Yes, thanks.Originally Posted by Nossa
I hope I got your question right and answered it thoroughly
Yes, thanks.I hope I got your question right and answered it thoroughly
It's not polytheism. You confuse the word person, as in three persons, as separate beings. It's the same Being manifesting Himself as God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made.
Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God is one Being Who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by "person"[1]): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as " three persons[2] in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union. Support of the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. Most denominations within Christianity are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a mark of Christian orthodoxy.[3][4]
Last edited by Virgil; 03-30-2008 at 07:58 PM.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
As long as we're on the subject of the trinity, I have a question. How do you define a seperate being?
When I think of the trinity I think of 3 seperate bodies unified in mind. God's consciousness is within God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. But this raises a problem, because when Christ prays in the garden on the night before his crucifiction, he asks God to spare him if possible. This suggests two seperate consciousnesses, both on a superficial level, because Jesus is speaking to God, but also on a deeper level, because God and Jesus clearly disagree about the upcoming crucifiction. Even though he recognizes the inevitability of his death, Christ asks God to spare him, and God says no. This, to me, suggests that the trinity must contain at least two seperate beings.
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
Good question SirR. I'm not knowledgable enough to know the answer to that.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I take your point. But we all believe that we are right when we express an opinion. Otherwise, why express it at all? I would not however agree that the expression of such opinions is synonomous with intolerance or a lack of respect for other people`s beliefs. I prefer to think of it as the dialectic in action.
Excuse me for being so presumptuous as to answer, but speaking as a former Catholic, no, there is only one being, not two, not three.
St. Patrick is famously alleged to have explained the Trinity with a three-leaf clover: three leaves, one plant. Someone else likened the Trinity to three candles with their wicks twisted together: three candles, one flame. I remember the illustrations, perhaps from my catechism.
Speaking as me, the Church had a problem. If Christ and the Holy Spirit were regarded as lesser beings it weakened Their influence and utility, but to present them as equals with God created conflict with the first commandment. They solved the problem with doublethink. Three distinct persons, one being. "Triune Godhead be adored."
By the way, I like your spelling 'crucifixion' as 'crucifiction.' Very cute. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that the crucifixion never occurred. Are you then referring to the apocryphal bits of the story, like His falling three times on the way to Calvary, or leaving his faceprint in Veronica's veil?
Wow, it's cool that it worked out to spell fiction, but alas no, I'm just a poor speller.
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
I am aware of how Catholic Church addresses the problem of trinity, and how it explains it, I just speak here from the Jewish perspective. And from that perspective, any 'splitting' of G-d, in any way, is polytheism - even if 'masqued' nicely this way. [The same goes for saints, praying to saints, etc.]
The major principle of Jewish faith is that G-d is one. To 'alterate' that just a little bit (like with trinity) is from Jewish perspective no longer with accordance with that principle.
Of course, Catholic Church and Christians in general have got argumentation for their beliefs why that's not it, and I'm aware of that argumentation, I just wanted to present Jewish perspective here.
No message... Apologies.
I am indifferent to others' beliefs at all. Everyone reserves the right to hold a particular belief and has the right to critique as well.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
There is a significant difference between respecting the RIGHT to hold any religious opinion or belief, and respecting the particular opinion or belief ITSELF. It is far easier to do the former than to do the latter.
Last edited by jgweed; 06-02-2008 at 01:29 PM.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Here's the thing. If it's very important to you then you won't care about someone's belief - if your belief tells you that they are in trouble. If I saw someone about to get steamrolled by an 18 wheeler, I wouldn't care if they believed there was really an 18 wheeler coming or not, I'd be shoving them out of the way. Who cares if they are offended that I don't respect their right to believe that they are not in trouble, I see them in trouble and want to do something.
If I believe that if a person doesn't give their heart to the Lord and live for Him, they will be consigned to hell, it isn't disrespect I am offering them by telling them about Jesus, but it's love I'm showing them, by pointing out what I believe to be the way to heaven and to avoid the destructive justice they deserve from God.
The person has the right to disagree with me that they are in trouble without God, but my telling them the good news is not disrespect...quite the opposite actually. I won't tell them they are a moron if they don't believe the way that I do. But for me to be silent, and to believe what I believe...that would be disrespectful.
When you ask me to 'Respect others beliefs' what do you mean?
Must I respect their right to believe ? Their Religion ? {The Giant Pommegranat for example}. Just want to get it right, please.
I would expect it would be both. But I'm not a moderator here.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I suspect it's one of those Language things. I'm not able to respect most religions. It's not a choice.
Posting Permissions
