DescentBB

ya know. I just noticed. in less than a year you have half as may posts as I do in the 12 years I've been a member of this board.

GET A LIFE

way too much time on hands with retirement....It WILL be fishing weather, soon.

Jeff250 wrote:The first two don't seem unique. For instance, if we took up the rule "most happiness for the most people" as our moral absolute, then that rule would 1) never change and 2) be self-consistent. In fact, your first attribute seems to be true whenever you take up anything as a moral absolute.

The third seems to already assume some moral principle like "if you create sentient beings, then you have the moral authority to make whatever moral rules you want for them," but where does that moral principle come from?

I don't doubt that God has the power to get me if I have different moral beliefs than him, but that doesn't make his beliefs correct. Why are God's moral beliefs (or character or nature) better than my moral beliefs, especially if his aren't based on anything?

That God's moral beliefs are unchanging--a lot of DBB'rs have unchanging beliefs, but that doesn't lend any credence to them.

That God is omniscient--that sounds very useful for correctly applying his a priori moral beliefs to any given situation, but as to determining whether those a priori moral beliefs are themselves correct, since they weren't even based on anything, I don't see where omniscience can play a role in justifying them.

I think the first is at least somewhat unique....

Taking your example - the substance of "most happiness for the most people" changes from day to day. The substance/character of God never has and never will change.

For the third: Yes, I am asserting a principle along those lines. It's what the Bible asserts... if we want to argue upon the basis of a Biblical God we're obligated to the rest of what the Bible has to say, too. If we're cherry picking and making the rest up, them we can make our hypothetical gods fit whatever mold we want.

Your next question comes back to my #3 (and my response to Foil's qualms) - morality isn't for God, it's for His creation. Why does it apply and fit? Because He made the universe that way. I don't think the analogy of the parent saying "because I said so" to the child follows. If I had to compare it to something earthly, maybe I'd think of it more along the lines of a computer algorithm... a programmer has the right to impose behavior rules upon a program, and judge it "defective" (in the analogy, defective due to creator error) when it doesn't do what he wanted. God made the universe to operate according to His moral code, and when it deviates it's certainly his prerogative to judge it and take corrective action. Thus, His prescription for for behavior for us is binding in a way that parent's rules for children can never be.

Do you really think that any single one of us has beliefs that have never changed whatsoever? As far as credence... see the design/creator argument.

I sat down and watched part of the debate. Snnnnnnnooooooore! The one thing that caught my attention between the 2 debaters before I dosed off was their emotional states during their presentations. The Theist, although technical and with a somewhat dry presentation, seemed to push his argument tinged with anger and irritation, like the people in front of him were questioning his convictions. The Secularist was less technical, more animated, and upbeat. In other words, he seemed happier and more confident to be presenting his side of the argument. You could see it in the audience's reactions too. So why do you suppose that was the case? I would think someone who was basing his moral arguments and possibly his own moral compass on the belief in a God, he would have been very passionate and upbeat about it. Instead, I got the impression he was fighting for his beliefs like they were a moral poison we should all be taking...........or else.

So going along with CUDA's earlier statement, if one believes in a punishing God for their morality, is that driven by obedience and unquestioning fear of God's reprisals and punishments, ie., going to Hell, if one doesn't follow His tenets to the letter? And if one believes in a loving God instead, is it one's conscience, not their fear, that gives them their morals to live by?

But after reading through this thread (sorry to have dropped out for a few days), I think Will Robinson has had the best point so far. I didn't know he had it in him.

Will Robinson wrote:I suppose that if you know God...actually hear him in your head or however that works... then you can attribute standards of morality to a divine source/judge/teacher. And it seems like it would make good sense to hold those standards above all else unless you want to challenge God.

But if you don't have him 'in your head' somehow then any thing "from God" really comes from the same source as a government or parental or philosophical source of moral standards. Man.

You can tell me to read the bible to 'know' gods standard of morality but all I really know is the bible was written by men and I have to take it on faith that they delivered the standards of god into the book. I don't have that much faith in men.

So going along with CUDA's earlier statement, if one believes in a punishing God for their morality, is that driven by obedience and unquestioning fear of God's reprisals and punishments, ie., going to Hell, if one doesn't follow His tenets to the letter? And if one believes in a loving God instead, is it one's conscience, not their fear, that gives them their morals to live by?

I know not this punishing god of which you speak.

What I do, I do from Love, how I follow, I follow out of Love, and by his example. I have no fear from My God.

snoopy wrote:I think the first is at least somewhat unique....

Taking your example - the substance of "most happiness for the most people" changes from day to day. The substance/character of God never has and never will change.

Sure, there, what is right or wrong is relative to the situation at hand, but that's true of all moral theories.

Even with your moral theory, whether your action will make someone happy versus make someone sad is a component in whether that action is moral, right?

snoopy wrote:For the third: Yes, I am asserting a principle along those lines. It's what the Bible asserts... if we want to argue upon the basis of a Biblical God we're obligated to the rest of what the Bible has to say, too. If we're cherry picking and making the rest up, them we can make our hypothetical gods fit whatever mold we want.

I'm willing to assume everything you would like me to about God up to but not including the question at hand. If you require me to assume that God can have one moral belief not based on anything for him to use as a bootstrap to legitimize the rest, then you might as well require me to just assume that all of his moral beliefs not based on anything are legitimate.

snoopy wrote:If I had to compare it to something earthly, maybe I'd think of it more along the lines of a computer algorithm... a programmer has the right to impose behavior rules upon a program, and judge it "defective" (in the analogy, defective due to creator error) when it doesn't do what he wanted. God made the universe to operate according to His moral code, and when it deviates it's certainly his prerogative to judge it and take corrective action. Thus, His prescription for for behavior for us is binding in a way that parent's rules for children can never be.

If that program is sentient, then no, I don't have the right to terminate it according to my fancy. For instance, Data is not the property of Starfleet.

CUDA wrote:

So going along with CUDA's earlier statement, if one believes in a punishing God for their morality, is that driven by obedience and unquestioning fear of God's reprisals and punishments, ie., going to Hell, if one doesn't follow His tenets to the letter? And if one believes in a loving God instead, is it one's conscience, not their fear, that gives them their morals to live by?

I know not this punishing god of which you speak.

What I do, I do from Love, how I follow, I follow out of Love, and by his example. I have no fear from My God.

The Old Testament is chock full of a punishing God. The Hebrews still believe it. So which is he now? Did he suddenly get a dose of nicey nicey because his "children" got tired of all that nastiness?

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

So going along with CUDA's earlier statement, if one believes in a punishing God for their morality, is that driven by obedience and unquestioning fear of God's reprisals and punishments, ie., going to Hell, if one doesn't follow His tenets to the letter? And if one believes in a loving God instead, is it one's conscience, not their fear, that gives them their morals to live by?

I know not this punishing god of which you speak.

What I do, I do from Love, how I follow, I follow out of Love, and by his example. I have no fear from My God.

The Old Testament is chock full of a punishing God. The Hebrews still believe it. So which is he now? Did he suddenly get a dose of nicey nicey because his "children" got tired of all that nastiness?

John 14

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. .

so I just answered both of your questions with one scripture. I showed you who God is. and you have said in the past you like who Jesus is. and I also showed you why we follow

snoopy wrote:Your next question comes back to my #3 (and my response to Foil's qualms) - morality isn't for God, it's for His creation. Why does it apply and fit? Because He made the universe that way. I don't think the analogy of the parent saying "because I said so" to the child follows. If I had to compare it to something earthly, maybe I'd think of it more along the lines of a computer algorithm... a programmer has the right to impose behavior rules upon a program, and judge it "defective" (in the analogy, defective due to creator error) when it doesn't do what he wanted. God made the universe to operate according to His moral code, and when it deviates it's certainly his prerogative to judge it and take corrective action. Thus, His prescription for for behavior for us is binding in a way that parent's rules for children can never be.

That's an interesting question, and related to one I've struggled with myself. Let's take your computer program example, and extend it to the likely future, where someone has managed to create a fully-functional, human-level artificial intelligence. Make it able to pass the Turing test, capable of experiencing abstract thoughts and emotions, essentially indistinguishable from the human intelligence we recognize in one another. In a situation like that, does our status as that entity's creator entitle us to take "corrective action" against it, up to and including deleting it? Or would doing that just make us royal assholes? It's hardly a question I came up with myself, since it's been the subject of who knows how much sci-fi, but I think you can use it as an analogy to our relationship with God. Does God's status as Creator automatically imply that he possesses supreme rights over us...or should we as independent, sentient beings maintain those rights ourselves? It's something to think about.

(Heh, and I totally missed that part of Jeff's response. Whoops. )

Even if we're going to back up a step and use the parent-child analogy, remember that eventually, every parent winds up letting go of his or her children, allowing them to face the world on their own, and accept their own responsibilities and consequences. It's impossible for the child to truly grow into adulthood without that.

Does a free Republic require morality?

flip wrote:Does a free Republic require morality?

all civilized societies(including Republics) require a certain amount of shared morality. Nothing absolute, but a set of commonly agreed upon morals that can be seen as a minimal baseline, IMO.

I think without absolutes you cannot maintain a free and civilized society, As someone else said earlier, in some cultures, cannibalism is considered moral. How do you reach a high standard of morals and then maintain that standard without absolutes?

flip wrote:I think without absolutes you cannot maintain a free and civilized society, As someone else said earlier, in some cultures, cannibalism is considered moral. How do you reach a high standard of morals and then maintain that standard without absolutes?

well, I suppose, my use of the word 'absolutes' was a bad choice. What I meant was there were no specific mores that HAD to be accepted. But, there has to a be a core of morals that the society, as a whole, agrees to accept as given.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

So going along with CUDA's earlier statement, if one believes in a punishing God for their morality, is that driven by obedience and unquestioning fear of God's reprisals and punishments, ie., going to Hell, if one doesn't follow His tenets to the letter? And if one believes in a loving God instead, is it one's conscience, not their fear, that gives them their morals to live by?

I know not this punishing god of which you speak.

What I do, I do from Love, how I follow, I follow out of Love, and by his example. I have no fear from My God.

The Old Testament is chock full of a punishing God. The Hebrews still believe it. So which is he now? Did he suddenly get a dose of nicey nicey because his "children" got tired of all that nastiness?

John 14

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. .

so I just answered both of your questions with one scripture. I showed you who God is. and you have said in the past you like who Jesus is. and I also showed you why we follow

You're still post Jesus with all your examples. I'm talking about a pre-Jesus God and all He did before that event. Did having a "Son" make God change? And can an omniscient being even change his temperament, or morals. And since the Jews don't follow Jesus, but instead the ways of the Old Testament, are they more immoral than those who follow Jesus?

Shakespeare in Hamlet wrote:Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so....

This is what laws are all about. Laws don't require that you agree with them, but you still have to follow them. (This is also why a free society should have as few laws as possible to keep people from harming each other.)

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:I think without absolutes you cannot maintain a free and civilized society, As someone else said earlier, in some cultures, cannibalism is considered moral. How do you reach a high standard of morals and then maintain that standard without absolutes?

well, I suppose, my use of the word 'absolutes' was a bad choice. What I meant was there were no specific mores that HAD to be accepted. But, there has to a be a core of morals that the society, as a whole, agrees to accept as given.

Would you accept then that the Bill of Right's is an absolute minimum set of morals for a free society?

@TC The Bible actually states that the first thing God did was have a Son

Jeff250 wrote:This is what laws are all about. Laws don't require that you agree with them, but you still have to follow them. (This is also why a free society should have as few laws as possible to keep people from harming each other.)

But when do one person's freedoms infringe upon another person's? How many laws are needed in a free society? I live in a college town. The drunken partying has gotten so out of hand that the poor neighbors of these students are telling the city and the university that conditions are intolerable and that they HAVE to find ways to crack down on the problem. But the students don't SEE any problem with their fun and think partying is an adolescent right of passage. Who's in the right? The neighbors who need to sleep and not have to worry about drunk students peeing in their yards, or the students who think that they have the right to have some fun and that the neighbors are just making a mountain out of a molehill?

flip wrote:@TC The Bible actually states that the first thing God did was have a Son

But wasn't that much later, long after most of the history in the Old Testament? I thought the first thing God did was create the heavens and the Earth, then the plants and animals, then Adam, then Eve. Jesus came loooooong after Moses and Abraham and a lot of nasty history where God threw a lot of fits over the machinations of his flock.

tunnelcat wrote:But when do one person's freedoms infringe upon another person's? How many laws are needed in a free society? I live in a college town. The drunken partying has gotten so out of hand that the poor neighbors of these students are telling the city and the university that conditions are intolerable and that they HAVE to find ways to crack down on the problem. But the students don't SEE any problem with their fun and think partying is an adolescent right of passage. Who's in the right? The neighbors who need to sleep and not have to worry about drunk students peeing in their yards, or the students who think that they have the right to have some fun and that the neighbors are just making a mountain out of a molehill?

I agree with your sentiment that it's not always clear cut where we should draw the line. Here though, I would say that being too loud and peeing in other people's yards definitely infringes on others' rights, and I suspect that these things are already illegal where you live, but perhaps those laws aren't being sufficiently enforced.

Jeff250 wrote:... but perhaps those laws aren't being sufficiently enforced.

Bingo! We have a winner. No new laws needed, just enforce the ones we have. Now go apply that to other issues!

By the way, find the yellow bush that gets pee'd on often and wind a short section of electric cattle fence through it and leave it energized....you only pee on one of those things once.

I think the Mythbusters didn't have too much success in duplicating the "peeing on the third rail" myth, but hell, it's definitely worth another shot.

But wasn't that much later, long after most of the history in the Old Testament? I thought the first thing God did was create the heavens and the Earth, then the plants and animals, then Adam, then Eve. Jesus came loooooong after Moses and Abraham and a lot of nasty history where God threw a lot of fits over the machinations of his flock.

A common misconception among all but the self-taught. The Bible actually states that the firstborn of creation was Christ through whom and with whom God made the Universe. Hence the "let us" in Genesis. I liken it to mitosis. The bible states that Christ was the physical manifestation of an invisible God throughout the Old Testament and lastly inherited the name Jesus and sat down on the throne of God, with God's full authority. After the end of everything, Jesus relinquishes that authority back to God the Father and all believers inherit equality with Jesus. It's also why I don't believe in the Trinity Doctrine. There's only 2 of them. Father and Son. One in body and one in Spirit.

EDIT:Self-taught is not really that accurate , I had the fortune of no clutter when I started reading the Bible, so I had no pre-notions of what it meant. I was taught by God through His word.

Top Gun wrote:I think the Mythbusters didn't have too much success in duplicating the "peeing on the third rail" myth, but hell, it's definitely worth another shot.

If you looked at a urine stream with a strobe light you would know why.

Yeah, it's not exactly very cohesive. Though if you drink enough booze and have to let loose like a horse...

flip wrote:Would you accept then that the Bill of Right's is an absolute minimum set of morals for a free society?

no, freedom doesn't imply morals, they might be seen as a set of guiding principles, but not morals. What is moral about a right to bear arms? Or, freedom of assembly? No, in my sense of the words, morals and principles are two different things. Morals more apply to how an individual conducts himsellf within society. The Bill of Rights is an example of how society agrees to treat individuals......see the difference?

flip wrote:

But wasn't that much later, long after most of the history in the Old Testament? I thought the first thing God did was create the heavens and the Earth, then the plants and animals, then Adam, then Eve. Jesus came loooooong after Moses and Abraham and a lot of nasty history where God threw a lot of fits over the machinations of his flock.

A common misconception among all but the self-taught. The Bible actually states that the firstborn of creation was Christ through whom and with whom God made the Universe. Hence the "let us" in Genesis. I liken it to mitosis. The bible states that Christ was the physical manifestation of an invisible God throughout the Old Testament and lastly inherited the name Jesus and sat down on the throne of God, with God's full authority. After the end of everything, Jesus relinquishes that authority back to God the Father and all believers inherit equality with Jesus. It's also why I don't believe in the Trinity Doctrine. There's only 2 of them. Father and Son. One in body and one in Spirit.

EDIT:Self-taught is not really that accurate , I had the fortune of no clutter when I started reading the Bible, so I had no pre-notions of what it meant. I was taught by God through His word.

your theology is a bit wrong. I wont disagree with the We in Genesis, but there is a Trinity in the Bible it's talked about many times and explained as individuals

Christ wrote:All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].

sorry for the cut and paste. it's much easier this way


Is the Holy Spirit a Distinct Person Apart from the Father and the Son?


Is the Holy Spirit just an essence, or power, or mind, or is He a real Person and Being? If the Bible proves that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Person other than the Father and the Son, then it gives a great amount of weight to the possibility that the Holy Spirit can also be a God along with the Father and the Son. So does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit is a Person?

What is a person?
“Any human being considered as a distinct entity or personality; an individual.” Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary.

And what is personality?
“Distinctive qualities or characteristics of a person....That which constitutes a person; personal existence.” Fund and Wagnall’s Dictionary.

So a person is one that has a personality whose distinctive qualities shows them to be an entity which differs from other beings. Now what would be some distinctive qualities or characteristics that would prove one to be a person or being? If they have a mind, can think for themselves, and can make decisions. If they can act for themselves; if they can speak for themselves; etc. All these things would clearly reveal their distinctive qualities which shows that they have their own personality and thus distinguishes them to be a person and being. And the same for the Holy Spirit!
Now there is no Bible text which plainly states in these words: “The Holy Spirit is a person”, but neither are there texts which state plainly state in this words: “The Father is a person”. Yet we can clearly see that the Bible declares that the Father can think, decide, act, and can speak for Himself. Thus we know that the Father has a distinct personality all his own and that He must indeed be a Person and Being. So if the Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit can think, decide, act and speak for Himself, then this would prove that He has a distinct personality all his own, and that the Holy Spirit must indeed be a Person and Being other than the Father and the Son.


Can the Holy Spirit Think for Itself and Make its Own Decisions?

--The Holy Spirit has a mind (see Romans 8:27).
--The Holy Spirit helped to settle questions during the Church Council at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:28).
--The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to different individuals according as He wills (see 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit forbade some from going to preach in certain places (see Acts 16:6-7).

So we can see that the Holy Spirit has a mind, can think for Itself and can make Its own decisions. But can the Holy Spirit act for Itself?


Can the Holy Spirit Act for Itself?

--The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus and sent Him out to preach the gospel (see Luke 4:18-19); In fact, both
the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus (see Isaiah 48:16).
--The Holy Spirit testifies or witnesses of Jesus (see John 15:26).
--The Holy Spirit leads God’s people (see Romans 8:14).
--The Holy Spirit teaches and causes us to remember the truth (John 14:26).
--The Holy Spirit comforts us as does Christ (John 14:16).
--The Holy Spirit strives with us (see Genesis 6:3).
--The Holy Spirit reproves us of sin, righteousness, and judgment (see John 16:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit instructs us (see Nehemiah 9:20).

So we can see that the Holy Spirit can act for Itself, and can bear Its own witness. But can the Holy Spirit speak for Itself?


Can the Holy Spirit Speak for Itself?

--The Holy Spirit speaks, guides, hears and shows (John 16:13-15).
--The Holy Spirit speaks, chooses, calls and sends forth (see Acts 13:1-4).
--The Holy Spirit gives messages to prophets and they declare: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” (see Acts
21:11).

So we can see that the Holy Spirit can indeed speak for Itself. Besides this, He can hear, He can guide, show, choose, calls and sends forth others. Now what other characteristics does the Bible reveal about the Holy Spirit which shows it to be a Person and Being other than God–the Father and God–the Son?
--The Holy Spirit has knowledge, and searches all things (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
--The Holy Spirit sanctifies us (see Romans 15:16).
--The Holy Spirit holds communion with us (see 2 Corinthians 13:14); and so does Christ (see 1
Corinthians 1:9).
--The Holy Spirit is the source of regeneration and renewal for salvation (see John 3:5-8; Titus 3:5).
--The Holy Spirit resurrects the faithful from the dead (see Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18).
--The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible and moved upon the prophets to speak (see 2 Peter 1:21).
--The Holy Spirit is another Comforter other than Christ (see John 14:16).
--The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities (see Romans 8:26).
--The Holy Spirit can be tempted and lied to (see Acts 5:3, 9).
–The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and sinned against (see Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10; Matthew 12:31).
--The Holy Spirit is another Intercessor other than Christ (see Romans 8:26); The Spirit intercedes for us
through prayer, while Christ intercedes for us through His precious blood, merits and righteousness.

wow, CUDA.......my Dad is under the weather today, so I won't be driving over to take him to Church this morning. I think you saved me a trip on my own behalf, as I just read more scripture than I have in a while.

tunnelcat wrote:You're still post Jesus with all your examples. I'm talking about a pre-Jesus God and all He did before that event. Did having a "Son" make God change? And can an omniscient being even change his temperament, or morals. And since the Jews don't follow Jesus, but instead the ways of the Old Testament, are they more immoral than those who follow Jesus?

there is no pre-Jesus or post-Jesus God, they are one in the same. and unchanging. you can believe what you wish but you'd be wrong. the Bible is explicitly clear about the nature of God and that nature and his attributes are revealed in the life of Christ.

callmeslick wrote:wow, CUDA.......my Dad is under the weather today, so I won't be driving over to take him to Church this morning. I think you saved me a trip on my own behalf, as I just read more scripture than I have in a while.

LOL

Timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It also says that no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, so is the Father somehow mindless? It also says that God is a Spirit and those that worship must worship in spirit and in truth. Jesus said he spoke figuratively about the Father but one day he would speak plainly.

You know, in the Bible, God says that to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob He revealed Himself as God almighty, but not as the LORD. To Moses, He reveals Himself as the LORD. In Jesus, the heart and mind of the Father is revealed, but by the Spirit, God is fully revealed. That's why no blasphemy against the Spirit will be forgiven, because the Holy Spirit is God fully revealed. I realize these things are hard to understand, but the notion about the Trinity actually is because an addition was made to the King James translation that does not belong there. When I realized that, a cohesiveness developed from scripture that I had not seen before. I realized exactly who Jesus was and exactly what my inheritance would be.

we can debate this when I get back. Time to Go to Church.
I run sound and I'll be gone until 8PM tonight so it will have to wait until tomorrow. I can address the issues of the 3 as individuals and the 3 as one.

Heh, good luck with that, but in light of some scriptures, it will soundly fall It doesn;t even make sense Cuda and I have studied the Bible for about 37 years now.

EDIT: I'm perfectly willing to debate this on a few conditions. First, it must remain an intellectual and open debate, but I am confident of that with you. Secondly, it cannot be a bumrush of scripture, we will take our time and third we must agree that this verse does not belong:

1 John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

But accurately should read like this:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The first is an addition by the King James translators and is in no other translation. If we can agree that does not belong there, as it is not in the original text. I feel we can have an honest discussion, if not there is no use in proceeding.

There's alot of things I don't fully understand
that's OK all I can do is listen to and trust what is written
and FYI if it's not in the original Hebrew then it's not a correct translation, I prefer the NIV and the NASB

on my phone in-between sets at practice

Also, Since TC asked the question, I think it would be a good idea to clearly identify Jesus first before we move on. I think that's the best way to begin, identifying Him as the Word and all His appearances in the Old Testament.

EDIT: I understand that Cuda. My intention is to show you some things I have learned recently and how after many years I have been truly born again. I want you to understand exactly who Jesus is.

I feel I should tell the ending first:

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I want you to notice here that a clear distinction is made between God and the Christ and that although at present the Christ acts with the full authority of God, seated on God's throne, in the future He lowers and subordinates Himself again. On this basis here:

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

How just as woman was pulled from the side of man, Christ was pulled from the side of God.

In between service's

I need clarification on your position
who is God?
who is Jesus on earth?
what is the holy spirit?

I'm getting to that. Do you understand what I have written so far?

I'm going to try and address TC's question now as to where Jesus is found in the Old Testament. What you have to realize is that Jesus is The Christ and The Word.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

What this all means is that in the very beginning, before God did anything else, He made someone just like Himself to physically represent Him. The Bible declares that at no time hs any man ever seen God, for God is A Spirit, but Christ has always been His physical representation in a physical world.
So, when Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM." It is the exact truth. He was the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, the pillar of fire. Everywhere that you see God in the Bible, it was Christ who represented Him, with many different names, but the same Christ. If this makes sense, I can go further to explain what it meant "He inherited the name of Jesus"

flip wrote:I feel I should tell the ending first:

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I want you to notice here that a clear distinction is made between God and the Christ and that although at present the Christ acts with the full authority of God, seated on God's throne, in the future He lowers and subordinates Himself again. On this basis here:

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

How just as woman was pulled from the side of man, Christ was pulled from the side of God.

I agree with the premise, but I'm not sure I agree with the analogy, it seems to be a linear type of thinking. in human terms. but proceed.

Well, the answer goes hand in hand with my response to TC. All through the Bible, Christ is present as the physical manifestation of God. He has existed all along but not equal to the Father. Lastly, the Christ became human:

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God

He sat in the garden and begged God to find another way but still went in obedience to the cross. Then, He inherited the name Jesus and sat down at the right hand of the Father and now holds the full authority of God. In the future He steps back down and submits Himself under God again. Also, the analogy is not mine, it is Pauls straight out of Ephesians . Paul was setting an order of authority. Although Jesus has the full authority of God, He is still under the God who gave Him that authority.

EDIT: The analogy also goes towards the mystery of marriage that Paul was talking about, but I'm not sure we should get into that at this point. Suffice it to say that marriage is the combining of 2 into 1 flesh, which is exactly what happened when Jesus was resurrected. He became God in the flesh.

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

There is only 2 of them. The son and the Father. One in body, one in Spirit, but in the future at the end of all things, Jesus steps down again and God will be above all.

please do me a favor and quote the verse. IE James, John and so forth