Summations Only

First, many of your posts are cut&paste.Second, you barge into conversations to spread your own propaganda without contributing to the flow of the topics.This is a brief warning suspension of 4 hours.Any further activity will warrant further discipline.

We have several things to discuss, jar. I will include them here--though they may be slightly off-topic in regards to Trinitarian doctrine. Lets focus on the God in three persons idea first, shall we? Lets begin by discussing the nature of God, Creator of all seen and unseen, Jesus His one and only son, and the Holy Spirit. These three attributes are discussed in The Nicene Creed. Do you personally believe (though of course not know) that God worked through and was in Jesus Christ and the Comforter?And what did you mean when you stated:

I believe that is what the Nicene Creed says.And Jesus or the Holy Spirit if they exist today are not alive and so have no gender as we understand it.

Interesting. It's this same idea that makes me think there is no God.Yes, we're one-in-a-billion... but it seems to be that we exist on this planet simply because we can't exist anywhere else.
We live on a planet that is suffocating with life. And that life would continue to flourish without us, it definitely went on for many, many years without us before, anyway.You see... if we happened to be on another planet in the one-in-a-billion... say, one that doesn't really support life (as most don't).
If we were on one of THOSE planets, and our life was supported REGARDLESS of the fact that it really probably shouldn't... THAT would make me think maybe someone was guiding or helping us.But here? On Earth? Where life pretty much has to form?
It doesn't seem like a God is required. It just seems like it's something that happens to any planet that happens to be this distance from a sun.Wake me up on Jupiter, and become aware that I'm surviving and thriving in a gravity that should be crushing my bones to dust every second I stay there... that seems like "someone else" seems to be intervening and helping me along.Wake me up here, though? on Earth? Where there's so much life it's difficult to find a place on Earth where there's none?
That doesn't seem like someone's intervening to create us.That seems like we just happen to be another mammal that didn't require anything special or external to exist.

I realize that sidelined is long gone from this discussion but I just thought I'd add my take on it.God the Father is straight forwrd. He is responsible for the fact that we exist at all.The Son, Jesus is as the Gospel of John says is that the Word, (or Wisdom) of God became flesh. Jesus the Son then was the perfect embodiment of the nature of God. If we want to understand the Father then we look to the Son. I suggest it is important to remember that when we say the Jesus is God is that Jesus prayed to the Father even to the point of praying to not be called to go into Jerusalem knowing what would happen to someone who did what He was about to do. It was a great act of faith.I would also go back to Jesus calling Himself the Son of Man. This is an obvious reference to Daniel 7 where the Son of Man is presented to the "Ancient of Days", (God the Father). The Son of Man is then given dominion over an everlasting Kingdom.The Holy Spirit is the connection that we have with God through our consciousness. It is that "still small voice" or what we call conscience that guides us in the direction that we should go.The nature of the three is consistent so in that way they are one, and represent a perfect unity.

It seems to me that when we think of the vastness of the universe we should also remember that it was once infinitely small. Personally I just don't see that the size of the universe should cause us to form an opinion one way or the other.

Lets take this slow.You and I both believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Which would make Him again alive. Are you suggesting that He then died of old age after He was raised from the dead?

Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also? Perhaps that is Jesus...while on earth, human. He died, (making Him finite) yet was raided from the Dead by one of the other two infinite parts. Does this make it any easier to understand One God in three persons?Here is another article on the matter:Doctrine of Trinity Explained

In another thread you wrote: I believe that this is explained here.

quote:

---

The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it
is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That
is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of
three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean
tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The
word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both
in terms of His unity and diversity.
The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and
three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it
is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms
of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in
terms of person.
Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly
there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God
(Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full
deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism.
Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming
that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses
Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three
beings who together make up God.
The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different
subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real
difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in
being. Each person subsists or exists under the pure essence of deity.
Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being
or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.
There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity.
The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the
Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations
assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates
creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit
regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers.
The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human
analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to
capture the mystery of the nature of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character
of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It
defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to
the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense
He is three.

---

is anyone still confused?

The doctrine of the Trinity isn't hard to understand. It's hard to swallow.

Lets use logic for a moment.First some hypothetical questions:

Is the doctrine or belief in God---in general---hard to swallow?
I would say..no, not at all. To me, an invisible God makes more sense than a visible one,chiefly because a God by definition would be greater (larger,stronger,more powerful) than anything our modern minds could visibly imagine.

​

I would imagine something more along the lines of a super nova or a black hole. Way bigger than those, however. A Spirit would also make sense as God would...through such a definition be omnipresent. Sorta like the wind. Perhaps Jesus would be a bit of a stretch...a God becoming human and yet still retaining the awesome power of eternity and infinity rolled into one. In the past, humans have dreamed of gods that had bodies...but in this case Jesus is simply an extension of the infinite/eternal. Placed in a package that we can see, touch, smell, communicate with, and...yes sadly...kill. Except that death had no hold on Him.
It seems to me that for those who find such a concept hard to swallow, the main reason is simply because through lack of evidence or proof, the human mind has trouble believing.
For me its no problem. I was never chained to evidential thinking anyway. Critics may argue that a God that is not within our understanding, definition nor control is too scary. Thats the main reasoning, I think. Heck, it has even been said that if such a God did exist then so and so would oppose such a God.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

No, the middle one is not infinite.

That's the same fallacy that the creationists use to put an arbitrary limit on microevolution.It makes sense that we can see something as small as a grain of sand. It makes sense that we can see something as big as our fist. It makes sense that we can see something as big as an elephant. It makes sense that we can see something as big as the moon. It makes sense that we can see something as big as a galaxy.So why does it suddenly "make sense" that we can't see something even bigger?What creationists are really saying is that they wish there was a limit to microevolution, therefore there "must be". What you're saying is that you wish there was a plausible explanation for God being invisible, therefore there "must be".You're attempt to make sense doesn't make any sense. You have it backwards. We've worked for centuries to unchain ourselves from empty belief and it's an on-going struggle.

All I am trying to emphasize is that there are things bigger than our conception. People who claim to limit God to a fig newton of our imagination have essentially missed the point---that God is more than they can swallow.God is a much bigger concept than ringo feeding people and doing his chores. And what would "full belief" mean? Again...you limit God to a concept that can be fit in a box. You limit it to evidence. You limit it to something you can swallow.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This is silly. For thousands of years pretty much everyone on earth has believed in god and gods of various kinds with various features. Gods are massively easy to swallow. We really want god(s) to exist because they provide all the simple answers to the difficult questions people have about why they're here and what happens after they die.You have it the wrong way round, the difficult thing to swallow is that we're just another animal with a short and fixed lifespan and that this is all there is for us. We have to make the most of what we have now. In other words, we have to grow up and put aside childish beliefs.