User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 89

  1. #61
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    SEI Fe
    Posts
    7,945

    Default

    But what about Baal's brothers, Mephisto and Diablo?
    Likes Xann, magpie liked this post

  2. #62
    Senior Member Justin of Flavia Neapolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huldah View Post
    The Jews said that Jesus trusted in God, and that He claimed He was the Son of God. So did they understand Jesus as saying that He was God?

    Not possible.

    The Trinity doctrine makes it impossible for Jesus to be the LITERAL Son of God, which thus makes it impossible for God to be His LITERAL Father; so it denies both the Father and Son, which is Antichrist, Biblically.
    Your incredulity of the Trinity is duly noted, and unsurprising being that it is The Mystery of God as I've already stated. This is what we mean by: "You can only know God through Christ, who is His Word," and "God made Himself known through Christ," or any derivation of that. This is where Faith comes in. You either do or don't have it. The Lord puts the ball in your court.


  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Threads like these are incredible, I always think its bizarre that people are so quick to give up on enduring scholarly traditions as a bad job but will invest time and belief in imaginative nonsense that springs up overnight online and wouldnt have made the cut for an episode of X-Files or Twilight Zone.
    Likes Justin of Flavia Neapolis liked this post

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Isk Stark View Post
    Well, that's always been the position of The Church (Orthodox, and to some extent Catholicism), which is that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is the greatest Mystery. He is The Mystery. If God (Father) could be known, then He is not God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Doubt is as much a part of Christianity as is Faith. Doubt is built into the religion itself. But, I digress:

    God (Father) approaches us through Christ (Son) in a language we can understand, His "Word" or Logos. He is the Son, begotten, not created. An important distinction. The Holy Spirit: The Life-Giving Spirit of God

    (Bolded the distinction between East and West, AFAIK. The Western church teaches that the Holy Spirit comes from Christ, the Son. The East teaches that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, only. The importance of that detail, I'm still learning.)

    The Holy Trinity is God's Mystery personified. How can One be Three in One and equal to Three and One at the same time? Makes no logical sense does it? Of course not. If God made logical sense, He wouldn't be God. The ultimate Unknown quantity. But, then again, it made logical sense to us at one time that the world is flat.

    It's hard enough to attempt to approach (understand) God's Mystery with that in mind. So difficult that some give up altogether and revert to the claim that God is polytheistic. Moses battled this tendency throughout the OT. It is to place human limitations on God to claim that "Since I, an enlightened Human, can't understand God's mysteries, therefore *insert your favorite assertion about God." It's a bit geocentric to do so.



    I believe what @<a href="https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/members/36308.html" target="_blank">Huldah</a> is attempting is to simplify God into a known quantity because that is the habit of Literalists. Literalists can't abide the unknown, so they seek to know God through their own subjective filters(Sola scriptura - Wikipedia), which is why she's spitting Bible verses she interprets as supporting her position. God is such a mystery to her that she speaks of Him in the human term of polytheism.

    If I wanted to kill Asians, I bet I could find a reason in the Bible to kill Asians. And that's the problem. Literalists each see themselves as the authority and read the Bible how they wish, individually, instead of collectively with the proper context in mind. Atheists do this, too but that's because Atheists in the US come from a culture of Biblical Literalism. So ingrained into the culture is this Literalism that Atheist do it themselves. [Aside: I think it's particularly cute when Literalists (of both stripes) catch vapors upon learning that the Bible is a compiled and written work by the apostles and church fathers (men). Like the Bible was supposed to have descended to earth from the heavens]. I bet if I read the Bible drunk, high, and sober, I'd come away with different interpretations each time. For this reason, the interpretation is "Peer reviewed" in ecumenical councils, from the beginning.
    Pot, meet kettle:

    "The Orthodox Church recognizes marriage as the only moral and spiritually appropriate context for sexual relations. Thus, all other forms of sexual activity such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, all forms of prostitution, and similar forms of behavior are sins that are inappropriate for the Orthodox Christian. Marriage is only conducted and recognized in the Orthodox Church as taking place between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. The Orthodox Church with the Holy Scriptures does not allow for same-sex marriages."

    From the Word Magazine, the Orthodox statement on homosexuality:

    "Thus the function of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and their bio-chemical generating forces in glands and glandular secretions are ordained by nature to serve one particular purpose, the procreation of the human kind."

    "Therefore, any and all uses of the human sex organs for purposes other than those ordained by creation, runs contrary to the nature of things as decreed by God and produces the following wrongs:"


    Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the worst of the literalists, so much so that your position against biblical literalism makes you sound like a liberal protestant.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Justin of Flavia Neapolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb1 View Post




    Pot, meet kettle:

    "The Orthodox Church recognizes marriage as the only moral and spiritually appropriate context for sexual relations. Thus, all other forms of sexual activity such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, all forms of prostitution, and similar forms of behavior are sins that are inappropriate for the Orthodox Christian. Marriage is only conducted and recognized in the Orthodox Church as taking place between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. The Orthodox Church with the Holy Scriptures does not allow for same-sex marriages."

    From the Word Magazine, the Orthodox statement on homosexuality:

    "Thus the function of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and their bio-chemical generating forces in glands and glandular secretions are ordained by nature to serve one particular purpose, the procreation of the human kind."

    "Therefore, any and all uses of the human sex organs for purposes other than those ordained by creation, runs contrary to the nature of things as decreed by God and produces the following wrongs:"


    Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the worst of the literalists, so much so that your position against biblical literalism makes you sound like a liberal protestant.
    What exactly are you arguing? Donald Rumsfeld, and "Sex is good because it feels good, and I like to have sex?" Are you basing your worldview on the fact that people like sex? I bet my daughters would base their worldview on Barbies and ice cream if we let them.

    EDIT:What exactly are you arguing for, or are you just making fun of Christian beliefs? That's fine, it's of no consequence to me either way.

    It always comes back to sex wit y'all, like there's no higher purpose in life than to have sex every which way you can. I expect no less from the Godless. Go forth and have all the sex to your hearts content.

    We were discussing the Trinity, and you go dig up The Church's views on sex like it's a "Gotcha!" moment. Is there a subset of people out there that don't know about that?

    Your experience with Prots only say one thing: They're an apple that fell far from the tree, but they're still (somewhat) an apple.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Isk Stark View Post
    What exactly are you arguing? Donald Rumsfeld, and "Sex is good because it feels good, and I like to have sex?" Are you basing your worldview on the fact that people like sex? I bet my daughters would base their worldview on Barbies and ice cream if we let them.
    Ultimately, Huldah (evee?) has made a stronger case for his viewpoint on the trinity than you did for yours. That said, I don't think either position is true. Religion is just about controlling the masses. But I'm curious as to who has the better interpretation of the bible with regards to the trinity issue. Your Donald Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" defense of the trinity does not pass muster, as it merely resorts to mysticism and an appeal to pseudo-authority (i.e. the church's position). These are also cliches cults employ ("It's a mystery beyond explanation"), so it simply can't be validated as a sound response.

    You also have to remember that the church's position on many of these social and political issues are based on intensely literal interpretations of the bible. Its just not sex....it could be something as medieval and arcane as the Catholic Church's crusade against stem cell research. Roman and orthodox are the ultimate in biblical literalism. You are orthodox. So when you are attacking somebody's position for being too biblically literal, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. That's giving up too much ground to defend the concept of the trinity imo.

    And I still can't get over the fact you erased your first post in response to me because you say you weren't 'satisfied.' what's there to be satisfied about with a post. these aren't some big works of art you're submitting into a museum. It just looked like you second guessed yourself, like you needed more time to take another crack at it but why completely erase it (I don't get), because you're not to sure on the topic and probably not the best representative of the trinity defense perhaps. Sumthin' made ya flinch. In the end, it only diluted the weight of your second response. I think you did yourself a disservice not leaving it up there.
    Likes Justin of Flavia Neapolis liked this post

  7. #67
    Senior Member Justin of Flavia Neapolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb1 View Post
    Your Donald Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" defense of the trinity does not pass muster, as it merely resorts to mysticism and an appeal to pseudo-authority (i.e. the church's position). These are also cliches cults employ ("It's a mystery beyond explanation"), so it simply can't be validated as a sound response.
    (Orthodox) Christianity is a mystical religion, so don't be surprised if that is the language used. It is what it is. That's why it requires faith. God is illogical after all. Nothing worth having is forced or given to you. If it's something you want, you'll have to seek it out on your own. Christ does not make it easy for us. In fact, He raises the bar:

    "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
    -- Luke 14:26

    You also have to remember that the church's position on many of these social and political issues are based on intensely literal interpretations of the bible. Its just not sex....it could be something as medieval and arcane as the Catholic Church's crusade against stem cell research. Roman and orthodox are the ultimate in biblical literalism. You are orthodox. So when you are attacking somebody's position for being too biblically literal, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. That's giving up too much ground to defend the concept of the trinity imo. You shapeshifting into a liberal protestant like that.
    You're conflating Orthodox with the RCC. I'm not aware of any active Orthodox PACs.

    In Orthodoxy, there's hardly an emphasis on the literal reading. The Orthodox interpretation is something more akin to the "esoteric" which aims for a deeper level of understanding of the Word. A literal reading is what is at the surface, also called "exoteric." Exoteric Christianity is the dominant form in the West.

    Ever since the 18th century Enlightenment, people have tended to become polarized over the issue of reading the Bible. On one side we find “biblical literalists,” those who read the sacred writings as though they were primarily history books that present us with a series of facts and events on everything from the creation of the world (in six calendar days) to the Second Coming (with trumpets from Heaven, a place “up there”). On the other side there are scholars who adopt a historical-critical approach that has little confidence in the historical accuracy of biblical texts, but focuses rather on the content and argument of a given writing, the circumstances that gave rise to it, and its function within the community of faith.

    Although these approaches seem to be poles apart, they are identical in one major respect. They both assume that the only real meaning to be found in Scripture is the “literal” one. This is usually defined as the meaning “intended” by the biblical author: the sense he understood and attempted to convey. Biblical interpretation (exegesis), therefore, should concentrate on what the text “actually says.” From this perspective, the literal sense of the text is typically reduced to its “historical” sense: either “what really happened” (in the eyes of the biblical literalist) or “what the text claims happened” (as discerned by historical criticism).

    The earliest Christian theologians, however, knew better than to limit the work of biblical interpretation to either of these extremes. Against a literalist or purely historical approach, for example, Origen in the third century asked rhetorically regarding the creation stories in the book of Genesis: “What intelligent person would believe that the first, second and third day, and the evening and morning, existed without the sun, moon and stars…and heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, ‘planted a paradise eastward in Eden’?”

    This is not skepticism. It affirms rather that biblical accounts often have more than one meaning, and that the primary meaning is rarely what is referred to as the “literal” or “historical” sense.
    More here: Meaning or Meanings of Scripture? - Orthodox Church in America

    In any case, I went off on a tangent regarding Protestantism without any background information, which was my fault. The reason it came about was that only a Protestant (or in this case, an offshoot of Protestantism) would interpret the sciptures like he did, training its crosshairs on the very thing it is protesting: The RCC. Just another example of the results of fragmented Christianity.

    “No matter how just your words may be, you ruin everything when you speak with anger.”
    -- Saint John Chrysostom



    And I still can't get over the fact you erased your first post in response to me because you say you weren't 'satisfied.' what's there to be satisfied about with a post. these aren't some big works of art you're submitting into a museum. It just looked like you second guessed yourself, like you needed more time to take another crack at it but why completely erase it (I don't get), because you're not to sure on the topic and probably not the best representative of the trinity defense perhaps. Sumthin' made ya flinch. In the end, it only diluted the weight of your second response. I think you did yourself a disservice not leaving it up there.
    For the most part. I'm no apologist, and it's like a shot my load too early and wanted a do-over. I'm not so worried about it since the option is there. I guess you could petition the mods to remove it? Is it in the forum canon that one must never use it even if the temptation is there?

  8. #68
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    NiFi
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI4 Ni
    Posts
    9,225

    Default

    How did I miss this thread?!

  9. #69
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20,331

    Default

    The Trinity was created by theology and it was as only in 1998 we discovevered the universe is accelerating away from every point in every point direction. The theologians did not know this.

  10. #70
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    The Trinity was created by theology and it was as only in 1998 we discovevered the universe is accelerating away from every point in every point direction. The theologians did not know this.
    They knew why this or any other scientific fact would actually have meaning beyond just being a piece of information.

Similar Threads

  1. The value of worship
    By Cimarron in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 10:20 PM
  2. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  3. Empire of the Sun
    By miked277 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-2008, 04:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO