The Trinity Options

[Kontroll]

All Christians agree on each of hte basic propositions that form the foundation for Trinitarianism, though Christians sometimes disagree on (1) how to explain the relationships between these basic statements and (2) what other biblical teachings might be added to the basic list to fill out the doctrine of the Trinity. This implies that all branches of the Church are unified in their basic confession of the Trinity so that whatever variations exist do not undermind the confession of trinitarian faith. It means that Christians are united in theirview of who God is. The Church is one. It also means that whoever does not afree with these basic biblical foundations for the trinitarian faith is, by definition, not a Christian.
---

Before starting these basic propositions, it is important to say a few words about the often-noted fact that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Christians ask or are askedwhy, if the word is not in the Bible, do they use it? The answer is simple and has nothing to do with some conspiracy to add something to the Bible that really is not there. The word Trinity is used for theological and practical convenience -- it is 'theologicalshorthand,' a single word that sums up a series of biblical teachings. Instead of repeating the whole series of every time we speak of God, we substitute a single word that summarizes the truth. What, then, are these basic biblical propositions? The basic truth, wich all Christians afree upon, can be expressed in five propositions.

1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Spirit is God.
5. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable persons in relationship with one another. They are not merely different names for the one God.

Analogy: Crystals of salt that appear on the beach after the tide has receded may be the most apparent proof that the sea is saltwater, but every bucket of water drawn from the ocean testifies clearly to the fact.

REFERENCES:
- - -
1. There is one God. (Deut. 6:4; I Sam. 2:2; 2Kgs. 19:15; Is. 37:16; 44:8; Mk. 12:28-24; I Cor. 8:4-6; I Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19). That the Bible teaches this proposition is not disputed.

2. The Father is God. (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; 8:6 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 4:20). Again, this proposition is seldom disputed.
3. The Son is God. Because this proposition is frequently denied, I give a fuller statement of evidence, but still only scratches the surface.
a. The Son is called God. ( Jn. 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8).
b. The Son is given divine names. (Jn. 1:1, 18; Acts 5:31; I Cor. 2:8; Jas. 2:1; Rev. 1:8, 21:6; 22:13).
c. The Son has divine attributes.
i. Eternity. (Jn. 1:2; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 1:8, 17; 22:13).
ii. Immutability. (Heb. 1:11, 12; 13:8).
iii. Omnipresence. (Jn. 3:13; Mt. 18:20; 28:20).
iv. Omniscience. (Mt. 11:27; Jn. 2:23-25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23).
v. Omnipotence. (Jn. 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:8; 11:17).
d. The Son does divine works.
i. Creation. (Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17)
ii. Salvation. (Acts 4:12; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 5:9).
iii. Judgment. (Jn. 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10; Mt. 25:31-32).
e. The Son is worshipped as God. (Jn. 5:22-23; 20:28; I Cor. 1:2; Phil. 2:9-10; Heb. 1:6).
4. The Spirit is God. Those whose accept the biblical evidence for the deity of the Son seldom have trouble understanding the evidence for the deity of the Spirit.
a. The Spirit is called God. (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17).
b. The Spirit is given divine names. (Mt. 12:28).
c. The Spirit has divine attributes. (I Cor. 2:13-14; Gal. 5:22; I Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7; 9:14; I Jn. 5:6-7).
d. The Spirit does divine works. (Jn. 6:33; 14:17, 26; 16:13; Acts 1:8; 2:17-18; 16:6; Rom. 8:26; 15:19; I Cor. 12:7-11).
e. The Spirit is worshipped as God. (Mt. 12:32).
5. The Father, Son and Spirit are distinguishable persons in relationship with one another. They are not merely different names for one God.
a. The Son prays to the Father. (Jn. 11:41-42; 17; Mt. 26:39 ff)
b. The Father speaks to the Son. (Jn. 12:27-28).
c. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit - all three - appear together, but are clearly distinct from one another. (Mt. 3:16-17).
d. The Father sends the Son and Spirit, and the Son sends the Spirit. (Jn. 3:17; 4:34; 5:30; 6:39; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7)
e. The Father and Son love one another. (Jn. 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9-10; 17:24).

The Trinity and Logic
- - -
Though it is clearly the teaching of the Bible, cultic groups and atheists often complain that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a contradiction. How can there be one God and at the same time three who are called God? Christians seem to be saying that 1+1+1=1. This is simply bad arithmetic, we are told, not profound theology. The fact is, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity neither involves nor implies a contradiction. How, then, does a Christian explain that God is both one and three at the same time? The answer, in part, is that He is not one in precisely the same way that He is three. Trinitarianism would be a contradiction if it affirmed that God is one and three in precisely the same sense, but no one in the history of the Church has ever taught such a view. All the same, this is only a partial
answer.

There is a very great difference between something being a demonstrated contradiction and something being incomprehensible.

All words besides biblical references from Trinity & Reality An Introduction to the Christian Faith by Ralph A. Smith.

Yes, Heath21. This is this book that I want you to pick up.

Into the discussion I will go deeper into thought and show you what the Trinity is comprised of, and show the logic behind it.

[Kontroll]

The term Trinity is not in the Bible, and we have heard you the first time.

The term Trinity is only used to describe God's attributes. Instead of saying that:

1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Spirit is God.
5. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable persons in relationship with one another. They are not merely different names for the one God.

That's all the Trinity means.

God is only different in His personhoods not His being. There are three personhoods. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit. They are distinguishable personhoods within one God. It's littered all over the New Testament. I've put over fifty references that prove this.

Now, what you have to determine is...

What defines a personhood? Is it a literal person, or an office? Well, considering we have a Triune God who is one, it could not possible mean that there are three people because that would mean that we would have a Polytheistic faith. Considering Christianity falls under a monotheistic faith, something must tell us that God is one.

We both agree that God is one being. True? What you don't believe is that God holds different offices within the Trinity.

Christianity, all of it, believes we have one God. But a monadic God is a wrong belief. Without the Trinity there would be no love, no covenants, no relationships...just solitude among the many.

[sweetangel2128]

The term Trinity is not in the Bible, and we have heard you the first time.

Here's why it is wrong:

The trinity is a MANMADE concept. Absolutely NO biblical basis.

It violates the following 3 verses.

Deuteronomy 4:2 (New International Version)

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 (New International Version)

32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.


Proverbs 30:6 (New International Version)

6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

So, by the verses I have given you it is saying to not add to his bible (his word) or take things out of it or you'll be punished. By believing the trinity you are adding to his word because the trinity is not biblical.

[Kontroll]

Here's why it is wrong:

The trinity is a MANMADE concept. Absolutely NO biblical basis.

It violates the following 3 verses.

Deuteronomy 4:2 (New International Version)

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 (New International Version)

32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
Proverbs 30:6 (New International Version)

6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

So, by the verses I have given you it is saying to not add to his bible (his word) or take things out of it or you'll be punished. By believing the trinity you are adding to his word because the trinity is not biblical.

