What is "one"?
While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
I read again the phrase:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
really understand "one."
I can't put into words my real question,
but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
that "one" somehow implies:
something
nothing
form
void
all
?
What is "not one"?...
Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
Words fail me.
Any ideas or comments?
Many thanks,
Dare
.
|
|
| User: "Another one" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 01:03:04 PM |
|
|
"Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:d9eke4$8kb0$1@news3.infoave.net...
What is "one"?
While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
I read again the phrase:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
really understand "one."
I can't put into words my real question,
but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
that "one" somehow implies:
something
nothing
form
void
all
?
What is "not one"?...
Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
Words fail me.
Any ideas or comments?
In my opinion, "one" is the complementary of other, whatever. If we take two
facts, two people, two thoughts, two whatever that they both make the whole,
one is one, and the other one is the oppositte, the complementary. Any one
of they both is "one", but the both together can never be "one".
(excuse my english, pelase)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 03:38:58 PM |
|
|
"Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9eke4$8kb0$1@news3.infoave.net...
: What is "one"?
:
: While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
: I read again the phrase:
: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
:
: As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
: really understand "one."
: I can't put into words my real question,
: but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
: that "one" somehow implies:
: something
: nothing
: form
: void
: all
: ?
:
: What is "not one"?...
: Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
: Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
: Words fail me.
:
: Any ideas or comments?
: Many thanks,
: Dare
:
:
:
Dare,
You ask such good questions. To my understanding the "One" that
you quoted is part of the Hebrew, or is it Jewish prayer, "The Shema'
which is very highly regarded and may be the most revered prayer of
Judaism. The Shema is also called taking on the Kingdom of God and
there are instructions when this should and should not be done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "andy-k" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 03:51:23 PM |
|
|
You ask such good questions. To my understanding the "One" that
you quoted is part of the Hebrew, or is it Jewish prayer, "The Shema'
which is very highly regarded and may be the most revered prayer of
Judaism. The Shema is also called taking on the Kingdom of God and
there are instructions when this should and should not be done.
You already said that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 04:55:30 PM |
|
|
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:fn_ue.2870$%O1.2200@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
:> You ask such good questions. To my understanding the "One" that
: > you quoted is part of the Hebrew, or is it Jewish prayer, "The Shema'
: > which is very highly regarded and may be the most revered prayer of
: > Judaism. The Shema is also called taking on the Kingdom of God and
: > there are instructions when this should and should not be done.
:
: You already said that.
Are you saying that this post appeared before? I looked for
it and it didn't show up on either of my two computers. It was
present in the sent box but didn't show up in outlook either as
read or unread. This happens a lot. I was really starting to think
that someone was monitoring this newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "andy-k" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 05:10:02 PM |
|
|
: You already said that.
Are you saying that this post appeared before? I looked for
it and it didn't show up on either of my two computers. It was
present in the sent box but didn't show up in outlook either as
read or unread. This happens a lot. I was really starting to think
that someone was monitoring this newsgroup.
No, I'm saying that you said it here:
news:MgEue.201$Eo.128@fed1read04
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 06:50:51 PM |
|
|
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:_w%ue.3107$%O1.1924@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
:> : You already said that.
: >
: > Are you saying that this post appeared before? I looked for
: > it and it didn't show up on either of my two computers. It was
: > present in the sent box but didn't show up in outlook either as
: > read or unread. This happens a lot. I was really starting to think
: > that someone was monitoring this newsgroup.
:
: No, I'm saying that you said it here:
:
: news:MgEue.201$Eo.128@fed1read04
That's what I'm saying too. My previous post did not
appear on either of my computers so I posted it again.
edited a little.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 09:09:34 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-24 16:50:51 -0700, "cat rancher"
<goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> said:
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:_w%ue.3107$%O1.1924@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
:> : You already said that.
: >
: > Are you saying that this post appeared before? I looked for
: > it and it didn't show up on either of my two computers. It was
: > present in the sent box but didn't show up in outlook either as
: > read or unread. This happens a lot. I was really starting to think
: > that someone was monitoring this newsgroup.
:
: No, I'm saying that you said it here:
:
: news:MgEue.201$Eo.128@fed1read04
That's what I'm saying too. My previous post did not
appear on either of my computers so I posted it again.
edited a little.
I have been noticing the same effect. I have not had this problem on
other NGs. The only way I know if my post is there if it is quoted.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "In my evolving opinion" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 09:12:54 PM |
|
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005062419093475249%Nospam@towelcom...
: On 2005-06-24 16:50:51 -0700, "cat rancher"
: <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> said:
:
: >
: > "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
: > news:_w%ue.3107$%O1.1924@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
: > :> : You already said that.
: > : >
: > : > Are you saying that this post appeared before? I looked for
: > : > it and it didn't show up on either of my two computers. It was
: > : > present in the sent box but didn't show up in outlook either as
: > : > read or unread. This happens a lot. I was really starting to think
: > : > that someone was monitoring this newsgroup.
: > :
: > : No, I'm saying that you said it here:
: > :
: > : news:MgEue.201$Eo.128@fed1read04
: >
: > That's what I'm saying too. My previous post did not
: > appear on either of my computers so I posted it again.
: > edited a little.
:
: I have been noticing the same effect. I have not had this problem on
: other NGs. The only way I know if my post is there if it is quoted.
: --
: ~Stu
It happened to me on the 'thinking hard' thread. My post appears
on google groups but not in my version of Outlook ... this happens
about 1 out of 10 posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "andy-k" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 03:14:40 PM |
|
|
What is "one"?
"One" is the complement of "many".
Given that the word "complement" is defined as "that which completes", the
real question should be: what is "the complete" in this case?
Language entices us to into saying that "complete" is the complement of
"incomplete", and the logic becomes cyclic.
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." (Wittgenstein,
Tractatus, Section 7.)
Thus the Ancient Jews forbade it to be called by any name or given any
image.
Plotinus, Ennead V, tractate 3, sections 13 and 14:
13. Thus The One is in truth beyond all statement: any affirmation is of a
thing; but the all-transcending, resting above even the most august divine
Mind, possesses alone of all true being, and is not a thing among things; we
can give it no name because that would imply predication: we can but try to
indicate, in our own feeble way, something concerning it: when in our
perplexity we object, "Then it is without self-perception, without
self-consciousness, ignorant of itself"; we must remember that we have been
considering it only in its opposites.
If we make it knowable, an object of affirmation, we make it a manifold;
and if we allow intellection in it we make it at that point indigent:
supposing that in fact intellection accompanies it, intellection by it must
be superfluous.
Self-intellection -- which is the truest -- implies the entire
perception of a total self formed from a variety converging into an
integral; but the Transcendent knows neither separation of part nor any such
enquiry; if its intellectual act were directed upon something outside, then,
the Transcendent would be deficient and the intellection faulty.
The wholly simplex and veritable self-sufficing can be lacking at no
point: self-intellection begins in that principle which, secondarily
self-sufficing, yet needs itself and therefore needs to know itself: this
principle, by its self-presence, achieves its sufficiency in virtue of its
entire content [it is the all]: it becomes thus competent from the total of
its being, in the act of living towards itself and looking upon itself.
Consciousness, as the very word indicates, is a conperception, an act
exercised upon a manifold: and even intellection, earlier [nearer to the
divine] though it is, implies that the agent turns back upon itself, upon a
manifold, then. If that agent says no more than "I am a being," it speaks
[by the implied dualism] as a discoverer of the extern; and rightly so, for
being is a manifold; when it faces towards the unmanifold and says, "I am
that being," it misses both itself and the being [since the simplex cannot
be thus divided into knower and known]: if it is [to utter] truth it cannot
indicate by "being" something like a stone; in the one phrase multiplicity
is asserted; for the being thus affirmed -- [even] the veritable, as
distinguished from such a mere container of some trace of being as ought not
to be called a being since it stands merely as image to archetype -- even
this must possess multiplicity.
But will not each item in that multiplicity be an object of intellection
to us?
Taken bare and single, no: but Being itself is manifold within itself,
and whatever else you may name has Being.
This accepted, it follows that anything that is to be thought of as the
most utterly simplex of all cannot have self-intellection; to have that
would mean being multiple. The Transcendent, thus, neither knows itself nor
is known in itself.
14. How, then, do we ourselves come to be speaking of it?
No doubt we deal with it, but we do not state it; we have neither
knowledge nor intellection of it.
But in what sense do we even deal with it when we have no hold upon it?
We do not, it is true, grasp it by knowledge, but that does not mean
that we are utterly void of it; we hold it not so as to state it, but so as
to be able to speak about it. And we can and do state what it is not, while
we are silent as to what it is: we are, in fact, speaking of it in the light
of its sequels; unable to state it, we may still possess it.
Those divinely possessed and inspired have at least the knowledge that
they hold some greater thing within them though they cannot tell what it is;
from the movements that stir them and the utterances that come from them
they perceive the power, not themselves, that moves them: in the same way,
it must be, we stand towards the Supreme when we hold the
Intellectual-Principle pure; we know the divine Mind within, that which
gives Being and all else of that order: but we know, too, that other, know
that it is none of these, but a nobler principle than any-thing we know as
Being; fuller and greater; above reason, mind and feeling; conferring these
powers, not to be confounded with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 07:47:45 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-23 13:14:40 -0700, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> said:
What is "one"?
"One" is the complement of "many".
Given that the word "complement" is defined as "that which completes", the
real question should be: what is "the complete" in this case?
Language entices us to into saying that "complete" is the complement of
"incomplete", and the logic becomes cyclic.
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." (Wittgenstein,
Tractatus, Section 7.)
Thus the Ancient Jews forbade it to be called by any name or given any image.
The Chandugya Upanishad define Brahman, the absolute reality as "one
without a second". This takes care of the possible comparisons with
other numbers. This is non-dualism at its best.
It can not be called void or not void,
or both or neither,
But in order to point it out,
It is called "The Void".
-Nagajuna
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dare" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 08:17:13 AM |
|
|
What is "one"?
Thanks to everyone for the insights and clarity...
I've been immersed in thinking about it
for so long that I have confused myself ! :-)
Perhaps "one-ness" better conveys the "one" I mean...
some further thoughts occured to me:
Is "one" a kind of bridge or interface between
nothing and something....does the concept of "one"
invoke all else...as soon as we have "one,"
all else follows..is the concept of "one" symbolic
of the act of creation?
Does the idea of one also create the "not-one" of nothingness
to delimit the one?
When "looking" at "reality" through the idea of "one-ness"
is "one" kind of a mirror...a window...a screen(veil)...a conduit?
Well, the book I'm reading warned that thinking about
these types of things too long could lead one to insanity.
;-)
with much appreciation,
Dare
is the "counting" one also the "one-ness" one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
24 Jun 2005 12:58:34 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-24 06:17:13 -0700, "Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> said:
What is "one"?
Thanks to everyone for the insights and clarity...
I've been immersed in thinking about it
for so long that I have confused myself ! :-)
Perhaps "one-ness" better conveys the "one" I mean...
some further thoughts occured to me:
Is "one" a kind of bridge or interface between
nothing and something....does the concept of "one"
invoke all else...as soon as we have "one,"
all else follows..is the concept of "one" symbolic
of the act of creation?
Does the idea of one also create the "not-one" of nothingness
to delimit the one?
This is the dualist fallacy. This splitting will always lead to absurd
statements. "One" has to include one and the not one. That is the
essence of non-dualism. One without a second.
When "looking" at "reality" through the idea of "one-ness"
is "one" kind of a mirror...a window...a screen(veil)...a conduit?
In a sense the only "reality" is one.
Inherent in our nature is a divide. That fragmentation becomes how we
view the world.
Well, the book I'm reading warned that thinking about
these types of things too long could lead one to insanity.
;-)
with much appreciation,
Dare
is the "counting" one also the "one-ness" one?
You may enjoy reading Pythagorus. He developed an entire cult on an
island in the Mediterranean based on that notion. Some historians have
alluded that he had some communications with a Hindu Cult called the
Jains (Who still are around today). They were non-dualists as well.
He also saw One as a point, Two as a line, Three as a plane, Four as
space. The addition of these numbers is Ten. Ten for Pythagorus had
mystical connotations.
This is pretty interesting stuff given that most of the people around
him in 500 BC were making burnt sacrifices to gods.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 12:07:18 PM |
|
|
Dare wrote:
What is "one"?
While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
I read again the phrase:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:
There is only one God. "Hearken unto me, O Yaakov and Israel, my
called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last, "Jeshajah /
Isaiah 48:12.
With this, all the idols disappear to nothing. The LORD does
not tolerate other gods besides him. "I am the LORD: that is my name:
and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven
images," Jeshajah / Isaiah 42:8.
http://tinyurl.com/b6szl
Hear, O Israel...
These are the words of Moses, stirring up the people to an attention to
what he was about to say of this great and momentous article, the unity
of God, to prevent their going into polytheism and idolatry. From one
of the words here used, the Jews call this section Kiriathshema, which
they oblige themselves to read twice a day, morning and evening F14;
the last letter of the first word in this verse, "Shema", meaning
"hear", and the last letter of the last word in it, "Echad", meaning
"one", are greater than ordinary; which seems designed to excite the
attention to what is contained in this passage:
the Lord our God is one Lord;
the doctrine of which is, that the Lord, who was the covenant God and
Father of his people Israel, is but one Jehovah; he is Jehovah, the
Being of beings, a self-existent Being, eternal and immutable; and he
is but one in nature and essence; this appears from the perfection of
his nature, his eternity, omnipotence, omnipresence, infinity,
goodness, self-sufficiency, and perfection; for there can be but one
eternal, one omnipotent, one omnipresent, one infinite, one that is
originally and of himself good; one self, and all sufficient, and
perfect Being; and which also may be concluded from his being the first
cause of all things, which can be but one; and from his relations to
his creatures, as their King, ruler, governor, and lawgiver. And for
this purpose these words are cited in (Mark 12:29,30) but then they no
ways contradict the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the unity of
the divine essence, the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, which three are
one; the one God, the one Jehovah, as here expressed; see (1 John 5:7)
and so the ancient Jews understood this passage. In an ancient book of
theirs it is said F15 Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah (i.e. Jehovah, our God,
Jehovah); these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime
mystery; "in the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the
earth"; and again F16, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one; the
three forms (modes or things) which are one; and elsewhere F17 it is
observed, there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three;
and when the three are one, he says to (or of) them, these are the two
names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu (our God) is
joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth, and when
they are joined they are one in one unity; which is illustrated by the
three names the soul of man is called by, the soul, spirit, and breath;
and elsewhere they say F18 the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah, are
called one; see (John 10:30) .
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/
As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
really understand "one."
I can't put into words my real question,
but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
that "one" somehow implies:
something
nothing
form
void
all
?
Monism is a philosophical term which, in its various meanings, is
opposed to Dualism or Pluralism. Wherever pluralistic philosophy
distinguishes a multiplicity of things, Monism denies that the
manifoldness is real, and holds that the apparently many are phases, or
phenomena, of a one. Wherever dualistic philosophy distinguishes
between body and soul, matter and spirit, object and subject, matter
and force, the system which denies such a distinction, reduces one term
of the antithesis to the other, or merges both in a higher unity, is
called Monism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10483a.htm
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/price/preprints/metapluralism.html
Pluralism (Principle in metaphysics and politics) - In metaphysics,
pluralism refers to the notion (opposed to monism) that there is more
than one basic kind of substance making up the universe (thus dualism
is a limited form of pluralism). The term pluralism is also used to
refer to political systems that allow more than one political party
(roughly equivalent to democracy as opposed to totalitarianism).
http://www.saint-andre.com/ismbook/P.html
What is "not one"?...
In the context it means
"not [the] God."
Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
Words fail me.
Any ideas or comments?
Many thanks,
Dare
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "In my evolving opinion" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 02:42:27 PM |
|
|
Dare,
You ask such good questions. To my understanding the "One" that
you quoted is part of the Hebrew, or is it Jewish prayer, "The Shema'
which is very highly regarded and may be the most revered prayer of
Judaism. The Shema is also called taking on the Kingdom of God and
there are instructions when this should and should not be done. (I
wrote dome instead of done ... unconscious slip?) Anyway, I studied
Judaism for a while in college and found the teacher, a former Rabbinic
student to be very giving and interesting. That is about all of my exposure
to Judaism except for a Hebrew class I took at the same school. Our
text for the Judaism class was "A Rabbinic Anthology". I remember
the text fondly and found it to be very Judeo-Christian in its content and
the depth of the writings were quite impressive, including the tradition
that the Lord knew about all of the possible interpretations and
misinterpretations of His words and prepared His teachers to deal with
them ... Sorry for the free association but you reminded me of a cool
memory ...
"Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9eke4$8kb0$1@news3.infoave.net...
: What is "one"?
:
: While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
: I read again the phrase:
: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
:
: As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
: really understand "one."
: I can't put into words my real question,
: but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
: that "one" somehow implies:
: something
: nothing
: form
: void
: all
: ?
:
: What is "not one"?...
: Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
: Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
: Words fail me.
:
: Any ideas or comments?
: Many thanks,
: Dare
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 11:57:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:26:09 -0400, "Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is "one"?
While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
I read again the phrase:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
really understand "one."
I can't put into words my real question,
but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
that "one" somehow implies:
something
nothing
form
void
all
?
What is "not one"?...
Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
Words fail me.
Any ideas or comments?
Many thanks,
Dare
As all such texts, the purpose is to promote religious
experiences in the practitioner, not necessarily to 'make
sense'.
Over time, human cultures have attributed putative
'higher powers' with many characteristics. Each sect
seems to want their God to be distinct from all others
(and of course top guy). This plurality of Gods can become messy.
Perhaps the Jewish authors were trying to obviate
this mess by defining their higher power as a 'clean' one
instead of a messy many, and the 'real' one to boot.
The RC church compromised with three. Even three can be
messy. Some have hundreds.
The religious experiences of the confabulating
church founders and leaders produce the religion's
particular 'script'. Jewish religion is no different.
BTW, you, as is each normal person,
are a religious sect of 'one'.
(What about multiple personalities?)
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The way to do research is to attack the facts at
the point of greatest astonishment."
-- Celia Green
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 01:23:03 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:26:09 -0400, "Dare" <clydadare@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is "one"?
While studying a book on Jewish meditation and mysticism,
I read again the phrase:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).
As I contemplated this I suddenly realized that I don't
really understand "one."
I can't put into words my real question,
but it seems that "one" is the key to understanding...
that "one" somehow implies:
something nothing form void all ? What is "not one"?...
Is "one" both a differentiation and a unity?....
Something, Nothing, Not-something and Not-nothing, All and Not-all?
Words fail me. Any ideas or comments? Many thanks, Dare
As all such texts, the purpose is to promote religious
experiences in the practitioner, not necessarily to 'make
sense'.
Over time, human cultures have attributed putative
'higher powers' with many characteristics. Each sect
seems to want their God to be distinct from all others
(and of course top guy). This plurality of Gods can become messy.
Perhaps the Jewish authors were trying to obviate
this mess by defining their higher power as a 'clean' one
instead of a messy many, and the 'real' one to boot.
The RC church compromised with three. Even three can be
messy. Some have hundreds.
The religious experiences of the confabulating
church founders and leaders produce the religion's
particular 'script'. Jewish religion is no different.
I was going to say that.
Sometimes it's helpful to have more than one. But the
Christians have one or three depending on which makes
a particular story sound better.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 02:57:12 PM |
|
|
Roman Catholics don't believe in three deities. They believe in three
manifestations of a single divinity. Reason can't, as of now, make
sense of it. It's a faith thing.
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: One |
23 Jun 2005 07:39:44 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-23 12:57:12 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com> said:
Roman Catholics don't believe in three deities. They believe in three
manifestations of a single divinity. Reason can't, as of now, make
sense of it. It's a faith thing.
W : )
It is a fundamental problem with the religion. Josh lectured the
Jewish party line of pure monotheism. Later Paul interjected his
Pagan idea of Josh a god, dying for other's sins. In recasting Josh
he was now stuck with one father and a son. Sometime later the Church
father's were stuck in the position of trying to connect this
contradiction together. So they came up with the one god three aspects
argument.
Little known to them the Indians believe the same thing, One Brahman
many aspects. Only the Hindus are honest and call that polytheism.
Effectively the Church would never admit to being pagan and polytheistic.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
