Regarding the "Omnis"

[mitchellmckain]

His deity cannot be suppressed. He was always God and always will be...He did indeed set aside all power and knowledge that were outside those limitations

Ok, maybe I misstated your position. You don't believe Jesus lost or suppressed his "deity", just his prerogatives as deity. Is that correct? Hold on, never mind, in your view, God doesn't have to have power, authority or wisdom to be called God, so the discussion is really moot.

Correct except for one thing -- the use of the word "wisdom". There is a difference between wisdom and knowledge, and it goes back to the difference between love and power. Knowledge is really indistinguishable from power and wisdom is not found knowledge or power but in love.

The Bible says that God is love, and yet "love" is a human word that is often used for lot of things including some really twisted, sick and cruel things. Thus there are other human words that we can use to clarifiy what is meant when we say that God is love, such as goodness and wisdom. There is a kind of love in which goodness and wisdom is found and that is what we are talking about when we say that God is love.

I do not worship power. I do not think that power = God.

UNCLE with the worshipping power bit! I'm not claiming that you or I or anyone else worships power, I'm claiming that the God that I worship happens to be powerful. So let's drop that straw man you're beating like a dead horse...I was simply pointing out the observation that an entity that has "made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you (Jer 32:17)" seems to me, and the author of Jeremiah, to have a significant amount of power. But I'm fine if it makes you feel better to change Jesus' prayer to "...Yours is the kingdom and the [love] and the glory forever. Amen."

The point of my comments is a simple, and practical one. Did Jesus, as He was performing acts here on earth, access His deity...err, power, wisdom and authority God doesn't have to have to call Himself God...to accomplish these acts. You've pseudo-answered that question above. You do no believe He exercised super-human talents to do anything we couldn't do. Except of course you "clarify" your position with:

All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God.

which basically makes your position as clear as mud...

The lack of clarity is yours not mine. You say that you do not worship power and yet you keep equating God with power and cannot believe in deity without power. This is why it is NOT a straw man and it keeps coming back because YOU keep bringing it back.

The Bible says that God IS love. It does NOT say that God is power. Now I do not take this to mean that the word "God" simply refers to love, or even suppose as Rob Bell seems to that love is all powerful. God is an infinite being who created the universe. But if you want to know why, then the answer is love. If you want to know what identifies God and distinguishes Him from other beings like "the god of this world", then the answer is love. If you want to know what defines Him - what is His defining characteristic, then the answer is LOVE not power. It is love not power that God values and will never leave behind. If you want to know what it is that without which God would cease to be God, then the answer love not power. THAT is the God that I worship. It is the God that I have ALWAYS worshipped. But it very much does seem to me that this is not the god that is worshipped by the majority of religions in the world, and that they do indeed worship power because their primary concern is what they can get out of it for themselves. It may be rare but there is a different kind of worship that focuses on giving oneself (rather than on what one is getting out of it) and this worships a being of love rather than a being of power.

[spongebob]

OK, allow me to make some qualifications for myself here.

I certainly did not mean to imply that this was an atheist characteristic or anything. I am refering back to a podcast ("Should you be true to yourself") and the discussion that followed, and there were both atheists and christians that agreed with the "no such thing as a selfless act" stand, including Scott apparently.

And I didn't take your comment to suggest that, Mitch. It was simply interesting to hear you mentioned this idea that some atheists don't believe in a selfless acts and so I commented on it. I probably don't have the full context of that comment and if that's the case, then perhaps I don't fully understand where it was coming from. It's interesting, though. I recently had a similar conversation with a guy at work who stated, sort of out of the blue, that no one actually performs a selfless act, regardless of religious beliefs, and this guy is a Christian. That certainly struck me as a surprising statement and your comment brought that memory back. I'll have to check and see if there's more discussion on the forum on that topic. Perhaps a new thread is in order, and no, I won't post it here.

As for the spat between you and Ryan in this forum, I would assume it is over and that you were not planning to say anymore about it. I would rather not say anything myself. sigh... All I can suggest is trying to avoid being defensive in the Christian section in case that might be misinterpreted. For example, I shouldn't have had to make the qualification above since I wasn't speaking to a mixed audience.

Actually, it's Rian, not Ryan.

Well, let me explain about that. There is no "spat" between me and Rian, at least not where I'm concerned. I simply made one comment on this forum. I did not intend to start a long debate about it or hijack the thread. But Rian, despite agreeing with me that occasional comments such as these are fine, was pretty adamant that I leave. Now, I don't plan to take up permanent residence here, mostly because the subject matter isn't usually in my interest area. But I don't appreciate the fact that she feels that she can dictate what others can and can't do and apparently feels that it's fine to call others names, despite the fact that she has countless times railed against such behavior. So, it's really all up to her. If she would have refrained from dictating terms to me, then I would have had no reason to reply. This is the common pattern with Rian; she usually sets these things off, then spends an ungodly amount of time and energy blaming everyone else for it.

For example, I shouldn't have had to make the qualification above since I wasn't speaking to a mixed audience.

Exactly! I think that's the whole reason behind the forums. It's not trying to be mean or anything - it's just simply that on ANY topic, discussions are different between those that agree on something and have a background in it, and those that disagree. It's just that simple, as well as there's less likely to be flare-ups between those that agree on something, so we can talk in deeper and different ways.

Yes and this is a specific case where I am quite qualified on both counts. I have over 20 years of Christian experience to draw upon and another 15 or so of atheist experience. And there was no reason for any flare up here; let's be honest. That was all your doing, Rian.

Although there's been the occasional post on opposite forums, everyone has ALWAYS graciously respected the request to leave - until now. I hope that Sponge will change his mind and gracefully leave.

Right. The emphasis is on "Occasional Post", Rian. So, how many posts did I make before you called me a jerk? Answer: 2. Again, I have no desire or intention to be a regular poster on this Christian forum. And I've been reasonably gracious, given the fact that Rian has been so insulting. So, there's no reason to continue this particular debate. For me it was closed after the first post. No reason for a follow-up, really. So, please keep it that way.

[ChristianHeretic]

The lack of clarity is yours not mine.

I'm going to just assume at this point that you don't know the answer to the following question...which is fine, most Trinitarians don't know or are afraid to answer it because they understand the consequences...so I can understand why now you keep chanting "God is love, God is love" when there is no argument on that point...Yes, God is love. And you believe He could lose His power and wisdom and still be God...I get it...

Did Jesus, as He was performing acts here on earth, access His deity...err, power, wisdom and authority God doesn't have to have to call Himself God...to accomplish these acts.

As it stands right now, your claim is that it's my fault I can't understand the following. I'll just assume I'm not bright enough to understand Trinitarianism:

All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God.

He had left all that power and knowledge behind Him when He subjected Himself to the laws of this world and became a helpless human infant.

But because you don't want to answer, let's drop the power thing...I'm fine if these verses mean nothing to you...they do however, give me comfort (And opposed to your comment that "It does NOT say that God is power", the bible does actually say that God is "mighty", which is the term for "power" throughout the OT, (and you missed the one that actually says Jesus is the power and wisdom of God, but obviously as you've made abundantly clear, that aspect of Jesus is insignificant to you):

God is mighty, but does not despise men; he is mighty, and firm in his purpose.

but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

[Rian]

Non-SpongeBob posters ,feel free to ignore this post. I'm just venting, and correcting Sponge's very inaccurate account of things. I'm sorry if this is irritating, but I need to get it off my chest. Hopefully this will just about wrap things up, because we're all sick of it. I'm asking Emery for a decision on whether or not Sponge can post at any time in the Christian forum on his own terms or not. But regardless of what Sponge does, I'll try very hard to make this my last vent, because it just stinks for everyone. But it just bugs me so much when he distorts things, and so I'm trying to set the record straight.

Well, let me explain about that. There is no "spat" between me and Rian, at least not where I'm concerned. I simply made one comment on this forum.

And I simply and VERY politely asked you to move the discussion to the main forum, like many, many other people have done in these situations. If you would have done so, like EVERYONE ELSE has done in the past, there would have been NO problem. Zero. But no, YOU ignored the polite request and kept going. That's YOU causing the problem, Sponge. You.

But I don't appreciate the fact that she feels that she can dictate what others can and can't do and apparently feels that it's fine to call others names, despite the fact that she has countless times railed against such behavior.

This is utterly ridiculous - what about the time you called Mitch a jerk? When I came back here, I decided to be less formal and more "street", because that's how the majority of people like it here. Yes, I railed against that behavior in the past, but it became very apparent that it was fine with most people, and you told me that you're only here for spam and things like that and not to moderate behavior, so I decided to drop it. When I complained about some name-calling, you told me tough luck - you aren't moderating behavior. So I decided to stop trying to change things and act more like the other people felt comfortable acting. And I get an official board warning for using "jerk"?

Tell me, did you give yourself a warning when you called Mitch a jerk? When other people have gotten heated up, did you ever issue them an official board warning?

How many board warnings for behavior have you issued before you gave me one for doing something that you did, Sponge?

So, it's really all up to her. If she would have refrained from dictating terms to me, then I would have had no reason to reply. This is the common pattern with Rian; she usually sets these things off, then spends an ungodly amount of time and energy blaming everyone else for it.

It's up to you to stop pissing on the other side's playground. No one has ever - EVER - EVER done anything but politely leave the "other side"'s board when asked - and sometimes even before being asked. Until you. You are the ONLY ONE who has EVER defied that request.

You know, I have tried so, so hard to get along with you. I've spent hours carefully and politely answering your multiple PMs. I finally came to the conclusion that although you are a nice guy in many ways, for some reason, you go toxic around me. That's when I tried to put you on ignore, so the board wouldn't suffer. Then I found out that I can't put you on ignore, because you're a moderator, so I decided to just ignore your posts. Then you came to the Christian forum, and of all the posts, you quote me and disagree and even start blaming Christians, and then get insulting at my second polite request. And you say that I start things? I don't know if you're deluding yourself or deliberately lying. I think probably the former, but I don't know.

And there was no reason for any flare up here; let's be honest. That was all your doing, Rian.

I tell you, this just makes me shake my head in wonder. YOU came to the Christian forum and, out of all the posts, picked MY post to argue with, knowing the history we have. Whatever - your choice. I think you're picking a fight, but whatever, other people have posted in the other forum, and then leave if someone asks them to. At this point, I'm fine with that.

But you don't stop there. YOU refuse to leave the forum after two polite requests. YOU start the insults with the president comment. YOU say that you are going to post whenever you want on the Christian forum on your own terms. Are you deluding yourself? What is going on with you? You're the one causing the problem. You're the one trying to get special treatment.

Although there's been the occasional post on opposite forums, everyone has ALWAYS graciously respected the request to leave - until now. I hope that Sponge will change his mind and gracefully leave.

Right. The emphasis is on "Occasional Post", Rian. So, how many posts did I make before you called me a jerk? Answer: 2.

Again, are you deluding yourself? This is not a complete answer by any means, Sponge. Yes, you made 2 posts to me - but you also made posts to others, refused to leave, and started insults with the snarky president comment. And then blow a gasket and give me an official board warning because I called you a jerk? something that you have done to someone else and is hardly an egregious behavioral problem. And then act innocent, like you've done nothing wrong?

Seriously, Bob, are you deluding yourself, or lying? What other option is there? Actually, I think there could be a third option, which is this: we just cannot communicate, no matter how hard we both try, even though we both mean well. Can't we just leave it at that, so the board won't suffer? Until this latest tiff, that's how I had decided to leave it. But when you say that you're gonna post whenever and wherever you want to on the Christian forum on your own terms, then I wasn't going to take that lying down, because - again - NO ONE has EVER done that before, and people seem to like it that way, otherwise they wouldn't have asked people politely to leave!

I think the spirit of the forums is very obvious - heck, it's more than obvious, it's in writing! "Where Christians can talk among themselves" and "Where atheists can talk among themselves". It has worked great in the past, and people like it that way. No one has minded the occasional drop-in. But that's NOT what you were doing - you were claiming a right to post in the Christian forum anytime, anywhere, on your terms. And I'm gonna fight that.

SO, SpongeBob - this can ALL be over right now, and it can be pleasant again for everyone - if YOU will simply do what everyone else here does. Post however you want on the main forum, like everyone else. Do an occasional pop-in post on the "opposite" forum if you want to, and then graciously leave when asked, or even before you're asked, like everyone else. It's that simple.

[mitchellmckain]

ChristianHeretic,

Alright, that is enough, I am going to have to call you on this complete bullshit you are pulling here. You struggle to manufacture a contradiction by piecing together answers to different obscure questions and conflating various things like deity, authority and greatness with power. First you ask this extremely confused question:

Did Jesus, as He was performing acts here on earth, access His deity...err, power, wisdom and authority God doesn't have to have to call Himself God...to accomplish these acts.

Is it possible to even think of a question that is less clear than this one? I couldn't.

Then you ask,

Do you disagree with Augustin and others within orthodoxy that there were actually actions that He performed under His own power "as God" while on earth?

And it appears that you are employing more conflation of concepts here too in order to create even more confusion.

But I have seperated out the different concepts and made my stand quite clear saying these following things many different ways.

1. Jesus subjected himself to all the limitations of humanity even to birth as a helpless infant and physical death, doing nothing in his human life that a human being could not do and His own words make this crystal clear.

2. Jesus was God, and thus it makes absolutely no sense to suggest that He did not do things as God or did not have the authority of God.

3. The only way this could be confusing is if one equated being God with having unlimited power or the authority of God with power beyond human ability. I do not accept such equivalences and thus there is no confusion here for me at all.

Your response to these many different attempts to explain this to you has been one of hunting through them to fabricate an inconsistency. That is just dishonest!

let's drop the power thing...

No. I will not exchange my clarity for the confusion you are trying to make of this.

I'm fine if these verses mean nothing to you...they do however, give me comfort (And opposed to your comment that "It does NOT say that God is power", the bible does actually say that God is "mighty", which is the term for "power" throughout the OT, (and you missed the one that actually says Jesus is the power and wisdom of God, but obviously as you've made abundantly clear, that aspect of Jesus is insignificant to you)

On the contrary, while you change the words to suit yourself and make these say that God IS mightiness and that Jesus HAS all the power and knowledge of God, these passages make perfect sense to me the way they are said originally. We can see all the wisdom and the unlimited power of God in the way that Jesus cast power and knowledge aside to become a helpless human infant. If you remember, I said that it was this and only this that made this whole concept of omnipotence something that I could see as logically consistent and meaningful.


But the real point here is that your whole nonsensical argument that the Christian assertion that God is fully man and fully God has to mean that He is some kind of spit personality with two consciousnesses completely fails, because Jesus although fully human in every way never did anything without first consulting the Father and doing only what the Father showed Him to do, thus living the very thing that He was teaching, and all of this Jesus explained Himself. However, I have no doubt that you are perfectly capable of refusing to understand Him just as you have me and fabricating inconsistencies in His words as well.

[Rian]

Interesting points, CH! That's why I fought to keep the forums the way they were, because we can have a different type of conversation here, where iron sharpens iron, and we can assume some level of agreement, among other things. (And I don't mind at all the occasional drop-in post - I actually kind of like them - they just need to respect requests to leave, like always)

Anyway:

I worship what is morally worthwhile

Then what separates your God from those of the other morally sound religions? I would argue that most Jainists or Buddhists I've run into have a better grasp on morality than many Jews or Christians?

Two things:

1. You're talking about JainISTS and BuddhISTS and ChristIANS, not ChristianITY and BuddhISM and JainISM. I don't think that's the best comparison. As a Christian friend of mine once said, he knew some atheists that he would trust with his children before some Christians! So I don't think the "grasp on morality" is what is important here, do you? (did you mean to phrase it another way?) IOW, there are good and bad representatives of belief systems.

2. Now, if you're talking about ChristianITY and BuddhISM - well, I think Christianity is at the top of the heap in terms of morality, from what I know. But your point is sound, and makes me realize that I need to rephrase.

What I was really addressing was the whole power/love thing that I had been seeing here, and the difference between the two. I think that they are different: power is morally neutral; morality isn't morally neutral! (it can't be!) And for me, morality is more worthy of worship than power (or maybe it depends on what you mean by "worship"). And I was trying to express that IF there was a being with absolute power that was NOT morally worthy, I wouldn't worship that being. Does that make more sense? I don't express things well sometimes ...

I wouldn't worship a selfish God and one that whines about getting glory for himself

I'd be careful with comments like those Rian...would you worship a God that struck you down dead for violating a law of his even if you did it with a morally sound conscience (2Sam 6:6-8)? Would you worship a jealous God insisting that you only worship Him (Ex 20:4-5)? Would you worship a God that wouldn't forgive a person for blaspheming His Spirit (Mt 12:31-32)?

I'm completely fine if you don't want to worship the God of the bible, but just understand that you are creating a morally appropriate God that you believe is worthy of your worship.

I don't think I'm doing that, CH. All I'm saying is that I think, given what I know of God, that it is reasonable to look deeper into some of those stories that seem "selfish" (or some other "bad" thing) on the surface. And that it is impossible for God to whine or be selfish, so it is impossible for me to worship a God like that. Do you see what I mean?

And if you are worshipping a God that is selfish, then you are making up a God. The thing is, I don't think ANY of us have it all right; however, if we are ascribing a moral characteristic to God that is bad, then we have it wrong. I'm not saying the action didn't happen; I'm saying that the motivation and purpose behind the action is always consistent with God's perfect and holy character - we may just not see or understand it. (and for the atheists peeking in - I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that one should give this slack to just anyone - this is ONLY given with reasonable thought and experience. Kind of like if someone said they saw my husband in bed with another woman - it is REASONABLE for me to not worry about it, given my knowledge and experience of his character - it's reasonable to think that there is nothing bad going on. However, I would NOT give this slack to a boyfriend of 3 days!)

I choose to worship God because He's God.

Well, but what does that mean? You have to have some characteristics that you think he has. What made you think that he's God, and what it is about him that makes you worship him?

If He decided to abandon any promise He gave to save me, I would still worship Him. If I thought He turned His back on me, I would still worship Him.

I know what you're saying, because I've heard that before and have a sense of what it means. And frankly, it sounds wholehearted and good. But I also think that it doesn't make sense, for aren't you saying he could do things that he said he would never do? You're worshipping (and rightly so) God, not not-God.

EDIT - and as I think about this more, I think that maybe you're coming from Job "Though he slay me, I will hope in him". And if this is what you mean, I completely agree with you! God knows I've had some slaying these past 4 years since we moved to Arizona! I'm in constant pain from two bad surgeries, on top of previous constant pain from fibromyalgia and crushing fatigue from a problem with my immune system that I had before we moved here. Yet I know God is good - I have too much experience of him to think otherwise. Yet - and this is important - I don't think he's slaying me for vicious motives, for that is not consistent with his character. I think it's along the painful but necessary lines of Proverbs 20:30.

If he wasn't what you and mitch are calling a "morally worthwhile" God, I would still worship Him.

Do you really - really - mean this? Isn't it saying you are worshipping what God is NOT? If you were absolutely convinced that God made the world, but he was morally completely opposite from Jesus, would you still worship him? If so, what do you mean by "worship"?

Because if worship were based on my perception of morality, He would have lost me way before He killed toddlers in Egypt or struck down Uzzah. I am forever grateful for His grace and goodness, but do not require it for Him to be worthy of my worship.

But that's the key, CH - "perception". I can see that my perception is imperfect, and that incidents like Uzzah (remind me to tell you about that when we're done with this!) and the toddlers look wrong to me. But because of my experience with God, I accept that I don't have to understand EVERYTHING - and that there is a reason that is consistent with the morally worthy character of God for these things.

[ChristianHeretic]

1. Jesus subjected himself to all the limitations of humanity even to birth as a helpless infant and physical death, doing nothing in his human life that a human being could not do and His own words make this crystal clear.
2. Jesus was God, and thus it makes absolutely no sense to suggest that He did not do things as God or did not have the authority of God.
3. The only way this could be confusing is if one equated being God with having unlimited power or the authority of God with power beyond human ability. I do not accept such equivalences and thus there is no confusion here for me at all.

Jesus did "nothing in his human life that a human being could not do" as He was performing acts "as God." Got it, thanks again for the clarity!? Either I'm losing my mind, or you're saying God has no power or authority, even ability to love, that other human beings do not have. But after 4 times, it looks like you're saying exactly what it looks like you're saying. This is obviously as clear as I'm going to get on your position and I'm still lost. Sorry...Unless someone else is following this and can explain it better, there's no sense in trying again...thx

[ChristianHeretic]

I think Christianity is at the top of the heap in terms of morality, from what I know. But your point is sound, and makes me realize that I need to rephrase.

I live on the West Coast where "spirituality" is popular and "morality" is oftentimes the threshold for determining the validity of a belief system. Many are extremely "moral" and lost. This is why I don't think morality is the litmus test we want to use for Christianity. Whether Christianity is the most morally sound or not is based on how someone defines "morality." To a Jainist, Christians are unbelievably immoral because we choose to eat meat, Buddhists consider the ancient Jewish idea of sacrificing animals appalling, and so on and so on. If you're saying Christianity is the "most moral" based on the Judeo-Christian moral code, then yes, you are probably correct. But the rest of the world doesn't recognize our moral code exactly as we do.

And I was trying to express that IF there was a being with absolute power that was NOT morally worthy, I wouldn't worship that being. Does that make more sense? I don't express things well sometimes

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But we need to be careful as to how we define morality. Per the examples above, different people assign different levels of importance to "morality." For instance, would you consider a being that asked you to kill your son moral? I wouldn't based on my moral code. Yet that's exactly what God did. Well, He was just testing Abraham you say. Well, that's just wrong, selfish and immoral based on my standards too! So you are correct that "perception" has a lot to do with it, but it's impossible to define morality apart from Scripture. For instance, is denying two people the opportunity to get married solely because they happen to be the same sex moral or not? Is it intolerant or loving?

I choose to worship God because He's God.

Well, but what does that mean? You have to have some characteristics that you think he has. What made you think that he's God, and what it is about him that makes you worship him?

That's a good question, and the heart of this discussion. It's not His morality as I perceive it, it's more His character as God which defines what "goodness" rather than "morality" is. So I would say that I worship God because of who I understand Him to be. Yes, His grace, love, and compassion are all amazing. But I'm also extremely fond of His power, authority, and wisdom. Is appreciating one quality of God's better than another? Is one "less" selfless than another? If His version of "love" is to allow people to choose hell, is this really loving based on our standards? Would you let your children go out in the street and say "Well, I love them enough to let them choose?" I wouldn't. So, I guess my answer is, I worship the God of the Bible, because He's the God of the Bible. And wether rightly or wrongly, it does give me an enormous amount of comfort that "Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world."

what do you mean by "worship"?

Another interesting question. The term used in the NT for worship is proskyneō. And the Hebrew term that's translated proskyneō in the LXX is shachah. This term is used throughout the OT for reverence to God, yes, but it's also used to show reverence to Kings, masters, etc. and is often translated "bowed to." So the question is, why did the Magi initially "worship" the child Jesus in Matthew 2:2? Was it because they knew He was "God" or was it because they thought He was the anticipated "King of the Jews" as they acknowledge in the verse? What about the others who worshipped Jesus? The term worship from how I see it used in Scripture is simply varying degrees of reverence. Because God doesn't seem to be concerned with the 'shachah' of men in the OT and in the NT in Rev 3:9, He just seems to care when someone is shachah'ing an idol as another "God," I don't see that it's an issue to have reverence for God as the one true God and also have reverence for Jesus as my Savior and Lord, whom God instructed his angels (Heb 1:6) and us (Phil 2:10-11) to worship.

[mitchellmckain]

1. Jesus subjected himself to all the limitations of humanity even to birth as a helpless infant and physical death, doing nothing in his human life that a human being could not do and His own words make this crystal clear.
2. Jesus was God, and thus it makes absolutely no sense to suggest that He did not do things as God or did not have the authority of God.
3. The only way this could be confusing is if one equated being God with having unlimited power or the authority of God with power beyond human ability. I do not accept such equivalences and thus there is no confusion here for me at all.

Jesus did "nothing in his human life that a human being could not do" as He was performing acts "as God." Got it, thanks again for the clarity!?

Yes clear. I cannot figure out what your problem is. Why would these conflict? WHY oh WHY does God doing something automatically mean that He is doing something that human beings cannot do????? It makes no sense. It is like you are saying that God cannot do ANYTHING that human beings can do. That is just too strange!

Either I'm losing my mind, or you're saying God has no power or authority, even ability to love, that other human beings do not have.

NOPE. I am saying that God doesn't HAVE to do anything outside the limitations of what human beings can do. SURE, God can do LOTS of things that human beings cannot do, but He doesn't HAVE to. He doesn't have to do things that human beings don't do and doesn't have to do the same things in a different way that human beings cannot. But more importantly, we CANNOT say that God is all powerful if there are things that human beings can do that God cannot. There are no such things. God CAN accept any limitations He chooses. God can take risks. God can make sacrifices. God can give privacy to others. God can do it all. In the person of Jesus, God subjected Himself to the limitations of humanity so that He could show in His own person How human beings should live and CAN live.

[ChristianHeretic]

It is like you are saying that God cannot do ANYTHING that human beings can do.

Ahhh, finally got it! Thanks. Your basic world view, underlying everything else is that Jesus is God. And of course, God, can perform human acts like the rest of us. So what you're saying is that first He was God, but we have no idea that He was God through His actions because none of the actions this God performed looked any different than those other humans could perform. And in fact this God had to solicit His Father, the other portion of God, to do anything that looked supernatural. I got it now. So God was NOT drawing on His own Godness for the power, wisdom, authority or love that He showed, He forced Himself to only use the power, wisdom, love and authority from His God and Father, although He was still God. Got it.

Although He never claimed to be God, you're not sure He even knew He was God and He never did any acts that would give us any indication that He was God, you insist that others who disagree with your inference based on a handful of verses are just "stubborn" because they can't see the "rationality" you're regurgitating from Chalcedon. Got it. And I'm the "inflexible" one...

[mitchellmckain]

It is like you are saying that God cannot do ANYTHING that human beings can do.

Ahhh, finally got it! Thanks.

Whew! I retracted my comment about stubborn-ness. Perhaps I am merely lacking in patience.

Your basic world view, underlying everything else is that Jesus is God.

Not really. Christian is that last thing that I am. Before that I am an existentialist and a pragmatist, and before that I am a scientist. You cannot even say that that this belief that Jesus is God underlies all my thoughts about God, for that comes more from my existentialist roots where I came to the conclusion that the meaning of the word "God" was to be found in an equivalence between a faith in God and a faith that life is worth living. Furthermore, I was reading the Bible long before that, so you also cannot say that this belief that Jesus is God is any kind of filter through which I have understood the Bible. On the contrary this belief that Jesus is God is more like a cherry on top -- a conclusion that I have come to on the top of everything, as the only thing that makes any sense of Christianity for me -- the only thing that makes it worthwhile. My belief in a God of love and complete rejection of the god of power is a deeper and longer held conviction than that.

And of course, God, can perform human acts like the rest of us. So what you're saying is that first He was God, but we have no idea that He was God through His actions because none of the actions this God performed looked any different than those other humans could perform. And in fact this God had to solicit His Father, the other portion of God, to do anything that looked supernatural. I got it now.

YES! This matter of proofs is in fact where I almost always run afoul of other Christians and those of related religions. I don't believe in them. None of these proofs have any objective legitimacy that I can see and so I don't expect or look for any. Perhaps this is part of why the resurrection does not seem so central to me as it does to others because for others that is the clincher for them that something extra-ordinary was going on with Jesus. My thinking does not revolve around these pseudo-proofs at all. What is important to me -- what has always been important to me is how things fit together logically to make sense of the whole human experience. Yeah that is a highly subjective judgement -- darn tootin! But that subjectivity is an inescapable reality and it is pretenses otherwise that seem far more delusional to me.

So God was NOT drawing on His own Godness for the power, wisdom, authority or love that He showed, He forced Himself to only use the power, wisdom, love and authority from His God and Father, although He was still God. Got it.

Yep, Jesus felt no need to flaunt His divinity for He came to serve and so as it says in Phillipians 2:5-11.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Although He never claimed to be God, you're not sure He even knew He was God and He never did any acts that would give us any indication that He was God

That is not what I said. You and I both know that He never stated that He was God forthrightly only that He was the Son of God. Futhermore being in finite human form there had to be limits of His awareness of Himself and God as there are limits to the awareness of all human beings. So we only see an awareness of being God in the ways that He stated so in the Bible like in John 14. But you make too much of this, because that may include as much of an awareness of being God that any human being could be capable of, and Jesus had other reasons for not declaring His divinity more openly and clearly.

This is much like the exact same tension between theist and atheist over the existence of God. Jesus provides no proof to convince you of His divinity any more than God provides proof to convince the atheists that He exists. God leaves people some freedom to believe what works best for them because He knows that this ultimately has better results for them and mankind as a whole. He does what is best for us and not what gets in our faces, because His motivation is love not power, and love is something we have to choose in order for it to be love. Thus just as I find it all too likely that atheists exists because God desires them to exist, so also I can say the same thing of all those religions related to Christianity that do not accept the divinity of Christ. So you will find me in numerous battles with other Christians where I insist that God is not restricted to the limits of Christianity.

you insist that others who disagree with your inference based on a handful of verses are just "stubborn" because they can't see the "rationality" you're regurgitating from Chalcedon.

Incorrect, I was concluding that you were stubborn from the way that you seemed to be bending over backwards not to understand what I was saying. Now that you have understood, I retracted my comment about being stubborn.

There is a HUMONGOUS difference between you saying that what I believe is inconsistent and saying that there is no proof for the truth of what I believe. On the first I will fight without quarter because it is WRONG, but the second I will grant freely because it is right. I do indeed have no objective proof. You are free to make your own choices and judgements on all of these highly subjective matters.

AND, I am not regurgitating ANYTHING from Chalcedon. I don't accept the truth of things simply because others believed them. On the contrary, I routinely challenge them, saying that an argument based on the fact that many others believed it, is a formula for the perpetuation of error. I am not even a Chalcedonian creed Christian. I think that the FIRST creed of Nicea is the largest consensus about what "Christian" means and that this should thus be taken the most seriously, but as later creeds exclude more and more branches of Chrisitanity then we should recognize that they represent a correspondingly smaller consensus. More importantly I came to my own conclusions by my own reasoning, and it is with surprise that I look at the Nicean creed and find that what I believe happens to agree with that definition.

[ChristianHeretic]

You cannot even say that that this belief that Jesus is God underlies all my thoughts about God

Maybe that was a stretch, but the idea that Jesus was God certainly undergirds this discussion. From what I hear you saying, Jesus was God in spite of the fact that He wasn't "flaunting" that divinity by doing anything God-like while He was here. In fact, He gave us no indication whatsoever that He was God yet you still insist on it (I've already addressed the poor support of John 14).

My thinking does not revolve around these pseudo-proofs at all. What is important to me -- what has always been important to me is how things fit together logically to make sense of the whole human experience. Yeah that is a highly subjective judgement -- darn tootin!

I understand you claim not to be a "proofs" guy, but if you truly are first a scientist, surely proving your hypotheses is important, no? For you to say you believe Jesus is God because you feel it subjectively in your bones doesn't help those that don't agree with you very well? Especially if you're making the claim that you came to this revelation away from the creeds that built the theory to begin with. Those developing the theories of Nicea did in fact believe that many of Jesus' actions He performed here were only possible BECAUSE He was God, thus He needed to be God to justify these actions; which you have already shown you disagree with. And so, unless I am misunderstanding your theology, you probably don't reflect the spirit of Nicea, you may be comfortable quoting the words, but so were Eusebius of Caesarea (Semi-Arian), Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra (Modalists). These last two are largely the reason the Creed was revised at the following creeds, because Nicea insisted that God can only have one hypostasis, not two as Chalcedon required. And so these two were excommunicated before the creed was revised at Constantinople. So if you are a follower of the Creed of Nicea in "spirit" you are either a Modalist or potentially a Subordinationist as most in attendance were. Which again, I'm fine with, but you are absolutely not orthodox. But again, if you're not going to appeal to the majority of Chalcedon, you absolutely should be able to defend your beliefs...unless you don't care, you're just going to believe what you believe...then...Ok...

Jesus provides no proof to convince you of His divinity any more than God provides proof to convince the atheists that He exists.

You mean other than the hundreds if not thousands of times God claims to be God in Scripture and those that have written it acknowledge Him as such? Now, this isn't "proof" as you call it, but it is at least an initial hypothesis proposed by Scripture. The HUGE difference is that atheists claim that Scripture itself is untrustworthy. Among Christians, we shouldn't have that same issue. Scripture itself is a "proof" for us. So for you as a Christian to say that God doesn't exist, I, as a Christian, can claim, sure He does, it says so in Gen 1. The point is, because Jesus never claimed to be God, this is a completely different issue. Where does your hypothesis come from? Nicea? Phil 2:6? Jehovah's witnesses have an hypothesis that Jesus was an angel because of a few verses. And I can see why they are making their argument, but the potentially thousands of verses that miss this "truth" lead me to believe that no one in Scripture believed this? So when the last one told me, I don't have to have proof, I just know because it makes sense to me, my response was...Uh, ok...good for you, hope that works out for you!

Jesus felt no need to flaunt His divinity for He came to serve and so as it says in Phillipians 2:5-11

We can get into the actual proofs you are using to support your hypothesis if you're interested in a different post. But for you to claim that my proofs don't matter, and here's one to prove your point, is a little inconsistent. For a short comment on this one, Paul does seem to think that Jesus pre-existed His human form, but to argue that He was being acknowledged here as "God" rather than in the same form/image of "God" is inconsistent with Paul's use of the title of "God" EXCLUSIVELY for the Father and false gods throughout his writings over 500 times (with the exception of grammatically ambiguous verses like Rom 9:5 and Titus 2:13). So Paul, now along with Jesus, didn't think Jesus was "God" either, or surely He would have said it? So the "flaunting" argument that Jesus didn't want to brag is lost. But why would Paul believe Jesus was God? He never claimed to be God and never did any actions that would give anyone an indication that He was God, so why would any reasonably-thinking person believe He was God unless the were simply following the lead of another? Which of course you didn't do.

[mitchellmckain]

I understand you claim not to be a "proofs" guy, but if you truly are first a scientist, surely proving your hypotheses is important, no?

I am truly a scientist and thus I know that modern science is an activity and NOT a religion. Its not a life choice that you have to devote your every waking thought it is a tool I have been trained to use and an activity that I participated in. But it is not my life. Those who turn science into a religion or philosophy of life that they have to remain true to in everything are NOT scientists at all. When they do this they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern science is that belongs more to the middle ages when theology was called the queen of the sciences.

For you to say you believe Jesus is God because you feel it subjectively in your bones doesn't help those that don't agree with you very well?

And now that you are making up bullshit to put in my mouth, I am going to cut you off cold and end the discussion. This thread is not your platform for pushing your anti-trinitarian rhetoric, and you can stick it up yours.

[Rian]

Guys, just because I finished my fight doesn't mean you have to pick up the slack

SERIOUSLY - I'm glad we're passionate about our beliefs - it shows that they are actually integrated into our lives. I think that boring, listless Christians are a terrible witness (and probably aren't even Christians, either!) God is definitely passionate!

You're both great guys. You'll work it out. It's so good to talk to strong believers!!!

[ChristianHeretic]

You're both great guys. You'll work it out. It's so good to talk to strong believers!!!

Thanks for the vote of confidence Rian...I think this discussion is done though...however pleasant it has been...

My thinking does not revolve around these pseudo-proofs at all. What is important to me -- what has always been important to me is how things fit together logically to make sense of the whole human experience. Yeah that is a highly subjective judgement -- darn tootin!

I understand you claim not to be a "proofs" guy, but if you truly are first a scientist, surely proving your hypotheses is important, no? For you to say you believe Jesus is God because you feel it subjectively in your bones doesn't help those that don't agree with you very well? Especially if you're making the claim that you came to this revelation away from the creeds that built the theory to begin with.

And now that you are making up bullshit to put in my mouth, I am going to cut you off cold and end the discussion. This thread is not your platform for pushing your anti-trinitarian rhetoric, and you can stick it up yours.

Goodness, I didn't mean to hit a cord...but I can see that your tolerance has reached it's tipping point, so I'll leave you alone for now...maybe a quick trip to the atheists forum will help you wind down...I'll try to be more agreeable with you next time...