Senate Understanding Christianity

God = Father
God = Son
God = Holy Spirirt

Father =/= Son
Son =/= Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit =/= Father

Grass is green. Emeralds are green. But emeralds are not grass.

 

So he talks to himself

 

Jesus is the Son. Not the Father. They're two different persons. But they couldn't exist without each other, by their very nature.

 

So Jesus isn't God. Jesus is only the Son.

 

God isn't a person.

Jesus is the Son.

Jesus is not the Father.

 

There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three beings each with their own thoughts and will, but one at the same time. The Son and Holy Spirit submit to the will of the Father. All three are 'God' but only the Father is the aspect of God that most would call God.

I believe Noah put two of each, as well as the animals we was told to take more of, onto the ark. Were their dinosaurs? Highly doubtful. Besides, Noah did not need to get every species, he brings two dogs eventually those two produce offspring that adapt and evolve into what we now have in terms of different species. So I believe he brought two dogs, not necessarily every breed of dog that was around at the time.

And yes I would believe that God in making man spread instead of staying together and building a tower to defy him could change their languages and thereby force their spreading and seperation.

And yes God parted the Reed sea, which likely wouldn't be that deep to begin with. As well as the Jordan River later. But those are the miracles that give me the least pause. God is God, he can part rivers or waters anytime me feels like it.

And God using a burning bush to speak through? Yes I see no issue.

 

jesus... YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER

 

Man you people are great. High quality entertainment.

It's interesting that you say that those who were building the tower were defying God. According to my translation God had nothing to do with their motivation for building the tower. The only saught to make a name for themselves. Nor did God confuse their language because they were defying him. He confused their language because he disliked the idea of human beings as one force being able to do such a thing as build this tower. "If as one people speaking one langauge they have begun to do this, then nothing they will do will be impossible."

The simple idea of that is fantastic. A supreme being fearing, and it can be nothing but, the idea of human beings doing the impossible. So much so that he had to confuse the language and scatter them to make them stop. And now look at us. Even scattered we do the impossible.

Interesting story, but nothing more to me than a story. The idea that people think it actually happened is to me quite baffling. I think science and archeology have a better understanding of how human beings got scattered. Not to mention that God disliked the building of a tower made of brick, that probably wouldn't have reached the Heavens(sky) anyway. Kinda goofy.

 

Not all Christians agree on everything. I think most of the stories in the Old Testament are legends, maybe with some basis in fact but not historically accurate. See my first post.



And I want to respond to a lot of other posts in this thread too, glad it generated so much discussion! I'll get around to it sooner or later.

 

If you think most of them are legends, then why don't you think all of them are legends? And of course if you think a good many of them are legends then doesn't that hurt your belief in the existence of a Christian God? Most of those "Legends" are used as proof of his existence. If the story's have a more rational truth, aka no God required, then how can you believe in this God?

Noahs flood is more than likely caused by melting of the glaciers at the end of the Ice Age. A rational explaination that would also explain the other flood stories. Perhaps not global, but there could be a little truth to a nasty flood. Yet not caused by a God like the Legends say.

 

Jesus is the one God, singular in will, personality, and glory. The designations "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" are no more significant than the distinctions between "President," "Commander in Chief" and "Head of State." Each highlight a unique role fulfilled by the same individual.

 

God is responsible for science, and how the physical world works. God wrote the laws of physics.

For more, see the OP. Too tired to get too into it tonight.



EDIT: And to be clear, how J-w (and others) view God is not how I or most Trinitarian Christians think of God. There's a lot of different churches and denominations for a reason. (Not saying I don't respect your view, J-w, just pointing out to DarthMane that we're not a hive-mind)

 

Well I'm taking into account not only that account in Genesis but the commentaries of Jewish and Christian theologians who have tied it to Nimrod ordering it as a direct affront to God. Also seeking to make a name for themselves is wrong as well, they should be seeking to praise God not themselves. And as to that verse about 'nothing they do will be impossible' that is more to mean that if this tower continues it will be such a sign of defiance against me it will lead to further rebellion and it will reach a point where no human will ever serve me. Therefore all humanity would be lost. God didn't fear for his rule, he never would fear for that. But he was concerned that mankind would be lost to him forever.

And I agree, science and archeology and good ways of learning our past. I see no issue with them.

 

Your interpretation and that is it. I guess you can say mind is a well, but I'm looking it at by what it says exactly. And there is no Nimrod anywhere in this 2 paragraph story. And again God didn't have an issue with them making a name for themselves in the story, not that I don't agree over issues of human pride.. He only had issue with them building the tower, and seemingly amazed that human beings could do it. How you get him being pissed that the tower could cause rebellion is beyond me. The story isn't that long, and doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It's fairly straight forward.

I really would like to know how you christians do that. Just take a story and say, "Oh, what he actually means is this, or this is actually meaning something else. Then at the same time take the Bible as literal truth word for word. THEN after that wonder why more and more people are looking at you people like your crazy.

I think I'm a bit closer to the mark then you are.

Also how can you not have issue with science or archeology? Especially in this case. If science and archeology have more understanding of how human beings got scattered that doesn't involve a small insignificant Tower, then I think you'd have issue with it. More so since you believe in the story. Though it's more the people who study the history of language and it's many forms who would know more than scientist or archeologist.

 

Well, if Jesus is supposed to be the paragon of all things good in the world, doesn't it follow that his followers would only do good acts?

 

I'm aware, I'm taking into account other parts of the Bible as well as outside commentary. Taking a single verse without taking the rest of the Bible into context or with other historical evidence is poor Bible study.

And the Bible is true, but you can't just read a line translated from another language without taking into account other verses and take it as literal.

No, not at all. Christians are no more 'good' than non-christians.

 

Mane: You pointed out the flaws in your own interpretation yourself. In the first place, there brick tower was never actually going to reach Heaven, as both any writer at the time (and certainly God in the story) would have been aware. So that could not have been a serious source of concern. Likewise, even if it did, it wouldn't amount to a concerning demonstration of power. After all, to stop them God simultaneously and instantaneously reconfigures the brains of every single person in the community involved in the project to create several distinct, coherent language groups. The power to stack up a brunch of bricks is sort of laughable in comparison. So what, then, was actually happening? If there actual activity was of no consequence, the only real possibility is that their intent provoked displeasure.

timmo: It follows that they would try. Not that they would succeed. Let alone that people might find some advantage in claiming to be an adherent to his teachings without sincerely doing so.

 

Not what the story says. All you are doing is showing the flaws in the story itself and how goofy it is.

 

Really? Interesting. So you can take what others say, and your own studies, and come up with what you think is the right answer? then again It's still a two paragraph story that really doesn't matter to the overall context of the ENTIRE bible. One that is fairly straight forward and I think has a clear meaning, and one that doesn't do much with defiance, or a dude named Nimrod.

Also again, how is the bible true if those who study language and it's history, science, and archeology, say otherwise?

 

What do you mean "not what the story says?" I have made no more inferences than you. After all, God never makes an explicit announcement of what he finds wrong. The text simply notes "Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." All this statement tells us is that he wanted to stop the project. Nor does he, as you suggest, express particular displeasure at them being "one force" much less fear thereof, as you claimed. You are reading things pretty wildly into the text that aren't there.

 

Your right it could be fear or it could be jealousy, or neither. Anger over defiance however is also not one of them. Yet it does seem to me that he clearly dislikes the idea of humans doing the impossible. See my translation goes as thus," If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

To me that says that he's very worried about what else the humans could do or someday do. Today a tower, tomorrow creating worlds, etc. etc.

But the main point here, is that when you here the mommy's and daddys or the preacher man preach about this story. It's always the same thing dealing with defiance. The story says nothing about defiance to god. Just that he didn't like the building of a tower or the thought of human beings being able to do it.

 

and although this game isn't finished. I want to start a new one.

Why were Adam and Eve banished from teh Garden of Eden?

 

Mane, your logic is fundamentally flawed, though. On the one hand, you disallow people from speculating about God's motives, because you say they are not stated in the text. Yet, you just admitted that you are also assigning motives to God that are not in the text. We are all just reading the text, and we either all can or cannot make logical inferences based on what is there.

Man was banished from the garden to prevent their taking from the tree of life.

 

@#$%, thought you were gonna be ignorant like the a good majority of you people and say they were banished because they disobeyed God. Very good, Jabba, very good.

Must stop for now, but tomorrow we may all talk about Pascals Wager. Oh yes, the fun will begin.

 

Not quite sure this holds any kind of water to an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God though. I don't believe Eve would've made the same decision without the Devil's intervention. When God said this is the Tree of Knowledge, do not eat of its fruit, Eve doesn't automatically go over there and eat the fruit. Her curiosity isn't roused in the slightest. But when the Devil starts whispering in her ear, she suddenly wants to. And why wouldn't she? It's the Tree of Knowledge, and any kind of forbidden thing is automatically something we want to be a part of. Why God didn't design the human race so that they'd be immune to the Devil's charms, or so that we could follow his direct orders. God is omniscient, so he knew it was going to happen this way. So why not make a race of people that won't earn his ire again, and again, and again.

Well here's how I see the Devil taking away souls. Every soul is already 'bought' into Heaven by Jesus' sacrifice. We're good. As long as we believe in God and Jesus as his son and the sacrifice and all that, Jesus has our soul. But the Devil has an influence that mysteriously God can't control, or wants to see go along with. Look at the story of Job. That was explicitly the Devil trying to take a Soul away from God. They pretty much put a bet on who could win him over, and God agreed. And Job suffered. So every time the devil actively interferes, he's taking souls. Without his interference, there's no proof that anyone would do anything wrong. All the souls would belong to God. Some people can overcome him. Others can't. But it's all part of God's plan so it's somehow okay.

As to the curiosity thing...when has the law or even your free will stopped anyone from expressing curiosity? Just because something isn't ordained by whatever power you pick, doesn't mean that every single day people give in to that thought in their head of just trying something. It can be good, and it can be bad. But you don't know until you try. Sure, they have impulse control, but curiosity itself is powerful. And combined with the Devil whispering in your ear, just reinforcing that impulse, well I don't think it's all that unbelievable to see. Why did God even point out the Tree of Knowledge? God himself is providing a source of temptation. He knows she's going to eat the fruit. He knows she's going to commit the first sin. But he gives her almost no help, even when the Devil is doing his thing.

And finally let me rephrase my question again. Why would a being who knows everything, every outcome that will ever happen ever, create an imperfect race of beings, perfectly, then punish those whom he made that way?