Trinity

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And reinterpreting it to suit ourselves is not acceptable.

Reinterpretting is what we do well. Hence the ability for the your denomination to reinterpret the commandment regarding idols, kissing medals and statues etc.

If that is your acceptable interpretation, I have no issues with it. Again this is what continues to bother me. That your interpretation is ok, worshipping Mary and all, but any of my interpretation or that of others is wrong.

Originally Posted by Q

No, he was referring to the demi gods (the fallen) who had conveniently placed themselves in positions of godlike power over the neighbors of the Hebrews. Hence the point "gods" as in little gods, above man but below the supreme being, created not omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent.
Indeed, Jacob wrestled one such being to a standstill, and held him all night, despite a dislocated hip...not so much above man I suspect.

Originally Posted by Q

Not what the Bible says wil. It says he wrestled with an angel of the Lord, until the morning light. That is pretty specific.

The bible is specific, it says man, yet no one else was there, this is Jacob's story and he says the man says he struggled with G!d and won and got a name change for it. He also then claims to have seen G!d face to face.

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. (Genesis 32:24-31)

Now you first tell me demigod, not much more than a man, then angel of G!d, I don't know the bible version you are using. I still say the struggle was a metaphor, an internal struggle for his own nature and understanding, and after overcoming it he was a changed man...a new name.

No spelunking here, just mining for gold.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Wil —

But that is God's not ours ... and it is obvious that God's omnipresence does not preserve man from evil, or pursuing the path of his own extinction....

Your doctrine is pantheism, or panentheism, but it is not Christian. You are of this world, Christ is not, and God is not. God made the world, but the world is not God, which is what you're saying. God is utterly other than the world, and distinct from it. If the whole created Kosmos ceased to exist, God would not be altered by one iota....
Thomas

lol, I picture you reading my posts and holding your fingers in a cross. "You are not Christian, blasphemer." Well, I follow my teacher, my elder brother and wayshower Jesus the Christ. I just can't figure out what the heck omnipresent means to you? To me it is everywhere present. I'm present, indicating either I'm in G!d or G!d is in me, and my fingernail, and the tree, and the ocean wave. Everywhere doesn't mean other than this world...look neither high or low, the kingdom is in your midst brother!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

lol, I picture you reading my posts and holding your fingers in a cross. "You are not Christian, blasphemer."

Actually, I'm shaking my head. You don't seem to see the point.

Originally Posted by wil

Well, I follow my teacher, my elder brother and wayshower Jesus the Christ.

Sadly, I don't think you do, as you exercise the option of selection, which is not following in any real or meaningful sense. You interpret the things He says in a way that suits yourself, and discreetly ignore those things He said which don't suit you.

Originally Posted by wil

I just can't figure out what the heck omnipresent means to you?

It does not mean that the presence of God in a person means that the person is God, which is the bit you can't seem to grasp.

People commit the most dreadful crimes in the name of God ... do you suppose He endorses those actions and renders them 'good' by His presence?

I just can't figure out how you can look at what's happening in the world and justify yourself on the grounds of God's omnipresence, without justifying everything else that's going on.

Thomas

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Quahom

uh, Jesus also spoke of the Saints...remember? So your opinion will refute his statement of apparent fact? I seriously have doubts about that.

I am not attempting to refute statements Jesus made. What do you mean Quahom by mentioning Jesus mentioning saints? Like, what are you referring to?

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

Reinterpretting is what we do well.

Because some do well, does not mean all do well. I happen to thinbk thome whom you follow do it very badly.

Originally Posted by wil

Hence the ability for the your denomination to reinterpret the commandment regarding idols, kissing medals and statues etc.

Not that old saw — looks like you're scrabbling for an argument to me. As that argument was done and dusted generations ago, I won't even bother to rehearse it.

That man can see does not mean he understands what he sees.

Originally Posted by wil

Again this is what continues to bother me. That your interpretation is ok, worshipping Mary and all, but any of my interpretation or that of others is wrong.

That's because your ideas are founded on error. We don't worship Mary, but then I'm sure you know that ...

... the point is that 'my' interpretation has a history, a provenance, a lineage and a legitimacy founded on 2000 years of philosophy and metaphysical examination.

Modern liberal interpretations are founded on the principle of individual assertion ... you reject what has gone before on no firmer principle than "what I choose to believe is true, because I choose believe it."

Thus, you toss 2,000 years of teaching, preaching, mystical speculation and philosophical inquiry aside, and go with what happens to take your fancy.

What is fundamentally unphilosophical is that you choose to believe Jesus saves, whilst in the same breathe refuse the necessary metaphysical underpinning of the idea of universal salvation.

You reduce Jesus to a myth ... and then proclaim your faith in a fantasy.

Thomas