Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't see any relevant distinctions. In terms of experience, matter is, well, material.I will have an objection to my experience it caused, but this experience is not material at all.
Uh..sorry I don't understand this conclusion nor do I believe it.But really, if you split a physical object into smaller parts and again into smaller parts, you will, somewhere in the end, get immaterial, nonphysical basis like vibrations or even just pure mathematics. The material, physical world is just a temporary illusion.
An immutable God became man? Yeah right. I recently disputed that nonsense on this thread:So, God cannot be physical, because He is unchanging.
Exactly, its material only in your head, the same with colors, shapes, sounds etc. In reality, all are just waves of probability.I don't see any relevant distinctions. In terms of experience, matter is, well, material.
Its a little more complex than that. The Son of God became man, His Spirit was put into human body. The Spirit is immutable.An immutable God became man?
What is communication between two people? If it is not sound waves, tell me the dynamics.Exactly, its material only in your head, the same with colors, shapes, sounds etc. In reality, all are just waves of probability.
The immutable Son of God became man? Yeah right.Its a little more complex than that. The Son of God became man, His Spirit was put into human body. The Spirit is immutable.
In physical world, its sound waves. In real, spiritual world, its comprehension, meaning and connection between two minds.What is communication between two people? If it is not sound waves, tell me the dynamics.
Do you realize what "becoming a man" means? Its not that a tree became a stone, changing totally its identity.The immutable Son of God became man? Yeah right.
Non-responsive. When I speak, my sound waves target one individual, and in fact no one else hears me, if I whisper it carefully. Without material dynamics, such phenomenology would seem logically impossible. The burden of proof falls on you to explain how such interactions can be explained without recourse to physical dynamics.In physical world, its sound waves. In real, spiritual world, its comprehension, meaning and connection between two minds.
(Sigh) You're trying to tell me:Do you realize what "becoming a man" means? Its not that a tree became a stone, changing totally its identity.
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to MindNon-responsive. When I speak, my sound waves target one individual, and in fact no one else hears me, if I whisper it carefully. Without material dynamics, such phenomenology would seem logically impossible. The burden of proof falls on you to explain how such interactions can be explained without recourse to physical dynamics.
To ask me to abandon my belief in the physical world - what I see right before my very eyes - based on NOTHING reasonable seems like a clear call to embrace hollow and deceptive philosophy. That places a huge burden of proof on you.
I would appreciate you to change your tone, no "sigh", no "joking, right" etc, lets keep this conversation rational, not emotional.(Sigh) You're trying to tell me:
(1) An immutably ominiscient God became an ignorant fetus in Mary's womb, who had to learn hebrew all over again?
(2) An immutably omnipotent and indefatigable being suffered fatigue on earth?
(3) An immutably holy God suffered real temptation in the wildnerness?
(4) An immutably impassible being suffered on the cross?
You're joking, right?
Summarize your argument. Is this the "vibrations" argument? I already told you that anything capable of tangible effects is tangible. I rest my case.Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Also, you can google quantum mechanics, string theory, holographic universe, the simulation hypothesis, emergent reality etc.
Sorry, but if you expect me to believe that an immutable God mutated Himself into a man you MUST be joking. What's my other option to describe your demeanor? Insanity?I would appreciate you to change your tone, no "sigh", no "joking, right" etc, lets keep this conversation rational, not emotional.
This does not indicate that angels are physical, it indicates that they assume human bodies or forms. Angels are not physical, they are spirits. "Reply to Objection 1: As it is in no wise contrary to truth for intelligible things to be set forth in Scripture under sensible figures, since it is not said for the purpose of maintaining that intelligible things are sensible, but in order that properties of intelligible things may be understood according to similitude through sensible figures; so it is not contrary to the truth of the holy angels that through their assumed bodies they appear to be living men, although they are really not. For the bodies are assumed merely for this purpose, that the spiritual properties and works of the angels may be manifested by the properties of man and of his works. This could not so fittingly be done if they were to assume true men; because the properties of such men would lead us to men, and not to angels." St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library"Reply to Objection 6. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man." SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The angels in comparison with bodies (Prima Pars, Q. 51)
My position is on this thread is that:This does not indicate that angels are physical, it indicates that they assume human bodies or forms. Angels are not physical, they are spirits.
Since matter is the only sure thing, the burden of proof falls on the immaterialists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of supportive evidence.
So just because you say so, I'm supposed to believe whatever magical fairytales are shoved down my throat by the Greek philosophers even though:Only one thing you're not considering. God refuses to allow you or any other members of humanity to set themselves up as judge and jury that he must provide any more evidence of anything. Some men like to say to God that you're own trial therefore perform. You might be shocked to discover he could say I've provided whatever evidence which is sufficient for you to have certain beliefs and if you want to deny that then tough, not to me but for you! It's HIS Earth and his Universe and besides that you're breathing his air.
Perhaps I need to apologize to you as my comments were in regards to one who would question what the Bible actually teaches. You comments here seem to look at the Bible as evidence. People may disagree what that evidence is but you consider Biblical truths evidence.So just because you say so, I'm supposed to believe whatever magical fairytales are shoved down my throat by the Greek philosophers even though:
(1) They themselves never read the Bible
(2) I myself can't find any plausible evidence for their claims in the Bible.
You're mistaken. If I can't find hard evidence - neither empirical nor biblical - then it would be crazy, generally speaking, to believe in something.
These are some very interesting views. Have you expanded on these ideas earlier in the topic? Or if not, could you comment further on each of these points? Thanks. I'm very curious to see where you would go with this.My position is on this thread is that:
(1) Philosophers convinced the church to believe in a magical immaterial substance called "spirit".
(2) Otherwise the Greek and Hebrews terms would naturally convey material wind/breath to us.
(3) Since matter is the only sure thing, the burden of proof falls on the immaterialists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of supportive evidence.
(4) There is no plausible evidence for the translation "spirit".
(5) There is PLENTY of evidence against that interpretation. Specifically there is plenty of evidence that the biblical writers always had in mind wind/breath, for example the title of the Third Person as "The Holy Wind/Breath" (see John 20:22).
The problem with those positions is the lack of evidence.My position is on this thread is that:
(1) Philosophers convinced the church to believe in a magical immaterial substance called "spirit".
(2) Otherwise the Greek and Hebrews terms would naturally convey material wind/breath to us.
(3) Since matter is the only sure thing, the burden of proof falls on the immaterialists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of supportive evidence.
(4) There is no plausible evidence for the translation "spirit".
(5) There is PLENTY of evidence against that interpretation. Specifically there is plenty of evidence that the biblical writers always had in mind wind/breath, for example the title of the Third Person as "The Holy Wind/Breath" (see John 20:22).
That describes 'spirit' in a nutshell.The problem with those positions is the lack of evidence.
I think that is what he is saying about the other positions. Lack of evidence.The problem with those positions is the lack of evidence.
Matter is all we know for sure of, on a daily basis.
Right. Such SHOULD be assumed until exegeticallly demonstrated otherwise, because matter is all we know for sure. The burden of proof lies on those who postulate fairytales of magical immaterial substance.
And by matter I simply mean "tangible", not necessarily matter arranged as protons, electrons, neutrons, such as the fossil record.
Non-literal? Stop telling lies. On this thread I've covered dozens of literal passages, for example Moses said it was the physical Breath of God that physically parted the waters of the Red Sea. An intangible Spirit would be unable to do such tangible feats. My position is thus backed with hard evidence from Scripture, plenty of examples like that one. All immaterialism does is contradict the hard evidence of Scripture.
Your dictionary definition doesn't agree with the bible. CC: @JALNice try on trying to avoid the fact that the burden of proof lays on you.
In your above post, you are assuming you know all there is.
Scripture plainly says "God is spirit"
spirit is defined in the dictionary as "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?