C'mon, Jolly, you know better than that: life on Earth is but a moment, the flight of a sparrow through a hall:
“Your Majesty, when we compare the present life of man on earth with that time of which we have no knowledge, it seems to me like the swift flight of a single sparrow through the banqueting-hall where you are sitting at dinner on a winter’s day with your thegns and counsellors. In the midst there is a comforting fire to warm the hall; outside the storms of winter rain or snow are raging. This sparrow flies swiftly in through one door of the hall, and out through another. While he is inside, he is safe from the winter storms; but after a moment of comfort, he vanishes from sight into the wintry world from which he came. Even so, man appears on earth for a little while; but of what went before this life or of what follows, we know nothing. Therefore, if this new teaching has brought any more certain knowledge, it seems only right that we should follow it.”
- the venerable Bede
Life on Earth is short. Heaven and Hell are infinite. So if you don't manage to get that ticket to Heaven while on Earth, you've wasted your life, by a factor of infinity.
That is, unless the Christians are wrong, in which case you're right.
That is, unless the Christians are wrong, in which case you're right.
How does that follow? What is ANY life, on atheism, if not wasted? Value and meaning exist only in your mind. There is no evidence that they exist. Thus, by your own standards of measurement, any value/meaning you think you have accrued is actually personal fantasy. Who says that writing voluminously or causing the NYTimes to change its front page actually means anything? If personal opinion actually changes reality, then wouldn't Christianity be true since so many ppl blv it? Many more than even heard of Hitchens.
How does that follow? What is ANY life, on atheism, if not wasted? Value and meaning exist only in your mind. There is no evidence that they exist. Thus, by your own standards of measurement, any value/meaning you think you have accrued is actually personal fantasy. Who says that writing voluminously or causing the NYTimes to change its front page actually means anything? If personal opinion actually changes reality, then wouldn't Christianity be true since so many ppl blv it? Many more than even heard of Hitchens.
The mere observation that value and meaning are subjective does not equate to the conclusion that they are “personal fantasy.” Something does not become fantasy simply by virtue of its subjectiveness. For example, subjectively, to me, vanilla tastes far better than chocolate does. This is not a fantasy but, rather, a statement of subjectivity.
Christopher Hitchens strove to be a public intellectual, as evidenced by his prolific public speaking, debating, commentating and writing. Of writing, he described it not as a vocation but, rather, as an expression of identity. He took manifest pleasure in rhetorical engagement. According to his own standards, then, as discerned from everything he’s written and said, he would consider his life successful, and far from wasted.
I think if you think hard, you can figure out what "careful theological qualification" means, Bernd.
And yes, God can be seen. It is true to say He is invisible and also true to say that He is visible. Jesus Christ was and remains visible, for example, because He is a man, incarnate in a human body.
But the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in your mind.
Sigh. Haven't you noticed yet that I sort of enjoy comparing worldviews? The entire external world, your body, other people, your sensations, could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
"And yes, God can be seen. It is true to say He is invisible and also true to say that He is visible. Jesus Christ was and remains visible, for example, because He is a man, incarnate in a human body."
God can be seen? Is God the Father visible? It's so confusing when there are three gods to keep track of.
Jesus remains visible? Where can I go to see this visible Jesus?
Jesus WAS a man. As you would say, Jesus is no longer a man.
So, in making your argument that things like value and meaning exist beyond the mind, you point to things that are physical and material. I'm just trying to figure out what one is allowed to use as "evidence".
"The entire external world, your body, other people, your sensations, could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind."
Well, ok, that's fine. But I don't understand why the same principle isn't true for you and your external world. Saying the entire external world could be something that only exists in MY mind is not an argument against the proposition that the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
You atheistz just don't get it, do you? Rho simply has different- better definitions of "meaning" than you do. Your definition of "meaning" has to do with perceptions of and feelings about what seems to be the world we live in: stars, planets, earth, life, love- none of which you can prove to exist- while Rho's definition of "meaning" applies to an infinite gaseous invertebrate and an infinite life of harping on clouds. Since Rho's definition of "meaning" is thus infinitely, if not infinitely squared, larger than your definition, it obviously wins the argument hands down.
No, God the Father is not visible. The Holy Spirit has occasionally been visible in the form of a dove. Jesus Himself has most often been visible, and since His incarnation He remains visible. Jesus IS STILL a man, to this day, and will be the God-man forever. He will never divest Himself of His human nature and body.
No, there are not 3 gods. How many times must you be corrected on this? It's clear you don't care much about the truth.
My reference to God's visibility had nothing to do with my request for evidence of value and meaning. Did you already forget how that started? You know, how you asked about it?
You said: Saying the entire external world could be something that only exists in MY mind is not an argument against the proposition that the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
You made a statement without any supporting argument. I was just returning the favor. Both are unprovable, and since they're BOTH unprovable, to embrace them would mean that one's entire worldview is self-defeating. Interestingly, that would also mean that no value or meaning exists.
zilch, Quite a thickheaded comment. My requests for evidence of value and meaning are not the same as saying "my definitions of those are better than yours". Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk.
What if I consider it wasted? Who is right and how can we know?
You considering Christopher Hitchens' life to have been wasted is, again, akin to you considering chocolate to be a superior ice cream selection to vanilla (which would be contrary to my actual selection). You can hold whatever view you want, but it is not terribly relevant to the principal.
zilch, Quite a thickheaded comment. My requests for evidence of value and meaning are not the same as saying "my definitions of those are better than yours". Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk.
Well, then, where's the evidence for your definition of "meaning", which you obviously use differently than we do? In the lack of evidence, I can only imagine that you consider your definition to be somehow larger or otherwise better. I'm willing to be proven wrong, however: let's have your evidence for God, Heaven, and Hell, and then we can move on.
And no, I wasn't drunk. I was only drunk once in my life; and while it was a learning experience, I don't see any pressing need to repeat it.
“No, God the Father is not visible. The Holy Spirit has occasionally been visible in the form of a dove. Jesus Himself has most often been visible, and since His incarnation He remains visible. Jesus IS STILL a man, to this day, and will be the God-man forever. He will never divest Himself of His human nature and body.”
Huh. There are material bodies in heaven? So there’s an actual, human-shaped body named “Jesus” somewhere in heaven? It has flesh and blood and a penis? How does this work? Where is this physical body hanging out? How is this body kept alive? What does it eat?
Men die. Human bodies die. If the physical body known as Jesus is still alive after 2000 years, then this ain’t a man.
And, this still doesn’t solve the problem of the lack of visibility here on Earth. Again, where can I go on Earth to see the man in the flesh?
“No, there are not 3 gods. How many times must you be corrected on this? It's clear you don't care much about the truth.”
Look at your own words.
God the Father – Not visible
God the Spirit – Occasionally visible in the form of a dove
God the Jesus – Most visible, hanging out in heaven with human body, still a man
Three gods.
You made a statement without any supporting argument. I was just returning the favor. Both are unprovable, and since they're BOTH unprovable, to embrace them would mean that one's entire worldview is self-defeating. Interestingly, that would also mean that no value or meaning exists.
I don't follow the reasoning here.
"Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk."
"You either let me define my own position or you don't."
Yes, I understand that this is how the whole trinity thing works.
One "defines" (makes up) a position to turn three seperate entities into one entity. It's all just a kludge to avoid violation of the prime directive, and it requires contorting the languate beyond the breaking point. Those who point this out are deemed "fools" by those who can see the emperor's new clothes.
It's very simple. God talks to Jesus. Jesus talks to God. God is well pleased with Jesus. Jesus's God is in heaven while Jesus is on Earth. God has one will, Jesus has a different will. Jesus asks why God has forsaken him. That's at least two gods.
“No. At this time there is A material body, singular, in heaven.”
So, if you go to heaven, YOU don’t have a material body, but there’s an actual physical human body named Jesus floating around in heaven? Wow. Since you don’t have a material body, can you see this human body named Jesus?
"No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven."
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
“He has flesh and bones and a penis, yes. Don't know about the blood part.”
Cool. Does God the Father have a penis?
>Where is this physical body hanging out?
"Heaven. Didn't you just ask that?"
Well, yeah, obviously, but what I meant was where’s heaven?
"What experience do you have with immortal resurrected bodies, such that you can make such confident assertions on the topic? Please let me know how you know this, and why anyone should believe you and not Jesus."
Oh, never mind. I keep forgetting that you live in a world of imaginary can openers.
"No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven."
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
A more precise way of saying this is that Jesus is fully God and fully man, as I've argued here. There is no mathematical problem with this formulation.
It's very simple. God talks to Jesus. Jesus talks to God. God is well pleased with Jesus. Jesus's God is in heaven while Jesus is on Earth. God has one will, Jesus has a different will. Jesus asks why God has forsaken him. That's at least two gods.
This conclusion does not follow since in those passages, "God" refers to God-the-Father, not God-the-Trinity. Context determines whether the term "God" refers to a specific person of the Trinity, or the Trinity as a whole.
"Context determines whether the term "God" refers to a specific person of the Trinity, or the Trinity as a whole."
I'm curious. What verses refer to the Trinity as a whole? In what contexts would the term "God" refer to the Trinity?
I understand your point about context, but you still have three "persons" or three gods. They don't even have the same "will". I understand that the three gods might act collectively, but it's still three gods.
I understand that the three gods might act collectively, but it's still three gods.
No, it's not.
See how easy that is?
Here's another example.
David, you worship river sprites. Don't you? Now, when you deny it, I'm going to ignore your denial and repeat the charge. Over and over again. That'll be a lot like what you're doing here.
One "defines" (makes up) a position to turn three seperate entities into one entity.
Or to understand the simultaneous existence of three hypostases and one ousios.
if you go to heaven, YOU don’t have a material body,
Correct, for now. Nobody who dies right now has a material body, b/c it's either destroyed or buried or what have you. At the end of the world, God will resurrect all bodies, immortal. So heaven will actually be the Earth, but recreated, redeemed, renewed, and all its inhabitants will be in physical bodies similar to Jesus'.
Since you don’t have a material body, can you see this human body named Jesus?
I don't know. I know that after the final resurrection and all that, we will be physically in proximity, yes, so I expect to see Him, and not only that, but to touch Him and hug Him and talk to Him face to face.
Does God the Father have a penis?
No, the Father is not incarnate.
what I meant was where’s heaven?
I don't know.
What verses refer to the Trinity as a whole?
Quite a few. The creation narrative in Genesis 1 does. Notice the one God, saying "let Us make man in Our image". Another really interesting one is Genesis 19:24Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
There are lots more. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to take a look at a few. Also - read this.
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
It adds up to 200% like river sprites are worthy of worship.
I must say that the human imagination is a wondrous thing. Don’t want to waste too much on the bodies in heaven stuff, because frankly, I find this all very bizarre. I don’t mean “bizarre” in a derogatory way. I simply use the word as a descriptor with no value judgment attached.
“Correct, for now. Nobody who dies right now has a material body, b/c it's either destroyed or buried or what have you.”
So, we have a universe filled with billions of non-material souls just hanging around in a non-material way, wanting to get a body back. Interesting. Very strange.
Oh, I think you forgot about post-resurrection re-animated bodies that strolled around Jerusalem. They were clearly dead, but they got material bodies for their outing. What happened to those bodies?
“At the end of the world, God will resurrect all bodies, immortal. So heaven will actually be the Earth, but recreated, redeemed, renewed, and all its inhabitants will be in physical bodies similar to Jesus'.”
Ok, so you’ll get your penis back? What for? What are you going to do with it? As you’ve noted, Jesus-llike bodies don’t have to eat, so presumably, they don’t have to urinate either. And what would the function of all the other body parts? What about sex? Do you get to have sex?
“So I expect to see Him, and not only that, but to touch Him and hug Him and talk to Him face to face.”
Not so fast, my friend. God may have condemned you to eternal torture before you were born. Could be that you’ll be hugging Satan instead.
“The creation narrative in Genesis 1 does. Notice the one God, saying "let Us make man in Our image".”
“Us” and “our” are plural. Refers to a group of individuals. Or many gods. How do you know that this is the "one god" speaking? It’s much more likely that this is a remnant of the polytheism from which Judaism developed.
There’s nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1 to indicate that elohim means specifically father+son+spirit as a unified entity or ousia or any term from Greek philosophy. I’ll bet the ancient Hebrews would be surprised to find Greek philosophy in the Bible that is the cultural descendent of the ancient Jewish texts.
“Another really interesting one is Genesis 19:24.”
Yes, here Yahweh is clearly singular. One god, one person, one entity. This is the god who remains at the end of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. At the end of the transition, there’s no more elohim. No trinity here either.
In the OT, Yahweh always speaks using the “I” pronoun. If you look into the cultural history of Yahweh, we find a god who always acts as a single individual in conflict with other gods like Baal or when destroying towns like Sodom and Gomorrah. No hint of “simultaneous existence of three hypostases and one ousios”. No hints in the OT of one part of Yahweh talking to another part of Yahweh. Again, nothing in the context of the OT to indicate that Yahweh means father+son+spirit as a unified entity.
So, you still need to find verses that specifically refer to the Trinity as a whole. For example, could you point to the verse in the NT that uses the Greek words for “trinity” or “triune”?
“It adds up to 200% like river sprites are worthy of worship.”
So, 100% man and 100% God adds up like river sprites ar Sodom and Gomorrah worthy of worship? I agree.
David, I mean River Sprite Worshiper: that's just what I was hoping to hear! I bet everyone goes to River Sprite Heaven when they die, even if they don't believe in River Sprites! That means that Rho will be there too! Of course, he'll probably just figure that it's the Christian Heaven, but I bet he'll be surprised to see us there!
Rho- you say:
So my wish actually brings river sprites into existence?a
How else are gods created? I sure don't see any other explanation for their existence.
41 comments:
I truly hope that he had an encounter with Christ before he was judged. God is a great and merciful savior, so maybe. It's too bad he wasted his life.
Hey, I agree- Christopher Hitchens is no longer an atheist!
A man whose voluminous writings could fill a couple of shelves.
A man for whom The New York Times redrew the printing of its front page.
A man whose body of work as a public intellectual rivals that of any other such person of the last several decades.
He wasted his life? Please.
C'mon, Jolly, you know better than that: life on Earth is but a moment, the flight of a sparrow through a hall:
“Your Majesty, when we compare the present life of man on earth with that time of which we have no knowledge, it seems to me like the swift flight of a single sparrow through the banqueting-hall where you are sitting at dinner on a winter’s day with your thegns and counsellors. In the midst there is a comforting fire to warm the hall; outside the storms of winter rain or snow are raging. This sparrow flies swiftly in through one door of the hall, and out through another. While he is inside, he is safe from the winter storms; but after a moment of comfort, he vanishes from sight into the wintry world from which he came. Even so, man appears on earth for a little while; but of what went before this life or of what follows, we know nothing. Therefore, if this new teaching has brought any more certain knowledge, it seems only right that we should follow it.”
- the venerable Bede
Life on Earth is short. Heaven and Hell are infinite. So if you don't manage to get that ticket to Heaven while on Earth, you've wasted your life, by a factor of infinity.
That is, unless the Christians are wrong, in which case you're right.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
That is, unless the Christians are wrong, in which case you're right.
How does that follow?
What is ANY life, on atheism, if not wasted?
Value and meaning exist only in your mind. There is no evidence that they exist. Thus, by your own standards of measurement, any value/meaning you think you have accrued is actually personal fantasy.
Who says that writing voluminously or causing the NYTimes to change its front page actually means anything? If personal opinion actually changes reality, then wouldn't Christianity be true since so many ppl blv it? Many more than even heard of Hitchens.
"Value and meaning exist only in your mind. There is no evidence that they exist."
Things that only exist in the mind don't exist? Interesting.
Read it again. Is that what I said?
"Is that what I said?"
Hmm, having read it again, I'm not sure what you're saying. Could you clarify?
I am making no statement either way. I am asking for evidence.
There is no evidence that they exist.
"There is no evidence that they exist."
There is no evidence that value and meaning exist? Because they are only in the mind? Yes?
"There is no evidence that they exist" is to be taken as a challenge to produce evidence that they do in fact exist.
"There is no evidence that they exist" is to be taken as a challenge to produce evidence that they do in fact exist.
Ah, I see. Got it now. Some days I'm a little slower than others.
I assume that you think that these things exist and your evidence that they exist has something to do with an invisible, non-material being?
It is not true to say that God is invisible w/o careful theological qualification, which I'm unsure you're prepared to make.
If you're asking whether the God of the Bible's existence means that value and meaning exist, the answer is most definitely.
My own question remains unanswered, however.
How does that follow?
What is ANY life, on atheism, if not wasted?
Value and meaning exist only in your mind. There is no evidence that they exist. Thus, by your own standards of measurement, any value/meaning you think you have accrued is actually personal fantasy.
Who says that writing voluminously or causing the NYTimes to change its front page actually means anything? If personal opinion actually changes reality, then wouldn't Christianity be true since so many ppl blv it? Many more than even heard of Hitchens.
The mere observation that value and meaning are subjective does not equate to the conclusion that they are “personal fantasy.” Something does not become fantasy simply by virtue of its subjectiveness. For example, subjectively, to me, vanilla tastes far better than chocolate does. This is not a fantasy but, rather, a statement of subjectivity.
Christopher Hitchens strove to be a public intellectual, as evidenced by his prolific public speaking, debating, commentating and writing. Of writing, he described it not as a vocation but, rather, as an expression of identity. He took manifest pleasure in rhetorical engagement. According to his own standards, then, as discerned from everything he’s written and said, he would consider his life successful, and far from wasted.
What if I consider it wasted?
Who is right and how can we know?
"It is not true to say that God is invisible w/o careful theological qualification, which I'm unsure you're prepared to make."
Huh? You can see God? What does "careful theological qualification" mean?
"If you're asking whether the God of the Bible's existence means that value and meaning exist, the answer is most definitely."
But the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in your mind.
I think if you think hard, you can figure out what "careful theological qualification" means, Bernd.
And yes, God can be seen. It is true to say He is invisible and also true to say that He is visible. Jesus Christ was and remains visible, for example, because He is a man, incarnate in a human body.
But the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in your mind.
Sigh. Haven't you noticed yet that I sort of enjoy comparing worldviews?
The entire external world, your body, other people, your sensations, could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
"And yes, God can be seen. It is true to say He is invisible and also true to say that He is visible. Jesus Christ was and remains visible, for example, because He is a man, incarnate in a human body."
God can be seen? Is God the Father visible? It's so confusing when there are three gods to keep track of.
Jesus remains visible? Where can I go to see this visible Jesus?
Jesus WAS a man. As you would say, Jesus is no longer a man.
So, in making your argument that things like value and meaning exist beyond the mind, you point to things that are physical and material. I'm just trying to figure out what one is allowed to use as "evidence".
"The entire external world, your body, other people, your sensations, could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind."
Well, ok, that's fine. But I don't understand why the same principle isn't true for you and your external world. Saying the entire external world could be something that only exists in MY mind is not an argument against the proposition that the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
You atheistz just don't get it, do you? Rho simply has different- better definitions of "meaning" than you do. Your definition of "meaning" has to do with perceptions of and feelings about what seems to be the world we live in: stars, planets, earth, life, love- none of which you can prove to exist- while Rho's definition of "meaning" applies to an infinite gaseous invertebrate and an infinite life of harping on clouds. Since Rho's definition of "meaning" is thus infinitely, if not infinitely squared, larger than your definition, it obviously wins the argument hands down.
I hope I helped clear that up for you guyz.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
No, God the Father is not visible.
The Holy Spirit has occasionally been visible in the form of a dove.
Jesus Himself has most often been visible, and since His incarnation He remains visible. Jesus IS STILL a man, to this day, and will be the God-man forever. He will never divest Himself of His human nature and body.
No, there are not 3 gods. How many times must you be corrected on this? It's clear you don't care much about the truth.
My reference to God's visibility had nothing to do with my request for evidence of value and meaning. Did you already forget how that started? You know, how you asked about it?
You said:
Saying the entire external world could be something that only exists in MY mind is not an argument against the proposition that the God of the Bible could simply be something that only exists in YOUR mind.
You made a statement without any supporting argument. I was just returning the favor.
Both are unprovable, and since they're BOTH unprovable, to embrace them would mean that one's entire worldview is self-defeating. Interestingly, that would also mean that no value or meaning exists.
zilch,
Quite a thickheaded comment.
My requests for evidence of value and meaning are not the same as saying "my definitions of those are better than yours".
Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk.
What if I consider it wasted?
Who is right and how can we know?
You considering Christopher Hitchens' life to have been wasted is, again, akin to you considering chocolate to be a superior ice cream selection to vanilla (which would be contrary to my actual selection). You can hold whatever view you want, but it is not terribly relevant to the principal.
zilch,
Quite a thickheaded comment.
My requests for evidence of value and meaning are not the same as saying "my definitions of those are better than yours".
Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk.
Well, then, where's the evidence for your definition of "meaning", which you obviously use differently than we do? In the lack of evidence, I can only imagine that you consider your definition to be somehow larger or otherwise better. I'm willing to be proven wrong, however: let's have your evidence for God, Heaven, and Hell, and then we can move on.
And no, I wasn't drunk. I was only drunk once in my life; and while it was a learning experience, I don't see any pressing need to repeat it.
“No, God the Father is not visible. The Holy Spirit has occasionally been visible in the form of a dove. Jesus Himself has most often been visible, and since His incarnation He remains visible. Jesus IS STILL a man, to this day, and will be the God-man forever. He will never divest Himself of His human nature and body.”
Huh. There are material bodies in heaven? So there’s an actual, human-shaped body named “Jesus” somewhere in heaven? It has flesh and blood and a penis? How does this work? Where is this physical body hanging out? How is this body kept alive? What does it eat?
Men die. Human bodies die. If the physical body known as Jesus is still alive after 2000 years, then this ain’t a man.
And, this still doesn’t solve the problem of the lack of visibility here on Earth. Again, where can I go on Earth to see the man in the flesh?
“No, there are not 3 gods. How many times must you be corrected on this? It's clear you don't care much about the truth.”
Look at your own words.
God the Father – Not visible
God the Spirit – Occasionally visible in the form of a dove
God the Jesus – Most visible, hanging out in heaven with human body, still a man
Three gods.
You made a statement without any supporting argument. I was just returning the favor. Both are unprovable, and since they're BOTH unprovable, to embrace them would mean that one's entire worldview is self-defeating. Interestingly, that would also mean that no value or meaning exists.
I don't follow the reasoning here.
"Hopefully you didn't think that comment was actually worthwhile, or you were drunk."
C'mon Alan, you're better than this.
"I hope I helped clear that up for you guyz."
Actually, it does!
Three gods
You either let me define my own position or you don't.
The result of the former - we can continue discussing, and you don't look like a fool.
The result of the latter - the opposite of each side of the former.
There are material bodies in heaven?
No. At this time there is A material body, singular, in heaven.
So there’s an actual, human-shaped body named “Jesus” somewhere in heaven?
No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven.
It has flesh and blood and a penis?
He has flesh and bones and a penis, yes. Don't know about the blood part.
How does this work?
It is supernatural. I don't know how it works, but God is all-powerful.
Where is this physical body hanging out?
Heaven. Didn't you just ask that?
How is this body kept alive?
Jesus' body is immortal.
What does it eat?
Nothing.
Men die. Human bodies die
What experience do you have with immortal resurrected bodies, such that you can make such confident assertions on the topic?
If the physical body known as Jesus is still alive after 2000 years, then this ain’t a man.
Please let me know how you know this, and why anyone should believe you and not Jesus.
"You either let me define my own position or you don't."
Yes, I understand that this is how the whole trinity thing works.
One "defines" (makes up) a position to turn three seperate entities into one entity. It's all just a kludge to avoid violation of the prime directive, and it requires contorting the languate beyond the breaking point. Those who point this out are deemed "fools" by those who can see the emperor's new clothes.
It's very simple. God talks to Jesus. Jesus talks to God. God is well pleased with Jesus. Jesus's God is in heaven while Jesus is on Earth. God has one will, Jesus has a different will. Jesus asks why God has forsaken him. That's at least two gods.
“No. At this time there is A material body, singular, in heaven.”
So, if you go to heaven, YOU don’t have a material body, but there’s an actual physical human body named Jesus floating around in heaven? Wow. Since you don’t have a material body, can you see this human body named Jesus?
"No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven."
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
“He has flesh and bones and a penis, yes. Don't know about the blood part.”
Cool. Does God the Father have a penis?
>Where is this physical body hanging out?
"Heaven. Didn't you just ask that?"
Well, yeah, obviously, but what I meant was where’s heaven?
"What experience do you have with immortal resurrected bodies, such that you can make such confident assertions on the topic? Please let me know how you know this, and why anyone should believe you and not Jesus."
Oh, never mind. I keep forgetting that you live in a world of imaginary can openers.
DAVID SAID:
"No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven."
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
A more precise way of saying this is that Jesus is fully God and fully man, as I've argued here. There is no mathematical problem with this formulation.
It's very simple. God talks to Jesus. Jesus talks to God. God is well pleased with Jesus. Jesus's God is in heaven while Jesus is on Earth. God has one will, Jesus has a different will. Jesus asks why God has forsaken him. That's at least two gods.
This conclusion does not follow since in those passages, "God" refers to God-the-Father, not God-the-Trinity. Context determines whether the term "God" refers to a specific person of the Trinity, or the Trinity as a whole.
"Context determines whether the term "God" refers to a specific person of the Trinity, or the Trinity as a whole."
I'm curious. What verses refer to the Trinity as a whole? In what contexts would the term "God" refer to the Trinity?
I understand your point about context, but you still have three "persons" or three gods. They don't even have the same "will". I understand that the three gods might act collectively, but it's still three gods.
I understand that the three gods might act collectively, but it's still three gods.
No, it's not.
See how easy that is?
Here's another example.
David, you worship river sprites.
Don't you?
Now, when you deny it, I'm going to ignore your denial and repeat the charge. Over and over again.
That'll be a lot like what you're doing here.
David, I'm going to make a deal with you.
From now on, David, you need to post as "River Sprite Worshiper". Don't post as David, or Bernd. If you do, I'll delete your comments.
You may continue posting under that name if you like. Or you may give up your persistent and incorrigible ignorance about Christian theology.
This is your choice, and it is non-negotiable.
River Sprite Worshiper! Cool! I've always been a nature boy. It's like to you know me, Alan!
Now, back to business. What verses refer to the Trinity as a whole? In what contexts would the term "God" refer to the Trinity?
One "defines" (makes up) a position to turn three seperate entities into one entity.
Or to understand the simultaneous existence of three hypostases and one ousios.
if you go to heaven, YOU don’t have a material body,
Correct, for now. Nobody who dies right now has a material body, b/c it's either destroyed or buried or what have you.
At the end of the world, God will resurrect all bodies, immortal. So heaven will actually be the Earth, but recreated, redeemed, renewed, and all its inhabitants will be in physical bodies similar to Jesus'.
Since you don’t have a material body, can you see this human body named Jesus?
I don't know. I know that after the final resurrection and all that, we will be physically in proximity, yes, so I expect to see Him, and not only that, but to touch Him and hug Him and talk to Him face to face.
Does God the Father have a penis?
No, the Father is not incarnate.
what I meant was where’s heaven?
I don't know.
What verses refer to the Trinity as a whole?
Quite a few.
The creation narrative in Genesis 1 does. Notice the one God, saying "let Us make man in Our image".
Another really interesting one is Genesis 19:24Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
There are lots more. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to take a look at a few.
Also - read this.
I think that this adds up to 200%. I guess they do math differently in heaven.
It adds up to 200% like river sprites are worthy of worship.
I must say that the human imagination is a wondrous thing. Don’t want to waste too much on the bodies in heaven stuff, because frankly, I find this all very bizarre. I don’t mean “bizarre” in a derogatory way. I simply use the word as a descriptor with no value judgment attached.
“Correct, for now. Nobody who dies right now has a material body, b/c it's either destroyed or buried or what have you.”
So, we have a universe filled with billions of non-material souls just hanging around in a non-material way, wanting to get a body back. Interesting. Very strange.
Oh, I think you forgot about post-resurrection re-animated bodies that strolled around Jerusalem. They were clearly dead, but they got material bodies for their outing. What happened to those bodies?
“At the end of the world, God will resurrect all bodies, immortal. So heaven will actually be the Earth, but recreated, redeemed, renewed, and all its inhabitants will be in physical bodies similar to Jesus'.”
Ok, so you’ll get your penis back? What for? What are you going to do with it? As you’ve noted, Jesus-llike bodies don’t have to eat, so presumably, they don’t have to urinate either. And what would the function of all the other body parts? What about sex? Do you get to have sex?
“So I expect to see Him, and not only that, but to touch Him and hug Him and talk to Him face to face.”
Not so fast, my friend. God may have condemned you to eternal torture before you were born. Could be that you’ll be hugging Satan instead.
“The creation narrative in Genesis 1 does. Notice the one God, saying "let Us make man in Our image".”
“Us” and “our” are plural. Refers to a group of individuals. Or many gods. How do you know that this is the "one god" speaking? It’s much more likely that this is a remnant of the polytheism from which Judaism developed.
There’s nothing in the “context” of Genesis 1 to indicate that elohim means specifically father+son+spirit as a unified entity or ousia or any term from Greek philosophy. I’ll bet the ancient Hebrews would be surprised to find Greek philosophy in the Bible that is the cultural descendent of the ancient Jewish texts.
“Another really interesting one is Genesis 19:24.”
Yes, here Yahweh is clearly singular. One god, one person, one entity. This is the god who remains at the end of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. At the end of the transition, there’s no more elohim. No trinity here either.
In the OT, Yahweh always speaks using the “I” pronoun. If you look into the cultural history of Yahweh, we find a god who always acts as a single individual in conflict with other gods like Baal or when destroying towns like Sodom and Gomorrah. No hint of “simultaneous existence of three hypostases and one ousios”. No hints in the OT of one part of Yahweh talking to another part of Yahweh. Again, nothing in the context of the OT to indicate that Yahweh means father+son+spirit as a unified entity.
So, you still need to find verses that specifically refer to the Trinity as a whole. For example, could you point to the verse in the NT that uses the Greek words for “trinity” or “triune”?
“It adds up to 200% like river sprites are worthy of worship.”
So, 100% man and 100% God adds up like river sprites ar Sodom and Gomorrah worthy of worship? I agree.
Oh boy, can I be a River Sprite Worshiper too? That sounds like a theology I can get behind! How many of these River Sprites are there, David?
hey, my captcha is "roses". Perfect!
River Sprite Worshiper,
This convo continues here.
"How many of these River Sprites are there, David?"
There are as many as you'd like!
That's the beauty of river sprites. Everyone can have one, and they can be whatever you'd like them to be.
And they never, ever smite anyone.
So my wish actually brings river sprites into existence? How does that work, and why don't my wishes bring anything else into existence?
So my wish actually brings river sprites into existence?
Why, yes it does...but the sprites are inviiiiisible! So they're there alright, but they're not incarnate. Wooooooo! Spooooky!
David, I mean River Sprite Worshiper: that's just what I was hoping to hear! I bet everyone goes to River Sprite Heaven when they die, even if they don't believe in River Sprites! That means that Rho will be there too! Of course, he'll probably just figure that it's the Christian Heaven, but I bet he'll be surprised to see us there!
Rho- you say:
So my wish actually brings river sprites into existence?a
How else are gods created? I sure don't see any other explanation for their existence.
cheers from wintry Vienna, zilch
Post a Comment