• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses

devildavid said:
No, it means that royalty like God might be quoted using the royal we in this fictional tale.
Click to expand...

I see. So, if the tale is fictional, why would the people who wrote it use "us" and "our". That hardly seems likely when referring to the one true and everlasting God, does it? Especially over a thousand years before Christ and the NT. No, you're going to have to do much better.
 
gfm7175 said:
I'm with you on all of that for the most part, but it doesn't convince me out of my trinitarian views. The end of John chapter 8 has Jesus making the claim that that he is "I AM". Revelation chapter 21 has Jesus claiming that he is the "Alpha and Omega". John 10:30 has Jesus claiming that "I and my Father are one."

Just like God the Father claimed in the book of Exodus that he is "I AM", Jesus claimed in the book of John that he is also "I AM".

That leads me to believe that God the Father and Jesus are two separate "persons", but are the same exact "mind", thus one God.
Click to expand...

That's what I believe, too...they are in complete union with one another...John 10:25,30,37,38;17:20-23

I do not believe the holy spirit is a person, though...it is God's active force...Gen. 1:2; 2 Sam. 23:2; John 14:26; 15:26; 1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:21

The Bible tells of being baptized, which actually means being dipped in or immersed in water, with fire and with the holy spirit...how could the 120 persons at Pentecost be baptized with a person...Acts 1:5; 2:1-4


The world cannot obtain that Spirit, because it does not see it or recognize it; you recognize it because it stays with you and is within you”...John 14:16, 17; Acts 2:33

Neither Stephen nor John saw any “Holy Ghost” in their visions of heaven...Acts 7:55; Rev. 5:1-6
 
Dragonfly said:
Gotta love it when people try to assert truth (facts) and lies while ONLY using a source that's completely unproven and highly subjective.
Click to expand...

Um TTP also used the Bible as his source so it's only proper we use the Bible as the same source to show him he's wrong...gotta love it when some people don't use their noggin...:roll:
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
You're assuming god is real, without knowing god is real.

See how that works.
Click to expand...

I see how that works, but I know God to be real because I have immediately experienced and known God as a part of my life (which is a "properly basic belief" just like the "reality of the past", the "existence of the external world", and the "presence of other minds such as my own" are all properly basic beliefs that can't be proven, but yet we accept them as true).

Other things which are much more probable than not, such as the apparent intricate design of our universe, very strongly suggest that there is a transcendent "intelligent mind" overseeing everything.
 
Dragonfly said:
lr.jpg
Click to expand...
TV's Dangerous Diva of Debunkum​
 
devildavid said:
The character of Jesus does not exist in any old testament fictional writings. A new testament writing is not evidence of what characters actually appear in the Old testament.
Click to expand...

Yes he does, and yes it is. The NT is part of the Bible just like the OT is, and they both are quite connected to each other.
 
devildavid said:
Your first quote would be a dual God.

Your second quote means that God is very holy, so we repeat the word for emphasis. But keep trying.
Click to expand...

False on both accounts. I would highly suggest gaining knowledge of biblical matters before arguing against them.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes he does, and yes it is. The NT is part of the Bible just like the OT is, and they both are quite connected to each other.
Click to expand...

He is proven wrong time and time again but he still posts his "drivel"...lol...
 
Elvira said:
That's what I believe, too...they are in complete union with one another...John 10:25,30,37,38;17:20-23

I do not believe the holy spirit is a person, though...it is God's active force...Gen. 1:2; 2 Sam. 23:2; John 14:26; 15:26; 1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:21

The Bible tells of being baptized, which actually means being dipped in or immersed in water, with fire and with the holy spirit...how could the 120 persons at Pentecost be baptized with a person...Acts 1:5; 2:1-4


The world cannot obtain that Spirit, because it does not see it or recognize it; you recognize it because it stays with you and is within you”...John 14:16, 17; Acts 2:33

Neither Stephen nor John saw any “Holy Ghost” in their visions of heaven...Acts 7:55; Rev. 5:1-6
Click to expand...

Gotcha! :)
 
gfm7175 said:
I would think so.


Don't blame you. It's very "mind boggling", even for a believer such as myself. But yes, the trinity was always there, since the trinity and God are one of the same (different words for the same thing).

I wouldn't even know how to conceptually explain it... maybe a bad example would be that it's like three separate entities who are all directly connected via bluetooth?! :)

It's tricky stuff, but what it asserts is:
The Father is NOT the Son, and vice versa.
The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit, and vice versa.
The Son is NOT the Holy Spirit, and vice versa.
Yet, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "God".

Three separate "entities" who are all part of the same "mind" (God).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer, as always.

I do understand that much.

What I was asking about is back at the origin when there was only God. At that time, was God a trinity? If so, that means everything was set up with a sacrifice at the ready. That doesn't make sense if you consider that the need for a sacrifice didn't exist yet. That required Lucifer to be created, for him and the others to rebel, for Adam/Eve to make the wrong choice, and for a few thousand years of humanity.

There's also Matt. 27:46. There Jesus addresses God as a different being. One could explain that part by the fact that, at that time, the father and son were separate. However, Jesus is still God, and he would have to have known God's will. God's plan and will were the answer to the question Jesus asked there, correct?
 
Elvira said:
He is proven wrong time and time again but he still posts his "drivel"...lol...
Click to expand...

He must get enjoyment out of it I guess... Much of Proverbs 26 (among many other scriptures) perfectly describe his mentality.
 
gfm7175 said:
While I generally agree with Elvira, I haven't been able to agree with her on her non-trinitarian views.

I guess my question, if the "trinitarian" concept of God is false, is why was Jesus born of a virgin? What would be the purpose of his virgin birth, his miracles, and his preaching (from a position of full knowledge and authority) if he was solely a human? How could he even preach from a position of full knowledge and authority if he was solely a human?

And, most importantly, how could Jesus have lived an absolutely perfect (sinless) life in the eyes of God the Father (Jehovah) if he was solely a human like you and I? It would take an insurmountable amount of belief in chance to believe that one "solely human" person out of numerous billions happened to live an absolutely perfect sinless lifestyle, and that belief would also contradict Romans 3:23).

It makes more sense to me that Jesus, while being 100% physically human, was also 100% spiritually "God" in "mind". That would fully explain the "how and why" behind both his virgin birth and the purpose behind his earthly life (God is the father, Mary is the mother -- which makes him God in "mind" and Man in "flesh"). That would also allow him to live a sinless life according to God's (his own) will. It would allow him to "redeem" our human race from the bondage of death (since he was a human), and allow us to be "holy" in the eyes of God the Father (through Jesus Christ and his selfless crucifixion in our place).

I've thought quite a bit about the different sides of this issue, and while the "trinitarian" concept is more complicated to understand the inner workings thereof, it seems to make much more sense when reviewing the Bible story of "creation > fall > redemption > restoration" as a whole.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that unless you are willing to say it's okay that Jesus =/= God, you need the trinity or some similar construct. I haven't seen the trinity mentioned directly anywhere in the Bible, but maybe I'm wrong. Seems the trinity was extrapolated, not directly referred to. I do know that God is referred to using words indicating more than one (we, us), the reference to 3 is something I haven't seen.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Thanks for the answer, as always.

I do understand that much.
Click to expand...
Anytime! I do love discussion with people who are genuinely interested in understanding religious matters, even though they may not themselves practice it, understand it, or agree with it.

<alt>doxygen said:
What I was asking about is back at the origin when there was only God. At that time, was God a trinity? If so, that means everything was set up with a sacrifice at the ready. That doesn't make sense if you consider that the need for a sacrifice didn't exist yet. That required Lucifer to be created, for him and the others to rebel, for Adam/Eve to make the wrong choice, and for a few thousand years of humanity.
Click to expand...
To answer your first question, assuming the position (which I hold) that God is in fact triune, my answer would be yes. God has never changed in "triune-ness" because his nature doesn't change.

To answer your second question, while I believe that I understand your train of thought, I don't think it creates any logical issues. A believer in the trinity believes that all three entities were involved with the creation of the universe. Right there, all three entities have their own specific purposes (or duties, or whatever other similar word you wish to use) since the very moment that God's relation with time changes. In fact, God already had those purposes (and all future purposes) since God's state of timelessness. God also had omniscience as one of his qualities during his state of timelessness (prior to the creation of the universe), so before he even created the universe, he already knew that sacrificing a human incarnation of himself would be necessary to save mankind from their sin. Hopefully that clarifies that issue a bit more.

<alt>doxygen said:
There's also Matt. 27:46. There Jesus addresses God as a different being. One could explain that part by the fact that, at that time, the father and son were separate. However, Jesus is still God, and he would have to have known God's will. God's plan and will were the answer to the question Jesus asked there, correct?
Click to expand...
Correct. But I think what would be helpful for this passage to make more sense is if you understood the context of exactly what was happening at this precise moment mentioned in Matt. 27:46 ... Jesus, at that moment, was experiencing the abandonment and despair that resulted from the outpouring of divine wrath on Him as a "bearer of sin" (all of our sins). At this precise moment during Jesus' crucifixion, when Jesus took on the sin of the whole world, God turned himself away from Jesus. God cannot look upon sin that is not covered by "the blood of the lamb". God is pure and would burn all sinful things up. This very moment would have been the part of the crucifixion process that Jesus had dreaded the most. Jesus was not as afraid of the pain of the flesh as he was of the pain of his heart that he would feel at the very moment that the Father would completely turn away from him.

Does this make sense of that passage?

Thanks for the questions Kind Sir.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It seems to me that unless you are willing to say it's okay that Jesus =/= God, you need the trinity or some similar construct. I haven't seen the trinity mentioned directly anywhere in the Bible, but maybe I'm wrong. Seems the trinity was extrapolated, not directly referred to. I do know that God is referred to using words indicating more than one (we, us), the reference to 3 is something I haven't seen.
Click to expand...

I would say that the trinity idea is in the Bible... For example, Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV) says: 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Also, 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NIV) states: "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

Also, 1 Peter 1:1-2 (NIV) states: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Apparently Romans 14:17-18; 15:16; 1 Corinthians 2:2-5; 6:11; 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8; 1Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and Titus 3:4-6 all make this type of thing clearer also, but I currently don't have the time to re-read all of those passages to verify. That's not even using the debated 1 John 5:7-8 verse.

I would assume that Elvira holds a different view, and she could clarify her view for you concerning these verses, but trinitarians believe that these verses show that God is a triune being.
 
veritas1 said:
I see. So, if the tale is fictional, why would the people who wrote it use "us" and "our". That hardly seems likely when referring to the one true and everlasting God, does it? Especially over a thousand years before Christ and the NT. No, you're going to have to do much better.
Click to expand...

Because that's how they wrote the fictional story. That isn't hard to understand. When you make up a fictional character, you give them fictional dialog.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes he does, and yes it is. The NT is part of the Bible just like the OT is, and they both are quite connected to each other.
Click to expand...

No they are not. The old testament has nothing at all to do with the new testament and can stand on its own. The only connection is that the writers of the new testament were Jews, and were well aware of the old testament.
 
gfm7175 said:
False on both accounts. I would highly suggest gaining knowledge of biblical matters before arguing against them.
Click to expand...

God plus the spirit equals two entities at most, but is more likely metaphorical. The other is just plain nonsense. Saying holy three times does not mean one is addressing a triune god.
 
gfm7175 said:
While I generally agree with Elvira, I haven't been able to agree with her on her non-trinitarian views.
Click to expand...

Which is something I find quite amusing considering JW's view the belief of the trinity as unscriptural and Elvira literally considers you as part of false religion/Christendom. Elvira literally said in a post in the last few days that any religion not teaching the bible correctly is part of false religion. Yet the two of you constantly back each other up in your debates against atheists. Quite amusing!!
 
veritas1 said:
Man does what he does because he is sinful. Wars and the like are man's doing, not God's. God is letting man have it his way for now and man is showing that he has no idea what he is doing. It will not always be this way.


Oh, and a little punctuation couldn't hurt you.
Click to expand...

when you say the god can do whatever it wants because you think that will benefit you you only against war because you believe thats the line you need to toe

when you think all the victims of war deserve to be tortured forever ( or just killed if they wont acknowledge god as god let not leave out the jehovah witnesses) if they don't believe in your god

when you think people that only hurt others only deserve punishment because they dont have your gods permission to hurt others

your monster to anyone who cares about other people

a god that hurts people forever or kills them because he doesn't like how they act is worse then any human

mass murderers at least cant will space and resources and absolute security for themselves into being

you cant hurt an all powerful being you cant wrong an all powerful being if you want forgiveness for what you believe you have done wrong you should seek it from your victims not a god
 
Barny said:
Which is something I find quite amusing considering JW's view the belief of the trinity as unscriptural and Elvira literally considers you as part of false religion/Christendom. Elvira literally said in a post in the last few days that any religion not teaching the bible correctly is part of false religion. Yet the two of you constantly back each other up in your debates against atheists. Quite amusing!!
Click to expand...

Further to what I said above...

You're either deceived by Satan or you're not, JW's like to say you can't sit on the fence. According to JW belief, a worshiper of false religion has been deceived by Satan. An atheist has been deceived by Satan. I'm not aware of there being a more acceptable level of being deceived by Satan. As far as I was aware being deceived by Satan into following false religion is on the same level as being deceived by Satan into believing there is no God!!! Why Eviera as a JW (not personal) sides with worshipers of false religion, liking their posts and yoking with them in debating with atheists is a complete mystery to me!!! A mystery but amusing none the less!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom