Fix Me...;)

[N/A Gone]

Dear Sir Phats of the round table...

I have been blessed with something as of recent. For my senior internship my mentor decided to have me perform an intense research/theological development, being that I am on a theology-leadership scholarship it is fitting I guess. I will be given a ton of time for this, vast resources and I think this is a great chance for me to finally reconcile my TWT/openess issues with the teaching of the Church. Now, a few of you will remember the TWT thread in which I cut my phatmass teeth and im sure flirted with a phissy. But my desire has always been to reconcile my issues with church teaching. My hope is that those of you who were involved with the debate could help me direct my research to a specific question. A specific concept and help with research sources in order to edify my position with this. This is personal for me because of the conflicted dualism that has been underground in my theology with this. I cant seem to shake the lens of twt and I even have found myself doing exegesis through that lens. In esssence perhaps perverting my very catholic journey. So please, on a personal request please help me with this. I know the professor and others are hoping that this actually brings me back from catholicism. That the two views are so beyond reconciling that I will be torn. You guys are the closest thing to a catholic pham I have..help a brotha out..


(**this is open to anyone who wants to research the old TWT thread, but this is specifically pointed towards Phatcatholic, L_D, Brother Adam, Thess, hot stuff, Myles, rkwright

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43642&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...c=43642&hl=[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=46341&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...c=46341&hl=[/url]

[phatcatholic]

i will certainly do what i can for ya, bro

[phatcatholic]

does this help?
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm[/url]

[N/A Gone]

thanks nick, but not really. Dont get me wrong,i enjoyed the read.But My issue is going to be related to twt.Basically taking the theology of openess and filtering it through the church and coming with something legit, yet reasonable.I dont wanna be a hans kung jr.

my other option has to do with the essentence of choice and the nature of the soul..
say we have 2 wills.(2 people, person a and person b) Both are
influenced by the outside world and by spiritual beings yet both come
to a different conclusion of faith. So why do they choose different?

possible options..

1.)god influences people different(calvin)

2.) outside forces influence us that much(complete product of our
enviroment thus not our responsability)

3.) we are born either pointed towards one of the directions(calvinism again)

4.) it is a random dice roll decision

5.) genetic from our parents..

now,as a protestant my response would be that the way I frame the question and pose the options rules out free will
at the start. To look for CAUSES to why one chooses one way or another
is to assume at the start that the agent is not SELF CAUSING.


To be free means that we, to some extent, INITIATE and ORIGINATE new
lines of causation. It means we can't exhaustively account for decisions
by appealing to antecedent causes. So, it means that we can't
exhaustively explain why agent 1 chooses X while agent 2 chooses Y. Yes
there are innumerable influences that come to bare uniquenly on each,
influences which reach back to the beginning of creation (which is why
even these cannot be explained in any more than a very abbreviated way
by a finite agent). But these influences are not coercive.

As I told you on ur blog nick... If, as Calvinists and other
determinists contend, the notion of self-causation is unintelligible, so
if we can only conceive of free will in compatibilistic sense, then you
have to hold that GOD only has compatibilistic freedom. An
unintelligible concept doesn't become intelligible just because we apply
it to God. So,unless one is willing to say that all God's decisions are
CAUSED by antecedent factors, one HAS to admit libertarian freedom is
intelligible.

Now the issue once again is why does one soul choose heaven, and one choose hell? How can we have free will and be the source of our decisions if God "has already seen them" thus we are not self-causing.Why are we puting platonic reasoning above occam understanding of the old test?(*most jewish scholars are offended at the notion of God's emotions being anthropromorphic and do feel he can and has changed his mind)

im a dork...wanna believe this keeps me up at night?



sorry...more thoughts about self-causing

but very briefly, isn't it the case that our choices create our perception of what is "good" and "evil", of what ends we want to pursue and avoid, etc... If God LOCKED in our perception of himself as good -- there would be no choice.

In other words, its not like there's this objective reality for all to see, and we choose between A and B. (e.g. heaven and hell) Rather, our choice is dialectically related to our perception...

Ultimately the choice is not between destinies, but between lordship -- ourselves as lord, or God as lord. This choice then is manifested -- and further created -- in our choice over what we pursue, and what we see as "good" etc...

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I'm not qualified to really address these issues... but one thought I had reading over the scenario is that person A and person B are not ontologically nor inherently the same. Each person is incommunicable. The reason there are two different outcomes is because person A is not person B. Each is affected differently by the choices they make in life. Even if they made the same choice, they will each be affected differently by them. They are each their own person with their own will, feelings, and thoughts, etc.

[N/A Gone]

Thank you sir.

my way of learning is give and take. Asking questions of your response in the parts that doesnt make sense. Please do not take this as disrespect.

There are a few things in your writings.

1.) You cite that Person A and Person B are different. Why is that? That of course is the essence of the question because those differences attribute to whether the person finds salvation. So what makes them different? Is it God? Is it the other couple of options? You cited that the choices that they make contributes to this. Of course we are a product of those choices. But why do we make them? What is the causation? What is the causation for the making of those decisions and for the outcome of them and how they effect us? A former mentor of mine speaks of self-causation. But we are still created by God and I need to work through that understanding better.

In finding salvation our souls spend eternity with our creator in our natural form as He intended. In not finding sanctyfying grace we are doomed to a conscience and literal pain. This is a serious issue. If we are the ones who suffer than we are the ones who are responsable. For to be convicted means to have done the things we are being convicted of. (hence why calvinism breaks down at the theodicy level--but thats a different story)

Now the church says that everyone is predestined in our natural design to be in heaven. But we have lost that. So how/why do some get it?

thank you once again. I hope through faith and reason to come to a more clear understanding of this. I am struggling with this right now.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

TWT?

[N/A Gone]

trinatarian warfare theodicy. It is one of the ways I describe some of the base principles of a protestant theodicy called Open theism.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1065676' date='Sep 17 2006, 11:04 PM']
Thank you sir.[/quote]
Ahem. I'm a lady. :

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1065676' date='Sep 17 2006, 11:04 PM']my way of learning is give and take. Asking questions of your response in the parts that doesnt make sense. Please do not take this as disrespect.

There are a few things in your writings.

1.) You cite that Person A and Person B are different. Why is that? That of course is the essence of the question because those differences attribute to whether the person finds salvation. So what makes them different? Is it God? Is it the other couple of options? You cited that the choices that they make contributes to this. Of course we are a product of those choices. But why do we make them? What is the causation? What is the causation for the making of those decisions and for the outcome of them and how they effect us? A former mentor of mine speaks of self-causation. But we are still created by God and I need to work through that understanding better.

In finding salvation our souls spend eternity with our creator in our natural form as He intended. In not finding sanctyfying grace we are doomed to a conscience and literal pain. This is a serious issue. If we are the ones who suffer than we are the ones who are responsable. For to be convicted means to have done the things we are being convicted of. (hence why calvinism breaks down at the theodicy level--but thats a different story)

Now the church says that everyone is predestined in our natural design to be in heaven. But we have lost that. So how/why do some get it?

thank you once again. I hope through faith and reason to come to a more clear understanding of this. I am struggling with this right now.
[/quote]
Don't worry, no disrepect taken. It's good to ask questions for clarification. Though again, I am no scholar by any means, and I'm sure there is someone far more qualified than I to address all of this.

You asked: why is person A different from person B?
I respond that because person A is person A and not person B, they are different (i.e., unique). You and I are not the same, we don't react the same, we don't respond the same, etc. Why? The simple answer is because I am me, and you are you. What makes us different, fundamentally, is our souls. But also we are different by our choices, our consciousness, our DNA, our bodies, etc. My flesh is not your flesh, and so I have a different kind of sensory experience than you do (and everyone else in the world). I have my own mind, so I perceive things differently than you do (and everyone else in the world). Yes, there are commonalities, but ontologically I am incommunicable and un-repeatable. There can never be another me. There can never be another you. There can never be another person A, nor another person B. Each person is his/her own distinct self.

Yes, God creates us ("knits us in our mother's womb"), but he does not hardwire and program our brains/souls/consciousness to make certain decisions. I can will something in opposition to God's will. If we say then that God forced me to will something against His will (by hardwiring/programming my choices) then He would have set me up for failure and would be a Deceiver. Thus, He would not then be all good, and thus imperfect, and thereby not God.

There is a sense in which I am the "cause" of my decisions in that I am the one who wills and acts, etc. In relation to God, God sustains my existence (for I do not--and cannot--cause myself to exist at this moment), but God does not "cause" my decisions in the sense that they have been pre-programmed. Foreknowledge is not necessarily predetermination. I determine my end, but just because God may know that end (because He is outside of time) does not mean that He has determined that end for me in advanced and I am forced to that end involuntarily, for the same reason as stated above that God would be a Deceiver, and this cannot be so.

As to your last question, I could very well be misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify if my response is not what you meant... Yes, we were all created for Heaven and "pre-destined" (in a sense) for Heaven, but we have all lost that-- through the Fall and the Sin of Adam. In the Fall, humanity became tainted with Original Sin and our souls got all "out of order"-- our emotions want to take over our reason, and we don't always see clearly what is truly good (i.e., God), etc., etc., etc.. Some "get it" back by baptism. Baptism is a great grace that leaves an indelible mark on the soul and washes away Original Sin-- we still live in a fallen world, but have been "opened up" in a sense, by our baptism to the graces of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, the Church also recognizes that God is not limited by His sacraments, we are. So, should someone not have the opportunity for baptism, God *can* intervene supernaturally, but that is beyond our scope to know or understand... But, because we still live in a fallen world and experience evil and temptation, one who is baptized also has the choice and opportunity to reject the graces of baptism and the Holy Spirit and turn away from Christ and His Church.

Does that help, or make things worse?



I hope a Church Scholar will correct me if I've spoken (unintentionally) any heresy (and I heartily retract it in service to the Church)...

[N/A Gone]

thank you ma'am, I read through this and I will get back to you tommorow.

"Man is bound by the sacraments, God is not"-st. Augustine...good reference.

after TWT i dont know if the scholars wanna play with me on this.