Hey, heey, heeeey!... make love, not war :POriginally Posted by Pureghetto
...
/attacks
Hey, heey, heeeey!... make love, not war :P...
/attacks
I never understood the trinity thing. It makes no sense to me.
As a Jew, I believe that Jesus was only a good person who wanted to reform the Jewish Clergy when it was corrupt 2000 years ago. God is omnipotent as well as omnipresent. Carpenter against the king of kings, I think god wins.
Yes Berry, we are awesome.
Many other religions often criticize Christianity for being tritheistic, though it shows a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Basically, there is the Godhead that is divided into three "persons" as it were: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In orthodox Christianity and most Christian sects, all three persons are considered to be of the same substance, namely God. That means Jesus is considered both human and divine (both characteristics are important when discussing Jesus as a means of salvation). Though various "heresies" argue that Jesus was solely human, or solely divine, or that the Son was created after the other two persons, or of a different substance than the Father or Holy Spirit.
Lol at the pot calling the kettle black.
People are oh so much fun to watch when agitated.
God is full of vengeance and jealousy, so I will place my bet with him.
...
HAHAHA OH WOW!Oh and this entire thread isnt an incredible insult by itself?
Jesus would clearly lose.
I like Kung-Fu.
Jesus isn't God. He's god's son.
No where in the Bible is there a mention of the "Trinity."
I'm a godless atheist, so what I say here has no relation to my actual spiritual beliefs:
Let's assume God and Christ are one and the same, as part of the Holy Trinity. It mightn't be expressly stated as such in the Bible, but it's been accepted as true by Christianity for long enough. But while Christ and God might be the same person, Christ was still created by God, and created in order to die. Therefore, God was able to 'defeat' Christ from the very moment of Christ's creation. It was God's plan for Christ to die for humanity's sins; God's will prevailed over anything Christ might've wanted to decide for himself. That'd mean that, technically, God > Christ, regardless of whether Christ was a monophysite being or a blend of Man and Divine.
A religion is not only define by its scriptures. There are plethora of theological works that help define the basis of religious thought. For example, Christianity would not be what it is today without the works of Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc...To say that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority would fall into fundamentalism, which only represents a minority.
EDIT:
What you said is not the orthodox position. The Son had always existed at the same time as the Father and the Holy Ghost. There are heresies in which it is believed that the Son came after the Father and the Holy Ghost but long before Creation. But if we are speaking from a strictly orthodox position, then I cannot see how it is possible to say God defeated Jesus since, in essence they are the same. Then again, I am unfamiliar with the depths of Christian theology and working from memory of stuff I was taught when studying the early Church.
Last edited by The Summoner of Leviathan; 05-14-2008 at 02:45 AM.
Well then why isn't it called Origenianity, Augustinism, or Aquinasism?A religion is not only define by its scriptures. There are plethora of theological works that help define the basis of religious thought. For example, Christianity would not be what it is today without the works of Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc...To say that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority would fall into fundamentalism, which only represents a minority.
'Cause it's not about those people. It's about Christ. You don't re-name an entire subject every time someone adds something new to it, or analyses it in greater detail.Well then why isn't it called Origenianity, Augustinism, or Aquinasism?A religion is not only define by its scriptures. There are plethora of theological works that help define the basis of religious thought. For example, Christianity would not be what it is today without the works of Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc...To say that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority would fall into fundamentalism, which only represents a minority.
That's not what I was disputing. I was arguing that the Bible should be the sole source of a [pure] Chrisitian's religious views. When people add their beliefs and then that becomes a religious authority, then the religion is changed.
Last edited by Yar; 05-14-2008 at 02:59 AM. Reason: Hit "Submit Reply" too quickly.
Because they are not founding a separate tradition, just elaborating on it? Also the fact that they viewed themselves as Christians?Well then why isn't it called Origenianity, Augustinism, or Aquinasism?A religion is not only define by its scriptures. There are plethora of theological works that help define the basis of religious thought. For example, Christianity would not be what it is today without the works of Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc...To say that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority would fall into fundamentalism, which only represents a minority.
There you go with your third humorous option. Always with the third humorous option. But yeah, I agree. *smite*
As Klyklops made this thread about deities fighting, and Kylyklops is now banned... does that mean he was smote?
Oh, did I mention I'm awesome?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
