The Religion Discussion

[d spike]

ok, is there any more info on the 'idea' part?

I'm not sure what you mean by "info" where this is concerned...
The closest modern term that I could use to replace "Word" or "Idea" in this sense is "Self-concept".

I will be dealing with the concept of the Second Person of the Trinity in my next post, so I hope I will answer your queries there. However, without your feedback, I have no way of knowing whether you are understanding what I have written... this is why I prefer a classroom to this faceless lecturing - I feel as though I am talking into an empty box!

I was going to show errors that cropped up where belief in the Trinity was concerned, as studying why these "heresies" are wrong tends to help understand better what IS believed...

Here are three "important" misconceptions that quite a few Christians - in an attempt to understand the Trinity without proper guidance - fall prey to:

Sabellianism is the most common misconception that I come into contact with. This misconception (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons in God. You’d be surprised how many modern Christians rely on this idea to explain their perception of the Trinity.

Arianism teaches that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God the Father – and is therefore a created being. This misconception was the first major doctrinal brouhaha of the Church, and possibly the biggest ever, not counting the Reformation.

Docetism covers a variety of misconceptions, all agreeing that Jesus' body was either absent or just an illusion. These varieties can be loosely grouped into two well, er… groups. One group teaches that Christ was so divine he could not have become human, only appearing to be human, his body being a phantasm. The other school of thought taught that Jesus was an actual man, but Christ was a separate entity, who entered Jesus’ body in the form of a dove at his baptism, and abandoned him on his death on the cross.




There are many differences in doctrine between various mainstream Christian denominations, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not one of them.

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. Roman Catholicism

The fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church is the faith revealed in the True God: the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. -- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence . Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod)

We trust in the one triune God. Presbyterian Church (USA)

The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. Southern Baptist Convention

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. United Methodist Church

[d spike]

Earlier, someone was asking for scriptural references that revealed, or warranted belief in the Trinity... which is rather odd, as that very person was decrying the validity of those very scriptures! However, there are misconceptions even among Christians regarding trinitarian scriptural references.

Firstly, ALL the Old Testament references that many Christians like to point out as alluding to the Trinity, don't. All of them can be explained as not having anything to do with the Trinity, and though there are a good few of them, I honestly don't see the point of discussing any of them here.

The references to the Trinity are all in the New Testament - which makes sense, as it was the appearance of Jesus that revealed that there was more to the concept of God than was originally accepted. The first quote normally ends the argument, but I included some of the others...

For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

…looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ … (Titus 2:13)

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)

…Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:6)

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” (John 14:10)

“I and My Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)


Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? … You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4)

“… no one know the things of God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:11)

[d spike]

sMASH, if you think that the Trinity is confusing, then hold onto your hat – you haven’t seen the Christian beliefs about the Second Person of the Trinity yet.
Christians believe that “in the fullness of time” the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate, that is, “made flesh”, in the human form known to us as Jesus.
Now, what exactly does this mean?
Earlier, we recognized that each being has a Person and a Nature… what was Jesus’ case?
Being human, his Person is easy. It was the question over his Nature that caused major headaches and conflict. Simply put, Christians believe that he had a Human nature and a Divine nature. He was both fully human, while at the same time he was fully Divine.
Bear in mind that Christians believe that the Second Person of the Trinity was fully God, therefore Jesus, being the Second Person incarnate, was fully God… but he was human, with a human body… Being God, he was Perfect. In order to be a perfect human, he had to have a fully human nature.
Confused yet?

Again, a simple way of understanding this is to look at all the “wrong” answers…

A rival to the more common belief that Jesus Christ had two natures was monophysitism ("one nature"), the doctrine that Christ had only one nature.
Apollinarism and Eutychianism were two forms of monophysitism.
Eutychianism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos could not have had a human mind, and had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day. Apollinaris' rejection that Christ had a human mind was considered an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was not divine.

In extreme contrast to monophysitism was Nestorianism, which taught that Jesus Christ was two distinct and separate subsistences. Nestorius taught there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human. Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of adoptionism (for example Artemonism)– the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son.

[sMASH]

interesting the wrong sides are, they do show some level of rationalization of scripture. i would not condemn them for being wrong, because they actually tried, instead of presenting the egg white, yoke, shell analogy.

the trinity is only confusing because the second part and third part aren't easy to explain. the third part, however, is given a place when the second part is explained sufficiently.

the second part- human, divine, both, neither, an agglomeration... it is quite interesting.


the feed back i can offer is limited. to me, this is just like reading an entry in an encyclopedia. i approach this as i would an article, i just read along the lines the author has designed and constructed towards an end of knowledge and understanding.

[MG Man]

on a side note................what was god's thinking when he put nipples on men?

[RBphoto]

on a side note................what was god's thinking when he put nipples on men?

And they were of no use until hot wax was invented

[Bizzare]

on a side note................what was god's thinking when he put nipples on men?

u never had ur nips sucked huh?
thank god for nipples

[AdamB]

on a side note................what was god's thinking when he put nipples on men?

From an Islamic perspective, GOD does whatever HE wants, whether we see the wisdom in it or not.

The sex of the baby is determined at 4 months after conception. Until this point, the development of the foetus INCLUDING THE NIPPLES takes place exactly the same for both sexes. Maybe.

Any other explanations from the evolutionists / scientific community?

[RBphoto]

Sex of the baby is determined at conception. Your holy book is flawed. Go burn it and end yourself... or live in your folly forever!!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

on a side note................what was god's thinking when he put nipples on men?

From an Islamic perspective, GOD does whatever HE wants, whether we see the wisdom in it or not.

The sex of the baby is determined at 4 months after conception. Until this point, the development of the foetus INCLUDING THE NIPPLES takes place exactly the same for both sexes. Maybe.

Any other explanations from the evolutionists / scientific community?

scientifically nipples have nothing to do with sex.

Both male and female mammals have nipples, just like both males and females have ears, or feet. What females have are mammary glands which produce milk - evidently the milk comes out of the nipples, but it is the mammary glands that are characteristic of a female and not the nipple itself.

An alternate example is a urethra, both males and females have one, however the female use is for urine only while the male urethra passes urine and semen, only because males have glands for producing semen and females don't.

all mammals have nipples, not all mammals have access to oil.

[AdamB]

Sex of the baby is determined at conception. Your holy book is flawed. Go burn it and end yourself... or live in your folly forever!!!!

Some real mature ppl here boy! Monkey see monkey do!!Where do you get the idea that someone can LIVE FOREVER??

BTW you are correct. Seemingly, I made a mistake...biology, X and Y chromosomes, etc. What I meant to say was the not "determined" but "DIFFERENTIATED" (via available detection methods).

But is the foetus a human if there is no soul?

It is the soul that is breathed into the foetus at 4 months (120days).[/color]
[color=#FF0000]Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him.

What is the earliest age of the foetus that the sex of the baby can be determined from currently available medical science diagnostic tools? Ultrasound?

It is somewhat coincidental that this time is in accordance with what is established in Islam!
Crossdrilled,
ask a doctor nah, that shouldn't be difficult for you...And cool yuh jets a lil bit nah, yuh only increasing yuh BAD KARMA!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

check this

thanks to the wonders of modern technology, moms and dads these days are able to find out a baby’s gender with ultrasound months before delivery. This is most commonly done between the 18th and 26th weeks of the pregnancy, but some newer ultrasound technology can determine the baby’s gender as early as 12 or 13 weeks.

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him.

so the person's fate is sealed? If the angel writes "wretched" is there any way to change that?

I assume the angel doesn't know these 4 things, but just writes what it is told.

[AdamB]

check this

thanks to the wonders of modern technology, moms and dads these days are able to find out a baby’s gender with ultrasound months before delivery. This is most commonly done between the 18th and 26th weeks of the pregnancy, but some newer ultrasound technology can determine the baby’s gender as early as 12 or 13 weeks.

[color=#FF0000]Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him.[/color

so the person's fate is sealed? If the angel writes "wretched" is there any way to change that?

I assume the angel doesn't know these 4 things, but just writes what it is told.

OK the sex and the breathing of life via the soul are two separate issues but coincidental around the same time.

The angel just writes what it has been commanded to write. According to Islamic theology (other religions are free to express their views), the reality is that ppl will go to Paradise and others to Hell.

Does anyone feel compelled or coersed into doing good or bad action? No one knows what is written but the fact is that some ppl will do bad/evil knowing of the consequences. If you keep doing Good hoping that you will be one of those fortunate ones to go to Paradise, then your faith will be just that. But it would be silly to keep doing evil hoping to enter Paradise.

Each person will earn according to his deeds and GOD is not unjust to anyone!! Also, HIS Mercy exceeds HIS Wrath.

[RBphoto]

How does the angel get up inna there to write on the chile forehead?

So you saying an aborting before 40 days is OK because the piece of flesh or bloodclot has no soul? Why would god allow an angel to decide whether someone would be rightous or not? Why not photocopy his will to make everyone rightous and read the riot act to every single bloodclat?

I personally would like to ask that angel why he doomed me to drive a POS Tiida

We waited 16 weeks to check the sex on ultrasound.... just to be sure.
There is plenty of error before 12 weeks. Test tube babies sex can be determined before conception.

[AdamB]

Evil (sins and disobedience to Allah) has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of men have earned (by oppression and evil deeds), that He (Allah) may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return (by repenting to Allah, and begging His Pardon).
( سورة الروم , Ar-Room, Chapter #30, Verse #41)

[RBphoto]

Oh, the 3D ultrasound done in emrald plaza is amazing...12 week bussiness.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

If you keep doing Good hoping that you will be one of those fortunate ones to go to Paradise, then your faith will be just that. But it would be silly to keep doing evil hoping to enter Paradise.

you mean fate and not faith

[RBphoto]

I find it pointless that an average of 70 years on earth should determine my fate for all eternity.

Besides, if all of the loose women are in hell... all hot sweaty and naked.... why do I want to be in heaven with a bunch of prudes?

[AdamB]

If you keep doing Good hoping that you will be one of those fortunate ones to go to Paradise, then your faith will be just that. But it would be silly to keep doing evil hoping to enter Paradise.

you mean fate and not faith

Yes, fate. I was busy with other things at work and didn't notice that.

[MG Man]

all mammals have nipples, not all mammals have access to oil.

sig biz there

[AdamB]

I find it pointless that an average of 70 years on earth should determine my fate for all eternity.

Besides, if all of the loose women are in hell... all hot sweaty and naked.... why do I want to be in heaven with a bunch of prudes?

Again, because we may not see the wisdom or agree with the execution of justice does not mean that it does not exist or is appropriate.

There is a view in a particular sect of a particular religion that Hell doesn't exist, that the punishment of hellfire for all eternity does not fit the crime of disobedience for a few (70) years on the earth. They say the Good will be rewarded with life back on earth (maybe some in Heaven) and that the evil doers will cease to exist.

However, if some (if not most) of man were to live for 50,000 years, they would do the same as if they had lived for only 70 yrs.

[RBphoto]

That is a kinda pessimistic view of things.

[AdamB]

That is a kinda pessimistic view of things.

Sometimes what appears to persons to be pessimistic may be the reality, the possibility exists.

@Crossdrilled,
I am assuming your comment refers to the living for 50,000 years part.
I have nothing against you but some of your prior comments may be due to a "pessimistic" view. I will venture to guess that you may be about 35 yrs of age. That's half of your life (if you're lucky to live to 70) and you are "certain" that your view on matters you have discussed here are firm and will not change. (Or are you uncertain?)

So if you live for 50,000 years, will your view change? How long does a person have to live for their views and ways to change (for the better)?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I find it pointless that an average of 70 years on earth should determine my fate for all eternity.

Besides, if all of the loose women are in hell... all hot sweaty and naked.... why do I want to be in heaven with a bunch of prudes?

Again, because we may not see the wisdom or agree with the execution of justice does not mean that it does not exist or is appropriate.

There is a view in a particular sect of a particular religion that Hell doesn't exist, that the punishment of hellfire for all eternity does not fit the crime of disobedience for a few (70) years on the earth. They say the Good will be rewarded with life back on earth (maybe some in Heaven) and that the evil doers will cease to exist.

However, if some (if not most) of man were to live for 50,000 years, they would do the same as if they had lived for only 70 yrs.

well if a person lived for only 15 yrs, surely they would have more time to be pious if they lived instead for 50 yrs.

the mentality of a 15yr old is far different from that of a 50yr old

on another note, is there free will in heaven?

[RBphoto]

I believe that anyone can change, including myself. Whether I might see new evidence, have a change of heart or maybe just fedup of my own point of view. Like there was a time I was an avid Panday supporter... Then a PP supporter...

[sweetiepaper]

Time waits on no man, and neither does this thread.
I didn't realize it had so much action up in here.

Oy Vey. Twistng my words again. I said it CAN be compared to a stage of sleep, it isnt literally sleep. jeez (see what I did there?)

Ummm, no, not really.

What stage of sleep are you comparing death to?

Its a human body, with a brain, organs, and a ciirculatory and nervous system, just like everything else.

You are not your body. You possess your body, YOU express yourSELF through your body. There is a difference.

- If i cut off both your legs and arms, would this make you less able to think and express your opinions? No, you would still be the same person, still have the same views and opinions, like the same colours, laugh at the same jokes. Removing certain parts of your body shows that the individual is not going to change who they are, just his physical structure. Therefore, you are not your body. You might say u are your brain, but u really are not. The brain is just the tool through which you can operate your body and express yourself. Hemispherectomy is an operation where half of a person's brain is removed. It has been found that there is usually no significant long-term effects on memory or personality.

-When someone hurts your feelings, and your heart feels heavy, it doesn't mean that your physical heart is feeling pain, it is YOU (your mind/ your soul/your self) that is hurting and feeling pain. It's not a physical pain in your body or your brain or the atoms comprising your body. It's a heaviness in you, within your SELF.

-when u fall in love with someone, u don't love them for their body alone, u love them for who they are, their pleasant personality, their beautiful mind and thoughts.

-Your thoughts are yours and can never be taken out of your brain unless you share that information. Although i may be able to dissect your brain, i can never access your thoughts, i can never see YOU. No matter how far i go into your brain, i will never find you. I cannot tell what school you went to, or what you are scared of unless you communicate that with me. YOU, not your brain. There is a difference. Your brain is the tool through which you express yourSELF.

-You are not your body or this would mean that you are never the same person. From the time you were born to the time you die, you are going to be changing. Your body 10 years ago is not the same as it is today. The atoms and molecules in your body regenerate over a period of time which would mean that you have a completely new body over and over and over throughout your life. Does this mean you are never the same person? While your personality or preferences may change over time, you are essentially the same person.

- A famous quote by Rene Descartes, "I think therefore I am" illustrates that you are not your body. In a nutshell, he concluded that even if everything is an illusion, there is something (the self) that is experiencing that illusion. Think of it like this, if you wanted to know if your brain or body is real, you can touch it and you can see it but is it really real? what if your senses are fooling you? What if your senses are being deceived in some way? Even if this is so, this would mean that there is a first person existing in order to experience the illusion or be deceived. The self, not the body or the brain.

WE share 99% of out DNA structure with primates (monkeys, chimps etc) do primates have a God? what is so special about that 1% that guarantees that we go to an after life?

What makes us so special is our intelligence. The amazing ability of humans to recognize that we are aware of our awareness. We are aware of our self.
No animal is ever going to be able to have that ability, and while they are conscious, they are not self aware. They cannot introspect, they just react to situations.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the term is "sentient"

according to scientists, man evolved into sentience and so, as other animal species continue to evolve, they to can eventually evolve into sentience.

A chimpanzee can make and use tools for itself, but a tuna fish cannot.

[MISHI]

A chimpanzee can make and use tools for itself, but a tuna fish cannot.

Better not, else we'd be canned humans in time...

[sweetiepaper]

^ the term is "sentient"

according to scientists, man evolved into sentience and so, as other animal species continue to evolve, they to can eventually evolve into sentience.

Oh really? How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Is there any empirical evidence brought forward by these scientists to support this statement?

I'd really like to know what was the defining point at which these non-sentient animals 'evolved' into sentience? What factor/s changed in the animal for the scientists to make a claim like that?

Can you explain what exactly you mean by evolve?

[AdamB]

^ the term is "sentient"

according to scientists, man evolved into sentience and so, as other animal species continue to evolve, they to can eventually evolve into sentience.

Is this Darwin's Theory of Evolution that you are referring to? If so, what were the assumptions and have any of them been disproved?