Evidence for God from Science

jenna wrote:yes indeed I am seeing how it plays out. with people reading my posts wrong, constant changing topics, and more. i feel surrounded on all sides, but hey, i can stick it out. i have before, and i will again. been through much worse than this. and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.

It can be overwhelming, being wrong, in the middle of a bunch of people bombarding you with the truth.

But seriously, have you tried going to God in prayer, asking Him to help you see and understand the truth?

If you're truly open, you will see...

jenna wrote:and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.

jenna, are you even open to the possibility that you don't understand the doctrine or its origins, or are you persuaded that you already understand it as well those who specialize in the subject? Because, whether you care or not, as someone who has studied this stuff formally, I can tell you that the vast majority of what you have said about the Trinity is factually incorrect. It has nothing to do with reading your posts wrong. It has to do with the fact that you have consistently misrepresented the doctrine itself. So one of us is mistaken in our understanding of the doctrine. Are you saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong--not in the sense of whether or not the Trinity is true or false; I don't care about that claim. I'm asking if you are saying that we have all misrepresented the Trinity, that if you went back and asked the people who developed the doctrine what they meant that they would say that you have correctly stated it and that we have incorrectly stated it. That's what I want to know from you at this juncture.

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.

jenna, are you even open to the possibility that you don't understand the doctrine or its origins, or are you persuaded that you already understand it as well those who specialize in the subject? Because, whether you care or not, as someone who has studied this stuff formally, I can tell you that the vast majority of what you have said about the Trinity is factually incorrect. It has nothing to do with reading your posts wrong. It has to do with the fact that you have consistently misrepresented the doctrine itself. So one of us is mistaken in our understanding of the doctrine. Are you saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong--not in the sense of whether or not the Trinity is true or false; I don't care about that claim. I'm asking if you are saying that we have all misrepresented the Trinity, that if you went back and asked the people who developed the doctrine what they meant that they would say that you have correctly stated it and that we have incorrectly stated it. That's what I want to know from you at this juncture.

do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity? no, not to the extent as it is what you believe in. You have done a thorough job in representing your belief. i simply do not agree with the it, or the way you see it.

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:yes indeed I am seeing how it plays out. with people reading my posts wrong, constant changing topics, and more. i feel surrounded on all sides, but hey, i can stick it out. i have before, and i will again. been through much worse than this. and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.

It can be overwhelming, being wrong, in the middle of a bunch of people bombarding you with the truth.

But seriously, have you tried going to God in prayer, asking Him to help you see and understand the truth?

If you're truly open, you will see...

yes indeed it can, but i dont feel i am wrong, just as you do not feel you are wrong. it kind of (to me) feels like i am surrounded by others who are saying, "here, try this" when i know i cannot eat what i am being fed.

jenna wrote:

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:yes indeed I am seeing how it plays out. with people reading my posts wrong, constant changing topics, and more. i feel surrounded on all sides, but hey, i can stick it out. i have before, and i will again. been through much worse than this. and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.

It can be overwhelming, being wrong, in the middle of a bunch of people bombarding you with the truth.

But seriously, have you tried going to God in prayer, asking Him to help you see and understand the truth?

If you're truly open, you will see...

yes indeed it can, but i dont feel i am wrong, just as you do not feel you are wrong. it kind of (to me) feels like i am surrounded by others who are saying, "here, try this" when i know i cannot eat what i am being fed.

The way I see it, is that others are saying, "Here, eat these vegetables and be nourished...", and you are saying, "I don't like candy. Candy is bad for me."

And all of us are looking at this big bowl of healthy veggies, and wondering how in the hell you understand it to be a bowl of candy.

Iow,
You're arguing against something that you don't understand.

WE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND, SO YOU CAN BELIEVE!

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

Hi -- I've been following 'this'. Trying to find a place to 'jump in' and share some thoughts. We are trying to make sense of a concept that is really Bigger than any person. How can a person Really understand omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience. But we Do know that the Godhead has made our salvation possible.

God is Spirit and He manifested Himself -- here on earth -- in a Physical form. He was part of a Jewish family while here. So That is His Human appearance. He was Here as the Son of God.

And someone was commenting on the Old Testament being only for the Jewish people? Well -- 'we' are given the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The Children of Israel / God's chosen people. Israel was Jacob. Jacob had the 12 sons and one daughter. Those 12 sons became the 12 tribes of Jacob / Israel. And Jesus was born from the line/ tribe of Judah. The Ten Commandments were given to Moses for the Children of Israel. And we Also have all of the Levitical laws / cleanliness. The Ten Commandments have been replaced in the New Testament by "You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul and mind. And love your neighbor as thyself."

So -- just my 2 cents worth.

Jenna was commenting on where the trinity Came from. It's always Been. "In the beginning God created..... and "Us" made mankind as well as everything Else. And Revelation says -- "I am the Alpha and Omega ... the Beginning and the End." in the last chapter or so.

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

Actually --the 3-in-one idea IS what some of us Do believe. And each of the 3 have their distinct 'roles'.

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

We've been doing some of that in this thread, jenna. A good place to start would be by understanding divine simplicity and so the book. But that's really beside the point. You keep telling us that you don't believe the Trinity, that you understand it. My question to you, unanswered still, is whether or not you're open to the possibility that you don't understand it at all. That you've been misinformed as to what the Trinity actually says, where it came from, and why people believe it.

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

We've been doing some of that in this thread, jenna. A good place to start would be by understanding divine simplicity and so the book. But that's really beside the point. You keep telling us that you don't believe the Trinity, that you understand it. My question to you, unanswered still, is whether or not you're open to the possibility that you don't understand it at all. That you've been misinformed as to what the Trinity actually says, where it came from, and why people believe it.

while it is true that i have said i understood where the trinity came from, i never said i understood the trinity itself. i dont, plain and simple. and i dont understand how so any can say they believe in it, yet not even agree on what it actually is. how can something that is supposed to be so basic as to be called a fundamental doctrine, not be viewed and agreed upon as to what it actually is?

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, how did God talk is such requires material form?

Jenna, I'd like to point out that you previously conceded that the image of God isn't primarily to do with shape.

Also, I think you're overlooking God's argument in Deut that he has no form, using the event of Moses as illustrative of such.

this is the line of thinking that gets me, lol. first i am told that God can take any shape or form He pleases. Then i am told that I am underestimating God. then i am asked how did God speak without material form? it seems YOU are the one asserting God has no material form. (correct me if i am wrong) so if He has no form, how does/did He speak? who is the one underestimating God?

Seriously? I'm responding to and challenging your claims, but if you'd prefer to now believe that God can speak without material form then I have no further argument with you in this respect.

now wait just a minute here!!! you want to tell me how when and where exactly i said God can speak without material form? I DID NOT SAY THIS. but you are correct, i guess you and i are done with this, since you are not even reading what i am saying correctly.

It is implied here:

Jenna wrote:Giving Him a form does not mean He is limited. i agree He can show Himself to anyone He chooses, in any way He chooses. but that does not mean He is immaterial, and there are no passages that say He is immaterial. if there are, please quote them. again, He can feel emotion, such as anger, jealousy, compassion sadness, etc. He can see, which means He has eyes, He knows everything, which means He has a brain. an immaterial form does not have those things.

My responses have been quite respectful and thorough. Perhaps if you're feeling misunderstood you need to spend a bit more time thinking through your own position, crafting a fuller response more carefully, rather than working yourself into a tizz replying here and there.

I know it is never pleasurable having many on one, we've all been there. It's often good to take a step back, re-read over, think for a day or two, and then produce a thorough response. Trust me, that is perhaps the easiest way, rather than feeling a need to respond to everyone just because they've said something to you. Take a breath. Re-read over the exchanges, where people misunderstood you, where you could have worded your position better, where you might see some valid points, and then re-articulate your position afresh.

Don't blame the people who misunderstand your words, if we're getting things wrong, put the breaks on further responses and clarify. There's only one source we're getting our information from here about what you believe.

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

We've been doing some of that in this thread, jenna. A good place to start would be by understanding divine simplicity and so the book. But that's really beside the point. You keep telling us that you don't believe the Trinity, that you understand it. My question to you, unanswered still, is whether or not you're open to the possibility that you don't understand it at all. That you've been misinformed as to what the Trinity actually says, where it came from, and why people believe it.

while it is true that i have said i understood where the trinity came from, i never said i understood the trinity itself. i dont, plain and simple. and i dont understand how so any can say they believe in it, yet not even agree on what it actually is. how can something that is supposed to be so basic as to be called a fundamental doctrine, not be viewed and agreed upon as to what it actually is?

Jenna,

Thank you for admitting that. Many times when people argue against something they don't understand, they just dig their heels in and continue to argue. It takes honesty and openness to admit what you did.

Now hopefully you will be open to listening to what others have to say regarding the Trinity.

There are some really good teachers here. Just give them a chance to help you understand. You won't regret it. I promise.

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:do i think you have misinterpreted the trinity?

Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

We've been doing some of that in this thread, jenna. A good place to start would be by understanding divine simplicity and so the book. But that's really beside the point. You keep telling us that you don't believe the Trinity, that you understand it. My question to you, unanswered still, is whether or not you're open to the possibility that you don't understand it at all. That you've been misinformed as to what the Trinity actually says, where it came from, and why people believe it.

while it is true that i have said i understood where the trinity came from, i never said i understood the trinity itself. i dont, plain and simple. and i dont understand how so any can say they believe in it, yet not even agree on what it actually is. how can something that is supposed to be so basic as to be called a fundamental doctrine, not be viewed and agreed upon as to what it actually is?

Jenna, there is in fact much agreement on the Trinity. It has been accepted for almost 2000 years as a central doctrine of orthodox Christianity and mapped out carefully according to what has been revealed to us in Christ and by the Apostles to ensure logical soundness and avoid in-coherency.

I posted a series of videos in one of my posts. I'd highly recommend them to you.

Oh, and Jenna....