God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it. — Gregory
God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it. Once that is understood (as far as is possible) you can get to the Incarnation and see how a human nature can be subsumed up into the divine nature and live a consciousness that is and is not the same consciousness as the divine nature. It's in different respects. There is three Gods and one God but not in the same respect. The divine nature is one but the relations of consciousness utilizing the same intellect and will in God to love each other is how Christians understand the Trinity. You can say there are three Gods although this is not perfectly accurate, just as you can say there are three persons in one nature although this is not accurate because there is one intellect and will used by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even the will and reason of God is one and not distinct from his justice love, mercy, ect. These are high level ideas and should not be dismissed by forum posters who haven't considered them seriously enough — Gregory
You follow the grand Christian tradition of equating critique with persecutions. — Banno
Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate — Apollodorus
The Christians are a blight on the forum, yes, because they only have one topic; but more, because they do not accept rational discussion. — Banno
When it is pointed out to you that there is no way you can possibly know that, you become agitated and abusive. — Apollodorus
Then it would be more honest to ban Christians from the forum. — Apollodorus
I don't see atheists subjecting their beliefs to "rational discussion" at all. — Apollodorus
Jesus said in the Gospels — Fooloso4
But, demonstrably, there are atheists here, presenting arguments, in direct contradiction of your assertion. — Banno
Christians discover ideas that can be thought of but which are above reason. Those doctrines are amazing and mind expanding. — Gregory
I don't think so — Apollodorus
You attempt to shift topic is noted - more examples of your refusal to address the issue — Banno
I think it's the other way around. — Apollodorus
God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.
Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality.
This is not to rule out the use of philosophical techniques to examine the notion of god. Reason, sense-perception, introspection, other philosophical techniques can be applied to examining the coherence and consistence of the notion of god. Here we can draw a line at the introduction of revelation. So for instance it would be inappropriate, in a discussion of the conflict between divine omnipotence and benevolence, to simply say that since the bible or the Pope or the Bhagavad Gita says god is such-and-such, it must be so.
More common and more aggravating are bad-faith members who enter into conversation on a topic with a pretence of seeking an open discussion, but who are actually quite certain of their opinion and unwilling to even countenance an open discussion. These folk will present an argument and then do whatever is needed to avoid critique. They will ignore replies, or repeat their argument without addressing the critique, or indulge in a range of fallacious ad hoc rhetoric, or just blatantly make stuff up; anything that avoids meeting the criticism head on. Devans99 was a blatant example; there are plenty of others. Many can be readily spotted by their heart-on-sleeve names.
In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.
These merit deletion or banning. — Banno
you tried to move form Christianity to Islam — Banno
My claim is that Christians have the right to interpret their own religion in whatever way they wish. — Apollodorus
Not at all. I only asked out of curiosity, to see if you hate other believers as well or just Christians. — Apollodorus
The trinity is inconsistent. — Banno
how can you discuss the Trinity on a thread about the Trinity without quoting Christian beliefs? — Apollodorus
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno
Indeed, it isn't. It was a reply to the OP, in which those contradictions are set out.That doesn't sound like a logical argument to me at all. — Apollodorus
For at least the simple reason that on that basis you are no Christian at all — tim wood
That's where you're totally wrong. I never said I was a Christian. I was only defending the Christians' right to interpret their own beliefs without being attacked by atheists who think Jesus has spoken to them. — Apollodorus
Quoting out of context as a rhetorical device. Nice example. Thanks. — Banno
You only posted one or two statements on the Trinity. Do you expect me to make some up for for you? — Apollodorus
Here's the thing: There should be no thread on the Trinity in a philosophical forum. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.