 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > The God of Acceptable Risk? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2001 2:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | Modes: BTW: in order to placate Boyd's triadic obsession, count me in as another "pea in the pod" with you and Sanders on the Nominalism deal. (Maybe Tom too? but we won't invite him lest we disrupt the natural threeness of creation. Wait! maybe we SHOULD include him to disprove Greg's theory of threeness simultaneously with his Realism! And the idea that nobody besides you two are reading this thread…)
Tom: I’m here dudes, in the background quietly listening to this whole thread. So, there are FOUR of us (guess Doc’s theory of three is debunked, eh?).
Hey, guys, what’s “nominalism”? See, I told you I do ALL my thinking/philosophizing intuitively. Sometimes that works really well, but sometimes it gets me into trouble, like when people use key words I don’t understand? Modes thinks I’m a nominalist? What’s a nominalist? I might be one!
Enjoy that vacation Modes. I’m fixing to start mine in another week. Oh, hey, your wife let’s you take your computer on vacation? Wow. You’re lucky. When we go on vacation, Anita and the four kids all stand blocking the front door. If they see me coming with the laptop, vacation’s off.
Modes, I ran into three of SK’s parables that I found interesting. Kevin Vanhoozer uses them to describe how the Word of God is read (Vanhoozer’s Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Zondervan, ’98).
I also have a nice volume called Parables of Keirkegaard edited by Tom Oden, and another interesting intro. to SK called The Laughter is on My Side by Roger Poole and Henrik Stangerup.
By the way, Modes, I saw a line in one of Doc’s posts [posted 8/17/01] on this thread that reminded me of our discussion on the “Did Christ Choose the Cross” thread. In stating what he’d say to the mother who lost her son, Doc said, “…we’ll all finally experience creation AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE.” Hmmmmm.
Tom
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
 |
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/20/2001 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes: I'm friggin' ON VACATION!
pia: Must be nice. I’m frickin’ frackin’ SWAMPED WITH WORK. 
Tom: I told you I do ALL my thinking/philosophizing intuitively.
pia: Tom, you’re not alone! 
§§§§§§§§§§§§
For Mephi: I’m sorry I don’t have something more substantive to say—way way way too busy—but I have a thought. If God truly is immanent in the world, if God truly is present in every thinking, feeling, willing subject, then God’s self-love (immanent trinity) can no longer be separated from God’s world-love (economic trinity). Rahner’s rule meets Whiteheadian intersubjectivity.
blessings be,
pia
“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/20/2001 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB: "Modes thinks I’m a nominalist? What’s a nominalist? I might be one!"
Doc: It's a disease, often fatal, always debilitating, and seems to be contagious. It's only cure is a lot of hot warm sun in the open air OF REALITY.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/20/2001 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes: "Rahner’s rule meets Whiteheadian intersubjectivity. "
Doc: THAT is EXACTLY RIGHT! When you get back from vacation, Modes, flesh this out here, OK? It'd be nice to have someone communicating this here from a different angle. (It might have a better chance of getting through to Meph  ).
And by the way: I'd be interested in seeing how you could work the intersection of Whitehead and Rahner and NOT be a realist.
Doc
PS. Your supposed to take vacations so you can spend MORE, not LESS, time on discussion boards silly.
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 8/20/2001 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes: "Rahner’s rule meets Whiteheadian intersubjectivity. "
Uh, Doc, don’t you think you’re taking “The two shall become one” thing a little too literally? I said that, not Modes.
quote:
THAT is EXACTLY RIGHT!
pia: Hey Tom, every once in a while we intuitive types get lucky! 
“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton
Edited by - pia†desideria on 08/20/2001 08:33:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2001 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi and Doc-
Tell me I’m off here Doc, but it seems to me Mephi that if your answers on this thread were all answered in full that you’d basically have a mystery-free faith. Is that what you’re looking for? (I’m sure it’s not, which is why I’m sure my comments are off here.) But it seems to me that after all our exploring and probing there’s still going to be a good deal of mystery. If the martyrs in Revelation are still asking “How long, Oh Lord?” (how figuratively is THAT supposed to be interpreted? Arghhh!), then perhaps the mystery abides for all finite beings this side of the eschaton. In fact, what’s the possibility that there’s mystery in this…
…EVEN FOR GOD?
Ma’ Assalaameh (with peace),
Tom
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2001 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have a thought. If God truly is immanent in the world, if God truly is present in every thinking, feeling, willing subject, then God’s self-love (immanent trinity) can no longer be separated from God’s world-love (economic trinity). Rahner’s rule meets Whiteheadian intersubjectivity.
Pia-
No way girl. You may philosophize intuitively like me, but you back it up with names, numbers, bibliographic info., the works! You are totally connected! Lucky Ghost-Dog-Man. I on the other hand have almost NO cubbyholes (sp?) to think out of or into!
But I'm learning! Like "Rhaner meets Whitehead." See? You're on to it. When I read that I'm totally lost.
Tom
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:44 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 |
|
|