The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The second person of the Trinity: the Son > Comments

The second person of the Trinity: the Son : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 11/10/2017

If a kindly Father God was looking down from above ready to intervene for his Son he must have turned aside so as not to see.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
As there are 2 billion Christians then the Trinity is increasing in number , maybe a Tri billionity.

" Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

No mention of Ms H Spirit there , but the mega millions have some.
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 12 October 2017 1:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//That no one is good and all have sinned.//

And to not judge thy neighbour, for it is only he that is without sin who may cast the first stone. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

//In Jesus's death, yes that can be counted as a failure of religion in Isreal//

Oh of course... it's all the Jews' fault. Nothing at all to do with Romans, even though crucifixion was a Roman punishment. The Jews would have just stoned him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

//Our forgiveness (and need for forgiveness) by God showing a real sacrifice to save us//

Yeah, I consider human sacrifice to be a barbaric practice.

//It's that He's the only one that can be counted as a good man.//

Bollocks. He may have been a fine ethical philosopher, but he was neither the Alpha nor the Omega when it comes to sound ethical philosophy. The Buddha and Laozi were also fine ethical philosophers, and so were Immanuel Kant and Yoda. Jesus was good, but it doesn't follow that he has a monopoly on goodness.

//Everyone else from the past to the future (include you and me) fail the measure to be good, pure and without any sin or wrong in them.//

Original sin? Nah, that's bollocks. Rationally and scientifically, Genesis is a steaming load of crap.

But if we are to consider it just as a story... I don't subscribe to the idea that Adam & Eve were sinful in the first place, and as for the notion that we all inherit that sin...

Cobblers.

//The Beutitudes//

Yes, blessed are the cheesemakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkWT5voTSE

Oh, and the meek. Which is nice, 'cause they've had a hell of a time.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 12 October 2017 4:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello AJ Philips. I hope your doing well.

[I think itís sad that you believe that no-one is good. I think there are a lot of good people in the world. No-oneís perfect, but that doesnít mean that all are bad.]

It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect. In that simple but true assessment what we can count as good is either a standard of good enough, or to reach high enough the average. But no one is really good.

However, I believe Jesus is the exception to this observation. He also taught great lessons for us, such as forgiveness against someone else wronging us, because we're in the same light of not being perfect as they are.

I don't see why you would consider the term historical Jesus. He either existed or He didn't. With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was, why would we reinvent who he was 2000+ years after He left the make a historical version? I get people not believing the bible is true. I don't understand though not believing the bible but taking pieces out of it to reinvent it to fit them even though they don't believe what's written there. Jesus either existed or he didn't. There is no historical Jesus alternative to the equasion.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis. Do you have any teachings of Jesus you would like to discuss? You said he was a good man and a fine ethical philosopher. If we can at least agree on this much then we can discuss His lessons. ....or do you mean "Ethical philosopher" in a non complementary kind of way. If that's the case why not just say so.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Not_Now.Soon. Iím doing well, thank you.

Generally speaking, we shouldnít proclaim something as the truth unless we can support it with evidence.

<<It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect.>>

Perfection is an unrealistic standard. Even if Christian theology were indeed true, it would still be an unrealistic standard as the Christian God made us to be imperfect beings.

<<In that simple but true assessment what we can count as good is either a standard of good enough, or to reach high enough the average. But no one is really good.>>

There is a difference between good and perfect, though. I think my computer is good, but itís far from perfect.

<<However, I believe Jesus is the exception to this observation.>>

Yes, Jesus had some good lessons (many of which were not original, though, I might add), However, he also had some not-so-good advice, and he had some terrible advice too. The Sermon on the Mount (often hailed by Christians as evidence of Jesusí divinity) was a mixed bag like this.

<<I don't see why you would consider the term historical Jesus.>>

Because there is no evidence for a divine Jesus. There is, however, some scant evidence for an historical Jesus.

<<He either existed or He didn't.>>

Correct, and if he did exist, then he was either divine or he wasnít.

<<With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was Ö>>

Thatís the biggest problem, the Bible is the only source for an alleged divine Jesus, and the Bible is utterly unreliable.

<<Ö why would we reinvent who he was 2000+ years after He left the make a historical version?>>

Because the Bible was never reliable to begin with.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 12 October 2017 7:19:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//It is a sad reality, but it's not just my belief, it's the truth. No one makes the mark. You can look at it from what you just said. No one is perfect.//

Perhaps not, but that doesn't preclude them being good.

//I don't understand though not believing the bible but taking pieces out of it to reinvent it to fit them//

You don't? But that's what Christians do. Everybody reads the Bible selectively.

And they completely ignore non-canonical Gospels like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which a young Jesus kills a child by miraculously cursing him so that his body withers into a corpse, and then later Avada Kedavra's another kid for accidentally bumping into him and blinds the kid's parents when they complain to Mary and Joseph. Although he does turn over a new leaf in the end, and miraculously revokes all his evil-doing.

But maybe not so perfect after all... little wonder that Pope Gelasius I decreed the Gospel heretical.

//even though they don't believe what's written there.//

Disbelief in some bits of the Bible (miracles, mostly) does not preclude belief in others.

//Jesus either existed or he didn't. There is no historical Jesus alternative to the equasion.//

Well if he existed (which seems likely) then he was definitely a historical figure; hence historical Jesus.

//With the bible being the only source to really tell us about who Jesus was//

Nope, there are a whole load of writings about Jesus that got cut from the Bible because early Popes didn't like them, and then there are the writings of historians like Josephus and Tacitus (although the latter don't go into much biographical detail). It is definitely not the only source available.

//or do you mean "Ethical philosopher" in a non complementary kind of way.//

No, if I was being sarcastic I would have used my sarcasm brackets, like this:

Donald Trump is a great president. (sarcasm)
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 13 October 2017 1:49:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy