The Trinity: Examples in Real Life


(WARNING: 800+ words long, but very well composed post follows!)

A) Introduction

For those who don’t know, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the Christian belief that God exists as three distinct personalities – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But they exist as only ONE God, not as three. Nor are they all 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, yet it takes all three to be God in full.

Confusing? This teaching is probably the one that causes the most headaches among believers while receiving quick criticism from non-Christians. It even caused a certain prophet to misunderstand it as meaning three ‘gods’ with Father God, Mother Mary and Son Jesus forming the Trinity.

Basically, the problem with the Trinity is simply, HOW CAN BE??!! Tak logik lah ini! But hey, we’re talking about God the Almighty Creator here. He invented logic and reason. And you know what? I’m going to present to you several REAL LIFE examples of ‘3 in 1’ (and I’m not talking packet Milo either!).

B) Commonly encountered analogies

TIME is past, present and future.

WATER and other matter is solid, liquid and gas.

LIGHT exists as waves and discrete particles (my contribution, but no, I don’t understand it either – go ask a quantum physics grad).

THE SUN: God the Father is the sun, the rays that radiate from the sun is Jesus, and the warmth we feel on us is the Holy Spirit.

MATHEMATICS: The equation for the Trinity is not 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, where they all just add together. The correct equation is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, where they each multiply each other. If you doubt the maths, try calculating the volume of a cube with each side 1cm long. (Answer: You’ll get 1cm³)

C) My own take on it:

SPACE is height, width and depth. That is, x-axis, y-axis and z-axis on a graph.

Now then fellow learners, follow these 4 points…

1. What is Height? (Answer: It is space.)

2. What is Width? (Answer: It is also space.)

3. What is Depth? (Answer: It is space too! Wow!)

4. What is SPACE? (Answer: Space is not just Height. Space is not just Width. Space is not just Depth. Space is ALL THREE TOGETHER – Height, Width and Depth.)

Now let’s use that example with the Holy Trinity…

1. Who is the Father? (Answer: He is God.)

2. Who is Jesus the Son? (Answer: He is also God.)

3. Who is the Holy Spirit? (Answer: He is God too! Wow!)

4. Who is GOD? (Answer: God is not just the Father. God is not just the Son. God is not just the Holy Spirit. God is ALL THREE TOGETHER – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.)

D) My 100% Original, Scott-brand™ take on it:

Resonance Structures And here is an interesting example I realized of ‘three existing as one’ that is completely accepted in science today. For non-Science majors, this may be really complex. So then, Kimia and Farmasi students, lend us a hand! Tell us that what follows is TRUE! Help us to say, “OH WOW! This is so choon!”

Resonance1

HYPOTHETICAL INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES

                                            Resonance2

                                        RESONANCE HYBRID

If only one formula for the carbonate ion (CO³-) were correct and accurate, then the double bond to oxygen would be shorter and stronger than the single bonds. The angles between the arms would also be unequal.

But! Experimental evidence indicates that this molecule’s arms are bent at equal angles of 120º, and all of the carbon : oxygen bonds are of equal length. A single formula is thus inadequate, and the actual structure must resemble an average of the three formulas. This averaging of electron distribution over two or more hypothetical contributing structures (canonical forms) to produce a hybrid electronic structure is called resonance.

SIMPLY PUT, the carbonate ion exists as ALL THREE forms simultaneously! In other words, three can exist as one in accepted science. So can it not also be accepted in theology? Especially since our God is the Creator of all things, including tertiary-education level chemistry!

E) Conclusion

So there you have it. The ‘paradox’ can actually be found quite often in real life, if you know where to look. Just like irreducible complexity in Biology, or the Anthropic Principle in Physics, or the Chemical conundrum of DNA and life itself forming, and countless other wonders in nature – the Original Great Scientist has placed lots of cute clues to His existence for us little scientists to discover.

F) Oh, and PS…

A final point. Think of it this way: If Christianity were all made up (rather than being based on revelation from God), it would be much easier NOT to include such a difficult doctrine! It can be inferred then that Christianity really IS all about the truth, no matter how difficult to ‘get’. Thank you for completing the material for this course, SCA 101. Questions and flames welcome!

PS. See how the concept of the Trinity is present even in the Old Testament, The Christian Trinity in the Old Testament – God is I, Us and He.

See why the Holy Spirit and Jesus are considered God in Why the Holy Spirit is Considered God (and So is Jesus).


61 Responses to “The Trinity: Examples in Real Life”

  1. lord Says:

    my dear writer of the above explaination,

    1. (Each is fully God, yet it takes all three to be God in full) Does that means jesus alone is not fullgod? What happened o the 2 parts of god when jesus died for 3 days? Does that mean that during jesus time on earth, god was not a complete god ? This is a rather/ or an extremely comical explaination. (c’mon guys, we’re here to exchange ideas and helping to clear any doubt of jesus being god)

    2. The correct equation is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, where they each multiply each other

    Since 1+1+1 will never get 1 for the answer, here come a new and noble way to explain trinity ie, 1*1*1=1 (first time i ever come across – wow, malaysian semua boleh) yes, matermatically the answer is definitely correct.
    Here we are talking of “alpha”, not numbers. let try this:
    jesus the son multiplies by god the father multiplies by the holy ghost=(((((oh god, help us with this “math”)))))

    1. Is god the creator of confusion ? if he is, then is his the reason the the 2nd. coming of jesus?- to give answer to the above multiplication?

    2. Must god be divided into several parts, and then let mankind find answer s for the confusion.

    I strongly believe god is not the creator if confusion – men are ! He sent messengers in the thousands to lead mankind to worship Him – just by believing in Him together with faith, so I have to repat myself – is God the creator of confusion ?

    I hope someone will come up with an answer – sorry to say that the above answer (together with scientific and matematicial examples) creates even more confusion.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    My dear donater of the above comment, genuine thanks for pointing out the potentially confusing parts of my post. Allow me to try to compensate:

    1. As I said in the post itself, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all fully God – they are divine, deserve to be worshipped, were not created but pre-existed, are purely holy and infallible and etc. Yet when I refer to God, I mean the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.

    We do not know for sure what Jesus was doing in the time between His death and His resurrection. But Christian doctrine holds that upon death, a soul is not destroyed. Therefore, whatever may have happened, Jesus’ spirit still existed.

    2. Does your ‘alpha’ mean alphabet? If so, then it still works in math algebra. If the Father is G, Jesus is O, and the Holy Spirit is D, then GxOxD = GOD. God is not merely numbers or alphabets anyway.

    The 1x1x1=1 explanation is not my original idea (wish it were though!). But seriously, 1+1+1 is not the way to describe the Trinity. 1+1+1 gives the impression of three seperate people working together, whereas the members of the Trinity are inseperable. Their intentions and attributes are so very attuned to one another, that they never disagree (even one-person humans can have conflicting multiple persnalities, so this is saying a lot for God). They complement each other perfectly.

    3. Although you label it as 1 and 2 again, I assume it is one new question. I believe strongly that God if truth – He cannot lie, for that would be against His perfect and holy and just nature. Therefore I agree with you that mankind is the source of confusion, along with fallen spirits who intentionally sow lies.

    But just because something may SEEM confusing to you, does not mean it is not TRUE. I cannot quite grasp the concept of gravity in Einstein’s General Relativity – I’m much more comfortable with Newton’s gravity as a force.

    But the experiment by Sir Arthur Edington showed that the Sun bent light from distant stars equal to the amount predicted by General Relativity, instead of what Newtonian physics predicted. Other experiments also support General Relativity’s correctness.

    So even General Relativity confuses me, it is still TRUE no matter what I may think. I’m not even gonna touch quantum physics, please!

