Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Maximus on "particular" (for Tom, and the rest of us too)

Forum Quick Jump

183 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/15/2008 5:23 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,

It was a joke. I would not have thought that you actually thought Dallas Willard, of all people, was an idiot. I'll take this on the chin, aiight? Look, just chalk it up to bad communication on my part. I resend the "idiot" comment...and apologize for any inconvenience. No problems intended.

Now...onward...the material... reading

See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Post Edited (Divine Progeny) : 8/15/2008 5:35:01 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/15/2008 5:40 PM (GMT -6)

Repost...from the Analogy of Being thread...

Hart brilliantly reverses this line of thought, so that “the analogy of being finds truth in the ever greater particularity of each thing as it enters ever more into the infinite that gives it being” (p. 247). Or, to put it more sharply: the analogy of being describes the triumph of the infinite over every kind of totality."

There is INFINITY in every becoming of particularity.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/15/2008 7:45 PM (GMT -6)

Hey...

I wuv you, Brother Turtle!

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/15/2008 8:55 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
B: Thought you'd find the variety within unity to be acceptable.

You suprised me.

T: You're surprised that "I" find variety within unity acceptable?

No. Now let's go slow.

I thought you would SEE in that quote from Maximus the very "variety within unity" that I did.

BUT it appeared that you objected to the Maximus quote.

That was what surprised me.

Understand now?

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/15/2008 9:00 PM (GMT -6)

Divine Progeny said...
... the binding of all particular beings, in their individual modes (tropoi) of existence, and with their peculiar drives and volition, to the universal whole as manifested in the logoi of all created things.

"Binding individual modes with peculiar drives to the universal whole" is NOT a blender-smoothy recipee.

Just like...

"Uniting individual instruments with pecular musical roles to the musical objective" is not mechanical.

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/15/2008 9:06 PM (GMT -6)

Mary is "panaghia / all holy" -- the example and not the exception.

And. . . She is a particular person.

(o)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/16/2008 5:18 AM (GMT -6)

Got your point B. Thanks.

I do accept "variety within unity." As I said though, I don't think that variety is a genuine creative, inter-personal exchange IF everything about it is determined by the One (God). To take your music analogy (one that I like IF used correctly), where there is exhaustive determination, the musicians do not creatively interpret the score before them and the result if not a synergistic (interpersonal) achievement. There’s no free improvisation which is essential to my view. For D, God does everything—writes the score, assigns the instruments, and actually determines the minutia of the instrumentalist's every move so that the entire symphony is reduced to being a function of the One. It's literally an 'instrumentalist' view of divine-human relationality, and to that extent it cannot be interpersonal.

But with a Jazz score, say, everybody knows that the author's intentions (the logoi which he assigns to each number he authors) expressly INCLUDE free improvisation. The music is what it was meant to be when it’s given away and then received back as creative expression. That’s (at least part of) WHY the jazz musician authors a particular song—to see how many creative ways his music can be expressed by others. THAT is the “variety” of which I speak and which I cannot but believe is what God is after in creating. The logoi of God’s music are, as I’ve said, “themes” that prescribe a range of creative expression whose actuality God intends US to determine. Not so for Maximus, for whom the logoi are irreducibly specific prescriptions of what the divine will wants done now here, now there, now this way, now that, leaving nothing up to the creature “to determine.”

So for D “variety within unity” means “different ways God determines his own creative expression [there’s the ‘variety’] through those who utterly abandon their own creative agency and self-determination [there’s the unity].” I categorically reject this understanding of God and his wishes for us.

Now, you say Maximus’ “Binding individual modes with peculiar drives to the universal whole” is not a blender-smoothy recipe for interpersonal relations, just as “Uniting individual instruments with peculiar musical roles to the musical objective” is not mechanical. You’re ‘interpreting’ Maximus of course. I’m not Maximus expert, but I know Ed Moore (and Luth) as well, both Maximus experts, would disagree with your interpretation of Maximus. They argue that this IS where Maximus ends up.

I like your music analogy though. So “binding individual modes with particular drives to the universal whole” CAN be expressive of a mechanical OR an interpersonal model of relations. It all depends.

----------------------------

Look at D’s summary of our difference:

“I think that our difference seems to be this: You see relatively relatively-autonomous creative expression as ultimately definitive of personhood. I see relatively-autonomous kenotic movement (self-giving and self-receving) as ultimately definitive of personhood.”

This is part of D’s problem; to him these are two approaches. He thinks I take one and he takes another. But he’s misunderstood my view at least. My view is a combination of both: creative expression IS the kenotic movement that defines personhood. We become a person not in a naked abdication of agency (D), but in the creative gift of ourselves to another. I could elaborate a bit more, but this might be the 275th time I expressed this idea. ;o)

D says his perspective “leaves things OPEN (but not necessary) for exhaustive determination...and allowing for different degrees of relatively-autonomous creative expression.” But the problem is that (in my view) creative expression is not an interpersonal reality where there’s exhaustive determination.

I’ve asked a lot for reasons for believing God would desire to exhaustively determine us, but after all this time I’ve been offered no rationale for thinking God would do such a thing. Why believe God would want to exhaustively determine our creative expression on into eternity? I can’t think of a single reason. D thinks that what is behind my view is a self-centered egotistical sort of independence; what else could explain why I’d want to determine my own creative expression? Isn’t such an insistence, he asks, what we should expect of self-centered autonomous humanity?

That’s when I throw my hands up.

----------------------------

D: Your perspective ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT allow for a high degree of divine determination of the created person.

T: Not if interpersonal loving relations and creative interpersonal diversity are what God is after. Such determination is definitionally ruled out. It’s not “my perspective.” I mean, don’t blame me for 1+1’s being 2.

D: This is because you (like Greg and Hartshorne) say that to “to the extent that A determines B, B is just A.” And that's just that. Morover, the idea is that God, wanting interpersonal difference, would NEVER have an end state where God (Personal being A) determined all aspects--thoughts, feelings, bodily actions--of a created human person (Personal being B).

T: Right. But I’m open to hearing your arguments against Hartshorne. Have you any?

D: This implies that Tom and Greg imply CATEGORICALLY that the more determination by God of the created person--REGARDLESS OF HOW IT OCCURS, even SELF-DISPOSITION--, the less “interpersonal relationship” between God and the created person.

T: Well, we don't ‘imply’ it. We explicitly and categorically affirm it (at least I do). On certain days of the week Greg does. On other days not!

------------------------------

D: Maybe this will help with how I see things...Tom, one day you will give away one of your daughters in marriage. And they will ask you..."Who gives this woman in holy matrimony?" And YOU will be like..."I do" This "I" is not reducible to your body or mind. This "I" will be your human "heart"...the deepest element of who you are. Your "heart" will be GIVING her to her husband. This is one of the most PERSONAL experiences that you will ever have...but are you doing anything "creatively unique"? Nope.

T: I most certainly am doing something creatively unique.

D: Nope. You are a father "giving" a daughter and "receiving" a new son.

T: No Bro. I’m ‘this’ father giving ‘this’ daughter and doing so in uniquely creative ways (forms, agendas, flowers,pictures, colors, composition, music, etc.).

Dude, come on. You’re saying that no bride who picks and wears a wedding gown does anything creative since ALL brides wear wedding gowns. Tell that to any bride. It utterly misses the point. Utterly. You’re whole wedding example proves MY point. NO TWO WEDDINGS are the same. Each is a creative achievement expressive of the personal uniqueness and unrepeatability of those involved.

----------------------------------

Wesley: His one desire, is the one design of his life, namely, "not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him." His one intention at all times and in all things, is not to please himself, but Him whom his soul loveth. He has a single eye….

T: And you think my view is incompatible with this? Don’t you see how this just begs the question?

Of course I agree that our one desire is not to do our own will but the will of God, not to please ourselves but him whom we love, to have a single eye. Come on dude. The question, D, is WHAT DOES GOD WILL? If the Father says, “Go make up a pretty picture for me” then I "DO" the will of God in creatively determining the composition. I'm not egotistically asserting my independence from God. I'm creatively asserting my dependence upon God. If you don't see this, you don't see it.

D: I suppose that Wesley's wrong, just like all the "others"...right, Tom?

T: Wesley’s only wrong if he interprets the will of God for our ultimate fulfillment in Christ in the eschaton as you do, in deterministic fashion. But why do that? We can still have a single eye, want nothing but God’s will, give ourselves totally to God IN DOING HIS WILL (not our own self-centeredness), AND be creative persons IF God’s will is that we be creative persons. And I have every reason to believe God wants this and NO reason for thinking God’s designs for us include utterly determining us.

-----------------------------

D: Envisioning the activity of the cosmos as a whole, Maximus presupposes here, as elsewhere, that the overcoming of “intentional divergence” (gnomuka diapora), the self-centered (DP's note: egocentric) deliberative movement of creatures, will be requisite to the restoration of all things to the Creator.

T: Again, whomever you’re quoting is first assuming (with Maximus) something about the WILL and PURPOSES of God that needs to be argued and defended but which nowhere is defended, namely, that God wants to determine us utterly and completely. IF that assumption is correct, then he’s right—every deliberative movement of creatures analogous to a daughter’s drawing of a picture as a gift of herself to God is empty, egotistical self-assertiveness. The supposition is offensive on the surface of it. I say “Rubbish! Defend the presupposition that God would want to so determine us forever.”

----------------------------

I have no objections to anything you posted of Willard. I'd like to hear from him a specific claim equal to that of yours, namely, that God’s will (the will which we single-mindedly give ourselves to) precludes the sort of freely creative personal expression that I argue IS the will of God for us. If he takes that view, then I’d have to disagree with him. But there’s nothing in what you’ve posted of him that tells me he takes that particular view. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that the language, so far as you express it in your posts, is entirely compatible with my view. It’s in fact how I would express it myself. But since we have different starting points (about WHAT IT IS God ultimately wills for our existence) the same terms used by you and me mean different things.

Willard: This progression towards full identification of our will with God's will….

T: I have absolutely no problem with this. A father tells his daughter, “Hunny, color me a pretty picture. Make something up for me!” and the daughter does this.

Tell me D, yes or no—Is the daughter’s will fully identified with her father’s will in the creative determination of colors and composition given the father’s expressed will to his daughter? The answer is absolutely yes.

So you see how your LANGUAGE is entirely beside the point and begs the question. It’s a waste of time (and a misunderstanding of the issue) to tell me that your view is that “our wills are fully identified with the will of God” as if my view is what? That we willfully disobey God? What language is left me after you’ve appropriated such terms to express your own assumptions about God’s will and purposes? The question is not, Do we do God’s will alone? Why think an affirmative answer to that lands one in YOUR particular view as opposed to mine? The question is WHAT DOES GOD WILL?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/16/2008 5:39:29 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

Focussing...

I think I've found what's wrong. Did some digging. And I see that we are never going to agree now. It's over. Here's your thought...reposting.

--------------------------

Dwayne: Greg told me about your concern about my supposed monism/emanationism. It troubled him. Greg was specifically concerned about whether or not I believed that human beings were EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINED by God such that libertarian freedom of loving expression was impossible. Greg said that as long as I hold that God doesn't EXHAUSTIVELY determine the human will such that there is no possibility of libertarian freedom for any choices of loving expression...I'm good. He said that open theism lies on a CONTINUUM. A person who is an open theist could be (HIS WORDS) "almost a Calvinist" having "99.99999" percent God-influence...as long as there is SOME libertarian freedom distinct from the divine will. And I remarked to him that this is EXACTLY what I said to him YEARS AGO (when I was back in TULSA, even!) when I pretty much independently reproduced the functional Nevillian theological determinism WITHIN the process metaphysic WITHOUT totally removing the possibility for libertarianly free expression of love. I ALSO showed him how this fit in directly with Loder's "bi-polar assymetrical relational unity" and how there IS no monism there.

Tom: I’ll have to object. True, if God only determined 99.9999% of everything about us, it would remain the case that SOME portion of the future would remain ‘open’. So ‘open theism’ would still survive. The future would be .00001% open (if we’re talking percentages).

But this isn’t the point at all D. That some aspect of our future is 'open' doesn't mean we're persons. And we’re not just talking about the future’s being open to SOME extent. We’re talking about our being PERSONS to the FULLEST extent, about the beauty of the interpersonal relationality that defines God being replicated in non-divine persons to the fullest extent possible, not the least extent possible.

I’ll definitely give this some attention in my research. The exercise of LFW can fall along a continuum, yes. But that fact alone doesn’t justify the claim that we can be essentially determined 99.99999% by God and still be “as” relationally constituted and personally distinct as we would be were that 99.9999% were left in our power to resolve. That’s the concern.

In the end it matters what sort of determinations are made by God and what sort we’re left free to resolve. Freedom and personhood are inseparably linked with respect to the object of choice and not just with respect to choice per se. If I determine everything about you but leave you free to libertarianly determine whether you stir your coffee in a clockwise as opposed to a counter-clockwise direction (or some such pointless exercise of the will), you’re being free in this .000001% space cannot ground your ‘personal’ becoming. You have to be left free with respect to the sorts of choices that make for personal becoming and loving relationship. So it’s difficult (probably impossible) to argue that a 99.99999% determination of us by God would not for all intents and purposes erode the interpersonal quotient of the relationship so greatly as to prevent the very sort of beauty which (a) can only be had interpersonally and freely, and for the sake of which (b) we have every reason in the world to suppose God has in fact created us.

------------------------------------------------

I want to focus on this...

Freedom and personhood are inseparably linked with respect to the object of choice and not just with respect to choice per se.

This is the crux of our problem...and now, I see it. You don't believe that "choice per se" can ground freedom and personhood. In other words, if there is only one choice (however we think of that) before me, you would not say that me actively choosing for that choice would be a person-defining, free choice. No, I would not have a chance to exercise my personhood OR my freedom UNLESS there were multiple "objects of choice" for me to choose from regarding creative interpretation of God's divine "themes". Kierkegaard (and Loder following him) disagree with this idea. Loder on this. Bolding mine. Underlining Loder's emphasis. He describes what is meant when Kierkegaard says "Choose despair."

...there is a recognition that the reality of choice does not reside in the objective alternative chosen or in any object of choice. This is the confirm the reality of choice as an a priori fact: i.e., there is a chooser whose freedom as chooser resides in the act of choosing, and one's existential circumstances are made to confirm this a priori reality, even in a choice for those double-bind conditions that make choice necessary. Thus the choosing binds the double-bind of despair.

In the freedom from the double bind which choice provides lives and breathes the irreducible core of the individual, and no form of existence or threat or non-existence can reach or even touch this vital nerve of the self.

What this means is that, to SK and Loder, freedom and personhood IS located in a chooser's choosing ITSELF, even in "single choice" decisions...and is NOT based on "objects of choice". If you think about it, Tom, THIS is the crucial piece. Everything you believe about freedom and personhood comes from your belief about the nature of kenotic activity involving multiple "objects of choice" for creative interpretation.

Since we have two different "starting points" here...we diverge BIG TIME.

I don't see a way across this impasse.

BUT...

I can AT LEAST see why you believe what you believe...for real! If I had the assumption that creaturely freedom and personhood absolutely RELIED ON "objects of choice", I'd probably be right where you are...AND understand WHY you don't like my view. At least THAT makes more sense to me now...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Post Edited (Divine Progeny) : 8/16/2008 8:24:34 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 8:03 AM (GMT -6)

Just as recheck. Corey, do you see how the different core assumptions about the nature of choice could lead Tom and I to our differing perspectives? You know SK and I figured you'd know about the "Choose despair" thing...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 8:15 AM (GMT -6)

What does God will? He wills our freedom and it's use. Our freedom to CHOOSE. We'd both agree on that.

From there...we part ways.

Do you see how?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 8:23 AM (GMT -6)

Going further...

D: This implies that Tom and Greg imply CATEGORICALLY that the more determination by God of the created person--REGARDLESS OF HOW IT OCCURS, even SELF-DISPOSITION--, the less “interpersonal relationship” between God and the created person.

T: Well, we don't ‘imply’ it. We explicitly and categorically affirm it (at least I do). On certain days of the week Greg does. On other days not!

This shows EXACTLY where things go divergent. From the SK/Loder standpoint, if the chooser permeates the God-determined choice with participatory consciousness, then to that degree the choice (even a single one) is GENUINELY expressive of the creature's freedom and personhood. This would mean that a created person freely choosing to self-dispose themselves more and more into God's determination would NOT make the chooser less of a person or less free, simply by definition. But you (and Greg's) take don't factor this...BECAUSE of the implicit "object of choice" assumption that y'all have.

Making sense?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 8:30 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:

Look at D’s summary of our difference:

“I think that our difference seems to be this: You see relatively relatively-autonomous creative expression as ultimately definitive of personhood. I see relatively-autonomous kenotic movement (self-giving and self-receving) as ultimately definitive of personhood.”

This is part of D’s problem; to him these are two approaches. He thinks I take one and he takes another. But he’s misunderstood my view at least. My view is a combination of both: creative expression IS the kenotic movement that defines personhood. We become a person not in a naked abdication of agency (D), but in the creative gift of ourselves to another. I could elaborate a bit more, but this might be the 275th time I expressed this idea. ;o)

D says his perspective “leaves things OPEN (but not necessary) for exhaustive determination...and allowing for different degrees of relatively-autonomous creative expression.” But the problem is that (in my view) creative expression is not an interpersonal reality where there’s exhaustive determination.

Do y'all see the assumptions about "choice" playing out here?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/16/2008 9:28 AM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
Got your point B. Thanks.

