Questions about the Trinity of God?



 Religions > Atheism > Questions about the Trinity of God?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 4 of 7

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Bill"
Date: 12 Jan 2005 12:44:16 PM
Object: Questions about the Trinity of God?
Some questions for experts on Christian religion;
God is supposedly made up of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Who was God the fathers wife? Who was Jesus's mother before he was born of
the virgin Mary?
If God the Father did not have a wife, how did he father a son?
Who is the Holy Ghost? Is he an uncle? What is his function?
If this trinity is all powerful and created the Universe and everything in
it, why did it create such
fallible, errant and grossly imperfect men and earthly catastrophes and
diseases of every
imaginable kind? Why did this supposedly infallible God make these many
serious
mistakes in his creation?
If God created everything, why did he create sin and punishment for the sins
he created?
What is his purpose of putting man on earth to suffer from hunger, diseases
and catastrophes and then
usually experience a painful old age and death before being delivered to an
infinitely pleasant and
perpetual heaven?
Does God enjoy toying with and torturing his creations?
Bill
.

User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 14 Jan 2005 03:34:40 AM
Uzytkownik "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> napisal w wiadomosci
news:rodeu09afp5k2k5rs02qtfah7umlhjufsc@4ax.com...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:52:04 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
said in alt.atheism:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:1a5eu0pg6p4j1cu2ar6bbsird4h04aftdp@4ax.com...


"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his

soul take your

soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your

breath."


Irony of ironies. This is precisely what Christ did!


But, since Christ wasn't Christian (even Christianity acknowledges
that he was Jewish) that's irrelevant.


Of course it's not


Of course it is, since having a Jew do something has nothing to do
with having a Christian do it. Judaism isn't a form of Christianity,
moron - Christianity is ***** Judaism.

As to your other points, I'm sorry, but it's too late in Europe for me to
deal with them now.


Then you shouldn't have posted.

I'm explaining why I was answering one part but not the whole. I didn't have
the energy to give all your points the attention they deserved.
Since I saw in the meantime you plonked me, I'm not sure there is point in
going back there now.

I sure hope you aren't representative
of Eastern European Christianity.

There are probably fewer Poles that agree with me than the proportion of
people that agree with me anywhere in the world. The church I am with sent
out missionaries to Poland because they saw that the country came world
bottom as far as Evangelicals per head of population is concerned.
Nevertheless, Poland is a fine, and tolerant society, and so I experience
liberty and friendliness here regardless of my ectopic theology.

Unfortunately, I fear you are.
Eastern Europe is, after all, the home of hatred of your god's
co-religionists, and how much more stupid could anyone be than that?

Kindly with your German name don't blame the Poles for the Holocaust. That
is just too much.
Uncle Davey
.

User: "William"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 03:18:10 PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:06:11 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:

"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message

[snip]

Why does an omnipotent God HAVE to do X in order to achieve Y?


Because He can.

?? Being able to do something is not the same as having to do it. And
being able to do X (eg use pain and suffering) in order to achieve Y
(some ultimate purpose) doesn't mean it has to be used. If it is used,
then the question has to be why. And that was the question.
Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..
William
.
User: "Tukla Ratte"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 04:21:29 PM
William wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:06:11 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:


"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message


[snip]

Why does an omnipotent God HAVE to do X in order to achieve Y?


Because He can.



?? Being able to do something is not the same as having to do it. And
being able to do X (eg use pain and suffering) in order to achieve Y
(some ultimate purpose) doesn't mean it has to be used. If it is used,
then the question has to be why. And that was the question.

Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..

To make them think?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 05:51:59 PM
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:34oajaF4cjnggU2@individual.net...

William wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:06:11 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:


"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message


[snip]

Why does an omnipotent God HAVE to do X in order to achieve Y?


Because He can.



?? Being able to do something is not the same as having to do it. And
being able to do X (eg use pain and suffering) in order to achieve Y
(some ultimate purpose) doesn't mean it has to be used. If it is used,
then the question has to be why. And that was the question.

Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..


To make them think?

It's always salutory to dwell on these things, but why God did it is a
mystery. I take it to be out of love, and for glory. As far as the Creation
goes God is omnipotent, but He still plays by His own game plan, and this
involves setting limits on Himself.
Uncle Davey
.
User: "Bill"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 07:43:48 PM
It is interesting to see how god freaks "create" scenarios out of thin air
to support their mythological beliefs.
--
Bill
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:cs71j3$sfe$0@pita.alt.net...


"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:34oajaF4cjnggU2@individual.net...

William wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:06:11 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:


"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message


[snip]

Why does an omnipotent God HAVE to do X in order to achieve Y?


Because He can.



?? Being able to do something is not the same as having to do it. And
being able to do X (eg use pain and suffering) in order to achieve Y
(some ultimate purpose) doesn't mean it has to be used. If it is used,
then the question has to be why. And that was the question.

Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..


To make them think?


It's always salutory to dwell on these things, but why God did it is a
mystery. I take it to be out of love, and for glory. As far as the

Creation

goes God is omnipotent, but He still plays by His own game plan, and this
involves setting limits on Himself.

Uncle Davey


.

User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 09:05:47 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:51:59 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
said in alt.atheism:

It's always salutory to dwell on these things, but why God did it is a
mystery. I take it to be out of love, and for glory. As far as the Creation
goes God is omnipotent, but He still plays by His own game plan, and this
involves setting limits on Himself.

Which has nothing to do with why an omnipotent god *has to* (meaning
"is forced to by some outside agency") do any particular thing.
Try actually addressing the actual point.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.


User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 09:01:42 PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:21:29 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:

William wrote:

Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..

To make them think?

It might just be possible to make a rock think. Christians are
nowhere as intelligent as the dumbest rock. If they were they
wouldn't have fallen for Christianity. (Show me ONE theistic rock.)
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
User: "Tukla Ratte"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 14 Jan 2005 05:11:51 PM
Al Klein wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:21:29 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:


William wrote:



Christians, of course, do not have an answer so I'm not sure why I
asked it..



To make them think?



It might just be possible to make a rock think. Christians are
nowhere as intelligent as the dumbest rock. If they were they
wouldn't have fallen for Christianity. (Show me ONE theistic rock.)

Heh. I was, of course, joking. >;-)
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.




User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 03:19:28 PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:01:43 GMT,
(William)
said in alt.atheism:

Why does an omnipotent God HAVE to do X in order to achieve Y?

Because its worshippers want it to be that way. NO god has ever
wanted other than what its worshippers want it to want.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Olrik"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 12:18:35 AM
Uncle Davey wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:adabu0l38l60vbee7ujaf6vgfedss1s0dr@4ax.com...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:53:25 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:


If God created everything, why did he create sin and punishment for
the sins he created?


He allowed sin because people chose it.


If he hadn't allowed it we couldn't have chosen it. He didn't allow
mammals to breathe water, so we can't choose to breathe water. See?
It's that simple. Your god isn't intelligent enough to figure it out?


He gives laws and punishments for sinning against Him.


Why make sin possible at all? It serves only one purpose - to give
him a reason to torture us. (Unless you accept that the concept was
created by man fairly recently, in which case there's a much simpler
purpose.)


Thanks for your questions.


It would have been nice if, while wasting all that bandwidth, you had
given an answer or two, rather than just a post full of nonsensical
apologetics.



What needs to be said is that you are right. God was in control, even in
Eden. He could have created men as angels that never sinned. He could have
made that clockwork orange, a non-sinful man. He could have ordered the
serpent not to tempt Eve. He could also have taken away all forms of doubt
as to His existence many times over. So why not? Very good question, and you
want an answer, and you're getting it.

The key to all of this, and the only one that actually makes sense, is that
redemption - the state of having been saved and reunited to the maker by the
blood of Christ puts humans in a state infinitely better than that of
angels, Peter says that angels 'desired to look into' the matters of our
salvation. The redeemed state, the state of atonement and sonship to God, is
much greater than that of being a created being. As created beings we are no
more in reality the children of God than Pinocchio would have been Gepetto's
real son in that story, and just as Pinocchio has to go through sin and
redemption in that fairy story - no doubt whether consciously or
unconsciously written as a parable of the Gospel in some ways - in order to
become a real boy, and he has to go into the belly of the whale to do it,
even so Christ goes into the belly of the earth for us (citing Jonah in the
belly of the whale as his example see Luke 11 v 29) so that we can become
real children of God by placing our trust in him. Then we are born again, of
the Spirit. Born into a new sonship, and the spirit of adoption comes to us
so that we cry, Abba, Father. No angelic being ever addressed the Lord of
Hosts thus!

The key is that sin and redemption, and the ensuing sonship, is better than
obedience without ever having sinned. This is true only because of the love
of God, who wanted to bring us into such a relationship with Himself. And so
we see in Colossians how the whole earth was made not only by Christ, but
FOR Christ. There is no purpose to this life beyond that of being found in
Christ and having redemption. For those who have this, the next life is a
place where God will commune with them in glory and blessing and wipe every
tear from their eye.

It cannot be earned, and so the only way to accord it is by faith. Any
earning of it would cause boasting in heaven and detraction from the glory
of God, as we read in Ephesians. In order that you should believe it by an
act of faith, and not be left with merely works to recommend you to God,
which do not work, in spite of their name, there has to be a credible
alternative. Hence God, although the first humans were of course in no doubt
about their creator, allowed runmours and thoughts to spread that constitute
now in their maturity the body of opinion that goes under the name secular
science. It allows those who wish to disbelieve God and the gospel the
perfect out. No-one is forced to believe, indeed, if they do, they will come
up against opposition.

However, as I have shown by omphalist argument and others show by other
argument, there is no reason why the observations of secular science need
detract from anyone being a believer in God, the Bible and even the seven
day creation. The seven day creation is not the Gospel, but it strengthens
faith to believe the whole Bible. You are saved by belief in Christ even if
you cannot manage the seven day creation, and there are those who can manage
the seven day creation but are still trying to use works to recommend
themselves to God, instead of faith in what Christ has done. They will say
"Did I not do this, did I not do that?" but God will say "I never knew
you" - it's faith in what Christ did on the cross, not works to try to add
to it, that recommend us to God and write our names in the Lamb's Book of
Life. Works should indeed emanate from faith as acts of gratitude, but we
should not dream of wishing to boast in them - they are all tainted with
pride and ulterior motives, and sin with be the dirty marbling in all our
best works until we die. Only Christ's robe of perfect righteousness covers
our filthy rags.

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are His ways our ways, but the
Judge of all the Earth shall indeed do right, and the end of the matter will
certainly justify the means. I trust God for this, even though the way is
long and hard and much temporal suffering attends it.

I recommend to you, Al, and all the other readers who have not done so, to
call on Christ, seek His kingdom first, and seek His righteousness, not your
own. All other matters will then come clear to you, and all other needful
things given to you. He is the Alpha and the Omega, God from everlasting to
everlasting, yet made flesh for you in accordance with the prophesies given
unto Israel, and he died and was punished for you, if you will believe on
him, repent and venture your entire trust in Him. Then you will receive the
Holy Spirit as your Comforter and Advocate in this life, and after this life
in your resurrection body you will see Him, be like Him and enjoy Him for
ever in a way that no created being, for all I know even no angel or
archangel has yet experienced.

Best,

Uncle Davey

lol
You're now my favorite kook. Please call again!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.

User: "Levy Oates"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 10:19:16 PM
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:53:25 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Who is the Holy Ghost? Is he an uncle? What is his function?


He is the 3rd person in the trinity. He has many functions. See
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t10.html. He teaches, convicts, intercedes,
comforts, etc.

Ah, but does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND the Son, or through the
Father only? Your answer determines whether you subscribe to western (i.e.
Catholic) tradition or eastern (Orthodox) tradition.
The clause "and the son" (filioque in Latin) was added by the council of Toledo
in order to combat Arianism (which taught that the Son was created, and
therefore not God). The western church initially resisted this innovation and
from the 9th to the 11th centuries, popes argued vehemently against the
insertion of the "filioque" in the creed, Leo III even going so far as to have
the original creed inscribed in Latin and Greek on the walls of the Vatican.
Leo's successors took a different view when the German emperor told them to and
ultimately inserted the filioque in the creed.
So which view of the Holy Spirit do you subscribe to?
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
User: "Jason Gastrich"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 12:11:49 AM
Levy Oates wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:53:25 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Who is the Holy Ghost? Is he an uncle? What is his function?


He is the 3rd person in the trinity. He has many functions. See
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t10.html. He teaches, convicts,
intercedes, comforts, etc.


Ah, but does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND the Son, or
through the Father only? Your answer determines whether you subscribe
to western (i.e. Catholic) tradition or eastern (Orthodox) tradition.

The clause "and the son" (filioque in Latin) was added by the council
of Toledo in order to combat Arianism (which taught that the Son was
created, and therefore not God). The western church initially
resisted this innovation and from the 9th to the 11th centuries,
popes argued vehemently against the insertion of the "filioque" in
the creed, Leo III even going so far as to have the original creed
inscribed in Latin and Greek on the walls of the Vatican.

Leo's successors took a different view when the German emperor told
them to and ultimately inserted the filioque in the creed.

So which view of the Holy Spirit do you subscribe to?

---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/

Hi Levy,
Thanks for your post and question.
Which viewpoint is yours?
The Son as well as the Father sends the Spirit in John 15:26, and by analogy
with this relationship to us we are justified in inferring that the Spirit
proceeds from both Father and Son in the intratrinitarian relationship. Not
to say this is to divorce the Spirit from the Son in contradiction of the
passages that speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).
If anyone wishes to read some extensive information on this subject, here is
a link: http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/BELIEVE/txn/filioque.htm
Incidentally, this issue hasn't never been brought up in my church and most
Protestant Christians in America probably know very little about it.
God bless,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
User: "Jos Flachs"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 03:53:27 AM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:11:49 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

The Son as well as the Father sends the Spirit in John 15:26,

Bible quotes don't cut it here as evidence, 'doctor'.

and by analogy
with this relationship to us we are justified in inferring that the Spirit
proceeds from both Father and Son in the intratrinitarian relationship.

That goes only for some churches. Not all.

Not
to say this is to divorce the Spirit from the Son in contradiction of the
passages that speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).

Bible quotes don't cut it here as evidence, 'doctor'.

If anyone wishes to read some extensive information on this subject, here is
a link: http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/BELIEVE/txn/filioque.htm

Incidentally, this issue hasn't never been brought up in my church and most
Protestant Christians in America probably know very little about it.

There is so much American protestant xtians don't know much about.

God bless,

Gesundheid.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 09:12:15 PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:53:27 +0700, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> said in alt.atheism:

There is so much American protestant xtians don't know much about.

Like Christianity, for one thing.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.


User: "Levy Oates"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 04:06:11 AM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:11:49 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Ah, but does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND the Son, or
through the Father only? Your answer determines whether you subscribe
to western (i.e. Catholic) tradition or eastern (Orthodox) tradition.

The clause "and the son" (filioque in Latin) was added by the council
of Toledo in order to combat Arianism (which taught that the Son was
created, and therefore not God). The western church initially
resisted this innovation and from the 9th to the 11th centuries,
popes argued vehemently against the insertion of the "filioque" in
the creed, Leo III even going so far as to have the original creed
inscribed in Latin and Greek on the walls of the Vatican.

Leo's successors took a different view when the German emperor told
them to and ultimately inserted the filioque in the creed.

So which view of the Holy Spirit do you subscribe to?

---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/


Hi Levy,

Thanks for your post and question.

Which viewpoint is yours?

I share neither view, I'm an atheist. If I were a Christian I would probably
support the western view, as it seems more logical to me.

The Son as well as the Father sends the Spirit in John 15:26, and by analogy
with this relationship to us we are justified in inferring that the Spirit
proceeds from both Father and Son in the intratrinitarian relationship. Not
to say this is to divorce the Spirit from the Son in contradiction of the
passages that speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).

I'm more interested in the historical development of the controversy rather than
the particular justifications given by either side. I'm not sure that orthodox
Christians find the filioque per se that objectionable. I think the point of
contention was the Latin church's right to unilaterally modify the agreed creed
and the fact that it appears to have changed its views over the centuries. In
other words it is as much a legal as a theological argument.


If anyone wishes to read some extensive information on this subject, here is
a link: http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/BELIEVE/txn/filioque.htm

Incidentally, this issue hasn't never been brought up in my church and most
Protestant Christians in America probably know very little about it.

God bless,
Jason

---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.



User: "pensul"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 04:41:15 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.

It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I am
sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am not
conscious of it, I am not sinning.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 04:53:33 PM
"pensul" <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34lncbF49b1l0U1@individual.net...

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I am
sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am not
conscious of it, I am not sinning.

I am not sure that sin is defined in those terms anywhere in the Bible.
It does say when the Law came, sin revived and I died, but it does not say
that sin requires any intentionality.
Intent certainly aggravates sin, but sin is already in place anyway.
Uncle Davey
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 07:53:52 PM
On 12 Jan 2005 22:41:15 GMT, pensul <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I am
sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am not
conscious of it, I am not sinning.

More meaningless gobbledygook.
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 04:54:27 PM
pensul wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I
am sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am
not conscious of it, I am not sinning.

This simply isn't true.
Can you hurt someone's feelings without being conscious of it?
Can you say something untrue without being conscious of it?
Can you let something bad happen without being conscious of it?
It's fully possible that you could sin and not be conscious of it.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 05:45:35 PM
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DUhFd.52969$Ew6.43015@twister.socal.rr.com...

pensul wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I
am sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am
not conscious of it, I am not sinning.


This simply isn't true.

Can you hurt someone's feelings without being conscious of it?

Can you say something untrue without being conscious of it?

Can you let something bad happen without being conscious of it?

It's fully possible that you could sin and not be conscious of it.

Regards,
Jason

She seems to have been writing from the Baha'i perspective, since she gave a
quote from the founder of that religion. Baha'ism seems to be a hotchpotch
of all the most sentimentalist parts of the main religions made to appeal to
people with softer hearts, but not giving them the Saviour. It has the
appearance of a compassionate, all-encompassing religion when really it is
just another satanic trick, and a particulary cunning piece of bait at that,
since it is aimed at sensitive people who otherwise might be open to the
truth.
God bless,
Davey
.

User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 05:50:23 PM
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DUhFd.52969$Ew6.43015@twister.socal.rr.com...

pensul wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I
am sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am
not conscious of it, I am not sinning.


This simply isn't true.

Can you hurt someone's feelings without being conscious of it?

Absolutely.

Can you say something untrue without being conscious of it?

Can you let something bad happen without being conscious of it?

Absolutely.


It's fully possible that you could sin and not be conscious of it.

Sorry, I can't sin. Sin is a concept of your religion, which I do not
subscribe to.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 12 Jan 2005 06:14:06 PM
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:34lre0F48clr9U1@individual.net...


"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DUhFd.52969$Ew6.43015@twister.socal.rr.com...

pensul wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]

.... It is the reason for all evil.


It is impossible to conceive that on account of someone elses sin, I
am sinning, because sin is a conscious choice to do evil, and if I am
not conscious of it, I am not sinning.


This simply isn't true.

Can you hurt someone's feelings without being conscious of it?


Absolutely.

Can you say something untrue without being conscious of it?

Can you let something bad happen without being conscious of it?


Absolutely.


It's fully possible that you could sin and not be conscious of it.


Sorry, I can't sin. Sin is a concept of your religion, which I do not
subscribe to.

That's like me saying I don't have a star sign, I handed it back because I
didn't believe in it. An astrologist would say I'm Gemini whether I like it
or not.
Uncle Davey, and where's the democracy there, I ask myself?
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 13 Jan 2005 08:59:04 PM
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:14:06 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
said in alt.atheism:

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:34lre0F48clr9U1@individual.net...

Sorry, I can't sin. Sin is a concept of your religion, which I do not
subscribe to.

That's like me saying I don't have a star sign

Stop with the bad analogies. Sin is a Christian concept -
non-Christians can't, by definition, commit sin.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
User: "Uncle Davey"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 14 Jan 2005 03:36:35 AM
Uzytkownik "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6adeu0t8vkgem0o5e6i7rm25uc1qqtbe30@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:14:06 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
said in alt.atheism:

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:34lre0F48clr9U1@individual.net...


Sorry, I can't sin. Sin is a concept of your religion, which I do not
subscribe to.


That's like me saying I don't have a star sign


Stop with the bad analogies. Sin is a Christian concept -
non-Christians can't, by definition, commit sin.

Then non-Pagans can't have star signs.
Uncle Davey
.
User: "Jason Gastrich"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 14 Jan 2005 12:52:48 PM
Uncle Davey wrote:

Uzytkownik "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6adeu0t8vkgem0o5e6i7rm25uc1qqtbe30@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:14:06 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
said in alt.atheism:

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:34lre0F48clr9U1@individual.net...


Sorry, I can't sin. Sin is a concept of your religion, which I do
not subscribe to.


That's like me saying I don't have a star sign


Stop with the bad analogies. Sin is a Christian concept -
non-Christians can't, by definition, commit sin.

This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.
We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.
"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.
Regards,
Jason

Then non-Pagans can't have star signs.

Uncle Davey

--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 14 Jan 2005 01:03:14 PM
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4yUFd.53279$Ew6.40692@twister.socal.rr.com...
snip


This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.

We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.

What do you mean "we", paleface. You haven't gotten there yet.


"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.

No kidding. However, sin belongs to your RELIGION and not to those who
don't believe in it. How can I commit an act against or disobey something I
don't believe in?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
User: "dgillesp"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 15 Jan 2005 10:08:51 AM
Robibnikoff wrote:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4yUFd.53279$Ew6.40692@twister.socal.rr.com...

snip


This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.

We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.


What do you mean "we", paleface. You haven't gotten there yet.


"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.


No kidding. However, sin belongs to your RELIGION and not to those who
don't believe in it. How can I commit an act against or disobey something I
don't believe in?
--

Your Witchypooness, by whatever term we call it, our flawed human condition
results inevitably in wrongdoing of some sort or other. You say toma'to; I say
tomat'o. I say "sin" and you say??? Whatever it's called, something needs
to be done about it, right?
Denny


---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

.
User: "Jason Gastrich"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 22 Jan 2005 11:31:45 PM
dgillesp wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4yUFd.53279$Ew6.40692@twister.socal.rr.com...

snip


This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.

We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.


What do you mean "we", paleface. You haven't gotten there yet.


"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.


No kidding. However, sin belongs to your RELIGION and not to those
who don't believe in it. How can I commit an act against or disobey
something I don't believe in?
--


Your Witchypooness, by whatever term we call it, our flawed human
condition results inevitably in wrongdoing of some sort or other.
You say toma'to; I say tomat'o. I say "sin" and you say???
Whatever it's called, something needs to be done about it, right?

Denny

Hi Denny,
Good point. I'm not surprised that she hasn't responded.
God bless,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 23 Jan 2005 12:00:51 PM
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5FGId.63825$Ew6.31722@twister.socal.rr.com...

dgillesp wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4yUFd.53279$Ew6.40692@twister.socal.rr.com...

snip


This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.

We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.


What do you mean "we", paleface. You haven't gotten there yet.


"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.


No kidding. However, sin belongs to your RELIGION and not to those
who don't believe in it. How can I commit an act against or disobey
something I don't believe in?
--


Your Witchypooness, by whatever term we call it, our flawed human
condition results inevitably in wrongdoing of some sort or other.
You say toma'to; I say tomat'o. I say "sin" and you say???
Whatever it's called, something needs to be done about it, right?

Denny


Hi Denny,

Good point. I'm not surprised that she hasn't responded.

Maybe that because I plonked Denny ages ago, you silly twit. And in
response to his question about something needs to be done about it, the
concept of sin belongs to his religion, has nothing to do with me and if
wants to do something about it, that's his business and/or problem. Doesn't
concern me in the least.
Happy now, "Dr."?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "David"

Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? 23 Jan 2005 02:41:36 AM
Jason Gastrich wrote:

dgillesp wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4yUFd.53279$Ew6.40692@twister.socal.rr.com...

snip


This is a VERY wishful, logical fallacy.

We graduated from this logic at 2 years old.


What do you mean "we", paleface. You haven't gotten there yet.


"If I close my eyes, everything disappears" simply isn't true.


No kidding. However, sin belongs to your RELIGION and not to

those

who don't believe in it. How can I commit an act against or

disobey

something I don't believe in?
--


Your Witchypooness, by whatever term we call it, our flawed human
condition results inevitably in wrongdoing of some sort or other.
You say toma'to; I say tomat'o. I say "sin" and you say???
Whatever it's called, something needs to be done about it, right?

Denny


Hi Denny,

Good point. I'm not surprised that she hasn't responded.

Are you criticizing someone for not responding to a rebuttal, Jason?
Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.
But I can take up the point, if you like.
< snip "see how wonderful I am" sig >
.












  Page 4 of 7

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3803     pg.2111     pg.1171     pg.649     pg.359     pg.198     pg.109     pg.60     pg.33     pg.18     pg.10     pg.6     pg.4     pg.2

OLDER