-->
@TheMorningsStar
how about a team analogy
you have a team- God
you have 3 members on that team-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
so the 3 members make one.
I still do not understand how the Trinity is a coherent concept
Posts
Total:
54
-->
@TheMorningsStar
@Dr.Franklin
Sort of like the Autobots and the Decepticons?
-->
@Athias
[1/2]
Look through my past posts.
I decided to do just that and all it did is make me even more sure that you are a combination of dishonest and ignorant on the subject.
Let's start, shall we?
In the thread "Honest opinions about religion" you bring up the idea of pagan gods being Lucifer derivatives but nothing much else is breached, so it is pointless to use as a reference point beyond proving that you have talked about the idea on this site.
In the thread "Can Luciferians be Good People?" you bring up the idea again... and then you proceed to bring up a conspiracy theory about all the elites being Luciferians. You also go ahead and bring up the bad meme that Eater comes from Ishtar when that idea is, essentially, only an atheist meme used as anti-Christian propaganda (some anti-Christian pagans have accepted the meme but it is rejected by scholars). If there is any god/goddess that Easter might be derivative of it is Ostara, and that is only a maybe. There also is no evidence that Ostara and Ishtar are related, mostly because there are next to zero texts even talking about Ostara.
But, ultimately, while you do bring up the idea of pagan gods being Lucifer derivatives you do nothing to actually demonstrate the point, you just claim it. You also associated the Morning Star, and Inanna, with the sun. Problem is that the Morning Star is always Venus, not the sun. Inanna is not associated with the sun, that is Utu. Utu is the sun. Even in the Canaanite pantheon Attar is associated with Venus and is the 'Morning Star', Shapash is the one associated with the sun.
So you were talking so confidently yet you associated the Morning Star to the sun when it is Venus?
In the thread "Real Cool Christmas Fax" you once again bring up the notion that pagan gods = Luciferian, but then proceed to make more basic mistakes. You call Thor and Odin the Norse equivalent to Horus and Osiris. This is laughable and is pulled out of no where. There are no texts that back this up, but we do know that Thor and Odin can be associated to different Egyptian gods. From Tacitus we see that Odin is mapped to Mercury and Thor is mapped to Hercules. Now that we know their Roman equivalents it isn't hard to find out the Egyptian ones... What is this? Mercury tends to map to either Anubis or Thoth? And Hercules is mapped to Heryshaf? This isn't Horus or Osiris at all, not even close! You just pull these associations out of nowhere without any regard for actual evidence it seems, not surprising since you think all pagan gods come out of Sumeria and all Sumerian gods are Luciferian.
I won't dispute your criticism of Jesus not being born in December as that is actually true, though I think there is no evidence that Christmas is some devious attempt to trick Christians into celebrating pagan rituals.
Let's move on to the thread "Water Baptism: What's the big deal?" where you criticize the idea of water baptism by associating it with pagan gods and thus Lucifer. You once again don't actually do anything to support the Luciferian connection, but honestly I think this is going to forever be a running theme here. You do, however, try to relate water baptism to Dagon/Oannes and the story where Asar/Osiris dies, is thrown into the water, and reemerges as Heru/Horus. There is just one little problem... the story is complete BS. Osiris never is thrown into the water and reemerges as Horus. In Plutarch's account Horus was already born when Osiris died, in another version Osiris is brought back just long enough to impregnate his wife with Horus. I would love to see where this myth that Osiris is put into a river and comes out as Horus exists, as it seems to have been pulled out from nowhere.
I will give credit that this time you are correct that Horus does map to Dagon, but you then make the mistake of calling Dagon a fish-god. Modern academic scholarship has shown that the connection between Dagon and fish was a medieval invention by an 11th century Rabbi that ended up gaining popularity and even lasted into the 20th century before it was discovered to be a false association. Hell, there is doubts on how much Dagon was even worshipped in coastal cities, if he was truly associated with fish then there should be plenty of evidence for this but there isn't.
You also said you would compile a list of sources, yet having read through your post history, as you told me to do, I can see you never follow through on this. So close to actually providing support for your claims but you fall short. However, considering how much you do get wrong I have to question how reliable those 'books' are.
To bring back your hate on Christmas, "Christmas, The Contrived Sham to Hide Our True Roots... Paganism". You make the Easter = Ishtar mistake here as well, but you also try to have Osiris mapped to Saturn, but Saturn is mapped to Geb. While there are numerous possible maps to Roman gods for Osiris it is never Saturn. You also make the same mistake of associating Dagon with a fish-god, but at least this misunderstanding is understandable.
You also make it clear in this thread just how much your views are baked into your theological position rather than any rational grounding.
Let's now look at the thread "Another Name For A Pedophile" where you once again fail at mapping a god from one culture to another. Here you try to map Pan to Saturn, and honestly it seems like you try to map everything to Saturn. Pan, however, doesn't map to Saturn but to Faunus. So far you have only ever gotten one of these maps correct, which really brings into question how reliable your 'sources' are. You also call Pan a god of pederasty, but I question how accurate that description is. Pan is a very sexual god and the Greek culture did have some distasteful (and some disgusting) practices when it comes to sex, sure, but Pan's most famous stories that include sexual conquest are never young boys/men. It seems more like you focus on one part and make it the highlight, Pan was never worshipped or written about as a god of pederasty.
You do talk about the idea in a couple other threads but never really go into detail or offer anything more than what is mentioned above, but I do think this one is worth talking about, "Why the Attitude!?" where you basically admit to believing in mythic literalism/sola scriptura on some level, even the parts that "seem" to contradict science. It is no wonder you hold onto such a warped view of history, you have to try your hardest to have it somehow fit your theological perspective. You place your theology first and history second, letting your religious beliefs impact what you accept about history rather than study history to try to better get to a true understanding of the divine.
Something tells me that you didn't actually expect me to go through everything and show just how ignorant and/or dishonest you are, but jokes on you, I have all the time in the world between job interviews at the moment.
-->
@Athias
[2/2]
What evidence do you have of Snorri's absolute Christian and political bias strictly as it pertains to the delineation of Norse mythology?
Literally the first chapter of the Prose Edda? Which I already, somewhat, mentioned and you ignored. Another point for dishonesty it seems.
Why is assuming that Scandinavians retelling and adopting the mythologies from Mycenaean Greece is any more of an assumption than your first one?
I didn't say that they retold and adopted stories from Mycenaean Greece, I explicitly said they didn't. The point is that if we are trying to prove that all pagan gods are derived from the Sumerian gods, then we need to establish how the influence happened. The Mycenaean Greeks would be essentially the only way you could get close to showing this. Also, if it was the case that one culture's religious views change after initiating trade with another's and that change makes the religions more similar then that isn't an assumption. Do you even know how historical research is done?
Not every deity will be depicted exactly the same when their stories are transmuted across regions.
Oh really? News to me! /s
Do you honestly think that wasn't considered before I made the statement? If you wish to counter it then provide who the parallel is. As it is you are making claims and refusing to defend them, which is pathetic. This is a debate website, right? Even if we are on the forums at the moment it shouldn't be beyond expectation that you will actually defend your ridiculous claims, right?
which you still have yet to address by the way
I didn't address it as I am more familiar with Greek, Roman, Norse, and Canaanite mythology than Egyptian. Not that I am ignorant about Egyptian mythology (and seeing how ignorant you are makes me feel more confident), make a decent claim with some support behind it and I will address it.
Assuming of course, that the later Greeks didn't just transmute their telling from the Mycenaean convention, which wouldn't require the Norse to be the first tellers.
Yes, classical Greek mythology borrows a lot from Mycenaean Greece, but that doesn't mean that they didn't borrow from other sources. We see no parallels between the Mycenaean Greeks and the Norse, who did engage in trade, but when the Mycenaean Greeks became the Classical Greeks we see parallels. What is more likely, that they took some inspiration from the Norse or that despite having engaged in trade for centuries they managed to come up with these ideas that just so happened to parallel the Norse?
The Mycenaean were located in what's known today as the Balkan peninsula. What other mythologies had influence there? (Hint: I've already mentioned one of them.)
You do realize the specific parallels I am talking about don't come from Egypt, right? The Classical Greek parallels (that don't exist in the Mycenaean Greek mythos) better parallel the Norse than Egyptians (and even have aspects wholly lacking from Egyptian mythology). I could go on and on, but you still haven't even provided any support for your side while I have for mine.
I cannot give you evidence for a non sequitur.
Having read your post history, it seems like this is one of your favorite phrases whenever you get pushed for evidence. Either that you you say you don't have links but books and then never actually give the name of these elusive books.
and if you don't, then don't mention it.
I think you are missing the point, your claim requires all pagan gods to stem from Sumeria, and for all pagan gods to be Luciferian. I only have to show that it doesn't apply to a single culture and your claim is prove wrong. You need to give some damn good evidence to be seen as prove right.
No, the Canaanite God, Attar stems from Lucifer, not the other way around.
You need some damn good evidence for that since Lucifer is a concept of the ancient Israelites that came after the Canaanites. So please, provide evidence.
Who was the consort of Mercury and the mother of Cupid?
Are you serious right now? Are you aware of just how messed up the Roman mythology around Cupid is? They tried to bring the primordial god Eros from Greek mythology (who has no parents) and fit into their own mythology and created a mess.
If we go off of Seneca's writings then Mercury was not involved at all but of Venus and Vulcan. If we go off the latest traditions then Mercury is still not involved as Cupid is the child of Venus and Mars.
The only way to get the idea that Mercury is involved is to use the writings of Cicero, but this is the most convoluted of them all as there are now three separate Cupids born out the the union of three separate Venus's, one paired with Diana, one with Mars, and one with Mercury.
All of this is besides the point when Hermaphroditus doesn't even map to Cupid (as stated, Eros does). Hermaphroditus doesn't have a 'Roman equivalent' as the Romans just use Hermaphroditus as is (look at Ovid's Metamorphoses) and even coined the term hermaphrodite from the name of said god (the Greeks used a different word).
By the way, before this gets lost in our on-going discussion, what kind of pagan are you, as you would describe it? Why do you wear a pentagram necklace?
I am more of a polytheistic Omnist. I do not follow a particular pantheon but try to study as many religions as I can and give offerings to those gods that I feel connected to (example: Loki) or those I think truly deserve respect (example: Hades). While there are still many pantheons from the middle east and Europe I could study I am currently buying books on the ancient Chinese pantheon as well as Shintoism and other eastern religions. Once I finish there I plan to look at the Native American gods and religions.
I wear the pentagram because I have had personal experiences that have validated my beliefs and rituals I perform and it is treated as a more universal pagan symbol these days, so it more easily reflects the more Omnistic tendencies of my paganism while also saves me money so I don't buy a different necklace for each god I choose to honor (which is a long term goal).
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think EVERY analogy used to describe the Trinity breaks down. I tend not to use them unless I am demonstrating various points about the doctrine. I think analogies as a whole ought to be used sparingly and we should never try to take them further than the actual intent.
The Trinity is a difficult doctrine to understand in many ways and quite simple in other ways.
The primary position is that there is ONE GOD. Yet God is three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As you put it above in one of your posts - each person is God and yet each person is NOT the other.
The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Holy Spirit.
A = DB = DC = DA =/= B =/= C
I think this is unhelpful way of trying to understand the Trinity. The logic of God is true - yet - you are coming at it from a Western Point of view. You are using what Edward De Bono would call Rock logic. And getting caught into absolutes.
The Biblical understanding of logic is based in Middle Easter Logic. Individualism is not the norm and neither is the corporate - so it is also not the Eastern Point of view. De Bono would probably infer that is "water logic". Interestingly, I don't recall De Bono ever distinguishing a third kind. Yet not surprising, because despite his intriguing intelligence, he does seem to have missed covenantal thinking.
It is to do with the one and the many. How are we to understand - the rights of the individual v the rights of the Community as a whole? Who has the primary say? In the West, it has historically been the individual who has the priority. In Eastern nations, it has primarily been the Corporate. It is little wonder that the West has tended towards capitalism based on individuality and the East has tended towards Socialism and Communism. I concede that Europe has often tended towards a mixture - probably closer to socialism. Yet, I suspect that has been a consequence of Napoleon's Code - and then the influence of the Soviet Union. And perhaps even to a degree - the movements of Islam into the areas.
Jewish Thought and to a lesser degree Christianity - has been covenantally based. This means it does not hold the individual or the corporate as primary - but rather equally. It has tried to balance the position between the right to bear arms v the right for a community to feel safe. It has endeavored to favor the view that the means and the ends are both important. Utilitarian's - suggest the end justifies the means. The greater good for the greater amount of the people.
Yet, biblical ethics is not this way inclined - and primarily because it is based on its theological understanding of the Trinity. It is not just ONE God. It is not just a plurality of gods. It is Trinity. One GOD, Three persons.
No other theological position is able to properly provide a satisfactory balance of the one and the many. One tends towards absolutes and the other towards relativity. Take the JWs and the Mormons and the two cults of the Christian religion. JWs focus on ONE GOD. Mormons focus on many gods. They are simply the Christianized versions of every other religion in the world. Islam for instance. What is common with JW and Islam? Both are fixated on absolutes. They have no real ability to be flexible in their positions. Or take the Mormons and say, Hinduism, or dare I say it atheism. Very much flexible and relative in their points of view. Mormons don't believe in Hell. Hindus - take a relativistic point of morality and athiests. They often say they just believe in one god less than Christians - yet the underyling principle really is they believe every person is their own captain and master - a god without calling it so.
Covenant theology - requires absolutes and boundaries - but it also contains much flexibility and relativism within those boundaries. A good example is the Garden of Eden. The absolute was don't eat the fruit from the one tree. Yet eat from any of the others. A boundary - parameters. And yet freedom within those boundaries. the Trinity is the basis for this understanding.
Other biblical examples of these Western Contradictory positions.
Jesus is FULLY God and Jesus is FULLY Man. He is not half God and half Man. It would be interesting to see whether this idea exists anywhere in other mythology. Mostly such heroes - with a divine parent - are either half man and half god but I can't think of someone who is considered FULLY god and FULLY man.
The Bible is written by Man and yet it is divinely authored by God, the Holy Spirit. It is not dictated for man to write. It was divinely authored by God - and fully written by humans in all of their frailties and sinfulness.
The Church. It is divinely established by the Holy Spirit - indeed as the body of Christ. And yet it is made up of human sinful people.
The Cross. The world considers the cross foolish and yet it is the wisdom of God. Humanity only sees weakness. Yet is the power of God for salvation.
God is ONE - and Yet God is three.
If we use Western Logic we miss it. If we use Eastern Logic we miss it. Baptists tend to miss the household baptism in the NT. Why? Because they are individualistic in their understanding of the gospel.
-->
@Reece101
can you explain what you mean by that
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let me start by saying that I personally do not believe in a Trinitarian God. That said, let me see if I can supply some knowledge.
The Trinity itself is a concept that was set down and agreed upon during the Council of Nicaea/Council of Constantinople who then set up the Nicene Creed. If trying to conceptually understand the Trinity you should start with a Wikipedia search of the above. Personally, I do not agree with the Trinity but if you're trying understand what it means and if it completely meshes with the Bible you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone who can do both of those things. The doctrine was created by a council of men in a political circumstance and not necessarily to declare what they at the council all truly believed but what they would have the rest of Christendom generally agree upon. It wasn't until later it became heresy to disbelieve in the Trinity, but anyway. Ragnar gave a sufficient example as to explain the Trinity but maybe here is an example that will better suit your brain. I personally when trying to understand the Trinity think of it as computer. A computer is made of a few components, a few more important than others, but all operating to the same purpose. The motherboard inside holds the real guts and power, your screen giving the visual results of what is being processed, your hard drive holding the data of all those things. In the Trinity they see all things as one body, thereby one computer. Christ in this case would act more as the memory unit who had a temporary wipe while he experienced humanity for a short time until he was ready to fully receive the knowledge he had previously. Honestly, no example really works perfectly, that is simply what works for me and hopefully sheds some light. It is also worth noting that the Council of Nicaea focused mostly on the divinity of Christ and the concept of the Trinity was already around at the time, it is usually however the benchmark theists use to decide when Trinitarian belief became prominently accepted and agreed upon as orthodox.
I'm also quite certain you have heard of and can come up with many other metaphors of a similar kind for the Trinity. In all reality we are trying to understand a concept that in essence isn't fully explained. Trinitarian belief can, and is, supported by scripture but is also disputed by scripture. The issue you face is whether someone who is explaining the Trinity to you is using closed canon/open canon as well as whether they support a perfect/imperfect Bible. You'll find any Christian hard-pressed to give an infallible answer using only scripture or metaphors to explain the Trinity or really most Christian belief if they are supporting a closed canon perfected Bible. If one truly could do that there would be a lot less debate on religion. Hope that makes a little sense
-->
@Tradesecret
No other theological position is able to properly provide a satisfactory balance of the one and the many. One tends towards absolutes and the other towards relativity. Take the JWs and the Mormons and the two cults of the Christian religion. JWs focus on ONE GOD. Mormons focus on many gods. They are simply the Christianized versions of every other religion in the world. Islam for instance. What is common with JW and Islam? Both are fixated on absolutes. They have no real ability to be flexible in their positions. Or take the Mormons and say, Hinduism, or dare I say it atheism. Very much flexible and relative in their points of view. Mormons don't believe in Hell. Hindus - take a relativistic point of morality and athiests. They often say they just believe in one god less than Christians - yet the underyling principle really is they believe every person is their own captain and master - a god without calling it so.
Be careful throwing out the C word my friend. First definition you're gonna get for cult: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." By this definition almost all if not all religions are cults. So if you mean this definition cool, but more likely you mean it as derogatory, as if to say "they are strange and different, we should call them as such." Not cool bruh. Also, "Mormon" is just a nickname and isn't recognized as the actual name of the organization. Go with LDS if you're gonna shorthand it if you would. Latter-day Saints do believe in Hell also, but that it is far less populated than what other Christian denominations may believe. More often than not it is referred to as "Outer Darkness" within the church but really it is Hell. The word Hell pops up in the Book of Mormon and countless talks and writings from its leaders. To say LDS people don't believe in Hell is simply inaccurate. That said, your point on "Mormons focus on many gods" is technically true but misleading. They believe in a Godhead, which is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the Trinity except that they believe each of the members are physically different. As in Jesus has his own body and spirit, God the Father has his own body and spirit, the Holy Spirit its own spirit. That said they are still referred to as "One God" and accept that within the Bible and Book of Mormon. The most common phrase to use is that they are "One God in purpose", that is to say they are so similar in purpose, state of mind, and ability that they are completely in sync and therefore fairly called as one "thing". In the same way a married couple can physically be different but also one. Or two bestfriends. Or a dog and cat when they want your Del Taco. Anyway, just a bit of knowledge to throw out there. If you're curious on anything else just ask my dude.
How do you feel it differs from the maiden mother crone example?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
maiden mother crone
This is a neo-pagan concept, and thus I am not too familiar with it, but from what I understand the maiden mother crone is usually depicted in either tritheistic terms or modalistic terms, both of which are seen as heretical when applied to the Christian trinity.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Mark 12:28-34Hear, O Israel: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one." So says the bible. Not two or three but one.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. Not two or three but one.
FAUXLAW,
YOUR QUOTE SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN!!!: "Thus, there are actually many gods, of which our trinity is but one set, dedicated to Earth, who created Earth. our trinity, along with all these other gods, have created, over time, the expanding universe, each one, a portion of it, peopling planets like our Earth ....... Our Earth is but one of countless planets created for this purpose for many, many people, each children of a specific one of the many gods."
WTF! Barring the fact that there are so many needless "commas" in your unchristian like quote above, you once again SLAP JESUS in the face with your Twilight Zone Bible ignorant statements above by saying there are many gods in the universe, where Jesus' inspired words state there is ONLY ONE, which is Jesus as shown below, you stupid MORONIC fool!
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43: 10-11)
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6)
Therefore, since you are not following Joseph Smith's Book of Moron's Bible, why don't you just take it outside and just piss on it and set it on fire!
As Jesus would say, there is a sucker born at times in that they will become a MORMON like you! LOL!
NEXT?
-->
@MonkeyKing
Be careful throwing out the C word my friend
I mean, based on the BITE model both Mormonism and JW fall under the category of cult, so I don't know why one needs to be careful about calling these two 'denominations' what they are.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
BITE method doesn't work either, nearly all of the points in no way fit. The easiest one to debunk is money, the LDS church uses its funds toward charitable giving and not towards the leadership. There's no threats or use of violence, manipulation of private information, or any "hidden information" that would largely affect anyone. The only information hidden is people's private info and incomplete documents. Even the finances of the church are posted publicly and vetted by a third party that then reports to the members. Just another misconception to negatively connotate the LDS church. The only part that the church can be guilty of is the emotional aspect, and that is a result of culture and imperfect members and largely is perpetuated by the members and far less so the leadership. That said the bad parts of church culture can center mostly in Utah where the majority of its members, it should be noted, do not even live.
-->
@MonkeyKing
Multiple ex-Mormons have put the church through the BITE model and I have yet to see one conclude it isn't a cult. Even non-Mormons that focus on cults have published their thoughts on Mormonism and the BITE model and concluded it is a cult.
This is a playlist that has an ex-JW that concluded that Mormonism is a cult via the BITE model and an ex-Mormon going over the BITE model in regards to Mormonism again and showing how it is a cult.
-->
@MonkeyKing
Thanks for the warning - but I don't necessarily have positive or negative connotations with the word cult.
I do however insist that both the JW and the LDS fall outside of the traditional understanding of Christian doctrine and churches.
They both might be labeled Christian by those outside the church - but the church has a long history of seeing them as outside of it.
-->
@Barney
As clear as mud.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let us talk about credibility here. BITE method itself isn't necessarily the most credible as it no peer-reviewed publications and isn't verified by the scientific community. While Mr. Hassan was a credible practitioner of mental health science it does not make him the end all be all of the subject. As such using the model as a scale on any group ought to be done with caution before counting BITE method as an unassailable truth. Your video is then an ex-mormon talking about the church in a negative way which honestly is slightly more credible in my mind than the BITE method. That said, you find me a legitimate psychological community willing to agree on the church being cultist than please provide them. I personally have over two decades of experience in the church as a leader, member, missionary, and inactive member. Would it be equally credible then if I create a video on how the church is actually the God's gift to the planet and I prove that using only the Bible, a source not recognized or agreed upon by the general community?
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As Jesus would say, there is a sucker born at times in that they will become a MORMON like you! LOL!
I see, that's' how you spell Mormon. I must have been hearing it pronounced wrong , Brother.
-->
@Tradesecret
I'd simply ask you to investigate the full name of the church. If someone within the church is legitimately stating they are not Christian, that is a bit concerning. As far as "falling outside traditional understanding", yeah. That's fair. In my personal experience the confusion that comes in is when members of the LDS church state that they don't believe in the Trinity, other Christian denominations can take that to mean they believe in a "different" Jesus. Which is sort of true. But mostly not. They still believe in the Bible, including the New Testament. The main difference is the belief that Christ is physically different, at which point folks can get see that as not close enough to the mainstream to be considered Christian. Honestly, the most Christian people I've met would say something very similar almost every time being something along the lines of, "well, it sounds like we're on the same page. See ya there." Tbh I don't mind the church being considered the weird cousin of the group, it is certainly different. When people go to drag it through the mud it is saddening though considering when it all comes down to it, it's really not that different. That said, if you're not going for a positive or negative connotation than I'm unclear as to the use of the word. But whatever. Semantics. Doesn't matter in end then.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
FAUXLAW,YOUR QUOTE SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN!!!: "Thus, there are actually many gods, of which our trinity is but one set, dedicated to Earth, who created Earth. our trinity, along with all these other gods, have created, over time, the expanding universe, each one, a portion of it, peopling planets like our Earth ....... Our Earth is but one of countless planets created for this purpose for many, many people, each children of a specific one of the many gods."WTF! Barring the fact that there are so many needless "commas" in your unchristian like quote above, you once again SLAP JESUS in the face with your Twilight Zone Bible ignorant statements above by saying there are many gods in the universe, where Jesus' inspired words state there is ONLY ONE, which is Jesus as shown below, you stupid MORONIC fool!“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43: 10-11)"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6)Therefore, since you are not following Joseph Smith's Book of Moron's Bible, why don't you just take it outside and just piss on it and set it on fire!As Jesus would say, there is a sucker born at times in that they will become a MORMON like you! LOL!
NEXT?
Bruh
-->
@MonkeyKing
You makes your label and you stick it on.
Though in the end, I don't expect that it will make much difference.
But hey!......Here's to hoping .
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,
YOUR QUOTE RELATIVE TO ONE OF THE MOST SATANIC CHRISTIAN FAITHS: "I see, that's' how you spell Mormon. I must have been hearing it pronounced wrong , Brother."
Yes, I admit, that since the Moron faith, whoops, see I did it again! Here let me start over, since the M-O-R-M-O-N alleged Christian division is literally Satanic, I slip upon my Freudian at times and call this faith for what it truly is, MORONIC! I think Jesus sneaks into my discussions at times relating to the Mormon faith and makes me call a spade a spade, even if we are in Gramercy Park in the Los Angeles area of California.
If ANYONE can swallow Mormonism, it shows that they are 3 fries short of a "Happy Meal" at Mickey D's!
.
381 days later
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So often when I talk with Christians about the Trinity they use analogies which more align with the heretical views of modalism, partialism, or tritheism. When they don't offer those analogies they tend to either use such vague terminology that it isn't clear what they are talking about, simply give a link to a source that will 'explain' it for them, or simply admit that they don't understand it either.Now, it could be that the issue is that I tend to get into these types of discussions in more casual forums with people that do not often engage in debate, and so hopefully, this being a debate-centric website, that won't be an issue here. I'm not saying that it cannot be done, but simply that I have not yet seen it done.To those that believe the classical idea of Trinity (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/1138px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png), can you explain it in a way that is easily understandable and not heretical?
The trinity as one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not supported anywhere in the Bible.
Jesus always prayed to the Father
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come only “after” he left.
Jesus said he too had a God.
John 16:7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness,because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
June 20:17 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
But the trinity or threesome that produced Jesus is well documented in Luke.
Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
The Holy Spirit or sperm donor came on Mary. The Most High overshadowed (overpowered) Mary and held her down. Mary was gang raped and the threesome or trinity produced Jesus.