Time, Orthodoxy, God's will... etc

[dskysmine]

Hey guys,
So I was watching a debate between an Orthodox priest and an atheist about the source of morality in the internet and there were a lot of attacks to the Christian position that were answered in a very different way so it got me thinking how in depth do we actually think about the positions we take.
Since the was about the source of morality the atheist defended that the source of morality is reason. Although no one attacked that principle (I sure would give him a piece of my mind) it really made it seem that Christians nowadays are also following the same kind of reasoning.
One of the first attacks to the Christian position was on the Bible. Questioning the morality of the Bible is the obvious and easy way to score points against Christians because of the whole Sola Scriptura concept.
Of course the Orthodox doesn’t believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but he does believe that it contains the Truth, as he put it “the narrative”.
Now, one would ask why does the Bible contain moral precepts that were later conceded as wrong (slavery, talion, etc…), but it does open the door to a real understanding of what is the true source of Morality.
We usually say that Natural Law can be acknowledged by everyone, even atheists, so then the question begins, if atheists can be moral, why be Christians. Then the reasoning goes to the search for an Ultimate truth. The sense of the matter though seems to be that
this Ultimate Truth can never be grasped by us.
This atheist had already spoken about the fact that “existence” is something that one can solely conceive inside of Time. Time surely does seem to be one of the most important aspects of his defense. That if God is outside of Time, then God is non existent because he will never exist in the past, the present or the future. It is also hard to explain how God can be outside of Time and yet act in it in different ways. So what once was considered God’s Will is now considered a sin.

Well in all of this rambling there are a few questions that I actually found to be interesting to exercise my apologetics because I haven’t worked on them in a while (especially with atheists). I don’t know if all of them fit in this Forum but at least they are a start of discussion. If somebody can point me a better place I will be sure to post them there.
1st: What is the concept of existence? Does everything that exist, must exist in Time? If so how can we say that God exists if not in time? If not, how can people in the past and in the present (or even future) have different sayings of what God is? Isn’t saying that we understand God better now the same as Moral relativism?
2nd: How does God act in Time if we do conceive Him to be outside of Time? He cannot listen to us if we are living in a particular space and time, but we usually talk about events in Heaven and Purgatory as having a proper Time. (Spending so and so many years in Purgatory, Spending “Eternity” in Heaven - Eternity being all the Time in the future right?-, Satan being a murderer from the beginning, being in Heaven and praying for our children and their children, etc…)
3rd: If God is outside of the Universe, because the Universe cannot contain Him, not in a “place”, then why do we use “Heaven” as a “place”? It seems to confine Heaven to a particular “place”, and the same as with “Hell” (a place of pain, fire, etc…).
Since early Judaism started there was always the concept of a “place” and “time” for God.
4th: If the Orthodox priest does believe that the Bible is not the Infallible Word of God then how can we conceive of knowing what is “good and bad”? I mean, both Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have Tradition, but boils down to the same core, legislature (which we conceive is God), judicial (which we also conceive is God) and executive (our Conscience?).
5th: The Orthodox priest had a very funny way of explaining why the concept of Truth and the concept of Idea are tied together. He mentioned that it is because of a materialistic problem that the word “imaginary” is connotated as being “bad”, while it shouldn’t, after all Mathematics is certainly True and it is merely a product of the “imaginary”. Could we really say that God is “imaginary” in a positive way?
This is just the starters. I had a list of too many questions but I think these are the broader and probably most challenging ones.
Anyone wanna take a crack at it?
God bless,
D

 

[ConstantineTG]

1st: What is the concept of existence? Does everything that exist, must exist in Time? If so how can we say that God exists if not in time? If not, how can people in the past and in the present (or even future) have different sayings of what God is? Isn’t saying that we understand God better now the same as Moral relativism?

Everything that exists in the physical universe exists within time and space. God exists in and beyond time.

2nd: How does God act in Time if we do conceive Him to be outside of Time? He cannot listen to us if we are living in a particular space and time, but we usually talk about events in Heaven and Purgatory as having a proper Time. (Spending so and so many years in Purgatory, Spending “Eternity” in Heaven - Eternity being all the Time in the future right?-, Satan being a murderer from the beginning, being in Heaven and praying for our children and their children, etc…)

God is not detached from our universe. Rather is is of and beyond it. I’ve read something in a website somewhere that offers a good explanation for this, although I believe it was a fundamentalist website. Anyway, imagine we are two dimensional beings and everything we know and perceive is 2 dimensional space. God is a 3-dimensional being. We can’t perceive anything about Him beyond our 2-dimensions. God intersects our 2-dimensional space but he is beyond the 2-dimensions we are in. He exists within it and beyond it.

3rd: If God is outside of the Universe, because the Universe cannot contain Him, not in a “place”, then why do we use “Heaven” as a “place”? It seems to confine Heaven to a particular “place”, and the same as with “Hell” (a place of pain, fire, etc…). Since early Judaism started there was always the concept of a “place” and “time” for God.

God is not outside of the universe. The universe exists within God and God extends beyond the universe, but God is not separate from the universe. The universe cannot exist without God.

Orthodox priest Father Stephen Freeman has a wonderful teaching on the subject where he talks about the “one-story universe”. Many Christians today talk about God as “the man upstairs.” However, that is fundamentally wrong because that gives an impression that is separating God from the reality where we exist in. In his opinion, a Christian believing in a two-story universe is no different from an atheist, both seeking to remove God from our plane of existence. He teaches that the universe is a one-story universe where God exists on the same “floor” as we do.

4th: If the Orthodox priest does believe that the Bible is not the Infallible Word of God then how can we conceive of knowing what is “good and bad”? I mean, both Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have Tradition, but boils down to the same core, legislature (which we conceive is God), judicial (which we also conceive is God) and executive (our Conscience?).

In Orthodoxy, only God is infallible. Everything else should be in accordance with God. The Orthodox also have a different view of “good and bad” in the Bible. Try reading this:

fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/why-morality-is-not-christian/

5th: The Orthodox priest had a very funny way of explaining why the concept of Truth and the concept of Idea are tied together. He mentioned that it is because of a materialistic problem that the word “imaginary” is connotated as being “bad”, while it shouldn’t, after all Mathematics is certainly True and it is merely a product of the “imaginary”. Could we really say that God is “imaginary” in a positive way?

If he means that God is not something materially tangible to our senses, then yes.

 

[Katholish]

1st: What is the concept of existence?

Everything that “is” exists. Existence is the act of being.

Does everything that exist, must exist in Time?

No, on the contrary. Time is the measure of change, i.e., wherever there is change, there is time. Change is the movement from potency to act, and whenever something has a potency or an ability to change, that means it is not presently in a state of actualization in relation to that potency. In its purest form, existence would simply be. It would be complete and simple act without potency. With no potency, perfect being… perfect existence… would be without change, without time.

If so how can we say that God exists if not in time? If not, how can people in the past and in the present (or even future) have different sayings of what God is? Isn’t saying that we understand God better now the same as Moral relativism?

I am not sure we really do understand the nature of God any differently. We have added some sophistication to our language and precision to our ideas, but Adam did not think that God had attributes which we now deny, nor do we accept different attributes of God than the ancient people of Israel would have held.

2nd: How does God act in Time if we do conceive Him to be outside of Time?

Imagine you have placed a rat in a maze. The rat moves through the maze unable to see the end of his journey, but you as the observer can see the entire maze in one glance. You see the beginning and the end simultaneously… an ability the rat does not possess. He can only see the corridor which he currently moves through with no knowledge of the twists and turns that lay ahead.

In a similar way, God views our entire timeline as if in an instant. We, who are bound by time, can only see the moment in which we exist, and have some knowledge of where we have been, but are clueless as to what lays ahead. In the same way that we might choose to add obstacles or rewards at different places in the maze for the rat, God acts at various points in our timeline in a special way (and in a real sense acts on every single point in a ordinary way by sustaining us in being as the First cause of all things).

He cannot listen to us if we are living in a particular space and time, but we usually talk about events in Heaven and Purgatory as having a proper Time. (Spending so and so many years in Purgatory, Spending “Eternity” in Heaven - Eternity being all the Time in the future right?-, Satan being a murderer from the beginning, being in Heaven and praying for our children and their children, etc…)

God can listen to us at any particular point in time and space, but you need to understand that the point of time and space refers to where and when we are, but not when and where God is. Remeber, God sees/knows/acts in the entirety of time and space.

Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory all exist in time to some extent, and in the cases of Heaven and Hell, even exist in space in some sense. Wherever there is change, there is time, and there is change in all three. Also, wherever their is matter, there is space/place, and Heaven is currently the residence is several material bodies and we know that Hell will one day be the residence of many as well.

Properly speaking, eternity actually refers to timelessness, and as such, only properly refers to God. Eternity can also mean an infinity of time, which is what we mean when we talk about our reward in Heaven lasting for eternity (though there is a sense in which we also mean that we will have some experience of timelessness ourselves thorugh our communion with God.)

3rd: If God is outside of the Universe, because the Universe cannot contain Him, not in a “place”, then why do we use “Heaven” as a “place”?

Our Lord Jesus Christ has a material body now in Heaven, as does His Blessed Mother, so Heaven is a very real place, and is very literally the dwelling place of God. In some sense, Heaven is also referred to as a place figuratively. It is a way to better understand God (because our minds have a difficult time understanding a Being not confined by time and space). In the same way that the Hebrews spoke of the “arm” of God, or the “face” of God, the referrence to Heaven as a dwelling place for God is partially anthropomorphic language (in addition to its quite literal meanings).

4th: If the Orthodox priest does believe that the Bible is not the Infallible Word of God then how can we conceive of knowing what is “good and bad”? I mean, both Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have Tradition, but boils down to the same core, legislature (which we conceive is God), judicial (which we also conceive is God) and executive (our Conscience?).

The Orthodox do believe in the infallibility of the scriptures even if some do not use that term.

Man’s primary source for information about morality is indeed from reasoning about our human nature as the atheist seemed to argue. That is what natural law is–the conclusions of human reasoning from the truths about our nature.

Divine Revelation is also a source of knowledge about morality, but it does not contradict the natural law. Divine Law is the true source of morality, but is not our primary source for the KNOWLEDGE of morality.

5th: The Orthodox priest had a very funny way of explaining why the concept of Truth and the concept of Idea are tied together. He mentioned that it is because of a materialistic problem that the word “imaginary” is connotated as being “bad”, while it shouldn’t, after all Mathematics is certainly True and it is merely a product of the “imaginary”. Could we really say that God is “imaginary” in a positive way?

Turth is the correspondence of an idea in the mind with the way that thing really is in reality. I may have a mental image of you in my mind (called a phantasm), but that does not make you the product of my mind. You are a real existing thing in reality. My phantasm may be a correct image of you (truthful) or false (errorneous), but that does not alter the way you eixst in reality. We call things imaginary only if they have no existence in reality and eixst only as phatasms in our mind. Thus, it would NOT be correct to call God imaginary.

 

[dskysmine]

Everything that exists in the physical universe exists within time and space. God exists in and beyond time.

I asked what is the concept of Existence… and how to define existence outside of time and space. I can easily say that person A existed in century XX in that place but in the case of God, devil, angels, saints… etc. I have no properties to associate. Do you understand?

God is not detached from our universe. Rather is is of and beyond it. I’ve read something in a website somewhere that offers a good explanation for this, although I believe it was a fundamentalist website. Anyway, imagine we are two dimensional beings and everything we know and perceive is 2 dimensional space. God is a 3-dimensional being. We can’t perceive anything about Him beyond our 2-dimensions. God intersects our 2-dimensional space but he is beyond the 2-dimensions we are in. He exists within it and beyond it.

I understand that God is beyond limits, but my question is how does God relate to Time. If He is beyond Time when he acts in Time how do things happen by His Will?
maybe an example illustrates my original doubt:
If God hears a prayer to cure some one and decides that His Will is that that person needs to be healed He could influence some doctor to help them, but at the same time this considers that God acts in a specific Time in a specific place. This raises questions as to how God chose to intervene in similar situations in the past one way and now in the present in another way (somebody insulting Elijah would get killed, somebody insulting the Pope would get rich?).

God is not outside of the universe. The universe exists within God and God extends (…)an atheist, both seeking to remove God from our plane of existence. He teaches that the universe is a one-story universe where God exists on the same “floor” as we do.

Dear Father Stephen sounds a lot more Pantheistic than I would give him credit for…
If you conceive as God “living” in the same Universe we do you could not conceive of God “before” the beggining of the Universe (I use before in a very unscientific way).
I believe God does interact in the Universe although not exactly sure how but I believe in a Panentheistic God.
My question was more regarding to how “changes” happen outside of the Visible Universe. One of the great conundrums of my Faith is how to explain Purgatory (to others) outside of Time. If there is no Time in Purgatory I cannot explain when a soul becomes purified to see the beatific vision. For me there is no problem stating that Heaven and Hell are a state of being, but Purgatory seems to be impregnated with time and the only “place” I know that has time is this Universe where we live.

In Orthodoxy, only God is infallible. Everything else should be in accordance with God. The Orthodox also have a different view of “good and bad” in the Bible. Try reading this:

fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/why-morality-is-not-christian/

It still seems very relativism to me… but maybe because I am so impregnated with the Latin Catholicism I cannot understand this so well.
Does God speak in Orthodoxy in a regular fashion? (Through special revelation maybe?)

If he means that God is not something materially tangible to our senses, then yes.

But there lies the problem. What made the word “imaginary” mean false or bad?
Mathematics also deals with the “imaginary” yet it is one of the purest forms of Knowledge.

Everything that “is” exists. Existence is the act of being.
No, on the contrary. Time is the measure of change, i.e., wherever there is change, there is time. Change is the movement (…)existence… would be without change, without time.

As I mentioned above the problem of “change” is exactly my problem with the concept of Purgatory and of “events” outside of the material Universe. How can I conceive of a “Coronation of Mary” if it requires a change? How can I conceive of purification in Purgatory if it requires a change? How can I conceive of “eternal” if it does not have infinite time? without time, “eternity” has no meaning. There is no change in “eternity”.

I am not sure we really do understand the nature of God any differently. We have added some sophistication to our language and precision to our ideas, but Adam did not think that God had attributes which we now deny, nor do we accept different attributes of God than the ancient people of Israel would have held.

I don’t know about Adam, but a lot of the OT Jews did think God was “Just” to send fire and brimstone upon other cities while we pray for the forgiving of those in the same cities.

Imagine you have placed a rat in a maze. The rat moves through the maze unable to see the end of his journey, but you as the observer can see the entire maze in one glance. You see the beginning and the end(…)places in the maze for the rat, God acts at various points in our timeline in a special way (and in a real sense acts on every single point in a ordinary way by sustaining us in being as the First cause of all things).

That is an interesting metaphor but in the same way the person watching the rat in the maze would not “know” what path the rat would choose. Isn’t in our Faith the requirement that God knows what path we will take?

God can listen to us at any particular point in time and space, but you need to understand that the point of time and space refers to where and when we are, but not when and where God is. Remeber, God sees/knows/acts in the entirety of time and space.
(…)Properly speaking, eternity actually refers to timelessness, and as such, only properly refers to God. Eternity can also mean an infinity of time, which is what we mean when we talk about our reward in Heaven lasting for eternity (though there is a sense in which we also mean that we will have some experience of timelessness ourselves thorugh our communion with God.)

What do you mean that Heaven and Hell exist in time and space? Is this time and space outside of this Universe? If not where is this?

Our Lord Jesus Christ has a material body now in Heaven, as does His Blessed Mother, so Heaven is a very real place, and is very literally the dwelling place of God. In some sense, Heaven is also referred to as a place figuratively. It is a way to better understand God (because our minds have a difficult time understanding a Being not confined by time and space). In the same way that the Hebrews spoke of the “arm” of God, or the “face” of God, the referrence to Heaven as a dwelling place for God is partially anthropomorphic language (in addition to its quite literal meanings).

Although I believe that Jesus Ressurected and in the Assumption of Mary I do not think they possess the exact same body as we possess now. I believe they already possess a glorified body for the New Earth and New Heavens. That doesn’t make it necessary that Heaven is a physical place. If you believe that Jesus has a body exactly the same as ours how do you think His Body endures without food? Sleep?.. etc

The Orthodox do believe in the infallibility of the scriptures even if some do not use that term.

Man’s primary source for information about morality is indeed from reasoning about our human nature as the atheist seemed to argue. That is what natural law is–the conclusions of human reasoning from the truths about our nature.

Divine Revelation is also a source of knowledge about morality, but it does not contradict the natural law. Divine Law is the true source of morality, but is not our primary source for the KNOWLEDGE of morality.

Wait… reasoning is a process. It is different from people to people. Especially in what values and aesthetics care for so you can’t just say that “any” human reasoning can reach Natural Law, I would assume something like a person looking at Mozart’t Requiem and saying “It has C’s”, while it is true it is just a part of a much bigger thing. In the same way if there is no Maestro telling us “you are playing a D and not a C” (Pope) then we would just play the wrong notes because of our imperfect self.

Turth is the correspondence of an idea in the mind with the way that thing really is in reality. I may have a mental image of you in my mind (called a phantasm), but that does not make you the product of my mind. You are a real existing thing in reality. My phantasm may be a correct image of you (truthful) or false (errorneous), but that does not alter the way you eixst in reality. We call things imaginary only if they have no existence in reality and eixst only as phatasms in our mind. Thus, it would NOT be correct to call God imaginary.