I do accept "variety within unity." ... To take your music analogy (one that I like IF used correctly), where there is exhaustive determination, the musicians do not creatively interpret the score before them and the result if not a synergistic (interpersonal) achievement. There’s no free improvisation which is essential to my view. ...

But with a Jazz score, say, everybody knows that the author's intentions (the logoi which he assigns to each number he authors) expressly INCLUDE free improvisation. The music is what it was meant to be when it’s given away and then received back as creative expression. That’s (at least part of) WHY the jazz musician authors a particular song—to see how many creative ways his music can be expressed by others. THAT is the “variety” of which I speak and which I cannot but believe is what God is after in creating. The logoi of God’s music are, as I’ve said, “themes” that prescribe a range of creative expression whose actuality God intends US to determine. Not so for Maximus, for whom the logoi are irreducibly specific prescriptions of what the divine will wants done now here, now there, now this way, now that, leaving nothing up to the creature “to determine.”

1. You have a LOW view of classical music. I have a high view of what a musician playing Bach and getting into his head is involved in.

2. Agree on Jazz. We both have a high view of Jazz.

3. You have a low view of Maximus -- you are reading into him.

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/16/2008 9:31 AM (GMT -6)

Why, Tom, do you have such a division between the eschaton and now?

(o)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 10:16 AM (GMT -6)

Bruce:
1. You have a LOW view of classical music. I have a high view of what a musician playing Bach and getting into his head is involved in.

2. Agree on Jazz. We both have a high view of Jazz.

3. You have a low view of Maximus -- you are reading into him.

You and I are on the same page, Bruce.

Nice one.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 10:17 AM (GMT -6)

I played in school band from 6th through 12th grades. UIL competitions, marching band, symphonic band...and all that. Playing classical...and jazz stuff...

Great way to express things, Bruce...

Yeah...memories...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 10:24 AM (GMT -6)

Paul:
"Freedom and personhood are inseparably linked with respect to the object of choice and not just with respect to choice per se."

Barnabas:
"...the reality of (free, personal) choice does not reside in the objective alternative chosen or in any object of choice."

Oh, well.

We just agree to disagree. and love each other...as we go our separate ways.

Mad love.

cheers

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

Corey, I'm dying for your perspective on all this...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 10:47 AM (GMT -6)

...listening to the Police right now...

The Police

Wrapped Around Your Finger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRoUpDON0_0

The Police

Spirits in The Material World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5-mqiXK5kY

HAYELL, YEAH!!!

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Post Edited (Divine Progeny) : 8/16/2008 11:01:13 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/16/2008 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

I'll have to catch up. Give me a bit. That old exchange you posted, D, is crucial. I just ran across it last night myself as well!

First, I wanted to say to B, yes, classical music as well. I didn't mean to dis Bach by all means! There is 'interpretation' in the classics too. I've got several recordings of Rach's 3rd Concerto in Dm that I enjoy listening too precisely because they're each different and the difference is determined BY the pianists interpreting Rachmaninov (and by the conductor leading the symphony). The same thing can be said of any great classical composer. Bach would hardly think all the different ways his music is played by others a departure from his intention.

I only focused on Jazz because it's a bit easier to see with a single musician.

Second, I don’t have a “low” view of Maximus. What would “low” even mean? That I think he’s a bad person, that I think he’s ignorant, that what? Low?

I admitted I’m no expert on Maximus. I’m just relying on others who are experts. Not everyone would agree with Luth and Moore. But as I read Moore’s work on Maximus, Moore seemed quite objective and thorough. And I’ve always said “if”—IF Moore’s (and Luth’s) reading of Maximus is right, THEN I agree with Moore against Maximus. And the little of Maximus I can get my hands on here and have time to read seems to confirm Moore and Luth’s take.

But disagreeing with somebody doesn’t mean taking a “low” view of them.

And I’m not “reading into Maximus.” I’m telling you what Moore and Luth say on the matter. They’d certainly disagree with you that they’re “reading into Maximus.” They’d reply that you don’t understand Maximus. I’m sorry for giving their reading of Maximus the benefit of the doubt over yours. So you’re argument isn’t with me on Maximus.

Lastly, you asked why I have such a division between the eschaton and now. If you can be more specific, B, I’ll be happy to try to answer. What specific ‘division’ do you see me making that you object to?

Thanks,
Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/16/2008 12:05:27 PM (GMT-5)

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/16/2008 12:10 PM (GMT -6)

D: What does God will? He wills our freedom and it's use. Our freedom to CHOOSE. We'd both agree on that. From there...we part ways. Do you see how?

Corey: I think the divergence is that some presume there is a specific center of God's will in each occasion; there is only one "best" thing to be done. Others presume that there are a range of options that equally qualify as "best".

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/16/2008 12:46 PM (GMT -6)

Exactly Corey. Thank you.

As I've said, if there's only one best, most loving option, then choosing that is certainly a personal thing to do! And we make it out of love for God and a willingness to do his will. THAT one options IS his will. I don't think there being one option (one thing God wills) makes us LESS persons (D's missing me on this).

But if there are a hundred equally loving options, and God's will is that we be creative lovers, then it's inconsistent with God's purpose that we be such for God also to decide which of those hundred options we come to instantiate. THAT is what undermines creaturely personhood. Where creative diversity is possible, why do D and B default to the belief that God would not want us to determine outcomes, creatively and in obedience to God's will? Why do they think God would not want this? D says he doesn't rule out this "possibility." That's not enough. It's obvious that he wants to dispose himself out of such an arrangement because he thinks it represents a lesser form of union with God than that which is had if God calls all the shots, even when there are tons of equally good shots that might be called. He views one as a higher form of 'union' than the other. And that calls into question the notion that the lesser form really represents a "possibility." How is a lesser form of union a possible fulfillment of God's purposes for us?

Just decide what it is you believe God wants us to be and then whether the infinite creativity of divine love in a context free of sin/evil and all threat/risk would not want creatures making those creative determinations rather than making them alone for all others. To me it's a no-brainer. In a context free of sin/evil and all threat of risk possessed by the infinite loving God and creatures solidified in the good, the future cannot BUT be a smorgasbord of infinite variety and expression. And such a God of love would (absolutely in my opinion) want creative lovers determining the diversity of that expression into eternity. But though its' a no-brainer to me, I totally respect D's and B's belief that God's being the sort of God God is (whatever that is I know not; it's something different than what I conceive) makes believing God's determining which of several equally loving options gets actualized the default position. I'd just like to see that belief defended. WHY believe God is the sort of being who would want, in such circumstances, to be the one determining the exact shape of things to come? Indeed, IF there are a variety of loving expressions available in an environment free of all threat of evil, how is it possible to conclude that God would want to call all the shots?

I hope this helps B see the different contextual factors involved in distinguishing between 'this present evil age' and the Eschaton.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/16/2008 12:52:06 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 12:54 PM (GMT -6)

What I think God wants...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/16/2008 12:55 PM (GMT -6)

Bruce.

How the hell am I supposed to explain this, dude?

Well...I'll try.

God wants us to be GOD-BEARERS and SPIRIT-BEARERS.

Oy vay...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Post Edited (Divine Progeny) : 8/16/2008 1:10:49 PM (GMT-5)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/16/2008 1:09 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
Second, I don’t have a “low” view of Maximus. What would “low” even mean? That I think he’s a bad person, that I think he’s ignorant, that what? Low?

I admitted I’m no expert on Maximus. I’m just relying on others who are experts. Not everyone would agree with Luth and Moore. But as I read Moore’s work on Maximus, Moore seemed quite objective and thorough. And I’ve always said “if”—IF Moore’s (and Luth’s) reading of Maximus is right, THEN I agree with Moore against Maximus. And the little of Maximus I can get my hands on here and have time to read seems to confirm Moore and Luth’s take.

But disagreeing with somebody doesn’t mean taking a “low” view of them.

And I’m not “reading into Maximus.” I’m telling you what Moore and Luth say on the matter. They’d certainly disagree with you that they’re “reading into Maximus.” They’d reply that you don’t understand Maximus. I’m sorry for giving their reading of Maximus the benefit of the doubt over yours. So you’re argument isn’t with me on Maximus.

Sure. By “'low' view of Maximus" I was meaning that unlike the less-than-richly-complicated way you initially considered classical music, you really recognize a greater richness in Bach. And so with Maximus a "high" vew would leave open what can not be streamlined by modern issues and conclusions. A high view -- a non-sensical term -- would look to the issue being looked at, and not to any issue of trying to define Maximus as a whole.

Imho, a synthetic thinker like Maximus would be subject to becoming a whole lot of different Maxiumuses depending on what contemporary person has him on their operating table. I'm more interested in seeing what Maximus -- and others -- have to offer to various issues...as those issues are important in themselves.

Maximus is a messenger, not a message. And, kind of ironically, that is a higher view.

(o)

183 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:08 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual