Is theism necessary to reason properly?

[Northwest]

I have often heard the argument that without proper faith in God one cannot discern the truth about anything. For example, postmodernist sexual degeneracy is often blamed on a lack of faith in Divine revelation. I have pondered this notion for some time and, while seeing some truth in it, find it problematic. It posits that reason in and of itself is incapable of discerning, much less interpreting, the laws of nature (i.e., natural law), which are also God’s, being created. If this were the case, then people would not even be able to understand human physiology on its own terms, and would end up promoting things like sodomy, bestiality, and other unnatural (deviant), unhealthy sexual practices. But is this really the case?

One can easily observe the workings of the natural world—the behaviour of organisms, bodily functions, and the individual components of ecosystems—and thereby conclude that species-specific pairings are needed principally, or at the very least primarily, for procreation. Successful reproduction is evolutionarily advantageous and therefore likely to be much healthier than any alternative, i.e., sterility. One does not need to defer to revelation to conclude, based on empiricism, that biology is an objective factor and that sex is meant to ensure the survivability of an organism. This would rule out the whole notion that biological sex is a construct (“gender”), that same-sex “intercourse” is appropriate, etc.

One also has the tools to confirm that sexual organs indeed aim to generate viable offspring. One can observe embryos, discern the relationship between sperm and egg, and so on. All this is testable. By contrast, one cannot prove that a particular claim to Divine revelation, and hence a specific form of ritual observance, is correct, given that a) miracles typically cannot be tested and b) many creeds lay claim to exclusive truth on a similar, untestable basis. (Of course, neither can the existence of God be proven, but this does not necessarily disprove a particular faith or the existence of God.) Nor can one defer to “science” to justify the whole LGBTQ+I nonsense, which has more in common with religion, or religious justification, than empiricism.

My point is not that religion or belief in God should be disparaged per se, but that one does not necessarily need religious faith (i.e., in Divine revelation) to come to a conclusion about reality that may be in tune with a Designer’s intention. A counterargument is that a purely material basis leads to a belief in evolution, and that this presupposes human imperfection, thereby leading to attempts by man to alter himself, often surgically, for some subjective “higher“ end, as in trans-humanism. But a belief in evolution, coupled with an understanding of world-systems, can also be used to oppose artificial interference in a complex system such as the human body’s, given the incompleteness and imperfection of science. This would be both prudent and scientific.

After all, if complex systems developed over time, one should not go about willy-nilly altering its most fundamental processes, for even a slight change can affect the whole natural world, or civilisation itself. And, as has been mentioned before, belief in evolution does not presuppose atheism. (Nevertheless, I am rather convinced that such an intricate universe could not have randomly developed on its own, without external guidance and/or initiation. This is why I believe in a Higher Power or Creative Intelligence, that is, God.) So, as noted before, one does not need Divine revelation as a referential basis to come to viable conclusions about the world as it is. One does not necessarily lead to the other. LGBTQ+I can be opposed on science and reason alone.

Thoughts?

[Northwest]

^ I am still struggling with this and am genuinely interested in hearing counterarguments. Any takers?

[Guest Me Again]

I read as many answers as the questions above. Could you kindly summarize? 
 

Overall Shia Islam is the only religion that makes it mandatory for every person to find God, and find and rationalize God’s guidance on their own. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/25/2024 at 3:49 PM, Northwest said:

My point is not that religion or belief in God should be disparaged per se, but that one does not necessarily need religious faith (i.e., in Divine revelation) to come to a conclusion about reality that may be in tune with a Designer’s intention. A counterargument is that a purely material basis leads to a belief in evolution, and that this presupposes human imperfection, thereby leading to attempts by man to alter himself, often surgically, for some subjective “higher“ end, as in trans-humanism.

Hi, it's about "Fitrah" term in humans which is basic level of theism which every human being has had since birth which is likewise pre installed operation system/Theism in everyone even you have this even you don't believe to any theism or you never learn about theism which everyone has basic moral instincts against LGBT & wish for becoming more prefect being ; which in distorted Fitrah people try to achieve to trans-humanism trough surgery & other sciences when they loose their connection to God after distortion of their Fitrah . 

What Is The Fitrah?

Fitrah

"Fitra" or "fitrah" (Arabic: فطرة‎; ALA-LC: fiṭrah), is the state of purity and innocence Muslims believe all humans to be born with. Fitra is an Arabic word that is usually translated as “original disposition,” “natural constitution,” or “innate nature.”According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness), which is encapsulated in the fitra along with compassion, intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody the concept of humanity.

https://www.al-islam.org/tags/fitrah

Quote

Fitra or fitrah (Arabic: فِطْرَة; ALA-LC: fiṭrah) is an Arabic word that means 'original disposition', 'natural constitution' or 'innate nature'. The concept somewhat resembles natural order in philosophy, although there are considerable differences as well. In Islam, fitra is the innate human nature that recognizes the oneness of God (tawhid). It may entail either the state of purity and innocence in which Muslims believe all humans to be born, or the ability to choose or reject God's guidance. The Quran states that humans were created in the most perfect form (95:4), and were endowed with a primordial nature (30:30). Furthermore, God took a covenant from all children of Adam, even before they were sent to Earth's worldly realm, regarding his Lordship (7:172–173). This covenant is considered to have left an everlasting imprint on the human soul, with the Quran emphasizing that on the Day of Judgment no one will be able to plead ignorance of this event (7:172–173).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra

What Is The Fitrah?

https://www.al-islam.org/media/what-fitrah-3rd-muharram-20211443

Wafat An-Nabi - How The Prophet Helped The Arabs Rediscover Their Fitrah

https://www.al-islam.org/media/wafat-nabi-how-prophet-helped-arabs-rediscover-their-fitrah

Developing Our Fitrah - 4th Muharram 2021/1443

https://www.al-islam.org/media/developing-our-fitrah-4th-muharram-20211443

[Northwest]

On 8/4/2024 at 11:15 PM, Guest Me Again said:

I read as many answers as the questions above. Could you kindly summarize?

After a long hiatus, I’ve decided to try...

At least in the West, I have noticed that some “religious” people tend to distrust reason. For example, even if natural law were somehow to support religion, as it often seems to do, these people often appear to deemphasise it. For example, natural laws (i.e., biological) go against practices such as sodomy, yet “religious” people act as though natural law and Divine revelation are unrelated. That is, sodomy is bad because God says so, not because His natural laws (the “book of nature”) oppose it. But since nature is a bit open to interpretation, and human reasoning is imperfect (if not flawed, as original sin argues), some “religious” people tend to marginalise or even denigrate the importance of natural law. Ironically, I find that in so doing they leave “science” to the secularists and materialists.

In my own experience I find that observation of the physical world has often brought me closer to an awareness—such as I may have—of a Supreme Power/Being than religion alone has. Sometimes have I formed moral judgments similar to those of “religious” people, i.e., on sodomy and “transgender” mysticism, yet have done so without the religious framework. (By contrast, some “religious” people almost imply at times that one can only arrive at similar conclusions on their basis.) In fact I have often found LBGTQ+I and feminism more similar to forms of religious fundamentalism than not. To the degree that I support religion, I often do so indirectly, from outside, coming from another perspective—one that often relies more on “material” aspects such as rationalism and natural law.

[Northwest]

On 8/4/2024 at 11:15 PM, Guest Me Again said:

Overall Shia Islam is the only religion that makes it mandatory for every person to find God, and find and rationalize God’s guidance on their own. 

In the abstract this may or may not be true. But I go by human nature and men as I see them. (And I can only go by perceivable phenomena, not abstractions.) Some “average” Shia, like their counterparts in other faiths, seem to rely more on cultural inheritance than an independent spirit. And these people seem to distrust the human intellect at times, leaving “truth-seeking” rationalists, and other outsiders, in the cold. I, too, am skeptical of reductionist paradigms such as materialism, but my distrust did not arise out of a religious tradition, for the most part. Likewise, I reject LBGTQ+I on naturalistic bases such as biology. Some “religious” people tend to see less of a connection between this world and the other, so their belief in the import of God-given natural law, and hence human reason, seems a bit weak. To them “God” imposes abstract commands, but does not encode them in His sensible creation.

[Haji 2003]

On 7/25/2024 at 1:19 PM, Northwest said:

One can easily observe the workings of the natural world—the behaviour of organisms, bodily functions, and the individual components of ecosystems—and thereby conclude that species-specific pairings are needed principally, or at the very least primarily, for procreation. ... This would rule out the whole notion that biological sex is a construct (“gender”), that same-sex “intercourse” is appropriate, etc.

This can be challenged.

Historically, the 'primarily for procreation' argument might have been held, but nowadays, with artificial insemination, it's not strictly necessary. And the greater the technological know-how the less we are constrained by biology. Previously, a wholly homosexual society would have died out, but now it can survive.

You, therefore, need arguments over and above biology to argue why homosexuality is wrong. Whoever was issuing sacred texts thousands of years ago anticipated this.

 

[Northwest]

9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

This can be challenged.

Historically, the 'primarily for procreation' argument might have been held, but nowadays, with artificial insemination, it's not strictly necessary.

@Haji 2003 But the purpose of artificial insemination is still to beget offspring. (Same-sex activity is based on other considerations.) So I think biology still holds.

9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

And the greater the technological know-how the less we are constrained by biology. Previously, a wholly homosexual society would have died out, but now it can survive.

It cannot survive for long. After a while the people age and die out, so there is no replacement. If there are no people, there is no more “pleasure”—however unnatural—to be had.

9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

You, therefore, need arguments over and above biology to argue why homosexuality is wrong. Whoever was issuing sacred texts thousands of years ago anticipated this.

What about the argument that God’s design—including procreation—can be discerned through the study of biology? I just find “God says, so...” to be incomplete and insufficient, especially in a skeptical, scientific age like ours. If God is supposed to have created science and reason, then might He encourage humans to apply them—and thereby discover, say, biological truths, including those that happen to confront LBGTQ+I?

[Haji 2003]

4 minutes ago, Northwest said:

It cannot survive for long.

It can survive forever. Even assuming the extreme scenario where the men and women are all homosexuals and all the children are as well. Artificial insemination can keep the group going forever (physically). Exactly what the impact will be in terms of social and psychological factors remains unknown.

 

8 minutes ago, Northwest said:

I just find “God says, so...” to be incomplete and insufficient, especially in a skeptical, scientific age like ours.

The problem with scepticism is that it pre-supposes the ability to acquire evidence, which may not be possible and you are back to 'trust me bro'.

 

12 minutes ago, Northwest said:

If God is supposed to have created science and reason, then might He encourage humans to apply them—and thereby discover, say, biological truths, including those that happen to confront LBGTQ+I?

As we saw with covid and vaccines - even where you have a subject that does not have a religious dimension - belief can still play a very significant role in terms of how people interpret data and how they behave.

[Northwest]

16 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

It can survive forever. Even assuming the extreme scenario where the men and women are all homosexuals and all the children are as well. Artificial insemination can keep the group going forever (physically). Exactly what the impact will be in terms of social and psychological factors remains unknown.

@Haji 2003 Fair enough. In the moment I associated same-sex activity with childlessness and/or sterility and didn’t think about this. But I would still argue that people who engage in same-sex activity may not want offspring to begin with.

16 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

The problem with scepticism is that it pre-supposes the ability to acquire evidence, which may not be possible and you are back to 'trust me bro'.

But how does one judge reliability or trustworthiness without at least some evidence? Evidence, if I am correct, consists of data that help substantiate the veracity or validity of a claim. Doesn’t a fundamental claim about reality, i.e., belief in God, necessitate a degree of evidence? If evidence is not (immediately) forthcoming, then can’t one merely suspend judgment—other than to say no (other) definitive ruling can be made for now? (I do think evidence supports a Creator, incidentally.) After all, re: COVID, I ultimately opted to stay the course based on a lack of strong evidence, in my view, to justify vaccination:

16 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

As we saw with covid and vaccines - even where you have a subject that does not have a religious dimension - belief can still play a very significant role in terms of how people interpret data and how they behave.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can only speak for myself. In refusing COVID vaccines I did not go only by belief—at least I don’t think so. At the time mainstream sources said that COVID was mostly survivable among people who lacked preexisting conditions. There were also questions about the efficacy and vetting of the vaccines. None of these considerations presupposed a mere preconception. In my case belief—at least as a sole basis—was rather irrelevant. And in the end a number of the “believers” probably relied on at least some evidence, i.e., studies and sources about side effects, however (un)reliable.

So if even “believers” need evidence, at least to a point, then wouldn’t recourse to belief, as a sole basis of truth, possibly endorse a slippery slope?

[Essentials123]

Yes it is necessary because without theism atheists cant reason beyond what is empirically known 

[Haji 2003]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

But how does one judge reliability or trustworthiness without at least some evidence?

Historically the issue has been how much evidence and for how long. The Qur'an does go to some effort to show that various Prophets ((عليه السلام).) performed miracles and these were doubted (within their lifetimes).

 

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

In refusing COVID vaccines I did not go only by belief—at least I don’t think so. At the time mainstream sources said that COVID was mostly survivable among people who lacked preexisting conditions. There were also questions about the efficacy and vetting of the vaccines.

You had reason to doubt and part of that lay in your (low) assessment of the risk (to yourself) and your lack of trust in the manufacturers. IIRC the guidance at the time was that low risk groups should also have it in order to reduce transmission to others.

It's interesting (in my opinion) that some of what distinguishes Muslim belief from that of other religions is prohibition on behaviour that (based on current science) seems to be ok for some people (gambling and alcohol consumption) but obviously harmful to others. This rationalisation of belief would hold that it encourages unselfish behaviour on the basis that compromising short-term pleasure will result in longer-term (afterlife) gains.

Overall, my opinion is that there is a graduation of proof and there comes a tipping point where it becomes so incontrovertible (i.e. Judgement Day) that free will is removed and therefore what it means to be human.

In addition to the vaccine example here's another about a topic which has had its own thread on Shiachat. It's about whether or not the earth is flat. Despite having what seems to be incontrovertible proof (main post) someone pops up to say that it might not be true. Ultimately it is always a matter of trust (in my opinion) and the motivation why people are telling you something.

 

[Haji 2003]

FWIW here is chatGPTs view on the matter

My prompt: Would it be fair to say that free will only exists when faced with incomplete information? 

ChatGPT:

The question of whether free will only exists when faced with incomplete information is thought-provoking and intersects with philosophy, psychology, and even neuroscience. Here's a nuanced exploration:

Free Will and Incomplete Information
1. Free Will as a Decision-Making Process:
   Free will can be understood as the capacity to make choices that are not solely determined by external circumstances, genetic predispositions, or other deterministic factors. Incomplete information often necessitates greater reliance on subjective judgment, intuition, or creative thinking, which may feel like an expression of free will.

2. Determinism and Complete Information:
   If one had complete information about all relevant variables, some philosophers argue that decisions might become deterministic. For example, if an agent knew every possible consequence, emotional response, and outcome with certainty, their "choice" could be seen as logically inevitable rather than freely made.

3. Freedom in Ambiguity:
   When information is incomplete, ambiguity creates a space for individual interpretation, creativity, and preference to influence the decision. This aligns with existentialist views, such as Sartre's, that suggest free will is most evident when individuals confront the uncertainty of their circumstances and take responsibility for their choices.

Counterarguments
1. Free Will in Complete Information:
   Others argue that free will can still exist with complete information. Even when outcomes are clear, an individual might freely choose based on personal values or preferences. For instance, knowing all outcomes of a decision does not remove the freedom to prioritize one outcome over another.

2. Cognitive Biases and Illusion of Choice:
   In situations of incomplete information, decisions may be influenced by biases, heuristics, or external pressures. This raises the question of whether such decisions truly reflect free will or are constrained by mental shortcuts.

Practical Perspective
In everyday scenarios, incomplete information often amplifies the subjective experience of free will. It forces individuals to weigh possibilities, consult their values, and embrace responsibility for uncertain outcomes. This dynamic interaction with uncertainty arguably strengthens the perception of autonomy.

Conclusion
While it may seem that free will is more evident with incomplete information, this is not a definitive requirement. The existence of free will might depend less on the completeness of information and more on how individuals interpret and engage with the choices available to them. Philosophical debates like those of libertarianism versus compatibilism continue to explore these nuances.

[Abu Hadi]

On 12/16/2024 at 5:39 AM, Northwest said:

After a long hiatus, I’ve decided to try...

At least in the West, I have noticed that some “religious” people tend to distrust reason. For example, even if natural law were somehow to support religion, as it often seems to do, these people often appear to deemphasise it. For example, natural laws (i.e., biological) go against practices such as sodomy, yet “religious” people act as though natural law and Divine revelation are unrelated. That is, sodomy is bad because God says so, not because His natural laws (the “book of nature”) oppose it. But since nature is a bit open to interpretation, and human reasoning is imperfect (if not flawed, as original sin argues), some “religious” people tend to marginalise or even denigrate the importance of natural law. Ironically, I find that in so doing they leave “science” to the secularists and materialists.

In my own experience I find that observation of the physical world has often brought me closer to an awareness—such as I may have—of a Supreme Power/Being than religion alone has. Sometimes have I formed moral judgments similar to those of “religious” people, i.e., on sodomy and “transgender” mysticism, yet have done so without the religious framework. (By contrast, some “religious” people almost imply at times that one can only arrive at similar conclusions on their basis.) In fact I have often found LBGTQ+I and feminism more similar to forms of religious fundamentalism than not. To the degree that I support religion, I often do so indirectly, from outside, coming from another perspective—one that often relies more on “material” aspects such as rationalism and natural law.

The reason many (but not all) religious people tend to distrust reason; well they don't distrust reason in general but they distrust it when it is applied to some of their religious concepts that contradict reason. All religions, other than Islam, have these areas which they call 'problematic' or 'issues of faith'. Many examples have been talked about here previously, no need to 'flog a dead horse'. 

They don't distrust reason in their daily lives, for the vast majority of issues. Religious or non religious people, when they cross the street, look both ways. They make rational decision when it comes to employement, financial transactions, conducting daily activities, etc. That's why if you meet someone and don't know them well, it's hard to tell if they're religious or not religious because they basically act the same way 99% of the time. You can only tell when it comes to certain issues. That's because both groups of people use reason and logic for the vast majority of their decisions. 

About Sodomy, and I assume you are talking about homosexual sex, this is an issue that is partially rational and partially based on faith. When I say faith, I mean that we believe, as Muslims, and actually most people believe this, that we exist in multiple dimensions, not just the apparent, 4 dimensional world (three dimensions plus time). When we do an action, this action has effects in all those dimensions and not just the apparent ones (4). One recent example of another dimension which wasn't known about until very recently is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. This phenomenon shows that that particles are connected in ways other than the ways we know about in the four dimensions. So this belief in multiple dimensions, while it might not seem rational to you, there is rational evidence for it.

Also, with homosexual sex, there are rational proofs that it is not a good thing for society. One proof is diseases like HIV which spread much faster and much more extensively among men doing this activity vs the general population. Another rational proof is that homosexual couples cannot have children. You might think that this is not a harm, in a world of 8 billion people, and it might not seem like a harm at this point, but over time (hundreds of years) if this practice reached a certain threshold, it would lead to difficult consequences for humanity, such as a situation where there are many more older people than younger and there is now a huge burden on the younger people to take care of the elderly which at some point would not be possible for them to do and live any kind of a decent quality of life. In the worst case, it could lead to the extinction of humanity 

There are other proofs, but I think this is enough for now. In summary, the act of sodomy may not be bad for the individual in the short term, but it is bad for society in the long term. In Islam, we don't require a large amount of rational proofs for each and every prohibition (haram). If that were the criteria, then each person would basically have their own religion, since some people would accept some proofs and not others and each person would have their own threshold for what is 'enough' proof. Also, each human beings rational proofs would be affected by their desires, i.e. what they 'wanted' to be true or what they 'wanted' or desired to be false. This is called confirmation bias and is well known and studied. In this case we would have no 'society' or social contract because each person would be operating based on their own social contract which has nothing to do with their neighbors or anyone else that they interact with. 

In Islam, we believe in 'La Ilaha illahLa, Muhammad Rasoulallah' and for Shia, we add 'Aliun WaliAllah'. There is nothing worthy of worship except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and Ali is the Wali of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Because we believe in those things, therefore we accept the rest of the Sharia on that basis, without requiring extensive rational proofs for each particular issue. If we can authenticate that this particular prohibition or allowed thing comes from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) via Prophet Muhammad or Ali (Ahl Al Bayt) then we accept it. This is faith, but rational faith, i.e. this faith does not contradict well established facts we observe in the natural world and has a basis (i.e. it's origin is from Allah, the All Knowing). There are rational proofs for the things we believe, but that is not the reason we believe them. 

If rational proof (alone) are the basis for 'beliefs' about whether something is bad or good, then those beliefs will be constantly changing and will be based only on what you are aware of at the time, and awareness as well as what we know about the observable world is always changing. It is like riding a roller coaster and you don't know what is around the next corner. Then the track ends and you are still moving so you crash. 

 

[Northwest]

On 12/18/2024 at 8:18 PM, Azadeh307 said:

Yes it is necessary because without theism atheists cant reason beyond what is empirically known

@Azadeh307 Why, in your view, would this be a problem? If we were to go strictly by reason, a lot of postmodernist nonsense that sensible people—including ‘religious’ types—discard, i.e., LBGTQ+I, would be discredited as well. By despising reason we are no longer able to objectively debunk arational views such as transgender ideology or Christian Trinitarianism. In doing so we also undermine the hard sciences that indirectly underlie rationalistic religious perspectives. If logic, like reason (including empiricism), is treated as a human construct, then we can believe just about anything. All too often we do tend to ‘go beyond what is empirically known’ and erect illusory models as a result. So what is so wrong, even religiously problematic, about sticking more strictly to that which can be verified via observation and testing? There would be no more, say, LBGTQ+I, transgender ideology, Trinity, etc.

On 12/19/2024 at 12:34 PM, Abu Hadi said:

The reason many (but not all) religious people tend to distrust reason; well they don't distrust reason in general but they distrust it when it is applied to some of their religious concepts that contradict reason. All religions, other than Islam, have these areas which they call 'problematic' or 'issues of faith'. ...

@Abu Hadi My issue is that a central premise of religion, including Islam, seems to be grounded in something other than reason (though the problem also extends to cover ‘secular’ contexts and perspectives). If God orders something, then it is automatically reasonable, even if it utterly contradicts all known reason. The Khidr incident is but one illustration of this. Anything can thus be justified, even if it seems to defy all reason, by being inconsistent or illogical. If God defines what reason is, yet keeps its apparent import, i.e., ‘wisdom’, hidden (from man), then reason cannot be grounded, either morally or otherwise. By this metric any view, be it ‘religious’ or ‘secular’, can be embraced by the faith-based or ‘religious’ mentality, e.g., any ‘authority’ can appeal to this arational justification. I find this kind of mindset to be rather questionable and hope it can be transcended. I quote from the above links:

Quote

The immoral - and it is clear that killing your innocent son for no reason but to shed his blood is immoral - becomes duty when God enters the equation. The ritual imbues the act with new meaning, and suddenly you have the teleological suspension of the ethical.

Anywhere you see God enter the equation, anything, however seemingly contradictory, absurd or immoral, becomes duty and right - for the sake of some mysterious wisdom, known to God.

Thus, Abraham sacrifices what he knows for sure in favour of what is mysterious and blind - without reason or moral compass, his only light, his only guide is his trust in God's goodness.

^ My question is, given that this mindset—staunchly opposed to reason—is behind so many problems, why do so many people adhere to it, especially if it cannot help them solve practical matters? Why do people feel a need to believe in mystical or even ‘absurd’ (to others) constructs? (I am not referring to belief in God per se, but to the viewpoint that rejects or severely marginalises reason as a basis of being.) I know or have known people who maintain the most illogical perspectives on all manner of topics, yet for some reason they truly believe in their illogic (like the Trinitarian @Jeffrey-N, who really believes a finite being can be simultaneously infinite, i.e., God). Yet somehow people often reduce the matter into a simple formula, i.e., ‘religious’ vs. ‘secular‘ believers, while acting as though one side is intrinsically more or less reasonable, rational, and so on than the other.

[Jeffrey-N]

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

I know or have known people who maintain the most illogical perspectives on all manner of topics, yet for some reason they truly believe in their illogic (like the Trinitarian @Jeffrey-N, who really believes a finite being can be simultaneously infinite, i.e., God).

If you'd like we can debate the hypostatic union? You do realize 1000s of years of very intelligent people have been Trinitarian, Aquinas, Augustine, Joseph Ratzinger, CS Lewis, etc. 

[Northwest]

4 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

If you'd like we can debate the hypostatic union? You do realize 1000s of years of very intelligent people have been Trinitarian, Aquinas, Augustine, Joseph Ratzinger, CS Lewis, etc. 

@Jeffrey-N This is part of the paradox I hinted at: the fact that otherwise-intelligent people hold to beliefs that are readily falsifiable. The hypostasis, or Man-God, is only possible if one defines ‘god’ as elohim and in functional terms (i.e., as Moses and the judges were as ‘gods’ to other men)—such that Jesus represents the Universal (Perfect) Man or human realisation of the Divine will. The original sense of this, as well as Divine ‘sonship’, has been lost in translation over time, so that average Christians believe that Jesus literally shared God’s essence, lineage, etc. And at any rate, a finite being cannot contain the infinitude of God’s attributes, but can only reflect them on an infinitely more limited level, if at all. As is commonly presented (i.e., in vulgar expressions of orthodoxy), the hypostatic union I hold to be nonsensical, but even in its relatively pristine, primitive conception it is open to problems.

[Jeffrey-N]

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

This is part of the paradox I hinted at: the fact that otherwise-intelligent people hold to beliefs that are readily falsifiable. The hypostasis, or Man-God, is only possible if one defines ‘god’ as elohim and in functional terms (i.e., as Moses and the judges were as ‘gods’ to other men)—such that Jesus represents the Universal (Perfect) Man or human realisation of the Divine will.

I wouldn't consider Jesus to be "God" in the same way that Moses might be a "leader" or something like that. I would however agree that Jesus' mortal life does represent the perfect human.

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

The original sense of this, as well as Divine ‘sonship’, has been lost in translation over time, so that average Christians believe that Jesus literally shared God’s essence, lineage, etc.

Early Christian theologians like Augustine like I said earlier but also Athanasius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others before him. Although they don't use the words "hypostatic union" since that wasn't developed until later, they teach the same theology. They all spoke Greek and would have had access to the original scripture (in case you think it was corrupted over time). 

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

And at any rate, a finite being cannot contain the infinitude of God’s attributes, but can only reflect them on an infinitely more limited level, if at all. As is commonly presented (i.e., in vulgar expressions of orthodoxy), the hypostatic union I hold to be nonsensical, but even in its relatively pristine, primitive conception it is open to problems.

So this is interesting, generally I see the belief that God could if he wanted become human, however it's not befitting of his nature (I disagree) so I'm not going to try to defend the why Jesus did it but rather the how. What I'll say is why is it impossible for an infinite being to take on a finite nature. It's not a contradiction because if the infinite being can create the finite world, it's possible to take on the nature of creation. 

[Northwest]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey-N said:

So this is interesting, generally I see the belief that God could if he wanted become human, however it's not befitting of his nature (I disagree)

Where do you see this, outside Christianity?

1 hour ago, Jeffrey-N said:

What I'll say is why is it impossible for an infinite being to take on a finite nature. It's not a contradiction

...and retain an infinite nature at the same time? With all due respect: you’re an adult with a functioning brain and yet you believe this? Ignore Scriptural exegesis for a moment and just use your logic.

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

Where do you see this, outside Christianity?

Hinduism 

[Eddie Mecca]

3 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

I wouldn't consider Jesus to be "God" in the same way that Moses might be a "leader" or something like that. I would however agree that Jesus' mortal life does represent the perfect human.

Jesus was exactly "like that." This is precisely the problem. You're reading a Semitic book (i.e. the Bible) and attempting to understand West Asian metaphors, similes, symbolism and prose through Hellenistic lenses. Lose the Greco-Roman baggage and see how close to Islam that brings you. 

[Jeffrey-N]

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

Where do you see this, outside Christianity?

Muslims often will use this argument.

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

...and retain an infinite nature at the same time? With all due respect: you’re an adult with a functioning brain and yet you believe this? Ignore Scriptural exegesis for a moment and just use your logic.

Infinity doesn’t mean ‘unable to act finitely.’ It means ‘not limited by finitude.’ If God can create the finite world, he can enter it while continuing to be infinite, and adding a finite nature to His person

[Jeffrey-N]

8 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Jesus was exactly "like that." This is precisely the problem. You're reading a Semitic book (i.e. the Bible) and attempting to understand West Asian metaphors, similes, symbolism and prose through Hellenistic lenses. Lose the Greco-Roman baggage and see how close to Islam that brings you. 

The original Bible, at least the part with Jesus, was in Greek, since that was the universal language at the time, after Alexander the Great came. The apostles all spoke Greek and wrote the Bible in Greek.

[Northwest]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Muslims often will use this argument.

^ You claimed that, according to some people, God could assume a limited and unlimited nature at once, but merely chose not to do so. Name a single orthodox Muslim who claimed that God could assume a human dimension if He so desired. God’s utter separation from His creation is, at least theoretically, central to Islamic and a lot of other monotheistic conceptions (including that, at least in part, of the Bible), even if, in my view, it is not expounded in an internally consistent manner. If you are going to make these kinds of arguments, at least have a basic understanding of the other side’s rudimentary fundamentals. Your persistent inability to do so (i.e., do basic research first) suggests a contempt for your audience, even if that is not your intention.

1 hour ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Infinity doesn’t mean ‘unable to act finitely.’

This isn’t about God’s supposed inability to act in this world; both the Bible and Quran maintain that God, being immanent, is always acting, His will radiating out of eternity. (I, personally, find this a bit paradoxical, but I am merely accounting for the Abrahamic insistence here.) The finite world actually exists, in a sense, within God, without being identical with God. Things in this world, as God’s delegates, can functionally act as ‘God’, ‘gods’ (elohim), or even (nonliteral) ‘sons’ of God, as Moses, the Israelite judges, and so on did in the Tanakh. (As Messiah Jesus certainly did so as well.) But they do not share God’s illimitable essence.

Even Jesus was said to be given access to God’s Name that enabled him to do certain deeds. But if he was given this, then it was not intrinsic to his nature, meaning his ‘preexistence‘ or ‘equality’ with God had to do with impersonal abstractions—i.e., being predestined or elected as the fulfilment of God’s plan from before time (as in the introduction to John), or with his serving as supreme human elohim in relation to Israel (John 10:33–6 actually makes this argument in a typical rabbinical form). If Jesus were ontologically equal to God, John’s argumentation would in fact not work, i.e., about Jesus’ acting on God’s behalf.

1 hour ago, Jeffrey-N said:

and adding a finite nature to His person

^ This is the crux of the falsehood here. God can act in the world without being of it, in a way that creation cannot be. Nothing can be added to perfection, and that which is finite is imperfect, or an infinitely lesser degree of perfection. Moreover, there is no logically necessary reason for a perfect being to assume an imperfect dimension. But the main point is that your claim is logically, on its own face, inadmissible. You hold that the Infinite can take on a finite nature while remaining Infinite. You are intelligent enough to think about these things, so why do you believe in something so nonsensical? Even if I had no access to faith-based tradition (or any other dogma, be it ‘secular‘ or ‘religious’), internal logic alone would suffice to disprove your contention. By discarding reason here (or elsewhere), you are abusing your own powers and degrading yourself.

Moreover, I am morally obligated to conform as much as possible to this principle, that of reason, seeing that the consequences of basing my life on unreason yield, in every other sphere, inferior or destructive results. If I believe in unreason in one area of my being, nothing, at least in theory, prevents me from extending its dominion to other areas.  If I can believe in the kind of hocus-pocus you subscribe to, then how is that different from believing that, say, a male is female? I do not even consider myself to be an especially religious person (though I am open to being persuaded otherwise), yet somehow I am able to think more rationally and truthfully about this than you are. Why are even atheists (I am not one, incidentally) and agnostics better able to grasp logic than religious Trinitarian Christians?

[Jeffrey-N]

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

^ You claimed that, according to some people, God could assume a limited and unlimited nature at once, but merely chose not to do so. Name a single orthodox Muslim who claimed that God could assume a human dimension if He so desired. God’s utter separation from His creation is, at least theoretically, central to Islamic and a lot of other monotheistic conceptions (including that, at least in part, of the Bible), even if, in my view, it is not expounded in an internally consistent manner. If you are going to make these kinds of arguments, at least have a basic understanding of the other side’s rudimentary fundamentals. Your persistent inability to do so (i.e., do basic research first) suggests a contempt for your audience, even if that is not your intention.

I misunderstood your question. I was responding to another part in which you quoted "generally I see the belief that God could if he wanted become human, however it's not befitting of his nature" so I assumed that's what you were asking. That's commonly the argument Muslims use at least online. I'll respond to the other part later since I don't have the time right now, but I just wanted to clarify.

[Jeffrey-N]

On 9/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Northwest said:

This isn’t about God’s supposed inability to act in this world; both the Bible and Quran maintain that God, being immanent, is always acting, His will radiating out of eternity. (I, personally, find this a bit paradoxical, but I am merely accounting for the Abrahamic insistence here.) The finite world actually exists, in a sense, within God, without being identical with God. Things in this world, as God’s delegates, can functionally act as ‘God’, ‘gods’ (elohim), or even (nonliteral) ‘sons’ of God, as Moses, the Israelite judges, and so on did in the Tanakh. (As Messiah Jesus certainly did so as well.) But they do not share God’s illimitable essence.

Even Jesus was said to be given access to God’s Name that enabled him to do certain deeds. But if he was given this, then it was not intrinsic to his nature, meaning his ‘preexistence‘ or ‘equality’ with God had to do with impersonal abstractions—i.e., being predestined or elected as the fulfilment of God’s plan from before time (as in the introduction to John), or with his serving as supreme human elohim in relation to Israel (John 10:33–6 actually makes this argument in a typical rabbinical form). If Jesus were ontologically equal to God, John’s argumentation would in fact not work, i.e., about Jesus’ acting on God’s behalf.

I'd like to ask where you get your source on who Jesus was, since you're saying things about him and I'm not sure why? Jesus acting on God's behalf does make sense, if he's equal with God. It's part of the divine plan, only the sinless man could be killed for all our sins.

On 9/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Northwest said:

This is the crux of the falsehood here. God can act in the world without being of it, in a way that creation cannot be. Nothing can be added to perfection, and that which is finite is imperfect, or an infinitely lesser degree of perfection. Moreover, there is no logically necessary reason for a perfect being to assume an imperfect dimension. But the main point is that your claim is logically, on its own face, inadmissible. You hold that the Infinite can take on a finite nature while remaining Infinite. You are intelligent enough to think about these things, so why do you believe in something so nonsensical? Even if I had no access to faith-based tradition (or any other dogma, be it ‘secular‘ or ‘religious’), internal logic alone would suffice to disprove your contention. By discarding reason here (or elsewhere), you are abusing your own powers and degrading yourself.

Again... ...as I mentioned earlier all kinds of smarter people have believed in the hypostatic union and studied it. This isn't an appeal to authority exactly, but I'm trying to point out how illogical you are being by "insulting" (for lack of a better word) the belief. I think your argument here is that a perfect being wouldn't take on an imperfect nature. I already pointed out the purpose in my last response. You still haven't given any reason to believe that a perfect being couldn't take on an imperfect nature while retaining the perfect one.

On 9/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Northwest said:

Moreover, I am morally obligated to conform as much as possible to this principle, that of reason, seeing that the consequences of basing my life on unreason yield, in every other sphere, inferior or destructive results. If I believe in unreason in one area of my being, nothing, at least in theory, prevents me from extending its dominion to other areas.  If I can believe in the kind of hocus-pocus you subscribe to, then how is that different from believing that, say, a male is female? I do not even consider myself to be an especially religious person (though I am open to being persuaded otherwise), yet somehow I am able to think more rationally and truthfully about this than you are. Why are even atheists (I am not one, incidentally) and agnostics better able to grasp logic than religious Trinitarian Christians?

Now you're just claiming to be rationally/intellectually superior, and again, I listed tons of smart people who believed and studied these sorts of things.

[Northwest]

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

I'd like to ask where you get your source on who Jesus was, since you're saying things about him and I'm not sure why?

@Jeffrey-N I just read the Scriptures in context, without taking exegesis into account. The background is that of God’s elect and their functions:

Quote

Exodus 7:1: And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a ‘god’ (elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Psalm 82:6–7: I have said, Ye are ‘gods’ (elohim); and all of you are children (i.e, sons—ed.) of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

[John 1:1,14: In the beginning was the Word ... with God ... and ... was God. ... And the Word was made/became flesh...]

John 10:30–38: ‘I and my Father are one‘. Then the Jews (likely the Pharisees and scribes, e.g., as in John 8:3,13—ed.) took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these do ye stone me?’ The Jews answered, ‘For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy: thou, being a man, makest thyself God.’ Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your Law, “I have said, Ye are ‘gods’?” If He called them ‘gods’, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, “Thou blasphemest”; because I said, “I am the Son of God?” If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, ... believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him.’

^ The above makes clear that if Jesus shared God’s essence (i.e., personally preexisted as such), John’s scriptural parallelism would not work.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Jesus acting on God's behalf does make sense, if he's equal with God. It's part of the divine plan, only the sinless man could be killed for all our sins.

Where’s your proof that sinlessness is exclusive to God? Jesus’ sinlessness does not, by itself, show that his essence was the same as God‘s.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Again... ...as I mentioned earlier all kinds of smarter people have believed in the hypostatic union and studied it. This isn't an appeal to authority ... ,

^ It seems like one to me.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

I think your argument here is that a perfect being wouldn't take on an imperfect nature. ... You still haven't given any reason to believe that a perfect being couldn't take on an imperfect nature while retaining the perfect one.

? I am using logic to argue that, according to Scripture alone, God couldn’t. Jesus is ‘God’ in a unique but human sense, as Moses and other Israelites were.

[Jeffrey-N]

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

^ The above makes clear that if Jesus shared God’s essence (i.e., personally preexisted as such), John’s scriptural parallelism would not work.

I am confused. I wouldn't say John 10:30-38 proves Jesus was God alone. I never even made that claim. I would use other verses to prove Jesus' divinity, there are better verses in John. The other verses that you cited are often metaphorical, Moses wasn't literally God. The Gospels and letters of Paul clearly show Jesus as God. As for pre-existence, Jesus himself claims this in the Gospel of John (John 17:5).

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

Where’s your proof that sinlessness is exclusive to God? Jesus’ sinlessness does not, by itself, show that his essence was the same as God‘s.

 Sinlessness is only applicable to God, as everyone else will sin, unless God kept them from sinning which would be control of free will. But even if it doesn't prove the idea of same essence, there are again, other verses/chapters in the Bible that point to that.

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

^ It seems like one to me.

Maybe it was. I wasn't using authority to prove my point true, rather I used it because you were ridiculing it.

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

? I am using logic to argue that, according to Scripture alone, God couldn’t. Jesus is ‘God’ in a unique but human sense, as Moses and other Israelites were.

You're comparing to seperate things, Jesus is in a different sense than Moses, when they say "God"

[Northwest]

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

I am confused. I wouldn't say John 10:30-38 proves Jesus was God alone. I never even made that claim.

Please don’t plead ignorance here (if indeed you are doing so). I was using those verses to illustrate my point.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

The other verses that you cited are often metaphorical, Moses wasn't literally God.

...which is precisely my point, given that these very metaphors are applied to Jesus as well.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

The Gospels and letters of Paul clearly show Jesus as God.

Paul clearly distinguishes (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5–6), as do the Gospels, between Jesus and God (the Father), an impossibility if the two shared the same essence, as the Nicene Creed declares.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

As for pre-existence, Jesus himself claims this in the Gospel of John (John 17:5).

Read the verse itself in context:

Quote

John 17:4–6: ‘I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them me; and they have kept Thy word.’

^ Jesus clearly refers to receiving the honour(s)/‘glory’ due one who has fulfilled the mission allotted him by God. He does not receive them beforehand; otherwise he could not be glorified. His preexistent ‘glory’, in context, refers to that which is predestined or foreordained in the ‘mind’ of God. Now that Jesus has completed his mission, he is due the honour(s)/‘glory’ God had foreseen from before all things. If Jesus already possessed these, the verses themselves would be incoherent.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Sinlessness is only applicable to God, as everyone else will sin

^ The Bible only claims that everyone (aside from Jesus) has sinned, not that everyone will sin or is forced to do so.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Maybe it was. I wasn't using authority to prove my point true, rather I used it because you were ridiculing it.

^ Appeals to any authority other than reason fail to persuade me.

12 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Jesus is in a different sense than Moses, when they say "God"

Not in a different sense, but by degrees (i.e., the Mosaic Covenant vs. the Messianic, the latter of which fulfils yet surpasses the former). Paul even talks about this, e.g., in Galatians 3:21–24, 2 Corinthians 3:9, etc.

[Jeffrey-N]

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

Please don’t plead ignorance here (if indeed you are doing so). I was using those verses to illustrate my point.

Huh?

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

...which is precisely my point, given that these very metaphors are applied to Jesus as well.

Really? All the many verses about Jesus are used metaphorically. "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" and "who is God over all, forever praised" are used to describe Jesus in the letters (Paul) alone. In the Gospel we have Matthew 28:18-20, John 17:5, John 8:58, etc. This doesn't compare to one verse about Moses being like God.

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

Paul clearly distinguishes (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5–6), as do the Gospels, between Jesus and God (the Father), an impossibility if the two shared the same essence, as the Nicene Creed declares.

Distinguishment between the father and son happens quite a lot (another example is 1 Timothy 2:5). I don't see any problem with this.

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

^ Jesus clearly refers to receiving the honour(s)/‘glory’ due one who has fulfilled the mission allotted him by God. He does not receive them beforehand; otherwise he could not be glorified. His preexistent ‘glory’, in context, refers to that which is predestined or foreordained in the ‘mind’ of God. Now that Jesus has completed his mission, he is due the honour(s)/‘glory’ God had foreseen from before all things. If Jesus already possessed these, the verses themselves would be incoherent.

We're reading the same verses right? You're interpretation just doesn't make sense in my mind. It distinguishes between pre-earth existence and the future glory, fitting perfectly into my belief system. Jesus had glory before, came down to the Earth, and was glorified after.

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

^ The Bible only claims that everyone (aside from Jesus) has sinned, not that everyone will sin or is forced to do so.

Nobody's forced to sin. We're just incapable of not sinning, you couldn't even come close.

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

^ Appeals to any authority other than reason fail to persuade me.

I'm not using the appeal to authority to prove my point, but I'll leave it.

On 9/18/2025 at 4:46 AM, Northwest said:

Not in a different sense, but by degrees (i.e., the Mosaic Covenant vs. the Messianic, the latter of which fulfils yet surpasses the former). Paul even talks about this, e.g., in Galatians 3:21–24, 2 Corinthians 3:9, etc.

Mosaic Covenant vs New Law has little to do with whether Jesus or Moses are divine

[Northwest]

7 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Huh?

Really? All the many verses about Jesus are used metaphorically. "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" and "who is God over all, forever praised" are used to describe Jesus in the letters (Paul) alone. In the Gospel we have Matthew 28:18-20, John 17:5, John 8:58, etc. This doesn't compare to one verse about Moses being like God.

The problem with this assumption is that elsewhere Paul repeatedly—and clearly—distinguishes between Jesus (kyrios) and God (ho theos) the One Father, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 8:5–6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, etc. In Romans 9:5 Jesus is supposedly theos, the definite article lacking; and the usage here does not fit Paul’s elsewhere. So even if the reference is to Jesus as ‘God’, the sense could be in the same vein as I mentioned, i.e., Jesus-as-Elohim, functional ‘God’, a designation made known after his resurrection (as Philippians 2:9–11 declares, ‘to the glory of God the Father‘). Anyway, the very fact that Paul draws a line between Jesus and the Father shows that he did not hold Jesus to be of the same essence of the Father, but instead as God’s supreme Representative or Stand-In, such that his character mirrors God’s—to the utmost.

7 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Distinguishment between the father and son happens quite a lot (another example is 1 Timothy 2:5). I don't see any problem with this.

? Then Jesus, by definition, cannot be God.

7 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

We're reading the same verses right? You're interpretation just doesn't make sense in my mind. It distinguishes between pre-earth existence and the future glory, fitting perfectly into my belief system. Jesus had glory before, came down to the Earth, and was glorified after.

The verse makes clear that Jesus did not preexist personally, for if he had, he would not have petitioned God to be glorified. So the preexistent ‘glory’ he had does not refer to a personal preexistence, but to an honour God had foreordained from before all things. After all, God is unitary, and His Word, like His Wisdom, is but an attribute of His, just as my words and insights are part of me. John 1, therefore, indicates a transition between God’s impersonal plan and its actualization in the life of Jesus, hence the impersonal Word becoming concrete, i.e., ‘flesh’.

7 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Nobody's forced to sin. We're just incapable of not sinning, you couldn't even come close.

Being incapable implies that we are compelled by some limitation to sin, i.e., so-called ‘original sin’. So you’re either lying or contradicting yourself here.

7 hours ago, Jeffrey-N said:

Mosaic Covenant vs New Law has little to do with whether Jesus or Moses are divine

Yes, it does. A central NT argument is that Jesus excels Moses by virtue of fulfilling yet transcending the Old Covenant. He is not against Moses, but instead marks the fulfilment of the OT promises. So if Moses was ‘god‘ in a certain sense (as the OT proclaims), Jesus the Messiah is ‘God’ in a similar way, but to a more profound degree. The passage I cited from John 10 absolutely presupposes this type of argument. Do you actually read your own Scripture(s)?

Edited September 23, 2025 by Northwest

[Jeffrey-N]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

The problem with this assumption is that elsewhere Paul repeatedly—and clearly—distinguishes between Jesus (kyrios) and God (ho theos) the One Father, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 8:5–6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, etc. In Romans 9:5 Jesus is supposedly theos, the definite article lacking; and the usage here does not fit Paul’s elsewhere. So even if the reference is to Jesus as ‘God’, the sense could be in the same vein as I mentioned, i.e., Jesus-as-Elohim, functional ‘God’, a designation made known after his resurrection (as Philippians 2:9–11 declares, ‘to the glory of God the Father‘). Anyway, the very fact that Paul draws a line between Jesus and the Father shows that he did not hold Jesus to be of the same essence of the Father, but instead as God’s supreme Representative or Stand-In, such that his character mirrors God’s—to the utmost.

Again, there are these things you think that I just don't see how they were problems. I never said Jesus and the Father were the same person. 

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

The verse makes clear that Jesus did not preexist personally, for if he had, he would not have petitioned God to be glorified. So the preexistent ‘glory’ he had does not refer to a personal preexistence, but to an honour God had foreordained from before all things. After all, God is unitary, and His Word, like His Wisdom, is but an attribute of His, just as my words and insights are part of me. John 1, therefore, indicates a transition between God’s impersonal plan and its actualization in the life of Jesus, hence the impersonal Word becoming concrete, i.e., ‘flesh’.

What? The verse literally talks about pre-existence of Jesus and you still say this. Like I said it distinguishes glorification and pre-existence.

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Being incapable implies that we are compelled by some limitation to sin, i.e., so-called ‘original sin’. So you’re either lying or contradicting yourself here.

We are all born with free will and the tendency to sin, so yes in a sense that's a limitation, but mortal bodies could also be considered a limitation.

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Yes, it does. A central NT argument is that Jesus excels Moses by virtue of fulfilling yet transcending the Old Covenant. He is not against Moses, but instead marks the fulfilment of the OT promises. So if Moses was ‘god‘ in a certain sense (as the OT proclaims), Jesus the Messiah is ‘God’ in a similar way, but to a more profound degree. The passage I cited from John 10 absolutely presupposes this type of argument. Do you actually read your own Scripture(s)?

The New Testament doesn't go around comparing Moses and Jesus. You're putting your own interpretation and forcing it on the scriptures. Moses didn't create the Old Law, God gave it to Moses, so that Moses could establish it. Jesus literally died, so that we could be forgiven of our sins. There's not really a comparison.

[Silas]

For purposes of conversation and debate, could we say the following?:

Pauline Christianity does not assert that Jesus is one with God, but rather a blessed intermediary for humanity (a great prophet)?

there are passages in the epistles which *suggest* Jesus is Messiah and God, and others which make a clear distinction between God the Father and the "Lord" Jesus

 

 

[Northwest]

On 9/23/2025 at 10:38 PM, Jeffrey-N said:

Again, there are these things you think that I just don't see how they were problems. I never said Jesus and the Father were the same person.

@Jeffrey-N I never claimed you did, and at any rate, this is beside the point. The New Testament, like the Old, proclaims God’s Oneness, and the internal logic of the Scriptures is that a unitary God cannot be subdivided into ‘Persons’. You can cite as many verses to the contrary as you wish, but only by forcing your views onto fundamentals.

On 9/23/2025 at 10:38 PM, Jeffrey-N said:

What? The verse literally talks about pre-existence of Jesus and you still say this. Like I said it distinguishes glorification and pre-existence.

Jesus is beseeching God (the Father) to be glorified, so evidently he did not agree with you. If his preexistence were personal, he would not be asking the Father to be glorified. The ‘glory’, therefore, is an honour, virtually equivalent to Jesus’ status, that God predestined.

On 9/23/2025 at 10:38 PM, Jeffrey-N said:

We are all born with free will and the tendency to sin, so yes in a sense that's a limitation, but mortal bodies could also be considered a limitation.

If we are incapable of not sinning, as you said before, then we do not have free will. Incapacity is not a mere tendency. You are shifting the goalposts.

On 9/23/2025 at 10:38 PM, Jeffrey-N said:

The New Testament doesn't go around comparing Moses and Jesus.

Actually, Jesus’ relation to Moses is central to the NT, if only by way of contrast (as you highlight). Just read Hebrews. Paul refers or alludes to Jesus’ position vis-à-vis Mosaic Law often. One way or another, Jesus and Moses illumine each other. So you are being dishonest here.

On 9/23/2025 at 10:38 PM, Jeffrey-N said:

Moses didn't create the Old Law, God gave it to Moses, so that Moses could establish it.

^ I never said that he did.

[Mahdii]

On 7/25/2024 at 7:19 AM, Northwest said:

I have often heard the argument that without proper faith in God one cannot discern the truth about anything.

Is there any particular context or philosophical thought you're referring to? Otherwise, it is difficult to understand the premises of your post. It does not follow why faith in God (professing an ultimate metaphysical existence, however you want to define it) is a necessary prerequisite for knowing whether something in our physical reality, if anything, is true or false.

On 7/25/2024 at 7:19 AM, Northwest said:

(Of course, neither can the existence of God be proven, but this does not necessarily disprove a particular faith or the existence of God.) 

Why cannot the existence of God be proven?