Yes but as I said above, Imaginary is correlated with bad, while it shouldn’t. A piece of music came out of someone’s mind but it is as beautiful as it is true, and while we could say that without that person playing it to others it does not “exist” in the materialistic sense, so Love cannot exist without “relationship” between people.
This is hard to explain in materialistic senses but it doesn’t mean it is any less true that a rock is a rock is a rock.
God is Love.And God’s Love for us is Real because He created us. The fact that Love is a potential in us that we may choose to refuse doesn’t make God any less real… it is just a refusal to see the evidence.

God bless,
D

 

[Katholish]

As I mentioned above the problem of “change” is exactly my problem with the concept of Purgatory and of “events” outside of the material Universe. How can I conceive of a “Coronation of Mary” if it requires a change? How can I conceive of purification in Purgatory if it requires a change? How can I conceive of “eternal” if it does not have infinite time? without time, “eternity” has no meaning. There is no change in “eternity”.

You are saying that you have a problem of conceiving immaterial changes? I don’t understand the problem. Your ideas are immaterial and they change. What is the difficulty in conceiving of some immaterial thing like an angel changing?

Without time eternity has no meaning? How so? It means “being outside of time”, immutable, unchanging. We might not understand it perfectly, but is it not impossible to imagine something that does not change.

I don’t know about Adam, but a lot of the OT Jews did think God was “Just” to send fire and brimstone upon other cities while we pray for the forgiving of those in the same cities.

Sure it was just. As Christians, we would not disagree with that. We hold that God is Just an Merciful, and so did the Chosen People. Just think about Abraham’s conversation with God before Sodom was destroyed. He asked God to show mercy and spare the cities if only 10 good people could be found. Not even 10 could be found, and those that could be found were spared (Lot’s family).

That is an interesting metaphor but in the same way the person watching the rat in the maze would not “know” what path the rat would choose. Isn’t in our Faith the requirement that God knows what path we will take?

The metaphor was intended to give a sense of how God views all of our actions and every event in time as a single whole. Yes. He sees all of our actions, whereas for us, we can only see the ones that we make at this moment, and remember the ones we have made in the past.

What do you mean that Heaven and Hell exist in time and space? Is this time and space outside of this Universe? If not where is this?

I don’t know where Heaven is precisely, but I know it is a physical place.

Although I believe that Jesus Ressurected and in the Assumption of Mary I do not think they possess the exact same body as we possess now. I believe they already possess a glorified body for the New Earth and New Heavens. That doesn’t make it necessary that Heaven is a physical place. If you believe that Jesus has a body exactly the same as ours how do you think His Body endures without food? Sleep?.. etc

They possess the same bodies they had while on earth, but those bodies are now imbued with special properties such as impassibility, sublety, agility, and clarity. They are freed from the restraints of matter as we experience it, yet remain truly material and palpable. Since glorified bodies are still material, they have to have some kind of location and spacial properties.

Glorified bodies are impassible, which means that they are free from pain and death. As such, eating is no longer “required” but is still possible and presummably enjoyable. Remember that Christ ate fish with the Apostles in His glorified Body to prove to them that He was not a mere Spirit but had truly risen from the dead with His same body. He showed them the nail marks in His hands and the wound in His side, yet he had the ability to pass through locked doors and was not limited by His material body.

Wait… reasoning is a process. It is different from people to people. Especially in what values and aesthetics care for so you can’t just say that “any” human reasoning can reach Natural Law, I would assume something like a person looking at Mozart’t Requiem and saying “It has C’s”, while it is true it is just a part of a much bigger thing. In the same way if there is no Maestro telling us “you are playing a D and not a C” (Pope) then we would just play the wrong notes because of our imperfect self.

It is true that in our fallen state, the human intellect is prone ot error, but it is not absolutely corrupted and can still arrive at truth, even if that process is difficult. That is why, not only do many men act against moral truths, but many do not even understand certain moral truths. That does not mean that those truths are not available to them if they tried to understand them.

In a similar way, the laws of physics are arrived at through reasoning, but not everyone understands them. It takes effort to study them and discover their reality.

 

[dskysmine]

You are saying that you have a problem of conceiving immaterial changes? I don’t understand the problem. Your ideas are immaterial and they change. What is the difficulty in conceiving of some immaterial thing like an angel changing?

Without time eternity has no meaning? How so? It means “being outside of time”, immutable, unchanging. We might not understand it perfectly, but is it not impossible to imagine something that does not change.

No, I am saying that I have a problem in conceiving “changing things” outside of Time.
Eternity does not mean “being outside of time”. Immutable means something that does not change over time, so time still exists “around it”.
And you sort of contradict yourself when you say that eternity is something that does not change and at the same time want to explain how something immaterial (according to you “inside of eternity”) changes.

Sure it was just. As Christians, we would not disagree with that. We hold that God is Just an Merciful, and so did the Chosen People. Just think about Abraham’s conversation with God before Sodom was destroyed. He asked God to show mercy and spare the cities if only 10 good people could be found. Not even 10 could be found, and those that could be found were spared (Lot’s family).

I fail to see how that answers the question I posed. I didn’t mention Sodom in my question though. I was thinking more about Babylon and such…

The metaphor was intended to give a sense of how God views all of our actions and every event in time as a single whole. Yes. He sees all of our actions, whereas for us, we can only see the ones that we make at this moment, and remember the ones we have made in the past.

From seeing all our actions until acting in them while not being in them is the paradox for me. Don’t forget that when we speak to God we are speaking “inside of time”. Our speech has a duration and it can even be contrary to a future wish or a past prayer. I don’t believe that God is like a “Yes/No” machine where he answers only if a prayer is consistent throughout time… I don’t understand how He would act in the present if He already knows the future.

I don’t know where Heaven is precisely, but I know it is a physical place.

Well you have to be more convincing of where a physical place exists outside of the Universe we see here.

They possess the same bodies they had while on earth, but those bodies are now imbued with special properties such as impassibility, sublety, agility, and clarity. They are freed from the restraints of matter as we experience it, yet remain truly material and palpable. Since glorified bodies are still material, they have to have some kind of location and spacial properties.

Glorified bodies are impassible, which means that they are free from pain and death. As such, eating is no longer “required” but is still possible and presummably enjoyable. Remember that Christ ate fish with the Apostles in His glorified Body to prove to them that He was not a mere Spirit but had truly risen from the dead with His same body. He showed them the nail marks in His hands and the wound in His side, yet he had the ability to pass through locked doors and was not limited by His material body.

To respect all the points you argue that would point to some kind of a Hyper dimension existence… not a physical existence in our Universe.

It is true that in our fallen state, the human intellect is prone ot error, but it is not absolutely corrupted and can still arrive at truth, even if that process is difficult. That is why, not only do many men act against moral truths, but many do not even understand certain moral truths. That does not mean that those truths are not available to them if they tried to understand them.

In a similar way, the laws of physics are arrived at through reasoning, but not everyone understands them. It takes effort to study them and discover their reality.

I am not arguing against the possibility of people reasoning a moral truth. It is not hard for someone to say that Mozart’s Requiem has C’s. That doesn’t mean they know how to play it. That doesn’t know they will play it correctly. Reasoning is a thought process… not a source of morality. Without the Divine Law, everything is permissible (Nietzche knew this) and without an actual voice to determine things here on Earth then Moral Relativism is rampant. That is my issue with this.
Physics is a very interesting subject, but not knowing Physics will not kill you or leave someone else without food. Without Revealed Divine Law (Pope) then there is no voice that will determine what is ultimately true right?
maybe I am trying to disprove Orthodoxy in the wrong place. I don’t intend anything bad for our Orthodox friends, I simply find it hard to understand how they kept Tradition.

God Bless,
D

 

[Katholish]

No, I am saying that I have a problem in conceiving “changing things” outside of Time. Eternity does not mean “being outside of time”. Immutable means something that does not change over time, so time still exists “around it”. And you sort of contradict yourself when you say that eternity is something that does not change and at the same time want to explain how something immaterial (according to you “inside of eternity”) changes.

I fear then that you have misunderstood what I said. Outside of time, there is no change. Period. Change is not possible without time, and time not possible without change.

Eternity, properly speaking, does actually mean being completely outside of time. However, there is also a less precide use of the term eternity which means an infinity of time. When we speak of God, we say that He is eternal properly speaking. He is outside of time. Not subject to change.

The term immutable simply means without change. It does not mean time still exists “around it”. Immutable means outside of time properly speaking.

I fail to see how that answers the question I posed. I didn’t mention Sodom in my question though. I was thinking more about Babylon and such…

The answer is that we in fact have the very same notion of God’s nature that they held in the Old Testament. There is no difference in our understanding of the Divine Nature, only further sophistication.

From seeing all our actions until acting in them while not being in them is the paradox for me. Don’t forget that when we speak to God we are speaking “inside of time”. Our speech has a duration and it can even be contrary to a future wish or a past prayer. I don’t believe that God is like a “Yes/No” machine where he answers only if a prayer is consistent throughout time… I don’t understand how He would act in the present if He already knows the future.

The future is contingent on His action. An actor in a play knows the entire script. He knows what is coming in the future, yet he can still act in the present. Knowing the future holds no obstacle to acting at some point before that future. I still don’t quite see the nature of your objection.

Well you have to be more convincing of where a physical place exists outside of the Universe we see here.

I never said Heaven couldn’t exist in this material universe.

Reasoning is a thought process… not a source of morality. Without the Divine Law, everything is permissible (Nietzche knew this) and without an actual voice to determine things here on Earth then Moral Relativism is rampant. That is my issue with this.
Physics is a very interesting subject, but not knowing Physics will not kill you or leave someone else without food. Without Revealed Divine Law (Pope) then there is no voice that will determine what is ultimately true right?

There is a difference between an ontological source and an epistrmological source. One is the sources of a thing’s very being, and in that way, Divine Law is the ontological source of the moral law (as I already said), but human reasoning from the observations about our own nature is the epistemological source of the moral law (the source of our knowledge).

Not knowing physics certain can kill you, and could leave you without food. Morality is a science (an organized body of knowledge). Just as your do not need a pope of physics to know the laws of entropy, you don’t need revelation or the magisterium to understand the moral law (though it is extremely helpful because it would be massively difficult and few would be successful without it). St. Thomas actually addresses an argument similar to this in the beginning of the Summa when addressing whether revelation is necessary to know about God.

 

[dskysmine]

I fear then that you have misunderstood what I said. Outside of time, there is no change. Period. Change is not possible without time, and time not possible without change.

Eternity, properly speaking, does actually mean being completely outside of time. However, there is also a less precide use of the term eternity which means an infinity of time. When we speak of God, we say that He is eternal properly speaking. He is outside of time. Not subject to change.

The term immutable simply means without change. It does not mean time still exists “around it”. Immutable means outside of time properly speaking.

If you are using that kind of terminology then God could never act in our Universe. Act requires change. For me to Love I have to act.

The answer is that we in fact have the very same notion of God’s nature that they held in the Old Testament. There is no difference in our understanding of the Divine Nature, only further sophistication.

Not at all… in the OT they had no understanding of God as a Triune being. They also had a different approach to communication to GOD. Always people thought that “seeing God” would cause death or “seeing an angel”. God was thought as the mover of both good and evil (like when the Pharaoh persecutes the Jews).

The future is contingent on His action. An actor in a play knows the entire script. He knows what is coming in the future, yet he can still act in the present. Knowing the future holds no obstacle to acting at some point before that future. I still don’t quite see the nature of your objection.

Of course the future is contingent on His action… your future is also contingent on your actions… our whole future is contingent in one way or another to each other’s actions. What I am saying is that I can think about the future before I act and decide to act or not to act. Can we say God “thinks” before He acts? Does He make choices? And how do choices we make affect what He sees?

I never said Heaven couldn’t exist in this material universe.

You didn’t… but you also said you “know” that Heaven is a physical place. If you “know” Heaven then how don’t you “know” where it is?
If I ask you “do you know Portugal?” You can say “I know of Portugal…but I don’t know where it is”. Which is not what you said.

There is a difference between an ontological source and an epistrmological source. One is the sources of a thing’s very being, and in that way, Divine Law is the ontological source of the moral law (as I already said), but human reasoning from the observations about our own nature is the epistemological source of the moral law (the source of our knowledge).

Not knowing physics certain can kill you, and could leave you without food. Morality is a science (an organized body of knowledge). Just as your do not need a pope of physics to know the laws of entropy, you don’t need revelation or the magisterium to understand the moral law (though it is extremely helpful because it would be massively difficult and few would be successful without it). St. Thomas actually addresses an argument similar to this in the beginning of the Summa when addressing whether revelation is necessary to know about God.

I have a problem when you say that human reason is the epistemological source for moral law. Being that true then one who would have a faulty reason could go against Divine Revelation and still be moral. Right?
Not knowing physics doesn’t necessarily kill you! While not knowing Divine Revelation will kill your soul. THe laws of Physics cannot be broken by us so it is moot to say anything about the necessity of a “pope of Physics”. Moral Laws can and are broken. That is the whole concept of Free Will.
Haven’t read anything from Aquinas but I assume that at least a Personal Revelation would be required to know anything about God, if that person has not known the public Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ.

God bless,
D.

 

[Katholish]

If you are using that kind of terminology then God could never act in our Universe. Act requires change. For me to Love I have to act.

Act does not require change. The only thing that requires change is a movement from potency to act, but if you were always in a state of act, there would be no change. When we speak about God, this is precisely what we are talking about. God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the unchanged changer, the unacted upon doer. God is pure act, without potency.

Perhaps the problem is conceiving of God only having one act. He does not have a succession of acts (which would involve change). We perceive His act as a succession because we are in time, but it is all one act for God.

Not at all… in the OT they had no understanding of God as a Triune being. They also had a different approach to communication to GOD. Always people thought that “seeing God” would cause death or “seeing an angel”. God was thought as the mover of both good and evil (like when the Pharaoh persecutes the Jews).

Being Triune is not part of God’s nature. God’s nature is One. There are Three Persons in God, but only One nature. Seeing God would probably cause death. I don’t think the Catholic Church would necessarily disagree with that. Seeing an angel might not cause death, but it is a frightening sight. I don’t think that the Jews thought seeing an angel would cause death, because there are many cases in the OT where people do see angels. Also, God is the author and cause of physical evil, we do not dispute that.

No essential differences.

Before going further, I am increasing puzzled by why you seem to be making arguments against the very nature of God, when you have “Christian - Catholic” listed in your religion field. May I ask what the goal of this examination is for you?

 

[dskysmine]

Act does not require change. The only thing that requires change is a movement from potency to act, but if you were always in a state of act, there would be no change. When we speak about God, this is precisely what we are talking about. God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the unchanged changer, the unacted upon doer. God is pure act, without potency.

Perhaps the problem is conceiving of God only having one act. He does not have a succession of acts (which would involve change). We perceive His act as a succession because we are in time, but it is all one act for God.

That seems weird, although it makes some sense. I don’t know how His Love would then be perceived so differently towards people.
And you evaded the question of Heaven having time or being physical and the question regarding morality. (maybe you don’t want to discuss further?)

Being Triune is not part of God’s nature. God’s nature is One. There are Three Persons in God, but only One nature. Seeing God would probably cause death. I don’t think the Catholic Church would necessarily disagree with that. Seeing an angel might not cause death, but it is a frightening sight. I don’t think that the Jews thought seeing an angel would cause death, because there are many cases in the OT where people do see angels. Also, God is the author and cause of physical evil, we do not dispute that.

No essential differences.

Well I don’t know exactly what is the “Nature of God” so I will skip that line, but it is pretty obvious from passages in the OT that they seeing an angel would be the same for them as seeing God. This happens with Tobit, with the Patricarchs, and others.
When I said the cause of evil, but not moral evil I meant stuff like when in the OT they say that God made people die from disease because of their sins, or when they say that God is behind someone being evil towards the Jews, (but also good). It seems for the Jews in the early OT that everything that others do to them is God doing it to them, later in the OT this is not so obvious as there is no clear mentioning of God being behind other people’s choices. Jesus also says that diseases are not due to sin done by one’s ancestors when the Jews say that the sick He is healing are sinners (and that is why they are sick). This clearly makes a difference to their previous understanding of God’s relationship towards Humanity.

Before going further, I am increasing puzzled by why you seem to be making arguments against the very nature of God, when you have “Christian - Catholic” listed in your religion field. May I ask what the goal of this examination is for you?

I am not making arguments against the nature of God. I have not made a single argument against God or His Love for me. I asked questions about our understanding of God and the Transcendant to know more and to see if someone could help me in understanding a little better. I might have counteracted your arguments… but your arguments are about your understanding of God, not God Himself.
I Love God with all my heart and with all my strenght. I pray to Him every day and eager to see Him in Mass. I am going to get married soon and I want to be able to answer my future children in case they ask me the same things.
I cannot be content with saying I can not know anymore about God. My relationship to Him must grow, and so my understanding of Him and His Holy Will.
I am not a typical Catholic in the sense that I just do what I am told. I also question my beliefs and my understandings to make sure my Faith grows more and to feed it.
I also live in a city that has so many non-catholic christians and much more atheists (berlin in Germany) that I have to make sense when I am defending my Faith.
I have experienced God’s Love and miracles all my life, but that doesn’t mean that I should stop studying. I want to give God to others, but God is the Truth, not “my understanding of the Truth”, hence the questioning.

God bless,
D.