Hypostatic Union

[JonC]

Stupidity.

Do you always just make up your own facts to suit whatever mindless thing you've said that someone is challenging you on?


Speculation?

Theology is religious philosophy - period. Speculative or otherwise, it doesn't matter.

This isn't only true of theology but of ANY area of study. The search for truth is philosophy. The very idea that there is truth to search for is philosophy in its most nascent state.


Yes, just as theology is a branch of philosophy, there are branches of theology as well. There is Christian theology and Mormon theology and Branch Davidian theology and Hindu theology and Buddhist theology, etc. Within each of those there are still tighter fields of study. In Christianity theology, there is soteriology which has to do with the doctrines surrounding the issue of salvation.

ALL OF THAT IS PHILOSOPHY!!!! By definition!


It makes no difference what name you give it. It is philosophy.


Studying historical theology is to study the history of religious philosophy.


No! I have nothing to do with it. Not everything is a matter of opinion!


I am not stupid!

Philosophy is the use of your mind to study fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy seeks to understand and explore topics such as the nature of reality, the meaning of life, the principles of morality, the limits of human understanding, and the foundations of knowledge.

Philosophy is divided into several branches, including metaphysics (the study of reality and existence), epistemology (the study of knowledge and how we come to know things), ethics (the study of morality and values), logic (the study of valid reasoning), aesthetics (the study of beauty and art), and political philosophy (the study of government and society).


I never suggested any such thing.


You seriously need to just stop. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

I was not aware I called you stupid. I am a Christian, and while I can get out of hand my intention is not to do so.

If I called you stupid, or said that you look like an idiot then I apologize. That would be a sin on my part.

Please point out the post do I can deal with it appropriately.


You are, however, wrong.

Unline philosophy, theology affirms the existence of god or the supernatural as a starting point.

Many philosophers and theologians have drawn a distinction between the two.

For example:


The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy draws a distinction between philosophy and theology, stating that theology often draws on philosophy.

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) wrote that theology was the queen of science and philosophy her handmaid.

Barth defined dogmatic as theology that includes anthropology and philosophy that includes anthropology.

Tillich drew a distinction in that philosophy is concerned with the structure of being” with objectivity and detachment while theology seeks the “meaning of being for us” with existential concern.

Dr. Singh (Prof and Drpt head at Mandal) states that religion and philosophy are two distinct fields of study.

R.C. Sproul wrote that theology has been demoted today, and philosophy taken her place (lamenting the prominence of "religion" rather than theology).

In Summa theologiae Aquinas draws a distinction between theology and philosophy, using philosophy as a tool for theology.

NY University states the differen e between philosophy and religion is that philosophy has its basis in reason while theology deals with thinking about religious beliefs in a rational manner but it presumes faith.

 

[CJP69]

I was not aware I called you stupid. I am a Christian, and while I can get out of hand my intention is not to do so.

If I called you stupid, or said that you look like an idiot then I apologize. That would be a sin on my part.

A sin?

Only because it is a false accusation.

Please point out the post do I can deal with it appropriately.

I quoted your post verbatim already.

You are, however, wrong.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Unline philosophy, theology affirms the existence of god or the supernatural as a starting point.

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.

Many philosophers and theologians have drawn a distinction between the two.

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

For example:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy draws a distinction between philosophy and theology, stating that theology often draws on philosophy.

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.

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) wrote that theology was the queen of science and philosophy her handmaid.

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

Barth defined dogmatic as theology that includes anthropology and philosophy that includes anthropology.

This was not a properly written English sentence.

Tillich drew a distinction in that philosophy is concerned with the structure of being” with objectivity and detachment while theology seeks the “meaning of being for us” with existential concern.

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

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

Dr. Singh (Prof and Drpt head at Mandal) states that religion and philosophy are two distinct fields of study.

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.

R.C. Sproul wrote that theology has been demoted today, and philosophy taken her place (lamenting the prominence of "religion" rather than theology).

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.

In Summa theologiae Aquinas draws a distinction between theology and philosophy, using philosophy as a tool for theology.

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

NY University states the difference between philosophy and religion is that philosophy has its basis in reason while theology deals with thinking about religious beliefs in a rational manner but it presumes faith.

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!!!!

 

[JonC]

A sin?

Yes, a sin. If I have called you stupid or an idiot then I have sinned against God. I apologize to you and ask God's forgiveness.

Even though these arguments can get heated, I am a Christian. What I do to another I do to Christ. I am, perhaps, not man enough to admit my faults but I am Christian enough.

I am NOT saying you made false accusations. I could have called you "stupid" and "idiot". I know myself well enough to realize that is possible.

But I do not recall doing so. I apologize on the grounds I may have.

I was asking that you point out those posts so that I can address the issue. I have looked but can't find them.


I tend towards those sources I referenced.

I have read theologians like Sproul; I have read philosophers like Kant and Tillich; I know of NY University and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; I have read Clement and Aquinas. I am less familiar with you.


From the sources I have referenced, the primary distinction between theology and philosophy is their base. Philosophy is based in anthropocentric reality. Theology is based in God (not out understanding of reality, not even the reality of this world).


So philosophy is necessary in theology, but there are differences. It depends on the basis.

And no, truth is not necessary "logical". God does not bend to human logic.

Logically one substance cannot be 100% one thing and 100% another at the same time.

Omniscience and omnipresent are not logical attributes.

God is greater than man and greater than human understanding (which includes logic).

 

[37818]

The difference being that you make claims while I make arguments and present evidence.

So this is your claim.

I've already done that.

Already done that what?

 

[The Archangel]

Chalcedonian Christology asserts that Jesus Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, united in one person (hypostasis). The doctrine affirms that Jesus is fully God and fully human simultaneously, without confusion, change, division, or separation in his divine and human nature.

In short, a firm affirmation of the first option in the pole and just as self-contradictory. A thing cannot be united and be both "without division" and "without separation". It would likewise be impossible to "become" something and do so "without change".

Use all the fancy terminology you like to dress it up and make it feel intellectual. That fact remains that there is no such thing as a self-contradictory truth.

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

 

[CJP69]

Yes, a sin. If I have called you stupid or an idiot then I have sinned against God. I apologize to you and ask God's forgiveness.

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

Even though these arguments can get heated, I am a Christian. What I do to another I do to Christ. I am, perhaps, not man enough to admit my faults but I am Christian enough.

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.

I am NOT saying you made false accusations.

Yes, I know that.

I could have called you "stupid" and "idiot". I know myself well enough to realize that is possible.

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

But I do not recall doing so. I apologize on the grounds I may have.

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.

I was asking that you point out those posts so that I can address the issue. I have looked but can't find them.

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.

I tend towards those sources I referenced.

I have read theologians like Sproul; I have read philosophers like Kant and Tillich; I know of NY University and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; I have read Clement and Aquinas. I am less familiar with you.

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.

From the sources I have referenced, the primary distinction between theology and philosophy is their base. Philosophy is based in anthropocentric reality. Theology is based in God (not out understanding of reality, not even the reality of this world).

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

So philosophy is necessary in theology, but there are differences. It depends on the basis.

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

You will never show me a single exception.

And no, truth is not necessary "logical". God does not bend to human logic.

How do you know this?

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

Logically one substance cannot be 100% one thing and 100% another at the same time.

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.

Omniscience and omnipresent are not logical attributes.

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.

God is greater than man and greater than human understanding (which includes logic).

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?

 

[CJP69]

So this is your claim.

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.

Already done that what?

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

 

[CJP69]

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

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.

 

[JonC]

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

No, we don't agree. It is a sin to call somebody stupid with or without cause. It equates to calling them a "fool". It also forfeits any legitimately to the name callers argument as it is a formal logical fallacy.

I looked over the posts and I did not call you stupid. I also never thought you were. I'm not sure why you inferred otherwise.

I have sourced theologians, academic institutions, an Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and philosophers who stated tgat theology and philosophy are distinct and different sciences.

We disagree. Maybe it's just the difference is the theologians and philosophers we have studied.

 

[37818]

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.

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

 

[CJP69]

No, we don't agree. It is a sin to call somebody stupid with or without cause.

That's a stupid thing to say, Jon!

It equates to calling them a "fool". It also forfeits any legitimately to the name callers argument as it is a formal logical fallacy.

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 looked over the posts and I did not call you stupid. I also never thought you were. I'm not sure why you inferred otherwise.

I do not believe you.

I have sourced theologians, academic institutions, an Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and philosophers who stated tgat theology and philosophy are distinct and different sciences.

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.

We disagree. Maybe it's just the difference is the theologians and philosophers we have studied.

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.

 

[CJP69]

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

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.

 

[37818]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

But I do not accept theology to mean those things.

I agree that theology is not philosophy as stated by the academic sources, the theologians, and the philosophers I provided.

But I also agree with the Barthian notion that theology has its basis in Christ (always) and that is where it begins and ends.

Theology begins with the acceptance of God and Jesus as not only reality but the reality that supercedes logic (or understanding of reality is secondary to belief or faith).

Philosophy does not do that. The nature of God must be explored beyond what has been revealed of God by God. Conclusions must fit within an anthropocentric reality (not left to "mystery").


But bottom line is I agree with the theologians, universities, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and philosophy professors, and the philosophers I referenced.

I disagree with you.

I am not saying you cannot find alternate devinitions. Philosophy is secular by definition. We probably identified with different philosophers in college as well.


But as long as the sources I trust tell me that theology is a science but not a philosophy we will never agree. And since all of them are dead, I doubt anything will change.

 

[CJP69]

But I do not accept theology to mean those things.

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

I agree that theology is not philosophy as stated by the academic sources, the theologians, and the philosophers I provided.

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.

But I also agree with the Barthian notion that theology has its basis in Christ (always) and that is where it begins and ends.

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.

Theology begins with the acceptance of God and Jesus as not only reality but the reality that supercedes logic (or understanding of reality is secondary to belief or faith).

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!

Philosophy does not do that.

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

There is no such thing as an irrational truth.

The nature of God must be explored beyond what has been revealed of God by God. Conclusions must fit within an anthropocentric reality (not left to "mystery").

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.

But bottom line is I agree with the theologians, universities, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and philosophy professors, and the philosophers I referenced.

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.

I am not saying you cannot find alternate definitions. Philosophy is secular by definition. We probably identified with different philosophers in college as well.

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.

But as long as the sources I trust tell me that theology is a science but not a philosophy we will never agree. And since all of them are dead, I doubt anything will change.

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

 

[JonC]

Of course you do!

...

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.)

No, I don't. I believe that several areas of "theology" is actually Christian philosophy. This is one point I believe Barth got right.

I would not determine something superseded logic. It is determined and I accept that because it is in God's Word.

The next question you could ask is why I accept God's Word as the ultimate criteria if not by logic.

My answer is experience.

Then you could go on about how I know that experience was reality.

And I woukd say something along the lines of it happened....whether reality or not....in such a way that I experienced it as reality



And we could go on and on with you trying to explain everything away by logic and human understanding and me trying to convince you that human understanding and logic is finite but Gid is infinite......

And it woukd be fun at first and then one of us would ultimately fund it childish and boring.....shotgun...I'm already there.

 

[CJP69]

No, I don't. I believe that several areas of "theology" is actually Christian philosophy. This is one point I believe Barth got right.

I would not determine something superseded logic. It is determined and I accept that because it is in God's Word.

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

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

The next question you could ask is why I accept God's Word as the ultimate criteria if not by logic.

No! That is not my next question!

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

My answer is experience.

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.

Then you could go on about how I know that experience was reality.

And I woukd say something along the lines of it happened....whether reality or not....in such a way that I experienced it as reality

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?

And we could go on and on with you trying to explain everything away by logic and human understanding and me trying to convince you that human understanding and logic is finite but Gid is infinite......

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?

And it would be fun at first and then one of us would ultimately fund it childish and boring.....shotgun...I'm already there.

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

 

[JonC]

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.

I know it is God's Word by experience.

BUT prior to that experience, before I was saved, it was through logic and human understanding. That, however, is past and plays no role.

The best I can tell you, by way of an expiation, is that it is not me but Christ in me.

And no, this experience is not perceived, understood, interpreted and integrated solely by a process of reason.


I think it is something most Christians can identify with, but cannot adequately explain to the secular world. But even if I am the only person, that is my answer and experience.

 

[CJP69]

I know it is God's Word by experience.

What?

What does that mean?

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

BUT prior to that experience, before I was saved, it was through logic and human understanding. That, however, is past and plays no role.

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.

The best I can tell you, by way of an expiation, is that it is not me but Christ in me.

In what way is that not entirely rational?

And no, this experience is not perceived, understood, interpreted and integrated solely by a process of reason.

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.

I think it is something most Christians can identify with, but cannot adequately explain to the secular world. But even if I am the only person, that is my answer and experience.

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!

 

[JonC]

What?

What does that mean?

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

No. One cannot merely read to know Scripture is God's Word.

If that were the case then you are a Christian simply based on your reading skills and the religious text you happened along first.


What it means is that I know Scripture is God's Word because of experience.

I can't really simplify it more than that.

And I don't believe you are correct in your estimation that most Christians believe God's Word because they read the Bible and decided it was right.

Most Christians I know of (not "nominal Christians" but believers that have been "re-created", who have been "born of the Spirit") note the work of God in their lives rather than reading some text and deciding it to be of God as validity.


Let me ask you.....what did you read to make you decide that the Bible is God's Word?

Was it the reasoning in Scripture? We have plenty of historical philosophies that reason very well. Are they God's Word?

Was it that you couldn't disprove it (does God's Word depend on your ability)? We have many books you can't disprove.

Was it you agree with it? Are you ultimately a god and the criteria of truth?


I'll lean on the work and words of God rather than my own understanding every time.