If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

Originally posted by Azadok2day
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The bible declares the trinity , the church reaffirmed this declaration that is all. If one can not see the trinity in Gods book then their reading skills are lacking .

The bible also declares talking donkeys and a genocidal son murdering God who needlessly murders humans by the millions.

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy your blood stained God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Clearly, that view reduced to three humans pretending to be god. Leaving Jesus no more than a profit that likely also took up worship for Daddy god (Abba term) that also ends up being bogus.

Too late for excuses.

I don't see my sources giving any particular credence to the Old Testament description of God.
The book (OT) is used to give illustrations to concepts that the NT (according to my canon of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Mark and John) is presenting about God.
Obviously there is a new paradigm about God, and His relationship with man, being brought forth in the NT (JMDewey version) so all your references to Abraham or whatever is irrelevant in my eyes for criticizing the Christian god.
I don't see how a so-called comparison with what you are calling a Babylonian trinity has anything to do with the Christian doctrine of trinity.

edit on 10-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.

Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"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.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"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.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"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" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

The violence that he himself creates.

Who, . . God?
I was watching a movie yesterday that sounds like that, called Time Bandits, where the Supreme Being created Evil, who was the personification of bad attributes that people can have. That's fiction, but based on what a lot of people think is true. There seems to me to be a natural tendency for people to devolve into animalistic behavior. We need a constant infusion of a higher spirit that comes from God to overcome this inclination that comes from the world we live in making us forget where we come from.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.

Jesus was killed by a religious institution pretending to be worshiping God. Now we understand it was a lie, so we are "redeemed" from having to follow man-made religious institutions.

reply to post by Greatest I am

"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.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299

"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" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Hmm. You don't see a contradiction here?
There were no delegates at the Council convened by Constantine in 326 AD who were not Trinitarian. There were people represented by Arius who did not accept the formula adopted by Athanasius and Constantine, but they still believed in the trinity.

www.youtube.com...



Regards
DL