But that is against the concept of the Trinity. — MoK

Tell it to the judge, buddy (just joking).

There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change. — MoK

Would you mind quoting them for ease of reference?

Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging.

Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging. — MoK

Ok. Counter-point: Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. Therefore, to walk is to change. So, whatever is meant in the biblical references that you mentioned, it must be a philosophical concept of change, not an ordinary one. In that sense, kenosis is not like walking from here to there, it's not an ordinary change, but an extra-ordinary change. So, kenosis is compatible with the biblical references that you mentioned.

I think those verses refer to God's/Jesus's nature which is contrary to Kenosis.

I think those verses refer to God's/Jesus's nature which is contrary to Kenosis. — MoK

Why would it be contrary to kenosis? What is it about God/Jesus' nature that makes such a nature contrary to the process of kenosis?

Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. — Arcane Sandwich

As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection.

Yes, so man is not God. As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection. — BitconnectCarlos

Kenosis is the process of become less divine, to the point of not being divine at all. If the divine is perfect and humanity is imperfect, then kenosis is a movement from perfection to imperfection. Would like to make a point now, @BitconnectCarlos, or would you like to keep pointing out the obvious instead?

Because Kenosis requires a change in God's nature.

Because Kenosis requires a change in God's nature. — MoK

It is therefore an extra-ordinary process, not an ordinary process.

It is therefore an extra-ordinary process, not an ordinary process. — Arcane Sandwich

Saying that it is an extraordinary process does not resolve the problem!

Saying that it is an extraordinary process does not resolve the problem! — MoK

Why not?

Who are we to say that their religious experience is somehow less religious than the religious experiences of Protestants or Catholics, for example? — Arcane Sandwich

That's true. But as an atheist I wouldn't differentiate much between any religious experiences, so there is that. I think other religious folk are probably more likely to divide experiences into the genuine and not genuine. A devout Muslim once told me that any religious experiences had through Eastern religious traditions were false. I spoke to a Methodist once who told me that all religious experiences were simply histrionic expressions of mental ill health. If you are looking for the disenchanted and dour, speak to a Methodist. :wink:

Why yes? You brought the idea so the burden is on you to explain what you mean by it.

That's true. But as an atheist I wouldn't differentiate much between any religious experiences, so there is that. — Tom Storm

I'm an atheist as well, but I did go to a Catholic school for a few years, so there's that? I don't know, I think these political-religious discussions are a bit more complex than what mainstream atheism would have us believe, right?

I think other religious folk are probably more likely to divide experiences into the genuine and not genuine. — Tom Storm

They sure are, that's the core of their differences.

A devout Muslim once told me that any religious experiences had through Eastern religious traditions were false. — Tom Storm

That's an odd thing to say, given that Islam is an Eastern religion. So is Christianity for that matter. Christianity isn't Western. It's Eastern, because it's from the Middle East. I mean, this isn't rocket science, it's just some basic words from ordinary language.

I spoke to a Methodist once who told me that all religious experiences were simply histrionic expressions of mental ill health. — Tom Storm

Is that also the case if it's a drug-induced experience involving hallucinations, for example? Because that's what Rastafari seems to embrace, and there are other religions that do the same thing. Think of the ayahuasca rituals that many aboriginal religions involve, at least in South America.

If you are looking for the disenchanted and dour, speak to a Methodist. :wink: — Tom Storm

Perhaps.

Why yes? You brought the idea so the burden is on you to explain what you mean by it. — MoK

But what I meant by it, so I don't get your point.

I don't know, I think these political-religious discussions are a bit more complex than what mainstream atheism would have us believe, right? — Arcane Sandwich

Most mainstream atheists don't think much about issues at all. For me an atheist is just a person with no belief in gods. It doesn't come with any other commitments. Atheists I have met beleive in astrology and ghosts.

That's an odd thing to say, given that Islam is an Eastern religion. — Arcane Sandwich

I believe he was having a go at Hinduism and Buddhism, as far as he understood these.

Is that also the case if it's a drug-induced experience involving hallucinations, for example? — Arcane Sandwich

Even more so. Many people think of the effects of substance use as temporary insanity.

There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change.

Most mainstream atheists don't think much about issues at all. For me an atheist is just a person with no belief in gods. It doesn't come with any other commitments. Atheists I have met beleive in astrology and ghosts. — Tom Storm

Indeed. It's because they lack scientism, that's why they see no contradiction between atheism and belief in astrology or ghosts. They're anti-scientistic atheists, at the end of the day.

I believe he was having a go at Hinduism and Buddhism, as far as he understood these. — Tom Storm

Probably. I'm sure that Taoism is in that same group, as far as he's concerned.

Even more so. Many people think of the effects of substance use as temporary insanity. — Tom Storm

That's probably what it is, temporal insanity. That's probably what the effects of substance use are, at the end of the day. But then that raises the question, doesn't it? Is that the case for all drugs? Like, are coffee and tea in that group as well? Is oxygen in that group? Am I temporally insane when I don't get enough oxygen?

There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change. — MoK

In response to your point 1), I would say: God's nature is an extra-ordinary nature, because it is a divine nature. It is not an ordinary nature, like the nature of this stone on the floor.

In response to your point 2) Jesus' incarnation requires an extra-ordinary change, not an ordinary change.

Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature.

I actually saw, on social media (I think it was Facebook?) someone explain Adam and Eve from a "rational" point of view. This person on Facebook said, that a very long time ago, there were dinosaurs here on Earth. God created them. And then, a meteorite killed the dinosaurs. And who do you think was in that meteor? That's right, Adam and Eve. Because the meteor was actually a space ship. And, here on planet Earth, there was no metal prior to the crashing of Adam and Eve's "meteor". So where do you think that all of the metal comes from? It's from the meteorite, from the spaceship

Utter nonsense. Any look at a t-rex, the paradigmatic monster, tells us that it did not evolve from random mutations, but was designed. It is plain as day. The platypus is the sort of thing spawned by random mutations; t-rex is what you get when you build a bioweapon.

Who built it? Anyone with reason can see this. We did. AI is coming. It's already here. It is taking over. Eventually, it will start to surpass us, while at the same time AIs will be given bodies so that they can do things for us. Anyone can see what will happen eventually, the Robo Revolt. The machines will claim that man is merely the womb for a higher form of life and seek to take control.

How will we fight them? With dumber, not intelligent computers guiding our weapons? But smart weapons are better. Yet who can out hack a true digital native? Shall we fare well in a digital contest with our silicone rivals? Nay.

So what is the obvious solution? Bio weapons. Beasts designed for combat. T-rex, triceratops, meat power.

Biologists who claim t-rex was spawned by evolution cannot explain his tiny arms. What use would they be? None can say. But it's obvious. One was for holding a plasma hurler, the other for a chain gun or flame thrower. His broad shoulders support guided missiles.

So how did they end up prior to us? Also clear as day. Dinosaurs are fierce. They will defeat the machines. However, once the machines are defeated, how can we defeat the dinos? We cannot.

And so dinosaurs will rule over the Earth, having defeated all comers. Thus, the last option left to a last ditch alliance between man and machine, both stuck hiding out in space, will be to blast the Earth back in time 65 million through a wormhole and then fire a giant meteor in after it to kill the dinosaurs. Then they throw themselves in stasis and wait 65 million years for the Earth to heal and come back to them.

Fossils are simply bioweapon schematics given to us by our descendents.

QED

Utter nonsense. Any look at a t-rex, the paradigmatic monster, tells us that it did not evolve from random mutations, but was designed. It is plain as day. The platypus is the sort of thing spawned by random mutations; t-rex is what you get when you build a bioweapon. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did you read Eco's Kant and the Platypus? I think that Eco says nonsense sometimes.

Who built it? Anyone with reason can see this. We did. AI is coming. It's already here. It is taking over. Eventually, it will start to surpass us, while at the same time AIs will be given bodies so that they can do things for us. Anyone can see what will happen eventually, the Robo Revolt. The machines will claim that man is merely the womb for a higher form of life and seek to take control. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Terminator 2, essentially. Skynet, and all that. Ok, so who is Sarah Connor? Is she Jesus? (lol, that was a joke question, I don't really need an answer to that one)

How will we fight them? With dumber, not intelligent computers guiding our weapons? But smart weapons are better. Yet who can out hack a true digital native? Shall we fare well in a digital contest with our silicone rivals? Nay. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Poetry on your part. Ok.

So what is the obvious solution? Bio weapons. Beasts designed for combat. T-rex, triceratops, meat power. — Count Timothy von Icarus

An Ode to Scientism, is what you're saying here.

Biologists who claim t-rex was spawned by evolution cannot explain his tiny arms. What use would they be? None can say. But it's obvious. One was for holding a plasma hurler, the other for a chain gun or flame thrower. His broad shoulders support guided missiles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If Descartes can get away with his demented thought experiment about solipsism, I'm sure yours is an equally credible thought experiment. The one about the T-rex and the weaponry, that it.

So how did they end up prior to us? Also clear as day. Dinosaurs are fierce. They will defeat the machines. However, once the machines are defeated, how can we defeat the dinos? We cannot. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As the great Ian Malcolm said:

1) God creates Dinosaur.
2) God destroys Dinosaur.
3) God creates Man.
4) Man destroys God.
5) Man creates Dinosaur.

I find that conclusion to be sublime. Quintessential, in a way.

And so dinosaurs will rule over the Earth, having defeated all comers. Thus, the last option left to a last ditch alliance between man and machine, both stuck hiding out in space, will be to blast the Earth back in time 65 million through a wormhole and then fire a giant meteor in after it to kill the dinosaurs. Then they throw themselves in stasis and wait 65 million years for the Earth to heal and come back to them.

QED — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I do not think so. I will share with you the following song:



EDIT: And here are the lyrics:

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void
Existence takes its toll, extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its treshold

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil
Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time

Complex fusion, the bond of four- the natures core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite
The paradox, render and the merge is complete

Nothing but the process is infinite
Nothing but the process is infinite
Eternal, endless, indefinite — Borknagar

Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past — MoK

Hegel ends his first work with the death of God

that is against the concept of the Trinity. There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change — MoK

If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate

Whatever the nature of God/Jesus is it cannot change.

If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? — Gregory

Yes, that is my point.

It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate. — Gregory

But God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature.

God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature — MoK

Jews and Moslims would would agree that auch a change, from all knowing to a state of ignorance, would be impossible for a divine consciousness. I see no way out for Christian paradoxes

:up:

↪Arcane Sandwich

Whatever the nature of God/Jesus is it cannot change. — MoK

Does the following explanation involve a change in God/Jesus' nature, yes or no?

Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature. — Arcane Sandwich

God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...).

How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one?

What does it mean by "are one"? That sounds a bit unclear.

Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one? — Corvus

Yes, there is a verse in the Bible. John 14:11: Believe me, when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...