Law of Identity

  • Thread starter Thread starter thegrons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thegrons

Guest
If we hold to the three laws of reason (which of course are a matter of convention), then would it make sense to say that God had to become man to experience what it is to be man? After all if we agree that God in His omnipotence cannot even violate basic laws of logic, then even He cannot experience humanity without being a human. In fact in Hebrews it tells us that Christ suffered temptation so that He can empathize with us as our high priest in heaven. This thread assumes the laws of thought which reflect God’s character and therefore God would operate accordingly.

What say you,

John
 
A British monk of the 5th century who believed in the ante-Nicene doctrines of the church and disagreed with the fatalism of Augustine.
 
Pelagianism was declared a heresy by the Catholic Church. So why discourse with a heretic? This one seems to have posted this thread to start an argument. The Church has already dealt with his position.
 
thegrons said:
If we hold to the three laws of reason (which of course are a matter of convention), then would it make sense to say that God had to become man to experience what it is to be man? After all if we agree that God in His omnipotence cannot even violate basic laws of logic, then even He cannot experience humanity without being a human. In fact in Hebrews it tells us that Christ suffered temptation so that He can empathize with us as our high priest in heaven. This thread assumes the laws of thought which reflect God’s character and therefore God would operate accordingly.

What say you,

John
Click to expand...
You seem to simply be saying that God couldn’t experience being a man with experiencing being a man. Nothing controversial about that. What is the purpose of the topic?
 
The purpose is philosophical dialog and the question should be quite straight forward to the one who understand logic. Secondly God is not omnipotent in the absolute sense for the bible tells us that God cannot sin, lie or deny Himself. I would go one step further and say that God cannot violate His own reasoning, and if His reasoning is that of logic; then neither can He make square circles…
 
thegrons said:
The purpose is philosophical dialog and the question should be quite straight forward to the one who understand logic. Secondly God is not omnipotent in the absolute sense for the bible tells us that God cannot sin, lie or deny Himself. I would go one step further and say that God cannot violate His own reasoning, and if His reasoning is that of logic; then neither can He make square circles…
Click to expand...
God is most certainly omnipotent in the absolute sense. He has the power to do all things. Sinning and lying are not things, but are privations (the lack of things). If He could lie, He would logically no longer be omnipotent.

I do understand logic, which is why I took the time to point out that your question is a Tautology. Tautologies do not admit of serious philosophical dialogue, hence my question about the purpose of the inquiry.
 
thegrons said:
If we hold to the three laws of reason (which of course are a matter of convention), then would it make sense to say that God had to become man to experience what it is to be man? After all if we agree that God in His omnipotence cannot even violate basic laws of logic, then even He cannot experience humanity without being a human. In fact in Hebrews it tells us that Christ suffered temptation so that He can empathize with us as our high priest in heaven. This thread assumes the laws of thought which reflect God’s character and therefore God would operate accordingly.

What say you,

John
Click to expand...
God created man.
 
thegrons said:
The purpose is philosophical dialog and the question should be quite straight forward to the one who understand logic. Secondly God is not omnipotent in the absolute sense for the bible tells us that God cannot sin, lie or deny Himself. I would go one step further and say that God cannot violate His own reasoning, and if His reasoning is that of logic; then neither can He make square circles…
Click to expand...
God is. He does not need reasoning.
 
I believe that God cannot sin, one of many things He cannot do, nor can He believe that 2+2=5…Pelagius was vindicated by the Church as proven by the church reversing her position on Augustuine’s hard determinism and reverting back to a position that some call semi-Pelagian. this post was not to create an argument but to hear some feedback from those on the board who are trained in epistemology, logic and metaphysics not the layperson. If God can do anything in the absolute sense; this would entail His being able to turn Himself into the Devil and this would violate the law of identity as well.

Pelagius believed in free will, Augustine did not, Pelagius believed that man was chosen by God based on God foreseeing an individuals future faith and hence conversion, Augustine like Calvin believe man has no free will. Pelagius was tired of seeing Augustine and other priests with concubines and whores and called for reform; Augustine blamed everything on his sinful nature which doesn’t exist but is an artifact from his Manichean days.

In this sense Pelagius was in agreement with the Early Fathers especially Crystosom. Pelagius was bootstrapped by Augustine and Jerome and Zosimus didn’t want to condemn the teachings of Pelagius but had no choice once Augustine spun the argument into one of infant baptism versus free will.

As for his heresy, if Pelagius is a heretic then the Eastern Church and all of Protestantism is heretical as well; are you ready to go back to those days?
 
thegrons said:
I believe that God cannot sin, one of many things He cannot do, nor can He believe that 2+2=5…Pelagius was vindicated by the Church as proven by the church reversing her position on Augustuine’s hard determinism and reverting back to a position that some call semi-Pelagian. this post was not to create an argument but to hear some feedback from those on the board who are trained in epistemology, logic and metaphysics not the layperson. If God can do anything in the absolute sense; this would entail His being able to turn Himself into the Devil and this would violate the law of identity as well.

Pelagius believed in free will, Augustine did not, Pelagius believed that man was chosen by God based on God foreseeing an individuals future faith and hence conversion, Augustine like Calvin believe man has no free will. Pelagius was tired of seeing Augustine and other priests with concubines and whores and called for reform; Augustine blamed everything on his sinful nature which doesn’t exist but is an artifact from his Manichean days.

In this sense Pelagius was in agreement with the Early Fathers especially Crystosom. Pelagius was bootstrapped by Augustine and Jerome and Zosimus didn’t want to condemn the teachings of Pelagius but had no choice once Augustine spun the argument into one of infant baptism versus free will.

As for his heresy, if Pelagius is a heretic then the Eastern Church and all of Protestantism is heretical as well; are you ready to go back to those days?
Click to expand...
May I insert here that not everything any famous person writes is automatically transformed into Catholic dogma. When one wants to know what Catholic teaching is, one should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

While I am only a layperson, I do know that the first rule of any discussion regarding Catholicism is to check the actual, real, duly defined and proclaimed, official source for Catholic teaching. Presenting preliminary opinions and discussions may be interesting, but they do not substitute for the final authority.
 
thegrons said:
If we hold to the three laws of reason (which of course are a matter of convention), then would it make sense to say that God had to become man to experience what it is to be man? After all if we agree that God in His omnipotence cannot even violate basic laws of logic, then even He cannot experience humanity without being a human. In fact in Hebrews it tells us that Christ suffered temptation so that He can empathize with us as our high priest in heaven. This thread assumes the laws of thought which reflect God’s character and therefore God would operate accordingly.

What say you,

John
Click to expand...
Please tell me what the 3 laws of reason are?
 
thegrons said:
I believe that God cannot sin, one of many things He cannot do, nor can He believe that 2+2=5…Pelagius was vindicated by the Church as proven by the church reversing her position on Augustuine’s hard determinism and reverting back to a position that some call semi-Pelagian. this post was not to create an argument but to hear some feedback from those on the board who are trained in epistemology, logic and metaphysics not the layperson. If God can do anything in the absolute sense; this would entail His being able to turn Himself into the Devil and this would violate the law of identity as well.

Pelagius believed in free will, Augustine did not, Pelagius believed that man was chosen by God based on God foreseeing an individuals future faith and hence conversion, Augustine like Calvin believe man has no free will. Pelagius was tired of seeing Augustine and other priests with concubines and whores and called for reform; Augustine blamed everything on his sinful nature which doesn’t exist but is an artifact from his Manichean days.

In this sense Pelagius was in agreement with the Early Fathers especially Crystosom. Pelagius was bootstrapped by Augustine and Jerome and Zosimus didn’t want to condemn the teachings of Pelagius but had no choice once Augustine spun the argument into one of infant baptism versus free will.

As for his heresy, if Pelagius is a heretic then the Eastern Church and all of Protestantism is heretical as well; are you ready to go back to those days?
Click to expand...
Pelagius denied the necessity of grace-something neither Augustine, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants would do. IMO, the primary reason God became man was so we would know He identifies with us. And so His sufferings would be genuine as well as the love it took to endure them for our sake.
 
fhansen said:
Pelagius denied the necessity of grace-something neither Augustine, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants would do. IMO, the primary reason God became man was so we would know He identifies with us. And so His sufferings would be genuine as well as the love it took to endure them for our sake.
Click to expand...
The primary reason God became man is John 3: 16 &17. Jesus is known as Savior (identity) because through His suffering and death, He redeemed us. Catholicism 101. If anyone doesn’t know what happened at the dawn of history, I would be happy
to direct people to Catholicism 102.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
 
valentino said:
Please tell me what the 3 laws of reason are?
Click to expand...
  1. Law of Identity
  2. Law of non-contradiction
  3. Law of the excluded middle
The law of identity states that P implies P or something is only identical with itself. I can’t know the world through anyone’s vantage point but my own. I can’t know what or how my brother see’s when we both look out the same window. God could not know what it is to be human unless He became man as He did in the incarnation this is why Hebrews tells us that Christ having became man can now intercede for us as our high priest in heaven. This is one of the purposes or consequences of the incarnation. God is God and even He cannot know with certainty what it is to be a human no more than He could turn Himself into the devil. Just because we may be able to conceive of something doesn’t imply it’s possibility. God cannot know of a square circle for this would imply that God knows an untruth which is illogical and I believe that on a fundamental level, logic is based on God’s mind and how He thinks and I don’t believe that He knows of any contradictions to be true; yet some people can conceive of God knowing of a square circle.
 
thegrons said:
  1. Law of Identity
  2. Law of non-contradiction
  3. Law of the excluded middle
The law of identity states that P implies P or something is only identical with itself. I can’t know the world through anyone’s vantage point but my own. I can’t know what or how my brother see’s when we both look out the same window. God could not know what it is to be human unless He became man as He did in the incarnation this is why Hebrews tells us that Christ having became man can now intercede for us as our high priest in heaven. This is one of the purposes or consequences of the incarnation. God is God and even He cannot know with certainty what it is to be a human no more than He could turn Himself into the devil. Just because we may be able to conceive of something doesn’t imply it’s possibility. God cannot know of a square circle for this would imply that God knows an untruth which is illogical and I believe that on a fundamental level, logic is based on God’s mind and how He thinks and I don’t believe that He knows of any contradictions to be true; yet some people can conceive of God knowing of a square circle.
Click to expand...
Interesting speculations which lead nowhere regarding the Being Who is God.
 
grannymh said:
The primary reason God became man is John 3: 16 &17. Jesus is known as Savior (identity) because through His suffering and death, He redeemed us. Catholicism 101. If anyone doesn’t know what happened at the dawn of history, I would be happy
to direct people to Catholicism 102.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
Click to expand...
It’s awfully late in the day for you to have missed your first cup-a-joe, granny. Better just get some sleep now. Tomorrow will be better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top