Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

Glad someone pointed out his misapplication of Scripture, that "fruit" of a person is what allows Christians to know which teachers are safe to listen to. It doesn't mean their theology is always correct, but it just means they're safe because you know they equally respect and love Christ and do have more knowledge.

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:...Go to all the world and preach the Gospel.

ok well that is very noble; but we are going to have to answer the charges of setting the world on fire, ok?

My comment was referring to the passage in Matthew 28 the last couple of verses -- many times referred to as The Great Commission. Believers are to 'go to the world' -- starting where we live / our neighborhood / town / radiating outward to other people -- sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ will all -- whomever will listen, but not to Force the Bible / God's Word on anyone. Making disciples of them -- that which people believe in their heart to share with others in the form of water baptism by immersion -- and then through our daily lives. We Are to let our light so shine before others that they will see Christ through us. I started that sentence with a particular verse in mind, but can't remember the rest of it. It's not so much 'being responsible for setting the world on fire', as it is sharing Gospel of salvation with people around me and They pass it on to Their friends, and on and on. Some will accept some reject. God's Word is never supposed to be Forced on anyone.

BTW- I Don't want to be grouped with you as a 'we'. If that was your intention of using the 'we' in your sentence.

Your presentation of your beliefs is So confusing to try to figure out -- 90% of the time you make No sense.

Your attitude towards the Biblical teachings of the Godhead / Trinity is totally ...... So far out in left field that it's not even in the ball park. I don't like to use the word 'obnoxious' but ........

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

fine then go with that, ok? If you cannot judge by the results, and you want to characterize me as being a fool for suggesting as much, then fine. I am ok with my concept of trinity, wherein i am called to pick up my cross and follow, and i am the Body of Christ, and hopefully you are satisfied with your understanding of the trinity, too. I don't expect any of you to directly address why that might not be sufficient for you, or your perception of your allegiance to the physical trinity, or any of the other questions that might lead you to truth, that might be uncomfortable for you, ok? By all means consider those rhetorical, and continue on stoning me however you see fit instead.

img host

yikes,, you guys don't even bother with the sheep's clothes, huh? What is it with this doctrine that you are defending so...rabidly? that you can't even name the benefits of?

And you openly attack someone who presents what is, after all, just the opinion of the rest of Christianity, who nonetheless says that your trinity doctrine is fine, if that is where the Spirit has led you? So the more i agree, the nastier you guys get?

No one sees any issues here? I mean this is turning into like a SNL church lady skit or something

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:...Go to all the world and preach the Gospel.

ok well that is very noble; but we are going to have to answer the charges of setting the world on fire, ok?

My comment was referring to the passage in Matthew 28 the last couple of verses -- many times referred to as The Great Commission. Believers are to 'go to the world' -- starting where we live / our neighborhood / town / radiating outward to other people -- sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ will all -- whomever will listen, but not to Force the Bible / God's Word on anyone. Making disciples of them -- that which people believe in their heart to share with others in the form of water baptism by immersion -- and then through our daily lives. We Are to let our light so shine before others that they will see Christ through us. I started that sentence with a particular verse in mind, but can't remember the rest of it. It's not so much 'being responsible for setting the world on fire', as it is sharing Gospel of salvation with people around me and They pass it on to Their friends, and on and on. Some will accept some reject. God's Word is never supposed to be Forced on anyone.

nice. If only it were true. You might tell that to the closet satanist back there trying to impress me with his Authoritay, who can't seem to answer a question.

crochet1949 wrote: BTW- I Don't want to be grouped with you as a 'we'. If that was your intention of using the 'we' in your sentence.

ah, sorry; i was trying to be kind. I am not a pledger of allegiances to flags, or a voter, so really i meant you. For of course it will be you that is charged with displacing...ha, like half of the planet, at this point. You vote and pay taxes, right? And while Europe might be bearing the brunt of your sins at the moment, as you elect Carnival Barkers who assure you that they will build higher walls for you, and obstruct Syrian immigration after your paid mercenaries have leveled the country--another country, btw, hardly your first--you can't imagine that you are going to escape God for this crime, do you?

Is that what this is all about? Y'alls nascent guilt at your culpability for ruining the mideast so you can keep swimming in cheap oil and heroin analogs?

crochet1949 wrote: Your presentation of your beliefs is So confusing to try to figure out -- 90% of the time you make No sense.

so then why not interact with the 10%, and leave the rest alone? How confusing is "I serve a risen Lord and i am of the Body of Christ, and i have the Spirit available to me?" That is confusing? "If you believe in a Papist trinity, that is ok by me?" Throws you for a loop, does it? That just puts you in a mood to start condemning, crochet?

crochet1949 wrote: Your attitude towards the Biblical teachings of the Godhead / Trinity is totally ...... So far out in left field that it's not even in the ball park. I don't like to use the word 'obnoxious' but ........

but you did, even though there are a lot of nontrinitarian and even antitrinitarian denominations. So, may as well pile on, i guess. I mean, i might understand this better if i had brought out the obviously pagan origins of trinity doctrine or something, but i didn't. So what gives?

You guys are just that in love with your Supremacy Justifications, imo. You like...no, you love having a doctrine that you can beat everyone else over the head with, huh. That's why you can't name a single bit of fruit from it, and you get so rabid and show your true colors when someone points out that the doctrine is your god, huh.

And surely the Bible is widely held here to be the Word, too, right? So the Bible is your god, too. You got gods coming out every orifice here huh?

bbyrd009 wrote:

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

fine then go with that, ok? If you cannot judge by the results, and you want to characterize me as being a fool for suggesting as much, then fine. I am ok with my concept of trinity, wherein i am called to pick up my cross and follow, and i am the Body of Christ, and hopefully you are satisfied with your understanding of the trinity, too. I don't expect any of you to directly address why that might not be sufficient for you, or your perception of your allegiance to the physical trinity, or any of the other questions that might lead you to truth, that might be uncomfortable for you, ok? By all means consider those rhetorical, and continue on stoning me however you see fit instead.

img host

yikes,, you guys don't even bother with the sheep's clothes, huh? What is it with this doctrine that you are defending so...rabidly? that you can't even name the benefits of?

And you openly attack someone who presents what is, after all, just the opinion of the rest of Christianity, who nonetheless says that your trinity doctrine is fine, if that is where the Spirit has led you? So the more i agree, the nastier you guys get?

No one sees any issues here? I mean this is turning into like a SNL church lady skit or something

ok, first off, lets be clear on this. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE TRINITY. I do not agree with it, i think it is not biblical, blah blah blah. What I DO have an issue with is your apparent inability to speak plainly, instead of using some hyped up mumbo-jumbo that nobody can understand. all you have been using are strung together sentences filled with big words, which are not making any sense to anyone. maybe we would treat you with more respect if you at least tried to listen when we tell you what is going on.

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

fine then go with that, ok? If you cannot judge by the results, and you want to characterize me as being a fool for suggesting as much, then fine. I am ok with my concept of trinity, wherein i am called to pick up my cross and follow, and i am the Body of Christ, and hopefully you are satisfied with your understanding of the trinity, too. I don't expect any of you to directly address why that might not be sufficient for you, or your perception of your allegiance to the physical trinity, or any of the other questions that might lead you to truth, that might be uncomfortable for you, ok? By all means consider those rhetorical, and continue on stoning me however you see fit instead.

img host

yikes,, you guys don't even bother with the sheep's clothes, huh? What is it with this doctrine that you are defending so...rabidly? that you can't even name the benefits of?

And you openly attack someone who presents what is, after all, just the opinion of the rest of Christianity, who nonetheless says that your trinity doctrine is fine, if that is where the Spirit has led you? So the more i agree, the nastier you guys get?

No one sees any issues here? I mean this is turning into like a SNL church lady skit or something

ok, first off, lets be clear on this. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE TRINITY. I do not agree with it, i think it is not biblical, blah blah blah. What I DO have an issue with is your apparent inability to speak plainly, instead of using some hyped up mumbo-jumbo that nobody can understand. all you have been using are strung together sentences filled with big words, which are not making any sense to anyone. maybe we would treat you with more respect if you at least tried to listen when we tell you what is going on.

Jenna,

Maybe you can do what bbyrd009 failed to do, by making an actual, coherent argument as to why the Trinity isn't biblical.

One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

Bbyrd: You guys are just that in love with your Supremacy Justifications, imo. You like...no, you love having a doctrine that you can beat everyone else over the head with, huh. That's why you can't name a single bit of fruit from it, and you get so rabid and show your true colors when someone points out that the doctrine is your god, huh.

And surely the Bible is widely held here to be the Word, too, right? So the Bible is your god, too. You got gods coming out every orifice here huh?

Careful, Bbyrd, try to show a little self control and not unnecessarily be so abrasive and antagonistic.

As God exists, and as He does not lie, then if we have His word (through His prophets and apostles), then we know that word is true. So while the Bible is not our God, it tells us that Scripture is "God-breathed." So, Bbyrd, what you are making fun of is people taking God's word seriously - as if it is unreliable. It is OBEDIENCE to God's word that produces fruit. As for doctrine, it should COMPREHENSIVELY reflect what Scripture asserts. The doctrine doesn't dictate Scripture, but vice versa. So questions you might ask yourself: Is Scripture of the Lord - does it contain God's Holy communications to man? Is it only PARTIALLY the words God wanted in it, is it corrupted by man? Does God, who spoke a universe into existence from His mind not have the ability to control his word and what it contains? If so, then it has purposes, for instruction, rightful living, fruitful and rewarding living - if obeyed. If God has communicated to man, He has done so in ways so that we CAN properly understand it, as otherwise it would be worthless to us. And if so, there ARE doctrinal conclusions that can be made from it.

So, Bbyrd, do you believe the Bible is God's word or not? If so, then making sarcastic statements about those who take it seriously shows not only disrespect for others, but for God's word. That is not to say that people can't misinterpret Scripture's meanings - as there can be and is honest debate about various passages. But if you look at the range of trained, Biblical scholars across the centuries, around the world, who have devoted many years of study to the languages, translations, history, etc. related to Scripture, and see where they agree, you should realize why there are doctrines that most of the worldwide Christian Church agrees upon. Do you not realize that the Bible is the most studied work of literature of all time? Do you realize the depth and breath of study scholars undergo? Do you understand peer-reviewed papers? We're speaking of studies every bit as rigorous as those in scientific fields. Before you dismiss a doctrine, you should be able to deconstruct and credibly criticize why it supposedly is false, per SCRIPTURE. But if Scripture is not God-given, then the issue is pointless. If Scripture is false, NO one has any reason to even believe in Christ. Why do you?

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

That's the point Paul is trying to make, i.e. since God is love and since the perfection of love is manifested in an outward, not self-centered love, and since the Son always was (and in a trinue God the HS as well but the tri-unity is not necessary for the argument he is making), then it is completely logical to state that this perfect love is outwardly expressed from eternity between Father and Son (and HS if we extend it to the HS). On the other hand, without the bi-unity or the tri-unity in the Godhead then perfect love is a contradiction and God is not love, i.e. God is not God.

How's that for some fruit!

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

That's the point Paul is trying to make, i.e. since God is love and since the perfection of love is manifested in an outward, not self-centered love, and since the Son always was (and in a trinue God the HS as well but the tri-unity is not necessary for the argument he is making), then it is completely logical to state that this perfect love is outwardly expressed from eternity between Father and Son (and HS if we extend it to the HS). On the other hand, without the bi-unity or the tri-unity in the Godhead then perfect love is a contradiction and God is not love, i.e. God is not God.

How's that for some fruit!

God can be love, and express love, without being part of a trinity. as far as anything else, well,

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

That's the point Paul is trying to make, i.e. since God is love and since the perfection of love is manifested in an outward, not self-centered love, and since the Son always was (and in a trinue God the HS as well but the tri-unity is not necessary for the argument he is making), then it is completely logical to state that this perfect love is outwardly expressed from eternity between Father and Son (and HS if we extend it to the HS). On the other hand, without the bi-unity or the tri-unity in the Godhead then perfect love is a contradiction and God is not love, i.e. God is not God.

How's that for some fruit!

God can be love, and express love, without being part of a trinity. as far as anything else, well,

I don't disagree. The Trinity is a separate subject from God's outward expression of love which necessitates, at minimum, bi-unity in the Father and Son from eternity.

Jenna -- I'd like to hear Your thoughts about 'a trinity'. Why the hesitancy on your part about the trinity. God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

That's the point Paul is trying to make, i.e. since God is love and since the perfection of love is manifested in an outward, not self-centered love, and since the Son always was (and in a trinue God the HS as well but the tri-unity is not necessary for the argument he is making), then it is completely logical to state that this perfect love is outwardly expressed from eternity between Father and Son (and HS if we extend it to the HS). On the other hand, without the bi-unity or the tri-unity in the Godhead then perfect love is a contradiction and God is not love, i.e. God is not God.

How's that for some fruit!

God can be love, and express love, without being part of a trinity. as far as anything else, well,

I don't disagree. The Trinity is a separate subject from God's outward expression of love which necessitates, at minimum, bi-unity in the Father and Son from eternity.

true. the issue i have with the trinity is that God and Christ are not one, in the sense that they are one being. I believe they are separate, but are One in the sense that they are of one mind. and i do not believe the HS is part of that "one".

crochet1949 wrote:Jenna -- I'd like to hear Your thoughts about 'a trinity'. Why the hesitancy on your part about the trinity. God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit.

haha, i was just posting the above reply.