The Trinity

[sojourner]

Well then, get used to it. I'm not changing my opinions for you or anyone else.

Of course not. I'd expect nothing more.

 

[Muffled]

Bigotry is bigotry and it's always evil. There is no such thing as "righteous bigotry." God's law is inclusive -- not exclusive. You are telling the truth according to what you wish to understand -- not according to some objective standard.

I see, so I believe you are saying that your personal standard is the objective standard. Please excuse me while I laugh heartily.

 

[Muffled]

My children are very well aware of the depraved behaviors that some individuals engage in. Yet they are just as aware of the necessity of being kind, even to the depraved.

I tried to shield my kids from the most nasty things in this word. I believe It is bad enough having to deal with them as adults.

 

[Muffled]

Bigotry is never kind.

Of course I believe it isn't kind. I have no kindred with those who love sin.

 

[Desert Snake]

Maybe we're talking about two different things, Frankie. I'm not denying the existence of a divine Father, a divine Son, and a divine Spirit. I'm not even opposed to referring to them all as "God." I'm just saying that their absolute unity is of will, purpose, mind and heart, and that they are physically distinct from one another. There is a separateness to them in addition to their unity, and this is something that Trinitarians always seem to want to downplay.

What you are describing is called polytheism. How you or //someone else, derived that the Godhood is separate individuals, is the question. Jesus stated that He and the father are one.
Are you saying that that means something else? Are you proposing a different definition for words?
If you want to claim polytheism, that's great, but at least make the argument relative to the claim.

 

[Katzpur]

What you are describing is called polytheism.

No, it is not. It is recognizing the simple and obvious truth that the Father is not the Son and that the Son is not the Father.

How you or //someone else, derived that the Godhood is separate individuals, is the question. Jesus stated that He and the father are one.

And they are "one." They just aren't "one in substance," unless you're going to base what you believe about them on some 4th and 5th century creeds instead of on the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible refer to them as "one in substance."

Are you saying that that means something else? Are you proposing a different definition for words?

I'm not "proposing" anything. I am merely stating that there is more than one definition for many words, and the word "one" is a perfect example of that fact.

If you want to claim polytheism, that's great, but at least make the argument relative to the claim.

I'm not claiming polytheism; you're using the word to label me and to demean my beliefs. What's the matter with your position that it can't stand on its own? Why do you have to resort to trying to undercut mine in order to make yours look good? And why, by the way, resurrect a 2 1/2 year old thread? You quoted my post (#3033!) from page 152 of a 204-page thread. There must have been a dozen threads on the Trinity since this one was last active.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

That translates to 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

I have 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

I have one apple. I put the apple on the counter and I put the apple in a bag and I eat the apple. I have three instances of the same apple. I do not have three apples.

Really?

YOU have "one" apple, YOU place the apple, YOU take the apple, YOU eat the apple. All YOU are "describing" is three instances of what YOU do WITH the one apple, try describing the one apple, not what YOU do with the one apple.

 

[Oeste]

No one is born gay. That is absurd. That is like saying a baby girl is born sexy.

If this is true, then no one is born heterosexual either. If our sexual preference is a "learned" behavior then men would have learned long ago not to hug their sons lest they become "gay" by "misinterpreting" what they see.

Historically, men have shown much more affection (pride, counsel, time, etc) for their sons while conferring little upon their daughters, yet I see no indication that the incidence of homosexuality was greater. If anything, it seems as if the number of people identifying as gay is increasing at a time when men spend more time with their daughters (think "stay at home" dads), which leads me to believe all the more it's very likely not a "learned" behavior.

Personally, I know I was born heterosexual. I didn't have to see my dad kiss my mom (something he never did in front of me anyway) in order to "learn" to prefer women. I would have preferred them anyway.

That is absurd. That is like saying a baby girl is born sexy.

Not quite. I would say it's more like saying we are all born with a sex rather than sexy, which we simply know is not true. Some of us are clearly born male or female. With others, it's more of a guessing game:

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-218194.html

I cannot imagine the anguish some parents feel when a child is born without a clearly defined sex. In many instances, the parents will choose one sex only to find the child has another inclination later (or a propensity to choose no sex at all). But even though it might be anguish for the parent, how much more so for the child?

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Trinity thread topic but it is an interesting sidebar.

IMO, the Trinity is the only doctrine I've come across that adequately explains Jesus' claim to deity without jumping off the cliff into polytheism.