To any theologians here...

[JohnnyReb]

Even if the Bible is true, I don't see how there can be any free will given that we are all made up of physical objects that behave in a deterministic fashion.

The problem I have with your statement is that you state as fact that we are made of objects that behave in a deterministic fashion.

Determinism - a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws.

Determinism is far from established. And saying that there is no free due to determinism simply begs the question as the the basis of determinism.

IF the Bible is true, then it is the basis of Truth. Even if you disagree.

John

 

[Athanasius]

Rio Rebel Quote:

<< No offense to anyone who believes the "God outside time" idea, but I would have to hear an awfully lucid explanation before I could accept it. >>



Lucidity and ATOT are logically self-contradictory, which means even God cannot be lucid in ATOT. Since God is intrinsically lucid, he therefore does not visit ATOT

Anyway, I think your point raises valid questions about consciousness and existence itself. It is impossible (at least for me) to imagine consciousness without some sense of a succession of moments. That is why I would hesitate to state that God exists totally outside of some sense of time. Neither do I say that God exists totally outside of the universe, since in Him "all things consist" and in Him "we live and move and have our being."

I would not say that God exists outside of time, for He "fills everything in every way." Rather I would say that our consciousness is bound by what we call Time, which is the motion and change of this universe. What that means is that we leave part of the one being that is one's self in the past and have yet to realize another part of one's being that is in the future.

But God's consciousness is not bound by our sense of time. That does not mean that He doesn't experience it, only that His experience is not limited by it. He transcneds without violation, just as the consciousness of God transcends the earthly humanity of Jesus without doing violence to the human nature of Christ. I think it relevant to bring Christ into this, because in Christian thought we understand far more about God by looking at Jesus than we ever can by merely abstract thought. He is "the mystery of God" (Colossians 2) and to see Him is to see the Father (John 14)

I just said that we are bound by time, but that is not quite so. Sometimes our consciousness transcends time, if only fleetingly and momentarily.

Consider angels again. I don't want to argue whether or not they exist, for the sake of argument let's say they do. An angel's consciousness must experience some sequencing, but that sequencing is almost certainly not merely our own. To hold that it is would imply that an angels' consciousness is bound by the motion of this planet around this particular star in this particular speck of the physical universe.

God's consciousness may have some sense of sequencing to it. If it does, I would posit that it has little correlation to our own sense of time. God's is logical, for He is eternally "instinct with Logos" (Theophilus of Antioch's phrase used to explain the eternality of the Word). But God's sequencing is not chronological in our sense of the term.

As an example, consider this snippet at the end of Rev 13:8: ". . . the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." I don't want to plow into Greek grammar here, but "slain" is a graphic term meaning "butchered" and is a perfect passive participle. This means that in God's "time" or "consciousness" (since we are hard pressed to separate the two), the crucifixion of Christ is antecedent to the "foundation" (literally "casting along") of the universe.

Perhaps no one can really decipher what that means, but in "God Time," the Incarnational Word is prior to the Big Bang. This correlates well with Scripture, because it is by His own Eternal Word that the Universe itself consists (John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1).

What to man happened roughly in 30 AD to God is the prior condition.

Our consciousness perceives reality in a chronological way based on the bounds that time places on us. God's consciousness is not rationed out to Him in such a way. I would guess that whatever "sequencing" He has is within His own eternal nature, not the laws of existence as we know it.

That does not violate our sense of time. Does the perspective gained from the third dimension violate the principles of the second? In the third dimension of our consciousness, a cube is composed of right angles. But in the (almost) two dimensions of a piece of paper, a cube appears to have acute angles.

Perhaps from this analogy we can guess at a kind of reversal. We are in the lesser dimension, so we impose on God's consciousness an "acuteness" where the reality if 90 degrees. Yet the third dimension is not "outside" the second. it fills and transcends it.




But now I am confusing myself, which is no rare occurrence.

 

[LadyJessica]

The problem I have with your statement is that you state as fact that we are made of objects that behave in a deterministic fashion.

Determinism - a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws.

Determinism is far from established. And saying that there is no free due to determinism simply begs the question as the the basis of determinism.

