buckeyegrad;1018210; said:
Did you miss this part of the link?
Though He was raised physically, His body was a glorified body. It was the same body, but it was different.
I perhaps did not state things well enough earlier. The body was the same, though there were qualitative differences about it. What were they? I don't know, as I don't know the differences of a glorified body versus a non-glorified body.
How? Same body/spirit in substance, but qualitatively different is what I am arguing. In the plant analogy, does not the same DNA, the same molecular componds, and same protiens exist? In other words, same substance. The difference is merely qualitative.
It was the same body, but it was different? I see. So, when my hostas shoot up similar looking shuts one year (as compared to the last) I should think that they are the precise same shuts from last year, just different? I'm sorry, Bgrad, but such rationale strikes me as trying too hard.
I might as well believe that when I went to bed last night, I woke this AM in my same body, but it's different in that now it's "Glorified," whatever that means. I suppose my argument that I'm in a glorfied body today would be stronger if Buckeyeryn posted it instead of me.
No, I did not say Jesus only represents or is an aspect of G-d. I thought I was pretty clear that I said G-d in His wholeness is present in Jesus. This is why I said my understanding of a triune G-d is very different than most Christians. Often Christians (especially Catholics and mainline Protestants) do assign different attributes to the "persons" of the trinity, which in turns leads them away form the understanding of echad, and I would say in error.
So, if I understand you, G-d - who exists outside of our present reality - was "complete" while being inside our present reality. What doctrine supports such an assertion. What Biblical authority supports the idea that the infinite L-rd G-d could be contained within a single human Body? Where was the L-rd G-d when he was Jesus? Did he wholly vacate his position outside of reality so that his ONENESS could be contained within the person of Jesus? How can G-d's ONENESS be in two places at once? (Understanding of course that my contention is that G-d's ONEness is expressed in that he is EVERYWHERE, whereas if I understand you, He is very NOT everywhere... thus, my contention that the ONE poses a problem for you, even if it would not be for me).
Why would it be assumed that G-d's commands would not have you shelter your life in order to preserve it (assuming you are not intentionally taking anyone else's life with malice in order to preserve your own)? To preserve one's own life is always a selfish act? That is your assumption (at least in the question asked), not mine.
I make no such assumption. You commented man is inclined to follow yetzer ra, as it relates to G-d commandments. The selfish urge to shelter is born of yetzer ra, and I'm just trying to figure out how acting on yetzer ra is out of line with Holy Commands. You're arguing some need for an intercessor, and I have no idea why.
The 95% refers to my abilities/perceptions, not the text.
Convienent. (Although, I'd expect you find it most inconvienent.)
As I also stated, or at least intended to, was that the more important principle is that most contradictions that people claim to see is the result of them assigning the assumption of two events, facts, ideas being mutually exclusive of each other; whereas the "conjucture", even if incorrect, shows that such an assumption is not valid.
Well, I'm still at a loss to understand the medling of Joseph's father being both Jacob and Heli, especially in light of the contention that Jesus had no earthly father at all, being G-d Himself.
You know that I hold that Paul was directed by the spirit of G-d, so know, I don't consider that he was wrong.
As for you being able to follow what is objectively written on your heart, well you can't really claim that as you only think you are following what is written on your heart. For example, we can both agree on murder, fine. However, what about the fact that I would say that it is also written on our hearts that pre-marital sex is wrong. You would likely disagree that this is not written on our hearts, or at least not yours, but rather cultural imposition. But if that is the case, how can you say prohibited murder is on the heart, but prohibited pre-marital sex is merely cultural? The other option of different things being written on different hearts, how does that reconcile with G-d being infinite? Wouldn't it be the same through creation if this is so?
I'm not sure I was arguing objectivity, but whatever... I suppose I should phrase it this way... what is written on our hearts, in my way of thinking, is not individual specific commands "Thou shalt not have pre-marital sex" would not appear... It would be my contention that objective reality recognizes no such thing as Good or Evil. The belief that pre-marital sex is good or evil is, thereby, not anything more than a human judgment. In as much as it's my contention that WE are actions by G-d, our differing positions on the issue (should we have differing positions) is an expression of G-d contemplating EACH possible parameter of his own exitsence.
What is his fate? Non-existence.
How is non-existence possible? If we're to believe we have a spirit, and it survives earthly death, and we're judged by G-d and dispatched in to heaven or hell (Purgatory?) where is the non-existence? Is the devil the master over things which don't exist? If the devil is truly in hell, wouldn't he cease to be?
Now if this is the question you are trying to get at through the hypothetical, then I can answer. Moral behavior (which I assume to be the commands of G-d) is enough if we can adhere to it. However, we all fail at it. It is in our nature, which is not to say we have original sin, but that we sin originally.
And it's this type of thinking which I think turns so many people off the notion of Christianity. Christianity is built upon the assertion that man is incompetent, incapable and designed to fail. As I said before, even as "down" on human nature as I am, I do not truly believe man is these things. Indeed, if man was created in this manner, you can have whatever god was so mean such as to create things intended to fail.
However, the reason it remains important is two fold: a) as G-d is love, then it is to reason that there is a benefit to obeying what He commands; b) because I love G-d, I have a desire to do what He commands (just as I have a desire to do what my wife asks of me because I love her--it is only when I am being selfish that I resent doing what she asks). Both of these reasons boil down to a greater reason: because G-d's commands lead us to a greater relationship between G-d and man.
I have no particular quarrel with this analysis for what it's worth and inside your mindset. The dichotomy, in my view, is completely unecessary.
Yes, that is true, unless there are other assumption you and I are making that we are not aware of and would not be aware of unless someone else pointed them out to us. On this subject regarding the understanding of pi, I am reminded of a tribe I once read about that had no concept of numbers beyond 3. I wonder how they would reconcile the principle of pi? (if you are interested in what tribe this is, I will look it up when I get home this evening.)
Well, the issue I would think isn't if pi is as this tribe believes, or if it is as if mathmaticians believe. The point is, it's subjective and may or may not be objective truth. As I think of the world, this makes perfect sense... Pi IS 3.. Pi IS 3.14xxxx Pi is ALL these things... there is
no such thing as Pi. That's the whole point, I think. As I've said before:
X exists
X does not exist
are the same statement. P=notP
Not really. Because now you have said that the universe is greater than G-d, which would also mean that the -1 is something other than G-d, which now leaves us at the problem of there being something beyond or other than G-d (which ironically is what I contend exists and what I call infinity). Either that, or I'm not following.
You've misunderstood what I was meaning. I'll try to be more clear...
Would it be more understandable to you if I said:
The universe = Infinity(minus)1...
or maybe I could say
The universe is AT MOST (Less than or equal to) infinity(minus)1
Thus making G-d "infinite" for purposes of the expression, and the universe 1 less than G-d. Thus, G-d retains that component which makes Him something different than the Universe, remains EVERYTHING and the universe can be understood as finite and quantifiable, which I think we agree it is. Maybe we dont. In any event, I certainly did not say the universe is greater than G-d, and if that was what was understood, then I either expressed myself poorly or I was misunderstood.
