Open View Theism

[The Joey-O]

Hey, I used to post here a bit a while back. I stopped, partly because I was way too busy and partly because I realized I lacked the technical language to really get into good debates. Anywho, I probably still lack the technical knowledge, but I thought of a better way to defend this position. I sincerely doubt that I am the first person to speak this way, but I came up with this explanation of Open View Theism through a synthesis of some things I've been thinking about for a while. (NOTE: I'm not holding to this position as a matter of faith, I simply feel that it is the best way to describe God and His dealings with Man. I am willing to admit that I am wrong, given proof from authority that I am OR if I am simply told to stop teaching it by someone in authority. So, I say that this is simply speculative theology. If it goes over well, then yay. If not, oh well.)

My theory rests entirely on the concepts of "potentiality" and "actualization".

In my theory, things that exist are actualized. Things that do not exist but could are potentialities. (This isn't anything new).

God is a being of absolute potentiality, meaning, essentially, that he is omnipotent and has the potential to do whatever he wants. We know that God has actualized certain potentialities, because stuff exists. I exist. You exist. Angels exist. Trees exist. And so on. This does not limit God's absolute potentiality, becuase he is fully capable of undoing any actualization. Also, being absolute potentiality does not mean that He does not yet exist, rather His existence his actualized. But, He has the potentiality to undo that actualization. (Not that He would.)

In my theory, at any given moment all potentials are possible, and since there are an infinite amount of potentials, anything is possible. How then is there not chaos? Well, God has, generally speaking, ordered things in such a way that there is an orderly pattern to existance. The "laws" of nature are simply very consistant actualizations that God has put in place. God has even put forth causitive relationships between actualizations and certain potentialities to produce other actualizations. For example, when I let go of a ball, there is a causitive relationship between my action of letting go and the law of gravity. The ball hits the floor, becuase this law demands that the objects with mass attract. Now, these "laws" aren't really able to be broken by us, but can be broken by God with ease, because to Him, they are simply actualizations of His Will.

Next, we come to human beings, angels and other free-will agents. We say that there will is free, so we must say (according to the logic of my theory) that there exists within them, potentiality and ability the ability to choose how this potentiality is actualized. This ability is given to them by God and limited to certain parameters set by Him. God knows the potentials, but, generally speaking, allows us to choose how we actualize said potentials. For example, when I am standing by Jonny, I have the potential to talk to him, laugh at him, smack him, etc. When I actualize my potential into choosing one action, say smacking Jonny, there is a cuasitive relationship to the amount of pain inflicted and the force that I choose to smack him with. Since Jonny has the ability to choose his own potentials, he could choose to smack me back or forgive me or run away.

Now, we come to time. According to my theory, time isn't an actualization, and therefore does not exist. How then do I explain how things generally seem to move in one direction. Well, remember those causitive relationships that I was talking about before? Well, these cuasitive relationships are, generally speaking, one way streets. So, for example, when I actualize brushing my teeth in the morning, I cannot undo that actualization. God, on the other hand, because all things are infinite potentialities for Him, can undo the actualization and its causitive effects. Is he messing with "time". No. In order to undo that actualization, all He would have to do is assert with His Will that the "brushing of my teeth" actualization and all other causitive actualizations that flowed from it are potentialities again. This would be a violation of the free will He gave me, but it does not mean that I do not have a free will. It simply means that in this one instance, God chose to violate my will.

What I am basically trying to assert is that we should stop thinking of things in traditional concepts of "time". Rather, things are simply actualized potentialities in causitive relationships (thus giving us the illusion of what we call time). Tell me what you think.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hey Joey!

In order to bump this thread I'll throw a few things out there (hopefully other people will engage your presentation more fully).

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1182227' date='Feb 1 2007, 12:48 PM']
My theory rests entirely on the concepts of "potentiality" and "actualization".

In my theory, things that exist are actualized. Things that do not exist but could are potentialities. (This isn't anything new).

God is a being of absolute potentiality, meaning, essentially, that he is omnipotent and has the potential to do whatever he wants. We know that God has actualized certain potentialities, because stuff exists. I exist. You exist. Angels exist. Trees exist. And so on. This does not limit God's absolute potentiality, becuase he is fully capable of undoing any actualization. Also, being absolute potentiality does not mean that He does not yet exist, rather His existence his actualized. But, He has the potentiality to undo that actualization. (Not that He would.)
[/quote]
Your theory is in many ways the antithesis of the typical Catholic understanding. Based on the conventional appropriation of those Aristotelian categories in Roman Catholic Theology you have effectively destroyed God's Divinity.
Describing God as absolute potentiality would result in the logical denial of the dogma of God's immutability and pretty much render Thomistic natural theology meaningless. If I may briefly quote the Summa on this matter:

[i]"From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act." - Prima Pars, q9, a1[/i]

These very short articles may be helpful:
[url="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/change.html"]http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/change.html[/url]
[url="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html"]http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html[/url]
[url="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html"]http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html[/url]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1182227' date='Feb 1 2007, 12:48 PM']In my theory, at any given moment all potentials are possible, and since there are an infinite amount of potentials, anything is possible. How then is there not chaos? Well, God has, generally speaking, ordered things in such a way that there is an orderly pattern to existance. The "laws" of nature are simply very consistant actualizations that God has put in place. God has even put forth causitive relationships between actualizations and certain potentialities to produce other actualizations. For example, when I let go of a ball, there is a causitive relationship between my action of letting go and the law of gravity. The ball hits the floor, becuase this law demands that the objects with mass attract. Now, these "laws" aren't really able to be broken by us, but can be broken by God with ease, because to Him, they are simply actualizations of His Will.[/quote]
In your entire presentation I detect the conception of God as a temporal, mutable being. I think the tension that this creates is what motivates the need to abolish time as a reality. If time is real it must either be admitted that God is simply a powerful being in time thus sacrificing the essential character of coherent monotheism, or else qualify God's being in some way in order to put a band-aid on the problem, or the other obvious solution: deny time any kind of reality and thus create an ambiguous middle ground in which God and man can coexist but eternity and transcendence are in many respects zapped.

I dunno.. I don't want to start rambling or anything.. Here's an article that you may find interesting: [url="http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/doesgodhaveemotions.htm"]http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/doesgodhaveemotions.htm[/url]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1182227' date='Feb 1 2007, 12:48 PM']Next, we come to human beings, angels and other free-will agents. We say that there will is free, so we must say (according to the logic of my theory) that there exists within them, potentiality and ability the ability to choose how this potentiality is actualized. This ability is given to them by God and limited to certain parameters set by Him. God knows the potentials, but, generally speaking, allows us to choose how we actualize said potentials. For example, when I am standing by Jonny, I have the potential to talk to him, laugh at him, smack him, etc. When I actualize my potential into choosing one action, say smacking Jonny, there is a cuasitive relationship to the amount of pain inflicted and the force that I choose to smack him with. Since Jonny has the ability to choose his own potentials, he could choose to smack me back or forgive me or run away.

Now, we come to time. According to my theory, time isn't an actualization, and therefore does not exist. How then do I explain how things generally seem to move in one direction. Well, remember those causitive relationships that I was talking about before? Well, these cuasitive relationships are, generally speaking, one way streets. So, for example, when I actualize brushing my teeth in the morning, I cannot undo that actualization. God, on the other hand, because all things are infinite potentialities for Him, can undo the actualization and its causitive effects. Is he messing with "time". No. In order to undo that actualization, all He would have to do is assert with His Will that the "brushing of my teeth" actualization and all other causitive actualizations that flowed from it are potentialities again. This would be a violation of the free will He gave me, but it does not mean that I do not have a free will. It simply means that in this one instance, God chose to violate my will.

What I am basically trying to assert is that we should stop thinking of things in traditional concepts of "time". Rather, things are simply actualized potentialities in causitive relationships (thus giving us the illusion of what we call time). Tell me what you think.
[/quote]
The potentiality/actuality distinction, as well as cause/effect assume and imply prior/posterior or a concept of sequence and change, in essence time. Based on what you've written I fail to see a basis for rejecting the concept of time or any necessity to even consider such a thing.

[The Joey-O]

Whew! That was harsh. Well, my theory hasn't been worked out with anyone and I'm almost totally ignorant of Aquinas. I can say right now that what I was trying to say doesn't depend on God being pure potentiality or pure actualization. I'll post a full reply on Monday.

Edited February 3, 2007 by The Joey-O

[The Joey-O]

Oh and btw, let's keep the dialogue light. Phrases like "you have effectively destroyed God's divinity" only inspire emotion. They do not instigate discussion or debate. Talk to you on Monday.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1183450' date='Feb 2 2007, 08:36 PM']
Whew! That was harsh. Well, my theory hasn't been worked out with anyone and I'm almost totally ignorant of Aquinas. I can say right now that what I was trying to say doesn't depend on God being pure potentiality or pure actualization. I'll post a full reply on Monday.
[/quote]
It wasn't intended to be harsh at all, just direct. No need to be hurt or anything, I was just being totally honest. According to the application of Aristotelian categories found in conventional Catholic Theology, the statement "God is infinite potentiality" amounts to a denial of God's Divinity. I'm not trying to stir emotion or anything, just speaking plainly.

Perhaps we have a difference in style since I prefer very direct criticisms of my own views. Please understand that my statements are simply matter-of-fact and not intended as emotionally charged slams.

My intention was not to cut you down or suggest that your ideas are absurd, but simply to instigate a clarification of those ideas in light of how they could be taken at face value.

[N/A Gone]

fine..

First of all, an Immutable nature and experience can co-exist. Look at Christ as an example. We see in our theology that he has the immutable nature, yet experienced as well.

only a mutable nature can change in experience(as cited by Alexander of Alexandria in a letter to Alexander of Thessalonica) But a perfect nature can experience and not be subject to change.

To say that God can not experience is limiting God. If we want to take our human events out of equation you still need to deal with

-Creating itself is an experience. We have not always been, thus we “happened” and in happening there is a “moment when God did not have us”

-incarnation is an experience. The divinity experienced with the humanity

-Old test
-regrets making humanity
-numerous times when God changes his mind.

In heaven are we timeless as well. Do we not experience relations and change.?

If perfection is non-changing, are you implying that angels are perfect or do they manage to be “out of time” yet not perfect?

The fall of the angels is an event that concludes “happening” whether or not when we say this happened, the point is it happened. Denoting an existence of lineal events in the metaphysical realm.

How do you attribute that Mohlinism(consider God's middle knowledge, and accept that God knows all the possible outcomes perfectly, but there is an uncertainty at what we actually choose. God is always prepared, but the decision we make is not declared, so I am not saying God doesn't know, just that it isn't there to be known.) is allowed within catholic theology? I know that the thomisitic perspective is only one of many.

I would argue that in Augustine's understanding of free will we do not see the determined aspect of time that your claim is dogmatic. Thomas did, but not Augustine. We truly must hold that free will is a glorious gift given to us by God.

In Plato's system a creature was bound to effects of change. But the divine was not effected. I do not believe he thinks the divine did not experience change, rather it was uneffected by change.

as I have said before.

This is more of a rejection of the Greek idea of actuality being the perfection of potentiality, which is heavily drawn on in the church. But I have a few problems with this.

* this is Plato, not the bible. In the Bible God interacts with us and
reacts to us, showing that God is in sequence with us.
* The center of our faith and the definitive revelation of God is Jesus
Christ. Taking our greatest clue for what God is like from the person of
Jesus Christ, how on earth would anyone come to the conclusion that God
is non-sequential. In Christ, the Word "was made" flesh." What does
this mean if it doesn't mean a) the was a "before" the Word was made
flesh and b) an "after" the Word was made flesh.
* what is imperfect about experiencing sequence? Plato thought a being
can only change for the better or for the worse, hence a perfect being
can't change at all, in any respect, and thus can't have a 'change in
time." But its bad reasoning. A perfect being can change not to
become better or worse, but just because ITS PERFECT TO CHANGE -- say,
in response to changing circumstances.
* God certainly doesn't measure time as we do -- for time is nothing
other than the measurement of change. But this is not to say God is not
IN SEQUENCE with us.
* the idea that all events in history are simultaneous from God's
perspectiveperspecdtive creates many problems. E.g. how can God eternally
experience a world that didn't timelessly exist? How are we free if
there never was a "before" to our free decisions? How can God BECOME
incarnate if he's eternally been incarnate? How does God respond to
anything if there's no before and after with him? Etc...* Holding God timeless views reality doesn't give God any advantage
providentially. He's just eternally condemned to viewing how bad it all
turned out. The only God who can make a difference in how things turn
out is one who can ALTER a future that might otherwise have been.
* Quantum Theory, Neuroscience, Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory and
non-equilibrium thermodynamics are all moving in the direction of
affirming that sequence is REAL. TIME is becoming an necessary aspect of
their equations.
The core idea to me is that existence is fundamentally sequential. Even the expansion and collapse of the Universe points to this. Every thing that exists experiences befores, durings, and afters. How that is measured is what we call "time". But that sequence occurs is the basic idea. Even for God, as God is relational within the Trinity. Otherwise, God would not be an active, dynamic, Creator God, but simply a divine first idea that somehow actualized existence without actually doing anything. Every
verb in our language presupposes sequence. the non-sequential God is the ultimate God. So God in himself is non-sequential. If the reply is that God's sequential experience is just as fundamental as his non-sequential nature, then the statement "God is both sequential and non-sequential" constitutes a contradiction -- God is "A" and "not A". What does "sequential" mean if its not the denial of
"non-sequential" and vice versa.

All of this assumes that "perfect knowledge of reality" is equivalent to "knowledge of what shall be" which assumes that reality is exhaustively settled from all eternity, otherwise God couldn't know it as such. Why assume this? Might it be that possibilities are REAL? And if possibilities are real, an omniscient God would know it as such? Why assume reality is eternally and exhaustively settled?

God speaks of the future in terms of "ifs" and "mights" and "perhaps". Seems to me the God of the Bible is not frozen in eternal facts. Doesn't he talk about remembering and anticiapting the future alot? About regretting how decisions he's made turn out (e.g. Gen.6:6; I Sam. 15:12), about changing his mind after he's declared his intention to do something (Jere. 18:1-10), about the future being "if" and "maybe" and "perhaps" (e.g. Ex. 3:18-4:9; Ezek. 12:2-3; Ex. 13:17). Maybe the biblical authors should read Augustine and Boethius and Aquinas and other theologians in good standing.

LD, as I have shown you before. I can work with a God that has time contained in him. That is uneffected by time; but "time" needs to be expansive in order to not be determined. Free will is not acting out a script.(please, no anselm. I dont buy it as anything rather than making a reason or scab to cover the problem)

as a former protestant a clear scriptural understanding is needed. a common cover-up is that everything is an anathropromorphism. But that sometimes sounds worse than a protestant covering up John 6. Here is some scripture I am curious about
[quote]Gen. 2:19 | Gen. 6:5–6 | Gen. 22:12 | Exod. 3:18–4:9 | Exod. 4:10–16 | Exod. 13:17 | Exod. 16:4 | Exod. 32:14 | Exod. 32:33 | Exod. 33:1–3, 14 | Num. 11:1–2 | Num. 14:11 | Num. 14:12–20 | Num. 16:20–35 | Num. 16:41–48 | Deut. 8:2 | Deut. 9:13–14, 18–20, 25 | Deut. 13:1–3 | Deut. 30:19 | Judg. 2:20–3:5 | Judg. 10:13–15 | 1 Sam. 2:27–31 | 1 Sam. 13:13–14 | 1 Sam. 15:10 | 1 Sam. 15:35 | 1 Sam. 23:9–13 | 2 Sam. 24:12–16 | 2 Sam. 24:17–25 | 1 Kings 21:27–29 | 2 Kings 13:3–5 | 2 Kings 20:1–7 | 1 Chron. 21:7–13 | 1 Chron. 21:15 | 2 Chron. 7:12–14 | 2 Chron. 12:5–8 | 2 Chron. 32:31 | Psalm 106:23 | Isa. 5:3–7 | Isa. 38:1–5 | Jer. 3:6–7 | Jer. 3:19–20 | Jer. 7:5–7 | Jer. 18:7–11 | Jer. 19:5 | Jer. 26:2–3 | Jer. 26:19 | Jer. 32:35 | Jer. 38:17–18, 20–21, 23 | Ezek. 12:1–3 | Ezek. 20:5–22 | Ezek. 22:29–31 | Ezek. 33:13–15 | Hosea 8:5 | Hosea 11:8–9 | Joel 2:13–14 | Amos 7:1–6 | Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10; 4:2 | Matt. 25:41 | Matt. 26:39 | Acts 15:7 | Acts 21:10–12 | 2 Pet. 3:9–12 | Rev. 3:5 | Rev. 22:18[/quote]

We are free, we pay the punishment in how we respond with our free will. If we are not free, then it is not just for us to pay the cost. Thus we must remain free.

ok, done babbling. 2-3 years later and we are still working through this.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1183238' date='Feb 2 2007, 03:05 PM']
Your theory is in many ways the antithesis of the typical Catholic understanding. Based on the conventional appropriation of those Aristotelian categories in Roman Catholic Theology you have effectively destroyed God's Divinity.
Describing God as absolute potentiality would result in the logical denial of the dogma of God's immutability and pretty much render Thomistic natural theology meaningless.
[/quote]


Im not going to comment on the " pure potentiality" idea cause I feel Joey has an idea of where he wants to go with it.

But do not assume that your concept of immutability was the universally accepted patristic concept. In that, do not assume that it destroys God's divinity. I think that categorizing what God can and cannot be is limiting to God. In that you could be destroying his divinity.

ok/rant..

Oh, Joey..pm me if you want. But why did this issue pop-up again for you? If I am wrong in this, then I am sorry for exposing you to this view before our conversion. I truly am sorry if I am wrong. It smells of elderberries not being able to see theology in a lens besides openesss

nice job using Jonny as your example.

[N/A Gone]

woah..

sorry that was so long. I guess I have some pent-up issues on this topic.

[The Joey-O]

Alright, I'm going to reiterate some things. Since my initial conversations about this with revprodeji, I haven't had the opportunity to discuss molinism or open view theism or whatever you want to call it. In fact, prior to that conversation, I didn't even know there was a debate surrounding the issue. To say that I'm a babe in the woods in this regard may be an overstatement, but I am definitely still a n00b. The purpose of this discussion was to see if my version of molinism could fly, because, as far as I understood, molinism was already an officially recognized legitimate belief under the umbrella of Catholic Church.

With that said...much of what I was going to say, revprodeji said. So, I'll add some things that I thought might be a unique understanding to the way I developed my theory.

[quote]Your theory is in many ways the antithesis of the typical Catholic understanding. Based on the conventional appropriation of those Aristotelian categories in Roman Catholic Theology you have effectively destroyed God's Divinity.
Describing God as absolute potentiality would result in the logical denial of the dogma of God's immutability and pretty much render Thomistic natural theology meaningless. If I may briefly quote the Summa on this matter:[/quote]

Ok. I think I may be muddling my terminology. So, let me restate what I meant by absolute potentiality. The definition of actualization and potentiality is similar to that in the Aristotilian sense, but, honestly, I stole it from some contemporary Platonists (some of them are quantum physicists). So, let me roll out my logic in contrast to Aristotles (according to the link you gave). Aristotle understood that for being to come from non-being there had to be potential being and an actual being that could carry out the actualization of a potential being. So, if you take this logic backward there must be an acutalized being that has always existed and caused the first beings to exist. Thus, we arrive at Aristotle's concept of Prime Mover. I do not disagree with any of this. Furthermore, we know that there are two types of changes that can occur: changes of what Aristotle calls accidents (quantity, quality and location) and changes of substance (which change the essence of a being). Now, when I said that Jonny had potentiality, I was not referring to Jonny's substance being imperfect and capable of becoming more, I was referring to potentiality of ability. Jonny is capable of throwing a ball accross the room. If Jonny were to throw a ball accross the room he would be in motion, effecting an accidental change. However, his substance would remain the saim. When I said that God was pure potentiality, I did not mean in essense. Rather, it was a simple statement about God's omnipotence. God is capable of absolutely anything, even after it has occured. Thus, even when God choose to actualize something, he can undo it. This necessitates a causitive sequence in reality we call "time". And it is this concept of time that we have so terribly skewed from its actual reality.

Stay tuned for more...

[The Joey-O]

Here 'goes again.

[quote]"From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act." - Prima Pars, q9, a1[/quote]

I agree with this statement in regards God's essence. Because God has always existed and His existence is the utmost possible existence, He is absolute actualization of being. However, I would say that there are actions that even God would be capable of without harming His perfect actualized being.

Moving on. According to general relativity time and space are intimately linked. But, what does this mean? If I move my arm in a particular direction, does it move forward in time without me? If I pull it back, does it move backwards in time? NO! Time and space are linked, because what really is going on is sequential causitive actions (governed by the "laws" of nature). Scientists are now discovering things like, if you throw a basketball in a room, it will bounce in a certain way when watched. But, when it is not being observed, mathematically it has to exist in all points of the room at once. It's weird, I know, but what they have discovered is that at any given moment when there is no observation, the ball is touching all surfaces of the room with every part of its self. Now, the question is why? This is the point where scientists are at right now. One of the more interesting theories has to do with perception, will and actualization. When we throw a basketball into a room and noone and nothing is there to observe it, it has to exist in every place at once (thus there is super-position and all those weird concepts), but the moment a person walks into the room, that ball begins to act in a predictable, logical manner. Why? Because the ball existed in potentiality without being under the influence of perception and will. The moment will and perception began to have an effect on it, it snapped into a predictable actualized position. Now, the point that I am trying to get at is this: we already know that reality exists as a sort of matrix (not in the movie sense, but in the mathematical sense) of potentiality vs. actualization and will. But what of time? Time in this system is predominantly a false construct, at least as we understand it. Both philosophers and scientists have been annoyed with Einstine calling time a "river". This simply isn't so. Time isn't something that gives rise multiple dimensions built into the conemporary concept of time (derived from the logic of time being linear and there being a three dimensional view of time where there can be many lines). Time is simply what we call this causitive order of sequence, AND TIME ACTS DIFFERENTLY ON/IN/THROUGH/WITH EVERY OBJECT IN EXISTENCE. Because, time isn't a force, it's just what we call the causitive sequential relationships that exist between things. If it were a force there would be consistent action as to how it is applied to things (like the law of inerta). So "time" is part of this matrix, only in as much as it is a concept that we have created to vastly oversimplify the relationship between objects.

God, then, exists within and without of this matrix. He operates with us, because the past is necesarrily nonexistence, just as the future is. God is fully aware of every possibility, fully prepared and definately "unmoved" in being by all possibilities.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1186104' date='Feb 6 2007, 01:19 AM']
Alright, I'm going to reiterate some things. Since my initial conversations about this with revprodeji, I haven't had the opportunity to discuss molinism or open view theism or whatever you want to call it. In fact, prior to that conversation, I didn't even know there was a debate surrounding the issue. To say that I'm a babe in the woods in this regard may be an overstatement, but I am definitely still a n00b. The purpose of this discussion was to see if my version of molinism could fly, because, as far as I understood, molinism was already an officially recognized legitimate belief under the umbrella of Catholic Church.

With that said...much of what I was going to say, revprodeji said. So, I'll add some things that I thought might be a unique understanding to the way I developed my theory.
Ok. I think I may be muddling my terminology. So, let me restate what I meant by absolute potentiality. The definition of actualization and potentiality is similar to that in the Aristotilian sense, but, honestly, I stole it from some contemporary Platonists (some of them are quantum physicists). So, let me roll out my logic in contrast to Aristotles (according to the link you gave). Aristotle understood that for being to come from non-being there had to be potential being and an actual being that could carry out the actualization of a potential being. So, if you take this logic backward there must be an acutalized being that has always existed and caused the first beings to exist. Thus, we arrive at Aristotle's concept of Prime Mover. I do not disagree with any of this. Furthermore, we know that there are two types of changes that can occur: changes of what Aristotle calls accidents (quantity, quality and location) and changes of substance (which change the essence of a being). Now, when I said that Jonny had potentiality, I was not referring to Jonny's substance being imperfect and capable of becoming more, I was referring to potentiality of ability. Jonny is capable of throwing a ball accross the room. If Jonny were to throw a ball accross the room he would be in motion, effecting an accidental change. However, his substance would remain the saim. When I said that God was pure potentiality, I did not mean in essense. Rather, it was a simple statement about God's omnipotence. God is capable of absolutely anything, even after it has occured. Thus, even when God choose to actualize something, he can undo it. This necessitates a causitive sequence in reality we call "time". And it is this concept of time that we have so terribly skewed from its actual reality.

Stay tuned for more...
[/quote]
Joey,

I'll try to post more later (including a reply to rev) but for now I just wanted to say that this clarification makes total sense to me and I understand more what you were trying to say in your original post. Thanks.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1186429' date='Feb 6 2007, 03:01 PM']
Joey,

I'll try to post more later ([b]including a reply to rev)[/b] but for now I just wanted to say that this clarification makes total sense to me and [b]I understand more what you were trying to say in your original pos[/b]t. Thanks.
[/quote]

I feelin the love...

Do you understand me? We have been debating this for almost 2 years now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1186524' date='Feb 6 2007, 05:44 PM']
I feelin the love...

Do you understand me? We have been debating this for almost 2 years now.
[/quote]
LOL! Yeah, working out the conceptual differences is quite a chore.. There are still lots of things that I'd like to discuss in detail, but for me just this process of grappling is reward in itself.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey Rev, just as a side point and to stir your brain, I'd like to invite you to reread the opening section of your first post in this thread keeping in mind the fact that Christ had [i]two[/i] natures, not just one. The mutability of experience was made present and understood by him in his [i]human[/i] nature, not in his [i]Divine[/i] nature.

Also, it seems to me that often we get into a problem by conceiving of "more" as "better." So it seems at first glance that if God can't experience things mutably (or in time), then he [i]could[/i] experience more, and that would make him "better." But if we focus instead on quality, rather than quantity, we will see that experiencing all things in an immutable and eternal manner is actually "better" than experiencing in a mutable and temporal way, which involves being contained within time and subject to change.

These dilemmas are resolved only with the orthodox doctrine of Christ's possessing two natures in one person.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[N/A Gone]

Jeff...

I completely agree

but.

By saying that Christ's divinity was immutable, and his humanity mutable we see an example of both experiencing change. One changing from that change and one not. Showing that the divinity experinces change yet is not changed by it.

We are the fish, in a current changed and effected by the current. God is the fisher standing in the water not being moved. The creator is not changed by his creation. But the nature of his creation is that it is linear time progressing. I argue that the future is not determined. We have self-causation. In that the available options are always avaliable but not settled. We can see that the past is settled. Thus we have no control of responsability in its blame. The future, in which we have control and we have responsability shows its openess.

I should write a book. This area has way too many subtopics to deal with

-What is time
-God experiencing
-Free will and responsability
-theodicy
-prayer
-and many more

[Guest JeffCR07]

again, we are coming back to old issues that have already been covered, but if God experiences time as you suggest, then the quality of his knowledge must also undergo change and God must therefore be conceived of as within time.