A website w/info about concept of trinity

Bmzsp:  Mauri, are you going to quote me the example of egg, later?  I mean the white, the yolk and the shell all in one, so distinct yet one in an egg-shell. Was that a prelude to this?

No.  If you cannot conceive the oneness of the same substance, when it remains unchanged, it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to understand how different substances can be a unit. 

It would be like trying to explain the equivalency of a nickel and five pennies to someone who could not yet see that a dime received from a cashier is equivalent to a dime received from a vending machine.

But, if I were so foolish as to try, it would not surprise me (based upon what has just transpired) if Angel �proved� my error by explaining how, in reality, she would have looked for the three nickels she lost in the grass.  You, no doubt, would agree with her.  So, no, you do not have to endure hearing again the example of how pennies, nickels, dimes and even quarters can be the same as having a dollar.

I could endure the labor of explaining at length my perception and being ignored.  I could, at least, hope that you might consider what I had said and be able to respond one way or another, later.  I was willing to wait.  I was even willing to wait for you to decide what you would say about what you believe.

However, if you are so predisposed to condemning me that you will accept a corruption of what I say in lieu of what I have actually said, such hope is in vain.  No one can dispute that, if oranges are accepted as the fruit of the tree, then, it cannot be an apple tree.

I do not condemn you.  If you cannot distinguish between apples and oranges, then you cannot be expected to distinguish between an apple tree and an orange tree.  Whether you really are or just choose  to be deaf to my words, the volume of my speaking will make no difference.  Whether you are really blind or simply refuse to open your eyes, it will make no difference how closely I bring the picture.  If I attempted to pry your eyes open forcefully, you would only roll them back to avoid seeing.

So, I must simply bid you adieu. 

I came in peace, and I leave in peace.  I have offered no offense and done my best to avoid the appearance of such.  If you choose to see offense in me, it is my duty to remove myself lest I be found guilty of fostering that choice. 

God speed.

Mauri, i had almost finished replying when my computer started to play up and lost it. For now: you have misunderstood much of what i said and you have twisted things around. A new reply will have to wait.

Also i did grasp your analogy & scenerio and i know exactly what you are attempting to do or at least trying do, to explain trinity.

And i did not condemn you for going off track, you missed the point.

Lastly, i did see you/were addressing the child and the other kids for which i did address rather short.

The rest later its 4am need some sleep.

Hi back now after some sleep and food

Mauri wrote: Angel:  mauri, you went off track after the question what would you do, I don't think it happens that way, infact i don't recall it happening at all.   You cannot be expected to relate to something without first seeing it, much less recall it ever happening.  You have found error in my reasoning.  Let�s examine yours.

Perhaps normally I would agree with you but in this instance, you did go off track as to what would you do. Perhaps my fault of not explaining fully. What would you do, your mention of: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?� Your what would you do is far too complex and complicated for kids. It does not happen and I can see the poor kids being confused and going, what pair/two?? What oneness?? What the??. As I said it does not happen - reality tells me so, my experiences and observations of kids also tells me it does not happen. The neigbourhood kids were simply being trouble makers and mischevious Your explanation of trinity is in this is quite incorrect, as I mentioned you need to change, find something else. I have been in many discussions on the trinity and I have used far more simplier ways.

The most like scenerio of what might happen is that, after the mother gets back, if she feels the need to speak and explain to the others that tommy had instructions that she wish tommy to obey, then by all mean she probably will, unless she feels the need to not to speak to them. There is no need to send another/new messenger, it is unnessecary.

Angel: Not when one is babysitting a child, normally the babysitter has a set of instructions and so does the child,   Do you see the scenario as an �abnormal� situation?  Is there anything to indicate that either Mr. Jones or Tommy do not know what is expected of them (i.e., do not have instructions)?  Rather, wouldn�t the fact that there is no conflict between Mr. Jones and Tommy indicate that they did have the same �set of instructions� moreso,  than that they had none?

Yes I did see that, and did see the situation as abnormal, why do you think I replied. I saw what you were doing and it (for me) simply was not a good example to use.

[quote]

Angel: and if the child is being unruly and not listening and the babysitter cannot do anything else, the babysitter will more likely to ring the parent or the child might get in and ring the parent/s in defiance of the babysitter, reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]--> 

I agree.  But, I must ask where you got the impression that Tommy is being anything but obedient to Mr. Jones.  Why do you superimpose a different scenario?[/quote]

No I didn�t superimpose a different scenerio , what I did was went straight into another situation (after mentioning it does not happen, my fault, sorry) pointing out that no new messenger comes forward and what normally happens in babysitting. I didn�t get the impression that tommy was being disobedient, I did see that tommy was being good and that there was no problem and no conflict, the issue was with the neighbourhood kids thinking that tommy does not have to listen to mr jones because mr jones is not his mother.

Angel: reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->    Okay.  But where do you see a mention of sending a new or second messenger to Tommy?

Not to tommy but to the neighbourhood kids, your words: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them�����

Even in your scenario, you provide a new or second messenger�the voice heard over the phone-- unless, of course, the original set of instructions were the same voice over the phone.  In that case, yes, it would be the same messenger, coming again, rather than a new or second messenger.

Where do you get in my scenario that I provide another messenger?? There is no other/new messenger. The parent is simply the one that gave, so you last point is the correct one.

I can see the second coming of Jesus is about to creep in, lol!

Granted, you specify that the child or baby sitter would use the telephone wire to request a clarification/confirmation (second messenger).   I did not specify how the parent heard of the conflict that required a second message or messenger to resolve it.

Yes I know you didn�t specify, I wasn�t going on about tommy scenario for which there is no conflict.

You did not see the scenario I was addressing.  (You saw one in which the conflict was between the babysitter and the child rather than between the child and other children.)  Yet, you condemned me for being offtrack in the way I addressed the conflict.   Ironically, when you set up a different scenario to support your condemnation, you followed the same track you had just condemned, thus, condemning yourself!

Yes I did see the scenario you were addressing the issue of the neighbourhood kids. What I address was still in a babysitting scenario and what usually happens �if� a child was unruly.

I am not sure how you managed to twist things around or not hear what I was saying.

I don�t think tommy was in conflict, he was doing the right thing and there was no conlict between him and mr jones. There was no need to really comment, the issue is with the other kids and sending them a new messenger for which I see as not happening.

What would i do if i was the parent, ring up my child and tell him, not send another messager to confirm the first which is Mr Jones.    Why would you send the message via another messenger (the phone) to tell your child what is already established with him?  To comfort him?

How did the phone become a (another) messenger ??  

Many kids are told by their parents, and no new messenger is sent. Two things are more likely to happen, one: the kid wasn�t told first because the parent was unable to but told the babysitter and so later on when the parent/s rings, they mention it/the instructions to the child which does become a validation of what was given to the babysitter. Two: mostly all the time parent/s tend to repeat themselves of what was already said and given and the kid would generally go �yes I know you already told me� or just nod their head.  I'm in my early thirties and it still happens to me, i think its a natural innate thing amongst parents

I would not be gone a week and not ring/speak to my kid. Is there anything to suggest that Tommy�s parent did not speak with him?

You didn�t put it in, so people are left wondering, but I did assume that since tommy was respecting mr jones and his mothers wishes tommy knew what to do. Perhaps tommy did speak with his mum, perhaps he didn't, you did not indicate such a thing. A vital piece of info don�t you think ?

And besides you asked �what would you do� and I simply answered.     

Isn�t it just as likely that Tommy�s parent did speak to him through the phone or some other messenger, sending a comforter (assurance, validation)?  �or even telling (revealing to) him something he didn�t already know?

perhaps, again you fail to mention anything.

However comforted Tommy might be by hearing the same message again, it does not benefit the neighborhood kids.  Unless they hear it from a messenger whom they can receive, the conflict will remain with them.  �and Tommy will still feel the sting of the conflict.

What sting is that, that tommy is suppose to feel or be in conflict with? If tommy is obeying what conflict is there other than the others kids mentioning mr jones is not his mother therefore does not need to listen ?? that is not much of a conflict , obviously from what you put down tommy knows what to do and does not listen to the other kids.

This does not compute with reality. sorry.   I contend that it is your �computing� that is faulty, and not reality or what computes with reality.

Why is that my computing is faulty and not your reasoning and your trying to explain trinity that is faulty?

What I contended and saw fault with is a section of your concept which does not compute with reality: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?��

What has the second bit got to do with instructing oneness?? Certainly mr jones and tommy's mother are two people and not one as the trinity is suppose to be. There is no oneness here other than one message/instructions. The trinity is of one entity supposedly divided into 3: the father the son and the holy spirit, while being distinct its still that of one entity, God. Your attempt does not show that, you are clearly putting three different entities that are not one as per the trinity concept in Christianity.  

Your analogy is a bit incorrect, needs to change <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->   If you had given any indication of grasping the analogy, (instead of giving every indication that you did not) I would be willing to consider your assessment.

Well I hope I did a better job this time.

Mauri I know exactly what you are doing, you are trying to explain trinity and it is rather flawed and incorrect, not to mention too much complexities to.

As it is, I appreciate the opportunity you availed to illustrate the trinity.  I had not aspired to introduce the Holy Spirit (the comforter) at this point.  But, God knows best.

it is you that is trying to illustrate the trinity, in a rather bad way. What I did was (trying) pointing out your errors. Your scenario/analogy does not go nor does it benefit. And besides I�ve illustrated the trinity and given far better examples in the past, in past threads.

Lastly, I mean no offense. 

From Andalus,

"The idea of trinity is a nasty concept that was invented from presumption (of the nature of Jesus, why he was here, what was his purpose, relationship with God, etc, etc) that tried to explain the various notions that were invented from the early church fathers."

No, my friend.  The Holy Trinity is not a "nasty concept" evolving from the "presumption"...... Jesus Christ Himself told us who He was many times in the Gospels, and what He was here for.  "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."  Etc., etc.  I realize you've read them all before.  He tells many times that He is the Christ, he and the Father are the same. 

This thing you so casually refer to as a "nasty concept" was, in fact, told to us by Jesus.  He just did not coin the word "Trinity".  I guess he felt we were smart enough to figure out (after telling us) that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit were all the same, three separate entities in just ONE GOD.  That is what Jesus taught and it is found throughout the Gospels.  Christians believe every word He spoke and taught....our God is not a liar.

God's Peace to You.