Going to a christian church - Page 2

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineSeeker

He is a troll. If your intention is not to derail a thread, or contribute to derailing it, might I suggest that you not converse with him?

All of his posts are exactly the same: The Baha'i Faith is a false religion and trinitarian Christianity is the truth and the only way to God. He is not here to learn. He is here to scare people off from the Faith.

It is very difficult to argue with yourself, and he will soon lose interest if he is not being fed.

I merely have opinion which I express. You bahai are just overly sensitive I noted.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy248

Indocule, Christians have constructed a logic system that is almost unbreakable, and you have been trapped within it. The problem is that it's delusional and as a result leads to suffering. Ultimately we must choose what to believe with the guidance of love, no amount of reason and logic will win here.

Ah so now the trinity is a delusion, very well prove this point. But if you think the belief in trinity leads to suffering you will be right, because it brings us to acknowledge the great things about God. God became man, he loved us so much that he took on our nature died and suffered for us. The indescrible level of love here, for an all perfect entity to take on a nature he does not have to, makes us sudffer indeed.

But that you think the trinity is illogical without actually demonstrating why it is, is probably the best answer I can hope from you at this point. Tell me are you me and I am you? Aren't we one? Oh right, you cannot even defend that rediculous concept.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

If you want to bring to it there, then by all means do it. But dont put blame of derailing on me, whenever you respond to me you continue this conversation whether you want to admit it or not. But thats all bahai can do, blame others. Oh are yu even bahai anymore?

and yet i have to put up with you saying garbage like me calling another persons wife stupid. You totally misrepresent the truth and twist things..

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins

and yet i have to put up with you saying garbage like me calling another persons wife stupid. You totally misrepresent the truth and twist things..

Your right I was wrong about that. However you cannot demonstrate the trinity illogical. And I garuntee if you were to actually try it, you would attack modalism or patripassionism.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

Unitarianism is just as much an attempt to explain God, that is he is One person and one substance of divinity within this modalistic framework. Again if you make god totally beyond comprehension you have a God you cannot possibly worship as you cannot knwo this God.

God of course for the Christian, is totally boundless, ineffeble, inconceivable and other verbs which can be applied of the like describption. Now as for images, The divinity God cannot be depicted. No one says it can.

Its not that I make God outside of comprehension, that is just how he is. But thats not to say we cannot know signs of God and his qualities. There is plenty of desciption of that by Baha'u'llah. But to claim to describe how God works himself is totally different. To say God is magnificant is one thing. Or to be able to know his sense of justice or other qualities about how he treats his creatures is totally different to knowing something about the divine reality itself, much less thinking we can categorise God himself by some human-drawn diagram of our imaginations. Remember each one of the trinity we are claiming is God in the diagram. That is what a Bahai would have a problem with and that is what Abdul'Baha elludes to amongst the many things he talks about in his explanation...
You have no way of proving that the trinity is true just as much as you can claim that Bahais cant prove that it is false. That is becaues you would never accept an explanation that a Bahai might offer no matter how reasonable it might be. Like the one I just gave..

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 07:08 AM

We don't claim to understand how God works Goblin, this is where you have missed the point of the trinity. The function and the actions of how the most simple, inconceivable substance and persons work is beyond the scope of definition for the trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine of describing Whom god is, not his function. And Certaintly you must say we cna know who god is. Your God is a unitarian entity, he is a person and he has a substance. My God is a Trinitarian entity, three persons one same self substance.

But you made a claim, that the trinity is nonsensical. So far you've done everything to avoid demonstrating this. Probably because you realise the moment you try to criticise the trinity you wil not attack the trinity. But prove me wrong.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

We don't claim to understand how God works Goblin, this is where you have missed the point of the trinity. The function and the actions of how the most simple, inconceivable substance and persons work is beyond the scope of definition for the trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine of describing Whom god is, not his function. And Certaintly you must say we cna know who god is. Your God is a unitarian entity, he is a person and he has a substance. My God is a Trinitarian entity, three persons one same self substance.

But you made a claim, that the trinity is nonsensical. So far you've done everything to avoid demonstrating this. Probably because you realise the moment you try to criticise the trinity you wil not attack the trinity. But prove me wrong.

I can show its illogical by saying that God is outside the realm of numbers and the relvance of numbers because he is infinate and the number 3 is no more relvent to infinity than any other number is. Can you proove the trinity is true?

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 07:48 AM

How does one conclude that since God is beyond time and space and the physical world that he cannot be three persons? How does that logic follow? If numbers cannot apply to the divine in even the category of persons you have to submit on your own view that God is not a unitarian entity, that God might not even be A person.

For the Christian, God has always existed as three persons, there isn't any other greater explanation needed. Thats just how God has always been.

As for proving the trinity, what do you mean? PRove that the triunity of God exists? From logical argumentation? Scripture? What are we wanting here?

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

How does one conclude that since God is beyond time and space and the physical world that he cannot be three persons? How does that logic follow? If numbers cannot apply to the divine in even the category of persons you have to submit on your own view that God is not a unitarian entity, that God might not even be A person.

For the Christian, God has always existed as three persons, there isn't any other greater explanation needed. Thats just how God has always been.

As for proving the trinity, what do you mean? PRove that the triunity of God exists? From logical argumentation? Scripture? What are we wanting here?

THats right. As I said read abdul'Bahas explanation. He is outside of numbers.

He is one or many or infiniate. Applying a number to his person has no relvance but infinate has relevance in the sense that he is outside of comprehension of numbers. Because human minds cant comprehend infinate then we can say infinate has relevance to God. Infinately powerful. Infinately Just. Infinately knowledgable. Etc.
Now the number one has relevance to God because it is simply saying he is single. That is God was alone. He is God and there is no God but him. He is one God. He is not many Gods but thats not to say that God himself is bound by the number 1 in any way. Unlike your trinity that is saying God himself is somehow bound or linked to the number three.

Now where does the number three come from? There is no support for the number three. But there is support for the number 1 (he is single alone) and there is support for the number infinity (outside of all numbers and beyond measure). But there is zero support for the number three. Absolutely zero support that it should have relevance to God.
So ive jus shown it is illogical because firstly three has no more relevance to One or Infinity than for or five does. And not only that there is no sciptural support for the signifance of the number three having relevance to God.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:00 AM

See you are fundamentally contradicting yourself when you say numbers are outside the realm of what we can apply to God but then say one must apply to God. This is inconsistent or at least a double standard to apply this to the trinity. I do agree God is one in his substance, that God is the most simple of all beings because he is not compounded, of multiple different substances, but within that substance exists three co eternal persons.

As for the support for the number three, it comes from the words of Christ in baptism. Baptise in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. A Unique name shared between only these three persons, that Christ has the very name of God, that Christ is the cause for all our existence, that Christ is the one who will judge at the end of days (which bahai reject).

So no, you haven’t demonstrated it illogical, only that it doesn’t fit your arbitrary standard for what God is. A double standard is not a good way to start.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

See you are fundamentally contradicting yourself when you say numbers are outside the realm of what we can apply to God but then say one must apply to God. This is inconsistent or at least a double standard to apply this to the trinity. I do agree God is one in his substance, that God is the most simple of all beings because he is not compounded, of multiple different substances, but within that substance exists three co eternal persons.

As for the support for the number three, it comes from the words of Christ in baptism. Baptise in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. A Unique name shared between only these three persons, that Christ has the very name of God, that Christ is the cause for all our existence, that Christ is the one who will judge at the end of days (which bahai reject).

So no, you haven’t demonstrated it illogical, only that it doesn’t fit your arbitrary standard for what God is. A double standard is not a good way to start.

No. One ONLY applies to God in the sense that it is saying THERE IS NO GOD BUT HIM. In other words you pray to a single God you do not pray to Thor or Zues you just pray to God the sender of messengers. That is the only way ONE has relevance. It has NO relevance to his body or person or his being which exists outside of numbers...
Yes the number three has support in teh sense that those three things are holy and relevent but not that God himself is described by those three things...
Jesus never described God has being relevent to the number three nor has any messenger ever. You are extroplating by saying Just because the father and the son and the holy Ghost add up to three then three must be God himself... But show me sciptural suppor twhich says God is relvenet to three. I mean God himself. Not your interpretation of Those things meaning that God is a trinity.
There is sciptural support for both the number one and infinity applying to God himself.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:07 AM

There you go violating your own rule, that numbers can't apply to the eternal ineffable god but the number one can. I agree that God is one and that the number does apply to him in that way. But you cannot have a standard which would refute that very own proposition in the first place. But if you are going to say one cannot apply to God's personhood, I gotta ask, do you think there are an infinite amount of persons within God? A complex series or minds? Are you unitarian?

The number three, only applies to God in relevance to his persons btw.

Noexalt · 10-28-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy248

Indocule, Christians have constructed a logic system that is almost unbreakable, and you have been trapped within it. The problem is that it's delusional and as a result leads to suffering. Ultimately we must choose what to believe with the guidance of love, no amount of reason and logic will win here.

That's the truth if I ever heard it. Come on Icon, you have to admit that Christians have suffered schism after schism, war after war, so much exploitation of "heretics, pagans, and other non-conforming infidels" in the name of such dogma such as the trinity, the "proper" way to baptize, exploitation of the poor, and other yes, NONSENSICAL non-scripturally based man made ideas. And then you want to sit back here and cry that Christianity is the only way. What you constantly forget is that we Baha'is DO believe in Christ, just not the dogmatic nonsense that has been introduced to the Christian church after the fact. Yea, like when did Christ use the word Trinity? how about Rapture? and he said the Rosary when? And these are the things Christians fight about. It's really amazing. You just keep doing what you are doing, bud, soldier on, wow.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

There you go violating your own rule, that numbers can't apply to the eternal ineffable god but the number one can. I agree that God is one and that the number does apply to him in that way. But you cannot have a standard which would refute that very own proposition in the first place. But if you are going to say one cannot apply to God's personhood, I gotta ask, do you think there are an infinite amount of persons within God? A complex series or minds? Are you unitarian?

The number three, only applies to God in relevance to his persons btw.

No im not violating it. ONE DOESNT APPLY TO HIS BODY OR PERSONS. It applies to our frame of reference. You are just simply not understanding this or choosing to pretend not to for convenience. One pray to one God thee GOD who is OUTSIDE of numbers HIMSELF.
One only has relevance in the sense that we dont worship other Gods aside from the God who is the true God. It has no relevance in describing him and does not bind God in any way.
Can you see the distinction? One is our frame of referance the other is Gods frame of reference.

Just like infinity has relvence because it shows God is outside of human mind to measure..
Gods person is outside of numbers but we know that one and infinate have relvenace. NOT becuase they bind his existance to a number. On the contrary. Infinity shows he is immeasurable and ONE just shows we only pray to one God. It is not describing his persons or binding him to the number one himself other than saying he is one God rather than many Gods...

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:20 AM

Except it isn't non scriptural. Christians have had the bible, protected the bible and revered the bible alot longer than bahai ever have, and we have two thousand years of Christian thinking to establish that. Saint Ignatius a desciple of John, worshipped Christ. Saint polycarp another desciple of John worshipped Christ.

Now if you want descredit Christianity because of the sins of some go ahead, but thats not a valid argument. Garuntee you if the bahai ever got their one world government with them being in control it, there would be alot more blood, and they would do it in the name of peace and harmony.

As for rapture, I don't accept 18th century ideas which the church has not known for two thousand years. The trinity however is not the rapture. And what of the rosary? Is not Mary blessed among women? Is not the fruit of her womb great? Did not the apostles bow and worship Christ?

So you can attack with a simplistic mindset, but you only convince others like you.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins

No im not violating it. ONE DOESNT APPLY TO HIS BODY OR PERSONS. It applies to our frame of reference. You are just simply not understanding this or choosing to pretend not to for convenience. One pray to one God thee GOD who is OUTSIDE of numbers HIMSELF.
One only has relevance in the sense that we dont worship other Gods aside from the God who is the true God. It has no relevance in describing him and does not bind God in any way.
Can you see the distinction? One is our frame of referance the other is Gods frame of reference.

Just like infinity has relvence because it shows God is outside of human mind to measure..
Gods person is outside of numbers but we know that one and infinate have relvenace. NOT becuase they bind his existance to a number. On the contrary. Infinity shows he is immeasurable and ONE just shows we only pray to one God. It is not describing his persons or binding him to the number one himself...

So if you will not apply numbers to God this leaves us open to many possibilities. Perhaps your one god is composed of more persons than the trinity, perhaps your God is not intelligent or isn't even a person to begin with. But when you apply the term person in the singular to God, you are in effect saying God has one person, God is one person. Thus violating your own rule. Take in mind this rule is purely arbitrary on your part and it renders alot of things you might say about God impossible to say about him. It renders God a being which we cannot possibly have even a feint knowledge of, thus you render an unworshippible God as you cannot even know basic things about this mysterious entity.

God's mystery and ineffeble nature is to be understood within the context of who God is. Otherwise you render God a total mystery and God cannot possibly be worshipped as you cannot know this God.

But ultimately you do have to bind a number to God. You have to say God is one person.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

So if you will not apply numbers to God this leaves us open to many possibilities. Perhaps your one god is composed of more persons than the trinity, perhaps your God is not intelligent or isn't even a person to begin with. But when you apply the term person in the singular to God, you are in effect saying God has one person, God is one person. Thus violating your own rule. Take in mind this rule is purely arbitrary on your part and it renders alot of things you might say about God impossible to say about him. It renders God a being which we cannot possibly have even a feint knowledge of, thus you render an unworshippible God as you cannot even know basic things about this mysterious entity.

God's mystery and ineffeble nature is to be understood within the context of who God is. Otherwise you render God a total mystery and God cannot possibly be worshipped as you cannot know this God.

But ultimately you do have to bind a number to God. You have to say God is one person.

Well there is sciptural support for saying he is one person isnt there. THere is nothing to suggest he is three within his person...
You are saying three distinct individuals compose that one person, thus giving the number three a special relevence to the number one (one has relvence to God but doesnt confine him to the number 1) or the number infinity ( God is infinite is a true statement). Which it simply doesnt have...
Like I said the number one doesnt confine his persons. It is only saying dont pray to false Gods, but its relevance cant be denied either.
So we can say 1 has relevence to him but doesnt constrain him.

So let me ask you since this is hard to comprehend for you apparently.
If I was to Say "pray only to one God thee true God."
Am i now saying that God is something confined by the number one?

Cant I say "pray to one God" who is himself infinite and beyond the constraints of numbers...

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:40 AM

And you contradict yourself again by saying you don't apply numbers to God and his person but then go to do so anyway. You need to have a consistent methodology and theology when trying to show your opponent as wrong Goblin. And no, there is nothing in the bible suggesting that he is a unitarian entity. God is described as one, blandly without specification, though I like what you said, he was described as one so as to say there is only one God. This does not speak of his persons. IN fact when reading the Old testament we see God saying "let us create," does God create with his creation? Is not God the sole source of all creation? This matches perfectly what we see described of Christ in the gospels, that he is the creator of all that exists.

Need we forget the destruction of sodom and gammorah? The Lord in heaven rained fire to the Lord on earth. YHWH is used in both cases here.

And no, see you are not using the correct terminology when talking about trinity. person is an individual. there are three individual persons which comprise of the divinity. Three persons in one God. The relevance of three comes from the persons described, it is not arbitrary. Because there is teh son and the spirit and the father which all share the same unique substance of divinity.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

And you contradict yourself again by saying you don't apply numbers to God and his person but then go to do so anyway. You need to have a consistent methodology and theology when trying to show your opponent as wrong Goblin. And no, there is nothing in the bible suggesting that he is a unitarian entity. God is described as one, blandly without specification, though I like what you said, he was described as one so as to say there is only one God. This does not speak of his persons. IN fact when reading the Old testament we see God saying "let us create," does God create with his creation? Is not God the sole source of all creation? This matches perfectly what we see described of Christ in the gospels, that he is the creator of all that exists.

Need we forget the destruction of sodom and gammorah? The Lord in heaven rained fire to the Lord on earth. YHWH is used in both cases here.

And no, see you are not using the correct terminology when talking about trinity. person is an individual. there are three individual persons which comprise of the divinity. Three persons in one God. The relevance of three comes from the persons described, it is not arbitrary. Because there is teh son and the spirit and the father which all share the same unique substance of divinity.

read my post again and answer my questions..

"So let me ask you since this is hard to comprehend for you apparently.
If I was to Say "pray only to one God thee true God."
Am i now saying that God is something confined by the number one?

Cant I say "pray to one God" who is himself infinite and beyond the constraints of numbers... "

Noexalt · 10-28-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

Now if you want descredit Christianity because of the sins of some go ahead, but thats not a valid argument.

OMG, Seriously? Pope sanctioned events like the Inquisition, the thirty year's war, the infamous crusades, need I go on? So then the Pope himself is one of the sinners. So much for Christ's successor. Oh yea, but recent Pope's have done such a better job...PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST THEY CANNOT VENTURE TOO FAR OUT THE VATICAN WALLS ANYMORE since Pope Pius IX.

You cannot apply your own history in predicting what the Baha'is are going to do. Baha'u'llah himself condemned several individuals for plotting against a government official, and trying to keep an opposer from getting a job, let alone the idea that Baha'is would wage an all-out bloody war? Come on.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:48 AM

Iconodule is this a logically contradictory statement?

"pray to one God" who is himself infinite and beyond the constraints of numbers... "

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:50 AM

No, but you are associating a quality to God, that he is one in someway. Ultimately I think you need to say he is one in substance and in person but that would violate your own principle you have laid out from the begining.

But in all this you have not demonstrated how the trinity is illogical, only that it doesn't concern or agree with your theology.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noexalt

OMG, Seriously? Pope sanctioned events like the Inquisition, the thirty year's war, the infamous crusades, need I go on? So then the Pope himself is one of the sinners. So much for Christ's successor. Oh yea, but recent Pope's have done such a better job...PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST THEY CANNOT VENTURE TOO FAR OUT THE VATICAN WALLS ANYMORE since Pope Pius IX.

You cannot apply your own history in predicting what the Baha'is are going to do. Baha'u'llah himself condemned several individuals for plotting against a government official, and trying to keep an opposer from getting a job, let alone the idea that Baha'is would wage an all-out bloody war? Come on.

The crusaders also invaded Constantinople, raped the nuns and virgins and wives, stole our icons and relics and put in place a latin patriarch. Such emotional responses have no effect on me and neihter should they do for you. I'm not roman catholic so I am not bound by their history. I have a history flawed enough to which I am bound by.

But I simply apply the liberal principles of bahai which I think lead to one world government, socialism or at worst communism. I really do think the bahai would be more destructive if given power than anyone. But thats just my opinion.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins

Iconodule is this a logically contradictory statement?

"pray to one God" who is himself infinite and beyond the constraints of numbers... "

No its not, but it violates your own principle that one cannot apply numbers to God.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

No, but you are associating a quality to God, that he is one in someway. Ultimately I think you need to say he is one in substance and in person but that would violate your own principle you have laid out from the begining.

But in all this you have not demonstrated how the trinity is illogical, only that it doesn't concern or agree with your theology.

Well if no then you are wrong about what you said that im confining him. You have just then agreed i am not confining him to 1 yet Im showing one has relvence to his persons though it doesnt confine his persons. So can you give a logical statement that shows three is relevent to his person like I just did?

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

No its not, but it violates your own principle that one cannot apply numbers to God.

No.. Saying there is one God already applies a number to God. Its not me who says that its the bible...
My principle is you cant confine God to a number...

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins

Well if no then you are wrong about what you said that im confining him. You have just then agreed i am not confining him to 1 yet Im showing one has relvence to his persons though it doesnt confine his persons. So can you give a logical statement that shows three is relevent to his person like I just did?

So are you saying God can have more than one person? So your only objection to the trinity is saying that God might have more or less persons? Wow I didnt expect that.

But as far as logical reasons go, there isn't any logical reason in of itself derived from pure reason that God is three in his personhood. This is something revealed in scripture which the church accepts and considers, coherent, rational and logical.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins

No.. Saying there is one God already applies a number to God. Its not me who says that its the bible...
My principle is you cant confine God to a number...

So is God composed of multiple substances or one substance?

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

So are you saying God can have more than one person? So your only objection to the trinity is saying that God might have more or less persons? Wow I didnt expect that.

But as far as logical reasons go, there isn't any logical reason in of itself derived from pure reason that God is three in his personhood. This is something revealed in scripture which the church accepts and considers, coherent, rational and logical.

the best desciptors of Gods personhood are 1 and infinity...
Infinity shows his personhood is outside of constraints (beyond human measure). One shows to pray to one person and one God.
Three isnt backed up because it doesnt seem relevent to either of those numbers.

in other words.
God is infinate is a true statement.
God is one is a true statment.
God is outside of the confines of numbers is a true statement.

God is three isnt supported in any way to describe God himself in terms of numbrers other than the church creation of the trinity.

Iconodule · 10-28-2012, 09:21 AM

The best dicatotors based on what? For God's personhood scripture clearly lays out a multiplicity of persons it seems. And whats with you constantly saying its irrelevent to speak of three persons? Its totally relevent if God consists of three persons,s which he does.

And yes the church declares God as One trinity. And the church is the pillar and foudnation of truth.

LordOfGoblins · 10-28-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

The best dicatotors based on what? For God's personhood scripture clearly lays out a multiplicity of persons it seems. And whats with you constantly saying its irrelevent to speak of three persons? Its totally relevent if God consists of three persons,s which he does.

And yes the church declares God as One trinity. And the church is the pillar and foudnation of truth.

based on statemetns that apply numbers to God.
ok im done. I have to go back to living my life..

Magi728 · 10-30-2012, 10:39 AM

Tim,

I Think you should follow your heart.. And Remember

... inclusion is the key to Eternal Freedom...Just as Exclusion is the continuous lock that binds the carnal minded..

When You go to church. with Laura..

Sing From Your Heart...Give Praise to Gods Glory...Love The Lord with All Your Heart....Because It Has Nothing to do with your surroundings...This Building or That Alter Or How Many Numbers We try to Place on God...Ect....

Its All With-in.... Your Heart....

With Love,

Magi.......

Magi728 · 10-30-2012, 10:48 AM

Iconodule

1 Tim 6-16...Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

Magi.......

Timothy248 · 10-30-2012, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magi728

Tim,

I Think you should follow your heart.. And Remember

... inclusion is the key to Eternal Freedom...Just as Exclusion is the continuous lock that binds the carnal minded..

When You go to church. with Laura..

Sing From Your Heart...Give Praise to Gods Glory...Love The Lord with All Your Heart....Because It Has Nothing to do with your surroundings...This Building or That Alter Or How Many Numbers We try to Place on God...Ect....

Its All With-in.... Your Heart....

With Love,

Magi.......

Thanks for the support Magi.

Fadl · 10-30-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

So is God composed of multiple substances or one substance?

If God were 'composed' at all, then He would be created. If God consisted of any 'substance' then He would be dependent upon the material universe and the laws of physics rather than the creator and sustainer of the them.

God is God. He is not composed of any substance. His essence is himself.

Iconodule · 10-31-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magi728

Iconodule

1 Tim 6-16...Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

Magi.......

Yes God is ineffable, inconceivable, transcendant and the like. Whats your point? I'm not a monophysite.

Iconodule · 10-31-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadl

If God were 'composed' at all, then He would be created. If God consisted of any 'substance' then He would be dependent upon the material universe and the laws of physics rather than the creator and sustainer of the them.

God is God. He is not composed of any substance. His essence is himself.

No, because composition that which simply makes up an entity. Not to say that God is composite in his nature, that he is made up of many things, not at all, but that there something to God which exists. A Nature, a substance, an essence.

Fadl · 11-01-2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

No, because composition that which simply makes up an entity. Not to say that God is composite in his nature, that he is made up of many things, not at all, but that there something to God which exists. A Nature, a substance, an essence.

Ok, I will agree with you on that. I do like 'essence' better, because nature and substance tend to be used in science and can be known through measurable quantitites, none of which are applicable to God, but I understand your point.

Certainly God has essence (which is His ownself) and if I am hesitant to say God exists, I don't hesitate to admit that I am in awe of God and don't mind devoting myself to and worshipping God even though his essence and reality transcends our essence and reality and can never be known or comprehended by my little pin head.

IndistinctDreamer · 11-01-2012, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule

Saint polycarp

Sounds like a pokemon

Iconodule · 11-01-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndistinctDreamer

Sounds like a pokemon

Saints like a great servant Christ, a desciple of the apostle john who died horribly in the collisium for the faith.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-28-2012, 07:08 AM	#46
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	We don't claim to understand how God works Goblin, this is where you have missed the point of the trinity. The function and the actions of how the most simple, inconceivable substance and persons work is beyond the scope of definition for the trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine of describing Whom god is, not his function. And Certaintly you must say we cna know who god is. Your God is a unitarian entity, he is a person and he has a substance. My God is a Trinitarian entity, three persons one same self substance. But you made a claim, that the trinity is nonsensical. So far you've done everything to avoid demonstrating this. Probably because you realise the moment you try to criticise the trinity you wil not attack the trinity. But prove me wrong.

10-28-2012, 07:48 AM	#48
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	How does one conclude that since God is beyond time and space and the physical world that he cannot be three persons? How does that logic follow? If numbers cannot apply to the divine in even the category of persons you have to submit on your own view that God is not a unitarian entity, that God might not even be A person. For the Christian, God has always existed as three persons, there isn't any other greater explanation needed. Thats just how God has always been. As for proving the trinity, what do you mean? PRove that the triunity of God exists? From logical argumentation? Scripture? What are we wanting here?

10-28-2012, 08:00 AM	#50
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	See you are fundamentally contradicting yourself when you say numbers are outside the realm of what we can apply to God but then say one must apply to God. This is inconsistent or at least a double standard to apply this to the trinity. I do agree God is one in his substance, that God is the most simple of all beings because he is not compounded, of multiple different substances, but within that substance exists three co eternal persons. As for the support for the number three, it comes from the words of Christ in baptism. Baptise in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit. A Unique name shared between only these three persons, that Christ has the very name of God, that Christ is the cause for all our existence, that Christ is the one who will judge at the end of days (which bahai reject). So no, you haven’t demonstrated it illogical, only that it doesn’t fit your arbitrary standard for what God is. A double standard is not a good way to start.

10-28-2012, 08:07 AM	#52
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	There you go violating your own rule, that numbers can't apply to the eternal ineffable god but the number one can. I agree that God is one and that the number does apply to him in that way. But you cannot have a standard which would refute that very own proposition in the first place. But if you are going to say one cannot apply to God's personhood, I gotta ask, do you think there are an infinite amount of persons within God? A complex series or minds? Are you unitarian? The number three, only applies to God in relevance to his persons btw.

10-28-2012, 08:20 AM	#55
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	Except it isn't non scriptural. Christians have had the bible, protected the bible and revered the bible alot longer than bahai ever have, and we have two thousand years of Christian thinking to establish that. Saint Ignatius a desciple of John, worshipped Christ. Saint polycarp another desciple of John worshipped Christ. Now if you want descredit Christianity because of the sins of some go ahead, but thats not a valid argument. Garuntee you if the bahai ever got their one world government with them being in control it, there would be alot more blood, and they would do it in the name of peace and harmony. As for rapture, I don't accept 18th century ideas which the church has not known for two thousand years. The trinity however is not the rapture. And what of the rosary? Is not Mary blessed among women? Is not the fruit of her womb great? Did not the apostles bow and worship Christ? So you can attack with a simplistic mindset, but you only convince others like you.

10-28-2012, 08:40 AM	#58
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	And you contradict yourself again by saying you don't apply numbers to God and his person but then go to do so anyway. You need to have a consistent methodology and theology when trying to show your opponent as wrong Goblin. And no, there is nothing in the bible suggesting that he is a unitarian entity. God is described as one, blandly without specification, though I like what you said, he was described as one so as to say there is only one God. This does not speak of his persons. IN fact when reading the Old testament we see God saying "let us create," does God create with his creation? Is not God the sole source of all creation? This matches perfectly what we see described of Christ in the gospels, that he is the creator of all that exists. Need we forget the destruction of sodom and gammorah? The Lord in heaven rained fire to the Lord on earth. YHWH is used in both cases here. And no, see you are not using the correct terminology when talking about trinity. person is an individual. there are three individual persons which comprise of the divinity. Three persons in one God. The relevance of three comes from the persons described, it is not arbitrary. Because there is teh son and the spirit and the father which all share the same unique substance of divinity.

10-28-2012, 08:48 AM	#61
LordOfGoblins Senior Member Joined: Dec 2010 From: Australia Posts: 2,056	Iconodule is this a logically contradictory statement? "pray to one God" who is himself infinite and beyond the constraints of numbers... "

10-28-2012, 08:50 AM	#62
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	No, but you are associating a quality to God, that he is one in someway. Ultimately I think you need to say he is one in substance and in person but that would violate your own principle you have laid out from the begining. But in all this you have not demonstrated how the trinity is illogical, only that it doesn't concern or agree with your theology.

10-28-2012, 09:21 AM	#70
Iconodule Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: NZ Posts: 851	The best dicatotors based on what? For God's personhood scripture clearly lays out a multiplicity of persons it seems. And whats with you constantly saying its irrelevent to speak of three persons? Its totally relevent if God consists of three persons,s which he does. And yes the church declares God as One trinity. And the church is the pillar and foudnation of truth.

10-30-2012, 10:39 AM	#72
Magi728 Senior Member Joined: Oct 2012 From: Clarksburg WV Posts: 101	Tim, I Think you should follow your heart.. And Remember ... inclusion is the key to Eternal Freedom...Just as Exclusion is the continuous lock that binds the carnal minded.. When You go to church. with Laura.. Sing From Your Heart...Give Praise to Gods Glory...Love The Lord with All Your Heart....Because It Has Nothing to do with your surroundings...This Building or That Alter Or How Many Numbers We try to Place on God...Ect.... Its All With-in.... Your Heart.... With Love, Magi.......

10-30-2012, 10:48 AM	#73
Magi728 Senior Member Joined: Oct 2012 From: Clarksburg WV Posts: 101	Iconodule 1 Tim 6-16...Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, *willing to communicate;* Magi.......