E
exoflare
Guest
I still don’t get the mindset Muslims have of how, if something is not understood completely by everybody in the exact same way it must not exist. It seems like just so many examples of this thinking here.
- Status
E
exoflare
Guest
The Eurasian said:
…except that apparently his whole essence must be perfectly understood by human minds.
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
Look at it this way. You say gravity is not a substance. Well, that makes good analogy for gravity as analogous to God and substances as analogous to human beings.
It also makes a good analogy when explaining things like, "If God ceased to support you, you will just cease to exist. It will be like saying, if gravity ceased to support you, when you jump upwards, you will end up in deep space and gone!!!
D
dulcissima
Guest
This is not as complex as we are making it. There is no need to study quantum physics to understand the trinitarian nature of the way that God relates to us.
God is love. Is love self-centered? Of course not. It is other-centered. God created us out of love. The trinity is the expression of that love and it is how we relate to God.
The Holy Spirit is God breathed into us. When you are inspired, it is God talking to you as the Holy Spirit.
So great is God that He would come to us as a helpless baby. God loves us so much that he would become for us the only perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice for all people for all time. He would be born into human flesh and suffer as we suffer. By doing this, He taught us to love as He loves. It is through the sacrifice of His Son that we are able to be in communion with God.
I am not at all troubled by logic, fallacies, or paradoxes when it comes to my faith in God. I know God can do as He chooses and is not constrained by our powers of reason. I am thankful that He chose to create us and to love us as perfectly as He does. I only hope to grow in that love, so that someday I can meet God in eternity and love Him as perfectly as He loves me.
God is love. Is love self-centered? Of course not. It is other-centered. God created us out of love. The trinity is the expression of that love and it is how we relate to God.
The Holy Spirit is God breathed into us. When you are inspired, it is God talking to you as the Holy Spirit.
So great is God that He would come to us as a helpless baby. God loves us so much that he would become for us the only perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice for all people for all time. He would be born into human flesh and suffer as we suffer. By doing this, He taught us to love as He loves. It is through the sacrifice of His Son that we are able to be in communion with God.
I am not at all troubled by logic, fallacies, or paradoxes when it comes to my faith in God. I know God can do as He chooses and is not constrained by our powers of reason. I am thankful that He chose to create us and to love us as perfectly as He does. I only hope to grow in that love, so that someday I can meet God in eternity and love Him as perfectly as He loves me.
H
Hashi_Al-Eritre
Guest
I got itsjustdave’s response regarding how to believe in God’s omnipresence, but i still see other members posting saying God’s omnipresence isnt just in his power but in his actual essence. Jimmy used the same website that itsjustdave used, yet even from the same website the explanations seem to be contradicting one another (one is saying God is omnipresent in everything in his essence and the other is saying God is mulitpresent in his essence).
R
r.gonzales
Guest
The Eurasian:
and for the record, for something that is completely unique, no analogies can be made for it - why? because there is nothing that shares the same qualities as that completely unique thing.
sorry, still doesn’t work. you’re grabbing at straws now… you guys were better off trying to prove that the trinity is monotheistic.
and for the record, for something that is completely unique, no analogies can be made for it - why? because there is nothing that shares the same qualities as that completely unique thing.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Thanks for excellent post. I like timely posts with reference links.
jimmy:
H
Hashi_Al-Eritre
Guest
Regarding the analogy that has been made of God’s omnipresent being similar to gravity…
I want to clarify, this isnt about the nature in which we can phathom God being omnipresent, this is about whether it is a rational and appropriate belief to say God is in everything. im saying there are serious issues when you start claiming God is omnipresent in every single thing because of what that kind of believe will lead to in the things we attribute to God. And i made a reply illustrating that to maranatha earlier.
I want to clarify, this isnt about the nature in which we can phathom God being omnipresent, this is about whether it is a rational and appropriate belief to say God is in everything. im saying there are serious issues when you start claiming God is omnipresent in every single thing because of what that kind of believe will lead to in the things we attribute to God. And i made a reply illustrating that to maranatha earlier.
A
antonius
Guest
Dulcissima, I think you have just reached the heart of the whole matter in this paragraph. God is love. Essentially. Love is always other-centered. Even if God had chosen to create nothing, He would still be Love, since love is the essence of the divine nature. And Love is never solitary.
It is one thing to speak of a God who “practices love” – that kind of God could be comfortably viewed as a solitary person, focused outward upon His creations. But a God who IS love – that God cannot be solitary. He must be a community of persons, since He is eternal and existed before the creation of anything “other.”
As some theologians have said, in love the Father eternally begets the Son; in love the Son obeys and reveals the Father; and from this mutual love arises the Holy Spirit, who is “the kiss between the Father and the Son.” So powerful is that eternal love that it gives life!
I agree with you completely. Is love explainable by logic? Is it subject to the finite mind, or to our limited abilities to understand that which transcends it? It is our destiny to attain perfect communion with God and each other in love. Whether our limited minds can fully comprehend and explain the One Tri-personal God is of little importance. God is Love.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Hashi Al-Eritre:
Christians don’t believe the Trinity is a completely new way of looking at God. We believe in a single God. Yes the Trinity is not a simple explanation of His existence but simple does not mean it’s right. A simple monotheistic deity with out Trinitarian aspects is a less perfect god, IMHO.
I think this statement goes to the heart of way we are talking past one another. If God is eternal and has three persons then it is completely rational to say that none of the persons could have come first. Coming first and eternity are incompatible. When we start describing properties that exists outside time and space such as omnipresence, then what would be irrational inside time and space become rational.
H
Hashi_Al-Eritre
Guest
There were some similarity made to the trinity being like a human who has 3 different titles, like a father, son, and brother, three persons but one human being holding those titles. Thus the argument being God is also three persons but one essence.
This similarity has a major issue, that being even as humans hold these various titles, the body of the 3 persons is still always one, However with the trinity, the body of those 3 persons actually becomes 3 bodies in different places (ie. you have the son in the body of Jesus on earth and the father in the heavens), and you have each of those bodies doing different acts (ie. the son living as a human and the father looking after the affairs of the heavens and the earth).
This similarity has a major issue, that being even as humans hold these various titles, the body of the 3 persons is still always one, However with the trinity, the body of those 3 persons actually becomes 3 bodies in different places (ie. you have the son in the body of Jesus on earth and the father in the heavens), and you have each of those bodies doing different acts (ie. the son living as a human and the father looking after the affairs of the heavens and the earth).
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
Oh YES!!! There is a good analogy for THE BLESSED TRINTY, GOD!!! And my analogy is one that has comfounded all physicists, including Einstein and the best of phycisists, including i am sure Muslim phycisists and Muslim engineers and Muslim students of Physics.
Physics experiments show that LIGHT IS A WAVE.
On the other hand physics experiments also show that LIGHT IS A STREAM OF PARTICLES.
All physicists are baffled!!! How can light be a stream of particles it it is a wave. How can light be a wave if it is a stream of particles???
But that is the reality of light as physics experiments by physicists all over the world have shown. THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS!!! BUT PHYCISISTS ACCEPT THESE CONFLICTING REALITIES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEIR EXPERIMENTS SHOW!!!
God is infinitely greater that light!!! If the best of phycisists can accept light as both a wave and a stream of particles, no matter how conflicting these two are, I CAN ALSO ACCEPT AS REALITY ONE GOD THREE PERSONS!!!
M
Maranatha
Guest
Hashi Al-Eritre said:
Once again you are limited your concept of God to time and space. Please don’t limit God to a place or a time.
R
r.gonzales
Guest
i’ve read just about every single post to this thread thus far, and everyone who’s tried to prove that the trinitarian doctrine is montheistic and not polytheistic has failed to do so.
sure, you claim to believe in one god, but that one god is made up of three distinct individuals - whom you claim to share the same essence. regardless of what you guys say, one god made up of three distinct individuals or as you say, “persons” is still polytheistic. just as hashi just pointed out, the similitude used where one man can be father, son and brother all at the same time, that one man is still one man - a single living being. whereas your belief of Allah is that He is made up of three distinct living beings.
what it sounds like to me is that many of you believe that “god” is a position of ultimate authority, a title, if you will. not a single living entity, but rather more like the board of directors heading a corporation.
sure, you claim to believe in one god, but that one god is made up of three distinct individuals - whom you claim to share the same essence. regardless of what you guys say, one god made up of three distinct individuals or as you say, “persons” is still polytheistic. just as hashi just pointed out, the similitude used where one man can be father, son and brother all at the same time, that one man is still one man - a single living being. whereas your belief of Allah is that He is made up of three distinct living beings.
what it sounds like to me is that many of you believe that “god” is a position of ultimate authority, a title, if you will. not a single living entity, but rather more like the board of directors heading a corporation.
H
Hashi_Al-Eritre
Guest
Yes i know christians full heartedly believe that God is One in essence, and i am not trying to say you shouldnt. Im saying when you look at your doctrine rationally it is difficult to believe it is monotheistic. But in anycase, if u choose to believe it as monotheistic regardless of whether its structure suggestions monotheism, you have the freedom to believe that.
But as for it not being a completely new way of looking at God… i dont mean to get into a back and forth ‘yes it is, no its not’ dialogue but lets be reasonable. Take the two doctrines, the trinity and the ‘raw monotheism’, to any average person and ask them if they are not completely different. The ONLY thing i see a similarity in is the CLAIM that it is monotheistic. As soon as you start explaining it, the similarities fade away.
I believe it is. How to believe in God should be a simple endevour, simple to teach and explain, simple to understand, simple to perceive, and easy on the heart to accept. The belief system of God is universal, any kind of human being should have the ability to gasp it, intelligent or ignorant.
The ‘simple monotheistic deity’ was perfect before the trinitian understanding came. The introduction of the trinity is what made it imperfect. The monothesitic doctrine on the other hand, even when analyzed intellectually, remains perfect and free of any accusations of being faulty.
God having no beginning and no end is a definate attribute of God, because God isnt created. However, begeting is an act of creating, an act of producing, an act humans engage in when they produce a child. When someone says God is eternally begetting a son, its like saying hes engaging in the act of producing a son all the times, which makes absolutely no sense. It also takes away from the perfection of God because God is the ONLY one that carries the attribute of being the Creator, such that nobody can create like He can. With begeting, humans beget children because they cant create them on their own. Why would God beget, let alone begeting eternally, when He carries the perfect attribute of Creating, such that none creates like him. This is not an appropriate way to perceive God.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Hashi Al-Eritre:
I believe God can be understandable and complex. The revelation of the Trinity (one God in three persons) does not contradict logic and reason. My original post in this thread explained the Trinity in an understandable way:
Hashi Al-Eritre:
The lack of perfection in the monotheistic deity without the Trinity is the condition where that the deity does not give and receive Love perfectly.
If you say God is outside time and then say that He created (past tense) then your are being irrational. From with time and space, we say that God is omnipresent because he sustains us. Perhaps it would help to think of it as, He is creating us moment to moment.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church: [202 (javascript:OpenPopupWindow() Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."6 At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is "the Lord."7 To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God:
We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.8
We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.8
T
The_Eurasian
Guest
r gonzales
If I am to follow your logic in this analogy, it is as though you were a physicist who looked at your experiment #1 and realized that light is a wave.
Then you looked at experiment #2 and saw that the same light is a stream of particles.
Then in your pride that your mind is so reliable and can comprehend and explain all things, you just do not have the humility to accept that both conflicting results came from one and the same light.!!! That your mind as a human being, just like the minds of these great physicists is not really that good enough to understand, visualized this mystery called light.
If you and all physicists cannot understand as one unity, in a gestalt, this mystery in physics called light, HOW MUCH MORE CAN YOU A HUMAN BEING UNDERSTAND GOD??? Accept it my friend, The minds of the most intelligent human beings are really not that good enough my friend. Even compared to the intellect of a mere angel or a mere devil, Einstein’s brain for example, is nothing!!! Truth is not even an angel will be able to fully comprehend God.
H
Hashi_Al-Eritre
Guest
God isnt encompassed by time. Time is something created by God… so time doesnt affect God, it affects His creation. We think in terms of time because we are incompassed by it.
God also doesnt have to be physically inside His creation to sustain or decree or possess knowledge of his creation. God is uncreated, distinct from His creation. God is Perfect, creation isnt. God is pure, creation isnt. God is Holy, creation isnt. etc.
What i understand here is your saying God is continuously creating whats already created.
Ok, if thats so, then when did God first start ‘creating us moment to moment’? I mean if you wanna claim im being irrational in using the word ‘Created’ (past tense), then explain to me how your gonna run away from the fact God did create us at some point in time… because we certainly werent created from eternity.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hashi Al-Eritre:
Secondly, the narrative from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia does seem to disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas if one presumes they are using presence per essentiam in the same sense. I don’t believe they do. Each should be understood in their own context.
For St. Thomas, he explains the lack of essential presence in the hell of the damned to mean the lack of interior grace visited upon those in the hell of the damned. God is not present per essentiam to those in hell in this sense.
However, in another sense, per essentiam could mean that God is everywhereby his essence because what God is (his essence) isn’t separable from what he can do (his power). This is the sense seems to be the sense used in the *1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, *considering the full context of the article. If one intends this sense, then St. Thomas too describes God’s omnipresence similarly, stating of God in comparison to the soul, “the soul is whole in every part of the body, so is God whole in all things and in each one.” (*Summa Theologica, *I, 8, 2).
One ought not to presume the terms are used in the same sense, apart from considering their context, especially when comparing texts from the 13th century and those from the 20th century.
What I believe the the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia means is explained in their very next statement,
Surely even Muslims agree with God’s omnipresence with regard to his Divine effect, right? The thing you have trouble with is how an Almighty God can exist without limits of time and space being placed upon His Divine essence. We find it contrary to omnipotence to place such limits upon God. Can you prove that God’s essence MUST be limited in time and space?
Firstly, I am quoting from the Summa Theologica, which was written by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Jimmy is quoting from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia. They may have links to both sources from the same web page, but they are not the same source.
Secondly, the narrative from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia does seem to disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas if one presumes they are using presence per essentiam in the same sense. I don’t believe they do. Each should be understood in their own context.
For St. Thomas, he explains the lack of essential presence in the hell of the damned to mean the lack of interior grace visited upon those in the hell of the damned. God is not present per essentiam to those in hell in this sense.
However, in another sense, per essentiam could mean that God is everywhereby his essence because what God is (his essence) isn’t separable from what he can do (his power). This is the sense seems to be the sense used in the *1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, *considering the full context of the article. If one intends this sense, then St. Thomas too describes God’s omnipresence similarly, stating of God in comparison to the soul, “the soul is whole in every part of the body, so is God whole in all things and in each one.” (*Summa Theologica, *I, 8, 2).
One ought not to presume the terms are used in the same sense, apart from considering their context, especially when comparing texts from the 13th century and those from the 20th century.
What I believe the the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia means is explained in their very next statement,
This is certainly true, even of the damned in hell. Their “in other words” phrasing seems clear, and I believe what St. Thomas teaches the same. This kind of “conserving in being” is described as “common grace” instead of “santifying grace” of God.
Surely even Muslims agree with God’s omnipresence with regard to his Divine effect, right? The thing you have trouble with is how an Almighty God can exist without limits of time and space being placed upon His Divine essence. We find it contrary to omnipotence to place such limits upon God. Can you prove that God’s essence MUST be limited in time and space?
- Status