My Beliefs- GDR

I'm for you sir. I have given up trying to explain to dyed in the wool believers that some shit dont add up. Like the Trinity for example. 1+1+1=1I haven't come out and stated "I do not believe in God."But that is because I am afraid he might exist and smite me.

There are many of us that accepted the Christian faith as adults so it isn’t just a matter of rejecting something when you come to the age of reason.I’m a little curious as to why in you are asking me to explain why a god you don’t believe in caused you to reject him. Personally I have no way of even guessing at whether your movement away from the Christian faith was of God or not.I don’t accept that just because you rejected the Christian faith that you are to be damned to hell. The best allegory that I know of about hell is the C S Lewis’ book The Great Divorce. It’s short, is an easy interesting read, and it won’t give you any particular reason to reject your atheistic views.I think that there are much better reasons to accept Christianity but I have already gone over that in this thread.

Again I didn't word that well, and I am not suggesting that I understand evolution or chemistry from anything more than a conceptual POV.I do understand that chemistry existed before the Earth but I meant the chemistry necessary to form a single cell. It is certainly easier to believe. Our beliefs about the plausibility of a miracle is going to be based on our beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a deity. What I don't agree with is that the stories were pulled from other sources, other than Jewish sources. The Gospels and Epistles are very Jewish and draw on Jewish scriptures and traditions. I can understand the argument that the accounts are Jewish fiction but I don't agree with that either.From an historical perspective, from everything I have read there was no anticipation within Judaism of a messiah, or anyone else for that matter, being resurrected prior to the end of time. Even within Judaism resurrection meant different things to different sects but there wasn't a belief in resurrection in the manner that the early Christians believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

Why on earth is that a problem? It isn't however, that new information confirms my beliefs, although it might, but yes I am prepared to adjust my beliefs with new information. It is pretty stupid not to isn't it? I have adjusted my views considerably due to what I have learned over the last several years and as a matter of fact I have adjusted my views because of things that I have learned, (mostly from dialoguing with atheists actually), on this forum.As I have said earlier that the two essentials for my Christianity are that God is consistently good and just, and secondly that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an historical event.I don't pretend to have absolute knowledge of God, although I do through faith and frankly IMHO reason treat my two fundamentals as absolutes. I have no doubt that a great deal of what I believe is to one degree or another wrong, and so why would I refuse to adjust my beliefs when I learn something new.

I hope it is ok to butt in. Trinitarian belief means different things to different people. Here is how I see it.God the Father is the one who is responsible for our existence and who cares deeply about us.God the Son is Jesus the Jewish Messiah. However you care to believe that God did it, He made Jesus the embodiment of His Word. Previously the Jews had to believe that God's dwelling place was the Temple and that is where they would go to meet with God, to be made right with God, take their sacrifices to God and to be forgiven by God. Jesus however went around enacting that in Himself and saying things like you are forgiven and I desire mercy not sacrifice. In other words Jesus embodied Yahweh's return to His people.God the Holy Spirit is more of an enigma but I see Him as the seed of God in the hearts of all of us. I see Him as that still small voice that is our conscience and as the one who reaches out to us with mercy, love and justice and asks that we in turn reflect that mercy love and justice into the world.Anyway that is how I see it, so take it for what it's worth which is JMHO.

Hi GDR,I always thought that the point of the first council of Nicea was to hammer out once and for all:Jesus is one with the Father same substance.This was because Bishop Arias was teaching that Jesus was not.The church had to perserve the idea of a one God and not the worship of 3 gods. Which would make early Christians pantheist.So the Nicean creed was putting this concept to rest.
aka the Catholic profesion of faith.

I think that if I go further on what I said about God the Son I am consistent with the Nicene Creed.As the one who embodied Yahweh’s return to His people Jesus was resurrected ahead of time as the new Adam for the Kingdom He established which would be the inauguration of the eternal Kingdom. Jesus is made King and Lord of all over that Kingdom.This is from John 14:

quote:

---

28 "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I

---

So first off we can see that Jesus did not see Himself in that sense of the same substance as the Father.I see it this way and we have to go back to Genesis. Genesis tells us that we are made in the image of God, and as Jesus perfectly imaged God to the world they were of the same substance. And again, that is JMHO. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Excuse me for butting in here again, but we "fundamentalists" CAN read, and those who developed the doctrine of the Trinity would certainly have known this verse, and yet went on to formulate the doctrine of the same substance shared among the three Persons of the Trinity. So obviously this verse has to be understood to mean something other than that. Without looking up what it is understood by orthodox theology to mean, I'd say it most likely means that as the Son He is subordinate in RANK to the Father, not substance but rank. If necessary I'll look it up later to see if I'm right.

But I went on Faith to say how I see Jesus as being one substance with the Father.

Yes, but I was only interested in how you read that verse. That's all.

I also doubt he believes any miracle, religious or othwerwise, can happen. I don't reject anything, though. I don't see how that applies here. I have not been given any evidence to decide for or against. I haven't even been given a proper explanation as to what we would be rejecting or accepting. But I don't start with the position that god doesn't exist. God could very well exist. I start with the position that there is no evidence for god. So I hold no position one way or the other.I have explained this throughout the thread. Fine, we don't like unicorns. Bigfoot meets the requirements above. Many books, many eye witnesses, there's the BFRO and even 3 seasons of the show on Animal Planet called Finding Bigfoot. To include people on this show that call themselves experts who claim there are about 2000 BF in North America.THIS IS FOR GDR TO ANSWER:Do you start with the position that Bigfoot/s exist? Replace unicorn with Bigfoot. It fits the bill.- Oni

No. I would start with the position that Bigfoot(s) might exist and go from there.

Right, and the same should go for anything else that is only claimed by eye witness accounts and written about in stories.That's why I said earlier in the thread that bigfoot is beating god. At least with bigfoot nothing supernatural has to also be considered. With god, not only is there no objective evidence, there is also the whole supernatural, immaterial, creator of everything aspect of it making god far beyond something as natural as bigfoot.And yet, of the two, you are skeptical of the most plausable one.- Oni

Sure, but in the case of Bigfoot we are talking about a creature that supposedly exists now. The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes.In the case of the resurrection we are talking about a once only occurrence 2000 years ago.

Chemistry, is chemistry, is chemistry. It all functions the same.So yes, it was. Really? So you accept the plausibility of any and all miracles just because you believe in god? From any religion, belief system and or philosophy? You aren't skeptical about any just because you believe in god?I fail to see how your belief in god makes you more likely to believe some holy man in the far east miraculously cured someone of cancer. You don't believe it is more likely that this holy man and those around him lied about the miraculous powers he has? Well I have done what I can to show you that evidence. I have shown you Osiris, the son of a god, who was tortured and killed only to be ressurected days later at the hand of his mother who was said to be in love with him. This story is similar to Jesus, the son of god, who was tortured and killed only to be resurrected days later, and appearing first as claimed by some to his lover, as claimed by others, Mary Magdalene.Like this there are many more. These stories pre-date the story of Jesus by 2500 years. Sure there was. Osiris was resurrected in the form of a plant. Others in the form of other things. The story of Jesus chose a human vessel. Big deal.You can't change the car from a Delorean to a Corvette and claim your story is completely different from Back to the Future.- Oni