Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Is it logically possible to act contrary to one's nature?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Jones
    Conservative Christians who assert Jesus was both God and Man, and deal with passages where Jesus confesses ignorance (i.e., Mark 13:32) by saying he was
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 27, 2017
      Conservative Christians who assert Jesus was both God and Man, and deal with passages where Jesus confesses ignorance (i.e., Mark 13:32) by saying he was speaking there only from his human nature.

      In other words, Jesus was capable of speaking in a way that wasn't consistent with his divine nature (i.e., to admit ignorance of the day of his return, Mark 13:32, is inconsistent with his nature as the all-knowing creator-god of the universe, and such inconsistency is precisely why  scholars and apologists assert Jesus wasn't speaking from his divine nature at this particular moment).

      If you cannot show that it is even possible for a person to speak contrary to their nature, you'll have to face the fact that acting contrary to one's nature is a logical impossibility.

      "Nature" is those parts that are inherent and essential to a thing being what it really is.  See definition 2.1 at the Oxford English Dictionary.

      Therefore, a man acting like a woman is not acting contrary to his nature.  His nature is "human", not merely "male", and being "human" has nothing about it that would forbid acting like a woman (unless you think, like Pope Evaristus, that women aren't human!)

      Since a "nature" is not something a person can logically suppress (everything you say and do does not originate from anything other than your nature), then if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them had to be equally implicated in anything he did or said.

      In which case, Jesus was also speaking from his divine nature, not only his human nature, when confessing his ignorance of the day he would return (Mark 13:32).

      In which case one of two conclusions are logically mandated, and both destroy the classical theism creed of Nicaea: 

      a) Jesus' ignorance stemmed from his divine side (maybe classical theism is wrong, and process theology [god can learn, Exodus 32:9-14] is true?), or

      b) Jesus' ignorance of something that God was not ignorant of, logically forbids the possibility that he was God.

      I suspect many die-hards will simply quote something from 1st Corinthians about the folly of merely human wisdom, despite most Christian philosophers and apologists insisting that God cannot do things that are genuinely illogical.  But since there is no criteria by which to tell when the "worldly wisdom" excuse is being abused, it seems to me that the more objective approach would be to completely abandon this desperate trifle, especially given how easily it is used by cult-leaders to get followers to sacrifice their common sense and start believing nonsense.


    • Scott Windsor, Sr.
      I believe you re making mountains of molehills. The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being human. While
      Message 2 of 6 , May 7, 2017
        I believe you're making mountains of molehills.
         
        The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being "human."  While He was going through His Passion - He even stated that if He WANTED TO He COULD have called upon a whole legion of angels to destroy His those who were taking him captive - but he CHOSE not to.  So while He COULD have assumed the omniscience (all-knowing nature) of the God (whether Father, Son or Holy Ghost) He CHOSE not.  Luke 2:40 also states how He "grew in knowledge and wisdom" - things not needed in His Divine Nature, but absolutely necessary in His Human Nature.
         
        AMDG,
        Scott<<<

         
        --
        Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.
      • Mike Jones
        What evidence do you have that a person can speak apart from their nature?  You cannot cite the bible, since whether the biblical statements could even be
        Message 3 of 6 , May 13, 2017
          What evidence do you have that a person can speak apart from their nature?  You cannot cite the bible, since whether the biblical statements could even be logically possible is precisely what's at issue, so citing the bible as evidence constitutes begging the question.

          If you cannot locate any evidence outside the bible that a person can speak apart from their nature, please clarify that without the bible, you cannot produce such evidence.



          From: "'Scott Windsor, Sr.' bigscott@... [catholicdebateforum]" <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com>
          To: "catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com" <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 12:21 PM
          Subject: Re: [CDF] Is it logically possible to act contrary to one's nature?



          I believe you're making mountains of molehills.
           
          The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being "human."  While He was going through His Passion - He even stated that if He WANTED TO He COULD have called upon a whole legion of angels to destroy His those who were taking him captive - but he CHOSE not to.  So while He COULD have assumed the omniscience (all-knowing nature) of the God (whether Father, Son or Holy Ghost) He CHOSE not.  Luke 2:40 also states how He "grew in knowledge and wisdom" - things not needed in His Divine Nature, but absolutely necessary in His Human Nature.
           
          AMDG,
          Scott<<<

           
          --
          Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.




        • Scott Windsor, Sr.
          On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Mike Jones porphyryredux@yahoo.com ... sw: Please be consistent in your questioning. YOU cited Bible verses and referenced
          Message 4 of 6 , May 15, 2017
            On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Mike Jones porphyryredux@... [catholicdebateforum] <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
             

            What evidence do you have that a person can speak apart from their nature?  You cannot cite the bible, since whether the biblical statements could even be logically possible is precisely what's at issue, so citing the bible as evidence constitutes begging the question.

            If you cannot locate any evidence outside the bible that a person can speak apart from their nature, please clarify that without the bible, you cannot produce such evidence.

            sw:  Please be consistent in your questioning.  YOU cited Bible verses and referenced peronalities from the Bible - and I gave you a valid response, which you totally ignored - and CHANGED the premise of your questioning/challenge.
             
            sw:  I'm not going to play that game. You stated:

            MJ:  Since a "nature" is not something a person can logically suppress (everything you say and do does not originate from anything other than your nature), then if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them had to be equally implicated in anything he did or said.

            In which case, Jesus was also speaking from his divine nature, not only his human nature, when confessing his ignorance of the day he would return (Mark 13:32).

            In which case one of two conclusions are logically mandated, and both destroy the classical theism creed of Nicaea: 

            a) Jesus' ignorance stemmed from his divine side (maybe classical theism is wrong, and process theology [god can learn, Exodus 32:9-14] is true?), or

            b) Jesus' ignorance of something that God was not ignorant of, logically forbids the possibility that he was God.
             
            sw:  I responded:
             
            sw:  The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being "human."  While He was going through His Passion - He even stated that if He WANTED TO He COULD have called upon a whole legion of angels to destroy His those who were taking him captive - but he CHOSE not to.  So while He COULD have assumed the omniscience (all-knowing nature) of the God (whether Father, Son or Holy Ghost) He CHOSE not.  Luke 2:40 also states how He "grew in knowledge and wisdom" - things not needed in His Divine Nature, but absolutely necessary in His Human Nature.

            sw: My response validly responded to your challenge.

            AMDG,
            Scott<<<

             







            --
            Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.







          • Mike Jones
            From: Scott Windsor, Sr. bigscott@a2z.org [catholicdebateforum] To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 6 , May 16, 2017



              From: "'Scott Windsor, Sr.' bigscott@... [catholicdebateforum]" <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com>
              To: "catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com" <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:56 PM
              Subject: Re: [CDF] Is it logically possible to act contrary to one's nature?



              On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Mike Jones porphyryredux@... [catholicdebateforum] <catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
               
              What evidence do you have that a person can speak apart from their nature?  You cannot cite the bible, since whether the biblical statements could even be logically possible is precisely what's at issue, so citing the bible as evidence constitutes begging the question.

              If you cannot locate any evidence outside the bible that a person can speak apart from their nature, please clarify that without the bible, you cannot produce such evidence.

              sw:  Please be consistent in your questioning.  YOU cited Bible verses and referenced peronalities from the Bible - and I gave you a valid response, which you totally ignored - and CHANGED the premise of your questioning/challenge.
               
              sw:  I'm not going to play that game. You stated:

              MJ:  Since a "nature" is not something a person can logically suppress (everything you say and do does not originate from anything other than your nature), then if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them had to be equally implicated in anything he did or said.

              In which case, Jesus was also speaking from his divine nature, not only his human nature, when confessing his ignorance of the day he would return (Mark 13:32).

              In which case one of two conclusions are logically mandated, and both destroy the classical theism creed of Nicaea: 

              a) Jesus' ignorance stemmed from his divine side (maybe classical theism is wrong, and process theology [god can learn, Exodus 32:9-14] is true?), or

              b) Jesus' ignorance of something that God was not ignorant of, logically forbids the possibility that he was God.
               
              sw:  I responded:
               
              sw:  The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being "human."  While He was going through His Passion - He even stated that if He WANTED TO He COULD have called upon a whole legion of angels to destroy His those who were taking him captive - but he CHOSE not to.  So while He COULD have assumed the omniscience (all-knowing nature) of the God (whether Father, Son or Holy Ghost) He CHOSE not.  Luke 2:40 also states how He "grew in knowledge and wisdom" - things not needed in His Divine Nature, but absolutely necessary in His Human Nature.

              sw: My response validly responded to your challenge.
              ----Mike:  Do you agree with me that it is logically impossible to act contrary to one's ontological nature (i.e., what they really are by personal constitution and not merely office), yes or no?   You don't think God is capable of acting contrary to his spiritual nature, so why would you think human beings can act contrary to their human nature?
            • Scott Windsor, Sr.
              ... SW: The ontological nature - that is the being of someone or something - is something one cannot act beyond. So... when part of the being of both God
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 14, 2017
                 
                sw:  The fact is Jesus, while being fully God and fully human, willfully submitted Himself to being "human."  While He was going through His Passion - He even stated that if He WANTED TO He COULD have called upon a whole legion of angels to destroy His those who were taking him captive - but he CHOSE not to.  So while He COULD have assumed the omniscience (all-knowing nature) of the God (whether Father, Son or Holy Ghost) He CHOSE not.  Luke 2:40 also states how He "grew in knowledge and wisdom" - things not needed in His Divine Nature, but absolutely necessary in His Human Nature.

                sw: My response validly responded to your challenge.
                 
                MJ:  Do you agree with me that it is logically impossible to act contrary to one's ontological nature (i.e., what they really are by personal constitution and not merely office), yes or no?  

                SW: The ontological nature - that is the "being" of someone or something - is something one cannot "act" beyond. So... when part of the "being" of both God and man is "Free Will" - which "acts" are you saying are impossible for man or God to perform?
                 
                MJ: You don't think God is capable of acting contrary to his spiritual nature, so why would you think human beings can act contrary to their human nature?

                SW:  You will need to be more specific here.  
                 
                AMDG,
                Scott<<<
                 
                --
                Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.