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.
The question is not whether God rested, but whether He rested because He was exhausted. Hbr 4:10 does not say He worked as we did, but that He rested.And Hebrews says He did work as we did.
"For the one who has entered God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his" ( Heb 4:10)
Well, I'd rather attribute it to Aristotle ("unmoved mover") than Plato. Plato is more like the concept that heavenly things are more real than earthly ones (cf. Hbr 8:5). Some parallel to philosophy is no counter-argument - but we should beware of using philosophy as a guide to something that contradicts the Bible.This argument is rooted in Plato, not in Hebrew.
The difference we speak about has nothing to with this. The question is not whether God formed in a way comparable to a human potter, but rather whether He formed with or without effort, and whether He had to acquire these potters skills. You always distract from the crucial point."The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"
That's clay in the hands of a potter. Anyone can form a vessel from clay, although God has acquired more pottery skill than we.
No. Raised in a family which came from Silesia, driven out 1945 and ended up in the Rhine Land. The Landeskirche (former state church) in both regions was/is uniting (uniert), but of a somewhat different kind of uniting My (grand-)parents were evangelicals (or Pietisten, pietists) which explains why later I became member of an evangelical (more precise: Baptist) church.You're probably a Calvinist
No, in your versions God's ways are lower: He has to work hard. The higher way is to do have so much power that it is no effort to do it.Again, God's ways are supposed to be higher than ours. If your version of God behaves lower than our ways, it is a valid argument.
A presupposition is something taken for granted without proof. The presupposition I mentioned was that free will means what you think free will is, without looking what the authors mean by this term (you can lump Calvin and Luther together in matter of free will, but not, of course, in the matter of predestination).An argument is not a "presupposition".
It is a moral decision. But unlike molesting children, your moral concerning the work of creation is of a far more subjective kind, it can be compared to the protest of an African person to the concept of a retirement home (the old parents should be taken care by their children, see the 5th commandment!).Suppose we find out one day that God molests children. My protesting it is merely a "presupposition"?
He gets the praise for being God. But if we find out that He molests children, I would say that he molests children and therefore cannot be God. Somewhat in the line of Pope Benedict in his Regensburg address (no, I'm no catholic, but I agree to that argument).You're saying that God gets a pass on the standard for real merit just because He is God. That's like saying He is at liberty to molest children just because He is God. Moral relativism.
Straw man. You simplify to the point hat it gets wrong, without addressing what I really said.Merit is a concept alien to Scripture?
The Bible tells otherwise. Free will was lost with the fall, the consequence of that is that every man was under the rule of sin, and cannot escape from that without God's grace.I don't care who denies free will. It's impossible to make sense of justice and punishmeent without it.
Or, in my words: "There is a pattern of work and rest, but the »details« (so to speak) of work and rest are not the same"False dilemma. It's both rest and work.
I did not object to that. You are always hasty to read into my text what I don't say, because you fill any gaps with your view, which produces inconsistancy and logical problems.Rest from what? Rest from rest? No, we rest from work. It's both in tandem.
Of course not. But it was no hard work. The "sweat" in Gen 1:19 started with the fall. Again, you were too hasty to understand what I have said.I am not sure that farming began with the Fall.
He rested from His work. No one denied it. The question is not whether He rested from his work, but on the nature of this work.Guffaw). Hebrews 4:10 says He behaved just like men. Note it doesn't say, "He rested from all his rest."
You are the jerk who always puts things top down. Is God our son? Is he our servant, that we should praise if efforts to provide this world for us?And in some cultures, men are jerks. That doesn't count here. I don't believe you are a jerk. Again, consider two son:
My version either. But you have a rather narrow concept of what makes someone aiontio a jerk: It suffices when (s)he has a different set of values from your set.My version of God is not a jerk.
I don't even understand the full meaning of »hypostatic«. All I could find out is that the church fathers used the word hypostasis in a somewhat different way than the philosophers. But nobody could tell me what the difference is.']in a somewhat different way than the philosophers. But nobody could tell me what the difference is.Do you "believe" in the hypostatic union?
Can you show me where the Bible says this? Christ had a body before He became man? His soul was mortal like ours?Let me get this straight. God selected one of us human beings/souls and placed it in Christ's body.
Except when we speak not of praise of humans, but praise other kinds. Is God a human? The father definitely not.Nobody merits praise for good DNA
What is the definition of jerk? Could not find the word in any of the English Bibles on the european Bible server.The definition of a jerk didn't change from Genesis to Revelation.
Show me where it is stated that meriting praise is only based on virtue, and not on innate features.For the millionth time, I acknowledged that anyone can be praised for miscellaneous reasons. That's not the same as meriting praise in a virtuous sense.
Are you anti-trinitarian?Can you show me verses that say the word "Trinity"? … I don't care if you have a million verses supporting an illogical conclusion.
The Scripture says that God rested. But it doesn't say he needed rest. This is your interpretation (no solid fact), another interpretation is: God created rest.The construct is solidified by the fact that Scripture indicates that God had to work and then needed rest.
In try to accommodate what I think to what the Bible says, not vice versa."That's not a valid excuse because YOUR theology needs to be consistent with what YOU currently believe about virtue. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself all over the place."
I can't see what this construction has to do with the point we are discussing on. Did I say I laboured as much as God did, and the only reason to praise God was the labour He did?@helmut,
Imagine a tall mountain unclimbed to date because it's too much work resulting in almost certain death. YOU, however, rise to the challenge.
In this scenario, I'm a journalist. In my article I write, "Helmut climbed for three days, laboring just as hard as I did, to achieve his goal."
