diana

Matthew144,

Another definition of "fully"? Are you redefining a common term at your convenience here?

OK. I'll bite. What are the "essential attributes" of God and what are the "essential attributes" of man?

d

Matthew144

I said that if we use your definition of fully you are right. However, Christian orthodoxy is not doing that and so accusing them of being illogical is silly when they are not using your definition.

You are reduced to arguing that the word they chose does not have a range of meaning that allows them to use the word the way they meant to use it. That, however, is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether it is logical, not whether it is semantically acceptable or somehow misleading to use the word fully in any other than your narrow sense. You even accept my use of it when I say I am fully male, fully white, and fully human. Why then do you reject my use when I say that Jesus is fully man and fully God?

I am beginning to think that it is because you do not understand the difference between essential and non-essential attributes. I thought this was a basic philisophical distinction, but it seems both novel and unclear to you. Are you at all familiar with these terms? Your posts indicate a failure or a fear to interact with them if you are.

Once again I challenge you to find one essential attribute of either man or God that renders a union of the two logically impossible. Histrionics aside, you have not yet shown an ability to do this.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

Mageth

Once again I challenge you to find one essential attribute of either man or God that renders a union of the two logically impossible.

God's a god, and man's human? Aren't they mutually exclusive by definition?

I think it would help for you to list what you consider to be the attributes of god, both essential and non-essential (what would be a "non-essential" attribute of God, anyways?).

Consider a much simpler case than God/Man. Can one be fully male and fully female? I don't think so; if one had all the male attributes and all the female attributes (which I don't think one could, by the way), one would be defined as something else, not "fully male and fully female."

Koyaanisqatsi

Hey, Mageth! Great minds think alike (read below).

There is only one definition of that word. It is an absolute.

There are no degrees of "fully."

See above.

No, I am "reduced" to arguing that their construct is an impossibility and that the apologetics they use to cover this up with represents deliberate fraud, but that's not exactly a shock. That's the whole purpose of apologetics.

It is impossible for a person to be fallible at the same time that they are infallible, yes?


Ahhh the pot calling the kettle black. This is, of course, why I left initially.

Here, let me demonstrate what I'm getting at with your next spin:

Ok. Stop right there. You are fully male. For this to be at all analogous to what we've been discussing, the question then becomes can you also be fully female?

Being "fully male" does indeed imply certain fundamental attributes that must be equally accounted for when applying this analogy to what we've been discussing.

I can't, for example, be "fully male" at the same time that I am "fully female," correct? But female is the only other equally fundamental "attribute" that could be at all applicable or comparable to the concept of "fully male."

Being "fully God" for example has certain fundamental attributes such as infallibility.

Being "fully Man," likewise, has certain fundamental inherent attributes (theologically speaking, once again) such as fallibility.

In other words, to say (theologically) that one's nature is "Man's" or to say that one's nature is "God's" is to ipso facto state that one's nature is either fallible or infallible as a defining characteristic inherent in the construct and not simply addended as an after thought or description.

Being "fully male" and then also stating that you are "fully white," however is not equivalent on any level, since "whiteness" is not a defining characteristic inherent in the construct "male." It is nothing more than a descriptive term that you are using as apologetics shrapnel.

It is impossible to be both fallible and infallible just as it is impossible to be fully male and fully female just as it is impossible to be fully God and fully Man, and that is the argument.

For the reasons given above, of course. "Fully white" and "fully human" are nothing more than descriptive terms that further delineate your "maleness" and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

What we are discussing, of course (as you should well know) are the inherent essentials and not merely the lesser, ancillary and non-substantive descriptions of what those essentials can imply.

It's not about describing what a person looks like, it's about reconciling an impossible construct; a fallible being that is infallible.

Then what you are "beginning to think" is demonstrably incorrect.



Who is the one who thinks that "fully white" is an essential attribute?

My objections to the terminology being bandied about, however, had nothing to do with the term "essential." You need to read more carefully.

Yeah...fear...

There's nothing I fear more than a sophist lobbing helium balloons at me thinking they are poison-tipped daggers.

Already done three times now, so pay close attention: It is impossible for Jesus to be both fallible and infallible on any level at all.

Impossible.

Bullshit, but then you already know that, which is why you keep trying to repeat the same crap all over again.

This is precisely why I retired.

Oh well.

(edited after posting and seeing what Mageth posted - Koystill)

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

Mageth

Hey, Mageth! Great minds think alike (read below).

Howdy, Koy! Good to see you back around, and I hope it's more than for just a bit.

I read your post after I posted mine, and had the same thought. We may think alike, but I sure like the way you hammered the point home. Most excellent as always!

diana

Matthew,

I realize that next to Koy I'm chopped liver, but I'd appreciate your answering my questions.

You can argue about disembodied essential attributes all day and half the night, but it's meaningless. I again invite you to list what you feel are essential attributes of God, and what you feel are essential attributes of man.

If you fail to provide specifics in this matter, I think it's safe to say you're talking out your ass.

Thank you for your time.

d

Koyaanisqatsi

Ahhh, Diana! I definitely missed you.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Hawkingfan

Koy,

You a Philip Glass fan? Or do you just like the movie? Or both?

Koyaanisqatsi

Both.

Hawkingfan

Nice to meet you. This should probably be a new thread, but...I like his "Glassworks", second opera "Satyagrahara", and "Dracula" score as well. I also like Steve Reich, John Corigliano, Michael Torke, and Aaron Kernis. See ya around.