How do you conclude that we are not made of objects that behave deterministically? If determinism is not be fully established, I would argue it's pretty damn close. A consequence to the contrary is that psychoactive substances would not work. Would you consider the actions of a computer deterministic? Why or why not?

 

[Athanasius]

LadyJessica:

How far do you take determinism? I am guessing, but you seem to approach things from a fairly knowledgeable medical/psychiatric/neurological perspective. If I am wrong, I am open to rebuke

However, if are thoughts are nothing but predetermined processes of chemical reactions and firing synapses, than why do you seek to persuade me that such is the case? There is no objectivity to your rationals or mine. I think what I think because of a wide variety of factors that are pre-determined, and open discussion is not going to change them. At best it will only produce cognitive dissonance that will be jettisoned so that the stronger belief system prevails in my mind.

And what is the stronger belief system? Whatever my chemical soup tells me to think. It seems to me that such a view eliminates rational discourse as a means of persuasion or change because reasoning will never cross the divide between what your nature tells you to think and what my nature tells me to think. The illusion of rational discourse is nothing more than dissonance between different physical constructs whose natures are predetermined and beyond conscious change.

So why debate it?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I do not like NIV. It leaves out verses and is sometimes inaccurate.

-Brent

 

[LadyJessica]

Athanasius,


There is no objectivity to your rationals or mine. I think what I think because of a wide variety of factors that are pre-determined, and open discussion is not going to change them. At best it will only produce cognitive dissonance that will be jettisoned so that the stronger belief system prevails in my mind.

And what is the stronger belief system? Whatever my chemical soup tells me to think. It seems to me that such a view eliminates rational discourse as a means of persuasion or change because reasoning will never cross the divide between what your nature tells you to think and what my nature tells me to think.

Exactly my point. I would argue that our illusion of rational discourse can indeed change behavior and beliefs. Except that such discussion was predetermined and any other changes in your or my behavior/beliefs were also predetermined contingent upon said discussion. I would argue that all outcomes are set barring any supernatural influences.

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< Exactly my point. I would argue that our illusion of rational discourse can indeed change behavior and beliefs. Except that such discussion was predetermined and any other changes in your or my behavior/beliefs were also predetermined contingent upon said discussion. I would argue that all outcomes are set barring any supernatural influences. >>



exactly. man does not have free will w/o the intervention of God (supernatural influences).

 

[Athanasius]

Lady Jessica and Platinum Gold:

Well, looking at your last two posts, I agree with the synthesis between them.

<< If the Son of Man sets you free, you will be free in your very being

Which is funny, because the invocation of the supernatural can be spun both ways. Some say that, if God exists, there can be no freedom. Some say that if the supernatural does not exist, there can be no freedom. I would subscribe to the second horn of that dilemma.

But here is where I see a middle ground: I see human logic as a shadow or image of the Logos of God. Hence, genuine reason is itself a form of revelation, the bridge by which mankind is set free, but only because the Logos lights all men (John 1). In that lighting, the first echoes of potential freedom ring.

 

[LadyJessica]

Some say that if the supernatural does not exist, there can be no freedom. I would subscribe to the second horn of that dilemma.

I also agree with this, and yet somehow this isn't a life changing revelation.

 

[PlatinumGold]

athanasius.

did you see my long post on the first page of this thread?

Genesis talks about 2 parts of mans creation. from mud, then the breath of life.

Man is obviously a carbon creature. then Genesis makes a point to say that God breathed in man the Spirit and Man became a LIVING being. it's my contention that Man as created from mud is the man of Sin, who we are today. the Spirit that God breaths in man is the same Spirit that Jesus describes in John 3 to make man a Living being and in the words of Jesus in John 3 a Spiritual being.

Reborn.

please refer to my first post in this thread to see my views on reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well when I ask myself if I have free will or if my life is predetermined, I would lean more to a notion that it is more a matter of chance. I act out of my past experiences in accordance with my capacities both of which I acquired by chance. I am a chimpanzee in a gambling casino.

<<Every experience we have follows a temporal order. The best we can do in our imagination is to isolate one phenomenon, or snapshot of experience. As soon as we imagine two phenomena, we are forced to put them in a temporal order. We cannot move outside this, and we cannot imagine what it would be like to experience a set of events in a non-temporal order. Rio Rebel>>

This makes sense if we have experienced all possible states of consciousness, but I question whether we have. Is it possible to see without a sense of self, to move onto the time stream, to become one with its flow so that it is extinguished? What is a mind empty of self talk, yet deeply aware? What are the characteristice of a mind that is not divided against itself, that has no unconsciousness, no repressed memories? What is the emotional content of a mind free of self hate, of negative emotion?

<<None of us is all that clean yet. We see but through a glass darkly. Athanasius>>

How do you know this? How can this be if we were created in his image? Why do you not become Christ? Have you not been forgiven? Isn't the kingdom of heaven within you? It always struck me that when Jesus warned of the what?, shocking nature and near insurmountable obstacles of comming to grips with truth, that was the problem, that you had to be him, eat and drink his flesh and blood.

Oh well Athanasius, I know my questions are pain. Pay no attention to them.

 

[PlatinumGold]

moonbeam

i'm beginning to wonder if your not the friend that zak referred to in his original post.

btw i don't think your questions are difficult. clever mb but not difficult. just because you turn a clever phrase it doesn't mean you understand the subject under discussion. i find most of ur language to be clever just for cleverness sake not for clarification.

 

[JohnnyReb]

How do you conclude that we are not made of objects that behave deterministically? If determinism is not be fully established, I would argue it's pretty damn close. A consequence to the contrary is that psychoactive substances would not work. Would you consider the actions of a computer deterministic? Why or why not?

LadyJ,
You are speaking above the head of this poor Alabama country boy.

You are saying (maybe) that psychoactive substances would not work unless determinism rules the day. By psychoactive substances, I assume that you are speaking of chemicals (drugs) that effect our minds, moods, the way we think/act/feel.

(BTW, I am thinking as I type, so pardon the rambling of an old man).

Let's take as fact that PS's (Psychoactive substances) do work. You use the word determinism, instead of the more ambigious "deterministically" at least once, so I will assume you speak of the definition provided above (from Webster).

Your premise might be stated as follows:

Since something (PS's) can effect our minds/actions, then everything pretty much effects our minds/actions to the point where our thoughts/actions are predetermined.

That smacks of Seldonistic Psychohistory, but applicible to the individual.

I don't see it. You said you would argue that Determinism is pretty damn close to being established. Please do so, as I am unable to do so in your stead.

John

 

[JohnnyReb]

Warning: In rereading, I realize that what follows could be interpreted as a personal attack. Rather, it is an attack on an idea rather than a person.

did you see my long post on the first page of this thread?

PlatinumGold,
I just went back and read that scenario. You do not give a basis for this, you merely ask us to imagine it and then say that it is what you believe. It is certainly a different story than that told in Scripture.

Lets say God exists. He exists Alone. In a Universe / Existence / Whatever that exists w/ 1 will and 1 will only and that will is an ALL POWERFUL will wouldn't EVERYTHING in this Universe / Existence / Whatever be a COMPLETE EXTENSION of His WILL?

Since He is alone, He is all there is. Where does Will come into this? What do you mean by Will? Will is a choice or determination of one having authority or power. While God certainly possesses Will, it seems a bit forced to focus on Will at this point.

So into this existence He creates a BEING of FREE WILL. lets start w/ Angels (Lucifer if you please). What would be the purpose of that creation if that creature did not have free will? or to phrase it another way, in that Universe / Existence / Whatever could making more planets, trees, flowers, stars etc etc be considered an act of CREATION? in my opinion NO. because it is all still just the COMPLETE extension of His will. so now he CREATES, by creation FREE WILL must be implied. if he makes another being that is a complete EXTENSION of His will how can you call it CREATION?

I call it Creation because God does so in His Word. There are but three Creative acts (ex nihilo) in Genesis. The Creation of the Heavens and Earth (exactly what you say cannot be Creation), Animals and Man. At this point you are in conflict with Scripture.

so He begins to CREATE. he created the angels, he created Man. (for this discussion let's not get into the literal vs figurative creation story debate)

Yes He did.

As God is creating, Lucifer notices something. He notices that for all GOD'S power, he doesn't force beings to do what he (lucifer) considers best. now,we have the beginnings of sin (like evangelicals trying to force their view of God on others ). What is Lucifers Sin? well, ezekiel says, Lucifer placed himself ABOVE the most high GOD. in God's Universe, all beings are created as HIS MORAL equals. In Lucifers Universe, There must be ONE above all others. Lucifer wanted that ONE to be GOD, because Lucifer isn't stupid, He recognizes that God the MOST POWERFUL being in existence. So Lucifer goes about to PROVE to the Universe that his theory is better than GOD's.

Many problems here.

1. he (God) doesn't force beings to do what he (Lucifer) considers best.
Where does this come from? Complete fabrication.

2. all beings are created as HIS MORAL equals.
What? All beings are created as God's moral equal. Says who? This idea is in conflict with bunches of sound doctrine.

3. In Lucifer?s Universe, There must be ONE above all others. Lucifer wanted that ONE to be GOD, because Lucifer isn't stupid, He recognizes that God the MOST POWERFUL being in existence. So Lucifer goes about to PROVE to the Universe that his theory is better than God?s.
So you are saying that Lucifer placed himself above God, because he wanted God to be above all. He wanted God to be above all so bad he set out to prove how God was wrong? I'm sorry, that's plain hogwash.

What is your source for ANY of this stuff? It reads as if you just made it up.

but rewind a sec. what separated Adam and Eve from God, was it the act of Disobedience? (this is where most people are mistaken in my opinion) NO. it wasn't the Disobedience, but the SHIFTING of responsibility.

Maybe your ideas are just so darn revolutionary that an old codger like me just doesn't have the ability to grasp it.

It just seems that when God says:

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';"

then that is what he meant.

Your scenario, while entertaining, is almost entirely in contradiction with God's revealed word. You did get the names right, and God did create stuff. Outside of that it's hooey.

John

 

[PlatinumGold]

JR

ya. it would seem that way given the brief description that i've given. as in most truth, it's not in the words but the intention behind the words. unfortunately many christians equate Word with Logos. NOT TRUE. even the word Logos doesn't fully encapsulate the principle or idea behind that word. Don't get hung up on the words as they are just an attempt at communicating TRUTH. Truth is all there is.

Again, i used the word Create differently than the way Scripture uses it. I'll grant you that. That does not mean that what i've said is "hooey".

One more time. God existed, at some point, all christians acknowledge that God (three in one if your so inclined) existed alone. Will is what HE desires, not necessarily and authoritive will, but just the desire. In the existence of God alone His will is all there is. What He wills or desires is EXACTLY the way reality is. This really shouldn't be a point of debate as it is just an extrapolation of the beliefs of most christians with regards to an All Powerful God.

Given that scenario, creating (to use the word in the Biblical Sense) the Heavens, Creating the earth, Creating the Sun and Stars, makes NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE. It is still all just a complete extension of the will of God. Christians sometimes dwell too much on the physical aspects of the Universe to determine TRUTH. the Real truth is God's vision of the Universe and the question of why He would create FREE WILL beings. (by free will here, i'm not referring to freedom to do completely as one wills, but freedom to determine ones destiny). That was an act of Creation. creation in the sense that all of a sudden the SUBSTANCE of the Universe, existence, had changed. God was no longer alone.

Given this act of free will, one must then ask, Why would God create free will beings and then turn around and command EXPLICIT OBEDIENCE? that doesn't make any logical sense and it is totally foreign to the God that I've encountered.

Would you like me to go on?

 

[LadyJessica]

Since something (PS's) can effect our minds/actions, then everything pretty much effects our minds/actions to the point where our thoughts/actions are predetermined.

That smacks of Seldonistic Psychohistory, but applicible to the individual.

I don't see it. You said you would argue that Determinism is pretty damn close to being established. Please do so, as I am unable to do so in your stead.

Seldon's Psychohistory was based on psychology. What I'm talking about is based physics as is defince by our universe (assuming physical laws we've found apply uniformly throughout the universe). Suppose you throw a ball in space. It'll keep traveling in its current direction unless acted upon by some other force. Same with molecules. Say you take a bunch of hydrogen molecules and through them out into space. If you have enough of them, they'll eventually coalesce into a big ball of fusion. Now if you had a powerful enough computer that was able to track each of those hydrogen molecules, you would be able to determine the future state of your. This same idea can be applied to people.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Given this act of free will, one must then ask, Why would God create free will beings and then turn around and command EXPLICIT OBEDIENCE? that doesn't make any logical sense and it is totally foreign to the God that I've encountered.

Would you like me to go on?

PlatinumGold,
Yes, very much so. In this particular post I can follow what you are saying and am interested in the next logical step. If you could, please expound on what you mean when you say that God commands EXPLICIT OBEDIENCE.

John

 

[JohnnyReb]

Seldon's Psychohistory was based on psychology. What I'm talking about is based physics as is defince by our universe (assuming physical laws we've found apply uniformly throughout the universe). Suppose you throw a ball in space. It'll keep traveling in its current direction unless acted upon by some other force. Same with molecules. Say you take a bunch of hydrogen molecules and through them out into space. If you have enough of them, they'll eventually coalesce into a big ball of fusion. Now if you had a powerful enough computer that was able to track each of those hydrogen molecules, you would be able to determine the future state of your. This same idea can be applied to people.

I follow you right up until you say that this same idea can be applied to people. It seems quite a jump, please complete the argument. I am very interested.

John

 

[PlatinumGold]

JohnnyReb

mb a little background would be in order here to help you understand how i came to the conclusions i did. I come from a very fundamentally Religious Family. My father was the pastor of a church. I'll leave out the denomination for now.

I grew up w/ a very strict and stern God that required obedience and Obedience was the Paramount virtue. As I grew older i realized 2 things. 1 I didn't know God. I mean, i knew all the words that christians spoke, I was very well read in the Bible, but I didn't know God. how did i know this, well for me it was simple, I was given standards that were too high for me to attain. i was required to live TOO clean a lifestyle. the pressures on me were tremendous and I did what i was told to do when those pressures mounted, I turned to God. I turned over everything to Him and I was never relieved of my burden. I could read and recite over and over again, You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free and yet I never had that freedom. 2 I began to question my fundamental beliefs and what they required of me. Finally I just gave up on God. I gave up on all the trappings of religion and became a Devout Atheist. I did all the things that I had previously been told was bad. I abused my body and my mind. Finally God revealed Himself to me in a very Real and Powerful way. This is what He taught me.

God's Law is Love. now, i'm sure that your familiar with this phrase but what does that mean. In my previous attempt to know God, I had been given the impression that God's law was about Obedience and Righteousness was attained by obedience (before you start w/ different ideas of Righteousness by faith etc, I had all those bases covered as well. i gave myself a million different excuses and tried to convince myself that i believed and that made me righteous, but my frustration lie in the fact that Even tho i went thru all the trappings, my behavior didn't change). ultimately i was judged by me and those around me by my behavior.

This is what i mean be EXPLICIT obedience. you can phrase it how you want, but it all boils down to the same thing. Righteousness by faith Brings us to Jesus, Sanctification by faith molds us, our characters etc. trust me i know all the tricks of theology. here's the thing tho, it's like Martin Luther, as he is whipping himself again and again, All of a sudden, the Holy Spirit comes to him and takes away his burden. What martin luther had was an Encounter, it was an Experience it wasn't a theology. unfortunately those that follow martin luther realize that they've never had that experience so they turn to theological trickery to convince themselves they've had that experience. it happens in all churches. there are those who have the experience and those who don't but want to pretend they have, Jesus says of those in Revelation, I would that you were Cold or Hot, but because you are luke warm i'll spit you out of my mouth (paraphrased).

anyway, so based on this experience I began to discover a way to explain God that would take out those elements of theology.

For me this is the best way to explain it. God created the angels with free will. they had the ability to sin (obviously otherwise lucifer would not have done so). In His universe, however, there was only one law, All are responsible for that free will. What they choose to do, they must be responsible for that action. All beings went about their tasks and duties in a universe w/ NO Master. Lucifer opposed this universe, in his mind, there must be a Master and he wanted GOD to take that role. God refused and so Lucifer as Ezekiel says, placed himself above the throne of the MOST HIGH GOD. Lucifer presented himself as an alternative, as a different type of existence and God allowed that to be carried out so all could see the differences.

now growing up, i didn't see the difference between God's Universe (one of Obedience) and Lucifers universe (one of obedience). In my mind the only choice was God, because both offered basically the same type of relationship, but God was ultimately more powerful.

anyway side bar aside. God and Lucifer presented to the Universe 2 VERY DIFFERENT Ideologies. God one based on love and mutual respect and Lucifer one based on Obedience.

from this follows my analogy of adam and eve. It wasn't just the shifting of responsibility but that of choosing satan, but that act of choosing was the shifting of responsibility, you see, in the scenario that i've presented God's one law is that one be responsible for ones actions, is God willing to forgive, OF COURSE, He's like a Father, if an earthly father sees his child stumble does he reject that child? no, but if the child knowingly chooses to go to another father, does he reject that child, of course not, but the child is no longer his.

Now, to the second point i made regarding the Spirit. I still believe that God made man with the Mud, made a biological being, but that being was biologically alive but was not spiritually alive until He imparted the Spirit within man. that made man Spiritually alive, and it is my belief that adam and eve died spiritually the day they chose the Serpent.

 

[LadyJessica]

I follow you right up until you say that this same idea can be applied to people. It seems quite a jump, please complete the argument. I am very interested.

Well, only because you read Asimov. The idea is that we're all made up of the same atoms and molecules. If we rearrange the molecules of a tree we'd get a person and vice versa (not an easy task but theoretically possible). The argument is basically that you are nothing without your brain. And your brain is made up of neurons which is made up of lipid membranes, ion channels, etc. Now if we had an even more powerful computer that could track each molecule that makes up your brain, we'd be able to duplicate what your mental state would be at any given time. If, for example, we run the simulation backwards, we would know what you ate a turkey sandwich last year on this date. Or if we run the simulation forward, we would know that you will eat pizza for breakfast 43 days from now.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Well, only because you read Asimov. The idea is that we're all made up of the same atoms and molecules. If we rearrange the molecules of a tree we'd get a person and vice versa (not an easy task but theoretically possible). The argument is basically that you are nothing without your brain. And your brain is made up of neurons which is made up of lipid membranes, ion channels, etc. Now if we had an even more powerful computer that could track each molecule that makes up your brain, we'd be able to duplicate what your mental state would be at any given time. If, for example, we run the simulation backwards, we would know what you ate a turkey sandwich last year on this date. Or if we run the simulation forward, we would know that you will eat pizza for breakfast 43 days from now.

LadyJ,
Ok, I follow what you are trying to say. But, what about that part of us which isn't physical? We possess three parts, as a reflection of God. Body, Soul, and Spirit. Your analysis depends on the assumption that our physical brain is the entirety of our true self. IF the brain is an organ used by our soul/spirit rather than controlling the soul/spirit then your thesis falls apart.

John

 

[wQuay]

<< The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD. >>

Proverbs 16:1



<< The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. >>

Proverbs 16: 4



<< The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. >>

Proverbs 16: 33



<< (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. >>

Romans 9: 11-16



<< Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? >>

Romans 9: 20,21

 

[Moonbeam]

Physical determinism doesn't work, in my opinion, because when you go deep, you find Heisenberg and his casino.

<<moonbeam

i'm beginning to wonder if your not the friend that zak referred to in his original post.

btw i don't think your questions are difficult. clever mb but not difficult. just because you turn a clever phrase it doesn't mean you understand the subject under discussion. i find most of ur language to be clever just for cleverness sake not for clarification. PlatinumGold>>

Well I'm sure you know I'm not 'that friend' but I guess you have some intent or another in that statement you prefer not to make openly. Who is being cleaver?

If you think my questions are easy why not just answer them? My suspicion, in kind, would be that rather than easy you find them disturbing. But I use the word suspicion, unlike you, based on the fact that I do not pretend to know the content of your mind, only how I have acted in that way in the past. I say that because I think by "i find most of ur language to be clever just for cleverness sake not for clarification.", you do not mean that by your choose by your own cleaverness you find cleaverness rather that clarification in my language", but rather that my intention is to be cleaver rather than clear. That, of course would make you a mind reader, and not a very good one.

Additionally, I didn't say that my questions were difficult. I said to Athanasius that they were a pain and I did so because we have a history and a rapore and I know he will put more effort into answering them than I wish to trouble him for. I'm more interested in pointing in directions where I think interesting posibilities lie than anything else. So the questions are there for what you can take from them. In your case, since they were easy, it was nothing.

 

[Athanasius]

Moonbeam Quote:

<< Additionally, I didn't say that my questions were difficult. I said to Athanasius that they were a pain and I did so because we have a history and a rapore and I know he will put more effort into answering them than I wish to trouble him for. I'm more interested in pointing in directions where I think interesting posibilities lie than anything else. So the questions are there for what you can take from them. In your case, since they were easy, it was nothing. >>



The effort I put into answering them is no trouble for me, although if I were just more like God and not swept along in the constraints of time I could step outside of this flow and give to such questions the attention they deserve. If giving such questions the attention they deserve is a pain, then it is the "good pain" of the surgeon's scalpel.

That such questions are a "pain" and sometimes even "folly" to us says more about our own condition and our foolishness than anything else.

But turnabout is fair play. In response to your questions, I will respond with some: Is the leaf the tree? How are they separate? How are they one? In drawing from the life of the tree, does the leaf cease to be a separate leaf? Are they interchangeable? Is the tree dependent on the leaf or the leaf on the tree?

There is only one tree with a healthy enough and strong enough life to sustain humanity in the spiritual wasteland of this earth. If I, a withered and fallen leaf helpless against the spiritual winter that is coming, am grafted back into that tree from which I fell, and bring its life into me, I will live. I will become the tree yet distinct from the tree. If I am not grafted back in, I will wither and die. But the life is sourced in the tree. All life is.



<< In him life already was, and that life already was the light of mankind. The light continuously shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not understand it. (John 1:4) >>



I will end with a quote from my surname Athanasius, from his work, "The Incarnation of the Word of God, chapters 14 & 15:

<< Willing to profit mankind, He sojourns here as Man. Taking to Himself a body like the others, and from things of the earth, that is, by the works of His body, He teaches them. His purpose was that they who would not know Him from His Providence and rule over all things, may even from the works done by his actual body, know the Word of God which is in the body, and through Him the Father. For the sake of mankind, whose mind had fallen only to the things of the senses, the Word disguised Himself by appearing in a body, that He, as Man, might transfer mankind to Himself, and center their senses on Himself. Thus mankind, seeing Him as Man, can be persuaded by His works that He is not Man only, but also God, and the Word and Wisdom of God >>



Written by a twenty year old boy who then spent the next fifty years of life in and out of exile because of the truth his heart knew.

 

[Rio Rebel]

<< The effort I put into answering them is no trouble for me, although if I were just more like God and not swept along in the constraints of time I could step outside of this flow >>



Nonsense.

When it comes to talking about a being "outside of time", it's not a matter of our lack of understanding. It goes beyond that - it's a matter of being completely unable to form the conception.

If something is not inside the spacio-temporal "realm", it does not 'exist' for us. And if it is something that is beyond space and time, and can never be an object of experience for us, what exactly do you mean if you say it "exists"? It doesn't exist at all, according to what we mean when we talk of existence. It can never be encountered or experienced, directly or indirectly. It can never have a casual relationship with anything that DOES exist for us, because to interact with our spacio-temporal realm would necessarily imply spacio-temporality of the thing interacting with us.

Unlike Kant, I believe that "existence" is a predicate. To say that something exists necessarily implies that it is a part of the spacio-temporal world of our experience. If God exists, then He must exist spacio-temporally, else he does not exist at all. He would have to have some sort of "existence" that would mean something so foreign to us that we can't even conceive of what this means. He could not interact with us, and His "existence" (for lack of a better term) would not be partly, but WHOLLY unknowable to us.

What, then, are you even saying to say that such a Being "exists"?