Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-23-2019 3:49 PM
130 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (4 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,806 Year: 2,843/19,786 Month: 925/1,918 Week: 212/301 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1368
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 361 of 380 (812296)
06-15-2017 8:06 PM


A question about the Christian ( not Zoroastrian! ) Holy Spirit.
Faith and Phat claim it is the same thing as the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8:9

I request as many sources from Paul's epistles as Faith & Phat can find to clarify the Pauline view.

(Can you understand that Faith? I will be happy to clarify if the request makes no sense )


Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:03 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 362 of 380 (812307)
06-15-2017 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by LamarkNewAge
06-15-2017 8:06 PM


Re: A question about the Christian ( not Zoroastrian! ) Holy Spirit.
I can't find any other verses that have the same distinction you are asking for. I'm sure the following isn't what you want but it's the best I can find. But your whole preoccupation seems nonsensical to me and unnecessary.

Jhn 1:33
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Jhn 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Act 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

1Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-15-2017 8:06 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-15-2017 11:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1368
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 363 of 380 (812313)
06-15-2017 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
06-15-2017 11:03 PM


Re: A question about the Christian ( not Zoroastrian! ) Holy Spirit.
FIRST THING:

I am not going to be able to fathom how you can accuse me of being full of nonsense simply because I am interested in understanding the Pauline view of the Holy Spirit.

I remember when you used to argue with me when I said that the Council of Nicea should be seen as totally unimportant and irrelevant to the teachings of the 1st century founders of (what would become ) Christianity.

You strongly insisted on the importance of the 4th century Trinity doctrine and seemed to be saying that salvation rode on whether individuals accepted or rejected Constantine's 325 AD church council . (Have you grown out of that my mindset in the last 18 months? )

SECOND :

Can we stick with the (genuine and disputed in terms of authentic Pauline authorship ) Epistles of Paul, since they are chronologically the most early. Nobody doubts Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in the first 1/3 of the 50s in the first century. The rest of the epistles were all written before 62 AD. The authentic ones anyway. The technology of recent decades (computers ) have backed up the single author of the 7 authentic Pauline Epistles.

Both fundamentalists and the "Jesus never existed" crowd should value the Pauline epistles as an area of extreme chronological importance.

THIRD

You did quote from 1 Cor 12:3 .

Do you want to interpret the verse?

Is that the only Holy Spirit verse?

We can get to Acts quotes of Paul, but the book probably was written after 90 AD

FOURTH

Can you please show us how the quotes are consistent with the Council of Nicea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 364 of 380 (828991)
02-28-2018 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
08-15-2014 4:55 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
What DOES The Bible say?
I was reading the Athanasian Creed recently. To wit:
quote:
Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the [Christian] faith. Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will, without doubt, perish eternally.

And the [Christian] faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Holy Spirit is another. But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit: the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal, just as there are not three Uncreated or three Infinites, but one Uncreated and one Infinite. In the same way, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. Just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so also are we prohibited by the [Christian] religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.


Martin Luther was quoted summing it up this way:

quote:
In the first place, the Creed has until now been divided into twelve articles. Yet, if all the doctrinal points that are written in the Scriptures and that belong to the Creed were to be distinctly set forth, there would be far more articles. They could not all be clearly expressed in so few words. But to make the Creed most easily and clearly understood as it is to be taught to children, we shall briefly sum up the entire Creed in three chief articles, according to the three persons in the Godhead [Colossians 2:9]. Everything that we believe is related to these three persons. So the First Article, about God the Father, explains creation. The Second Article, about the Son, explains redemption. And the Third, about the Holy Spirit, explains sanctification. We present them as though the Creed were briefly summarized in so many words: I believe in God the Father, who has created me; I believe in God the Son, who has redeemed me; I believe in the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies me. One God and one faith, but three persons. Therefore, three articles or confessions.
Martin Luther, The Large Catechism
Thus Luther takes Colossians 2:9 as his Biblical snippet justifying the Trinitarian Doctrine.

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.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 08-15-2014 4:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 02-28-2018 10:19 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 366 by jar, posted 02-28-2018 11:57 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 380 (828992)
02-28-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Phat
02-28-2018 9:37 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
Yes I know how it came about. Athanasius was answering the heretics of his day. I know he answered those who refused to recognize that Jesus Christ is God, and he may also have dealt with those who had what is called a "modalist" view that pictures God switching from Father to Son and Holy Spirit as different modes of His Being rather than existing as three separate Persons all equally God and Lord. Athanasius was a man of integrity serving God and the Church honestly and not from any "political" motives.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Phat, posted 02-28-2018 9:37 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-21-2019 12:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 366 of 380 (829003)
02-28-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Phat
02-28-2018 9:37 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
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:
For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;

2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.


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


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Phat, posted 02-28-2018 9:37 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 367 of 380 (848989)
02-20-2019 9:50 AM


Revisiting this old topic.....
ringo writes:

If God isn't useful to us, what's the point of having a God?

Thats exactly what I have been asking myself lately as I struggle with believing in a God that does not help me nor favor me in any way. He may as well not exist, though I still believe that he does.
ringo writes:

To recap: The Bible emphasizes a metaphorical father-child relationship between God and His people. I contend that that relationship implies an obligation to protect His people. His people expect that protection (e.g. Psalm 23). You don't seem to feel inclined to refute my contention with Biblical references, so the contention stands.

The father analogy does not help me relate to God...mainly because my father always took care of me and provided help from the day I was 5 until the day he passed (I was 17). He left money for the family and I essentially lived on that money supplemented by my own income for 30 years. Now, as I struggle with getting older and paying my bills, I feel abandoned by God as father figure. 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.

Phat writes:

Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also?


ringo writes:

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.

The only problem I would hypthetically have now is reasoning why there needs to be a GOD (The Father) and a Holy Spirit.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ringo, posted 02-20-2019 2:44 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16150
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 368 of 380 (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 responded

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1368
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 369 of 380 (849014)
02-21-2019 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
02-28-2018 10:19 AM


The Roman Catholic Papal puppet Athanasius.
quote:

Athanasius was a man of integrity serving God and the Church honestly and not from any "political" motives.

The Pope somehow caused Constantine I to see him as the supreme decider over all of Christianity in the leadup to Nicaea.

(However,after Nicaea, Constantine started to attempt to allow more Bishops to vote, though the situation was ESSENTIALLY one where Arius followers (on the one hand) and Roman Catholics (on the other) would overthrow and banish one respective bishop - from the other side - after another, and instating each's own side)

Pope Militiades and Sylvester I made sure that Bishops that disagreed (however slightly) with Roman Catholicism were excluded. The See of Alexandria was a Roman Catholic puppet.

Literally every last part of North Africa, except for (Roman Catholic stacked) Alexandria disagreed with Rome.

I don't know where to begin. (I could try to selectively paste selective parts of roughly 2 dozen or so wikipedia links)

I will avoid that and keep it short.

Avoiding the intrigue of Alexandria itself, I will just cover a few things.

(Constantine was involved in all of what I am to cover)

The Melitians (in Egypt) had 29 bishops that were not allowed to vote at Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea did give the 29 bishops the right to be counted (in the future), but they were subject to severe restrictions from the will of the See Alexandria. Melitians were Arians.

The Donatists were the majority in North Africa in the 4th century (or the plurality, outnumbering Roman Catholics).

The historical clues from the Donatist controversy show us that the first ever Lateran Council (aka the 313 Council of Rome) saw the Roman Catholic Pope Miltiades appoint 20 Bishops (to take on the 70 from North Africa) overrule the majority. October 2-4 313 was the fraud that set the precedent for the Roman Catholic Empire.

The 314 Council of Arles (which handled a North African matter in Europe) was full of stacked Bishops, and the 313 Lateran Council was upheld. Pope Sylvester just came to power after Pope Miltiades died.

Constantine (ALL BY HIMSELF) himself decided the 317 appeal, and sided with (shock) the Pope of Rome against the North African people.

Hundreds of Bishops, all over Africa were absent power of the vote.

No wonder only 5 western Bishops (Egypt was "Eastern", but the rest of North Africa was Latin speak "West Roman") were allowed to vote at Nicaea.

Even the (severely limited)Bishops that were allowed to vote in Nicaea actually preferred Arius' position, but were intimidated by Constantine.

Here is a bit from BEFORE Nicaea.

I will start with 1 of the 5 Western Bishops allowed to vote

(notice that 70 representing all of Roman Mauritania, all of Roman Algeria, and parts of Roman Tunisia and Libya WERE EXCLUDED!)

quote:

Caecilianus, or Caecilian, was archdeacon and then bishop of Carthage in 311 AD. His appointment as Bishop lead to the Donatist Controversy of the Late Roman Empire. He was also one of only five Western bishops at the First Council of Nicea.[1][2] [3][4][5]

....

On the death of Mensurius, Caecilianus was nominated as his successor. The religious world of Carthage divided itself broadly into two sections, the moderate and rigoristic parties, or the supporters and opponents of the principles of Caecilianus. At the head of the latter was a devout and wealthy lady named Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by the archdeacon for superstitious veneration for martyrs' relics.[6]

The rigoristic party wished to fill the vacancy with one of their own followers. Caecilianus' party hastened matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated by Felix, Bishop of Aptunga. Whether this was in the presence of any Numidian bishops or not seems uncertain.

Secundus, Primate of Numidia and Bishop of Tigisis, was presently invited to Carthage by the rigorist party. He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited Caecilianus before them. Felix of Aptunga was denounced as a traditor and consequently it was claimed that any ordination performed by him was invalid.

....

Secundus and the Numidian bishops answered by excommunicating him and his party, and ordaining as bishop the reader Majorinus, a member of Lucilla's household.

Schism
The church of Northern Africa went into schism. The party of Caecilianus broke off from that of Majorinus, and the Christian world was scandalized by fulminations, excommunications, invectives, charges and countercharges. Both parties confidently anticipated the support of the state; but Constantine I, now emperor of this part of the Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianus. In his largesse to the Christians of the province, and in his edicts favourable to the church there, he expressly stipulated that the party of Majorinus should be excluded: their views were, in his opinion, the "madness" of men of "unsound mind." The rigoristic party appealed to the justice of the emperor, and courted full inquiry to be conducted in Gaul — at a distance from the spot where passions and convictions were so strong and one-sided.

Council in Rome
A Council in Rome met in 313 AD. presided over by Pope Miltiades who had as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Arles and seventeen others. Caecilianus appeared with ten bishops; Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the party of Majorinus. The personal charges against Caecilianus were examined and dismissed, and his party proclaimed the representatives of the orthodox Catholic church; Donatus himself was declared to have violated the laws of the church, and his followers were to be allowed to retain their dignity and office only on condition of reunion with Caecilianus' party. The bitterness of this decision was modified by Caecilianus' friendly proposal of compromise; but his advances were rejected, and the cry of injustice raised. It was wrong, the rigorists pleaded, that the opinion of twenty should overrule that of seventy; and they demanded first that imperial commissioners should investigate matters at Carthage itself, and that then a council should be summoned to examine their report, and decide upon its information.

Council of Arles
Constantine met their wish. Jurists went to Carthage, collected documents, tabulated the statements of witnesses, and laid their report before the bishops assembled at the Council of Arles in 314 A.D. This council, presided over by Marinus, bishop of Arles, and composed of about 200 persons, was the most important ecclesiastical assembly the Christian world had yet seen; and its decisions have been of permanent value to the church.

....

Decision confirmed at Milan
The temper displayed by the victors was not calculated to soothe the conquered; and an appeal was at once made from the council to the emperor himself. Constantine was irritated; but, after some delay, ordered the discussion of the question before himself personally. This occurred at Milan in 316 AD. The emperor confirmed the previous decisions of Rome and Arles, and followed up his judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving them of their churches, and threatening to punish their rebellion with death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caecilianus


quote:

Lateran Council
During Miltiades' tenure as pontif, a schism over the election of Bishop Caecilianus split the Church of Carthage. The opposing parties were those of Caecilianus, who were supported by Rome, and of Donatus, mainly clergymen from North Africa who demanded that schismatics, and heretics, be re-baptised and re-ordained before taking office,[13] the central issue dividing Donatists and Catholics.[14] The supporters of Donatus appealed to Constantine and requested that judges from Gaul be assigned to adjudicate.[15] Constantine agreed and commissioned Miltiades together with three Gallic bishops to resolve the dispute, the first time an emperor had interfered in church affairs.[11] Miltiades, unwilling to jeopardise his relationship with the Emperor, but also unwilling to preside over a council with an uncertain outcome,[15] changed the proceedings into a regular church synod and appointed an additional 15 Italian bishops.[11]

The Lateran Council was held for three days from 2–4 October 313.

....

The Donatists again appealed to the Emperor, who responded by convening the Council of Arles in 314 but it too ruled against the Donatists.[17] By the time the council was convened, Miltiades had died and had been succeeded by Sylvester I.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Miltiades


100 excluded Bishops in Nicaea.

70 west Roman.

The 70 Bishops of Numidia & Tigisis, (then in East Rome over in Egypt) plus the 29 Melitians in Egypt, were just the tip of the iceberg.

(now what I did not get to)

Athanasius is the most obvious case of a papal puppet there could ever be. Now Athanasius did fall out of favor with Constantine once the Emperor noticed the North African Bishop had views that were representative of literally NOBODY but the Roman Catholic Pope (and his puppet Bishops).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 02-28-2018 10:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 9:11 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 370 of 380 (849017)
02-21-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by LamarkNewAge
02-21-2019 12:48 AM


Re: The Roman Catholic Papal puppet Athanasius.
Knock this crap off! Your copypasta is not welcome in this topic! It is off topic and Faith is inactive here and you are answering a post from over a year ago. Knock it off.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-21-2019 12:48 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2019 9:40 AM Phat has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5932
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 371 of 380 (849019)
02-21-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Phat
02-21-2019 9:11 AM


Re: The Roman Catholic Papal puppet Athanasius.
Why don't you say something when he does this on other threads?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 9:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 9:54 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 372 of 380 (849020)
02-21-2019 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Theodoric
02-21-2019 9:40 AM


Re: The Roman Catholic Papal puppet Athanasius.
Good point. After reviewing a lot of what he writes, I conclude that he is not simply trolling us...he does bring up some considerations in a lengthy and cluttered way. I just dont have time to read all of that pasting. I wish that LNA would be more concise and provide us with links rather than full quotes all of the time.

You wanted simple evidence from him, but he does not have it...nor do any of us. If I dig through his pasta, I find some scholarly commentaries that suggest that the whole affair was not simply made up as a political move, but I dont have the time nor desire to study the lengthy pastings that LNA gives us.

I guess I was just frustrated seeing all that dumped on a topic I recently opened up so that candle 2 could explain why the Trinity was not a valid Christian concept...which he has so far not done.

Maybe I cant expect every poster to be as concise as I want. You likely feel the same way about many of us.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2019 9:40 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2019 3:10 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 373 of 380 (849021)
02-21-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by ringo
02-20-2019 2:44 PM


Re: Revisiting this old topic.....
ringo writes:

But can you live with Jesus being finite?

I can live with Him being human while on earth. What any of us are after death nobody knows. I cannot accept that He never existed...and feel that the scholarly arguments are far from conclusive. 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. I feel that Jesus existed...as do you...and that there is an unseen Creator. The belief that this Creator is eternally living and seeks to become personal with we humans is plausible though not as simple as it is presented through the dogma.

You science types would more likely believe in a superior intelligence being another advanced species somewhere in the near distant universe. Perhaps this has merit. And candle 2 dismisses evolution as a fairytale, largely because someone else mentioned that idea first. Evolution makes sense, but I do not believe that God does NOT make sense...I think that that idea too is plausible.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by ringo, posted 02-20-2019 2:44 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by ringo, posted 02-21-2019 10:55 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 375 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2019 1:46 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16150
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 374 of 380 (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 acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6621
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 375 of 380 (849031)
02-21-2019 1:46 PM
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.

Can you explain Mormonism to me then?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Phat, posted 02-21-2019 10:02 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019