mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) the point, in part, was that it's not a contradiction.In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the term "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. No it's not a contradiction but it IS a paradox simply because the terms are defined that way. It's a semantic problem, as I mentioned before. First is the PRESUMPTION that one cannot be "fully divine" AND "fully human". That is the central flaw! Once you do that- of course now it becomes a paradox - BECAUSE YOU HAVE PRESUMED THE PARADOX IN RAISING THE QUESTION! It is a "question begging definition"! How can a cat and a dog be both a cat and a dog at the same time? What a horrible paradox! Clearly they can be if they are "consubstantial". The "paradox" can easily be avoided by not making erroneous presumptions in the first place. Cats are not dogs and never will be. But God IS a man.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Edited January 28, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
Vance Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 whatever "that" is, I'm sure you're being facetious since being blasphemous isn't your style"That" is the "God-man" paradox. We just don't have it. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Catholics might think that our "existence is not complete". I don't understand those words. The words I do understand are that we are here to "fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein". And clearly I would be the first to admit that I have not filled the "measure" of my creation - yet- but I'm working on it with God's help. Similar idea, but an entirely different way of seeing it. The first sees "existence" as something final, as something finished, as if the goal is to "complete" it, indeed God was described as having a "complete" or perfect existence. For us existence is a process and is what we are here for. We were made to progress, to move forward and become better- forever. The process will never be complete. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 The first few chapters of Genesis should leave one with no doubt as to the nature of God and the Holy Trinity. FRom logic, God creates man in his own image- male and female. This tells us two things- there is both a Female God and a Male God making up at least two separate people. Second, it tells us that God has a distinct image of which man looks just like which thus makes God a personage. Besides this fact you have other beings such as Michael, Jesus and Lucifer
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) No it's not a contradiction but it IS a paradox simply because the terms are defined that way.I believe the author is leading us into SK's thinking via Biblical terms. It's a semantic problem, as I mentioned before. First is the PRESUMPTION that one cannot be "fully divine" AND "fully human". I believe that, first, is an acknowledgement that it is not clear (i.e., no objective knowledge of) how one can be both. The conclusion disavows the presumption.That is the central flaw! Once you do that- of course now it becomes a paradox - BECAUSE YOU HAVE PRESUMED THE PARADOX IN RAISING THE QUESTION!It is a "question begging definition"!I don't consider it circular reasoning - and don't agree that "it" "becomes" a paradox; the paradox is derived from scripture. How can a cat and a dog be both a cat and a dog at the same time? What a horrible paradox!You've described a (horrible) contradiction, not a paradox. But God IS a man.But God is a Spirit. See? We made us a pairadocks Edited January 28, 2014 by Gervin
Vance Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I don't consider it circular reasoning - and don't agree that "it" "becomes" a paradox; the paradox is derived from scripture.Humm. It appears that those that wrote scripture weren't aware of this paradox. Could it be that it didn't exist until some Greek philosophy muddied up the waters? But God is a Spirit.And so is man. So now what? See? We made us a pairadocksYou did, yes! But we did not. Edited January 28, 2014 by Vance
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 No sir.I am glad you know you are so far spiritually above me that I cannot understand you at all. It makes our communications unnecessary.Unnecessary, yes, but it would still be a good thing for both of us to understand each other as well as anyone else.For one thing the word being can refer to a kind of being as well as only one individual of that kind of being, just as we use the term human being to refer to any one or all of that kind of being. So think about that whenever you hear soneone refer to God while saying all who are God are the same essence, or substance, or one.And please feel free to ask me any question about God. I'm usually willing to share what God has taught me.
Vance Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 The first few chapters of Genesis should leave one with no doubt as to the nature of God and the Holy Trinity. FRom logic, God creates man in his own image- male and female. This tells us two things- there is both a Female God and a Male God making up at least two separate people. Second, it tells us that God has a distinct image of which man looks just like which thus makes God a personage.I concur. Besides this fact you have other beings such as Michael, Jesus . . .I don't see where those names are found in Genesis.
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 This, from A. Storm's web pages about Kierkegaard, my emphasis:"Faith is the individual's reaction to the inherent paradox of Christianity. Since essential truth is far beyond our comprehension to the extent that we cannot approach it objectively, it appears to us in the form of a paradox. A paradox is a tension of sorts between at least two focal points. In terms of religious paradox, we may refer to the Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. No one can comprehend how such a thing could be. However, it is not a flat contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "James is a man and is not a man", where the term "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement. This point is frequently misunderstood. Kierkegaard would not have us believe, or come into relation with, the impossible or the contradictory. Furthermore, any attempt to remove the paradoxical is either an attempt to objectify what we cannot know objectively, because we are in the process of becoming, or, to dismiss the role of faith as silliness. This, again, would imply that we can understand something to such a degree that we could dismiss it absolutely, as if we dwelled outside of the system (or the universe)—as if from an objective standpoint."Just as the concept "faith" is an altogether distinctively Christian term, so in turn is "offense" an altogether distinctively Christian term relating to faith. The possibility of offense is the crossroad, or it is like standing at the crossroad. From the possibility of offense, one turns either to offense or to faith, but one never comes to faith except from the possibility of offense.... Offense...relates to the God-man and has two forms. It is either in relation to the loftiness that one is offended, that an individual human being claims to be God, acts or speaks in a manner that manifests God...or the offense is in relation to lowliness, that the one who is God is this lowly human being, suffering as a lowly human being.... The God-man is the paradox, absolutely the paradox. Therefore, it is altogether certain that the understanding must come to a standstill on it (Practice In Christianity, p. 81f.).God and Man are the same kind of being.If you will just accept that fact you will not need to deny it.
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 God and Man are the same kind of being.If you will just accept that fact you will not need to deny it.My mom told me not to accept facts from strangers on internet boards.All kidding aside, they are certainly not the same kind of being by my training or understanding.
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 My mom told me not to accept facts from strangers on internet boards.All kidding aside, they are certainly not the same kind of being by my training or understanding.And that's the problem. You're choosing to believe something which is not true while believing it is true, and you're refusing to accept the truth because you believe the truth is in error.Happens quite a bit in this world, actually.If only we could all know the truth when it is presented to us, rather than believing someone who is in error.
wenglund Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 If you are into trinity-related head explosions, try figure out the difference between "persons" and "personages." Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) And that's the problem. You're choosing to believe something which is not true while believing it is true, and you're refusing to accept the truth because you believe the truth is in error.Happens quite a bit in this world, actually.If only we could all know the truth when it is presented to us, rather than believing someone who is in error.I think you've mistaken me for someone who might be deceived. Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Any other truth peddled my way (and it happens quite a bit in this world, I know) will have to go toe to toe with that beginning premise. "Something" and "someone", as used above, have no meaning to me. Feel free to provide context. Edited January 28, 2014 by Gervin
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I don't consider it circular reasoning - and don't agree that "it" "becomes" a paradox; the paradox is derived from scripture. Where? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Unnecessary, yes, but it would still be a good thing for both of us to understand each other as well as anyone else.For one thing the word being can refer to a kind of being as well as only one individual of that kind of being, just as we use the term human being to refer to any one or all of that kind of being. So think about that whenever you hear soneone refer to God while saying all who are God are the same essence, or substance, or one.And please feel free to ask me any question about God. I'm usually willing to share what God has taught me.Unbelievable. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 How can a cat and a dog be both a cat and a dog at the same time? What a horrible paradox! Clearly they can be if they are "consubstantial". The "paradox" can easily be avoided by not making erroneous presumptions in the first place. Cats are not dogs and never will be. But God IS a man.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionThis essentially is the problem. Is that a term is derived that really doesn't help explain anything like "consubstantial". For me, this is how I see the issue. It turns into a semantics game. And there is that whole thing about the presumption in the first place were there need not be a presumption.
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I think you've mistaken me for someone who might be deceived. Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Any other truth peddled my way (and it happens quite a bit in this world, I know) will have to go toe to toe with that beginning premise. "Something" and "someone", as used above, have no meaning to me. Feel free to provide context.Reminds me of the first time I heard someone say something about the Church being true, or the Book of Mormon being true, or the truth, while I wondered what the heck they meant by that statement. And now that I know, I think of what the Lord said in that same context, meaning he is and was what he claimed to be.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 All kidding aside, they are certainly not the same kind of being by my training or understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Reminds me of the first time I heard someone say something about the Church being true, or the Book of Mormon being true, or the truth, while I wondered what the heck they meant by that statement. And now that I know, I think of what the Lord said in that same context, meaning he is and was what he claimed to be.Personally, I believe I would be doing Christ a disservice by equating these statements. But that's just me.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 How do you attach a youtube video so that it actually shows in the post? It usta be easy.
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5HlsI don't have access to youtube, but I'm sure this is a fun or insightful or devastating view. Or all 3.
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Personally, I believe I would be doing Christ a disservice by equating these statements. But that's just me.The point is that some of your beliefs are in error, and now you want to share another one of your beliefs with me? And yes that one is an error too.
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) The point is that some of your beliefs are in error, and now you want to share another one of your beliefs with me? And yes that one is an error too.I consider this a high compliment and thank you. one stylistic note - when I say "I believe" I understand that any thought is "my belief" but I wanted to be sensitive to the fact that there are other beliefs and I'm not trying to foist my belief on others. Edited January 28, 2014 by Gervin
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I consider this a high compliment and thank you.You're very welcome, and it is my pleasure to tell you the truth as I try to help you.I've often wondered about the derivitives of the words God and Man, as now used as references to a particular kind of being. Some, like me, consider both terms as references to the same kind of being, although with some differences in degrees, while others consider the terms to be references to different kinds of being. But what is the truth on this issue? What was meant originally? And was the original meaning true to begin with or was the meaning in error from the beginning? Who really knows? Who can tell? Why isn't there a dictionary written into the scriptures to tell us all the meanings in all of the words? And who can we trust to tell us both who and what God is?I know, but it would be really nice if we all had at least a common understanding of all of the words so that all we would have to decide is whether ir not to believe it.
Gervin Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I know, With all due respect, your rhetorical questions (and other comments on this thread) indicate to me that you don't "know" as it pertains to the truth as I understand it. But thanks for sharing!
Recommended Posts