Re: POLITICS: Religion & Science don't mix - Trinity

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 8:05:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> And you don't deserve passing on logic. And since you conceded (or if

> you conceded), then my argument by default surpassed yours. Not that I

> care.

_____

[CHRIS] So the person who stays on longest wins? I better tell Gene, as this

shows I win nearly every debate. <weg>

By the way, if you recall, I conceded because we were discussing two wholly

different things, yet pretending they were the same, which was obviously

fruitless.

_____

> I find it amusing that you thought the doctrine of the Holy

> Trinity could be reasoned, that's all.

_____

[CHRIS]

I'm not sure what you mean by " reasoned " but my contention was that there

were no logical contradictions within it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Your understanding of the Trinity is not compatible

with the orthodox Christian understanding that, if it isn't now, at least was

common to all Trinitarian Christians for centuries.

Chris

-----------------------------------

Why don't you give your understanding to the argument? Why don't you define

hypostasis and consider the difference between essence and essential nature?

Trinitarian Christians differ in their interpretations of a lot of things. All

I said is that it cannot be represented logically. If you can do so from your

interpretation of it, I would be impressed. If it is a logical concept, it

should easily be demonstrated as such. It is a simple matter to write a proof

of the doctrine as you see it.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>I don't deserve an A for clarity. What I meant here is not that the effort

>deserved an F+, but that the + was given for the show of effort.

>

>Chris

>

And you don't deserve passing on logic. And since you conceded (or if

you conceded), then my argument by default surpassed yours. Not that I

care. I find it amusing that you thought the doctrine of the Holy

Trinity could be reasoned, that's all. You could still try to formulate

it, but I have read the " Orthodox Church in America " version of things,

and I see no hope, personally. I honestly see very little difference,

but I didn't view it with the hopes of proving the doctrine as it is

stated. But hey, since my boys are learning about logic, you provided

some good examples of fallacious reasoning. We discussed it today. Thanks!

My pastor and I spoke of this recently. It is his idea of apprehension

and comprehension to which I cling. Fr. is a philologist, and I

am sure that if you don't follow through with definitions, he will. He

never did prove it either. So, contrary to what you may think, I have

no problems with separating science and religion and accepting

doctrine. It's been happening for too long to ignore - the separation

of science with religious beliefs, that is.

I plan to pick up the other dangling thread and argue from a Biblical

perspective against the Holy Trinity next. It don't mean I stake my

life on things. I don't have to worry about being burned at the stake

as a heretic for voicing opposition.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 12/14/04 8:05:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

> writes:

>

>> And you don't deserve passing on logic. And since you conceded (or if

>> you conceded), then my argument by default surpassed yours. Not that I

>> care.

> _____

>

> [CHRIS] So the person who stays on longest wins? I better tell Gene, as this

> shows I win nearly every debate. <weg>

>

Exactly. I concede most every debate to you when it becomes obvious that

this is your tactic. It becomes so boring...

[Guest guest]

[CHRIS]

I'm not sure what you mean by " reasoned " but my contention was that there

were no logical contradictions within it.

[Deanna] Then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate logical

consistency. You haven't yet, even if we were to leave in the essence term. Of

course, you would have to reason why the essences of the three were equal.

Begging the question about these ideas doesn't cut it.

Deanna, who replied as she did previously so would remain engaged ;-)

[Guest guest]

[Deanna]

This verse demonstrates a polytheistic nature of God. Of course, I see

it as royal usage, not some sort of multiplicity. Be reasonable, eh?

Um, wouldn't the Jews see polytheism and multiplicity with this usage if

it was really meant that way? Judaism is monotheistic. Deut. 6:4: Hear

O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

[CHRIS]

That's definitely possible, but in one of my history classes we discussed

Jewish interpretations of this that did not simply explain it away as a form of

polite grammar. For example that the " us " referred to different aspects of

God. If this is a matter of debate in the Jewish community (I'm assuming my

professor was not making them up out of thin air), I don't find it unreasonable

for me to suggest it has a meaning other than the polite grammar you believe is

so obvious.

[Deanna's reply] Most Christians use translations of the Bible. To find out

the meaning, we must use the Hebrew. I think you are quite mistaken about any

debate in the Jewish community, and in fact, I find the idea of it quite

possibly insulting to the Jews. Trinitarians are the only ones grasping at

straws to prove their beliefs derive from the Bible. This particular idea of

" us " is just not reasonable to denote different aspects of God in a Trinitarian

sense. For it is used to describe the many characteristics or aspects of God;

God of the Beginning, God of Justice, God Who is Near, God of my Strength...

That's more than 3 aspects right there. Either it means the " Greatness of God, "

or it means " Gods. " And besides, God uses many names to refer back to himself.

If you multiply, you are polytheistic.

Please read the support below for details.

~ Deanna

http://www.lttn.org/R1_Article4_SecretsGenesis.html

" The verse teaches us that the Name used by G-d to create the world is His

identity of /'Elo-him/.' "

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/mamre.htm

" What of Gen 1:26 and the Hebrew word Elohim? Gn 1:26 says, " And God

said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. " Does this mean

that God is plural? " The plural form does not indicate multiple gods, but

God and the retinue of the divine court. " Harper Study Bible NRSV

(cf. Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV, and Oxford

Study Bible - REB) What divine court? God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1;

89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30).

" Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating

[foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was

not what the plural meant to the original author " (Genesis 1-15, /Word

Biblical Commentary/, G.J. Wenham, 27).

How do we know this? Examine Ezra 4:17, 18 which says, " Then sent the

king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and

to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest

of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which

/ye sent unto *us*/ hath been plainly read before me. " King Artaxerxes

was not a Trinity, yet he can refer to himself as " us. "

What does Elohim mean? Ember wrote: " That the language of the

O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . .

[´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially

shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular

verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him']

must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and

majesty, being equal to The Great God. " -The American Journal of Semitic

Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208. "

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_05.htm

" In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word /´eloh'ah/ (god) has two plural

forms, namely, /´elo·him'/ (gods) and /´elo·heh'/ (gods of). These

plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are

translated in the singular as " God. " Do these plural forms indicate a

Trinity? No, they do not. In /A Dictionary of the Bible,/

says: " The fanciful idea that [/´elo·him'/] referred to the trinity of

persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It

is either what grammarians call /the plural of majesty,/ or it denotes

the /fullness/ of divine strength, the /sum of the powers/ displayed by

God. "

/The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures/ says of

/´elo·him':/ " It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal

predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. " To illustrate

this, the title /´elo·him'/ appears 35 times by itself in the account of

creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is

singular. (Genesis 1:1

<javascript:showCitedScripture('Ge','1','1-31');>-2:4

<javascript:showCitedScripture('Ge','2','1-4');>) Thus, that publication

concludes: " [/´Elo·him'/] must rather be explained as an /intensive

plural,/ denoting /greatness/ and /majesty. " /

/´Elo·him'/ means, not " persons, " but " gods. " So those who argue that

this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of

more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods

in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that

the Trinity is made up of three separate gods. "

http://www.allaboutgod.com/Names-Of-God.htm

" " ELOHIM " (or /Elohay/) is the first name for God found in the Bible, and it's

used throughout the Old Testament over 2,300 times. /Elohim/

comes from the Hebrew root meaning " strength " or " power " , and has the

unusual characteristic of being plural in form. In Genesis 1:1, we

read, " In the beginning /Elohim/ created the heaven and the

earth. " Right from the start, this plural form for the name of God is

used to describe the One God, a mystery that is uncovered throughout

the rest of the Bible. Throughout scripture, /Elohim/ is combined with other

words to describe certain characteristics of God. Some examples: /Elohay Kedem/

- God of the Beginning: (Deuteronomy 33:27). /Elohay Mishpat/ - God Of Justice:

(Isaiah 30:18). /Elohay Selichot/ - God Of Forgiveness: (Nehemiah 9:17). /Elohay

Marom/ - God Of Heights: (Micah 6:6). /Elohay Mikarov/ - God Who Is Near:

( 23:23). /Elohay Mauzi/ - God Of My Strength: (Psalm 43:2). /Elohay

Tehilati/ - God Of My Praise: (Psalm 109:1). /Elohay Yishi/ - God Of My

Salvation: (Psalm 18:47, 25:5). /Elohim Kedoshim/ - Holy God: (Leviticus 19:2,

24:19). /Elohim Chaiyim/ - Living God: ( 10:10). /Elohay Elohim/

- God Of Gods: (Deuteronomy 10:17).

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 11:22:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Exactly. I concede most every debate to you when it becomes obvious that

> this is your tactic. It becomes so boring...

____

I concede. You win.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

I love what Bo Lozoff (The Human Kindness Foundation) said about this

subject. I was listening to an interview of him on the radio when a caller

called in and asked him what god he believed in. Bo's answer was, " I didn't

know there was a choice " . In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

Irene

At 12:18 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:

>Let me ask all of you: How many names do you have?

>

> " Why, only one! " you exclaim.

>

>Judith Alta Kidder is my name.

>

>But. . .at various times I have been called Judy (don't you dare!), Miss

>Babcock (my maiden name), Mrs. Kidder, Mom, Dear, Sweetheart, and several

>unmentionables.

>

>Does this make me a crowd?

>

>Of course not.

>

>My personal belief is that there is a supreme power that makes this universe

>and our planet work. It does not matter if it is referred to as THE one true

>God of the Bible or the multiplicity of gods and goddess of Voodoo, it is

>still the same power.

>

>Enjoy! ;-)

>

>Judith Alta

>Bright blessings for this Yule season.

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>[Note from Deanna] Folks, this is an academic debate. Please don't

>take any of these arguments to be personal or disrespectful in any way.

>In a nutshell I am saying the Trinity cannot be understood logically, as

>sciences can. Faith is required to apprehend the nature of the Divine,

>it cannot be described or comprehended by mere mortals.

>

> >[Chris]The equation, The Holy Spirit = The One True God, is false. The

>Holy Spirit

> >in itself is not The One True God, but one of three hypostases of the One

>True

> >God. The equation should, rather, read:

> >

> >The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

> >

> >

>[Deanna] Out of the kindness of my heart, since you did bring up one

>point of contention in *my* argument, I will respond here.

>

> From dictionary.com:

>hypostasis in the Christian sense

>a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.

>b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures

>are united.

>

>It is plain since you used a plural version of this word, that you must

>be using definition a. above. By substitution, you claim:

>

>The Holy Spirit in itself is not The One True God, but one of three

>*persons* of the One True God.

>

>A God consisting of 3 persons fits in the paradigm of polytheism. If we

>have 3 distinct hypostatic entities, then we have 3 distinct entities and it

>us upon you now to demonstrate that these 3 distinct persons can somehow add

>up to one person. Your equation - which I am assuming is a sum of F, S, and

>HS - does not add up.

>

>[Chris's equation] The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

>

>One final observation: You said that God said us, and that proves

>plurality:

>

>[Chris] God refers to himself as " us " in Genesis, indicating a

>multiplicity of hypostases.

>

>First, I am surprised a history buff such as yourself would be lacking

>context in this regard. Using " us " is and was a very common usage among

>royal folks. But, okay, I'm game. Since you use it to show

>multiplicity of hypostases, then you are using poor English, imo which

>needs clarification. (I do it all the time) You cannot assume that

>which you are attempting to prove as you do when you say above that one

>God would call _himself_ " us. " You must choose plural throughout, as

>the KJV Bible does.

>

>God refers to themselves as " us " in Genesis... would be the more

>grammatically correct way to say it.

>

>Genesis 1:26 : And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

>likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over

>the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and

>over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

>

>This verse demonstrates a polytheistic nature of God. Of course, I see

>it as royal usage, not some sort of multiplicity. Be reasonable, eh?

>Um, wouldn't the Jews see polytheism and multiplicity with this usage if

>it was really meant that way? Judaism is monotheistic. Deut. 6:4: Hear

>O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

>

>

>

>Deanna

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group

> < /join>SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 9:36:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Most Christians use translations of the Bible. To find out the meaning, we

> must use the Hebrew. I think you are quite mistaken about any debate in

the

> Jewish community, and in fact, I find the idea of it quite possibly

insulting

> to the Jews. Trinitarians are the only ones grasping at straws to prove

> their beliefs derive from the Bible. This particular idea of " us " is just

> not reasonable to denote different aspects of God in a Trinitarian sense.

> For it is used to describe the many characteristics or aspects of God; God

of

> the Beginning, God of Justice, God Who is Near, God of my Strength...

That's

> more than 3 aspects right there. Either it means the " Greatness of God, "

or

> it means " Gods. " And besides, God uses many names to refer back to

himself.

> If you multiply, you are polytheistic.

>

> Please read the support below for details.

_____

[CHRIS]

It is absurd to say that the Christian interpretation is " unreasonable " based

on the arguments you have provided. What it meant to the original author, or

how it was understood before Christ, is entirely, entirely, irrelevant.

Besides that, none of the points made in your supporting evidence indicated

anything other than that there is some *other* reasonable explanation that is

in accord with Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures. That in no way

nullifies the Christian interpretation. Also, that the idea of Trinitarian

forshadowing " hardly finds now a supporter among scholars " is just a reflection

of the

preconceptions the scholars come to the table with.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

> In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

____

How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same thing?

What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or incongruence of

attributes?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 5:14:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but isn't

> her point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the

reality?

____

~~~> Yes, but I was thinking she was assuming the ascriptions are true. If

that is assumed, many of those ascriptions are mutually exclusive, rather than

complimentary.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 5:29:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> When was there a time before Christ?

___

~~~> Somewhere between 2000 and 2010 years ago, and all years previous.

____

> When was the Trinity not in

> existence?

____

~~~> It was never not in existence.

____

> If the author was divinely inspired, why is this doctrine of

> the Trinity not foreshadowed in the OT like Christ is?

____

~~~~> That's an odd question to ask someone who is asserting that it is.

_____

> The Bible must

> be taken in context. The original author: Was he inspired by God? If

> so, how can you call his meaning irrelevant?

_____

~~~> Why would you assume that a prophet must fully understand the

implications and meaning of her or his prophecy? I've never been a prophet, so

I'm

really not sure how it works.

_____

> It wasn't just Jewish interpretation. There is no such thing as a

> unified " Christian interpretation " now or at anytime. Okay, tell me,

> what have the prophets to say on the subject of this all important

> Trinitarian doctrine? Jesus was a Jew, but surely God Incarnate says

> something about the Trinity. Right?

____

~~~~> The Bible assumes the Trinity. The formulation of Trinitarian doctrine

was a reaction against the truth. The Bible is not a reaction against the

truth, so it assumes the Trinity rather than formulates in the way that was done

in Ecumenical Synods.

Jesus refers to himself as God, and talks at length about the Holy Spirit,

which, according to Jesus, proceeds (causally) from the Father. Jesus and the

Father cannot both be God without a multiplicity of either hypostases of the

one God or gods. Jesus speaks at length about the unity of himself and the

father, which rules out a multiplicity of gods, not to mention the necessity of

this belief if Jesus' words are to be reconciled to the rest of Scripture. I

don't see any other reasonable interpretation of a causal procession " ek

porevomenon " than that the Holy Spirit is uncreated. He does not speak of the

Holy

Spirit as being with God or as a messenger of God, but as causally proceeding

from The Father. This implies that the existence of the Holy Spirit is derived

from the existence of the Father.

Besides that, Jesus also instructed that those who hear his Apostles hear

him, and those who reject his apostles reject him. clearly states in

commentary that the Logos of God is God and that it became flesh in Jesus

Christ.

He uses the Trinitarian formulation in his first Epistle when he says " There

are three who bear witness in heaven: The Father, the Logos, and the Holy

Spirit, and these three are one. "

Additional support for the fact that the Holy Spirit is uncreated lies in the

second sentence of Genesis, where " the Spirit of God was moving over the face

of the waters. " While the Spirit of God is not mentioned before creation,

which is mentioned in the first sentence, it is unreasonable to believe that the

creation of a Spirit of God is implied in the creation of the heavens and

earth. Moreover, the very phrase " Spirit of God " indicates the divinity of this

spirit and unity with the being termed God.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 12/14/04 11:22:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

> > Exactly. I concede most every debate to you when it becomes obvious that

> > this is your tactic. It becomes so boring...

> ____

>

> I concede. You win.

>

> Chris

No, no, you can't do that! I concede.

[Guest guest]

Basically it is the story of " the blind men and the elephant " . If man is

finite and God is infinite we can only experience a small portion of

the totality. So what may appear to be two different things may just be

different aspect of the same thing.

Irene

At 01:54 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>Irene.M@... writes:

>

> > In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> > whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

>____

>

>How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same thing?

>What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or incongruence of

>attributes?

>

>Chris

>____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

>heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

>animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight

>of them

>make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

>which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the

>sight of

>the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

>ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and

>for those

>who do them wrong. "

>

>--Saint Isaac the Syrian

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group

> < /join>SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Irene.M@... writes:

>

> > In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> > whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

> ____

>

> How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same thing?

> What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or incongruence of

> attributes?

>

> Chris

I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but isn't her

point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the reality?

Obviously, two things that are not the same are not the same.

[Guest guest]

The difference is the experience of the thing. Two people may experience

something very differently, but the thing itself is the same.

Like the blind men and the elephant. They were all correct even though they

all experienced something different.

Irene

At 02:00 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > Irene.M@... writes:

> >

> > > In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> > > whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

> > ____

> >

> > How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same

> thing?

> > What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or

> incongruence of

> > attributes?

> >

> > Chris

>

>I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but isn't

>her point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the reality?

>

>Obviously, two things that are not the same are not the same.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group

> < /join>SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

That is, I believe, what I said.

>

> The difference is the experience of the thing. Two people may experience

> something very differently, but the thing itself is the same.

> Like the blind men and the elephant. They were all correct even though they

> all experienced something different.

> Irene

>

> At 02:00 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>

> > >

> > > In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > > Irene.M@... writes:

> > >

> > > > In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> > > > whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same thing.

> > > ____

> > >

> > > How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same

> > thing?

> > > What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or

> > incongruence of

> > > attributes?

> > >

> > > Chris

> >

> >I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but isn't

> >her point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the

reality?

> >

> >Obviously, two things that are not the same are not the same.

[Guest guest]

> What it meant to the original author, or

>how it was understood before Christ, is entirely, entirely, irrelevant.

>

>

When was there a time before Christ? When was the Trinity not in

existence? If the author was divinely inspired, why is this doctrine of

the Trinity not foreshadowed in the OT like Christ is? The Bible must

be taken in context. The original author: Was he inspired by God? If

so, how can you call his meaning irrelevant?

>Besides that, none of the points made in your supporting evidence indicated

>anything other than that there is some *other* reasonable explanation that is

>in accord with Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures. That in no way

>nullifies the Christian interpretation. Also, that the idea of Trinitarian

>forshadowing " hardly finds now a supporter among scholars " is just a reflection

of the

>preconceptions the scholars come to the table with.

>

It wasn't just Jewish interpretation. There is no such thing as a

unified " Christian interpretation " now or at anytime. Okay, tell me,

what have the prophets to say on the subject of this all important

Trinitarian doctrine? Jesus was a Jew, but surely God Incarnate says

something about the Trinity. Right?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Oops. Sorry, I misread your post.

Irene

At 02:24 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>That is, I believe, what I said.

>

> >

> > The difference is the experience of the thing. Two people may experience

> > something very differently, but the thing itself is the same.

> > Like the blind men and the elephant. They were all correct even though

> they

> > all experienced something different.

> > Irene

> >

> > At 02:00 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

> >

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 12/15/04 11:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > > > Irene.M@... writes:

> > > >

> > > > > In otherword, whatever you want to call it,

> > > > > whatever attributes that you want to ascribe, it is all the same

> thing.

> > > > ____

> > > >

> > > > How can two God's that do not share the same attributes be the same

> > > thing?

> > > > What defines sameness and difference if not the congruence or

> > > incongruence of

> > > > attributes?

> > > >

> > > > Chris

> > >

> > >I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but

> isn't

> > >her point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the

> reality?

> > >

> > >Obviously, two things that are not the same are not the same.

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group

> < /join>SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

That's ok. I often misread my own posts.

>

> Oops. Sorry, I misread your post.

> Irene

>

> At 02:24 PM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>

> >That is, I believe, what I said.

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 12/15/04 5:14:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

> > I haven't followed all of the nooks and crannies of this thread, but isn't

> > her point that the differences are only in the ascription, not in the

> reality?

> ____

>

> ~~~> Yes, but I was thinking she was assuming the ascriptions are true. If

> that is assumed, many of those ascriptions are mutually exclusive, rather than

> complimentary.

>

> Chris

Well, generally, I'd say that these ascriptions are indeed complimentary, but

not complementary. Or at least, that's what I figured you mean.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 10:03:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm starting to think there's an uncrossable divide of faith separating us,

> so there may be no point in further discussion. Apparently you think that

> because you experience thought, thought is non-physical, regardless of

> whether it's generated by physical machinery. Is that about right?

>

> Consider a PC running Word on top of Windows. The word processor is

> generated by physical processes, but in the same way you could believe

that

> the word processor is a metaphysical function generated by the hardware of

> the PC. That would be the exact same misconception.

>

> The thought *is* a function, the subjective experience *is* a function,

the

> awareness *is* a function.

>

> Unlike in the case of brains and minds, though, we (mostly) understand the

> mechanics of how programs and operating systems work and interact, so that

> even though there are bugs, and Microsoft churns out ever-larger amounts

of

> bloat and spaghetti code, we know at least roughly and theoretically how

> things work, reducing our propensity to believe in the supernatural.

____

Sorry I didn't notice you responded until now. I actually had thought

of PC programs as an analogy. But the computer program is not self-aware. We

can understand how the monitor works in revealing images, and we can

understand how the program works in creating images. But the image is perceived

by a

sentient being and a thought is perceived by a sentient being.

I think you will forever maintain that sentience can be explained

scientifically but not within our current state of knowledge, and that I will

forever

believe that the fact that I hear my thoughts and you do not, and that there is

an *I* to hear my thoughts indicate that " I " am more than the sum of my neurons.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian