I’m just fine with being least in the kingdom of God Chris. ;-]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m just fine with being least in the kingdom of God Chris. ;-][/quote]
Lol, I was referring to the principle.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< lol. Such faith in the Divine Truth. ;)[/quote]Are you going out of your way to misunderstand me? I really have to say that I do not mean destructive as in actually and substantively destructive? Really? I really have to say that? You don’t understand that I mean destructive to the purity of it’s apprehension in the subject(read individual) polluted by Greek paganism? You didn’t get that? Kamui. Did YOU get that? I suspect you may be engaging in an intentional campaign of pigheadedness with me Chris.
[/quote]
What i get :
-The Catholic Church think that pagan philosophy is ok as long as it doesn’t contradict the Scripture.
-You think that the Scripture already IS a complete philosophy and doesn’t need to be completed.
-Furthermore, you think that pagan philosophy DOES contradict the Scripture even when there is no explicit and evident contradiction, because philosophies are systemic wholes and one can not “cherry pick” something and reject something else.
-You see this as a very real threat because you think the internal logic of pagan systems can and will contaminate the mind of the believer who naively try to “import” them in his understanding of christian philosophy. Even when the naive believer is called Aquinas.
Do i think you’re right about this ?
Yes.
But i’m not concerned with the purity of christian teachings. And, as a pagan, i actually see the preservation of the greek culture by the Church as a good thing.
Actually, i think you’re een more than you think, and more right than you would like to be.
I sometimes find your own “systematicity” very… greek.
[quote]kamui wrote: What i get :
-The Catholic Church think that pagan philosophy is ok as long as it doesn’t contradict the Scripture. >>>[/quote]They do. Except they would say that insofar as it agrees with special revelation, like scripture, it is God’s truth regardless of origin. There are areas where I can go along with that, but not at the foundation here where they are disastrously wrong.(requires further exposition)[quote]kamui wrote:<<< -You think that the Scripture already IS a complete philosophy and doesn’t need to be completed. >>>[/quote]Scripture dictates the interpretation of the rest of reality so essentially yes. However I also believe that EVERY particle of said reality is revelation as well. Revelation being defined as that which makes God known.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< -Furthermore, you think that pagan philosophy DOES contradict the Scripture even when there is no explicit and evident contradiction, because philosophies are systemic wholes and one can not “cherry pick” something and reject something else. >>>[/quote]I knew you wouldn’t let me down. That is exactly correct. EXACTLY.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< -You see this as a very real threat because you think the internal logic of pagan systems can and will contaminate the mind of the believer who naively try to “import” them in his understanding of christian philosophy. Even when the naive believer is called Aquinas. >>>[/quote]LOL!!! YEP. Couldn’t have said it better myself.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Do i think you’re right about this? Yes. >>>[/quote]I knew you’d agree.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But i’m not concerned with the purity of christian teachings. >>>[/quote]Fair enough. I understand.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< And, as a pagan, i actually see the preservation of the greek culture by the Church as a good thing. >>>[/quote]What am I gonna do with you man LOL!!! You even call yourself a “pagan” LOL!! You are a tremendously good and disarming sport in these discussions. Actually I see the preservation, as in historical preservation, of EVERYthing as good. I don’t wanna forget ANYthing. It’s ALL instructive in some way even if only as a warning. That doesn’t mean I wanna find any use for it beyond that.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, i think you’re even more right than you think, and more right than you would like to be.
I sometimes find your own “systematicity” very… Greek. [/quote]No disrespect, but did I the fix the typos correctly? I think I know what you mean here if I did, but clarify a bit further if you would please.
[quote]kamui wrote:
What i get :
-The Catholic Church think that pagan philosophy is ok as long as it doesn’t contradict the Scripture.
-You think that the Scripture already IS a complete philosophy and doesn’t need to be completed.
-Furthermore, you think that pagan philosophy DOES contradict the Scripture even when there is no explicit and evident contradiction, because philosophies are systemic wholes and one can not “cherry pick” something and reject something else.
-You see this as a very real threat because you think the internal logic of pagan systems can and will contaminate the mind of the believer who naively try to “import” them in his understanding of christian philosophy. Even when the naive believer is called Aquinas.
Do i think you’re right about this ?
Yes.
But i’m not concerned with the purity of christian teachings. And, as a pagan, i actually see the preservation of the greek culture by the Church as a good thing.
Actually, i think you’re een more than you think, and more right than you would like to be.
I sometimes find your own “systematicity” very… greek.
[/quote]
Greeks and Romans around the time of the composition of the New Testaments texts (unarguably first century A.D. for the majority, at least, though scholars still maintain late dates for some) certainly didn’t think of philosophies as systematic wholes invulnerable to “cherry picking.” Eclecticism was a widespread phenomenon characterizing the entire cognitive environment of the Greco-Roman world (you even see it in Jewish thinkers like Philo), which leads me to wonder if Paul and the other apostles would have necessarily assumed that “cherry picking” was out of the question. Granted, every new proposition is filtered through the interpreter’s existing lens anyway, morphing even as it is being received, so beliefs truly “inconsistent” with a system rarely appear within that system. Nevertheless, I wonder if it might be anachronistic to assume that Paul and the other biblical writers were necessarily as consistently systematic in their theologizing (even under inspiration) as Tiribulus 
Not to say that you are assuming that, Tirib. Just throwing out something for discussion. If accused of hijacking, I will plead “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” (I’m still recovering mentally from the test :)).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m just fine with being least in the kingdom of God Chris. ;-][/quote]
Amen!
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Greeks and Romans around the time of the composition of the New Testaments texts <<<>>> certainly didn’t think of philosophies as systematic wholes invulnerable to “cherry picking.” Eclecticism was a widespread phenomenon characterizing the entire cognitive environment of the Greco-Roman world (you even see it in Jewish thinkers like Philo), >>>.[/quote]ok.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< which leads me to wonder if Paul and the other apostles would have necessarily assumed that “cherry picking” was out of the question. >>>.[/quote]Which, in light of Paul’s stern rejection of Greek thinking, leads ME to CONCLUDE that he would never have borrowed anything definitive whatsoever from the Greco-Roman world.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Granted, every new proposition is filtered through the interpreter’s existing lens anyway, morphing even as it is being received, so beliefs truly “inconsistent” with a system rarely appear within that system. >>>.[/quote]I say this is the very reason that beliefs inconsistent with a system ALWAYS appear within that system. (except mine of course =] )[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Nevertheless, I wonder if it might be anachronistic to assume that Paul and the other biblical writers were necessarily as consistently systematic in their theologizing (even under inspiration) as Tiribulus >>>.[/quote]I further advance the itself thoroughly biblical thesis that they were far MORE systematic than even they themselves were conscious of at the time. Exactly because of inspiration (theopneustos), but this requires a separate post.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Not to say that you are assuming that, Tirib. Just throwing out something for discussion. If accused of hijacking, I will plead “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” (I’m still recovering mentally from the test :)) [/quote]Disease maybe, but not defect =] I had no doubt that you would do well and this excuse only gets one shot with me ya here?
[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< Anyway, your response was more or less that God completed his work, in Genesis 2. >>>[/quote]Yes.[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< So, just to be clear, are you saying that God does not continue to create? Because He was complete in Genesis 2? >>>[/quote]Yes[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< Hasn’t God continued to Create from Genesis to NOW? [/quote]No
I guess the lady newcomer ran away already.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ), along with “foreordain”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ), along with “foreordain”. [/quote]
Present everywhere, all the time. You define it, you’re the one using it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ), along with “foreordain”. [/quote]Present everywhere, all the time. You define it, you’re the one using it.[/quote]Why ya gotta be so difficult with me lately Chris? I have not used the actual word “omnipresent” for months at least around here. You used this very legitimate term in the above quoted statement. I am asking you to define your terms lest I unintentionally misrepresent you. You appear to be saying that God’s omnipresence should be understood as, at the very least rendering His foreordination unnecessary and maybe even heretical. Instead of assuming and then having to hear about strawmen, I thought it honorable to simply ask you what you meant.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ), along with “foreordain”. [/quote]Present everywhere, all the time. You define it, you’re the one using it.[/quote]Why ya gotta be so difficult with me lately Chris? I have not used the actual word “omnipresent” for months at least around here. You used this very legitimate term in the above quoted statement. I am asking you to define your terms lest I unintentionally misrepresent you. You appear to be saying that God’s omnipresence should be understood as, at the very least rendering His foreordination unnecessary and maybe even heretical. Instead of assuming and then having to hear about strawmen, I thought it honorable to simply ask you what you meant.
[/quote]
You define foreordain. I don’t use it. The farthest I go is predestination (and not double predestination). I also believe in free will.
“We are “free” in a sense to “do whatever we want with our bodies.” However, we are not free to determine whether what we do with our bodies is good or evil.”
West, Christopher (2010-12-02). Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II’s Sexual Revolution, Revised Edition (p. 23). Ascension Press. Kindle Edition.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.[/quote]God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please define “omnipresent” as you’re using it here (as if I didn’t already know =] ).[/quote]
Already did.
My mistake Christopher, I see now that you were telling me to define “foreordain”. Hopefully tonight. Your steadfastness with me IS admirable btw, I mean that truly, though I’m not tremendously blessed by your edgy irritability lately.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My mistake Christopher, I see now that you were telling me to define “foreordain”. Hopefully tonight. Your steadfastness with me IS admirable btw, I mean that truly, though I’m not tremendously blessed by your edgy irritability lately. [/quote]
Haven’t been irritable since I started taking Brain Candy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My mistake Christopher, I see now that you were telling me to define “foreordain”. Hopefully tonight. Your steadfastness with me IS admirable btw, I mean that truly, though I’m not tremendously blessed by your edgy irritability lately. [/quote]
Haven’t been irritable since I started taking Brain Candy.[/quote]It must be a hallucinogen in your case as well =)
Chris, can you please give me a one or two sentence assessment of what you think of John Calvin?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chris, can you please give me a one or two sentence assessment of what you think of John Calvin?[/quote]
Love men, slay error.
The man was more Catholic (as in the amount of truth he held up as truth: Mary, Saints, Confession, Eucharist, are some that come off the top of my head) than some who believe themselves to be faithful Catholics. He wanted to be his own Pope at the end of the day, which ultimately stems from a lack of humility. Like Luther, if he would have actually stayed in the Church instead of committing schism, he’d likely have a S and a T in front of his name.
I don’t know much about John Calvin’s person life, so his theological writing (which is really the only thing I studied about him in seminary) is about as far as I go. Not surprising both Luther and Calvin were pretty Catholic (besides the whole schism thing, but I guess only Catholics make schisms so I guess it is a pretty Catholic thing to do after all) in their beliefs. I started learning about Mary because of Luther, I started asking about confession because of Luther. I learned the Rosary because of Calvin.