whether there is or is not an implanted/hard-wired dispositional factor that causes us to draw to God, but if the Imago Dei gives greater reason to believe that one couldn’t completely solidify against God, then all the better. By saying it seems to be the byproduct of being the Imago Dei, then (in my mind at least) this gives support for what you’re saying over what I’ve been thinking (that if one goes to Hell, it would seem that one would turn completely evil and against God, thus nothing would be redeemable of that person).
However, you were speaking as if God must have had to purposefully implant something into our being, seeming to say almost as if God put in the disposition in there ‘just in case’, as it were.
But what I wrote in the alternative explanation was that it would be a natural result of being created by God, that it would be impossible for this factor to have not been a part of our being. It’s not that God would have resorted to implanting it, but it’s a natural outworking of being made in God’s image.
Don’t get me wrong, I think what you’ve been saying is a great idea and you’ve spelled out quite a lot of stuff. But it’s just seemed to me that you’ve been positing but not supporting reasons to believe that there’s a dispositional reality that would prevent us from completely solidifying (to the point of impossible reconciliation) against God. If some of these holes that I have in my mind are filled, I’ll have an easier time accepting all the other stuff you’ve laid out. Perhaps you’ve already filled them and I’ve missed it. Heck, I miss a lot of stuff (but I mostly don’t know what I’ve missed…haha j/k).
But one thing… You said
“whatever the "imago dei" actually is would be heavily influenced (if not pretty much determined) by the dispositional reality anyways.”
Why would you say the dispositional reality would influence the Imago Dei instead of saying that the Imago Dei is what would influence the disposition? I’m more inclined to say that the Imago Dei is what would influence the disposition. I just can’t see how it could be vice versa.
--------
Meph: So, I believe I have come up with the "non-black crow" to say that's wrong. I think I'm doing pretty good with that.
VFG: Yes, I think you have. But let me play Devil’s Advocate for once.  ... (Excuse the pun)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/20/2005 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | One other thing... remember
Your knowledge on all these theological issues is WAAAAAY up-up-up-up here-here-here-here. (echo effect)
Mine is WAAAAAAAY down-down-down-down here-here-here-here.
So humor me for a while, eh?
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2005 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
In this framework, it would seem that God, though He wanted those rock-bottomers to have come to Him with self-determination, desires even moreso that everyone come to Him, even if there is no other option left except for drawing them in by some coercion.
So to sum it up, is this what you are saying: God desires for all to come to Him as libertarianly free as possible (to share in His triune love)?
I could agree with this.
Love the concise nature of this statement, Violin! That's it for real! Our "ultimate harm" is an unacceptable risk to the all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
*******************************
Violin:
However, you were speaking as if God must have had to purposefully implant something into our being, seeming to say almost as if God put in the disposition in there ‘just in case’, as it were.
But what I wrote in the alternative explanation was that it would be a natural result of being created by God, that it would be impossible for this factor to have not been a part of our being. It’s not that God would have resorted to implanting it, but it’s a natural outworking of being made in God’s image.
Sound cool to me. The problem that I saw is that some would argue whether or not ANGELS actually have the Image of God. Some would say that scripture doesn't say that, so we can't say that. This especially becomes a problem if someone takes the ontological rather than the relational view of the Imago Dei. (The ontological view states that the Imago Dei resides ONLY in modern human beings...and no other sentient beings. The relational view, however, makes room for angels to have the Imago Dei as well. ) So, locating the dispositional reality aspect SOLELY in the Imago Dei seemed, to me, to be more of a problem than it was worth. (Plus there seemed no reason to really do that) Because what I wanted to affirm was that in ANY sentient being created by God (humans and non-human agents), there is a creaturely intuitional sense that emerges from the disposition reality of all sentient creatures.
All this said, I WOULD affirm that if the Imago Dei means anything... it is something that cannot just be utterly lost. So, if locating this in the Imago Dei makes it easier for you, so much the better. I would locate it in the Imago Dei by way of the dispositional reality. See why?
*************************
Violin:
But one thing… You said
“whatever the "imago dei" actually is would be heavily influenced (if not pretty much determined) by the dispositional reality anyways.”
Why would you say the dispositional reality would influence the Imago Dei instead of saying that the Imago Dei is what would influence the disposition? I’m more inclined to say that the Imago Dei is what would influence the disposition. I just can’t see how it could be vice versa.
The dispositional reality of sentient beings are like their "ultimate DNA" as it were. Everything that they tend to be or become, both spiritually and physically, is guided by this reality. Because this is the case, it makes more sense, to me, to locate the influence going FROM the dispositional reality TO the Imago Dei...rather than the other way around.
*******************************
Violin:
Yes, I think you have. But let me play Devil’s Advocate for once.
Go for it. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/20/2005 9:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Vi: So to sum it up, is this what you are saying: God desires for all to come to Him as libertarianly free as possible (to share in His triune love)? I could agree with this.
Mephi: Love the concise nature of this statement, Violin!
Tom: But it doesn't make sense to say "as libertarianly free as possible" if you don't also posit some enduring consequence for coming to God at .5% libertarian pistons firing as opposed to 100% (whatever that means), not as punishment, but perhaps as the metaphysically entailed consequence of free will and personal relationships, or in consequence of God's purposes. There has to be some aspect of God's purposes "had" by the fuller exercise of LFW that is "not had" by those who come to God in the least libertarian as possible manner. For if both percentages of exercise get the agent the same thing, if .5% yeilds the same result as 100%, then there's no reason for God to prefer the fuller to the lesser. WHY would God prefer the fuller to the lesser? Only because there is something of his purposes had by one and lost by another. And this might flow into Jeff's question--If God can unilaterally enlighten us and so guarantee a choice for God, why doesn't God simply so enlighten all sentient existence as a matter of fact and so guarantee the universal maximization of beauty which supposedly he really really wants? It must be because there is something beautiful to be had in NOT so acting which cannot be had in so acting, even if the latter are 'saved'.
In the meantime, can somebody tell me what "somewhat libertarian" means as opposed to simply "libertarian"?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/20/2005 8:27:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/21/2005 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, regarding Tom's post, that was something I was thinking too. And.... well... I don't have any good answers for that.
The question I had that seems to be related is this: would God's love differ between person x who chose "very" libertarianly vs. person y who chose only due to CFW kicking in? Or would God's love be the same for both? If it would be the same for both, then what's the point of LFW?
And... well.... I don't have any answers to that either.
The thing I've been thinking of is what is the nature of love and what is the nature of evil. I know the simple definitions: love desires the "good" of its object (but then what exactly is the "good" or even the "highest good"?) and evil is something like the deprivation of good that ought to be there... (but is evil an absence/annihilation? I don't think it's quite that simple).
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/21/2005 3:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: The problem that I saw is that some would argue whether or not ANGELS actually have the Image of God. Some would say that scripture doesn't say that, so we can't say that. This especially becomes a problem if someone takes the ontological rather than the relational view of the Imago Dei.
VFG: Yeah, I would agree that there is no support that angels or any other creation except humans were made in the Imago Dei. Because then the question would be, are parasites et al made in the Imago Dei? I can't see any good reason to say "yes" to that. So positing the Imago Dei concerning HUMANS would seem as support for your argument. But if I were in your shoes, at this time I wouldn't consider it worth it (in trying to convince others of your position) to try to include ALL sentient beings in your overall argument.
-------
Meph: The dispositional reality of sentient beings are like their "ultimate DNA" as it were. Everything that they tend to be or become, both spiritually and physically, is guided by this reality. Because this is the case, it makes more sense, to me, to locate the influence going FROM the dispositional reality TO the Imago Dei...rather than the other way around.
VFG: But again, you're simply asserting a "dispositional reality" and adding all sorts of descriptions to it.
(From what I see...)
You're saying:
Dispositional reality/"ultimate DNA"/"thirdness"/part-you-think-is-really-cool-in-Doc's-dissertation-that-I-haven't-read ---> Imago Dei
(that is, out of the "dispositional reality" comes the Imago Dei)
But then (My original question... and I'm going to keep asking you this until either you or I give up  or we all find a satisfactory answer (hopefully the satisfactory answer will happen first))
Out of what does the dispositional reality come?
Simply saying that God put it there doesn't answer the question. You've got to ground it in something upon which most Christians would agree. (I'm not saying I'm "most Christians", but let's start from somewhere that most Christians would agree). Otherwise it's "begging the question". (According to Alan, who of course knows oodles more about this b.t.q. stuff that I, our arguments beg the question when parties don't agree on the starting premises.)
So... what say you? 
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 12/21/2005 2:10:26 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/21/2005 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Also, from my understanding of this "firstness", "secondness", "thirdness" stuff, it seems the Imago Dei itself would go under the "firstness" category. Right? The aboutness of the Imago Dei would be a "firstness". I almost want to come up with a -ness pun.
So if this is true, then how does a "thirdness" thing produce or lead to a "firstness" thing? Shouldn't it go the other way around?
I understand this "thirdness" to be basically the "translation" between the things in the "firstness" and "secondness" categories.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 12/21/2005 2:18:32 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|