St. Augustine also prayed to God to make him chaste -- but not yet. A similar statement was made by Martin Luther -- "sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger" (edited for brevity) — BC

:grin: It just occurred to me that both of those statements sound like Kierkegaard. According to him, the greatest faith is to believe that God accepts you as you are, in this moment, with all your screw-ups.

Trying that out changes the way I see other people. Instead of being offended, I see how they're just like me. I think the true Knight of Faith would be the one who accepts people like Hitler, though. To accept that all that bloodshed is accepted by God just changes what God is supposed to be.

I read about the ethics of love in a book on situational ethics (by Fletcher?). Yes, if one decides to get out of the box, to drop the 10 commandments, the list of laws in the Pentateuch, or Hammurabi's code, and let love be one's guide, one pretty much has to think out of the box, at least to get one bearings. — BC

I'm just not emotionally mature enough to live that way. It hinges on self-love, which isn't exactly nurtured in my society. You know what I mean? Or maybe that's just me.

The people like Dorothy Day whose life I find admirable and inspiring, may have been guided by simple Christian love, but they also dug deep into Christian tradition for more specific guidance, and found it. — BC

Right. We all reach outward for moral guidance. That's just normal. One of the best ways to stay moral is to only hang out with people who have a strong moral outlook. If you hang out with gang members all the time, you'll end up just like them: no morals.

If any of you have thought through this issue and have come to make sense of it in your own spiritual walks, I would love to hear any analogies or descriptions that have helped you to make sense of this confusing element of the nature of God. — tryhard

For me I understand the holy Trinity differently.
In my explorations I found it to regard the concept of "Truth" and it's revelation rather than the concept "God" per se. With truth being in the center and the triad acting as a sort of Venn diagram overlapping with one another.

There are 3 features in the trinity I explored:

1). Instead of "holy spirit" there is "language/communication/expression".

2). Instead of "The father" there is the universe/nature/external reality.

3). Finally, instead of the "son" there is "self" or "the conscious awareness/mind of people".

None of the individual items in isolation = truth (in the center).
All of the items combined do however = truth.

For example:
1). Language/communication or what is said about the other two facets: the self and the universe does not equal them. Language or "what can be said" does not = truth.

2). The universe or what it is objectively does not equal our awareness of it/mind nor the language we use to determine/describe it. Objective universe = does not equal truth.

3). Conscious perception/ what is a). perceived about external reality/the universe and b). Interpreted from language of others does not equal them.
The mind/self does not = truth.

But when we combine the universe, ourselves, and our communication between it and one another, this equals the full set of all things, all overlaps. Nothing excluded.
Thus the truth.

In essence the trinity is a triad between selves, communication between them as well as with reality. A three-way dynamic between them all.

I know the story of Lilith from a Neil Gaiman comic book actually. Adam rejected her because he witnessed all her innards coming together and was grossed out by it. — Watchmaker

I don't know if that was something from the comic book you referred to but Adam did not reject Lilith, yahweh/jehovah did that because she would not let Adam take the dominant position during sex.
She would not allow penetration whilst she lay underneath Adam, she would take a position on top of Adam. She is considered a hero by many feminists, for her defiance of god and its demand that she be subservient to Adam.
The second interesting part of the fable is that god turned her into a snake and that was the snake that spoke and tempted Eve etc.

Fine, and the counter point is be as crystal clear and honest when you make statements about your beliefs of you will be misinterpreted, which is YOUR fault if you are unable to explain you belief sufficiently, to the average, reasonable, lay person. — universeness

I did all of those things. My point stands.

We seem to have lost the plot and are arguing about things that don't matter. This is partly why I don't get into these discussions anymore.

Sure, reduction to a panto style exchange of 'oh no you didn't and oh yes I did,' is quite common in any discussion between human beings anywhere, from global meetings between world leaders, to two strangers on TPF, to discussions with your nearest and dearest. I rarely get exasperated by such, as it comes with the territory.

It's very possible to have fruitful discussions on here; I've had many over the years. This is not one. Take care.

I also have had a range of personal measurement of discussions, I have had on TPF.
I have had fruitful and fruitless discussions, often with the same person from thread to thread.
The one here, between us, was inert in it's significance.
I always take care, I am sure you do to.

My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule. — universeness

How is this not subjectivism?

The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community. — universeness

Yes, IMO, in your opinion. You're just asserting your subjective morality, which you acknowledge here isn't universally accepted, as there certainly are "nasty individualists."

Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. — universeness

Nothing precludes the consideration of hypotheticals when judging someone on a case by case basis.

A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes? — universeness

Why are you asking me this? I don't recall offering support for a biblically based court. I also don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of comparing various secular courts with various religious based courts. That is, why do you suggest a Chinese court would be more just than a beth din, for example.

In any event, I prefer the American court system, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. — universeness

I've indicated that I am a theist who believes as theists to, that there is a creator and that creator has a plan and purpose. That I don't subscribe to a particular theistic set of doctrines isn't a requirement to be theistic.

? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)? — universeness

What I need is to understand why my opinion is correct that I value my children. Not everyone values children and many do assert that their murder is justified. I believe they are wrong. I believe that if the world were composed entirely of those who believed in the murder of children, then murder would still be wrong. That is, morality is not relative to time or person or individual opinion. It is absolute, which distinguishes it from the relative or subjective.

Unless I am willing to accept that a standard exists outside of humanity that determines right and wrong, then that standard will be dependent upon whatever state humanity happens to be at the time and place.

Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet. — universeness

And so we have a dispute. I say capitalism is morally correct, leading to the greatest advancements humankind has ever known and that you are morally corrupt. What to do? We have no standard to apply.

Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister. — universeness

It's not absurd or sinister to suggest someone has moral beliefs that vary from your own. It's just true. My question is how do you tell the rapist they are wrong no matter how many believe the way they do?

I say capitalism is morally correct — Hanover

you are morally corrupt. — Hanover

That's a good enough summary of the 'dispute' between us, that you mentioned.
I say capitalism is vile and that you are the immoral one.
Your viewpoints merely reinforce my total opposition to them.
Thank you for the exchange.

I really don't know, and all I can do is self report what I feel. Intellectually, it's all over my head and when you go back that far, the history of it all gets really murky, the etymological roots run this way and that. Personally, I worship the Great I Am.  That is the name given in the Bible that I most identify with, or that most resonates with me. Whether that was El or Jehovah or Yahweh, I really don't feel the need to make absolute certain. 

All I know is that there is a being who exists and was not created. Jesus is the intermediary, as i'm sure you know, so all prayers sort of default to Him. These beings are ineffable in nature, and myself being a mere mortal with limited ability to comprehend such transcendent truths, I have learned over the years to keep it simple. 

I've spoke with a few friends of mine who are well educated in all this, and they all pretty much lay out historical theories of how these names evolved. I really don't feel that the ultimate God, the Great I Am, is too much concerned with whether or not I get these facts hammered out. I do know Jesus though, and I have His Words and His Acts that I can learn and meditate on in my heart. Other than that, any contemplation that I do is on the wonder and awe of an ineffable God that is the all encompassing definition of existence and being. 

What's the Father's Name? I really don't know. I understand that the ancient Hebrews wouldn't speak or write His Name. I know little factoids like that that add up to me concluding that it's not a big deal for me to know this stuff, and there are simply too many conflicting views and conclusions on the matter that suggest I am not alone. 

So as far as my focus goes when praying or worshipping, I guess it may go back and forth between the man Jesus and the ineffable force that is the Father. They're one and the same anyway, in a sense. As I said, all of this I believe is not really to be rationally understood, but rather contemplated in the Spirit, so that we may remain humble before the Almighty.

Things that aren't too clear, I don't believe God really wants me to put a whole lot of energy into investigating. There are some things that are clear and plain as day to me, and other things that are dark and murky. I want to stay in the Light and not wander too far in to the dark. Now that may be just where I am at the moment, at this time of my life, but there is a personal unction for me from God to keep it simple. God's Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet, and right now, the only place that is illuminated and where I feel safe is underneath the Shadow of His Wings. 

There is a mind that is self existent, eternal. That much I know for certain. There is a being that sees and knows all. It would also seem to me that this being is triune in some sense, and is reflected in the fundamental triune nature of reality.

As far as the story of Lilith goes, that may or may not be true. Again, I can't really see what bearing that has on the story of Jesus. I think it's interesting though!


Here's an interesting response I got from someone:

"Actually, El was the generic name for any heavenly being. The "sons of 'el (bene elohim) were "el " in their own right. Had a great discussion with former Mormon apologist Kevin Graham on the origin of the word "el" and he taught me quite a bit about pre-Hebrew assimilation of terms like YHWH. It was his assertion that the YHWH who was the consort of Ashera and the brother of Ba'al was not the same YHWH as the Hebrews worshipped, but that the name YHWH was assimilated from one to the other."

Things get assimilated by ancient cultures, then the evolution goes this way and that way and it's like trying to look at pre-history through a kaleidoscope.

You words are very familiar and I have heard them, or similar, many times before, especially from people who have managed to free themselves from such 'follower' style rhetoric.
Those who profit greatly from religion will be very happy to read your post.

I really don't know, and all I can do is self report what I feel. — Watchmaker

All I know is that there is a being who exists and was not created. — Watchmaker

These statements seem to contradict. What evidence do you have that this being exists? You claim to KNOW, but you have not evidenced HOW you know.
As Mr Dillahunty often says in mocking mimicry of theists. 'I know that I know that I know that god is real.'
When you make such a claim, then you have the burden of proof or else the flying spaghetti monster is just as REAL as your god, for all those who claim to know that they know that they know........
I might make the same claim against the existence of god, but at least I have the compelling evidence of divine hiddenness on my side, and all of the scientific evidence that shows that the biblical story of creation is utter tosh.

and myself being a mere mortal with limited ability to comprehend such transcendent truths — Watchmaker

Follow your own logic, if you as a mere mortal have limited ability to comprehend, then you DONT KNOW "that there is a being who exists and was not created," You might have been totally duped, fooled, conned into following the dictates of those who wish to use you to promote their BS and enhance their status, power and personal wealth. They promise you great reward, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!!!!! :lol: :halo:

There is a mind that is self existent, eternal. That much I know for certain — Watchmaker

What evidence do you have that this is true?

God's Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet, and right now, the only place that is illuminated and where I feel safe is underneath the Shadow of His Wings. — Watchmaker

You can walk on paths lit up by electric light and carry a torch and have shoes on your feet with lights built into them. Having lots of people with you as you walk on unfamiliar paths may make you feel safer under their protection. Can you not see how you seem to crave superhero protection as you imagineer these dark paths you have to walk. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. Blind people deal with darkness every day without any help from gods. Darkness is as beautiful as light.
Touch, taste, smell, and audio are easily as beautiful as light. Your theism sounds stifling to me, it's restrictive, shallow and turns you into a subservient child waiting for its masters directives.
I hope you don't give any religious groups too much of your hard earned money or your valuable time.
If you do, then all I can say is that, the door towards theism does swing both ways and you can exit permanently as well as enter.

Can the persons of the Trinity disagree with each other?

I liked reading "City of God" by Augustine. In it, he relates other trinities and suggests that the Christian Trinity is the apex of all trinities. Philosophies had the idea of trinity before it became widespread.

Good morning UV!

I'm not so sure that we could make any progress here. You and I have discussed this before at length, and my position really hasn't changed.

In a very very simple nutshell, I do not believe that something came from nothing. It is the greatest absurdity imaginable (if one can even imagine nothingness). All of my other worldviews are then built upon that.

The JCI deity is conceived of as 'eternal' which imples that all of the modes – personas – of its being simultaneously exist (like 'experiential time tense' in a block universe). 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective. — 180 Proof

It could very well have something to do with this. I'm not one to bring stuff like this up to fellow believers, nor do I try to nail it down to certainty, but I have thought before that the Trinity could very well be an abstract personification of the various ways God interacts with man.

No doubt you're correct theologically ...

In a very very simple nutshell, I do not believe that something came from nothing. It is the greatest absurdity imaginable (if one can even imagine nothingness). All of my other worldviews are then built upon that. — Watchmaker

Good Morning! Well, afternoon here!
We broadly agree on that, as I hold the opinion that such a 'state' as 'nothing' does not ( nor ever has had) an existent. I currently favour an eternally cyclical or possibly an oscillating universe but there is currently no strongly convincing evidence for either. There is some, such as Roger Penrose's hawking points, but there are other possible explanations for those, as suggested by folks like Alan Guth.
For me, God posits are as credible as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson, Marvel/DC comics etc by comparison.

I agree that we cant make much progress, whilst you remain convinced that a god exists and I don't.
I simply request that you don't completely abandon your ability to be a skeptical enquirer/scrutineer when it comes to god.
Does it directly communicate with you in a personally very convincing way, regularly, repeatedly?
If not, why not? if it is your benevolent creator?

Can the persons of the Trinity disagree with each other? — GRWelsh

:grin: Well, they seemed to, on the cross, when Jesus is supposed to have exclaimed,
"Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Perhaps it should be renamed/diagnosed by those who study psychiatry, as the schizophrenic trinity.

Can the persons of the Trinity disagree with each other?
— GRWelsh

:grin: Well, they seemed to, on the cross, when Jesus is supposed to have exclaimed,
"Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" — universeness

I wouldn't say that it's schizophrenic, but rather conflict within one's own self. We have all experienced this in our own minds. I've wrestled with my higher self many times in pursuit of what I think is the greatest good. If Jesus believed that His mission was to suffer and die, I can see how that would create no small amount of inner turmoil.

Does it directly communicate with you in a personally very convincing way, regularly, repeatedly?
If not, why not? if it is your benevolent creator? — universeness

Good question. Let me get back with you on that. I will say though that I have never heard an audible voice, or any voices in my head...no burning bushes, etc.

If Jesus believed that His mission was to suffer and die, I can see how that would create no small amount of inner turmoil. — Watchmaker

Yeah, maybe if I was in so much pain as he was claimed to be in, then maybe I would talk to myself out loud as well. I know that if you do so in most human company, you come across as schitso!
IF Jesus KNEW he was god, then the whole scenario of the blood sacrifice was a staged spectacle, a con job. God is posited as immortal, therefore death is totally impotent to it. Via the trinity connection, the same MUST be true for Jesus, unless they were separated for his 30+ years of cosplaying a human male. If that IS the case then, for that time at least, the so called trinity CANNOT be disconnected manifestations of a single entity.
If the trinity is true, then when Jesus died as a human dies, god died, for 3 days, and that means it MUST have been 'unaware of self,' for 3 days! There is no escaping that logic, no matter what flowery claims about wearing different masks or occupying different versions of yourself are offered.
The trinity suggests that what one member of the trinity experiences, all 3 experience.
Including REAL human death which means NO AWARENESS AT ALL!

Good question. Let me get back with you on that. I will say though that I have never heard an audible voice, or any voices in my head...no burning bushes, etc. — Watchmaker

But surely that is exactly what it would have to be, even people who suffer from multiple personalities have some 'realisation' of that. Joan of Arc may have been such a person with multiple personalities that was undiagnosed and 'of her time.'
You should at least be experiencing Joan of Arc type messaging surely.
I have a trinity of voices in my head, me, myself and I. Perhaps because you can model the human brain as triune. The R-Complex, the Limbic system, and the Cortex.
Mr 'yes, go for it,' 'my no, run away, now.' and Mr 'now wait a minute, think carefully about this, don't listen to those other two guys yet!' If I die, all 3 of members of that triune die to. I die, myself dies and me dies.

If I die, all 3 of members of that triune die to. I die, myself dies and me dies. — universeness

The same law may not apply to Divinity.

The same law may not apply to Divinity. — Watchmaker

I don't understand that argument if the proposal is that this divinity BECAME mortal man and the trinity remained FULLY connected so that what one experiences in its totality, all 3 experienced.
Jesus and the other 2 either became fully mortal or it did not.

This is just another example of how impossible notions such as omnipotent are.
If god is omnipotent then it must be able to die properly, in other words not be eternal any more,
If god cannot not exist, then it is not omnipotent. Can god make a mistake and be penitent?
Again, if it cannot, then there are some things that god is just not capable of doing, so it is therefore NOT omnipotent.

I don't pretend that there are no logical problems. I understand the objections.

The logical problems run quite deep. For instance, if God is a spirit, the what is the Holy Spirit? Is it the Spirit of a Spirit?

Dualism states that there are only two substances in all of existence: the physical and the non-physical (the mental). What then is the spirit made of? Some quintessential 3rd substance? Or is it too made of the non-physical, mental substance? The way it's referred to it seems even more non-material than mental.

I like even the more base considerations. Not for any chance at mockery, but from a purely human curiosity. For example, Did Jesus fart, urinate, defecate, produce sperm, have sex, shed skin cells, get a hair cut? produce nasal mucus that made him pick his nose etc.
Did he get uncomfortable itches in his genitalia?
Did he have any benign lumps or bumps on his body?
Did he ever trip and fall and hurt himself by accident?
Did he cry, laugh, experience hate, envy?
He must have had all these experiences and a lot more or else he did not experience life as a mortal man.

If he did produce every bodily excretion that a human male does, then would these also be gods and the holy spirits productions.
Is this for example, where the American exclamation 'holy shit' comes from?
We do have dinosaur poo, still preserved! whaddyafink? Could there still be some fossilised Jesus poo in existence?

Is it unreasonable or disrespectful or blasphemous to ask such questions of followers and believers who state that Jesus was a living god.

Do you think your god will punish you for asking any critical questions of it?

There is absolutely no disrespect in asking such questions. I believe that Jesus inhabited a human body, so yes, He experienced everything we experience.

I believe God wants me to probe as far as my intellect has the capacity for, as far as my imagination can imagine.

There is absolutely no disrespect in asking such questions. I believe that Jesus inhabited a human body, so yes, He experienced everything we experience. — Watchmaker

:up:

I believe God wants me to probe as far as my intellect has the capacity for. — Watchmaker

Good, keep asking critical questions without fear then sir. I hope your god has the decency to answer you and does not decide to burn you in hell for eternity for your impertinence!