    What God speaks in His word (if you believe His word to be infallible) must be true. Therefore, even if you disagree with God being willing to forgive our sins, it is still true. Even if you don’t quite understand why God doesn’t just force the sin out of us and make us holy, He is still not going to brainwash us into obedience.

    Who are we, after all, to question God’s way? Is our wisdom now so great and all-encompassing that we can chide God for not doing things ‘our way, the best way’? (And I’d appreciate you using upper-case for God, Jesus and other names of respect).

    In the end, faith is not about finding answers and then accepting them as truth. It is about trusting in God, even if we don’t know everything for sure yet, and believing that He will bring about understanding that satisfies us… In due time.

    I hope I’ve been helpful… But each person is free to choose his or her own beliefs, be it Trinitarian, Unitarian, Jesus as not divine or otherwise. My role is simply to present a sound basis for my belief – and if I’m proven wrong, to admit it and adapt.

  3. rasqual Says:

    Hmm.

    For my part, I always wonder why those seeking analogies are driven to threes. The issue isn’t some specific number, but plurality.

    With that in mind, a simple analogy is to the human race itself. If an alien delegation asked for a presentation about humanity, how many discrete people would you need to present in order for the aliens to make sense of what being human means? Two, of course — because you couldn’t get far in signifying much about us unless you dealt with gender.

    Likewise the godhead. You just can’t speak about diety without the Trinity, any more than you can speak of humanity without showcasing a man and a woman.

    Obviously the analogy is limited (divinity doesn’t reproduce in Christian theology, whereas in that same theology reproduction was a creation mandate for humanity), but it almost always is sufficient, in my experience, to help people understand plurality of persons in the godhood.

    FWIW.

  4. will Says:

    aweeeeeesomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  5. erika## Says:

    Thank you, for this great explanation. I’m a Christian and this has always been some what confusing to me now it is all clear.

  6. erika## Says:

    rasqual Says:
    There is no plurality! It just is belinve!!!!

  7. thewordofme Says:

    So Jesus was God and he died on the cross talking to God and was laid in the tomb and rose up 40 hours later? Is that your story? Why was Jesus continually talking to “His Father” and referring to “his father in heaven” and saying that he didn’t know, but “his father” did?
    The Catholics screwed up when they made up this story of a trinity to please the pagans they were taking into the fold.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Your hypothesis and mockery of the Doctrine of the Trinity being a ‘convenient fib’ ignores:

    1) The fact that most pagans joined Christianity willingly, albeit shallowly, when Emperor Constantine converted. The only ‘pleasing’ involved likely was aimed towards the Emperor, not towards the pagans.

    2) The fact that this is a very inconvenient position to take. (3 = 1 in a strictly montheistic religion???) The drawbacks far outweigh the potential benefits. And if Catholicism really wanted to ‘please the pagans’, they could just take the simpler route of adding in veneration of some extra ‘deities’ – like say, making Mary almost on par with God. The likeliest reason the Trinity is accepted, despite being such a brain-twister and easy target for criticism, is because Christians believe that is what the Bible states.

    3) The abundance of Old Testament (i.e. Jewish, pre-Christian, pre-Catholic) incidences of YHWH existing as both singular and plural. See The Christian Trinity in the Old Testament – God is I, Us and He.

    4) The treatment of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God by the earliest Christians (i.e. pre-Catholic) as recorded in the New Testament. See Why the Holy Spirit is Considered God.

    Tell me if these arguments, particularly 3 and 4, influence your opinion.

  9. thewordofme Says:

    Hi Scott Thong, thanks you for answering.
    See below for more argument against Trinity.

    Matt. 26:39, “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

    If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

    John 8:17, 18, “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the *Father who sent me* bears witness to me.”

    So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.

    Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.”

    John 14:28, “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

    Matthew 27:54, But the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”

    The fact is, the word “trinity” does not even once occur in the Holy Bible. Nor are such expressions as “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” or “one substance with the Father,” found in the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible speaks of Christ as “the beginning of the creation by God,” and says, “The head of the Christ is God.” (Rev. 3:14; 1 Cor. 11:3) Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Trinity: “It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God.”-Volume 14, page 304.

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia also states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

    The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

    The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road that led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

    “It was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching” This seals it for me…there is no Trinity.

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    Overall, I think you are not completely clear on the meaning of ‘Trinity’. You seem to be confusing it with one form of Unitarianism. See below.

    If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

    So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.

    Yes, I totally agree with you – The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct individuals. That is what Trinitarianism states! The doctrine of the Trinity states that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct individuals, yet are the same person at the same time. If it doesn’t make logical sense, the examples in my post above are intended to illustrate how it can be true even if we can’t comprehend it.

    Trinitarianism is Father and Son and Holy Spirit as one being yet each distinct, 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

    It is a certain form of Unitarianism that claims that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one entity with no distinct separation.

    Unitarianism is Father = Son = Holy Spirit, with no distinction, 1 =1 =1.

    (However, other forms of Unitarianism are closer to what you suggest – that only the Father is God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are highly revered but not divine.)

    So verses showing the distinctness of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not contradict the Trinity, but do contradict 1=1=1 Unitarianism’s claims.

    And as I shall show below, there are also verses which contradict the Only 1 Unitarian view as well.

    The fact is, the word “trinity” does not even once occur in the Holy Bible. Nor are such expressions as “one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” or “one substance with the Father,” found in the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible speaks of Christ as “the beginning of the creation by God,” and says, “The head of the Christ is God.” (Rev. 3:14; 1 Cor. 11:3)

    I agree that the term ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible. Neither do the terms ‘free will’, ‘canonical’, ‘heretical’, ‘Old Testament’, ‘New Testament’ and even ‘Bible’. But does that mean that these concepts are unBiblical? Or are they merely terms used to summarize certain concepts that are found in the Bible?

    We should debate the concepts behind the terms, not the terms themselves.

    Rev 3:14 depends on your translation. The NIV goes: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I see no problem with that.

    Perhaps you would better quote Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. But this is explained in that ‘firstborn’ does not refer to be the first created being, but rather refers to the rights and authority of the firstborn as seen in Jewish custom. (Similar to how Jesus the Son is not a son through physical/sexual union, but through rights.)

    1 Cor. 11:3 does not contradict the Trinity, as within the Trinity the Father has the authority while the Son obeys that authority.

    You quote a lot of verses showing how Jesus and the Father are separate; I assume you also know of the verses which show them to be one? Some examples:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2

    “I and the Father are one.” – John 10:30

    Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. – John 14:9

    And did you even read the link I gave? Consider this Old Testament verse that is very unambiguous in its wording:

    “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. – Zechariah 12:10

    In the above passage, we see God refer to Himself as: I, a spirit, me, the one they have pierced, and him. This makes no sense unless God is more than one person, yet the same one person at the same time. How do you explain that? (I think it should be unneccesary for me to explain who ‘the one they have pierced’ must refer to!)

    “It was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching”

    So why did the early Christians worship Jesus and equate the Holy Spirit as God? Only God can be worshiped, yet people repeatedly worshiped Jesus and they were not rebuked by Him!

    They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:- Acts 28:25

    (Wasn’t it God who spoke to the prophets? Holy Spirit = God)

    On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. – Matthew 2:11

    Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” – Matthew 14:33

    Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. – Matthew 28:9

    When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. – Matthew 28:17

    Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. – Luke 24:52

    Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him – John 9:38

    Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” – John 20:28

    Remember that as you yourself quote, Jesus Himself declared in – Mark 12:29, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’. Therefore, any worship of anything except the one true God is idolatry. Yet as I mentioned, Jesus allowed people to worship Him!

    How do you explain this, especially when other heavenly beings forbid worship by men?

    ”Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” – Revelation 19:10

    What seals something for me is never the claims of some authority or consensus, but the Bible as the word of God.

  11. thewordofme Says:

    You write:
    “The doctrine of the Trinity states that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct individuals, yet are the same person at the same time.”

    Gee, I wonder why it took over 200 years to come up with this totally illogical concept. Not only was the word Trinity not mentioned in the Bible as you are aware, but the concept, the genesis if you will, is not in there either.

    “Is Yahweh a Trinity-three persons in one God? Yahweh, the Father, is “the only true God.” Says John 17:3; and Mark 12:29. Jesus is His firstborn Son, and he is subject to God. Says 1 Corinthians 11:3 The Father is greater than the Son. Says John 14:28 The Holy Spirit is not a person; it is God’s active force.-Says Genesis 1:2; and Acts 2:18.”

    It was the secular Emperor Constantine who proposed the doctrine of Christ as “same substance” with God, not the bishops present at Nicea Also take note of the multiple instances of Trinitarian-type beliefs in pagan religion, and one could argue that paganism is the source of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as well.

    Arainism. A Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius’ basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. From Encyclopedia Britannica.

    You write:
    “Overall, I think you are not completely familiar with the meaning of ‘Trinity’. You seem to be confusing it with Unitarianism.”

    You also write:
    It is Unitarianism that claims that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one entity with no distinct separation….*See below*

    Unitarianism
    “Unitarianism” is the doctrine of the oneness of God, with the resultant denial of the Trinity. Today, the doctrine of Unitarianism is expressed by the Unitarian Universalist Association and similar groups, which have their historical roots in sixteenth-century eastern Europe. Historically, Unitarian Universalists are defined by their *rejection of the Trinity* and their belief in the ultimate salvation of all humanity. From
    Religion Facts.
    The Unitarians reject the whole concept of Trinity.

    Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
    Arianism (4th century)
    Some Radical Reformers such as Michael Servetus
    Jehovah’s Witnesses
    Mormonism
    Christian Scientists,
    Christian Unitarians
    The Unification Church
    The Christadelphians
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Philadelphia Church of God,
    Global Church of God
    United Church of God
    Unity School of Christianity

    Non-Christian, the Muslims deny it

    Reasons one may have for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
    It is not mentioned in the Bible
    It does not make philosophical sense
    It does not make logical sense
    It is not compatible with monotheism
    It is not necessary in order to explain the “specialness” of Jesus.

    You write:
    “And did you even read the link I gave? Consider this Old Testament verse that is very unambiguous in its wording:”

    The use of plural forms in the Old Testament when God is talking is often attributed to God talking with His son Jesus or one of the Angels, perhaps Gabriel.

    You write:
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2”…This does not speak to the Trinity.

    “I and the Father are one.” – John 10:30”…This speaks of spirit or purpose.

    “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. – John 14:9”…Talking of purpose and meaning.

    The concept of the Trinity was formulated 200 years after the death of Jesus and is purely a construct of the Human mind, not a heavenly one.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Note: I choose not to respond regarding your citing verses that show Jesus or the Holy Spirit as distinct from the Father or under the Father’s authority, because that is compatible with Trinitarianism (i.e. that the Godhead is three distinct persons in one God, and that the Son and the Spirit subject themselves to the Father). Therefore, no rebuttal is needed.

    ————————-

    The Unitarians reject the whole concept of Trinity.

    Not the Oneness Pentecostals you wrongly quote later:

    Some Christians hold a unitarian theology in that they see God as a single person, and are thus antitrinitarian, but because they perceive Jesus to be God himself do not fall into the general theology discussed here, which sees Jesus as subordinate to God and a finite being. Instead see: Sabellianism, Oneness theology, Oneness Pentecostalism, Monarchianism, Binitarianism. – Wikipedia on Unitarianism

    Oneness doctrine describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three manifestations of one God. It affirms the full deity of Jesus, by holding that God incarnate manifested himself to humanity in the man Christ Jesus. – Wikipedia on Oneness Pentecostalism

    Clearly, although they reject the mainstream doctrine of the Trinity (one God in three persons), they still believe that Jesus is a manifestation of God and is fully divine. That is clearly opposite of what you are saying, that Jesus is not God.

    ——————————————-

    Arainism. A Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being.

    Do I need to point out that you just quoted the fact that believing that Christ is not divine but merely created is a heresy?

    ——————————————

    Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:

    The entire list you provide are considered non-mainstream or cults by traditional Christianity. This is not to say that they are misguided as such, but I merely want to point out that the acceptance of Christ as divine is a preresquisite to be considered ‘correct’ by mainstream denominations such as the Baptists, Methodists, Brethren, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Evangelicals, Four Square Gospel, Pentecostals (and that’s just off the top of my head).

    In fact, since as I pointed out you mistakenly think that Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that Jesus is divine, I wonder if some of the other faiths you listed are also mistakenly included…….

    And why even bother quoting the Muslims, who don’t even considered Jesus the Son of God? You might as well quote atheism’s rejection of any god at all.

    ———————————

    Reasons one may have for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:

    It does not make logical sense

    Neither do the 3=1 examples I give for physics and chemistry in this post, yet scientists accept them as solid fact.

    If you want to be strict about it, atheists always say that God does not make logical sense, such as His eternal existence and not being created by anything.

    ——————————-

    You write:
    “And did you even read the link I gave? Consider this Old Testament verse that is very unambiguous in its wording:”

    The use of plural forms in the Old Testament when God is talking is often attributed to God talking with His son Jesus or one of the Angels, perhaps Gabriel.

    This is a general reply does not address the verse I quoted. I shall quote it again, and point out the specifics:

    “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. – Zechariah 12:10

    The speaker is definitely God. God refers to Himself as I and me.

    But God also refers to Himself as him – this is talking about someone else not referring to Himself using a plural form! Yet the complete phrase is They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him. Isn’t this a very strange sentence, where God calls Himself me and him in the same breath?

    Additionally, for that same phrase, why does God say that He Himself is the ‘one they have pierced’? Isn’t it Jesus who is pierced by the nails on the cross, as the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53:5 alludes to?

    Add to that God saying He will pour out a ‘spirit’, and the use of the terms ‘only child’ and ‘firstborn son (For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation).

    All together, can you satisfactorily explain this passage if Jesus is not God?

    ———————————-

    You write:
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. John 1:1-2”…This does not speak to the Trinity.

    What does the Word refer to then, if not Jesus?

    I give that the explanations you give for the other verses are valid, though debatable.

    ————————

    I repeat my final note from my previous comment: If Jesus is not God, if Jesus is not divine, why did the first Christians in the New Testament itself worship Jesus and not get rebuked by Him?

    On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. – Matthew 2:11

    Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” – Matthew 14:33

    Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. – Matthew 28:9

    When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. – Matthew 28:17

    Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. – Luke 24:52

    Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him – John 9:38

    Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” – John 20:28

    Remember that as you yourself quote, Jesus Himself declared in – Mark 12:29, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’. Therefore, any worship of anything except the one true God is idolatry. Yet as I mentioned, Jesus allowed people to worship Him!

    How do you explain this, especially when other heavenly beings forbid worship by men?

    ”Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” – Revelation 19:10

    —————————

    By the way, I enjoy discussing with you and hope that we can continue doing so politely and civilly.

  13. thewordofme Says:

    Having great time…will answer more when I have time :-)

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    Certainly!

    Just for background info: I was born into a Christian home, did not regularly attend church until 19 years old. First went to a Four Square Gospel church, personally accepted Christ as a rational adult. Then a Reformed Baptist which practices speaking in tongues as well as attending inter-denominational Varsity Christian Fellowship which welcomes all denominations. Now alternate between traditional Baptist church and Brethren church.

    Regarding all doctrines and theology, read up a lot but make decisions based on own convincement directly through Bible (i.e. read the verses that any scholar claims support a certain doctrine).

  15. thewordofme Says:

    Hi Scott Thong,

    I’m wondering if you are perceiving me correctly here. You may not want to debate with me as I am an agnostic/atheist

    You and me could not be more different. I was born into a loosely Christian home. We would go to church occasionally and I can’t really remember the denomination, but was probably Pentecostal or Baptist. I remember going to church on my own several times, but not very often…usually with my mother. Dad died in WWII so I didn’t know him.

    Around age of 12 to 13 I started some serious mental investigation of my faith. Rather surprisingly I found that I could not believe what I had learned from several different churches and ministers. I would read passages in the Bible and would find things that didn’t make sense.

    For many years after that I didn’t pay attention to religion, but was fond of playing the devil’s advocate in half serious religious discussions from time to time. This was way before the internet. About two or three years ago, due to wife’s renewed interest in religion, I really started investigating religion on the Web.

    The religious websites I would go on were seemed to be distributing the same stuff I had rejected as a child. Having a lifelong interest in science I started searching for sites were science and religion intersected. What a revelation… There was information I had been searching for since I was 13. Things I had believed or formulated on my own was revealed to be scientifically researched and validated. I was (pardon the Pun) in heaven.

    In two years or so I have learned sooo much and my world-view is so different than it was. I learned that I was far from being alone in my views. Over 90% of scientists in the world hold the view that I do about God, religion, the beginning, time, history, where we came from, etc. Over 1 billion people profess to believe as I do.

    I am willing to talk…are you?

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    Of course I am willing to talk! (As opposed to militant atheists or Muslims who visit my blog, they are usually more inclined to insult and attack…)

    I just mistakenly assumed you were a Unitarian Christian, as it seemed the most likely profile for someone who argues against the Trinity while not dismissing the existence of a deity.

    An atheist/agnostic is entirely capable of discussing religion, just as a religious person is capable of discussing naturalist philosophy.

    —————————————

    I would read passages in the Bible and would find things that didn’t make sense.

    About two or three years ago, due to wife’s renewed interest in religion, I really started investigating religion on the Web.

    Well, a ‘hobby’ of mine is Christian apologetics, where reason and logic are used to defend various aspects of Christianity – such as its theology or, as you mention, problems with the Bible. Perhaps I can give an adequate explanation for some of the difficulties you’ve discovered.

    On the other hand, with access to the Net, you can easily research Christian responses to questioning yourself too!

    I can suggest Christian Apologetics Research Ministry and Answering Islam, both of which have response lists to common criticisms. (The former is more general, the latter deals mainly with criticisms commonly put forward by Muslim polemics.)

    The issue of your wife’s interest in religion spurring you to do reasearch reminds me of Lee Strobel’s story. However, his own research led him to conclude that Christianity’s claims were valid.

    You can read of his rationale and story, along with those of several other logical thinkers, at my post Christianity – The Faith of Famously Intellectual, Logical, Reasonable Thinkers. Theirs may be an interesting contrast to your experience.

    ————————————-

    I learned that I was far from being alone in my views. Over 90% of scientists in the world hold the view that I do about God, religion, the beginning, time, history, where we came from, etc.

    May I ask where you got the 90% of scientists figure from?

    I happen to have a collection of quotes from various physicists, who have been impressed enough by their scientific research that they lean towards the idea of a God or Creator: Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes.

    For me, I do not believe that science and religion (at least, JudeoChristianity) are incompatible.

    ————————————-

    Over 1 billion people profess to believe as I do.

    For the 1 billion, does this include citizens of Communist states? Because for such people, they have been raised their entire lives with no exposure to alternatives to atheism and reverence of the State. Often they are forced to remain atheist, as expression of religion is a punishable offence.

    This is comparable to being forced to adopt a religion, similar to how Medieval Christianity was, or how modern Islam is where a billion Muslims have no choice but to remain ‘Muslim’ under threat of imprisonment or death. One hardly hears of atheists in ancient history, because to declare oneself so was to invite death.

    Without such coercion, how many people would freely choose to become atheist/Christian/Muslim/etc and thereby skew the statistics?

    And honestly, the way the Red Chinese revered Mao and the way the North Koreans currently revere Kim Jong-Il is more fanatical than the religiousness of the vast majority of church-twice-a-year Christians. (How many Christians do you see carrying around a little Bible everywhere they go to quote verses from, versus Chinese Communists carrying Mao’s Little Red Book?)

    You can have religion without any gods too – Buddhism is a well known example.

    ———————————

  17. thewordofme Says:

    Well it seems the actual number of doubting scientists is actually higher than I thought, although it is in fact over 90%

    However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America’s earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology. HERE

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

    According to Newsweek in 1987, “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…” That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14%. HERE Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

    From Talkorigins.org:
    Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to **less than one tenth of 1 percent.**

    Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is *not* science. HERE

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

    NAS. 1999. Science and creationism.

    http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/

    However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.
    There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 11,111 (as of 22 December 2007)
    American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others. A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck. **These churches are accepting evolution and rejecting creationism** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

    This site has results of survey from college professors: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/teach-controversy.html

    This list below is a little outdated, but gives an idea of the split. Not listed here is the rising tide of hidden Christianity in China. It is reported to be growing very quickly, but I can find no reliable figures at this time. Also not listed is about 6-7 million Jehovah’s Witnesses.
    I don’t believe anyone in China carries Mao’s little red book around anymore. The government there seems to be letting up on religion.
    North Korea has a population of 23-24 million or so, and I believe religion is outlawed there. No matter what the government does however, religion is bidding its time and will pop up when it can.

    • Christianity: 2.1 billion
    • Islam: 1.5 billion
    • Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
    • Hinduism: 900 million
    • Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
    • Buddhism: 376 million
    • primal-indigenous: 300 million
    • African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
    • Sikhism: 23 million
    • Juche: 19 million
    • Spiritism: 15 million
    • Judaism: 14 million
    • Baha’i: 7 million
    • Jainism: 4.2 million
    • Shinto: 4 million
    • Cao Dai: 4 million
    • Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
    • Tenrikyo: 2 million
    • Neo-Paganism: 1 million
    • Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
    • Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
    • Scientology: 500 thousand
    From: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh, okay… If it’s more than 90% of scientists supporting evolution, that I understand. I thought you meant scientists being atheists or agnostics.

  19. thewordofme Says:

    Hi Scott Thong,

    I believe that the number for atheists or agnostics among scientists is around 75% to 85% Which shows that some scientists are probably Deists or have some fuzzy idea of what God is or does…this is of course assuming there is a God. :-)

    I find it fascinating how many mainline Christian churches are accepting evolution. Of course they should, as the science is really overwhelmingly behind the fact of evolution.

    Now all that has to be done is convince the evangelical fundamentalists that they are wrong…lots of luck with that chore.

    I find it disturbing that the evangelicals are using lies and misdirection to fight against what science is showing. Another thing disturbing, here in America anyway, is that the Christian religious right has pretty much taken over one of our political parties and their stated aim is to rule as a theocracy.

    Now Muslims, where they are in power, rule as a theocracy and where they rule, chaos prevails. One cannot speak out about the religion, women are treated as property, and many other evils. The worst thing is their propensity to kill those who disagree with them.

    The Christians in the past have shown the same degree of evil when they control things…think Dark Ages in Europe and the Inquisitions and wars they spawned among themselves as well as the Muslim world.

    Over all I think maybe if we need religion in this world it should be Buddhism. :-)

    Hope you are well and had a good weekend.

  20. Scott Thong Says:

    Hmm, it seems to me that a lot of agnostics or atheists say they would choose Buddhism if they had to adopt a religion.

    On evolution, I don’t think we should be too quick to make such a conclusion. In my opinion, most of the fossil evidence ‘showing transitional forms’ is circumstantial – who is to say that the series of fossils showing a land mammal, then a half-sea mammal, then a ‘whale’ with legs, then a whale without legs actually came in that order and evolved on from the other? Can it be ruled out that these are all individual species that are not related?

    I had a long discussion on this topic in another post, and came to the conclusion that: Based on the level of proof that I accept for corroborating Biblical historical claims, I should accept the above evidence for evolution if I want to maintain consistent standards.

    In any case, I am more intrigued by the DNA evidence that is being researched. To me, the probability of sheer coincidence for similar DNA is much lower than that of similar-looking fossils.

    What to you think of manmade global warming, by the way? I find it similar to evolution in that the ‘vast majority’ of scientists are claimed to believe in it, while Evangelicals are regularly portrayed as backwards flat-earthers for not unanimously believing in it.

    Personally, I am totally unconvinced by the strong-arm tactics passed off as ‘science’ by the global warming alarmists. This has caused me to tend to view other ‘solid scientific fact’ more skeptically – including CFCs detsroying the ozone layer, DDT causing cancer, and evolution being undeniably proven. (I was once a harcore evolution supporter, until I thought about how conclusive the evidence is myself.)

    The religious right may gun for a theocracy, but look at what just one month of the alternative has gotten us – half a dozen cabinet nominees involved in corruption/tax dodging and resignations, countless campaign promises quietly broken on transparency, earmarks, oil drilling, war on terror, taxes, a 1000 page $1 trillion taxpayer bill released hours before being voted on, its public-available online version released only as PDF images so that the public cannot search it, billions in pet projects that have nothing to do with the economy written into the package. And then they have the nerve to say that the Bush era was theo ne full of lies and corruption. 7 explicit promises were broken with the passing of the stimulus bill alone.

    This is sheer, blatant and fearless dishonesty, lies and misdirection. At least when the other guys do something wrong, their party kicks them out.

    I feel that the US Democrat party is pursuing a ‘religious agenda’ of its own – extreme liberalism. Isn’t it just as dogmatic to force liberal values on half the population which does not share the same mindset? A lot of liberal causes are not supported by research or observed fact, yet are still clung to – isn’t this the definition of ‘faith’?

  21. thewordofme Says:

    Hi Scott Thong,

    Sorry, I’ve become unexpectedly busy. Will write more when I have time. :-)

  22. avalleofflavors Says:

    Scott,

    water is one of the most heretical examples of the trinity there is. It is from a doctrine of the trinity called modalism aka Sabellianism. In this doctrine it says that God can be Father, Son or Holy Spirit but only one at a time, like any contained amount of water. It cannot be liquid, solid and gas at the same time, unlike God which continually exists as Father, Son and Spirit simultaneously. the remainder of your examples are reasonable, but be careful to not to look so hard at finding an example that you compromise the very character and nature of who God is.

    Thank you for your help in the furtherance of the Gospel.
    ~ a student of theology

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks for the info. I was not familiar with Sabellianism.

    Now that you mention it, I agree that water is not the best comparison – even if we use a large amount of water existing as all three states at once (triple state), it is still multiple molecules of water grouped into different states. One molecule of water is simply that – it takes several arranged in a certain way to count as liquid, solid or gas.

  24. Anthony Gomez Says:

    I am looking for a complete book along these lines about trinities. Is not the human race traced back to three basic skelatol types? Same goes for the different types of dogs, cats, ect. The atom is one, but made up by three characteristics. If you will please send me any information about the trinities we see in science and life.

    Thank You!

  25. Stan Says:

    Example of THREE Personalities (TRINITY) in ONE verse from OT
    Isa 48:16 “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me.”
    1) The Lord GOD (Father)
    2) His Spirit n(Holy Spirit)
    3) The ONE who was send (The Son Jesus)

  26. Hezekiah Says:

    To thewordofme:
    Friend, I am a scientist. A true scientist cannot believe in evolution. True science always has evidence. There is NO evidence for evolution. It is just proven ignorance from so called scientist to believe in evolution!!

  27. the word of me Says:

    Hello Hezekiah,

    Sir, a true scientists cannot reject evolution. There is too much evidence for it to ignore.

  28. wits0 Says:

    There is no solid evidence that homo sapiens originated from this planet Earth either.

    Remember the recent Climategate?

  29. simonthongwh Says:

    Which evolution? The factual science that documents the adaptation of a species? Or the philosophy that makes a single cell organism jump all the way to complex man?

  30. Ron Says:

    Evolve means change over time, not jump into existence — that would be theology, the belief that a supernatural skydaddy poofed everything into existence out of nothingness by wishing it.

  31. simonthongwh Says:

    The word ‘jump’ was purposely chosen, to show the impossibility of crossing innumerable species. But then, it’s in your nature to quibble…that is all you ever do, quibble over words. All talk.

  32. wits0 Says:

    The problem with Darwin’s Evolution is that it offers no hope(whatsover) and makes existence completely meaningless* as a result. You might say that it threw the baby out with the bath water. At least the Christians offer hope(no matter how arguably simplistic sometimes).

    *”Survival of the fittest” outlook makes all higher emotions irrelevant and humane life nonsensical.

  33. Hezekiah Says:

    TO the word of me:
    Friend, please analyze the evidence that was provided for evolution you will find that it is actually the evidence for CREATION. Please do not be deceived by the cartoons of evolutionists that pictures evolution.
    I have not seen any evidence for evolution. If you do, PLEASE sent me the information with reference from a SCINTIFIC PUBLICATION. Thanks
    Jesus Loves you.

  34. the word of me Says:

    Hello Hezekiah,

    Well, one could start by actually reading some of Darwin’s works. They are available on-line for free.

    The Smithsonian museum in Washington DC has an exhibit on the beginning and evolution of man thats darn good and you will go away understanding how it all actually happened.

    Several of the best fields to get a clear understanding of evolution is Geology and Biology…proofs of evolution abound in these two science disciplines.

    Another great source of information about the very LOOONG history of humans on this planet is archaeology. We have been able to trace modern human (Homo-sapiens-sapiens) back to about 200,000 years ago, both by archaeology and DNA. It is known that ALL humans originated in Africa.

    You write:
    “I have not seen any evidence for evolution. If you do, PLEASE sent me the information with reference from a SCINTIFIC [sic] PUBLICATION. Thanks Jesus Loves you.”

    Scientific journals are all over the interwebs, and all one has to do is spend some time investigating for yourself. I have now spent about 3 or 4 years scanning the web for information on religion and science and have been amazed at how much info is out there.

    The journals are where you can find the peer reviewed science, but there are many sites that are run by universities and colleges that have good science on them.

    Jesus was probably just a man. Paul was the one who turned Jesus from a observant Jew and rabbi into a “Christian.” Paul also invented “original sin.”

    Remember, Thor loves you too…

  35. the word of me Says:

    Hello wits0,

    You write:
    “The problem with Darwin’s Evolution is that it offers no hope (whatsover) and makes existence completely meaningless* as a result. You might say that it threw the baby out with the bath water. At least the Christians offer hope(no matter how arguably simplistic sometimes).”

    Well wits0 all I can tell you is that I’m now 67 and I have been an atheist since I figured out that religion was a scam when I was 13 years old. I have never felt that life was meaningless and hopeless. I kinda live by Mark Twains old saying, roughly paraphrased as: “I suffered no inconvenience in the billions of years that passed before I was born, and I expect to suffer none when I die.”

    You write:
    “*”Survival of the fittest” outlook makes all higher emotions irrelevant and humane life nonsensical.

    With all due respect wits0, what I find irrelevant and nonsensical is to believe in a god that has absolutely no proof of existence and a Bible that science is quickly proving to be a giant scam.

