The Trinity

[Sha'irullah]

Christianity isn't "Judaic," particularly.
The fact that some attempt to hold the Trinity to "mathematical reasoning" is only testament that they don't understand the nature of theology, or appreciate its benefits.

Christianity attempts to tie its religion with the Judaic branch only to become entirely ostracized from it.


The fact that you even admit to not even being able to hold mathematical reasoning to the Bible and Christian dogma only provides factual evidence that the Bible along with the trinity cannot be understood through human logic. How can something not understood by its intended audience by applicable in our lives? Obviously it is not meant for us.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If we understood God -- that is, could name God -- then we'd have power over God. Which we do not. We do not stand outside God and therefore do not have an objective understanding of God. We only understand God to the extent that we understand ourselves.

God didn't create theology. Human beings created theology -- not as a way to define God, but as a way to describe God. Descriptions are not necessarily logical.

But you assert that god created the Bible? Thus a theological bearing of its meaning was formed.
You give god the name of Jesus depending on your view of separation Jesus has with god as son of god or incarnation. But regardless you claim his divinity and worship him.
You also espoused the errors of other religions in accordance to your own so obviously to say that "If we understood God -- that is, could name God -- then we'd have power over God. Which we do not. We do not stand outside God and therefore do not have an objective understanding of God. We only understand God to the extent that we understand ourselves." is really pushing the limits of your own religion. You obviously do claim to know the very things you just said you do not

 

[Vouthon]

But you assert that god created the Bible?

Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't. The Bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God did not create it; a variety of human authors over a period of centuries did. The human beings who wrote it were influenced by their time period and context; they used their own mental experiences, ideas and so forth to communicate their message, while the Holy Spirit ensured that what they wrote was free from any errors in the narrow category of faith or morals.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't. The Bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God did not create it; a variety of human authors over a period of centuries did. The human beings who wrote it were influenced by their time period and context; they used their own mental experiences, ideas and so forth to communicate their message, while the Holy Spirit ensured that what they wrote was free from any errors in the narrow category of faith or morals.

This is essentially the same thing. I do not claim that god literally shot the Bible out of the sky into man's hands.
I know the various claims about the Bible and how it was though to have been composed. The issue is that asserting that it is free of error means that god willed it so which again proves my previous statements

I was a Christian, perhaps you shall take heed to this

 

[Vouthon]

This is essentially the same thing. I do not claim that god literally shot the Bible out of the sky into man's hands.

Ah, I see. Forgive me for my blonde moment I didn't actually think you meant that the Bible shot out of the sky (no one believes that obviously). I actually thought you were referring to the idea that the Bible is the literal Word of God and assumed this was normative in Christianity, when it isn't.

Btw you didn't reply to my post on the last page. I would be pleased to see you do so if you would oblige me.

 

[SageTree]

I think there is something to be said for ''3 persons, 1 essence'', which is explained really well on The Orthodox Church of America's website;
In Vol. I of 'The Orthodox Faith', under doctrine, starting with the Trinity, for those who would like to read more.

I understand that ''1 essence'' is what is worshiped as "God".

That is why it's said "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit"

Each person is Unique, like you or I, but the 1 essence is that we are all people.

Or all "God" in this case.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ah, I see. Forgive me for my blonde moment

Btw you didn't reply to my post on the last page. I would be pleased to see you do so if you would oblige me.

Your blonde? You must look marvelous in stilettos!


Sorry about not replying to your comments, I am in the midst of a 6 hour boss fight in Final Fantasy. Video games are more important

 

[Dunemeister]

You misquoting my words as even I believe god is beyond our nature of understanding. Main reason I find the concept of "children of god" rather contrite. What we are discussing is the Divine Word of God and the clarity of its message. For the message of god to mysterious is essentially like writing a letter in code and giving it to your mother expecting she can read something she cannot even understand.
For god to give mankind a message so blatantly unclear and judge us by our comprehension or false acceptance of something utterly irrevocable in meaning is functions like a physical oxymoron.
We cannot be given something non-understandable and be expected to understand it or else it is not non-understandable and to say that it is mysterious in nature is equivalent to accepting its uninformed message only going in reverse.

Ah. Well, I did jump into the middle of a (long) conversation, so please excuse me for missing your point.

As you've restated it, though, my response essentially stands, but with different details. The word of God (here I mean revelations later recorded as scripture) was initially addressed to bronze age nomadic barbarian tribes. So in the first instance, God had to communicate to them. In doing so, God's word would have to accommodate itself to the culture and language of those tribes. We can expect that this manner of communication will be less clear to us, separated as we are by thousands of years and kilometers. As a result, the meaning of the bible is often unclear. Ask 10 people what the bible means, and you'll get 25 answers.

That's why it's important not to assume that you can interpret the bible independently. We need an authoritative tradition. Only those who have the requisite authority really have any business pronouncing on what the bible means.

Does God judge people because they misunderstand the bible? That depends. If, like Arius did in the fourth century, you flout the consensus of the Church and bring division through a radical revision of biblical teaching, I should think so. If, on the other hand, you are, say, a Jehovah's Witness, raised in the Watchtower Society (whose doctrine is similar to that of Arius), I'm much more reluctant to say yes. For each of us is responsible for following the light we have been given. Perhaps the best a person can do in this life is follow the Watchtower Society, as erroneous as that organization is. In such a case, I don't think the person will be blamed for misunderstanding the bible, given that the organization to which the person non-culpably belongs mangles it.

So what does God judge us for? We will be judged for our response to the light we have received. Have we, in all humility and sincerity, responded to God insofar as he has revealed himself to us? If so, we have nothing to fear, regardless what religion or church we belong to. If not, we have everything to fear, regardless what religion or church we belong to.

 

[Sha'irullah]

None taken my friend I like the rough'n'tumble. I would have you be frank and honest with me rather than ply me with platitudes that do not accurately represent our differences which IMHO are significant in many ways.

The fundamentals of Deism and Christianity can best be compared to the difference of beauty between Predator and Sigourney Weaver.
The two are quite different especially considering I reject revelation.

I never said that "God" is a mystery in terms of His existence and general attributes. That there is a transcendent, first cause behind this Universe is discoverable by simple human reason. The Catholic Faith teaches this as a dogma (de fide "with full assent of faith").

I know and believe in a first cause in creation. Or else I would not be a Deist.

Number 415 caught my eye along with a few others...

415) The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide.)

414) The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. (De fide. )

The first two on the list, well before the Trinity comes on the scene, are:

What I also find bizarre is the first which applies a certainty in the cause of things and expects human reasoning to be apart of it. Sort of contradicts the usage of a mystery in describing the Trinity.

I said the Trinitarian nature of God is a mystery. Not God. The Trinity is a divinely revealed truth regarding God. It is not discoverable by human reason unaided by grace, and ultimately although it can be analysed on the basis of reason guided by faith, it can never be fully understood because other dogmas/doctrines hold:

I knew what you were implying. I stated very well that I am referring to the triune nature of god in according to the dogma of Christianity. The Bible cannot describe this nature properly and you say it is a mystery.
This is essentially our whole debate.

As He is in Himself, in his Nature, God cannot possibly be grasped by finite human thought. That would be like attempting to make a tiny pitcher contain the entire Atlantic ocean. Impossible.

I agree fully. I do not believe in a fully comprehensible god but I do not believe in a fully comprehensible Yahweh at all.
The primary reason for me choosing "Slave of thy Lord" as my title is because like a Muslim using 'Abdullah' I do not believe in a fully comprehensible god who is like man. Relationships between god and man is like A serf lord and his property(the universe and everything in it including us). All things belong to the Lord and all things can in know shape or form know the details of that lord because he exist away from us and in mystery to our understanding. In short, we are inferior beings and could by no means be god like at all. We are not perfect.
But Jesus the son of god is entirely like mankind and makes mistakes and has moments of error and overly emotional behavior.

There is a vast field of Trinitarian theology. Ultimately though, it is based upon limited, human concepts that can never completely capture the reality they speak of. They can get close but can never grasp it.

Why would Yahweh send such a message which cannot even be understood correctly?
The uncertainty you use to express god is like my own yet you subscribe to a religion with overtly strict dogma and claim being ignorant about the nature of god. How could you even be certain about your own religion? Why have one?

Going back to your first words in your response....
The true difference between Deism and Christianity is that unlike Christians I am rational enough to say that I do not know what god is like hence I do not pick a religion. You on the other hand claims such a thing but adhere to Catholicism. I do not try to convert people but you would be better off as a Deist then a Catholic.

 

[Sculelos]

So what does God judge us for? We will be judged for our response to the light we have received. Have we, in all humility and sincerity, responded to God insofar as he has revealed himself to us? If so, we have nothing to fear, regardless what religion or church we belong to. If not, we have everything to fear, regardless what religion or church we belong to.

Remember the parable of the talents. No matter what knowledge or light you are given you must use it. Some are given no knowledge so they must follow their own laws and follow the only truth they know. Some are given a huge amount of knowledge and talent yet only use it for their own selfish desires.

God will only judge you on the basis of what light you have and what you have done with it.

We are all human, we are all fallible, we all have problems, we all get confused, we all make mistakes, we all sin. When you sin and you will sin, get up and keep going. You will make mistakes until you die, but you must keep running no matter how many times you fall down. What can be broken, will be broken.

 

[Shermana]

Christianity attempts to tie its religion with the Judaic branch only to become entirely ostracized from it.


The fact that you even admit to not even being able to hold mathematical reasoning to the Bible and Christian dogma only provides factual evidence that the Bible along with the trinity cannot be understood through human logic. How can something not understood by its intended audience by applicable in our lives? Obviously it is not meant for us.

The ORIGINAL Christianity was/is 100% Judaic. Jesus taught a very reactionary, if not "mystical" form of Judaism, probably not much different than what the Essenes were teaching. The original Christians were Torah obedient Jews who were basically just following an Essene-style sect that happened to believe Jesus was Messiah.

What the anti-judaizing Pauline orthodox turned it into is NOT Judaic.

And yes, the Trinity is admittedly not meant to be understood according to human logic. The official position for both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox is that it's "Too much for the human mind to understand". Quite a convenient way of saying "Um, yeah it's not really that logical, so don't expect to figure it out, it's BEYOND you!"

 

[Sha'irullah]

The ORIGINAL Christianity was/is 100% Judaic. Jesus taught a very reactionary, if not "mystical" form of Judaism, probably not much different than what the Essenes were teaching. The original Christians were Torah obedient Jews who were basically just following an Essene-style sect that happened to believe Jesus was Messiah.

What the anti-judaizing Pauline orthodox turned it into is NOT Judaic.

I feel offended by what you said........but I am not a Christian .
I 100% agree with you on this. The Trinitarian doctrine unlike common thought is a man-made conception and proposed by the Nicean council.
Paul very own origins in the Bible are bizarre as his later arrival and letters given to the churches just seem out of character in the general Bible. It is nothing but a man's letter and rhetoric which was truly recommendation being used as Divine authority.
I expressed this in a thread before actually.
I do not agree with the Bible but regardless I find Paul entirely out of place in the New Testament and I have held this view even in my Christian years.
The Epistles of Paul hold absolutely no authority. He is an apostle somehow despite the fact Jesus died long since and appeared to him later on a road.
The other troubling issue is how does one reconcile how Paul is not viewed as a prophet yet somehow holds authority in the textual compositions of the Bible.

The Tanakh flows nicely and so do the Gospels all until it hits Paul. Even some of the later Gospels such as John seem a bit off to me but Paul is entirely out of the equation.

 

[Vouthon]

The fundamentals of Deism and Christianity can best be compared to the difference of beauty between Predator and Sigourney Weaver.

Interesting analogy

The two are quite different especially considering I reject revelation.

I am aware of this.

I know and believe in a first cause in creation. Or else I would not be a Deist.

I am also aware of this.

Number 415 caught my eye along with a few others...

I should add firstly that Ott Ludwig wrote that book in 1952, as a university professor. It is a helpful source rather than a set-in-stone definitive touchstone of what is Catholic dogma. Theologians do debate these matters, although not the initial one he accorded de fide status in my initial quote. A more authoritative source would be the Catechism.

Catholicism is not a series of academic statements of belief. It is a living faith and way of life.

In this case though, he is absolutely right. That hell is eternal is de fide in my faith. Eternity means life beyond time. It simply signifies that if someone lives a hellish state of mind on earth, this will be their state when they die. Ott did not even say "punished by God". Nowhere did he mention God doing the punishing from my memory. The Bible teaches you reap what you sow and:

"...There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love..."

- 1 John 4:18

We condemn ourselves to eternal hell.

What I also find bizarre is the first which applies a certainty in the cause of things and expects human reasoning to be apart of it. Sort of contradicts the usage of a mystery in describing the Trinity.

No it doesn't. That a Divine Being and first cause can be deduced from human reason is true. This doesn't equal that the said Being can be fully comprehended, as you yourself admit.

But Jesus the son of god is entirely like mankind and makes mistakes and has moments of error and overly emotional behavior.

No he isn't. He is fully human and fully God. His human nature is like man. His divine nature is utterly incomprehensible in our understanding and totally other and alien to mankind.

Why would Yahweh send such a message which cannot even be understood correctly?

The message communicated in his self-expression through Christ is fully understandable. He in Himself isn't. The message is not the same thing as the sender. The message is accommodated to human weakness and limitedness.

How could you even be certain about your own religion? Why have one?

Because I am in the same boat as St. Catherine of Genoa:

"...Faith seems to me wholly lost and hope dead; for it seems to me that I have and hold in certainty that which I believed and hoped in former times..."

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)

I have experienced the fruits of practising this religion. It satisfies my thirst for transcendence and immanence; it teaches certain unflinching truths yet recognizes that the fullness of revealed truth it proclaims is like a drop in the sea compared with the reality of God which is unknowable. There are many more reasons but it is where my search for truth has ultimately led. My conscience tells me deep down and I must heed its dictates.

I have a peace with passes understanding in my religious conviction.

I do not try to convert people but you would be better off as a Deist then a Catholic

I can assure you my friend that I am more than happy where I am at and respect the equality of your own religious progress which has led you down a different path to me. Each to their own :bow: Follow your conscience. It will never fail you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Interesting analogy

Sigourney has such an asexy chin and the predator is quite handsome if you ask me.
But nonetheless they are entirely different.

I am aware of this.



I am also aware of this.

Thou knoweth thine secrets ......... :run:


Now kidding aside....

I should add firstly that Ott Ludwig wrote that book in 1952, as a university professor. It is a helpful source rather than a set-in-stone definitive touchstone of what is Catholic dogma. Theologians do debate these matters, although not the initial one he accorded de fide status in my initial quote. A more authoritative source would be the Catechism.

I was not aware of this. Despite my year of Catholic schooling I paid little attention to Catholicism. Rather weird but this just goes to show you the level of concentration I have.

Catholicism is not a series of academic statements of belief. It is a living faith and way of life.

I am aware of this. Catholocism is more under control then most Christian sects who paid little attention to the adherence of their faith unless highly devout. Catholicism plays part into a more devoted and pious lifestyle out of all of the Christian sects with Coptic Christians following right behind but only due to sociopolitical reasons.

In this case though, he is absolutely right. That hell is eternal is de fide in my faith. Eternity means life beyond time. It simply signifies that if someone lives a hellish state of mind on earth, this will be their state when they die. Ott did not even say "punished by God". Nowhere did he mention God doing the punishing from my memory. The Bible teaches you reap what you sow and:



We condemn ourselves to eternal hell.

God created hell did he not? God also let it be open to mankind so obviously it is a result of him along with tis inhabitants since he could not install universally in ours hearts to abide by him. A god so desperately trying to reach mankind must do more then send messages thousands of years ago and never give us all the message of his presence.
He only does this to his appointed prophets and messengers along with specific Christians who claim such. This does not seem like a outwardly loving god at all.

No it doesn't. That a Divine Being and first cause can be deduced from human reason is true. This doesn't equal that the said Being can be fully comprehended, as you yourself admit.

Well why are you sure Catholicism is correct if you cannot be sure about this deity's nature.

No he isn't. He is fully human and fully God. His human nature is like man. His divine nature is utterly incomprehensible in our understanding and totally other and alien to mankind.

This only makes oneself wonder if Jesus hath a ration of divine and human traits.
Where does one draw the line?
Jesus obviously did not know that fig trees bloom in a certain season only yet he cursed the tree.

The message communicated in his self-expression through Christ is fully understandable. He in Himself isn't. The message is not the same thing as the sender. The message is accommodated to human weakness and limitedness.

This fails on the simple question of..
"How does God expect us to find salvation if his message is prone to the limitations of human erracy".

Because I am in the same boat as St. Catherine of Genoa:

I have experienced the fruits of practising this religion. It satisfies my thirst for transcendence and immanence; it teaches certain unflinching truths yet recognizes that the fullness of revealed truth it proclaims is like a drop in the sea compared with the reality of God which is unknowable. There are many more reasons but it is where my search for truth has ultimately led. My conscience tells me deep down and I must heed its dictates.

Peace you may have but my confusion you also have as well. I do not understand following a creed and abiding by it for the blind sake of it. This leads to doubt as one would begin to wonder why he or she accepts any of it.

But then again the same could be said about why I still partake in Hindu or Muslim rituals.

I have a peace with passes understanding in my religious conviction.

So do I. It can be found at the bottom of a bottle of finely brewed bourbon whiskey :drool:

I can assure you my friend that I am more than happy where I am at and respect the equality of your own religious progress which has led you down a different path to me. Each to their own :bow: Follow your conscience. It will never fail you.

Bizarre statement I may add. But your whimsical behavior is astonishing me

 

[Vouthon]

God created hell did he not?

No, He did not. Hell is a state of being one puts oneself in. It consists of completely preferring one's self-will, totally rejecting the freedom of God's will and his sanctifying grace which is made available to everyone. God doesn't send us to an ontologically separate place called hell. In some understandings of the dogma, all come into the presence of God after death and depending on the state of their soul, experience God as heaven or hell. It is compared in these texts, many of them of the mystical variety, to human eyes looking at the sun. If the eyes are damaged in some way, the sun will burn them. If they are sound, good eyes, then the sun will not harm them in the same way. The fault is in the eye, not in the sun, which simply longs for its children to return and become in Him.

God also let it be open to mankind so obviously it is a result of him along with tis inhabitants since he could not install universally in ours hearts to abide by him.

Hell is not a place, there is no "inhabitants". I think that you are putting an Islamic interpretation of Hell on a different religion's writings. The official position of the Catholic Church is that Hell is not an actual place but a spiritual state of the soul arising first in this life:

"...Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life...The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy..."Eternal damnation", therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God's judgement ratifies this state...The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom..."

- Blessed Pope John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)

I have been attempting to explain this to you but surely a pope can do it better than me, no?

For us hell is not about fire, brimstone, agony or so on. Its about a state of being.

We also leave open the possibility that no one is in hell. We don't know if anyone is.

A god so desperately trying to reach mankind must do more then send messages thousands of years ago and never give us all the message of his presence.

This is not what Catholics believe. God established the church. It is the corporate presence of Christ on earth. It is continually under his guidance and develops its own doctrines as time progresses, under the Spirit's urging. Most recently, this happened with Vatican II in the 1960s. The Holy Spirit dwells within every person as a temple of God, enlightening and guiding them. The Church has an endless series of saints, mystics and others whose visions, spiritual experiences et al have been approved by the church as divinely given. We are not a static faith but a living tradition.

If you read Ott's book, you will also have seen this one where he again gets it right:

God is everywhere present in created space. (De Fide)

In this respect we are very different from Deism in believing in God's absolute presence everywhere in creation. Think of St. Francis of Assisi and his nature mysticism.

He only does this to his appointed prophets and messengers along with specific Christians who claim such. This does not seem like a outwardly loving god at all.

He does it to everyone, every day through their private prayer, devotions, daily living and so on. We believe that God calls every single soul to contemplation.

In Catholicism this is known as the sacrament of the present moment. I quoted this on a previous thread:

"Morning, afternoon, evening- the hours of the day, of any day, of your day and my day. The alphabet of grace. If there is a God who speaks everywhere, surely he speaks here: through waking up and working, through going away and coming back again, through people you meet and books you read, through falling asleep in the dark"

- Frederick Buechner

If spirituality cannot be found in the everyday elements of one's life, then where? God is found in the here and now, after all. In the present moment, whatever we are doing at that moment.

As one of our saints described it:

“...All of creation, even the most material situation, is a meeting place with God, and leads to union with Him...All the ways of the earth can be an opportunity to meet God...He waits for us everyday, in the laboratory, in the operating theatre, in the army barracks, in the university chair, in the factory, in the workshop, in the fields, in the home and in all the immense panorama of work...Your ordinary contact with God takes place where your fellow men, your yearnings, your work and your affections are. There you have your daily encounter with God...The fruit of our prayer today should be the conviction that our journey on earth, at all times and whatever the circumstances, is for God; that it is a treasure of glory, something marvellous, which has been entrusted to us to administer, with a sense of responsibility. But it is not necessary for us to change our situation in life. Right in the middle of the world we can sanctify our profession or job, our home life, and social relations...I dream — and the dream has come true — of multitudes of God's children, sanctifying themselves as ordinary citizens, sharing the ambitions and endeavours of their colleagues and friends...Human life ‑ your life ‑ and its humdrum, ordinary business, have a meaning which is divine, which belongs to eternity. There is something holy, something divine, hidden in the most ordinary situations, and it is up to each one of you to discover it...”

- Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer (1902 – 1975), Founder of Opus Dei

Well why are you sure Catholicism is correct if you cannot be sure about this deity's nature.

I can be sure what this Deity has revealed about Himself. With this knowledge I can go as far as my created intellect will take me and then rest in the unknown beyond all sense-perception, images and concepts that my religion speaks of; and yet who also is intimately present to me in every moment and at the core of my Being.

This only makes oneself wonder if Jesus hath a ration of divine and human traits.
Where does one draw the line?
Jesus obviously did not know that fig trees bloom in a certain season only yet he cursed the tree.

He does not "hath a ration of divine and human traits". He is fully human in all ways except sin and fully divine. These two natures are distinct and do not mix. He is not part man and part God like a superhero.

The fig tree episode taught the apostles a lesson. If something does not bear fruit, it is good for nothing since it cannot profit anyone, including itself. Jesus continually used this analogy throughout his teaching ministry ie

The parable is as follows:

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

— Luke 13:6–9, King James Version​

There is a deeper meaning to Jesus' seeming obsession with fig trees that don't bear fruit

This fails on the simple question of..
"How does God expect us to find salvation if his message is prone to the limitations of human erracy".

I never said his message was prone to human limitation nor that it is in error. I said that it is accommodated to human weakness yet within those parameters teaches immortal truths not prone to error, even though they are cloaked in a language intelligible to humans and makes use of their own limited conceptions. Quite different.

Peace you may have but my confusion you also have as well. I do not understand following a creed and abiding by it for the blind sake of it. This leads to doubt as one would begin to wonder why he or she accepts any of it.

I do not believe in my religion for "the blind sake of it". I have studied various religion's deeply, including secular philosophies. I have found good in all of them and discerned the activity of the Holy Spirit, yet I find something more fulfilling in the church.

So do I. It can be found at the bottom of a bottle of finely brewed bourbon whiskey :drool:

Bizarre statement I may add. But your whimsical behavior is astonishing me

That is good, I had not thought that you would be a person easily prone to astonishment :flirt:

 

[sojourner]

Christianity attempts to tie its religion with the Judaic branch only to become entirely ostracized from it.


The fact that you even admit to not even being able to hold mathematical reasoning to the Bible and Christian dogma only provides factual evidence that the Bible along with the trinity cannot be understood through human logic. How can something not understood by its intended audience by applicable in our lives? Obviously it is not meant for us.

No it isn't. There are many cooperative churches in our local ministerial alliance -- including our local synagogue. We all work together for the good of the community.

The fact that I don't hold the bible to mathematical reasoning is because the bible is neither a math text, nor a science text. It's storytelling, poetry, and myth, none of which need to be particularly mathematically logical in order to be valid literary forms.

The human psyche is not necessarily mathematically logical. Imagination is not logical. Creativity is not logical. Emotional response need not be logical, yet these are all valid facets of humanity. We need not understand logically in order to understand. When I look at a Kandinsky or a Picasso, for example, I don't employ logic, for logic is not called for in either instance. Logic is not called for in the appreciation of a sunset. Neither is it necessary in appreciating and understanding the bible.

 

[sojourner]

But you assert that god created the Bible?

Nope. The bible is a human construct.

Thus a theological bearing of its meaning was formed.

Yes, but that has little to do with "God creating it."

You also espoused the errors of other religions in accordance to your own

I have never said that other religions are "in error." I have said that Christianity is a distinct system from other religions, but I've always asserted that other religions speak to truth, just as Xy does.

to say that "If we understood God -- that is, could name God -- then we'd have power over God. Which we do not. We do not stand outside God and therefore do not have an objective understanding of God. We only understand God to the extent that we understand ourselves." is really pushing the limits of your own religion.

Part of the process of spiritual growth is to push the limits of our understanding, yes?

You obviously do claim to know the very things you just said you do not

I understand that my descriptions of God are just that -- descriptions. Descriptions, once again, are not definitions. One can say that a car is big, or red, or pretty without speaking to how it is constructed or what makes it go. Again, I only know God to the extent that I know myself.

 

[sojourner]

I was a Christian, perhaps you shall take heed to this

"Was" being the operative term that bears our heeding.

 

[sojourner]

I feel offended by what you said........but I am not a Christian .
I 100% agree with you on this. The Trinitarian doctrine unlike common thought is a man-made conception and proposed by the Nicean council.
Paul very own origins in the Bible are bizarre as his later arrival and letters given to the churches just seem out of character in the general Bible. It is nothing but a man's letter and rhetoric which was truly recommendation being used as Divine authority.
I expressed this in a thread before actually.
I do not agree with the Bible but regardless I find Paul entirely out of place in the New Testament and I have held this view even in my Christian years.
The Epistles of Paul hold absolutely no authority. He is an apostle somehow despite the fact Jesus died long since and appeared to him later on a road.
The other troubling issue is how does one reconcile how Paul is not viewed as a prophet yet somehow holds authority in the textual compositions of the Bible.

The Tanakh flows nicely and so do the Gospels all until it hits Paul. Even some of the later Gospels such as John seem a bit off to me but Paul is entirely out of the equation.

I believe what you and the poster to whom you respond here have in common is a love-affair with "original." The poster wants to put Xy under glass and protect it from changing from its Judaic roots to a Greek expression; from ancient thought to post-modern thought. You seem to reject Paul, based on the fact that Jesus was dead before Paul was called, and was, therefore, not an "original" apostle.

This type of thinking is fallacial, because Xy isn't a static or dead religion. it is a living and changing and adapting religion. If Xy had remained Judaic, it could not have become a pan-cultural religion. If no one outside of those who knew Jesus personally have a valid call, Xy would have been dead 2000 years ago, and we would have no gospels.

Yes, Xy is different from what it was in the very beginning. But so are you and I. And so is the rest of the world.

 

[Sha'irullah]

No, He did not. Hell is a state of being one puts oneself in. It consists of completely preferring one's self-will, totally rejecting the freedom of God's will and his sanctifying grace which is made available to everyone. God doesn't send us to an ontologically separate place called hell. In some understandings of the dogma, all come into the presence of God after death and depending on the state of their soul, experience God as heaven or hell. It is compared in these texts, many of them of the mystical variety, to human eyes looking at the sun. If the eyes are damaged in some way, the sun will burn them. If they are sound, good eyes, then the sun will not harm them in the same way. The fault is in the eye, not in the sun, which simply longs for its children to return and become in Him.

Well then you do not accept the literary fiery torment literalism most Christian display which is good. I am actually assuming many things about you but considering your earlier post I believe I should stop viewing you as a Westboro "Christian" .

Hell is not a place, there is no "inhabitants". I think that you are putting an Islamic interpretation of Hell on a different religion's writings. The official position of the Catholic Church is that Hell is not an actual place but a spiritual state of the soul arising first in this life:

Well please remember I spent 10 years as a not so serious Christian and 2 years as a devout Muslim. Obviously the 2 years of Islam did its charm .
But most Christians as I know of place literal emphasis upon hell and now I am knowing why Catholics are often pushed outside of the Christian fold. Very few Christians I know of (especially Baptist) believe that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics are actual Christians. They oppose the orthodoxy somehow. I personally do not mind Catholicism doing this but Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are a bit to cultish for me.

I have been attempting to explain this to you but surely a pope can do it better than me, no?

You are saying you are not intelligent enough to debate me? Considering the fact you have gone 5 rounds with me I believe your underestimating yourself .

For us hell is not about fire, brimstone, agony or so on. Its about a state of being.

We also leave open the possibility that no one is in hell. We don't know if anyone is.

So you deny the possibility that Angelina Jolie may be in a state of Hell writhing in emotional torment over her bad acting and atrocities for mankind for releasing bad film over bad film. I have a serious issue with this knowing the possibility she is not suffering for her horrible cinema abominations. :sarcastic

This is not what Catholics believe. God established the church. It is the corporate presence of Christ on earth. It is continually under his guidance and develops its own doctrines as time progresses, under the Spirit's urging. Most recently, this happened with Vatican II in the 1960s. The Holy Spirit dwells within every person as a temple of God, enlightening and guiding them. The Church has an endless series of saints, mystics and others whose visions, spiritual experiences et al have been approved by the church as divinely given. We are not a static faith but a living tradition.

I am fully aware of this teaching amongst Catholics. I do not understand the relevance of the Catholic church and its existence being ordained by the Bible but that is another debate.

If you read Ott's book, you will also have seen this one where he again gets it right:



In this respect we are very different from Deism in believing in God's absolute presence everywhere in creation. Think of St. Francis of Assisi and his nature mysticism.

Actually that makes us very like Deism. Deists assert that god is present throughout all of the universe and is the sole cause of the laws of physics and natural creation. He is a constant sustainer but never an intervener.
God is present in the fire and is responsible for the laws that govern how fire should and should not act.
Deist believe that the lack of god is the lack of cosmic order altogether. No place in the universe is there a known gap in the laws of physics.

He does it to everyone, every day through their private prayer, devotions, daily living and so on. We believe that God calls every single soul to contemplation.

In Catholicism this is known as the sacrament of the present moment. I quoted this on a previous thread:

Understood :yes:. I am surprised by your views though as they are not what I am used to dealing with in regards to Christians.

If spirituality cannot be found in the everyday elements of one's life, then where? God is found in the here and now, after all. In the present moment, whatever we are doing at that moment.

As one of our saints described it:

Very much agreed upon. I am quite the mystic.

I can be sure what this Deity has revealed about Himself. With this knowledge I can go as far as my created intellect will take me and then rest in the unknown beyond all sense-perception, images and concepts that my religion speaks of; and yet who also is intimately present to me in every moment and at the core of my Being.

Your approach is very much like mine then as I can only assume the being of god and not claim to know it. Your view upon Catholicism is very Deistic in the sense that Deists do not claim to hold absolute truth on the nature of god because it is most likely impossible.

He does not "hath a ration of divine and human traits". He is fully human in all ways except sin and fully divine. These two natures are distinct and do not mix. He is not part man and part God like a superhero.

The fig tree episode taught the apostles a lesson. If something does not bear fruit, it is good for nothing since it cannot profit anyone, including itself. Jesus continually used this analogy throughout his teaching ministry ie

The parable is as follows:

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

— Luke 13:6–9, King James Version​

There is a deeper meaning to Jesus' seeming obsession with fig trees that don't bear fruit

Well then I will take the event as a metaphorical one then.

I never said his message was prone to human limitation nor that it is in error. I said that it is accommodated to human weakness yet within those parameters teaches immortal truths not prone to error, even though they are cloaked in a language intelligible to humans and makes use of their own limited conceptions. Quite different.



I do not believe in my religion for "the blind sake of it". I have studied various religion's deeply, including secular philosophies. I have found good in all of them and discerned the activity of the Holy Spirit, yet I find something more fulfilling in the church.

Again, this is a Deistic outlook as you assume that the church is not the right or perfect explanation. But instead you view it as the most likeliest out of the rest.

I love my whiskey

That is good, I had not thought that you would be a person easily prone to astonishment

Well considering the fact I am debating a Catholic who sounds more like a Hindu svwami I find a very good reason to be astonished