Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What's the difference between 'God' and 'The Father'?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 8:39AM #21
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Thetanager wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Daldianus wrote:

If the analogy falls short then why use it in the first place?



Because that is what analogies do; they are not tautologies. All analogies are meant to point out certain likenesses between different things. Not point out likenesses between identical things.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Daldianus wrote:

CS Lewis is severely overrated. And if all your analogies fall short then maybe stop using them?


Regarding god-stuff: both the Father and the Son might consist of 'god-stuff' but the Father does not consist of the Son's god-stuff, right? Each has its own share of god-stuff? Just like if you had two sand castles: each castle is made out of sand but not the same sand.



You can't write off arguments just because you think someone is overrated or wrong on other things; the name is irrelevant to this discussion. And, no, they don't each have their own share of "god-stuff." Going back to the analogy, the sand is like 1-D. No two pieces of sand are the same. The castles are 2-D...figures made out of different pieces of sand, like a square made out of four lines. One square is different from another because they do not share the same lines. The castles do not share the same sand. Christians do not say the god-stuff is like that.


So, let's look at personality again. At the 1-D level we have things like rationality, free will, materiality, immateriality, etc.  Whatever makes up "personality."


At the 2-D level we have me. I am one being with a personality. Analogously, I am like a figure (one being) made up of "four" distinct lines (the square is personality - that which makes me me, I am rational, make some free choices, whatever...the 1-D stuff). This figure is called a square (2-D object). For me, the figure (one being) and the square (one person) are both a numerical one.


Christians say God is three persons, one being. Analogously, God is like a more complex type of figure (one being), one which mathematically we call a solid body (3-D). This figure (being) is made up of "six squares" (the 2-D part, in this case three persons, Father, Son, Spirit) which are made up of lines (the 1-D part that describes what personality means). Analogous to the cube, God is a figure/cube (one being) made up of squares (three persons). The "god-stuff" I guess would be the cube, which all three persons share...not the square or the lines (which would make the god-stuff separate)


If you want to put the distinctions made here between 'being' and 'person' into a webster's definition, be my guest. I think it is more beneficial to see it working out.




We're leaving rational discussion now. I will bow out then.

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 8:42AM #22
Thetanager
Posts: 1,484

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:12AM, Daldianus wrote:


Theology is not some high intellectual thing removed from reality. In a way it is an experimental science.



lol! That's about the funniest thing I've heard so far :D



I thought you'd get a kick out of that.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:12AM, Daldianus wrote:

I'm not sure you want to compare the scientific method with religion ... Science is fact-based and self-correcting. Unlike religion.



Yes, a whole different conversation and we have our hands full here, I think.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:12AM, Daldianus wrote:

Also, where does the Bible mention this 'three personal being' actually?



Yes, the Bible does not directly say God is a Trinity. As I said in my last post, it came out of people who believed Jesus in His claim of being God, saw His resurrected body and experienced the coming of the Holy Spirit. They began working all of this out and speak to different parts of it in the New Testament. But they had bigger things to concern themselves with in sharing their message (through word and in writing) than giving a philosophical defense and getting everything laid out intellectually. Over time the Christian community got to this point. It is clear, though, from the beginning that the earliest Christians were strictly monotheistic Jews who believed Jesus to be God and believed the Holy Spirit to be God and the Father Jesus prayed to and talked of to be God, while still remaining strictly monotheistic. The important part was getting caught up in the life God offered, and sharing it with others...not just working out the theology and trying to understand everything perfectly. People mattered more to those Christians (and should to us modern ones, too, but often do not).


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:12AM, Daldianus wrote:

So why assume any of this is true?



I'm not asking you to assume it is true. And I'm not just assuming it is, either. I have had personal experiences with God (no audible voice, it built up through years) that changed me from a skeptic to a Christian. My life and further experiences build on this. All throughout it I looked intellectually/logically at issues of atheism vs. theism, Christianity vs. other claims, etc. Through my experiences I feel I can trust God (or perhaps I am just fooling myself like you probably think). I feel God has revealed His triune nature to us in the Bible and that the Bible is sound and true. This would take the discussion into whole new arguments and discussions. I base it on what I see of the evidence.


And for various reasons you look at the evidence and see very different things and have different experiences (or, perhaps, lack of experiences) with a god. So, I don't expect you to assume or believe it true. I do want to help you understand what Christians mean by it, though. So that you can know exactly what you are disagreeing with, rather than a "straw God," so to speak.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 8:45AM #23
Thetanager
Posts: 1,484

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:39AM, Daldianus wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Thetanager wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Daldianus wrote:

If the analogy falls short then why use it in the first place?



Because that is what analogies do; they are not tautologies. All analogies are meant to point out certain likenesses between different things. Not point out likenesses between identical things.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Daldianus wrote:

CS Lewis is severely overrated. And if all your analogies fall short then maybe stop using them?


Regarding god-stuff: both the Father and the Son might consist of 'god-stuff' but the Father does not consist of the Son's god-stuff, right? Each has its own share of god-stuff? Just like if you had two sand castles: each castle is made out of sand but not the same sand.



You can't write off arguments just because you think someone is overrated or wrong on other things; the name is irrelevant to this discussion. And, no, they don't each have their own share of "god-stuff." Going back to the analogy, the sand is like 1-D. No two pieces of sand are the same. The castles are 2-D...figures made out of different pieces of sand, like a square made out of four lines. One square is different from another because they do not share the same lines. The castles do not share the same sand. Christians do not say the god-stuff is like that.


So, let's look at personality again. At the 1-D level we have things like rationality, free will, materiality, immateriality, etc.  Whatever makes up "personality."


At the 2-D level we have me. I am one being with a personality. Analogously, I am like a figure (one being) made up of "four" distinct lines (the square is personality - that which makes me me, I am rational, make some free choices, whatever...the 1-D stuff). This figure is called a square (2-D object). For me, the figure (one being) and the square (one person) are both a numerical one.


Christians say God is three persons, one being. Analogously, God is like a more complex type of figure (one being), one which mathematically we call a solid body (3-D). This figure (being) is made up of "six squares" (the 2-D part, in this case three persons, Father, Son, Spirit) which are made up of lines (the 1-D part that describes what personality means). Analogous to the cube, God is a figure/cube (one being) made up of squares (three persons). The "god-stuff" I guess would be the cube, which all three persons share...not the square or the lines (which would make the god-stuff separate)


If you want to put the distinctions made here between 'being' and 'person' into a webster's definition, be my guest. I think it is more beneficial to see it working out.




We're leaving rational discussion now. I will bow out then.




Are you serious?  Your defense is simply "this is unrational" and leaving?  If it is so obviously irrational, show me why, don't just make a claim and not back it up.


If Daldianus doesn't want to, can someone else following our discussion please show me what I am missing.  I'm not trying to win some debate with Daldianus or anything like that.  I honestly want to know if I am truly being unrational and not just seeing it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 10:24AM #24
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,266

Thetanager:  I like some of CS Lewis'


He's a hack.  The Narnia stuff (admittedly the only stuff I've seen) is filled with the most cliche crap, like a Sunday School version of LOTR, and that's sad because that more adult property is just as trope-ridden.


As you get to higher levels you don't leave behind the things on simpler levels, you have them combined in new ways which you could not truly imagine if you only knew the simpler levels.


Since we understand there are more than three dimensions, why do we still force God to be three?


You can't write off arguments just because you think someone is overrated or wrong on other things


You can if he can't have a competent, original thought in his head.


Yes, the Bible does not directly say God is a Trinity. As I said in my last post, it came out of people who believed Jesus in His claim of being God, saw His resurrected body and experienced the coming of the Holy Spirit.


Except none of that proves anything.  Jesus never claimed to be God (the "one" thing doesn't have to mean what you think it does), but even if He did, claims and a quarter will give you 25 cents.  Jesus isn't the first nor the last person to die and come back.  If we're going to argue that coming back from death proves divinity, why not Lazarus and why the hell not Enoch and Elijah who get to skip it COMPLETELY?  And being filled with the Spirit doesn't make you God in anything but the most generous of boundary removals.


But they had bigger things to concern themselves with in sharing their message (through word and in writing) than giving a philosophical defense and getting everything laid out intellectually.


Yes, first they had to beat the crap out of their "enemies".


I feel God has revealed His triune nature to us in the Bible and that the Bible is sound and true.


