Nontrinitarian "Christians" are a paradox

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Unbiased? Really?

Urantians believe Christ is the human incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, one of many creator sons.

I think you're reading things into my commentary :) - If i was discussing Urantia Book Christology I'd clearly note that, or if referring to anything UB related. Indeed, UB Christology is different. My commentary thus far is considering standard traditional orthodox Unitarian and Trinitarian debate, the main issues and differences. We deal more with UB related issues on the UB thread itself, and I'll clearly note if I'm adding a view, insight or perspective from other sources, if needed.
 

marhig

Well-known member
I think you're reading things into my commentary :) - If i was discussing Urantia Book Christology I'd clearly note that, or if referring to anything UB related. Indeed, UB Christology is different. My commentary thus far is considering standard traditional orthodox Unitarian and Trinitarian debate, the main issues and differences. We deal more with UB related issues on the UB thread itself, and I'll clearly note if I'm adding a view, insight or perspective from other sources, if needed.
Hi Freelight, can I ask you a question please? This is something from another thread. I just would like to clear something up.

Do you believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the truth? And do you believe that we are to follow Jesus?. Thanks
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Unbiased? Really?

Urantians believe Christ is the human incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, one of many creator sons.

On further note, I've mentioned about correlating and doing commentary on comparing traditional Christology and theology of the 'incarnation' with the UB view (it also holds the incarnation of a Creator-Son is a divine mystery),....and will probably share that dissertation as a blog-post as well, when finished. Just a heads up, for those interested.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Hi Freelight, can I ask you a question please? This is something from another thread. I just would like to clear something up.

Do you believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the truth? And do you believe that we are to follow Jesus?. Thanks

In 'God' absolutely, as sure as Existence itself ;)

Jesus, yes....although my Christology is very liberal, eclectic, progressive and pretty cosmic :) My views of Jesus are more expansive, cutting edge and controversial maybe,...besides the easy bread and batter traditional variety of most nominal christians. I let my commentaries speak for themselves,....let the logos flow.

I do NOT believe the bible to be wholly inerrant, infallible or every word to be hand-written by God, such a believe is wholly unnecessary even non-productive, since one can still study it and find religious value, truth, inspiration, wisdom. Neither is God who is INFINITE limited to any bible, any book, any one religion, any one cult. Some books and authors are more or less inspired,...that varies due to the caliber of the writer and text, and the discernment of the reader. The Spirit of truth is that which leads, guides and teaches, per Jesus own words. Per Paul's words...."the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"....so we must properly differentiate and interpret spiritually, while much in the Bible is figurative. Dogma shackles the soul, Spirit liberates it. Again,...use your own conscience and the Spirit of God as your guide. I've never taught anything less, and I've never advocated any one religous text, school or tradition as the only exclusive or BEST one....since as an 'eclectic' I take the best from all schools and traditions. How could a student of truth do anything less?

I dont think I've ever at anytime in my life or spiritual writings ever NOT encouraged any soul to respect, honor and follow the Lord Jesus. Why wouldnt I? Some here seem have a different opinion, much due to ignorance, presumption further clouded by bigotry and delusion. That reflects their lack of insight, as my theology has always been freely and prolifically (ha) expressed here since 2003,...its all about 'creative dialogue' and 'expanding consciousness'. All views are subject to change with better information coming thru and progressive revelation. This is how life works in space and time,...although some are content to put 'God' in a box to paint, pamper and wrap as they please. - I love 'decor' too...but I recognize it as being just that.

Spirit is LIFE,...'God' is the Sole Absolute Reality,....this Life is fully present, omniradiant, fully Alive! This Life is ONE. One Being. One Presence. One Power. in toto! The 'I AM Presence' is omnipresence.

As you know....I could go on......
 

marhig

Well-known member
In 'God' absolutely, as sure as Existence itself ;)

Jesus, yes....although my Christology is very liberal, eclectic, progressive and pretty cosmic :) My views of Jesus are more expansive, cutting edge and controversial maybe,...besides the easy bread and batter traditional variety of most nominal christians. I let my commentaries speak for themselves,....let the logos flow.

I do NOT believe the bible to be wholly inerrant, infallible or every word to be hand-written by God, such a believe is wholly unnecessary even non-productive, since one can still study it and find religious value, truth, inspiration, wisdom. Neither is God who is INFINITE limited to any bible, any book, any one religion, any one cult. Some books and authors are more or less inspired,...that varies due to the caliber of the writer and text, and the discernment of the reader. The Spirit of truth is that which leads, guides and teaches, per Jesus own words. Per Paul's words...."the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"....so we must properly differentiate and interpret spiritually, while much in the Bible is figurative. Dogma shackles the soul, Spirit liberates it. Again,...use your own conscience and the Spirit of God as your guide. I've never taught anything less, and I've never advocated any one religous text, school or tradition as the only exclusive or BEST one....since as an 'eclectic' I take the best from all schools and traditions. How could a student of truth do anything less?

I dont think I've ever at anytime in my life or spiritual writings ever NOT encouraged any soul to respect, honor and follow the Lord Jesus. Why wouldnt I? Some here seem have a different opinion, much due to ignorance, presumption further clouded by bigotry and delusion. That reflects their lack of insight, as my theology has always been freely and prolifically (ha) expressed here since 2003,...its all about 'creative dialogue' and 'expanding consciousness'. All views are subject to change with better information coming thru and progressive revelation. This is how life works in space and time,...although some are content to put 'God' in a box to paint, pamper and wrap as they please. - I love 'decor' too...but I recognize it as being just that.

Spirit is LIFE,...'God' is the Sole Absolute Reality,....this Life is fully present, omniradiant, fully Alive! This Life is ONE. One Being. One Presence. One Power. in toto! The 'I AM Presence' is omnipresence.

As you know....I could go on......
Yes you could, I have to go to the dictionary sometimes to understand some of your posts too! :)

Well, I believe that God has put everything that we need in the Bible, I believe that we have enough in the Bible to teach us how to live before God and follow Jesus, I believe that man has altered some of the Bible, but the Spirit teaches us the truth in our hearts. I only really read the Bible as there is enough there.

But saying that, from all your extensive reading and studying, you seem to have similar beliefs to me ( from what I've read) and that is that there is only one God, the father and Jesus Christ is his son, and that God didn't need to come to be a human sacrifice to save us, and that Jesus was saving in his lifetime, and that we worship God from our hearts and we are to do his will and that God looks at the heart. And that God is love.

To me, living by the will if God is first and foremost, and by doing so, we then inherit the holy spirit who cleanses our hearts from within by teaching and guiding us by the living word of God, poured into our hearts and washing us clean, and we are to obey his word and listen to our conscience and do his will. Do you believe differently to me? And if so, in what way? Thank you :)
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
On further note, I've mentioned about correlating and doing commentary on comparing traditional Christology and theology of the 'incarnation' with the UB view (it also holds the incarnation of a Creator-Son is a divine mystery),....and will probably share that dissertation as a blog-post as well, when finished. Just a heads up, for those interested.

Freelight, I was responding to Pops comment about your post being unbiased. That struck me as being absolutely hilarious.

I like your posts just fine, but I know where you're coming from, just like I know where Jehovah Witnesses are coming from when they claim Jesus is the incarnation of Michael, the angelic person who is just one of 700,000 creator sons.

When I was a teenager I read some Isaac Asimov writings but I never did read Ray Bradbury or L. Ron Hubbard. I'm just not much into science fiction ever since I realized UFO's do not exist as being from other worlds.

I have never watched any of the Star Trek things and I've never watched Star Wars, but I feel sure the Urantia concept outdoes all of them.

I did read the Celestine Prophecy and like John Denver used to say ... far out!

All that to say I like your "unbiased" posts, they are hilarious, keep 'em coming.
 

jsanford108

New member
So again; why would GOD need to sacrifice itself for itself? And an omnipotent omniscient eternal spirit cannot die, or it wouldn't be omnipotent or eternal.

Anyway....Perhaps we can just answer that first question logically and simply; as the truths of GOD are indeed simple and not of confusion. Then maybe we can move forward.

Thank you for not considering this an attack on your belief, as it is surely counted towards your faith and as such righteousness.

peace sincerely


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Thank you, good sir, for the question and clarification.

The question of why would God need to this is a very good one. First, He is the only one capable of doing it. The why remains however. Which leads us to God's divine love for humanity. He would need to become incarnate and sacrifice Himself, (because only He could) so that humanity may be reconciled with Him.

Before, I may have been unclear in demonstrating or illustrating why it would have to be God. Mankind, left to their own, would never reconcile with God. One need look no further than the many failings of the Hebrews. From the days of Cain/Abel all the way to Saul (who became Paul). Time and again they turned willingly from God. Despite having witnessed the vastness of His power and love. The only way mankind could be reconciled back to God is through God Himself intervening. Hence, the necessity of why God alone could and would sacrifice Himself for us.

Is this more clear? If not, feel free to point out where I am lacking. As you stated before, this is not intended as an attack, rather a theological discussion.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]

That was very well written and unbiased. Conveying sound points all while not disregarding the beliefs or perspectives of others.

I know it wasn't for me, but felt compelled to note that it was overall an outstanding post in my opinion.

Not flattering; it was indeed noteworthy.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I agree friend, it was a great post.


Sent from my iPad using TOL
 

keypurr

Well-known member
He said the Father was in Him as He was in the Father. His Head is the Father. Ours is supposed to be Jesus, because if we say our Head is the Father... we are saying we have "The Face of God".

Allow me to be blunt... Jesus is God. Jesus is the Highest name that all knees will bow to. Will God bow to Jesus? And salvation is by Jesus (God) alone! You are teaching people to Deny Jesus and thus their salvation. You are damning people with your teachings.

# That's the truth about the TRUTH!

The Father is in me also but I am not God?
You just can't seem to get over that hurdle.

Jesus had the logos IN HIM, he was not the logos.


Sent from my iPad using TOL
 

jsanford108

New member
Hello jsanford,


I will add that your mention of Jesus needing to be a "human sacrifice" can be debated, as human sacrifice is forbidden in the Tanakh, and its taught in many passages that another person cannot atone for the sins of anyone else, neither can their 'righteousness' be transferred to anyone else. Each are reponsible for their own sins and salvation,....each must REPENT themselves and turn to God...this is the only true WAY. - outward ritual sacrifices may help compliment or illustrate the gesture of surrender or sacrificing the self, in its yielding to God, but without the true repentance within the soul, an inner tranformation....the blood of bulls, goats, rams,...even the blood of a demi-god or angel...will not avail. - we can consider various symbolic meanings about the blood, as it relates to 'life-force', 'substance' and 'vitality' as a physical picture of something 'spiritual' in nature, but such remain 'figurative' metaphors.

Hence I explain elsewhere that my view does not discount or dishonor the blood of Jesus, its just a matter of understanding it symbolically, as a matter of faith anyways. YOU must still exercise faith, repent and turn to God. There is no substitute for this, as long as you can do this.


The 'I Am' statements can be explained within a Unitarian framework. None of the I Am's necessarily prove or even point to Jesus so called divinity, and we've even contested John 8:58 in older threads. Also,...in context when Jesus said he and his Father were one, he also prayed in his high-priestly prayer that we be 'one' with him and the Father,...in like unity of purpose, will, spirit, agreement. While the oneness that Jesus shared with the Father as the Firstborn or Only Begotten may be special and unique kind of sonship,....the statement "I and my Father' are one, can still be had within a Unitarian understanding.

Granted its admitted the 'incarnation' is a divine and human mystery, some would not accept the logic of a fully human and fully God 'being'...being a possibility. It appears to defy logic, raionale or possibility to some....to have a person being 100% one thing, while being also 100% another thing, so to speak. However, this subtle 'compound unity' does seem to ALLOW trinitarians to have their cake and eat it too :) - this way, one can allow Jesus to have the full potentials and privileges of humanity and divinity at once - ah,....it sounds pretty awesome, but is this philosopically sound or tenable? I merely ask the questions.

Oh and do note that Jesus in his humanity was already pure as a lamb so to speak,....so wouldn't really need to be 'divine' in any sense, Christologically speaking....to be the lamb of God. - we still question though the 'blood atonement' assumption that God demanded BLOOD in order to forgive, buy back or pay a debt of some kind,...some challenge this notion.

Thanks for the response. You addressed several items and I will do my best to respond. If I miss any, forgive me, for the fault is my own.

Human Sacrifice: I sincerely appreciate this point. It is a very grounded and well formed argument. When I say "human" sacrifice, I do not mean it with the usual connotations associated with it. However, would one not say that the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac would be one of such label? Further, would Christ offering Himself up, not be akin to the same label? From this, we could logically conclude that in Abraham's case, God did ask for a "human sacrifice." Granted, it did not take place, but the point still holds. In the case of Christ, it wasn't a demand, but rather, an act and an event which God accepted as "sacrificial." If God accepted it, would that not make it necessary? The counter argument would be that it was not necessary, which the obvious theological rebuttal would be "why would God do something that is unnecessary? That would contradict His very nature." Thus, my conclusion that the human sacrificial element to the crucifixion was necessary.

"Each are responsible for their own sins": I am utilizing your quote here, but it is to demonstrate what I perceive (if inaccurate, please correct me) to be paradoxical. If each person is responsible for their own sins, then how can one rely on Christ at all? Especially when the blood of Christ is (forgive the negative connotations) reduced to symbolism. These conflicting ideas would not only eliminate each other, but also leave humanity without a true means of salvation, only a symbolic one, which would serve no one.

I Am statements: Honestly, I will let this one be. It becomes a kind of round about argument where each side presents their points, but neither one really advances, because we both understand the reasoning of the other. We reach a stalemate where we agree on many points but disagree on other extrapolations.

Fully 100% of human/God: Can something be logically and rationally two things fully? If I may demonstrate mathematically how this is so, utilized three different numbers (0-3) and different forms. 3/3 = 100% = 1.00. Three numbers (0,1,3) and three different forms (decimal, percent, fraction), yet the same (all equal 1 in essence). So while is may be difficult for the mind to grasp, it is mathematically and metaphysically possible. (emphasis placed on possible)

I think I addressed everything I was questioned on. As before, please feel free to be critical and analyze my points. Question whatever you feel needs addressing or clarifying. I mean not to offend (even with the original post, it honestly wasn't directed at addressing nontrinitarian persons) but to inspire theological discussion. Thanks again for another superb response.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Fundamentals, true values................

Fundamentals, true values................

Yes you could, I have to go to the dictionary sometimes to understand some of your posts too! :)

Well, I believe that God has put everything that we need in the Bible, I believe that we have enough in the Bible to teach us how to live before God and follow Jesus, I believe that man has altered some of the Bible, but the Spirit teaches us the truth in our hearts. I only really read the Bible as there is enough there.

But saying that, from all your extensive reading and studying, you seem to have similar beliefs to me ( from what I've read) and that is that there is only one God, the father and Jesus Christ is his son, and that God didn't need to come to be a human sacrifice to save us, and that Jesus was saving in his lifetime, and that we worship God from our hearts and we are to do his will and that God looks at the heart. And that God is love.

To me, living by the will if God is first and foremost, and by doing so, we then inherit the holy spirit who cleanses our hearts from within by teaching and guiding us by the living word of God, poured into our hearts and washing us clean, and we are to obey his word and listen to our conscience and do his will. Do you believe differently to me? And if so, in what way? Thank you :)


Indeed,...such is a minimalist, simple yet most essential view of what true religion consists of, in one's relationship with Deity. I use the term 'minimalist' to mean 'minimal' in the sense of stripping things down to to their bare essentials :) - I've always agreed with your posts with its terms and spirit. You've heard the term "sometimes less is more". (on that note I do try to keep things concise as possible, not all my posts are loooooooooooooonggggg ;) )

I have access to a broader plate of religious terms, concepts and language-symbols and perhaps embellish or waxes poetic a bit more, and 'tailoring' such 'creative writing' gestures in itself can be challenging, but try to make it fun without over-complicating. Otherwise beyond peripheries of language, I've always held to the essentials of religious ideals, truth, ethics and principle. In this sense I'm a true theosophist, meaning one devoted to universal wisdom, the study of it within all religious traditions, since a golden thread of truth runs thru all. (as far as that goes, I'm probably one of the few if not only one of this category or caliber on the forum. I find studies in non-dualism to be most fundamental {in all religious schools}, and I used to have a thread on 'non-duality', but I digress.)


What is Non-Duality?


Our uniting in real ethics, true principles, divine values is always most essential, as it pertains to our relationship with Deity and each other, since these things are intrinsic. Hence the simple teaching of Jesus on the good news of the kingdom centers in knowing God as your Heavenly Father, relating to God as love and in love, and then serving God by doing his will. When one knows God as such, and is doing his will....then he is serving his purpose, fulfilling the law. Therefore, the love-ethic of Jesus still holds, and it is in the instruction of the Master to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". If you read the end of Matt. 5, this relates directly to the manner and quality of love you show to others.

God looks at the heart, and is the HEART of all that is.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Father is in me also but I am not God?

God? The term "God" is a generic term not referring to any one person. What we do know is that YHVH brought the people out of Egypt.

The term YHVH means self-existent. Like the Most High, no one gave him life, his life was inherent. However, he yielded his eternal life to become born of woman for the benefit of humanity.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Clarifying some important points.....

Clarifying some important points.....

Freelight, I was responding to Pops comment about your post being unbiased. That struck me as being absolutely hilarious.

Hi Jamie,

My sharings here so far, and in most the Unitarian/Trinitarian debates (my first post here I link many of those threads), are within the direct context and vein of the historical biblical issues at hand, and I propose and expound on those particular points. I'm openly for the sake of discussion espousing a more traditional Unitarian Christology, but can wax metaphysically liberal with a Trinitarian concept of Deity, or even beyond it. 'God' is INFINITE. My posts, just like any others, will naturally reflect their own personal bias, more or less, because you cannot share a point of view, without coming from a particular viewpoint. Therefore I try to be clear and descriptive of communicating particulars and relating it within a given 'context'.

I like your posts just fine, but I know where you're coming from, just like I know where Jehovah Witnesses are coming from when they claim Jesus is the incarnation of Michael, the angelic person who is just one of 700,000 creator sons.

Awesome,...I enjoy writing, I approach it as an art, an expression of logos. All is the gift of God. BUT as I shared, I am not approaching my discussion on Christology from a UB background or POV(point of view), but from the mainline traditional orthodox Unitarian/Trinitarian debate CONTEXT. We've discussed the UB view of Christology and those particulars on the UB thread. I do not like or find it even logical that some people pigeonhole or have a preconception of you referencing things from a prefigured theological context, because that is NOT the case with me, since I'm always engaging any particular subject within the given 'context' of knowledge pertinent to the discussion, biblically, historically, etc. If I'm correlating a subject with other schools or other source perspectives, I usually NOTE or indicate that I'm doing so. Hence in this thread, and in most all threads debating whether Jesus is God (Unitarian/Trinitarian debate), its within a 'biblical' and traditional Christian historical context.

A UB Christological context is not even in my mind for the most part, and needn't not be. A UB view brings many interesting and unique nuances to the fore, but they don't pertain to much of the traditional debate engaged here, unless I bring such points into the discussion, finding reason to. I'll be diving into that in that thread, when space and time affords.

When I was a teenager I read some Isaac Asimov writings but I never did read Ray Bradbury or L. Ron Hubbard. I'm just not much into science fiction ever since I realized UFO's do not exist as being from other worlds.

I have never watched any of the Star Trek things and I've never watched Star Wars, but I feel sure the Urantia concept outdoes all of them.

I enjoy sci-fi too, and metaphysical studies in general, but mostly studies in consciousness, since 'consciousness' is at the base and context of all life,....in fact...consciousness is the very medium, the substrate in which all reality inheres and is referenced. There is nothing that exists outside of consciousness as far as we know.

To reiterate again....the Urantia Book is NOT associated with UFOs, neither is it a UFO Cult, although it has been put on a list of 'Ufo Religions' on a Wiki page only because of its contents being a series of messages from celestial personalities, its descriptions of life on other worlds, and its greater cosmological context and sharing of knowledge from a 'Grand Universe' perspective.- in this sense its a textbook of 'cosmic' or universal theology. For direct refutation and education on this my post to GM here holds.

I did read the Celestine Prophecy and like John Denver used to say ... far out!

:crackup: - I did too, but not too impressed over all, as it just touches on some basic universal principles common to new age perspectives. The author wrote a sequel at least continuing in the same vein.

All that to say I like your "unbiased" posts, they are hilarious, keep 'em coming.

They are mostly 'unbiased' from a UB perspective, because that's not even in view in these discussions, my argument is traditional and biblical, yet universal in scope. You therefore may be projecting a presupposition that is not existing in my posts here, when no UB element is even referenced or related here at all. I just tire of people defining me, when they haven't seen the forest for the trees, and wrongly assume my motive, theological background, philosophical context, especially newer posts here who have only seen a small slice of my posts here, and then presume to judge me based on such limited information. Hence I call them out freely on that, without trying to too harsh, but I must call ignorance, presumption and bigotry as I see it.

My commentary speaks for itself. So, I let it do the talking. The problem may be in my articulation at times, but some of it is in translation and interpretation of it (there are many dimensions engaged in dialogue affecting translation). That's why one ought to be careful in any online discussion as to understand and interpret as correctly as we can, in the process of 'dialogue', but unfortunately you have some folks who jump the gun, presume prematurely, are judgemental, bigoted and biased to an an extreme that is unnecessary and erroneous. That is where you have to be careful.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Quips and quotes......

Quips and quotes......

Thanks for the response. You addressed several items and I will do my best to respond. If I miss any, forgive me, for the fault is my own.

You're welcome.

Creative, constructive and insightful dialogue is what I strive for, even though sometimes we miss the mark there, when anything retards or hinders it.

Human Sacrifice: I sincerely appreciate this point. It is a very grounded and well formed argument. When I say "human" sacrifice, I do not mean it with the usual connotations associated with it. However, would one not say that the story of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac would be one of such label? Further, would Christ offering Himself up, not be akin to the same label? From this, we could logically conclude that in Abraham's case, God did ask for a "human sacrifice." Granted, it did not take place, but the point still holds. In the case of Christ, it wasn't a demand, but rather, an act and an event which God accepted as "sacrificial." If God accepted it, would that not make it necessary? The counter argument would be that it was not necessary, which the obvious theological rebuttal would be "why would God do something that is unnecessary? That would contradict His very nature." Thus, my conclusion that the human sacrificial element to the crucifixion was necessary.

I agree that Jesus gave his life in loving service, this included the sacrifice of his own self-interests for God's. The laying down of one's life in this sense is 'sacrificial', if you want to use the term,...otherwise its just what love does. Granted there are different theories or versions of 'atonement' you can play with. I elaborate more on this in the 'atonement according to Freelight' thread. We can be sure there were other ways to atone for one's sins than bringing an animal for sacrifice in the OT, and that universally prayer, repentance, and the offering of one's own soul in surrender to the Spirit is always and ever THE WAY. It is still the way today.

"Each are responsible for their own sins": I am utilizing your quote here, but it is to demonstrate what I perceive (if inaccurate, please correct me) to be paradoxical. If each person is responsible for their own sins, then how can one rely on Christ at all? Especially when the blood of Christ is (forgive the negative connotations) reduced to symbolism. These conflicting ideas would not only eliminate each other, but also leave humanity without a true means of salvation, only a symbolic one, which would serve no one.

If each are truly responsible for their own sins, then each are responsible for repenting of such. God provides all means of course, but individual responsibility and repentance is fundamental. If this is the case, then a different understainding, interpretation and application of Jesus so called 'sacrifice' would have to follow. There is no substitute for personal repentance and re-turning to God, NONE. - a prophet, demi-god even angel can extend grace to souls, alleviating some karma for them, BUT nothing can abrogage or bypass individual self-responsibility. This principle is taught in the scriptures. - and even so the universal law of karma holds too, for what is being sown is being reaped, per every action and its consequences arising in every moment. All these need to be factored in.

I Am statements: Honestly, I will let this one be. It becomes a kind of round about argument where each side presents their points, but neither one really advances, because we both understand the reasoning of the other. We reach a stalemate where we agree on many points but disagree on other extrapolations.

Yes, a hamster wheel it can be. In any case,...aspects of the Trinity debate are frivolous on that score, as just a good or even better case can be made from a purely Unitarian perspective. Is this opinion 'biased'? It depends on who you ask :) - but I'm always ready to change my mind if any evidence presents itself to affect such a change. A student is always open to LEARN, or he is not a student.

Fully 100% of human/God: Can something be logically and rationally two things fully? If I may demonstrate mathematically how this is so, utilized three different numbers (0-3) and different forms. 3/3 = 100% = 1.00. Three numbers (0,1,3) and three different forms (decimal, percent, fraction), yet the same (all equal 1 in essence). So while is may be difficult for the mind to grasp, it is mathematically and metaphysically possible. (emphasis placed on possible)

I imagine that a mathematical approach could merit its own thread :) - that trinities exist in nature and is a pattern in nature, may correctly mirror certain spiritual or archetypal patterns in the substructure and formation of things. So,...I don't discount 'trinities' existing as such.

If we hold one essence as being that which all existence, all forms are derived or made of,...then that essence is one. From this essence so many forms arise, as well as personality-forms, individual expressions. We take off here and go full-bore into the metaphysics. I will just leave the thought here at 'One Essence; man forms'. Likewise, 'there is Consciousness, and many conceptions or concepts that arise in Consciousness'.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
You therefore may be projecting a presupposition that is not existing in my posts here, when no UB element is even referenced or related here at all.

I was not suggesting reference to a Urantia element specifically, but you have revealed your background and I keep that in mind when reading your posts. As I said, I like your posts and I usually read them and sometimes I even reply.

I hope you don't change a thing.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
The problem may be in my articulation at times...

I know what you mean. Sometimes I hesitate to articulate perchance it would culminate in an inadvertent deviation from the true course of rectitude.

I eschew obfuscation, I like to keep it simple.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The thing with nontrinitarians is that you are also certain to find a myriad of doctrinal inconsistencies the more you have general discourse with them.

For two reasons-
1) because the denial of the Trinity requires bargaining with other fundamental ideologies
and
2) they are nontrinitarian largely because they simply do not want to conform to orthodoxy- therefore the Trinity will not be the only thing they deny
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Thank you, good sir, for the question and clarification.

The question of why would God need to this is a very good one. First, He is the only one capable of doing it. The why remains however. Which leads us to God's divine love for humanity. He would need to become incarnate and sacrifice Himself, (because only He could) so that humanity may be reconciled with Him.

Before, I may have been unclear in demonstrating or illustrating why it would have to be God. Mankind, left to their own, would never reconcile with God. One need look no further than the many failings of the Hebrews. From the days of Cain/Abel all the way to Saul (who became Paul). Time and again they turned willingly from God. Despite having witnessed the vastness of His power and love. The only way mankind could be reconciled back to God is through God Himself intervening. Hence, the necessity of why God alone could and would sacrifice Himself for us.

Is this more clear? If not, feel free to point out where I am lacking. As you stated before, this is not intended as an attack, rather a theological discussion.
I'm sorry friend, but I'm still not seeing how GOD killing himself is a must for the salvation of the creation that GOD made.

Is GOD not omnipotent? Oh....It is? Well then being all powerful and the creator of all existence as we know it, then surely it knew full well of the issues it's creation would have with greed, pride, and misdirection. But you are basically saying that the omniscient omnipotent creator GOD of all existence made some grand mistake of a nature of which could only be fixed by the omniscient omnipotent GOD which is spirit, manifesting itself in human form yet still omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, and killing itself for a payment to itself for the sin of man.

Yeah....Sorry, but no.

What makes you think the love of God, longsuffering and ever-giving nature can't be shown to all people through the Spirit of GOD that filled the anointed of GOD? Why can't the way to GOD be shown to man by the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the blessed Lord of men, the Christ of GOD?

Wait....I forgot; I really don't want to move forward until we can at least make sense of the first issue... why?

Why did GOD have to be a blood sacrifice for itself and how does that make us to know of the will of GOD and how to abide by it? It wasn't the only way....I would humbly advise you not to limit the capacities of GOD.

I would expect an attack of some sort as my view is not orthodox and my points have yet to have been adequately addressed. I do sincerely hope that we all can learn what is good and right in the sight of GOD by the will and time of GOD and by the Way shown by GOD and made available to all.


By the way; I don't think the Unitarian or trinitarian perspective is needed for salvation, but I do believe and understand one view to have the potential to lead very many astray.

My position may have become slightly more pointed. This is because I donot wish to simply tread over the same ground repeatedly as it will lead to needless contention eventually.

I do really respect and appreciate your leveled approach so far.

peace friend.


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
 
Top