coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Biboboy

posted on Apr 17, 2008 - 05:38 PM

Agape,

If you believe that Christ is the Logos of God, by whom all things were made and for whom all things were made, then you can't really claim that there is a "non-Christian" world. All things are in Christ, whether people believe it or not.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 17, 2008 - 05:55 PM

Who claimed that? I.e. what are you talking about? What does that have to do with the topic?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

mikokiko

posted on Apr 17, 2008 - 08:21 PM

Well, my question is to show why I think your question is illogical, as if God could just change salvific requirements whenever He wants and why ever He wants. We don't call Him the King of Righteousness for no reason. I know what you were going to say, it's God, He can do whatever He wants. OF COURSE HE CAN!! And paradoxically enough, that is why He doesn't just do anything (meaning He cannot be sinful, it is no limitation on God), but He does what is Perfect and only so. God cannot do the illogical because it is against His Omnipotent nature, even though He be all-powerful. If the fulfillment of Salvation has come, there is nothing God will do to nullify it. It isn't a set of rules He thought up one day, it is the mystery of life, and a description of Who HE IS, the Infinite.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 17, 2008 - 08:51 PM

There's a gap in your logic. I will fill it for you, then I will proceed to refute your point by pointing something out.

First, what you said, as it is, doesn't make any sense. I've already written on this thread that God can't create a squared circle. I.e. He can't do what is logically impossible. SO WHAT (this is what you're missing)?

Now, to apply that principle here, you needed to have said something like this: "the fact that God is infinite and always right means that He cannot go back on His word, because that would mean that He was wrong and is now correcting it."

I AGREE. But let me illustrate something:

If 2,000 years ago God laid down a rule, and meant it to apply forever, then today He changes the rule, you would be right, that is illogical, God would not do that.

HOWEVER,

If 2,000 years ago God laid down a rule that was to be in effect for 2,000 years (whether He told us this information or not), then changed the rule today, there would be no problem. Why? Because 2,000 years ago, God knew that the rule He was laying down was just for 2,000 years. He didn't think it's a good rule forever then change His mind.

I had ALL OF THIS in mind when I was writing my posts. That is why I said, "what if we're not fully comprehending," etc. I said that to indicate that we don't know if God meant the requirments for salvation to be in effect forever or if He had a limited time in mind.

Granted, when I asked hisservant the question, I didn't go through all of this, and you may have thought I was talking about God putting something down to be in effect forever, then changing "His mind." But I asked hisservant the question after he had expressed being tired of debating, and I had a feeling any post beyond two sentences would not be read by him altogether.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

copt07

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 02:41 AM

From Truth.Seeker:

First, what you said, as it is, doesn't make any sense. I've already written on this thread that God can't create a squared circle. I.e. He can't do what is logically impossible. SO WHAT (this is what you're missing)?



Truth.Seeker,

I was hoping you could elaborate on these sentences. I don't understand the statement that God can't create a squared circle implying He can't do what is "logically" impossible. Could you provide another example and explain what you meant by that sentence (esp. "logically"). Thanks.

Joined: Apr 17, 2006 | Posts: 13

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 03:08 AM

I would just like to say that we should not limit God in any way or form for the sole reason that he surpasses our logic. We can not even begin to understand his capabilities as being the Omnipotent. I am not saying that He will go back on his word and therefore change His mind about the requirements for salvation. What He said is what He said. God does not change! I am merely addressing the example that Truth.Seeker suggested. I bet it is also logically impossible for a dead man to rise from the dead but Christ has done such miracles. I bet it is logically impossible for water to turn into wine, but He also did that. I can go on and on but the point is that; there is a limit to our logic and understanding and we will never ever reach God's logic or understanding. He can do anything! However, God did give us brains so that we can understand Him to a certain extent. For one, we know He is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and so on.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

mikokiko

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 06:39 AM

But I still don't seem to grasp your idea, as if there was the Old then the New, and now another Testament could possibly show up. That is because our Lord never nullified the Old Testament, like you are saying, or changed the "requirements", even within the requirements of the Old Testament, there was an awareness of fulfillment, that is WITHIN the requirements.

But fulfillment never meant abrogation. This isn't Islamic doctrine, where God abrogates previous verses from the Qur'an from the Mus7af because they are no longer applicable. For to do that, would imply that the word of God DOES CHANGE, and therefore it would be even illogical to keep verses whose application were abrogated. There would be no point in reading the Old Testament if it were no longer applicable to us, maybe for purely historical reasons. But it never was so. The word of God is like a palace which God through the prophets, built, and finally sent His Perfect Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ to complete, in the awaited time. For it never was a building that could be lived in, but the Fulfillment Himself finished the Palace.

The Lord Jesus never came to destroy the foundation of the palace, and erect another one instead of it. Why because God's Law is a reflection of His Righteousness, and therefore of the Divine Nature, for the Divine Nature is Immutable, just as we say with St. Paul the Apostle: "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.", and as such the Word of God does not change. If that is so, why would God give us NEW RULES? Maybe only in the relative sense my friend, but by no means in the OBJECTIVE, for Truth is Truth, it remains immutable, as our Lord Jesus Christ says: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life."

This idea of abrogation exists no where in Christianity and is by no means welcome in it. Our Lord set the standard when He said: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (Iota) will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

mikokiko

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 06:49 AM

AMoussa, I both agree with you and disagree and here's why: to be able to make such statements about God are already ways to rationalize who God is. That is, we use our reason to realize that God is Infinite and as such cannot be limited by our own standards. Very well said.

But let it be known that God will never defy the fundamentals of Logic, for it is Logic itself which tells us Who He is. Sure by logic, we know that we cannot perceive God completely, for we are limited and He is not, but to suggest that God works outside of Reason, is in itself a contradicting statement, for you would have not known so without reason in the first place.

For example, we can not make purposeless and meaningless statements all the time, to do so would be absolutely wrong. But see how you have to give justifications for your own claims, your thoughs of knowing God are not void of reason. Thereby suggesting that God in fact, works as we can infinitesimally see Him by our logic.

For us to even realize that there is a God, and to claim to know such things about Him, is to claim some sort of common ground between the creature and the Creator. For notice that we could not have arrived at any knowledge of Him had there not been some kind of medium or common ground.

What is it? It is that we were created in His Holy Image, the Image which told His disciples, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father." Therefore we rightly worship Him as the Eternal Logos ruler of the Universe, for it is He that is the Logic of God, and it is by Him, the Genius of the Godhead, that the universe was created, and that such the gift of logic and free will was given in limitation to the creature called man. But let it be known, that though God surpasses OUR logical capacities, He by no means is the authour of confusion (as St. Paul says), or the King of contradiction, but the Master of the Reason which built our universe. He will never defy the fundamentals of Human Reason, for we then could never have known Him.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 02:43 PM

copt07,

Let me try to explain the concept a little better. A circle, by definition, has to be circular. It is not possible to create a circle that has square corners (this would be a square). So, in this way, God is "limited," He cannot defy logic. Let me give you a more theological analysis:

Can God go out of existence? No. Why? Because God is infinite, He has existed from negative infinite and will exist into positive infinite. Can, He, for example, go out of existence today? Let's think about that. How long would it take to get from negative infinite to today? An infinite amount of time. In effect, God cannot go out of existence because there would have to be an infinite amount of time from His existence to His going out of existence. Therefore, it is not logically possible.

Another example: can God do something "bad." Of course not, why? It is logically impossible. God is all good. By nature, He is good. By nature, He cannot make a mistake. So, it would be impossible for God to do something bad. Let me put it in a different way: since God is the final decider of what is good and what is bad, anything He does is good.

Have you ever heard that question, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it?" This is asked by atheists, as if it shows that God is not omnipotent. That is, if we say, "no," then God's not omnipotent, if we say, "yes," then after the rock's creation, He can't move it, again He wouldn't be omnipotent.

Now, that question doesn't make sense on its face. For God to create a rock so big that He can't move it would mean for Him to creat a rock that is beyond His infinite power. Why? Because only something that is beyond infinite (God) cannot be moved by God. Now, this doesn't make sense. You can never go beyond infinite.

So, the answer to the question is "no." Does this mean He's not omnipotent? Of course not, something that is logically impossible (like a squared circle or something bigger than infinite) cannot exist in the first place. There would only be a problem if God WANTED to create such a rock. However, our God is a rational God, He would never want to create something that is uncreatable. Therefore, God can do anything He WANTS to do. That is what we mean by omnipotence.

So, is it a problem that God can't do anything "bad?" Of course not, He wouldn't want to.

I hope this explains what I mean.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 02:50 PM

Tony,

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? It's hard to follow what you said. I already said that if God meant something to be in effect for two days, then changed it in two days, He didn't change His mind, because He would have always known He's going to change it in two days.

FOR EXAMPLE: polygamy in the Old Testament was just fine. The wisest man alive had upwards of 900 wives (Solomon). Polygamy in the New Testament is NOT fine. Does this mean God "changed His mind?" NO, God always knew that He'd make it fine in the OT, but not fine in the NT. It'd be another story if He meant it to be fine forever then later changed His mind (indeed, God can never do this because He would know that He is going to "change His mind," and would therefore never put down the "wrong requriement").

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 02:57 PM

Mikokiko,

I agree with you. But it is impossible to say that the NT's fulfillment of the OT did not bring about a "change." There's a difference between "change" and "abrogation." I'm talking about change, not abrogation.

OT: "an eye for an eye"
NT: "love your neighbor as yourself"

Christ's words, not mine. In the same sentence He said, "it has been said...(OT requirement), but I tell you (NT requirement)."

I am not arguing for abrogation, I'm talking about a possibility of fulfillment in a way that we do not understand.

Infact, when Christ said He didn't come to abolish the OT, but to fulfill it, I think He was saying something similar to what I said. In effect, "The OT is not something I got wrong, but it was always meant to be for a certain amount of time, and now it is time to fulfill it."

WHO would have thought in the pre-Christ era that "an eye for an eye" could ever be fulfilled by "give the other cheek?"

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 03:54 PM

"But let it be known that God will never defy the fundamentals of Logic, for it is Logic itself which tells us Who He is. Sure by logic, we know that we cannot perceive God completely, for we are limited and He is not, but to suggest that God works outside of Reason, is in itself a contradicting statement, for you would have not known so without reason in the first place."

Let me ask you this: Isn't it outside of reason for a dead man to come back to life?

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 07:47 PM

No it's not. That is assuming that once you die you can't come back to life. Why would you assume that? The fact that we observe something over and over again, doesn't make it true. I.e. the fact that we kept seeing dead people not rise doesn't mean rising is not possible. In fact, that is why science doesn't "prove" anything, it only eliminate things. You can't prove that "for every action there is an equal opposite reaction" no matter how many times you observe that.

You're talking about induction; mikokiko and I are talking about deduction.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 08:01 PM

As far as I am concerned, it defies logic for a dead man to come back to life. Especially since there is no reason, other than a miracle, for the body to come back to life. God gave us science so that we can understand how things work. How can you say that science does not prove anything? That is not true. I would however agree that science can not prove everything. Anyway, coming back from the dead is impossible, but not with God. Tell me how to bring a man back from the dead, or how to turn water into wine. You can not. Why? Because it defies logic...dead people can not come back from the dead; water can not become wine. Only God can do this; only He can defy science.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

mikokiko

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 09:24 PM

AMoussa, in case you didn't know, science is not synonymous to reason. Reason /= Science. It is by the supernatural mind itself, I am not talking about the brain here, but our spirits (= minds). It is by these that we either justify our belief in God in the first place or not. See you yourself are rationalizing RIGHT NOW and demonstrating by your reason that YOU SEE THIS ISN'T BY REASON. Of course I disagree, but you are rationalizing the idea that God works outside of reason. You see that, you are giving us your reason as to why God works outside of reason. Well if He works outside of reason, why give a reason for it? And we end up falling in contradictory circles. Logic runs our lives, if we act reasonably we act in accordance with God.

TruthSeeker, the problem is your words do not stick correctly. True, the RELATIVE requirements changed over time, once God PERMITTED (never condoned or asked for) polygamy. But it was in the NT that He set things STRAIGHT once and for all. For you say eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth in the OT? The law of love, that is "give the other cheek" is a truth that is of God and is an Eternal and objective truth, for even King Solomon says in his proverbs: "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;" (Proverbs 25:21) Even though it was said to you that you shall hate your enemies and love your neighbours. Indeed in the relative sense the requirements changed, but by no means does the Eternal and Immutable God change who sits on the Unchangeable throne in the Unchangeable Heavens.

If the heavens do not change, then salvation, the entrance into such a place does not change, and thus the requirements in the end will never change, neither from the beginning or till the end, they are the same. The virtues of Righteousness that are asked of you in your salvation are no different than what asked of Adam or Abouna Mikhail El-Bi7ary. Salvation is One. And the path to God is one Road. No one can enter into salvation unless by his own will He accept such a path.

Indeed the Wisdom that leads to life has not changed, for King Solomon attests to this, and the Wisdom of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 10:25 PM

Deleted.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 18, 2008 - 10:46 PM

Mikokiko,

You're all over the place. First, you say the requirements "relatively" changed, then you say in the end the requirements never changed. In order for their to be a "change," there must be something to change from. All change is "relative."

I've already said God doesn't change. The more you give me reasons for why God doesn't change, the more you waste both of our times. You don't know that the NT "set things straight and once for all." That's a conclusion, where are your premises?

You said:

"Indeed in the relative sense the requirements changed, but by no means does the Eternal and Immutable God change who sits on the Unchangeable throne in the Unchangeable Heavens."

Yes. Is that supposed to be in disagreement with me?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

mikokiko

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 02:14 AM

No, there is a difference between the relative requirements and the objective requirements. The objective requirements are the end all goal of the Christian life that lead one to eternal salvation. For example the requirements of the virtues: Joy, Peace, Lovingkindness, Patience, Generosity, charity, courage, faith, hope, love, all these things will by no means change from eternity, and indeed they are what saved both those in the Old and in the New Testament.

What I am trying to say is salvation is the same as it was from eternity, because it is eternal. Meaning the things themselves that effect salvation in us are never going to change and were never really any different. When Christ came to preach the New Testament, He did not "make" up any new rules, but taught the objective and eternal truths which "many desired to see but could not see it.", that lead to salvation.

I hope you get what I am trying to say. Relative requirements in my eyes are all in the HOW. For example in charity's case, we give tithes to the poor. In love, we for example give the other cheek (or in King Solomon's example give our enemies food and water). But the fundamental salvation and its path has never changed. I am saying it has never changed, because it is what leads us to the partaking of the Divine Nature and being United with Him Who is Unchangeable. How can the things that lead us to the Divine Immutable Nature, change? It is only when we become more like God and preserve His Unchangeable likeness that was given to us in Adam, that we will be saved and return once again to the paradise of joy. Therefore the objective requirements that lead us to salvation shall never change.

To be granted salvation we must first become the things we want to gain in becoming God-like.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

copt07

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 05:50 AM

From Truth.Seeker:No it's not. That is assuming that once you die you can't come back to life. Why would you assume that? The fact that we observe something over and over again, doesn't make it true. I.e. the fact that we kept seeing dead people not rise doesn't mean rising is not possible. In fact, that is why science doesn't "prove" anything, it only eliminate things. You can't prove that "for every action there is an equal opposite reaction" no matter how many times you observe that.

You're talking about induction; mikokiko and I are talking about deduction.

Truth.Seeker,

Based on your response, I would like to hear you explain the Christ's virgin birth. I presume you would say something along the lines of why would I assume it is impossible for a virgin to have a child, then claim I have used inductive reasoning.


Also you stated that you can't prove anything by science, yet you also said science only "eliminates things." Then the question becomes, "How do you eliminate things?" Don't you have to prove something to "eliminate it"????

Joined: Apr 17, 2006 | Posts: 13

mikokiko

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 06:47 AM

I think what truthseeker is trying to say is that Science narrows down the possibilities of things. For example the Newtonian theory has not been proven false yet, yet it becomes inductively stronger every time it is tested and gives the same outcome. In order for it to be 100% correct, you would have to test the theory an infinite number of times all giving the same outcome. I just learned that in my Philosophy Class
But I am not sure that is the answer Truthseeker wants to give you...

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 03:48 PM

Mikokiko,

I have always thought that science helped us better understand reason. For example: things fall to the ground. Science tells us that the earth's gravitational pull causes objects to fall. Also, genetics tells us how we inheret traits from our parents. It seems Truth.Seeker, doesnt believe in these things for some reason...go figure.

I did not say God works outside of reason; i said God works outside our reasoning. There is a huge difference. I am sorry if i did not say that explicitly but that is what i meant. The point is that you can not measure our reasoning or logic on God's level, or do you disagree because of the fact that i am using my reasoning?

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,
Obviously, you have not had enough training in logic to know what I'm talking about. That's fine, but it is futile for me to engage in this.

Sticks and stones.....

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 05:13 PM

Mikokiko,

I don't think I disagree with you. I say "I don't think" because I'm not entirely sure where you're getting at. If you mean somebody has to be internally good to be saved, I don't disagree with that. Of course how a person is "internally good" may change. For example, a polygamist in the OT can be internally good, while a polygamist in the NT cannot be internally good. Hopefully we agree on this.

If you call someone being "internally good" is a requirement that never changes and the "how" someone is "internally good" is a relative requirement, then we don't disagree.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 05:17 PM

copt07,

You answered your question about the virgin birth, you're right - I was going to respond with that.

We're talking about two different proofs. I'm talking about scientific theorems. You can't prove a scientific theorem. However, you can "eliminate" things that would go against the theorem.

For example, if I throw a ball off a building and it drops vertically at -9.8m/s^2, then I have proved that THIS ball, dropped from THIS building, falls at THIS speed. I've only proved that the theorem works for this one instance.

However, this doesn't prove the theorem. Google "science and induction," you might find some articles about what I'm saying.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 05:22 PM

Tony,

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely pointing out the lack of your training in logic. It's like someone who's never taken calculus arguing about how to find an area under a curve.

The fact that someone hasn't taken calculus isn't an insult or bad, it just is.

Mikokiko is right on about explaining what I meant. Interestingly, I brought up the academic analogy in this post before reading his response on my behalf. See Tony, he learned it in a class, just like calculus.

Quoting Miko:

"In order for it to be 100% correct, you would have to test the theory an infinite number of times all giving the same outcome. I just learned that in my Philosophy Class."

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 409

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 05:33 PM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,
I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely pointing out the lack of your training in logic. It's like someone who's never taken calculus arguing about how to find an area under a curve.

Perhaps you can explain why my logic is inadequate instead of commenting about how i have never taken a class on this and belittling me in a public forum. Or do you find that to be against your logic?

From Truth.Seeker:The fact that someone hasn't taken calculus isn't an insult or bad, it just is.

What??? so your saying its not an insult or bad but it is?? Do you mind explaining the logic behind this? Perhaps im not the only one who hasnt taken this course

I would appreciate it if you can address my points instead of trying to poke and say "poor Tony...he thinks he has a brain and thinks that he has a place on this forum." I know that you did not go out and say that but this what you are implying because of the fact that you choose not to address my points but rather focus on my academia.
GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California