Featured Hypostatic Union

A sin?

Only because it is a false accusation.

I quoted your post verbatim already.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't know what "unline philosophy" is, I assume its a typo.

Regardless, all philosophy begins with presuppositions. The bible presupposes the existence of God, for example.

They have done so in error and almost always for the purpose of accepting an irrational proposition as truth.

There is a distinction between biology and epidemiology. One is a branch of the other. Likewise there is a distinction between philosophy and theology, one is a branch of the other.

Meaning that the two are different versions of the same thing.

This was not a properly written English sentence.

Yeah, the "meaning of being for us" isn't philosophical at all!

LOL! I mean, are you being serious with this!

Dr. Singh is a moron. The only sense in which they are distinct is that one is a specific area of study under the umbrella of the other.

There is perhaps no greater example of any living human being who makes the distinction between philosophy and theology for the purpose of accepting a seemingly endless list of irrational propositions as truth. A very philosophical, albeit an irrational, thing to do, by the way.

An excellent example of a dead human who makes this distinction for the purpose of accepting irrational propositions as truth.

In other words, NY University states that theology is irrational! A statement which is itself a philosophical statement which could not have been conceived of, never mind articulated and accepted as true without the use (albeit erroneously) of the very faculty of reason that this statement was intended to undermine the veracity of.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IRRATIONAL TRUTH!!!!

 

So this is your claim.

Already done that what?

 

So, you deny the Chalcedonian definition of Christology. Ok. That, by definition, is heresy--just as it would be heresy to affirm the Arian position rejected by Nicea in AD 325. So, which of the other options that Chalcedon rejected do you affirm?

The Archangel

 

I didn't disagree. It is sinful to call someone stupid without cause.

Don't worry about it. I've got pretty thick skin. Needless and repeated apologies annoy me more than for someone to imply that I'm stupid.

Yes, I know that.

The entire thread is still here for you to read, Jon. I quoted you verbatim and responded to what you said directly.

Again, I am not stupid as you seem to think I am. Your apology is pretend because you think that because you didn't use the word "stupid" that you haven't made the same false accusation.

The whole entire thread is still sitting right there in front of you. My posts are completely intact and clear enough for any child to read and understand.

And yet you somehow think that I get to have an input on the definitions of common English words like "Philosophy" and "Theology". Go figure.

You don't need to know me at all. Respond to the words on the page. That will suffice nicely. If there is a miscommunication on my part, I have no doubt that I'll be able to clarify it at your reasonable request.

Are you implying either that God is not part of reality or that He did not create this world or both?

Nonsense. Theology is a branch of philosophy. Christian theology is Christian philosophy and vise versa.

You will never show me a single exception.

How do you know this?

Please refrain from using or referencing logic to answer that question. (You will fail to do so.)

The atmosphere of earth is 100% blue (when cloudless and viewed from the surface, of course). The atmosphere is 100% gas. The atmospher is 100% above the surface of the Earth.

Cats are 100% carnivorous. Cat's 100% mammals. Cats are 100% mortal.

I am 100% human. I am 100% married. I am 100% male.

How many examples are there of things that are 100% of one thing and of another. Billions? Trillions?

It isn't the percentage that's the problem, it the CONTRADICTION that is the problem. A thing cannot be added to another and be BOTH without mixture AND without separation.

The degree to which these or any other doctrine is irrational is the degree to which they are false - by definition. That's how you know something is false. To reject this is to reject the only tool you possess to determine whether anything is true or false.

The word "true" means "consistent" and is used in more than one context. If you laying tile on a floor and you say that your work is "true", then you are saying that the tile has been laid in a manner that is consistent, both with respect to each individual tile as well as something else, usually a wall or cabinet. In the context of philosophy, including theology, when you make a truth claim then you are saying that your claim is consistent both with itself and reality. To say something is irrational is to say that it is not consistent with itself or with reality (or both) and thus that it is not true.

There can be no such thing as an irrational truth - by definition.

If God is irrational then He isn't greater at all! God's ways are higher than our ways, not lower!

Also, by what means would you have come to such a conclusion if not by logic? You used logic to write that sentence! Can you not see that using logic to undermine logic is a self-defeating activity?

 

It is a claim but not merely that. The entire thread is still here for the whole world to read. I offer it as evidence that my claim is the truth, in so far as this particular thread is concerned, which was the context of the claim.

My statement was in direct response to the verbatim quote of your post which immediately preceded it.

 

LOL! Contradicting the Chalcedonian creed is not the definition of the term "heresy"!

You believe your doctrines of men and learn on creeds as your source of truth all you like. As for me, I will rely on the plain reading of scripture and on sound reason. If you have a biblical argument to make or if you can logically refute the rebuttal I've made against your creed, then I'll read it and respond to it gladly. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about your personal opinions about what is or is not heresy.

 

In otherwords, what your point?
At least I did explain something.

 

That's a stupid thing to say, Jon!

No, a fool is worse! A man who is stupid has an excuse, a fool usually doesn't.

Regardless, it is not a sin to call someone a fool, nor does it forfeit one's legitimacy provided that there is cause for having called someone a fool.

If this is not so, all three members of the Trinity are sinners and have forfeited their legitimacy.

I do not believe you.

And I agreed that they are distinct in the sense that one is a branch of the other. One is more general, the other is more specific.

It is not a matter of opinion. If you accept that theology is about finding the truth about the reality of God, man, the relationship between them, the meaning of our existence, right and wrong, justice, etc, etc, etc, then you accept that theology is philosophy because that's what philosophy is - by definition.

 

Good grief! I feel like I'm talking to a toddler!

I've already told you what I disagree with. I am not going to repeat myself. Figure it out and respond if you want or don't. I'm not here to hold your hand through simple conversations and plainly stated objections and arguments.

 

LOL.

 

Of course you do! There isn't any point in even calling yourself a theist, never mind a Christian, otherwise.

Then you are as stupid as they are or as dishonest. The vast majority of those who make such a distinction do so, as I have repeatedly stated this refutation already, because they want to accept the irrational as truth.

Christ is the Logos. The suffix "ology" comes directly from that Greek word and is the basis for the word Logic. Jesus is epistemology incarnate.

You used logic to write that sentence, Jon! You cannot escape logic and more than you can escape the God who is Logic itself. There can be no such thing that supercedes logic for God is Logic and Jesus in Logic made manifest in the form of a man.

How would even determine that something superceded logic?

That's a serious question, Jon, and I want you to answer it. (You will not do it.)

What standard of truth would you compare the super-logical to in order to make the determination that it is in fact super-logical? By what means would you make the comparison? How would any attempt to make such a determination not be itself an exercise in logic? Is any intelligible syllable that you speak, read or hear not understood by means of a process of reason?

Every single attempt anyone ever makes to undermine the veracity and sufficiency of logic uses logic in the attempt and thereby defeats the argument as they make it by making it. As it should be! For in the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.

Talk to me some more about your doctrine that supersedes God!

Proper philosophy does not do that but neither does proper theology.

There is no such thing as an irrational truth.

There is no such thing as "athropocentric reality" there is simply reality. Reality is that which is real, whether concerning humans or not. Truth is that which consistent with that reality. Philosophy is the process of thinking through various issues in order to determine which claims qualify as truth and which do not. Theology applies this process to matters related to God and His relationship both to us and to the world around us.

I don't really believe that you do. What I'm saying here is pure common sense to the point that any third grade child would understand it and know intuitively that is it true. You're here mostly just being stubborn, not wanting to admit that you made a mistake, preferring the use of surrogate brains over your own common sense. The only sense in which I'd wager that you do fully agree with these sources you've cited is when these sources are making this ridiculous distinction in order to accept the irrational as truth. Indeed, I have no doubt of that at all.

Philosophy is NOT secular by definition! There couldn't even be philosophy is God did not exist. God Himself is THE foundation of all reason. Every breath an atheist uses to utter a single argument against the existence of God uses God's own nature to both to take the breath and then to utter every intelligible syllable of his argument.

As I said, this is you stubbornly ignoring common sense, so as to use someone else's thoughts as your surrogate brain.

 

How do you know it is in God's word?

(Sounds like a dumb question, I know. Just answer me.)

No! That is not my next question!

My question is that how do you accept God word without using logic to do it?!

As you anticipate in the next sentence. You experience is perceived, understood, interpreted and integrated solely by a process of reason and the only means you have to determine whether what you think you've experienced is real is also by means of logical reasoning.

And so when you watch a magician perform his act, you believe that he actually made his assistant disappear because you saw it happen with your own eyes? Is that what you're saying?

You mean....

...."and me (you) trying to convince me by using logic that logic doesn't work".

How do you know that God is infinite?

By what means did you determine that it was childish and boring?

 

What?

What does that mean?

You didn't read it like the rest of us?

This, I believe, was an intentional lie. You knew this was false when you wrote it. It would not be possible to be this stupid and still be able to read and to type.

In what way is that not entirely rational?

Oh yes it is!

Reason is the only tool your mind has with which to understand anything whatsoever. Every thought in your mind is an exercise in reason, including this hilarious string of nonsense you've spouted trying to deny it by means of using it.

You are the textbook definition of a fool.

Your worldview is unfalsifiable - by definition. The bible you claim to establish via your own personal experience specifically teaches that our faith is very much NOT unfalsifiable. Do you even understand what the term "unfalsifiable" means? Do you care? Surely not! You cannot possibly care.

What I don't understand is what makes someone like you who believes the irrational to be truth show up anywhere in any attempt to convince anyone that your doctrine is true! You yourself cannot even know whether you doctrine is true. You claim, falsely, that your experience confirms your irrational doctrines as true but in the next breath state that you cannot establish even that, most foundational of claims, as being true!

At bottom, what you've admitted here is that you don't really know anything. You merely believe it based on YOUR experience as though you're life experience is somehow elevated to the level of being the gold standard of truth. Next you'll be telling me that I'm the humanist! LOL!