Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

when God created the physical universe He created certain logical rules for it, meaning that He voluntarily constrained His ability to interact with the physical world in certain ways. He reduced the possibilities of action to create a single reality. so He has voluntary limitations based upon the laws He created for the world that He made, and the logically impossible is one of those. meaning that He cannot become a person.

Haven't you ever heard of a rebellious teenager?

Seriously, just because his Father was some sort of big shot, he thought he could go around messin' stuff up? What's up with that?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Actually, the term there is YHWH. "I am." That's the Divine Sacred Name, not Adoni. You just pwned yourself. (Genesis 18).


I do not see how that is illogical. It is most certainly not beyond the scope of his power. If he can appear in various forms - including a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a cloud - then I see no reason why he could not take upon himself human form. While you may have your own reason for disbelieving the Incarnation, you really are going too far in suggesting that the Incarnation defies basic rules of logic.

Would any of you people versed in the rules of logic like to chime in on this one?


As is your claim that he broke the Law based entirely upon your own limited understanding of it. Not excuses at all. I answered your objections. Just as Christ himself answered the objections of the Pharisees and Scribes of his day.


In so far as they rightly teach it, not in so far as they begin to add their own regulations and restrictions to it. They went further than the Tanak actually allowed, and therefore were teaching their own law, not God's. But that is a common trap people fall into. Even certain sects of Christianity have at times made that mistake.


I will answer this two ways: first by citing my own understanding of the Law. As you say, the Law itself is a gift from God, and for our own good, for the following reasons:
1. It reveals to us God's will and his intended will for mankind. In that way, it serves as a guide for us to live by under the caring provision of our God.
2. It provides a way for us to understand what is good for society, that we might enact justice and mercy.
3. It reveals to us God's righteousness, so that, realizing that we are fallen, weak creatures, we might learn to rely upon and trust God as we live in this world.

In and of itself, the Law cannot make us righteous because our obedience to it is in conflict with our fallen human nature, desires and inclinations that lead us away from God.

If your belief is that obedience to God's Law is good for us, that we might live in a way that best reflects God's will in our lives, and enables us to enjoy his benefits, then I do not dispute that.

But if you contend that the Law therefore makes us righteous, then no. For as the Tanak itself says, "There is none righteous, no, not one." Take Abraham, who lived before the Law was given, and yet was accounted righteous on account of his trust in God.

Perhaps this will better explain it:

_________________

Well, I think that, if you're a divine being, the difference between never wanting to do something and being unable to do it is sort of meaningless. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. So it depends on how you define "omnipotence"...

It's kind of like this "paradox": could God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? The argument goes that this is a paradox because either God can't lift the rock, or God can't create such a rock, and in either case there's something God can't do, and by definition (for the purposes of the paradox, at least), God can do everything. But, really, this "paradox" doesn't really say anything about God's abilities. So it's not really a paradox, because the answer can be "no" without actually imposing a limitation on God's powers. If you include being able to do things that are logically (as opposed to physically) impossible in the definition of "all-powerful", then the concept of "all-powerful" is meaningless since, in that case, nothing can be all-powerful, even theoretically. My point is that sometimes we can get caught up too much in definitions and terminology without actually discussing the concepts we're supposed to be talking about.



So where does it say this? I understand the idea of "certain logical rules" and all, but where do we draw the particular conclusion that God cannot take the form of flesh?



Although I'm not well-versed in any form of the Bible, I gotta be with Didymus on that one. There's nothing illogical about the idea that God can come to Earth in the form of a human.

Now I'm going to back up and address Didymus's response to my earlier post.



Well, we know that many people use cars all the time for many years without problems. So we know that while something could go wrong with the car as soon as the warranty expires, the probability is low enough for the risk to be worth it, especially since the alternatives may be unfavorable... cheaper cars are more likely to be junk, and you can only go so far riding a bike. Public transportation might be terrible or unavailable. Even if the car does break down, it doesn't mean your life is over. We have solid facts to assuage our fears about buying a car.

I don't see a parallel with religion here. It's a much easier leap of faith that a car will work well than that you're choosing the right religion, or that somebody came back from the dead. Moreover, we look at these different situations with opposite "null hypotheses". (For the purposes of this discussion, the "null hypothesis" is what we assume to be true until the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm probably abusing the term a bit, but it gets the idea across.) When buying a car, the null hypothesis is that the car will work. Most of us assume that the car will work, and if it doesn't, then that car is an exception to the rule. But with religion, to me, the null hypothesis is that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Now, I understand that you in particular, since you're a believer, are looking at it differently: you believe he did rise, and want me to try to prove that he didn't. But to somebody who doesn't already believe, that Jesus didn't rise makes a more sensible null hypothesis. The belief that a car will work correctly and the belief that Jesus rose from the dead require fundamentally different approaches.



A lot of people don't go into marriage for exactly that sort of reason.

Anyway, we have the same situation with the null hypothesis: by the time we start considering marriage, we assume that it will work out rather than assume that it won't. Now, obviously, most people don't just meet somebody and within five minutes decide that a marriage will work out. (Some people do, of course, but that's not the point.) You have to get to that point first. Likewise, you don't just assume that Jesus rose from the dead; you have to first get to the point where it seems reasonable to make leap of faith. I'm obviously not at that point.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

incorrect on both counts. when Abraham addresses the angel in Genesis 18:3 he absolutely does not use the tetragrammaton; "adoni" is the word he uses -- "my lord" in the generic sense. second, the tetragrammaton does not mean "I am." it's a word composed of the letters from the past, present and future tenses of the word "to be." they're related but certainly not identical with each other.



aaaahhhhh, are you serious? He doesn't "appear in various forms." we are communicating over the internet right now, does that mean that i am "appearing" to you in the form of your computer? come on now.

Would any of you people versed in the rules of logic like to chime in on this one?


As is your claim that he broke the Law based entirely upon your own limited understanding of it. Not excuses at all. I answered your objections. Just as Christ himself answered the objections of the Pharisees and Scribes of his day.



ridiculous. it's precisely because the law is in conflict with our natural desires and inclinations that conforming our will to the law makes us righteous. it is absolutely not outside of our ability to obey the law. the law is what brings us close to God.

Genesis 4:7 - "Surely, if you do well, you will be forgiven. But if you do not do well, sin rests at the door. Its desire is towards you, yet you can conquer it."

Exodus 23:11-14 - "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say 'Who will go up to heaven and bring it to us, and make us hear it, so we may do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say 'Who will go over the sea and bring it to us, and make us hear it so we may do it?' But the word is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."

Go back and read that whole chapter. And while you're at it, read the next one too. Three men come to Abraham, and two continue on to Sodom. The third remains behind and the text calls him YHWH, not Adoni.

And, once again, I would like to point out that this takes place as Abraham is walking with the three men. At the beginning of 19, two of those men arrive in Sodom, which means that the third is the one speaking to Abraham. And the text calls him YHWH, as I have circled there (and also in other places in the text, including vv. 1, 10, 19-22, and 26).

As for the precise meaning of YHWH, no one knows exactly which tense is being used, since the vowel pointing is highly irregular (in fact, the vowel pointing is borrowed from Adonai, and was meant to serve as a reminder to the synagogue reader not to pronounce the term). However, if you'll remember from Exodus 3, "I Am" is the name that God chose to give to himself on the mountain, of which YHWH is approximate in meaning. My point was, however, that in that passage, God himself is clearly the referent.

Also, I was not aware that biblical Hebrew had past, present, and future tenses. I am aware only of the perfect and imperfect tenses. Of course, depending on the context, these can serve functionally as any of the tenses with which we are familiar. But it would seem odd to me that the Sacred Name would be composed of three different tenses when only two were used during biblical times.


Actually, Kef already has. You might want to review his response.


Can you keep it perfectly? If you have ever broken any of God's Law, then you are guilty of it. I find it hard to believe that you have kept God's Law in such a way that you've never lied, coveted, swore, etc.

But that's the beauty of it: if anyone is honest enough to recognize his faults, then God prefers to show mercy, not on account of their perfection, but on account of his being "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love." In the end, those who are called to be his people are not the ones who keep the law perfectly (because none are able to) but those who trust in his forgiveness. This is why the Law does not in and of itself save, but only in so far as it compels the sinner to cling all the more closely to God.

_________________

Cobalt, what I want to know is where you're drawing the conclusion that God cannot incarnate himself from. You're speaking as if it were totally self-evident, but it isn't. If I recall, God has repeatedly claimed that he is all-powerful. And, as far as I know, he never claimed that he either wouldn't or couldn't incarnate himself in human form. You claimed that "God created logical rules and blah blah blah, and therefore God can't incarnate", but where is the rule that says that? You can't just take it for granted that it's there. You have to break it down into logical steps: start with a premise, or group of premises, and prove that it that God cannot incarnate himself. Where is your premise? What's your starting point?

There may be many things I find illogical about the Bible, but this isn't one of them.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Thank you, Kef.

As for the original question, I've given some careful consideration and now believe I can demonstrate why it must be that only God's mercy can save us, and not our good works:

1. First, God created us. This means essentially that everything we are comes from him.

2. God created all things. This means that all the resources we have at our disposal also come from him.

3. When we do good works, we do so using only those things which God has given us first, not with anything that we produce on our own apart from his provision.

4. Therefore, good works - no matter how great or how many - can never cause God to be indebted to us. On the contrary, at best, we only give back to him a portion of what he gives us.

5. Now, God does expect good works from us. In fact, according to Ephesians 2:10, good works are what he created us for. However, we cannot presume that doing what he expects from us (considering that we owe him our lives and our resources anyway) in any way makes him indebted to us. As the Scriptures say, "Who has ever given unto God that God owes him?"

6. Furthermore, when we fail in our responsibility to do good works, or worse, do evil works, we actually incur debt from God.

7. Considering, therefore, that we can never repay God what we owe him, and at the same time, when we fail, we incur debt, it would seem therefore that the only way for anyone to gain eternal life from God is if he grants it as a free gift.

Another argument, which I have used before, is as follows:

1. Considering that an eternal life of perfect bliss is just that, eternal, then the only way to merit eternal life is to do an eternity of perfect good works.

2. Human life in this age is finite.

3. Therefore, no one can possibly earn eternal life by means of good works (especially when you consider that we already owe those good works to God to start with).

4. Therefore, eternal life can only be received as a gift.

It is true that God attaches promises to certain types of obedience. But even those promises are entirely based on his being "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love." Without his mercy and grace, we would be completely unable to fulfill the entirety of his commands. What's more, I do not remember any command to which he attaches the promise of eternal life, which is the very point we are discussing at this time.

_________________