Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[N/A Gone]

L_D

(*my "[color=red]quote"[/color]function isnt working, so I put ur writing in red.

I sent this to Boyd, so he will give a more proper response later, let me address this now with my limited philosophical understanding.


[QUOTE][color=red]God is fundamentally mysterious because He transcends being and since we are limited, finite, contingent and diastemic beings we can never comprehend God. This is actually dogma as well and a clear teaching of Scripture and the Fathers[/color].[/QUOTE]

-If what you are saying is that we can never truly know God cause we are finte and he is infinte than I would stake that the principles in open theism are crossing this line only as much as the principles that you are sharing right now. The goal of theology is to learn about God, for in love we must have a yearning to know. While I admit there is no way we can completely know God, I dont believe this gives monopoly to one theory and not to another.

[QUOTE][color=red]This should be kept in mind and is something that often comes to mind for me when I see a theological theory that does not give God His due transcendence.[/[/color]QUOTE]

-open theism DOES NOT deny God's trancendence or immutability

[QUOTE][color=red]Even in theories of physics (which by nature cannot transcend being) there are hypothetical realities that transcend our time and space. Possible other universes with radically different laws, etc.. Certainly God is infinitely beyond these as well. Our "idea" of God cannot be big enough and ought always end in the apophatic threshold of mystery or else it is not pointing us to God, but to a structure of ideas based on and limited to being.[/color] [/QUOTE]

-The physics stuff is not about God, it is about time and it is a proof to the study of time the same that you are using Platonic thought as a function of time. This debate is more about time than about God. As we use modern physics and understanding it is just a better understanding of a commonly accepted platonic system. We are equally guilty here brother if there is fault here.

[color=red][QUOTE][color=blue]If you want to philosophize about science, there is no absolute "now" in the sense of the temporality that we experience.
Our language and conceptual capacity is diastemic and we are limited to epinoetic constructs and formulations based upon the active manifestations or energeia of beings. Even limited, diastemic beings essentially transcend our capacity to know in any absolute sense. God's inner reality is adiastemic and is all the more incommunicable[/color].[/QUOTE][/color]

-wanna use english and avoid the greek bro.. (*diastemic, epinoetic)
so, based on an educated idea of what you are saying
"the eternal now idea is stupid, then u justify it, then you say we cant know anything for certain around us truly, thus double for God"

-I would answer that by accepting any model of time you can allow the acceptance of a new understanding. In open theism we are accepting a model of time that is different than the one you have. This is not a violation of any code of knowledge, for if anything it is a violation not to adapt a scientific principle when givin more understanding. Thus, if our view of time violates something about our knowledge of God, than so does yours.

[QUOTE]I[color=red] must quote Nyssa briefly: "The whole created order is unable to get out of itself through a comprehensive vision, but remains continually enclosed within itself, and whatever it beholds, it is looking at itself. And even if it somehow thinks it is looking at something beyond itself, that which it sees outside itself has no being. One may struggle to surpass or transcend diastemic conception by the understanding of the created universe, but he does not transcend. For in every object it conceptually discovers, it always comprehends the diastema inherent in the being of the apprehended object, for diastema is nothing other than creation itself."[/[/color]QUOTE]

-kant? Once again I beg to say, if open theism is wrong for trying to put an understanding of God than so is the system you are subscribing to. As humans we pursue understanding, and in Love for God we pursue all the more. That is not a sin. You are already doing this by making any assuptions about the relationship between God and time. The question is how is Open theism a threating view? It does not harm our understanding of God, if anything it allows us to understand theodicy, it allows us an understanding of our free will. it gives us a perspective on God that is relational in our lives.

[QUOTE][color=red]The affirmations of God's simplicity and necessary being, etc.. are properly understood, I believe, as being apophatic in character. To assume that such statements give a positive knowledge is to be deluding oneself. The things that some theologians have "affirmed" about God's nature, by nature lead the mind into the realm of the apophatic. They are mysterious and can't actually be understood cataphatically of God's Essence, but rather are negative statements or they refer to God's tri-hypostatic reality or Trinitarian dynamism as the energetic enactment of that Essence. This ties in with why I understand being as hypostatic not natural.[/[/color]QUOTE]

-I dunno what you are saying in the first sentence, are you responding to me perhaps?
-it seems you are saying that we cant know what God is, but rather what he isnt. I would say we are on equal ground here with this argument. You are using proof and so are we. We both have a model of time and then we conform to that. So, if open theism is in the wrong so is whatever model you hold.
Now, I would also disagree with you and say we are capable of understanding of certain aspects of God. Of course not to the perfection of what they are, but he allows us the thirst to know him, and he gives us Christ as a revelation of the charicter of who God is. I believe Athanasius speaks of this concept and it is a common evangelical concept as well. Also, we can come to a working understanding of the nature and charicter of God thru scripture and how he is seen relating with us since creation. But, my point is we are equally at fault if there is fault here.


[QUOTE][color=red]But anyway, I should address your question before I forget what it was. hehe We exist in an intrinsically limited mode of being, otherwise we would be Divine. Our being and experience is diastemic, dimensional, discrete, contingent and finite.[/color] [/QUOTE]

-once again, a time argument I just disagree with you alltogether. This is not a biblical view, no a view compatable to the understanding of modern physics. It is based on an ancient platonic system and no longer relevent.

[QUOTE]I[color=red]t is true that man will live forever, but he is not infinite. Creation is created, it has beginning, and is not eternal of itself. Man is heteroessential to God. Epektasis involves the infinite extension of the diastema but not the transcending of it.[/[/color]QUOTE]

-epektasis is not english..
-btw, I agree with the above statement and affirm it holds no problem within open theism.

[QUOTE][color=red]Only God is adiastemic because to be adiastemic is to be essentially uncreated. In theosis man becomes energetically uncreated, not essentially so. Our mode of being will be theandric, so our activities / energeia will be human and Divine[/color].[/QUOTE]

-great..um, hows the weather, have a nice day..I agree. this has no problsm with open theism. Open theism doesnt think God is finite or that man is transendent.

[QUOTE][color=red]God has predestined both being and everlasting being. The creation of the diastemic order and its eternal extension. We are all predestined for eternity. But man's state in the eternal diastema is determined by his own actions in synergy with God's energetic activity. Participation in the Divine Life is achieved through the Mystery of the Incarnate Word by which human nature attains a theandric mode of being.[/color] [/QUOTE]

-this could be the slogan for open theism...if I am understanding it right

[QUOTE]
[color=red]As limited beings in diastema we necessarily experience finite expressions of reality. We do not experience being on an essential level or in totalities. We are capable of grasping being in discrete quantities, as it were. Thus the reality of the temporal is a natural aspect and expression of our created, dimensional existence. God transcends all of this. Yet, creation exists in relation to God and is inseparable from God, but not on an essential level for creation is not the uncreated, the hyper-ousia or the adiastemic.
So, regarding the question of possibilities and foreknowledge that you've framed the issue is time. Because God is adiastemic He grasps the diastemic order as a totality, not in parts or discrete quantities. God grasps the diastemic order essentially, as He is the sole uncreated principle of all that is. Thus while being is actual, and ordained such that creatures with free-will participate in a limited way in its determination, God's omniscience does not negate the efficacy of free-will. The basis of this problem is the conception of God as essentially diastemic.
The problems relating to providence and predestination are perhaps more solvable when certain attributions of the Divine are understood as hypostatic and/or energetic, not essential or natural. God is transcendent essentially, and immanent energetically. And we attain union with Him through synergy in the uncreated light of glory.[/[/color]QUOTE]

-I understood this as a summary of your argument but with bigger words..


My view still stands, you are more of an open theist than you think. But I will enjoy working thru this more with you.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Revprodeji

[Laudate_Dominum]

Please expound upon this erroneous view of "platonic time" that I supposedly have. If this is really the core issue, please actually explain it instead of saying that I hold to "platonic time" and that open theism has some new theory of time that is superior.

From what I can gather, the posts about open theism have implied perhaps something like presentism? Or perhaps something like Parmenides. Do you believe that time and change are illusions?

Please explain what you consider to be my understanding of time (or the general understanding of Christian Theologians prior to the revelation of open theism), and then critique it and present your own theory of time as that which must necessarily be true and thus introduced into Christian metaphysics and natural Theology.

Thanks man.

Oh, and its funny that you mention Kant, because in modern thought it seems more a Kantian and Idealist approach to see time as more an illusion than a reality.

I can admit that a lot of historical Roman Catholic Theology has often assumed an Aristotelian understanding of space and time, but what I don't know is precisely what theory of ontology Boyd's open theism is propounding in opposition to this. Can you name the theory, or at least drop some names in philosophy or physics of people who are sources in this theory?

And please don't pretend that this so far vague and elusive ontology is scripturally derived. Such statements just rob the whole theory of credibility in my eyes. There are different philosophical trends that can be discerned in much of the Bible, but it is quite variable.
I can admit that there is a lot of platonism undergirding some parts of the Bible, and one can also see the influence of things such as stoic philosophy in some parts. But the Bible is beyond philosophy. Once you elaborate your philosophy of space and time in clear terms, you can attempt to argue that this philosophy was that of the ancient Hebrew people, but I don't know if this would be a good move. Many early critics of the Christian religion considered it a new philosophy. I think of the ancient anti-Christian work "Philosophy of Oracles", but if one understands Biblical revelation and Biblical wisdom, it is beyond philosophy.

Also, I recall one open theism article that I recently read in which the author clearly admitted that his philosophy made it necessary to reject many of the formulations and conclusions of the early ecumenical councils, fortunately for him he was an evangelical protestant and wasn't particularly disturbed by this fact, but as a Catholic this would be a very clear sign of being on the wrong track.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 8 2005, 03:06 AM']woah, I was unaware of that aspect of Molinism...

I abandoned molinism for thomism quite a bit ago anyway though.
[right][snapback]816558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Molinism doesn't deny the dogma that God knows the future (including our free acts) with an infallible certitude because He transcends creation and time. So far this dogmatic understanding of God has been denied in numerous statements of the open theists. The future doesn't have any kind of actual existence even in relation to God, and God only knows the future as possibilities, some things being determined and others indeterminate and left to the free agency of creatures. It is a paradigm quite foreign to molinism in many respects.

Unless I've radically misunderstood many plain statements from the open theists, its far from a version of molinism.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'd say before discussing anything else we should have a thorough discussion on the philosophy of time.

I am still unsure where open theism is coming from with regard to time. Is it asserting the "unreality of time" in accord with McTaggart? If so, I'd say modern physics would pose some problems for that interpretation of time. The main problem would be the relativity of time. The other that comes to mind is the time reversal invariance evidenced in modern physics. I am behind the times (no pun intended), but I remember Feynman's bag and assume it is still a valid viewpoint that should be introduced into a discussion of the proper philosophical interpretation of the phenomena of time.

I also remember mention being made to the second law of thermodynamics with regard to open theism and time. I must say, while I spent many hours as a boy pondering that propsed solution to the problem of the flow of time; it no longer has much merit in my eyes.
I remember as a teenager being at a physics lecture in which a certain Danish physicist came [to FermiLab] to present his latest theories regarding time. The other physicists in the crowd ate him for lunch and I'd say their criticisms of the thermodynamic approach were right on. We can get into it if you like.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh, regarding the kantian allusion, I must say that I'm a realist. My understanding of the diastemic order is hardly comparable to an epistemological dichotomy of the noumenal and phenomenal. I think that being (qua hypostasis) is self-communicative and relational, but our capacity to know is by nature finite and incomplete. But I do affirm that the objects of our cognition are real existents, but we know these objects in the activity of their existence, not as static essences. So I suppose the difference is that I'd say we really know the object as it is in itself, but that we are incapable of an exhaustive knowledge of being. My epistemological leanings have more in common with Thomism than Kantianism.

I think it would be ironic if open theism proved to be inherently Kantian or idealist. Would you say that space and/or time is an artifice of the mind that we impose upon the world in our perceptions? McTaggart's denial of the reality of time was quite possibly inspired by the Kantian problem.

I'd be interested in hearing your take before proceeding to critique a straw man.

[philothea]

(My net connection is only sporadically available, so we'll see if I can compose something sensible in the wee "fast reply" box using only the last page of messages...)

Just to clarify...
[quote name='Revprodeji']explain the view on time..I admit when I say "time doesn’t exist" I mean in the sense we speak of as a dimension.[/quote]
Time as a dimension may be the only way we can accurately define it. Time is [i]absolutely[/i] a dimension in any way you could sensibly use the word "dimension". In relativity, if you set c=1, time and distance are the SAME dimension (and this is how most physicists arrange their calculations).

[Paphnutius]

Quick question for you Rev...how do you define free will? I am sorry if you already answered this question and I have missed it. If that is the case can you please refer me to the post #?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 04:22 AM']-If what you are saying is that we can never truly know God cause we are finte and he is infinte than I would stake that the principles in open theism are crossing this line only as much as the principles that you are sharing right now. The goal of theology is to learn about God, for in love we must have a yearning to know. While I admit there is no way we can completely know God, I dont believe this gives monopoly to one theory and not to another.
[right][snapback]816571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree that the object of Theology, namely God, is vast enough to accord numerous theological perspectives. But this fact does not make all theological systems equal much less true. The questions at hand have to do with whether open theism is true. If you must appeal to a kind of theological relativism, I'd say we have a problem. Some theological premises and conclusions are simply false. If you feel some aspect of my presentation is in error please elucidate. This is what I am trying to do. So far, open theism strikes me as erroneous. I have simply been attempting to get at some of the reasons why this is the case.


[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 04:22 AM']so, based on an educated idea of what you are saying
"the eternal now idea is stupid, then u justify it, then you say we cant know anything for certain around us truly, thus double for God"
[right][snapback]816571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No my statement was directed toward an assertion put forth, by Joey I believe, that there is no past or future, but only an eternal "now" that we share in continuity with God. This is a very serious point because it seems to be at the heart of the paradigm shift. This is precisely the idea that I claim is utterly incompatible with the Catholic world view and with dogma.
I am curious to know how you avoid the problems of pantheism or monism. But this is really just one of the myriad of problems that would arise from such a view. I also fail to see how you avoid idealism. Hopefully I have grossly misrepresented Joey, because this would be quite a dangerous avenue.

I am also curious how one would respond to certain aspects of modern physics. The relativity of time demonstrates that even amongst contingent minds there is hardly a common "now" that is experienced. One's situation in the flow of time is relative to their frame of reference.
Also something I mentioned in passing a couple posts ago, namely time reversal invariance. On the quantum level, you might say that the directions of time forward and backward are equal. Put another way, according to the laws of physics there is no distinction in possibility between the future and the past, this would seem to undermine the idea that God knows the past infallibly, but not the future; a state of intertia or change would have to be attributed to God, or so it would seem. The second law, in effect, says that on our level time flows in the direction of increased entropy. This has been applied in various ways that quite honestly often violate the proper domain of scientific inquiry, but fortunately it is based on antiquated thermodynamics whereas contemporary physics (according to my limited knowledge) would likely choose to say that the outcome of increased entropy is just that which is most statistically probable. But the second law isn't quite a law in the strict sense after all. Anyway, I'm babbling...

Perhaps with regard to relativity one would say that the "now" of the kid on the spaceship traveling near the speed of light, is not different from that of the twin brother on earth, only that they occupy distinct inertial frames of reference. The "now" that they inhabit is a fixed constant, regardless of the difference in frame of reference between them. Perhaps something like how the speed of light is invariant and constant.
But how could one account for the variable degree of change and experienced duration between the twins when the first returns from his space voyage to find a gap of thirty years between himself and his twin?
"But are they not now in the same 'now', why say they were ever in a different 'now'?", one might ask. For all intents and purposes they are "now in the same now", but technically speaking, they are not, for "now" is nothing more than an inertial frame of reference in a four dimensional space-time continuum; and the logic of relativity presupposes the dimensionality of time, and there is no strict simultaneity in such a system. To be in a "now" is to be situated in a dimensional continuum; it is to be in a diastemic state. How can God be said to exist in an inertial, diastemic frame of reference? The God of Revelation occupies infinite space and time. But since I understand this statement apophatically (meaning, upon reflection all it really says is that God is beyond space and time), I think it could be interesting to rather think of God as occupying infinite dimensions of space, and infinite dimensions of time. And even this I would say could only be said of God in His tri-hypostatic dynamism and activities, and I would affirm that in God's energetic reality an infinity of possibilities is expressed eternally.
So I can agree that God knows all possible outcomes. To resurrect the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and modify it, I would say that anything that can happen, does happen. But not in other parallel universes, but that all possibilities exist insofar as they are known by God. And not simply mechanistic cause and effect based possibilities, for the universe is not that simple anyway, and God's knowledge extends utterly beyond this universe. God could enact infinite universes with compositions utterly incomprehensible to our minds. And whether He does so or not, or rather has done so or not, takes away or adds nothing to God's perfection and glory. God is not limited or bound by His Essence, God is beyond God. God's activity is not determined or necessitated in any way; God is beyond ontology and mathematics, He is wholly irreducible and incommunicable in Essence. Created essences are diastemic and thus manifest existence according to the limitation of their essence, but the Necessary Essence, and It alone, is unbounded and uncircumscribed. But this would surely be another conversation, so perhaps I should move on.


[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 04:22 AM']-I would answer that by accepting any model of time you can allow the acceptance of a new understanding. In open theism we are accepting a model of time that is different than the one you have. This is not a violation of any code of knowledge, for if anything it is a violation not to adapt a scientific principle when givin more understanding. Thus, if our view of time violates something about our knowledge of God, than so does yours.
[right][snapback]816571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please, pretty please, expound upon this new theory of time that you keep referring to. You claim to know the model of time that I have, but I highly doubt you do. In fact, from what I've seen thus far, your view of time could be better described as Platonic. Well, neo-platonic really. It is distinctly neo-platonic to insist that time does not have a real existence, or rather to deny time dimensionality.
The distinctly Christian notion is that time is contingent and has a beginning. Being [the diastemic order] is radically contingent, having been created out of nothing by a God who is utterly beyond being and time, and Who in His immanent activity sustains its existence at every moment.

I totally agree that as our knowledge and insight into the universe and being expands, we can grasp more deeply the mysteries of God's work and deepen our understanding of Revelation. But the relationship between these two distinct areas (being and God, natural truths and revealed truths, reason and faith) must not be blurred or violated. My original suspicion, that open theism conceives of God in an essentially diastemic way, does not only persist, but has been repeatedly affirmed thus far.


[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 04:22 AM']-kant? Once again I beg to say, if open theism is wrong for trying to put an understanding of God than so is the system you are subscribing to. As humans we pursue understanding, and in Love for God we pursue all the more. That is not a sin. You are already doing this by making any assuptions about the relationship between God and time. The question is how is Open theism a threating view? It does not harm our understanding of God, if anything it allows us to understand theodicy, it allows us an understanding of our free will. it gives us a perspective on God that is relational in our lives.
[right][snapback]816571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'll skip the mention of Kant for now, but would very much like to discuss that subject another time.
Regarding this: "if open theism is wrong for trying to put an understanding of God than so is the system you are subscribing to", I must say that you don't have a syllogism here, just an assertion based on a false premise.
I reject the premise that open theism is wrong "for trying to put [forth] an understanding of God". We are called to love God with our whole mind (among other things), and it is a noble expression of our love and yearning for God to seek knowledge of Him. The reasons why I suspect open theism are wrong have nothing to do with this. To summarize my current impression: I think that open theism is wrong because it is based on anthropomorphic eisegesis, a highly problematic epistemology and ontology, the framework in which it is expressed threatens many distinct aspects of the historical Christian world-view, and it leads to conclusions that contradict dogma or render it meaningless.
There are other reasons, but those are what first come to mind.

I also reject the presupposition that only open theism is capable of explaining theodicy and such things. And I especially reject the implication that open theism is necessary for appreciating God as relational and all of that.

I wish I could respond to the rest of your generous post, but I just noticed that I'm late for an engagement. I greatly appreciate all of your time and effort in this discussion and I look forward to its continuation.

God bless you sir.

[N/A Gone]

Im leaving for business this weekend. I will try to get to this monday. But I hope reading the links is enough to answer the questions for now.

[rkwright]

could someone give me a crash course on molinism (in simple language) and maybe how it differs with all this? I understand molinism is accepted by the Church, yet with LD calling open theism a heresy there's got to be some difference!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 09:59 PM']Im leaving for business this weekend. I will try to get to this monday. But I hope reading the links is enough to answer the questions for now.
[right][snapback]817692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks man. I'll read those articles between now and then.

God bless you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 8 2005, 10:51 PM']could someone give me a crash course on molinism (in simple language) and maybe how it differs with all this?  I understand molinism is accepted by the Church, yet with LD calling open theism a heresy there's got to be some difference!
[right][snapback]817733[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I briefly explain why I can't accept open theism as neo-molinism in a couple of my prior posts. Here is one:
[quote]Molinism doesn't deny the dogma that God knows the future (including our free acts) with an infallible certitude because He transcends creation and time. So far this dogmatic understanding of God has been denied in numerous statements of the open theists. The future doesn't have any kind of actual existence even in relation to God, and God only knows the future as possibilities, some things being determined and others indeterminate and left to the free agency of creatures. It is a paradigm quite foreign to molinism in many respects.

Unless I've radically misunderstood many plain statements from the open theists, its far from a version of molinism. [/quote]
I would suggest reading all of my posts (hey, advent is supposed to be a time of penance ) if you want to understand more where I'm coming from. My last post on page 5 explains the dogmas that I believe are crucial to this discussion.

I looked in phatty's reference section and found some links that offer great explanations of molinism and the issues it attempts to deal with.

It looks like Dave Armstrong is a Molinist!
[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030416003100/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ121.HTM"]http://web.archive.org/web/20030416003100/...smus/RAZ121.HTM[/url]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm[/url]

Other stuff:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p29.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p29.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT[/url]

phatty's page:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/141"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/141[/url]

[N/A Gone]

L_D..

No offense brother, you know I respect you, but what is the benefit to this dialogue for those viewing and for me to explain the concept to you if you are using language I do not understand? I dont have formal philosophy training. please try to lay-man it alil for me bro

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 8 2005, 02:16 PM'](My net connection is only sporadically available, so we'll see if I can compose something sensible in the wee "fast reply" box using only the last page of messages...)

Just to clarify...
[quote name='Revprodeji']explain the view on time..I admit when I say "time doesn’t exist" I mean in the sense we speak of as a dimension.[/quote]
Time as a dimension may be the only way we can accurately define it. Time is [i]absolutely[/i] a dimension in any way you could sensibly use the word "dimension". In relativity, if you set c=1, time and distance are the SAME dimension (and this is how most physicists arrange their calculations).
[right][snapback]817179[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree, and I fail to see how a denial of time as a metaphysical reality does not also necessitate a denial of space and causation, ultimately leading to sheer idealism. I mean, I guess its theoretically possible, but I doubt such a system would be altogether coherent.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 11:06 PM']L_D..

No offense brother, you know I respect you, but what is the benefit to this dialogue for those viewing and for me to explain the concept to you if you are using language I do not understand? I dont have formal philosophy training. please try to lay-man it alil for me bro
[right][snapback]817759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Gosh.. I'm sorry for all the jargon. I've tried to avoid the untranslatable Greek terminology in my more recent posts, but lucidity has never been one of my strengths.

I'll try to define my terms and preface things better, and avoid jargon as much as possible. My apologies.

So you know, this subject and conversation is awesome and I'm really glad you came to phatmass.

God bless you.