At the triablogue, I’ve been discussing with Steve Hays issues arising from this quote from Richard Dawkins: I have never found the problem of evil very persuasive as an argument against deities. There seems no obvious reason to presume that your God will be good. … Most of the Greek pantheon sported very human vices, and the ‘jealous God’ of the Old Testament is surely one… Read More »Discussing Dawkins, God, and evil @ triablogue
Catholic analytic philosopher Tim Pawl (University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota) argues that this is logically consistent: Jesus has both a divine and a human nature.
His answer is challenged by another talented young Catholic philosopher, Tomas Bogardus, of Pepperdine University. With their permission, I’ve reposted their dialogue from Facebook. I thought it deserved a wider audience.
From that same thread, I learned that Dr. Pawl is working on a book on the metaphysics of the Christology that comes from the “ecumenical” councils. I’ve thought and taught a good bit about those in recent years, and plan to discuss them in upcoming podcasts, so I look forward to seeing this book, and the discussion it will generate.
Which is mightier – this beard or this one?
You decide. I’ll weigh in with a comment later.
Here, unedited but for the addition of a few explanatory links (and a gratuitous picture), is their dialogue:Read More »Tim Pawl: a God-man is possible
“Well, who created God, then?” Many an atheist has lobbed this one, supposing it to be a devastating objection in question form. In reply, Christian philosopher Paul Copan knocks this one out of the park. Well played, sir. I would add a few points: One of the perfections a perfect being is supposed to have is aseity – existing but not because of anything else.… Read More »Copan answers: Who created God?
Here’s an interesting but tightly wound passage from John Biddle (1615-62) in a book from 1648: Again, though he [Jesus] be a God, subordinate to the most high God, as having received his godhead, and whatsover he hath, from the Father; yet may not anyone thence rightly infer, that by this account there will be another God, or two Gods? For though we may, with… Read More »Biddle: many “Gods” but one God
What if? (What if 1+1 were 2?) By “posts”, of course, we mean “posts or comments on posts”. Read it, live it. Patton is very insightful there. I speak as one sinner to others. There’s something about human nature… if we’re convinced that we’re right about some important subject-matter, we start to think we’re entitled to pour scorn and contempt on those without this supposed… Read More »What if God read your posts?
Last time we looked at a famous argument about Jesus. (If you’ve never had a course in logic, or if it’s been a while, you should review the linked definitions there of “valid”, “invalid”, and “sound” before proceeding – this discussion presupposes that you understand their meanings.)
Consider this argument:
1. Michael Jackson is bad.
2. All bad people should be in jail.
3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.
This appears to be a valid argument. Is it?Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 2 – equivocation
Over at Biola’s alumni magazine, Winter 2011 issue, theologian Fred Sanders has a piece in which he argues,
The Trinity is a biblical doctrine, but let’s admit it: There’s something annoying about how hard it is to put your finger on a verse that states the whole doctrine.
The Bible presents the elements of the doctrine in numerous passages, of course: that there is only one God; that the Father is God; that the Son is God; and that the Spirit is God. We can also tell easily enough that the Father, Son and Spirit are really distinct from one another, and are not just three names for one person. If you hold all those clear teachings of Scripture in your mind at one time and think through them together, the doctrine of the Trinity is inevitable. Trinitarianism is a biblical doctrine and all the ingredients are given to us there: Just add thought and you have the classic doctrine. (emphases added)
Hmmm…. I would have thought that the elements of “the” doctrine included that the three are same substance or essence (homoousios). And that the there are co-equal, and co-eternal, uncreated, though the Father timelessly generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from him (or if you’re Western/Latin – from both Father and Son). Maybe something about their having one “divine nature” as well.Read More »No “Trinity Verse” – A Good Thing?
Last time we looked at Daniel Howard-Snyder’s published attack on Moreland’s and Craig’s Trinity theory they call “Trinity Monotheism“. Bill Craig, never one to duck a fight, fired back. (“Trinity Monotheism Once More,” Philosophia Christi 8:1, 2006, 101-13) First, he complains that Dan “fusses terribly over the analogies” they use (e.g. a human, Ceberus) while not saying much about the actual proposal. This is a… Read More »Trinity Monotheism part 7: Bill fires back, part 1
William Lane Craig makes some false and misleading claims about the New Testament Jesus.
If God is essentially immortal, the answer must be: No. But the human Jesus of the Bible was then mortal.
He said this to Jesus. But was he also addressing the God in Jesus?
In this episode, I walk you through an argument against confusing Jesus with his God.
My seven year old nephew believes that once upon a time the young George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. For my part, I don’t think that happened. I believe that the cherry-tree story is a myth. Therefore, when my nephew talks about “George Washington” he’s not referring to the same guy I’m referring to when I talk about “George Washington.” Once, this nephew overheard… Read More »God, Allah, George Washington, and Eric Clapton
Here, at the Stand to Reason blog. In response to a short video in which a preacher suggests that several shared titles imply “that Jesus is Jehovah” (and he means by this that they are the same self, so numerically one). To the contrary, I point out some ways in which Jesus differs from God, in the portrayals of the New Testament: …only Jesus has… Read More »a conversation about the differences between God and Jesus
Thanks to our friend Alvin Kimel for linking my post Jesus, God, and an inconsistent triad. Check out his post and the ensuing discussion here. Unfortunately, the fact that I’m a unitarian seems to distract him from the actual purpose of the post. He says, In this article he hopes to persuade us that the classical trinitarian doctrine is logically absurd. No. That is not… Read More »dialogue on God, Jesus, and identity with Alvin Kimel
Bizarrely, many agree with Jesus’s opponents’ assumption in Mark 2.
Applying standard predicate logic with quantification to the New Testament.
Last Christmas season I posted in a slightly Grinch-like way about catholic Incarnation theories, and about some Christians’ lack of critical thinking about them.
There’s an interesting human impulse observable here. The best analogy I can think of right now is posters like the one to the left. The ladies love them.
Why? There’s the sex appeal of the dude. And the cute baby. Everyone likes a cute baby.
But there’s something else, something affecting about a big, strong, tough manly man, stooping to gently cradle a teeny, vulnerable baby. He’s made himself so vulnerable. Of course, that adds to the “sexy” part. My point is, the affecting nature of the man’s condescension is a distinct element of the appeal.
Now imagine that God, big strong God, becomes an ignorant, weak, dependent little baby. There’s a similar, recognizable emotional tug there. What an amazing idea! Of course, it may be amazing in part because it’s contradictory. But I’ll not argue that here.
Instead, a bit of cross-cultural comparison. Christians aren’t the only ones who go in for the idea of a god who comes down from his mighty position, to be a cute, puny little baby.
The Ramayana is an epic poem, and a sort of scripture in Hinduism. Parts of it go back perhaps to the 400s BCE, though it comes in many versions, some of which are from the high middle ages. The clip below is from a wildly popular Indian television series from 1986 called Ramayan. If you’re interested in Hinduism, I recommend it, but it’s a real time commitment to watch the whole thing. I’ve edited some bits of it, to include the more theological parts, and to get it down to youtube length. It’s here, Ram or Rama, is supposed to be an avatar of the god Vishnu.
My point is notRead More »God the baby – Rama / Ram, avatar of Vishnu
