10 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkSure I always forgive people no matter what, even though it's hard sometimes, I know I've been kind of hard on you guys but just trying to help you guys see the Truth, nothing against ya'll.
It's good to see a christian enact what they profess.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel58Don't worry, it's water off a duck's back really.
Sure I always forgive people no matter what, even though it's hard sometimes, I know I've been kind of hard on you guys but just trying to help you guys see the Truth, nothing against ya'll.
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel581. So their is no difference.
1. So their is no difference.
2. What don't you get?
3. They neither were nor are part of the created world, re-creation of the Earth and man? Yes but God made the angels BEFORE He created PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE![/b]
There's a world of difference. He is not restricted by the laws He creates. While His laws certainly reflect some aspect of His character, these laws are separate from Him, nonetheless. He is free to do whatever He chooses, regardless of the laws He has set for any one of His created systems.
2. What don't you get?
Among other things, your intended meaning.
3. They neither were nor are part of the created world, re-creation of the Earth and man? Yes but God made the angels BEFORE He created PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE!
Is light a physical substance?
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkI think we do deep down, apart from on the small matter of god's existence.
I’m glad we finally agree.
I think we do deep down, apart from on the small matter of god's existence.
Let's face it, we could argue this back and forth forever, since unlike chess, this kind of debate rarely terminates.
I was intruiged by this strategy:
Sure you have. Take a look at your own words, five short paragraphs above this one.[/b ...[text shortened]... arification, just ask and I'll try to express myself more clearly.
I wish you well.
LMAO! Nicely played, sir.
I have said that logic could be part of god's nature, and have questioned your basis for ruling this out.
Because you hadn't supported the 'could be' and because I have a basis for believing otherwise.
But actually there is a problem of language here, since if by 'logic' you mean the human system of thought to which god could not be subject, and I mean that part of god's nature that gives the world intelligibility and gives rise to the human system of logic, we are going to continue to talk past each other.
Which is why I was saying that God acts logical (as considered by man assuming he has seen correctly), but objected to logic being part of His attributes.
We have a conception of justice, and by your reasoning that must be our imperfect analogue of god's perfect justice. Yet when I make the same argument for logic you have a particular beef.
We have a concept of emotion, as well, which has no part of God's make-up.
If you want to declare this a win for you, fair enough, in any case, thanks for a civilised debate.
I do, I do, I do. Oops: did I just say that out loud? I always appreciate an insightful sparring.
I wish you well.
And to you.
10 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI simply haven't had the time to gather the references.
I simply haven't had the time to gather the references. But while you wait, consider what occured at the cross. The Father loved the Son and yet judged Him when the sins of the world were placed upon Him. Love or judgment?
No problem, man. I’ve frankly been gunning from the hip, and drawing on a remembered line of Greek Orthodox thought. If this stuff were that easy, there wouldn’t be theological differences among so many bright minds. When you do present your stuff, I’ll likely have to take some time myself…
The Father loved the Son and yet judged Him when the sins of the world were placed upon Him. Love or judgment?
Give me a sec, as I put on my “thinking in the Christian paradigm again” hat on… There. Okay. 🙂
That question goes to the whole of Christology (and trinitarian versus non-trinitarian doctrine). The argument I’ve thrown down can only be sustained within a trinitarian framework, I think: one in which it is God himself, in the hypostasis of the Son, who makes the sacrifice. (For purposes of our argument—and keeping that hat firmly on my head—we can set aside the whole “need for sacrifice question” for the time being anyway.) If you take a non-trinitarian line (forgive me for forgetting your position on that!), we’re at immediate impasse.
A clue to how I would view it from within that framework is in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Again following a particular stream of thought from Greek Orthodoxy, the tares cannot be people—or else it would have to be granted that the “adversary” can create actual people (or at least pseudo-humans) who would be the tares. Therefore, the tares represent our sinful qualities, which get burnt up in the fire—as opposed to the qualities that represent our original “image and likeness”. In such a view, even “hell” has a remediative function within a soteriology of healing (soterias). [But it does raise the debate over the eternality of hell, which rests on how one interprets all those Greek “aion” words.]
Once again, the question is of which texts are seen to provide “foundational” context for other texts. In that way, this view rests heavily on some Pauline texts: such as 1st Corinthians 15:28 and Romans 5:18.
________________________________________________
I'm going to suggest that you take your time, and "call me out" on a new thread when you're ready. Then, frankly, I'll have to see if I've got the time for the kind of sustained theological discussion this will take. But I am sincere when I say that I am willing to reconsider my whole position in the light of what you come up with.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Although the debate phase has finished (and you are enjoying your victory) I did want to ask you about this, you said:
We have a concept of emotion, as well, which has no part of God's make-up.
So, when we make statements like 'the Father Loved the Son' or when we read parts of the OT that talk about god's emotions, what is meant by these?
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. No God is Moral and He created MORAL laws for man which HE follows.
[b]1. So their is no difference.
There's a world of difference. He is not restricted by the laws He creates. While His laws certainly reflect some aspect of His character, these laws are separate from Him, nonetheless. He is free to do whatever He chooses, regardless of the laws He has set for any one of His created systems.
2. What don't you ...[text shortened]... God made the angels BEFORE He created PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE!
Is light a physical substance?[/b]
2. If you don't get it by now it may be too late.
3. God nor angels need light.
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkLanguage of accomodation is what is used when describing any human quality to God--- anthropomorphisms, if you will.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Although the debate phase has finished (and you are enjoying your victory) I did want to ask you about this, you said:
[b]We have a concept of emotion, as well, which has no part of God's make-up.
So, when we make statements like 'the Father Loved the Son' or when we read parts of the OT that talk about god's emotions, what is meant by these?[/b]
Man was gifted with emotions to assist in his approximation and relation to God's happiness (or, better: completeness) with Himself.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOriginally posted by FreakyKBH
Language of accomodation is what is used when describing any human quality to God--- anthropomorphisms, if you will.
Man was gifted with emotions to assist in his approximation and relation to God's happiness (or, better: completeness) with Himself.
Language of accomodation is what is used when describing any human quality to God--- anthropomorphisms, if you will.
Man was gifted with emotions to assist in his approximation and relation to God's happiness (or, better: completeness) with Himself
And gifted with the faculty of reason (including logic) to assist in his approximation and relation to God's exquisitely ordered creation?