scripture vs philosophy

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:01 PM']Well, what if there is a teaching in scripture..yet a philosophy disagrees with it, thus we interpret the scripture in a less-than-natural light so it works with scripture...

That perhaps is the hierarchy of interpretation maybe..

I must admit, as a revert it is weird to debate without scripture. No one else uses it, and it seems to have almost no strength. Just a new arena I guess.
[right][snapback]830103[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no hierarchy of interpretation, nor can there be, for Catholics. There is one authoritative interpretation, whether it be of Scripture or of philosophy, and that is the Magisterium of the Church.

This is one of the reasons you will not see Catholics quote scripture alone for an argument, or quote philosophy alone - because our subjective interpretation of both might be wrong.

Instead, we look to the authoritative teaching of the Church: What does the Church teach about this passage from Scripture, about this idea in philosophy, etc.? By referencing many individuals who participate in the Church's Magisterium, we protect ourselves from fallacious interpretations.

Does that mean we shouldn't use philosophy or scripture in our debates? Absolutely not! But when we use either, we take great care to make sure we are doing so in a way that is consistent with the teachings of the Magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 07:33 PM']eddie, great post..

socrates...I have started-participated in many ecumenical dialogue,or just flat out wicked sick debates with many people I love like brothers on both sides of the party. But, I honestly cant think of 1 serious dialogue/debate thing with a catholic where scripture was the primary source of the argument. its typically some person or document..which is fine and dandy, but it bothers me
[right][snapback]830152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I quoted Scritpture in my posts on the TWT thread but you did not answer...

It is understandable though because it really works best between 2-4 people anyway. Too many voices can drown out what is really being said. :

[N/A Gone]

fellas...

paph...Im sorry sir, i dont remember or i would have said something. That debate did have too many people. and too much information and too much too much to resolve.

eddie..you are in roch? Im at crossroads. So is JoeyO.

Jeff, your posts are always the most detailed to reply..hehe

You say there is only 1 interpretation of philosophy and of scripture..if it is settled and set in stone like that what is the point of dialogue and further study?

thanks for the explaining why you use church figures. I understood that, but it just made more sense now.(unlike the anselm stuff..hehe)

My thing, honestly, is that when I started this debate with the friend I couldnt with a clear conscience answer because I am still uncertain/upset about the concept that anytime God appeared relational in the bible we are supposed to assume it was an anthropomorphical whatever carp. I dont see it like that, i still dont agree and its bothering me.

[Guest JeffCR07]

just a couple things:

First, thank you for the compliment,

Second, just because the Church teaches with authority does not mean that it has done so exhaustively. The Word of God is necessarily inexhaustible, and so there are always going to be things for us to discuss and debate. My point, however, is that when we debate, we should always be making absolutely sure that the points we are marking coincide with what has been definitively set down by the Magisterium and in Tradition. So, when we are debating things that have not already been authoritatively decided, there can be multiple interpretations [i]provided none of those interpretations contradict what has been decided with authority[/i]. That is why Catholics quote the patristics, the councils, Magisterial Documents, Scripture, and philosophy together, rather than just focusing on one. If we only focus on one and refuse to look to the others, then we are in danger of adopting a skewed and subjective view, rather than the Objective Truth that we are called to.

Third, you have over and over again mentioned that without Open Theism, God is not a personal, relational God. This is simply not true. Sure he is not relational in the same way that my mom is relational to me, but this does not mean that he is non-relational. In fact, God is [i]more[/i] relational than my mom. God is love, and love is relational (hence the Trinity). That means that God is constantly and always in a relation of loving me, unlike my mom, who might have to work at loving me (and probably does, given some of the stupid things that I do).

The immutability and unchanging nature of God does not harm his relation to us, it increases it. God is the North Star, never moving, and thus guiding us in our journey. He is the sun, around which we turn, stationary, but always giving us light and life. God's relation to us is perfect [i]because[/i] He is unchanging. God is Love, whether you discuss our relation to Him in the past, present, or future, He is Love, unchanging. That means that His love for us is unchanging, and his relation with us is unchanging.

This is why Peter says, "O Lord, you have been our refuge from one generation to the next. Before the mountains were born or the earth of the world brought forth, you are God, without beginning or end."

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Didacus]

Other than little school I was taught next to nothing on scriptures.
You can count in prayer and chruch's teachings on top of that too!

Catching up now, doing double time... but its not easy.

I almost never used any scriptures in debartes for two reasons;

1. I don't know them well enough.

2. Most of the time I debated against Atheists who did not give the weight of a single nickle to anything the scriptures said.

[Aloysius]

phatmass only uses scripture when debating the pros and cons of alcohol.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, do you really want to go there - I just woke up, so I'm well rested :

[Aloysius]

lol not really, just mentioning that that's the last debate I remember that contained a bunch of scripture references

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, good - i like it when we're on the same side :

[N/A Gone]

jeff...

since we hijacked this..oh wait it is my thread

my problem right now, the main one is that I still see the whole "God knows a settled future" and we have free will as not reconcilable..help is looked for..

also, the fact that we automatically assume God is speaking anthropromorphically when he "regrets" or "changes his mind' or "tests" us...I dont like this concept,

[Guest JeffCR07]

Well, I'd be glad to sit down with you and explain in detail how the future can be known with certainty AND free will preserved, if you are willing to be patient and take the time to learn it. Because these [i]have[/i] been shown, definitively by modal logicians, to be compatible.

Also, just as a side note, I would think it should be more uncomfortable thinking of a God who could regret or change his mind in exactly the same way that we do. That reduces God to just a really really powerful creature, rather than that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[eddieloudog]

Jeff,

I always wondered about our free will and God's omnipotence. I took 2 philosophy classes and one Philosophy of religion, taught by a professed 'Pragmatic Theist" but none of them helped me to answer this question. So have at it.

How do we as people of faith reconcile the seeming incompatibility of free will and God's timetable?

i have a feeling that this is gonna be good!

Rev, i'm dwntwn, near to St John the Evangelist! Gonna relocate @ end of Jan, though, back east to get married and be with friends and family!

[Paphnutius]

Speaking of Scripture ..."God's ways are not our ways..." Isiaih...ohh I forget the chapter and verse....

Just speaking about God not being like us that is....

[Theoketos]

First look at this list of citations in the Summa Theologica.

[url="http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/summa/"]http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/summa/[/url]

Then there is a book that you would be really interested in:

[url="http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=XWGgcVHkX3EC&dq=Thomas+Aquinas+Scripture+Philosophy+Resurrection&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3DThomas%2BAquinas%2BScripture%2BPhilosophy%2BResurrection&pg=PP1&printsec=0&lpg=PP1&sig=E5u87sStZZKljHD2IKkQUrhwGns"]http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=...jHD2IKkQUrhwGns[/url]

[Church Punk]

Scripture and philosophy go hand and hand. Scripture is required to provide us with the truth the God in the Word. Philosophy allows us to intellectually and logically apply scripture to our lives.

It would be easier to debate in terms of philosophy to non-Christian type people as they have no root or basis in scripture, thus philosophy can make them understand where we are coming from. Through philosophy our religious beliefs can be paralleled and then logically thought out.

In this sense East can meet West. The believer can become a convert, the Gospel can be preached.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='eddieloudog' date='Dec 19 2005, 09:40 AM']Jeff,

I always wondered about our free will and God's omnipotence. I took 2 philosophy classes and one Philosophy of religion, taught by a professed 'Pragmatic Theist" but none of them helped me to answer this question. So have at it. 

How do we as people of faith reconcile the seeming incompatibility of free will and God's timetable?   

  i have a feeling that this is gonna be good!

Rev, i'm dwntwn, near to St John the Evangelist! Gonna relocate @ end of Jan, though, back east to get married and be with friends and family!
[right][snapback]830499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have posted extensively on this in other threads, but I will try to make this short and concise.

