Spirituality
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThink of the Trinity Doctrine as a defintion of the Christian God for that is what it really is. Trinity is the one word name that was decided upon by the Church council to explain the true Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So you are going to have to live with it because it has been the name for at least 1600 years and is not likely to change. SO GET OVER IT, ALREADY!
And He taught what we call the trinity of God,
He never mentions the doctrine, neither does Paul, strange one would think for
something so apparently important, don't you think.
03 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsno, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Think of the Trinity Doctrine as a defintion of the Christian God for that is what it really is. Trinity is the one word name that was decided upon by the Church council to explain the true Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So you are going to have to live with it because it has been the name for at least 1600 years and is not likely to change. [b]SO GET OVER IT, ALREADY! [/b]
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems to me that being a Christian requires selective/interpretations of the Bible which are dependent on your particular flavour of Christianity. I mean it wasn't that long ago you were trying to claim that the Biblical creation account in Genesis made reference to the primitive earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', which of course is patently false. Here you are pulling up Ron for something you have been guilty of in the past.
no, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.
03 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo the truth does not lie between two polarities. either it is true, or it is not. What I
It seems to me that being a Christian requires selective/interpretations of the Bible which are dependent on your particular flavour of Christianity. I mean it wasn't that long ago you were trying to claim that the Biblical creation account in Genesis made reference to the primitive earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', which of course is patently false. Here you are pulling up Ron for something you have been guilty of in the past.
stated was that the creation account is scientifically accurate and listed some ten
processes or so in chronological order. As the Bible does not concern itself with
details, merely the order, it seems self evident that the earth was enshrouded in
heavy gases and water from the primitive atmosphere and volcanic activity etc, if
you dispute this as a scientific fact, then provide your evidence, the Bible, while not
specifically providing these details, still remains accurate, in the order of events, this
is something quite different from uttering forth a lie, like Christ taught the trinity,
when in fact, he never mentions it. In retrospect, I readily admit that the Bible does
not explicitly state that the earth was enshrouded in heavy gases and water,
although it does mention a water canopy, or division. If RJH is willing to state that
the trinity is not explicitly taught, then fine, but he hasn't and therein lies the
difference.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI suspect it is unclear to everyone what you believe is a scientific fact.
No the truth does not lie between two polarities. either it is true, or it is not. What I
stated was that the creation account is scientifically accurate and listed some ten
processes or so in chronological order. As the Bible does not concern itself with
details, merely the order, it seems self evident that the earth was enshrouded in
heav ...[text shortened]... e trinity is not explicitly taught, then fine, but he hasn't and therein lies the
difference.
Originally posted by galveston75What do you want? I agree with you as far as the word trinity is never used in the scripture. There you have it. The key issue is this "Who Do men say that I am?" Regardless of anything or our finite understanding..... Jesus is the center of everything for mankind. He Jesus is not a created being. He Jesus is not an angel. The father says to obey the son and every knee will bow to Christ on earth and in Heaven so you can argue all you want but Christ at minimum is still God of God's.
You really don't get what you just quoted do you? I'm honestly really believing you and your buddy RJH are that far into this trap by satan called the tinity that you don't even understand what you post that clearly shows the trinity for what it is.
I've seen this over and over for all my life but it still astounds me when it happens again.
But there is always hope....
PS: The words theocratic government are not in scripture either. The words Watchtower society of Brooklyn NY are also not in scripture. SO WHAT?
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, but you reject a lot of scientific facts which have supporting empirical evidence. And since you are by no means a trained scientist, it is difficult to see how you could credibly evaluate what constitutes empirical evidence.
really? have I not consistently made it clear that it is one governed by empirical evidence, lord knows I have.
03 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kanother inaccuracy, the only so called scientific fact that I reject on the basis of empirical evidence, not lack of, is transmutation. I am not a trained lawyer either, but i know when i am breaking the law, making your assertion of not being able to assimilate scientific evidence on the basis of not being a trained scientist, ludicrous. I suppose that as you are not a trained painter, you cannot understand great works of art? or music and must resign yourself exclusively to whatever discipline you have studied, neeeext!
Yes, but you reject a lot of scientific facts which have supporting empirical evidence. And since you are by no means a trained scientist, it is difficult to see how you could credibly evaluate what constitutes empirical evidence.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAppreciation for art and music are subjective things not based on empiricism at all. Your analogy does not work.
another inaccuracy, the only so called scientific fact that I reject on the basis of empirical evidence, not lack of, is transmutation. I am not a trained lawyer either, but i know when i am breaking the law, making your assertion of not being able to assimilate scientific evidence on the basis of not being a trained scientist, ludicrous. I suppose ...[text shortened]... or music and must resign yourself exclusively to whatever discipline you have studied, neeeext!