May 3, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Adelphe wrote:

Per a certain...gentleman's (a real gentleman's) (beautifully, btw, humble) request...    (yet, of course, anyone can and should feel free to chime in.)

Let us begin and with this:

If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?

The Word became flesh.  It's a Mystery.

I'm not sure I understand why the question is pertinent.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds.  For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Word is an objectively existing entity--at least, so we believe--not an abstract concept.

Likewise the body of Jesus, whose body was a real, objectively existing body, not the abstract concept body.

The Incarnation is a Mystery because no one knows in detail how it was effected, but it was clearly the union of two objectively existing entites, not two abstract concepts.

May 3, 2012 -- 8:57PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Adelphe wrote:

Per a certain...gentleman's (a real gentleman's) (beautifully, btw, humble) request...    (yet, of course, anyone can and should feel free to chime in.)

Let us begin and with this:

If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?

I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.

I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?

Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?

My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.

Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.

I'd better stop here.......according to.......... 

sdp

None of the above.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds.  For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Realist, on the other hand, believes that the concept chair exists objectively, independently of any objectively existing chairs--indeed, whether any actual chairs exist or not--and independently of anybody thinking about chairs.

Mind you, the whole question is a complex one, and many intermediate positions have been taken up by various philosphers over the ages.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_univers...

May 3, 2012 -- 9:17PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Adelphe wrote:

Per a certain...gentleman's (a real gentleman's) (beautifully, btw, humble) request...    (yet, of course, anyone can and should feel free to chime in.)

Let us begin and with this:

If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?

Clearly you're not aware that a REAL lady doesn't have an attitude of bitterness, hostility nor superiority.  Which are all the nature of the OPPOSITE of a lady I'm afraid...

Unless you suggest that a "gentleman" is defined while a "lady" is whatever one wishes.

I think you have mistaken her tone, which is one of gentle teasing arising out of our preliminary remarks in other threads concerning this topic.

At least, that is how I take it.

May 3, 2012 -- 8:28PM, amcolph wrote:

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds.  For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Word is an objectively existing entity--at least, so we believe--not an abstract concept.

Likewise the body of Jesus, whose body was a real, objectively existing body, not the abstract concept body.

The Incarnation is a Mystery because no one knows in detail how it was effected, but it was clearly the union of two objectively existing entites, not two abstract concepts.

Okay, but what is the Word's nature or essence?