How/why is Christianity a monotheism?

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Blair and Bush are both an aspect of Grayface, and carry out the Illuminati plans for to end the Mish and Mash of existance, through Aneristic imposition.


Obviously.

[Lord Mhoram]

Avatar,
Edge wrote:

Um, I don't get it. How does someone doing your will make them an aspect of yourself?

There's your answer.

[dennisrwood]

ummm...you have lost me here people.

[Edge]

Avatar,
Edge wrote:

Um, I don't get it. How does someone doing your will make them an aspect of yourself?

There's your answer.

Less cryptic and more logical please?

Just trying to understand how one person following another's instructions somehow magically makes them into one person, not two. I know I'm not brilliant at math, but I think I have 1+1=2 sorted.

[Avatar]

Seems fairly clear to me. If somebody is carrying out your instructions, that's not their independant will or actions, they're the originators will or action.

If an officer orders a private to summon somebody, whose summons is being answered? The privates? Or the officers?

If the president says "Do this", and somebody does it, is he acting on his own, making his own choice? No, he's performing the action in the name of the president. He is, effectively, an extension of the presidents will. The president by proxy as it were.

Same holds true. If god says to satan, give that person hives, is it satan's will that the person has hives? No. It's god's will. Making satan an instrument of that will does not, or should not, absolve god of the responsibility.

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

There's this awesome series of books called The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever. There's this guy who has seemingly limitless power in this other reality. The beings that correspond, more or less, to God and Satan want him to act in their interests. Although they can trick him and do things to other people to try to put pressure on him, they have to let him do whatever he wants, and hope he acts in their interests. If he doesn't have free will, he's just a tool of theirs, and would be useless for what they have in mind.

Really great books, and they have tons to do with these last posts. Go read them!

[Avatar]

At the risk of derailing this topic, (Syl, split this off if you deem fit), that sort of raises something I've been thinking about quite a bit since my re-read of Runes and TIW.

And that is that in the Land, there exists this massive sense of acceptance of other people's actions (or lack thereof).

Think about it. TC appears, effectively gets told that not only is the Land in desperate need of help, but that if he doesn't help them, they're all going to get horribly destroyed.

Then, they basically say to him, "Don't worry about it, you help us or not as you see fit. If you don't, and we all die, that's all right. We won't hold it against you."

There's an awful lot of people saying "Who are we to judge somebody else's choices? We're not strong (arrogant) enough to presume that we alone get to decide what others should do."

Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of the Land's philosophies.

--Avatar

[Edge]

If an officer orders a private to summon somebody, whose summons is being answered? The privates? Or the officers?

If the president says "Do this", and somebody does it, is he acting on his own, making his own choice? No, he's performing the action in the name of the president. He is, effectively, an extension of the presidents will. The president by proxy as it were.

Undoubtedly.

But what does that have to do with the distinction between 'two individuals', and 'one being with different aspects'?

[Plissken]

If an officer orders a private to summon somebody, whose summons is being answered? The privates? Or the officers?

If the president says "Do this", and somebody does it, is he acting on his own, making his own choice? No, he's performing the action in the name of the president. He is, effectively, an extension of the presidents will. The president by proxy as it were.

Undoubtedly.

But what does that have to do with the distinction between 'two individuals', and 'one being with different aspects'?

You had no problem with this concept when we were talking about Daddy, Junior, and The Spook...

[Edge]

But what does that have to do with the distinction between 'two individuals', and 'one being with different aspects'?

You had no problem with this concept when we were talking about Daddy, Junior, and The Spook...

D'uh. That's because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE different aspects of God. The Adversary is not an aspect of God. It's a trinity, not a quadrality.

Is that clear enough, or would you like me to draw a diagram?

[Plissken]

You are asking questions you don't seem to want answers to. The question was, in essence, "If Satan is working God's Will, could that make him another aspect of God?"

Your answer to this question seems to be, "But he's not, and you're all idiots for asking."

Asking questions is, for alot of people, a big part of "Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality." If you want to start a thread called "What The Edge Was Taught And Refuses To Question Or Discuss," go ahead. I promise not to bother you there.

[Edge]

You are asking questions you don't seem to want answers to. The question was, in essence, "If Satan is working God's Will, could that make him another aspect of God?"

Your answer to this question seems to be, "But he's not, and you're all idiots for asking."

No, I wasn't answering any question. I was merely countering the incredibly dubious 'logic' of people saying that one person obeying another person's directives automatically makes two people into one person. Do you even know what the word 'aspect' means?

Asking questions is, for alot of people, a big part of "Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality." If you want to start a thread called "What The Edge Was Taught And Refuses To Question Or Discuss," go ahead. I promise not to bother you there.

I have no problem with questions. I do, however, have a problem with sarcastic, mocking phrases like your incredibly insulting, 'Daddy, Junior, and The Spook...'

If you want to start a thread called 'Plissken has the Right to Mock Anyone's Belief and he Doesn't Give a Shit About Logic Because he Knows he's Right No Matter What Anyone Says', feel free.

But... I guess you have no option but to toe the fundie-atheist line, no matter how ridiculous it is. I suppose you're not really to blame for parroting the opinions of your 'leaders', so I forgive you.

[Iryssa]

*sigh* Guys...you're both getting way off topic and saying regrettable things. (Did anyone read my post in the roundtable discussion?)

Now, back on topic. What follows is an explanation of the Christian view of these things...I realize that there'll probably be some jargon, but ask me if I throw in some "Christianese" that needs translation.

The Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are one being, but different aspects...ie. they are manifested in different ways. This is difficult for the human mind to grasp...even the most old and ardent Christians struggle with this image. I doubt anyone will fully understand it in this life.

Satan is not God. Satan is a lesser being, but still very powerful. Satan is the tempter. God is our help in time of trouble, our Saviour. Satan is the father of lies. God is the way, the truth and the life. How could these things proceed from the same being?

[Plissken]

You are asking questions you don't seem to want answers to. The question was, in essence, "If Satan is working God's Will, could that make him another aspect of God?"

Your answer to this question seems to be, "But he's not, and you're all idiots for asking."

No, I wasn't answering any question. I was merely countering the incredibly dubious 'logic' of people saying that one person obeying another person's directives automatically makes two people into one person. Do you even know what the word 'aspect' means?

Asking questions is, for alot of people, a big part of "Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality." If you want to start a thread called "What The Edge Was Taught And Refuses To Question Or Discuss," go ahead. I promise not to bother you there.

I have no problem with questions. I do, however, have a problem with sarcastic, mocking phrases like your incredibly insulting, 'Daddy, Junior, and The Spook...'

If you want to start a thread called 'Plissken has the Right to Mock Anyone's Belief and he Doesn't Give a Shit About Logic Because he Knows he's Right No Matter What Anyone Says', feel free.

But... I guess you have no option but to toe the fundie-atheist line, no matter how ridiculous it is. I suppose you're not really to blame for parroting the opinions of your 'leaders', so I forgive you.

First off, we're not talking about "people," we're talking about deities. For many of us, this is a literary exercise, and we're using accepted forms of mythology for comparisons.

I'm sorry if "Daddy, Junior and The Spook" offended you. If it helps any, I frequently refer to the founder of the Christian sect I was raised in as "That epileptic who got hit in the head with a rock and started having visions." It's meant good-naturedly.

For the record: I'm an agnostic, so I can't speak with authority, but I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to have a fundamentalist interpretation of atheism as there are no texts to interpret. And I don't have any agnostic "leaders" to parrot. (I suppose I would parrot Vonnegut, but I think he was an athiest.)

Also for the record: I don't mock belief. I think that belief is a powerful and sacred thing. I have been known to mock people who parrot the elaborate belief structures they've been taught by their leaders and then refer to it as "logic", however.

[Fist and Faith]

At the risk of derailing this topic, (Syl, split this off if you deem fit), that sort of raises something I've been thinking about quite a bit since my re-read of Runes and TIW.

And that is that in the Land, there exists this massive sense of acceptance of other people's actions (or lack thereof).

Think about it. TC appears, effectively gets told that not only is the Land in desperate need of help, but that if he doesn't help them, they're all going to get horribly destroyed.

Then, they basically say to him, "Don't worry about it, you help us or not as you see fit. If you don't, and we all die, that's all right. We won't hold it against you."

There's an awful lot of people saying "Who are we to judge somebody else's choices? We're not strong (arrogant) enough to presume that we alone get to decide what others should do."

Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of the Land's philosophies.

Absolutely true! I wonder if it's a result of the Oath of Peace. They never say it, but I wonder if they have concluded that forcing someone to act against their will, for any reason, is a form of harm. (And if this topic takes off, we can carry it over to the Ayn Rand thread. )

[Avatar]

Iryssa's right, nobody needs to be sarcastically condescending here. Certainly I didn't intend this to lead to an unpleasant disagreement.

That said, Plissken is right in terms of the fact that it is not people we're talking about here, but "spiritual" forces. In fact, even materially speaking, in terms of people, I still see it as the "messanger" being, in that sense and at that time, and extension of the person sending the message. Not a physical combination of two bodies, but an extension of will or intent.

So Edge, I take it that you do not believe that satan is in any way subordinate to god, and nor does he obey god in any way?

Remember, what I said earlier was

If god says to satan, give that person hives, is it satan's will that the person has hives?

Forget the "aspects" question for a moment, and just think about that question.

Iryssa-- personally, I don't have any problem with the concept of a Trinity. Pagans, and many other religions, have used that concept for millenia.

In fact, pretty much every "pantheistic" religion has used the concept.

Fist-- It could well be a result of the Oath. Certainly, it's not a characteristic that the Bloodguard share. They judge.

--Avatar

[Plissken]

I'm trying to remember the book so I can quote it, but it worked around the premise that Satan had to be an extension of God's Will - otherwise, not only is God not omnipotent, Satan simply becomes a moral imbecile who sits around slavering for an opportunity to give people hives and such. Other works, completely unrelated to the Christian religion point out that, to have the power not to allow a thing to happen, and let it happen anyway, indicates a responsibility for that thing happening (Most of these are law books, BTW.)

Av: Just about every race or individual who makes, or acts on, a judgement in Covenant is either ignoring or has never taken the Oath. Kinda makes you think...

[Avatar]

It sure does...

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Boy, I can't wait until I have the internet at home and can respond to this stuff as it happens... FIRST of all, Avatar wrote:

If the president says "Do this", and somebody does it, is he acting on his own, making his own choice? No, he's performing the action in the name of the president. He is, effectively, an extension of the presidents will. The president by proxy as it were.

Ridiculous, I say. When the person does it, he is not an 'extension of the presidents will'. He's his own person, and making his own choice, under the ADVICE of the president, not the president by proxy, but someone who has the word of the president behind him. Otherwise, the 'hey, man, I was just doing my job' excuse is valid.

Which it obviously isn't.

As far as the trinity is concerned, it was settled on to establish a specific doctrine, and it definately came out of the greek way of thinking. The greeks had all sorts of ideas about the various aspects of divinity manifesting themselves seperately. As in "He appeared before her in the form of a *blank*"

[nuk]

Otherwise, the 'hey, man, I was just doing my job' excuse is valid.

Which it obviously isn't.

Legally it isn't, but psychologically...
I'm no psych expert, but I remember in my intro psych class reading about experiments where the subject was instructed to shock another person (an actor, unbeknownst to the subject) to increasing degrees. An authority figure sternly told the subjects to keep shocking the actor, even to the point of making the actor apparently lose consciousness/die. Almost all the subjects complied with the unethical demands.

I don't think we should change the law to make it a legal excuse, but it seems that most of us are sheep enough to do what we're told.

Not that that's really relevant to the Satan/God issue.