I don't want to be Christian

[Traveler]

I'm not a prophet or a seer. And I certainly don't speak on behalf of the LDS church with this next statement. IMHO, Trinitarians will rue the day they ever believed God, Christ, and the Spirit are one being.

Personally, I think you have missed the point. I believe they will rue the day they allowed or encouraged anyone among them to suffer or die for not believing as they do.

There is no point, even to correct doctrine if it does not turn our hearts towards both G-d and our neighbors - even if they are (as Jesus said) the Samaritan heretics that he loved.

The Traveler

Edited November 11, 2008 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm afraid you don't have a choice in the matter PrisonChaplain. All substantial, credible discussion must be backed by analysis, support, and logic. Otherwise it is nothing more than crude opinion. Academically speaking, which is how the world defines credibility whether you accept that or not, your argument holds no merit if you want to inappropriately end it with "I have no interest in justifying the inquisition..."

Let me spell it out for you WiseMagic. There is no doubt that ugly things were done in the name of defending the faith by the Church for most of the period in which it held secular, political power. In contrast, the New Testament was written during a time of persecution and socio-political rejection. The use of violence and force to defend truth and oppose heresy was/is wrong. So, why do you believe that I am forced to defend that which I have no wish to defend? Do you believe that the Church's poor handling of political power means that the doctrine of the Trinity is therefore proven wrong??? IMHO, the two matters are non sequitar. Although, I appreciate that this matter does prove my signature line--Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[prisonchaplain]

1) 168,000 people will make it into Heaven ONLY and no one else -- Jehovah's Witnesses

Actually, it's 144K. However, all the other faithful JWs get to live forever on paradise Earth. Also, the more than 6 billion souls that don't make either of these places do not burn in eternal torment--they're just annhilated.

2) The Trinity -- Everyone, except the LDS faith, supposedly

Three persons called God, but only one God. Perhaps it's an existence unique to the species called God?

3) Just believe and you are saved -- Born Agains

Why is that so tough to understand? You can't save yourself, but if you embrace the love of God, he will save you and transform you.

4) Closed Cannon -- Everyone except JW's and LDS.

The belief is not that God has ceased to speak, but rather that he has chosen not to add any written material to the collection of Scripture. Of course he still speaks. People sense him all the time.

[prisonchaplain]

So you honestly believe that God would inspire something through the language of negation when all the proceeding scripture has little to no evidence of God ever speaking in the language of negation?? I refuse to believe that an Almighty being would inspire a doctrine that is so limited in nature and written in language that is erroneous. Whatever, to each their own.

Let me help you. The separate basics of the Trinity are found in Scripture. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God. Where things got cloudy is in people trying to reason it out, and then developing doctrine out of their reasoning.

For example, Bishop Arius, dealing predominantly with Pagans, wanted to help them clearly understand that God is one. So, he fudged on the doctrine that Jesus is God, and said he was a god, a supreme creation of the Father...but subordinate to him. Still others started saying that God is not really three persons, but one person who acts out in three modes.

So, the lead teachers of the church came together, prayed, and spelled out a precise doctrinal statement--one clearly intended to spell out truth vs. error.

What you call the language of negation is a document meant specifically to counter heretical teachings that had arisen, and so you find language that, unlike Scripture, is geared towards an almost judicial reading. Why would you think God could not anoint such?

How logically sound is it to believe that God was praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or that He was atoning for His own demands of Justice in the Garden? That makes absolutely no sense to me! Because to manifest Himself in three different forms is not a testament to His divinity,but rather would be a chaotic demonstration that defies all logic and order. The idea of a different entity seeking reconciliation and advocating two different parties makes more sense to me and that's not even a doctrine I believe in. In fact, this is why I refuse to believe in a God or a religion.

What a waste of time.

WiseMagic

I have no control over what you disbelieve, but it sounds like your opposition is not to the doctrine of the Trinity, but to modalism. Trinitarians believe that the Father and Son are distinct personalities, so the Son was praying to his Father, and the atonement he carried out would appease the Father's sense of justice. There is no chaos here. They are one God, but three persons--distinct in personality, but of one essence.

Edited November 11, 2008 by prisonchaplain

[WiseMagic12312]

Do you believe that the Church's poor handling of political power means that the doctrine of the Trinity is therefore proven wrong??? IMHO, the two matters are non sequitar.

I already agreed with you on that matter in a previous post. But thank you for using it to deter yourself from the real evidence I provided to question the authenticity of the Trinity.

[WiseMagic12312]

Let me help you.....Trinitarians believe that the Father and Son are distinct personalities, so the Son was praying to his Father, and the atonement he carried out would appease the Father's sense of justice. There is no chaos here. They are one God, but three persons--distinct in personality, but of one essence.

I didn't even finish reading this post. I didn't have to. The fact of the matter is that God cannot, nor should He, be defined through the language of negation. It has been discredited for almost an entire century. The only people who hold on to it are the Trinitarians themselves. I understand that you want to give support for the belief, but like I said, you cannot define something through the language of negation!

If you don't believe me, then I have an assignment for you. Write an essay. Pick a topic or a subject or an object that only you would know about. Define it only by what it is not. You're not allowed to define it by what it is, even once. Only through what it's not. Then post it somewhere, perhaps here, and see how many people can accurately guess what the topic/subject/object is in its totality. You can continue to belabor the argument, but until you try this assignment, you will not understand to the fullest where I am coming from.

My disbelief? More like your inability to think logically. Use the brain that this God you speak of supposedly gave you. Nothing angers me more than people who ignore sound logic and basic common sense to hold on to a belief that is irrational and completely ridiculous. 3 Gods in 1.... WTF? We have a term for that in Psychology. It's not Trinity. It's Dissociative Identity Disorder (D.I.D.). Formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder. Are you insinuating that God has D.I.D.? Get real.

[Teancum18]

Oh man, this is about to get ugly.

[prisonchaplain]

It's not uncommon for secularists to resort to academic bravado to discredit those they are discussing with. Unfortunate, but not uncommon. You focus on "the language of negation," and insist that since the Nicene Creed employs it, the entire doctrine is, by definition, discredited. Well...that's one way to evaluate theology, I suppose. Another would be to analyze efforts at describing the nature of God using the analytical tools of psychology. I'm not overly impressed with such cross-disciplinary efforts. In fact, I find them to be permeated with hubris. But, that's just my humble opinion.

[WiseMagic12312]

Secularist? What are you talking about? Webster Dictionary ---> secularist - a person not religious or not associated with the church. That's not who I am. Not at all! I'm an individual who thinks for himself. But that threatens you, so you have to associate me to something familiar that you can handle. Useless.

Academic bravado?? Why don't you just go discredit every major university on the face of the planet while you're at it. Tell Harvard and Yale that they're full of **** because they employ "academic bravado." Tell everyone with a college education that their degree is nothing more than academic bravado that is unfortunate, but not uncommon. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! Academics provide the medicine that saves your children's lives. Keeps your wife healthy and strong. Academics are the only reason you have the fancy machine you're sitting behind that allows you to even type your messages of mediocrity to me. But now that it is being used to discredit your faith, it's not good. Academics are bravado!!! Shush the academics! Shut the logic up. Teach more learned helplessness by discouraging people to think for themselves. GREAT IDEA PRISONCHAPLIN!

I did not insist that the Nicean Creed employs the language of negation. I demanded that the doctrine of the Trinity is written in, and only in, the language of negation! If a book about cancer was written in the language of negation, doctors wouldn't read it! Again, you can't have it both ways! There's a reason it's called negation. It negates the very point it's discussing! How do you define something at the same time as negating it's existence??? C'mon on man. It's NOT evaluating theology. IT'S COMMON SENSE AND BASIC LINGUISTICS! Am I really the only one who see this??

You just completely shot every ounce of credibility you had in this argument by knocking psychology and refusing to cross-reference it to God and religion. You truly are an uneducated man. Let me spell it out for you, prisonchaplin.

God, if there is one, would use psychology to relate to His children. Your quote in your signature is Psych101. Psychology is a basis to identify human behavior and analyze the personalities people have and how they came to be; whether through determinism or optimism. The fact that you are a chaplin is the byproduct of psychological pathologies that exist within your personality, and that have come to be through a strict correlation of yourself and your environment. You employ psychology when you preach in the prisons! So to say that you're not impressed with the cross-disciplinary efforts of the two is insinuating that you are a horrible chaplin. Because apparently, crossing the two has not worked for you. And no, it is not your humble opinion. It is your bias, illogical, uneducated opinion.

Again, do the assignment I suggested and see for yourself.

This is fun! What next?

[prisonchaplain]

Secularist? What are you talking about? Webster Dictionary ---> secularist - a person not religious or not associated with the church. That's not who I am. Not at all! I'm an individual who thinks for himself. But that threatens you, so you have to associate me to something familiar that you can handle. Useless.

OK. mea culpa on this one. I thought I had read in your profile that you were an atheist or agnostic. On rechecking, I see you simply say "other." So...cancel the "secularist" part. I still contend that over-reliance on secular academic disciplines to evaluate theological doctrines is an unbalanced approach.

Academic bravado?? Why don't you just go discredit every major university on the face of the planet while you're at it. Tell Harvard and Yale that they're full of **** because they employ "academic bravado." Tell everyone with a college education that their degree is nothing more than academic bravado that is unfortunate, but not uncommon. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! Academics provide the medicine that saves your children's lives. Keeps your wife healthy and strong. Academics are the only reason you have the fancy machine you're sitting behind that allows you to even type your messages of mediocrity to me. But now that it is being used to discredit your faith, it's not good. Academics are bravado!!! Shush the academics! Shut the logic up. Teach more learned helplessness by discouraging people to think for themselves. GREAT IDEA PRISONCHAPLIN!

Oh dear...I don't want untrained medical doctors. I'm just not wanting scholars from one discipline thinking that just because they are expert in their field that they can authoratively assess centuries-old controversies from others.

I did not insist that the Nicean Creed employs the language of negation. I demanded that the doctrine of the Trinity is written in, and [only in, the language of negation! If a book about cancer was written in the language of negation, doctors wouldn't read it! Again, you can't have it both ways! There's a reason it's called negation. It negates the very point it's discussing! How do you define something at the same time as negating it's existence??? C'mon on man. It's NOT evaluating theology. IT'S COMMON SENSE AND BASIC LINGUISTICS! Am I really the only one who see this??

I understand that you are critical of the form in which the Nicene Creed is written, and I gave you brief explanation as to why it was written that way. However, the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity rests not in how well written the Nicene Creed is, but rather in whether it is true or not. When I teach the Trinity I do not rely on the language of the Nicene Creed, though I'm sure that much of what I believe has history in it.

You just completely shot every ounce of credibility you had in this argument by knocking psychology and refusing to cross-reference it to God and religion. You truly are an uneducated man. Let me spell it out for you, prisonchaplin.

Well, you can spell it out. But, before you do...understand that I don't "knock" psychology. My office is in close proximity to our institution's psychologists. We consult with each other regularly. My church's missionaries undergo psychological assessments before they are sent to the field. What I disagreed with was the attempt to use psychology in an attempt to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity.

Again, do the assignment I suggested and see for yourself.

This is fun! What next?

Donuts & Postum? (or come to my church for the real stuff:D:D)

[Elgama]

I think I more fully understand where you are coming from. It has also made it more clear to me that we are talking about two different things: hence the reason for me looking at it logically, and you looking at it divinely.

I do believe that there is a logical way of looking at things and the spiritual way of looking at things. However, one cannot exist without the other. You are taught about the Divine through doctrine. That doctrine would be pointless if it were not logically sound. It wouldn't make sense to anyone and therefore they would not listen to it. So the doctrine in question is what I was looking at logically. However, you weren't looking at the doctrine, you were looking introspectively towards yourself and trying to reconcile your inner feelings with what you've been taught. Logic can be applied in the process, however, it's ultimately you who feels what you feel. While I am not a huge fan of emotions (I believe people would live longer with less of them), feelings are feelings no matter what. So I think what you meant to say was "you cannot understand feelings through logic." Not, "You cannot understand the divine through logic." God has order, purpose, and logic. If not, He would not be God, He would be an agent of chaos. But I think you meant the former and not the latter. You seem too smart to be in need of a lecture about God and logic. :)

Thank you for giving me more understanding.

WiseMagic

For me God isn't a feeling He is there, He amazing and my knowledge of Him comes first and foremost because He is there. God has order, and purpose but He is not imo something you can understand using the human academic subject of logic - it requires common sense and real life to understand Him just a very little bit, the ability to look back and see His handiwork in a leaf or to His influence in a child.

Finding my daughters socks for nursery can produce as much source of knowledge of God as sitting reading my sciptures.

-Charley

Edited November 11, 2008 by Elgama

[OneEternalSonata]

“Sometimes we are so busy being the hammer or the anvil, that we forget who really needs the shaping.”

-Neal A. Maxwell

[Moksha]

I'm just not wanting scholars from one discipline thinking that just because they are expert in their field that they can authoratively assess centuries-old controversies from others.

Know what you mean. Think how frightening it would be if those wiz kids from MIT took it upon themselves, to act as the Academe in the olive grove outside ancient Athens, and deconstruct the Harvard Divinity School! Sends shivers down my spine.

[Hemidakota]

Instead in proving oneself with academia hysterics or postulating speculation of what the Godhead is physically, why not just ask the GODHEAD for the truth.

[prisonchaplain]

Hemi, your thought is an excellent starting point. Yet folk do this, and claim to hear different things. So, we go to our Scriptures to either confirm or reconsider what we believe the Spirit has told us.

[Elgama]

Hemi, your thought is an excellent starting point. Yet folk do this, and claim to hear different things. So, we go to our Scriptures to either confirm or reconsider what we believe the Spirit has told us.

maybe they hear different things because its what God wants them to know.

-Charley

[jimuk]

Yes and its called, personal revelation, it means we are not programmed to all hear the same thing, we have a personal relationship with our heavenly father, who if permitted will answer/speak to us, and let us know, and reassure us of his love for us.

[prisonchaplain]

God sometimes speaks different truths to people. However, he never speaks truth to one, and falsehood to another. Further, I'm doubtful he would speak "truths" to different people that contradict one another. For a safe example, is it possible that the same God told Christians that Jesus is God the Son, Savior of the world, and told Muslims that God has no Son, and that Jesus was a prophet, but not the Messiah?

[Elgama]

God sometimes speaks different truths to people. However, he never speaks truth to one, and falsehood to another. Further, I'm doubtful he would speak "truths" to different people that contradict one another. For a safe example, is it possible that the same God told Christians that Jesus is God the Son, Savior of the world, and told Muslims that God has no Son, and that Jesus was a prophet, but not the Messiah?

I never doubt when another said God answers their prayers even if I don't like what they say providing that person is free from mental illness - God has his reasons for what he says to all of us, I know my pre LDS journey was what I needed to reach my full potential arriving here too soon would have stunted me. I know there is only one God so if you pray to Allah, Krishna, Mithras, Isis etc it doesn't matter as long as you are sincere. He answers when I call so I doubt he abandons others

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

Elgama...I really appreciate the caution you have about not judging the hearts of others, and your willingness to see God working with others, despite their immersion in a non-Christian religion. On the other hand, do you, in general, believe God worked in the hearts of those sacrificing their babies on the altars of Baal?

[Traveler]

Elgama...I really appreciate the caution you have about not judging the hearts of others, and your willingness to see God working with others, despite their immersion in a non-Christian religion. On the other hand, do you, in general, believe God worked in the hearts of those sacrificing their babies on the altars of Baal?

Correct me if I am wrong but Baal was woven into religious fabric for at least 1000 years and the sacrifice of babies according to my studies was not a regular practice. If it was indeed a sign of a false faith (G-d not at work) to sacrifice (put to death) children in the name of Baal you ought to also be concerned with the Children that were sacrificed (put to death) for the Trinity by Charlemagne and those that gave him the title of "Defender of the Faith" for what he did.

The Traveler

Edited November 12, 2008 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Correct me if I am wrong but Baal was woven into religious fabric for at least 1000 years and the sacrifice of babies according to my studies was not a regular practice. If it was indeed a sign of a false faith (G-d not at work) to sacrifice (put to death) children in the name of Baal you ought to also be concerned with the Children that were sacrificed (put to death) for the Trinity by Charlemagne and those that gave him the title of "Defender of the Faith" for what he did.

The Traveler

I could look this up, but what I'm wondering is whether you see any redemption in Baal worship? Besides the murdered children, there was God's clear judgment with the destruction of 400 prophets. As for Charlamagne, I'll say to you 1000 times that when wickedness is done in the name of God, or a particular doctrine, the sin is in the wicked deed, not the doctrine. Baal worship was evil because it was a violation of the first commandment, and because Baal was a false god. Killing babies is wrong, even if done in the name of the one true God, or in defense of the Church's explication of God's nature.

[Elgama]

Elgama...I really appreciate the caution you have about not judging the hearts of others, and your willingness to see God working with others, despite their immersion in a non-Christian religion. On the other hand, do you, in general, believe God worked in the hearts of those sacrificing their babies on the altars of Baal?

do I think their actions were right no - but I am not close enough to the situation to know whether this was as a result of revelation or one evil person started it and it went unquestioned.

-Charley

[Traveler]

I could look this up, but what I'm wondering is whether you see any redemption in Baal worship? Besides the murdered children, there was God's clear judgment with the destruction of 400 prophets. As for Charlamagne, I'll say to you 1000 times that when wickedness is done in the name of God, or a particular doctrine, the sin is in the wicked deed, not the doctrine. Baal worship was evil because it was a violation of the first commandment, and because Baal was a false god. Killing babies is wrong, even if done in the name of the one true God, or in defense of the Church's explication of God's nature.

First I want to put forth my personal trust and respect in PrisonChaplain. I salute you for your Christian character, honor and attitudes. Most likely you are a better Christian than I.

It is not your Christian-ness that I call into account. And I do respect your opinion. But I want to draw a contrast between two groups, societies, institutions and if you will religions.

The first is the Pharisees: They maintained and controlled the sacred scriptures; they were the direct decedents of the covenants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; they were the rightful inheritors of the very holy and sacred covenants of G-d.

The second are the Samaritans: They were a people deeply entrenched in the pagan concepts of antiquity, including the corrupt concepts of the worship of Baal. Their intrusions into the Holy Scriptures were based on pagan ideologies. Their worship of G-d was deeply seeded in corruption.

Jesus indicated that the societies of the Pharisees (despite the fact of their traditional origins) were corrupt and to no longer be considered institutions and societies compatible to his Gospel. On the other hand he took from the most corrupt institutions of his day and from such corruption told of the “Good Samaritan” as the ultimate example of his disciple or if you will a Christian.

I believe the first principle of Christianity is an honor and love of the “goodness” of G-d that includes a profound love of our neighbors. Only after a society or institution has established unyielding devotion to such “goodness” should we call it Christian. The last and final consideration ought to be doctrine – not the first. When it comes to most of the history of Christianity in the western world there is not one society or institution that has existed continuously since Christ that I am willing to recognize and associate with as Christian. There were Christian individuals but I know of no society or institution prior to 1750 that I find Christian. If I have missed one – please make it know to me.

The Traveler

Edited November 12, 2008 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I heard tale of a book, meant as something of a church history, published by my church, written by one of our early pioneers. It was entitled Suddenly, from Heaven! Church history went something like this: Jesus came, died for our sins, the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, spoke in tongues, prophesied, healed the sick cast out demons, and then . . . well . . . pretty much nothing until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Then, suddenly, from heaven! The Holy Ghost came back, baptized us in the Holy Spirit, and we continue to operate in power, with signs and wonders following, eagerly anticipating Christ's imminent return.

What my teacher found amusing was the combination of triumphalism, and the easy dismissal of 1900 years of church history. The problem is that the sordid history you point out looks an awful lot like most of human history: Adam and Eve and that tree, Noah's family surviving the Ark, then him getting drunk, and then his son disrepecting them, and Isreal's repeated obedience, disobedience, judgment, repentence, renwed disobedience, etc.

Christianity looks most Christlike when it is under persecution. We humans don't do well with power. It corrupts us. Lord Acton addressed that somewhere. :-)

As to seeing the goodness, and the secondary nature of doctrine, my one struggle with this string is that the first of the 10 commandments is that we are to worship only one true God. Granted, we're not to vanquish all others, and to poor hatred upon sinners and pagans. But, we are to evangelize them. A difficult but necessary part of that is the call to repentence. Why would we repent if we're okay, and only the good in us is being highlighted?