Ha ha. I'm not adding Trinity to the Bible. Like I said....It's BIBLICAL SHORTHAND! What about that don't you understand?!?!?!?!

You said not too long ago that you believe that God created the world and evolution took over after that creating new species. What about that is correct according to your logic that nothing should be added or taken from the Bible?

And when it states that nothing should be added or taken away, it's talking about chapters and books in whole. For instance, the Catholic Bible has extra books added to it.

And also, the New Internation Version is very unreliable. The King James version is the best because you can study it. Find literal translations in Hebrew and Greek from it, unlike the New Internation Version. I recommend you picking one up, or if you have one, start reading that. It's not that hard to understand.

John 11:41 - Jesus speaks to the Father.
Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

Matthew 3:16-17 - The Father, the Son, and the Spirit - all three - appear together, but are clearly distinct from one another.
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit - all three - appear together, but are clearly distinct from one another.

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So according to Matthew 3:17, if Jesus is God, then who is speaking from Heaven? Clearly not God if God is one person.

[sweetangel2128]

Ha ha. I'm not adding Trinity to the Bible. Like I said....It's BIBLICAL SHORTHAND! What about that don't you understand?!?!?!?!

You said not too long ago that you believe that God created the world and evolution took over after that creating new species. What about that is correct according to your logic that nothing should be added or taken from the Bible?

And when it states that nothing should be added or taken away, it's talking about chapters and books in whole. For instance, the Catholic Bible has extra books added to it.

And also, the New Internation Version is very unreliable. The King James version is the best because you can study it. Find literal translations in Hebrew and Greek from it, unlike the New Internation Version. I recommend you picking one up, or if you have one, start reading that. It's not that hard to understand.

John 11:41 - Jesus speaks to the Father.
Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

Matthew 3:16-17 - The Father, the Son, and the Spirit - all three - appear together, but are clearly distinct from one another.
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit - all three - appear together, but are clearly distinct from one another.

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So according to Matthew 3:17, if Jesus is God, then who is speaking from Heaven? Clearly not God if God is one person.

Yes, you ARE adding the Trinity to the Bible since it's not in the Bible therefore your adding to God's word. When he said that he didn't just mean "adding books" but "adding" anything in GENERAL. If it's not in the Bible and your adding it, it's adding to his word. I'm sorry you don't believe that, but it's true.

Evolution in the sense I was talking is the creation of species over generations (meaning over time), I don't know if it talks about that type of Evolution in the Bible but we know it's fact because it's all around us and has happend but the Trinity is totally different and you cannot compare the two.

As for the New International version, it is just as reliable as the King James Version, it is easier to understand because it is in our "terms" to help us better understand it. I have both the New International version and the King James version. I guess I'll have to repeat the verses I gave you only using the King James version, as you can see theres not much of a difference:

Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James version):
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 (King James version):
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 (King James version):
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thu be found a liar.

So, as you can see the verses in both Bibles are VERY clear on what they trying to say.

Now, heres your verses you gave me coming from the King James version:

John 11:41 (King James version):
Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou has heard me.

"He was thanking his spirit for hearing him, afterall he is God in the flesh".

Matthew 3:16-17 (King James version):
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

"God can be in 2 or 3 places at once, you cannot Question his powers because they are not of this world. In this verse he is telling HIS creation how to get to Heaven so that all can be saved."

As I have stated to you many times and even have given you verses proving it, Jesus is God, the Bible clearly states this. Let me give you those verses again only this time in the King James version of the Bible. Here ya go:

John 1:1-5 (King James version):
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

(As you can see the verse states that the Word is God and that he created everything. It also states that he was in fact Jesus by saying "In him was life; and the life was the light of men, Jesus was the light, the light is God").

John 1:10-14 (King James version):
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not, He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(This verse tells us that the Word=God came to the world in the "flesh" as Jesus..meaning Jesus is God.)

Ps: It's VERY easy to understand. Just read both verses CAREFULLY. And the verses you have given me clearly state NOTHING absolutely NOTHING about the Trinity. I looked up the verses myself.

[Kontroll]

Yes, you ARE adding the Trinity to the Bible since it's not in the Bible therefore your adding to God's word. When he said that he didn't just mean "adding books" but "adding" anything in GENERAL. If it's not in the Bible and your adding it, it's adding to his word. I'm sorry you don't believe that, but it's true.

Evolution in the sense I was talking is the creation of species over generations (meaning over time), I don't know if it talks about that type of Evolution in the Bible but we know it's fact because it's all around us and has happend but the Trinity is totally different and you cannot compare the two.

As for the New International version, it is just as reliable as the King James Version, it is easier to understand because it is in our "terms" to help us better understand it. I have both the New International version and the King James version. I guess I'll have to repeat the verses I gave you only using the King James version, as you can see theres not much of a difference:

Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James version):
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 (King James version):
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 (King James version):
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thu be found a liar.

So, as you can see the verses in both Bibles are VERY clear on what they trying to say.

Now, heres your verses you gave me coming from the King James version:

John 11:41 (King James version):
Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou has heard me.

"He was thanking his spirit for hearing him, afterall he is God in the flesh".

Matthew 3:16-17 (King James version):
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

"God can be in 2 or 3 places at once, you cannot Question his powers because they are not of this world. In this verse he is telling HIS creation how to get to Heaven so that all can be saved."

As I have stated to you many times and even have given you verses proving it, Jesus is God, the Bible clearly states this. Let me give you those verses again only this time in the King James version of the Bible. Here ya go:

John 1:1-5 (King James version):
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

(As you can see the verse states that the Word is God and that he created everything. It also states that he was in fact Jesus by saying "In him was life; and the life was the light of men, Jesus was the light, the light is God").

John 1:10-14 (King James version):
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not, He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(This verse tells us that the Word=God came to the world in the "flesh" as Jesus..meaning Jesus is God.)

Ps: It's VERY easy to understand. Just read both verses CAREFULLY. And the verses you have given me clearly state NOTHING absolutely NOTHING about the Trinity. I looked up the verses myself.

Oh, my God, you really aren't realizing that the term trinity is not substituted for anything in the Bible. It's just a word that theologians use to describe God's attributes. That's it.

I know what you meant earlier about not adding anything. But, did you even bother to read the passages I showed you?

You really are getting on my nerves because this is either completely going over your head, or you're just down right denying it.

Duet. 6:4 - One God
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

Rom. 1:7 - The Father is God
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tit. 2:13 - Jesus is God
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Cor. 3:17 - The Holy Spirit is God
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

All three are God.

You can't argue with the Bible. There's no where in the Bible that says that God is one being.

[sweetangel2128]

Oh, my God, you really aren't realizing that the term trinity is not substituted for anything in the Bible. It's just a word that theologians use to describe God's attributes. That's it.

I know what you meant earlier about not adding anything. But, did you even bother to read the passages I showed you?

You really are getting on my nerves because this is either completely going over your head, or you're just down right denying it.

Duet. 6:4 - One God
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

Rom. 1:7 - The Father is God
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tit. 2:13 - Jesus is God
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Cor. 3:17 - The Holy Spirit is God
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

All three are God.

You can't argue with the Bible. There's no where in the Bible that says that God is one being.

I read them quite well obviously since I listed the same verses you did from the King James version. Exactly my point...if it's not in the Bible and your preaching it as being true, your adding to it. If the trinity were in fact God's word, it would be in the Bible but it isn't. The things you listed yes are very true and I do not deny those but those are not the trinity. As I have said a million times...the trinity believes that God is three "persons" which is why it is false because God is one being and has clearly stated that in the Bible you are just not reading it right.

When the Bible describes God do they say "them" no they don't..they say "Him" therefore there is ONLY one being.

It's called denying it because it's not the word of God, you should be denying it too.

[Kontroll]

I read them quite well obviously since I listed the same verses you did from the King James version. Exactly my point...if it's not in the Bible and your preaching it as being true, your adding to it. If the trinity were in fact God's word, it would be in the Bible but it isn't. The things you listed yes are very true and I do not deny those but those are not the trinity. As I have said a million times...the trinity believes that God is three "persons" which is why it is false because God is one being and has clearly stated that in the Bible you are just not reading it right.

When the Bible describes God do they say "them" no they don't..they say "Him" therefore there is ONLY one being.

It's called denying it because it's not the word of God, you should be denying it too.

Again, you're wrong. I'm sorry, I just found the verse that disproves that the Bible only refers to God in the singular.

Gen 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now, there's absolutely no way you can interpret that differently, because you said that the Bible is clear in its meaning. This verse alone proves that there is a distinct characteristic to our God. He is not only one being, but three personhoods in one.

[Jessica C.]

Again, you're wrong. I'm sorry, I just found the verse that disproves that the Bible only refers to God in the singular.

Gen 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now, there's absolutely no way you can interpret that differently, because you said that the Bible is clear in its meaning. This verse alone proves that there is a distinct characteristic to our God. He is not only one being, but three personhoods in one.

I can interpret that differently, easily. In that scripture when God says "us" and "our" he is using plural wording to denote(symbolize) majesty. Many kings have used that type of plural wording when speaking of themselves. God is majestic, he is the king of kings, he thinks higher than we do, so he will speak higher than we do, he doesnt speak like we do.
You keep saying that the trinity is describing Gods characteristics, when you just said he is three Personhoods, which is the same as saying "three persons", the trinity is not saying "three characteristics" its saying "three persons", that is why Heath21 and I are not agreeing with you. Maybe you have gotten confused yourself about the whole trinity theory, because every time someone has attempted to describe it to me, they find themselves getting confused and then they contradict themselves. Three characteristics, and three persons are two different things, God is either three characteristics: Father, son, and Holy Ghost, or he is three persons: Father, son, and Holy Ghost, which is it to you? You are underestimating Gods power by saying he cant be in two or more places at once. When people get filled with the Holy Ghost, which is Gods spirit, then how can his spirit be in many people at once? if his spirit can be in many people at once, then he can be in more than one place at once. And even Trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost is God, and the Father is God, so if why not say theres two persons: the Father/Holy Ghost, and Jesus the son? See the flaws in this trinity theory? God doesnt have to have 3 persons do his will, all it takes is One God, he is powerful, he can do ANYTHING, so why would he need three entities to consist of in order to do all that he has and will do?

Yes its true, many churches teach the trinity, and in this world most of the time "majority rules" but if everyone suddenly decided to follow the devil, would you? I wouldnt. Sometimes the majority is wrong. I understand why you believe in the trinity, but you didnt start believing it until someone convinced you to right? cus when we're children we dont understand God or the bible until someone explains it to us, so whoever first explained the trinity to you, explained it so convincingly that you have closed your mind to the truth that God is one being, not three, he has three characteristics, but not three persons. He doesnt need a team, he is powerful enough to do everything himself.
In the old testament, it was prophesied that Jesus would come, but the scriptures say he would be named Emanuel, which means: God with us, how do you explain that if Jesus isnt God but one of the "personhoods" that he consists of?

I could give you hundreds of scriptures that show that God is one, referring to him as "him", "he", and "his" IM sure you can come up with all the scriptures that describe the Father, son, and Holy Ghost and say that thats proof that there are three personhoods, but those scriptures only convince me that God has three characteristics, he is our Father, he was the SON when he was on earth as Jesus who was "fully man and fully God", thats biblical, and his spirit is refferred to as the "Holy Spirit/Ghost".

I wanted to suggest that if you feel yourself getting upset or frustrated on here as ive seen you get, i suggest to take a deep breath and pray that Jesus help you be at peace and be confident with what your saying. In all my experience in talking to people and debating with them, ive found that when someone is not confident with what they are saying they will get upset and defensive and frustrated and even sometimes rude. Ill pray that you have more enjoyable and educational debates

God Bless You All

Jessica C.

[sweetangel2128]

I can interpret that differently, easily. In that scripture when God says "us" and "our" he is using plural wording to denote(symbolize) majesty. Many kings have used that type of plural wording when speaking of themselves. God is majestic, he is the king of kings, he thinks higher than we do, so he will speak higher than we do, he doesnt speak like we do.
You keep saying that the trinity is describing Gods characteristics, when you just said he is three Personhoods, which is the same as saying "three persons", the trinity is not saying "three characteristics" its saying "three persons", that is why Heath21 and I are not agreeing with you. Maybe you have gotten confused yourself about the whole trinity theory, because every time someone has attempted to describe it to me, they find themselves getting confused and then they contradict themselves. Three characteristics, and three persons are two different things, God is either three characteristics: Father, son, and Holy Ghost, or he is three persons: Father, son, and Holy Ghost, which is it to you? You are underestimating Gods power by saying he cant be in two or more places at once. When people get filled with the Holy Ghost, which is Gods spirit, then how can his spirit be in many people at once? if his spirit can be in many people at once, then he can be in more than one place at once. And even Trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost is God, and the Father is God, so if why not say theres two persons: the Father/Holy Ghost, and Jesus the son? See the flaws in this trinity theory? God doesnt have to have 3 persons do his will, all it takes is One God, he is powerful, he can do ANYTHING, so why would he need three entities to consist of in order to do all that he has and will do?

Yes its true, many churches teach the trinity, and in this world most of the time "majority rules" but if everyone suddenly decided to follow the devil, would you? I wouldnt. Sometimes the majority is wrong. I understand why you believe in the trinity, but you didnt start believing it until someone convinced you to right? cus when we're children we dont understand God or the bible until someone explains it to us, so whoever first explained the trinity to you, explained it so convincingly that you have closed your mind to the truth that God is one being, not three, he has three characteristics, but not three persons. He doesnt need a team, he is powerful enough to do everything himself.
In the old testament, it was prophesied that Jesus would come, but the scriptures say he would be named Emanuel, which means: God with us, how do you explain that if Jesus isnt God but one of the "personhoods" that he consists of?

I could give you hundreds of scriptures that show that God is one, referring to him as "him", "he", and "his" IM sure you can come up with all the scriptures that describe the Father, son, and Holy Ghost and say that thats proof that there are three personhoods, but those scriptures only convince me that God has three characteristics, he is our Father, he was the SON when he was on earth as Jesus who was "fully man and fully God", thats biblical, and his spirit is refferred to as the "Holy Spirit/Ghost".

I wanted to suggest that if you feel yourself getting upset or frustrated on here as ive seen you get, i suggest to take a deep breath and pray that Jesus help you be at peace and be confident with what your saying. In all my experience in talking to people and debating with them, ive found that when someone is not confident with what they are saying they will get upset and defensive and frustrated and even sometimes rude. Ill pray that you have more enjoyable and educational debates

God Bless You All

Jessica C.

*Claps* Very very nicely put Jess. See, Jake this is what I've been trying to explain to you the whole time. If you can't see what she's saying and understand it, I have no clue what will open your eyes except maybe the fact dying, going to Heaven and only seeing one God lol. But, I hope that this (what Jessica said) will open your eyes to the truth. To be honest I have NEVER believed in the Trinity not even before I became a Christian. Do NOT fall into false teachings, read the Bible, it is truth, anything not mentioned is not of God.

[Kontroll]

*Claps* Very very nicely put Jess. See, Jake this is what I've been trying to explain to you the whole time. If you can't see what she's saying and understand it, I have no clue what will open your eyes except maybe the fact dying, going to Heaven and only seeing one God lol. But, I hope that this (what Jessica said) will open your eyes to the truth. To be honest I have NEVER believed in the Trinity not even before I became a Christian. Do NOT fall into false teachings, read the Bible, it is truth, anything not mentioned is not of God.

But you believe evolution.

I'll post more in a while.

[sweetangel2128]

But you believe evolution.

I'll post more in a while.

No response to Jessica's response? Why not? Ran out of explanations? Sorry, just had to ask. Not being rude :)

As I have said over and over, there is more than one type of Evolution, one is not okay to agree with because of the Bible and goes against Christianity while the other doesn't go against it and is okay to believe. The evolution I believe in as been proven because it is all around us. As I have explained a million times.

[Kontroll]

No response to Jessica's response? Why not? Ran out of explanations? Sorry, just had to ask. Not being rude :)

As I have said over and over, there is more than one type of Evolution, one is not okay to agree with because of the Bible and goes against Christianity while the other doesn't go against it and is okay to believe. The evolution I believe in as been proven because it is all around us. As I have explained a million times.

Evolution is the same across the board. There are just different branches dealing with different topics. Why aren't we discussing this in the Evolution topic?

As for what Jessica said, no I didn't run of explanations. I just had to do something quick, but I'm back.

Who came first? God or kings? Considering God's word was around in the time of kings, I'm sure a selection of them were knowledged in the Bible. True, that verse may be used to symbolize God's majesty, but to mimic is the highest form of flattery. Whose to say that kings didn't use themselves in the pluralistic tense to show that they were great, as God is?

What's wrong with your interpretation is that symbolism often uses words for example: As, or like. Such as John used to describe his dreams in the book of Revelation. He desribed a swarm of locust with the breast plates of a horse and was led by their king.

Gen. 1:26 states And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Let's break this down piece by piece, shall we?

"And God said": This is used as a declaration. A verbal announcement. There is nothing symoblic about this.

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness": Firstly, this is used in the present tense and shows that God is preparing to create.

Secondly, it tells us that He is verbalizing to some other being, or beings. A declaration. Who at this point was created? Animals, the earth, but no living thing that could comprehend the words of the Lord. Not to mention, if God we talking to anything but His personhoods, we would not be in God's likeness, now would we?

"and let them have dominion over the fish and the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

This one is pretty self explanitory. Firstly, to Heath, it shows that we are more than just mammals. We are keepers and watchers over everything on this earth. God gave the earth to us to praise God and witness His glory. He is giving us control. We are more than animals and like I said in the evolution debate, we cannot change because God would therefore have to change.

Does that clear it up?

[sweetangel2128]

Evolution is the same across the board. There are just different branches dealing with different topics. Why aren't we discussing this in the Evolution topic?

As for what Jessica said, no I didn't run of explanations. I just had to do something quick, but I'm back.

Who came first? God or kings? Considering God's word was around in the time of kings, I'm sure a selection of them were knowledged in the Bible. True, that verse may be used to symbolize God's majesty, but to mimic is the highest form of flattery. Whose to say that kings didn't use themselves in the pluralistic tense to show that they were great, as God is?

What's wrong with your interpretation is that symbolism often uses words for example: As, or like. Such as John used to describe his dreams in the book of Revelation. He desribed a swarm of locust with the breast plates of a horse and was led by their king.

Gen. 1:26 states And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Let's break this down piece by piece, shall we?

"And God said": This is used as a declaration. A verbal announcement. There is nothing symoblic about this.

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness": Firstly, this is used in the present tense and shows that God is preparing to create.

Secondly, it tells us that He is verbalizing to some other being, or beings. A declaration. Who at this point was created? Animals, the earth, but no living thing that could comprehend the words of the Lord. Not to mention, if God we talking to anything but His personhoods, we would not be in God's likeness, now would we?

"and let them have dominion over the fish and the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

This one is pretty self explanitory. Firstly, to Heath, it shows that we are more than just mammals. We are keepers and watchers over everything on this earth. God gave the earth to us to praise God and witness His glory. He is giving us control. We are more than animals and like I said in the evolution debate, we cannot change because God would therefore have to change.

Does that clear it up?

First of all, you said that since we were created in his image that we would have to be like him right? And that we can't evolve (sorry this in this topic btw). But anyways you said that we can't evolve because that would mean that God would have to change right? Well, heres a good Question for you. God is perfect, right? He has no flaws, right? We were created in God's image, right? So, knowing these things wouldn't we have to be perfect as well?

She wasn't saying that "And God said" was a symbol but the word "our" is. He is talking about one of the Characteristics of himself.

No, it doesn't clear it up because it makes no sense. I'll let Jessica respond to the rest of it.

[Kontroll]

First of all, you said that since we were created in his image that we would have to be like him right? And that we can't evolve (sorry this in this topic btw). But anyways you said that we can't evolve because that would mean that God would have to change right? Well, heres a good Question for you. God is perfect, right? He has no flaws, right? We were created in God's image, right? So, knowing these things wouldn't we have to be perfect as well?

She wasn't saying that "And God said" was a symbol but the word "our" is. He is talking about one of the Characteristics of himself.

No, it doesn't clear it up because it makes no sense. I'll let Jessica respond to the rest of it.

Haha. We were perfect creatures until sin entered the world.

Secondly, I know she didn't say 'And God said' was a symbol, but I was just breaking the verse down to show you that that verse is literal and not symbolical. I cant do that with out breaking the whole verse down.

Please, I would love her to.

[sweetangel2128]

Haha. We were perfect creatures until sin entered the world.

No, "we" were never perfect creatures EVER...Adam and Eve were supposedly the first humans so "we" could of never been perfect to begin with. But since God created Adam and Eve in his image and he's perfect would they also be perfect. God made us in his image but not in the perfect sense or the "evolution sense" but as in his image meaning people. If God is perfect and we were made in his image in the sense of being perfect, we would all have no flaws because being perfect, Adam and Eve wouldn't of sinned and brought sin into the world.

[Kontroll]

No, "we" were never perfect creatures EVER...Adam and Eve were supposedly the first humans so "we" could of never been perfect to begin with. But since God created Adam and Eve in his image and he's perfect would they also be perfect. God made us in his image but not in the perfect sense or the "evolution sense" but as in his image meaning people. If God is perfect and we were made in his image in the sense of being perfect, we would all have no flaws because being perfect, Adam and Eve wouldn't of sinned and brought sin into the world.

Sin corrupted this world and Adam and Eve none the less. You have to look at what sin does to people.

When God visted different people throughout the Bible, they were incapable of looking at Him because of their sin.

When God created Adam, He would walk with Adam in the garden. That means that they were next to eachother, side by side most likely. When we are without sin we are perfect. That's why man is unperfect.

God gave us a free will and it was evident with the Tree of Knowledge. God said don't eat of this and we did. Free will. God doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. He wants us to want to love Him.

Image means more than just appearance. It's characteristics, idiosyncricies, and also how we look. God made us with His characteristics. He made us capable of love, righteousness, compassionate, sacrificial, long suffering, and so forth.

[sweetangel2128]

Sin corrupted this world and Adam and Eve none the less. You have to look at what sin does to people.

When God visted different people throughout the Bible, they were incapable of looking at Him because of their sin.

When God created Adam, He would walk with Adam in the garden. That means that they were next to eachother, side by side most likely. When we are without sin we are perfect. That's why man is unperfect.

God gave us a free will and it was evident with the Tree of Knowledge. God said don't eat of this and we did. Free will. God doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. He wants us to want to love Him.

Image means more than just appearance. It's characteristics, idiosyncricies, and also how we look. God made us with His characteristics. He made us capable of love, righteousness, compassionate, sacrificial, long suffering, and so forth.

Yeah but if we were created in his image then we'd also be perfect because God is perfect, As I said if that was the case, sin would of never happend because we "are" perfect. I believe when they said - "in his IMAGE" they meant visibly not like characterstics.

[Kontroll]

Yeah but if we were created in his image then we'd also be perfect because God is perfect, As I said if that was the case, sin would of never happend because we "are" perfect. I believe when they said - "in his IMAGE" they meant visibly not like characterstics.

Well, then image is a relative term and can't be agreed upon making this discussion a waste of both of our times.

If we were just created in God's image, as in appearance, than we wouldn't be capable of love, or anything else I mentioned before.

[sweetangel2128]

Well, then image is a relative term and can't be agreed upon making this discussion a waste of both of our times.

If we were just created in God's image, as in appearance, than we wouldn't be capable of love, or anything else I mentioned before.

A lot of people aren't capable of loving, believe me, I know But yeah I get what your saying.

Waiste of time, to be honest I think this Trinity is a waiste of time, we both think were right and not really getting anywhere on proving eachother wrong lmao. But I care about fellow Christians so I'm not going to give up on someone unless they positively want me too. Anyways it's my bedtime, have an interview tomorrow...I'll reply to other posts tomorrow.

[Kontroll]

A lot of people aren't capable of loving, believe me, I know But yeah I get what your saying.

Waiste of time, to be honest I think this Trinity is a waiste of time, we both think were right and not really getting anywhere on proving eachother wrong lmao. But I care about fellow Christians so I'm not going to give up on someone unless they positively want me too. Anyways it's my bedtime, have an interview tomorrow...I'll reply to other posts tomorrow.

Well, I know some people might not be able to love, but humans in general are capable of it.

Well, I don't think it's a waste of time because if no one challenges your faith, then what do you really believe in? You know?

I think the problem is that the Trinity is just an incomprehensible thing. We can't always let our faith get in the way of logic.

[Luciadus]

Well, I know some people might not be able to love, but humans in general are capable of it.

Well, I don't think it's a waste of time because if no one challenges your faith, then what do you really believe in? You know?

I think the problem is that the Trinity is just an incomprehensible thing. We can't always let our faith get in the way of logic.

Dude, animals can love and are very capable of it. A dog loves a good owner and is sad when not with them. If you've ever seen 101 Dalmations, you'd remember that the two dogs also marry eachother when their respective owners marry. And they loved eachother throughout the entire movie, through thick and thin. Same as The Lady and the Tramp. These were animals showing unrequited love for one another and were unable to scourge their passions. Why is it that Jesus freaks are so limited in their thinking processes. They can be the stupidest people in the world and the smartest people in the world.
Secondly, if you need to be challenged in something in order to be sure in your belief, then your belief is stupid. Take love. We're all brought up believing that in order to be truly sure that we love something, we need to be tested, or challenged. Just what is the point in that? What happens when you fail? You could still love the person, just not have any strength of will. Tests and challenges, faith and love. Why all the pressure? What do we need to test ourselves for? Believe in your beliefs, don't question. Ignore the people who challenge your beliefs, whats the point in debating and fighting. Political, religious, and societal debates are pointless because nobody wins because nobody admits defeat.
Thirdly, the trinity is also dumb. In some faiths, it wasn't god who became Jesus but the Archangel Micheal, and that they are in fact the same being. Other faiths preach that Michael was in fact Adam, not Jesus. And some faiths preach that Satan is Jesus and God is Pegasus and Medusa gave birth to Job who killed his pet centaurs. I don't know. I forgot what the hell I was talking about. Anyways religious debates are pointless, so stop making them Jake. haha.

[Kontroll]

Dude, animals can love and are very capable of it. A dog loves a good owner and is sad when not with them. If you've ever seen 101 Dalmations, you'd remember that the two dogs also marry eachother when their respective owners marry. And they loved eachother throughout the entire movie, through thick and thin. Same as The Lady and the Tramp. These were animals showing unrequited love for one another and were unable to scourge their passions. Why is it that Jesus freaks are so limited in their thinking processes. They can be the stupidest people in the world and the smartest people in the world.
Secondly, if you need to be challenged in something in order to be sure in your belief, then your belief is stupid. Take love. We're all brought up believing that in order to be truly sure that we love something, we need to be tested, or challenged. Just what is the point in that? What happens when you fail? You could still love the person, just not have any strength of will. Tests and challenges, faith and love. Why all the pressure? What do we need to test ourselves for? Believe in your beliefs, don't question. Ignore the people who challenge your beliefs, whats the point in debating and fighting. Political, religious, and societal debates are pointless because nobody wins because nobody admits defeat.
Thirdly, the trinity is also dumb. In some faiths, it wasn't god who became Jesus but the Archangel Micheal, and that they are in fact the same being. Other faiths preach that Michael was in fact Adam, not Jesus. And some faiths preach that Satan is Jesus and God is Pegasus and Medusa gave birth to Job who killed his pet centaurs. I don't know. I forgot what the hell I was talking about. Anyways religious debates are pointless, so stop making them Jake. haha.

Dogs don't love. They try to please their master no matter what. A dog's memory is too short for a dog to love. When a dog does something, it remembers up until it does something else.

So, lets say you discipline a dog for biting some one after they have bitten the person. The dog doesn't know why you're punishing it so it won't work. You have to get him in the act of doing it.

And it's not unrequited. Unrequited mean that one person loves another person but it's not the same the other way.

[sweetangel2128]

Dogs don't love. They try to please their master no matter what. A dog's memory is too short for a dog to love. When a dog does something, it remembers up until it does something else.

So, lets say you discipline a dog for biting some one after they have bitten the person. The dog doesn't know why you're punishing it so it won't work. You have to get him in the act of doing it.

And it's not unrequited. Unrequited mean that one person loves another person but it's not the same the other way.

Incorrect, dogs DO love and so do cats.

Dude, animals can love and are very capable of it. A dog loves a good owner and is sad when not with them. If you've ever seen 101 Dalmations, you'd remember that the two dogs also marry eachother when their respective owners marry. And they loved eachother throughout the entire movie, through thick and thin. Same as The Lady and the Tramp. These were animals showing unrequited love for one another and were unable to scourge their passions. Why is it that Jesus freaks are so limited in their thinking processes. They can be the stupidest people in the world and the smartest people in the world.
Secondly, if you need to be challenged in something in order to be sure in your belief, then your belief is stupid. Take love. We're all brought up believing that in order to be truly sure that we love something, we need to be tested, or challenged. Just what is the point in that? What happens when you fail? You could still love the person, just not have any strength of will. Tests and challenges, faith and love. Why all the pressure? What do we need to test ourselves for? Believe in your beliefs, don't question. Ignore the people who challenge your beliefs, whats the point in debating and fighting. Political, religious, and societal debates are pointless because nobody wins because nobody admits defeat.
Thirdly, the trinity is also dumb. In some faiths, it wasn't god who became Jesus but the Archangel Micheal, and that they are in fact the same being. Other faiths preach that Michael was in fact Adam, not Jesus. And some faiths preach that Satan is Jesus and God is Pegasus and Medusa gave birth to Job who killed his pet centaurs. I don't know. I forgot what the hell I was talking about. Anyways religious debates are pointless, so stop making them Jake. haha.

Well, the examples you brought up are from movies and movies are made up but I do believe you. Everyone including animals are incapable of loving. My cat loves on me all the time..licks my face, nudges my face...ect..

[Luciadus]

Incorrect, dogs DO love and so do cats.
Well, the examples you brought up are from movies and movies are made up but I do believe you. Everyone including animals are incapable of loving. My cat loves on me all the time..licks my face, nudges my face...ect..

My cat used to love my shoes. Always loving on my shoes. Actually, she was pretty much loving on everything that was on the floor. Maybe too much loving.
But yes, dogs can love. I dont know about cats, but dogs are very emotional and they can love. And its humans that dogs love, not gods. If anything, dogs are smarter than us. They dont fill their lives with immense devotion to a fictional character telling us not to lie. They live in the here and the now.

[sweetangel2128]

My cat used to love my shoes. Always loving on my shoes. Actually, she was pretty much loving on everything that was on the floor. Maybe too much loving.
But yes, dogs can love. I dont know about cats, but dogs are very emotional and they can love. And its humans that dogs love, not gods. If anything, dogs are smarter than us. They dont fill their lives with immense devotion to a fictional character telling us not to lie. They live in the here and the now.

I say anything that has a beating heart is capable of loving, including humans and all animals. Yes, I know, animals don't necessarily love Gods but truly we do not know that, we do not understand cats or dogs langauage or thought process. It would be cool if we did though. But yeah I get what your saying.

Both, God is the king of Kings, he came first, therefore they both came first.
Kings did use that form of plural wording because Kings wanted all to know they were powerful, so they probably looked at Genesis and saw how the Almighty king spoke, and wanted to speak like him. That is not a far off probability.

True, I mean how can a King go off of someone else's term yet God created everything, it doesn't make sense seriously. Jake, no offence, in no way am I being rude but to me it sounds like we have proven you wrong because every one of your responses now really do not defend yourself or make sense. It's like your trying to protect your beliefs on the Trinity by saying "random" stuff that really doesn't prove anything. As I said again, this is not to mean rude, it's just my thoughts and opinions.

[Kontroll]

I say anything that has a beating heart is capable of loving, including humans and all animals. Yes, I know, animals don't necessarily love Gods but truly we do not know that, we do not understand cats or dogs langauage or thought process. It would be cool if we did though. But yeah I get what your saying.
True, I mean how can a King go off of someone else's term yet God created everything, it doesn't make sense seriously. Jake, no offence, in no way am I being rude but to me it sounds like we have proven you wrong because every one of your responses now really do not defend yourself or make sense. It's like your trying to protect your beliefs on the Trinity by saying "random" stuff that really doesn't prove anything. As I said again, this is not to mean rude, it's just my thoughts and opinions.

Firstly, to Jessica about the Trinity. You're right. We'll never know. It's a mystery. Incomprehensible. I believe He is one being too. Like I said, we are apart of a mono theistic faith. So, that must tell us that we follow one God. But there is some unique attribute to Him that makes Him Triune in a sense. Maybe not three different beings, but personalities.

And about that part in the verse of Gen. 1:26...And God said. Firstly, the author wrote it, yes. Secondly, he was beginning a quote. And God said... well, God said something, so I was just breaking it down.

Secondly, when you talk about cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, are you talking about new variations of a cat, or dogs? Because if that's so, that's not evolution. That's just variation within a kind. You can take two of any type of cat and breed them. They will come up with a new variation of cat, but that's not evolution.

As for us not looking like we did 6000 years ago...How do you know? We were probably taller and healthier, but how is that evolution. I fail to see your logic. If you believe the Bible, you contradict yourself when you say you believe in evolution. The Bible makes no references about it, so why do you believe in it? DOn't tell me that you can see it around you, because you can't. It's impossible. It's not an observable pseudo-science.

And I don't think that cats and dogs can love. I think their actions towards their offspring and masters are purely instinctual. THink about it. Would a wolf love the alpha male? That's basically what we are to our pets. We are their leader. They do as we tell them.

Here's another example that will make this a little clearer. Dogs don't have the thinking capacity that humans do. They think around two words at once. So, if you throw a ball the most likely outcome of thought process for a dog would be...'Get ball, get ball, get ball.'

They think along the lines of an infant. Are infants capable of love? No. Not at all. They don't even understand the word, let alone most of their parents language. Their brains haven't developed enough to understand pretty much anything besides how a dog thinks. Want food. want food. I poop. I poop. Haha. That's the basic though process of infants and dogs.

So, a dog can't love. It might show affection...because it's selfish. It wants you to pet it and play with it.

That's all. They don't have enough gray matter to understand as well as we do.

[sweetangel2128]

Firstly, to Jessica about the Trinity. You're right. We'll never know. It's a mystery. Incomprehensible. I believe He is one being too. Like I said, we are apart of a mono theistic faith. So, that must tell us that we follow one God. But there is some unique attribute to Him that makes Him Triune in a sense. Maybe not three different beings, but personalities.

And about that part in the verse of Gen. 1:26...And God said. Firstly, the author wrote it, yes. Secondly, he was beginning a quote. And God said... well, God said something, so I was just breaking it down.

Secondly, when you talk about cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, are you talking about new variations of a cat, or dogs? Because if that's so, that's not evolution. That's just variation within a kind. You can take two of any type of cat and breed them. They will come up with a new variation of cat, but that's not evolution.

As for us not looking like we did 6000 years ago...How do you know? We were probably taller and healthier, but how is that evolution. I fail to see your logic. If you believe the Bible, you contradict yourself when you say you believe in evolution. The Bible makes no references about it, so why do you believe in it? DOn't tell me that you can see it around you, because you can't. It's impossible. It's not an observable pseudo-science.

And I don't think that cats and dogs can love. I think their actions towards their offspring and masters are purely instinctual. THink about it. Would a wolf love the alpha male? That's basically what we are to our pets. We are their leader. They do as we tell them.

Here's another example that will make this a little clearer. Dogs don't have the thinking capacity that humans do. They think around two words at once. So, if you throw a ball the most likely outcome of thought process for a dog would be...'Get ball, get ball, get ball.'

They think along the lines of an infant. Are infants capable of love? No. Not at all. They don't even understand the word, let alone most of their parents language. Their brains haven't developed enough to understand pretty much anything besides how a dog thinks. Want food. want food. I poop. I poop. Haha. That's the basic though process of infants and dogs.

So, a dog can't love. It might show affection...because it's selfish. It wants you to pet it and play with it.

That's all. They don't have enough gray matter to understand as well as we do.

Firstly, that's what Jessica is basically saying. But she is also trying to explain that you can't believe in the Trinity because the Trinity believes that God is three persons not three characteristics or personalities, so basically what your claiming you believe in isn't the Trinity but what you should believe God to be. I do believe God has 3 different personalities but they are all him and they all make up him, just like I explained about "humans" you are not 3 different persons but you do have personalities that make you, you.

As Jess stated there is more than one type of Evolution and cats coming from cats and dogs from dogs is a type of Evolution because they are evolving into new things. We have all evolved in some way or another. One of the Evolutions talks of the creation of planets which is what we don't believe in. But not too long ago my boyfriend pointed out that they found a new dino fossil that proves that evolution did exist because they had found a dino that was like a rapture but had feathers, don't worry it isn't just talk, I found the picture online...it's weird looking lol...but yeah, so evolution in the sense that were talking does exist. The fossil proves it. If you want a website, I will try to find you one to show you!

How do we know how we looked 6,000 or so years ago...history. We have pictures showing how we looked LONG ago..theres been studies. In consists of height and other things. But I also believe our thinking process and brain capacity has also improved over time. If you mean evolution in the creation of the planet of course you don't see that but other evolution you do...as I stated before recently like yesterday on the news that had found a new species of leopard...thats evolving ;)

Animals ARE capable of loving. I actually watched a video on this, a mother cat was taking care of her young kittens but she also started taking care of baby squirrels so you can't say animals aren't capable of love. As for wolfes, they are capable of love also, they love there babies don't they? Nurture them and so on. If they didn't..do you honestly think they'd be taking care of them instead of just letting them defend themselves from the time they were born...no. As for humans..it's called protection. I don't think a wild animal is going to attack you unless they are: 1. defending there young, 2. hungry and think your food or 3. thinking your a threat to them. I had a cougar, yes a cougar in the mountains run right past me without stopping.

How do you know what dogs think?

Babies are capable of love, love is born into you, it's kinda like common sense in a way. They might not be able to understand it or know how to say it but that doesn't mean they aren't capable.

[Kontroll]

Firstly, that's what Jessica is basically saying. But she is also trying to explain that you can't believe in the Trinity because the Trinity believes that God is three persons not three characteristics or personalities, so basically what your claiming you believe in isn't the Trinity but what you should believe God to be. I do believe God has 3 different personalities but they are all him and they all make up him, just like I explained about "humans" you are not 3 different persons but you do have personalities that make you, you.

As Jess stated there is more than one type of Evolution and cats coming from cats and dogs from dogs is a type of Evolution because they are evolving into new things. We have all evolved in some way or another. One of the Evolutions talks of the creation of planets which is what we don't believe in. But not too long ago my boyfriend pointed out that they found a new dino fossil that proves that evolution did exist because they had found a dino that was like a rapture but had feathers, don't worry it isn't just talk, I found the picture online...it's weird looking lol...but yeah, so evolution in the sense that were talking does exist. The fossil proves it. If you want a website, I will try to find you one to show you!

How do we know how we looked 6,000 or so years ago...history. We have pictures showing how we looked LONG ago..theres been studies. In consists of height and other things. But I also believe our thinking process and brain capacity has also improved over time. If you mean evolution in the creation of the planet of course you don't see that but other evolution you do...as I stated before recently like yesterday on the news that had found a new species of leopard...thats evolving ;)

Animals ARE capable of loving. I actually watched a video on this, a mother cat was taking care of her young kittens but she also started taking care of baby squirrels so you can't say animals aren't capable of love. As for wolfes, they are capable of love also, they love there babies don't they? Nurture them and so on. If they didn't..do you honestly think they'd be taking care of them instead of just letting them defend themselves from the time they were born...no. As for humans..it's called protection. I don't think a wild animal is going to attack you unless they are: 1. defending there young, 2. hungry and think your food or 3. thinking your a threat to them. I had a cougar, yes a cougar in the mountains run right past me without stopping.

How do you know what dogs think?

Babies are capable of love, love is born into you, it's kinda like common sense in a way. They might not be able to understand it or know how to say it but that doesn't mean they aren't capable.

Listen, I believe in the Trinity. I just think it's such a unique concept that it's impossible to explain as humans. What I believe might not be exactly what comes out on the computer. But I do believe that God is triune in His being.

I read an article on that leopard. Interesting stuff. Well, this is what they had to say.

Until now it had been thought they belonged to the species that is found on mainland southeast Asia.

Scientists now believe the two species diverged more than one million years ago, and have evolved separately since.

So, according to that, you would have to believe that the Biblical account of how the world was created is wrong. If you trace back to all the genealogies of people in the Bible, it comes out to roughly five to six thousand years. So, if you believe this leopard is one million years old as scientists claim, don't bother believing in the Bible anymore.

As for how we looked six thousand years ago...I think that was around the time of the creation of the earth, so I don't know how I feel about that. I haven't done enough research to give a conclusive answer. But I don't feel that our thinking capacity has changed at all.

First of all the environment was different. Air was denser and things grew larger. How do you think we got the dinosaurs? They are just over sized lizards. Lizards never stop growing until they die. So, it makes sense that we have enormous lizards due to the green house effect mentioned some what in the Bible. You can see the dinosaurs in the book of Job. They are called Laviathan and Bohemoth. I don't know about that spelling though.

So, knowing that...man must have been significantly larger too. With larger size comes a larger brain. I don't think it's that they had less thinking capacity as us, it's just they didn't know as much as we do now. I mean, going by what you're saying, people a hundred years ago must of been evolutionary steps behind us. But evolution takes more than a hundred years for any change to occur.

And tell me....How can we get positive results from evolution? What are the steps in between...for instance, how do we get from one kind to another kind? I'm interested. Since you believe in it, you should be able to shed a little light on me.

As for love among animals. It's all instinctual. Animals don't go around and say *British accent* 'Well, dear...I think I love you. Shall we make a night of it?' Seriously. Animals have the thought process of eat, sleep, mate, affection, eat, sleep, affection, eat, sleep, mate, affection.

What animals do in appearance of love is selfishness. They want affection, which is not love.

[sweetangel2128]

Listen, I believe in the Trinity. I just think it's such a unique concept that it's impossible to explain as humans. What I believe might not be exactly what comes out on the computer. But I do believe that God is triune in His being.

I read an article on that leopard. Interesting stuff. Well, this is what they had to say.

Until now it had been thought they belonged to the species that is found on mainland southeast Asia.

Scientists now believe the two species diverged more than one million years ago, and have evolved separately since.

So, according to that, you would have to believe that the Biblical account of how the world was created is wrong. If you trace back to all the genealogies of people in the Bible, it comes out to roughly five to six thousand years. So, if you believe this leopard is one million years old as scientists claim, don't bother believing in the Bible anymore.

As for how we looked six thousand years ago...I think that was around the time of the creation of the earth, so I don't know how I feel about that. I haven't done enough research to give a conclusive answer. But I don't feel that our thinking capacity has changed at all.

First of all the environment was different. Air was denser and things grew larger. How do you think we got the dinosaurs? They are just over sized lizards. Lizards never stop growing until they die. So, it makes sense that we have enormous lizards due to the green house effect mentioned some what in the Bible. You can see the dinosaurs in the book of Job. They are called Laviathan and Bohemoth. I don't know about that spelling though.

So, knowing that...man must have been significantly larger too. With larger size comes a larger brain. I don't think it's that they had less thinking capacity as us, it's just they didn't know as much as we do now. I mean, going by what you're saying, people a hundred years ago must of been evolutionary steps behind us. But evolution takes more than a hundred years for any change to occur.

And tell me....How can we get positive results from evolution? What are the steps in between...for instance, how do we get from one kind to another kind? I'm interested. Since you believe in it, you should be able to shed a little light on me.

As for love among animals. It's all instinctual. Animals don't go around and say *British accent* 'Well, dear...I think I love you. Shall we make a night of it?' Seriously. Animals have the thought process of eat, sleep, mate, affection, eat, sleep, affection, eat, sleep, mate, affection.

What animals do in appearance of love is selfishness. They want affection, which is not love.

Why would have to stop believing in the Bible because of that leopard thing, explain that to me?

How do we get from one kind to another. Genes, genetics. If one animal has certain genetics in it it can mate with another animal making something a little bit different but as I said I don't believe in the ape theory and I don't believe that a bird can mate with a dog...and so on...

[Kontroll]

Why would have to stop believing in the Bible because of that leopard thing, explain that to me?

How do we get from one kind to another. Genes, genetics. If one animal has certain genetics in it it can mate with another animal making something a little bit different but as I said I don't believe in the ape theory and I don't believe that a bird can mate with a dog...and so on...

First...The leopard was thought to have split roughly a million years ago. The Bible only teaches that the earth was created about roughly six thousand years ago.

Okay... You should really pay attention in chemistry and biology. The only reason genes change when mating with two variations is because the two mix.

For instance, a bob cat, with brown eyes mates with a mountain lion that has green eyes.

What will the probable outcome be? It has to do with genetics only in the sense of traits. No, new function is coming about when two cats mate. Only the eyes, or fur, or whatever is changing.

They are still 100% cat. That would only be creating a new variation within a kind. A MILLION TIMES I'VE SAID THIS. This isn't evolution.

When genes mutate, which is the only way a new trait can come about, it causes problems. No positive outcomes has come from mutations. It's as simple as that.

[sweetangel2128]

First...The leopard was thought to have split roughly a million years ago. The Bible only teaches that the earth was created about roughly six thousand years ago.

Okay... You should really pay attention in chemistry and biology. The only reason genes change when mating with two variations is because the two mix.

For instance, a bob cat, with brown eyes mates with a mountain lion that has green eyes.

What will the probable outcome be? It has to do with genetics only in the sense of traits. No, new function is coming about when two cats mate. Only the eyes, or fur, or whatever is changing.

They are still 100% cat. That would only be creating a new variation within a kind. A MILLION TIMES I'VE SAID THIS. This isn't evolution.

When genes mutate, which is the only way a new trait can come about, it causes problems. No positive outcomes has come from mutations. It's as simple as that.

Well, first of all, one I'm not in school, I graduated high school in June 2002 and haven't had the chance or money to go back to college stuff like that plus it's not required for certain degrees and is extremely expensive for classes.

Secondly, when I was in high school I was never required to take chemistry or biology so I never took it therefore I can't really pay attention in the class being that I've never had it or even had the option of taking it.