(Of course I didn't do any real work over those three days).
You forget the hints to the contrary:If there is any hint in the Bible that God did real work during creation, that makes God a jerk - unless in fact He did do real work..
Is 40:12-14 said:Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? 13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counsellor? 14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?
This is a hint (to say the least) that God did not have to learn anything, nor has ever been exhausted.Is 40:28 said:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no-one can fathom.
The key thing is that the cost - and thus the total merit - is measured by how much he suffered, and for how long. See the cross for an example.The question is not whether God rested, but whether He rested because He was exhausted. Hbr 4:10 does not say He worked as we did, but that He rested.
(Guffaw). Distracting is what you just did! Maybe you missed my point. Earlier you pretended as though you could build your whole case on the exclusivity of Hebrew "bara" ("create") to God. I said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":The difference we speak about has nothing to with this. The question is not whether God formed in a way comparable to a human potter, but rather whether He formed with or without effort, and whether He had to acquire these potters skills. You always distract from the crucial point.
So God's a snob who look down on us by virtue of the luck of the draw? He happens to be omnipotent and, on that basis alone, we're just pieces of crap? Beneath Him as far as the earth is beneath the heavens? And you're telling me this version of God is not a jerk? Funny that the God I read about hates pride and arrogance. Your version reeks immeasurably of both.No, in your versions God's ways are lower: He has to work hard. The higher way is to do have so much power that it is no effort to do it.
Totally grey. How much labor/suffering did the children do to earn money to pay for their parents retirement home? We don't know. I'm not even going to ruminate on your other grey examples because I think my position is sufficiently black and white. As I said, a snobby aristocrat is clearly a jerk. Nothing grey about it.It is a moral decision. But unlike molesting children, your moral concerning the work of creation is of a far more subjective kind, it can be compared to the protest of an African person to the concept of a retirement home (the old parents should be taken care by their children, see the 5th commandment!).
Yes they are. As I said, a freely willed decision against evil must labor/suffer against the agony of temptation. Real virtue always meets my definition of merit. You might disagree on the deed - that's because you don't understand how conscience works. If people such as Ruth and Lot (your grey examples) acted in good conscience, their deeds count as righteous in God's sight.The virtues we find in the Bible are not always our virtues.
See above.Lot is called righteous (2.Pt 2:7), even in a situation where he prefers to sacrifice the virginity of his daughters in order to protect the strangers he has taken in as guests (Gen 19:8). Ruth is called noble because she did not look for a man she could love, but rather followed the advice of her mother-in-law to marry (almost seduce) Boas.
See above.Is it moral relativism to say that protecting the own daughter is more important than hospitality (despite Hbr 13:2)? Do you tell your daughters they should not marry out iof love, but out of more noble motives (and then love the husband they married)?
Deflection.He gets the praise for being God. But if we find out that He molests children, I would say that he molests children and therefore cannot be God.
Um...That's what I said. You've got to have free will somewhere in the picture to make sense of the Bible.The Bible tells otherwise. Free will was lost with the fall...
Guffaw.I did not object to that. You are always hasty to read into my text what I don't say, because you fill any gaps with your view, which produces inconsistancy and logical problems.
Um...That's what I said. I said no excruciating work for Adam until the Fall.Of course not. But it was no hard work. The "sweat" in Gen 1:19 started with the fall. Again, you were too hasty to understand what I have said.
Rest and work are polar opposites. If it's effortless - no labor/suffering - it's not work, it's still rest. The magnitude and duration of suffering dictate the total merit. My assumption is that God is exponentially more meritorious/praiseworthy/virtuous than us (viz. His ways higher than our ways as the heavens above the earth). That means a lot more work than we do, probably both in terms of duration and excruciation. This isn't rocket science.He rested from His work. No one denied it. The question is not whether He rested from his work, but on the nature of this work.
I didn't get you. Sounds like another assertion that your God is an aristocratic snob. Not nearly as bad as Calvin's God, admittedly, but hardly a bastion of virtue.You are the jerk who always puts things top down. Is God our son? Is he our servant, that we should praise if efforts to provide this world for us?
Let me stop you right there. You're really basing your rebuttal of real virtue on the idiotic perspective of an immature child? Did YOU appreciate real merit when you were an adolescent? Speaking for myself, as a child I had no inkling of what my parents suffered for me. Even now I'm having to keep reminding myself to fully appreciate all their labor/suffering.How does a son boast to his friends of his father?
I'm a staunch Trinitarian.Are you anti-trinitarian?
Real suffering is measurable by the extent to which it cripples you from your normal routines. So yes, if you're undergoing real suffering, and want to resume normal behavior, it requires real rest, at least it requires a cessation of that suffering. Again, if God's ways our higher than ours, He has suffered more than we have, and needed rest.The Scripture says that God rested. But it doesn't say he needed rest. This is your interpretation (no solid fact), another interpretation is: God created rest.
BTW, I don't like that you changed bara' into bara, thus removing the (transcription of) aleph at the end.I said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":
Logical error. Interchangeable meansI said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":
"The Lord formed Adam from the dust of the earth"
and thus shows the two terms are interchangeable for "create".
And you didn't disprove it. That's my point.BTW, I don't like that you changed bara' into bara, thus removing the (transcription of) aleph at the end.
Logical error. Interchangeable means
I did not deny the first option, you did not prove the second option.
- You can substitute "make" for "create" at every instance
- You can substitute "create" for "make" at every instance
It was an incredibly shallow argument to begin with. As I said, I always use the term "create" myself in reference to Genesis. That implies nothing - it doesn't imply any distinctions between how God creates and man creates. It's just stylistic preference on my part. Any professional exegete will warn you of stylistic concerns.And you say I am shallow? I'm exhausted to answer that many points in detail.
Again, I can't prove anything 100%. Which means, technically, I can't even prove that the Calvnistic God is evil. But you have painted God after the fashion of a haughty aristocratic snob. The exact repudiation of that definition is what I call "merit".You always take things for granted when they are not.You have not proven that praise can only be for labor/virtue (in the sense of virtue you defined).
That wasn't even the main objection raised there. The main one was:You did not prove that an infinite God must by immutable.
You're dead wrong. Since you don't know my views, you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.You call yourself a trinitarian, and yet use the incarnation as an argument in way that only make sense if you deny the father was God in heaven when the son was God and man on earth. Just what I saw in a short look on what you wrote.
You called me a jerk several times. I never called you a jerk. I said, basically, "If you really hold to those aristocratic values, you are a jerk, but I don't believe you really do."But it is an easy guess that you will react by interpreting into what I say some premises which I don't use, refute them and say I am a jerk, or I am implying God is a jerk, snob and so on. Don't expect me to answer to that.
You still have to be consistent. You can't paint Him as an evil jerk, unless you really believe He is one. If your theology extrapolates to an evil jerk, change your theology. It's really that simple.In try to accommodate what I think to what the Bible says, not vice versa.
Thanks for using the word "hints". Rare sign of integrity on these forums. Yes at least one of those verses hints to the contrary. As I'm sure you know, every theology faces problem passages. But you know what, I'd rather face problem passages than logical problems. With a problem passage, all you have to do is check whether a different interpretation is possible.You forget the hints to the contrary:
Isa 40:12-14 said:
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? 13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counsellor? 14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?
Isa 40:28 said:
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no-one can fathom.
This is a hint (to say the least) that God did not have to learn anything, nor has ever been exhausted.
Isn't it blasphemy to say the contrary?
I showed that you cannot use bara' for the work of a man, so any interpretation/translation of that word which implies a man could do that must be wrong.And you didn't disprove it. That's my point.
I refer to the text of the Bible, and you answer with your stylistic references?As I said, I always use the term "create" myself in reference to Genesis.
The word snob first described a person of low standing (probably an apprentice of a shoemaker), but was then reinterpreted as s.nob. It was used by persons who wrote this instead of a noble title. Now imagine the reaction of an aristocrat:But you have painted God after the fashion of a haughty aristocratic snob.
To be more precise: I say that your "merit" is not the reason why God is to be praised.The exact repudiation of that definition is what I call "merit".
I showed that an infinite God is not necessarily immutable, and you object that if God were immutable he could not incarnate.That wasn't even the main objection raised there. The main one was:
"An immutable God can't mutate Himself into a man."
No, I want you to prove that 2+2 is the term to be calculated.I really need to prove a self-evident statement? The burden of proof is on me? Next you will have me prove that 2 + 2 = 4?
I didn't talk about your views, I talked about what you said. Whether you were wrong when you called yourself a trintarian, or whether you used an argument which is meaningless given you trinitarian belief, I don't know. I just stated the contradiction in a question.You're dead wrong. Since you don't know my views, you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
Quote from you: »Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.«You called me a jerk several times. I never called you a jerk. I said, basically, "If you really hold to those aristocratic values, you are a jerk, but I don't believe you really do."
Oh, I borrowed it from you. So thank yourself!Thanks for using the word "hints".
What you call logical problems are rather different basics in argumentation. To vary a textbook example, let us consider someone who says:Yes at least one of those verses hints to the contrary. As I'm sure you know, every theology faces problem passages. But you know what, I'd rather face problem passages than logical problems.
The problem is the combination, if you look where they were taken from you will see it is in essence one passage with some deletion of things unimportant top our discussion. God is said to be never exhausted in context of referring to creation.Actually I'm not sure why you think the first passage is a problem for me.
As I tried to sign out., the logic is not the difference between us, but rather the reason why you think this is logical: Assumptions that I don't share....(1) I already supplied a logical argument that creation wearied God in terms of suffering/labor, with respect to the duration, or the excruciation, or both. As I said, logical arguments take precedence over problem passages.
He grew weary because He was 100% man. The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states.....(2) Jesus was 100% God, and grew weary.
God is infinite powerful (Lk 1:37). God could do this because of incarnation: The father was almighty, but the son was (temporarily) in a lower state (Hbr 1:9), which included suffering (Hbr 5:8).An infinitely powerful God cannot suffer and thus cannot grow weary.
OK, it was a misunderstanding (and partial mis-remembering) of what you wrote.I've gotta run for the moment, but I object to this:
Quote from you: »Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.«
because that's out of context. Again, the conditional "would" was a reference to my prior disclaimer that I don't believe those are your real values.
Where did you establish that? You argued that the writers preferred to use that term for God creating. I don't see where you proved that Hebrew will not allow that term for men.I showed that you cannot use bara' for the work of a man, so any interpretation/translation of that word which implies a man could do that must be wrong.
As an illustration that a particular word-preference, even in the case of biblical authors, can be purely stylistic on their part. That is well known. It does not necessarily have theological implications, contrary to your argument. And even when it does, the particular theological implication need not be the one that YOU had in mind. The point is that your argument seems a long way from establishing what it is trying to estabish.I refer to the text of the Bible, and you answer with your stylistic references?
You're missing the point. What are YOUR values? It is YOUR definition of a jerk that matters for your defining YOUR version of God. You must achieve consistency. If you admit, "A person who molests children is a jerk" - if that is YOUR value, you cannot conclude that God is a molester of children. I'm pretty sure you don't regard a snotty aristocratic attitude as virtuous. Therefore, for YOU to be consistent, you must make sure your version of God is devoid of such a disposition.The meaning has further changed, but this shows how values change over time. You are very confident that the values of our time - or your values - are the right ones, and anything other is wrong.
You lost me. I was just going by something you wrote earlier. I took it to mean immutability when you wrote:I showed that an infinite God is not necessarily immutable, and you object that if God were immutable he could not incarnate.
Now you are a jerk in my eyes. God does not change, He may change the ways He deals with us mortals, but there is no Change within God, James 1:13.
So if He is mutable than He can sin, right? Yet you seemed to quote James 1:13 to the contrary.But what if God is infinite (almighty etc.) and mutable? Well, in some sense He is immutable - He has ever been, and will ever be - but because he is almighty he can incarnate. I hinted how this can be by referring to the Trinity.
No, I am asking YOU to define God consistently with YOUR values, YOUR definition of merit. You keep talking about ancients, and how THEIR values changed over time. I don't care. That's not relevant. I'm pretty sure that YOU don't regard an aristocrat as someone who, on account of noble birth, deserves more praise than the rest of us, as high as the heavens are above the earth. In other words we are just pieces of crap automatically, compared to him, even if we did all the good deeds while he was lazy or, even worse, pure evil.What you call logical problems are rather different basics in argumentation. To vary a textbook example, let us consider someone who says:
And as to objection to this he says: »I showed over and over again that cheese can be eaten, it is simply logic that the moon can be eaten.«
- The moon is made of cheese.
- Cheese can be eaten.
- Therefore, the moon can be eaten.
No sir, it is not just logic. You took part of your argumentation for granted, and if I object to that part, you call this illogical. Any examples which shows that your values are not that absolute as you think are dismissed , because these people were wrong. For you are the one who knows why God should be praised, or what would make a jerk or snob out of Him.
I gave you two remedies already.The problem is the combination, if you look where they were taken from you will see it is in essence one passage with some deletion of things unimportant top our discussion. God is said to be never exhausted in context of referring to creation.
Now you're back to defending the hypostatic union? Two natures constitute a humanly incomprehensible/incoherent theory known as the hypostatic union (a union of two natures), but since you've now confirmed your allegiance to it, please go back and address the Quadrinity-question I asked you earlier. More on this below.He grew weary because He was 100% man. The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states.
Please address the Quadrinity question. You said you believe the orthodox view which is, as you said, "The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states." This creates several areas of incoherence and "apparent" contradiction (I don't think forum rules allow me to draw the conclusion that it's a real contradiction). One of these problems was already stated - it means that your soul could have been selected to become a member of the Trinity.God is infinite powerful (Lk 1:37). God could do this because of incarnation: The father was almighty, but the son was (temporarily) in a lower state (Hbr 1:9), which included suffering (Hbr 5:8).
So your objection is meaningless to what I believe.
English is not my mother-tongue, so I have to look into a dictionary. Jerk means something like fool (another meaning, jolt or so, is not relevant to our discussion).It is YOUR definition of a jerk that matters for your defining YOUR version of God.
The question is whether this is a correct description of God's attitude. Do you think you are superior to a worm? Do think your dog hast to obey you, since you are a man and he is just a dog? Or do you think this would be »a snotty aristocratic attitude«, and so you see yourself on the same level as a butterfly?I'm pretty sure you don't regard a snotty aristocratic attitude as virtuous.
And you decide what evil is? Sometimes you think they were evil, but they, if they knew how you think, would regard you as evil. Who's right?Yes, different generations of people have different values. Some of those people/generations were evil.
Why do you think I'm inconsistent?That's irrelevant. What's at issue is YOUR values and YOUR overall consistency.
In can't perceive the logic behind this statement. Someone who can change (you mentioned incarnation as an example) can be sinless. Why not?So if He is mutable than He can sin, right?
You remind me of a Mormon teaching: What man is ńow, God was. What God is now, man will be (re-translated from German, I hope I did not distort some important connotation).My approach is that God is not immutably holy but rather irreversibly holy.
There is no hint in the Bible to that. Everything you cite to support it is an interpretation already based on this thought.Through labor/suffering He achieved holiness, and then found a way to make it irreversible. I can tell you exactly how He accomplished that, if we get that far in the discussion.
You beg the question. You take »worthy of praise« denoting there must be some merit. Of course we may speak about »merit« when we talk about God saving the people of Israel out of Egypt and so on, but »worthy of praise« does not imply merit, God can be praised out of other reasons.No, I am asking YOU to define God consistently with YOUR values, YOUR definition of merit.
Because you never asked yourself how you can know whether they were right, or you. You presuppose you are right, and no ancient who thought folks like you were wrong can be a reason to think twice. Narrow-minded.You keep talking about ancients, and how THEIR values changed over time. I don't care.
If a part growth weary, the Godhead got partially weary. This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.I gave you two remedies already.
...(1) I implied that part of God grew weary during creation. The Godhead itself (as a whole) did not grow weary.
This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.....(2) Creation is a thing of the past. It won't happen again.
I asked you if you have a better explanation ofNow you're back to defending the hypostatic union?
The whole Trinity thing is full of that. The father is YWHW, the son is YHWH, the Spirit is YHWH, and there is only one YHWH. But if you conclude that therefore the Son and father are identical, you are wrong.Please address the Quadrinity question. You said you believe the orthodox view which is, as you said, "The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states." This creates several areas of incoherence and "apparent" contradiction
No. The problem was there, it was discussed at Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on (ask an expert for the complete list). The solution then is now perceived by you as a problem, maybe because the "spirit of time" does not use terms like hypostasis to define some aspect of reality. Maybe »quantum logic« is a better help for our time. Of course, this has to be accommodated to something that fits the biblical findings (like the term hypostasis was altered in the ancient texts).Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
In English we normally use the term jerk to refer to a person who is offensively and repulsively shortcoming in at least one virtue. For example anyone who is a bully would also be labeled a jerk.English is not my mother-tongue, so I have to look into a dictionary. Jerk means something like fool (another meaning, jolt or so, is not relevant to our discussion).
Same level as a butterfly. My theology addresses the Problem of Evil pretty much in full as far as I can see. In my opinion, the souls of animals are fragments of fallen angels. Since no butterfly is innocent, God allows it to suffer.The question is whether this is a correct description of God's attitude. Do you think you are superior to a worm? Do think your dog hast to obey you, since you are a man and he is just a dog? Or do you think this would be »a snotty aristocratic attitude«, and so you see yourself on the same level as a butterfly?
I think you're reaching. I don't think you see anything snotty about the Incarnation. Quite the opposite. God's willingness to leave the throne and stumble around like a man proves His humility. Deep down I'm pretty sure you agree with me.Well, God became man in Jesus, and that was the only situation where, according to my values, he might have been accused of being snotty. Do you think you can accuse Jesus of this?
Because, again, if for example you have two sons, and one of them inherited some wealth from you (but was lazy or evil), rich by the luck-of-the-draw, and the other one of noble character who worked/suffered for decades to acquire wealth, you'd feel that the noble one merited more accolades from you (all other things being equal). In real life, then, you'd affirm "merit" as I defined it, at least implicitly. But that's not how you paint God and His values.Why do you think I'm inconsistent?
You seem to be dancing in circles. In one statement you seem to imply immutability but not in the next.In can't perceive the logic behind this statement. Someone who can change (you mentioned incarnation as an example) can be sinless. Why not?
See above.I think that »mutable« and »immutable« is something that can't be applied to eternity. I may be wrong, but I imagine eternity rather as a different time. Relativity theory tells that what is a short period in one system may be of infinite length in another system - where »system« is something like a "map" of space and time - so both systems are correct. If this is possible in our world (at least in theory, but maybe real in black holes), i simply refuse to think I can understand the spacetime relations between our universe and God's eternity. Probably I cannot even imagine than, for my experience (and hence fantasy) is limited to our non-eternal world.
Since you dance, deflect, evade, and equivocate, who are you to judge my position as unbiblical? It's easy to throw stones at my position, meanwhile you haven't resolved the problems in your own position.There is no hint in the Bible to that. Everything you cite to support it is an interpretation already based on this thought.
You are worthy of praise for your DNA? If you really believed that, it would make you a snotty jerk.»worthy of praise« does not imply merit, God can be praised out of other reasons.
See above.And this is no snotty attitude of God, as I have told you above.
Again, "presuppose" means I didn't make an argument. What I did was align myself with God's values evident from the impending Judgment Seat of Christ. I promise you He won't be proclaiming any accolades for innate traits such as DNA. Clearly, He will abide by merit as I have defined it.Because you never asked yourself how you can know whether they were right, or you. You presuppose you are right, and no ancient who thought folks like you were wrong can be a reason to think twice. Narrow-minded.
Nope. If I'm ambidextrous, and my boss says, "Are you exhausted yet?", my answer is, "No, I'm not tired at all. In fact I'm just getting started."If a part growth weary, the Godhead got partially weary. This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.
Narrow-minded.This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.
Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, since you don't know my views. You can't even seem to make up your mind on immutability.I asked you if you have a better explanation of
If this is a defense of »hypostatic union« (whatever I have to understand with that term), I defend hypostatic union.
- Jesus is 100% God
- Jesus is 100% man
- God is no man
The whole Trinity thing is full of that. The father is YWHW, the son is YHWH, the Spirit is YHWH, and there is only one YHWH. But if you conclude that therefore the Son and father are identical, you are wrong.
I can't understand how someone who swallowed this (and possibly the explanation by the old councils how this can be explained) can use contradiction in other areas of trinity doctrine.
Perceived by "me" as a problem? As if I'm the only one? You're joking, right? All the orthodox theologians admit that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible/incoherent because of such problems. Whereas my version of the Incarnation is perfectly simple, clear, and seamless.No. The problem was there, it was discussed at Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on (ask an expert for the complete list). The solution then is now perceived by you as a problem, maybe because the "spirit of time" does not use terms like hypostasis to define some aspect of reality. Maybe »quantum logic« is a better help for our time. Of course, this has to be accommodated to something that fits the biblical findings (like the term hypostasis was altered in the ancient texts).
OK …In English we normally use the term jerk to refer to a person who is offensively and repulsively shortcoming in at least one virtue. For example anyone who is a bully would also be labeled a jerk.
In Hebrew, fool and bad person are related, as you can see in some Bible translations.Your comment sounds deflective. I think by now you had already figured out that "jerk" means something close to "a bad person".
Hm, I can't see "fragment of a soul" in the Bible, and there is a marked difference between men and angels: God has grace for us men, but no grace for angels.Same level as a butterfly. My theology addresses the Problem of Evil pretty much in full as far as I can see. In my opinion, the souls of animals are fragments of fallen angels. Since no butterfly is innocent, God allows it to suffer.
???I think you're reaching.
No, of course not. I asked a question about your values. Since God can only be snotty when He is man (i.e., Jesus), I asked whether you think Jesus is snotty.I don't think you see anything snotty about the Incarnation.
God is father, we are his sons. Putting God into the role of a son is a distortion, so this example has no impact on what I think about God.Because, again, if for example you have two sons
You made a deflection by using this example. I already said it was inappropriate, and explained the reason.I'm anticipating another deflection on this point.
Well, in my eyes it you who dances and evades every time when I point at the basic differences where I perceive your errors.You seem to be dancing in circles.
I do not need to solve a problem that doesn't arise given my view. I always pointed out that in almost every thesis of you there is a presupposition that I do not share. But instead discussing these basic assumptions, you still argue as with there is a common ground ion which your conclusions are valid. The »God as a son» example illustrates this.Since you dance, deflect, evade, and equivocate, who are you to judge my position as unbiblical? It's easy to throw stones at my position, meanwhile you haven't resolved the problems in your own position.
Yes, mankind is worthy of praise for what God has given us, in comparison to other kinds.You are worthy of praise for your DNA? If you really believed that, it would make you a snotty jerk.
The judgement seat of Christ has to do with merit and reward. You still presuppose these are the categoriews when God is called worthy of praise. They are not.Again, "presuppose" means I didn't make an argument. What I did was align myself with God's values evident from the impending Judgment Seat of Christ.
Again off the point. Merit has nothing to with what I say.I also gave the example of the cross. Labor/suffering define the merit of the Incarnation, not innate traits such as DNA.
I'm somewhat ambidextrous (my theory: born ambidextrous and raised right-handed). When I do as you say, and the work is hard, I change my arms after, say, 30 minitues, then after 20 minutes, then atfer 15 minutes, then after 12 minutes, then ater 9 minutes, then after 7 minutes … and end up exhausted on both arms.Nope. If I'm ambidextrous, and my boss says, "Are you exhausted yet?", my answer is, "No, I'm not tired at all. In fact I'm just getting started."
I asked about your explanation of what the Bible tells. If I knew your view, there would be no need of asking.Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, since you don't know my views.
I have made my mind upon it. Immutability has to do with time, change or no change are categories that involve time. But since I cannot know the space-times-relation between our time and eternity, I see no logical way to apply it to God.You can't even seem to make up your mind on immutability.
Sorry, I did not want to say you are the only one.Perceived by "me" as a problem? As if I'm the only one?
Are you joking? The ones who formulated creeds like that in Niceaea or Chalcedon surely saw this as a solution, not as a problem.All the orthodox theologians admit that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible/incoherent because of such problems.
Why, then, do you not explain it to me? A simple version can be explained in simple terms (or am I wrong about that?).Whereas my version of the Incarnation is perfectly simple, clear, and seamless.
Right, you don't understand my point, misrepresents them … I suppose for basically the same reason as me. I do not say you are doing by intend or consciously, and I have no intention to misrepresent you. We have not found a comman base where we agree, so that a logical argument can be started without one of us denying the stements that are used at the vedry start of the argumentation.I don't expect to tarry here much longer. Too much evasion, deflection, cheap polemics, and even misrepresentation in your posts.
Matter can be fragmented by definition. I don't have to go through the Bible proving that every material object can be fragmented. If you'd like an example, Legion said, "MY name (note the singular) is Legion, for We (Note the plural) are many." Then Jesus fragmented him into a herd of probably 2,000 pigs, if you recall. He can be fragmented into many, and then re-composed into Legion, anytime God wants.Hm, I can't see "fragment of a soul" in the Bible, and there is a marked difference between men and angels: God has grace for us men, but no grace for angels.
Much of your deflection is based on a double-standard, a moral relativism where you don't apply virtues equally to God and man. As I put it earlier, in your view God gets a free pass because He is God. Kind of the same move that Calvinism makes. This allows you to disregard my example of two sons since nothing that applies to man, in your view, need apply to God. You end up with minimal moral standards for God and yet somehow insist that His ways are higher than ours. Again, it makes me feel like I'm debating with a Calvinist, which is really a waste of time.No, of course not. I asked a question about your values. Since God can only be snotty when He is man (i.e., Jesus), I asked whether you think Jesus is snotty.
The double-standards, along with no clear stance on immutability. This is a waste of my time.God is father, we are his sons. Putting God into the role of a son is a distortion, so this example has no impact on what I think about God.
You made a deflection by using this example. I already said it was inappropriate, and explained the reason.
You've only got two arms.I'm somewhat ambidextrous (my theory: born ambidextrous and raised right-handed). When I do as you say, and the work is hard, I change my arms after, say, 30 minitues, then after 20 minutes, then atfer 15 minutes, then after 12 minutes, then ater 9 minutes, then after 7 minutes … and end up exhausted on both arms.
Nope. Theoretically yes but in practice no. I already gave you two reasons why. Here's a third: part of the system of irreversible holiness, as I define it, prevents the Godhead from collapse/over-exertion. For example it includes rejuvenation techniques (for an analogy think of sterioids and other drugs). Even if God were to approach a breaking point, the system would shut down His extraneous activity. Does this place limits on God? Absolutely. A finite God has limits by definition. By my version of God has no relevant limits. He is pragmatically ideal rather than philosophically ideal.If the right arm of God can become exhausted, by implication God as a whole can be exhausted.
Are you joking? The clear solution to a problem is to spew forth words that make no sense to any of us and are riddled with "apparent" contradictions insoluble for 1700 years? Ok, I'll stick with my own views, thank you very much.Are you joking? The ones who formulated creeds like that in Niceaea or Chalcedon surely saw this as a solution, not as a problem.
It's not complex but consider that the mainstream had 1700 years to explain and defend their position. You're asking me to do this in one post, right? Lately I'm reluctant to share my pearls with people who deflect and evade - and then only want to shallow-attack MY views. For example you're still deflecting on immutability, as I see it. And still shallow-attacking my whole system based on a narrow-minded reading of one verse in Isaiah, ignoring the fact that God (aka Jesus) DID grow weary on earth.Why, then, do you not explain it to me? A simple version can be explained in simple terms (or am I wrong about that?).
Who says that soul is matter?Matter can be fragmented by definition.
Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.I don't have to go through the Bible proving that every material object can be fragmented. If you'd like an example, Legion said, "MY name (note the singular) is Legion, for We (Note the plural) are many."
The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.Much of your deflection is based on a double-standard, a moral relativism
Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.where you don't apply virtues equally to God and man.
Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.As I put it earlier, in your view God gets a free pass because He is God.
If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.You end up with minimal moral standards for God and yet somehow insist that His ways are higher than ours.
My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.The double-standards, along with no clear stance on immutability. This is a waste of my time.
Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.You've only got two arms.
You forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.Nope. Theoretically yes but in practice no. I already gave you two reasons why. Here's a third: part of the system of irreversible holiness, as I define it, prevents the Godhead from collapse/over-exertion.
Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.Even if God were to approach a breaking point, the system would shut down His extraneous activity.
Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.Are you joking? The clear solution to a problem is to spew forth words that make no sense to any of us and are riddled with "apparent" contradictions insoluble for 1700 years?
The formulas are not that important to me, it is what the Bible tells which is important.Ok, I'll stick with my own views, thank you very much.
Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.Lately I'm reluctant to share my pearls with people who deflect and evade - and then only want to shallow-attack MY views. For example you're still deflecting on immutability, as I see it.
I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.ignoring the fact that God (aka Jesus) DID grow weary on earth.
The glass house you see me sitting in is built of your world-view. In my view, you are sitting in a glass house (see above). Both are subjective views, of course.People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
All that immaterial spirit-stuff came from Plato and is strongly challenged by the Hebrew/Greek terms used, in tandem with the word-contexts. Immaterialism is a fairy-tale - it's what I call an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke !" and therefore requires extraordinary corroboration. And none exists. Immaterialism is beset with logical problems (which probably is of little concern to you, if you accept the Hypostatic Union). For example: Jesus could not have suffered if He had an immaterial/intangible soul because, no matter how much damage is done to the tangible body, it could have no impact upon an intangible soul.Who says that soul is matter?
An army of 6,000 soldiers doesn't say, "MY name (in the singular) is Legion." At worst they say, "OUR name is Legion."Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.
Conscience isn't infinitely malleable. Romans 1 and 2 don't seem to allow that. (For instance I don't believe 100% psychopath is possible). Conscience won't let you bypass the definition of merit. People need help, and you will be evaluated by the extent to which you labored/suffered to help them.The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.
Shallow. Dogs get a pass for lack of an active conscience. (They do have an active conscience when separate from animal bodies). God and man have an active conscience.Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.
The question is how we perceive the difference between God and man. I see this difference as for bigger than the difference between God and man. You seem to mix creator and created and see them as basically alike.
The question on morals is, so to speak, the »cheese can be eaten« point, the question of God's nature the »the moon is made of cheese« point. In insist discussing the latter, you deflect to the former.
All of us are sinners under penalty of pain and death. Job at points lost sight of it or felt that the pain was exorbitant. God is wiser and best-qualified to make that call. I don't think the Book of Job supports a difference of ethics, or Calvin's psychopathic view of God.Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.
And then he tells the friends of Job that their defense of God was not good, and Job, who spoke the right way (in his accusations!), should pray for them.
Take a look at the word "wrath" in Romans 9 . Sinners under wrath have lost the right to complain. See my comments on Job above.Same in Rom 9:20: We don't have the right to judge God. If this is »Calvinism«, the Bible teaches Calvinism. But we should go not too far, see Gen 18:23-33.
Calvinism is in more in balance than my view? Ok.Your viewpoint is out of balance, therefore I stress God's sovereignty (what you call Calvinism).
I already refuted that. Here it is again:If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.
Right, both arms exhausted. That's exactly the argument I responded to. You seem to feel that three solutions are not enough for one vague passage. Whereas the Hypostatic Union isn't vague in that sense - it is CLEARLY faced with a number of apparent contradictions insoluble.My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.
Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.
No, God doesn't say, "I never grew weary, especially not during creation." And even He had said that, I gave you solutions. PARTYou forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.
Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.
Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.
Or do you think they said: Well, now the dispute is over, for we have found a formula which make the problem we discussed insoluble?
The formulas are not that important to me, it is what the Bible tells which is important.
Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.
I asked you to say whether this author is immutable or not, and as long you can't answer this question don't complain when I be imprecise about God in relation to our universe.
Let's refine the hypothetical author: He starts writing the third chapter, the he writes down the end, the a sequel to the third chapter, then the beginning, then the yet missing chapters, then overworks the whole book, altering here and there, inserting some time-flashbacks in some passages … all within two weeks. How would you describe him to the characters in this novel: Is he mutable or immutable (and why is this description appropriate)?
When you answer this question, I'm confident that I know enough of your concept of "immutability" to answer your question whether God is immutable or not.
One thing that modern science has shown to us is: There are aspects of reality that can't be described satisfactorily in everyday plain language. »Same time« is relative to the velocity of the observer, time length can also vary (even between finite and infinite), waves are corpuscles and vice versa …
No, I do not believe that God can more comprehensible to us than the electron, or a black hole. There are things we don't know.
I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.
On the other hand, you ignore the fact that the Father never got weary.
The glass house you see me sitting in is built of your world-view. In my view, you are sitting in a glass house (see above). Both are subjective views, of course.
All that immaterial spirit-stuff came from Plato and is strongly challenged by the Hebrew/Greek terms used, in tandem with the word-contexts. Immaterialism is a fairy-tale - it's what I call an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke !" and therefore requires extraordinary corroboration. And none exists. Immaterialism is beset with logical problems (which probably is of little concern to you, if you accept the Hypostatic Union). For example: Jesus could not have suffered if He had an immaterial/intangible soul because, no matter how much damage is done to the tangible body, it could have no impact upon an intangible soul.Who says that soul is matter?
An army of 6,000 soldiers doesn't say, "MY name (in the singular) is Legion." At worst they say, "OUR name is Legion."Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.
Conscience isn't infinitely malleable. Romans 1 and 2 don't seem to allow that. (For instance I don't believe 100% psychopathy is possible). Conscience won't let you bypass the definition of merit. People need help, and you will be evaluated by the extent to which you labored/suffered to help them.The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.
Shallow. Dogs get a pass for lack of an active conscience. (Fallen angels do have an active conscience when separate from animal bodies). God and man have an active conscience.Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.
The question is how we perceive the difference between God and man. I see this difference as for bigger than the difference between God and man. You seem to mix creator and created and see them as basically alike.
The question on morals is, so to speak, the »cheese can be eaten« point, the question of God's nature the »the moon is made of cheese« point. In insist discussing the latter, you deflect to the former.
All of us are sinners under penalty of pain and death. Job at points lost sight of it or felt that the pain was exorbitant. God is wiser and best-qualified to make that call. I don't think the Book of Job supports a difference of ethics, or Calvin's psychopathic view of God.Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.
And then he tells the friends of Job that their defense of God was not good, and Job, who spoke the right way (in his accusations!), should pray for them.
Take a look at the word "wrath" in Romans 9 . Sinners under wrath have lost the right to complain. See my comments on Job above.Same in Rom 9:20: We don't have the right to judge God. If this is »Calvinism«, the Bible teaches Calvinism. But we should go not too far, see Gen 18:23-33.
Calvinism is in more in balance than my view? Ok.Your viewpoint is out of balance, therefore I stress God's sovereignty (what you call Calvinism).
I already refuted that. Here it is again:If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.
Right, both arms exhausted. That's exactly the argument I responded to. You seem to feel that three solutions are not enough for one vague passage. Whereas the Hypostatic Union isn't vague in that sense - it is CLEARLY faced with a number of apparent contradictions insoluble.My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.
Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.
No, God doesn't say, "I never grew weary, especially not during creation." And even He had said that, I gave you solutions. PART of me becoming weary doesn't mean I am weary. Especially if I have a billion arms.You forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.
You fail to realize that the Bible is written with brevity. Often it only tells us the bare essentials. I'll say it again: God did not collapse from exhaustion even if PART of Him became weary - regardless whether those details are supplied by the text.Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.
I'm not following you. You are aware that today's theologians still consider these problems insoluble, right? I gave you the example of "my friend Mike" who both knows all math and doesn't know any math. On this issue Chafer commented:Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.
Or do you think they said: Well, now the dispute is over, for we have found a formula which make the problem we discussed insoluble?
Please. Immutability isn't dependent on time. It's precisely the claim that something doesn't change, whether time is real or not.Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.
I don't understand the question and don't see the relevance. In my view, every author is mutable. Look, infinitude is an impossible description of a reality because infinity is not a specific number. Every author has finite knowledge, and learns something new every moment - at the very least he learns how the current moment feels different than the previous moment.I asked you to say whether this author is immutable or not, and as long you can't answer this question don't complain when I be imprecise about God in relation to our universe.
Let's refine the hypothetical author: He starts writing the third chapter, the he writes down the end, the a sequel to the third chapter, then the beginning, then the yet missing chapters, then overworks the whole book, altering here and there, inserting some time-flashbacks in some passages … all within two weeks. How would you describe him to the characters in this novel: Is he mutable or immutable (and why is this description appropriate)?
When you answer this question, I'm confident that I know enough of your concept of "immutability" to answer your question whether God is immutable or not.
I don't believe in time dilation and some of the other nonsense that Einstein fabricated. Newton invented the theory of gravity but didn't take it literally. He never believed it himself because he neither presumed nor believed he had perfectly modeled reality. Scientists are taking Einstein too literally, as though he modeled reality perfectly.One thing that modern science has shown to us is: There are aspects of reality that can't be described satisfactorily in everyday plain language. »Same time« is relative to the velocity of the observer, time length can also vary (even between finite and infinite), waves are corpuscles and vice versa …
I have no idea what point you were making there. I distinguish between qualitative vs quantitative understanding. I understand a computer perfectly in a qualitative sense, not quantitatively.No, I do not believe that God can more comprehensible to us than the electron, or a black hole. There are things we don't know.
And you presume this based on one verse in Isaiah that was not designed to be a full detailed metaphysics?I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.
How do you know that? I know that you're wrong. No suffering, no real effort, then no accomplishment to boast of.On the other hand, you ignore the fact that the Father never got weary.
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?