Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
He did not kneel to Rome.
That's the best you can do? He replaced papal authority with his own.
As I said, what I said, doen't even resemble Arianism. I have no idea what "created physical catagories" refers to. Since you are insisting on claimiing what I said is Arianism, you'll have to show why theat is so, because I never even hinted at "God created Himself". I have no need to repent for my thoughts. They do not offend God. They offend those that demand I obey them w/o question.
"And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation'"
I have no need for the term. I'm only interested in the rational evaluation of evidence for the purpose of gaining knowledge and understanding. I'm am not interested in art, only logic and what is. I do not accept any arbitrary, artificially imposed restictions regarding what is proper, nor do I accept authority, tradition, or democracy as logical operations.
"As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church."
OK.
"At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed.
The word "true" can only apply if the logic is sound. As I pointed out, such a claim is illogical. One can believe whatever is true, that does not make it so.
"Nonetheless, there is no new Creed."
LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?
The article argues for both predestination and free will because scripture contains both.
If you exclude one you have to proof-text and spin mightily.
Anyway, here's some of its scriptural references:
Romans 11:33
Isaiah 1: 19
I Tim. 2:4-5
John 3:16
John 5:29
I Tim. 2:5
I Peter 5:7
Matt. 18:14
Psalm 49:1
Ecclesiastes 15:14
Is.55,20
Deut.10:17
Acts 27:3 1
Annulments do not produce illegitimate children.
I explained to you what is necessary for a valid annulment. If you have further questions, just ask.
Lunacy is the serial marriage and divorce culture. Thus conceived, nearly all marriages are on shaky grounds.
So?
On that, we agree.
But one shouldn't try to get around this error by annulling marriages that had been sanctioned before the eyes of God.
Men might be fooled, but God isn't.
Plenty of practice in that department.
Like I said, grounds for valid annulment are
- lack of ability to contract a marriage or lack of consent
- petition of nullity form one or both spouses.
One marrying with the intent to divorce and remarry if opportunity presents itself, or one marrying but intending to avoid parenthood, or one marrying while already married in the eye of God is not consenting to marriage. He is consenting to temporary cohabitation. No matter how he fools the Church, or the pastor, or the state to do the ceremony, the marriage is not properly conceived and is nullifiable. Where do you disagree?
how about an anullment several years after and a few kids later? If the marriage didn't exist where do the time and kids go?
That is not a valid conclusion. You asked who is my teacher and I told you.
"God, as usually described transcends physics. Hence metaphysics."
The modern function of "transcend" is to remove a real object, or concept from rational evaluation. The word applied previously in speculations, with very little knowledge and understanding of reality. It was used to postulate and construct models of existence w/o knowing and understanding evidence provides.
Re: "In order to exist at all, time is required.
"True for finite, changing, material existence. Not true for infinite, non-material.
It is true for all things that are real. These are terms that were used, but never understood before. They are now. All things in any world have an underlying physics. There are no such things as "supernatural". The word material refers to the physics of this world. There is no such thing as non-material real objects. Even a thought depends on an underlying physics for it's existence.
"In theology, 'eternal' means "existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change."
There's 2 claims made here. The first is simply a claim. That claim consists of a proposition, that can be proved false, as I did. Time is a measure of existence. If there is no time, there is no measure, so "eternal" is meaningless and time = 0. Not subject to change could mean many things. It would be better to say, that God is persistent and consistent for all eternity.
A bit off topic, but interesting I think is determinism in the philosophy of science.
At one point it was deduced: if every thing in the finite cosmos is cause and effect, then if we could know the entire conditions at any one point and all the laws all the forces follow, we could know/predict everything that will happen. Another way to put it is that initial conditions determine everything.
This is pure determinism on the scientific level.
However, what scientists are finding out is that a large degree of indeterminism is in the system and yet doesn't violate cause and effect.
I think there is a loose parallel between this and the predetermined vs free will debate.
That's certainly WHAT SHEILA KENNEDY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
Oh where to begin.
Perhaps here: The underlying physics of God is physics. Creation. But the sum total of creation does not equal God. This is where your category errors come in.
Transcend has a very specific meaning. Learn it and we can discuss it.
"There is no such thing as non-material real objects. Even a thought depends on an underlying physics for it's existence."
Your problem here is reductionism. Thought requires a body and brain, but cannot be reduced to either. Else you end with absurdities like "True" is reducible to a biochemical event - and therefore there can be no objective reality.
"Time is a measure of existence." Not for God.
You may wish to develop a philosophy from your thinking, but you are still at least a level short of theology.
Theology attempts to explain why physics exists, it is metaphysics. You can't approach this perspective with your methods or requirements.
One or both??? So if one spouse wants an annulment, that's valid grounds for it?
This is a more liberal reading than even I thought.
Another one of the flexible inflexibles.
According to the Church, the "marriage never existed", apparently the 12 years of marriage that produced 2 sons were all in her head. The 2 sons were, well not exactly illegitimate, just of "an unholy union". They felt great about that! Kennedy Kid used his money and connections to do this to his wife and children.
Are we to conclude from this argument that Kennedy is fortunate he is not a Protestant or his divorce would have been much more difficult?
No effect on the kids. No personal sin if the marriage was thought of as a marriage -- in other words it does not count as adultery. Not sure what else you are asking.
Yep. Can you imagine what children would think of their church after pronouncing them products of "an unholy union?"
Which is worse I wonder, being a Kennedy spawn or a product of an unholy union? Wait, they're both!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.