|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Paul seemed to think that it was important to surrender your own self will---as he did---and accept Christ---as he also did. Why is it important? What does that even mean?
Phat writes: Critics say he was attempting to start a new religion. Perhaps he didn't think that being Jewish was enough. That's better than some modern day critics who think that God is Himself un necessary and the message does not require Him. Why is it better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Paul tells us that we follow the spirit of the times...(zeitgeist) until we accept Gods grace through belief in Jesus Christ as living rather than dead. Yet Paul also understands that that is just bullshit and that in fact many who have not accepted Gods grace through belief in Jesus Christ as living rather than dead (what does that even mean) actually behave better than those who have accepted Gods grace through belief in Jesus Christ as living rather than dead. But you still have only offered word salad and not a single reason that anyone should accept Gods grace through belief in Jesus Christ as living rather than dead.
Phat writes: Paul maintains that we are by nature selfish, egotistical, unloving and proud. And there is no evidence Paul ever changed when it came to those characteristics.
Phat writes: Perhaps you were taught that each individual human already has the power within themselves to be responsible, do unto others and for others. I would argue that this message minimizes the importance of the resurrection. You can argue all you want yet you have never offered any reason that the resurrection is important or explained how someone can be responsible, do unto others and for others other than by doing it themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: You are correct. I have so far failed at supporting my argument that we all need Jesus. I suppose I am more curious why you believe that Pauline Christianity should be opposed. You may have mentioned that much of it is a cop out. I am not persuaded that you have fully explained why it is so dishonorable to accept an ongoing pardon and why acceptance of such a belief prevents an individual from trying to do their best? Correct. You have presented no reason to show why anyone would want Jesus. And I don't believe Pauline Christianity should be opposed but rather appose what I see as a perversion of what Paul taught. "Fight the GOOD fight." "Run the race." "When I was a child I saw as a child..." What I object to is the very common practice of taking Paul's comments out of context when if you look at the whole body of writings alleged to have written by Paul the overriding theme is about doing, about personal responsibility. I object to modern evangelical Christianity perverting both Jesus message and Paul's message as well as perverting almost all of what is considered Canonical. The issue of some theological pardon is ONLY relevant after you are dead. Until then it is of no worth or importance. Accepting any pardon must be weighed. By accepting a secular pardon are you actually simply transferring your responsibilities onto another? If so then yes, I feel it is dishonorable to accept such a pardon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Do you have any desire to communicate with Him? What does that even mean? How can you have a two way communication with God? How can you even determine that you are communicating with God?
Phat writes: It means to actually talk with Him. It means allowing Him to prompt you to change yourself for the better...to conform to His character. It means to quit being so stubborn and independent and trust someone in authority for once. Why should anyone trust someone in authority? I can understand how you could talk to Santa or the Tooth Fairy or God but how do you talk WITH any of them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: jar writes: You talk and then you listen. In fact, it is wise to do more listening than talking. Notice Moses in How can you have a two way communication with God?Num 9:8-13 writes: Does it not seem as if the Lord is talking with Moses?
8 Moses answered them, "Wait until I find out what the LORD commands concerning you."9 Then the LORD said to Moses, 10 "Tell the Israelites: 'When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the LORD's Passover. 11 They are to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13 But if a man who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, that person must be cut off from his people because he did not present the LORD's offering at the appointed time. That man will bear the consequences of his sin. Did Luke hold conversations with Darth Vader?
Phat writes: jar writes: I suppose to skeptical questioners such as you, there would be no evidence...but the fact that you get answers would be a clue...unless you attributed the answers to your own internal sub conscious. How can you even determine that you are communicating with God?It is always wise to question inner voices...even still small ones...so another clue would be if the answer sounded right. By this I dont mean that the answer is simply what you want...I mean if the answer hints at wisdom...when you intuitively know it sounds right even if you may not agree with it. So it is the content that is important and not the source. How do you test the content other than by using reason, logic and reality instead of simply choosing what you want to be correct?
Phat writes: jar writes: You have read the Bible. It often speaks of people talking with God and not just to Him. I can understand how you could talk to Santa or the Tooth Fairy or God but how do you talk WITH any of them? "Luke; I am your father!" In stories such things are possible. But that is not what I asked. How do you talk with Santa or the Tooth Fairy or God? Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed broken quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: ringo writes: Nobody's salvation is in their own hands...apart from belief and surrender. Good works wont get you there. His salvation was in his own hands There you go quote mining, misrepresenting what others say and taking pieces parts out of context. What ringo actually said was "It isn't so much a desire as a need. Remember that Noah needed to build his own ark. His salvation was in his own hands. " So Phat, who built the Ark?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Really Phat? According to the Bible God simply told Noah what to do and it was all up to Noah, his family and likely his neighbors who then did not get to go on the cruise to do the work.
What exactly did the God character in the story do? Well in the story the God character sat around waiting until Noah & Co did the work and then turned the faucets on. Sat around for thirty days and turned the faucet off. Then realized he made a mistake and promised to never do it again. So what part of building the Ark did the God character do exactly? Are you like so many other Christians just making stuff up to add to the Bible stories?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: To me its all a no-brainer. There is One God. period. Yet Christianity declares that there is a Trinity and that the three things are each separate and unique. There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Three divine persons. Now Judaism does say there is One God. But not Christianity. But Wait!!!!!!!!! There's more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are equally valid religious beliefs that there are lots of gods, no gods, gods and kinda gods, human kids of gods and animal gods. The Trinity in Christianity is called the Great Mystery because, quite honestly, it makes no sense. It is based on almost no Biblical support. It cannot rationally be explained. But it is an article of belief that was created primarily as a political tool to exclude certain power groups and bases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: As I may have said a time or two before, I believe that God created a free willed Lucifer and also created the possibility of evil ....an attractive nuisance if you will. By choosing to deny/ignore/override God, Lucifer thus became Satan. Can you help us with Biblical passages that support that position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL.
But there really is a supporting source for your belief and it is a poem written by Durante degli Alighieri about twenty years before Columbus first voyage to the New World. That hardly seems "Biblical".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat writes: I realize that Isaiah says otherwise...but I am allowing my own belief to further explain the God I want rather than quite possibly the GOD who is. If the GOD WHO Is is totally unlike the God who in my mind seems more fair and just, I would be extremely disillusioned and defiant towards such a Being. Yes, thank you for acknowledging you are creating the God you want. The evidence shows you are not alone in doing that. The author or authors of the Genesis 2&3 stories created a god that is very human, powerful, commanding, somewhat bumbling but also friendly, fearful, unsure but approachable. The author or authors of the Genesis 1 story created a god that is supremely competent, aloof, always sure, commanding but also apart, having no contact with the creation. Humans can only worship the god they create. The Trinity is an invention of a time hundreds of years after Jesus, not something that existed at the time any of the Bible stories were written. The Trinity is a human creation and has whatever meaning humans give it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: I dont believe that humans simply invent doctrines without at least believing that the doctrine is sound. Humans are eminently capable of convincing themselves even the most ridiculous things are true. Note you yourself go on to say "Thus I can agree that we "make up" the God we wish to worship and that reality suggests that the GOD Who Is is likely unlike the One we desire." But this is still unrelated to the topic which is the meaning of the trinity. The answer to that question seems to be "The Trinity is a concept created by humans and incorporated as an Article of Faith in some religions". Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Do you know much about the history of how the Athanasian Creed came about?Hopefully, it was motivated by a desire for clarity rather than political ulterior motives...I will have to study it more. Of course it was motivated by the need to define one point as authoritative; a political motive as usual. The only purpose for things like heresy are political; it is declaring some group out and a different group in. Being political is not bad or good, it is simply a reflection of reality. But let's look at your cite:
Colossians 2:9 writes: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Please point out the part that references the Trinity? But wait; there's more. Let's look at all of Colossians 2.
quote: There is absolutely nothing in there even vaguely related to the concept of the Trinity and in fact the chapter in Colossians seems to be condemning practices like declaring heresy or taking a single line totally out of context or of using proof texts and in fact almost all of the practices of Evangelical Biblical Christianity. I'm glad you brought this up since it is such a classic example of the utterly silly lengths apologists and marketeers go to to try to create support for their preferred dogma. Edited by jar, : get rid of random smilies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat, why don't you actually try to address the topic?
What does the Christian "Trinity" really mean and since it is an impossibility that is directly countered by almost everything in the Bible, why does it stand as an Article of Faith? There are actual arguments to justify it but as so often the case they are purely power and political in nature and totally unrelated to any reasonable or logical or rational beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Nicene Creed is unrelated to the meaning or acceptance of the Trinity . It is an Article of Faith. It does say that at that time to be a Christian one must believe in the characters God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is the document that actually bring the Holy Spirit in as an individual.
But it is also quite clear that they are all separate and distinctive individuals and also that there is one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The idea though of some three in one, not just as expression of differing aspects or essences really is the product of the term "consubstantial". It's a great word because it can mean being of one substance or of one essence. It's allowed the silliness to become so intrenched as to become "An Article of Faith"; ie: something so silly, so unreasonable, so illogical, so irrational, so unexplainable that it must simply be accepted with ever actually thinking about what it means, what is signifies or how totally unsupportable it might be.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024