God sees all of time as if it were a single present moment. Thus, God knows all things that happen, because they [i]do[/i] happen. This knowledge, however, does not [i]cause[/i] them to happen.

To use an analogy, lets say I see Rev throw a ball at your head. You are not looking at the ball, but rather, you are gazing off into space. I know that the ball will hit your head, but my knowledge does not [i]cause[/i] the ball to hit your head. Thus, my foreknowledge is non-causal.

To put it in modal logic terms: the proposition that "God necessarily knows that X will do Y" is not equivalent to the proposition that "God knows that X will necessarily do Y."

Therefore, Foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will.

[Myles Domini]

Not this again...

INXC
Myles

[eddieloudog]

Wow Theoketos! That is a HUGE link! I am going to have to take some serious time after finals to read that! The book will have to wait, though.

Thanks!

Jeff - you are wise for your age!

Sorry that u are swamped, but thanks for answering my question.

But I still have a problem. I completely agree with you that God's fore knowledge of something happening doesn’t cause it to happen, but didn't God create the world? In as much, God is not part of it, right? He is something outside of this universe cuz he created it. This is a slippery slope cuz:

If God did make the universe and all things in it, he set off the series of events that have led up to us talking about this. So he created this present reality, the reality before today and the future reality all at once. We are just experiencing this present second cuz we are limited, unlike God. So, following this thread, He created this reality and thus created the situation AND how we will react in that situation long before we were even here.

So, now, yesterday and tomorrow are all created and we just have to pass through time to experience them. So this is the will of God cuz he created all. Thus, the free will issue is a non-issue cuz free will doesn’t exist to God, only to the limited 'us'. So, Adam and Eve had to fall so Christ had to come so that we can be with God. BUT all of this was known and created by God.

This also brings into the debate about why God created Lucifer if he was to fall.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='eddieloudog' date='Dec 20 2005, 09:36 AM']Wow Theoketos! That is a HUGE link! I am going to have to take some serious time after finals to read that! The book will have to wait, though.

Thanks! 

Jeff - you are wise for your age!

Sorry that u are swamped, but thanks for answering my question.

But I still have a problem. I completely agree with you that God's fore knowledge of something happening doesn’t cause it to happen, but didn't God create the world? In as much, God is not part of it, right? He is something outside of this universe cuz he created it. This is a slippery slope cuz:

If God did make the universe and all things in it, he set off the series of events that have led up to us talking about this. So he created this present reality, the reality before today and the future reality all at once. We are just experiencing this present second cuz we are limited, unlike God. So, following this thread, He created this reality and thus created the situation AND how we will react in that situation long before we were even here. 

So, now, yesterday and tomorrow are all created and we just have to pass through time to experience them. So this is the will of God cuz he created all. Thus, the free will issue is a non-issue cuz free will doesn’t exist to God, only to the limited 'us'. So, Adam and Eve had to fall so Christ had to come so that we can be with God. BUT all of this was known and created by God. 

This also brings into the debate about why God created Lucifer if he was to fall. 
[right][snapback]831657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are two problems with your analysis here, and I will try to explain them as clearly as I can.

First, we must always remember that creation is [i]ab initio temporis[/i] - the world was created in time, rather than from eternity. Thus, God did not "create" the future [i]ex nihilo[/i] (from nothing) in the same way that God created everything in the beginning [i]ex nihilo[/i]. "In the beginning" God created, and what came to be in the future came to be from that. Thus, God did not directly cause every state of affairs in every "slice of time" to be the way it was through the act of creation.

Second, your argument seems to grant a totally deterministic worldview - Namely, every single thing has a cause outside of itself, and therefore, if I knew every variable at one point in time, I would be able to correctly predict everything that would be in the future. But this is quite a presupposition to grant. Depending on your interpretation of Quantum Physics, this view has been disproven. If the world is not entirely deterministic - if some things have no cause outside of themselves, then this argument fails, because it would allow for something like free will.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 20 2005, 12:18 AM']Not this again...

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]831441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hahaha, I'm trying not to get into all the nitty gritty again, lol :