Evangelical Protestants and the GOP

[kentonio]

The Jewish faith has had notions of God having different manifestations, but all being one God. The Trinity is most definitely referred to by the Gospels, though not explicitly spelled out as "The Trinity".

So the Jews think its one being and the christians think its 3 seperate beings?

To debase yourself to such a degrading position when you easily could escape those bonds is most definitely significant and humble.

Oh please, millions of people live in conditions far more shameful and degrading for their entire lives and die far worse deaths. Jesus spent a significant part of his life going around being worshipped by adoring fans and proclaiming himself as gods son. If thats humble, then I'm Mother Theresa.

[notyoueither]

You're an awful person!

/che

[Elok]

'Generally held' by the same person who wants everyone to worship him. Detecting a pattern here?

If you're alleging that the whole story's a lie, I'm not going to try to prove Christianity to you or anything. All I'm saying is, there's some consistency here.

So Christianity is polytheism?

Unfathomable = nonsensical? When did this trinity stuff start anyway, is it genuine Jesus times or was it make up later by theologians?

The trinity is at once three and one; three people with one common essence and goal. They can't really be considered separate or totally united. I understand that it seems nonsensical to you--it doesn't make sense to anyone. We have no experience with beings of such a nature, any more than we have experience with pregnant virgins or talking donkeys (outside of IVF and Shrek, respectively). But if the story is true, that's to be expected. The whole reason such stories are reported is because they are aberrations, impossibilities. Of course I can't expect you to believe it on my say-so, but there's really no reason why any of this should make sense from a human perspective.

As to when the Trinity began, it's mostly explained in the Gospels. John, in particular, makes clear that the HS is equal to Father and Son. I think it even says something about proceeding from the Father. All that's missing is the elaboration that they can be considered one.

Except he didn't really, did he? If he'd wanted to identify fully with his creations then he wouldn't have granted himself any supernatural powers or anything else that allowed him to walk around proclaiming himself the son of god. Does that really sound particularly humble to you? Then a few hours nailed to a cross is supposed to be somehow significant to an all powerful, omnipresent being who has apparently existed for eternity? Come on..

If he didn't, he would have been unable to fulfill his other objective of bringing the Good News to earth. What else could He do, given those requirements?

More later, I've got stuff to do now.

[Jon Miller]

Actually, there is a novela by CH Cherryh (science fiction, not religious at all), about how one being can be multiple. An interesting take on it.

JM

[kentonio]

If you're alleging that the whole story's a lie, I'm not going to try to prove Christianity to you or anything. All I'm saying is, there's some consistency here.

I'm not expecting you to sell me on it, I'm just pointing out that this 'consistency' is pretty dependant on you already trusting the same source.

If he didn't, he would have been unable to fulfill his other objective of bringing the Good News to earth. What else could He do, given those requirements?

What requirements? How about just arriving in a pillar of fire and light and telling everyone the same stuff, but avoiding the whole confusing human prophet stuff? My distaste with it is that he supposedly took the middle ground, manifesting as a man but retaining supernatural power and then claiming a few hours of suffering was more awful than the horror millions of people suffer every generation. I don't see whats so damn admirable about any of it.

[Kidlicious]

A) The Jews, obviously, believe those prophesies don't apply to Jesus, but to a coming Messiah who will physically rule over the world.
B) The Jews don't accept the Gospel According to John.

...

[Elok]

I'm not expecting you to sell me on it, I'm just pointing out that this 'consistency' is pretty dependant on you already trusting the same source.

Of course. All truth about the supernatural must necessarily be known by revelation, or at best by mystical insight of some sort; it's not amenable to empirical trials, for good or bad.

What requirements? How about just arriving in a pillar of fire and light and telling everyone the same stuff, but avoiding the whole confusing human prophet stuff? My distaste with it is that he supposedly took the middle ground, manifesting as a man but retaining supernatural power and then claiming a few hours of suffering was more awful than the horror millions of people suffer every generation. I don't see whats so damn admirable about any of it.

I don't know that he said it was "more awful" than any one particular human experience. I don't think it's a competition, but I certainly wouldn't want to be crucified. The point, as I see it, lies in the change of context: first we have the Old Covenant, featuring an austere Deity so remote you can't even look Him in the face and live. Then comes the New, with a God who comes down among us, taking on sickness, weariness, pain and every other human trouble except sin, spends His earthly life healing and teaching, often among the dregs of society, then gets executed rather painfully for his troubles. It's important, in Orthodox theology at least, that Christ became fully Man while remaining fully God ("God could not save what He did not assume," "God became Man that Man might become God"). In doing so, He brought the two together, allowing an end to the estrangement. He also taught us the way to make His sacrifice our own: "take up your Cross and follow me." He was not just a sacrifice, but a living example.

If Christ comes down as an Indian dalit, crawling through sewage all day for thirty years and dying unknown from sepsis, what's the use? He hasn't taught us anything.

If Christ "comes down" as a pillar of fire with orders--well, do you remember how well that worked in the OT? What's the difference? Just more words to ignore. Instead He led by example.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not expecting you to sell me on it, I'm just pointing out that this 'consistency' is pretty dependant on you already trusting the same source.



What requirements? How about just arriving in a pillar of fire and light and telling everyone the same stuff, but avoiding the whole confusing human prophet stuff? My distaste with it is that he supposedly took the middle ground, manifesting as a man but retaining supernatural power and then claiming a few hours of suffering was more awful than the horror millions of people suffer every generation. I don't see whats so damn admirable about any of it.

He suffered for you. So that you would have eternal life. How can you not say that's admirable? Do you have a problem being thankful?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So the Jews think its one being and the christians think its 3 seperate beings?

And here's where I think you are trolling/deliberately being dense.

Oh please, millions of people live in conditions far more shameful and degrading for their entire lives and die far worse deaths.

Millions die far worse deaths? People do die deaths of agony, but I don't see how millions die far worse deaths than being tortured to death (and that's not including the torture of being whipped and beaten to an inch of death, before the torture of a cruxifiction). I am not saying he suffered the worst death imaginable, but I think we'll be mislead by all sorts of passion plays and the end of "Life of Brian" - the term excruciating came out of crucifixion after all. Futhermore, when you have the power to easy avoid that and yet allow yourself to go through it as a sacrifice for others than it is humble.

I mean, heck, we look at "It's a Wonderful Life" and go on and on at how humble George Bailey is & all he did was decide to help out at home when he was needed rather than follow his dreams.

[kentonio]

If Christ "comes down" as a pillar of fire with orders--well, do you remember how well that worked in the OT? What's the difference? Just more words to ignore. Instead He led by example.

Well for one thing it would prove divinity instead of making people rely on questionable passed on stories of miracles. If you're going to break the supernatural/natural boundaries anyway, what difference does it make?

He suffered for you. So that you would have eternal life. How can you not say that's admirable? Do you have a problem being thankful?

Why would I be thankful for something that doesn't make any sense? He created us and yet needed to suffer and die in order to save us, despite him being all seeing, all powerful and everywhere? Does that make sense to you?

And here's where I think you are trolling/deliberately being dense.

I am genuinely interested in the subject, despite occasionally not being able to resist a small troll.

Millions die far worse deaths? People do die deaths of agony, but I don't see how millions die far worse deaths than being tortured to death (and that's not including the torture of being whipped and beaten to an inch of death, before the torture of a cruxifiction). I am not saying he suffered the worst death imaginable, but I think we'll be mislead by all sorts of passion plays and the end of "Life of Brian" - the term excruciating came out of crucifixion after all.

Yeah, I'd say the millions who die of a huge range of ternimal illnesses in countries that have no healthcare systems for the poor almost certainly die far harder than Jesus did. My main objection however isn't the level of suffering, just that it makes no sense in terms of redeeming humanity. 'I died for your sins' sounds all heroic and stuff, but he didn't jump in front of a bullet for us. He died pointlessly and achieving nothing in practical terms from his death. Why would the world have been any worse if he'd just not gone and gotten crucified?

[The Mad Monk]

This isn't about the world. The world is lost. This is about the survivors.

[Elok]

Well for one thing it would prove divinity instead of making people rely on questionable passed on stories of miracles. If you're going to break the supernatural/natural boundaries anyway, what difference does it make?

You're still relying on questionable passed-on stories that way; you've just replaced questionable stories of water into wine with questionable stories of a giant pillar of fire, which to a modern person of secular leanings no doubt sounds even more ridiculous. Even if the Fire-Jesus were witnessed to by historical records--if Josephus reported it in detail, for example--I don't think that would count for anything. It would simply be a baffling anomaly in the historical record, to be explained away by various historians' doctoral theses. The empiricist's objection to the miraculous, if I understand it correctly, is that anything beyond demonstrable present experience is to be regarded with suspicion. As far as that's concerned, a giant pillar of fire is no better than a virgin birth. It doesn't exist in the present, so it's a distortion, a hoax, a flat-out lie or a misunderstanding of a natural phenomenon. The one thing it cannot be is exactly true--how would you react to such a thing, however well-documented?

Now, this would be "solved" if the pillar never went away, and was always there giving orders until the crack of doom. However, this would also turn Jesus into an everlasting source of resentment, inducing rebellion after rebellion. Human history would be recentered around an endless succession of schemes to subvert, exploit or destroy the pillar by one means or another (remember, nobody's more sure of God's existence, or more opposed to His will, than Satan). Because the whole reason He came down was to end the division between man and God. If your kid's pissed at you, you don't break down his bedroom door and shout at him until he likes you again. It won't work. The best you can hope for is grudging obedience out of fear.

[giblets]

Why doesn't Jesus come back right now and prove he exists. What is he waiting for?

[Elok]

A reason to bother, I imagine. It wouldn't accomplish much, if anything.

[Lorizael]

srsly. Pics of Jesus would flood the intertubes, and people would just say, "its shoped. i can tell bythe pixils."