[quote]pat wrote:<<< while the encyclopedia may be informative, it is not authoritative. [/quote] Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Yes, I know that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are NOT guarantees of freedom from error, but if works under their approbation are to be dismissed as erroneous after all, then why bother including them on each page as if they are there to assure the pew dwellers that the content is authoritative? Especially being that old. It’s as if to say “see, even our old approbations still stand. Aren’t we consistent?” BTW Pat. I really was trying to show that you were at least here being consistent with your church. That was an honest gesture. Then you go n blurt out in the other thread that you’re a Catholic (big C Christopher) deist. No good deed…
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[/quote]
I have a very different understanding of God.
The way I get around the problem of evil and the existence of a potentially all good God is to say that God cannot to logically impossible things, like make square circles, or make a rock so heavy he could not pick it up. This allows for God to remain omnipotent, and some wiggle room for free will.
[/quote]
Actually, if you limit God with logic, then you remove his omnipotence. The better way to understand it is that logic, like everything else is a creation of God. It’s a tool we are able to use to better understand everything including him, without he, himself being bound by it. God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and yet lift it, he can make square circles, if he wants to. ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different though. All things are possible, otherwise he’s not omnipotent. But that doesn’t mean he defacto does all things, it just means he can.
By creating freewill, God by default created the ability for evil to exist. By forcibly opposing his will, you are in default evil. So by giving sentient creatures the ability to go against him, evil came to be, when they did it.
There are a couple of ways to reconcile the issue with out violating freewill. Like I said, ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different. He can simply choose not to know. Sounds almost corny to think about because we don’t have that ability, we cannot simply turn off our brains and choose not to know, but God can. He’s omnipotent. He cannot violate his omnipotence with his omniscience. So, yes, he can simply turn it off. Or he may simply paradoxical. Or, if you go deep in to the notions of ‘choice’, there exists no time in metaphysics, while we may access this stuff in a temporal fashion, there is no time in metaphysics. Therefore there is no foreknowledge and therefore it is not necessary to speak in those terms.
The truth is, we don’t know how God does that. He did not reveal it in anyway, so it’s all speculation. So anybody who makes a claim to know, is a liar and a heretic, plain and simple. For God to have predestined, it violates so much of what he says, that he himself would have to be a liar to maintain such a notion.
That doesn’t mean he hasn’t put people or things on this Earth that were totally under his control and lacked that freewill for a purpose, but those people are not culpable. Those would be very rare occurrences though.
As for Jesus, for him to have been who he was, he had to have the ability to have chosen otherwise, or he was not fully man. So while he was gifted, specially, he had the ability to reject dear ol’ Dad.
You’re thinking in a political sense. Jesus as a man, was first obedient. Just not always to human authority. Now, he did fulfill the scriptures otherwise he could not have authored the New Covenant. You have to fulfill the old to establish the new. And the messianic expectations of some, not withstanding, he fulfilled scripture, every word. Just go look for yourself.
Well we know from scripture, that love of God is number one and love of neighbor is like it, so yes you are right. St. Jame’s plainly states that believing that Jesus is Lord and Savior is not alone sufficient, for even Satan does as much.
What are you going to do? Its in the Bible…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[/quote]
I have a very different understanding of God.
The way I get around the problem of evil and the existence of a potentially all good God is to say that God cannot to logically impossible things, like make square circles, or make a rock so heavy he could not pick it up. This allows for God to remain omnipotent, and some wiggle room for free will.
[/quote]
Actually, if you limit God with logic, then you remove his omnipotence. The better way to understand it is that logic, like everything else is a creation of God. It’s a tool we are able to use to better understand everything including him, without he, himself being bound by it. God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and yet lift it, he can make square circles, if he wants to. ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different though. All things are possible, otherwise he’s not omnipotent. But that doesn’t mean he defacto does all things, it just means he can.
By creating freewill, God by default created the ability for evil to exist. By forcibly opposing his will, you are in default evil. So by giving sentient creatures the ability to go against him, evil came to be, when they did it.
There are a couple of ways to reconcile the issue with out violating freewill. Like I said, ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different. He can simply choose not to know. Sounds almost corny to think about because we don’t have that ability, we cannot simply turn off our brains and choose not to know, but God can. He’s omnipotent. He cannot violate his omnipotence with his omniscience. So, yes, he can simply turn it off. Or he may simply paradoxical. Or, if you go deep in to the notions of ‘choice’, there exists no time in metaphysics, while we may access this stuff in a temporal fashion, there is no time in metaphysics. Therefore there is no foreknowledge and therefore it is not necessary to speak in those terms.
The truth is, we don’t know how God does that. He did not reveal it in anyway, so it’s all speculation. So anybody who makes a claim to know, is a liar and a heretic, plain and simple. For God to have predestined, it violates so much of what he says, that he himself would have to be a liar to maintain such a notion.
That doesn’t mean he hasn’t put people or things on this Earth that were totally under his control and lacked that freewill for a purpose, but those people are not culpable. Those would be very rare occurrences though.
As for Jesus, for him to have been who he was, he had to have the ability to have chosen otherwise, or he was not fully man. So while he was gifted, specially, he had the ability to reject dear ol’ Dad.
You’re thinking in a political sense. Jesus as a man, was first obedient. Just not always to human authority. Now, he did fulfill the scriptures otherwise he could not have authored the New Covenant. You have to fulfill the old to establish the new. And the messianic expectations of some, not withstanding, he fulfilled scripture, every word. Just go look for yourself.
Well we know from scripture, that love of God is number one and love of neighbor is like it, so yes you are right. St. Jame’s plainly states that believing that Jesus is Lord and Savior is not alone sufficient, for even Satan does as much.
What are you going to do? Its in the Bible…[/quote]
Some interesting ways of comprehending God and logic, but there are problems with it. The rock thing doesn’t work out, because even if you made a rock so heavy and forgot about it to remain omnipotent, your greatest power ends up being the power to forget… The power to forget is the thing that actually makes you omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. I understand omniscience attached to knowing everything and having full awareness. So you believe that god forgets things and is aware that he forgets them, so that he can remember them later on when it’s time to pass on judgement on people. I get it, fascinating but I’d rather keep logic and give up having contradictory powers. So long as God is the closest thing to omnipotent, omniscience, and goodness, he’s still by faaaaaaar the man, err God.
The temporal thing is very fun, first time a professor introduced the idea of timeworms was a very worthwhile time. But back to the subject, thinking about time as an open book, or big long sheet of paper. You just see everything laid out before you all at once, fully comprehend everything simultaneously/ there is no time/ outside of time. At this point God is playing by completely different rules, the thing is free will is sort of a frivolous thing for God to give to us he he’s outside of time and your already chilling out next to him looking at the big sheet of paper. I can’t think of a way for free will to exist if God lives outside of time and that’s where we go when we die if we are good. I know it’s just my opinion, but that isn’t the sort of free will I had in mind, maybe I’ll have it in mind with some luck if God does exist though. I’m sure it will all make sense then! 
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I can’t think of a way for free will to exist if God lives outside of time <<<>>> the sort of free will I had in mind, >>>[/quote]See now there’s your problem. Autonomous man in ALL his vainglory. You begin with the all governing presupposition that your free will must define God. Here’s a clue. HE created YOU. HE defines YOU. (that’s two tips. I’m chargin for the next one.)
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[/quote]
I have a very different understanding of God.
The way I get around the problem of evil and the existence of a potentially all good God is to say that God cannot to logically impossible things, like make square circles, or make a rock so heavy he could not pick it up. This allows for God to remain omnipotent, and some wiggle room for free will.
[/quote]
Actually, if you limit God with logic, then you remove his omnipotence. The better way to understand it is that logic, like everything else is a creation of God. It’s a tool we are able to use to better understand everything including him, without he, himself being bound by it. God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and yet lift it, he can make square circles, if he wants to. ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different though. All things are possible, otherwise he’s not omnipotent. But that doesn’t mean he defacto does all things, it just means he can.
By creating freewill, God by default created the ability for evil to exist. By forcibly opposing his will, you are in default evil. So by giving sentient creatures the ability to go against him, evil came to be, when they did it.
There are a couple of ways to reconcile the issue with out violating freewill. Like I said, ‘Can’ and ‘do’ are very different. He can simply choose not to know. Sounds almost corny to think about because we don’t have that ability, we cannot simply turn off our brains and choose not to know, but God can. He’s omnipotent. He cannot violate his omnipotence with his omniscience. So, yes, he can simply turn it off. Or he may simply paradoxical. Or, if you go deep in to the notions of ‘choice’, there exists no time in metaphysics, while we may access this stuff in a temporal fashion, there is no time in metaphysics. Therefore there is no foreknowledge and therefore it is not necessary to speak in those terms.
The truth is, we don’t know how God does that. He did not reveal it in anyway, so it’s all speculation. So anybody who makes a claim to know, is a liar and a heretic, plain and simple. For God to have predestined, it violates so much of what he says, that he himself would have to be a liar to maintain such a notion.
That doesn’t mean he hasn’t put people or things on this Earth that were totally under his control and lacked that freewill for a purpose, but those people are not culpable. Those would be very rare occurrences though.
As for Jesus, for him to have been who he was, he had to have the ability to have chosen otherwise, or he was not fully man. So while he was gifted, specially, he had the ability to reject dear ol’ Dad.
You’re thinking in a political sense. Jesus as a man, was first obedient. Just not always to human authority. Now, he did fulfill the scriptures otherwise he could not have authored the New Covenant. You have to fulfill the old to establish the new. And the messianic expectations of some, not withstanding, he fulfilled scripture, every word. Just go look for yourself.
Well we know from scripture, that love of God is number one and love of neighbor is like it, so yes you are right. St. Jame’s plainly states that believing that Jesus is Lord and Savior is not alone sufficient, for even Satan does as much.
What are you going to do? Its in the Bible…[/quote]
Some interesting ways of comprehending God and logic, but there are problems with it. The rock thing doesn’t work out, because even if you made a rock so heavy and forgot about it to remain omnipotent, your greatest power ends up being the power to forget… The power to forget is the thing that actually makes you omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. I understand omniscience attached to knowing everything and having full awareness. So you believe that god forgets things and is aware that he forgets them, so that he can remember them later on when it’s time to pass on judgement on people. I get it, fascinating but I’d rather keep logic and give up having contradictory powers. So long as God is the closest thing to omnipotent, omniscience, and goodness, he’s still by faaaaaaar the man, err God.
[/quote]
I think you are pushing man’s limitations on God. For God to be who he his, with his realm, paradoxes are necessarily resolvable by a matter of sheer will. Logic alone is not sufficient to understand who God is. Logic is sufficient to determine his existence and somethings about him that must necessarily be true, but He cannot be bound by it otherwise it’s more powerful than he is and that logically cannot be so.
[quote]
The temporal thing is very fun, first time a professor introduced the idea of timeworms was a very worthwhile time. But back to the subject, thinking about time as an open book, or big long sheet of paper. You just see everything laid out before you all at once, fully comprehend everything simultaneously/ there is no time/ outside of time. At this point God is playing by completely different rules, the thing is free will is sort of a frivolous thing for God to give to us he he’s outside of time and your already chilling out next to him looking at the big sheet of paper. I can’t think of a way for free will to exist if God lives outside of time and that’s where we go when we die if we are good. I know it’s just my opinion, but that isn’t the sort of free will I had in mind, maybe I’ll have it in mind with some luck if God does exist though. I’m sure it will all make sense then! :D[/quote]
You have to look at causation in terms of dependencies and reliance’s versus ‘cause then effect’.
You can say the same thing two ways, one is temporally based, the other is not. For instance:
“When I add vinegar to a cup of baking soda, it will fill the bag over the cup with CO2.”
That’s temporal.
“The CO2 in the bag is dependent on the vinegar and baking soda combo in the cup”
That’s a non-temporal way of saying the same thing. The second statement takes time out of the equation.
Once you are able to remove time and understand that all metaphysics, which controls everything, doesn’t exist in time, everything becomes much more clear. We live in a physical world, but whats in control of the physical, is metaphysical. With out the metaphysical, nothing physical can exist. Time is a physical problem, not a metaphysical one. There is a very orderly and precise hierarchy to existence and physical is potentially the lowest and most limited form.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< but He cannot be bound by [logic] otherwise it’s more powerful than he is and that logically cannot be so. >>>[/quote]Nor biblically. BRAVO Pat!!! After a rough day of crippled creative Catholicism, you give us this fabulous gem. If only you could see the faaaar reaching implications of the truth of this statement of yours.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I take Liberation Theology to be a response to Theology that allowed these people to be colonized in both the narrow and broad sense.
You are getting familiar with me, of course I’m going to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else. How bad would things have to get for you to consider Marxism? Let me guess, you can’t even imagine a situation where you would consider it.
[/quote]
That’s right, because it ignores the individual and causes poverty because of a lack of respect for private property.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
But what if it were moreso a situation where you were on the other side of capitalism? Imagine working the land you were indigenous to for some corporation in a far off land? Imagine your options for employment were limited to working a copper mine, or farming for some wealthy corp that didn’t even pay you cash, but in Chits that you could use to purchase things from their supply store. Imagine looking around and finding your net worth to be $25, no access to clean water, limited food.
Imagine how you would react, the proud man that you are (I’m proud myself, so I imagine you are like me) you work your ass off and don’t have a damned thing to show for it, you worry your kids will get dysentery from dirty water as an immediate danger, and in the back of your mind you realize they will live your life when they get older unless you do something. You look to the Church, but the Church wont lift a finger to do a thing to help you have a political voice. The Priests take notice of this very thing, and they begin to stand up since nobody else will. The response is one to colonization, capitalism and it is out of desperation. [/quote]
You make a mistake, priests are part of the Church. Not sure how the Priests are doing something and yet you don’t consider the Church to do something. This is the downfall of Marxism, they don’t recognize institutes are made up of individuals. The Church is made up of priests. The Government of secular ministers, &c.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The capitalism I’m talking about is the unabashed sort. That allows for dangerous child labor to take place, similar but worse to that which would have taken place in the U.S. during the industrial revolution. We responded to the problems of the industrial revolution by regulating capitalism. Doing things like establishing anti-trust laws, establishing fair wages, child labor laws (a department of labor). The Church as an organization never stepped in and tried to help the people, so the way the people responded was taking whatever side would fight their oppressors, in the form of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That so many Priests took the side of the people should say something about the legitimacy of their peril. The Church was too wrapped up in it’s own politics to do the right thing, they even sat bye and supported governments that were responsible for killing Priests and civilians that spoke out against their puppet governments. [/quote]
Source of your claims?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That sounds mighty protestant of you there Pat.
[/quote]
It’s actually Catholic. Just because you put a label of Protestant on something doesn’t make it not Catholic.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:That sounds mighty protestant of you there Pat.[/quote]It’s actually Catholic. Just because you put a label of Protestant on something doesn’t make it not Catholic.[/quote]Pat has had a rough day today. I was givin im a hard time. I’m very happy to see you Chris.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]I think I agree Chris, but I would not then turn that around and say that logic is God. Just like the Word says that God is love, but love is not God. As I have been saying for like ever. God is the definition of EVERYTHING. It is HE who gives meaning to EVERYTHING, including evil.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The capitalism I’m talking about is the unabashed sort. That allows for dangerous child labor to take place, similar but worse to that which would have taken place in the U.S. during the industrial revolution. We responded to the problems of the industrial revolution by regulating capitalism. Doing things like establishing anti-trust laws, establishing fair wages, child labor laws (a department of labor). The Church as an organization never stepped in and tried to help the people, so the way the people responded was taking whatever side would fight their oppressors, in the form of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That so many Priests took the side of the people should say something about the legitimacy of their peril. The Church was too wrapped up in it’s own politics to do the right thing, they even sat bye and supported governments that were responsible for killing Priests and civilians that spoke out against their puppet governments. [/quote]
Source of your claims?[/quote]
Part of this is basic U.S. history, the rest you can gather simply from a Liberation Theology wikipedia look.
If you want some of the books I read, Boff’s Introducing Liberation Theology, as well as Guiterrez’s Theology of Liberation. Unfortunately I lent both of these books to my sister, I don’t have access to them at them moment for direct references.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]
Correct, ultimately logic is what it is, because he willed it to be. If he wanted it to be something different he would have made it different.
I wouldn’t necessarily say God is logic, because logic is a tool. God is truth, and logic is a tool by which to discern that truth.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]
Correct, ultimately logic is what it is, because he willed it to be. If he wanted it to be something different he would have made it different.
I wouldn’t necessarily say God is logic, because logic is a tool. God is truth, and logic is a tool by which to discern that truth.[/quote]
But you all realize we can’t even have a discussion about what logic is if you control the definition of it.
This means there isn’t even a point at discussing this for the sake of open mindedness and learning, having ones mind changed. This is the same sort of thinking that imprisoned Galileo. It is a dangerous hegemony that is completely unnecessary.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]
Correct, ultimately logic is what it is, because he willed it to be. If he wanted it to be something different he would have made it different.
I wouldn’t necessarily say God is logic, because logic is a tool. God is truth, and logic is a tool by which to discern that truth.[/quote]
But you all realize we can’t even have a discussion about what logic is if you control the definition of it.
[/quote]
Where did you get such a notion?
[quote]
This means there isn’t even a point at discussing this for the sake of open mindedness and learning, having ones mind changed. This is the same sort of thinking that imprisoned Galileo. It is a dangerous hegemony that is completely unnecessary. [/quote]
Ok, I am lost. What are you talking about?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]I think I agree Chris, but I would not then turn that around and say that logic is God. Just like the Word says that God is love, but love is not God. As I have been saying for like ever. God is the definition of EVERYTHING. It is HE who gives meaning to EVERYTHING, including evil.
[/quote]
Only if by given definition to evil you mean that evil is the absence of the love of God.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The capitalism I’m talking about is the unabashed sort. That allows for dangerous child labor to take place, similar but worse to that which would have taken place in the U.S. during the industrial revolution. We responded to the problems of the industrial revolution by regulating capitalism. Doing things like establishing anti-trust laws, establishing fair wages, child labor laws (a department of labor). The Church as an organization never stepped in and tried to help the people, so the way the people responded was taking whatever side would fight their oppressors, in the form of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That so many Priests took the side of the people should say something about the legitimacy of their peril. The Church was too wrapped up in it’s own politics to do the right thing, they even sat bye and supported governments that were responsible for killing Priests and civilians that spoke out against their puppet governments. [/quote]
Source of your claims?[/quote]
Part of this is basic U.S. history, the rest you can gather simply from a Liberation Theology wikipedia look. [/quote]
Please provide evidence the Church did not step in and help people.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is socrates question rephrased. It’s a false dichotomy.
Is God ruled by Logic or does he dictate what logic is? Neither, he is logic. The reason why it is logical is because the one that created it is logic himself. [/quote]
Correct, ultimately logic is what it is, because he willed it to be. If he wanted it to be something different he would have made it different.
I wouldn’t necessarily say God is logic, because logic is a tool. God is truth, and logic is a tool by which to discern that truth.[/quote]
But you all realize we can’t even have a discussion about what logic is if you control the definition of it.
This means there isn’t even a point at discussing this for the sake of open mindedness and learning, having ones mind changed. This is the same sort of thinking that imprisoned Galileo. It is a dangerous hegemony that is completely unnecessary. [/quote]
We control the definition of logic? In the Western world we usually stick with Aristotelean logic and use Socrates’ Method.
How is it dangerous and why is it unnecessary?