Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Don’t be so ignorant bro, I explained exactly why its an ampiboly and thus logically fallacious to use in one of my previous posts. Scroll up, and read again. How did I imply that? Great. Is this discussion going to continue running in circles? At this stage I have the right to say “because God wills it to be” as a response to your above comment. Your whole argument attacking the fact that God cant will his divine nature to unite with a human body, was based on the fact that its ridiculous to assume that God can will a square-circle – and since that analogy has been discredited you have nothing else to lean on, except the issue of whether God voluntarily laying aside the EXERCISE of his divine attributes means he ultimately has to cease to be who he is - and that is discussed below. (Dont bother pursuing your square-circle any further, if you're convinced that its still a valid logical example to discredit the incarnation, then so be it bro ive said all i can say in relation to that). I would find no fault if they walked into the room and said “wow, this new shape is essentially a full square inside of a full circle without one’s characteristics being imposed on the other”. Just as "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 - without one nature transmuting the other, or ones characteristics compromising the otehr. That’s the whole point buddy. Describing God’s nature and defining God’s nature are two completely different things. God’s attributes (being the adjectives that they are) can describe God’s nature, but they do not define what he essentially is. The fact his attributes distinguish him are again irrelevant – attributes are a consequence of his nature, since his nature is unique obviously his attributes are unique. He is omnipotent because he is God, but he is not God because he is omnipotent - The fact there is only one God allows us to conclude from the fact he is omnipotent that He must be God. Well lets assume for arguments sake that the property of being able to be self-propelled is unique to a car alone - the only "thing" in the world capable of being self-propelled. We now have a distinguishing attribute - which in you're logically fallacious line of reasoning would be used to define a car. My analogy proves that the attribute of being able to be “self-propelled” does not define the "thing" as a car. When a car is in park and not moving, the fact this attribute is not being excercised (note: its ability to excercise the attribute is always present), does not take away the fact it is still a car. The fact it is of a car "nature" (lets assume there is car nature) defines the fact it is self-propelled, but the essential act of being self-propelled does not define it as a car because that would mean it is a car sometimes, and other times it is not. Lets take a look at some of these distinguishing characteristics of God (which i again emphasise - do not define His essence, theyre an identifying factor of His divine essence due to the fact we know only One God exists). An attribute such as His eternality is obviously one thing that cannot be "voluntarily" excercised. And this attribute was never compromised at the incarnation - the fact he existed as a human in a finite time space period of his eternal existence provides no conflict. More info: http://www.muhammadanism.com/Jesus/JesusInfinite.htm Other key attributes include, omniscience - now the fact the Son chose not to excercise this attribute at certain points during his ministry (however in others he did) does not mean that at those points in time, God ceased to exist (again i emphasise it does not define His nature its simply something unique to His nature) - His divine essence was always existent in Christ, and we must always remember that although the Son voluntarily chose not to excercise such an attribute, the Father and His Spirit (The Holy Spirit) were in fact omniescent at all times - so in a sense God really never ceased to excercise attributes such as omniscience, one hypostasis (His eternal word/will/wisdom) which was manifest through Christ voluntarily chose not to excercise it but in any event we come back to the argument that this does not effect is His essential identity as the One True God. No that is a fallacious question to ask, because you’re implying that the incarnation took away from God’s nature. And the point of my car analogy was to show the correlation between attribute and nature (read my above comments again for emphasis sake). Don’t be ridiculous – I wasn’t trying to use natural revelation to show perfect evidence from nature of the hypostatic union, I was using my analogy simply to give you a reasonable idea, and mental picture to support my words. Assume that there is such thing as the “fire essence” bro! Im not trying to prove that an analogy from natural revelation perfectly reflects the hypostatic union. Earlier I explicitly stated that no example from creation will ever be sufficient in describing the actions of an infinite complex being, was I contradicting myself when I then went along and provided one? Absoultely not, it was simply to give you a reasonable (not perfect) and adequate mental picture of the definitions I provided. So if you can assume certain things for arguments sake then that would be great - because by assuming certain things, we can turn an imperfect natural analogy into the perfect analogy that does not insult logic. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame