• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
No, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is no more that Father than your heart can be mistaken for your brain, cvanwey, although both of these together are aspects of the one "you."

So your saying God is like some type of 'metaphorical Voltron'?

I've heard other analogies, like how water can be a 'liquid, solid, and a gas all at the same time', or how I can be a 'husband, son, grandson, dad, and uncle all at the same time'; but your analogies are quite new to me.

But yours actually don't seem to work. The brain and heart are just parts. In and of themselves, they do little/no good independently. In and of themselves, they cannot function.

Please try again. I'll start...


(start assertion):

God atoned to himself.

(end assertion)
 
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,345
8,143
42
United Kingdom
✟93,901.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not so fast...

If God, the Father, and Jesus are all the same being, then whom did He atone to?
This is off topic like I said in my post answering someone else. It is a little disingenuous, although understandable, to then ask me to elaborate on my post. I originally answered about Jesus praying, which was still on topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This is off topic like I said in my post answering someone else. It is a little disingenuous, although understandable, to then ask me to elaborate on my post. I originally answered about Jesus praying, which was still on topic.

I wasn't aware of some universal forum response etiquette handbook (aside from the forum rules posted)? I've been a part of this scene for a few months now. Please tell me of a topic posted, where the topic does not veer in all sorts of directions? If you wish not to engage further, it's a free country ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,345
8,143
42
United Kingdom
✟93,901.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I wasn't aware of some universal forum response etiquette handbook (aside from the forum rules posted)? I've been a part of this scene for a few months now. Please tell me of a topic posted, where the topic does not veer in all sorts of directions? If you wish not to engage further, it's a free country ;)
That is what I hinted at when I posted the previous response to someone else. Just thought I'd reiterate it but a little clearer. :)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
That is what I hinted at when I posted the previous response to someone else. Just thought I'd reiterate it but a little clearer. :)

I don't see the point in your response? Rather than ask a followup question, which directly addresses your response, is it instead only appropriate or not 'disingenuous' to instead open a new topic every time? If so, we would have hundreds/thousands of extra topics :)
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
This is off topic. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. One God in three persons.

Jesus while on Earth did the Father's will. I do not pretend to have an unfallible understanding of these things but Jesus was fully God and fully human in order to live the life that we couldn't, in order to be that spotless sacrifice of atonement for us.

I have no qualms about Jesus praying humbly and sincerely to the Godhead and am inspired by that now I think of it. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.

Ok.

It makes no sense to me at all.

And seeing as you write "I do not pretend to have an unfallible understanding of these things but ...", it would seem as if it doesn't make sense to you either.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Saying that Jesus is God is like saying that Red is a part of the light spectrum ... so there's little need to ask this, cvanwey. Yes, Jesus is 'God'; No, He isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit.

But "red", IS not the light spectrum....
Neither IS the "light spectrum", red.

Your analogy fails.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,345
8,143
42
United Kingdom
✟93,901.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't see the point in your response? Rather than ask a followup question, which directly addresses your response, is it instead only appropriate or not 'disingenuous' to instead open a new topic every time? If so, we would have hundreds/thousands of extra topics :)
Maybe I should have ignored your post? But that might have been rude. Sorry if you found the word disingenuous rude. I did add the words 'although understandable' to try to ensure that it didn't sound like a criticism, because it wasn't meant to be. I do apologise for any slight I have caused.

I was trying to portray my reluctance to be in the discussion because I didn't want to try to explain the trinity upon wakening. Especially if my explanation might get picked apart.

My brain is still tired from trying (and failing) to explain sociological theories for an assessment yesterday! If I am struggling to explain those cohesively (and it took 8hours yesterday to only rephrase what I've already done and write an extra paragraph... still have 60% of the assessment to complete) I doubt very much that I can make myself understood here either. :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I already did. Until you can demonstrate absolute/objectivity in the word 'immoral', and also demonstrate that such events were not mere humans doing stuff to other humans, while claiming their believed God's hand, we are simply arguing over a hypothetical situation.

So please define 'immoral'. Please demonstrate your believed God's direct hand in this conclusion.

If you can do neither, than your question(s) are no more warranted or relevant than asking a similar hypothetical 'moral dilemma' from the sighted Holy Qur'an.
Okay.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,677
11,532
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,482.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So your saying God is like some type of 'metaphorical Voltron'?

I've heard other analogies, like how water can be a 'liquid, solid, and a gas all at the same time', or how I can be a 'husband, son, grandson, dad, and uncle all at the same time'; but your analogies are quite new to me.

But yours actually don't seem to work. The brain and heart are just parts. In and of themselves, they do little/no good independently. In and of themselves, they cannot function.

Please try again. I'll start...


(start assertion):

God atoned to himself.

(end assertion)

Wrong. A combustion engine or a tire is a "part" of a car. But, in the case of deciphering you as a physical person, both your heart and your brain aren't "parts"; rather they are organic entities that constitute the whole you.

Without a brain, can you still live and be you, cvanwey? NO! Without your heart, can you still live and be you? NO!

But can you replace a tire on your car and consider your car still be "your car"? By golly, yes you can!

So, let's not equivocate our denotation here. Jesus and the Father are in some sense different entitities within the same unified Entity; 3-in-1. It's a mystery to us that we can't explain, and I don't think we were ever meant to fully understand it.
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,205
4,426
53
undisclosed Bunker
✟318,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus and the Father are in some sense different entitities within the same unified Entity; 3-in-1.

Multi-dimensional Hyper-God lol. That's as close as I can get to it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,677
11,532
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,482.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But "red", IS not the light spectrum....
Neither IS the "light spectrum", red.

Your analogy fails.

I didn't say that red IS the light spectrum; and forgive me for speaking about it phenomenologically.

Obviously, I'm not trying to give a lesson on the physical science (wavelengths/frequencies) of the Light Spectrum ... duh! :dontcare:

If you want that, then here's something you already know!:

Light: Electromagnetic waves, the electromagnetic spectrum and photons

The point is, the way that I conceptualize the Logos of God is as a kind of "frequency" within the overall being of God; the Logos of God is not a separate "part" of God, just like we might say that your mouth isn't a separate part of you. Rather, like your whole mouth in relation to the rest of your body, the Logos of God is an integral physical expression of God within and from God, one that can even be manifested separately for a time on a more "human level" (i.e. as Jesus).

Of course, I could be dead wrong since no one can actually capture God and put Him under a microscope. So, for all the 'haters' out there, hate away on my conception here. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Here’s the three planks of the Trinity

1. There is one God
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God
3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are eternally distinct.

You cannot compare the Godhead to anything because of the uniqueness of the Trinity. God is not like anything created.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,677
11,532
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,482.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Multi-dimensional Hyper-God lol. That's as close as I can get to it.


...I like your analogy, too. And the thing is, neither of us can know for sure, but we can imagine something of such 'strange' complexity that...it at least begins to partially make a bit of sense (for those of us who are more philosophically inclined).

Thanks for the example, Petros! :oldthumbsup:
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Petros2015
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am guessing that the Jewish people in the camps weren't praying for NATIONAL salvation. Poor attempt at diversion on your part.
Corrie Ten Boom would be someone to read if you want to know about those praying in the camps.
She talks about praying and God's answering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, if someone was ill or infirm that prevented them from doing something considered honourable?. I have always thought that Christians believed it was the state of one's soul and the belief and trust in their god that defined a person, not their outward appearance, yet you support something that only appointed people who through no fault of their own were considered to be "blemished". That's discrimination of a rather nasty kind.
If you consider something I have said to be rude, I can't say I'm too bothered if the person who considers me as being rude says on the one hand that we have no need to defend a culture or people who do things immorally, yet on the other hand does not consider the slaughter of Canaanite children to have been an immoral act, saying it was justified, and who believes that there are instances where those with physical disabilities are not fit for purpose. No, not too bothered!
I have no concern of how people may have been disqualified by serving as a Priest in the past. History is history. I have concerns of how priests now are behaving. I find it heart wrenching. Discrimination has been a common occurrence throughout history. Are you surprised by that?

Why would the slaughter of Canaanite children be a concern for you or me, it is history. I am more concerned with children being killed and ripped from the womb by their own mothers today. I find that immoral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is what I mean with moral bankrupcy.

Tell me, is there anything that this entity could do that would qualify as "immoral" as you understand it?

In my world, infanticide (you know, like the indiscriminate slaughter of toddlers) is immoral. No matter who you are.

You don't get to call this entity "benevolent", "just", "moral"... while also claiming that if this entity engages in what would otherwise be immoral behaviour, it's not immoral simply because he's the one doing it. You are literally making the concept of morality completely meaningless.

Moral bankrupcy.

By my ethical standards, someone that engages in, or orders, infanticide, is an evil monster.
IF there is no God as you claim, and morality is an evolved behavior, then the slaughter of infants in history is just a way of life at the time. Morality has no objective standard and so it wasn't immoral as the moral standard of that day allowed for such things to occur.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Maybe I should have ignored your post? But that might have been rude. Sorry if you found the word disingenuous rude. I did add the words 'although understandable' to try to ensure that it didn't sound like a criticism, because it wasn't meant to be. I do apologise for any slight I have caused.

I was trying to portray my reluctance to be in the discussion because I didn't want to try to explain the trinity upon wakening. Especially if my explanation might get picked apart.

My brain is still tired from trying (and failing) to explain sociological theories for an assessment yesterday! If I am struggling to explain those cohesively (and it took 8hours yesterday to only rephrase what I've already done and write an extra paragraph... still have 60% of the assessment to complete) I doubt very much that I can make myself understood here either. :/

Then do what countless others do, in such situations. Either do not respond, or wait until you've formulated your thoughts and/or have more time.

Or, you can just acknowledge that God atones to Himself, which appears odd.
 
Upvote 0