Free Dating Site    

I said: Given the inflammatory way you present your anti-Christian rants, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be offended. As for emotional attachment to ones own faith, you really are the kettle calling the pot black! Maybe you should enjoy your personal faith and what G-d has revealed to you and leave others the same. It's an idea.

tmf said: Not that it was the right way for him to do it, but are you really surprised RO that a Jewish person, seeing how his faith is being misrepresented by some members of Christianity, might get a little touchy about it and not feel the need to be patient and tolerant anymore as so little patience and tolerance is being shown to him and his faith?

Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. I wish to ask, you do understand that except for the word omnipotent that was used (or a word like it) by John the revalator, a single time, none of those words were ever used in the scriptures to describe God. You do know that? So when you use them to prove your point of something concerning God, you are expressly coming from your own opinion, not the verses in the Bible.

"I and the Father are one."
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

^^^^ Your trinity quotes and comments only address 2/3 of the trinity, namely Jesus and God. What about the other 1/3?[/quot]
If you are asking me, I was only addressing the question of whether or not Jesus claimed to be God. If you are asking someone else, it's probably best to name them and quote them so that they know.
HTH*

*HTH = Hope that helps.

Trinity does not need to be in the Bible, there are numerous verses throughout the Bible that ... can be used to affirm the truth of such a doctrine. There are many words we use today that are not in the bible, but it is just a word to define such a thing. Theology is the study of God, but it is not in the Bible, so does it make it untrue? No, we just understand what it is, which is the study of God, just as Trinity is a doctrine that affirms what we read in the bible.

Why couldn't one be called a Christian if she follows the scriptures and rejects and/or questions the doctrine(s)? We are blessed with intelligence and decision-making abilities to decide on our own. Would it not be more righteous to use our gift of intelligence and reach our own conclusions, instead of saying "ok, the Pope said Limbo doesn't exist anymore, so now that's what I'm going to believe..." (apply that to positions on the earth being the center of the universe, abortion rights, birth control, stem cell research, etc. and you see that it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do about churches).

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

3.) And of course, this statement: "apply that to positions on the earth being the center of the universe, abortion rights, birth control, stem cell research, etc. and you see that it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do about churches"......... is also just your interpretation. As for me, I consider all of those issues as quite important and relevant to Christian teachings.

To show how the church often gets it wrong when it comes to science, it took the Vatican until 1992 to "officially" recognize that the Earth was not the center of the universe: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

Darwin's Evolution and "intelligent design" is another great example of church doctrine being closed to other interpretations.

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"

I wonder when overpopulation/starvation/warming of the planet will finally make the Vatican rescind their position on birth control (especially in countries like Mexico). Will it take them 1500 years to admit they were wrong about that?

I have watched a PBS panel (on Charley Rose) of predominant stem-cell biologists and researchers explain that the ethical arguments against the research that the George W. Bush blocked are exaggerated. Such well known scientists can be and are most often ethical. But people look to church doctrine for the answers, maybe because they don't have to use their brains or understand what is being said on PBS.

And so, the dichotomy between "people with brains" and "people who follow church doctrine" is a false one.

Jesus said love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc. The church translates that into behave as we say to save thy soul from the eternal fires of damnation.

Jacobus101: Interesting discussion here. I take your point about the Pope in 1992 forgiving the treatment. But it still seems like a long time to forgive something so heinous.

Your point about birth control and transubstantiation is a good one. I agree with you that in terms of faith, transubstantiation is a much stronger point. However, in terms of our society, which issue is more important? Human nature is such that "Natural Family Planning" doesn't work on a large scale, especially in developing countries. I didn't even mention HIV. Talking about abstention or the rhythm method as a solution is putting one's head in the sand.

I think we're saying the same thing. Of course people who read up and truly understand doctrine are intelligent! Doctrine is always more complicated than the basic truths that Jesus taught. I'm not sure what the value is added to Christianity by Holy Trinity - someone mentioned it was because of competing pagan religions and that a monotheistic spin would facilitating converting.

What I was saying is that the ignorant people tend to not question (understand) the doctrine, but just regurgitate and/or accept it. A good example would be to ask George W. Bush why stem-cell research should be blocked, and to have him debate it with scientists. His arguments will be dogma, as is always the case with religious extremism.

Isn't Joe-Catholic-in-the-pew mostly afraid of dying with mortal sins on his soul? He is motivated by fear and guilt to behave a certain way. I always found it ironic that so many Christians follow a doctrine in order "to live forever" (go to Heaven). Admittedly it's a great plan, but it's totally a selfish motivation on behalf of an individual. Shouldn't the Christ-like motivation to love and forgive be to make the world a better place for everyone?

Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deservest;
To give, and not to count the cost,
to fight, and not to heed the wounds,
to toil, and not to seek for rest,
to labor, and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing that we do thy will.

Jesus said love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc. The church translates that into behave as we say to save thy soul from the eternal fires of damnation.

Hiding through a spirit of fear leads to “destruction” (Heb 10:39). “God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control”—that, by contrast, is the beautiful way in which the Second Letter to Timothy (1:7) describes the fundamental attitude of the Christian.

From the Cross you received a new mission. From the Cross you became a mother in a new way: the mother of all those who believe in your Son Jesus and wish to follow him. The sword of sorrow pierced your heart. Did hope die? Did the world remain definitively without light, and life without purpose? At that moment, deep down, you probably listened again to the word spoken by the angel in answer to your fear at the time of the Annunciation: “Do not be afraid, Mary!” (Lk 1:30). How many times had the Lord, your Son, said the same thing to his disciples: do not be afraid! In your heart, you heard this word again during the night of Golgotha. Before the hour of his betrayal he had said to his disciples: “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). “Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (Jn 14:27). “Do not be afraid, Mary!” In that hour at Nazareth the angel had also said to you: “Of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:33). Could it have ended before it began? No, at the foot of the Cross, on the strength of Jesus's own word, you became the mother of believers. In this faith, which even in the darkness of Holy Saturday bore the certitude of hope, you made your way towards Easter morning. The joy of the Resurrection touched your heart and united you in a new way to the disciples, destined to become the family of Jesus through faith. In this way you were in the midst of the community of believers, who in the days following the Ascension prayed with one voice for the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14) and then received that gift on the day of Pentecost. The “Kingdom” of Jesus was not as might have been imagined. It began in that hour, and of this “Kingdom” there will be no end. Thus you remain in the midst of the disciples as their Mother, as the Mother of hope. Holy Mary, Mother of God, our Mother, teach us to believe, to hope, to love with you. Show us the way to his Kingdom! Star of the Sea, shine upon us and guide us on our way!

Were any of Jesus' messages specifically about the Trinity? No, that is the church's doctrine. So, then what is a Christian after all? So many Christians follow their church's doctrine, which is an interpretation of the scriptures.

Try addressing the facts,.... but then again by your posts I would say you are incabable [sic] of addressing anything from the facts of scripture.

Keyword search results 0 Results
Sorry. No results found for "trinity" in Keyword Search.

Keyword search results 276 Results
1. Matthew 1:25
But he did not make love with her until her first son had been born. He named him Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25 (in Context) Matthew 1 (Whole Chapter)
2. Matthew 5:43
`You have heard that the law says, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy."
Matthew 5:42-44 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
3. Matthew 5:44
But I tell you, love your enemies. Ask God to do good to those who trouble you.
Matthew 5:43-45 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
4. Matthew 5:46
If you love only those who love you, what reward will you get? Even the tax collectors do that.
Matthew 5:45-47 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
...

Just to prove my point about Love being a clear idea that doesn't require doctrine, there is lots to cite (but I only included some of the first results)

Are you saying that a doctrine is only valid if Jesus spoke about it?

"Doctrine" is more accurately and specifically defined than your personal definition -- feel free to use it, but please prefix it with "my definition of" ...

As for family planning, limbo, stem cell research, etc. are not "Christian Doctrines". they may be opinions and even doctrines of a specific group of Christians or churches, but you are muddying the waters with your analogies.

Ok, accusing me of slander is not what Jesus would have done probably. There's nothing negative to say it's doctrine. It just means that the church interpreted it from the scriptures. I already gave the definition of Doctrine in another post.

Getting back to your points about lack of citing I have done. Trinity Godhead is not in the scriptures, so I cannot quote anything. However, I can show it's not there by using some technology:

Accusing of slander, I hardly think so... from msg 139 in this thread:

Fast Facts on the Trinity
* The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
* The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
* The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
* The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
* Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
o Arianism (4th century)
o Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
o Jehovah's Witnesses
o Mormonism
o Unitarianism
* Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
o It is not mentioned in the Bible
o It does not make philosophical sense
o It is not compatible with monotheism
o It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
* Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
o It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
o It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
o It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
o The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Try your technology with 'grandfather'.........

Anyway, let's clear a lot of this up with the use of Google (more of my favorite technology). Here's a great web site that summarizes the different viewpoints

This is why that reason is given on that list above for rejecting Trinity doctrine because "It does not make philosophical sense."