"Undestanding Holy Trinity is like putting sea into bottle."
Understanding Christianity is like trying to be god - only god can absolutely understand god. :) I believe faith.
Printable View
"Undestanding Holy Trinity is like putting sea into bottle."
Understanding Christianity is like trying to be god - only god can absolutely understand god. :) I believe faith.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Well said. Christianity is faith, a belief.
According to the Bible, God encompasses three distinct personalities that make up the Godhead. All 3 parts are just as much God as each other - each of the 3 personalities is 100% God all by itself, and none of the 3 personalities are any "more God" than the other. And they are also 100% God when combined together, too. Those three personalities are: God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That is the best way to explain it in a way that humans can be able to somewhat comprehend it. But yes, it doesn't make much sense because humans have a limited, human understanding. God is one, and three, at the same time. Jesus Christ is both God, and the Son of God, at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
However, this concept being confusing and hard for a human to understand, doesn't mean the OP had misinformation in it. The OP's information is completely in line with what the Bible claims.
This is why in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has God saying things like "Let us make man in our image". The "us" and "our" is the 3 parts of the Godhead.
In regards to your problems with the statement "He will forgive you and give you eternal life ". Eternal life refers to continuing to exist after one no longer exists in his her her human body. It was never meant to refer to living eternally in a human body. That is simply a personal misinterpretation of what the OP is saying, not misinformation.
I still have real trouble trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New Testament, and still do agree with the Old Testament much moreso. But I still believe in Jesus' divinity even though I don't agree with all his teachings. And I woulda understood the content of the OP as not being misinformation even if I didn't happen to agree with the information in it. The OP did not misrepresent the information represented in the Bible, so it's not misinformation. One could argue that he or she disagrees with the information in the OP, but the word "misinformation" implies the OP was deliberately posting information that is contrary to the information in the Bible, which is not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
well that might be because you are tryng to reconcile very different things by many different authors that have been altered countless times ... or it could be that as Zuch suggests you havn't heard the word of god .Quote:
I still have real trouble trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New Testament
Then again it could be that Zuch hasn't really heard the word of God and is claiming he has so he doesn't have to address the contradictions .
What the heck are you talking about?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
One post I read that Jesus was the son of god and the other says that he IS god, which is it already?
I believe that question was answered by the consul of Nicea. If you love theology read up on the Nicene creed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
Both. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
What you need here, good Navaros, is a shamrock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
:bow:
The elephant head was in reference to Ganesh.
The way I had the Trinity explained to me was with reference to geography (courtesy of Sister Priscilla Paradis). The Atlantic Ocean is NOT the Pacific Ocean, yet they ARE the same body of water, no?
Three sides of the same coin springs to mind.
For those among us who do not regularly spin off the Creeds and have them down by heart, wiki is fairly accurate here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Mind, I can't imagine how you'd fake the Creed.
As to the issue of the resurrection, I'm afraid the Dean of Exeter doesn't agree with you Nav. Jewish, and hence Christian resurrection is a bodily matter as well as spiritural one. Have a look at revelations again.
As to the Holy Trinity, to paraphase Boethius, "If I say; one sword, one brand, one blade, I am still only referring to one sword." I rather like that, even if it is unfortunately martial.
What about the Godhead actually being 3 seperate enteties? It too will fit into what is written in the Bible.
And it will actually make sense as to one being the father of the other.
Oh wait, the polytheistic problem :wall:
Somebody once explained it to me using a three leafed clover as an analogy. I like this one better, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Just embrace cloning and you resolve 2 out of 3 of the database join errors. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
What I can never get about certain branches of Christianity is their need to proclaim their personal relationship with Jesus and that He is their Lord and Savior, but that they prefer the Old Testament's fire and brimstone or Paul's ego-stroking proclamations of Christians' specialness.
To me, the only relevant part of the Bible to one who sees Jesus as the Messiah are the Gospels. If Jesus is the Messiah, how can His teachings be subordinate to those of the Old Testament writers or to those of the Epistles? If there is conflict or contradiction between the them, how can Jesus' own words not take precedence?
The Bible doesn't contradict Arius either from what I've understand, that's why the church coined the term trinity in the first place. And the nature of the trinity was/is also heavily debated as the filioque clause shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
But if you really want a theological mess on your hands then the nature of the divinity of Jesus is fun to study and it's almost as important as what kind of bread you should eat in the Eucharist. :book:
You can't, the Gospels come up trumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
I recently worked out what bothers me about Evangelical Christians, the whole focus of Jesus tends to ignore the Almighty and hence there's far too much focus on Jesus' love.
What's the problem with that you ask?
Well, it allows you to beat up on hummanity without reservation, we're all wretched, the only reason God saves us is because he loves us, we don't deserve it etc... What I realised is that God is not only Loving, he is Just, so there must be something in hummanity worthy of redemption or at least the chance of it.
Ergo, we don't completely suck, just mostly.
The New Testament doesn't make a crystal clear statement about the Old Testament being invalid. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law (meaning, the Old Testament). Yet at the same time, he also contradicted a whole whackload of what the Old Testament said. Jesus also made references to much of the content of the Old Testament being accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
His teachings should logically be subordinate to the Old Testament because the teachings there were given by God the Father, who Jesus prayed to and was subordinate to during his time on Earth. Besides that, God is supposed to be eternal and unchanging, and Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible, do not bother to explain what caused God to "change his mind" about all these things.
Then there is Paul and the Apostles who in the New Testament, affirmed the validity of the Old Testament's teachings in addition to Jesus and claimed that both are to be practiced together, even though they can't be totally reconciled with each other.
I have to come to realize that there is no infalliable way for a human being to interpret all of these and similar things, and that is why there are so many different labels of Christianity and interpretations of what it means to be Christian.
The root cause of all these problems is that a book is an inadequate format to contain all these things. The only format that would actually work would be an interactive format, with God and/or Jesus directly answering every specific question that is ever put to them, live on demand, to every person who ever asks them something.
OK enough of that , stop it , bring back the other Navaros .
Sounds like we need a message board with the Bible as FAQ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
What about this: The Old Testemant was transmitted through human prophets, while the Gospels are the words of the Christ, the manifestation of God on Earth. So logically God came down himself to iron out the kinks and that is why the Gospels are the ultimate authoriety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
That's a tempting tack, but wouldn't it only work if the Nazarene (or his dad) had authored his own book/gospel? In the end, the gospels are the accounts of men, about the christ, the same as the pentateuch is/are the accounts of men, about god, the father.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't understand why people need to rationalize the irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Logically that is most likely. However, if there is a God and he just does whatever the hell he wants, is it that much of a stretch to think that he inspired these guys with the Holy Spirit to write the books? Wouldn't that be the new logic?
Would it be logical to question the legitimacy of God's actions if you believed him to be real?
I don't think so, but that's just me.
Jesus was either just man, just God, or both. If you believe that Jesus was sent by God, ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God to judge the living and the dead, you kind of threw out secular logic long ago, no? There is nothing wrong with that. I've never been a fan of secular logic even though I try to use it as often as possible.
And we do have Exodus 24:12
So I guess we have at least one instance where an almighty asserts to have written something (the ten commandments) with his own hand.Quote:
The Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.’
You make fine points, TuffStuff, and I disagree with none of that. Religions seem to require that I stop using these things I regard as assets in all other aspects (logic, free will, skepticism...) , because they are hinderances to getting closer to god.
I don't know why I am supposed to get closer than I am, while I'm living. Or why these seeming instincts I have - presumeably gifts from god - are supposed to get thrown away, or at least suspended?
Sometimes it seems that people fear being judged by Dworkian after death rather than God.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
"You didn't use enough logic or reason in life" he would say.
"You really wasted your infinitesimal existence on faith"
Have faith and pursue goodness. Use whatever tools that the earth provides, but if those tools get in the way of truth, avoid them.
I think about that every time I put too much stock into what I understand about the world from a logical perspective. Then I think about what I was raised to believe. I'm much more worried about being judged by mom and God.Quote:
Originally Posted by G.W.F. Hegel
that hegel quote is certainly cute, but it lacks much utility. you can't reject the rationality that ultimately underlies our world, our 'wants', unless you're a schizophrenic. whether we can tease out the logic behind our wants (though, increasingly, we can), is irrelevant to our existence in a physical world.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That quote means to me that logic serves our interests, rather than the other way around. It is based on what WE know or believe to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
You may believe that there is some superlative logical understanding that everyone has, but I don't believe it. It is a way of showing ourselves a way to get what we want. Reality is relative as all of us frequently point out on this forum.
That's almost buddhist there, TuffStuff:
Cease desire : attain enlightenment
Nice.
yep. Find Jesus. Follow Buddha.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
that's a superficial analysis. certainly we can create tertiary rationales that serve to help us acquire our desires. but there is a logic that motivates those desires in the first place. just as there is a logic that motivates a lion's desires, or an amoeba's, or a daffodil's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
simply, nonsense.Quote:
You may believe that there is some superlative logical understanding that everyone has, but I don't believe it. It is a way of showing ourselves a way to get what we want. Reality is relative as all of us frequently point out on this forum.
certainly there is a subjective aspect to 'reality' since we are phenomenal beings. but the probability that a consensual, objective reality exists must be nearly 100%, even if we can't access it without perception getting in the way. it's hardly important that you concede that point, the very fact that we are interacting illustrates it.
why would you even want to assume we live in a psychedelic, fantasy world? yellow submarine sucked.
All of my analyses are superficial. Commenting on them is redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
I didn't say that we lived in a yellow submarine fantasy world.
Lions attack gazelles, gazelles probably think the lions foolish. Gazelles are probably saying to themselves "with all this grass to eat, why do the lions need to eat me? It's sooo illogical"
You may say that it is the "circle of life". Where is the logic in that?
Would you hold the same standard to homicide? "species arn't supposed to hunt their own - it isn't logical"
What would you base that on? We are a species and we do. We are the "top of the food chain" - some hunt people, others are hunted. We have gone to war with one another since history began writing itself. In this sense it is logical. If lions stopped hunting gazzelles, the gazzelle population would probably skyrocket. Maybe even from 6 billion to 6.6 billion in just 7 years...
Religion, by many accounts, contributes to charity and happiness. Lower suicide rates, higher donation rates. Maybe the logic is in the endgame.
Who knows. We don't really know why we do what we do. We come up with theories, but they just ask 2 new questions and barely answer the first. Rationalization is fun and it molds "reality" for us if we'd like it to.
increasingly..Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
of course homicide serves a logical purpose. it wouldn't be so common otherwise. in broad terms, it serves to eliminate competition.Quote:
Would you hold the same standard to homicide? "species arn't supposed to hunt their own - it isn't logical"
What would you base that on? We are a species and we do. We are the "top of the food chain" - some hunt people, others are hunted. We have gone to war with one another since history began writing itself. In this sense it is logical.
i've pointed that out many times before. btw, i'm happy to see you putting murder and religion in the same box. ;)Quote:
Religion, by many accounts, contributes to charity and happiness. Lower suicide rates, higher donation rates.
only to a degree. but next time you sprout tentacles and walk on the surface of the sun, let me know so i can revise my understanding of reality's boundaries.Quote:
Maybe the logic is in the endgame.
Who knows. Rationalization is fun and it molds "reality" for us if we'd like it to.
So destroying competition through murder is logical? I wonder what else that undermines life we can agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
historically speaking, yes. in societies with rules against murder, not as much. but we're very old animals. old habits are hard to break.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Homicide wouldn't be murder without those rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Why do we need to break those habits?
You mean the weak need to break those habits in those who would benefit from homicide?
fair enough. i was mainly talking about individual homicide, both inside and outside of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
so society does kill or ostracize us.Quote:
Why do we need to break those habits?
game theory. every member's genes benefits from larger, more complex societies. notice how europeans populate north america these days.Quote:
You mean the weak need to break those habits in those who would benefit from homicide?
hehe. I'm just killing time. There are plenty of logical reasons by numerous standards for Christianity. I'm going home for the weekend and my nature is to attack and tear apart, more so when I am leaving a week of work.
there are logical reasons to have a 'faith' (happiness, etc), though i'm not aware of faith-specific reasonings.
In response to the original post I have said that prayer, more than once IIRC, when I went to an Evangelical church, not sure exactly what type, with a friend of mine when I was younger. Although I used to go more regularly to Church of Scotland services I genuinely tried to be sincere in the prayer, although I'm not sure if I was. I seem to be doing a reverse of the standard and getting more religious as I get older...
As for my Evangelical friend he's currently trying to prove the existence of dragons, since apparently they are referred to in the bible. He's also trying to show these and maybe other dinosaurs existed within the bibles timeframe, somthing to do with red blood cells which should have disappeared or something like that dont' ask me to get into the science.
EDIT: Apologisations for the lack of grammage in the above posting...
The Trinity:
The Father is a title used to more easily understand the Divine Mind. The Divine Mind is the intellect of God, his self-awareness. The self-aware perspective of the Lord exists not merely in the physical reality in which you and I perceive, but reality itself outside of time and space, where all matter and energy exist formless, fleeting and permanent all in one. Only a perspective absent of the frames of space and time can "see" reality as it really is. When there is no small and there is no large, nothing near and nothing in the distance. When past, present, and future are non-existent as points of reference. This can only be possible when the perceiving mind is capable of an objective sense of space, where subjective references of size and distance are unremarkable and unnecessary. This can only be possible when the perceiving mind exists eternal, where all events can be experienced simultaneously. Because God is all things at all times, and his perspective is equally limitless, allowing to experience all things and at all times, our Lord is as the word reveals him to be: Self-aware; Omniscient, and omnipercipient.
The Holy Spirit is the fabric of existence: The Divine Will. The intangible component of particulate interactions that forms the relationship between matter and energy and allows shape to manifest out of nothingness. The Divine Will is the infinite power of the Divine Mind to shape and create, the capability and being to manipulate energy into matter. While also governing the laws of science that allow the creation to exist, the Divine Will is the whole of creation itself. Thus again, the word reveals our Lord to be omnipresent and Omnipotent.
The Son is our title for the Divine Will manifested into the form of a human being with all of the limitations of a human mind and body, especially human intellect, human understanding, and human perception. Thus, the Divine Mind of God exists independently of the mind of Jesus though they are coexistent through the Divine Will. Jesus Christ does not have a separate and unique human soul much as we do, but instead is in entirety the Holy Spirit.
Huh? You almost, but not quite, seem to be argueing Nestorianism. One God without division. I've not come across the claim that the Son was generated at the birth of Jesus before, though I'm not up on the Arrian herresy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Where are you getting this from, I'm interested.
I'm not stating that the Son is a created being. Only his physical form was "created". Jesus Christ did not "physically", as in the form of a human, exist prior to his birth. He existed since the original creation, one with the Father. The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all connected and indivisible. The form is what is different. Like a drop of water from an infinite ocean, Jesus is the drop, but still water.
I am following you this farQuote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
So... he did not exist prior to the original creation? (definition?)Quote:
He existed since the original creation, one with the Father.
So... Jesus is no longer physical, and different from the Father and the Holy spirit who are not physical?Quote:
The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all connected and indivisible. The form is what is different. Like a drop of water from an infinite ocean, Jesus is the drop, but still water.
now you know why priests have wine during mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
after a couple of glasses it all makes more sense :laugh4:
Sorry, I'm not exactly 100% capable of articulating this myself, and misstatements can completetly change the meaning of a sentence.
Sorry. I meant that Jesus, being God, has existed as long as God. Just not in a human form. Jesus is the mouthpiece of the Father, the WORD by which the Father may communicate directly to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Jesus is a physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit, with a human mind rather than the self-aware intellect of God.Quote:
So... Jesus is no longer physical, and different from the Father and the Holy spirit who are not physical?
The Father is the intellect of God. The Holy Spirit is the essence of God; God's experience of the world, the will of the intellect.
Here is an analogy: Think of your self-aware intellect. Is that physical? Think of your desires and urges: Is that physical? Your desires and urges become physical when you transform your environment to match your will. Not in a literal sense, but the physical world you leave in a moment of choice is an echo of your determination.
So to with the Intellect and Will of God. The intellect (Father) dictates, the will (Holy Spirit) manifests, and we experience the echo of that determination.
Jesus Christ is both the determination and the echo.
I don't buy that all the way.
We have:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Ghost.
Now, since God has existed since the beggining, he cannot be divided, be more or less, he cannot grow diminish etc. the Son must have existed co-eternally with the father.
If the Father were to create the Son then there would be a divine liniage, with a beggining in time, but God is whole, eternal and indivisable.
So, the Son has to have existed since the beggining.
This does not mean that Jesus has existed since the beggining, but that the entity we call the God the Son has. Various instances for him to pop up are the Garden of Eden and the wrestling match in Genesis, as well as, perhaps, Mount Sinai etc.
I agree. Did I communicate some other idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Here is the part that is fuzzy to me. Are we saying that a divine being, whom we call the Son, existed along side the Father?Quote:
This does not mean that Jesus has existed since the beggining, but that the entity we call the God the Son has. Various instances for him to pop up are the Garden of Eden and the wrestling match in Genesis, as well as, perhaps, Mount Sinai etc.
I can't agree with that because it diminishes the divinity of the Son and seperates the identity of the Son from the Father. Either the Son is God or he isn't God.
My real problem with the traditionally accepted viewpoint of the Trinity is the narrow language used to describe each. I think the titles used effectively serve a population that is incapable of thinking critically as historically has been the case with humanity. However, as we have developed and grown as beings, our intellectual capacity for understanding the nature of Christ, God, and the Spirit has also developed and grown.
So why cling to antiquated and indescriptive terminology when more thoughtful and consequential analysis can be applied?
In our modern era, if we believers fail to demonstrate the relationship of God to humanity and existence in a way that is scientific and analytical, we undermine the very purpose that God has created for us. In challenging convention and growing spiritually and intellectually, we are able to breach the walls of theory and mystery and enter into a new reality and a new relationship with the Lord.
Not quite, see below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
He doesn't exist alongside because He cannot be divided. However, if the Son did not exist in the Beggining he is not co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Then he would be less. God the Son might also be termed the "voice" of God, his means of communicating with his creation on our restricted level.Quote:
Here is the part that is fuzzy to me. Are we saying that a divine being, whom we call the Son, existed along side the Father?
I can't agree with that because it diminishes the divinity of the Son and seperates the identity of the Son from the Father. Either the Son is God or he isn't God.
We're two fairly bright guys here. How do you explain the metaphyisical and philosophical arguements to a child? You need a relatively simple way of dealing with the concepts on some level.Quote:
My real problem with the traditionally accepted viewpoint of the Trinity is the narrow language used to describe each. I think the titles used effectively serve a population that is incapable of thinking critically as historically has been the case with humanity. However, as we have developed and grown as beings, our intellectual capacity for understanding the nature of Christ, God, and the Spirit has also developed and grown.
So why cling to antiquated and indescriptive terminology when more thoughtful and consequential analysis can be applied?
Dissagree, ultimately God requires blind faith, he doesn't ever have to expalin or justify Himself or His actions. We can defend our faith against people who claim to have disproved it but we should seek a dogmatic physical proof. This is especially true if you believe faith is required in order to enter heaven. Prove God exists and you destroy faith, everyone goes to Hell.Quote:
In our modern era, if we believers fail to demonstrate the relationship of God to humanity and existence in a way that is scientific and analytical, we undermine the very purpose that God has created for us. In challenging convention and growing spiritually and intellectually, we are able to breach the walls of theory and mystery and enter into a new reality and a new relationship with the Lord.
We will never be able to prove the existence of God, though we may take it upon ourselves to tackle those who ridicule him.
Faith will always be a fundamental role in Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
Thats one of my biggest problems with christrianity. They make faith (aka blind obediance) a virtue.
Well we choose whether or not to have faith, and can quit anytime we want.
As opposed to modern society, where the only virtue is the defense of vice.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Say what? I'm a Protestant. I don't obay anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Im glad you have convinced yourself you dont follow anyone. In reality, you bow the knee to a celestial deity. No matter how you look at it, thats what "worship" is.
In the Islam religion the punishment for Apostasy is death. In christrianity, its a promise of eternal burning and suffering (at least you wont be alone though, according to christrianity their will be billions of others in their with you.) :inquisitive: . If you really believe that stuff, its not really much of a choice.Quote:
Well we choose whether or not to have faith, and can quit anytime we want.
Well the hard-core atheists (or agnostics is it?) are so stubbornly opposed to the idea of owing any sort of loyalty to God they say they'd rather go to hell. Heaven forbid such enlightened, liberal, freedom-loving, reasonable people as themselves should ever bow down to anyone!Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
I agree and I think I stated this earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm really just referring to adults. But again, I thought I had stated that this simple terminology is effective for that large part of the population who don't think critically.Quote:
We're two fairly bright guys here. How do you explain the metaphyisical and philosophical arguements to a child? You need a relatively simple way of dealing with the concepts on some level.
Here is where we really are in disagreement, because we are on the same page on alot of other things.Quote:
Dissagree, ultimately God requires blind faith, he doesn't ever have to expalin or justify Himself or His actions. We can defend our faith against people who claim to have disproved it but we should seek a dogmatic physical proof. This is especially true if you believe faith is required in order to enter heaven. Prove God exists and you destroy faith, everyone goes to Hell.
Why does God require blind faith? Faith, to a degree, perhaps. But why must it be blind? I don't find anything wrong with supplementing faith with an intelligent and relentless pursuit of means in which God reveals himself in the natural world.
As far as "faith" being necessary to get into "heaven": I don't personally believe heaven to be a "place" at all, since God is absent of time and space. I think simply that if we live out life in allignment with the Lord's will, and our will take a backseat to His, then in death too we will continue to experience His will. Faith isn't the only priority, but faith as we know it now is a first step to submissive and joyous following.
I think your explanation leans towards the Son being merely a conflation of the Father and the Spirit, rather than something on an equal footing with both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Ok, fine, agree.Quote:
I'm really just referring to adults. But again, I thought I had stated that this simple terminology is effective for that large part of the population who don't think critically.
Well, you can't "prove" anything about God because he is beyond out experience and trying to do so is rather like trying to build the tower of Babel. Given that God created the universe he must be in some manner outside it, seperate from matter, energy and time. So I don't see how he can be in any way measurable. That doesn't mean I don't think his presence is manifest in the world in certain ways but you'll never be able to make a direct link.Quote:
Here is where we really are in disagreement, because we are on the same page on alot of other things.
Why does God require blind faith? Faith, to a degree, perhaps. But why must it be blind? I don't find anything wrong with supplementing faith with an intelligent and relentless pursuit of means in which God reveals himself in the natural world.
As far as "faith" being necessary to get into "heaven": I don't personally believe heaven to be a "place" at all, since God is absent of time and space. I think simply that if we live out life in allignment with the Lord's will, and our will take a backseat to His, then in death too we will continue to experience His will. Faith isn't the only priority, but faith as we know it now is a first step to submissive and joyous following.
Hmmm. Well, as far as equal footing, Jesus had the limitations of human physicality. Body, brain, everything. Even Jesus woke up with a boner from time to time. He did, after all, have a penis. And Jesus took a dump in the sand when the need arose. I don't think that the Father was ever restricted with the demands of his G.I. tract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Benedict, pull the Pope-Mobile over. That curry is on its way out!
So, I only mean to point out that Jesus Christ had all of the physical limitations of any human being. Which is the very reason why he is so relevant. He was God as one of us. God was able to drop a deuce and drain the weasel, to have friends and communicate directly in relationships, etc.
The living will, of the Father, the Holy Spirit, was His soul and guiding force, just as you have your own soul which influences your mind and behavior.
That doesn't make Jesus inferior. It just articulates his nature with greater detail than that offered by the nicean creed.
Is God really beyond our experience? If he is, then you don't have a relationship with him.Quote:
Well, you can't "prove" anything about God because he is beyond out experience and trying to do so is rather like trying to build the tower of Babel. Given that God created the universe he must be in some manner outside it, seperate from matter, energy and time. So I don't see how he can be in any way measurable. That doesn't mean I don't think his presence is manifest in the world in certain ways but you'll never be able to make a direct link.
Measurable? No, God is not measurable. But infinity is a quantification no less. But I don't think quantifying God is even useful. The qualification of God, or rather the detailing of his quality, is what is useful. The question I ask is "What is God made of?" Rather than "How much God is there?" And this is where my point on the differentiating aspects of three presentations of God are important. The Father is the self-awareness. You are self-aware and that is not quantifiable. Are you infinite or finite? That doesn't really matter. What does matter is that what makes up "you" as far as self-aware experience goes is the same as what makes up the Father. This is how we are made in his likeness. Not because the Father has hands and a face, but because he is self-aware and experiential as you and I are. The difference of course is the limitation of perception. Where ours is restricted by the inputs of physical sensors and the interpretation of a physical brain to relay that experience to our self-awareness, His perception is not limited. This does not mean that he is outside of time and space. It means that time and space are not immediately consequential or relevant to him. His desire is a relationship with us. And that connection, that relationship, is the only thing we can experience in our existence that is free of time and space.
Now that is just the Divine Mind. The Father.
The Holy Spirit is an entirely different but equal and connected component.
Ah, I see, you equate Jesus and God the Son completely. I wouldn't dissagree that Jesus was limited but God the Son is not because He does not occupy a human body. Given that a human body is a temporal and physical thing I don't believe God the Son had one before Jesus' birth, nor am I convinced he has one now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Hmmm, interesting, I shall have to ponder this bit.Quote:
Is God really beyond our experience? If he is, then you don't have a relationship with him.
Measurable? No, God is not measurable. But infinity is a quantification no less. But I don't think quantifying God is even useful. The qualification of God, or rather the detailing of his quality, is what is useful. The question I ask is "What is God made of?" Rather than "How much God is there?" And this is where my point on the differentiating aspects of three presentations of God are important. The Father is the self-awareness. You are self-aware and that is not quantifiable. Are you infinite or finite? That doesn't really matter. What does matter is that what makes up "you" as far as self-aware experience goes is the same as what makes up the Father. This is how we are made in his likeness. Not because the Father has hands and a face, but because he is self-aware and experiential as you and I are. The difference of course is the limitation of perception. Where ours is restricted by the inputs of physical sensors and the interpretation of a physical brain to relay that experience to our self-awareness, His perception is not limited. This does not mean that he is outside of time and space. It means that time and space are not immediately consequential or relevant to him. His desire is a relationship with us. And that connection, that relationship, is the only thing we can experience in our existence that is free of time and space.
Now that is just the Divine Mind. The Father.
The Holy Spirit is an entirely different but equal and connected component.
I concur. Jesus dis not have a physical body before his borth nor after his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But this raises the question for many: Was Jesus, prior to birth or after death, a self-aware entity seperate from the Father?
On this point, I say NO. I would argue that as Jesus "ascended to the father", his self-awareness became the Father's self-awareness. He became one with the Divine Mind through the Holy Spirit. I believe that this is what will happen when we die. This is the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus spoke about. Many of Jesus' teachings centered on "who gets to go". It was clear that the essence of His parables was the unification of our individual spirit and will with that of the Holy Spirit. We must have that connection and live our lives with the will of God guiding us.
Look at 1 John 1:5-1:10. This is an example of alligning our will with the will of God. The problem is that the choice of words is not relevant to modern readers! People these days roll their eyes when they hear the word "sin". While a succinctly descriptive term, the word fails to explain itself relative to our behavior and our thoughts as they apply to the desire of the Father. Frankly, much of the bible reads like an angry old parent scolding its child.
But the greatest truth that I have discovered is that our Lord is NOT an angry parent. He is the :daisy: man. When I live my life in accordance with His will, I don't feel like I am restricting myself to archaic rules. I feel totally fulfilled. He knows what I really want and what truly makes me happy. If I just listen and follow along, then my life grows with joy and experience. Nothing else brings me that sense of purpose.
:bow:Quote:
Hmmm, interesting, I shall have to ponder this bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
See: 7 plagues of Egypt, noah's flood, the massacre of the various tribes that had conflicts with the ancient hebrews.
If the christrian/jewish god was to be compared with a parent, its the kind of parent that kills the boy that dates his daughter.
Also, iv heard almost exactly the same thing you said from a muslim (meaning that people from other faiths feel the EXACT same way you do when it comes to god in their lifes). Just because it "feels" true doesnt mean it is.
Know its not really to do with the discussion, particularly since I'm an atheist myself, but maybe its because in essence all religions are about giving meaning to lives that don't have it. Ergo, if a devout Christian has meaning in their life, then similarly a devout muslim, or a devout Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, or any other religion (sorry I don't know them all) will too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Bandit
And that's after bringing them together in the first place......Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Well that's more of the atheist view of why we are drawn of making up gods and an afterlife. From a more religious viewpoint all others are heretics or pagans, not following the true path ( though there are some exceptions to that rule).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
I've thought about this and there's not exactly a polite word for what you're saying. The technical word is Heresy. I don't mean to offend but from a traditionalist viewpoint that's what you're expounding, because you have broken down the Trinity and then fitted it back together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
You are saying that God the Son did not exist before his birth as the Messiah, that he is not a distinct entity and that he is not equal to the Father of the Holy Spirit. At the same time you seem to almost be suggesting that Jesus was seperate from God whilst on Earth and at the same time merely an extension of God's Will.
Have I got this right?
OMG, he's gonne have Divinus burned. :stunned:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Would God be emotional decision maker or a cold and calculated one ?
Edit: would god experience emotions at all...?
What? Heresy is just going against established doctrine, sometimes that's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Jan Hus couldve said the same thing.
Read the bible. He is a incredibly emotional guy. In fact, did you know that everytime you masturbate, god kills a kitten?Quote:
Would God be emotional decision maker or a cold and calculated one ?
Edit: would god experience emotions at all...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sulum est a haereticum ut quispiam.
The solitary claim to knowledge of God is as absurd as the Great Schism.
When I accepted Christianity, I did so with the understanding that Christianity is, in essence, very simple. I decided that I would refuse to be someone else's Christian. I can only be my own Christian. If that makes me someone else's heretic, than so be it.
A theologically-based existentialist perspective demands critical thought. As faith with out works is dead, so too is faith with out thought. I will love the Lord my God with all my heart, MIND, and soul. I will attempt to will my mind toward him and better understand his quality, in order that I may better serve him.
Quote:
You are saying that God the Son did not exist before his birth as the Messiah, that he is not a distinct entity and that he is not equal to the Father of the Holy Spirit. At the same time you seem to almost be suggesting that Jesus was seperate from God whilst on Earth and at the same time merely an extension of God's Will.
Have I got this right?
What I am arguing is that the human mind of Jesus did not exist prior to the birth of Jesus. The Divine Will of Jesus existed eternal, but not the mind of Jesus. To have a human mind, with human limitations, Jesus required a physical human body and human brain. Without these physical limitations, Jesus would not have been limited to the mere human perspective of existence.
However, this is not to say that Jesus did not exist before his birth. He is God. God has always existed. God just wasn't limited by a human form.
edit: If anything, WE are the ones who have divided God into the Trinity. WE have created the Trinity. God exists in these forms but that does not mean they are "seperate but equal". We don't have three Gods. We have one. The Spirit of the Son is the Spirit of the Father. All three "parts" of the Trinity are equal and connected. Jesus isn't a "lesser God". He IS God.