ephraimgadsby

“Where others merely smite the brow and clutch the hair, he acts.”

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@ThoughtfulSaint But honestly, it’s meaningless what I think. Read Butler, Nussbaum, Thompson, Aquinas, Foot. Get off this hellscape that is social media and YouTube and choose wisdom. Good luck.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@ThoughtfulSaint But if you really want to know what I think on this issue, I believe in a mind-independent natural order that constrains our metaphysical classifications but I don’t think that metaphysics is the sole determinant of semantic meaning.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@JonahBa96958909 Every row on this list could have the same words (even the Jesus is body and spirit row) and the conceptual chasm between the two traditions would still be immense. God is not “a spirit.” That’s the ballgame. Put down the lists, read hard books, seek enlightenment. Good luck.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@LukeFHan It’s sort of an alternative history — what might Christianity have looked like if second temple Judaism had never rejected the Canaanite concept of God? That view of God was not by any stretch of the imagination the majority view in pre-nicene Christian history.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@LukeFHan The choices were subordinationism or something like the humousious concept. The LDS posit a third way that involves questioning God’s transcendence and the meaning of monotheism but that had long since been rejected by the time of Jesus.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@jaredadairbell Don’t take this wrong, but to the extent you’re asking the question in good faith and not merely posturing, have you thought about reading some books on the subject? Like, some of the greatest thinkers in history affirmed the trinity. Perhaps there’s more to it than you think?

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@geoconservativ3 @suzania @smith_john83745 The debate was about Jesus’s relationship to that transcendent God. And that really was a true debate with lots of different views.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@geoconservativ3 @suzania @smith_john83745 There really wasn’t a debate about that in early Christianity.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@hankrsmith With all due respect the idea that God is going to make certain things rationally difficult to believe as some part of an epistemic trial seems like a very strange take on divine hiddenness that only a peculiarly modern, voluntaristic theology could make sense of.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@GuyInco15542744 If you think that creedal Christianity believes that God is a spirit, you haven’t understood creedal Christianity.

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@carolyn_phippen @ldslaw Definitely not. But there has to be some ex post mechanism to screen for certain egregious errors (we accidentally deported a citizen, we deported them in a way that was inconsistent with the deportation order, etc.)

[ephraimgadsby @eustaceplimsoll]

@carolyn_phippen @ldslaw You seem to think that due process exclusively means “ex ante due process.” But there’s also ex post. If an individual goes to traffic court and is adjudicated liable for speeding and is then thrown in prison for 30 years, there is ex ante due process but not ex post. Same here.