Re: To have been or not to have been...
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 6:12 pm
Hi Greg,
Greg, I realize that you like to be "dramatic for affect", as you put it, but could you please cool it a little with the personal stuff? Something tells me you'd be greatly offended if I made repeated judgments about your motives and what I think you do or do not do with your free time. The golden rule applies, and if that is asking too much of you, nobody is making you respond here! If you're worried about 'winning', I promise I won't do some victory dance if you bow out. You just seem very agitated by me asking questions and--as politely as I can--challenging some of your answers.
The issue I have with that is where you had argued before that while behavior may be different among men, ontology cannot change for it to still be a man (this is what I gathered from your very short answers).
And you did not respond to the last part of my post where I pointed to a very clear inconsistency in your statements here. Do you know that no one, aside from Jesus, has ever lived a sinless life or not? You had said No, and then later you said Yes.
This sort of reminds me how a certain Trinitarian, when he wasn't specifically arguing in favor of the holy spirit as a person, would repeatedly refer to it as an 'it', in distinctly impersonal terms, apparently without realizing it. In other words, I'm not sure he really believed in the conclusion for which he argued.
Ah yes, the telltale sign that what is to follow is not going to be respectful.Greg Logan wrote:As to the remainder of your questions - again, with respect...
Greg, I realize that you like to be "dramatic for affect", as you put it, but could you please cool it a little with the personal stuff? Something tells me you'd be greatly offended if I made repeated judgments about your motives and what I think you do or do not do with your free time. The golden rule applies, and if that is asking too much of you, nobody is making you respond here! If you're worried about 'winning', I promise I won't do some victory dance if you bow out. You just seem very agitated by me asking questions and--as politely as I can--challenging some of your answers.
Previously when I asked you how you define a "man", you told me to look in the mirror. But I am not incorruptible, I am not immortal, I do not have a spiritual body. Yet someone that exists in that ontological state would still be a man in your view. So it would seem that your definition of "man" encompasses far more than just what you see in the mirror.Greg Logan wrote:a man is a man
The issue I have with that is where you had argued before that while behavior may be different among men, ontology cannot change for it to still be a man (this is what I gathered from your very short answers).
You say that, but whether you realize it or not, you not only have a view on it, but you have argued exhaustively in defense of that view. You have made a conclusion that it is impossible for a divine person to become a human being. I'm simply asking upon what basis you've made that conclusion. Is it scripture or something you just know?Greg Logan wrote:This is simply entirely foreign to scripture. I have no interest in such an oddity.God cannot make a divine being a man? God cannot make a man a divine being? Is that a scriptural conclusion or a human one?
And you did not respond to the last part of my post where I pointed to a very clear inconsistency in your statements here. Do you know that no one, aside from Jesus, has ever lived a sinless life or not? You had said No, and then later you said Yes.
This sort of reminds me how a certain Trinitarian, when he wasn't specifically arguing in favor of the holy spirit as a person, would repeatedly refer to it as an 'it', in distinctly impersonal terms, apparently without realizing it. In other words, I'm not sure he really believed in the conclusion for which he argued.