Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian
Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,047 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 06:37 AM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 07:18 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 1 2012, 07:10 PM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 06:24 PM
At the time of the Last Supper, didn't Judas still have the ability to back out of his deal?
And refuse to fulfill the prophesy of your lord and savior?

I don't think that was a realistic option. It would have required Jesus to be wrong, no?
Have to have our resident theologians weigh in, but did Judas have Free Will, or not?
No need for theologian. "Free will" and "omniscience" are mutually exclusive.
Nope. You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 06:37 AM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 07:18 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 1 2012, 07:10 PM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 06:24 PM
At the time of the Last Supper, didn't Judas still have the ability to back out of his deal?
And refuse to fulfill the prophesy of your lord and savior?

I don't think that was a realistic option. It would have required Jesus to be wrong, no?
Have to have our resident theologians weigh in, but did Judas have Free Will, or not?
No need for theologian. "Free will" and "omniscience" are mutually exclusive.
Nope. You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is [1] predicated on both chronology and [2] the types of things that we as humans can know.
[1] Not at all.

[2] No such predication is necessary for my statement to be valid and true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 07:37 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 06:37 AM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 07:18 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 1 2012, 07:10 PM
Jolly
Mar 1 2012, 06:24 PM
At the time of the Last Supper, didn't Judas still have the ability to back out of his deal?
And refuse to fulfill the prophesy of your lord and savior?

I don't think that was a realistic option. It would have required Jesus to be wrong, no?
Have to have our resident theologians weigh in, but did Judas have Free Will, or not?
No need for theologian. "Free will" and "omniscience" are mutually exclusive.
Nope. You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is [1] predicated on both chronology and [2] the types of things that we as humans can know.
[1] Not at all.

[2] No such predication is necessary for my statement to be valid and true.
(1) If not chronology, then what is the problem with free will vs omniscience? We only act in time.

(2) Your statement can certainly be valid and true given some other understanding of "omniscience" that as understood by Christian theology, but that would be an analogous meaning which has no bearing on the understanding of the term in Christian theology.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
Cut to the chase already - would you give communion to Hitler?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
That is not a necessary nor even reasonable presumption. My understanding is of omniscience is not predicated on chronology, nor on the types of things that we as humans can know, but rather on what it would mean to know "essence".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:52 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
Cut to the chase already - would you give communion to Hitler?
He's dead, in case you missed the news.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
(1) If not chronology, then what is the problem with free will vs omniscience? We only act in time.

(2) Your statement can certainly be valid and true given some other understanding of "omniscience" that as understood by Christian theology, but that would be an analogous meaning which has no bearing on the understanding of the term in Christian theology.
I place no time limit on "omniscience."

If you believe the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" says otherwise, kindly explain what the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" is and we will go from there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 07:56 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
(1) If not chronology, then what is the problem with free will vs omniscience? We only act in time.

(2) Your statement can certainly be valid and true given some other understanding of "omniscience" that as understood by Christian theology, but that would be an analogous meaning which has no bearing on the understanding of the term in Christian theology.
I place no time limit on "omniscience."

If you believe the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" says otherwise, kindly explain what the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" is and we will go from there.
Chronology is not the same as time limits. You only know in time, and perceive change in accidentals.

Essence is not about chronology nor about the accidentals that we perceive in space and time. You only know and act in time. You are therefore bound by time. You only know by ratio of things apart from yourself. God knows by essence and not by ratio.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Mar 2 2012, 04:04 AM
The odds that we are going to agree on this topic = the odds the fire will be put out this way:

Posted Image
Best pic eveah. :lol2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 08:15 AM

Essence is not about chronology nor about the accidentals that we perceive in space and time. You only know and act in time. You are therefore bound by time. You only know by ratio of things apart from yourself. God knows by essence and not by ratio.
I know by its essence whether bacon is being fried or coffee is being brewed. It's also no accident that these essences occur Sunday mornings or at breakfast time during camping trips.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Dewey
Mar 2 2012, 06:54 AM
Quote:
 
The difference seems to be between those who celebrate this event and those who don't.


No, I think there have been several who celebrate this event - and even one who officiates it - who has criticized the priest's refusal to allow her to participate in it.

Has anyone not criticized the priest's refusal?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I couldn't be bothered. :wave2: :wink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 08:15 AM
Axtremus
Mar 2 2012, 07:56 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
(1) If not chronology, then what is the problem with free will vs omniscience? We only act in time.

(2) Your statement can certainly be valid and true given some other understanding of "omniscience" that as understood by Christian theology, but that would be an analogous meaning which has no bearing on the understanding of the term in Christian theology.
I place no time limit on "omniscience."

If you believe the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" says otherwise, kindly explain what the Christian theological notion of "omniscience" is and we will go from there.
[1] Chronology is not the same as time limits. You only know in time, and perceive change in accidentals.

[2] Essence is not about chronology nor about the accidentals that we perceive in space and time. You only know and act in time. You are therefore bound by time. You only know by ratio of things apart from yourself. God knows by essence and not by ratio.
[1] Let me rephrase: I place no time-related or time-based limit on "omniscience."

[2] Is that your attempt to explain the Christian theological notion of "omniscience"? Just trying to understand whether you meant for that paragraph to respond my request for you to explain the Christian theological notion of "omniscience", or are you trying to make some other point with that paragraph.

Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
That is not a necessary nor even reasonable presumption. My understanding is of omniscience is not predicated on chronology, nor on the types of things that we as humans can know, but rather on what it would mean to know "essence".
It's still just stuff you're making up as you go along. Nobody can truly understand omniscience who is human, since they don't have direct experience of what it really means. It's effectively an asymptote of knowledge, and as such outside our realm of understanding.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 09:22 AM
It's still just stuff you're making up as you go along.
And with that statement you have hit the very essence of theology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Made up and agreed with.
Nothing wrong with that.

The problems start when you pretend, and teach your children, it's not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:52 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
Cut to the chase already - would you give communion to Hitler?
He's dead, in case you missed the news.
Comminzee againscheit?
miss me yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 09:22 AM
asymptote
Word of the Day!

"A straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line."
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:52 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:29 AM
So Dewey -- on what grounds if any is someone subject to excommunication from your congregation? Only public apostasy?

Say Dr X, an abortionist who you know also occasionally beats his wife, shows up drunk to your service and approaches the table. You remind of the injunction in 1 Cor 11, but he insists: "Just give me the *(&^%$^& Jesus cookie".

Do you communicate him? He obviously believes in some respect that is the Body of Christ... Are you not also a sort of "guardian" of communion?
Cut to the chase already - would you give communion to Hitler?
He's dead, in case you missed the news.
That reminds me ...
If there are "posthumous baptisms," why not "posthumous communion"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Essence is not about chronology nor about the accidentals that we perceive in space and time. You only know and act in time. You are therefore bound by time. You only know by ratio of things apart from yourself. God knows by essence and not by ratio.


Hmm. What we observe when we look at objects are in fact the 'accidentals' associated with the object's 'essence'. In Plato's metaphor the accidentals are the shadows cast by a fire, the essence is the object casting the shadow. In Kant's language I suppose the accidentals are the phenomena and the essence is the noumena (or noumena is knowledge of the essence). We can only compare and contrast accidentals and are blind to the deeper reality which is the essence that lies behind them.

That is, as far as I understand it, the basic platonic notion of reality.

However suppose we think about diamond and graphite. Before the discoveries of modern chemistry, a platonic philosopher holding a piece of graphite in one hand and a diamond in the other could presumably have said something like:

These two have difference observable properties because they have different essences. He's happy with the notion that out there in reality there are both diamond essences and graphite essences. But what is this philosopher to say given modern chemistry? We know now that all the observable differences between graphite and diamond can be attributed to the fact that the same type of atoms are in a different arrangement. Just as you can make many different structures with the same blocks of lego that will look different and be able to resist different amounts of force before breaking so too you can make many different structures out of carbon atoms that have different properties. And just as one lego structure could be turned into the other so too in principle (and in this case in practice too) graphite can be turned into diamond and vice versa.

Given this particular revelation the philosopher will surely say 'aha! I see that diamond and graphite are not built of two fundamentally distinct essences - but there is still an essence in there the essence of the carbon atom. If we hack at the platonic metaphor a bit I guess we'd have him say that he thought before that these two different shadows he sees were cast by two different objects but now he sees that really there is only the one kind of object and the two shadows are just the same object from different angles.

Just as diamond and graphite have been united so too has everything else humans observe in our everyday lives. Whereas before one might have postulated zillions of distinct "essences" each one responsible for an apparently distinct category of object. Now the number of essences has been reduced to the number of fundamental particles (and most of those are irrelevant for the phenomena we normally observe.)

This means when one is not asking questions about why fundamental particles behave the way the way they do one is not asking questions about "essences" at all. But rather about entirely knowable things, like why diamond has different properties to graphite.

(I mean if one looks at the progression of knowledge I think we see that this essence idea is bad philosophy anyway - in the sense that it takes up the space of an explanation without actually saying anything.)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I'm afraid I can't hear the word 'essence' without thinking of General Jack D. Ripper

Posted Image
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 09:22 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:53 AM
John D'Oh
Mar 2 2012, 07:49 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 2 2012, 07:32 AM
You have a deficient understanding of omniscience that is predicated on both chronology and the types of things that we as humans can know.
Since you're presumably human, so do you.
That is not a necessary nor even reasonable presumption. My understanding is of omniscience is not predicated on chronology, nor on the types of things that we as humans can know, but rather on what it would mean to know "essence".
It's still just stuff you're making up as you go along. Nobody can truly understand omniscience who is human, since they don't have direct experience of what it really means. It's effectively an asymptote of knowledge, and as such outside our realm of understanding.
You should talk to Ax about that, since he seems convinced that omniscience and free will are incompatible. If he no direct experience of what omniscience really means, then he cannot state definitively that it precludes free will.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Mar 2 2012, 11:32 AM
In Plato's metaphor the accidentals are the shadows cast by a fire, the essence is the object casting the shadow.
You'd have to show me that passage. On the face of it, that does not make sense from a Platonic theory of form, and I don't recall Plato dealing with the relationship between essence and accident (as does Aristotle). But it's been a while since I read Plato (and I'm not a Platonist), so I'd be interested to see what passage you are referring to.

The question of relationships between material, such as diamonds and graphite, are more dealt with as alchemy in the history of science. I'm not sure why (in an application of Aristotelian metaphysics) that the elements cannot be coherently thus considered. Certainly the Hellenics were aware of the relationship between water, ice and steam which is a readily observable phenomenon where the relationship between graphite and diamonds would not have been.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Speaking as someone who has come closer to omniscience than almost anyone I know (I live with her), I find it highly unlikely that Ax will be able to shed any light on the subject.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply