Essay: Did God Truly Die?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PatternOfPersona (Talk | contribs) at 14:58, 22 July 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Some people do not understand death, nor do they understand their own thinking in regard to God. So, when they think of God dying, they think it means that the primary category of being has ceased to exist.

If your logic would that nothing is primary aside from the principle of non-contradiction, then your logic is that not even death is primary or final. But, aside from such ‘logic’, if death is not final, then something must be primary which can nevertheless experience death without losing its own primary ontology: something must be alive by virtue of itself: neither non-living, nor subject to a death-beyond-its-own-power-to-become-alive again.

There has to be a primary object of knowledge, else the logical principle of non-contradiction has no basis outside the identity of a thing, or of a thought. Now, if the thing at issue is the identity of God, then, to my way of thinking, either God is the primary object, or God can die. So, if you assume that God is the primary object, then you are being consistent with yourself to deny that God died. But, the semantics is subtle if all you focus on is either death or God, because you have to get a grip on as to what sort of thing it is that is presupposed by death, and then on as to what is the correspondence between God and that sort of thing.

Consider paint on a door: A door is a primary object when compared to the paint on the door. Death is like all the paint flaking off. So, the paint dies, but the door does not die. Different creatures are like different colors of paint, and human beings are red. The door become red, and still remained a door. But, in so far as the red paint all flaked off, the door experienced a loss of being red. I trust that you begin to get the point.

So, if, in addition to the assumption that God is the primary object, you assume that death is applicable only to non-primary objects, then the words ‘God experienced death’ can mean only one of exactly two things: One, a contradiction of the identity of God as the primary object; or, Two, that God took on the experience of a non-primary object: God became red. The basic error is in thinking of death, and the sort of thing presupposed by death, as a primary condition and object respectively. They are not primary. Only God is primary. So, God really did experience death, by first becoming red.