An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[Vance]

I agree 100%. However my non Christian friends would point out that isn't monotheism (in the literal sense).

The Father is God. The Father is a person.

The Son is God. The Son is a person.

That isn't Monotheism any way you look at it.

[Vance]

By this method, any doctrine can be made to look ridiculous.

And you KNOW all about how it is done.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

You know, for a guy who is so sensitive about every word I use, you sure throw around the insults a lot.

Describing someone's comment as "bizarre" is not an insult. And I don't recall showing oversensitivity to your choice of words.

You wrote:

I have no problem retracting my erroneous word- "person"- and I am willing to go with the phrase you used repeatedly: "three in one".

This is hopeless. I never use the phrase "three in one."

You wrote:

What does all this do to the Nicene Creed in your opinion, which is based on the concept of "homoousios", if we abandon the metaphysical concept of "substance"?

It seems to me that if "substance" is abandoned, the entire theoretical underpinning of the Trinity is gone, and all that is left is a traditional belief which used to work, but now does not.

I don't need the word or concept of "substance" to affirm and articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, I can affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God, or three persons in one Divine Being.

You wrote:

...I am using that term due to your objection on the last thread to the term "Creedal Christian"...

No. I did not object to the term "Creedal Christian." I objected to calling people "Creedals."

[mfbukowski]

I don't need the word or concept of "substance" to affirm and articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, I can affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God, or three persons in one Divine Being.

As you know perfectly well, "homoousios" translates literally as "same being", but is often translated as "substance", and is indeed translated as "substance" in English translations of the Nicene Creed.

You are playing with words here and their ambiguous translations. You also know perfectly well that all the aforementioned philosophical objections to the use of the word "substance" also apply to the word "being".

Three persons with one "substance" makes no more or less sense that three persons with one "being" or "essence" or "nature" "somethingness" or "three whos and one what" or whatever silly word games you want to play.

Unless you are using a collective noun, like "herd" three of nothing do not make one of anything else. In Mormon parlance, the three members of the Godhead comprise one "God" because that term is used as a collective noun, not unlike "presidency" or "family" or "committee".

You repeatedly fail to answer my questions regarding the implications of abandoning the concept of "substance" or "being" for those who believe in the Nicene Creed and you do so because you yourself are completely aware of the problems, as revealed on your own web debateson this very subject.

[Vance]

It uses the term

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You told me earlier that you don't believe there is any such thing as substance. Now would you like to make a similar claim about being?

The LDS use of the word "God" as a collective noun is patently unbiblical. God is not a committee.

I tire of you constantly asserting that I have not answered your questions when in fact I have done so over and over. If anything, I have been overly patient with you up to now. Retract that assertion that I repeatedly refuse to answer your questions, or I will put you on "ignore" along with Vance, at which point I will indeed refuse to answer any more of your questions.

[mfbukowski]

LOL

And that would be an act of clear avoidance of the issues. If you can't answer, do what you must.

That would be clear to all reading this.

Your putting me on ignore will not silence me, it will just close your eyes to criticism and leave my assertions about your positions unchallenged.

[mfbukowski]

It should be clear to all reading this, that there are serious problems with the Nicene Creed, if one of it's most vocal proponents will not defend it.

[Vance]

I think what irritates some of our critics with regard to our concept of God, is that it is TOTALLY consistent with what the Bible ACTUALLY says. It is very clear that Jesus was and is a distinct and separate being/person/personage/entity/will from the Father. Yet He submitted His will to the will of the Father in all things. That the Father isn't everywhere, He is in heaven. That the Father and the Son are "one" in the same sense that Paul and Apollos are "one". "One" meaning "united", not one being.

[Vance]

It should be clear to all reading this, that there are serious problems with the Nicene Creed, if one of it's most vocal proponents will not defend it.

From the debate,

1. There is one (true, living) God, identified as the Creator.

2. This one God is the one divine being called YHWH (or Jehovah, the LORD) in the Old Testament.

3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.

4. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.

5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.

6. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two.

Talk about a mass of confusion.

2-5 refute 6 and 6 refutes 2-5.

[mfbukowski]

I think what irritates some of our critics with regard to our concept of God, is that it is TOTALLY consistent with what the Bible ACTUALLY says. It is very clear that Jesus was and is a distinct and separate being/person/personage/entity/will from the Father. Yet He submitted His will to the will of the Father in all things. That the Father isn't everywhere, He is in heaven. That the Father and the Son are "one" in the same sense that Paul and Apollos are "one". "One" meaning "united", not one being.

The concept also that "God is love" is directly Biblical.

John 4:8 (King James Version)

8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Not "being", not "substance", not "essence", or "divine nature" or whatever else you want to come up with.

Love.

How much more biblical can you get than what it actually says??

God is indeed love- the love between three persons unified in love and purpose- the purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", as perfect parents would, their purpose being "raising the kids" (mankind) to become "just like them".

It is so clear, AND Biblical!!

[Rob Bowman]

I'm sorry you can't bring yourself to engage in respectful and reasoned discussion with me. I'll focus my energies on those who can.

LOL

And that would be an act of clear avoidance of the issues. If you can't answer, do what you must.

That would be clear to all reading this.

Your putting me on ignore will not silence me, it will just close your eyes to criticism and leave my assertions about your positions unchallenged.

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry you can't bring yourself to engage in respectful and reasoned discussion with me. I'll focus my energies on those who can.

We'll leave it to the reader to decide who was being "respectful and reasoned" and who was being evasive.

[mfbukowski]

So would anyone else like to defend the Nicene Creed?

[3DOP]

From transubstantiation (OP) to the trinity. IMO Christianity struggles to maintain a complex monotheistic view when most non-Christians would say that Christians definitely are not monotheistic. I would have to agree with them.

Anijen, hi.

Good point. I agree too. It IS a struggle. Here you have three different persons who seem to be identified as God in the New Testament, combined with a commitment to some form of monotheism as inherited from Judaism. (Vance, that ambiguous phrase is for your benefit. I hope you like it.) We believe that God is one in some respect(s) and God is three in some respect(s). People complain sometimes about how the Creeds are about trying to "put God in a box", or some kind of pretentious attempt to define God. Those who suspect us of being pretentious fail to see that our Creeds are desperate attempts to figure out some way to appear like reasonable people when we affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three God, but there is only one God. I am aware that such words, taken out of context, could appear damaging to my position. But I consider myself among friends and will be forthcoming.

I think part of the disconnection between Mormons and Creedal Christians takes place because the non-creedalist has the mistaken assumption that we think that the Creeds really explain something about what God is like. They don't. The Creeds are deliberately non-confining and are very unsatisfactory to anyone who looks to them for any insight on the nature of God. I'll say that again and be more clear. The Nicene Creed says NOTHING about the essence/being/nature/substance of God.

The Nicene Creed assumes that God has a nature/being/substance/essence. (Doesn't everything? If we can't agree on that there is no use in going forward.) Those properties whatever they might be which are natural to any existing thing is that thing's nature/substance/essence/being. Being and substance are probably the most philosophical of the terms and should probably be avoided because they have other meanings than those used in the Creeds. Essence is probably a close third as a problem for the same reason. The NIcene Creed only affirms that the Three have the same nature in its fulness, nothing lacking.

I think I once owned two cars of the same make and model at the same time. Is that telling you anything about the car? No. The Nicene Creed doesn't tell you about air conditioners, curburetors, exhaust pipes, radiators, motor mounts, stereo components, or tinted windows either. Nor does it tell us anything about what God is like. (For that we can consult the Scriptures). It just says we believe that the Three Persons have the same divine nature. That is all. The divine nature is clearly communicable. It shouldn't be hard to believe that a Father could give it to HIs Son, or that both of them could give it to a Third Person. This is especially so when we read in Holy Scripture that there is a way by which even we "may be made partakers of the divine nature"! (II Peter 1:4) It is the same nature that is spoken of in the Nicene Creed with no further details.

If "substance theory" doesn't make any sense. Fine. We can work with a word that is synonymous to what we mean by substance and it (nature) even has the advantage of being a biblical term. I suggest that as much as we all tend to magnify our every difference, if a proverbial space alien were to use a Star Trek-like "universal translator" to explain in his language the difference between what Mormons and Catholics believe regarding Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he would be more amazed at the similarities and be hard-pressed to discern the differences. I think we need a New Pentecost so that our tongues will be unravelled in a way by which we can understand one another! At this time, I almost despair of even trying to explain anything. How can our teaching seem so benign to me and so sinister to Mormons? It almost seems like words are the enemy. Thankfully God's love is plain in any language, and since Jesus commanded us to love one another, and to see Him in our neighbors, let us not allow our frustrations with each other to overcome us when words fail.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

It almost seems like words are the enemy. Thankfully God's love is plain in any language, and since Jesus commanded us to love one another, and to see Him in our neighbors, let us not allow our frustrations with each other to overcome us when words fail.

Thanks 3DOP.

I couldn't agree more. The problem here is precisely language, but please do notice that we are the ones who are not considered "christian".

Frankly, I would love to see Catholics AND Evangelicals say "Yeah- the problem is just words and the way we talk about the Trinity- we're all brothers after all, so let's recognize Mormon baptism, they are a little weird about that Joseph Smith, but after all we are all Christians".

But guess what- they don't. If we don't subscribe to the Creed with it's "substance" stuff, we are not classified as "Christian".

What IS ironic is that most of us would subscribe to another, older Creed called the Apostle's Creed, which you, like me, have probably memorized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

9. the holy catholic("universal") Church, the communion of saints,

10. the forgiveness of sins,

11. the resurrection of the body,

12. and life everlasting.

No substance, no Trinity. Most Mormons would have no problem with this without the word "Catholic"- and all that is meant by it here is "universal"- which is the true meaning or the word "catholic".

The other word which might be controversial is the word "created"- since we believe the world was "organized" and not "created" ex nihilo. But when you look at the Latin word "creator" it means:

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=creat&ending=orem

maker , founder; parent

The word "founder" is much closer to Mormon belief than the way "creator" is understood in English.

So I wish we could get over the words all all get together and sing "Kumbaya", but unfortunately, that ball is not completely in the Mormon court by any means.

[ChristKnight]

The Nicene Creed assumes that God has a nature/being/substance/essence. (Doesn't everything? If we can't agree on that there is no use in going forward.) Those properties whatever they might be which are natural to any existing thing is that thing's nature/substance/essence/being. Being and substance are probably the most philosophical of the terms and should probably be avoided because they have other meanings than those used in the Creeds. Essence is probably a close third as a problem for the same reason. The NIcene Creed only affirms that the Three have the same nature in its fulness, nothing lacking.

I think I once owned two cars of the same make and model at the same time. Is that telling you anything about the car? No. The Nicene Creed doesn't tell you about air conditioners, curburetors, exhaust pipes, radiators, motor mounts, stereo components, or tinted windows either. Nor does it tell us anything about what God is like. (For that we can consult the Scriptures). It just says we believe that the Three Persons have the same divine nature. That is all. The divine nature is clearly communicable. It shouldn't be hard to believe that a Father could give it to HIs Son, or that both of them could give it to a Third Person. This is especially so when we read in Holy Scripture that there is a way by which even we "may be made partakers of the divine nature"! (II Peter 1:4) It is the same nature that is spoken of in the Nicene Creed with no further details.

Latter-day Saints would also agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have the same "nature", however we would also say that, as children of God, we also have the same nature as God. However, I agree, that when explaining the Trinity to non-Trinitarians, it is sometimes helpful to say that the Three are one in nature, and only They are of that nature (in the Trinitarian view). This is how I've explained it before (I think I have a post in my blog on that, citing Sheed's Theology and Sanity which uses that definition). On the other hand, I do not believe that saying that the Three are one in nature maintains monotheism any more or less than the LDS view, since there are three distinct Persons who are of the divine nature, using that definition.

[3DOP]

mfbukowski

I couldn't agree more. The problem here is precisely language, but please do notice that we are the ones who are not considered "christian".

Frankly, I would love to see Catholics AND Evangelicals say "Yeah- the problem is just words and the way we talk about the Trinity- we're all brothers after all, so let's recognize Mormon baptism, they are a little weird about that Joseph Smith, but after all we are all Christians".

But guess what- they don't. If we don't subscribe to the Creed with it's "substance" stuff, we are not classified as "Christian".

3DOP

Well...It doesn't help the pope, the bishops, or the average "Joe Catholic" to think your baptisms are valid when you go around talking about how our belief in the Trinity is crazy! You do say the Trinitarian formula. I am not convinced that your baptisms are invalid. Not all of them. I have a good friend; tOMnOSSOR is how he has been identified here. He is a very convinced Latter-day Saint whose Trinity doctrine differs very little from my own. (In his desire for likemindedness, he has sought to understand my faith in what he perceives to be its best light. I have learned from him and others that this is the best way and the only worthwhile way to have a discussion.) I tend to think that tOM's baptisms are likely valid. I suspect that the Catholic Church made a decision based on information that shows that Mormons who have opinions about the Nicene Creed generally have loathing for it and think it to be lunacy. What can you expect for faithful Catholics to think? Saying the words without sharing the meanings of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can't be efficacious. Baptism isn't just some magical incantation. So LDS baptisms according to the best information available to the Catholic Church are at least doubtful and to be on the safe side, they must be repeated.

The Catholic Church has also long taught that baptism initiates one into the Christian life and into the life of God's Church. So that presents a problem to saying without qualification that Mormons are Christian. It is not an insurmountable problem. Using the arguments I have heard from Mormons like Dan Peterson, I agree that you are followers of the biblical Jesus (as you interpret the Bible) and that means you cannot be excluded from the category, Christian. Publicly, to other Catholics, I have used this argument to maintain that you are Christian. In addition, I privately hold that regardless of the prudential and fallible ruling of the Church which in the past decade required LDS converts to Catholicism to be baptized unconditionally, I think that the old rule, which allowed for a conditional baptism would be more appropriate.

I am prepared to defend my private opinion to anyone whose eyes don't seem about to glaze over. So just for the record, you can't say that there is unanimity among Catholics and Protestants against your being in every respect Christian, and I think in the qualified sense I spoke about, most reasonable Catholics and Protestants would concede that Mormons are Christian. The problem again is that everybody is always ramrodding the differences and highlighting the disagreements without any moderation of tone and concession of areas of agreement. Surely you can see why the average Catholic has a hard time understanding that LDS baptisms are valid? Surely you can see that as a result, it is difficult to pronounce that you are Christian without qualification? It isn't malice and it isn't lack of compassion. Its being forced into a corner. Maybe you are not baptized and maybe you are. But I insist that you are at least separated brethren as the Bishop of Salt Lake City would say. I know you try to be followers of the teachings of the Gospel as you understand it, and are fellow human souls who try to imitate the life of Jesus Christ.

So anyhow, I guess I think you guys could be a little more generous to us than to tell us how nuts our doctrine is and then getting upset because we follow through on the information and decide your baptisms might not be good. The pope is a good man and a loving man. He doesn't want to alienate you guys. Neither do I. Instead of publicly trying to convince us that we are crazy, it seems like you could at least be a little more diplomatic about what we believe. Of course you can't compromise what you believe but I think if you tried, you could change your emphasis in a way that might come across as a little less confrontational and polarizing. I truly think that you are misunderstood in Rome, but I think that it is not entirely Rome's fault. There too often seems to be a gritty edge to our differences of opinion that smells of disdain for what we each hold sacred. Maybe you think we started it. Who started it? I don't know. Let us begin the end to it.

I don't mean to speak as though Rome is hanging on every word that is spoken here. Somehow Rome got the idea that our views of God were so radically different as to be irreconcilable with a valid baptism. But good seed here will grow good fruit abroad. Let us at least differ here with love and demonstrations of mutual desire for unity. Before our disagreements, during, and after them, we must be sure that what we have spoken is not with a trace of ill will or malice toward the one to whom we are speaking. God will not bless a word that is spoken without charity. A "clanging gong" and "tinkling cymbal" can be pleasant to play for a time. I have not always been the best example. I have written much without love. But I know that at this moment I have good will towards the LDS faithful. I wish them all blessings and heaven too. It makes me WANT to agree. It tempts me to compromise. I cannot do that. Love does not compromise. No. I am not wishing for sentimentalism that is blind to true differences. I just require to be convinced that our differences are really as great as our rhetoric would indicate.

When my children were little and they would get into trouble we would sit down and talk about it before any punishment was meted out. They knew Daddy loved them and didn't want to punish. Together we would examine all the circumstances. Maybe you forgot? No? It was deliberate. Okay. Maybe you didn't understand? No? You understood. Okay. We would proceed for a while with me acting as their advocate trying to figure out a way to avoid being their judge. Most of the time I ended up as judge but we occasionally were surprised to happily find a legal loophole! Oh happy hour for child and parent. It isn't at all the same relationship that Mormons and Catholics have but the same principle of love applies. If we love, we are trying to see things in their best light. We are desirous of using every legitimate tool that we can think of to bring about a closer and closer union with the object of our love, each other. The love of God, the supernatural charity of which St. Paul speaks in I Cor 13 never fails. It is patience and kindness that will win the world to Christ and to His true Church, wherever it may be found. Patience...to never grow weary...to endure humiliations silently...to wait and wait and wait...to be unprovocable. Kindness...of the same kind...attempting to be alike...the desire to be together...those are the tendencies of God's love working in us. Sometimes truth will enter in to prevent an incongruous togetherness, but sometimes dislike and hatred can also enter in to prevent what could have been a movement of the Holy Ghost toward restoring all things in Christ.

Off of my soapbox....

A hypocrite...Heh. but a contrite one. Sorry for all of my real failures of patience and love and kindness over the years...God forgive me and bless and keep you all.

3DOP

[Hughes]

So would anyone else like to defend the Nicene Creed?

It's clear that it's not the doctrine of the trinity that is being attacked, and by extension doesn't need to be defended, rather it's your own personal (or by extension LDS) definition of/or view of the what you think the trinity means, which is being attacked. And in that sense, no one can defend your made up version of the trinity because no one believes it.

If you "can't" believe the trinity (as Rob explained it) because you think it's unreasonable, then the debate ends there, as it appears nothing can be believed, unless it is reasonable to you.

[TAO]

A hypocrite...Heh. but a contrite one. Sorry for all of my real failures of patience and love and kindness over the years...God forgive me and bless and keep you all.

Nah, your not too much of a hypocrite 3DOP. Or if you are, so are all of us XD. We are all in the same boat that we are. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

[3DOP]

Nah, your not too much of a hypocrite 3DOP. Or if you are, so are all of us XD. We are all in the same boat that we are. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Hey thanks for the compliment! Sincerely. And thanks for letting me in the boat. Don't throw me overboard! Not too much of a hypocrite? Heheh. Isn't that something like being "not too much" of a thief? Heh. Anyway I won't object to your modifier because it would be to invite undeserved praise. I am so glad you guys don't really know me.

Let me share a short prayer I have been saying. Its great and God will answer it. I found out that St. Francis of Assisi would often repeat the prayer to "To know Thee, O God, and to know myself." Jeremias says and I paraphrase, "that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." "Who can know it?" he asks. Well, since I have been praying that prayer, I think I cannot err in overestimating my own faults and follies and I am agreeing more and more with the prophet. I don't know about you, but I am an old dog who is learning that I am all trickster inside.

Thank you so much for the best wishes. Best wishes to you too TAO.

3DOP

[TAO]

Hey thanks for the compliment! Sincerely. And thanks for letting me in the boat. Don't throw me overboard! Not too much of a hypocrite? Heheh. Isn't that something like being "not too much" of a thief? Heh. Anyway I won't object to your modifier because it would be to invite undeserved praise. I am so glad you guys don't really know me.

Let me share a short prayer I have been saying. Its great and God will answer it. I found out that St. Francis of Assisi would often repeat the prayer to "To know Thee, O God, and to know myself." Jeremias says and I paraphrase, "that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." "Who can know it?" he asks. Well, since I have been praying that prayer, I think I cannot err in overestimating my own faults and follies and I am agreeing more and more with the prophet. I don't know about you, but I am an old dog who is learning that I am all trickster inside.

Thank you so much for the best wishes. Best wishes to you too TAO.

3DOP

Lol, yah, nah, I always use modifiers in my speech unintentionally... it has to do with passifying my speech so it goes down with other people well... and it got to be a bad habit sorta-ish... oh wait, I just used a modifier there. XD.

Another bad habit I have is always apologizing to people when I bump into them/annoy them etc. It gets really bad and all... but I guess it's just me =).

Hehe, I agree... actually, I think you would find that I am a far worse person if you saw my insides than you are... I am not a very good person sometimes, and it takes a lot of will to sort of 'push' the bad out sometimes. It's really weird actually... as a few years ago I wasn't a 'believer' persay, and now that I am, I notice things that I would not have thought were bad back then that are bad about me. There's a lot of flaws. A lot of things to fix with me still.

One of my favorite sections from the Book of Mormon says "And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness..." And it's awing how correct that is... as we grow closer to God, and obtain more 'light' so to say, our weaknesses and flaws become like highlighted... and it's really important to fix them then! And in order to fix them, it's really important to become very humble... and yah... only in humility and meekness and mildness may we come unto him. I have struggled with pride problems in the past, and yah... no humility meant no progress for me =/.

That scripture continues to say "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them." ...And I truly believe it. And truly hope it. For I have no way to get over my weakness on my own... it is through him my weaknesses are shown unto me, and through him I will overcome them and become as he likes me to. It's all through him... and I love him for it =).

I think that is truly right... to know onself one must need to know God... through him will we be revealed our weaknesses, our pains, our doubts, our trials, our agonies.... but also our happy little tender mercies that make life worthwhile. To be in front of God is truly a revealing and humbling thing... and I thank the lord for it... for his charity... to show unto us our weakness... for his grace and love and kindness that he gives unto me and all of my brothers and sisters. Oh how I love him... love him indeed... I am left with a blissful feeling =).

May we all, as old dogs, learning new tricks, realize our flaws, and be borne again in the Spirit with God. We are all trickster inside, but we must lose our human, our flaws, and become like him, that we must... and we should help each other all the way, that we should =D.

May your life be sweet and happy, full of Christ's love =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[mfbukowski]

Latter-day Saints would also agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have the same "nature", however we would also say that, as children of God, we also have the same nature as God. However, I agree, that when explaining the Trinity to non-Trinitarians, it is sometimes helpful to say that the Three are one in nature, and only They are of that nature (in the Trinitarian view). This is how I've explained it before (I think I have a post in my blog on that, citing Sheed's Theology and Sanity which uses that definition). On the other hand, I do not believe that saying that the Three are one in nature maintains monotheism any more or less than the LDS view, since there are three distinct Persons who are of the divine nature, using that definition.

To me, three in "nature" makes no more sense than "being". All those terms, to me, are placeholders without much meaning.

Why does a sleeping pill put you to sleep?

Because it's nature is to put you to sleep.

Because it contains a substance which puts you to sleep.

Because it's essence is to put you to sleep.

Because it has a faculty to put you to sleep.

It's got some stuff in there that puts you to sleep.

I still don't know why the pill works, with these explanations.

[mfbukowski]

I know you try to be followers of the teachings of the Gospel as you understand it, and are fellow human souls who try to imitate the life of Jesus Christ.

And this is exactly how I see you too.

tOMnOSSOR is a great great guy- we "fought" side by side on the barricades at CAF many times, and he is the one who actually turned me on to the social trinity.

The unspeakable mysteries must be left unspoken. They can only be known in the heart. That's why Creeds don't work. I am actually a hair's breadth away from the real presence myself.

Thanks for your post.

[mfbukowski]

If you "can't" believe the trinity (as Rob explained it) because you think it's unreasonable, then the debate ends there, as it appears nothing can be believed, unless it is reasonable to you.

So I suppose we are supposed to believe things which are unreasonable to us?

He himself debates it with others, but only those who believe nearly as he does.