    Some things we know to be factual:
    The earth is billions of years old…the universe billions of years older
    There was never a Adam and Eve and “Garden of Eden” as portrayed in the Bible.
    There was therefore no “Original Sin”…Paul invented that.
    There was no “Noah’s Flood.”
    There was no “Tower of Babel”
    There was no slavery in Egypt
    There was no Exodus as portrayed in the Bible.
    There may not have been a Moses or Abraham or several other founding Hebrews.

    If there was no Adam and Eve and Original Sin for them to pass down to all of humanity…what need would there have been for a Jesus?

    Just a few things that science has kinda proved by circumstantial evidence.

    Of the hundreds and hundreds of religions that man has invented through the years, most have faded away…thankfully. Christianity and Islam and the Jews will eventually follow, and it will be science and actual truths that will do it.

    Remember there is NO magic…never was.

  36. the word of me Says:

    Hello simonthongwh,

    You write:
    “Which evolution? The factual science that documents the adaptation of a species? Or the philosophy that makes a single cell organism jump all the way to complex man?”

    If you read up a little on science you will find that it took about three and a half billion years for that single cell organism to “jump all the way” to a complex human. You can also find most of the intermediate forms in the sedimentary/stratigraphic record that is available for scrutiny in many many museums and colleges and universities and science exhibits world-wide.

    Christians can denigrate the sciences all they want (and they do) but it doesn’t change the facts that the studies find…and the facts don’t support religion at all.

  37. simonthongwh Says:

    @the word of me: at 67, you are still unable to see the difference between the science of evolution and the philosophy of evolution? That’s pathetic. I’m trained in philosophy (among other disciplines) and by the time I finished Philo 101, it was obvious to me that evolutionists tend to mix up science with their personal beliefs. You are no exception.

    I’m not young myself, though what has age to do with wisdom? If anything, age may make us arrogant. If you have been an atheist for so long, it can mean that you’re no longer learning, or teachable. That is seen in the assumptions you make about Christianity, science and the Bible: “I find irrelevant and nonsensical is to believe in a god that has absolutely no proof of existence and a Bible that science is quickly proving to be a giant scam.” You stopped learning long ago and merely repeat old atheistic faith statements.

    As for your stand on evolution, your examples hold no water to someone trained in logic, both deductive and inductive. To argue the way you do is to take a mighty big leap of faith. Hey, aren’t you supposed to use reason and logic? Why are you a believer in such postulations? Take one example:
    “You can also find most of the intermediate forms in the sedimentary/stratigraphic record that is available for scrutiny in many many museums and colleges and universities and science exhibits world-wide.”

    What? Given the 3.5bn years you mentioned (why not 4.54bn years? if you kept up with the latest science!),why are they SO FEW intermediate forms to be found or scrutinized?

    Btw, when people like you begin a paragraph with “If you read up a little on science”, it is insulting to others who may have read more than you have done; it is also presumptuous. It is, sadly, a characteristic of ALL atheists who come to this blog.

    They think they know it all. The shame of atheistic hubris.

  38. simonthongwh Says:

    I teach college-level students a course in critical thinking. The worst students are those who come from high school science classes. Why? They are too lazy to examine matters or to think analytically. They are usually the smartest in terms of high school grades in math and science. Sadly, they accept unthinkingly what their science teachers believe about evolution. These science teachers merely repeat their faith statements regarding evolution and atheism. “Monkey see, monkey do, monkey does the same as you (put in science teachers).”

    After several lectures on the use of analytical thinking and a couple of exercises, they can tell the difference between the religion of science and the science of science.

  39. wits0 Says:

    “With all due respect wits0, what I find irrelevant and nonsensical is to believe in a god that has absolutely no proof of existence and a Bible that science is quickly proving to be a giant scam.”

    That hasn’t happened. Not unless you can only conceive a wrong anthropomorphic Deity – some people still do!

    Actually Science is also fallible when somethings are touted as facts; remember the wrong model used for that so-called, “Climate Change” scam as revealed by the recent Climategate? In any case, Science hasn’t the instrument to prove the existence of the Fourth Dimension does not exist. It is still stuck in currently believing that Light Speed is impossible.

    God is a Concept. In life we can claim to have no room and need for faith yet without even unconscious and subconcious faith, how does any organism exists? Even with non Theistic religion like the the Buddhist, the teachings of its founder relies on a modicum of faith to consider and understand its efficacy.

    There are many sorts of Atheists and many have not undertaken the effort to study and contemplate deeply. It is, incidentally, obvious that Darwin’s Evolutionary was concocted against the tyranny and excesses of the Church within the Western state of Albion. I fail to see how the age of Science when burette, pipette, bunsen burners, optical microscope, and steam ships etc were prevailing, is really capable of plumbing very deep. A faulty ideological thing(in the name of primitive Science) raised to the level of something infallible had faddishly caught on and was built on to counter ALL FAITH whatsover!

  40. the word of me Says:

    Hello simonthongwh, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    You write:
    “@the word of me: at 67, you are still unable to see the difference between the science of evolution and the philosophy of evolution? That’s pathetic. I’m trained in philosophy (among other disciplines) and by the time I finished Philo 101, it was obvious to me that evolutionists tend to mix up science with their personal beliefs. You are no exception.”

    Well how do I answer a person who starts off the discussion by calling me pathetic? Is that the way you were trained to debate…by using Ad hominem attacks?

    The real science behind evolution and the lack of proofs for all religions is what formed my personal beliefs. For years I looked at the Christian religion and dug deeply into its philosophy and proofs, and I find it has nothing but anecdotal stories. I find that it spins ancient myths as truth, it pushes two or three thousand year old campfire stories as reality. These are just part of my personal beliefs and were formed by looking at actual real evidence.

    You write:
    “I’m not young myself, though what has age to do with wisdom? If anything, age may make us arrogant. If you have been an atheist for so long, it can mean that you’re no longer learning, or teachable. That is seen in the assumptions you make about Christianity, science and the Bible: “I find irrelevant and nonsensical is to believe in a god that has absolutely no proof of existence and a Bible that science is quickly proving to be a giant scam.” You stopped learning long ago and merely repeat old atheistic faith statements.”

    Arrogant, no, if anything age has humbled me by letting me know just how little I truly know. The knowledge of many millions of very intelligent people is now available simply by turning on a computer and logging on to the incredible internet. I have been retired now for about 10 years and I have been educating myself, by internet and graduate school, in subjects that have always interested me. So you may dismiss me as unable to learn anything new, but the truth is I am learning more now than I ever had before.

    I find that it is the religious believer who is stagnant in learning…they just reject out of hand the information that is proving their beliefs untrue.

    You write:
    “As for your stand on evolution, your examples hold no water to someone trained in logic, both deductive and inductive. To argue the way you do is to take a mighty big leap of faith. Hey, aren’t you supposed to use reason and logic? Why are you a believer in such postulations?…”

    As for your stand on religion; your beliefs hold no water to someone who is trained to look for truths by using the scientific method and not just acceptance on faith of revealed scripture. I look for explanations that are backed up by research and peer review and reality…not magic.

    You write:
    “What? Given the 3.5bn years you mentioned (why not 4.54bn years? if you kept up with the latest science!),why are they SO FEW intermediate forms to be found or scrutinized?

    The consensus opinion is that the earth is 4.5 +- billion years old, but that life did not get started until about 3.5 +- billion years ago. I do keep up.

    You write:
    “Btw, when people like you begin a paragraph with “If you read up a little on science”, it is insulting to others who may have read more than you have done; it is also presumptuous. It is, sadly, a characteristic of ALL atheists who come to this blog.”

    As someone who reads and researches the ever changing line between science and religion and how they affect each other, I just may read more than you on some of these particular matters. However I did not mean to be insulting to you, so I ask for your forgiveness.

    You write:
    “They think they know it all. The shame of atheistic hubris.”

    Perhaps you could enlighten me master…..

  41. the word of me Says:

    Hello wits0, thank you for your reply.

    Regarding my comment on proof of god and Biblical scam, you write:
    “That hasn’t happened. Not unless you can only conceive a wrong anthropomorphic Deity – some people still do!”

    Well the Bible does have God saying: Let US make man in our image. However I have heard it said that if cows had gods those gods would resemble cows. I believe that all Gods were made in mans image. :-) and that there really is no God…it’s all a myth. Prove me wrong.

    You write:
    “Actually Science is also fallible when something’s are touted as facts; remember the wrong model used for that so-called, “Climate Change” scam as revealed by the recent Climategate? In any case, Science hasn’t the instrument to prove the existence of the Fourth Dimension does not exist. It is still stuck in currently believing that Light Speed is impossible.”

    Of course science is fallible, but it is also self correcting. When a scientist concocts a concept or hypothesis it is generally subject to review by his peers and if something can be found wrong the relevant work is done to correct it or the concept/hypothesis is dropped. This has happened millions of times throughout our history. As time goes by and we develop better tools and methodology, earlier work is revised and corrected.

    I think the jury is still out on the climate controversy. The most evidence seems to be that it IS happening, but I reserve my opinion at this time. The Fourth Dimension is time, and we have clocks. Regarding Light Speed, there is the Quantum theory and the experiments with entanglement that may show data can be passed at many times the speed of light…still lots of work to go on this area though.

    You write:
    “God is a Concept. In life we can claim to have no room and need for faith yet without even unconscious and subconcious [sic] faith, how does any organism exists? Even with non Theistic religion like the the [sic] Buddhist, the teachings of its founder relies on a modicum of faith to consider and understand its efficacy.”

    Exactly…God is a concept…and ONLY a concept. It is a concept that cannot be proven in the method of science…it is only believable by faith. One must take the word of two to three thousand year old authors. There is no corresponding independent authorship supporting it. All words about this religion come from followers of said religion.

    Of the Old Testament there are no secular writers that independently confirm the truth of the writings. The same is true of the New Testament. The first writings come some 30 +- years after the death of the supposed Jesus and these writings are from a follower, not an independent witness.

    You imply that any organism cannot exist without faith…I assume that faith you speak of is faith that there is a Christian or Islamic God. I myself, and some friends I know who are also atheists, exist without any faith in any god quite well thank you. Of course all animals on earth exist just fine without a concept of god. A billion plus atheists and agnostics from around the world are fine in their beliefs…and the billions of atheists who have passed before us in history.

    You write:
    “There are many sorts of Atheists and many have not undertaken the effort to study and contemplate deeply. It is, incidentally, obvious that Darwin’s Evolutionary was concocted against the tyranny and excesses of the Church within the Western state of Albion.”

    As in any human undertaking there are people who do not research their position on matters. That is a great failing we as humans live with. However studies have shown that atheists, in general, know more about religions then the actual followers of religions. We have to, because religious followers are pretty intrusive and unrelenting in their efforts to proselytize and convert everyone on earth. Their hubris is unbelievable at times.

    To the best of my knowledge Darwin was a religious person who genuinely believed–until a few years after his voyages, when he was deeply immersed in his research. He was conflicted about this because his wife was very religious and he didn’t want to upset her. The man was honest with himself and with his research and consequent theory, a theory that by the way is considered a fact by those in the earth sciences of today.

    You write
    “A faulty ideological thing (in the name of primitive Science) raised to the level of something infallible had faddishly caught on and was built on to counter ALL FAITH whatsover [sic]!

    The fact of evolution has caught on because it works and has powerful explanatory power over the natural world. There were some minor details that Darwin was wrong about initially, but the essence of the work has been proven over and over in the last 152 years by scientists from many diverse fields.

  42. Scott Thong Says:

    The worst students are those who come from high school science classes. Why? They are too lazy to examine matters or to think analytically. They are usually the smartest in terms of high school – simonthongwh

    One problem is that education leads to one overall inaccurate belief: You think you’re smarter than you are. Three studies have found that people who fall for investment scams are better-educated than the average person but don’t seek advice because they think they’re immune to making mistakes.5 Unexpected Downsides of High Intelligence

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    With all due respect wits0, what I find irrelevant and nonsensical is to believe in a god that has absolutely no proof of existence and a Bible that science is quickly proving to be a giant scam. – the word of me

    Actually, I thought that the accusation that the Bible was a giant scam (scientifically) is quite the old one.

    And rather than disproving more and more of the Biblical historical account, archaeology and other scientific disciplines are corroborating the Bible’s story.

    For instance, up until recently the Biblical mention of Hittites was pooh-poohed as pure fiction. That Cyrus the Great would send the Jews back to rebuild the temple, a nationalistic fantasy. That Jerusalem was anything more than a little mountain village, political propaganda. That Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death, religious dogma. Each of those claims have been proven by subsequent archaeological findings.

    And there are lots of names of persons and places, cultural practices, political atmospheres and historical events mentioned in the Bible that are ‘kinda proved’ as well. Each by itself is ‘circumstantial evidence’ – for example, that Pontius Pilate was a real Roman prefect does not in itself prove that Jesus is the incarnate deity.

    But as I like to put it, in John 3:12 Jesus says: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” Contrariwise, if we can believe the Bible on proveable/disproveable earthly things, this lends credence to its claims about unproveable heavenly things.

    Now, this may not be ‘proof’ enough for you. But I’ve come to accept that every person has his/her own standard for what constitutes ‘enough’ proof. Personally, I don’t believe that evolution is proven by the fossil record… But I am inclined to be convinced by the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and modern birds. I don’t believe that global warming is primarily CO2-driven, even as plenty of self-proclaimed climate experts stake their reputations on it.

  44. Scott Thong Says:

    Example of THREE Personalities (TRINITY) in ONE verse from OT – Stan

    How about this one, Stan?

    “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” – Zechariah 12:10

    God speaks in the first and third person in one sentence as being pierced, and mentions a spirit as well!

  45. the word of me Says:

    Hello Scott Thong, thank you for your reply.

    You write:
    “Actually, I thought that the accusation that the Bible was a giant scam (scientifically) is quite the old one.”

    The accusation that the Bible is a scam (literally) IS fairly old. I know that here in the US one of our founding fathers and our third president from the 1700’s was writing about this subject. Much earlier than that and you stood the chance of being jailed or killed for this “blasphemy.” The Church was pretty powerful in olden days.

    You write:
    “And rather than disproving more and more of the Biblical historical account, archaeology and other scientific disciplines are corroborating the Bible’s story.”

    Yes, it is accepted by lots of researchers that some archaeology backs up the Bible tales, but there are some really big matters that the Bible falls down on, as revealed by modern archaeology and other sciences. For example; we know that Homo-sapiens sapiens type humans have roamed the earth for about 200,000 years and that our predecessors go back some 3 million years or more, we know that 10,000 years ago humans lived on all continents on earth– except Antarctica, we know there was never a universal flood, we know that all human life on earth is not descended from the 6 reproducing remnants of a fictional Noah’s Ark voyage, we know there was never a Tower of Babel scenario, we know that the Exodus, as written in the Bible, never happened, we know that the Romans never recorded that a man named Jesus was crucified.

    If it weren’t for mankind’s infinite curiosity we would never know the truth about religion. The truth is that religion lies and distorts everything it is concerned with. The lies are used by priests, ministers, rabbis and all officialdom of the various and sundry churches on the face of the earth to control, dominate, and hold back humanity…to keep humans under its spell for its monetary gain.

    For more years than I would have thought possible much of what was in nature was said to be attributable to God. As our learning and sciences advanced and we were able to discern the truth about nature, God’s role was steadily diminished. In other words, what was once attributed to God was replaced by a factual natural explanation, and it has NEVER gone the other way.

    You write:
    “Personally, I don’t believe that evolution is proven by the fossil record…”

    Well you can have any opinion you want to have, the fact that that opinion is wrong I suppose doesn’t bother you, and it truly doesn’t bother me either. We can coexist as long as you don’t try to kill me for MY opinion…Christians (as well as Muslims) have a habit of doing that you know.

    Atheists have never tried to kill someone for their beliefs….

    “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.” —Thomas Jefferson

  46. simonthongwh Says:

    You still make no distinction between the fact of evolution and the philosophy of evolution. Until and unless that happens, you are merely another of those “I read more than you” and “I use reason but you use faith” kind of ordinary guys who really, sincerely believe that they know more and are superior because they don’t rely on “magic”.

    Talking about “magic”, I must confess to being surprised by the appearance of that word. Christianity is the very contrast of magic, and is its enemy. Yet, you used that word. I hope that that was a slip of the fingers when you were typing. If you really equate Christianity with magic, you come across as being ignorant of the sociology of religion, particularly the evolutionary view. Then, that claim to be

    “someone who reads and researches the ever changing line between science and religion and how they affect each other, I just may read more than you on some of these particular matters”

    is no more than the empty boast of a self-important man.

    As for forgiveness, it would mean something but in the very next sentence, you are sarcastic and insulting. I was not insulted though you were insulting; and if you get the feeling that I felt insulted, then don’t listen to your feelings which are non-rational anyway. Right, “reason” man?

    Let me end by quoting you, “The fact of evolution has caught on because it works and has powerful explanatory power over the natural world.”

    Unfortunately, the philosophy of evolution is being passed along as truth as well.

  47. simonthongwh Says:

    For those who are so keen on the truth of science:

    Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
    posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

  48. simonthongwh Says:

    1 “Atheists have never tried to kill someone for their belief.” LOL

    Really? Try Chairman Mao and Communist China. The Russian Communists. Not enough deaths perpetuated by you atheists? Oho, but you would want to deny that they were ever atheists in the sense that you are. In which case, we would deny that those people you call Christians or the church were really genuine believers. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Or the other way around.

    2 You quoted Thomas Jefferson? So what? He’s just another person who lived and died. To you Americans he may be so important but to those of us who have been born again of the spirit, he spoke of what he didn’t know. His words are those of a man ignorant of spiritual things.

  49. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Atheists just rely on guesswork, myth, wrong believe that mislead them ever since, even before Darwin. You don’t believe me? How do you know?

    Simple fact: They could NOT answer hundreds of important basic questions about existence, the beginning of the universe, or life etc. Those questions remain mystery…and science couldn’t tell us for sure.. but theories upon theories (which many of them couldn’t be tested or proven true at all).

    Thus, atheists believe in unproven theories (myths, “heresay”=nonesence).

  50. Ron Says:

    LA LA LA LA We can’t hear you. — Nasaei, Simon

  51. thewordofme Says:

    Hello simonthongwh, thank you for your reply.

    I apologize for taking so long here, but my day job suddenly got busy. I am still pressed for time so I am just going to answer one of your comments from your last reply…regarding Magic.

    You write:
    “Talking about “magic”, I must confess to being surprised by the appearance of that word. Christianity is the very contrast of magic, and is its enemy. Yet, you used that word. I hope that that was a slip of the fingers when you were typing. If you really equate Christianity with magic, you come across as being ignorant of the sociology of religion, particularly the evolutionary view….”

    Christianity is totally infused with magic…from beginning to end.

    Old Testament—God creates earth and everything on it from nothing, creates universe from nothing, makes man from dust and women from mans rib, causes the whole earth to be underwater, when there is not enough water on earth to accomplish this feat. Feeds and waters 1 million roaming Jews in the Sinai desert, causes water to flow from a rock, parts the Red Sea…this just off the top of my head without any research.

    New Testament–Jesus raises the dead, cures hemorrhagic symptoms and leprosy, casts out demons and places them in swine, walks on water, materializes food and wine, comes back to life after being dead for 3 days, shows himself in a beam of light to Paul on the road to Damascus. Again just a few examples of the Magic that Christians believe in. Not even taking into consideration all the miracles (read–magic) that men have said they have seen on this earth since the death of Jesus…you know—like statues of Mary and Jesus sweating blood, the visions Fatima, that sort of thing.

    I repeat Christianity is totally infused with magic and the followers of this cult believe in it with all there being.

    Sorry to be so short in answering…will do better next time. :-)

  52. wits0 Says:

    Huh, thewordofme still gotta work at 67?

  53. simonthongwh Says:

    Did you think your reply is awaited with bated breath, thewordofme? LOL
    Your comments are, so far, inconsequential, adding nothing to the debate except hot air and pseudo-knowledge disguised as truth. Magic? LOL

  54. the word of me Says:

    Well I guess I’m hitting some nerves here. All the replies are just Ad-hominem attacks…and not very good ones.

    Sorry I disturbed you folks, you all have a nice life and good luck to you.

  55. simonthongwh Says:

    Haven’t you read enough yet to know about the validity of ad hominems in certain cases and how useful they are?

    You see, you claim to know so much. You claim to have read and research about the ever changing line between religion and and science, but you come out with this quaint notion of the creation as magic. You put YOURSELF up as an authority. That’s why you are open to ad hominems. (Incidentally, methinks you have fallen into the crack between religion and science LOL.

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    Huh, thewordofme still gotta work at 67? – wits0

    Soon everyone will have to keep working till past age 80, if socialist policies aren’t repealed before they irreparably bankrupt pensions.

    But if someone is voluntarily working past retirement age, kudos to them!

  57. CyrpticTaco Says:

    While the word trinity is never used in the Bible, the concept is often repeated.

    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

    Pay special attention to the John 10:38 when he says that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. This establishes that Jesus saw himself as part of God.

    He goes even further into the concept later in John 14

    John 14:5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
    6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

    8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

    9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

    Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

    15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
    22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

    23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

    25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

    28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

    This is one of the most comprehensive of Jesus’s Godly claims. He systematically shows that he is in the Father and the Holy Spirit is in Him and the Father is in Jesus. Thus, he basically starts the idea of the trinity, which is just a doctrine to explain Jesus’s teaching.

    P.S.
    May you please explain to me how those are facts not opinions the word of me

    The earth is billions of years old…the universe billions of years older
    There was never a Adam and Eve and “Garden of Eden” as portrayed in the Bible.
    There was therefore no “Original Sin”…Paul invented that.
    There was no “Noah’s Flood.”
    There was no “Tower of Babel”
    There was no slavery in Egypt
    There was no Exodus as portrayed in the Bible.
    There may not have been a Moses or Abraham or several other founding Hebrews.

  58. CyrpticTaco Says:

    P.S.S.
    Here’s the “gods” thing Jesus is quoting from…

    Psalm 82

    A psalm of Asaph.
    1 God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

    2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
    3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
    4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

    5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

    6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
    7 But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

    8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.

  59. free itouch Says:

    My brother recommended I might like this blog. He was entirely
    right. This post truly made my day. You can not imagine simply how
    much time I had spent for this information!

    Thanks!

  60. paarsurrey Says:

    I think you have changed your mind; you are no more interested in religion as I don’t find any latest post/page from you on the tenets of Christianity.

    Is it so?

    Does Jesus claim The Trinity and/or its Examples in Real Life? Has he taught anyone unequivocally to give such examples?
    Then why are you doing it? Are you making a new religion in Jesus’ name?

  61. Scott Thong Says:

    Actually I’ve cut down my blogging and commenting drastically.

    Jesus was Himself the best example of proclaiming Himself divine – see Why Jesus’ Healing of the Paralytic is A Declaration of Divinity and Why Christians Believe Jesus is God in Three Easy Bible Passages as examples.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: