Akivah
Well-Known Member
From what I read on the boards, the Trinity concept is one of the biggest flash points between the various Christian denominations.So getting them to abandon it might help peaceful relations.
What response did you get?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)
- Thread starter Coder
- Start date
From what I read on the boards, the Trinity concept is one of the biggest flash points between the various Christian denominations.So getting them to abandon it might help peaceful relations.
What response did you get?
Coder
Member
Again, I view that as a manner of speaking / language of the day. I think you're getting too hung up on terminology (which ironically is kind of my point about the Trinity doctrine). I believe that we are each one being in bodily form. The ability to reason and to consider matters beyond the flesh is one of our great gifts from God. For example, a married man might reason: "I could go to a bar and try to meet women, but I'm married and I love my wife and that would offend her and God whose child she is, so I'm not going to do that". OK? What is that? You call it "flesh" vs "spirit", I call it "using your body to God's glory". Simply using our minds enlightened by knowledge from God to think beyond a temporary pleasure to a higher purpose. Who we are does not change, perhaps you believe that we can live without a body, maybe so, but that's just a different form IMO, it's still the same person. I know that soul and body are long-held core beliefs but I think that's just a way to try and convey the reality that our existence is held in God's hands and our purposes go beyond pursuit of temporary goods/pleasures. "Spirit/soul" is a great way to capture this concept in a vocabulary/terminology but I don't think it's more than that. Even if you believe that as humans we have two parts, "flesh vs. spirit" doesn't analogize to God as Trinity - "God is spirit". Notice how Jesus was emphasizing this truth to the non-Jewish women at the well? Notice how Jesus told her that the Jews know who they worship. I think that's a bit of the truth of Judaism shining through in the Gospel of John which may have been heavily influenced by pagan beliefs. Maybe the woman at the well story was even a clue to Jewish Christian preachers at the time so they would pick up on that they were dealing with pagans. Notice how Revelations (also by John) is full of language that other Jews may have understood? So, maybe take Jesus' advice and listen to the Jewish people here who are trying to teach you as Jesus does that "God is Spirit"? What other doctrine is needed?
I think we both understand our respective beliefs at this point. Are you ready to move on to next point in this topic which may even help with this current point?
If so, here we go: Do you believe that you have a personal relationship with one God directly, apart from His persons, or do you believe that the only way that you can relate to the one God is through/in one of His Persons?
Last edited:
Coder
Member
Hi, do you believe in existence, yet believe that there is no intelligent Being who created all - that it's all just "here" with no explanation?
Last edited:
Coder... man, (lol woman?) this is a deep subject that can hardly be relegated to one sentence.Yes, one can talk to God directly even if you are not born again. None of the OT people were born-again and yet spoke to God. The prophet Isaiah was in the presence of God when he said "Here I am Lord, send me".
If you want an intimate relationship where you become bone of His bones and flesh of His flesh, it is required that you trust in the shed blood of Jesus. (The word communion is the same word as the intimate relationship between a man and a woman.)
God is everywhere. There is a Oneness in God yet there are aspects that separate them. For an example: Jesus speaks and appears to many people all over the world at the same and yet, at the same time, the Holy Spirit teaches and directs many people all over the world and at the same time.
It is a finite fallen mind trying to understand an infinite Holy God.
John 16:15 All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’ A oneness for sure.
Coder
Member
Hi Ken,
Let's consider this in the context of the Trinity doctrine. If a Trinitarian believes that they can have a personal relationship directly with God then are you not relating to God as one Personal Being? This is part of my point about the Trinity doctrine, is the doctrine really even practiced by all Trinitarians? If Trinitarians believe that God is in three Persons then how do you believe that you can relate to Him directly as one Personal Being? It would seem obvious that the only "Personal" relationship that a Trinitarian can believe they have with God is with one of the Persons. If you pray to God directly, then you must be praying to the three Persons at the same time? This would mean that a Trinitarian cannot believe that they can have a personal relationship with God directly as "One Personal Being".
LOL... then we are back to square one... I DO relate with my wife with my body, I DO relate with my wife with my soul (differently than my body), and I DO relate with my wife with my spiritual communion of love.
Likewise there are many who relate people with their bodies but have no soul or spirit connection etc etc.
Therefore, are you saying because I relate to my wife on three levels I am not relating to her as ONE person?
I guess, as we see by both our comments, it just depends on how you view it. Both sound very reasonable. Again, how can finite minds understand an infinite God in perfect understanding? Or will it take an eternity to understand Him.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
If the Primal Cause was an effect, He could not be the Primal Cause. To be an effect, He had to be caused and not the Cause of existence. Okay Viole, if you are an atheist, who caused yourself to exist? Your parents. And your parents? Their parents. And their parents? You must know by now that we can not go back ad infinitum. Back to the beginning, something or someone caused man to exist. Who could it have been if not the Creator? That's called a research according to the concept of Causality. And Causality is not without a beginning and an end. Now, be honest and answer me without twisting the meaning of the words.
Question begging. Calling It primal cause does not make it a cause.
As you said , causality is not without beginning and ending. And since beginning and ending make sense only with a time frame already in place, and in a certain thermodynamical state, it is obvious that it is not applicable to the Universe as a whole, or to Universes in thermal equilibrium. Unless we subscribe to an ontology of time that died about 100 years, ago.
But I have another question: what caused your free will? What is the chain of causal events that lead to you writing this post, for instance? Is that also reducible to the very beginning or did it begin to exist without a cause?
Ciao
- viole
Coder
Member
Hi Viole,
(By the way, God is not associated with a gender. In English we have no gender-neutral personal pronoun so God is referred to as "He". Also the concept of God as "Father" does not have any gender concept, "Father" refers to God as creator.)
There is no need for an explanation of a cause or a beginning in regards to God because "cause" and "beginning" are merely concepts in space-time fabric. I.e. there is much we don't understand but God knows.
People have trouble conceiving eternity because they want to see a "beginning". Consider time itself as a concept in our universe - the space-time fabric. So time itself is a creation. God exists. In what we call time, He (She) already knows all past and future in this universe. To Him it's all one "existence". "I am". Exodus 3:14
(By the way, God is not associated with a gender. In English we have no gender-neutral personal pronoun so God is referred to as "He". Also the concept of God as "Father" does not have any gender concept, "Father" refers to God as creator.)
There is no need for an explanation of a cause or a beginning in regards to God because "cause" and "beginning" are merely concepts in space-time fabric. I.e. there is much we don't understand but God knows.
Last edited:
Hi Viole,
People have trouble conceiving eternity because they want to see a "beginning". Consider time itself as a concept in our universe - the space-time fabric. So time itself is a creation. God exists. In what we call time, He (She) already knows all past and future in this universe. To Him it's all one "existence". "I am". Exodus 3:14
(By the way, God is not associated with a gender. In English we have no gender-neutral personal pronoun so God is referred to as "He". Also the concept of God as "Father" does not have any gender concept, "Father" refers to God as creator.)
There is no need for an explanation of a cause or a beginning in regards to God because "cause" and "beginning" are merely concepts in space-time fabric. I.e. there is much we don't understand but God knows.
Cool. Since cause and beginning are merely concept in space-time fabric, as you correctly said, I find it challenging to apply them to the space-time fabric itself.
Don't you think so?
Ciao
- viole
Coder
Member
Hi Viole,
Challenging, yes, but ultimately, I think it's the understanding that we humans don't really "know" anything. Even what we think we "know" is just for practical purposes. For example, we label things: "gravity", "light", "electron". This is all very nice, and we grasp physics to a point where we can see the patterns and "harness" the concepts for practical purposes. Well done. However, we all have this nagging "huh?" inside, because we don't know the meaning of these things nor the meaning of our existence. At the same time we believe an answer exists and we believe that this answer is beyond physics because of our internal thirst to know what this is all about and to know if a Being is really "in charge" and if the Being cares about us. We begin to see that these nagging questions/thirsts will never be satisfied by physics. We all seek to "phone home".
Maybe because there is simply no answer to any question involving "whys". Maybe there are only meaningful answers to questions involving "hows".
The problem with "why" questions is that they assume there is a "because" and therefore tend to be hopelessly question begging.
Ciao
- viole
Coder
Member
Scientists ask "why" all the time. They have faith that they will find a scientific answer. Their faith is reasonable because they have find been finding answers for centuries and science has advanced. There are questions that science doesn't address such as "Is there a Being who has authority over all, created all including us, and cares about us?" Science doesn't seek primarily to answer these questions. However, pick up any book about the universe even by an atheist, and I think you'll find mention of God, if only to say that's how some explain it. However, just as science can preconceive of and/or hope for answers to its questions through the centuries, we humans can conceive of God who can provide answer beyond all science. If we can conceive of God, then is it atoms/electrons in our brain that allow this? How can atoms and electrons conceive of God? I believe that God gives this to us.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
All questions bag for an answer. If you have ever met someone who does not question for an answer he or she is an idiot. Now, if by naming the Primal Cause the one Who caused the universe to exist is not accommodating in your mind, what or Who caused the universe to exist? Care to risk yourself into that? We never know what we can learn from each other!
Regarding Freewill, it has been caused into man by the nature of being a human being so that we have our own selves to blame for our wrongdoings and blame no one else. Somehow, that nature in man must have been caused by the Creator because irrational animals have missed that attribute. Freewill therefore has led me to use of my intellect to write this post to defend Judaism from the attacks of atheists and Christians, especially.
Absolutely nothing exists without a cause. Would you like to try me on that one? Please, mention to me something you believe popped out of the hat of the magician so to speak.
You see? You are bagging the question, again. You assume the Universe was caused by a who. How do you come to this conclusion after we have ascertained that causality takes place in space and time and, therefore, there is no logical warrant to apply it to spacetime itself?
Of course I am trying you on this one. By acting on a computer and writing posts you change the physical state of the Universe. So, let's focus. Maybe we found a candidate of that thing popping out form the magician's hat.
Where does the causal chain of events, if any, that led you to write that post, begin? No spiritual fuzzy smoke, please. Just a straight answer, if possible.
Somewhere between now and the birth of the Universe? In that case, what caused it?
Ciao
- viole
Actually, they tend to ask "how", not "why". I am not aware of any scientist that can tell me why that mountain in front of me is in Switzerland and not in New Jersey. They can maybe tell me how that came to be, but not why it came to be.
That tends to work, whenever you assume naturalism in your epistemology.
Science does not even address the existence of invisible and undetectable fairies in my garden. Which is a bummer, since I do not know why my chilies keep on disappearing.
Opening Feynman's Lectures on Physics. I do not see any mention of God. Like Laplace would say: the God hypothesys is not needed.
I can conceive Donal Duck existing on a planet in Proxima Centauri. Easy. I am sure atoms and electrons could not possibly conceive that. How else could I conceive this, if not by being inspired telepatically by Donald Duck in proxima Centauri, then?
Ciao
- viole
First, you need to know that today's Judaism is no longer the Judaism 2000 years ago. They adapted a different set of religious concepts. That's why they can't be accurate in reading the once Jewish Bible.
Coder
Member
Hi Viole,
It's true that belief in God is a matter of faith. However, belief in God is also reasonable.
Reasonable Part:
I simply don't think that all creation and all of us are here with no explanation. I also think no matter how far back one goes with cause and effect, we come to an uncaused cause - nor do we really understand the causes that we do have "explanations" for. I think that there are answers beyond physics and the answers of physics aren't really "answers" at all - they are just human ways of defining things and finding patterns. I also think that in the human person we see things like family life, love, kindness, generosity, and the concept of justice/fairness that point us beyond physics.
Faith Part: The ability to believe in God is a gift from God.
I think it's similar sometimes.
Well then, we need to get a quack right on it (maybe Donald Duck).
It's true that belief in God is a matter of faith. However, belief in God is also reasonable.
Reasonable Part:
I simply don't think that all creation and all of us are here with no explanation. I also think no matter how far back one goes with cause and effect, we come to an uncaused cause - nor do we really understand the causes that we do have "explanations" for. I think that there are answers beyond physics and the answers of physics aren't really "answers" at all - they are just human ways of defining things and finding patterns. I also think that in the human person we see things like family life, love, kindness, generosity, and the concept of justice/fairness that point us beyond physics.
Faith Part: The ability to believe in God is a gift from God.
Last edited: