|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Spinoza was wrong. You can divide infinity. Draw the line:
Thus I'll drop the analogy.<-------------|---------------|--------------->
Infinite at both ends, divided into three parts. The end parts are infinite on one end each; the middle part is finite. Reality does mess up the analogy to the Trinity - but maybe you should keep the reality and drop the Trinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The balls are already finite. Only the number of balls is infinite. Of course you can make any number of separate piles of balls. I suppose you could make an "infinite" pile by constantly adding more balls from the bottomless bucket.
Take an infinite bucket with an infinite number of balls in it. Pour them out. Are they divisible into more than one pile?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
The doctrine of the Trinity isn't hard to understand. It's hard to swallow.
Perhaps that is Jesus...while on earth, human. He died, (making Him finite) yet was raided from the Dead by one of the other two infinite parts. Does this make it any easier to understand One God in three persons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's the same fallacy that the creationists use to put an arbitrary limit on microevolution. To me, an invisible God makes more sense than a visible one,chiefly because a God by definition would be greater (larger,stronger,more powerful) than anything our modern minds could visibly imagine. It makes sense that we can see something as small as a grain of sand. It makes sense that we can see something as big as our fist. It makes sense that we can see something as big as an elephant. It makes sense that we can see something as big as the moon. It makes sense that we can see something as big as a galaxy. So why does it suddenly "make sense" that we can't see something even bigger? What creationists are really saying is that they wish there was a limit to microevolution, therefore there "must be". What you're saying is that you wish there was a plausible explanation for God being invisible, therefore there "must be". You're attempt to make sense doesn't make any sense.
Phat writes:
You have it backwards. We've worked for centuries to unchain ourselves from empty belief and it's an on-going struggle.
It seems to me that for those who find such a concept hard to swallow, the main reason is simply because through lack of evidence or proof, the human mind has trouble believing.For me its no problem. I was never chained to evidential thinking anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If we can't swallow it, why would we try?
People who claim to limit God to a fig newton of our imagination have essentially missed the point---that God is more than they can swallow. Phat writes:
Why would we need - or want - a concept bigger than that?
God is a much bigger concept than ringo feeding people and doing his chores. Phat writes:
If you can't swallow it, what good is it?
Again...you limit God to a concept that can be fit in a box. You limit it to evidence. You limit it to something you can swallow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Again... A bigger concept than simply doing for others? Paul seemed to think that it was important to surrender your own self will---as he did---and accept Christ---as he also did. What does it mean to "accept Christ"? If it means something other than accepting what He told you to DO, for God's sake tell us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If you're "in communion" with Him, why can't you?
Are you asking me to explain what I believe that Gods motives are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So you don't believe that God created everything.
I believe that God never designed the flaws. Phat writes:
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.
...our desire to be free from authority and be our own god(s).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Read the story. Noah had to believe God but he had to DO what God said, not just start a personality cult. Faith without works is dead and Noah would have been dead without the works. The works are the indicator that the faith is real.
Nobody's salvation is in their own hands...apart from belief and surrender. Good works wont get you there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No it isn't. You judge the instructions on their own merits, regardless of the source. As Paul said, the Gentiles knew what to do without being told by the Hebrew God. The belief is necessary to listen to the instructions. In fact, we can judge the messenger by the message. If the message makes no sense - e.g. regarding the age of the earth - then we need to disregard it.
Phat writes:
It isn't about OUR expectations. We do what we know is right and that's how God judges us.
People cant just run off doing random works and expect this to be proof of their faith. Phat writes:
Belief in the MESSAGE.
To obey requires belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If he didn't believe it, why did he say it?
ringo writes:
If Paul had believed this, he would have had no need to preach Christ. As Paul said, the Gentiles knew what to do without being told by the Hebrew God. Phat writes:
For the umpteenth time, belief is for when there is no evidence.
We do not need evidence to choose to believe. Phat writes:
Nonsense. We all accept gravity BECAUSE of evidence. We see things fall and we infer that sitting under suspended objects is a bad idea. Believing in gravity without evidence is no better than believing in gremlins without evidence.
... it would be a mistake to wait until the apple falls from the tree and knocks you out rather than choosing to believe in gravity without evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Who does?
They did not desire to be free from authority. Phat writes:
Indeed they did. And God told Noah to build his own ark. Noah's salvation was in his own hands.
On the contrary, they listened to authority and did what God said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Reality. I'm subject to gravity and friction and aging, so I have to be careful of slipping on the ice. I'm also subject to taxes and prices, so I have to pay my bills to avoid spending all of my time out on the ice. whose authority are you under? Why do I need to add a celestial leprechaun to that list?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. I'm convinced that I HAVE nothing apart from what I have been given. I am NOT convinced that there IS anything "apart" from what I have been given.
You are convinced that you need nothing apart from what you have been given. Phat writes:
Any wisdom that supposedly comes from God is filtered through humans - so what's the difference?
If GOD is useful as a font of wisdom, why not just seek wise humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
In our society, which is awash with talk about gods, everybody has had an opportunity to know God - unless He is deliberately hiding from some of us.
If so, is it possible that all atheists have already been given the opportunity to know God? Phat writes:
Do you ignore the Loch Ness monster? Leprechauns? The Tooth Fairy? The next question is why would one prefer to ignore Him? (Stay hypothetical in your answer. ) Just because you lack evidence...is that any reason to ignore Him? Answer your own question: Is the lack of evidence for them any reason to not believe in them?
Phat writes:
You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking what you GET from Him that I would want. As far as I can see, you're not GETTING anything that I'm not getting - so why would I put Him in the equation at all?
What is it you would hypothetically want from Him that is any different from what I want from Him?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024