Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Bro, I think you're getting overly excited about something we both acknowledge. Yes, a "square-circle" IS an amphiboly because it is an incoherent statement, that's been my whole point, to give you examples of incoherent statements that are inherently impossible and do not lie in the realm of what God would or would not will. The square-cirlce and the God-man are both amphibolies, which is precisely why the analogy stands. If you're trying to explain to me that the square-circle can't exist, then I'd shake your hands if I could. The reason the square-circle is an amphiboly is the same reason that the God-man is an amphiboly. This is what you should be concerned about, not whether the square-circle doesn't make sense because it's an amphiboly, which is the point of using it. heh, of course I do. I've presented you an analogous "amphiboloy". Now it's your return to show how the God-man is NOT an amphiboly. You do that by showing how something can be both a God and a man without foregoing one of its diving qualities. For example: Can God WILL a 5-sided triangle? Yes, but temporarily assume that a triangle need not have 3-sides…this is basically what you've been telling me. God is incomprehensible but not self-contradictory. I don't consider whether God can create an amphiboly an "incomprehensible aspect of God's mysteries" It most certainly is an illogical question and the answer is no, because the questioner is just playing with words. Heh, your friend's pretty quick. But point out to him that "redness" or "blueness" is not a defining property of a shape. Four-sidedness is the property of a square, and non-sidedness is that of a circle. These properties ARE incompatible, as are eternality, omnipotence, and independence of creation with finiteness, temporality, and being a creation. That's awesome. Except we already know that God and man could exist in the universe, because we're living proof of this. You're just showing how man and God are not mutually exclusive, which we already know since you and I exist and God obviously exists. Now you've completely avoided the question of what it means for God to BECOME man, to unite or MERGE with man, you're just showing that mankind and God could both exist. I'm yet to hear how uniting God's nature with man's is anything but an "amphiboly" from you. And I wouldn't mind starting this discussion over again since none of the central questions have been answered. Heh, right, you "already answered/disproved that in a previous post". Now we're not even begging the question, we're avoiding it. Beautiful. So it's logically fallacious to define God by His attributes, but nobody knows what His primary characteristics are, and yet you spend a considerable portion of each conversation talking about God's nature which you admittedly don't know. You keep saying that God did not compromise His nature, but you can't describe it before or after the alleged "union". You say that His nature is immutable, and yet you won't describe it to show that it in fact hasn't change when it merged with a human nature. Your entire point rests on the assertion that God's "nature defines his attributes" but you haven't said a single positive statement about this nature. You're just using a word, saying it remains constant even though you're attempting to do things to it, and then saying it's all a mystery how it works (when in your first few posts you were adamantly saying: "what Christian thelogy properly asserts regarding this issue as i have discussed above, is intellectually tenable and logical." It's like saying "trust me, the nature of the circle has not changed, even though it just sprouted four sides, verily it's a mystery how the essence remains the same" Nice assumption bro. You assumed that a property that isn't exclusive to cars nor is the only property of a car is the sole property that only cars have, and then you destroyed this assumption by showing that just because it's no longer self-propelled doesn't mean it's no longer a car. Well obviously not, since anyone reading your example is still thinking of a car that simply isn't being propelled. HOWEVER, if you really want to stick to your assumptions, then what you've done is said "a car is something that is self-propelled" you took that away, so by your definition, no it's no longer a car, bro. Unless you want to tell me, without using another property in your defense, why you still think it's a car. Here you go, tell me why when you take away it's unique attribute "does not take away the fact it is still a car"
Ok cool, so which attributes can and can't be voluntarily exercised while not changing God's essence? Why these and not others? Discuss. Bro, the only thing you've managed to do is shield yourself from showing the logicality of combining the divine and human by shrouding it in mystery. Which is ok if that's what you want to believe, it's just not what we deem a logical proof. Ok, so it all comes down to God's nature then, which you can't make a single positive statement about. You can't tell us precisely what God's nature is, but you know that it didn't change when you merged it with another nature, and you're sure that whatever the nature is, you are quite confident that what it went through makes sense. This is exactly how one dodges the requirement of logic. You don't know the meanings of the words you are attributing to God, and you're saying that God is "this" and man is "that" and Jesus is "this and that" but "this and that" aren't things you have described at all. This is fine if you want to avoid the topic entirely, but you have also evaded the logic necessary to prove that the natures are compatible and unchanging. I still can't believe you're using words you don't want to define, describe. Ok, so list what the "substance" defines and differentiate that from the attributes that identity it. What does the substance define which the attributes do not? Formulate a statement regarding the nature, substance of God. THANK YOU. This is exactly what you should have said. You can't explain it, but you believe it because it's in Scripture. Which means you've admittedly subjugated albeit temporarily, Jesus to the Father "and His Spirit". Subjugated meaning, placed in a lower rank, tier. This is a great paragraph. First, using your definition of nature, list for me the essential qualities and characteristics of God by which he is recognized. And since nature is defined as the essential qualities or characteristics by which we recognize something, compare that to the definition you gave earlier Second of all, I don't argue that God can't do ANYTHING to His creations, i.e. fire and iron. However, that's not the same as saying God can do whatever He Wills to Himself and another creation, which is what uniting the divine nature with the human nature would entail. So the fact that God can will fire and iron to be united (whatever that means) is NOT the same as saying God can will Himself and His creation to Unite, because then we delve into the inherently impossible, which requires a change in God's nature and removing any of His perfect qualities. haha true Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame