hinduwoman

What about Mary's relationship with the trio?
If she is daughter (metaphysically of course), wife and the mother of God, with which aspects of trinity does she enjoy this relationship?
If all three are one, then she is simultanously daughter, wife and mother which makes it incest.
How do Jesus behave towards her in heaven?

Vic

Mary had a relationship with the Holy Spirit, who had implanted the "Son" into her on orders from the Father -"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son". The 'son', however, thought that he was the son of the Father, ergo "the Father and I are one" and the Father also thought that he was the one that sired him, thus "This is my beloved son". But it is also possible that it was the Son that was responsible for his human brother though we're told by Gabriel that "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee", which could mean a joint effort. Matthew, on the other hand, only records the deed as coming from the Ghost and does not mention the "power of the Highest". Mary for her part was just happy that she was pregnant and that Joseph had bought the story on how she became so. I understand that this episode has been the subject of heated discussion in the Heavenly sphere since it happened. The last time I heard from my sources it appears that not all is well with their relationship and there is rumour that the Father may shortly give Mary a "bill of divorcement", like he had done to Israel in the old days, though in fairnrss to Mary she didn't know who did her as they all looked alike. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not talking to each other and the son is doing his best to reconcile the Father, which is in fact his uncle and his uncle, which turned out to be his father. The "Son", however, is reported to be in a state of deep depression over the whole affair and concerns have been expressed that he is becoming suicidal. As soon as I hear of any futher developments in the celestial "Southfolk" (Dallas) I will share it with the members of the board.

Vic

Sorry, I forgot to mention - Jesus still calls her Mommy and spends as much time with her as he can, although he is very, very busy in his job of organizing all the petitions of the faithful that have to go through him to the Father. He managed to get some help, some time back from a fellow called Allah.

Vorkosigan

Kenny,

I see know that I misunderstood the use of the word "positive" as Godel used it.

We will have to disagree on the scrumptious Ms. Aguilerra. Suffice to say it is not lofty thoughts she engenders in the depths of my being. But as she is currently underage I will say no more.

In any case, I can see why a proof might be intuitively satisfying and thus acceptable to people already committed to a certain faith position. See you around the forums, and keep us posted on your wedding plans, honeymoon, kids, etc.

Vorkosigan

Kenny

Why, what other sorts of thoughts could she possibly produce??? Of course, since I am getting married I suppose that means I’ll have to let Ms. Aguilerra go. I hope she won’t be too disappointed that someone else got to me first

We’re almost done with all the arrangements. It’s coming up fast too -- June 22 and my bachelorhood will be forever lost. I can’t wait!

Now that’s none of your business

Not for some time hopefully, but eventually, maybe in a couple years -- one of the advantages of being protestant; birth control is okay.

Actually, if at goes as planned, it’s off to Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena at the end of the summer. After going through another winter in Missouri, I’m looking forward to that!

God Bless,
Kenny

anonymousj

Goliath,

I began this topic with a statement of what I mean by a sound argument. The definition is taken from Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic 11th edition, the text I am using for the logic course I am currently teaching.

I will answer the rest of your objection, after you have either shown me where in my posts you see my 'extreme of ignorance of logic' or you retract this remark.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Adrian Selby,

The definition of 'sound argument' does not require that the premises be necessary truths; you seem to recognize this.

You say, All that this shows is that this notion of omnipotence can't be satisfied, but acknowledging this is not much of a concession. It is not as though there is some task to which God is unequal-- a three-cornered sphere is not a logical possibility, which is to say there is nothing to make. So it isn't a limitation on power, in the sense that the inability to dunk a basketball would be a limitation.

All that those who maintain that God is omnipotent mean is that He can do everything that it is logically possible for a single being to do.

In general, trying to show that there isn't a God by showing that some aspect of the 'definition'is flawed, is a doomed enterprise; after all, all that the believer has to do is, thank you for the illumination, if you have pointed out a difficulty, and revise the conception that was flawed.

Human contact with God is fundamentally contact by acquaintance. God is the entity who gave moses the commandments, who spoke to Lot from the whirl wind, etc. People may be driven to revise their characterizations of God, but one cannot get rid of Him by pointing out contradictions in the things that are said about God.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Schmecky,

I have not read a high-quality, modern philosophical work which merely stated an argument, refused to give any support whatsoever for its premises, and challenged it readers to disprove it premises since it wasn't going to give any support for them. But in those works it was a given that merely pointing out that a premise wasn't proved doesn't show that the argument is unsound. That is not a given on this board.

cheers,

anonymousj

Douglas J. Bender

anonymousj,


I take it you are a Christian (correct me if I'm wrong). (Or does "anonymousj" stand for "Anonymous Jew"?) And I understand that you teach logic at college. Do you teach at a Christian college or university? I assume that you are a professor - am I correct?

The "proof for the existence of God" that you provide would be a proof for the existence of God only if your first premise is true. In order for your "proof" to be an actual "proof" that God exists, you must establish the truth of that first premise. And that would involve arguments regarding "First Cause", and "Uncaused Cause", etcetera.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

anonymousj

curby III,

You say, Unbelievable!!!

cheers,

anonymousj