|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NuNukes writes:
Amen. Same with unicorns.
I assure you that it is generally easy to find confusion and inconsistencies in a believers view of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
How would He "be a savior"? And why would He have to come to earth to do it? Why couldn't He poof us "saved" from heaven?
Note: It does not say He will be an example of how to live and will teach the people not to sin...He will actually be a savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Good point. We are all "fathers" to each other in the same sense that God is a "father" to us - only we tend to be more hands-on about it.
ringo writes:
No more so than I have to any other human. You never stop being a parent. You have a perpetual obligation not to dig holes for him to fall into. NoNukes writes:
So give us some examples from the Bible.
Some uses of the term father don't imply any obligation at all. NoNukes writes:
It is, and I have been wrong a time or two. If you actually think about things you're likely to be wrong sometimes. How else would you suggest a person can become "right"?
If arguing by analogy is your normal style, you should anticipate being wrong quite a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
Yes indeed. So how does the relationship with "God the Father" differ?
Actually, if we want to make analogies in that sense, "brothers", "neighbors", "fellow human", and "peers" works just as well for describing our relationship to each other. NoNukes writes:
Psalm 23 comes to mind:
Show me where the Bible describes an obligation to protect you from being eaten by a lion, and I'll be happy to use the Father metaphor to describe that relationship.quote:You might be able to weasel around the word "obligation" but I don't think you can deny that protection is expected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
We don't "strive to be wrong". We do test a metaphor by stretching it to its breaking point, like we test anything else. Your predictions of the breaking point are less reliable than actual testing.
We should not strive to be wrong by deliberately arguing a metaphor past it's breaking point. NoNukes writes:
I'm not trying to persuade you.
I am not just saying that you are potentially wrong, I am saying that you are stretching a metaphor at least to the point where it is not the least bit persuasive. NoNukes writes:
I don't. The Bible does.
You can call God your Father... NoNukes writes:
Sure he is. Ever hear of "child endangerment"?
... but even your own parent is not obligated to watch over you to make sure you don't misstep or encounter danger. NoNukes writes:
Been there, done that, the T-shirt is in the laundry. To recap: The Bible emphasizes a metaphorical father-child relationship between God and His people. I contend that that relationship implies an obligation to protect His people. His people expect that protection (e.g. Psalm 23). You don't seem to feel inclined to refute my contention with Biblical references, so the contention stands.
If you think there is an obligation, then provide an argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well done, my son.
Not only does it hint at an obligation, for if you ask then God will provide, but it also uses the Father-Son relationship in the explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
petrophysics1 writes:
You fundies and your talking snakes.
P.S. Don't believe a word CS speaks, he is a real snake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Apparently you're not aware of the Clean Slate Defense? That would certainly apply if those "past discussions" were in another thead. And since I have a short attention span, I feel free to invoke it at will.
I can point to past discussion involving exactly those examples. NoNukes writes:
That would be the Watering The Soup Defense - the soup may be thinned to cover more territory but all of the ingredients are still there.
The real disagreement I have is with the idea that we can use the term 'Father' to make up obligations for God that we have no evidence or scripture indicating that God has agreed to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
I don't look at it as "backing out" of a position. Arguing a position is not the same as taking a position.
If people want to back out of earlier positions all they have to do is say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
ringo writes:
No, not here it isn't. Apparently. Arguing a position is not the same as taking a position.quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Some can argue both sides of a debate; some have to believe what they debate; some can't argue either side effectively.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Jesus fasted and prayed often. So why do we think we can turn off the NFL game, grab a bag of chips and a hot dog, then run out the door to go volunteer at the shelter for an hour before picking up the kids from soccer...and think that we are doing like Jesus taught?quote:Jesus hung out with publicans and sinners. Chances are He watched the 1st century equivalent of football and ate the 1st century equivalent of chips and hot dogs. He may or may not have had kids to pick up. But He definitely did "volunteer at the shelter". So yes, that would be doing like Jesus taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
jaywill writes:
On the contrary, objectively ridiculous doctrines encourage faith.
Anyone wanting to start a new religion would probably never have as a central teaching something so objectively problematic as a doctrine of a three-one God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I've used the same analogy myself. The two end parts are still infinite on one end. The middle part is finite; which part of the Trinity is that?
Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You said a number line. Draw the line. You can only divide it at finite places. You can't have three infinite pieces when you only have two infinite ends. how can 1/3 of infinity be finite? A concept like infinity is not going to be of much help in describing voodoo like the Trinity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024