Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:You put the emphasis on me to prove otherwise,
I see no sounding board scripturally to have to do so.
If I'm presented with such perhaps we can go from there.
But I stand solid in my belief as I have done so since I joined this forum that it has its standing in religious indoctrination not in scriptual truth.

But the Trinity doctrine is faulty.

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:Ohh look. I can see how it could be sloppily interpreted to mean as such.
I See how ridiculously Christians are handed their beliefs on a platter without thinking about it.
How if you're dare too question then your a whatever.
But Rick
I'm not perfect in my understanding of scripture but I'm not too shabby either.
You can question my interpretation. Fair enough.
But......
Don't question my ability for basic understanding, cause well I'm quite well equipped to have the basics well under control

But I do question your understanding of the doctrine. I feel there's something you're just not grasping. To say "there's nothing biblical about the doctrine" just shows a lack of understanding.

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:You put the emphasis on me to prove otherwise,
I see no sounding board scripturally to have to do so.
If I'm presented with such perhaps we can go from there.
But I stand solid in my belief as I have done so since I joined this forum that it has its standing in religious indoctrination not in scriptual truth.

Mel,

You made an assertion in your response to ES.

You said:

But the Trinity doctrine is faulty.

When you make an assertion, it's usually proper discussion etiquette, to back that assertion.

So, what exactly is faulty about the doctrine of the Trinity?

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:Ohh look. I can see how it could be sloppily interpreted to mean as such.
I See how ridiculously Christians are handed their beliefs on a platter without thinking about it.
How if you're dare too question then your a whatever.
But Rick
I'm not perfect in my understanding of scripture but I'm not too shabby either.
You can question my interpretation. Fair enough.
But......
Don't question my ability for basic understanding, cause well I'm quite well equipped to have the basics well under control

But I do question your understanding of the doctrine. I feel there's something you're just not grasping. To say "there's nothing biblical about the doctrine" just shows a lack of understanding.

Of course you think there is something I'm not grasping because I'm not grasping a faulty understanding of the God head.
I cling and aspire to the Word of God.
Im not influenced by any denomination
This is my understanding.
It does not take away from the Gospel
It does not deny Gods sovereignty
It does not deny Jesus' Divinity
It does not take away the life altering impact of the HS in a believers life.

Apart from ambiguous text,
Show ME
One place where the HS is an actual seperate being.
Show me His place on Gods throne.
Show Me His place in the Second coming and a particular text that exhibits His role in the establishment of heaven on Earth.
Show me a single prayer that is not addressed to Our Father whom art in heaven.
Where is the Holy Spirits physical and/or spirtual reign.

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:You put the emphasis on me to prove otherwise,
I see no sounding board scripturally to have to do so.
If I'm presented with such perhaps we can go from there.
But I stand solid in my belief as I have done so since I joined this forum that it has its standing in religious indoctrination not in scriptual truth.

Mel,

You made an assertion in your response to ES.

You said:

But the Trinity doctrine is faulty.

When you make an assertion, it's usually proper discussion etiquette, to back that assertion.

So, what exactly is faulty about the doctrine of the Trinity?

Rick I don't feel I need to defend a poorly established religious doctrine.
For the most part being, there is nothing to defend!!
I'm not upholding or defending scripture but rather religious indoctrination.
Show me scripturally what needs to be established then we can go from there.

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:You put the emphasis on me to prove otherwise,
I see no sounding board scripturally to have to do so.
If I'm presented with such perhaps we can go from there.
But I stand solid in my belief as I have done so since I joined this forum that it has its standing in religious indoctrination not in scriptual truth.

Mel,

You made an assertion in your response to ES.

You said:

But the Trinity doctrine is faulty.

When you make an assertion, it's usually proper discussion etiquette, to back that assertion.

So, what exactly is faulty about the doctrine of the Trinity?

Rick I don't feel I need to defend a poorly established religious doctrine.
For the most part being, there is nothing to defend!!
I'm not upholding or defending scripture but rather religious indoctrination.
Show me scripturally what needs to be established then we can go from there.

Mel,
Either you show some kind of proof of your assertion that the doctrine is faulty, or we just dismiss your assertion as one without merit.

You surely wouldn't allow me to say that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is faulty, without proof, would you?

melanie wrote:I quite adeptly and adequately understanding the doctrine Rick.
You should know me better than that.
I disagree.
When I say I do not follow any denomination it is with the full knowledge of what is mistakingly understood as the Trinity.
That IS why partly I don't follow Religion.
Because it is across the board bullcrap.
Not withstanding the Trinity.

You can give me the run down that it is one essence in three.
I have heard it before.
I've studied it, thoroughly
Again I say show me the money so to speak.
Give me scripture.
Change my mind with something other than what you've offered.

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:I quite adeptly and adequately understanding the doctrine Rick.
You should know me better than that.
I disagree.
When I say I do not follow any denomination it is with the full knowledge of what is mistakingly understood as the Trinity.
That IS why partly I don't follow Religion.
Because it is across the board bullcrap.
Not withstanding the Trinity.

You can give me the run down that it is one essence in three.
I have heard it before.
I've studied it, thoroughly
Again I say show me the money so to speak.
Give me scripture.
Change my mind with something other than what you've offered.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between "being" and "person", shows that you do not adeptly and adequately understand the doctrine.

And if you don't want to back your assertion, that's your choice. But don't get upset when we just dismiss your assertion, because you offer no proof.

Just curious, do you dismiss the doctrine of the deity/divinity of Christ, because it's a man made doctrine, which tries to explain that Christ is God?

melanie wrote:....Rick I don't feel I need to defend a poorly established religious doctrine.
For the most part being, there is nothing to defend!!

I'm not upholding or defending scripture but rather religious indoctrination.

Show me scripturally what needs to be established then we can go from there.

B. W. wrote:Haven't wrote more for this thread but the recent comments on another caused me to realize that I should post a simple example on comprehending the Trinity of God's Nature.

God is one, yet three, well this confuses people. Is there an example that help our human minds wrap around this?

Romans 1:20 mentions that there are things on earth clearly seen that give evidence for God's Tri-natured oneness, after all, God mentions from the scriptures there is none like him and his oneness is like no other.

So for the record, I am posting my orange example so folks who read this thread will gain insight and some understanding from earth's nature what Romans 1:20 mentions about God's creation help reveal God's nature.

Example of the Orange

Take a Navel Orange. Cut it in half, take one half and peal it, take its fruit out, with the other squeeze the juice into into a clear glass. hat do you see?

The peel, fruit, and juice is all 100 percent orange, yet, differing personalities of fruit are contained in that oneness of an Navel Orange. The peeling holds all together, provides protection, and energy. Likewise the fruit, creates seed, provides protection and nourishes the seed to grow, and shares the same energy within the juice and peel. The Juice likewise provides protection,nourishment, and energy to the whole orange. The three are in reality are one and the same, yet, each has is own personality/function.

Using this example, the peel represents the Father, the fruit the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Juice. Each have the same essence of wisdom, knowledge, understanding, power, etc yet different personalities according to functioning of wisdom, knowledge, understanding, power, etc to nourish and keep life alive.

The Father is the source of all wisdom, knowledge, understanding, power, etc to keep life alive. The Son carries out and does the works wisdom, knowledge, understanding, power, etc that makes growth. The Holy Spirit, empowers the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, power, etc that provides health in growth, etc.

We all need Orange juice... does the body good

Nothing like a slice of orange and all the nutrients!

The peel adds a little zest to flavor life as well as sweetens chocolate too!

Have a Blessed day All

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:I quite adeptly and adequately understanding the doctrine Rick.
You should know me better than that.
I disagree.
When I say I do not follow any denomination it is with the full knowledge of what is mistakingly understood as the Trinity.
That IS why partly I don't follow Religion.
Because it is across the board bullcrap.
Not withstanding the Trinity.

You can give me the run down that it is one essence in three.
I have heard it before.
I've studied it, thoroughly
Again I say show me the money so to speak.
Give me scripture.
Change my mind with something other than what you've offered.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between "being" and "person", shows that you do not adeptly and adequately understand the doctrine.

And if you don't want to back your assertion, that's your choice. But don't get upset when we just dismiss your assertion, because you offer no proof.

Just curious, do you dismiss the doctrine of the deity/divinity of Christ, because it's a man made doctrine, which tries to explain that Christ is God?

Rick, nowhere in this discussion has the semantics of being versus person been addressed, either linguistically or otherwise. So how you can surmise that I do not understand is quite beyond me.
So by that token you are mistaking my not understanding for merely disagreeing.
It is a widely and commonly used tool to dismiss another's pov based on nothing foundational but rather a use of slander to assume the "you don't understand" route.
Let's get past that.
Let's assume I do understand.
But I actually disagree.
Then perhaps we can move past this hen pecking and get to a deeper discussion

Show ME
One place where the HS is an actual seperate being.