What I believe

RJM said:
But those are anthropomorphic concepts. It doesn't apply to the relationship between Spirit and nature. It's like using grade one math to try to express the theory of relativity. It's just too limited.

Quarks don't exist alone in nature.

edited
Click to expand...

All 3 quarks are necessary to form 1 proton. That's not describing Trinitarianism, that's describing Partialism, which is a heresy.

In Trinitarianism, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, but the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are separate from each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Point is that trinitarian doesn't mean a polytheustic belief in three gods, as some insist whose knowledge of Catholic belief is usually thin and misguided.

Again, obviously not you @Ella S. I won't need to keep assuring you of this?
 
Last edited:
Ella S. said:
All 3 quarks are necessary to form 1 proton. That's not describing Trinitarianism, that's describing Partialism, which is a heresy.
Click to expand...
Quarks don't exist alone in nature. Altho 3 quarks comprise the proton -- the proton can't be divided into 3 quarks -- no quarks no proton, no proton no quarks

It's an imperfect analogy, trying to express how the primacy of Spirit weaves nature, imo

St Patrick used the shamrock leaf for analogy.

edited
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Father and son are human anthropomorphic words used to explain a spiritual concept in limited human words to limited minds..
Click to expand...
Agreed upon..

RJM said:
God is not really an actual Father in the sky. It's an attempted explanation for the relationship between God the Father and Christ the son..
Click to expand...
..that's not true.
"Father" is used in the Bible as Jesus used it eg. Our Father, whom art in heaven.
Jesus used 'Father' in the Bible as in the disciples also prayed to the Father .. meaning it is not exclusively Jesus' Father.

'Son' is used in the OT as well as the NT denoting a special relationship to G-d [ aka Father ]
 
RJM said:
And it's made worse when someone doesn't want to learn or understand..
Click to expand...
That applies to us all. You don't want to learn Muslims & Jews understanding, either.
You like the political interpretation. The one that evolved through vote in a series of ecumenical councils.

..and Jesus wasn't there to vote. :D
 
muhammad_isa said:
You don't want to learn Muslims & Jews understanding, either.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between understanding what someone believes and agreeing to believe the same. I am willing to learn. I have the right to disagree. I think Jesus died on the cross. I quite understand that Muslins support either the substitution or swoon theory. So I do understand*. I just don't agree.

Unfortunately you need to turn most of your posts into ad hom

*In fact I've put a lot of energy into understanding, including reading the Quran -- as you well know
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Point is that trinitarian doesn't mean a polytheustic belief in three gods, as some insist whose knowledge of Catholic belief is usually thin and misguided.

Again, obviously not you @Ella S. I won't need to keep assuring you of this?
Click to expand...

Of course. I just like talking about the various conceptions of the trinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM said:
Quarks don't exist alone in nature. Altho 3 quarks comprise the proton -- the proton can't be divided into 3 quarks -- no quarks no proton, no proton no quarks

It's an imperfect analogy, trying to express how the primacy of Spirit weaves nature, imo

St Patrick used the shamrock leaf for analogy.

edited
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the leaf analogy that St. Patrick used actually describes a different heresy; tritheism, where the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are distinct persons sharing one substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Ella S. said:
Interestingly, the leaf analogy that St. Patrick used actually describes a different heresy; tritheism, where the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are distinct persons sharing one substance.
Click to expand...
It's imperfect. Spirit weaves nature. The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, but is not turned by it.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Jesus used 'Father' in the Bible as in the disciples also prayed to the Father .. meaning it is not exclusively Jesus' Father.
Click to expand...
I never said otherwise
muhammad_isa said:
'Son' is used in the OT as well as the NT denoting a special relationship to G-d [ aka Father ]
Click to expand...
Ditto

It's about the relation between Spirit (Father) and nature (man). In special case of man. It's an anthropomorphic analogy not meant to be taken literally
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
It's an anthropomorphic analogy not meant to be taken literally
Click to expand...
You say one thing and mean another..

G-d is a trinity ---> Father is G-d .. Jesus is G-d .. Holy Spirit is G-d. [ Jesus is both G-d and man etc. etc. ]

If that is not a literal interpretation of "Son", then what is?!
 
muhammad_isa said:
G-d is a trinity ---> Father is G-d .. Jesus is G-d .. Holy Spirit is G-d. [ Jesus is both G-d and man etc. etc. ]
Click to expand...
The Christ -- the bridge between God and man (Spirit and nature) -- manifest in the person of Jesus during his physical manifestation in the dimension of nature

The relationship between Spirit and nature, in the special case of man.
 
muhammad_isa said:
..and so is Moses .. the bridge between God and man..
Click to expand...
Not in the same way. Moses was God's spokesman. Christ was far more. Says the New Testament, in case you're going to ask on what authority
 
Christ the new Adam, etc
Christ IS the message, or whatever you want to call it (according to mainstream Christian belief)
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
It's imperfect. Spirit weaves nature. The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, but is not turned by it.
Click to expand...

Tritheism is possible, and many of its arguments are strong. Partialism is also possible, with many strong arguments.

Trinitarianism is impossible. It violates the Law of Identity, which is a rarely seen formal fallacy known as Contradictio in Adjecto.

Perhaps God can do the impossible or is somehow above logic, given that God is often described as omnipotent and sometimes viewed as the source of logic. Do you believe that God is capable of violating logic?
 
Ella S. said:
Do you believe that God is capable of violating logic?
Click to expand...
Yes. Anytime. It's Plato's cave. Man does not decide or determine divine law. Spiritual laws and process may often seem contrary or opposite to natural appearance. Nature does not indicate that the meek shall inherit the earth, or that he who saves his life will lose it, give all to the poor and follow me, etc?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Yes. Anytime. It's Plato's cave. Man does not decide or determine divine law. Spiritual laws and process may often seem contrary or opposite to natural appearance. Nature does not indicate that blessed are the meek, or that he who saves his life will lose it, give all to the poor and follow me, etc?
Click to expand...

Which brings me to my next question.

@muhammad_isa , do you believe that God is capable of violating logic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top