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.
Not at all. It is a simple concept that God is perfect in every way, and self-existent. A child can understand that fact. But that by no means covers the whole doctrine of God, nevermind his own understanding of himself. So with the two natures of Christ. You're still letting words push your thinking around.
That wasn't the claim. Now you're dancing. Two options.
No sir. You referred to to the hypostatic union as a "simple concept". Then later you backpedaled - while having the gall to accuse me of lofty condescension.
Again, I've demonstrated that your God's holiness has no merit, His kind of holiness is not praiseworthy, and He thus becomes the jerk who expects unmerited praise. You didn't address the specific tenets of that argument - because you obviously cannot.
His job? You may as well say "His nature" and make some more logical leaps into that subject. He does what he does, and is what he is, and to say that he is DEVELOPING is illogical extrapolation of your notion of kindness, knowledge and "his job". He is just and kind. Merciful. Loving. But you want to make him ignorant and weak so that he can be excused for not living up to human wish-think.
Define Progressive Theism. I really don't appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of randomly mis-associating my beliefs with anything-you-please.
No, that doesn't put me on any side. It is simple logic: there are only a finite number of languages, and God knows everything about them all. To postulate that he should know an infinite number of languages is like saying he is able to make a rock too big for himself to move. It is incoherent.
My bad. That is what it sounds like to me. Call it what you want --you have asserted heresy and nonsense.
No, I do not define Him as "developing". I define Him as someone who HAS developed. He achieved consummate holiness by free will, quite some time ago. He doesn't need to repeat the effort.
Um...That's not an argument. What was that term you used earlier? Oh that's right - bias.
True it's not an argument, nor did I mean it to be. Yes I am most definitely biased against heresy, thank God. If I wanted to argue at this point, I'd bring in where you say something to the effect that my argument is invalid since it doesn't fit your metaphysics.
So time is absolute and God is subject to it, not its controller and owner? You have no God.
Time is absolute? Incoherent, humanly incomprehensible statements about time, and God's relation to it, do not an argument make.
He is God of finitude and infinity. (Not "a" God of finitude alone.) In fact, he is God of all fact. If it is possible to say so, though the notion seems beyond me to describe, it is drawn from him -- it is certainly not "happening TO him" in the sense that he does not control it, design it, predestine it nor cause it.
So he is the finite infinite God. Wow. You're really making a lot sense here.
I was sarcastically attempting to figure out your thinking on it. You make God subject to time in your narrative. No I don't think time is absolute. You do, however, it seems, subjecting God to it. What a small god you equal yourself to!
That which plainly counters Scripture (and, by the way, good reason, too). According to Google, which is one use of it, and not what I care about:
