Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

None of those things make Christ the Son of God (& not all Christian's believe in the Eucharist). The original premise you rejected is based upon scripture, God's word, and is correct. Whether or not you believe it is another issue. But if you don't believe that Christ is who God says He is (the Son of God, the incarnation of God, etc), then you are not a Christian. Those beliefs define the faith. That's why His title is part of its name.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

---

So in your belief, is God natural or is he beyond/outside the natural?

---

Natural but ,as in all things, what's the definition of natural? I go with the dictionary
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

---

So, going by your definition of "natural" that you outlined above, where you said that first and foremost it is science - your belief is that God is "natural" in that he is contained within science, i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, etc? You said "natural" are those things that are acted rotting upon
by science - so you believe science acts upon God?

---

God is spiritual. Science does not "act upon God". God is spiritual.
Science is the natural world. That's not God's domain. God is love and spiritual.

---

Everything is "God's domain" if you want to call yourself a Christian.

---

I answered love and spiritual. And I don't think you're in a position to determine, What is Christian.. Take care of your own faith.

---

I am in a position to determine "what is a Christian" at the level I am doing so here, and not because I am a Christian but because I am not an idiot and I know that being a Christian involves certain beliefs.

You don't get to say you don't believe in the supernatural and simultaneously claim to believe in a God who created the world and everything in it. These are irreconcilable positions. This doesn't even get into more specifically Christian theology.

---

He does not believe God created anything. He's stated that on record. He does not believe the very first verse of the bible, at least the literal interpretation of it. Just fyi.

That's why I'm trying to pin down exactly what or who he believes God is, and what he can or can't do.

---

Time and again I said God is spiritual and love.

---

So answer my question: since you believe God is outside the natural (i.e. God is not defined by or subject to science) doesn't that mean you believe he is supernatural?

---

God is not "outside" the natural God is very much the a part the human world. God's love flows through humans in their daily activities in the natural world.

---

When we humans follow Christ's example, they are emulating Him and please Him (it is His command) but we do not become gods.

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

So who was Jesus? Just some random guy who went around talking about "love," or more than that?

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

So who was Jesus? Just some random guy who went around talking about "love," or more than that?

---

JXL I have not the patience or time to review my Christology with you, especially one who mischaracterizes my argument as "Jesus is some guy". That's just lazy thinking
Read back a couple pages

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

---

So in your belief, is God natural or is he beyond/outside the natural?

---

Natural but ,as in all things, what's the definition of natural? I go with the dictionary
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

---

So, going by your definition of "natural" that you outlined above, where you said that first and foremost it is science - your belief is that God is "natural" in that he is contained within science, i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, etc? You said "natural" are those things that are acted rotting upon
by science - so you believe science acts upon God?

---

God is spiritual. Science does not "act upon God". God is spiritual.
Science is the natural world. That's not God's domain. God is love and spiritual.

---

Everything is "God's domain" if you want to call yourself a Christian.

---

I answered love and spiritual. And I don't think you're in a position to determine, What is Christian.. Take care of your own faith.

---

I am in a position to determine "what is a Christian" at the level I am doing so here, and not because I am a Christian but because I am not an idiot and I know that being a Christian involves certain beliefs.

You don't get to say you don't believe in the supernatural and simultaneously claim to believe in a God who created the world and everything in it. These are irreconcilable positions. This doesn't even get into more specifically Christian theology.

---

He does not believe God created anything. He's stated that on record. He does not believe the very first verse of the bible, at least the literal interpretation of it. Just fyi.

That's why I'm trying to pin down exactly what or who he believes God is, and what he can or can't do.

---

Time and again I said God is spiritual and love.

---

So answer my question: since you believe God is outside the natural (i.e. God is not defined by or subject to science) doesn't that mean you believe he is supernatural?

---

God is not "outside" the natural God is very much the a part the human world. God's love flows through humans in their daily activities in the natural world.

---

You clearly defined the "natural" as being science, or being defined by or subject to science. So then, are you saying that God's love "flowing through humans in their daily activities" is a scientific occurence?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation.

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means.

The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power.

Question for you, Waco1947:

Jesus said this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29)

Question: do you believe God SENT Jesus?

No

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for you, Waco1947:

Jesus said this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29)

Question: do you believe God SENT Jesus? Yes

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love



This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

So is Jesus part of the Trinity? Is He part of the three-in-one God?
Did Jesus exist as part of the Godhead, before he was born in physical form?
Also, are you saying that things which are spiritual are part of the natural world? You say that no one has evidence for the super natural... but what evidence do you have of the spiritual?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

The existence of the supernatural is not a premise in my argument, so it cannot be a false premise of my argument. The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true. My argument here is not that the supernatural is true or that Christianity is true. Christianity does require the supernatural because Christianity of based on the claim that "the Word" (who existed before the creation of the world) "became flesh" (a part of the world). Christianity cannot be true without that and the supernatural cannot be false with it.

The entire notion of Christianity is contingent on the nature of the person who claims to be the Son of God. If Jesus, as you seem to argue, was simply a man who lived a good live and provided a moral example of love, then Jesus is not the Son of God and any claims that Jesus should be treated as special or unique in any way are worthless.

Sure Jesus "lived to the fullness of God's love," whatever abstract notion we might want that to mean, but Jesus, according to Christians, was not simply a man but was also God in the flesh. You don't get God, who is Spirit, to be man in the flesh without something supernatural happening.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

You clearly defined the "natural" as being science, or being defined by or subject to science. So then, are you saying that God's love "flowing through humans in their daily activities" is a scientific occurence?

---

No

---

So then, since you said that "natural" means it's defined by science, and here you're saying that God is NOT defined by science - then that means God's existence is outside of science, which means he is outside of the natural......correct?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for you, Waco1947:

Jesus said this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29)

Question: do you believe God SENT Jesus? Yes

---

---

So you believe God SENT Jesus.....

But how did God do this? How did he manifest his will in the physical world?

Proof that brain washing does work. https://t.co/dG7NRkeOoK

— Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) January 25, 2024

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

The existence of the supernatural is not a premise in my argument, so it cannot be a false premise of my argument. The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true. My argument here is not that the supernatural is true or that Christianity is true. Christianity does require the supernatural because Christianity of based on the claim that "the Word" (who existed before the creation of the world) "became flesh" (a part of the world). Christianity cannot be true without that and the supernatural cannot be false with it.

The entire notion of Christianity is contingent on the nature of the person who claims to be the Son of God. If Jesus, as you seem to argue, was simply a man who lived a good live and provided a moral example of love, then Jesus is not the Son of God and any claims that Jesus should be treated as special or unique in any way are worthless.

Sure Jesus "lived to the fullness of God's love," whatever abstract notion we might want that to mean, but Jesus, according to Christians, was not simply a man but was also God in the flesh. You don't get God, who is Spirit, to be man in the flesh without something supernatural happening. There is your false premise again. You keep claiming that the supernatural exists without proof.

---

The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true (Again your false premise that the supernatural is true and again without proof.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for you, Waco1947:

Jesus said this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29)

Question: do you believe God SENT Jesus? Yes

---

---

So you believe God SENT Jesus.....

But how did God do this? How did he manifest his will in the physical world

---

You have no intent to understand but simply try to trap me. Argue against my premises but understand them first. You are very intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate. Please those gifts to understand me.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

The existence of the supernatural is not a premise in my argument, so it cannot be a false premise of my argument. The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true. My argument here is not that the supernatural is true or that Christianity is true. Christianity does require the supernatural because Christianity of based on the claim that "the Word" (who existed before the creation of the world) "became flesh" (a part of the world). Christianity cannot be true without that and the supernatural cannot be false with it.

The entire notion of Christianity is contingent on the nature of the person who claims to be the Son of God. If Jesus, as you seem to argue, was simply a man who lived a good live and provided a moral example of love, then Jesus is not the Son of God and any claims that Jesus should be treated as special or unique in any way are worthless.

Sure Jesus "lived to the fullness of God's love," whatever abstract notion we might want that to mean, but Jesus, according to Christians, was not simply a man but was also God in the flesh. You don't get God, who is Spirit, to be man in the flesh without something supernatural happening. There is your false premise again. You keep claiming that the supernatural exists without proof.

---

The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true (Again your false premise that the supernatural is true and again without proof.

---

Why do you keep saying I am arguing that the supernatural exists when I am not addressing that issue at all?

That is an entirely different discussion.

The question as to whether the supernatural exists is independent from the question of whether Christianity can be true if the supernatural does not exist.

Let's try it this way:

1. Christianity makes supernatural claims, one of which is the claim that the Creator God literally became a man. Christians call this the incarnation.

2. If all supernatural claims are false, then Christianity is similarly false. There is not logical way to get around this.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

The existence of the supernatural is not a premise in my argument, so it cannot be a false premise of my argument. The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true. My argument here is not that the supernatural is true or that Christianity is true. Christianity does require the supernatural because Christianity of based on the claim that "the Word" (who existed before the creation of the world) "became flesh" (a part of the world). Christianity cannot be true without that and the supernatural cannot be false with it.

The entire notion of Christianity is contingent on the nature of the person who claims to be the Son of God. If Jesus, as you seem to argue, was simply a man who lived a good live and provided a moral example of love, then Jesus is not the Son of God and any claims that Jesus should be treated as special or unique in any way are worthless.

Sure Jesus "lived to the fullness of God's love," whatever abstract notion we might want that to mean, but Jesus, according to Christians, was not simply a man but was also God in the flesh. You don't get God, who is Spirit, to be man in the flesh without something supernatural happening. There is your false premise again. You keep claiming that the supernatural exists without proof.

---

The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true (Again your false premise that the supernatural is true and again without proof.

---

Why do you keep saying I am arguing that the supernatural exists when I am not addressing that issue at all? "The supernatural is true" is irst [remise and you not proved it is true. The supernatural flies in the face of the universe as we know in all its physics, chemistry, and biology. How can something be true if there is no evidence?

That is an entirely different discussion.

The question as to whether the supernatural exists is independent from the question of whether Christianity can be true if the supernatural does not exist.

Let's try it this way:

1. Christianity makes supernatural claims, one of which is the claim that the Creator God literally became a man. Christians call this the incarnation.

2. If all supernatural claims are false, then Christianity is similarly false. There is not logical way to get around this.

---

Let's try it this way:

Premise #1. Christianity makes supernatural claims, Yes, it does make those claims although the truth of those Biblical claims does not make them true in the universe and natural world.
Premise #2 One of which is the claim that the Creator God literally became a man. Christians call this the incarnation. Yes, We make that claim but it makes no sense in a literal physical sense. For me, that claim is a faith statement about the love and presence of God in my life through my faith in Jesus Christ.
Conclusion If all supernatural claims are false, then Christianity is similarly false. There is not logical way to get around this. Christianity does not rise and fall on the literal interpretation of the Incarnation. Christianity rises and falls on the belief God in Christ as a sign of God's love. My faith is grounded in the knowledge God came to me Jesus, not some supernatural apparition.

"Christianity does not rise and fall on the literal interpretation of the Incarnation."

Yeah, it actually does. Without it, Jesus is not the son of God and, without Jesus being the Son of God, Christianity is meaningless.

"My faith is grounded in the knowledge God came to me Jesus, not some supernatural apparition."

That's not even a sentence.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for you, Waco1947:

Jesus said this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29)

Question: do you believe God SENT Jesus? Yes

---

---

So you believe God SENT Jesus.....

But how did God do this? How did he manifest his will in the physical world

---

You have no intent to understand but simply try to trap me. Argue against my premises but understand them first. You are very intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate. Please those gifts to understand me.

---

Yes, I AM trying to understand your beliefs. That's why I went back to the very basics to make sure I was understanding exactly what you mean by "God", "supernatural", and "natural". Because the only way your beliefs as you've presented them can be logically coherent is if "God" is merely an abstract idea rather than a real personal being, and that the term "supernatural" has an alternative meaning for you than what is usually meant when talking about God.

But based on what you've told me so far, you are actually describing "God" as a supernatural being in the traditional sense. Moreover, you actually do believe that this supernatural God has power over the natural world, for you can not SEND Jesus - a real, live, physical person - into this physical world without that power. Therefore, your beliefs are contradictory and logically untenable. If it feels like I'm "trapping" you it's because I've cornered you into realizing this fact, and admittedly, that was my intent. Not to hurt or embarass you, but merely to expose this truth to you. If you accept this truth, and truth really matters to you, then it behooves you to either stop believing what you had previously believed, or completely change your beliefs to something more biblically, logically, and even scientifically tenable.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

DC, Your claim that Christ is the Son of God because the Incarnation is a supernatural occurrence is a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of God for several reasons. One is Jesus' perfect obedience in love to His Father. Another is the Eucharist in which Jesus becomes incarnate in the wine and bread. Jesus , also, becomes incarnate in the poor, sick, imprisoned, the hungry.

---

I do not claim that Jesus is the Son of God because of the Incarnation. Indeed, Jesus was the Son of God before the Incarnation. False Premise - you are reading the NT back into the OT. The OT was written is a particular time and place.

Nevertheless, it is not a "false premise" to say that the following combination of statements are incompatible with rational thought:
1. There is no supernatural. (You have repeatedly made this claim).
2. Jesus, a physical person, is God in the flesh. (A necessary but not sufficient belief to be identified as a Christian).False Premise. It is not necessary claim to be a Christian. The claim of Jesus on our lives is to Love Jesus and to feed his lambs.(John 21 "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Both of these statements can be false, but they cannot both be true.

If you believe the first, you cannot be a Christian because you must believe the second (and more) to be a Christian and the two statement are logically incompatible. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is well...unnatural. The natural - Jesus the human as God's perfection reflection of God's love which is spiritual is logical. The commonality is love not supernatural.

---

I

---

The supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. Mixing the supernatural with the natural is precisely what happened when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, the word became flesh. What is the primary nature of this word; my answer is Love

I don't have to read the Old Testament to say that Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation. This is from the New Testament.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So, according to the Gospel, Jesus was before the incarnation. In my understanding it is not Jesus who was before creation the Christ not the Jesus of history.
Although The Christ

Jesus himself also made this claim when said in John's gospel "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Additionally…

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the incarnation. When the Word became flesh, it was a supernatural event. I continue to reject your idea that the supernatural exists. Your only proof is your claim "It simply happened and was supernatural". My logic is that God is spiritual and the overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.

You throw around the term "False Premise" a lot, but you do not appear to know what the term false premise means. I know what it means. Your false premise is that the supernatural exists without any facts in evidence. Your only evidence is a reference to your interpretation of scripture which is ground in an idea of the supernatural. You use your supernatural interpretation to prove supernatural. It is circular.
I ground interpretation of the spiritual which is the realm and reign of God. That spiritual presence is love. Love existed in God before the creation and became reality when humans came into existence at which time love became actuality. Humans since the beginning of our existence have spiritually and actually loved one another. Humans existed for thousand of years before Jesus showed up. Surely, God revealed to those billions of people before Jesus that eternal one loved them.
The claim of Jesus on our lives to "love Him" and "feed His lambs" is legitimate only because He is the Son of God who walked the earth both as a physical man and as God Himself. Without Jesus being the Son of God, He has no claim on anything and He has no power to save anyone. As the Son of God, He has both claim and power. This paragraph is contingent upon the nature of the person who we claim to be the Son of God. That person, Jesus, lived to fullness of God's love.

---

---

The existence of the supernatural is not a premise in my argument, so it cannot be a false premise of my argument. The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true. My argument here is not that the supernatural is true or that Christianity is true. Christianity does require the supernatural because Christianity of based on the claim that "the Word" (who existed before the creation of the world) "became flesh" (a part of the world). Christianity cannot be true without that and the supernatural cannot be false with it.

The entire notion of Christianity is contingent on the nature of the person who claims to be the Son of God. If Jesus, as you seem to argue, was simply a man who lived a good live and provided a moral example of love, then Jesus is not the Son of God and any claims that Jesus should be treated as special or unique in any way are worthless.

Sure Jesus "lived to the fullness of God's love," whatever abstract notion we might want that to mean, but Jesus, according to Christians, was not simply a man but was also God in the flesh. You don't get God, who is Spirit, to be man in the flesh without something supernatural happening. There is your false premise again. You keep claiming that the supernatural exists without proof.

---

The argument is that Christianity, to be true, requires that the supernatural also be true (Again your false premise that the supernatural is true and again without proof.

---

Why do you keep saying I am arguing that the supernatural exists when I am not addressing that issue at all? "The supernatural is true" is irst [remise and you not proved it is true. The supernatural flies in the face of the universe as we know in all its physics, chemistry, and biology. How can something be true if there is no evidence?

That is an entirely different discussion.

The question as to whether the supernatural exists is independent from the question of whether Christianity can be true if the supernatural does not exist.

Let's try it this way:

1. Christianity makes supernatural claims, one of which is the claim that the Creator God literally became a man. Christians call this the incarnation.

2. If all supernatural claims are false, then Christianity is similarly false. There is not logical way to get around this.

---

Let's try it this way:

Premise #1. Christianity makes supernatural claims, Yes, it does make those claims although the truth of those Biblical claims does not make them true in the universe and natural world.
Premise #2 One of which is the claim that the Creator God literally became a man. Christians call this the incarnation. Yes, We make that claim but it makes no sense in a literal physical sense. For me, that claim is a faith statement about the love and presence of God in my life through my faith in Jesus Christ.
Conclusion If all supernatural claims are false, then Christianity is similarly false. There is not logical way to get around this. Christianity does not rise and fall on the literal interpretation of the Incarnation. Christianity rises and falls on the belief God in Christ as a sign of God's love. My faith is grounded in the knowledge God came to me Jesus, not some supernatural apparition.

---

The God who sent Jesus... is God natural or supernatural?
Is God bound by science, or does He exist outside of science?

According to Sir Isaac Newton, science explains what God accomplished. It's still a human creation so it's still flawed. For example, the climate cult arrogantly thinks humans can destroy the planet by driving cars (while many of their leaders fly around in private jets). Ironically, they their modern day inquisition attacks anyone who questions their dogmas, trying to destroy them instead. How very unscientific of them.

D. C. Bear said:

---

"Christianity does not rise and fall on the literal interpretation of the Incarnation."

Yeah, it actually does. Without it, Jesus is not the son of God and, without Jesus being the Son of God, Christianity is meaningless.

"My faith is grounded in the knowledge God came to me Jesus, not some supernatural apparition."

That's not even a sentence.

---

my faith is grounded in the knowledge that God came to me in Jesus, as a spiritual being not a supernatural apparition.

I never said God was an abstract idea rather, I have consistently said that I just personal and spiritual and comes to me visa God spirit. I have consistently said God is love that's not an abstract idea but a reality that you and I live at the reality of our lives

Absolutists like you, and just like talk about the truth, as if there is one truth and you know it. But until you can tell me in a real world how God, maneuvers is physics, if God maneuvers physics, then show me your proof. You have not presented evidence that stands off logically in the real world of physics, chemistry and biology. Scientists do not refer to the Bible for any answers in physics, chemistry and biology

Waco1947 said:

---

Scientists do not refer to the Bible for any answers in physics, chemistry and biology

---

Then why do you refer to science books for answers in theology?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

"Christianity does not rise and fall on the literal interpretation of the Incarnation."

Yeah, it actually does. Without it, Jesus is not the son of God and, without Jesus being the Son of God, Christianity is meaningless.

"My faith is grounded in the knowledge God came to me Jesus, not some supernatural apparition."

That's not even a sentence.

---

my faith is grounded in the knowledge that God came to me in Jesus, as a spiritual being not a supernatural apparition.

---

Is it your claim that Jesus was a "spiritual being" rather than a "man?"

Waco1947 said:

---

that I just personal and spiritual and comes to me visa God spirit.

---

That is word salad.

Waco1947 said:

---

I never said God was an abstract idea rather, I have consistently said that I just personal and spiritual and comes to me visa God spirit. I have consistently said God is love that's not an abstract idea but a reality that you and I live at the reality of our lives

---

I didn't say that you said God was an abstract idea. Your comprehension is way off. If you're going to lecture me about understanding what you're saying, then you need to do a better job of understand what others are saying.

Waco1947 said:

---

Absolutists like you, and just like talk about the truth, as if there is one truth and you know it. But until you can tell me in a real world how God, maneuvers is physics, if God maneuvers physics, then show me your proof. You have not presented evidence that stands off logically in the real world of physics, chemistry and biology. Scientists do not refer to the Bible for any answers in physics, chemistry and biology

---

This has NOTHING to do with absolutism. This has to do with basic logic. Your logical problem is this:

1) you believe God SENT Jesus, which means that God's will was manifested in the physical world....

2) you believe God DOESN'T have the power to manifest his will in the physical world.

Can you see that these two beliefs are contradictory?

If you don't believe God can "maneuver physics", then how did God "SEND" Jesus? If God can't maneuver physics, then Jesus' arrival to this earth was solely the result of the undirected forces of physics and chance. God couldn't have had anything to do with it.

Butt hole statue to commemorate AIDs victims. I shi.tyounot.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/289959210702913?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v