Catholic Church has skeptic arrested for explaining miracle

[Jon Miller]

Kid, do you believe in the trinity?

It is certain that those who were followers of Christ in the first 30-100 years did not hold the trinity as we do now. Some were thinking thoughts (Paul/others?) which lead to the trinity doctrine we have now, but none believed in the current doctrine of the trinity.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Kid, do you believe in the trinity?

It is certain that those who were followers of Christ in the first 30-100 years did not hold the trinity as we do now. Some were thinking thoughts (Paul/others?) which lead to the trinity doctrine we have now, but none believed in the current doctrine of the trinity.

JM

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, I believe in the trinity doctrine although it's not something I think about alot. Your statement seems a bit contradicting. You say you are certain that none of them believed in the trinity doctrine, but then you say that possibly Paul and others were thinking it. Is your point that no one can know truth unless they get it from another generation? How do you know no one believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were God?

[Jon Miller]

The trinity doctrine is quite complicated, it is built on interpretations of the beliefs of Paul/etc. It isn't just the belief that Christ, the Father, and the Spirit were all God (were some created, one God, nature of Christ, nature of the Spirit (which isn't really found in the OT, it wasn't a solid idea I think before Christ), etc).

Just because it built upon the beliefs of Paul/etc, doesn't mean they believed it, it was the development of theologians who read the works of Paul/John/etc and were trying to understand God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_theology

JM

[Kidlicious]

The trinity doctrine is quite complicated, it is built on interpretations of the beliefs of Paul/etc. It isn't just the belief that Christ, the Father, and the Spirit were all God (were some created, one God, nature of Christ, nature of the Spirit (which isn't really found in the OT, it wasn't a solid idea I think before Christ), etc).

Just because it built upon the beliefs of Paul/etc, doesn't mean they believed it, it was the development of theologians who read the works of Paul/John/etc and were trying to understand God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_theology

JM

Maybe I should have said not then, I do not believe in the trinity doctrine as I'm not that well read on all of the implications. I'm not a big fan of church doctrine. I'm not saying it's all wrong, but some of it is.

[Jon Miller]

What is doctrine but our understanding of God?

JM

[Kidlicious]

What is doctrine but our understanding of God?

JM

Doctrine is the church's understanding of God, not necessarily mine. For example, I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. I just don't. And it would be an atrocity if I were just to make myself believe in it just because it is church doctrine.

[Jon Miller]

Huh? How is that relevant.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Huh? How is that relevant.

JM

I don't know, because I still don't really know what your point is. The Bible is an eternal thing. Doctine is not. It is systematic, finite and changable. I'm not really sure what your point is about doctrine.

[Jon Miller]

You disagreed with Imran about understanding increasing as time goes by. I gave an example, the current understanding of the Trinity came about over time. It wasn't what the followers of Christ held in the 1st generation.

JM

[Kidlicious]

You disagreed with Imran about understanding increasing as time goes by. I gave an example, the current understanding of the Trinity came about over time. It wasn't what the followers of Christ held in the 1st generation.

JM

First, it doesn't mean that the doctrine of the trinity as you believe it is true. Second, one example doesn't make a rule. Third, it doesn't mean that what people believe today is true. And finally, I wouldn't expect most people to have believed in the trinity, as I believe most people are like herd animals. They follow each other. They started believing in the trinity because others were believing in it. The church was telling them to believe in it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you, Nietzsche.

Wisdom does not take 2,000 years to learn.

No, it takes longer. We are not yet wise. But those among us who are the wisest have taken the lessons and learning of the past to heart.

[Kidlicious]

Thank you, Nietzsche.



No, it takes longer. We are not yet wise. But those among us who are the wisest have taken the lessons and learning of the past to heart.

Are you wiser than Abraham or Socrates? No. Thousands of years have not helped you one bit.

[Kidlicious]

To be clear, I'm talking about wisdom in a strict sense. There has been progress do to the gain in historical knowledge. But the kind that I'm talking about doesn't lend itself to progress.

[Aeson]

It doesn't really take very long to be wise. Easy to lose too.

The other day I was out working on the house. Net brought my lunch out, and her younger sisters stopped by too. On the way home there were some dishes, garbage, and tools to bring back. Net's younger sisters had a length of PVC pipe and put a couple sacks on it full of most of the odds and ends. Then they ported it on their shoulders. This could be something of a chore, as it's a long walk, dirt path, "itchy grass"... but what struck me was the whole way they were playing games with the load... trying to outmaneuver the other by standing higher on the hill (going quite a ways out of their way in the process), speeding up and slowing down, chasing after the dog, and laughing the whole way.