Understanding Christianity

[Divinus Arma]

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.

I agree. Did I communicate some other idea?

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree. Did I communicate some other idea?

Not quite, see below.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Mooks]

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.

Thats one of my biggest problems with christrianity. They make faith (aka blind obediance) a virtue.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well we choose whether or not to have faith, and can quit anytime we want.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thats one of my biggest problems with christrianity. They make faith (aka blind obediance) a virtue.

As opposed to modern society, where the only virtue is the defense of vice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats one of my biggest problems with christrianity. They make faith (aka blind obediance) a virtue.

Say what? I'm a Protestant. I don't obay anyone.

[Mooks]

Say what? I'm a Protestant. I don't obay anyone.

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.

Well we choose whether or not to have faith, and can quit anytime we want.

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.) . If you really believe that stuff, its not really much of a choice.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.) . If you really believe that stuff, its not really much of a choice.

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!

[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.

I agree and I think I stated this earlier.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree and I think I stated this earlier.

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.

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.

Ok, fine, agree.

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.

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm, interesting, I shall have to ponder this bit.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

I concur. Jesus dis not have a physical body before his borth nor after his death.

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 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.

Hmmm, interesting, I shall have to ponder this bit.