|
Author
|
Topic: Spinoza Pantheism Defined
|
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
You said: Logic says either-or. It doesn't recognize paradox. It sees contradictions. But what do we encounter in great religions? Rob:
Websters- Contradiction 1: to assert the contrary of (eg. 'There is no truth') Paradox 1: a statement that seems contrary to common sense, and yet is perhaps true Archer: Thank you for illustrating my point. What appears as contradiction to reason ('common sense') can still be true, as you acknowledge. I never denied that! You misunderstood me in the other thread (or vice versa), as well as here. You have missed the greater and more obvious point. It is so obvious that it slides right under your inflated head (sorry but it's true). My point was and is, that you cannot see it, unless it is logical and you see the connections. Perhaps it is still true, but I know it is not, because I have seen the real thing. Just like when you were a kid, you thought you saw a lot of things in your own mind. You believed money was something it wasn't (as a poor analogy). But you couldn't see that fantasy! You only believed it. It was blind faith! And there are a lot of things in life like that. You imagined all sorts of 'wrong' things in your mind. We all do. Some of them are blatent contradictions.
It is in this fertile ground, beyond the playing field of strict logic, where paradox and other symbolic forms of communication convey truth by other means. Jesus said, 'enter through the narrow gate'. He said, I will open your eyes. It's not strict... it is real life! You're living partially in a dream world Archer, and I am trying to tell you that you can see the kingdom of heaven before you taste death, not after. You only have to ask... Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." That's why certain forms of pantheism are so dangerous Archer. Because people have been in touch with other Spirits. And they are convinced becase they see deep things. So deep that the details and the contradictions elude them. I suspect, a self respecting pantheist may say the same thing about me... ...If so, at least they know that one of us is very, and terribly wrong. Because two philosophies that contradict each other (irrespective of internal conradictions within them) cannot both be true. You may believe they are, but you cannot show they are. But I can show that the one is contradictory. And not with conventional wisdom or common sense, but with strict application of the law of non-contradiction. What does that tell you? How far will you push the limits of human understanding to deny the obvious, when the only thing stopping you from surrendering now is your personal attatchment to whatever sin you refuse to let go of? That is the hurdle. It is not intellectual... it is moral.
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3616 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
Message 17 of 96 (379143)
01-23-2007 2:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
01-20-2007 2:36 PM
|
|
philosophy & religion
I appreciate your taking the time to share all this, anglagard. I confess I'm not fresh enough on my Spinoza to take any issue with details of your definition. For me your post serves as a re-introduction to a reliable friend. Your description is especially welcome because, as you note, a lot of bad information makes the rounds about 'pantheism.' Among fundamentalists I hear the term used most often as a catch-all--along with 'new age' and 'secular humanism'--for just about any thought they don't perceive as one of theirs. In response to your last question, I'd say you live in accordance with a philosophy as opposed to a religion or atheism. My comfort with that terminology comes mainly from the way it already describes the two main streams in Taoist practice. One speaks of 'philosophical' and 'religious' Taoism. Religion entails personal images of deity and organized public rituals of petition. (It does not entail adherents' taking the lore literally.) Philosophy just refers to a belief that guides one's personal path and helps govern choices. Have you posted a faith statement here? I would welcome a chance to read one from you. ___
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by anglagard, posted 01-20-2007 2:36 PM | | anglagard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by anglagard, posted 01-28-2007 3:21 AM | | Archer Opteryx has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18292 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
|
|
Message 18 of 96 (379155)
01-23-2007 5:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by anglagard
01-21-2007 3:57 PM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
anglagard writes: Because all people are in essence, a part of God, all people are equal. As mentioned before, such a belief has political significance. Ravi Zacharias,quoted in Robs Post writes: When pluralism says that no worldview is dominant, there is a loss of reason, and our thinking becomes nonsensical. Are we basicaly talking about the difference between communion and the loss of subject/object distinction between ourselves and God?
NIV writes: John 17:1-18:1 "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. 6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-the name you gave me-so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13 "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. 20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." NKJV writes: John 17:26 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." NKJV The Message Transliteration writes: 24-26Father, I want those you gave me To be with me, right where I am, So they can see my glory, the splendor you gave me, Having loved me Long before there ever was a world. Righteous Father, the world has never known you, But I have known you, and these disciples know That you sent me on this mission. I have made your very being known to them” Who you are and what you do” And continue to make it known, So that your love for me Might be in them Exactly as I am in them. WIKI writes: The subject-object problem is a longstanding philosophical issue. It arises from the notion that the world consists of objects which are perceived or otherwise acted upon by subjects. This results in multiple questions regarding how subjects relate to objects. Whenever we make a revolutionary leap in personal development, scientific theory or any other qualitative or quantum shift of paradigm or framework, that to which we are subject becomes object for consideration. That is, our perceptions and evaluations, those things that subject us to themselves, become things we can behold. Rather than be held by our perspective, we can hold it and choose our way of thinking. We can thus step back from patterns that bind and keep us in their hold, and instead choose whether to “hold” those ways or other ways. We can either be had by a thinking pattern or choose to have the pattern, as psychologist Robert Kegan has suggested. A King has subjects. John Spong has a differing view of Christ, God, and humanity: Spong writes: Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history. By the same token, communion is an action of God. Does this imply that communion cannot occur inside and/or within human history?
anglagard writes: it is clear in modern psychology that the mind-body dichotomy is false. The mind requires the body and the body requires the mind in order for both to exist. One could say that the mind and the body are different attributes of the same being. Therefore the individual is both-and body and mind rather than either-or body or mind. The prayer for unity with God---why would it be necessary in context of John17:26? Even Spong seems to imply a subject/object distinction between Jesus and God. Does the same implication exist for humanity?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by anglagard, posted 01-21-2007 3:57 PM | | anglagard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by anglagard, posted 01-28-2007 4:01 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3616 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 19 of 96 (379159)
01-23-2007 6:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Rob
01-23-2007 1:52 AM
|
|
Either-Or & Both-And
My apologies to Admin and the author of the OP. Please be patient with a momentary aside on the subject of logical and symbolic modes of thought.
Rob:
Jesus said, 'enter through the narrow gate'. He said, I will open your eyes. It's not strict... it is real life! But I can show that the one is contradictory.[...] with strict application of the law of non-contradiction. OK, let me make sure I understand your position. Your allusion is to the Sermon on the Mount: Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it.
For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Mt 7.13 NRSV You say the narrow gate is the gate of reason. We enter this gate through the application of logic. We walk this path when we observe the law of non-contradiction that says A cannot equal non-A. You say the wide road is the road of symbolism. We enter this broad gate through the application of metaphor. We walk this easy road when we indulge mental images that assign more than one meaning to a single thing and let a variety of non-synonymous ideas co-exist. If we take the narrow road of Either-Or thinking, the application of logic will lead us to the right answers. If we take the broad road of Both-And thinking, the blind guide of symbolism will lead us across a dry, thirsty wilderness of spiritually barren desert, down a torrential river of onrushing groundless fantasies, over a roaring waterfall of worldly belief systems, and adrift helplessly on sea of undifferentiated metaphor--a vast ocean of relativity in which anything may mean everything and everything means nothing. Have I represented your view correctly? ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 1:52 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 9:36 AM | | Archer Opteryx has replied | | | Message 21 by Phat, posted 01-23-2007 10:05 AM | | Archer Opteryx has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
Re: Either-Or & Both-And
Have I represented your view correctly? Yes and no... Not really! There is nothing wrong with metaphor and symbolism. They just have to pass the logical consistency test. They must cohere as a system with 'the truth' being reflected at every layer of reality. If the system can be shown to contradict itself, it must be assumed false. Jesus said, 'a kingdom divided cannot stand'. Our problem is moral... That is the difficulty. So many of you accept the law of non-contradiction and use it the way it is intended... to identify falsehood! But you do not do so consistently. You pick and choose what to examine with that powerful tool. You stumble over the 'stone that has become the capstone'. You refuse to acknowledge your sin. And as a result, you are forced to blame others (and that is akin to calling them sinners). So many need a scapegoat to blame the problems of the world on, when Christ became the scapegoat 'for all' and you reject Him. As a result you point out the sins of others to justify yourself. The beast isn't the number of a man. It is man's number. G.K. Chesterton once answered a newspaper editors question, "What's wrong with the world?" Chesterton wrote, "Dear sir, in regard to your question 'what's wrong with the world... I am. Yours truely, G.K. Chesterton." Stop judging people, and look in the mirror of the law God gave us. Then save yourself by appropriating the salvation offered to each of us. As jesus said, 'then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free'. 'Before you take the plank out of your brothers eye... first take the plank out of your own'. How can we save ourselves? By making a choice! The only real power we have. By submitting to 'the one' who can save us, and putting the ownership and responsibility on His shoulders and let Him be God. Give Him back our life, and He will breath life into us again by His spirit. 'There is only one name given under heaven by which you must be saved'. It's real!
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18292 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
Re: Either-Or & Both-And
Archer writes: If we take the narrow road of Either-Or thinking, the application of logic will lead us to the right answers. Phat writes: I believe so. I'm not so sure that logic is the defining factor for acceptance of a belief,but the issue surely cannot be settled through emotion alone. If we take the broad road of Both-And thinking, the blind guide of symbolism will lead us across a dry, thirsty wilderness of spiritually barren desert, down a torrential river of onrushing groundless fantasies, over a roaring waterfall of worldly belief systems, and adrift helplessly on sea of undifferentiated metaphor--a vast ocean of relativity in which anything may mean everything and everything means nothing. Phat writes: Yet often, spirituality cannot be understood in an either/or context until all of the options have been experienced. I can't say that I have a favorite Ice Cream until I have tried all 31 flavors. On the other hand, perhaps I am not doing the choosing. Perhaps I have been chosen, and the source of this choice is a definite absolute rather than a relative synergy.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 10:29 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Archer: What appears as contradiction to reason ('common sense') can still be true, as you acknowledge. I think there is a flaw in your equation... Common sense (or conventional wisdom) does not have to be logical. So it is not equivilant to 'reason'. It may be the reason people use to found their culture or other governing ideas, but that does not mean it is ultimatley 'reasonable' (coherent). Reason is not enough, you need 'good' reason. And 'good' reason is coherent to begin with. I noticed this last night while falling asleep. Plug it in to the rest of our conversation, and it shouldn't be difficult to see the point. So yes, good reason cannot just still be true when opposed to the convention, but is, when the convention is mired in contradiction. You've turned this around to say that the convention can oppose the paradoxes of good reason. It is the contradictions in muddled philosophy that are the problem, not the paradoxes of theology. "To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether." (Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51) Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 23 of 96 (379188)
01-23-2007 10:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
01-23-2007 10:05 AM
|
|
Quick aside...
Something we all need to remember. My apologies... Do what you know and do it well... Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Phat, posted 01-23-2007 10:05 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
|
|
Message 24 of 96 (379194)
01-23-2007 10:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Rob
01-23-2007 1:18 AM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
correct me if I'm wrong. trinity=god the father, god the son (who actually existed separate from god the father), and god the holy spirit. ego and superid and me are not the trinity. I don't know what modern psychology has to say about this concept of freud's. however, those are two distinct entities from me. Wheras in the case of the trinity, the son was definetly a distinct entity (and still is, right?), and I've no clue about the ghost. It took the RCC about 400 years to settle the debate. And they only settled it within their own church. You still had many groups who did not buy the concept, and for good reason. Anyway you look at it, an entity that is actually two (or three) separate entities that have existed separately from the parent unit is contradictory. this is why religion requires so much mind-bending. but then, you've been doing it so long that you see it as perfect logic. when it isn't it. oh, and I thought you were leaving us to "reap what we sow"? back so soon?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 1:18 AM | | Rob has replied |
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3616 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 25 of 96 (379220)
01-23-2007 12:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Rob
01-23-2007 9:36 AM
|
|
Re: Either-Or & Both-And
Rob: Yes and no... Not really! There is nothing wrong with metaphor and symbolism. They just have to pass the logical consistency test. Then please explain, plainly and in your own words, how your system coheres. In a new thread. Up to now you have steadfastly opposed 'both-and' ways of thinking. To do that is to oppose symbolic modes of thought entirely, because all metaphors work on a 'both-and' basis. Now you say 'both-and' thinking is fine as long as it shows valid 'either-or' thinking. This is a self-contradiction according to the 'either-or' system of negation you say you hold supreme. A new thread on the subject of 'Rob's philosophy' will give you the space and place to explain things. The subject of this thread is Spinoza's philosophy. That's not a subject you are addressing. You are off topic here. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 9:36 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 7:42 PM | | Archer Opteryx has not replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5971 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
|
Message 26 of 96 (379280)
01-23-2007 5:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by kuresu
01-23-2007 10:46 AM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
kuresu writes: ego and superid and me are not the trinity. Essentially, they are a trinity. I don't care if you use Freud's terms or more conventional terms. You have Id, Ego, and Super-Ego. Take away the 'me' there, because the body is not important here. You have the basic 'force' or animation which is subconscious. You have an ego, which is something like your self-awareness, and you also have a conscience.
those are two distinct entities from me. I will ask you which two you refer to? You mean that your ego and super-ego are distinct? In any case, that is the whole point of the trinity. All 3 are distinct, but they are not entities having seperate existances.
the son was definetly a distinct entity Again, I am not sure what you mean by distinct entity. Yes, Jesus is distinct, but not a seperate entity.
Wiki writes: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. Jesus has no seperate existance. He says over and over, 'I and the Father are One'. He is One in Being with the Father, which means He has no seperate life force or existance. If He had seperate existance He must needs be created, and therefore not God.
two (or three) separate entities that have existed separately from the parent unit is contradictory. No, you misunderstand. As I have said, there is no seperate existance. You are I believe just imaging Jesus on earth and God in heaven, and Jesus with a body and God without, and thinking 'seperate'. You should instead be imagining God in heaven and God on earth, with a body, and without a body, and thinking 'equal'. If I am interpreting pantheism correctly, you will find that NOTHING has a seperate existance from God, while christianity will be more like 'we have seperate existance FROM God' but not such that we could exist without Him giving us this existance. And yes, the church took a long time to understand this, but in a way it was way ahead of its time. How many centuries of research into human psychology did it take before Freud could tentatively understand the mind of a mere human? Even today nothing is 'settled' or provable. You must not think of religion as a 'kit' for quick home assembly. You can't just sit down and bang out a plan like a new game of poker with new rules. "OK, everyone, ante up, this time let's play the three God draw, best hand gets to heaven'. Religions evolve, usually very slowly. Christianity had a sudden influx of new information to deal with, which is rare for a religion. 400 years is not too long considering. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2007 10:46 AM | | kuresu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2007 6:01 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
|
|
Message 27 of 96 (379295)
01-23-2007 6:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
01-23-2007 5:26 PM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
methinks the problem might be where we're coming from. you have to remember, i don't buy into miracles. to me, it is physically impossible to occupy two or more bodies at one time. And jesus claims to be himself and the father at the same time!? that would be like saying my mind and my father's mind are the same thing. they aren't! we might think in similar terms, have common experiences, agree on the same things, but that does not mean that I am he and he is me.
I will ask you which two you refer to? You mean that your ego and super-ego are distinct? i reread what I wrote. Whatever point I was trying to make is lost in that confusion. If anything, I probably meant to say that id and super-ego are part of me. sorry about that.
All 3 are distinct, but they are not entities having seperate existances. see, that's interesting to me. jesus was definately on this earth, away from god, his father. he was defintely physically separated. we know that he and god talked. so what? my father and I do too. either jesus is god, or he isn't. he can't be both, logically. (and i realize there's this whole thing going on with both-and, but it doesn't seem to have to do with formal logic, to my best understanding).
Jesus is distinct, but not a seperate entity
distinct is separate. otherwise, how can you tell them apart? red and orange are distinct from each other. but there's a point where you can't tell where one begins and the other ends. on either side, though, they are separate colors, distinct colors. they are separate, distinct entities (i use the word mostly as identification, if that makes any sense). now then, sons aren't their fathers. fathers aren't their sons. they are separate and distinct entities.
'I and the Father are One'. He is One in Being with the Father, which means He has no seperate life force or existance. If He had seperate existance He must needs be created, and therefore not God then what was the whole point of the virgin birth? I thought jesus was created? and, there's no mention of god being a trinity until after jesus comes. he's the only prophet I know of to actually claim being God. So in a sense, God was created if he and jesus are one.
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 5:26 PM | | anastasia has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 7:25 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5971 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
|
Message 28 of 96 (379316)
01-23-2007 7:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by kuresu
01-23-2007 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
kuresu writes: to me, it is physically impossible to occupy two or more bodies at one time. And jesus claims to be himself and the father at the same time!? Well, no again. He claims to be One with the Father, but never claims to BE the Father. It is not insanely hard to imagine God being in two places at once.
that would be like saying my mind and my father's mind are the same thing. they aren't! Yes. But with God, they are. It gets tricky...Jesus had both a human mind and the mind of God. I prefer to think about it in this way; Jesus had a human mind, and He WAS the mind of God...in literal fleshly form.
either jesus is god, or he isn't. he can't be both, logically. He is God. He is man. The Word became flesh...not went into flesh, but became.
distinct is separate. otherwise, how can you tell them apart? Distinct only means that you can tell them apart. Your feet have a distinct function. They have the same purpose, however, as the mind. The will of the mind and the will of your feet are one, but they act in distinct ways.
now then, sons aren't their fathers. fathers aren't their sons. they are separate and distinct entities True. For us, that is.
then what was the whole point of the virgin birth? I thought jesus was created? and, there's no mention of god being a trinity until after jesus comes. he's the only prophet I know of to actually claim being God. So in a sense, God was created if he and jesus are one. No, no creation I am afraid. Not in the way that the church uses the word. God created us, from nothing. He 'birthed' Jesus from Himself, in the sense that Jesus could not have existed without Him. Remember, Jesus is the Word of God, the Idea, the Mind, the Wisdom, whatever it is, it is part of Him and could not exist without Him. Jesus is not a creation anymore than you have created your conscience. You can develope and change your conscience, but I don't think you could say you put it there. Now, the virgin birth was not when Jesus first existed, He is eternal. It is simply the moment when the Word of God became physical flesh. There is a 'moment' in time, but it does not mean He was created, He just changed His form SORT OF. I am not implying that He shape-shifted. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2007 6:01 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
Re: Either-Or & Both-And
Then please explain, plainly and in your own words, how your system coheres. No... You explain why it doesn't... as I have shown with pantheism. And it's not my system... It is reality. If you want to understand reality, then ask Him. I can only show you the door. You have to open it.
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 30 of 96 (379327)
01-23-2007 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by kuresu
01-23-2007 10:46 AM
|
|
Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
correct me if I'm wrong. You can't correct defiance. It is absolute!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2007 10:46 AM | | kuresu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2007 7:51 PM | | Rob has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2