Catholic Q&A Continues

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dissolving is such a negative term =]

Except it is logically possible. You’re not making the distinction between the human mind’s weakness and inability to come to that conclusion logically and logic itself.

Thus the need for the bulwark and pillar of the truth.[/quote]You missed the part where I said. “to us that is”. The statement I bolded above is the first time I’ve seen yer lovable mug peek into the room I’ve been in this whole time. I agree.

The Westminster assembly WAS the church Chris. Not the whole church, but the faithful church nonetheless. Rome does not have the truth and can therefore in no wise be the “bulwark and pillar of it”. I mean that as no attack on YOU though I’ve learned you will most regrettably take it that way. I’m sorry.
[/quote]

Sorry, the bible is not referring to a particular church that is in schism in 1643, but one that Jesus established: the universal Church or the catholic Church, which was given the deposit of faith once and for all by Jesus (Jude 3).

It is 3 in the morning and I just off the phone folks. Will have to wait til tomorrow.

Now it’s half past midnight and I just got done working.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

One other thing for now. I have not made one single attempt to discredit or even diminish the study of second temple Judaism, or any other historical discipline as a valid tool for the progress of exegetical precision. The text can never mean something wholly divergent from what it meant to it’s original intended audience. I have steadfastly maintained that for over 2 decades and have said so in these forums. That is what I mean by “historico-exegetical method” when I mentioned it to Chris. .

I do however believe wholeheartedly in systematic theology. Which does not mean forcing any text into a preconceived system. It does mean that faith in the God of the scriptures produces the logical method I espouse which in turn further interprests the scriptures and is a self authenticating and logically verifying symphony of sanctified(there’s where your objection will come) circular consciousness from which emerges an admittedly subjective utter and eternal certainty available from no other source. AND which is then itself a bonus evidence for it’s validity.
[/quote]

I would love it if you would flesh out the second paragraph more. You claim that believing in a systematic theology does not entail forcing the text into a preconceived system. I assume then that you mean the systematic theology arises from the text itself. You then go on further, however, to say that “faith in the God of the Scriptures produces the logical method you espouse,” the method which you then apply to the interpretation of the Scriptures. This method is supposedly self-authenticating.

I do understand all that. What I am wondering is how you hold the aforementioned in tension with the possibility of grammatical-historical exegesis, sensitive to cultural and sociological contexts, shedding new light on the biblical authors’ conceptions of God. Your statements in the second paragraph seem to indicate that your starting point is not the search for epistemological certainty, but rather the depiction of God in the Scriptures. The issue, from my perspective, is that the portrayal of God in the Scriptures is open to interpretation and may have light shed upon it by recent textual analyses, historical discoveries, etc. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that first century Jews in particular were not systematic theologians, that they were willing to hold far more truths in tension than you or I would be comfortable with. It may turn out that the consistency you prize as a form of self-authentification is actually the proof that your system is contrived. Just wondering how you might respond.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< There is a lot of evidence to suggest that first century Jews in particular were not systematic theologians, >>>[/quote]Utter nonsense your majesty!!! It is a manifestly self evident GIVEN to me that they were not systematic theologians. Evidence he says LOL!!! As if he were gonna have to prove this to me. =] Furthermore, the closest thing TO a systematic theologian we have in all the scriptures is Paul and that wasn’t his goal either.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< (they) were willing to hold far more truths in tension than you or I would be comfortable with. >>>[/quote]More poppycock n balderdash from my favorite pontificating potentate. They couldn’t possibly have foreseen the apparent contradictions I count it all joy to hold in response to their God breathed writings. Not being God myself n all ya see. That’s how it is ya know. Let’s stop all this “hold in tension” stuff. Can we do that please? Once again. ALL of reality at the epistemological/metaphysical (two sides of the same coin) level APPEARS logically contradictory TO US. Dearest Christopher is absolutely correct. Logic ITSELF, which IS the mind of the infinite omniscient God, CANNOT, by divine definition ever produce a single ACTUAL contradiction as defined by that mind itself. That IS the certainty every God hating atheistic pagan in these forums incessantly steals from their God in order to believe that 2+2=4.

OUR perception of reality is FILLED with these apparent contradictions because of our creaturely finitude. This goes for saints and sinners alike. WHERE one PREsupposes those contradictions to reside and how they are PREsupposed to operate dictates philosophically all the rest of that persons system of thought. Any proposition of ANYTHING by ANYONE minus these by definition unprovable PREsuppositions gets laughed straight out the window. SO =] Once the biblical authors have spoken and the originally intended propositional content of their obedience to the God who moved them is responsibly and rightly determined? I believe the arrangement of the philosophical and metaphysical apparent CONTRADICTIONS (yes, that’s what they are) that I hold answers most consistently to the whole of that content from Genesis to Revelation. There’s an almost certain objection coming here that I don’t have time to address now.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< It may turn out that the consistency you prize as a form of self-authentification is actually the proof that your system is contrived. Just wondering how you might respond. >>>[/quote]I have as best I could with the linited time I have. This response also should address Joab as well for now. I hope. I also hope 2 other things real quick. I hope you recognize my snarkiness as playful and I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I actually will get to hose pm’s as soon as I can.

Wow! Great stuff all of you! Particular shout out to Joab, a man after my own heart… But I have enjoyed reading all of you, Cortes, KingKai(of course), BC…

Taking my hiatus appears to have been the right move, it seems I was damning up good conversations… Carry on.

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! Great stuff all of you! Particular shout out to Joab, a man after my own heart… But I have enjoyed reading all of you, Cortes, KingKai(of course), BC…

Taking my hiatus appears to have been the right move, it seems I was damning up good conversations… Carry on.[/quote]

Yeah, you should keep your damn mouth shut more often so we can talk, pat.

(^_^)V I know you know I’m joking. Thanks and good to see you back, buddy.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! Great stuff all of you! Particular shout out to Joab, a man after my own heart… But I have enjoyed reading all of you, Cortes, KingKai(of course), BC…

Taking my hiatus appears to have been the right move, it seems I was damning up good conversations… Carry on.[/quote]

Yeah, you should keep your damn mouth shut more often so we can talk, pat.

(^_^)V I know you know I’m joking. Thanks and good to see you back, buddy. [/quote]

LOL… Yeah, but their is some wisdom there…Knowing when to shut to the hell up is an art is difficult to master, but beautiful in it’s affect.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! Great stuff all of you! Particular shout out to Joab, a man after my own heart… But I have enjoyed reading all of you, Cortes, KingKai(of course), BC…

Taking my hiatus appears to have been the right move, it seems I was damning up good conversations… Carry on.[/quote]

Yeah, you should keep your damn mouth shut more often so we can talk, pat.

(^_^)V I know you know I’m joking. Thanks and good to see you back, buddy. [/quote]

LOL… Yeah, but their is some wisdom there…Knowing when to shut to the hell up is an art is difficult to master, but beautiful in it’s affect.[/quote]

I’m okay with it online…

In real life, still deeply entrenched in my apprenticeship… (^-^)

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I actually agree with a majority of the Westminster creed verbatim though not necessarily with the interpretations and conclusions certain proponents of creed have. One of the reasons this is so is because I find that the people who put this creed together seem to have been extremely careful as not to be presumptuous to deny something that the scriptures seem to affirm or vice versa. These men were also very well developed philosophically in that I can see a lot of Aquinas especially in chapter two in being that God is not composed of parts even though there is scriptural precedent for it, the writers certainly seemed influence by him (which seems strange to me about all the diatribe against Aquinas) and went far to avoid error and contradictions and logical fallacies.

The creed you posted philosophically speaking, is that God is a maximally great being that has all perfections maxed out without being logically incoherent and is quite similar to this definition by Richard Swinburne â??there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all thingsâ?¦ I understand by Godâ??s being eternal that he always has existed and always will existâ?¦ By Godâ??s being perfectly free I understand that no object or event or state(including past states of himself) in any way causally influences him to do the actions that he does-his own choice at the moment of action alone determines what he does. By Godâ??s being omnipotent I understand that he is able to do whatever it is logically possible (i.e. coherent to suppose) that he can do. By Godâ??s being omniscient I understand that he knows whatever it is logically possible that he knowâ?¦ By his being the creator of all things I understand that everything that exists at each moment of time (apart from himself) exists because, at that moment of time, he makes it exist, or permits it to exist.â??

For example God is both maximally omnipotent and good yet he being unable to sin does nothing against his omnipotence or goodness, or the example of God being unable to make a rock so large that he can’t lift or a square circle doesn’t count against his omnipotence since these things are logically incoherent and not things at all. Another perfection you seem to be mention which I agree with is that God’s perfection does not dependent on whether he creates or not and that he has it unto himself thus his decision to create is so that we may benefit as our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Now if he lacks a perfection letâ??s say omniscience in that he does not know the truth value of a proposition until it happens(a classic case is open theism), then it follows that ontologically and by definition such is god is not God at all. It seems to me since you frequently bring up this creed and say of those to whom you usually bring up this creed to of believing in a contingent god and thus no God at all.

It seems strange to me that you would post chapter two of the creed as if it would be in conflict with what study of second temple Judaism has brought about when I can think of something more suitable like chapter 32 and maybe others although I believe KingKai will agree with me that study of second temple Judaism/first century Christianity seems to lend support to what chapter 32 teaches.

I thoroughly agree with chapters 3,5 and 9 verbatim and am fine with your “I don’t know how God does it but I trust him” or your “itâ??s a mystery how God does it but he does it through mechanisms entirely know unto himself” and actually seem to be at your most cogent and reasonable when at such states. But I certainly have a problem with the proposition that God can only know things outside himself if he causally determines them which if true, by the Laws of Logic which have their foundation in God(John 1:1), it necessarily follows that God is the author of sin which I and the creed deny.

So I ask this of you and I think Cortes wants an answer to this as well. Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe.

God endowing his creatures with libertarian free will also in no way counts against his omniscience. His knowledge is not dependent on seeing the choices his creatures he endowed with LFW did but rather he knows by virtue of being God. A consequence of God giving creatures LFW is that it creates counterfactuals of freedom. Given counterfactuals of freedom just like the â??stone to large exampleâ?? it is logically incoherent/impossible for God to causally determine someone to freely do something. Does this in any way interfere in Godâ??s ability to bring about any logical state of affairs, his divine providence or his providentially ordering history to his means, ends and purposes? I absolutely no reason to suppose this is the case.

I was brought up Seventh Day Adventist and apart from it being a false denomination/founder being a false prophetess. The way they interacted with Catholics was despicable (i.e. doing bad history/lying about history/misrepresentation of Catholicâ??s position one that outraged me was the absurd notion that the Catholic Church was responsible for the deaths of 20-50 million Christians also purported by some other protestant denominations). It seems to me that those who claim to follow Jesus should take the truth seriously and if we are to discuss with others on why we think their position is wrong should be substantial and not about minor issues like the ones KingKai brought up instead of what has been mostly discussed so far.

Also I think Cortes brings up a very important point about interpretation of scripture that one just does not simply let scripture speak for itself but rather one brings an interpretive lens in which one views it through (i.e. historical context, theology etcâ?¦) and unless there is discussion about this I have a feeling that it will end off in a epistemic stand off as has been happening for a while and no further progress will have been made. In fact I can think of a parallel argument Cortes can make of yours in that â??(e.g.) you are using your sinful finite autonomous human reason to deny what John 6:56 states simply that the bread and wine are actually his body and blood, on the basis of credulity my Lord Jesus said it, I believe it , end of discussion.â??. What progress can be made off such discussion if one doesnâ??t bring out the interpretive principle and why theirs is more valid epistemologically?

Secondly I think you confuse epistemology and ontology/metaphysics. Epistemology has to do due with how we know what we know which only affects ones discussion on the matter and has nothing to do with what is the case and a position I think you take is that we can know something because God has endowed our cognitive faculties that way for whom they are functioning as he designed them to and is the only coherent explanation for how us finite beings know anything at all etc… You are mainly arguing for the foundations of knowledge which are found in God himself and would still be true if God decided not to create anything else since he is perfect in and of himself which is ontology for which in how we know has no bearing on since we are contingent.

P.S. the SDA position that God can only know things until they happen or that he might of failed or that he was limited in his providential ordering of history is truly absurd to me. I can see how Van Till has shaped much of your thinking even though I disagree with him though I do find some things useful that he has said so has William Lane Craig been a pivotal influence on how I see Christianity.
[/quote]

Okay, sorry for the big repost bump, but I wanted to make sure that the actual questions that were asked here finally got answered, in plain English, now that it appears all of the necessary terms have been defined and agreed upon. I understand your time contraints, Tirib (quite poignantly, I do). I just want to make sure this doesn’t get buried under a bunch of other stuff because I sense the danger of that happening now.

So, whenever you can get to it.

@Cortes
We are in the middle of those right now. Including my post to KK which directly addressed what I thought was the main concern. My eyeballs are burning out of my head as I have barely slept in days and have been moving practically non stop. What specifically do you feel I am avoiding? I promise you I am not.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What specifically do you feel I am avoiding? I promise you I am not.[/quote]

I don’t. Just want to make sure it stays where it needs to until those questions get answered. Preferably, finally, in a summarized form composed of short sentences of plain English.

Cortes has just demanded that I respond to a post of 1408 words, 8071 characters [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< finally, in a summarized form composed of short sentences of plain English.[/quote]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Cortes has just demanded that I respond to a post of 1408 words, 8071 characters [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< finally, in a summarized form composed of short sentences of plain English.[/quote]
[/quote]

Hahah! I know, I know. There is a specific address within the post, however:

Demonstrate, preferably in simple argument form how God is contingent especially concerning his knowledge if he “endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” or otherwise libertarian free will without simply equivocating it or straw-manning us with a definition of free will we do not believe. Or, please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, Joab, but more simply stated:

How would man’s free will necessarily render God contingent?

There’s of course way more than that, but I believe this was the heart of the matter.

I won’t be free until at least 10 tonight, but until then feast on the opening volley of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin:[quote]1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,) that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2.Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

3.Man before God’s majesty

Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of Judges and the Prophetical Writings; so much so, that it was a common expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says, (Isaiah 24: 23,) “The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign;” i. e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.

But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.[/quote]

I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< There is a lot of evidence to suggest that first century Jews in particular were not systematic theologians, >>>[/quote]Utter nonsense your majesty!!! It is a manifestly self evident GIVEN to me that they were not systematic theologians. Evidence he says LOL!!! As if he were gonna have to prove this to me. =] Furthermore, the closest thing TO a systematic theologian we have in all the scriptures is Paul and that wasn’t his goal either.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< (they) were willing to hold far more truths in tension than you or I would be comfortable with. >>>[/quote]More poppycock n balderdash from my favorite pontificating potentate. They couldn’t possibly have foreseen the apparent contradictions I count it all joy to hold in response to their God breathed writings. Not being God myself n all ya see. That’s how it is ya know. Let’s stop all this “hold in tension” stuff. Can we do that please? Once again. ALL of reality at the epistemological/metaphysical (two sides of the same coin) level APPEARS logically contradictory TO US. Dearest Christopher is absolutely correct. Logic ITSELF, which IS the mind of the infinite omniscient God, CANNOT, by divine definition ever produce a single ACTUAL contradiction as defined by that mind itself. That IS the certainty every God hating atheistic pagan in these forums incessantly steals from their God in order to believe that 2+2=4.

OUR perception of reality is FILLED with these apparent contradictions because of our creaturely finitude. This goes for saints and sinners alike. WHERE one PREsupposes those contradictions to reside and how they are PREsupposed to operate dictates philosophically all the rest of that persons system of thought. Any proposition of ANYTHING by ANYONE minus these by definition unprovable PREsuppositions gets laughed straight out the window. SO =] Once the biblical authors have spoken and the originally intended propositional content of their obedience to the God who moved them is responsibly and rightly determined? I believe the arrangement of the philosophical and metaphysical apparent CONTRADICTIONS (yes, that’s what they are) that I hold answers most consistently to the whole of that content from Genesis to Revelation. There’s an almost certain objection coming here that I don’t have time to address now.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< It may turn out that the consistency you prize as a form of self-authentification is actually the proof that your system is contrived. Just wondering how you might respond. >>>[/quote]I have as best I could with the linited time I have. This response also should address Joab as well for now. I hope. I also hope 2 other things real quick. I hope you recognize my snarkiness as playful and I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I actually will get to hose pm’s as soon as I can.
[/quote]

The funny thing is that you admit that article 35 of the CCC is true, though not directly: “Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.”

Yet, rely on your own faculties to determine which pieces of revelation are true…by rejecting the divinely ordained authority of the magisterium of the universal Church to proclaim the the faith once and for all given to the saints (Jude 3, Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]

That’s because John Calvin was lawyer. He seems to be inclined towards being a sophist sometimes.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< There is a lot of evidence to suggest that first century Jews in particular were not systematic theologians, >>>[/quote]Utter nonsense your majesty!!! It is a manifestly self evident GIVEN to me that they were not systematic theologians. Evidence he says LOL!!! As if he were gonna have to prove this to me. =] Furthermore, the closest thing TO a systematic theologian we have in all the scriptures is Paul and that wasn’t his goal either.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< (they) were willing to hold far more truths in tension than you or I would be comfortable with. >>>[/quote]More poppycock n balderdash from my favorite pontificating potentate. They couldn’t possibly have foreseen the apparent contradictions I count it all joy to hold in response to their God breathed writings. Not being God myself n all ya see. That’s how it is ya know. Let’s stop all this “hold in tension” stuff. Can we do that please? Once again. ALL of reality at the epistemological/metaphysical (two sides of the same coin) level APPEARS logically contradictory TO US. Dearest Christopher is absolutely correct. Logic ITSELF, which IS the mind of the infinite omniscient God, CANNOT, by divine definition ever produce a single ACTUAL contradiction as defined by that mind itself. That IS the certainty every God hating atheistic pagan in these forums incessantly steals from their God in order to believe that 2+2=4.

OUR perception of reality is FILLED with these apparent contradictions because of our creaturely finitude. This goes for saints and sinners alike. WHERE one PREsupposes those contradictions to reside and how they are PREsupposed to operate dictates philosophically all the rest of that persons system of thought. Any proposition of ANYTHING by ANYONE minus these by definition unprovable PREsuppositions gets laughed straight out the window. SO =] Once the biblical authors have spoken and the originally intended propositional content of their obedience to the God who moved them is responsibly and rightly determined? I believe the arrangement of the philosophical and metaphysical apparent CONTRADICTIONS (yes, that’s what they are) that I hold answers most consistently to the whole of that content from Genesis to Revelation. There’s an almost certain objection coming here that I don’t have time to address now.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< It may turn out that the consistency you prize as a form of self-authentification is actually the proof that your system is contrived. Just wondering how you might respond. >>>[/quote]I have as best I could with the linited time I have. This response also should address Joab as well for now. I hope. I also hope 2 other things real quick. I hope you recognize my snarkiness as playful and I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I actually will get to hose pm’s as soon as I can.
[/quote]

The funny thing is that you admit that article 35 of the CCC is true, though not directly: “Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.”

Yet, rely on your own faculties to determine which pieces of revelation are true…by rejecting the divinely ordained authority of the magisterium of the universal Church to proclaim the the faith once and for all given to the saints (Jude 3, Matthew 16:19; 18:18).[/quote]The funny thing is that I partially accept that article 35 of the CCC is true, though only amended as following: “Man’s faculties, though mortally corrupted in sin, still force him unavoidably to a knowledge of the existence of the one true and living God. But for any of these dead men to be able to live and thus enter into right relationship with him, God willed both to efficaciously reveal himself in Christ to some and to give these eternally elect saving resurrecting grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.”

You rely on your own faculties to determine what revelation is at all…by accepting the artificial authority of the self appointed magisterium of the false Church (I’ll leave the big C) who nullify the faith once and for all given to the saints (Jude 3, Matthew 16:19; 18:18 none of which establish your case unless the mind is beforehand checked at the door of the Vatican). Don’t shout me down now Christopher and go off on a tirade about how hateful I am. Not so.
I haven’t had time to properly pray and think through what Joab and Cortes are asking. That IS a very legitimate line of thought to pursue. I always debate every issue with myself first. Honestly taking the role of my opponent and defending his position/s to myself with all due intellectual vigor and jealousy as if the position were my own and my life depended on it being true. I will be so bold as to say that I am very good at it. If I can be persuaded by him (played by me =D ), then I change my position and tell him that I have. If not, I use the arguments I was successful with in our fantasy preview to publicly defend my own position/s. OR, maybe a different position altogether that this exercise has led me to thanks to the grace of God revealed in His instrument for that lesson.
It might also lead me to a further strengthening of my own position as Kamui observed. Doesn’t even have to be a believer. That’s why I NEVER put ANYBODY on ignore… EVER. I might be muzzling the voice of my God teaching me something through one of His creatures. No dearest Christopher, that does not contradict my Calvinism. That was an easy one =]

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
I like this topic but I find it impossible to follow. The way certain things are written do not make sense to me. It is a difficult read for sure. [/quote]

I completely understand what you mean. I consider myself highly literate and very well read in both literature and philosophy, and yet I feel like I am just barely keeping my head above water with some of these posts. I understand it, too, though, in a way, because such matters require precision of thought and word, and in many cases all of the philosopho-religio-techno-jargon is absolutely necessary to avoid sophism or misunderstanding.

But yeah, my request to Tirib above was definitely inspired in part from the same feelings you are having as you try to follow this. Sometimes you’d just prefer someone peel off all the layers and give you a strait, “Yeah dude, you’re going to Hell. Sorry 'bout that.”

(^_~)