neologist wrote:
The word 'trinity' does not appear in the bible. Why is it such an important belief?
i don't think it's so important a belief. i'm not sure how many beliefs in the bible are important. but i do think it's helpful to understanding the bible, just like many allegories are.
i do think the trinity is an allegory. if the symbolism helps people grasp what's said in the bible, it's harmless until people attribute too much power to the idea. i don't think "some" is too much. you do. simple.
SN95 wrote:
I'd also like to know why some find it to be such an important belief.
In the beginning, Christianity did not hold to the Trinity doctrine. That doctrine developed slowly...
the watchtower site also says this. but of course, the doctrine existed outside of and prior to christianity. within the confines of christianity, it may have been accepted or adapted over time.
Quote:While the word 'trinity' is not used in the Bible, there are numerous verses that point to this doctrine. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jesus being the Word)
Matthew 28:19 (Jesus speaking) . . . baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[Name, NOT names, indicating one]
This is just a couple of examples; there are many more. It's important because Christianity is a monotheistic belief, not polytheistic.
thanks alice, that's an awesome quote.
Quote:Denying that Jesus is one and the same with God does not deny his divine nature. Please, if you are going to reference scripture, provide chapter and verse.
denying that jesus is one and the same with god are two different things. the trinity is about oneness. it doesn't mean jesus is equally important, nor equally powerful. not everyone at a high table is the master of the house.
Quote:he trinity was set up to help people understand God jesus and the holy spirit and how they are one.
St patrick is famous for using the 3 leaf clover analogy.
that's how i see it, discreet. it's an allegory, not a declaration of christ being on par with god.
Quote:The concept of the trinity existed in pagan religions long before it was adopted into nominal christianity. It obscures the true value of Jesus' sacrifice - what it meant to God - and what it meant to Jesus, a seperate individual.
not at all, neo. the pagan god zeus made the same sacrifice of dionysus. no matter how your god might be superior to pagan gods in other ways, as far as this topic, he's no better or worse. a pagan allusion is no insult to the value of jesus's sacrifice.
if anything, placing jesus in importance over dionysus because he was crucified is an insult to zeus...
Quote:If you are referring to their being one in purpose, I would have to agree. That doesn't make them an identity.
no, but the fact that they're a family does. a family is an identity. if god and jesus (christ) had last names, they would have the same last name. perhaps the last name could be "trinity." god has many names, so he could have many last names, too. like "omega."
real life wrote:However, just because we don't understand it does not mean it is not true.
neologist wrote:Nor does it give us permission to assume it is true.
actually we can assume it is allegorically true, as long as the allegory is interpreted in way that doesn't go against what's in the bible.
it would be no different than making a children's play or puppet show that had animals as biblical characters like noah, moses, etc. the kids would love it, no one would assume that moses was literally a platypus, and the jehovah's witnesses would denounce the play as pagan and rightfully point out that the story of noah's ark was impossible to understand when presented this way, only in the watchtower this would be proof that the only allegory that's not a sin is allegory taken directly from the bible.
of course i'm joking, i think...
real life wrote:You exaggerate and misrepresent what I said. That is very close to lying.
you wrote that in 2005. i point it out in light of every post i've seen of yours since 2007
real life wrote:All of your arguments are over what makes sense to you. This is almost always the case when I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses. I hear repeatedly, "How can that be?" , "I don't understand" , and "That doesn't make sense"
another real gem, real life!
neologist wrote:One time, when I ate too much pizza, I exclaimed "My god." Obviously, that meant pizza was my god.
Another time, when my son nearly died at birth and then lived, I said "My God."
Truly, at neither time did I expect my words to be taken literally. Thomas was merely reacting to an experience which would have had any of us exclaim "My lord and my God."
that should resolve any feelings you have towards trinity doctrine also, neo. and a number of other things...
agrote wrote:Are you saying that God has three minds?
billions, for an inside figure. and he can use them all, if he likes.
neologist wrote:Obviously, this is not what Jesus meant when he said "We worship what we know." (John 4:22)
i think that's a funny quote, especially that it starts with the word "obviously." one think (most?) jehovah's witnesses have in common is how often they point out that they're right and everyone else is wrong, how most christians don't know what christianity is (but jw's do of course,) and why they are the only ones that understand "whore of babylon" and other obscure doctrines.
if all the glory is supposed to go to god, it seems that at least a little of the glory is flowing back to kingdom hall and the people that have the intelligence to realize why everyone else is wrong.
by comparison, mormons recognize that all religions have some truth, just not as much. in essence, it's the same principle, but a lot more ecumenical in presentation.
then of course, there are extremists...
but then i do give credit to neo for being as polite as any jw i've ever met. "obviously,"
this is someone that goes to great lengths to be reasonable. i respect that, very much. that doesn't mean i'm not a little amused...
neologist wrote:It's a sad commentary on priestcraft when the arguments of the atheist make more sense than those of the priest.
ha! i disagree that it's very sad. it makes no sense for priests to be right all the time, when these are allegedly such extradordinarily simple things that anyone can understand them.
spelling is very simple. even in an age of spellcheckers, spelling errors happen all the time.
Quote:Agrote; Derevon and real life have just condemned you to hell. I, on the other hand would like to buy you a brew, explain there is no such thing as hell, and enjoy the conversation.
i went back and looked for where derevon and real life said this or even implied it somehow.
i think you're accusing them of saying a thing based on your own religious interpretation, not based on their intentions or words.
in which case, it's probably the most dishonest statement you ever made here. but i realize it was likely meant to be tongue in cheek.
Quote:You didn't. I put words in your mouth. Sorry
ah, nevermind. but i think that this happens all the time in religion. misunderstandings happen because people do put words in each other's mouths. i think this has probably happened with the trinity also. maybe not.
Quote:...for example two animals which are of different species are not one, they are simply related. The oneness here refers to the three persons of the trinity all being comprised in the one indivisible God. How, and in what sense this can be is of course beyond all human understanding. Many call it illogical because they cannot understand it. Personally I prefer to call it extralogical.
personally, i think derevon owns this thread, with the greatest posts i've ever seen on the subject. i'd like to know what he believes, and why he's interested.
neologist wrote:This is typical trinitarian logic. When confronted with scriptural evidence of Jesus' subjection to his father, they waffle.
they shouldn't. have you never fought yourself? who won?
Quote:No doubt, before his death he must have cried out "Oh me; Oh my; Why have I forsaken myself?"
i agree!
setanta wrote:Boy, these jokers get off on quoting scripture, don't they . . . it's like masturbation for them . . . maybe they do that while citing chapter and verse.
It must be hard to type with your pecker in one hand . . .
hey, i see it just like i see trekkies, set, and trekkies are great.
and typing one handed is easy
but "to type with your pecker," however, is not.
setanta wrote:I lost all of my religious sentiment when i read in Revelations that dogs are not allowed in Heaven . . . no dogs, no Setanta . . .
well that just rules out christianity, set. there's still pantheism, atheism, agnosticism, judaism (dogs aren't kosher,) buddhism and hinduism (you could even become a dog!) zoroastrianism, satanism (dogs can talk!) and other paganisms, you could be a native american shaman and have a dog that can tell the future...
agrote wrote:Okay. Well I hate a lot of things about religion, I'll try and list a few, and I'll start elaborating and backing them up a bit better if/when people start challenging them. I'm generally thinking about the monotheistic religions while I write this - I don't know all that much about buddhism, hinduism, etc.
[and this is what happens with most people that hate religion, i think - tg]
Firstly, religion gives people false hope. Billions of people have beliefs that give them a feeling of purpose, that make them feel like they matter and that life does have meaning - but that just aren't true. Whether or not there is/was a God who created the universe, I can't see any reason whatsoever to believe that it loves us. But many many people believe that 'he' does love them, and this gets them high - so religious people stagger around doped up on Godlove their whole lives and don't really achieve much.
[whereas i think that you can see a universe that is hostile and hateful or a world that is *overall,* generous and loving, and i think that the latter will indeed make you a better, happier person *if* it's not taken too far. being completely glib and not caring about the suffering of people is no good. and i don't think christianity is always the best example of seeing a loving universe, although there's no reason why it can't be. -tg]
Secondly, it is vain to believe that God loves you. It is simply vain to believe that we are somehow 'special,' when there are millions of different species of life on earth, and when the universe is so increadibly huge.
[right. although that will only happen if you take genesis too literally -tg]
Religious people forget that they are just earthlings, and they are just animals. Obviously we are more intelligent than other animals - we have consciousness, and that does make us unique, as far as we know. But consciousness is not a gift from God, it's just a property of brains that are higher up the evolutionary ladder. You are not special, you are just a brain. God is your imaginary friend, and claiming that he loves you is like kissing your own reflection - it's vanity.
Thirdly, belief in God is supersticious. I'm not a fan of superstition - it tends to involve believing in magical forces that do not involve the interaction of particles of matter (which is all that constitutes the universe), but involve spirits and such. There are no spirits. (I am of course just asserting what I believe - I expect people to disagree strongly with this, but I'll deal with that when it coems. I'm just explaining why I hate religion - and it's partly because of these beliefs that I have). We don't need spirituality to explain any phenomena. For example, we do not need souls when we have brains - brains can think, dream, imagine, love, etc., so if we have souls, what the hell do they do? What would we need them for? Superstitious thinking is useful when we want to fill in the gaps in our knowledge as quickly as possible - but it is just guesswork. Thousands of years ago people would have guessed that schizophrenics were peopel possessed by demons. But now that we know that schizophrenia is a biological illness, we should reject that demon hypothesis in favour of what science has discovered. Now that we know about evolution, we should reject creationism, and now that we know more about the brain we can begin to reject the idea of a 'soul.' But religion isn't always that flexible, and it does slow our progress in the search for knowledge.
I'll leave it there for now. It's difficult to come up with reasons to hate religion without someone provoking that hatred - so if anyone wants to object strongly to what I've said so far, please do.
i like the last paragraph best. i don't agree with everything you said, but i certainly sympathize. i don't think people should believe in religion unless it suits them. if it suits them, i think every religion has the potential to be harmless and beneficial, and people should work on making it so.
trashing religion is very common, and i don't think it will ever make religion harmless. bringing perspective, understanding, and mercy into religion can, however. that's one of my main goals in life, to make religion more reasonable and more merciful, since i'm convinced it will never go away. and i think it's important to understand religion, because what we're really talking about is understanding people.
whether or not it has anything to do with understanding god, divinity, etc. but that would be cool, too. either way, understanding is important to me.
and real life did make a good point, that religion fueled minds like isaac newton, martin luther king jr., gandhi, and many other good people. would martin luther king jr. have been martin luther king jr. otherwise? we'll never know. i am firmly convinced that isaac newton would not have been isaac newton.
another thing is the idea that false hope is a bad thing. false hope however, is something that is particularly easy to turn into real hope. drawing a line between them should be more about the intentions of the person giving hope, than the outcome. you could easily say that the wright brothers had false hopes, but now we know they didn't.
i read this thread because neo told me the issue around the trinity is "not that simple." at least, not as simple as what i said about it. i think he was mistaken, from what i've read here, it is that simple.
okay, you did point to the first post, but you're the one that said "it's not that simple"
