Can God Pray?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Do you mean a human person or just a person in general?


Ok...but remember we are discussing what the bible says. I believe it says Jesus was God and Man.

Also remember it's not merely that one person has two natures but that One person IS both a Human AND a Divine being


And Maybe every single person in the world Created everything...MAYBE there are Pink Unicorns on a Planet called Thpppptipto. Yes it's logically possible...Uh. what were we discussing again?


My "Philosophy" isn't that every one on the planet not only has two natures but two distinct ways of existing....


My view is the same. Imagine that. However let me expand on that. Nature are all and every quality that a person possesses that makes that Person whatever kind of Being they are.

So you, possessing EVERY human quality makes you "Human".


At least. Otherwise One did not exist. Nature explains what sort of existence one person or thing has.


Most Christians believe Jesus can and does have two natures. BTW those two natures probably are similiar in many ways.

I do apologize taking our conversation down the "maybe" path. It's just that your philosophical view even leaving open the possibility that we could all be the same person is in such stark contrast to my philosophical view that it is inherently impossible for all of us to be the same person. That's the only reason I keep bringing that up. It's not that it proves you are wrong it's that the concept of that even being possible is just so foreign to me.

Regarding the bolded, our views on natures and persons and such are fundamentally different. It's no longer that I claim your view is illogical. Your view is logical within its framework. It's just your view allows for certain things that my view doesn't allow for unless you start to put arbitrary limits on how many natures a single person can have and whether or not any single nature can be duplicated in a person.

I think the best way open up your understanding of what I am saying is to ask question: If God wanted to (not that he does but IF he did) couldn't he add another human nature to himself and appear to us again as a different human, maybe he could add another human nature and thus be George? He would still be the man Jesus he would still be God but he would also be George. I don't think you will find it difficult to believe God could do such a thing.

Now if God so desired could he not add another human nature to your person so that you would be Praxeas and Christina at the same time just as he could be God, Jesus and George at the same time? Aren't these things possible with God and with your understanding of nature and person? There's no logical reason God couldn't do these things right? I'm sure you will answer yes they are possible and then I'm sure you will expound that while it's possible God didn't do it and I'm perfectly fine with that. I just want to make sure you understand that these things are possible in your framework so that I can try and explain once again that our views on nature and person are entirely different.

So with my philosophy of natures and persons its impossible to have a person that is both a mammal and a reptile. A person cannot have two natures with contradictory requirements. It doesn't work with mammal's and reptiles because one is warm blooded and one is not warm blooded. It doesn't work with any person and any natures which possess contradictory requirements. Why is this? Because I arbitrarily restrict a person to having one body, or in more general terms one "mode of existing".

Contrast this with your philosopy of natures and persons. In your philosophy it is possible to have a person that is both a mammal and a reptile. It is possible to such a person to exist because that person can be totally mammal in his mammal nature and totally reptile in his reptile nature. Why? Because while those natures have contradictory requirements they don't matter if that person has "2 different ways of being". He can simeltaneously possess the body of a mammal and also possess another body of a reptile and so he can be both warm blooded and not warm blooded at the same time, just in different ways.

I could go on about the differences between our philosophies but I think the above examples highlight the differences well. In fact I doubt I could find appropriate words to adequately describe and differentiate my philisophy from Prax's but as you can see from the examples there is clearly a difference. Why do I place a restriction on persons to only having one "mode of existing" and what do I mean by it?

Well, I restrict persons this way because it's the simplist explanation to explain everything I see in the world. I don't have to try and find a way of talking about reptiles and mammals as if one person did the actions of both. There's just no need to be able to distinguish whether reptiles and mammals are one person or can be more than 1 person. In fact theres nothing natural that I can think of where it matters if there is one person or two persons involved in the actions of two different beings. So I have no use in the natural world for persons being different than beings. There's no extra explanatory power in having one person be multiple beings.

When it comes to a single person having a divine nature and human nature I go to the only thing I know and that's in the natural world it makes no difference whether one person is two beings. So I extrapolate that it shouldn't matter whether there is one person who is two beings or whether there is two persons for two beings when talking about divine natures and human natures. So I revert back to the simplist explanation that a person and a being are more or less interchangable terms. That is there is one person per being and one being per person.

That's the difference between my and Prax's view.