 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Maximus on "particular" (for Tom, and the rest of us too) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/16/2008 1:18 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".
I want this CRYSTAL clear. Right now, please.
I have said multiple times that I hold that BOTH OPTIONS are possible, even in the eschaton. Meaning that there are some times where there is a "specific center of God's will" and others where there is a range of options. Which is why I've said what I've said: GOD can determine what the range of options are, at any given moment. I don't care. I really do leave that up to God. I just attempt to seek God and His Willl with "single vision" trusting the Spirit to lead, guide, and direct me in all things to whatever degree God feels necessary. Moreover, I care about Christ being "born" in my heart every single moment of my life via the Trinitarian Presence in the Spirit. THAT'S what's important to me. So, with respect to me and Tom, it's not the case that I deny "range of options that equally qualify as 'best' " I've said this over and over and over again.
Tom's major issue is right here...
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?
In other words, Tom wants to say that his view (which completely eliminates the possiblity for anything anywhere near exhaustive determination by God, through the human being freely choosing such) is the "higher" form. That has to be it. If union with God where near exhaustive determination by God IS the "higher" possibliity, then God, wanting to bring our union to it's uttermost "fulfillment" would at LEAST be moving us in the direction of that "higher" possiblity. This would work out such that the type of freedom that Tom enjoys and desires would be cool and actualizable but NOT the ultimate fulfillment of union with God in love. Tom sees our perspectives as mutually-exclusive, eschatologically and telelogically speaking.
So, Tom won't just let me say "I'm cool either way. Both are possible and my view allows for both." He can't.
But ain't this HIS issue?
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) : 8/16/2008 1:24:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2008 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
Tom said...
I hope this helps B see the different contextual factors involved in distinguishing between 'this present evil age' and the Eschaton.
I wasn't thinking about that difference. I was thinking that you ended up differentiating between theosis now and theosis then. That's why I mentioned the Theotokos. She arrived, but still joines with all of us in praying -- she's a particular person and remains so. No blender.
Btw, I would have a problem with your position if it were that of prefering an independent-ness in the eschaton -- as that would be a twisted take on "being like God." (Recalls the garden fiasco.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2008 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
Divine Progeny said...
Bruce.
How the hell am I supposed to explain this, dude?
What were you responding/reacting to, D?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/16/2008 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Bruce:
What were you responding/reacting to, D?
Basically, I'm having frustration. The "Panagia" and "Theotokos" concepts really tell the whole story. (Just like Hopko said!)
But I can't describe what I'm seeing...
It's epicletic living.
Argh!
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/16/2008 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | AND...there's still the matter of this...
"Freedom and personhood are inseparably linked with respect to the object of choice and not just with respect to choice per se."
Either Tom believes this or he doesn't. I do not.
This works out such that, if there was choice X that had 10 equally viable options involved for me to choose from...AND for me to do some "naked abdication of agency" to God for that particular choice when I could make the choice myself...would be for me to NOT fully exercise my freedom and/or my personhood in that situation...because of his belief.
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) : 8/16/2008 1:35:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/16/2008 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | My take on Tom's position:
God wants us to be maximally creative lovers in Christ who, in their love for God, creatively mediate possiblity and actuality between multiple loving options with their own human "hearts", which have been purified and empowered by God.
My take on my position:
God wants us to be self-aware, "all-holy" "God-bearers" who, in loving self-giving and self-denial, bear God's Word (Christ-the-Logos) in and through our human "hearts" by the Spirit. (Christ in us, the hope of glory)
Just how I'm seeing it...
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2008 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I haven't read anything from p. 3 yet. Can't catch up!
OK, there’s the part D especially objects to from my earlier correspondence:
“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.”
D’s objects:
“This is the crux of our problem. You don't believe that ‘choice per se’ can ground freedom and personhood.”
In all we argued against compatibilism/Calvinism through the years, OF COURSE ‘choice per se’ cannot ground personhood. What if I’m determined by God (in the Calvinistic sense of an eternal and unconditional determination of all I do)? I’m making a ‘choice’ in that case. I’m a ‘person’? No. I’m free in the compatibilistic sense. You’re going to agree with Piper and Sproul now that such determination of us is compatible with our being ‘responsible’ and ‘personal’ just because we’re ‘making a choice’? Come on. You don’t even believe this. YOU argue as well that we must libertarianly choose to abandon ourselves to God, only this ‘kind’ of choice can ground personal becoming in your view. And since it’s a libertarian choice, you admit we have the option to not make that choice. So even for you creaturely personhood requires libertarian options. So you don’t believe ‘choice per se’ grounds personhood. You believe ‘libertarian’ choice grounds personhood. You just make the additional move and say this must be a libertarian choice to abandon self-determining agency per se.
You go on:
“In other words, if there is only one choice before me, you would not say that my 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 ‘theme’.”
No, I would not say that if there is only one choice before you that your making that choice can’t be expressive of personal identity. Of course it can be!
I’ve said it a lot. If in heaven it turns out that in some particular circumstance there’s only one loving option open to me, then of course (a) what ‘love’ is in that circumstance is grounded in God, and (b) the logos of my existence has in that circumstance one possibility to realize, and (c) it is expressive of my personal identity to adopt that course of action out of love for God and a willingness to abide in him and do his will alone. That’s the only choice a ‘person’ who wishes to do God’s will CAN make.
I don’t demand that it never be the case that our fulfilled existence in Christ be closed with respect to future possibilities because personal identity can’t bare such single option choices.
What I’m saying is that…
(1) Where there ARE a variety of options, then…
(a) …it can only be because the logoi of our existence express a range of possibilities all equally compatible with our loving God and doing his will. That’s what it MEANS to say there are a “variety of equally loving options.” If there ever are such circumstances, it can only be because logoi express the will of God in terms of ‘possible choices’, and…
(b) …in such circumstances, God’s purposes for us entail our being the ones who determine the transition from possibility to actuality. If God had decided to be the one who determins which possibilities inherent in such logoi are to be realized, then there wouldn’t BE such possibilities. The logoi of creatures would not be expressed in terms of ranges of loving possibilities. The fact that God’s will determines a range of possibilities at all (i.e., that fact that God would ever define created logoi in terms of a range of possibilities) itself means God wishes the created entities be the ones who determine which possibility gets actualized. That’s the whole reason why there ARE such possibilities/logoi for created beings.
(c) So then, to insist in such cases where God offers created realities several options for becoming, that God would want to decide which option is best is to deny what one affirms, viz., that there really are a variety of equally loving options facing created realities. In what sense is creation “facing a variety of options” if God is the one determining which options gets realized? In this case, D, you essentially deny the variety and diversity of created being offered by God to creation. If there ever are a variety of options offered created becoming, we must conclude that God wishes the creature to determine its becoming. Affirming that this is God’s will is what it means to say God creates a world that faces possibilities of becoming. If you want instead to conclude that God determines all, you must argue for the impossibility of there being a variety of equally loving options offered us.
And (2) there ARE a variety of options (sometimes now, but most certainly infinitely so in the eschaton).
----------------------------
D: 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.
T: I’ll leave you and Corey to debate SK. But I’ll just say that I hope you see now that I do NOT believe personal choices must be choices made from a range of possibilities in order to be expressive of personal identity. I’m fine with “single choice” decisions WHERE THERE ARE SINGLE CHOICE OPTIONS. I do not believe, as you supposed, that “creaturely freedom and personhood absolutely rely upon ‘objects of choice’.” I only insist that WHERE THERE ARE SUCH OPTIONS (grounded in God’s will expressed in created logoi) that we conclude from this that God’s purposes for our personal becoming require that we decide. That’s the ONLY reason why there can even BE a variety of equally loving options facing creation.
The question is, Are there ever a variety of equally loving options facing us? If so, then I think I have argued successfully (a) that such options are only real because they’re grounded in logoi that express God’s will for creation in terms of a “range” of possibilities, and that (b) we must conclude that if God’s will for creation is expressed in terms of a range of possibilities that God also wills US to be the ones who determine which among those possibilities gets actualized.
All that’s really left is to decide whether or not creation EVER faces a variety of loving possibilities for becoming. If so, then I rest my case. What are the arguments for believing creation ever faces a range of equally loving options? That should be pretty easy to argue. What are the arguments for believing that in the absence of evil and all risk and threat that creation would be faced with an infinite smorgasbord of creative possibilities grounded in the infinite creative God of love?
Love,
TomPost Edited (Tom) : 8/16/2008 3:36:32 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2008 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | |
Divine Progeny said...
But I can't describe what I'm seeing...
St. Symeon the New Theologian (Oration 61, Works)
God can be known to us in the same way as a man can see an endless ocean by standing at the shore at night with a dimly lit candle. Do you think he can see much? Not much, almost nothing. And nevertheless, he sees the water well. he knows that there is an ocean in fronot of him, that this ocean is huge and that he cannot see it all at once. The same is true of our knolwege of God."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2008 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | D: I have said multiple times that I hold that BOTH OPTIONS are possible, even in the eschaton. Meaning that there are some times where there is a "specific center of God's will" and others where there is a range of options.
T: And who decides when there’s a range of options?
D: Which is why I've said what I've said: GOD can determine what the range of options are, at any given moment. I don't care.
T: You do care D (at least when it comes to YOU). Because even when there are a range of options, you still choose to have God determine which gets actualized by you. So you’re clearly ‘set’ on being determined by God. Even when God chooses diversity of options and offers them to you, you deny yourself the options and choose to have God determine all for you.
I’m not campaigning to be the one who decides whether or not in some specific situation there are (and if there are how many there are) a range of loving possibilities. But I do have very good reasons for believing that maximally creative options are definitive of God’s purposes for us and that there’ll be an infinite smorgasbord of creative possibilities offer creation in the eschaton.
D: I really do leave that up to God. I just attempt to seek God and His will with “single vision” trusting the Spirit to lead, guide, and direct me in all things to whatever degree God feels necessary.
T: So do I. Whether there are (and if there are how many there are) a range of loving options is obviously “up to God.” God defines what loving options there are and offers them to creation.
D: Moreover, I care about Christ being "born" in my heart every single moment of my life via the Trinitarian Presence in the Spirit. THAT'S what's important to me. So, with respect to me and Tom, it's not the case that I deny "range of options that equally qualify as 'best' " I've said this over and over and over again.
T: I’ve never heard you say that where there are a range of equally loving options that we determine which gets actualized. You certainly don't wish that option upon yourself, even though you admit that God wishes it upon creation by virtue of offering us equally loving possibilities to choose from.
D: In other words, Tom wants to say that his view (which completely eliminates the possiblity for anything anywhere near exhaustive determination by God…
T: Give me SOME reason for thinking God would want to determine 99.99% of perfected reality. You obviously want to “freely choose exhaustive determination by God.” But you’d only want that IF you thought God wanted it for you, right? You want utter determination by God because you think in choosing that you’re doing God’s will. And even in cases where you admit a variety of equally loving options, you want God to determine you in that TOO. And you obviously want that because you believe that’s what God wants for you.
Soooo…Why do you believe God wants that for you? What is it, D, about God that makes you think God wants this? And given your reasons for believing God wants this for you, how do you then agree that God may not wish this for everybody?
See, D, when you say “both are possible in my view,” just what are these “both” to you? It seems that you think they are: there being one right option available on the one hand and there sometimes being a variety of loving options available on the other hand. But in the latter case you still choose to have God do the determining.
That’s NOT the “both” I’m about. The both that I’m about are: our choosing out of love for God to do the one right thing when there’s only one right thing to do (on the one hand), and our choosing out of love for God to do one right thing when there are several equally right things to do (on the other hand).
---------------------------------
POW: I wasn't thinking about that difference. I was thinking that you ended up differentiating between theosis now and theosis then.
T: I’m differentiating between the contexts in which we find ourselves in here and now compared to the eschaton, between the range of loving options possible in highly conflicted contexts in this present evil age and what likely are to be the range of loving possibilities open to us in the eschaton when there will be no evil and no risk or threat to us.
POW: That's why I mentioned the Theotokos. She arrived, but still joins with all of us in praying -- she's a particular person and remains so. No blender.
T: I have no idea when Mary “arrived.” I don’t think any of us can ever be in a position to say when somebody’s “arrived.” That’s not our job anyhow. There’s nothing in Scripture that tells us Mary “arrived.” My guess is that Mary was never in this life “out of the woods” as in free from all risk and threat. But assuming she did “arrive,” I don’t at all think God determined every creative choice she made AFTER she “arrived.”
POW: Btw, I would have a problem with your position if it were that of preferring an independent-ness in the eschaton -- as that would be a twisted take on “being like God.”
T: Can you tell me what you think my position is?
TPost Edited (Tom) : 8/16/2008 3:54:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/17/2008 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Since you posted about Maximus, POW:
Ed Moore: "Maximus errs on a different point. i.e., he describes salvation as the replacement of the personal ego by the divine presence. This is tantamount to a denial of the importance of personhood, and the presistence of personality in eschatological existence." Maximus, Moore argues, "reduces our existence to a function of the Godhead, and robs our personhood of any meaning." Authentic existence, says Moore, is the result of personal decision. After a few confirming quotes from the EO philosopher/theologian Berdyaev, Moore concludes that "in the system of Maximus, God remains forever the same, forever stable, in perfect repose--a repose so absolute that the soul that unites with God is rendered motionless, in a static 'perfection' devoid of creative achievement or involvement...In this eschatological state the soul ceases to be an actor...humanity is revealed as merely a function of the Godhead, who uses His creation for the purpose of His own self-actualization." Thus, "the reducibility of human act to divine function."
Moores' view? With Origen (after a few slight adjustments), it is in the emergence of the creaturely "I am" that a creative ego comes into being, and "it is in this that the person most closely resembles God, and conforms to His 'image and likeness', for it is in our creativity that we most resemble our Creator."
Exactly,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I'll say this. I suppose I can understand how some people like Moore, in looking at Maximus, could get an idea of ego ANNIHILATION, instead ego DISPLACEMENT (not REplacement). Moore's idea of the "replacement of the personal ego by the divine presence" and the way he describes it is NOT what occurs in Loder's/Shults' work. It's really not. And Loder mentions that time and again. Loder doesn't hold to a static "perfection". Neither does he hold that the creaturely "I am" of the ego has expresses no creativity whatever. He mentions quite frequency that the ego (and the human agency of the "I") is FREED into creative, dynamic, perichoretic action by having the Divine Presence (mediated by Christ's Holy Spirit through Grace) as the "external center" of our activity. This is NOT the same as what Moore talks about.
Sigh...oh well...It doesn't even matter anymore almost...
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) : 8/17/2008 6:24:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/17/2008 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Neither does [Loder] hold that the creaturely “I am” of the ego expresses no creativity whatever.
T: Give me an example of a creaturely creative expression.
D: He mentions quite frequency that the ego (and the human agency of the “I”) is FREED into creative, dynamic, perichoretic action by having the Divine Presence as the “external center” of our activity.
T: Who determines which creative possibility gets actualized?
----------------
Corey, I’d be interested in your thoughts on my reasoning here:
Where there ARE a variety of loving options:
(a) …it can only be because the logoi of our existence express a range of possibilities all equally compatible with our loving God and doing his will. That’s what it MEANS to say there are a “variety of equally loving options.” If there ever are such circumstances, it can only be because logoi express the will of God in terms of ‘possible choices’, and…
(b) …in such circumstances, God’s purposes for us entail our being the ones who determine the transition from possibility to actuality. Why? If God had decided to be the one who determines which possibilities inherent in such logoi are to be realized, then there wouldn’t BE a variety of possibilities. The logoi of creatures would not be expressed in terms of ranges of loving possibilities, they’d be expressed in terms of the ONE outcome God in fact determines. So, the fact that God’s will determines a “range of possibilities” at all (i.e., that fact that God would ever define created logoi in terms of a range of possibilities) means God wishes the created entities to determine which possibility gets actualized.
(c) So then, in cases where God offers created realities several options for becoming, to insist that God would want to decide which option gets realized is to deny what one affirms, viz., that there really are a variety of equally loving options facing created realities. In what sense is creation “facing a variety of options” if God is the one determining which options get realized? We must conclude from the fact that God offers creatures a variety of options that God wishes the creature to determine its becoming. In other words, the offer of a variety of options is itself an invitation to determine creative expression.
Corey, do you see what I’m trying to say, reasoning from the fact that God wills to offer us a variety of possibilities to the conclusion that God wills us to determine which gets actualized?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
D: Neither does [Loder] hold that the creaturely “I am” of the ego expresses no creativity whatever.
T: Give me an example of a creaturely creative expression.
Let me just give a personal example, ok? This is what happens NOW, ok?
It's like the final stage of the Jesus Prayer (Prayer of the Heart), where "Christ-in-me" (Divine Presence) is actually DOING something in and through me, though it may not look like it. God's Grace ACTUALLY WORKS in our members, synergistically. Let's say that I have an opportunity to do good. I "perceive" multiple options about what to do for this situation. Implicitely trusting the Trinitarian Presence in me (The Father in Christ, Christ in me via the Holy Spirit) to WORK IN ME in Grace, Wisdom, and Guidance, I make whatever choices that my mind (in Christ) believes is appropriate for the circumstnace that Christ-the-Logos has "gone before" me (given his omnipresent reality). Before, during, and after I'm trying to do anything, I wordlessly beckon "Holy Spirit of Christ, come into my heart! Let your Will be done here right now." Whenver I do anything (even taking a DUMP), I say "I, not I, but Christ". When I'm cutting my toenails, same thing. When I'm working with a child, same thing. When I'm having sex with my wife, SAME THING. This basically gets to a point where the faithful trust in God's working (God's Grace and Christ in me) is sufficiently high such that there is such an intense awareness of God's Presence in oneself (and everywhere else) that one REALLY BELIEVES that God speaks, lives, and acts in and through him.
Here's a quote the demonstrates what I'm talking about. Fr. Zachariah cited by Ware...
Sometimes a man does not know himself what he will say. The Lord himself speaks through his lips. One must pray like this: "O Lord, may you live in me, may you speak through me, may you act through me." When the Lord speaks through a man's lips, then all the words of that man are effective and all that is spoken by him is fulfilled. That man who is speaking is himself surprised at this...Only one must not rely on wisdom.
In rap lingo, it's like "freestyling in God" throughout one's life.
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) : 8/17/2008 7:55:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | So, just like Loder says, the ego is NOT annihilated, absorbed, or replaced. It is RECENTERED in all things on the Divine Presence (the Holy One). And this actually FREES the ego from it's ego-defensive, neurotic postures towards life to see reality AS IT IS: God's World solely sustained by God's Grace every moment.
This is important because the human ego periphery is what GROUNDS the "historical perspective" of the human being. I would not know my name as "Divine Progeny" (or remember the history of getting that name, being from Waco, Texas, etc) without my human ego being in its current state. It's NOT destroyed at all.
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) : 8/17/2008 8:00:29 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | And I hope that one can see the "Loop De Loop" effect here.
Living like this, one couldn't really tell where the human STOPS and where the divine acting in the human BEGINS...and vice versa.
It's a STRANGE LOOP EFFECT! 
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) : 8/17/2008 7:54:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah...that's a good phrase.
When it comes to "who chooses", there is a TANGLED HIERARCHY between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the STRANGE LOOP reality of the differential unity of the two spirits.
Making sense, Corey?
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Another thought:
I choose to go somewhere. Some asks me:
"Say, D. WHO made that choice to go where you did?"
I'd respond...BY FAITH...
"I did. Well, not JUST me. But really, Christ-the-Logos in my "heart" through God's Grace."
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) : 8/17/2008 10:01:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | Loder himself. Page 57. Knight's Move again. All parentheticals mine.
In our use of the model (the Loop de Loop) to porray the relationality of spirit, the Holy Spirit and human spirit bind together in an assymetric, relational unity by means of the strange loop. The broken circle (DP's note: the meeting point of the loop de loop) symbolizes the binding relations A (Higher Level) and B (Lower Level) functioning together in continuous, dynamic unison. These dynamics may be understood by indicating some possible relations of the differentiated relationship:
A-----> grounds, molds, guides, controls, sustains, motivates...
B-----> is responsive to, dependent upon, points to...
Theologically understood, all relationships ultimately are a consequence of the creative-redeeming activity of the Holy Spirit, who binds together distinct polarities to form a dynamic, relational unity. Thus, in this theological context we are indicating by means of the broken circle that the human spirit is properly functioning only when differentially unified with the Holy Spirit.
The two poles and the assymetric relationship between them forms a feedback loop. The top level "reaches" downward toward the bottom level and influences it, while simultaneously responding to the bottom level. Out of the dynamic character of the two poles and the assymetric relations between them, the dynamic-differential relational unity emerges.
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 8/17/2008 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Corey, do you see what I’m trying to say, reasoning from the fact that God wills to offer us a variety of possibilities to the conclusion that God wills us to determine which gets actualized?
Corey: Yes, I do, and it makes sense to me: novel beauty originating in creatures, who by thus creating are themselves being transfigured to the image of Christ.
I've got a lot of thoughts here (I haven't ignored you, D), but that one sentance was the best I could get out.
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are. Post Edited (Corey) : 8/17/2008 8:56:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Corey, do you see what I’m trying to say, reasoning from the fact that God wills to offer us a variety of possibilities to the conclusion that God wills us to determine which gets actualized?
Corey: Yes, I do, and it makes sense to me: novel beauty originating in creatures, who by thus creating are themselves being transfigured to the image of Christ.
Ok, Corey. Do you see how I'm NOT removing "novel beauty originating in creatures" which Loder would describe as the emergent agency, the human "self-as-spirit", but trying to affirm the reality of the bi-polar assymetrical relationship between Divine Presence (Trinitarian Presence via Holy Spirit) and that human spirit.
I'm trying to articulate this the best way that I can...
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Analogy:
SCRIPTURAL INSPIRATION
"God-breathed"
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Since, then, the union between God and the human beings that he has created is a union neither according to essence nor according to hypostasis, it remains thirdly that it should be a union according to energy. The saints do not become God by essence nor one person with God, but they participate in the energies of God, that is to say, in his life, power, grace, and glory.
The energies, as we have insisted, are not to be "objectified" or regarded as an intermediary between God and man, a "thing" or gift which God bestows on his creation. The energies are truly God himself--yet not God as he exists within himself, in his inner life, but God as he communicates himself in outgoing love. He who participates in God's energies is therefore meeting God himself face to face, through a direct and personal union of love, in so far as a created being is capable of this. To say that man participates in the energies but not in the essence of God is to say that between man and God there is brought to pass union but not confusion. It means that we affirm concerning God, in the most literal and emphatic way, "His life is mine", while at the same time repudiating pantheism. We assert God's nearness, while at the same time proclaiming his otherness.
Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Way. Pages 125-126.
I really don't think I can say it better than this. 
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) : 8/17/2008 10:12:29 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/17/2008 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Do you see how I'm NOT removing "novel beauty originating in creatures."
T: It's novel beauty originated (viz., determined) BY creatures that you don't have. Saying "in creatures" can mean creatures are just "where" God creatively expresses himself, as opposed to what I (and I think Corey) see.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/17/2008 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
It's novel beauty originated (viz., determined) BY creatures that you don't have. Saying "in creatures" can mean creatures are just "where" God creatively expresses himself, as opposed to what I (and I think Corey) see.
What did you get from what I described in the post above?
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. | | Back to Top | | |
| 183 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:22 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 |
|
|