I feel He revealed His monotheistic nature.  *shrugs*

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 7:50AM #25
Thetanager
Posts: 1,484

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Since we understand there are more than three dimensions, why do we still force God to be three?



I'm not sure what you mean here. How am I forcing God to be three dimensions?


Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

You can if he can't have a competent, original thought in his head.



I think that is a form of the genetic fallacy. Regardless of who says something you must look at the argument itself, not who said it.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Except none of that proves anything. Jesus never claimed to be God (the "one" thing doesn't have to mean what you think it does), but even if He did, claims and a quarter will give you 25 cents. Jesus isn't the first nor the last person to die and come back. If we're going to argue that coming back from death proves divinity, why not Lazarus and why the hell not Enoch and Elijah who get to skip it COMPLETELY? And being filled with the Spirit doesn't make you God in anything but the most generous of boundary removals.



I didn't say it proved it. And, yes, of course you can interpret the claims differently or disregard that Jesus even actually claimed anything written in the Gospels. In this discussion to understand what Christians believe about the Trinity, you must also understand (for the sake of argument) what they believe about Jesus' claims. A discussion if Jesus claimed what Christians claim He claimed is a different discussion than the one I was in. Important, but different. And, yes, claims are meaningless unless backed up. Jesus' Resurrection is a different (but related) conversation from what I was discussing, as well. Then another discussion is if Jesus' Resurrection was the only one that occurred or, if not, was it unique in any way. And whether this points to Jesus' Divinity against other's (lack of) divinity. I'm open to pursuing any of these now that Daldanius has copped out of the discussion, even though he was sharing some good ideas and questions and critiques with us.


I'm not sure your exact point on talking about being filled with the Holy Spirit not making you God. I did not claim that Christians are God because they are filled with the Holy Spirit. Nor have I said Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit. So, I am confused on your point here.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Yes, first they had to beat the crap out of their "enemies".



Well, historically, first they had the crap beat out of them and then, hundreds of years later they started (in a very unChristian way) beating the crap out of their enemies.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

I feel He revealed His monotheistic nature. *shrugs*



So, you think I'll know what that means? It could mean you have a problem with me using the word "feel" as a basis of debate over a truth claim. You could think I'm not being monotheistic. You could think you're being witty in dismissing me altogether without an actual substantive rebuttal. I'm not sure which one it is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 12:15PM #26
weberhome02
Posts: 1,999

.
†. John 20:17 . . Go to my brethren, and say unto them: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Why didn't the Lord say "our" Father if both he and they have the same one? Ditto for "my God and your God"


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 2:50PM #27
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Jun 10, 2012 -- 6:56AM, Daldianus wrote:

I'm sorry for all these seemingly identical questions but they're crucial since Christians use a lot of the apparently ill-defined words all the time.

Therefore: what are the differences between the words/concepts of 'God' and 'The Father' if there are any? 
 
 




Nicene Creed:


"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.


And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. "


Often the words are used interchangeably.  But the Creed provides some specific usage of "God the Father".

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 2:52PM #28
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Jun 11, 2012 -- 9:04AM, Daldianus wrote:


But it's only through such word games that they're able to uphold the illusion of coherence and, in this case, monotheism.




There it is!  Nice of you to finally state that you are not here to discuss Christianity, but instead to argue against the validity of Trinity.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 2:55PM #29
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Jun 15, 2012 -- 2:52PM, lucaspa wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 9:04AM, Daldianus wrote:


But it's only through such word games that they're able to uphold the illusion of coherence and, in this case, monotheism.




There it is!  Nice of you to finally state that you are not here to discuss Christianity, but instead to argue against the validity of Trinity.




There is a difference?  I have been told Unitarians are in fact not Christian.  Of course, Christians seem to be really good at naming others as being not Christian, so...

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 3:01PM #30
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Jun 15, 2012 -- 12:15PM, weberhome02 wrote:


.
†. John 20:17 . . Go to my brethren, and say unto them: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Why didn't the Lord say "our" Father if both he and they have the same one? Ditto for "my God and your God"



The risen Christ is speaking to the women in the tomb:


"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. "


He is telling her what to tell the disciples about what is happening -- the Resurrection.  He basically is saying that the disciples and Jesus have the same God.  I would say the reason to say it this way is to emphasize it is the same God.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook