Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:49 am

gillyflower wrote:Anything is possible. Look at the universe of imagination.

How could 2+2 EVER result in something else than 4 and actually be true?

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:51 am

i knew your uber-rational mind would limit you
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:52 am

Davelaw wrote:i knew your uber-rational mind would limit you

then please explain to me how that could be possible?

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:56 am

if you can't accept it

i can not explain it

you would have to go insane first i.e. gain a non-rational mind
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:57 am

Davelaw wrote:if you can't accept it

i can not explain it

you would have to go insane first i.e. gain a non-rational mind

but would that make it actually true then? or would it simply seem true to be because I'm insane?

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:00 am

it could go either way-it's said some of the arcane texts of the ancients actually cause insanity
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:02 am

Davelaw wrote:it could go either way-it's said some of the arcane texts of the ancients actually cause insanity

so? does that make them true therefore?

but still: take TWO anythings and add TWO more and you will ALWAYS get FOUR anythings, in ALL circumstances. Any other result will ALWAYS be false. In all universes.

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:04 am

not so; thats just you wanting there to be universes that always make sense
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:06 am

Davelaw wrote:not so; thats just you wanting there to be universes that always make sense

how could a universe not make sense?

and you've still to explain how 2+2 could result in anything else but 4 and still be true.

imagine it visually: 2 objects and 2 more objects. How could ANYONE ANYWHERE look at them and say "there are 5 objects" and be TRUTHFUL?

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:15 am

in another universe; a fifth object might spontaneously generate everytime four are produced
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:16 am

Davelaw wrote:in another universe; a fifth object might spontaneously generate everytime four are produced

Exactly what I was thinking. Shocked

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:18 am

TED, we prolly have read some of the same kinds of fiction in our younger days
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:20 am

Davelaw wrote:in another universe; a fifth object might spontaneously generate everytime four are produced

Ah, the 'ex nihilo' argument.

It doesn't help you though since what you are describing is 2+2+1. And of course that always get 5 Smile

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:21 am

Davelaw wrote:TED, we prolly have read some of the same kinds of fiction in our younger days
you should have read better books then Wink

on the other hand, they're FICTION. that says it all Smile

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:22 am

Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:Why moot?

Because we're talking about persnalities.... not people. I had an epiphany when I wrote this earlier.... When Christians use the father, husband child explanation, they are in a way correct. As a child, I related to my parents differently than I do as a husband or father to my own kids. There was a different level of communication.... I went to them for advice when my kids were small, I went to my dad not as an equal, but as his son. As a husband, I negotiate family matters with my wife. It's a whole different personality involved. The same applies as a father. Sometimes I had to make unpopular decisions, and then back them up. I'm still John, but there's a difference. This isn't the same as Jesus being god, son and spirit all wrapped into one. So the spirit could not have died on the cross, neither could their god. It was a person, with a personality attuned to their god (desiring to be more god-like) who died. Your question is therefore moot.

But, according to the NT, the different entities of the Trinity are interacting with each other and in relationship to each other.

That's impossible if there is only one being. Except for schizos of course Wink

As for your example with the family: Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Father. What would equal that in your example? Are you your own Son and Father too?

Of course I'm not my own father as well as my son, or what ever bazaar way you have of asking. I am however three differing personalities wrapped into one. Do you talk to your dad on the same level as you would a friend or brother? I didn't, right up to the day he died. My dad was the family leader. He was sought for his wisdom, and even on levels where his guidance wasn't sought, his approval always was. As I said about dealing with my wife, it's more give and take on family issues, not absolute demands. As a father, I hand out praise and I mete out discipline. To me this is a trinity.

For years, I've read the NT, and the only mention I have ever seen concerning god, Jesus and the spirit have not been conclusive enough to suggest that Jesus considered himself god's flesh and blood son, or anything like the trinity doctrine parceled out in church. I've read where Jesus has said "The father and I are one." Does that mean the same, or does it mean like minded? That's like the saying the two were cut from the same cloth.... they weren't clones, nor were they the same persons.... They simply thought along the same lines. People are like that even today. I've read in the NT where Jesus speaks of a comforter to come to the people after he leaves. Now if he's going away, he can't still be there, so this is a strong implication that the two, although like minded, or inspiring, they are not one and the same. So how can anyone justify the three being one entity? It wasn't until men came up with the idea that this trinity became part of church canon. There is nothing scriptural to back it up. Now the thing that makes this most exasperating when dealing with you on it is that if you go back several pages on this very thread, one can see where you bring up the fact that there is nothing in the NT to back up the trinity claim, yet here you are trying to use biblical writing to suggest this is a fact. I think one of your personalities needs to do your writing for the other so that you will at least stay on one course with your ideas.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:25 am

John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:Why moot?

Because we're talking about persnalities.... not people. I had an epiphany when I wrote this earlier.... When Christians use the father, husband child explanation, they are in a way correct. As a child, I related to my parents differently than I do as a husband or father to my own kids. There was a different level of communication.... I went to them for advice when my kids were small, I went to my dad not as an equal, but as his son. As a husband, I negotiate family matters with my wife. It's a whole different personality involved. The same applies as a father. Sometimes I had to make unpopular decisions, and then back them up. I'm still John, but there's a difference. This isn't the same as Jesus being god, son and spirit all wrapped into one. So the spirit could not have died on the cross, neither could their god. It was a person, with a personality attuned to their god (desiring to be more god-like) who died. Your question is therefore moot.

But, according to the NT, the different entities of the Trinity are interacting with each other and in relationship to each other.

That's impossible if there is only one being. Except for schizos of course Wink

As for your example with the family: Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Father. What would equal that in your example? Are you your own Son and Father too?

Of course I'm not my own father as well as my son, or what ever bazaar way you have of asking. I am however three differing personalities wrapped into one. Do you talk to your dad on the same level as you would a friend or brother? I didn't, right up to the day he died. My dad was the family leader. He was sought for his wisdom, and even on levels where his guidance wasn't sought, his approval always was. As I said about dealing with my wife, it's more give and take on family issues, not absolute demands. As a father, I hand out praise and I mete out discipline. To me this is a trinity.

Fair enough. But it's not a Trinity in the Christian sense. They claim that the same being can be Father AND Son to ITSELF. So I'm sorry but you're analogy fails in this case.

For years, I've read the NT, and the only mention I have ever seen concerning god, Jesus and the spirit have not been conclusive enough to suggest that Jesus considered himself god's flesh and blood son, or anything like the trinity doctrine parceled out in church. I've read where Jesus has said "The father and I are one." Does that mean the same, or does it mean like minded? That's like the saying the two were cut from the same cloth.... they weren't clones, nor were they the same persons.... They simply thought along the same lines. People are like that even today. I've read in the NT where Jesus speaks of a comforter to come to the people after he leaves. Now if he's going away, he can't still be there, so this is a strong implication that the two, although like minded, or inspiring, they are not one and the same. So how can anyone justify the three being one entity? It wasn't until men came up with the idea that this trinity became part of church canon. There is nothing scriptural to back it up. Now the thing that makes this most exasperating when dealing with you on it is that if you go back several pages on this very thread, one can see where you bring up the fact that there is nothing in the NT to back up the trinity claim, yet here you are trying to use biblical writing to suggest this is a fact. I think one of your personalities needs to do your writing for the other so that you will at least stay on one course with your ideas.

I'm quite sure that Jesus didn't think he was part of some irrational Trinity.

I'm reacting to PEOPLE claiming that the concept of Trinity makes rational sense.

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Davelaw on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:27 am

and if we just state that we accept it whether it makes sense or not?
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:35 am

Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:Why moot?

Because we're talking about persnalities.... not people. I had an epiphany when I wrote this earlier.... When Christians use the father, husband child explanation, they are in a way correct. As a child, I related to my parents differently than I do as a husband or father to my own kids. There was a different level of communication.... I went to them for advice when my kids were small, I went to my dad not as an equal, but as his son. As a husband, I negotiate family matters with my wife. It's a whole different personality involved. The same applies as a father. Sometimes I had to make unpopular decisions, and then back them up. I'm still John, but there's a difference. This isn't the same as Jesus being god, son and spirit all wrapped into one. So the spirit could not have died on the cross, neither could their god. It was a person, with a personality attuned to their god (desiring to be more god-like) who died. Your question is therefore moot.

But, according to the NT, the different entities of the Trinity are interacting with each other and in relationship to each other.

That's impossible if there is only one being. Except for schizos of course Wink

As for your example with the family: Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Father. What would equal that in your example? Are you your own Son and Father too?

Of course I'm not my own father as well as my son, or what ever bazaar way you have of asking. I am however three differing personalities wrapped into one. Do you talk to your dad on the same level as you would a friend or brother? I didn't, right up to the day he died. My dad was the family leader. He was sought for his wisdom, and even on levels where his guidance wasn't sought, his approval always was. As I said about dealing with my wife, it's more give and take on family issues, not absolute demands. As a father, I hand out praise and I mete out discipline. To me this is a trinity.

Fair enough. But it's not a Trinity in the Christian sense. They claim that the same being can be Father AND Son to ITSELF. So I'm sorry but you're analogy fails in this case.

For years, I've read the NT, and the only mention I have ever seen concerning god, Jesus and the spirit have not been conclusive enough to suggest that Jesus considered himself god's flesh and blood son, or anything like the trinity doctrine parceled out in church. I've read where Jesus has said "The father and I are one." Does that mean the same, or does it mean like minded? That's like the saying the two were cut from the same cloth.... they weren't clones, nor were they the same persons.... They simply thought along the same lines. People are like that even today. I've read in the NT where Jesus speaks of a comforter to come to the people after he leaves. Now if he's going away, he can't still be there, so this is a strong implication that the two, although like minded, or inspiring, they are not one and the same. So how can anyone justify the three being one entity? It wasn't until men came up with the idea that this trinity became part of church canon. There is nothing scriptural to back it up. Now the thing that makes this most exasperating when dealing with you on it is that if you go back several pages on this very thread, one can see where you bring up the fact that there is nothing in the NT to back up the trinity claim, yet here you are trying to use biblical writing to suggest this is a fact. I think one of your personalities needs to do your writing for the other so that you will at least stay on one course with your ideas.

I'm quite sure that Jesus didn't think he was part of some irrational Trinity.

I'm reacting to PEOPLE claiming that the concept of Trinity makes rational sense.

The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:37 am

Davelaw wrote:and if we just state that we accept it whether it makes sense or not?

Why accept it if it makes no sense and if it's inherently impossible?

Did you forget this:

Ah, the 'ex nihilo' argument.

It doesn't help you though since what you are describing is 2+2+1. And of course that always get 5 Smile

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:38 am

John A. Cancienne wrote:The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion? I gave you reasonable arguments in my answer.

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:16 am

Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion? I gave you reasonable arguments in my answer.

Reasonable by your definition, perhaps. I don't think anyone else here would agree. I think it's time I just monitored and kept my comments to myself.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:18 am

John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion? I gave you reasonable arguments in my answer.

Reasonable by your definition, perhaps. I don't think anyone else here would agree. I think it's time I just monitored and kept my comments to myself.

Then what's not reasonable about them? You should be able to point this out then.

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:06 am

Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion? I gave you reasonable arguments in my answer.

Reasonable by your definition, perhaps. I don't think anyone else here would agree. I think it's time I just monitored and kept my comments to myself.

Then what's not reasonable about them? You should be able to point this out then.

Look at the convulsions you went into when Dave mentioned the possibility that on some other universe, things we believe to be truth here is radically different there. Hell, Daldi, we don't even know if there is intelligent life outside of our own within the universe we live in, much less on some other. How can you be so sure that what you understand to be rational truth is the same if another life form exists? It seems that just considering the possibility gives you the creeps. The same rational can be used where religion is concerned. It isn't all about using just the five senses, there are other factors at play which you do not possess, because the idea seems irrational to you. You have sealed yourself into a cocoon where only your logic is the dominant force, and if anyone dares to think outside of what you will allow for yourself, thy are irrational. People who do allow themselves to consider the unimaginable feel the same sense of remorse toward you for limiting yourself to only what you can see, smell, taste or touch. If everyone used the same rational thinking as you, poetry would not exist, works of at would not exist, music would not exist. If all used the same rational thinking as you, the auto would not exist, neither would flight. Most certainly, man would never have set foot on the moon, and now consider the possibility of sending a man to Mars. Sometimes you must let your imagination take control of the physical senses, and run with intuition.

As far as pointing out the rest? Well, I did. As I said earlier, you were the first to state that there was nothing in the NT to suggest that there was any mention of the trinity. Yet when I propose an idea that renders your position moot, you fall back on citing NT quotes. Which is it? This is more of a rhetorical question, because as I said before, you will grasp to any straw, even if it's one you discarded earlier to make your position remain valid.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Daldianus on Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:39 am

John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:
Celsus wrote:
John A. Cancienne wrote:The problem as I see it here, Daldi is that you are willing to have it both ways, so long as it's you that's correct, and no on else. Sooooooooooo.... Yep, you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. There. Happy now?

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion? I gave you reasonable arguments in my answer.

Reasonable by your definition, perhaps. I don't think anyone else here would agree. I think it's time I just monitored and kept my comments to myself.

Then what's not reasonable about them? You should be able to point this out then.

Look at the convulsions you went into when Dave mentioned the possibility that on some other universe, things we believe to be truth here is radically different there. Hell, Daldi, we don't even know if there is intelligent life outside of our own within the universe we live in, much less on some other. How can you be so sure that what you understand to be rational truth is the same if another life form exists? It seems that just considering the possibility gives you the creeps. The same rational can be used where religion is concerned. It isn't all about using just the five senses, there are other factors at play which you do not possess, because the idea seems irrational to you. You have sealed yourself into a cocoon where only your logic is the dominant force, and if anyone dares to think outside of what you will allow for yourself, thy are irrational. People who do allow themselves to consider the unimaginable feel the same sense of remorse toward you for limiting yourself to only what you can see, smell, taste or touch. If everyone used the same rational thinking as you, poetry would not exist, works of at would not exist, music would not exist. If all used the same rational thinking as you, the auto would not exist, neither would flight. Most certainly, man would never have set foot on the moon, and now consider the possibility of sending a man to Mars. Sometimes you must let your imagination take control of the physical senses, and run with intuition.

As far as pointing out the rest? Well, I did. As I said earlier, you were the first to state that there was nothing in the NT to suggest that there was any mention of the trinity. Yet when I propose an idea that renders your position moot, you fall back on citing NT quotes. Which is it? This is more of a rhetorical question, because as I said before, you will grasp to any straw, even if it's one you discarded earlier to make your position remain valid.

I don't see how that invalidates my claim that 2+2 always has to be 4 and could never, ever be something else?

The example with the 5 introduced an additional unit in it so that the statement was 2+2+1. Math logic still respected.

As for the rest: how about joining my thread in the Philsophy subforum about humans creating ideas?

_________________
Eternity is really long, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
After your death you will be what you were before your birth. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Do check this out: Ideas worth spreading and radioLab!
avatar
Daldianus
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-07-25
Location : Luxembourg

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:16 pm

The point about this whole argument is that, in our universe, 2+2=4.

We cannot feasably wrap our minds around concepts from another universe. Our minds are designed in, and work in, our universe. There is no way we can conceptualize what is and is not in another, any more than my cat can work out a lengthy algabreic equation.

It's just the way things are.

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum