diana

I got a <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> from Koy.

I can now retire.

d

And Butters, I also appreciate your kudos. I just couldn't think of a smartass remark to make with it, and for some reason I have an aversion to posting a simple "Thanks." But thanks.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Matthew144

I agree, and the way you have limited the definition simply illustrates the fact that you are unable to distinguish between an essential and a non-essential attribute.

Another way of saying this might help you -- An essential attribute is something that you have to have to be in a category, a non-essential attribute is something you can go without and still be in that same category.


The reason why you cannot be full male and fully female is because certain essential aspects of each category conflict thus disqualifying someone from being in both categories.

However, and unless you are tracking with the nonessential attribute definition by now you won't follow this, fallibility is not an essential attribute of being human. If you're perfect you can still be a person. Thus Jesus could be infallible and still retain all the essential attributes necessary to be human. Thus Jesus could be fully human and infallible.

White and human may or may not be descriptive terms of male, but in this case they are attributes that don't contradict one another in their essentials and thus I can be fully all of them.

(As for talking out of my ass, if you mean it in the sense that I am trying to trick somebody, no I am not doing that, but if you mean it in the sense that I am a little out of my league around here, then yes, you are probably right. However, that doesn't mean that I am wrong on this issue, and I am definitely not wrong on the essential, non-essential distinction.)

Sorry Diana, I didn't mean to ignore you, its just that your question is hard. Basically (and I am presupposing a biblical worldview) everything about God except what he does or has done is an essential attribute, so a list would be long. A short list would include holiness, perfection, completeness, knowing all things, able to do all things (except violate his nature), etc. Without any of these things, he would cease to be God. None of these attributes disqualifies God from being fully human however.

Perhaps it will boil down to what you think the essential attributes of man are. Could I have a short list of man's essential attributes from you now?

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

Mageth

able to do all things

Just picking one out, but just how is a human supposed to be "able to do all things"? The list of things that a human can't do is, I think, much longer than the list of things a human can do.

Perhaps it will boil down to what you think the essential attributes of man are. Could I have a short list of what you see as mans essential attributes from you now?

Stepping in here, but she asked you first.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

Basically (and I am presupposing a biblical worldview) everything about God except what he does or has done is an essential attribute, so a list would be long. A short list would include holiness, perfection, completeness, knowing all things, able to do all things (except violate his nature), etc. Without any of these things, he would cease to be God. None of these attributes disqualifies God from being fully human however.

A being with all those attributes would, by definition, be a god, not a human, wouldn't it?

diana

Good morning, Matthew!

I don't think you're trying to trick us, nor would I say you're out of your league. I do suspect, however, that you're talking somewhat authoritatively on things you haven't actually thought through.

What I mean by "talking out your ass" is that we can haggle all day about abstract concepts such as "divine" and "human" essential attributes, and the subject will never become any less fuzzy than it is now. I'm asking you to firm it up and give us something concrete to discuss. Give us some specific attributes that are essential to god (that is, inherent in the definition and concept of the being, as you understand it) that do not directly contradict corresponding essential "human" attributes.

I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

And by the way, I agree with your essential/non-essential attribute distinction. I'm not debating that.

I know.

I asked the question specifically because it puts you in an uncomfortable position. Analogies are not logical support; at best, they are explanation of how you see something.

And not to worry. I don't think you were ignoring me. Koy tends to have--how you say?--more presence than I do. I am content to be the wind beneath his wings.

I concur with your short list (based on the generally accepted Xn idea of God).

Any place an essential attribute of God contradicts the corresponding human attribute, a choice must be made between which the "being" takes on. You cannot combine "fallible/infallible" in one being. These are mutually contradictory, correct?

Let's look at your list.

• holiness: Men are capable of holiness. Therefore, as an essential godly attribute, I assume you mean absolute holiness. If humans were capable of absolute holiness, then anyone could have been "the perfect sacrifice" (not to mention that the bible states that we are all born into sin). If you don't mean absolute holiness, then God is no better than man in this respect.
• perfection. Again, we can be perfect in some things, or do some things perfectly, but we are not ultimate perfection. If we were, we'd be gods. If god isn't ultimately perfect, there is no point in listing this as an essential attribute.
• completeness. Would you define humans as "complete"? Then why do we need God?
• knowing all things. This is, of course, mutually incompatible with humanity. A being either knows all things or it does not. It can't both know and not know all things simultaneously.
• able to do all things. Same.

Essential attributes are those things that define a being, making it different from others. Because of this, you will not be able to list any essential attributes of God that do not distinguish him from mankind, because to do so would violate the purpose of essential attributes.

What Mageth said.

Oh, ok. Whatever you list as essential attributes of God--the negation of those are the essential attributes of man (as I listed above).

But Koy mentioned a few posts back the fallible/infallible problem. Either Jesus was fallible (essential to being "fully human") or he was infallible (essential to being "fully god"). Which was he?

A being cannot be both fully god and fully human simultaneously, Matthew--any more than a glass can be full of water and empty at the same time. To be one is to violate the essential attributes of the other and by definition make it, at best, "a god in human form."

d

Mageth

I was just prompted by diana's post to stress something about god's "essential attributes." They are all attributes which are defined relative to similar, but far more limited, human attributes. As I've said before, by definition, a being cannot be fully human and fully god, because god is defined by how he differs from humans.

diana

Exactly.

O, to be so concise.

d

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

I have done nothing of the kind. As you supposedly "agree," the (as in the only one) is as stated.

How can you agree that there is only one definition of the term and then claim that it is I who has "limited the definition?"

No, it does not as I have demonstrated several times now, but thank you for once again proving my initial contention in regard to your continued use of the word "essential" as an evasion tactic.

I know exactly what those terms mean and how they are used, so save the childish pretense.

As I will again point out, my objection to your terminology had nothing to do with the construct, but with the manner in which you were (and have been) misapplying the construct in order to dance the dance.

READ my posts and respond to the salient arguments instead of trying to act superior with this continued stupidity please.

Thank you.

Gee. You found your copy of Logic And Language for Freshman Without A Clue. How's that working out for you? Happy with it?

Now see if you can swim in the big pool and actually comprehend and apply the terms as everyone else has been.

Essential attributes are not just descriptive terms (like "fully white"); they must be inherent, intrinsic qualities, of course, for them to have any relevance to what we have been discussing (take particular note of that last phrase bolded just for you).

See if it's possible to stop regurgitating what you've read; pathetically attempting to make it seems as if I don't know what you're talking about and actually apply it all to the question at hand like everyone else has been doing the entire time, yes? You'll live a happier life, I assure you.

Allow me to demonstrate what I'm talking about with the very next thing you attempt to address. Take carefull note of how I actually apply what you seem only to have read and not comprehended:

There, see? You get it, but don't later apply it to the question at hand.

Curious.

See? Had you actually been paying attention, you would have read my very next paragraph:

The topic under discussion is a theological construct. Theologically speaking, Man is fallible as an essential attribute, in fact, one of the central essential attributes at the very core of Judeo/Christian cult dogma.

To this you should apply, yes?

No, you can not, since theologically speaking, an essential quality of being "Man" is being fallible (as well as sinful from birth).

Why do you think the cult had to create all that bullshit about a virgin birth and the immaculate conception in order to obfuscate these obvious flaws in their mythology?

No he could not, since the very same myth that created Jesus in the first place also stated that an essential attribute "necessary to be human" is fallibility and an essential attribute to being God as opposed to Man was infallibility.

THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, if one is infallible, then one is God and not Man and if one is fallible, then one is Man and not God.

Falliblity is the central delineating attribute between being God and being Man (unless, again, one reads Genesis and all of this goes away, but why should you respond to that repeated, unchallenged point as opposed to all of the others?).

No, he could not, since, THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, one cannot be human without being fallible. The second you are an infallible being is the second you are God.

It is not possible to separate the two, nor is it possible to reconcile them.

So, once again and for auld lang syne, THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, it is impossible for Jesus to be infallible and still be considered in any way "fully human."

Don't blame the messenger. You're the one that doesn't understand what essential attributes actually mean.

I tell you what. From now on, do not use these terms since you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I'll demonstrate it to you once again with what you just typed. Let's deconstruct, shall we?

"White" and "human" are not essential attributes of "maleness," and that's the only pertinent delineation that you continue to either miss or deliberately sidetrack with this pointlessness.

APPLY the construct just once to the topic at hand, please.

It is not whether or not there are "attributes that don't contradict one another in their essentials" it is whether or not their essential attributes contradict one another.

The qualifier "essential" is to be applied to the word "attribute" for it to have any relevant application here.

It is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and nothing more than masturbatory pointlessness to see whether or not attributes contradict one another in their essentials. What is of extreme relevance, however, is whether or not essential attributes contradict one another.

Got it? "Fully white" may be an attribute of your "maleness," but it is not an essential attribute, capisca? It is the essential attribute that matters (i.e., an intrinsic quality of being Man as opposed to an intrinsic quality of being God), not whether or not an attribute of being Man has essential qualities that contradict essential qualities of attributes of being God.

What would be the point of analyzing attributes to see if their essential quality contradicts anything? It serves no comparative purpose whatsoever, other than to simply describe one thing as compared to another.

Here, again, let me illustrate with your misunderstood use of "fully married" as an essential attribute of being "fully male." Being married is nothing more than a description of your life and therefore offers nothing relevant whatsoever to the question of the essential attributes to being "fully male." Nothing.

It may, in fact, be an attribute of your maleness, but beyond the descriptive quality it serves absolutely no purpose to the question at hand, re: what are the essential attributes of being "fully male."

Now do you see why I told you to stop with the terminology shrapnel?

What human do you know that is "perfect," "complete" (whatever the hell that means), "knows all things" and is "able to do all things?" Or are you making the common mistake of idealizing humanity so that you completely remove this discussion from any semblance of reality?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony.

And here's where you will no doubt hide behind the skirts of logic and semantics. Let me guess. It's logically possible that a man can know all things and do all things, therefore man can in fact know all things and do all things?

Will that be your sophism du jour?

Although not directed at me, you've forgotten the most salient issue of all, of course, which is that we are SPEAKING THEOLOGICALLY.

But, hey, since you're all over the map, why can't we be as well?

Here's my "short" list:[*] an essential quality of being "fully man" is that one cannot be "fully" anything else other than or at the same time as being "fully man."

Short enough?

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

diana

Matthew,

You obviously understand the difference between essential and non-essential attributes in theory, but I wonder if you understand them in practice.

Or, to be more specific, if you can apply them to the one thing you decided to believe before putting it under the logic microscope. And now that it's under logical scrutiny, you're squirming to force logic upon your theological beliefs.

To coin a cliche you already used then attributed to Koy, trying to make your belief seem logical is like trying to make square pegs fit round holes.

If I were you, I'd be squirming with the discomfort of cognitive dissonance at the moment.

d

diana

Perfect. That's me.

But not according to Xnty.

Please introduce me to an infallible human. I could use a friend who never, ever makes mistakes.

I always wondered about the "tempting Jesus" story for that reason: it requires that you forget, for the duration of the story, that Jesus is supposedly a god in human form. For the story to make a shred of sense, you must assume for the duration that he is a man like everybody else, hungry and weak, and just as susceptible to sin.

But he wasn't. He was infallible. Perfect. Because he was perfect (God, the epitome of perfection and goodness), it was impossible for him to sin.

This lends the story a big, whapping "What's the big deal?" reaction, doesn't it?

Jesus, as God, was also all-powerful, which meant he could have anything at any time. In order to tempt someone, it's necessary to offer them something they want or need. You see the problem? So the Devil offered Jesus food and all the kingdoms of the earth. What's the big deal?

Also--and it may just be the doctrine of the crutch I was raised in--but if you even consider committing a sin, you've sinned. You can offer me a shot of Jack Daniels in payment if I'll just curse the Lord (say), but I don't like or want Jack Daniels; ergo, I'm not tempted. So the problem here is that if Jesus considered Satan's offer, he sinned. If he didn't, he wasn't honestly tempted. So what's the big deal?

The only way for the story to work is for Jesus to lose his "infallibility" until it was over. That is, he'd have to become fully man but not fully God in order to even be tempted.

d

Edited to demonstrate the sarcasm of my claim to perfection.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>