Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 354 of 1864 (812068)
06-14-2017 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
06-13-2017 6:52 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
Phat writes:
Must a belief be provable before you embrace it?
If it was provable, there would be no reason to believe. The only time a belief should be embraced is when it can not be proven.
Phat writes:
What possible reasons would you have for rejecting it?
You tell me. What possible reasons could you have for rejecting belief in leprechauns?
Phat writes:
Perhaps you came from a family of believers who made no sense.
Actually, it was believers trying to prove their beliefs that convinced me they didn't know what they were talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 6:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 355 of 1864 (812072)
06-14-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Phat
06-13-2017 7:26 PM


Re: Freely Ignored
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 ....
As I have said before, I think "free will" is a nonsense concept.
Phat writes:
....an attractive nuisance if you will.
According to Wikipedia:
quote:
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.
The creator is responsible.
Phat writes:
On the one hand, you guys complain that He never reveals Himself. On the other hand, you have chosen to go with the "evidence" that proves His absence.
How does that differ from your attitude toward leprechauns?
Phat writes:
What about the possibility of ignoring God? ...Should God have hypothetically given you this freedom?
Why does God need me so badly that He's willing to burn me if I ignore Him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 7:26 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Phat, posted 06-15-2017 9:23 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 360 of 1864 (812194)
06-15-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Phat
06-15-2017 9:23 AM


Re: Freely Ignored
Phat writes:
More likely is the belief that YOU need Him and will burn yourself by playing with foreign leprechauns.
How is that more likely?
Phat writes:
My attitude towards leprechauns is similar to my attitude towards a pair of fake Air Jordans sold on e-bay. I go with quality and have chosen what I consider the top quality product.
I'm asking WHY you think one product is better quality than the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Phat, posted 06-15-2017 9:23 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 368 of 1864 (848999)
02-20-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Phat
02-20-2019 9:50 AM


Re: Revisiting this old topic.....
Phat writes:
I refuse, however, to embrace the ridiculous ideas brought forth here at EvC that disprove and discredit God and Jesus as real presences in human lives.
You admit that God is not a real presence in your life. So why do you call our ideas "ridiculous"?
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
Phat writes:
Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also?
Draw the line. You can only divide it at finite places. You can't have three infinite pieces when you only have two infinite ends.
Perhaps Jesus, being human, was the finite piece. Since He is connected to an infinite God, (at one end) and an infinite Holy Spirit(at the other end) He becomes One with them.
That might actually work. But can you live with Jesus being finite?
Phat writes:
The only problem I would hypthetically have now is reasoning why there needs to be a GOD (The Father) and a Holy Spirit.
Because three is a magic number.
Eleven disciples could have done the work of twelve - a couple of them were just tag-alongs anyway - but Jesus the Numerologist insisted on twelve.
There could have been nine commandments. The first one is really just a preamble anyway.
The week could be eight days long. God could have spent a whole day on humans if He wanted to emphasize that we are different from animals.
But magic trumps mathematics in God-land.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Phat, posted 02-20-2019 9:50 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 10:02 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 374 of 1864 (849024)
02-21-2019 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Phat
02-21-2019 10:02 AM


Re: Revisiting this old topic.....
Phat writes:
It makes no sense to me why people would spin a story out of thin air for two thousand years if there were nothing to it.
Oh come on. There's a whole publishing industry and a whole movie industry based on spinning stories out of nothing.
Phat writes:
I feel that Jesus existed...as do you...
No I don't. I don't know where you got that idea. I have said many times that the Jesus character is most likely an amalgamation of several itinerant preachers, much like Elmer Gantry.
Phat writes:
...and that there is an unseen Creator.
And that there are unseen leprechauns....
Phat writes:
Evolution makes sense, but I do not believe that God does NOT make sense...I think that that idea too is plausible.
Your thinking is inconsistent. The way you scoff at evidence, you might as well reject evolution too.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 10:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 386 of 1864 (849092)
02-24-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Phat
02-23-2019 11:20 PM


Re: About the Holy Spirit. (question)
Phat writes:
He is no doubt delighted to attempt to make Jesus go away.
It will never happen, however. Even if only a myth, the legend will continue as long as humanity lives.
That's a completely empty prediction. No doubt the Greeks and the Vikings made the same prediction about their myths.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Phat, posted 02-23-2019 11:20 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 389 of 1864 (849098)
02-24-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by candle2
02-24-2019 2:39 PM


Re: About the Holy Spirit. (question)
candle2 writes:
The Holy Bible tells us time and time again that one is the Father and the other is the Son (two).
How about giving us a few examples?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by candle2, posted 02-24-2019 2:39 PM candle2 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 408 of 1864 (879581)
07-18-2020 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Phat
07-17-2020 2:00 PM


Re: Rebellious Sons & Obedient Sons
Phat writes:
Leaving an apple on the table could well be called a deliberate set-up, but it allowed for the possibility of disobedience.
But why is the possibility of disobedience "necessary"? Why does the whiny little god you've made up "require" obedience?
Edited by ringo, : Splling.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Phat, posted 07-17-2020 2:00 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Phat, posted 07-18-2020 2:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 416 of 1864 (879631)
07-19-2020 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Phat
07-18-2020 2:40 PM


Re: Rebellious Sons & Obedient Sons
Phat writes:
why is it so deplorable to think about obeying?
It has nothing to do with being "deplorable". You claimed it was "necessary". Why is it necessary?
Phat writes:
The problem of course is that you have never seen a reason (or evidence) to believe in a higher power...
It has nothing to do with believing in a higher power. It's about OBEDIENCE. Why is it "necessary"?
Look at the prodigal son. What was necessary in that relationship was not obedience. If anything was necessary it was forgiveness - unconditional, inclusive forgiveness.
Phat writes:
The reality of God never got you.
The "reality" of God doesn't get to anybody because it isn't real. It's a fantasy.
It's possible that there is a GOD and it's possible that we will meet HER some day but until we do, there is no reality to it, only made-up and hoped-for fantasy.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Phat, posted 07-18-2020 2:40 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Phat, posted 07-19-2020 11:16 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 420 of 1864 (879659)
07-19-2020 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Phat
07-19-2020 11:16 AM


Re: Rebellious Sons & Obedient Sons
Phat writes:
First of all, Gods human character is male not female.
Get down off your high horse. You've used the female pronoun yourself.
Phat writes:
(Jesus is male)
That might be relevant if I had mentioned Jesus at all. But I was talking about GOD.
Phat writes:
Second of all, the story is not simply a fantasy.
That's an irrelevant assertion.
Phat writes:
This is evident by the impact it has had on people, culture, and History. Fantasy's run out of steam long before having such impact.
That nonsense has been covered many times before.
Phat writes:
What I'm trying to emphasize to ringo is the idea that were we to apply;y the prodigal "son" parable to God and the Angels, Lucifer would be the prodigal.
You have it backwards. The prodigal son parable definitely DOES apply to God and His children. The whole "Lucifer" bit is something that you are trying to spackle on. The prodigal son parable shows that your Lucifer nonsense is just made up.
Phat writes:
Jesus is Gods character and God cannot rebel against Himself.
Irrelevant assertion. And dead wrong, too. You mentioned yourself (didn't you?) that Jesus WAS tempted to rebel ("Take this cup from me.")
Phat writes:
ringo asks "why the need for obedience?" Answer: To preserve union as opposed to a dualistic diversity.
You're assuming the conclusion. Obedience MIGHT be necessary IF "dualistic diversity" was valid. But that 's the question. You can't use it as the answer.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Phat, posted 07-19-2020 11:16 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 432 of 1864 (879698)
07-20-2020 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Phat
07-20-2020 11:45 AM


Re: Libertarian Free Will
Phat writes:
Danial Dennet is a curmudgeonly atheist philosopher...so I take his "wisdom" with a grain of salt. I'll look him up though...I've seen him spout atheistic nonsense with Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens.
You're making it pretty clear that your mind is closed like a bear trap.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 11:45 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 6:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 434 of 1864 (879730)
07-21-2020 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Phat
07-20-2020 6:46 PM


Re: Sizing Up Dennett
Phat writes:
No more than your mind is closed to any sort of possibility of a spiritual realm...
Stop lying about me. I have told you many times that I would gladly believe if there was any reason to believe. You, on the other hand, have told me many times that you will never give up your beliefs.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 6:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 8:00 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 442 of 1864 (880551)
08-07-2020 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Phat
08-07-2020 9:45 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Phat writes:
This seems to only be possible if one values objective evidence and rationality over their belief.
Well DUH.
Evidence and reality ALWAYS trump belief. Always, always, always.
Phat writes:
ringo likely believes that there is no "evidence" of any gods.
That's where your problem is. I don't believe that there is any more evidence for YOUR god than there is for any other god. YOU believe there is no evidence for the other gods. You just need to catch up by one god.
Phat writes:
He believes in human potential as the only thing that really matters and that we can test and measure.
WRONG - as i have told you many times. Do you read my posts at all?
I believe that human potential is all we have. Even if it's only a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, it's all we have. Christians are living proof of that.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Phat, posted 08-07-2020 9:45 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Phat, posted 08-07-2020 4:18 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 443 of 1864 (880552)
08-07-2020 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Juvenissun
08-07-2020 10:09 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Juvenissun writes:
In order to argue about anything related to God, one first NEEDS to assume that there is a God.
Obviously not. We can argue about Frodo without assuming that Frodo exists.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 10:09 AM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 2:16 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 444 of 1864 (880556)
08-07-2020 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Juvenissun
08-07-2020 8:00 AM


Re: Sizing Up Dennett
Juvenissun writes:
In order to believe in the nature of Trinity, you must first believe that there is a single God.
Your premise is false. It is certainly possible to discuss the nature odf a fictional entity, such as Frodo.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 8:00 AM Juvenissun has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Phat, posted 08-07-2020 4:09 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024