Page 7 of 8
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:41 am
by jay_a2j
unriggable wrote:jay_a2j wrote:unriggable wrote:Well obviously in biological terms, you can't be your own father, therefore christianity is false. Prett easy.
Except God is not "biological". God is Spirit. God came to Earth in the form of "His Son" to do what no man could possibly do.... die for the world's sins.
Exactly. If he was Him, he wouldn't be His son. So Jesus is not the son of God but rather a manifestation of God Himself? That directly contradicts the Bible.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:37 pm
by vtmarik
unriggable wrote:jay_a2j wrote:unriggable wrote:Well obviously in biological terms, you can't be your own father, therefore christianity is false. Prett easy.
Except God is not "biological". God is Spirit. God came to Earth in the form of "His Son" to do what no man could possibly do.... die for the world's sins.
Exactly. If he was Him, he wouldn't be His son. So Jesus is not the son of God but rather a manifestation of God Himself? That directly contradicts the Bible.
The triune god (god of the trinity; father, son, holy spirit) is a henotheistic concept borrowed from old pagan faiths that see god as a multi-lobed entity. The god of many faces is not new, nor is it specific to Christianity.
The fact that Christians worship a triune god, yet proclaim their monotheism is what contradicts the bible.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:41 pm
by unriggable
jay_a2j wrote:unriggable wrote:jay_a2j wrote:unriggable wrote:Well obviously in biological terms, you can't be your own father, therefore christianity is false. Prett easy.
Except God is not "biological". God is Spirit. God came to Earth in the form of "His Son" to do what no man could possibly do.... die for the world's sins.
Exactly. If he was Him, he wouldn't be His son. So Jesus is not the son of God but rather a manifestation of God Himself? That directly contradicts the Bible.
So Jesus was God is what you're saying?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:58 pm
by MR. Nate
Quick breakdown of the Trinity. God is one in nature, and consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are eternally existent, and none came before any of the others. A good analogy is a triangle. It is 1 triangle, but it has 3 corners.
The person of the Trinity referred to as the Son came to earth in human flesh and was named Jesus by the woman who gave birth to Him. He had no physical father. The sperm was placed there supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:59 pm
by b.k. barunt
vtmarik wrote:unriggable wrote:jay_a2j wrote:unriggable wrote:Well obviously in biological terms, you can't be your own father, therefore christianity is false. Prett easy.
Except God is not "biological". God is Spirit. God came to Earth in the form of "His Son" to do what no man could possibly do.... die for the world's sins.
Exactly. If he was Him, he wouldn't be His son. So Jesus is not the son of God but rather a manifestation of God Himself? That directly contradicts the Bible.
The fact that Christians worship a triune god, yet proclaim their monotheism is what contradicts the bible.
Would the fact that you are composed of three separate parts (body, soul and spirit) contradict the fact that you are one person?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:03 pm
by Backglass
MR. Nate wrote:The person of the Trinity referred to as the Son came to earth in human flesh and was named Jesus by the woman who gave birth to Him. He had no physical father. The sperm was placed there supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.
The sperm was placed there by a man...and both lied about it.
It happens all the time.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:47 pm
by vtmarik
b.k. barunt wrote: Would the fact that you are composed of three separate parts (body, soul and spirit) contradict the fact that you are one person?
Quite possibly. Unfortunately, no psychologist, philosopher, or scientist can define soul and spirit, or tell you where these things come from.
MR. Nate wrote:Quick breakdown of the Trinity. God is one in nature, and consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are eternally existent, and none came before any of the others. A good analogy is a triangle. It is 1 triangle, but it has 3 corners.
Three identities of one god is a triune, henotheistic God much like Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahman in Hinduism; or Odhinn, Villi, and Ve in Asatru.
Unfortunately, you gloss over the inherent henotheism of your religion and then magnify the henotheism in other religions making them seem polytheist when in fact they believe in the same concept of a triune god.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:49 pm
by unriggable
MR. Nate wrote:Quick breakdown of the Trinity. God is one in nature, and consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are eternally existent, and none came before any of the others. A good analogy is a triangle. It is 1 triangle, but it has 3 corners.
The person of the Trinity referred to as the Son came to earth in human flesh and was named Jesus by the woman who gave birth to Him. He had no physical father. The sperm was placed there supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.
So God would be the total of the three or the father?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:57 pm
by vtmarik
unriggable wrote:MR. Nate wrote:Quick breakdown of the Trinity. God is one in nature, and consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are eternally existent, and none came before any of the others. A good analogy is a triangle. It is 1 triangle, but it has 3 corners.
The person of the Trinity referred to as the Son came to earth in human flesh and was named Jesus by the woman who gave birth to Him. He had no physical father. The sperm was placed there supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.
So God would be the total of the three or the father?
God is singular, the trinity are the three manifestations of God, similar to the manifestations of Brahman in Hinduism. Except in Hinduism, Brahman has over one thousand manifestations.
Christianity, like it or not, is a henotheistic religion.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:58 pm
by unriggable
vtmarik wrote:God is singular, the trinity are the three manifestations of God, similar to the manifestations of Brahman in Hinduism. Except in Hinduism, Brahman has over one thousand manifestations.
Christianity, like it or not, is a henotheistic religion.
So which manifestations do we see in the OT? Sorry, this "he's three but at the same time he is one" thing has gotten me confused.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:11 am
by Eh! Steven
Guiscard wrote:This is all by the by, though. I'm just bashing Christianity because it is my only pleasure in life.
What a sad life you must lead.
re·li·gion
the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Basic overlooking from the conversation within this topic the thought has crossed my mind ever so frequently. Christianity cannot be consumed within the secular perspective of what religion is. Following Christ isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to the Father's will.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:42 am
by MR. Nate
In the OT, the manifestation which generally occurs is God the Father. Notable exceptions are when 3 men visit Abraham in Genesis 18, one of them appears to be Christ. There are some passages in Joshua and Judges that are unclear whether it is Christ or an angel. Several passages in Samuel and Psalms refer to "the Spirit of God" presumably referring to the Holy Spirit.
vtmarik - care to define henotheism? Webster defines it as worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods, which seems a little different than the formulation of the Trinity.
The Christian Trinity is God, unified in nature, but diverse in person. The three persons act in complete unity. i.e. the Son glorifies and submits to the Father: the Father will exult the Son. The Son submitted to the Holy Spirit while on earth, but is now exulted by the Spirit as He inspires individuals.
Despite the near impossibility of firm definitions in Hinduism, there seems to be less of a leaning toward a single, personal god. The "one" god of Hinduism is not usually defined as being a person, but often as a sort of infinite creating presence. The manifestations of this presence do not necessarily get along, making it more difficult to argue that it is closely related to the concepts in Christianity.
Eh! Steven wrote:Following Christ isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to the Father's will.
Well said.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:47 am
by Backglass
Eh! Steven wrote:Following <INSERT ANY RELIGION HERE> isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to the <INSERT RELIGIOUS DEITY HERE> will.
IE: Blind faith in a chosen superstition, complete with myth and ritual.
To each his own I guess...
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:56 am
by MR. Nate
Backglass wrote:Following Science isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to observable phenomena.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:56 am
by cena-rules
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:07 am
by MR. Nate
While I disagree with your opinion, I appreciate your use of the present tense, implying that you agree with the Christian assertion the Jesus is alive.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:35 am
by Backglass
MR. Nate wrote:Backglass wrote:Following Science isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to observable phenomena.
Science = Observable
Gods = Invisible
I'll go with reality, thanks!
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:42 am
by AlgyTaylor
Seeing as god is omnipotent, why did Mary have to give birth to Jesus? Surely he could've just magically created himself ... it would've saved a lot of hassle about people questioning his religious significance, I'd have thought
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 pm
by MR. Nate
Could Jesus have magically created Himself? sure. Would it have mattered much? Not really. People who don't believe Jesus was God assume Mary slept with a man to get pregnant, despite her testimony contrary. If Jesus had magically created Himself, the same people would assume he had been born, despite his testimony to the contrary.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:39 pm
by got tonkaed
MR. Nate wrote: People who don't believe Jesus was God assume Mary slept with a man to get pregnant, despite her testimony contrary.
hopefully you could at least understand why people might be a bit suspicious of the fact that just because Mary says she didnt have sex, that when a baby appears, people might be led to believe she is lying.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:45 pm
by vtmarik
got tonkaed wrote:MR. Nate wrote: People who don't believe Jesus was God assume Mary slept with a man to get pregnant, despite her testimony contrary.
hopefully you could at least understand why people might be a bit suspicious of the fact that just because Mary says she didnt have sex, that when a baby appears, people might be led to believe she is lying.
Well, modern-day medicine knows that you don't have to have penetrative intercourse to get a girl pregnant.
The medical "science" of those days probably didn't know that, hence the miraculous perception.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:18 pm
by Backglass
vtmarik wrote:The medical "science" of those days probably didn't know that, hence the miraculous perception.
They
definitely didn't know that.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:25 pm
by flashleg8
vtmarik wrote:
Well, modern-day medicine knows that you don't have to have penetrative intercourse to get a girl pregnant.
Are you implying Joseph jizzed on her? Kinky bitch.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:38 pm
by black jesus
Hard Rock Hallelujah!
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:47 pm
by unriggable
MR. Nate wrote:Backglass wrote:Following Science isn't based upon a feeling, or a multiple phenomenon of tingling somersaults inside of ones stomach, but more so the lifetime commitment of surrender to observable phenomena.
Science = what actually happens. No commitment. I don't go to a laboratory every sunday for what seems like no apparent reason.
