| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 06:03:24 AM |
| Object: |
Can God became man? |
Can God became man?
Christianity believes that God came down to earth in human form, as
Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
The Torah states that God cannot not take any form.:
"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and
live" (Exodus 33:18-20)
"You did not see any form on the day God spoke to you at Horeb from the
midst of fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15) Jews has always believed that God is
Incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal,
He is Infinite; above time and beyond space. He cannot be born, and
cannot die.
Jesus pretended to be God.There is the verse from Hosea in which God
specifically tells us that God is not a human being:
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to
destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst
of thee: and I will not enter into the city. [Hosea 11:9]
Also God said there is only one God........Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah
44:6, where God tells us, "I am the first, and I am the last; and
beside me there is no God." When Isaiah tells us that God said, "I am
the first," it means that God has no father. When Isaiah tells us that
God said, "I am the last," it means that God has no literal son. And
when Isaiah tells us that God said, "Besides me there is no God," it
means that God does not share being God with any other god, or
demi-god, or semi-god, or persons, and there is no trinity.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html
Bumper Sticker
*=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D*
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath !
*=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D*
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
03 Feb 2005 01:31:16 PM |
|
|
"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107450322.061592.182640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Daniel Hoehr wrote:
|
| > You have not understood the Trinity. You might want to catch up on
| > that before you continue to make an ***** of yourself.
|
| I confess that I do not understand Trinity, and unfortunately I haven't
| found a single person who could 'rationally' explain it to me without
| coming to the eventual conclusion that divine mysteries cannot be
| explained.
For once, I empathise completely with your sentiments, as do the Unitarians.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
03 Feb 2005 11:11:30 AM |
|
|
"1MAN4ALL" (forahmad@hotmail.com) wrote in message
<news:1107450322.061592.182640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Are the three 'persons' or facets of Trinity equal?
In what sense do you mean equal? Another question might be, why not?
One might argue that the Bible itself implies a subordinationist view
(the Father is greater than the Son), but that might also be a
reference to the Son's human nature. If we leave the Bible aside from
the moment, and simply discuss logical coherence, I see nothing
logically incoherent about a tripersonal deity in which each person is
equal in power to the other two.
....
Shaykh al-Ishraak, Abdul-Khinzeer Abu Khamr al-Mushrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
03 Feb 2005 12:58:31 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
"1MAN4ALL" (forahmad@hotmail.com) wrote in message
<news:1107450322.061592.182640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Are the three 'persons' or facets of Trinity equal?
In what sense do you mean equal? Another question might be, why not?
One might argue that the Bible itself implies a subordinationist view
(the Father is greater than the Son), but that might also be a
reference to the Son's human nature.
The Son still has "human nature" after he is gone? Who is greater, the
Son or the Holy Ghost?
If we leave the Bible aside from
the moment, and simply discuss logical coherence, I see nothing
logically incoherent about a tripersonal deity in which each person
is
equal in power to the other two.
Why leave aside the Bible, as the question was about Christian beliefs?
Nobody is asking for your personal opinion.
By the way, I have not been able to answer your posts on "Pronunciation
of Jesus' Name" because of a busy schedule, but I would get to it in a
day or two.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
03 Feb 2005 01:05:20 PM |
|
|
(1Man4All) wrote in message
news:<1107457111.412926.37670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
The Son still has "human nature" after he is gone?
I would assume the answer (according to Christianity) is no...
Who is gr=ADeater, the Son or the Holy Ghost?
Greater in what sense?
Why leave aside the Bible, as the question
was about Christi=ADan beliefs?
So as to focus the discussion on the logical coherence of these
Christian beliefs. When you spoke of the inability of Christians to
explain the doctrine, I thought you might have meant offer a logically
coherent explanation of the doctrine.
By the way, I have not been able to answer your
posts on "Pr=ADonunciation of Jesus' Name" because
of a busy schedule, but I would get =ADto it in a
day or two.=20
There's no rush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1MAN4ALL" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
03 Feb 2005 02:19:26 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
forahmad@hotmail.com (1Man4All) wrote in message
news:<1107457111.412926.37670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
The Son still has "human nature" after he is gone?
I would assume the answer (according to Christianity) is no...
Then there is no longer "Trinity," because Jesus has become One with
the Father, no longer having the human aspect. [In fact he was One
with the Father here!]
Who is gr=ADeater, the Son or the Holy Ghost?
Greater in what sense?
In the same sense when Jesus said, "the Father is Greater than I."
Why leave aside the Bible, as the question
was about Christi=ADan beliefs?
So as to focus the discussion on the logical coherence of these
Christian beliefs. When you spoke of the inability of Christians to
explain the doctrine, I thought you might have meant offer a
logically
coherent explanation of the doctrine.
"Logical coherence" is a misnomer. What we are discussing here is
'internal consistency' within the Christian dogma, for which you do
need to refer to scriptures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
09 Feb 2005 02:02:42 PM |
|
|
"1MAN4ALL" (forahmad@hotmail.com) wrote in message
<news:1107461966.816272.86100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
The Son still has "human nature" after he is gone?
I would assume the answer (according to Christianity)
is no...
Then there is no longer "Trinity," because Jesus has
become One with the Father, no longer having the
human aspect.
I don't see how this follows. The doctrine holds that they are three
distinct beings, and were this way even before the incarnation.
Who is gr=ADeater, the Son or the Holy Ghost?
Greater in what sense?
In the same sense when Jesus said, "the Father
is Greater than I."
And in what sense is that? As I noted earlier in this thread, this
could be taken as a reference to Jesus' human nature, or to an
affirmation of subordinationist doctrine.
"Logical coherence" is a misnomer.
Logical coherence is not a misnomer. Those who reject the Trinity do so
based on one or more of three charges:
(1) the charge that it is logically incoherent
(2) the charge that it is Biblically inconsistent
(3) the charge that it has no historical evidence
I side fully with (3), but reject (1) and (2). If we're going to
discuss (1) and (2), it might help to discuss them apart from one
another.
What we are discussing here is 'internal consistency'
within the Christian dogma, for which you do
need to refer to scriptures.
But then we get into interpretation issues. Nonetheless, I do believe
the Christian Bible (in its present form) implies a multipersonal
conception of God, like that which is espoused in the doctrine of the
Trinity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
10 Feb 2005 11:48:41 AM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
The Son still has "human nature" after he is gone?
I would assume the answer (according to Christianity)
is no...
Then there is no longer "Trinity," because Jesus has
become One with the Father, no longer having the
human aspect.
I don't see how this follows. The doctrine holds that they are three
distinct beings, and were this way even before the incarnation.
Now I am beginning to think that you don't understand Trinity either:-)
If there are "three distinct beings" then there are three Gods, and
Christianity is not a monotheistic religion! This also contradicts
various verses of the Bible:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and
yet hast thoug not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen
the Father; and how sayest though then, Show us the Father?
John 14:10 Beleivest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the
Father that dwellet in me, he doeth the works.
John 14:11 Beleive me that I am in the Father, and the father in me; or
else believe me for the works' sake.
If Jesus and God are in each other, how can they be "distinct?"
Who is gr=ADeater, the Son or the Holy Ghost?
Greater in what sense?
In the same sense when Jesus said, "the Father
is Greater than I."
And in what sense is that?
I don't know, you tell me:- )
As I noted earlier in this thread, this
could be taken as a reference to Jesus' human nature, or to an
affirmation of subordinationist doctrine.
You have already acknowledged that he doesn't have a "human nature" at
present, which goes back to my original question: does that mean that
we now have Duality and not Trinity? If Jesus is subordinate, why in
God's name would you worship him when he is no longer here and had left
behind the Holy Ghost to take care of you?
"Logical coherence" is a misnomer.
Logical coherence is not a misnomer. Those who reject the Trinity do
so
based on one or more of three charges:
The word "logic" has been misused so many times that I am not sure if
it's coherent by itself:-) ALWAYS REMEMBER: Logic is the fine art of
proving nothing and disproving everything.
(1) the charge that it is logically incoherent
(2) the charge that it is Biblically inconsistent
(3) the charge that it has no historical evidence
I side fully with (3), but reject (1) and (2). If we're going to
discuss (1) and (2), it might help to discuss them apart from one
another.
That's an opinion--an assertion in fact. In discussing (1), what you
may want to address is whether Trinity meets the ordinary standards of
'common sense', not logic per se. The typical Christian attitudes to
questions regarding Trinity can be exemplified by one of the posts that
appeared on this newsgroup written by "Praise Jesus: " it says that in
the world point of view we cannot understand this but only with his
Spirit within us) ** For the answer to this is not understood by the
world reguardless (sic) of how much you try to explain it only God can
show you how it is possible for Jesus (the Son) and the God (The
Father) to be one."
(2) is related to (1), if not same as (1).
What we are discussing here is 'internal consistency'
within the Christian dogma, for which you do
need to refer to scriptures.
But then we get into interpretation issues. Nonetheless, I do believe
the Christian Bible (in its present form) implies a multipersonal
conception of God, like that which is espoused in the doctrine of the
Trinity.
The approach that I am taking is this: Let's assume that Christianity
is a 'system' of beliefs, and one has to judge whether these beliefs
are consistent within that system or not (without going outside of that
system). If some of those beliefs are contradictory within that system,
then those beliefs are either foreign to that system and must be
removed, or if it requires such unreasonable faith one doesn't know
what to believe in, the integrity of the entire system becomes suspect
and has to be abandoned. [When I say "system", I am limiting myself to
the Bible itself and do not include theology which is so diverse that
any discussion would be futile].
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
10 Feb 2005 07:16:39 PM |
|
|
1Man4All (forahmad@hotmail.com) wrote in message
<news:1108057721.257268.150940@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
...
Pax Vobis!
Then there is no longer "Trinity," because Jesus has
become One with the Father, no longer having the
human aspect.
I don't see how this follows. The doctrine holds that
they are three distinct beings, and were this way
even before the incarnation.
Now I am beginning to think that you don't understand
Trinity either:-)
I understand it quite well, though as may be a necessary distinction
later in this discussion, I am siding with the Social Trinitarian
interpretation of the doctrine...
If there are "three distinct beings" then there are
three Gods, and Christianity is not a monotheistic
religion!
There are only three gods if each individual is, by themself, a God.
But the Trinity explicitly denies this, even stating that they are not
three gods, but One God. In other words, it is as William Lane Craig
has explained, a single Godhead comprised of three persons, not unlike
a single triangle being comprised of three angles or three sides.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
with you, and yet hast thoug not known me, Philip? he
that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest
though then, Show us the Father?
How this should be interpreted I do not know, but I don't take this to
be a statement that holds Jesus to be identical to the Father (as the
Bible, including John, argues precisely and rather clearly that Jesus
is distinct from the Father).
John 14:10 Beleivest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you
I speak not of myself: but the
Father that dwellet in me, he doeth the works.
Possibly this explains the above.
John 14:11 Beleive me that I am in the Father, and the
father in me; or else believe me for the works' sake.
Ditto.
I see no contradiction between this passage and the doctrine that each
person is distinct from (i.e. not identical to) the other two.
If Jesus and God are in each other, how can they
be "distinct?"
By virtue of the fact that they are not identical. Note that, logically
speaking, in order for two people to be identical, what is true of A
must be true of B. In the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, the
Godhead is tripersonal, but Jesus is not tripersonal, therefore Jesus
is not identical to the Godhead. Rather Jesus is one of three people
who compose the Godhead...
As I noted earlier in this thread, this
could be taken as a reference to Jesus' human
nature, or to an affirmation of subordinationist
doctrine.
You have already acknowledged that he doesn't have
a "human nature" at present,
If I were a Christian I would see nothing logically inconsistent about
stating that when Jesus proclaimed the Father to be greater, he was
still in possession of a human nature.
does that mean that we now have Duality and not
Trinity?
There are still three persons, so the answer is no.
If Jesus is subordinate, why in
God's name would you worship him
Well, I don't worship him, but if you mean why a Christian would
worship him, the answer would be that because he is God (according to
the doctrine).
"Logical coherence" is a misnomer.
Logical coherence is not a misnomer. Those who
reject the Trinity do so based on one or more
of three charges:
The word "logic" has been misused so many times
that I am not sure if it's coherent by itself
Logic is misused by people who have not studied logic. I was a
philosophy major, and my focus was on analytic philosophy and logic.
(1) the charge that it is logically incoherent
(2) the charge that it is Biblically inconsistent
(3) the charge that it has no historical evidence
I side fully with (3), but reject (1) and (2). If
we're going to discuss (1) and (2), it might help
to discuss them apart from one another.
That's an opinion
Indeed it is... a preference you might say.
In discussing (1), what you may want to address
is whether Trinity meets the ordinary standards of
'common sense', not logic per se.
What is common sense without logic? I'd rather discuss logic, as
"common sense" is not as clear a marker...
(2) is related to (1), if not same as (1).
It is certainly not the same as one. For example, Islam holds the
following regarding Jesus:
(1) He was born of a virgin.
(2) He was NOT executed via crucifixion.
(3) He was not the son of God.
(4) He was not divine in any sense.
While certain parts of the doctrine (like 1) may match up with the
Bible, the doctrine over all is in conflict with what the Bible (in its
present form) claims about Jesus. Nonetheless, the four propositions do
not contradict one another in any sense. Thus the doctrine laid out in
the four propositions is logically coherent but Biblically
inconsistent. Logical coherence is with regard to whether the doctrine
is self contradictory or not. Biblical consistency pertains to whether
claims in the Bible contradict the doctrine. So the two are not the
same.
What we are discussing here is 'internal consistency'
within the Christian dogma, for which you do
need to refer to scriptures.
But then we get into interpretation issues.
Nonetheless, I do believe the Christian Bible
(in its present form) implies a multipersonal
conception of God, like that which is espoused
in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The approach that I am taking is this: Let's assume
that Christianity is a 'system' of beliefs, and one
has to judge whether these beliefs are consistent
within that system or not (without going outside of
that system).
Well, personally I believe the Bible is self-contradictory on certain
issues, so overall I do not believe the system is consistent. However,
with regard to the issue of Jesus and whether or not he is divine, I
think the Bible is consistent on this issue (and is consistent with the
doctrine of the Trinity).
....
Shaykh al-Ishraak, Abdul-Khinzeer Abu Khamr al-Mushrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 07:13:39 AM |
|
|
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
Those of us who know other languages know as well that the translated
expression should have read "three manifestations" and not "three
persons."
God is one and manifests herself/himself in forms that are convenient
to accomplishing certain objectives. When manifest in the flesh, as in
Jesus, God could not be omnipresent, for example, because human bodies
cannot be omnipresent; however, God is omnipresent in the manifestation
of the Holy Spirit...etc.
This summarizes what the three manifestations of God are, not that a
person has to be a believer to understand what this definition means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 07:23:42 AM |
|
|
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108127619.798160.110620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
May your god forgive you for posting this BS in alt.atheism.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 07:17:31 AM |
|
|
Dear *****,
Who told you I believe in god? I am educating you. That's all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 08:57:31 AM |
|
|
In article <373putF575i65U2@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108127619.798160.110620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
May your god forgive you for posting this BS in alt.atheism.
• Guffaw
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 08:56:53 AM |
|
|
In article <1108127619.798160.110620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
...
• Physics? It seems to me that psychoanalysis is useful for
comprehending why a trinity was added to Christianity in AD325.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 09:55:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:56:53 GMT, (•R.L.Measures) said in
alt.atheism:
In article <1108127619.798160.110620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
...
• Physics? It seems to me that psychoanalysis is useful for
comprehending why a trinity was added to Christianity in AD325.
One doesn't really need an understanding of psychoanalysis to spot
insanity.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
12 Feb 2005 09:26:13 AM |
|
|
In article <rgvq01li2ocfvijphipv3dnmn8e19qo570@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:56:53 GMT, (•R.L.Measures) said in
alt.atheism:
In article <1108127619.798160.110620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
...
• Physics? It seems to me that psychoanalysis is useful for
comprehending why a trinity was added to Christianity in AD325.
One doesn't really need an understanding of psychoanalysis to spot
insanity.
• It was a business decision that was successful in that it gave
customers a compelling reason to come to locations where salvation was
being sold.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 07:20:01 AM |
|
|
Yawwwwwn. You are boring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 08:44:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1108473601.902949.240550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yawwwwwn. You are boring.
clueless
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 08:30:37 AM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2005 05:13:39 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
Those of us who know other languages know as well that the translated
expression should have read "three manifestations" and not "three
persons."
God is one and manifests herself/himself in forms that are convenient
to accomplishing certain objectives. When manifest in the flesh, as in
Jesus, God could not be omnipresent, for example, because human bodies
cannot be omnipresent; however, God is omnipresent in the manifestation
of the Holy Spirit...etc.
That is merely a statement of belief not fact.
This summarizes what the three manifestations of God are, not that a
person has to be a believer to understand what this definition means.
It rationalises it, based on all sorts of unjustified premises that
don't even apply in the real world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 07:19:08 AM |
|
|
....another idiot,
You simply can't think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 07:25:34 AM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 05:19:08 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com>
wrote:
...another idiot,
You simply can't think.
Another liar who stupidly posts his theistic presumptions to an
atheist newsgroup.
The only person who can't think, is yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 10:50:18 AM |
|
|
Eat ***** and die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 04:40:31 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 08:50:18 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Eat ***** and die.
Is this one of the regular loonies, and if so, who?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
16 Feb 2005 07:15:07 AM |
|
|
The one that fucks your mother and sisters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 12:24:41 PM |
|
|
uh, in that order?
Kyrillus wrote:
Eat ***** and die.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 09:15:46 AM |
|
|
In article <eagp01h2uq6kftekvd607pt7da2guq7ack@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 05:13:39 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
Those of us who know other languages know as well that the translated
expression should have read "three manifestations" and not "three
persons."
God is one and manifests herself/himself in forms that are convenient
to accomplishing certain objectives. When manifest in the flesh, as in
Jesus, God could not be omnipresent, for example, because human bodies
cannot be omnipresent; however, God is omnipresent in the manifestation
of the Holy Spirit...etc.
That is merely a statement of belief not fact.
This summarizes what the three manifestations of God are, not that a
person has to be a believer to understand what this definition means.
It rationalises it, based on all sorts of unjustified premises that
don't even apply in the real world.
• The Holy Trinity invites comparison to baseball -- wherein the pitcher
keeps the batter confused and off-balance with an occasional brush-off
pitch. In organized religion, priestcrafters use confusion to generate
holy illusion.
- "If you understand it, it is not God."
-- from Saint Augustine¹s, Sermon 117.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 07:21:27 AM |
|
|
The illusion and confusion is between your two brain-cells.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
15 Feb 2005 04:02:04 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 05:21:27 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com> said
in alt.atheism:
The illusion and confusion is between your two brain-cells.
Which is 4 more than you have.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyrillus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
16 Feb 2005 07:14:02 AM |
|
|
Four brains. Thank you, dip *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 01:39:46 PM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2005 05:13:39 -0800, "Kyrillus" <shankarees@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of elementary physics can comprehend the
Trinity without needing Einstein.
The problem with using English is the grotesque definition of the
Trinity as THREE PERSONS. Here lies the most ridiculous and "weakest
link" in explaining what the Trinity is. God forgive the idiot who
defined it in English as such.
Those of us who know other languages know as well that the translated
expression should have read "three manifestations" and not "three
persons."
God is one and manifests herself/himself in forms that are convenient
to accomplishing certain objectives. When manifest in the flesh, as in
Jesus, God could not be omnipresent, for example, because human bodies
cannot be omnipresent; however, God is omnipresent in the manifestation
of the Holy Spirit...etc.
The doctrine says that each of the persons of the trinity is equally
God. The doctrine says that God is omnipresent. If Jesus was not
omnipresent, he was not God etc.
This summarizes what the three manifestations of God are, not that a
person has to be a believer to understand what this definition means.
One has to be a believer to not see that it is pure babble without any
sense what-so-ever.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Can God became man? |
11 Feb 2005 01:39:45 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2005 17:16:39 -0800, "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad
Shabazz" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote:
1Man4All (forahmad@hotmail.com) wrote in message
<news:1108057721.257268.150940@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
...
Pax Vobis!
Then there is no longer "Trinity," because Jesus has
become One with the Father, no longer having the
human aspect.
I don't see how this follows. The doctrine holds that
they are three distinct beings, and were this way
even before the incarnation.
Now I am beginning to think that you don't understand
Trinity either:-)
I understand it quite well, though as may be a necessary distinction
later in this discussion, I am siding with the Social Trinitarian
interpretation of the doctrine...
If there are "three distinct beings" then there are
three Gods, and Christianity is not a monotheistic
religion!
There are only three gods if each individual is, by themself, a God.
But the Trinity explicitly denies this, even stating that they are not
three gods, but One God. In other words, it is as William Lane Craig
has explained, a single Godhead comprised of three persons, not unlike
a single triangle being comprised of three angles or three sides.
It also says that each of the persons is fully God. That would be
analogous to saying each of the sides of the triangle is equally a
triangle but there is only one triangle. The doctrine is not a
mystery; it is ludicrous.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
