Author Topic: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)  (Read 1705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« on: May 22, 2018, 12:11:47 PM »
P1) God cannot fail
P2) Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
C) God only has dispositional states

Entities with only dispositional states (rocks, lightning, etc.) have no agency or volitionality in virtue of their inability to have thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc... all of which are normative.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Ουρουγουανός
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,015
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2018, 01:28:57 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

God writes the rules, He need not play by them.

If the Creator cannot rise above being circumscribed by His own Creation, except at His own volition, then He wouldn't have been God after all.
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,367
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2018, 01:35:45 PM »
God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

Unnf, sexy...

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,846
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2018, 03:19:33 PM »
P1) God cannot fail
P2) Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
C) God only has dispositional states

Entities with only dispositional states (rocks, lightning, etc.) have no agency or volitionality in virtue of their inability to have thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc... all of which are normative.
Fallacy of equivocation. God cannot fail because he is the measure of all ethics, not because he is led by trivial forces...
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2018, 03:33:44 PM »
Yes, Christ had a will. In orthodoxy it is said that his will was in a natural state. The saints have also been graced with a natural will as well. Saint Maximos has written much on this topic. The current state of mans will after the fall is said to be gnomic. The topic is very interesting in contrast to the western view of free will.

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2018, 05:26:56 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

So a game of chess is God?

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2018, 05:28:22 PM »
Fallacy of equivocation. God cannot fail because he is the measure of all ethics, not because he is led by trivial forces...

1. Where is the equivocation?
2. Who mentioned ethics other than you?

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,846
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2018, 05:50:48 PM »
1. Where is the equivocation?
In the confusion of the term "infalibility", as if not having volition to stabilish a telos and being the ultimate measure of all teloi were the same thing. Rocks and lightning are infalible because there is no inward conduct toward a telos to predicate falibility from. Meanwhile, God obviously has conduct toward a telos, so your definition of falibility fails to apply even before we enter the realm of free will.

Quote
2. Who mentioned ethics other than you?
You implied it in talking about failure. God cannot fail because he is not subject to any higher measure that would stabilish failure.

You're not a philosopher just because you know how to imitate formal arguments, and you couldn't even make a formally organised argument there. You put the major premise after the minor and skipped prosyllogisms from your attempted polysyllogism.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 05:54:26 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2018, 06:08:55 PM »
In the confusion of the term "infalibility", as if not having volition to stabilish a telos and being the ultimate measure of all teloi were the same thing. Rocks and lightning are infalible because there is no inward conduct toward a telos to predicate falibility from. Meanwhile, God obviously has conduct toward a telos, so your definition of falibility fails to apply even before we enter the realm of free will.

You're confused or you're saying God is infallible in the same way rock and lightning are.  If the latter, you're right!  If the former, you're not following the argument.  Which premise are you denying?

Quote from: RaphaCam
Quote
2. Who mentioned ethics other than you?
You implied it in talking about failure. God cannot fail because he is not subject to any higher measure that would stabilish failure.

No, you're wrong here.  Failure does not necessarily connote ethics.  In fact, I can't find a definition of failure that would.  So again, you're confused.

Quote from: RaphaCam
You're not a philosopher just because you know how to imitate formal arguments, and you couldn't even make a formally organised argument there. You put the major premise after the minor and skipped prosyllogisms from your attempted polysyllogism.

Wrong again.  The argument is valid and sound.  I know this is hard for you Christian types, but instead of insulting... how about just dealing with the argument?

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2018, 06:30:07 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

So a game of chess is God?

No, a game of chess is only coherent because of God.

Chess would only work because of coherent logic, right? Well, what if logic happened to be a person? The Early Fathers, borrowing language from the Greek philosophers, called this person the Logos.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,846
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2018, 06:40:42 PM »
You're confused or you're saying God is infallible in the same way rock and lightning are.  If the latter, you're right!  If the former, you're not following the argument.  Which premise are you denying?
Your P2 (which should have been P1 if you actually knew how to organise a formal argument). I see where it comes from, but it doesn't apply, hence the equivocation.

Quote
No, you're wrong here.  Failure does not necessarily connote ethics.  In fact, I can't find a definition of failure that would.  So again, you're confused.
Not necessarily, but in the sense you used, it does. Ethics is volitive teleological orientation of conduct. Failure in normative terms is teleological misorientation of conduct, so, taking human action as always volitive...

Quote
Wrong again.  The argument is valid and sound.  I know this is hard for you Christian types, but instead of insulting... how about just dealing with the argument?
I specifically dealt with your argument, lol... You're the one who just took it ad hominem. Hold your fedora: if you felt more stupid than you feel today when you were a Christian, doesn't mean we're all like that. See how it should have been and why it's wrong:

(Premise 1) Fallibility necessarily applies to all normativity. [you were wrong by putting the major premise after the minor and by using two different copulas in the same syllogism, if you want to go really formal]
(Premise 2) Fallibility does not apply to God. [two different copulas in the same syllogism, again]
(Prossylogism 1) Normativity does not apply to God. [here you skipped the prossylogism]
(Premise 3) Normativity necessarily applies to entities with more than dispositional states. [here you skipped the third premise]
(Conclusion) God is not an entity with more than dispositional states.

Premise 1, as I said, does not apply, this is equivocation, thus invalidating prossylogism 1. Premise 3 is wrong, too, but since it's undemonstrated, it's not even worth going there.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 06:42:49 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2018, 08:44:35 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

So a game of chess is God?

No, a game of chess is only coherent because of God.

Chess would only work because of coherent logic, right? Well, what if logic happened to be a person? The Early Fathers, borrowing language from the Greek philosophers, called this person the Logos.

This is a problem for you if you believe in the trinity.  Do you take it that Jesus is God by identity or predication?

If the principles of logic (including law of identity) are a person... and the trinity is said to be three different persons... which person of the trinity is the law of identity derivative of?

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2018, 08:55:20 PM »
You're confused or you're saying God is infallible in the same way rock and lightning are.  If the latter, you're right!  If the former, you're not following the argument.  Which premise are you denying?
Your P2 (which should have been P1 if you actually knew how to organise a formal argument). I see where it comes from, but it doesn't apply, hence the equivocation.

You still haven't shown the equivocation.  The argument doesn't turn on your definition of omnipotence as even Pearce/Pruss agree that all definitions must include the conventional notion that  God cannot fail.

Quote
Quote
No, you're wrong here.  Failure does not necessarily connote ethics.  In fact, I can't find a definition of failure that would.  So again, you're confused.
Not necessarily, but in the sense you used, it does. Ethics is volitive teleological orientation of conduct. Failure in normative terms is teleological misorientation of conduct, so, taking human action as always volitive...

The argument is after God's volitionality.  Your objection begs the question by assuming the very thing that's being examined.  You don't say a rock is volitional, do you?

Quote
Quote
Wrong again.  The argument is valid and sound.  I know this is hard for you Christian types, but instead of insulting... how about just dealing with the argument?
I specifically dealt with your argument, lol... You're the one who just took it ad hominem. Hold your fedora: if you felt more stupid than you feel today when you were a Christian, doesn't mean we're all like that. See how it should have been and why it's wrong:

This is hilarious.  "Christ-like" folk just can't help yourselves with the insults, can you?  It's great though!  I'm having a good laugh about it.

Quote
(Premise 1) Fallibility necessarily applies to all normativity. [you were wrong by putting the major premise after the minor and by using two different copulas in the same syllogism, if you want to go really formal]
(Premise 2) Fallibility does not apply to God. [two different copulas in the same syllogism, again]
(Prossylogism 1) Normativity does not apply to God. [here you skipped the prossylogism]
(Premise 3) Normativity necessarily applies to entities with more than dispositional states. [here you skipped the third premise]
(Conclusion) God is not an entity with more than dispositional states.

Premise 1, as I said, does not apply, this is equivocation, thus invalidating prossylogism 1. Premise 3 is wrong, too, but since it's undemonstrated, it's not even worth going there.

So here you seem to deny that God cannot fail and are asserting that normativity does not apply to God.

Instead of merely asserting that normativity doesn't apply to God, perhaps you could provide a justification for the claim?  This should be good... you arguing my point for me.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 09:01:23 PM by MichaelofSN »

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2018, 09:21:04 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

So a game of chess is God?

No, a game of chess is only coherent because of God.

Chess would only work because of coherent logic, right? Well, what if logic happened to be a person? The Early Fathers, borrowing language from the Greek philosophers, called this person the Logos.

This is a problem for you if you believe in the trinity.  Do you take it that Jesus is God by identity or predication?

If the principles of logic (including law of identity) are a person... and the trinity is said to be three different persons... which person of the trinity is the law of identity derivative of?

I don't see why properties like that can't be shared by all three. Saying that Christ is the Wisdom of God does not imply that the Father and the Spirit are somehow without wisdom.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2018, 09:29:29 PM »
God cannot fail.

God is not normative, or conversely He is the only normative.

So a game of chess is God?

No, a game of chess is only coherent because of God.

Chess would only work because of coherent logic, right? Well, what if logic happened to be a person? The Early Fathers, borrowing language from the Greek philosophers, called this person the Logos.

This is a problem for you if you believe in the trinity.  Do you take it that Jesus is God by identity or predication?

If the principles of logic (including law of identity) are a person... and the trinity is said to be three different persons... which person of the trinity is the law of identity derivative of?

I don't see why properties like that can't be shared by all three. Saying that Christ is the Wisdom of God does not imply that the Father and the Spirit are somehow without wisdom.

So the idea here is that God is Jesus in some sense, but not others.  Given this... in what sense is Jesus God?

We can't say that Christ is God by identity... because that would make them identical necessarily.  We can't say that Christ is God by predication... because that means there are two Gods (at least... 3 if one says the same about the holy ghost / spirit).

If Christ is the wisdom of God, then he is only part of God and not fully God.  This is a heretical view according to the Fathers.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2018, 09:46:42 PM »
Jesus is God in the sense that He is Begotten by the Father. He shares in all that the Father has, save for being Unbegotten. I'm not sure how to define it more precisely than that (or if such precision is even possible).
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2018, 10:00:54 PM »
Jesus is God in the sense that He is Begotten by the Father. He shares in all that the Father has, save for being Unbegotten. I'm not sure how to define it more precisely than that (or if such precision is even possible).

That's right.  This is the Orthodox position.  The only way to handle the objection to trinitarianism is that it's a mystery and God's properties aren't reducible.  Essentially, we have to concede that we don't know how it works.  Which, at least for me, is a reason not to believe that it is the case.

Offline MichaelofSN

  • What is even happening right now?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2018, 10:07:22 PM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2018, 10:22:12 PM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"
   This is a very complicated teaching and can become heretical quite easily.  All three figures have an individual identity. That doesn't make them three gods in a sense. How this is explained exactly is thought relationship.  Lets say we have three runners in a 100 yard sprint. The gun goes off and everybody takes stride.  Right foot first. They look at each other and agree. Here the relationship is proven in that they all agreed to the answer. They continue in equal stride though the 100 yards and cross the finish at the same time.
Are they individual persons? Yes. The relationship is proven on agreement and yet they are one in devine essenceY

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2018, 10:27:09 PM »
Jesus is God in the sense that He is Begotten by the Father. He shares in all that the Father has, save for being Unbegotten. I'm not sure how to define it more precisely than that (or if such precision is even possible).

That's right.  This is the Orthodox position.  The only way to handle the objection to trinitarianism is that it's a mystery and God's properties aren't reducible.  Essentially, we have to concede that we don't know how it works.  Which, at least for me, is a reason not to believe that it is the case.

I don't know how much of anything works, really. I just barely passed all my science courses. The humanities are more my jam, but I also have a lot of knowledge gaps because I'm exceptionally lazy. On super-complex things like quantum physics, I even sometimes find myself falling back on Scott Alexander's concept of "Epistemic Learned Helplessness"- trusting the expert consensus and trying not to look into it too much lest I fall pray to quackery (sorry, I hate the word "woo").

My point is, don't we all do that to a certain extent. Even scientists are often obligated- by there being only so many hours in the day- to stick to their own fields (within which they don't have time to repeat every significant experiment in the field for themselves, anyhow). We're all taking someone else's word for it on something. How much more when we're talking about the posited Creator of the Universe, whose mind and being would be far beyond our comprehension anyway?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 10:28:27 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2018, 10:29:26 PM »
Jesus is God in the sense that He is Begotten by the Father. He shares in all that the Father has, save for being Unbegotten. I'm not sure how to define it more precisely than that (or if such precision is even possible).

That's right.  This is the Orthodox position.  The only way to handle the objection to trinitarianism is that it's a mystery and God's properties aren't reducible.  Essentially, we have to concede that we don't know how it works.  Which, at least for me, is a reason not to believe that it is the case.
Why, because it implies you are not God and cannot comprehend God?
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2018, 10:32:55 PM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"
   This is a very complicated teaching and can become heretical quite easily.  All three figures have an individual identity. That doesn't make them three gods in a sense. How this is explained exactly is thought relationship.  Lets say we have three runners in a 100 yard sprint. The gun goes off and everybody takes stride.  Right foot first. They look at each other and agree. Here the relationship is proven in that they all agreed to the answer. They continue in equal stride though the 100 yards and cross the finish at the same time.
Are they individual persons? Yes. The relationship is proven on agreement and yet they are one in devine essenceY

I feel like I need to point out for the uninitiated that Tzimis has butted heads with quite a few people on these issues before and doesn't necessarily speak for Orthodoxy (not that I do either, of course).
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2018, 10:52:42 PM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"
   This is a very complicated teaching and can become heretical quite easily.  All three figures have an individual identity. That doesn't make them three gods in a sense. How this is explained exactly is thought relationship.  Lets say we have three runners in a 100 yard sprint. The gun goes off and everybody takes stride.  Right foot first. They look at each other and agree. Here the relationship is proven in that they all agreed to the answer. They continue in equal stride though the 100 yards and cross the finish at the same time.
Are they individual persons? Yes. The relationship is proven on agreement and yet they are one in devine essenceY

I feel like I need to point out for the uninitiated that Tzimis has butted heads with quite a few people on these issues before and doesn't necessarily speak for Orthodoxy (not that I do either, of course).
Well I take offense to that. He is a grown man and can handle himself.  Your just happy that someone agreed with you finally and want to end it there.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2018, 11:19:39 PM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2018, 11:32:03 PM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals, as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Do remember two things:
1. EO-OO polemics are not allowed in the public fora, it is definitely against possible, full reconcilation.
2. One of the very first forum rules claims:
Quote
Academic Discourse -- Practically speaking, academic discussion means not referring to figures on your side as "St. so and so" while referring to figures of the other party as "the heretic so and so."  Instead, as with standard academic discourse, all historical figures will be referred at least by name and location, for instance "Leo of Rome" and "Dioscoros of Alexandria." It is presumed that posters reflect the position of faith of their Communion; for instance, it is presumed that an Eastern Orthodox member regards Chalcedon as an ecumenical and God-inspired council, while an Oriental Orthodox member regards Dioscoros of Alexandria as a teacher of the faith.  Therefore, it is not necessary for posters to continuously and aggressively point out the obvious in respect to the enumeration of councils, recognition of saints, etc.

So I am giving you 15% warning.
Dominika, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 07:18:03 AM by Dominika »

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2018, 12:12:52 AM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 12:14:20 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,846
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2018, 12:38:08 AM »
The argument is after God's volitionality.  Your objection begs the question by assuming the very thing that's being examined.  You don't say a rock is volitional, do you?
Begging the question isn't fallacious if the principle is right.

Quote
This is hilarious.  "Christ-like" folk just can't help yourselves with the insults, can you?  It's great though!  I'm having a good laugh about it.
You were the one who started to make it personal, and simultaneously to accuse me of ad hominem. "Accuse them of what you're doing", right?

Quote
Instead of merely asserting that normativity doesn't apply to God, perhaps you could provide a justification for the claim?  This should be good... you arguing my point for me.
Well, your attempt at syllogism implied that by taking this as a major term in P2 and then using it as a middle term from the prosyllogism to arrive at the conclusion. But no, God is not submissive to normativity.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2018, 02:01:04 AM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 02:02:30 AM by Tzimis »

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2018, 04:05:22 AM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2018, 09:07:42 AM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"

What does this have to do with this thread? Father Peter never responded to my question. He was the one that abandoned the thread. This is a different topic and you are co-mingling the two. Than using a dead topic to state I have heretical view. Let people decide for themselves instead of defaming someones character.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,421
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2018, 11:20:13 AM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"
   This is a very complicated teaching and can become heretical quite easily.  All three figures have an individual identity. That doesn't make them three gods in a sense. How this is explained exactly is thought relationship.  Lets say we have three runners in a 100 yard sprint. The gun goes off and everybody takes stride.  Right foot first. They look at each other and agree. Here the relationship is proven in that they all agreed to the answer. They continue in equal stride though the 100 yards and cross the finish at the same time.
Are they individual persons? Yes. The relationship is proven on agreement and yet they are one in devine essenceY

This explanation of triadology is at best, confusing.  It leads in the direction of Western triadologies where, due to the filioque, the divine nature becomes a sort of depersonalized entity from which the three persons derive their deity.

 It would be much better to take a step back and explain the concept of person or prosopon in Trinitarian theology, for which I would refer the reader to the etymology of the word person, and then from that, we get to the Orthodox model wherein the Trinity is a union of perfect love between three coequal and coeternal persons, with the uncreated Son and Holy Spirit partaking of and sharing in the divine essence of the unoriginate Father, this essence being beyond human understanding, thus, we can only know God through His uncreated energies.  An explanation of the meaning of hypostasis is also beneficial but not required.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2018, 01:01:40 PM »
One would have to explain how x and y can be the same thing, but not with respect to persons.

Interesting questions arise here, like; "does the Father have the same mental states as Christ?", "If not, why?"
   This is a very complicated teaching and can become heretical quite easily.  All three figures have an individual identity. That doesn't make them three gods in a sense. How this is explained exactly is thought relationship.  Lets say we have three runners in a 100 yard sprint. The gun goes off and everybody takes stride.  Right foot first. They look at each other and agree. Here the relationship is proven in that they all agreed to the answer. They continue in equal stride though the 100 yards and cross the finish at the same time.
Are they individual persons? Yes. The relationship is proven on agreement and yet they are one in devine essenceY

This explanation of triadology is at best, confusing.  It leads in the direction of Western triadologies where, due to the filioque, the divine nature becomes a sort of depersonalized entity from which the three persons derive their deity.

 It would be much better to take a step back and explain the concept of person or prosopon in Trinitarian theology, for which I would refer the reader to the etymology of the word person, and then from that, we get to the Orthodox model wherein the Trinity is a union of perfect love between three coequal and coeternal persons, with the uncreated Son and Holy Spirit partaking of and sharing in the divine essence of the unoriginate Father,
this essence being beyond human understanding, thus, we can only know God through His uncreated energies.  An explanation of the meaning of hypostasis is also beneficial but not required.

Well isnt this exactly what I stated, but in practical terms? Please take another look and I hope you see as much.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2018, 05:46:10 PM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"

What does this have to do with this thread? Father Peter never responded to my question. He was the one that abandoned the thread. This is a different topic and you are co-mingling the two. Than using a dead topic to state I have heretical view. Let people decide for themselves instead of defaming someones character.

I'm not defaming you, heretics can be good people. If I wind up converting I'll have to say that some of my best friends and my entire family are heretics. It's just a fact about a person.

I don't even definitively think you're a heretic, just that you've said some things that sound disturbing to me and I'm not alone in thinking that. So if I see you trying to go to the mat with an atheist for Orthodox Christology or Triadology, it feels wrong not to bring this up.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,421
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2018, 07:33:42 PM »
You're confused or you're saying God is infallible in the same way rock and lightning are.  If the latter, you're right!  If the former, you're not following the argument.  Which premise are you denying?
Your P2 (which should have been P1 if you actually knew how to organise a formal argument). I see where it comes from, but it doesn't apply, hence the equivocation.

You still haven't shown the equivocation.  The argument doesn't turn on your definition of omnipotence as even Pearce/Pruss agree that all definitions must include the conventional notion that  God cannot fail.

Quote
Quote
No, you're wrong here.  Failure does not necessarily connote ethics.  In fact, I can't find a definition of failure that would.  So again, you're confused.
Not necessarily, but in the sense you used, it does. Ethics is volitive teleological orientation of conduct. Failure in normative terms is teleological misorientation of conduct, so, taking human action as always volitive...

The argument is after God's volitionality.  Your objection begs the question by assuming the very thing that's being examined.  You don't say a rock is volitional, do you?

Quote
Quote
Wrong again.  The argument is valid and sound.  I know this is hard for you Christian types, but instead of insulting... how about just dealing with the argument?
I specifically dealt with your argument, lol... You're the one who just took it ad hominem. Hold your fedora: if you felt more stupid than you feel today when you were a Christian, doesn't mean we're all like that. See how it should have been and why it's wrong:

This is hilarious.  "Christ-like" folk just can't help yourselves with the insults, can you?  It's great though!  I'm having a good laugh about it.

Quote
(Premise 1) Fallibility necessarily applies to all normativity. [you were wrong by putting the major premise after the minor and by using two different copulas in the same syllogism, if you want to go really formal]
(Premise 2) Fallibility does not apply to God. [two different copulas in the same syllogism, again]
(Prossylogism 1) Normativity does not apply to God. [here you skipped the prossylogism]
(Premise 3) Normativity necessarily applies to entities with more than dispositional states. [here you skipped the third premise]
(Conclusion) God is not an entity with more than dispositional states.

Premise 1, as I said, does not apply, this is equivocation, thus invalidating prossylogism 1. Premise 3 is wrong, too, but since it's undemonstrated, it's not even worth going there.

So here you seem to deny that God cannot fail and are asserting that normativity does not apply to God.

Instead of merely asserting that normativity doesn't apply to God, perhaps you could provide a justification for the claim?  This should be good... you arguing my point for me.

I am looking forward tO seeing you address the very important philosophical objections raised to your argument by RaphaCam.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2018, 11:44:22 PM »
(formal argument included)

1. God cannot fail
2. Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
3. If (1) and (2), then God isn't normative (or isn't bound by norms, or doesn't have normativity?)
4. If God isn't normative, then God only has dispositional states.
5. If God only has dispositional states, then God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires.
6. If God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires, then God doesn't have free will or agency.
7. Therefore, God doesn't have free will or agency.

I cleaned that up for you.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 11:51:22 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2018, 11:52:57 PM »
(formal argument included)

1. God cannot fail
2. Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
3. If (1) and (2), then God isn't normative (or isn't bound by norms, or doesn't have normativity?)
4. If God isn't normative, then God only has dispositional states.
5. If God only has dispositional states, then God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires.
6. If God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires, then God doesn't have free will or agency.
7. Therefore, God doesn't have free will or agency.

I cleaned that up for you.
Deny subconclusion 3, premises 4, 5, 6 on the grounds that they have no demonstration. "Fail" in 1-2 is too ambiguous. "Is/isn't normative" is too vague in 2-4. "free will" and "agency" are too vague in 6-7. And I don't think you know what a dispositional state usually means. Free will is often thought to be a sort of dispositional state, e.g. P has free will if P is disposed to sometimes act freely.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 11:57:38 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Brilko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ?
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2018, 12:41:05 AM »
(formal argument included)

1. God cannot fail
2. Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
3. If (1) and (2), then God isn't normative (or isn't bound by norms, or doesn't have normativity?)
4. If God isn't normative, then God only has dispositional states.
5. If God only has dispositional states, then God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires.
6. If God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires, then God doesn't have free will or agency.
7. Therefore, God doesn't have free will or agency.

I cleaned that up for you.
Deny subconclusion 3, premises 4, 5, 6 on the grounds that they have no demonstration. "Fail" in 1-2 is too ambiguous. "Is/isn't normative" is too vague in 2-4. "free will" and "agency" are too vague in 6-7. And I don't think you know what a dispositional state usually means. Free will is often thought to be a sort of dispositional state, e.g. P has free will if P is disposed to sometimes act freely.

IP Freely. I don’t know if that means I have free will or if it’s just the Flomax.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2018, 01:39:09 AM »
(formal argument included)

1. God cannot fail
2. Failure is necessarily constitutive of normativity
3. If (1) and (2), then God isn't normative (or isn't bound by norms, or doesn't have normativity?)
4. If God isn't normative, then God only has dispositional states.
5. If God only has dispositional states, then God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires.
6. If God doesn't have thoughts, beliefs, or desires, then God doesn't have free will or agency.
7. Therefore, God doesn't have free will or agency.

I cleaned that up for you.
Deny subconclusion 3, premises 4, 5, 6 on the grounds that they have no demonstration. "Fail" in 1-2 is too ambiguous. "Is/isn't normative" is too vague in 2-4. "free will" and "agency" are too vague in 6-7. And I don't think you know what a dispositional state usually means. Free will is often thought to be a sort of dispositional state, e.g. P has free will if P is disposed to sometimes act freely.

IP Freely. I don’t know if that means I have free will or if it’s just the Flomax.

At least we know you don't have the Philosopher's Kidney Stone, then.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2018, 02:03:37 AM »
Is Michaelfosnuf taking any meds we should know about ```

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2018, 09:43:09 AM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"

What does this have to do with this thread? Father Peter never responded to my question. He was the one that abandoned the thread. This is a different topic and you are co-mingling the two. Than using a dead topic to state I have heretical view. Let people decide for themselves instead of defaming someones character.

I'm not defaming you, heretics can be good people. If I wind up converting I'll have to say that some of my best friends and my entire family are heretics. It's just a fact about a person.

I don't even definitively think you're a heretic, just that you've said some things that sound disturbing to me and I'm not alone in thinking that. So if I see you trying to go to the mat with an atheist for Orthodox Christology or Triadology, it feels wrong not to bring this up.
That doesn't give you grounds to warn people of something you are disturbed about. Especially if you don't understand that person to begin with.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,265
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2018, 03:12:26 PM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"

What does this have to do with this thread? Father Peter never responded to my question. He was the one that abandoned the thread. This is a different topic and you are co-mingling the two. Than using a dead topic to state I have heretical view. Let people decide for themselves instead of defaming someones character.

I'm not defaming you, heretics can be good people. If I wind up converting I'll have to say that some of my best friends and my entire family are heretics. It's just a fact about a person.

I don't even definitively think you're a heretic, just that you've said some things that sound disturbing to me and I'm not alone in thinking that. So if I see you trying to go to the mat with an atheist for Orthodox Christology or Triadology, it feels wrong not to bring this up.
That doesn't give you grounds to warn people of something you are disturbed about. Especially if you don't understand that person to begin with.

Tzimis, I don't think anybody understands you. Your theological posts are barely comprehensible half the time.

But like you said, people can think for themselves. That's why I included links and said "not necessarily." I doubt Michael even cares and is probably sick of this tangent. So, sorry for starting it.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,376
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2018, 03:36:01 PM »
Beginning of the posts to which I refer http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72965.msg1506483.html#msg1506483

And no, I'm just pointing out a fact. You've been called out on it by like eight Orthodox including a priest and a lay MDiv.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Michael and I agree on anything in this thread.
An OO preist. Im not in communion with him and our theologies aren't the same. As you state.
 there is theology behind the break with the Orientals,

Yes, but I think both the EO and OO interlocutors were similarly quizzical of your posts in that thread and Fr. Peter has a lot of respect from both sides here
.

as one of their major saints is a monoenergist heretic Severus of Antioch

Highly debatable.
I have respect for Father Peter and he conducted himself like a perfect gentleman in that thread. If you go over it. I dont see him say anything contradictory towards me.  As far as the other EO. I believe he had one foot still in the baptismal font and was proven wrong at the end of the thread.

Maybe so, but you were the one who kept insisting on calling his Christology "incomplete." And you never answered people pointing out your inconsistencies. When I asked you to explain what you mean by person, you handwaved it away saying that you had no time to get into it.

There was more than one EO contradicting you- Iconodule and Porter, not to mention the OOs Mina and Remnkemi (I was mistaken about Mor Ephrem being involved in the convo, my bad). I think you're confusing "falling silent because you owned them in debate" with "withdrawal after realizing the conversation is going nowhere,"

What does this have to do with this thread? Father Peter never responded to my question. He was the one that abandoned the thread. This is a different topic and you are co-mingling the two. Than using a dead topic to state I have heretical view. Let people decide for themselves instead of defaming someones character.

I'm not defaming you, heretics can be good people. If I wind up converting I'll have to say that some of my best friends and my entire family are heretics. It's just a fact about a person.

I don't even definitively think you're a heretic, just that you've said some things that sound disturbing to me and I'm not alone in thinking that. So if I see you trying to go to the mat with an atheist for Orthodox Christology or Triadology, it feels wrong not to bring this up.
That doesn't give you grounds to warn people of something you are disturbed about. Especially if you don't understand that person to begin with.

Tzimis, I don't think anybody understands you. Your theological posts are barely comprehensible half the time.

But like you said, people can think for themselves. That's why I included links and said "not necessarily." I doubt Michael even cares and is probably sick of this tangent. So, sorry for starting it.
No worries. I still love you.

Online Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2018, 04:11:09 PM »
Well ~ that's something to hearhold ~ not sure the reason for jumping out of the tree ~ let me go back and see if I can see ```

Online Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2018, 05:18:49 PM »
I can find what threshold was crossed or terrible anti christian ~ or badness that would bring on such ~ what ever that was ```

 In addition the way the : Quote after Quote after Quote ~ is on each post ~ it's not easy to follow ~ as to who is quoted as saying what ~ at least for me ```

I think I read a shouting , pointing ~ vein popping out on the forehead going on ~ I wasn't in the room when the terrible offence took place ~ and ~ going back in time has not helped ```

If someone will point out him or her or them ~ that is more Christian or Orthodox ~ that will help ~ or better yet ~ I think I'll have a large brandy ~ as Dumbledore would have said ```

setn


Offline Brilko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ?
Re: God has no free will or agency (formal argument included)
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2018, 12:11:05 AM »

 ~ I think I'll have a large brandy ~

setn

All the sailors say that she’s a fine girl.