|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 18, 2020 17:02:30 GMT
No, I meant that they disbelieved Him, regarding His Divinity. Right if he's not God, he's not divine correct? Angels are not God. Are they not divine?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 18, 2020 17:03:43 GMT
Right if he's not God, he's not divine correct? Angels are not God. Are they not divine? IDK. They have divine origins I guess. What makes them divine?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 18, 2020 17:06:08 GMT
Angels are not God. Are they not divine? IDK. They have divine origins I guess. What makes them divine? I would guess because the nature of their origin and the realm they occupy. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I would guess.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 18, 2020 17:07:46 GMT
IDK. They have divine origins I guess. What makes them divine? I would guess because the nature of their origin and the realm they occupy. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I would guess. If that's it, the JW's don't disagree with that and especially since they think Jesus was used by God to create the angels. I assume that clusium, being Catholic, is just talking about the trinity.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 18, 2020 17:12:46 GMT
I would guess because the nature of their origin and the realm they occupy. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I would guess. If that's it, the JW's don't disagree with that and especially since they think Jesus was used by God to create the angels. I assume that clusium, being Catholic, is just talking about the trinity. She's probably talking about the notion that Christ was "just a man." I gathered this when she mentioned Arianism, which is still regarded as heresy by Catholics. It was the type of Christianity practiced by the Germanic barbarians in the declining years of the Roman Empire, and Catholicism did not tolerate it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 18, 2020 17:43:08 GMT
All people want their views to be held by large numbers of others because of the safety in numbers principle. That is all people within a very small percent margin of error. There are usually those very few people who have rather unique perspectives. Some attempts to "proselytize" are less professional than others obviously. There are some things that should remain individual choices. Other things, like laws, need to be widely agreed upon. They will not function unless they are widely agreed upon. Because the majority has been obviously wrong in so many ways lately there is a group that believes it should abandon attempts to involve others in the process. They are obviously severely mentally retarded. They arrived at their opinions by blindly accepting them and have no idea how to convince anyone else of them. They just give up trying. So who made the "first" bad move? That is difficult to say. People who blindly accept what they believe is "science" are rather obviously caught blindly accepting things. People who blindly accept "religious" beliefs can be more difficult to pin down. It might take time to realize they have no skill persuading others. "Proselytizing" can be very unpopular because so many of the people who try it are not any good at it. What is needed is a more professional approach to the art of persuasion. Only by making serious mistakes is it likely many people will finally realize what is important to be widely agreed upon and what is not. ^ More stuffy than Willam F. Buckley Jr., but with far less intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 18, 2020 18:00:16 GMT
No, I meant that they disbelieved Him, regarding His Divinity. Right if he's not God, he's not divine correct? Correct. God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 18, 2020 19:12:36 GMT
Right if he's not God, he's not divine correct? Correct. God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Right, so they're just not trinitarians which makes sense considering what the Bible says.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 18, 2020 19:25:11 GMT
Correct. God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Right, so they're just not trinitarians which makes sense considering what the Bible says. Yes. God Is the Holy Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 Persons In the One Godhead.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 18, 2020 19:30:03 GMT
Right, so they're just not trinitarians which makes sense considering what the Bible says. Yes. God Is the Holy Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 Persons In the One Godhead. Yeah. You said that. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. There's no punishment for being confused about it as far as I can tell and no matter what Jesus is still the son of God.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 18, 2020 20:22:43 GMT
Yes. God Is the Holy Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 Persons In the One Godhead. Yeah. You said that. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. There's no punishment for being confused about it as far as I can tell and no matter what Jesus is still the son of God. You can say that regarding the dogmas or doctrines of almost any religion. There is no punishment for being confused about their belief in God.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 18, 2020 20:24:23 GMT
Yeah. You said that. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. There's no punishment for being confused about it as far as I can tell and no matter what Jesus is still the son of God. You can say that regarding the dogmas or doctrines of almost any religion. There is no punishment for being confused about their belief in God. So the "heresy" isn't that big of a deal.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 18, 2020 20:32:09 GMT
You can say that regarding the dogmas or doctrines of almost any religion. There is no punishment for being confused about their belief in God. So the "heresy" isn't that big of a deal. It's for God to Judge.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Sept 19, 2020 0:06:55 GMT
The most obvious answer would be their religion encourages it and it gets results. The better question is why more don’t do it. I know the answer to that one too. Word-on-the-street is that “encourages” is putting it mildly. It’s more like “browbeats” or “strong-arms”. However, I believe you missed the point of my question: Why is it necessary in the first place? If your religion is truly the greatest thing since sliced bread, proselytizing wouldn’t be needed. What results does it get? What benefit do YOU receive by converting someone to your religion? All you receive is an attaboy from your church leaders. Now they have one more sheep that they can control. What’s the cost of “it gets results”? One source claims that it takes upwards of six thousand man-hours for every convert. Is that really cost-effective? Where is your need to have someone believe as you do? You are trying to create an argumentum ad populum? OK, I’ll take the bait. Why don’t more (religions) do it?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 21, 2020 21:08:32 GMT
Short answer:
It makes them feel good about affirming their beliefs, whereas atheists don't give a shit!
|
|
|
Post by Geddy on Sept 21, 2020 21:20:08 GMT
Scientologists and JWs are not Christians.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 23, 2020 16:48:17 GMT
IDK. They have divine origins I guess. What makes them divine? I would guess because the nature of their origin and the realm they occupy. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I would guess. How many can one fit on the head of a pin again?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 23, 2020 17:56:03 GMT
I would guess because the nature of their origin and the realm they occupy. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I would guess. How many can one fit on the head of a pin again? I never heard an answer, nor did I ever understand the purpose of the question.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 23, 2020 18:43:02 GMT
How many can one fit on the head of a pin again? I never heard an answer, nor did I ever understand the purpose of the question. It is a reductio ad absurdum challenge to medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, but seemed appropriate here. Let's not forget that an angel dictated the Qu'ran to Muhammad in a cave and another directed Joseph Smith to his golden plates, so they obviously have their uses. Hey, but don't tell me: those other angels didn't really exist...
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 23, 2020 19:29:59 GMT
I never heard an answer, nor did I ever understand the purpose of the question. It is a reductio ad absurdum challenge to medieval scholasticism in general, and its angelology in particular, but seemed appropriate here. Let's not forget that an angel dictated the Qu'ran to Muhammad in a cave and another directed Joseph Smith to his golden plates, so they obviously have their uses. Hey, but don't tell me: those other angels didn't really exist... Okay.
|
|