A Question For Trinitarians.

[oddbird1963]

a God who is not a mystery is not a God worthy of worship.

 

 

Does this criteria for deity seem rather ad hoc? Why does being "mystery" make a god worthy of worship? Who invents these criteria? You might as well say "a god whose flatus does not smell like pipe tobacco" is not a god worthy of worship.

 

Really. Does this statement strike anybody else as totally plucked out of thin air with no usefulness whatsoever?

[Ouroboros]

Really. Does this statement strike anybody else as totally plucked out of thin air with no usefulness whatsoever?

Totally.

[pratt]

this guy ray should read the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

Imaginary friends don't answer specific prayers, but God does. Routinely.

 

Stuff and nonsense! God never answers prayers, Ask the Pope. If the Pope's prayers don't get answered what hope is there for anyone else?

[pratt]

God sure answer prayers....

 

his answers can be any of the followings:

 

1. YES

2. NO

3. MaYBE

4. LATER

 

If he don't answer your prayers you asked for, it is because

 

1. it is no good for you

2. you pray while still with sin in your life

3. he has a better plan, good and not evil

4. you haven't pay your monthly subscription

5. you did not claim by faith

 

Excuses I thought I heard god says when my prayers aren't answered but it just happened when I was talking to myself all the time

 

Now I know, when my prayers were answered, because I simply made it happen without the invisible hand.

[seeboh]

i remember someone explained the triple point of water whereby water can exist in 3 forms, liquid solid and gaseous....

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Triple_point

 

In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which three phases (for example, gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium.^[1] For example, the triple point of mercury occurs at a temperature of −38.8344 °C and a pressure of 0.2 mPa.

 

so God can be father/son/holy ghost at the same time.

 

other explanations: god works in mysterious ways, we cannot fully understand the full glory of god etc etc.....

 

cheers

 

I remember those phase diagrams from last year now.. My chemistry book's definition of a triple point is "the only condition under which all three phases can be in equilibrium with one another" Dynamic equilibrium is defined as "the rate of a forward process is exactly balanced by the rate of the reverse process." In order for the liquid, solid, gas analogy to hold true, you can only take one molecule, formula unit, or atom because there allegedly is only one god. So, even at the triple point any given molecule, formula unit, or atom exists as either a solid, liquid, or gas; not a combination. However, this given substance is constantly changing states, and the phases are still mutually exclusive to single molecules, formula units, or atoms. The triple point is merely where it is possible for multiple molecules, formula units, or atoms to exist as EITHER a solid, liquid, or gas. So my objection stands.

 

You're losing sight of what is being presented >> analogies, and analogies never completely match the reality . Can something be three and one at the same time? Are there examples from life? Answer - yes.

 

Another example >> the Efimov trimer. Mathematically predicted in 1970, but not proven and achieved until recently. Three atoms of the same element (they used lithium) which bind together at definite energy levels (at multiples of 515). This solved the "three body" problem.

 

Another term used by Church fathers to describe the Trinity was "perichoresis" which speaks of the Trinitarian personal interactions, the mutual inter-penetrations, the continual 'flow around' or 'dance around', a cleaving together, a mutual indwelling of incomprehensible intimacy, etc.

 

So we do the best we can with studying God's self-revelation in Scripture, applying reason & logic, & using human language >> to arrive at an understanding of God.

 

Of course analogies aren't EXACTLY the thing you're trying to present, but they should have similar traits. But the difference is that your analogies AREN'T analogous; that's what I'm pointing out. It is valid to say that life is like a box of chocolates (Oh cliches ). Why is it valid to say this? Because like in a box of chocolates, you never know which chocolate you will get in the same way that you never know what kind of life you will get. So here is what your analogy has to be:

A SINGLE entity that has three "parts" (for lack of a better word)

Each of the "parts" must fully be the single entity

Each of the "parts" must be different than the other

The "parts" must exist simultaneously

 

I think you'd agree that God is a single entity with three "parts" and that each of the parts are fully God yet they are not the same and that they exist at the same time?

 

I couldn't find any sites that really explained the Efimov trimer, could you give me a site that does?

 

Perichoresis never held ground with me because there are three entities "dancing" around.

[seeboh]

That we cannot fully comprehend God is no reason not to pursue God. God has revealed Himself in nature and history so that we would pursue Him.

 

24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

 

“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

 

as even some of your own poets have said,

 

“ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

 

29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Acts 17:24–29). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The only real 'life' that humans can experience on Earth is a life lived to God's glory. Other lifestyles will be deficient, as their based on a lie, a misunderstanding of the basis of the universe and existence, on highly subjective morals & purposes, etc.

 

I live my life fine without God thank you very much. Anyway, this is a discussion for another time.

 

 

Agreed these don't arise from a single mind - more from a single relationship. But the Trinity has had inter-personal relationships for all eternity. This is why it's bogus to say God created angels and men for company. God had infinitely satisfying & loving relationships for all eternity. God graciously created others to experience such.

 

A relationship isn't an entity, it's an interaction between two or more entities.

 

Analogy.

 

Contrary to popular belief there is such a thing as a valid analogy, this is not one of them.

 

At the critical point of temperature and pressure, an element exists in gas & liquid & solid simultaneously. Analogy.

 

Not a single molecule, they exist in equilibrium. If you want it to be analogous you must use only one molecules, which is constantly changing states because it's in equilibrium. There's still such a thing as a valid analogy.

 

First, all analogies fail - they're just analogies, and we use them as a means to understand more difficult issues. Second, that different forms of matter are mutually exclusive would apply to the Persons in the Godhead; the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, etc. In fact, they cannot be one another - they are their own Persons forever!

 

But an element - like all nitrogen atoms have the same 'nature' - can exist simultaneously in three phases. But, not all nitrogen atoms are identical (isotopes).

 

My bad, by mutually exclusive I meant they don't exist simultaneously. I don't think you want to concede that the persons of the trinity don't exist at the same time.

 

Also if they are their own persons doesn't that imply three entities?

 

You have to only take one nitrogen atom for this to work, and when you do you should come to the conclusion that you can't have 7 neutrons and 8 neutrons at the same time.

 

 

 

 

So, since you don't like analogies, can you explain how one entity can have three "persons" (What is a person? Can you clarify what this means?) and make it so the "persons" are each 100% the entity and exist at the same time? How can you have this and not have three entities? Naturally, since you don't like analogies don't use them. And if you do, don't complain that I show why they aren't valid.

[markedward]

A Christian here: I'm a unitarian.

[rayskidude]

Furthermore, it is most definitely not the reason why Christians today are fighting against science.

 

Yea, I would definitely disagree that Christians are fighting against science. Christians are fighting against atheism, and we are challenging atheistic and purely materialistic interpretations of the available data. We are stating that because atheist a priori dismiss the spiritual aspect of life and the existence of God - they have subjectively limited their ability and competency in discovering the "hows & whys" of this universe.

 

Christians who are scientists routinely employ scientific principles and methodologies in their life and work. However, Christians realize that reality is not limited to only what we observe in the material space/matter/time/??? - but that we have a soul, and we can and should have a relationship with God who works in our lives thru His Spirit and His Scriptures.

 

Even many medical personnel have come to realize the important role that 'spiritual disciplines' have in the health of people. This is based on their observations and comparisons of patients' recuperative powers and attitudes.

 

So - there's no fighting against science; but there is learning & practicing science within its proper context.

 

Eh. Why would 6 separate theories about the pre-conditions of Big Bang undo all science? Are you telling me that Ohm's law is evil and from Satan because scientists can't yet figure out a very difficult problem about the Big Bang? Perhaps you're suggesting that the Reimann Sum is also wrong and the Pythagorean identity should also be reconsidered now since we don't have one answer to what was before time began?

 

What I am saying is that "it's surprising how much of science has been and is currently wrong" - which is an appropriate reality. Current theories should be challenged, conventional wisdom about science and its implications should be scrutinized. Advances in science occur because of ongoing research which either confirms or disproves current beliefs about reality.

 

So, when appealing to various scientific theories and explanations; let's just be humble and realize that the answered offered may be completely invalid tomorrow.

 

Not in my experience.

 

Yes - I think I understand somewhat, only because I've thought about this more & more recently. I'll write a separate post to address this issue.

[rayskidude]

However, it turns out that God does change and alters his plan when the first plan fails.

God declares that he is not a man and then changed his mind.

God declares that there are none but him and that he will not give his glory to another, then changed his mind and creates a son of himself as his heir and gives glory to him.

God tells his people not to worship versions of himself that he had not taught them, but changed his mind and teaches people about a different version of himself.

God gives a plan to his people for salvation, then changed the plan, tossing out his prior rules.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what your "Christian" background was - JW? Mormon? Your views definitely exhibit aspects of cult theology. Or have you arrived at these views yourself?

 

I ask this 'cuz you routinely exhibit a very faulty hermeneutic. All you statements above are simply false, and historical orthodox Christianity - which has studied God's word for two millennia - has amply put forth a consistent Bible worldview.

[rayskidude]

I couldn't find any sites that really explained the Efimov trimer, could you give me a site that does?

 

The analogy doesn't require a single atom, it requires three atoms of the same nature; i.e., the same element. Same for the other analogies, I disagree that a single relationship is not a single entity. The main question is: Do we see a three-in-oneness in nature? The answer: Routinely.

 

Strange Physical Theory Proved After Nearly 40 Years - Yahoo! News

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091216/sc_livescience/strangephysicaltheoryprovedafternearly40years

[rayskidude]

So can you explain how one entity can have three "persons"

 

No, I cannot - and this has always been admitted by Christianity. God's Nature is inscrutable. However, we can know God to the degree He has revealed Himself in Creation, the Scriptures, and the Person of Jesus Christ. And I can also see 'trinities' in nature that help to understand "three-in-oneness."

 

What is a person? Can you clarify what this means?) and make it so the "persons" are each 100% the entity and exist at the same time? How can you have this and not have three entities?

 

I believe personality consists in: (1) a mind, or intellect; (2) emotions; and (3) volition, a will, intent. The presence of these three aspects generates self-awareness (I, me, my) and self-understanding (my motives, why I am the way I am) and self-love (intent to protect and promote myself).

 

Naturally, since you don't like analogies don't use them. And if you do, don't complain that I show why they aren't valid.

I don't complain - I simply state that you are wrong.

[centauri]

However, it turns out that God does change and alters his plan when the first plan fails.

God declares that he is not a man and then changed his mind.

God declares that there are none but him and that he will not give his glory to another, then changed his mind and creates a son of himself as his heir and gives glory to him.

God tells his people not to worship versions of himself that he had not taught them, but changed his mind and teaches people about a different version of himself.

God gives a plan to his people for salvation, then changed the plan, tossing out his prior rules.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what your "Christian" background was - JW? Mormon? Your views definitely exhibit aspects of cult theology. Or have you arrived at these views yourself?

Lutheran.

Christianity exhibits aspects of being a cult, it isn’t restricted to any particular denomination.

 

I ask this 'cuz you routinely exhibit a very faulty hermeneutic. All you statements above are simply false, and historical orthodox Christianity - which has studied God's word for two millennia - has amply put forth a consistent Bible worldview.

You routinely toss around phrases such as “faulty hermeneutics”, which are subjective and based on your particular theological whims.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, all of my statements are accurate and are backed by the Bible, which you deny when expediency dictates.

[rayskidude]

Not in my experience.

 

Recently, the daughter (about 20 yrs old) of a good friend admitted that she was not a Christian. Previously, she had professed faith in Jesus the Messiah and she asked to be baptized (about 16 yrs old). The parents had each grown up in good evangelical churches and they both attended a Christian college, and they are serving now as missionaries. Their other adult child is a strong believer. I believe the parents and family strive to live an authentic Christian life.

 

The young lady stated that she had never experienced things which many Christians testify to - answered prayer especially. But she mentioned that she'd never received comfort, strength, been overwhelmed by God's love & grace, been thoroughly encouraged, etc by reading and meditating on the Scriptures. She did not sense a personal relationship between herself and God. She concluded that she was not - nor could she ever remember a time when she would have been - a Christian.

 

She was raised in a consistent Christian environment, and like all young people sought to be like others, be accepted by others into the 'group,' she saw the authenticity and godly lifestyle of others - and to some degree 'worked at' experiencing these things. But she never really had done so.

 

Now, obviously, the parents are concerned. But they are not - in some ways - surprised. They had spoken to her a number of time about her lack of interest in spiritual matters and her avid pursuit of the 'things of this world.' Some events confirmed to her and the parents that she indeed had no interest in pursuing God and personal godliness.

 

Now I don't want to project her experience onto all other ex-C's; but I do firmly believe that many have sought God 'in the flesh' - they have sought to please God by their life, followed teachings they have received from mature believers >> they have prayed, studied, meditated, served, loved, enjoyed friendships, been selfless -- and yet, it hasn't 'worked.'

 

No one can live the Christian life in the flesh, by their human nature. The Christian life runs counter to the natural inclinations of Man. After some time the frustration must reach a level that demands an honest assessment of one's spiritual interest. If my basic heart desires & motivations are not joyously God-focused, there is ample reason to question my spiritual status.

 

Certainly, the committed, consistent Christian life is a challenge for believers. That's why Christians are instructed to repent, confess, seek the power of God's indwelling presence and His Scriptures, and the prayers and encouragements of brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

We're commandos living behind enemy lines; difficulties are certain and casualties are inevitable. The serious Christian life requires a whole-hearted love for God, then loving others, and then trusting God & others to care for us.

 

The Trinity and the Gospel are foolishness to the Greeks (human philosophy seeking to' reason through' everything) and a stumbling block to the Jews (legalists seeking to win God's favor by their behavior). We've known this all along.

 

All this to say - Christianity is based on historical events which accomplished real purposes and reveal truth. But Christianity is also a subjective spiritual existence that is initiated by, lived by, and completed by the grace of God. I experience God's grace and love, the Church's love and care, my lack of godliness and desire for growth - routinely.

[Ouroboros]

Now I don't want to project her experience onto all other ex-C's; but I do firmly believe that many have sought God 'in the flesh' - they have sought to please God by their life, followed teachings they have received from mature believers >> they have prayed, studied, meditated, served, loved, enjoyed friendships, been selfless -- and yet, it hasn't 'worked.'

Or... they have sought to find God for real, with honest hearts, and found out it didn't work.

 

Perhaps you're just feeling that you found God because you're delusional? Who knows?

 

I can only know what I know about myself and my experience.

 

Your arrogant and judgmental attitude will never impress me to reconsider my own history.

 

No one can live the Christian life in the flesh, by their human nature. The Christian life runs counter to the natural inclinations of Man. After some time the frustration must reach a level that demands an honest assessment of one's spiritual interest. If my basic heart desires & motivations are not joyously God-focused, there is ample reason to question my spiritual status.

Since you don't know my life and my experience, you can't sit there and judge that way. You're only making it worse and more likely that I will never ever look back to your delusional religion.

 

Certainly, the committed, consistent Christian life is a challenge for believers. That's why Christians are instructed to repent, confess, seek the power of God's indwelling presence and His Scriptures, and the prayers and encouragements of brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes. And you know that I didn't? You know that because you're a supernatural being with spiritual tentacles into the past... *not!*

 

We're commandos living behind enemy lines; difficulties are certain and casualties are inevitable. The serious Christian life requires a whole-hearted love for God, then loving others, and then trusting God & others to care for us.

 

The Trinity and the Gospel are foolishness to the Greeks (human philosophy seeking to' reason through' everything) and a stumbling block to the Jews (legalists seeking to win God's favor by their behavior). We've known this all along.

Right. And yet, LNC and you play around with logic and reason... Is it foolishness or is it not? Is it foolish to say there's no God, or is it Greek reasoning?

 

I'd say you're giving mixed messages...

 

All this to say - Christianity is based on historical events which accomplished real purposes and reveal truth. But Christianity is also a subjective spiritual existence that is initiated by, lived by, and completed by the grace of God. I experience God's grace and love, the Church's love and care, my lack of godliness and desire for growth - routinely.

Good for you.

[rayskidude]

Lutheran. You routinely toss around phrases such as “faulty hermeneutics”, which are subjective and based on your particular theological whims.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, all of my statements are accurate and are backed by the Bible, which you deny when expediency dictates.

 

Really? "cuz I'm reading a Lutheran-Missouri Synod systematic theology right now; by Francis Pieper, written originally in German. Dr. Pieper would disagree with the statements you provided.

[rayskidude]

Or... they have sought to find God for real, with honest hearts, and found out it didn't work.

I can only know what I know about myself and my experience.

Your arrogant and judgmental attitude will never impress me to reconsider my own history.

 

I never said she wasn't honest, just mistaken. What did I say that was arrogant?

 

Right. And yet, LNC and you play around with logic and reason... Is it foolishness or is it not? Is it foolish to say there's no God, or is it Greek reasoning?

I'd say you're giving mixed messages...

 

Scripture instructs believers to think, use rational thought, reason, logic, wisdom, etc. It's just that Divine revelation trumps human reason. Human reason serves faith, not the other way around.

 

 

All this to say - Christianity is based on historical events which accomplished real purposes and reveal truth. But Christianity is also a subjective spiritual existence that is initiated by, lived by, and completed by the grace of God. I experience God's grace and love, the Church's love and care, my lack of godliness and desire for growth - routinely.

 

Good for you.

 

Yes it is - for me and countless others.

[centauri]

Lutheran. You routinely toss around phrases such as “faulty hermeneutics”, which are subjective and based on your particular theological whims.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, all of my statements are accurate and are backed by the Bible, which you deny when expediency dictates.

 

Really? "cuz I'm reading a Lutheran-Missouri Synod systematic theology right now; by Francis Pieper, written originally in German. Dr. Pieper would disagree with the statements you provided.

If I was still Lutheran, I wouldn't be an ex-Christian.

And as an ex-believer, I'm not required to fall in line with Christian dogma and propaganda.

The statements I provided obviously aren't endorsed by Christians, so why should I care what Dr. Pieper thinks?

[Ouroboros]

Or... they have sought to find God for real, with honest hearts, and found out it didn't work.

I can only know what I know about myself and my experience.

Your arrogant and judgmental attitude will never impress me to reconsider my own history.

 

I never said she wasn't honest, just mistaken. What did I say that was arrogant?

The fact that you express that you think you know more about another person's behavior, thoughts, intentions, and experiences. You think very highly of yourself and your abilities. You think you know other people and judge them without really knowing what is in their background.

 

Arrogance: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

 

Besides, if you think that just because a person is not since enough about their faith, God will not show himself or prove himself to the person, then your God is an IDIOT.

 

If anyone at least tries to reach God, even only half-sincere, God would benefit to meet those people half-way. It's obvious that if you have to believe super-super-super-hard before God can do anything, the religion is nothing but a snake oil business.

 

Scripture instructs believers to think, use rational thought, reason, logic, wisdom, etc. It's just that Divine revelation trumps human reason. Human reason serves faith, not the other way around.

You're going in circles.

 

It's foolish to be a Greek and it's foolish to be a Christian.

 

It's foolish to not believe and it's foolishness to believe.

 

So all of it is just foolishness.

 

Yes it is - for me and countless others.

So keep it. Don't push your drug on others.

 

My life is good without your God. It's very good, as a matter of fact. And it's good for a countless of others too.

[Xerces]

 

 

Scripture instructs believers to think, use rational thought, reason, logic, wisdom, etc. It's just that Divine revelation trumps human reason. Human reason serves faith, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Oh fucking hell, might as well burn that degree of yours, you don't deserve it.

[Ouroboros]

 

 

Scripture instructs believers to think, use rational thought, reason, logic, wisdom, etc. It's just that Divine revelation trumps human reason. Human reason serves faith, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Oh fucking hell, might as well burn that degree of yours, you don't deserve it.

And they can't see how they twist everything each time because they argue that the existence of God and their dogma is somehow philosophical and reasonable.

 

They can't make up their minds. Is it reasonable (human reason) or is it revelation (non reasonable with human reason)?

[centauri]

Scripture instructs believers to think, use rational thought, reason, logic, wisdom, etc.

It instructs believers to shun their own ability, experiences, and senses to become fools for Christ, maintaining that the magic elixer of faith trumps all.

They are to put their trust in alleged forces that demand complete obedience under threats of damnation.

They are to accept the spiritual baggage foisted on them by clerics and preachers that deem themselves to be authorized mouthpieces for the magical unseen force.

 

It's just that Divine revelation trumps human reason. Human reason serves faith, not the other way around.

When human reason is made a slave to unsubstantiated assertions, rhetoric, and magical thinking, the mind is no longer fully functioning.

The so-called "divine" revelation hasn't even been validated as divine.

It's based on argument by assertion, combined with repeating the same dogma over and over in the hope that repeating something enough times makes it real.

[rayskidude]

Lutheran. You routinely toss around phrases such as “faulty hermeneutics”, which are subjective and based on your particular theological whims.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, all of my statements are accurate and are backed by the Bible, which you deny when expediency dictates.

 

Really? "cuz I'm reading a Lutheran-Missouri Synod systematic theology right now; by Francis Pieper, written originally in German. Dr. Pieper would disagree with the statements you provided.

If I was still Lutheran, I wouldn't be an ex-Christian.

And as an ex-believer, I'm not required to fall in line with Christian dogma and propaganda.

The statements I provided obviously aren't endorsed by Christians, so why should I care what Dr. Pieper thinks?

 

Thnx - I was just asking for my own sake, wondering whether you're statements had their source in your previous religious experience, or whether you developed them yourself. SO, thnx for the clarification.

[seeboh]

I couldn't find any sites that really explained the Efimov trimer, could you give me a site that does?

 

The analogy doesn't require a single atom, it requires three atoms of the same nature; i.e., the same element. Same for the other analogies, I disagree that a single relationship is not a single entity. The main question is: Do we see a three-in-oneness in nature? The answer: Routinely.

 

Strange Physical Theory Proved After Nearly 40 Years - Yahoo! News

 

http://news.yahoo.co...ernearly40years

 

Even granting that it's one entity, the individual atoms don't have their, for lack of a better word, own personality. Thank you for the link btw, exciting stuff .

 

I hold that while a relationship is a connection between two or more entities, it is not itself an entity because it is dependent on the two entities it connects. An entity is self-contained existence and therefore is not dependent on anything for its existence.

 

Do we see a three-in-oneness in nature? I've yet to see any in the way that you say your god is.

[seeboh]

So can you explain how one entity can have three "persons"

 

No, I cannot - and this has always been admitted by Christianity. God's Nature is inscrutable. However, we can know God to the degree He has revealed Himself in Creation, the Scriptures, and the Person of Jesus Christ. And I can also see 'trinities' in nature that help to understand "three-in-oneness."

 

What is a person? Can you clarify what this means?) and make it so the "persons" are each 100% the entity and exist at the same time? How can you have this and not have three entities?

 

I believe personality consists in: (1) a mind, or intellect; (2) emotions; and (3) volition, a will, intent. The presence of these three aspects generates self-awareness (I, me, my) and self-understanding (my motives, why I am the way I am) and self-love (intent to protect and promote myself).

 

Naturally, since you don't like analogies don't use them. And if you do, don't complain that I show why they aren't valid.

I don't complain - I simply state that you are wrong.

 

Two more questions regarding definitions. What is a nature? What is the difference between a personality and a nature?

 

Yes, you've stated that but I don't recall you stating a valid reason as to why I'm wrong.