To: Arthur McGowan
No. I meant that one being can be contingent on another, both existing simultaneously.What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me an example?
God must be greater and more perfect than we are, in order for us to be what we are. What he cannot be is something less than we are.
So, "perfection" is a substance, that can be divided up & distributed among people, but cannot be created or grown from lesser amounts of perfection? Is there like a Law of Conservation of Perfection?
343 posted on
02/16/2003 10:04:07 PM PST by
jennyp
(http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
To: jennyp
So, "perfection" is a substance, that can be divided up & distributed among people, but cannot be created or grown from lesser amounts of perfection? Is there like a Law of Conservation of Perfection? You are a material girl, aren't you?
346 posted on
02/16/2003 10:29:27 PM PST by
unspun
(Christ-informed, American constitutional republic = Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism = No.)
To: jennyp
No. I meant that one being can be contingent on another, both existing simultaneously. What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me an example?
Ummm...how about a parent and child. Does that work?
To: jennyp
Your questions are not honest, respectful, or sincere. If you are SERIOUS about understanding scholastic ontology, there are loads of good textbooks around.
To: jennyp
AM:
No. I meant that one being can be contingent on another, both existing simultaneously.JP:
What does that mean, exactly? Can you give me an example?Quantum entanglement?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson