Bikeemikey Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 The trinity is like a CEO, CFO and COO working together to maximize corporate value so they can cash in their stock options and retire. Three distinct people with one purpose.
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 With all due respect, your rhetorical questions (and other comments on this thread) indicate to me that you don't "know" as it pertains to the truth as I understand it. But thanks for sharing!Heh, you're welcome, regardless of whether or not what I told you did you any good.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I don't have access to youtube, but I'm sure this is a fun or insightful or devastating view. Or all 3.No, just funny You say potAto, I say po-tah-toe, etc. Fred Astaire- great stuff. 1
Vance Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I don't consider it circular reasoning - and don't agree that "it" "becomes" a paradox; the paradox is derived from scripture.Could you provide the scriptural reverences you are referring to?
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 My mom told me not to accept facts from strangers on internet boards.All kidding aside, they are certainly not the same kind of being by my training or understanding. If God is a spirit and is not the same kind of being as we are, how could he be our "Father"?How is he a "person" at all? He can't be. The Greeks knew that. It is an inevitable conclusion of making God a transcendent being. That was fine for the Greeks because they weren't Christians.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 If you are into trinity-related head explosions, try figure out the difference between "persons" and "personages." Thanks, -Wade Englund-A person's age is just a number. 2
Ahab Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 If God is a spirit and is not the same kind of being as we are, how could he be our "Father"?How is he a "person" at all?He can't be. The Greeks knew that. It is an inevitable conclusion of making God a transcendent being. That was fine for the Greeks because they weren't Christians.Some Christians incorporate Greek philosophy in their beliefs, in error, without realizing it, though, and it's not always easy to get them to stop doing that, either. So on and on they go, in error, while thinking they believe what is true.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) nevermind Edited January 28, 2014 by mfbukowski
Freedom Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 A person's age is just a number. What is the difference between counting and accounting?
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 What is the difference between counting and accounting? hmmmmmm.... A few years of school? 1
Freedom Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 hmmmmmm.... A few years of school?Counting is: one, two, three, fouraccounting is: a-one, a-two, a-three, a-four. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Counting is: one, two, three, fouraccounting is: a-one, a-two, a-three, a-four. GROAN That reminds me of Lawrence Welk. There has to be at least one old person on this board who will know what I am talking about! 3
Ahab Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 GROANThat reminds me of Lawrence Welk. There has to be at least one old person on this board who will know what I am talking about!Ah, a show I watched with my Grandmother.Take it away, Bobby and Suzy.
Tacenda Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Ah, a show I watched with my Grandmother.Take it away, Bobby and Suzy.Just going to say the same thing, lol.
Freedom Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 An accountant told me that joke a number of years ago. The best part of the joke was watching her tell it - she was giggling so much before she even get started that it make the rest of us laugh. Nobody could understand the joke because of her laughing which killed the punchline. She was very soft spoken if she said anything at all. 1
3DOP Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 My faves were Larry Hooper (deepest voice ever) and Arthur Duncan (tap dancing).
3DOP Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) The problem arises when it is accepted that the state of being "God" and that of being "man" are totally incompatible with each other. As in the old "Creator" versus "creature" thingy. Once this is accepted then all sorts of logical gymnastics have to be employed to reconcile this incompatibility.If it is rejected that the state of being "God" and the state of being "man" are incompatible, then there is no problem to be solved, no logical gymnastics needed. If only that were true. Mormons fully accept Jesus Christ is both fully God (or completely divine, if you will) and fully man. We don't, but then again we don't accept the (what we would call) false premise that being "God" and being "man" are totally incompatible.Is this where the real problem arises? Vance. The problem lies in my opinion lies where I said before, about whether God identified Himself as "I am" or "I am becoming". But I like what you say here because it was the Arians who were saying that God and man are incompatible. That is why they were uncomfortable with the doctrine of the deity of Christ and tried to edge away from it. Catholic doctrine insists that it is revealed that God and Man ARE compatible and it also insists that we don't know how. You guys know how. Okay with me. Makes sense to me. But we think God said "I am", and the implications of that are drastically different than how you understand it. Edited January 29, 2014 by 3DOP
teddyaware Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 An analogy I use is water.You have water= GodWhen it freezes it turns to ice = JesusWhen you boil it it turns to steam = Holy SpiritIts all still water.They are not three seperate entities but are 3 in 1.Coming in late on this thread and haven't read many of the responses, but In Mormonism the trinity is not a mystery and for that reason an analogy is unnecessary. In the LDS faith the Godhead is composed of three perfectly united individuals (three separate and distinct men), each of whom is infinitely and eternally perfect in holiness, love, faith, hope, knowledge, wisdom, action, emotion and every other divine attribute. The one shared substance (homoousios) that unites these three personages as one God is the Spirit of Truth, all three members of the Godhead possessing the Spirit of Truth in eternal fullness.
3DOP Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) I hope you don't think my comments as insulting. I just can't make logic of it. I even gave you and other the benefit of the doubt that if it works for you I genuinly am glad for you. I would never call your beliefs stupid. I really do want to "get it" I just can't. Maybe I am the one with the flaw and I just am incapable of getting it. Anway I appreciate you taking the time once again to lay it all down. I will finish reading your response and see if I can make sense of it. Mola, Mark, others. Thanks for not wanting to be insulting. I believe you and accept any apologies offered. But I need to say that it isn't because my feelings are hurt that I get frustrated when words like absurd, crazy, or ridiculous get thrown around. It is because someone is supposing that I understand and propose as comprehensively logical something that I deny to understand as comprehensively logical. It is more about being misunderstood than personally insulted. The Catholic faith proposes to the mind of the faithful that there are many revealed truths that we cannot fully comprehend. This is why we think St. Paul spoke of faith as "seeing through a glass darkly." Faith is of a higher order of knowledge than reason as regards subject matter. Faith is of a lower order of knowledge than reason as regards intelligibility. This is why we use a word which was often used in Scripture when it refers to the mysteries. I can think of several reasons why it is appropriate that God would leave us in this mortal life with an intellect not capable of grasping totally the highest truths that He proposes for our faith. Not the least of these reasons is that it makes us an object of ridicule and that is good for us. It is a healthy humiliation when we cannot lord it over those who oppose us with flights of intellectual genius that solves every difficulty. Yup, I might even quit griping about it. (Don't count on it though) Its better for anybody to be humiliated than praised. Heh. For those who "frustrate" me sometimes, God love you, you'll be my salvation before someone who praises me and gives me my beloved rep points (of which I am far too solicitous). I mentioned that I am reading this book about mysteries. In the first chapter the author points out that even in everyday life, we never have complete knowledge of anything. Not the universe. Not the atom. Not anything else in between. If we can't comprehend what God made, why should we expect to comprehend God Himself? The author of this book isolates the revealed mysteries (he divides the book into parts dealing with ten different mysteries) from the other truths of Christianity (which are more intelligible, sometimes so intelligible that they are truths of human reason as well as faith). He gives the purpose for doing this as follows: "This we undertake in the hope of being able to show that precisely those doctrines which appear to the proud mind as horrible wraiths, as senseless, impossible enigmas, infinitely surpass in beauty and clarity all that reason in its loftiest flights can achieve." It kills me when people see what I adore to be a "horrible wraith, as senseless, an impossible enigma". Nobody likes that. The human intellect cannot fail to want to try to comprehend what has been proposed to it. But do I want a faith that I must understand before I will believe? Or do I want a faith that I will believe in order to understand? I have chosen the latter. I wouldn't make the mistake of telling you MY analogy of the Trinity. None of them work. Not for one moment was I tempted to try to satisfy the skeptical mind that way. There is in my opinion, only one way to the Catholic Trinity, and that is the way of an intellectually humbled faith that bows before the majesty of God and admits its own incapacity to explain how a revealed mystery is true. I understand why some would see this as a cop out. But that is part of the lure of it. I find this way compelling in that the greater and more difficult the truth, the the less intelligent it makes us appear. Consubstantiality is child's play. The reason I know it is child's play is because I understand it very well. Its just a tool that helped maintain a Mystery. Consubstantiality is nothing beside the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. Anyway...I have a little time to peruse the rest of the thread and that's what I'll do now but before going further, I especially wanted to kind of explain that I am not offended and really, its queer, but I should be thankful if you really were mocking me, and you weren't. I am a proud boy. Anyway, God love you all. 3DOP PS: Lord willing, tomorrow I want to talk about what Mormons would be saying about it if the Arians had prevailed, and those affirming consubstantiality had failed. If you think Athanasius was hellenized, and thought God and man were incompatible, you ain't seen nothin' until you consider theology under an Arian umbrella. Until then. Edited January 29, 2014 by 3DOP 1
Calm Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I give you rep points because you work very hard at trying to help others understand your POV in spite of people constantly saying 'I don't understand'. I think it highly admirable on a board peopled with those not of your faith. You deserve all the ones you've gotten from me and many more IMO.
3DOP Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) No, just funny You say potAto, I say po-tah-toe, etc. Fred Astaire- great stuff. There is a funny skit I saw once saw some where about that song. It is about some guy auditioning for a part where he sings the song, but doesn't know about the pronunciations. All he has is a script. You say potato and I say potato.You say tomato and I say tomato.Potato Potato Tomato Tomato.Lets call the whole thing off. He is understandably baffled about what this song is about much less why they need to call the whole thing off! Its pretty funny when he begins with enthusiasm and then the puzzlement sets in. For him, its a mystery. Heh. Edited January 29, 2014 by 3DOP 3
mfbukowski Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 There is a funny skit I saw once saw some where about that song. It is about some guy auditioning for a part where he sings the song, but doesn't know about the pronunciations. All he has is a script. You say potato and I say potato.You say tomato and I say tomato.Potato Potato Tomato Tomato.Lets call the whole thing off. He is understandably baffled about what this song is about much less why they need to call the whole thing off! Its pretty funny when he begins with enthusiasm and then the puzzlement sets in. For him, its a mystery. Heh.Love it!
mfbukowski Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 The one shared substance (homoousios) that unites these three personages as one God is the Spirit of Truth, all three members of the Godhead possessing the Spirit of Truth in eternal fullness.Uh you were going great there until the last part. I'd like to see some scripture containing the word "homoousis" please. They are one in purpose, not in "substance". You will find no Mormon doctrinal references anywhere to them being one in "substance".
Calm Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Can't figure out how to link YouTube on my iPad..Do a you tube search on "you say potato" "secret policeman's ball".....for the skit....Watch this one for fun: http://iheartjimmy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/potato-potahto/ Edited January 29, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Recommended Posts