Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 12-02-2002, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xman:

Regarding your point on temporary vs. permanent distictions, I'm afraid I don't understand the significance of your most recent statement. Would you mind expanding your objection a bit?

Please tell me what you don't understand, and I'll do my best to explain.

Butters · 12-02-2002, 04:33 PM

Ah, maybe I should have phrased it like this.

"A" The God described in the Chrsitian Bible is not man
"B" Man is not the God described in the Christian Bible

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Therefore Ray Charles is God

That makes as much sense as an omnipotent, omniscient God to make (Part of?) himself human, to die, to appease his own anger, over something that he started in the first place.

diana · 12-02-2002, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Jesus was both fully man and fully God, not a hybrid of the two. First, the hypostatic union is not a logical contradiction: Jesus was both "A" and "B."

I realize y'all have progressed past this point, but you seem to still be arguing, basically, about this.

If Jesus is capable of simultaneously being fully man and fully God (not a hybrid of the two), then I have an amazing computer desk to sell you at a price you can't refuse. It's 100% solid walnut and 100% stainless steel.

d

Perhaps it would help matters if you defined what you mean, specifically, by "man" and "God." I mean, not just the denotation, but the connotations, as well. This way we can decide easily enough if the two terms are mutually exclusive or not. If mutually exclusive, they cannot simultaneously both be. If not, then they can simultaneously both be. Easy enough, no?

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]

Xman · 12-02-2002, 05:04 PM

Winstonjen,

Quote:

Likewise, Jesus' suffering for our sins cannot be both permanent and temporary.

His suffering was temporary because it ended. It was permanent because he lost some things that could not be recovered, such as time. This is not contradictory but is rather common-sensical, I think, so I don't understand why you would deny that it could be permanent in one sense and temporary in another sense.

Xman · 12-02-2002, 05:08 PM

Diana,

As I have tried (painstakingly!) to explain, "fully" does not mean "100%." If the desk has 100% stainless steel legs and a 100% wood top, then maybe I'll buy it.

winstonjen · 12-02-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xman:

As I have tried (painstakingly!) to explain, "fully" does not mean "100%." If the desk has 100% stainless steel legs and a 100% wood top, then maybe I'll buy it.

Please take your medication, then I'll continue this discussion.

For Jesus, he would still have infinite time ahead of him, so any amount of suffering would be almost nothing for him.

Naked Ape · 12-02-2002, 06:34 PM

Ahem.

Here we have the definitions offered by Dictionary.com:

Quote:

god n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

man n. pl. men
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
3. A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.
4. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.
5. Zoology. A member of the genus Homo, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record information in a variety of symbolic systems.
6. A male human endowed with qualities, such as strength, considered characteristic of manhood.

OK, Jebus would have rated god definitions 3 through 6 and all of the man definitions, if he had the decency to have existed historically. Is this the �hypostatic union� you were talking about? Do you think this somehow draws attention from the �God sacrifices himself to himself, to save us all from Him.� Part?

Cheers

Naked Ape

worldling · 12-03-2002, 01:29 AM

Actually, I think Xman is right. The hypostatic union, as he defines it, does not violate the law of non-contradiction. It was the peanut butter sandwich metaphor that did it for me.

We can view Jesus as a man, sandwiched between two slices of god. The crucifixion effectively opened up the sandwich, and scraped the man out. So all we are left with is the god.

Provided Xman doesn't claim that the peanut butter is still there, and that the entity he worships is, metaphorically speaking, dry bread, then I don't see anything illogical in this claim. Improbable, yes. But not illogical.

Thank you, Xman.

Hawkingfan · 12-03-2002, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xman:His suffering was temporary because it ended. It was permanent because he lost some things that could not be recovered, such as time.QB]

You keep mentioning the loss of time, but I don't see the big deal about it. So he lost time. Who cares? I've lost more than that before.

Hawkingfan · 12-03-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling:
[QB]Actually, I think Xman is right. The hypostatic union, as he defines it, does not violate the law of non-contradiction. It was the peanut butter sandwich metaphor that did it for me.QB]

I could care less. It is still no big deal. Especially when one considers that the Romans crucified people all the time. By probability, Jesus could not have been the only innocent person crucified. And he had metaphysical reasons(in his eyes) for doing so. Many innocent people are executed today who died for absolutely no one else and were not expecting any great rewards in an afterlife. It is arrogant of Christians to think that Jesus's suffering is somehow greater than that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2002, 04:33 PM	#42
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Ah, maybe I should have phrased it like this. "A" The God described in the Chrsitian Bible is not man "B" Man is not the God described in the Christian Bible God is love Love is blind Ray Charles is blind Therefore Ray Charles is God That makes as much sense as an omnipotent, omniscient God to make (Part of?) himself human, to die, to appease his own anger, over something that he started in the first place.

12-02-2002, 05:08 PM	#45
Xman Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Orlando Posts: 30	Diana, As I have tried (painstakingly!) to explain, "fully" does not mean "100%." If the desk has 100% stainless steel legs and a 100% wood top, then maybe I'll buy it.

12-03-2002, 01:29 AM	#48
worldling Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: UK Posts: 156	Actually, I think Xman is right. The hypostatic union, as he defines it, does not violate the law of non-contradiction. It was the peanut butter sandwich metaphor that did it for me. We can view Jesus as a man, sandwiched between two slices of god. The crucifixion effectively opened up the sandwich, and scraped the man out. So all we are left with is the god. Provided Xman doesn't claim that the peanut butter is still there, and that the entity he worships is, metaphorically speaking, dry bread, then I don't see anything illogical in this claim. Improbable, yes. But not illogical. Thank you, Xman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.