 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/9/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | I wasn't able to join the last prism analogy thread, but I think I got the gist of Meph's argument related to it. If I understand him correctly, he argues that the prism analogy implies that love for humans does NOT need to be chosen. We are created to reflect God's love, not generate love. Hence TWT1 (Love must be chosen) fails, and hence it remains a mystery as to why created the world with the risk of evil.
The fundamental question this proposal raises is this: Do humans, as individual humans, ORIGINATE love?
When I love Meph, am I loving Meph, or is God loving Meph through me?
It seems to me that Meph's use of the prism analogy is too mechanical. All analogies play on sameness and difference. I agree that we are LIKE prisms in our relationship with God, for we are created to REFLECT to each other God's love. IN this sense we are created to REFRACT God's love to the cosmos.
But unlike literal prisms, I DON'T believe that we refract this love simply by being transparent to it. We are to receive, REPLICATE and refract this love. In other words, in the light of God's love for me, [b}I am to CHOOSE to love myself as God love's me, and love others as God loves me. IN choosing this, I participate, by replicating, the triune love. But I am doing something.
This is why Meph should feel that I love him, not simply that God loves him through me. If my love is Christ-like (viz. if my love is genuine), it REPLICATES, hence REFLECTS God's love. Indeed, it PARTICiPATES in God's love, for all love is ultimately from God (e.g. I love only BECAUSE I AM loved by God). But I participate by CHOOSING to love like God loves.
I believe the microchip analogy is so powerful because it zeros in on this element of choice. If I put a microchip in my wife's brain that determined her to think, do and say only loving things toward me, it would not be satisfying, for I would know that I am doing all this TO MYSELF. But even If GOD put a mircochip in my wife's brain that determined her to think,, say and do only perfectly loving things to me, I would feel a great loss. My wife's loving thoughts, words and deeds would reflect GOD'S love for me, I suppose. But it would not reflect MY WIFE'S love for me. Even if God granted her freedom in how she EXPRESSED love, I wold feel a great loss. Why? BECAUSE SHE ISN'T CHOOSING TO LOVE ME.
My wife DOES choose to love me, which is why her love for me is valuable. Her love for me reflects God's love for me. Indeed, her love for me participates in God's love for me, in just the same way as her beauty participates in God's beauty. Yet, she does this by CHOOSING to do it, which is why I say SHE does it. God doesn't just do it through her.
So, I stick by my claim that love for created beings must be chosen. They must freely originate it.
What think ye?
Greg
I tried seven times to get this bold to shut off for these last two sentences, but it wouldn't work. How odd!
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/9/2003 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
The fundamental question this proposal raises is this: Do humans, as individual humans, ORIGINATE love?
My stuff From the original Prism thread:
quote:
This is my presupposition. I believe that ALL genuine love comes from God and is OF God. We cannot produce love, in and of ourselves. We can ONLY reflect God’s love. God has created each of us UNIQUELY to UNIQUELY reflect God’s love to God and to others. Because we were created with the ability to morally deliberate, we can either choose to DIE to ourselves (analogous to becoming more transparent) so that the love of God can more aptly come through us…OR we can choose to live in the false self (analogous to becoming more opaque) making it harder for the love of God to come through us.
Our participation in God’s love lies on TWO levels, because we are sentient, contingent, morally deliberating beings: 1) in a POSITIVE SENSE, our unique reflecting of God’s love and 2)in a NEGATIVE SENSE, our removing the sin from our lives, becoming more transparent to let God’s love shine through.
My point is that it is conceivable that a sentient, contingent being can be conceived that ONLY participates in God’s love in the POSITIVE sense. And if this can be conceived, then genuineness of love within sentient, contingent beings is NOT based on the ability to choose AGAINST love.
Our difference is this:
I would say that our participation is God’s love is our being RECIPIENTS, PURVEYORS, and RELECTORS of God’s love. In this scenario, God’s love becomes OUR love in that we are able to uniquely express God’s love in NOVEL ways that would not exist without our participation. Choice of whether or not to love is NOT necessary for this to be “genuine” as it’s genuineness is based upon 1) it’s point of origin (God) and 2) our uniquely contingent ways of expressing love.
Doc would say that our participation in God’s love is our being RECIPIENTS, INTERNALIZERS, and RECIPROCATORS of God’s love. In this scenario, God’s love becomes OUR love in that we are able to internalize God’s love and then MAKE THE CHOICE to reciprocate that love, even though we can do otherwise. Thus, choice of whether or not to love IS necessary for this to be “genuine” as it’s genuineness is based upon a being ability to CHOOSE to love or not.
This means we think of choice differently, with respect to this world.
I would say that part of our participation (the negative sense, as I said on the other thread) is in HOW TRANSPARENT we make ourselves to the love and grace of God by dying to self and surrendering to the working of the Holy Spirit. We can choose to either become more or less open to God’s working in and through us. We become more who God has called each of us to be as we die to self more and more and find more and more of our life in God.
Doc would say that our TOTAL participation is in, after receiving the love of God, choosing whether or not we will RECIPROCATE that love to God and others. Dying to self, in this context, means to make the choice to reciprocate more and more of God’s love.
It appears that Doc and I will come to an UNBRIDGABLE impasse here.
I unashamedly believe that all love is FROM God and OF God. That we in NO way originate love ourselves, but merely become more or less transparent to let God’s love flow through us in our distinctiveness. I believe that our libertarian freedom is exhibited in 1) how we can uniquely express God’s love and 2) how MUCH of God’s love we allow to flow through us. I don’t believe that there are any OTHER sources of love than God. Doc seems to believe that this is the case. He would have to in order to say what he says:
quote:
But unlike literal prisms, I DON'T believe that we refract this love simply by being transparent to it. We are to receive, REPLICATE and refract this love. In other words, in the light of God's love for me, [b}I am to CHOOSE to love myself as God love's me, and love others as God loves me. IN choosing this, I participate, by replicating, the triune love. But I am doing something.
[Digression: I would personally say that Doc is being reductionistic here. In this world in which we find ourselves, being transparent to God’s love and power is NOT as apathetic as his claim makes out. It takes WORK and EFFORT. A person truly IS doing something when they are becoming more transparent to God. Moreover, a person truly IS doing something as they are uniquely reflecting the love of God in their distinctiveness. ]
He acts as though ALL people who choose to reciprocate God’s love are, in themselves, SOURCES of love. But this goes right along with the idea of libertarian free will, doesn’t it? That if sentient created beings are NOT self-determining sources of agency that the agency is not “genuinely” of them.
But Doc doesn’t seem to get that GOD isn’t a self-determining being as far as love is concerned! God doesn’t “originate” love in a self-determining fashion as much as God just IS what God is. But Doc doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. But when it gets to sentient, contingent beings…NOW he has a problem??
I believe that MY view more ably accounts for genuineness of love in the ABSENCE of self-determination, which Doc’s view of God MUST deal with.
Doc’s doesn’t.
I’m consistent.
Doc’s not.
By saying that the genuineness of love is based upon it's ULTIMATE source (God), then I dodge all the problems that Doc is so mired in.
*************************************
Doc:
quote:
I believe the microchip analogy is so powerful because it zeros in on this element of choice. If I put a microchip in my wife's brain that determined her to think, do and say only loving things toward me, it would not be satisfying, for I would know that I am doing all this TO MYSELF. But even If GOD put a mircochip in my wife's brain that determined her to think,, say and do only perfectly loving things to me, I would feel a great loss. My wife's loving thoughts, words and deeds would reflect GOD'S love for me, I suppose. But it would not reflect MY WIFE'S love for me. Even if God granted her freedom in how she EXPRESSED love, I wold feel a great loss. Why? BECAUSE SHE ISN'T CHOOSING TO LOVE ME.
My wife DOES choose to love me, which is why her love for me is valuable. Her love for me reflects God's love for me. Indeed, her love for me participates in God's love for me, in just the same way as her beauty participates in God's beauty. Yet, she does this by CHOOSING to do it, which is why I say SHE does it. God doesn't just do it through her.
You seem to ignore how powerful this argument is, given the reality that we live in. If what you are saying is indicative of how we SHOULD feel about sentient beings who DON’T love freely, then WHY should we find God’s love valuable???
God obviously doesn’t CHOOSE whether or not to love us. God’s loving us is analogous to us being human beings. God’s essential existence is such that God COULDN’T do otherwise! So why should we value God’s love as being virtuous, according to your microchip analogy? (God’s undeniable and unchangable disposition would be JUST LIKE the “microchip”, I bet Iconoclast would say!) And you’ve discounted your OWN arguments about how infinite contingent expressions of God’s UNCHANGABLY loving nature actually mean something. For you, it doesn’t matter if a human being can have nigh-infinite ways of uniquely expressing an unchangably loving character…it WOULDN’T be enough for you. Unless your wife were able to CHOOSE whether or not to love you (not just HOW she can express that love for you), you wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t find it genuine.
But you don’t seem to see WHY people like Iconoclast, Semeia, and John Earp are saying what they are saying? How much of a downer do you think it would be to someone to really understand that God doesn’t CHOOSE to love them? That the ONE being who is the source of unbridled love is nothing more than a holy ROBOT that just does what it’s “programmed” to via it’s unchangable and undeniable disposition to love. That God choosing to love is like us “choosing” to have human DNA. It’s not a libertarianly free choice at all! But against all this, you want to claim that God is the most free being of all BECAUSE God cannot choose not to love.
YOU ARE BEING INCONSISTENT, DOC!!!!
Without your Tatian argument (which I have THOROUGHLY dismantled), you have NO METAPHYSICAL REASON why God’s love should be genuine to us. None. Moreover, you will not grant sentient, contingent beings the SAME degree of “freedom” that God has in being unchangably loving.
Can you see this?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/13/2003 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | |
Meph: Doc would say that our TOTAL participation is in, after receiving the love of God, choosing whether or not we will RECIPROCATE that love to God and others.
Doc: We participate in RECIEVING from God and REPLICATING God's love TO God, TO ourselves and TO others.
Meph: Dying to self, in this context, means to make the choice to reciprocate more and more of God’s love.
Doc: Dying to self means dying to the OLD self that stands against love. In my view, it does not mean becoming merely transparent in a literal sense. A person who has died to self and been thoroughly transformed by love will be a prism of God's love because the love that God IS will be seen in them in a unique way. The refract God's triune love. But its because THEY are loving like God loves.
Meph: It appears that Doc and I will come to an UNBRIDGABLE impasse here.
Doc: Nah.... I'll convince you eventually.
Meph: I unashamedly believe that all love is FROM God and OF God.
Doc: I affirm the same... but WITH shame.
Meph: That we in NO way originate love ourselves, but merely become more or less transparent to let God’s love flow through us in our distinctiveness.
Doc: Dude, I really think you're "held captive to a metaphor" (see Philosophy in the Flesh). Love isn't a THING like light. It's a VERB. When participate in God's VERB when we VERB like God VERBS. But WE must VERB to do this. Now, we could never VERB like God VERBS unless he VERBED to us first -- which is why the VERB of love is from God. And when we VERB in response to God's VERB with are VERBING IN God's VERB. We participate in the divine nature. But it is still WE who are VERBING.
In your view, it seems, love is not a verb. Its a thing we just let shine through us. So I can see (say) God's love in you... but I can never see YOUR love. Because YOU don't love. You're just a window.
Meph: I don’t believe that there are any OTHER sources of love than God.
Doc: By God's grace, I think we ARE transformed to be sources of love. We are not INDEPENDENT sources. But we are sources. WE VERB.
Meph: He acts as though ALL people who choose to reciprocate God’s love are, in themselves, SOURCES of love.
Doc: If we RECIPROCATE, we are doing something. Now, we are not sources "in themselves," for our ability to love like God loves is dependent on God's love. But we are empowered TO LOVE. WE are empowered to love. And LOVE is a CHOICE.
Meph: But this goes right along with the idea of libertarian free will, doesn’t it?
Doc: Yep.
Meph: That if sentient created beings are NOT self-determining sources of agency that the agency is not “genuinely” of them.
Doc: Yep.
Meph: But Doc doesn’t seem to get that GOD isn’t a self-determining being as far as love is concerned!
Doc: I don't think that God self-determined the fact that he is triune love. Meph doesn't "get" the metaphysical distinction between a being whose character is eternal and invariant and a being who is temporal and contingent.
Meph: God doesn’t “originate” love in a self-determining fashion as much as God just IS what God is.
Doc: God "originates" love in a self-determinng fashion BECAUSE God is what God is. And all love outside of the sheer fact of God's triune character IS chosen in a libertarian fashion. God DIDN'T need to create us, love us, save us, etc... And THAT IS why we praise him for his GRACE, his unnecessary choice, as well as for being WHO HE IS.
Meph: I’m consistent.
Doc: True. Consistently wrong.
Meph: Doc’s not.
Doc: AM TOO
Meph: By saying that the genuineness of love is based upon it's ULTIMATE source (God), then I dodge all the problems that Doc is so mired in.
Doc: By saying that genuine love for created beings must be chosen, I dodge all the problem of evil Meph is so mired in.
Can you see this?
later
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/13/2003 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
Let it reVERBerate through the house! I love it when you VERB!
Tom  Esta es mi Coheeba i mi sombrero! | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/14/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
Doc: Dude, I really think you're "held captive to a metaphor" (see Philosophy in the Flesh). Love isn't a THING like light. It's a VERB. When participate in God's VERB when we VERB like God VERBS. But WE must VERB to do this. Now, we could never VERB like God VERBS unless he VERBED to us first -- which is why the VERB of love is from God. And when we VERB in response to God's VERB with are VERBING IN God's VERB. We participate in the divine nature. But it is still WE who are VERBING.
In your view, it seems, love is not a verb. Its a thing we just let shine through us. So I can see (say) God's love in you... but I can never see YOUR love. Because YOU don't love. You're just a window.
Wow. So love can’t act as a NOUN. My bad. I thought that the “God is love” presupposed love being a noun. Hmmm…
Perhaps I’m taking PARTICIPATION in GOD’S LOVE very seriously. It’s truly God’s love that we participate in by 1) reducing the false self and 2) expressing the love of God in UNIQUE and NOVEL ways. It is truly our love to the extent that we do these things, especially #2.
**************************
quote:
Meph: He acts as though ALL people who choose to reciprocate God’s love are, in themselves, SOURCES of love.
Doc: If we RECIPROCATE, we are doing something. Now, we are not sources "in themselves," for our ability to love like God loves is dependent on God's love. But we are empowered TO LOVE. WE are empowered to love. And LOVE is a CHOICE.
You keep acting we are NOT doing something, but we are. Remember, just because a being has an unchangably loving nature does NOT mean that choice that is uniquely contoured to a particular being in their distinctiveness is NOT possible! It’s JUST like what you say about God. You said:
God DIDN'T need to create us, love us, save us, etc... And THAT IS why we praise him for his GRACE, his unnecessary choice, as well as for being WHO HE IS.
This is going off of your idea of God where God’s ability to CONTINGENTLY choose from a MYRIAD of possible expressions of love means that God’s love is chosen in a real sense. THAT God will love is NOT chosen, but HOW God’s love will be expressed IS chosen. (All this is in Trinity and Process) This is how you get away from Creation being a NECESSITY to God (which you say that Jonathon Edwards, had he been consistent on this point, would have fallen into). You make the point very clear that this CONTINGENT choice of God’s expression of love IS an significant action.
But, you seem to want to deny sentient creatures this same ability metaphysically. It is very clear that sentient creatures could operate in the SAME WAY: have an unchangable loving nature while CHOOSING non-necessary EXPRESSIONS of love that are genuinely THEM.
How can you allow this for God, but deny it to human beings, when there is NO metaphysical reason to do so?
****************************
Doc:
quote:
I don't think that God self-determined the fact that he is triune love. Meph doesn't "get" the metaphysical distinction between a being whose character is eternal and invariant and a being who is temporal and contingent.
This has been my point. For God, love is NOT chosen, but that non-chosen love doesn’t have anything ESSENTIALLY to do with God’s eternality, necessity, or divinity. It has to do with God’s ESSENTIAL EXISTENCE as DETERMINATE, with respect to always following the divine disposition. That’s all. And that separates the issues greatly.
The point is that God doesn’t have the ability to morally deliberate OR freely chose TO love. So, given the spurious nature of the “necessary/contingent” argument, how can TWT 1 stand?
**************************
Ochuk:
quote:
Meph what do you mean by saying "all love originates" in God? The bible says that the wicked "love" sin. Did this originate in God?
Good clarification. God is AGAPE. All AGAPE comes from God. Better?
*****************************
Doc:
quote:
God "originates" love in a self-determinng fashion BECAUSE God is what God is. And all love outside of the sheer fact of God's triune character IS chosen in a libertarian fashion.
Oh, NO, ya don’t! God doesn’t originate love in a SELF-DETERMINING fashion with respect to whether or not God will love. (And THAT’S the important thing for libertarian free willers!) God “originates” love in a self-determining fashion ONLY with respect to how love will be expressed You point this out VERY clearly in Trinity and Process. To try to say that libertarian freedom MUST be affirmed for love to be genuine is then to DISQUALIFY God’s love as genuine.
**************************
My point is plain. The only way to define God’s love as genuine, given the doctrine of God at the base of Doc’s theology, is to define “genuineness” of love BY it being from God. Why? Because God does NOT have the ability to choose whether or not to love…and if genuineness of love is defined by libertarian free will standards, then God’s love would not be genuine. And you can’t use the “necessary/contingent” argument again. It doesn’t work…and repeating something already challenged and viewed as weak doesn’t make that thing stronger! 
Now, if God’s love is genuine BY DEFINITION of being of God, then it stands to reason that God can be the ONLY source of true love in a real sense. Your window analogy is good for this. Imagining light from the sun hitting a “sentient” window that can change colors of its glass as it chooses. Even though the light coming from the window would ultimately be the light coming from another source and the window is not a light source of its own, the light coming from the window into the room would be DISTINCT from the sunlight that comes to it, in the fact that the window would be able to “select” HOW the light emerging from itself will DISPLAY the sunlight. Will it be blue? Yellow? Brown? It’s up to the window! So, in a real sense, the light that comes from the window IS genuinely from the window…and is NOT.
So, I ask: In the face of all this, how ELSE can you, Doc, justify God’s love as being genuine, given the REALIST stance that you have of God’s love being an UNCHANGABLE aspect of God’s essential existence?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 10/14/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps you two (Grep and Meph)\ could ground this discussion in scripture to convince others. I'm still on the fence at this point but I'm leading to the Meph side.
Perhaps you could start here in 1 John 4:
7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Help me theologians....
†††"One rarely finds an exposition of which it holds true that the exposition is that which is expounded." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/14/2003 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Fyodor,
GREAT STUFF. Actually, the Johannine method of identifying God with love on such a level is what I believe both Doc and myself would based these thoughts on, scripturally speaking.
That's exactly why I don't get with TWT 1 as a metaphysical principle. Taking the thought out to its logical conclusion, God could NEVER BE love, if love MUST be chosen. God could only be the most consistently freely chosen loving Being there is. Love would exist OUTSIDE of God and God would just choose to do it all the time. The phrase "God is love" would, in point of fact, just be saying that God chooses to love so invariably, shares love so widely, and embodies love so intensely, that God MAY AS WELL BE love.
But John's identification of God with love GOES DEEPER than that, in my opinion. To the extent that someone lives in love(agape) one is ACTUALLY participating IN God in a real way. (Doc, doesn't Kierkegaard say something like this in "Works of Love"??) This goes deeper than merely reciprocating or REPRODUCING God's kind of love. This, in my mind, says that love for sentient, creating beings is a SYNERGISTIC WORK at base. And my thought demonstrates how that synergism works.
Good stuff, fyodor.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/14/2003 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: You make the point very clear that this CONTINGENT choice of God’s expression of love IS an significant action. But, you seem to want to deny sentient creatures this same ability metaphysically.
Doc: Yes. THAT God is love is NECESSARY, and HOW God expresses himself contingently is not. And this IS signficant. But the problem, sir eternal Mephistopheles, is that the THATNESS of contingent beings, unlike the THATNESS of a necesssary being, is NOT ETERNALLY SETTLED insofar as they are contingent. If the THATNESS of "our" character is GIVEN TO US as necessary love, then "our" love simply expresses the THATNESS of the eternal God. Our THATNESS is just one more expression of GOD’s contingent expression of love. We are just the fingers of God in loving action.
True, HOW we express GOD’S THATNESS may be up to us. But THAT we love expresses GOD, not us. Hence, ultimately, God is loving HIMSELF and OTHERS through us. WE are not loving God. We are just vehicles by which God loves HIMSELF (hence my microchip wife analogy).
If God wants personal beings to love him and love others – not just to be more contingent versions of his own God defining triune love – the THATNESS of their love must be chosen BY THEM.
Maybe…. this is just occuring to me….  Maybe our difference has to do with our visions for the goal of creation. You might just concede all the points I made and say, "so"? "So what if all of creation amounts to another contingent expression of God loving himself? "
Hmmm.... Would you agree that IF GOD WANTED LOVE FROM INDEPENDENT CONTINGENT BEINGS, he’d have to give them the power of free choice? Now, why he would want this is a different conversation. But IF he did… would you agree that he’d have to make us free?
Hmmmm…. This might be the road forward.
What do you think?
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/14/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | What does a prism have to do with anything? quote:
Many people suppose that the main optical action of a prism is to disperse white light into its component parts, because that's what Isaac Newton used prisms for. But because dispersion is really a very small effect, it isn't the main optical action of a prism; more correctly, it should be looked at a a minor side effect.
The main effect of a prism is to deviate a beam of light. But, because of the dispersion in the refractivity of transparent materials, the deviation is slightly different for light of different colors. This slight difference in the deviation -- only one or two percent, typically -- is where the dispersive power of a prism comes from. source
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
Maybe…. this is just occuring to me…. Maybe our difference has to do with our visions for the goal of creation. You might just concede all the points I made and say, "so"? "So what if all of creation amounts to another contingent expression of God loving himself? "
Hmmm.... Would you agree that IF GOD WANTED LOVE FROM INDEPENDENT CONTINGENT BEINGS, he’d have to give them the power of free choice? Now, why he would want this is a different conversation. But IF he did… would you agree that he’d have to make us free?
Hmmmm…. This might be the road forward.
What do you think?
Good show. If God wanted love from contingent beings who are able to morally deliberate and are “independent” in this respect , then, of course, they would have to have the power to morally deliberate. I would have agreed with THIS long time ago. But then the WHY question becomes even more important! A question that I’ve asked before. Why would God who ALREADY (by everyone’s standards) would have been COMPLETELY SATISFIED if Creation had never been made at all…decide to create a Creation where moral deliberating beings exists…while KNOWING the GROSS negative ramifications that would inevitably ensue by doing so? There would be no METAPHYSICAL reason that would be the undergirding thought about WHY God chose to do this. You would just be able to say:
“Well, God just wanted love that ‘originated’ from a source other than Godself.”
But that’s the point. It would originate in GOD’S WILL and the metaphysical ramifications from that choice rather than originating in the nature of reality itself. In other words, TWT 1 would NOT be true in a possible world where God IS just FINE with having an open Creation with unchanably loving sentient creatures. But the fact that TWT 1 doesn’t apply in all possible worlds that speak of an open Creation populated with contingent, sentient beings MEANS that it’s NOT a metaphysical necessity per se . If TWT 1 were a metaphysical necessity in this regard, then God would not be able to avoid it if God were creating ANY possible world with sentient, contingent creatures.
But as YOU can see now, Doc, God’s CHOICE ABOUT REALITY, not the PARAMETERS OF REALITY themselves, is what determines whether or not TWT 1 is true.
And I’ve been saying this FOREVER!
There is no metaphysical reason that JUSTIFIES the “why” of God creating morally deliberating “independent” sentient creatures…ESPECIALLY when God accepts God’s OWN unchangable love as genuine! All you can say, at that end of the day, is that God WANTED this and it was “worth it” to God. It begins and ends with God’s will and wisdom!
So, Doc.
WHY?
Why would God create a creation where God is NOT the sole originator of love…all the while KNOWING the inevitable emergence of sin and evil…and KNOWING the possible depths to which free willed beings could sink? TWT 1 does NOT solve this. TWT 1 is an AFTEREFFECT of this decision being made!
So, why?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
kadela74
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 10/16/2003 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | What is the purpose of love?
Whether we are conduits, reflections, originators, extensions, or whatever – you are speaking of the same product, i.e., love. It is clear that as we allow God to consume our lives and replace our old nature with His nature, we will produce or reflect more of his love. But what about love that exists outside of people who have given their lives to Christ? Doesn’t this also come from God? If all love is from God then these people are also producing or reflecting that same product.
If the purpose of love is to reflect God’s image then in some way then most, if not all people at some point have participated in this verb or noun.
Does God’s love work the same way in non-believers as it does in believers? People who reject Christ but love their kids do not produce or reflect this love on their own if all love is from God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GodsWarrior
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 10/17/2003 10:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey all, First timer here.
Meph, First off let me say I loved your discipleship talk @WHC on the 5th. Your analogy of discipleship and marriage really made sense to me. The notion of CHOICE really stood out.
Well here we go. I apologize in advance for my lack of eloquence & my garbled thoughts, I am no theologian, not even close. I do however have some questions that you(or Greg, even though I'm sort of taking his side) maybe can help me with.
**How can we have love for God, if the only love there is is love that comes from God? Wouldn't that mean(if your view is true) that God's SOLE purpose in putting us here is to glorify himself? Doesn't that seem kind of twisted? His own love reflecting back on himself?
**I have always been under the impression that we were made in God's image and thus, God, despite being perfect in every way, has some human-like qualities(to love, to be angry). If this is so, Then why do you SEEM(maybe I'm wrong) to give God such an inhumane personality? Granted, He is God, and we cannot possibly fathom his worth or power, but the God you portray in your arguments with Greg is more like a computer than an all-loving God. If God's ONLY choice was to make a human race, how is this amazing? Did He CHOOSE to send Jesus to save us based on the state of humanity, or was this inherent in God's "programming"? I guess I want to think of God as more personal. I want him to be "one of the guys". I guess my opinion is that CHOOSING to love is much more beautiful than HAVING TO love. I want to have the feeling that God made a choice to make me, love me, and save me by His Son. I'm irked at the notion that He HAD to, no matter how good the intentions. Your portrayal makes me feel that God & people have no choice, and that sort of cheapens it for me. Its like getting a gift certificate instead of a well thought-out gift. What kind of gift would you rather receive?
**It seems in your view(about God's love showing through us) that we are all just containers for God's love and our sole purpose is to show our contents to others(bring more people to God, I guess), but at the end of the day, we are all just containers. Why would God set up a system like this with minimal individuality? Again, it seems too mechanical to me. Is that why we are here, to be windows? containers?
I know we must "die to self" but does that mean we must give up all that we are in human terms to allow God to flow through us? Do we all have to plug ourselves into the "Good Matrix"?
I apologize again for my mess of thoughts. Its really late.
You and Greg gave me a major headache with your dialogue, and I had to respond with something
THANKS! GOD BLESS!
CHAD
Chad T. Sieleni-Smith | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/18/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Kadela:
quote:
Whether we are conduits, reflections, originators, extensions, or whatever – you are speaking of the same product, i.e., love. It is clear that as we allow God to consume our lives and replace our old nature with His nature, we will produce or reflect more of his love. But what about love that exists outside of people who have given their lives to Christ? Doesn’t this also come from God? If all love is from God then these people are also producing or reflecting that same product.
If the purpose of love is to reflect God’s image then in some way then most, if not all people at some point have participated in this verb or noun.
Does God’s love work the same way in non-believers as it does in believers? People who reject Christ but love their kids do not produce or reflect this love on their own if all love is from God.
First of all, welcome. I noticed that this is your first post.
Now, let’s answer these questions. I do believe that ALL agape love DOES come FROM God and is OF God. (From now on, given Ochuk’s thought, I think I’ll use the Greek “agape” sense of love specifically so that people aren’t confused. ) And yes, that means that ANY human being to the extent that they live in agape love ARE in some real way participating in God. But this is not at all a problem, I hope. Is it not true that God upholds ALL THINGS by his power? Is it not true that God rains on the just AND the unjust? Is it not true that the Spirit of God is omnipresent in human existence? If so, then what I’m saying is not a big stretch. One does not have to take my thought to imply some sort of universalism, if that is a concern. I’m just making the point that all agape love is IRREDUCIBLY synergistic.
Moreover, I would say that God’s love worksin believers in a way distinct from non-believers because hopefully a believer who is IN CHRIST will have a 1) deeper understanding of the love that has been shed abroad by the Christ Work and 2) a vibrant life in the Spirit where love becomes more and more a part of one’s being.
*****************************************
Ross:
quote:
Why don't we just modify TWT 1 to "love (that originates from contingent beings) must be chosen."
Uh, nope. Not quite there, buddy. It would still be the case that TWT 1 isn’t a metaphysical reason that would determine WHY God would decide to create such a world. The answer would still ultimately be in the realm of God’s WILL and CHOICE. Again, if it can be the case that God can be absolutely cool with receiving love from unchangably loving beings OTHER than Godself, than TWT 1 holds no weight.
**************************************
Warrior:
quote:
Hey all, First timer here.
Meph, First off let me say I loved your discipleship talk @WHC on the 5th. Your analogy of discipleship and marriage really made sense to me. The notion of CHOICE really stood out.
Well here we go. I apologize in advance for my lack of eloquence & my garbled thoughts, I am no theologian, not even close. I do however have some questions that you(or Greg, even though I'm sort of taking his side) maybe can help me with.
Welcome to you on your first post! And thanks for the kudos on the sermon. I’m glad God used it as God did. Let’s do this…
-------------------------------------
Warrior:
quote:
How can we have love for God, if the only love there is is love that comes from God? Wouldn't that mean(if your view is true) that God's SOLE purpose in putting us here is to glorify himself? Doesn't that seem kind of twisted? His own love reflecting back on himself?
I wouldn’t say that believing that all love comes from God necessarily leads to the idea that God’s SOLE purpose is God’s own glorification. That doesn’t follow. But let’s take that thought for a second. I think that both Doc AND John Piper would agree on this point: God is the ONLY being for whom glorifying oneself as the Absolute and most IMPORTANT being in existence is completely valid and justifiable! Both theologians would say that it is just plain fact of the matter that God is the center of ALL worth in existence. So, if this is indeed the case, who would charge God with being narcissistic if God were truly using Creation solely as a means of further glorifying Godself? If God truly IS the Absolute and the PIVOT of all worth, then God would not only have every right to glorify Godself to the full, but God would also have the right to insist that ALL OTHER THINGS glorify God. Why? Because God is not merely asserting Godself as the Head Person in Charge. God is stating indisputable FACT. No problem there.
Warrior, it is twisted for something RELATIVE (created beings) to merely glorify themselves while neglecting their Creator, because they were created. It is not twisted for the ABSOLUTE Creator of all things to recognize Her own glory and seek that.
See what I’m saying?
Oh, and let’s not forget the completely HUMBLING aspect of the Christ Work. Just start with the INCARNATION. Now THAT’S humility! Ask yourself. Would YOU leave the environment of blissful, perfect love…to have a noisy, dirty, cold birth into THIS world…for people who didn’t even LIKE you???
----------------------------------
Warrior:
quote:
I have always been under the impression that we were made in God's image and thus, God, despite being perfect in every way, has some human-like qualities(to love, to be angry). If this is so, Then why do you SEEM(maybe I'm wrong) to give God such an inhumane personality? Granted, He is God, and we cannot possibly fathom his worth or power, but the God you portray in your arguments with Greg is more like a computer than an all-loving God. If God's ONLY choice was to make a human race, how is this amazing? Did He CHOOSE to send Jesus to save us based on the state of humanity, or was this inherent in God's "programming"? I guess I want to think of God as more personal. I want him to be "one of the guys". I guess my opinion is that CHOOSING to love is much more beautiful than HAVING TO love. I want to have the feeling that God made a choice to make me, love me, and save me by His Son. I'm irked at the notion that He HAD to, no matter how good the intentions. Your portrayal makes me feel that God & people have no choice, and that sort of cheapens it for me. Its like getting a gift certificate instead of a well thought-out gift. What kind of gift would you rather receive?
We need to separate some things. I’m not saying that God had no choice but to create human beings or to send Jesus. Not saying that at all. I’m saying (WITH DOC) that the act of Creation and everything that emerges in that Creator/Creation relation is a CONTINGENT display of God’s love. God genuinely could have chosen not to create anything. So, I’m not talking about a necessary God/world relationship. I am saying (WITH DOC) that God’s essential existence is such that God CANNOT deliberate on whether or not God will love at any time. God IS love…and so naturally. God, in God’s triunity, NEVER FAILS to actualize God’s disposition to love…meaning that God has an unchangably loving nature. It is not possible for God to choose to NOT love.
This line of thought has these implications:
God could CHOOSE whether or not to create Creation.
God could CHOOSE what type of Creation God wanted to create.
God could CHOOSE what type of things will happen in whatever Creations.
God could CHOOSE what ways to express God’s love to Creation.
…but…
God could NOT choose whether or not God would love Creation, once created.
In my opinion, these is the logical implications of saying that God IS love…and meaning it. If we want to say that God ALWAYS CHOOSES to love, then that’s different. If we want to say that God MAY AS WELL BE love, then that’s different. But to say that God’s essential existence that comes from God’s continually actualized disposition IS love, that’s something totally different!
Tom said it best. There are only two choices: Either God does have the ability to actively choose NOT to love…or God doesn’t. And one has to take the ramifications of each line of thought.
You’ve also hit on something else, Warrior. You’ve said that what I’m saying makes God seem less personal. I’m wondering if this is because your idea of PERSONHOOD is inextricably linked with the idea of libertarian freedom. To the extent that one is not libertarianly free with respect to certain things, those things are not PERSONAL. With this way of thinking, to say that God loves from NATURE rather than primarily from CHOICE seems to depersonalize God. Heh. THIS is why I say that we need a reality check. Many people don’t want to say that God’s love is not genuine just because God cannot choose otherwise. So what does this say about the nature of personhood as it relates to libertarian freedom? I’ve been trying to tell Doc: you CAN’T have your cake and eat it too. You can’t on one hand justify God’s unchosen love as genuine…but then turn around and say that love MUST be chosen to be genuine. Nope. Nada. Not gonna work. I submit to you, Warrior, that love IS personal by nature of what love IS, NOT by whether or not libertarian freedom is the case for it. And I use God as my supreme instance of this fact.
--------------------------------------
Warrior:
quote:
It seems in your view(about God's love showing through us) that we are all just containers for God's love and our sole purpose is to show our contents to others(bring more people to God, I guess), but at the end of the day, we are all just containers. Why would God set up a system like this with minimal individuality? Again, it seems too mechanical to me. Is that why we are here, to be windows? containers?
I know we must "die to self" but does that mean we must give up all that we are in human terms to allow God to flow through us? Do we all have to plug ourselves into the "Good Matrix"?
Let’s describe in more detail what I think is going on. God has created us with the ability to morally deliberate, which implies that we can choose whether or not to love. We have to 2 senses in which we participate in God’s love…one positive, one negative. In the positive sense, each human being has the ability the choose from myriad possible ways of expressing love that are unique to them, particularized from their own distinctiveness. This is one way that we are like God. Just like God can choose different ways of expressing God’s love, all of which are UNIQUELY particular to God…so we ALL can choose different ways of expressing God’s love. In the negative sense, each human being has the ability to REDUCE or INCREASE the amount of sin in their lives, allowing more and less of God’s love to come through. This is one way that we are NOT like God. Sin closes us off from God and each other and blocks the flow of love from God to us and from us to others. And to the extent that we don’t “die to self”, we are not reflecting as much of God’s love as we could be.
I’m hoping that you can see how VERY personal and “individual” this is. There is NOTHING cookie-cutter or mechanistic about this.
Against Doc, I want to say that it was possible for God to create sentient, contingent beings that would have only participated in God’s love in the positive sense. That is, those beings would have been LIKE GOD to the extent that they would have unchangably loving natures that they would express in MYRIAD ways that were all UNIQUE to them in their distinctiveness. They would be LIKE JESUS in the fact that they would be fully human (though not divine)…but WITHOUT sin! I want to say that there is no strictly metaphysical reason that says that God COULDN’T have done this if God were completely cool with accepting unchosen love from Creation.
TWT 1 does not provide any type of evidence or reasoning to say that God would NOT be cool with accepting unchosen love from Creation. The most that Doc can do is the same old line…
“Well, WE don’t feel this way. Why think that God feels this way??”
But as I keep telling him, this is affirming the consequent of our expererience. OF COURSE, our intuitions are going to tell us that love must be chosen if we exist in a Creation created such that that’s true! But this does NOTHING to tell us whether or not TWT 1 is a metaphysical principle that would apply to ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS genuinely open for God to create. For TWT 1 to be a legitimate metaphysical reason backing Doc’s theodicy, we would have to say that there was ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no possible world compatible with God’s essential existence where God created a Creation with sentient beings LACKING the ability to morally deliberate. This is a tall friggin order. And Doc can’t do it.
Getting back to the main point of this part. My ideas are ONLY as mechanical as my idea of God. If someone interprets as “mechanical” a God who is unchangably loving and has the ability to express that love in INFINITE ways all unique to God…then I guess that that person will think that my idea of humanity is mechanical.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/19/2003 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: For TWT 1 to be a legitimate metaphysical reason backing Doc’s theodicy, we would have to say that there was ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no possible world compatible with God’s essential existence where God created a Creation with sentient beings LACKING the ability to morally deliberate. This is a tall friggin order. And Doc can’t do it.
Doc: OF COURSE God coud cerate a world where there are sentient beings who lack the ability to morally deliberate. He just couldn’t create a world where there are sentient beings who lack the ability to morally deliberate and yet are morally responsible for their actions. If God wants the latter, he must create them with the former.
I don’t think you deny this, do you?
Now, what if, for the sake of argument, I revised TWT1 to read something like: Morally responsible love for created beings must be chosen? Would you buy it?
Rossfadeinout. IF God chose to create a world where there were to be loving contingent beings, then metaphysically that love must be chosen.
Doc: You speak wisdom my friend.
Meph: Though this contingent being would have unchangably loving nature, that nature would not be necessary. That is, it could have been created OTHER than unchangably loving.By all counts, this being would be a CONTINGENT being. See what I’m saying?
Doc: Yes a being who was created with a nature to love would be logically contingent. But their love wouldn’t be CONTINGENT UPON THEM. It would be NECESSARY FOR THEM. And THIS is the crucial distinction, not a mere logical contingency vs. necessity. (This is a bit like compatibilist who argue that determined beings are "free" because their actions are LOGICALLY contingent. It doesn’t work, for EVERY particular thing is logically contingent.)
love and kisses
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GodsWarrior
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 10/20/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | What up Mr. Polk?
**First off, let me say "thank you" for setting me straight on SOME things! I guess it has never really "hit" me that God, being the center of all existence, definately has the right to have his sole purpose for creation be to glorify himself, if He were to choose to do so. DUH!?!? Praise God for all the knowledge in your head!
NOW, LET ME PICK AT IT!
**QUOTE: "I’ve been trying to tell Doc: you CAN’T have your cake and eat it too. You can’t on one hand justify God’s unchosen love as genuine…but then turn around and say that love MUST be chosen to be genuine. Nope. Nada. Not gonna work. I submit to you, Warrior, that love IS personal by nature of what love IS, NOT by whether or not libertarian freedom is the case for it. And I use God as my supreme instance of this fact."
**WHAT? Maybe we need a change in terms here. Ok, about love, I love Greg, I love Billy Graham, heck, I even love you. Is this genuine love? I think it is! Why, well for obvious reasons. I have been commanded to do so by my God, We are all brothers in Christ & I have dedicated my life to ascribing unsurpassable worth to others. So, for these reasons, I think it to be very genuine love.
Is this amazing, beautiful, & intimate love? Maybe, to a certain extent amazing & beautiful, but certainly not intimate!(unless you consider posting notes on a message board intimate)
I have a love with my wife that could be described in all of these ways; amazing, beautiful, & intimate.
Where am I going with this? Maybe we CAN & SHOULD have our cake & eat it too!! God=love, we all agree. God's unchosen love is genuine(DWAYNE). In order for love to be genuine it must be chosen(Greg).
I submit that both of these statements could be true(maybe not logically, but here goes!
I think all of this can be pulled together by looking at the parent-child, and the husband-wife relationship.
God loves us inherently because he must. He created us. He is our mother & father. It is his unchangeable disposition to AGAPE us! That is pretty darn cool, and satisfying to me! I loved my parents so much in this unconditional way during their short time on this earth. They loved me just as much and it was so very GENUINE!
BUT!
My relationship with my parents does not quite approach the same level of AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL, & INTIMATE like that of my wife!
The things we share, bond we have, the beautiful intimacy, the perfect friendship!
SO, God DOES love us in an unconditional, unchangeable way that follows his disposition, and it is a perfectly fantastic love. But, I think our God CHOOSES TO GO THE EXTRA MILE. HOW, through JESUS CHRIST!
I think our God IS the Father, but I submit that His want is to have more of a MARRIAGE type, BRIDE type relationship(ever heard this before?) with us. AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH US. NOT JUST A CLOSE & LOVING ONE.
I think Christ is the perfect example of intimacy & choice!!
If there were no Jesus, I would find it VERY easy to completely accept your argument.
QUOTE: "How much of a downer do you think it would be to someone to really understand that God doesn’t CHOOSE to love them? That the ONE being who is the source of unbridled love is nothing more than a holy ROBOT that just does what it’s “programmed” to via it’s unchangable and undeniable disposition to love. That God choosing to love is like us “choosing” to have human DNA. It’s not a libertarianly free choice at all! But against all this, you want to claim that God is the most free being of all BECAUSE God cannot choose not to love."
**Who is more free? The man imprisoned, with love in his heart, or the man walking the streets with hatred in his?
If GOD=LOVE, then HE MUST BE THE MOST FREE!
GOD=LOVE, CHRIST=FREEDOM, LOVE=FREEDOM.
What do you think? Am I Crazy?
PEACE OUT
ps, when are you speaking again@WHC?
GREG, if you read this let me know what you think
Chad T. Sieleni-Smith | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/23/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings Sir Warrior:
I think both Meph and I would basically agree with you. God didn't "have" to create us or love us in the radically "extra mile" way he loves us in Christ. But I don't either of us would think it resolves the impasse between us. For so long as GOD's INTERTRINITARIAN LOVE is not chosen in a libertarian way, there is love that is not chosen, and so Meph cries "foul." If GOD's NATURE is to love, then OUR nature could have been created perfectly loving, hence, he argues, Doc can't say the reason our nature is not created perfectly loving is that love must be chosen. Meph, like Alfred North Whitehead, doesn't want any "exceptions to metaphysical principles" (Process and Reality).
Now, I don't want any "exceptions" to metaphysical principles either, for a metaphysical principle is BY DEFINITION an a priori truth. BUT I don't think I am forcing an exception to metaphysical principles, for while I express TWT1 in a short hand way as "love must be chosen," I flesh this out in Satan and the Problem of Evil to mean "Love for contingent beings must be chosen." I see no more contradiction in this than I see a contradiction in:
* God is eternal by definition, created beings are not.
* God is a necessary being by definition, create beings are not.
* God is perfect by definition, created beings are not.
* God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent by definition, create beings are not.
* God is inherently holy by definition, created beings are not.
* God is inherently good by definition, created beings are not.
So too
* God is inherently eternal unsurpassable love, by definition, CREATED BEINGS ARE NOT.
When you fuse an inherent GOD thing into created beings, what you get is a created being who IN THAT RESPECT is simply an extension of GOD. If Meph loves without choice because God infused HIS love into his character from the start, Meph is simply a loving expression of GOD, not Meph. Just as, if God infused his holiness into Meph without choice, Meph would be IN THIS RESPECT (viz. however contingent he might be in other respects) an extension of God's holiness: he would not HIMSELF be "virtuous" or "moral" or "holy."
This is what me thinks, oh valiant warrior
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:34 AM (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 |
|
|