|
If someone bases the incarnation on that particular reasoning, then yes, it is flawed. But I’m
sure the reasoning you gave behind such an event isn’t the only one. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think you make an excellent observation. The Son of God being human in form is more about people
trying to relate to God than God trying to relate to people. Furthermore, church doctrine,
religious scholars, the common man are all perpetually coming up with new or adapted explanations
for religious beliefs - so it's not unthinkable the reasoning we're told today may not be quite
accurate. I mean "limbo" for example was a religious scholar invention to answer a dilemma and was
only recently discredited by the church. It had "reason" behind it for centuries, somehow now it
doesn't. Transubstantiation of the host at communion (does it really become the actual body of
Jesus Christ, the Catholics say yes, others say it's symbolic) has reason behind the belief yet
different branches of the faith have polar opposite reasons. Probably the story of the holy trinity
is similar - the supposed reasons that justify it are now taken as undeniable fact by some, symbolic
by others. Yet despite which reason you go with people still find something to relate to it, to
feel compelled by their religion. Which is why I say at the top that the Son of God taking human
form has more to do with people relating to God than God relating to people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The ardently and fervently religious still haven't explained how their "father" is the
"son" and the "holy ghost" at the same time. And then they claim to be monotheists when they're
actually pantheists.
The ardently and fervently religious also say "The buybull" (because you
have to buy the bull to believe it) "is 'god' giving us all the answers," but when
the buybull doesn't have the answer, they'll do a 180 and say "It's a mystery." They claim to know
what "god" wants one minute, and then not know the next. Their memories are as selective as is
their quoting of the buybull.
Edit:
Alright, so how does that change grab you?
The notion of "father/son/spook" sounds like an ad for 3in1 Oil.
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-In-One_Oil |
| |
 K9  19 Oct 2009 00:43
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I know it's a little beyond some people's thought processes but Jesus was totally human...same as
me.
I'm not going to spin my wheels with thought processes that haven't reached the first step in
reasoning with a perfect creator.
Suffice it to say that in the end (when the death of this "reality" is no more), I will be one with
God for eternity. I'm sorry if that irritates anyone.
At the same time, I will be more of the individual person that is me than anyone who bases reasoning
on the reality of this death can possibly conceive.
At the same time, I will be one with every individual who are in the ultimate state of being
individuals.
Again, there are some of us "Christians" who believe in eternal life in perfect. I'm not some
blithering idiot who defines perfect as a state of boredom. I'm not some blithering idiot who
defines perfect by the OBVIOUS limits of the DEATH of this reality.
It does no good for a person to raise arguments which are based on temporal reasoning against
beliefs that are based on eternal reasoning. It is simply idiotic.
It's goes the same for those who use eternal reasoning to argue against temporal reasoning. You have
to pick one or the other if you want to be reasonable. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is not what Christians believe. Yours is a straw man reason and it is specious. The real
reason Christians give is that God sacrificed Himself in the person of His son, who took the form
of a humble man so He could interface with humans without their knowing who He was. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have to disagree with this simply because it is not the reasoning given by any Christians that I
know of. In fact, this borders on open theism and becomes heretical at that point. Christ was
incarnated because it was God's sovereign plan to do so and to reveal His glory and mercy in that
fashion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
An inventor invents something in order to allow him to do something that he couldn't do otherwise.
What would that be with us? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
