On the Trinity and the Faces of God

Lol, apologies to Spidergoat. I actually didn't know. To be fair, someone made the wrong assumption on my own gender as well (not exactly marked in the names, is it?)

I guess I took the pinch of salt in an open wound.

All in all, a lively discussion, isn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a difference between rudeness for the sake of being rude, and rudeness towards a purpose. I think Spidergoat and yourself have that both well taken care of. Not in terms of this argument, but in some of the others I've read through

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point is poignantly taken. I will refrain from restricting the rights of well learned scientists to debunk my religion, if they will refrain from assuming I can't appreciate science while being religious.

Not all Christians are blindly wandering into their faith. I don't believe that I have some divine knowledge that makes me superior above everyone else. I only want to promote a sense of civility between the two sides, and just enough respect where we can actually have conversations that don't end with "Nuh Uh" and "Uh huh", even if they are more flowery than that.

 

Of course civility is key. Now, is Christianity really polytheistic? I mean with all their saints and everything.

 

Now we are entering dangerous territories - denominations.

Catholicism does have saints, but no they are not gods. People often confuse Catholics asking for a saint to intercede on their behalf as believing they actually have the power to fulfill their prayer (like God). For example, here is the prayer to the Virgin:

In this prayer to the Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, we ask for the assistance we need in order to avoid sin. Just as we might ask our own mother for help, we turn to Mary, "Mother of God and my Mother," that she may intercede for us.

As a prayer, it's more the sort of prayer you say to a dead relative you really respected. It's not that you actually believe they have the power to respond the way God does. It is also similar to asking for others to pray on your behalf. You don't believe that they have the power either, but Christians do feel that the more voices lent, the louder the prayer (I think it's a human thing).

As to the pope (which I am assuming is what you meant by "and everything"), he is considered to be the successor of Peter. I'll admit, from my own point of view, I feel the amount of power issued him by the clergy is misplaced. However, we have to remember that at one point Power and Church combined, and there was corruption. While some of this corruption has been mended, there is still an imbalance of power.

I do not believe that you need a priest, bishop, etc, to absolve you of sin. That is an action that only God Himself can make. I think the reason Catholics find it soothing is that they feel it makes them feel more accountable. Man judges now, while God judges at the end, and the clergy are just men.

 

In any other culture, they would be considered gods, they aren't alive and they can intercede on your behalf.

 

I am not Catholic, and actually need to look more into this topic myself, but I don't think they honestly believe the saint will literally intercede on their behalf. As I stated above, I think it's more about the comfort you get in talking to a dead relative. You don't really think they will literally do something, but rather are comforted by the remembrance that at one point they were on earth and were blessed/touched by God. However, I cannot say for sure.

 

Nature of the Trinity

Aquinas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described by Three Interrelated Persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit "who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word."

This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to communicate God's self and God's goodness to human beings. This takes place through the Incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (indeed, the very essence of the Trinity itself) within those who have experienced salvation by God.[69]


From wiki.

 

Yes...that is the actual doctrine that is my accepted faith. Thank you for the input.

 

Um,

Wiki.

Why Do Roman Catholics Pray to Saints?

 

Okay. I just rung up my Catholic friend. So maybe we can actually get an understanding of this. I was right, and I was wrong (as I said though, I'm not Catholic, and don't count myself as an expert on saints).

Apparently they do believe that the saints will pray with them, much like a prayer group, but they still do not consider them to hold the powers of God. Since it is assumed that the soul of a person will be in the presence of God, when they pray, they are asking for that soul to pray with them (presumably because they are standing right there and could readily ask Him).

They're not positive this is true, but apparently, at least as far as he (the friend) is concerned, they are covering their bases.

I'm apparently supposed to say that About.com is not a legitimate source for religious fact. I have no idea if that is or is not true, as I do not frequent the site, but am merely the messenger

 

Okay, so before this gets carried too far (don't want to miss any exciting bits), I need to note that I will be taking a short sabbatical (no pun intended) from this thread to do more research. Also, health pending, I hope to go out tomorrow and probably won't be back till evening. Feel free to post what you want, but if you don't hear from me, don't assume you've "won". After all, we're expanding our minds, not our territories.

 

Post 32 makes sense. I gather (from the quotes I posted) that the saint "puts a word in with god" on their behalf, and it's up to god to decide. But the saint's prayer carries more weight than the human's.

 

I agree on what you said. God deserves all prayer! He does! The reason you're getting tripped up is that the saints pray with us to God. The saints do not mediate between God and us. They help us to go to the mediator, who is Christ. It's like asking for a special friend of yours to pray for you. They are patron saints of XYZ because they have experience with those circumstances in their life. They understand and confide with you on XYZ, and are will be more than happy to support you. It's not a matter of prayer to them, it's a matter of respecting their holiness that God himself has granted them through their will to be holy, and asking them to pray for us, with us. A metaphor could be what if you had a flashlight you could shine up to Heaven. If you have someone already in Heaven shining a flashlight for you, imagine how much brighter that light will be. It shows a greater disposition of the will. That is an imperfect metaphor, but we can't pinpoint how God gives mercy. If that were the case, we could manipulate him, and take advantage of him. God doesn't allow himself to be manipulated. He is constant.

 

Er, so what does Christ actually do as mediator?
If god doesn't allow himself to be manipulated and remains constant then surely you should also believe that praying for something is an utter waste of time?
If god is/ isn't gonna do it then he isn't. Regardless of prayer. Or "mediation".

 

That pretty much sums it up. While we can hope that Bob from down the street is going to Heaven, any prayer that we ask him to make on our behalf has that little bit of uncertainty that maybe the Big Guy doesn't hold Bob in high regard. We're almost 99.9% positive that St. Francis of Assisi is right there next to Him.

At least, that's always been my interpretation. I'll admit I don't think I've ever looked it up in the Catechism.

Edit: Response to Dywyddyrr

That would be what faith is for. Honestly, I can't really say it any other way. It may not make sense, and there are certainly times when it seems as though He isn't listening, but I've always been told that G-d answers all prayers; sometimes the answer's just no. We believe that He will reward us for relying on Him. Someone else will almost certainly be able to answer better than that. Let's hope he shows up.

 

So god CAN change his mind and alter the "plan"? He is open to "manipulation"?

 

*shrugs*

As has been mentioned before, the Judeo-Christian deity can theoretically do anything.

Though I'm not sure if one could call it changing the "plan." That implies a linear view of action-consequence. Omniscience implies that G-d doesn't view things this way. However, as he is, theoretically, aware of both our potential actions and the consequences for these actions before they're made, it is possible that he has already chosen to reward certain actions if we choose to make them.

I don't even know if that made sense.

Let's say you're a child and you really want a motorbike, but your dad says you can't have one because you've been behaving badly. Now, being a just and loving father, he may have decided that he will reward you with the motorbike if you start behaving properly. In this case he has decided the consequences for both actions, but one of them is a reward for the "proper" action.

 

If you have placed this in God's Hands, then His timing will be just right for what He knows to be right for you. But that does not mean you'll agree with Him. In my experience with waiting on God, it was not until several years later that I realized His wisdom in making me wait so long...until that realization, I just could not understand and I suffered tremendously as a result. Had I simply trusted in God (and just done everything I could) I think I could have saved myself a great deal of stress.

Put your Faith in God, put your concerns in His Hands, do your part to make things happen to the best of your ability, and be patient for His answer...all the while understanding that His answer may not be the one you want.