[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You been up all night? I have, but I got hooked into working…Still working actually. I am stupid tired, but I can still make rational arguments.[/quote]
No, I just do the whole Opus Dei kind of morning, woke up at 5:15 and kneel facing the east, kiss the floor, and say “serviam” then do my morning offering and head to perpetual adoration and do my spiritual reading in front of the Holy Eucharist.[/quote]
And you bring your laptop?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You been up all night? I have, but I got hooked into working…Still working actually. I am stupid tired, but I can still make rational arguments.[/quote]
No, I just do the whole Opus Dei kind of morning, woke up at 5:15 and kneel facing the east, kiss the floor, and say “serviam” then do my morning offering and head to perpetual adoration and do my spiritual reading in front of the Holy Eucharist.[/quote]
And you bring your laptop?[/quote]
No it’s 8:40 here.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.
The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.
The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.
P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]
Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]
If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.
If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m coming into this late but I disagree with the above. The above is “trapped” in our concept of time. If you’re standing outside time, which would be necessary to have foreknowledge, then you are not affecting time - and your knowledge has no causative or restrictive effect upon the actor. In other words, you’re seeing another person’s life in a blink of an eye, and in more clear terms - you are seeing what they have already done, not are about to do. You are seeing beginning to end, so “foreknowledge” might be a bit of a misnomer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The unmoved-mover[/quote]
[/quote]
The universe can’t move itself, we already established this. Even if the universe was eternal (which it is not it is only 13.5 billion years), it would have slowed down already.[/quote]
Given that we do not yet (and may never) understand the physics of the universe, we cannot state its age or whether it’s eternal or not. We cannot even state with certainty whether our perception of the universe is even correct and whether there is one, or many.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.
The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.
The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.
P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]
Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]
If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.
If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/quote]
Your foreknowledge, or the lack of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I could or couldn’t do. Knowing that I’m going to make a certain choice doesn’t mean I wasn’t free to make that choice. I was perfectly free to make it, you just knew me so well that you understood what choice I would make. Step back for a second and think about it logically. How in the world could your foreknowledge impact my choice? It’s impossible.
If I’m omniscient, and I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, does my knowledge influence the rising of the sun? Obviously not. I simply know the sun is going to rise. Whether I know it or not, it is a fact that the sun will rise.
Don’t confuse omniscience with predestination. Knowing all things doesn’t imply responsibility for all things.
[/quote]
Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]
It’s not a paradox. It’s only a paradox in a human’s perception of time.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Your simply being dishonest here. You pronounced multiple times that we (Chris and I, or all Catholics) are on a strait shot to hell. >>>[/quote]I defy you right now to quote me even once ever saying such a thing. Find it. I dare ya. I will convert to Catholicism on the spot if you can. You are either the one being totally dishonest or you are under a spirit of strong delusion. I will never again respond to another thing you post until you either demonstrate this outrageous accusation by quoting my own words or you admit that you were wrong in making that statement. Show everybody where Tiribulus either said or implied “that you (Chris and Pat, or all Catholics) are on a strait shot to hell”. Let’s see it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< The difference between the division in our Church (which I include you in because you are baptized a Catholic) and the rest of the division through Christianity is that we don’t pretend it is okay. [/quote]We don’t pretend it’s okay. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< but to say your faith is true and my faith is true when they do not complete match is up is incorrect. There is one truth. One faith. >>>[/quote]See how much divsion you find here http://forums.catholic.com/ What an education that place has been. You may even find some my posts. (if you haven’t already) It’s also not okay that true believers sin all the time (which they do), but it IS a reality while we still dwell in this sinful flesh. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Yes and we remember (or we participate) in that feast, as well as, Christ’s sacrifice from dawn til dusk all over the world.[/quote]Foot washing is not commanded and I was saying nothing further than we are willing to serve each other and our Lord despite our differences.
Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Excerpt from Msgr. Charles Pope:
We have discussed before that an important principle of the Christian moral vision is to understand that it is essentially received, not achieved. Holiness is a work of God. The human being acting out the power of his flesh alone cannot keep, and surely not fulfill, the Law. The experience of God’s people in the Old Testament bears this out. True holiness (and not mere ethical rule keeping) is possible only by and through God’s grace.
In this sense we must understand the moral vision given by Jesus as a description rather than a mere prescription. Notice what the text says here: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill [the Law]. It is Jesus who fulfills the Law. And we, who are more and more in him, and He in us do what He does. It is His work.[/quote]OK, On it’s face and if I’m reading this guy correctly, this is quite a reformed statement. If your view of morality and holiness stopped right there and the rest of your soteriology brought consistently into line, you would have reformation protestantism.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Excerpt from Msgr. Charles Pope:
We have discussed before that an important principle of the Christian moral vision is to understand that it is essentially received, not achieved. Holiness is a work of God. The human being acting out the power of his flesh alone cannot keep, and surely not fulfill, the Law. The experience of God’s people in the Old Testament bears this out. True holiness (and not mere ethical rule keeping) is possible only by and through God’s grace.
In this sense we must understand the moral vision given by Jesus as a description rather than a mere prescription. Notice what the text says here: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill [the Law]. It is Jesus who fulfills the Law. And we, who are more and more in him, and He in us do what He does. It is His work.[/quote]OK, On it’s face and if I’m reading this guy correctly, this is quite a reformed statement. If your view of morality and holiness stopped right there and the rest of your soteriology brought consistently into line, you would have reformation protestantism.
[/quote]
I said almost exactly this with quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you liked it remember. The above does not lead to divine monergism as you say. It is in fact Catholicism plain and true. We are participants and thus something is required of us to participate.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Your simply being dishonest here. You pronounced multiple times that we (Chris and I, or all Catholics) are on a strait shot to hell. >>>[/quote]I defy you right now to quote me even once ever saying such a thing. Find it. I dare ya. I will convert to Catholicism on the spot if you can. You are either the one being totally dishonest or you are under a spirit of strong delusion. I will never again respond to another thing you post until you either demonstrate this outrageous accusation by quoting my own words or you admit that you were wrong in making that statement. Show everybody where Tiribulus either said or implied “that you (Chris and Pat, or all Catholics) are on a strait shot to hell”. Let’s see it.
[/quote]
You did it in these three threads many times just to name a few:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_q_a?id=4262621&pageNo=0
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/protestants_qa
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/bible_contradictions
Are you really trying to tell me, that you didn’t say things like ‘if any Catholics make it to heaven it’s would only because of the extreme mercy of God’
Give me your address and I will send you a leather bound Catechism, and give you a local RCIA program in your area.
Let me make you cringe some more, not only am I Catholic, I teach it to teenagers too. Had a great talk on St. Mary tonight.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.
The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.
The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.
P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]
Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]
If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.
If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m coming into this late but I disagree with the above. The above is “trapped” in our concept of time. If you’re standing outside time, which would be necessary to have foreknowledge, then you are not affecting time - and your knowledge has no causative or restrictive effect upon the actor. In other words, you’re seeing another person’s life in a blink of an eye, and in more clear terms - you are seeing what they have already done, not are about to do. You are seeing beginning to end, so “foreknowledge” might be a bit of a misnomer. [/quote]
Correct. Outside of time, in which most of this actually occurs, there is no foreknowledge for there is no time.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The unmoved-mover[/quote]
[/quote]
The universe can’t move itself, we already established this. Even if the universe was eternal (which it is not it is only 13.5 billion years), it would have slowed down already.[/quote]
Given that we do not yet (and may never) understand the physics of the universe, we cannot state its age or whether it’s eternal or not. We cannot even state with certainty whether our perception of the universe is even correct and whether there is one, or many. [/quote]
The argument they were making is that matter and energy have always existed. Which may be true, but I was arguing that even if it is, we can only know the about it via the age of the universe which is somewhere between 13 - 15 billions years old. Hence we have no evidence beyond that. We have to rely on math and logic for the rest.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.
The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.
The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.
P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]
Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]
If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]
If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.
Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.
If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/quote]
Your foreknowledge, or the lack of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I could or couldn’t do. Knowing that I’m going to make a certain choice doesn’t mean I wasn’t free to make that choice. I was perfectly free to make it, you just knew me so well that you understood what choice I would make. Step back for a second and think about it logically. How in the world could your foreknowledge impact my choice? It’s impossible.
If I’m omniscient, and I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, does my knowledge influence the rising of the sun? Obviously not. I simply know the sun is going to rise. Whether I know it or not, it is a fact that the sun will rise.
Don’t confuse omniscience with predestination. Knowing all things doesn’t imply responsibility for all things.
[/quote]
Look it up, it is a paradox, you cannot foreknow and have choice to do otherwise. It’s simply impossible.[/quote]
It’s not a paradox. It’s only a paradox in a human’s perception of time. [/quote]
The question is foreknowledge versus choice. Foreknowledge presupposes time and therefore if you can foreknow something, you cannot have a choice. That would be paradoxical.
I agree that time muddies the waters here. I am not totally sure we can eliminate it as a variable. Except that choices are metaphysical constructs and there is no time in metaphysics but we access it in the scope of time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< The difference between the division in our Church (which I include you in because you are baptized a Catholic) and the rest of the division through Christianity is that we don’t pretend it is okay. [/quote]We don’t pretend it’s okay. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< but to say your faith is true and my faith is true when they do not complete match is up is incorrect. There is one truth. One faith. >>>[/quote]See how much divsion you find here http://forums.catholic.com/ What an education that place has been. You may even find some my posts. (if you haven’t already) It’s also not okay that true believers sin all the time (which they do), but it IS a reality while we still dwell in this sinful flesh. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Yes and we remember (or we participate) in that feast, as well as, Christ’s sacrifice from dawn til dusk all over the world.[/quote]Foot washing is not commanded and I was saying nothing further than we are willing to serve each other and our Lord despite our differences.
[/quote]
Uh, how many protestant sects are there? I hear 30,000 kicked around quite a bit. We are one unified church, but we’re not robots. We’re going to disagree, but we are still one. You’re one of 30,000. It takes balls to call us divided in that respect. I personally would be more worried if every catholic agreed all the time as that would indicate brain washing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Excerpt from Msgr. Charles Pope:
We have discussed before that an important principle of the Christian moral vision is to understand that it is essentially received, not achieved. Holiness is a work of God. The human being acting out the power of his flesh alone cannot keep, and surely not fulfill, the Law. The experience of God’s people in the Old Testament bears this out. True holiness (and not mere ethical rule keeping) is possible only by and through God’s grace.
In this sense we must understand the moral vision given by Jesus as a description rather than a mere prescription. Notice what the text says here: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill [the Law]. It is Jesus who fulfills the Law. And we, who are more and more in him, and He in us do what He does. It is His work.[/quote]OK, On it’s face and if I’m reading this guy correctly, this is quite a reformed statement. If your view of morality and holiness stopped right there and the rest of your soteriology brought consistently into line, you would have reformation protestantism.
[/quote]
Incorrect, it’s just more proof you do not know what the hell you are talking about with respect to Catholicism. You hate because you were told to, or because you believe lies about it. Considering the very few, utter false, made up examples of our evil one of the two things are aforementioned must be the case.
And considering you go attacking the faith in even catholic forums, me thinks the problem is you not us.
Shall you not ‘remove the plank from your eye’ before you try to ‘remove the spec’ from ours. I find this obsessive hatred a little creepy actually. Especially since you cannot even remotely answer challenges.
I am far from perfect, but my faith isn’t the problem.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You been up all night? I have, but I got hooked into working…Still working actually. I am stupid tired, but I can still make rational arguments.[/quote]
No, I just do the whole Opus Dei kind of morning, woke up at 5:15 and kneel facing the east, kiss the floor, and say “serviam” then do my morning offering and head to perpetual adoration and do my spiritual reading in front of the Holy Eucharist.[/quote]
And you bring your laptop?[/quote]
No it’s 8:40 here.[/quote]
Ha! The only way I see 5:15 AM is if I stay up all night, or I got up to take a wizz.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< You did it in these three threads many times just to name a few: >>>[/quote]Where are the quotes of me saying that I am pronouncing final judgement on you, Chris or all Catholics? You say I’ve constantly said this. Should be no trouble finding one example. Go ahead.
For now, I said to Chris on 11-18-10[quote]For the record, nobody goes to hell because they’re catholic. They go to hell because they’re not saved. There are people in my church who will go to hell.[/quote]http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/guaranteed_cure_for_racism;jsessionid=21B466BD1CD009BD91B9BF8A182F0258-he.hydra?pageNo=19 Once again. What does this, that I said last night mean?:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< The difference between the division in our Church (which I include you in because you are baptized a Catholic) and the rest of the division through Christianity is that we don’t pretend it is okay. [/quote]We don’t pretend it’s okay. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< but to say your faith is true and my faith is true when they do not complete match is up is incorrect. There is one truth. One faith. >>>[/quote]See how much divsion you find here http://forums.catholic.com/ What an education that place has been. You may even find some my posts. (if you haven’t already) It’s also not okay that true believers sin all the time (which they do), but it IS a reality while we still dwell in this sinful flesh. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Yes and we remember (or we participate) in that feast, as well as, Christ’s sacrifice from dawn til dusk all over the world.[/quote]Foot washing is not commanded and I was saying nothing further than we are willing to serve each other and our Lord despite our differences.
[/quote]
Yes, there is division, that doesn’t mean they are all right about everything, most likely you can blame it on bad catechesis, I am not into understanding why people don’t know their faith, I am more into learning the faith myself at this point. I suppose I can’t really say, but I’d bet a large wager towards the bad catechesis. People stop learning their faith.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You been up all night? I have, but I got hooked into working…Still working actually. I am stupid tired, but I can still make rational arguments.[/quote]
No, I just do the whole Opus Dei kind of morning, woke up at 5:15 and kneel facing the east, kiss the floor, and say “serviam” then do my morning offering and head to perpetual adoration and do my spiritual reading in front of the Holy Eucharist.[/quote]
And you bring your laptop?[/quote]
No it’s 8:40 here.[/quote]
Ha! The only way I see 5:15 AM is if I stay up all night, or I got up to take a wizz.
[/quote]
Yeah, insomniac comes with the territory of ballooning up 70 lbs, I think I developed sleep apnea as well.