 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/10/2003 6:17 PM (GMT -6) |   | Al: Do you take the possition that that coherence (non-contradiction) means that you can "figure out" anything about God that you wonder.
Tom: Not at all. There's lots we know about God now from his having revealed it to us that we never would have figured out on our own. When I say the principle of non-contradiction applies to God I mean a) when God reveals himself to us--assuming God wants us to understand--he has to play by our rules, which means sticking to the criteria of meaning, and b) WE can never use "we can't know God's essence" to declare about God what is self-contradictory to us. That's all.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/10/2003 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: "WE can never use "we can't know God's essence" to declare about God what is self-contradictory to us."
Al: Read carefully, I understand you. (!) I agree that WE can never generate that. BUT, if something is revelation, we are not free to dismiss it just becasue we cannot fit it into a neat system, or schoolish framework. We call that mystery. And mystery does not mean something crazy. Mystery is something that we can experience, by grace, but which we cannot handle with a framework of our own construction. Mystery is something that is true and revealed, but which does not fit "a closed, predictable system." As another friend of mine wrote: "There is much that we do not know because we cannot. And when it comes to the essence of God, we certainly cannot know Him exhaustively, neither can we know Him a lot. We know Him as we commune with Him in His energy or "presence" -- the "presentation" or "word" of Himself that He gives to us in relationship."
Thanks for hanging in there, Tom.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/10/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: BUT, if something is revelation, we are not free to dismiss it just becasue we cannot fit it into a neat system, or schoolish framework.
Tom: Grrrrrrr.  The basic criteria of meaning aren't some scholastic system of belief. They're who and what we are created by God. So if it's "revelation" as you say, it won't be self-contradictory, for example. That doesn't mean there's no mystery to life or that there's nothing incomprehensible left to bow to in wonder. It just means that if it's self-contradictory it has no meaning and therefore, I would argue, shouldn't be bowed to or wondered at.
We're close, Al, but still not on exactly the same page. Just consider ME a mystery from God.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/11/2003 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't see how we can miss the logic of this quote!
quote:
From Al's Post: "There is much that we do not know because we cannot. And when it comes to the essence of God, we certainly cannot know Him exhaustively, neither can we know Him a lot. We know Him as we commune with Him in His energy or "presence" -- the "presentation" or "word" of Himself that He gives to us in relationship."
I feel extremely passionate about the truth of God's beyondness because I grew up around people, God save them!, with such small minds and such a distorted view of what God is like, His Otherness, Greatness, and Beyondness, that I threw their view of "Churchianity" out completely for 20 years! It's a good thing, because their view is not true! When we begin with the assumption that what we view as "contradiction" is God's "contradiction, we are beginning with the assumption that we know what is contradictory to the Lord of the Universe!
We can see the falseness of that assumption even in the material world! How many of us who studied science in high school, would have to unlearn a large percent of those "truths" taught to us? If we don't come to the study of the knowledge of God with an anticipation of inability for comprehension, we are not beginning with the correct mental and spiritual "posture". I've heard said that Man is capable of APPREHENDING but not COMPREHENDING GOD. We must leave room for God to be God!
Man's right relationship to God can be seen here:
He is the most Holy of all kings. His throne is a great white throne--unspotted and clear as crystal. "The stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm?" (Jub 25:5-6). With what lowliness should you draw near to Him. Familiarity there may be, but let it not be unhallowed. Boldness there should be, but let it not be impertinent. You are still on earth, and He in heaven. You are still a worm of the dust, and He the Everlasting. Before the mountains were brought forth, He was God, and if all created things should pass away, yet He would still be the same. I am afraid we do not bow as we should before the Eternal Majesty. Let us ask the Spirit of God to put us in a right frame, that every one of our prayers may be a reverential approach to the infinite Majesty above.""The Power of Prayer in a Believer's Life" C. H. Spurgeon
I'm with Al that the open view, from my present understanding, begins with a limiting assumption of God's very nature, thus a limited assumption of what are possible "contradictions" of it.
SIM
"Purity of heart is to will one thing." Kierkegaard
Edited by - SIM on 01/13/2003 10:50:27 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/11/2003 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | The Open View (in my opinion) does not start out with a limited view of God; rather, it starts out with God's own revelation of Himself in Scripture. In his introduction to _God of the Possible_, Dr. Boyd plainly states that it was while reading 2 Kings 20 that this blinding flash of the obvious (BFO) hit him (My term, BFO).
For me, this all boils down to the biblical passages that plainly show God changing His mind, not flippantly, but when and if circumstances warrant (such as prayer, repentance and obedience of people, or the lack thereof). To say it is founded on a philosophical basis is really untrue, at least as far as I can tell from Dr. Boyd's writings. If the biblical passages about God repenting have any truth value to them at all they simply cannot be taken to mean anything other than their plain meaning (unless one wants to take a liberal approach to Scripture; which, if one does, then they will have fallen into the quagmire of relativism). And this plain meaning cannot mean other than that the future is to some extent open to change, and by is no means all settled, even in the mind of God.
Perhaps it is true that some open theists do in fact begin from philosophy and then attempt to force the Bible to fit their philosophy (much as Calvinists do, IMO); I have not read every writer who claims to be an Open Theist. However, I do not know how anyone can explain away the great number of passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's ability to change His mind without appealing to a neo-platonic philosophical point of view (rather than Scripture itself). Sure, Piper and others arguing against the OV use Scriptures, but not any that can really do away with the basic argument of the OV, that God changes his mind when circumstances warrant.
In Christ,
John Earp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Edited by - John Earp on 01/11/2003 3:28:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2003 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Al: BUT, if something is revelation, we are not free to dismiss it just becasue we cannot fit it into a neat system, or schoolish framework.
Tom: Grrrrrrr. The basic criteria of meaning aren't some scholastic system of belief. They're who and what we are created by God. So if it's "revelation" as you say, it won't be self-contradictory, for example. ...
Tall that to Kurt Godel!
My second friend wrote:
quote:
Kurt Godel, in a series of iconoclastic formulae, he showed that the system of Whitehead and Russell could not stand on its own, as the "process theologian" and the avowed atheist (respectively) had claimed. It could not be completely self-referential. It required, for its existence, reference to a higher frame.
Above, in the quote you chose from me and in your reaction to it, here's what it has to do with Godel. I'm saying that I can understand how we may encounter something that is not suggested by a scholastic framework, yet know that it is also true. It is possibile for someone to ask questions that make truth seem to have self-contradictions, perhaps. But that can be deception. The answer is in what is mentioned above as "reference to a higher frame."
Specific instances are probably necessary. But its late tonight.
G'night.
******************************************************
Ya hafta go to page three for the "specific instance"
of "reference to a higher frame" that I thought of. 
******************************************************
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/13/2003 7:24:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2003 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | This is for Tom. I did think of a good example that has a "higher frame." Marriage. Marriage definitely has a mystical componant to it. My own wedding band has an inscription which reads: "A chord of three strands." Me, her, and God. Three strands. And the Orthodox wedding ceremony has three questions: Do you-man, take... and do you-woman take... and do you God... All three are necessary for marriage. All three.
The point is -- the "higher frame" -- is that marriage CANNOT be understood merely by taking man and woman and studying them. That provides insufficient context for such a study.
That's a good example. And one "close to home."
-----------------
Totally new topic
-----------------
(I'LL COME BACK TO THIS LATER...)
Here is a clip from something Alexander Schmeman wrote in an article titled "The Original Structure of Christian Worship"
quote:
. . .The Church belongs to the new aeon, to the Kingdom of the Messiah, which in relation to this world is the Kingdom of the age to come.
It is therefore not of this world; and yet the Church does exist in this world, in this aeon. In Christ the Kingdom has entered this world and exists in it in the Church. From the perspective of this world it is something in the future; in God it is eternal and actual, as well as future. Christians live wholly by the life of this world, they are flesh of its flesh and bone of its bone, yet at the same time their life as new beings is 'hid with Christ in God' and will be manifested in glory in the second coming of Christ, that is, when the dualism of these two aeons is concluded and 'this world' comes to an end. The Eucharist or Lord's Supper is also the actualization of the new aeon within the old, the presence and manifestation in this age of the Kingdom of the Age to Come. The Eucharist is the parousia the presence and manifestation of Christ, who is 'the same to-day, yesterday and forever' (Heb. 13 :8). By participating in His Supper Christians receive into themselves His life and His Kingdom, i.e. the New Life and the New Aeon. In other words the eschatology of the Eucharist is not 'world renouncing,' not a turning away from time, but above all the affirmation of the reality, the certainty and the presence of the Kingdom of Christ which is 'within,' which is already here within the Church, but which will be manifest in all glory only at the end of 'this world.' This is a conquest of time not in the sense of rendering it empty and valueless, but rather in the sense of creating the possibility of being made partakers of or participants in the 'coming aeon,' in the fullness, joy and peace that is found in the Holy Spirit, while still living in 'this world.'32
Tom, I hope to return soon and explain why I posted this here. I think you will like the way I intend to treat it. I've been thinking about what you said about how foolish it is for people to define what they first declaired undefinable. What is mentioned in the article is the "Kingdom." That is something that we can talk about because we can experience it--we can talk on the basis of that experience.
I hope to return soon.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2003 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | diacentro.physics.auth.gr/rtalks/pdfs/nikolaidis01.doc
THE METAPHYSICS OF REASON
ABSTRACT: We will briefly review the developments in Physics and Mathematics during the last century. We find that while Science was born and grown under the auspices of Cartesian principles, the 20th century Physics and Mathematics defy the Cartesian premises. The emerging unified viewpoint on cosmos, renounces the dualisms (subject-object, reason-faith, cogitation-being) and incorporates elements of the traditions.
Talk given at the “Science and Religion” Symposium, Bucarest, Nov. 8-11 2001
by Argyris Nicolaidis
Theoretical Physics Dept.
University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki 54006, Greece
Tel. 0310-420489, 0310-998143
e-mail: nicolaid@ccf.auth.gr
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/19/2006 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
GregBoyd said...
. . . what is the profound point of insisting that we DON'T know God's ESSENCE, only his energies? What is so wrong with saying we KNOW GOD'S ESSENCE? What is so profound about saying we DON'T know God's essence?
It rings in my ears, now, the phrase "know Him IN his essence" and "know Him IN his energies." I'm not going to go check on this with any text; I'm just going to trust my ears for now.
We Don't know God in His essence, since we do not participate as a member of the Trinity. I'm not God: I'm not part of the the tri-unity (which would become a quad-unity, quint-... etc.) mystery of three persons in one essence. I'm not. We can't.
It bears saying, though, that some who thought that was necessarily limiting would claim that God could be completely known through our intellect. (But we are too puny for that.) We can know God IN TRUTH, but only up to our own capacity and capability. For most of us that means that God's revelation to us, in our hearts and minds is PROPORTIONAL to our ability. But the "Scholastics" who proposed the intellectual bridge said and thought this to bridge a gap they thought to be otherwise uncrossable. They really underestimated God!
God is KNOWABLE in his energies: His "Divine Uncreated Energies" -- also known as his power, glories, etc. Rather than an un-reachable and unreaching God. . . God reaches and is known through personal contact.
Rather than regarding a view with limitation in a distancing of God, consider that God is "everywhere present and fills all things."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2007 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Book for Dwayne to get so as to have it for his PhD work:
Anestis Keselopoulos
Man and the Environment
The quest for a harmonious relationship between humanity and the environment quickens as ecological problems escalate in our modern world. Irresponsible use of the environment has caused pollution, diminished natural resources, accumulation of radioactive waster, disease, famine, and abnormal climatic conditions. In response to the myriad solutions offered by the scientific community, Anestis G. Keselopoulos proposes another dimension, a theological solution put forth ten centuries ago by the Byzantine mystic St Symeon the New Theologian.
More a vision than a concrete solution, St Symeon's perception of the human being relative to the universe provides a gauge for the use of scientific data. St Symeon addresses the misuse of material goods, social inequality due to privatizing what belongs to the community and waste due to excessive wealth. He bemoans the rape of the earth.
Claiming that the duty of the human being is to elevate creation to a state of beauty consistent with the intentions of the Creator, Symeon charges humanity with the awesome task of perceiving the Word of God within creation and bringing that logos, that word, to fruition.
Anestis Keselopoulos is the Director of the Department of Ethics and Sociology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
ISBN 0-88141-221-X
6 x 9
192 pp
Price: US $15.00
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/8/2008 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
Here's an old thread. Btw, "Al" was the beginning of a posting-name I used on my other computer at the time that was the chemical formula for clay (Al2Si2H4O9) which is logical for a "PotOnWheel." "Al" was used for short. Each computer could sign in on its own posting-name without bumping the other computer off the site -- saving me time. That's it. What do you think of this thread, Dwayne? ********************************
(o) Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/8/2008 4:15:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:55 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 |
|
|