Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?I think ive already proven your circle-square anaology to be fallacious based on the fact its an amphiboly. Exactly, and Christ was neither merely a human or merely God, and that’s why you’re argument is based on a false dilemma. Well this type of "co-existence" has now formed a more "complex" type of shape, in which such a question cannot be answered. Whats your point? They are still co-existent. Transposed? Well fine...transposed to co-exist. Big deal. I cant believe you would’ve raised that question with a straight face. God’s eternality, omnipotence, etc do not define His essence/substance/nature, they are characteristics of God. Who said he had equals? Don’t be ridiculous. The issue of "What" god is, is something i dont think any theologian can answer, but defining the nature of God with the attributes He possesses is not logical.
Your missing the whole point. The fact God’s characteristics are unique to him are not relevant to my argument. Your whole line of reasoning is based on the presupposition that if Christ chooses temporarily not to exercise certain attributes he would in turn be choosing to temporarily cease to be God. You are drawing a correlation between the nature of God and characteristics God is capable of. I am telling you that it is logically fallicoious to do that because His attributes do not define His nature, rather his nature defines his attributes. The chair analogy is perfect to prove my point – a chair is not defined by the fact it can be sat on, but the fact a chair consists of a base supported by 4 sticks defines the fact it can be sat upon. Same with a car - an attribute of a car is that it is self-propellant, if the car chooses (yes lets assume this car has a will) not to be self-propelled and rather chooses to go down a hill submitting to the effects of gravity, does this mean it is no longer a car? No because the fact a car is self-propellent does not define its "nature" - functional design, it defines the attributes of the car. This only goes to serve your desperation. We already agreed earlier that appealing to natural revelation is not an adequate method of describing the actions of a complex infinite being, so what do you do once I find a generally sufficient example (which on the macroscopic level serves my purpose just fine) to describe the hypostatic union? You delve into it and try disprove if with your technicality by trying to analyse the reactions going on at an atomic level – hey your not fooling me man. Lets say God wanted to place a piece of iron in the fire, without allowing the fire to affect the iron on any sort of level (whether it be macroscopic or microscopic)? Would you agree that in this certain example God's omnipotence could allow for this? I think in this example Gods omnipotence can certainly allow for iron and fire combining whilst they perfectly retain their propertys without changing. Well in the same way did Christs divinity unite with his humanity. As for your little scientific commentary on fire too, you again have shown your desperation. Im not concerned with how fire interacts on its own, im concerned with the interaction of the fire with the iron – because our whole discussion is based on the union between the fire and iron and the effect this union has on their two "natures". The iron does not affect the “essence” of the fire, and if you take a sledge hammer and slam the crap out of the iron, the sledge hammer is only damaging the iron, yet the fire remains essentially present. Oh please….you trying to patronize me bro? I don’t expect you to admit or accept anything, you’ve already done as I expected and started now to appeal to desperate measures to prove your point. Peace. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame