True Go(o)d of True Go(o)d, Light of Light, One In Being...

[technomage]

Let's look closer at 2.) Before the Son of Go(o)d was made, he existed.

A closer statement would be "The son of God has always existed." The anathema is specifically towards those who state that God "created" or "made" the Son.

[headheart]

The emphasis was not on Unorthodox, but on Theology. Why are we discussing Theology in Apologetics 301? You are still smarting from Sparko's rebuke and need to take this argument down to the Netherworld where it belongs.

Sincerely,
HH

[headheart]

Short posts do not necessarily lack substance, though sometimes we fail to see the substance when we do not like the content.

I agree, I was referring to one-liners.
This thread is definitely misplaced and should be reposted to Theology, or Unorthodox Theology so that both of you can peck away at it down there.

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

The emphasis was not on Unorthodox, but on Theology. Why are we discussing Theology in Apologetics 301?
Sincerely,
HH

Should we be discussing U2 instead? The New Orleans Saints? The Colts? Where is the most appropriate place to discuss theology on Theologyweb...where we debate theology...seriously?

Oh yah, and where would be the most appropriate place to have a debate?

[UrbanMonk]

You are still smarting from Sparko's rebuke and need to take this argument down to the Netherworld where it belongs.

Sincerely,
HH

Should The LNC of the God/Man Theme thread be taken to the "Netherworld" as well? If not, why not?

[UrbanMonk]

A closer statement would be "The son of God has always existed." The anathema is specifically towards those who state that God "created" or "made" the Son.

Ok. So how does that differ from those who say the Son is "begotten". Besides that, if the anathema is specifically towards those who state that God "made" the Son...how are the authors of the anathema exempt from their own condemnation? They use the word "made"...twice! The Creed says, "begotten, not made". Seems to me they are confused, or make the greater error by using a word to describe the Son which is explicitly ruled out in the Creed. All i have done is suggested a the word - created - to express whatever "begotton" is supposed to mean! And from what they seem to be describing in the context of their anathemas, i believe i am using the term correctly.

So, what gives?

[headheart]

Should we be discussing U2 instead?

I thought it was a pretty good thread.

The New Orleans Saints? The Colts?

Well, it really depends what you angle is.

Where is the most appropriate place to discuss theology on Theologyweb...where we debate theology...seriously?

Threads like this are best taken to Remedial Christian Theology It's like the Headmaster's Office.

'This forum is for people seeking basic answers to doctrines and issues within the Christian faith, and is strictly non-debate. All questions and answers are moderated by TheologyWeb Staff.'

Oh yah, and where would be the most appropriate place to have a debate?

Advanced Debate 301

Sincerely,
HH

[Zombie]

I believe the concept of change is how man gain's his apparent existence...and maintains it.

Hrrrrrmrmmm....

interesting, whats your stance on what we experience as 'time'?

[technomage]

This thread is definitely misplaced and should be reposted to Theology, or Unorthodox Theology so that both of you can peck away at it down there.

I disagree. IIRC, neither subforum is open to atheists, and the Theology forum requires that one at least argue from an orthodox Christian view. While I can discuss issues solely from a Christian point of view, this thread would be less than it is if it were restricted solely to orthodox Christian points of view. Additionally, UM has indicated that he wants the input of the atheist and agnostic members who feel inclined to post.

If you still disagree, you can, of course, report any post in this thread ... but I, for one, feel that this thread would be lessened by being sent to the TWeb "ghetto."

[technomage]

Ok. So how does that differ from those who say the Son is "begotten".

As I indicated before, "begotten" indicates the relatedness, not an event.

All i have done is suggested a the word - created - to express whatever "begotton" is supposed to mean!

The problem is, from the view of the authors of the Creed, "created" would have precisely the same meaning as "made."

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the Creed, and at the anathemas, in English: it is somewhat easier to comprehend in Greek, but that is a study of several years.

[UrbanMonk]

Threads like this are best taken to Remedial Christian Theology It's like the Headmaster's Office.

'This forum is for people seeking basic answers to doctrines and issues within the Christian faith, and is strictly non-debate. All questions and answers are moderated by TheologyWeb Staff.'

Advanced Debate 301

Sincerely,
HH

In other words, you just don't want this kind of theology to be discussed in an open forum, even in a forum with wide leeway as to what is discussable (between theists and atheists). And you consider Theology 201, Unorthodox Theology, Remedial Christian Theology, and Advanced Debate 301 to be a kind of "Netherworld"?

BTW, you haven't answered this question yet: Should The LNC of the God/Man Theme thread be taken down to the "Netherworld" as well? If not, why not?

One other thing, if you think that this subject is as simple as stating some answer that the Staff could easily state if it was in the Remedial forum, why don't you take it upon yourself to simply state - here - what they would probably state, if it was in that forum? Otherwise, i'll have to assume you don't know the answer, and should probably be in that forum asking the Staff about this topic. If you don't think what you have to say is questionable, then you should either apply to be part of the Staff (so you can teach in the Remedial forums), or simply not make statements here that you may not be able to back up. If you won't make any statements, but instead prefer to lobby for relocation of this thread (disrupt the thread), then perhaps you either can't back up anything you say, or you wish to be treated as infallibly unquestionable - holier than the rest of us.

[UrbanMonk]

The problem is, from the view of the authors of the Creed, "created" would have precisely the same meaning as "made."

Then why, in the view of the authors of the anathemas, are "created" and "made" used differently? To them, one (made) is somehow ok, while the other (created) is not! But to the authors of the Creed, made is not ok, and created is undefined.

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the Creed, and at the anathemas, in English: it is somewhat easier to comprehend in Greek, but that is a study of several years.

Why not save several years and check with John Reece? In fact, i'll PM him right now to see if he'll comment on this.

Edit: John Reece doesn't do PM or email so I summoned him Here.

[UrbanMonk]

As I indicated before, "begotten" indicates the relatedness, not an event.

Well, perhaps "the reproductive process of Go(o)d" indicates relatedness as well! As for an event, that would depend on what the reproductive process of Go(o)d is like. Admittedly, it may not be easy to understand for human's. It may not be like a human 'event' at all. Does anything 'happen' in the realm of Go(o)d? Are you implying a static stasis?

Meanwhile, I'm not so sure that we can take every aspect of human genealogy and apply it as a parable to Divine Genealogy. Reason being, human genealogy is already suspect, and may not adequately represent divine attributes. For example, a human is born weak, and vulnerable, and in great need of knowledge. Conversely, the Son of Go(o)d is begotten as an equal, knowing what the Father knows...without delay. In other words, if the Father does not learn, neither does the Son...and so on.

[UrbanMonk]

Hrrrrrmrmmm....

interesting, whats your stance on what we experience as 'time'?

Wow. That would be good for another thread. Briefly, time is a belief against what Go(o)d knows about eternity. Time competes with Eternity, just as "this world" competes with the World of Go(o)d for the coveted title "reality". Time is more like a holograph that is experienced linearly as long as we harbor a sense of guilt. Guilt is a state of mind that looks back at a "crime", and looks forward to some kind of retribution. This creates the experience of past and future, obliterating what is true now from our minds. Remove guilt, and you remove time and reveal what is true now. The body is strictly a time machine. Remove guilt and you also remove the body. They disappear. Last but not least, time is the repeating of the same themes over and over again in different forms, scenes and scenarios. These themes hearken back to the beginning of time, even before, to the emotions and beliefs that drove a (guilt feeling/believing) mind to make a world of time/mass/diversity.

[technomage]

Then why, in the view of the authors of the anathemas, are "created" and "made" used differently? To them, one (made) is somehow ok, while the other (created) is not! But to the authors of the Creed, made is not ok, and created is undefined.

UM, the Creed and the Anathema were written by the same people, agreed upon in the same council (Nicea 325), voted on by the assembled church leaders, and accepted by same. What makes you think they accepted "created" in the creed, but rejected in in the anathema?