Person vs Nature (contd.)

[afthomercy]

I don’t want to be rude but I am " gassed " on all this speculation. I do not agree with you on major points since I regard them as contrary to faith. My advice to you is to be guided strictly by the Catechism and stop speculating. You are not a theologian and neither am I, so there is no point to it and I can already see the dangers such specualtion has for you. So I am not going to respond on these issues any longer.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus,
I respect your deference to the Catechism and the teachings of the Magisterium, but surely there is some little room for speculation that the faithful are allowed to indulge in?

You said that you don’t agree with me on major points. Are there any “minor” points in my last few posts on which we are in agreement?

You have said that Boethius was right and I am wrong (in my construct of “personhood”). From this I presume that you are trained in Philosophy. The Aristotelian school looks into the nature to discover/define the personhood. My construct leads you away from the nature and points to God (as the place where the personhood is to be found). Obviously you see this as pure balderdash, but can you point out the fallacy?

We have the Lord saying (Luke 3:8 & Mathew 3:9) “for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” Granted that the Lord was talking idiomatically, but if you held him to His word, what are the various ways in which you suppose God could do it? One way would be to tell that stone: Hey stone, you are my dear creation, just like Linus or AFT. From that day, according to my construct, that stone has become a person, because in his mind, God has applied a personal identifier to it. Nothing has changed in the stone’s nature.

The renewed focus on the Big Bang theory (coming from the Pope himself) forces us to think what kind of beings Adam and Eve’s ancestors would have been in an evolution scenario. I have pointed out the improbability of them being persons and yet escaping sinning. Do you have any thoughts to offer on this? The only way out, in my opinion, is to give the ancestors human natures that were non-personal. This is a question that theologians will have to answer today or tomorrow. Though not being a philosopher/ theologian, I want to be first off the block in raising the question and also suggesting the answer.

Whilst browsing the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia for this discussion, I came across it that theologians have speculated as to what would happen to the man Jesus if the Hypostatic Union ceased, but they haven’t been able come to a satisfactory conclusion. My construct can provide the answer. The answer is that God would have to remove the “Son” identifier and apply a new identifier to that nature. That would make that man a new person without changing anything in him.

Linus, sorry if I’m gassing you, but I just want to take the OP that I raised to a satisfactory conclusion.

Are there any trained Catholic philosophers out there whom I can bounce my idea off?

Peace,
AFT

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
I respect your deference to the Catechism and the teachings of the Magisterium, but surely there is some little room for speculation that the faithful are allowed to indulge in?

You said that you don’t agree with me on major points. Are there any “minor” points in my last few posts on which we are in agreement?

You have said that Boethius was right and I am wrong (in my construct of “personhood”). From this I presume that you are trained in Philosophy. The Aristotelian school looks into the nature to discover/define the personhood. My construct leads you away from the nature and points to God (as the place where the personhood is to be found). Obviously you see this as pure balderdash, but can you point out the fallacy?

We have the Lord saying (Luke 3:8 & Mathew 3:9) “for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” Granted that the Lord was talking idiomatically, but if you held him to His word, what are the various ways in which you suppose God could do it? One way would be to tell that stone: Hey stone, you are my dear creation, just like Linus or AFT. From that day, according to my construct, that stone has become a person, because in his mind, God has applied a personal identifier to it. Nothing has changed in the stone’s nature.

The renewed focus on the Big Bang theory (coming from the Pope himself) forces us to think what kind of beings Adam and Eve’s ancestors would have been in an evolution scenario. I have pointed out the improbability of them being persons and yet escaping sinning. Do you have any thoughts to offer on this? The only way out, in my opinion, is to give the ancestors human natures that were non-personal. This is a question that theologians will have to answer today or tomorrow. Though not being a philosopher/ theologian, I want to be first off the block in raising the question and also suggesting the answer.

Whilst browsing the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia for this discussion, I came across it that theologians have speculated as to what would happen to the man Jesus if the Hypostatic Union ceased, but they haven’t been able come to a satisfactory conclusion. My construct can provide the answer. The answer is that God would have to remove the “Son” identifier and apply a new identifier to that nature. That would make that man a new person without changing anything in him.

Linus, sorry if I’m gassing you, but I just want to take the OP that I raised to a satisfactory conclusion.

Are there any trained Catholic philosophers out there whom I can bounce my idea off?

Peace,
AFT

I am finished with this discussion. It doesn’t look like anyone else is interested either. I suggest you write a paper and submit it to one of the theological/philosophical publications. You will have to find these on your own.

Pax
Linus2nd