What makes you right?

[XenoFish]

You're the Dr Frankenstein of posters. You create threads that turn into monsters.

Whoa wait! I think I got this mixed up.

That's better.

[back to earth]

Did you misunderstand ? A human is a trinitarian being, with matter energy and mind making up the whole being, but each having a "separate nature", So is god such a being. No third force but three elements of one being. You might better be able to understand this sometime later this century, when humans learn how to separate and then reintegrate those three elements of humanity Eg by transferring our "mind" or spirit from one host to another, or transmitting our body as energy, across a long disatance and then restoring it as matter. Perhaps when humans described god many thousands of years ago they were observing a being with that sort of technology.

Its not that I don't understand .... although any time you get criticised for the wrongness or obviousness of your replies you automatically assume you are right and the other does not understand ... so off you go on one of your meaningless 'explanations' .

As far as postulation such a vague 3rd force or part as 'energy' ... then saying your ideas will make sense in the future, when your Sci Fi dreams come true ... is just more ridiculous !

The above comment seems more relevant for the Star Treck forum

[back to earth]

From an Orthodox Christian/Protestant point of view, this explanation is heresy. The doctrine of the Trinity is ineffable (just like God happens to be ineffable). I see how you are trying to mesh ancient theology with modern logic, but from an actual Christian point of view it doesn't translate.

Just thought I'd say that

But he isn't a Christian remember ... he is gong free-form now .

[Stubbly_Dooright]

You're the Dr Frankenstein of posters. You create threads that turn into monsters.

LOL Well put, Hammerclaw.

Whoa wait! I think I got this mixed up.

That's better.

Dang, from the many episodes of "Once Upon a Time" I have yet to catch on. It is from OUAT?

But he isn't a Christian remember ... he is gong free-form now .

Gong free-form?

[+Link of Hyrule]

But he isn't a Christian remember ... he is gong free-form now .

As long as he continues to post saying that he is a Christian and then providing definitions of what Christian terms of theology such as "trinity" are when those definitions do not line up with any orthodox protestant teaching that I am aware of, I'm going to keep on replying to him to correct his error.

[Mr Walker]

According to JI Packer in this article (I own the book, this is just an excerpt - JI Packer, btw, is one of the most respected theologians of this generation) declares the trinity to be a "mystery" and that it is "beyond us" to properly and fully explain (paragraph 1). Furthermore, towards the end of the article he correctly identifies your interpretation of the Trinity to be "Modalism". Modalism is heresy in protestant Christianity. Granted, you have somewhat attempted to soften the blow of Modalism a little with the exact description of your point of view, but the essential idea behind it - that it is one God, but is performing three different roles - is classic Modalism, which I already pointed out is heretical to orthodox Protestantism (I'm not sure what the Roman Catholic view of it is, they may or may not be different, I haven't studied it). The Trinity requires us to accept that yes, there is one God, and yes, it is in three distinct and specific individual beings and that each of the three beings plays a different role, but they are not three separate gods (polytheism/tritheism) but one single solitary God. Humans are not triune beings, we are one being, one person.

This is standard Anglican (low Anglican, as espoused by the Sydney diocese) doctrine, so I don't know if the Anglicans in your part of the world are different (either High Anglican, or perhaps taking more from the Church of England, I don't know the specific CoE stance). Anglicanism in Sydney is VERY different to the rest of Australia in many ways, ask any Anglican who has visited Sydney and they will happily expand on how different it is. But whatever it is, your views are not in line with Protestant theology.

But hey, don't argue with me, argue with JI Packer! His article is far more detailed than any personal post I could make on the topic here on UM.

Yes the anglican church i had contact with in the fifties and sixties was high anglican, almost catholic.

I will check out modalism I have never met personally a theologian who said that god is inexplicable, in any church. I think this is because such a god is a "mystery", a good symbolic rallying point but not useful, and most 'local ' theologians dont want to tell the church folk that their god must remain a mystery to them.

For me (and most christians i know) god is real and practical ie interventionist and responsive. I have a feeling the idea of an ineffable god might be one from academic theologians who are more nterested in the IDEA of god than with god himself, and who have never really lived with god.

Now having said all that I DO think /agree that there is only one god (as there is only one of me ) BUT it consists of 3 separate elements yes three distinct separate beings. (i did say how those elements appear individually and simultaneously in the scene where christ is baptised. I can see human technology in the near future enabling ME to exist as one individual but also as three discrete and separate individuals. For me it is not a hard or strange concept . There is no scientific reason why 3 separate beings could not share a single conscious for example, and be able to know all the thoughts of each part of the whole.

But mainly I see absolutely no reason to construct/perceive god as mysterious or ineffable, and some good reasons why this distances us from such a god. God is not distant from us. He exists inside us and right along side us all the time. Neither is god a mystery so deep we cant comprehend it , although we don't know a lot about him. God can be as familiar to a human being as a member of their family is, and sometimes more so.

[Mr Walker]

As long as he continues to post saying that he is a Christian and then providing definitions of what Christian terms of theology such as "trinity" are when those definitions do not line up with any orthodox protestant teaching that I am aware of, I'm going to keep on replying to him to correct his error.

And i AM a christian, in that I live a life based on christ's life and on how he taught us to be. But this is a choice, not a doctrinal imperative.

Originally i didnt say protestant but mainstream Christian However i know a lot of protestant theologies quite well in theory and the way i described god dosnt differ significanlty from their view because it comes straight from biblcal texts and constructs of god. But again perhaps i didnt really make the understanding of the trinity that i hold, clear enough.

You don't think it can be defined or understood, but of course if it is real and exists in practice, then it is functional and understandable. Just because a cave man doesnt comprehend a light bulb, doesn't mean we cannot or tha tit is oneffable/incomprehensible.

[Mr Walker]

Its not that I don't understand .... although any time you get criticised for the wrongness or obviousness of your replies you automatically assume you are right and the other does not understand ... so off you go on one of your meaningless 'explanations' .

As far as postulation such a vague 3rd force or part as 'energy' ... then saying your ideas will make sense in the future, when your Sci Fi dreams come true ... is just more ridiculous !

The above comment seems more relevant for the Star Treck forum

This reply makes it absolutely clear that you don't have a clue what i am talking of. That might be the inadequacy of my explanation but it might also be a lack of vision open mindedness on yours. What "3rd. force" did i speak about which you cant believe in ?

Doesn't ALL religious belief closely resemble science fiction ? However what i was talking about isn't science fiction, but the extrapolation of current science, just a few decades into the future, certainly in the life time of young people today.

Australian scientists just developed a wound dressing which will detect infection in a wound, and self administer treatment, including antibiotics, via nannites built into the dressing.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Mr Walker, as I said, you don't need to argue with me. Take the discussion up with JI Packer. His views resonate with my understanding, and reflect with pretty much every pastor I have had contact with in both the Anglican and the Presbyterian system (I'll also tag in the Baptist system - though I've never been a member at such a church, the co-minister at my first Anglican Church back in Sydney was offered, and subsequently accepted a job at a Baptist Church a few suburbs away, and he was just about the most theologically astute pastor I have ever had contact with - also the most dogmatic, though a few years ago I heard he had softened up in quite a number of areas that I frequently debated him about).

Edit: that period of time was the "golden time" of my first church, where membership rose 400% in two years. The pastor I'm referring to here was absolutely brilliant with theology, he shared ideas and concepts that sometimes shook me to my core at thinking of it. As said, he was a little dogmatic at times, but I've heard he's mellowed. The other pastor was still theologically sound, but he's more of a "people person", his strength was in fostering community spirit and a sense of belonging. That tag-team partnership between the two pastors led to the most amazing period of growth I've seen in any Christian church. The people-focused skills of one, combined with some of the most mind-blowing theology and teaching sermons I've heard from the other led to a place where people loved to come and become both a part of a community and learn heaps about their theology that they hadn't even considered before.

But I digress, my point was made, I was just sharing now

Edited August 27, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Mr Walker]

Mr Walker, as I said, you don't need to argue with me. Take the discussion up with JI Packer. His views resonate with my understanding, and reflect with pretty much every pastor I have had contact with in both the Anglican and the Presbyterian system (I'll also tag in the Baptist system - though I've never been a member at such a church, the co-minister at my first Anglican Church back in Sydney was offered, and subsequently accepted a job at a Baptist Church a few suburbs away, and he was just about the most theologically astute pastor I have ever had contact with - also the most dogmatic, though a few years ago I heard he had softened up in quite a number of areas that I frequently debated him about).

Edit: that period of time was the "golden time" of my first church, where membership rose 400% in two years. The pastor I'm referring to here was absolutely brilliant with theology, he shared ideas and concepts that sometimes shook me to my core at thinking of it. As said, he was a little dogmatic at times, but I've heard he's mellowed. The other pastor was still theologically sound, but he's more of a "people person", his strength was in fostering community spirit and a sense of belonging. That tag-team partnership between the two pastors led to the most amazing period of growth I've seen in any Christian church. The people-focused skills of one, combined with some of the most mind-blowing theology and teaching sermons I've heard from the other led to a place where people loved to come and become both a part of a community and learn heaps about their theology that they hadn't even considered before.

But I digress, my point was made, I was just sharing now

Ok I read the article. I agree with every word of it IMO He says what i was saying and he understands the trinity as I understand it. Somehow i have miscommunicated my understanding to you. Mind you, his was a brief explanation of a very complex entity and he doesn't really, in it ,address just HOW the trinity exists and operates. God is NOT one being playing three roles. God is three beings each with different roles But ALSo one being/ one god. i was attempting to explain how this is possible and how see god as operating in this form To me humans are like this in potential and eventually may evolve through technology into a very similar form. Different parts of Our bodies have different roles and functions. AT the moment we are 'trapped" by evolution into one physical form. But soon we will be able to separate out those different functions into physically separate entities, while retaining the unity of the three.

For example there is no longer any scientific or technical reason why in theory my mind/awareness /consciousness can't be separated from my body, and/or shared by many different individual life forms. Technically my mind could be placed in the body of a being on another planet, and live out its life there, then be brought back and reintegrated with another copy of my own mind/body. technically we are approaching the ability of direct mind to mind communication and sharing just as god shares his mind and we can share ours with his..

the following is a Claim which you may dispute

I already have a life long experience which helps me understand this. I am linked to the cosmic consciousness or mind of god This enables me to "BE" someone else, and somewhere else, while still physically in one place. I understand totally how the mind of god can be everywhere and how one mind can link with and share with the individual minds of others, including the mind of god, to create new consciousness . For me this is filled with wonder, YET it is only a shadow of the connection that exists between the consciousnesses of god .

I cant explain this, because it is a personal experience, sustained over 4 decades, but if you read up on the cosmic consciousness you will find a NON Christian explanation of what it is like. Then you have to reference it into Christian understandings.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Mr Walker

[+Link of Hyrule]

Ok I read the article. I agree with every word of it IMO He says what i was saying and he understands the trinity as I understand it. Somehow i have miscommunicated my understanding to you. Mind you, his was a brief explanation of a very complex entity and he doesn't really, in it ,address just HOW the trinity exists and operates. God is NOT one being playing three roles. God is three beings each with different roles But ALSo one being/ one god. i was attempting to explain how this is possible and how see god as operating in this form To me humans are like this in potential and eventually may evolve through technology into a very similar form. Different parts of Our bodies have different roles and functions. AT the moment we are 'trapped" by evolution into one physical form. But soon we will be able to separate out those different functions into physically separate entities, while retaining the unity of the three.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication somewhere here. The very moment you wrote:

No third force but three elements of one being.

You strongly entered the world of Modalism. Then you went on to declare that humans are also triune beings, a comment that I don't see reflected in any mainstream teaching, not backed by the Bible. You did show how the three elements of the Trinity interacted (say, at the baptism by John the Baptist) but no such interaction happens with humans, we are just one being, this perpetuated the confusion about "three elements of one being", much like "I, Paranoid Android, can be a teacher and a student and a son and a brother all at once" - that's four elements, but for the sake of the "trinity" the issue is condensed down to three. That is modalism, the idea that one person simply takes on different roles depending on how the situation calls for it. It sounded like that is how you were describing it.

Though I would argue that JI Packer does not address "just HOW the trinity exists and operates" because by his very own words, it is a "mystery" that is beyond us.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Yes the anglican church i had contact with in the fifties and sixties was high anglican, almost catholic.

Could any other Christian please educate me. Of course, I'm not an Orthodox Christian, but I have always thought that Anglican was pretty much Protestant. I even did some searching,

Like I see here the thought of how it is seen: http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2013/01/anglicanism-protestant-or-catholic.html

Anglicanism is a tradition within Christianity comprising the Church of England and churches which are historically tied to it or hold similar beliefs, worship practices and church structures.

from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanis

And from what I understand, that's a belief that was birthed in Henry the eighth's time, in which he tried to rid England of the Roman Catholic belief, so he can divorce Katherine of Arogan and marry Anne boylene. So, I would think, Catholism is not part of it.

PA, or 8bits, or someone, is this true?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Could any other Christian please educate me. Of course, I'm not an Orthodox Christian, but I have always thought that Anglican was pretty much Protestant. I even did some searching, [/background][/size][/font][/color]

Like I see here the thought of how it is seen: http://anglicancleri...r-catholic.html

from here: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Anglicanis

And from what I understand, that's a belief that was birthed in Henry the eighth's time, in which he tried to rid England of the Roman Catholic belief, so he can divorce Katherine of Arogan and marry Anne boylene. So, I would think, Catholism is not part of it.

PA, or 8bits, or someone, is this true?

8bits probably knows more about the Catholic side of it. From the protestant side, the Church of England (aka, Anglicans) were not officially part of the Reformation (not in the sense that Calvin, Wesley, and other such likes were, at least). The Protestant Reformation was largely a push by said priests to bring the text of the Bible to the masses, to let them make up their own mind. The Anglicans did follow a similar path, but it was more a way to try and get around the official Roman Catholic stance on marriage, and thus more a political move to take power from the Pope and put it into the hands of the royal family.

Which is what happened. Anglicans did partner with the other Reformers in many ways, but the differences remained, and in large ways the Anglican Church retained a lot of the rituals and liturgies of the Catholics. In some sense I suppose all Reformers held some traditions from the Catholics, but the split of the Anglicans was more political and thus the system that remained was largely similar to the Catholic system.

Thus if we fast forward to the 20th Century, for a large proportion of it, Anglican services were very similar (in many ways identical) to Catholic churches. A lot of ritual, prayer books, incense burning, that kind of thing. The second half of the 20th Century brought a "reformation" of its own into the Anglican Church and an unofficial split between "high Anglican" and "low Anglican" happened, where high Anglicans adhered to the traditions of the Church of England, while the low Anglicans made things very unofficial and did some crazy unique things like introducing a drum kit and bass guitar into the hymns, as well as removing robes and incense and ritual.

This is a very broad breakdown of the actual history. It's not complete, and it does reflect my understanding of the situation, it's not "gospel" (pardon the pun), so don't take it as such, but it is how I have understood the situation up until this point.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8bits probably knows more about the Catholic side of it. From the protestant side, the Church of England (aka, Anglicans) were not officially part of the Reformation (not in the sense that Calvin, Wesley, and other such likes were, at least). The Protestant Reformation was largely a push by said priests to bring the text of the Bible to the masses, to let them make up their own mind. The Anglicans did follow a similar path, but it was more a way to try and get around the official Roman Catholic stance on marriage, and thus more a political move to take power from the Pope and put it into the hands of the royal family.

Which is what happened. Anglicans did partner with the other Reformers in many ways, but the differences remained, and in large ways the Anglican Church retained a lot of the rituals and liturgies of the Catholics. In some sense I suppose all Reformers held some traditions from the Catholics, but the split of the Anglicans was more political and thus the system that remained was largely similar to the Catholic system.

Thus if we fast forward to the 20th Century, for a large proportion of it, Anglican services were very similar (in many ways identical) to Catholic churches. A lot of ritual, prayer books, incense burning, that kind of thing. The second half of the 20th Century brought a "reformation" of its own into the Anglican Church and an unofficial split between "high Anglican" and "low Anglican" happened, where high Anglicans adhered to the traditions of the Church of England, while the low Anglicans made things very unofficial and did some crazy unique things like introducing a drum kit and bass guitar into the hymns, as well as removing robes and incense and ritual.

This is a very broad breakdown of the actual history. It's not complete, and it does reflect my understanding of the situation, it's not "gospel" (pardon the pun), so don't take it as such, but it is how I have understood the situation up until this point.

But I find it nice information, ( and what I always understood, so I think you make sense to me) and I thank you.

[fullywired]

As I understand it Henry wanted a divorce or annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't allow, and mainly at the urgings of Thomas Cromwell, was persuaded to make himself head of the church in England which achieved it's purpose ,he divorced Catherine and helped himself to the lands and money of the monasteries. His intentions were not to form another religion but just be the head of the English Church .It was the machinations of Thomas Cromwell that can be blamed or credited depending of your view with Protestant England .Henry carried on as if he was a Catholic except he was now the boss not the Pope

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

As I understand it Henry wanted a divorce or annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't allow, and mainly at the urgings of Thomas Cromwell, was persuaded to make himself head of the church in England which achieved it's purpose ,he divorced Catherine and helped himself to the lands and money of the monasteries. His intentions were not to form another religion but just be the head of the English Church .It was the machinations of Thomas Cromwell that can be blamed or credited depending of your view with Protestant England .Henry carried on as if he was a Catholic except he was now the boss not the Pope

fullywired

That's basically my understanding. Because of the politics of the time, the Anglican Church did end up following (or perhaps being dragged along?) by the Protestant Reformation, but it was never Henry's intention to "break away" from the Church.

Though funnily enough, it wasn't Martin Luther's intention to break away from the Catholic Church either, it was just (in his mind) an unfortunate effect of their refusal to bend. As it happened, the Church wouldn't relent, and the Lutheran Church was born.

[back to earth]

This reply makes it absolutely clear that you don't have a clue what i am talking of.

See! This proves my point, you did it straight away ! You write rubbish, that another can clearly see IS rubbish and when they point it out you revert to the Walker default position that the other does not comprehend you.

You even did it as a response to me pointing out this Walkerism above ..... its pretty funny actually.

That might be the inadequacy of my explanation but it might also be a lack of vision open mindedness on yours. What "3rd. force" did i speak about which you cant believe in ?

Listen up! I do not suffer lack of vision nor from a closed mind ... its you that are mixed up .... it isn't that I cant believe in any 3rd force it is just the ridiculous proposition you stated that the third force will be valid when we discover what you postulate in the future ... do you even get how silly that is ... or does it have to be explained to you ... I doubt you would get it either way, as this too has been engrained into your consciousness . evidenced by you continually doing it.

I will prove a thing by making up something and justify its existence by imagining it will exist in the future.

Doesn't ALL religious belief closely resemble science fiction ? However what i was talking about isn't science fiction, but the extrapolation of current science,

yeah right .... do you actually know what SF is ????

It is the extrapolation , imaging, projection, fiction, etc extended from current science into the future ..... you cant even get that right !

just a few decades into the future, certainly in the life time of young people today.

Australian scientists just developed a wound dressing which will detect infection in a wound, and self administer treatment, including antibiotics, via nannites built into the dressing.

So ..... aloe vera does the same on burns and leaves you with a covering better than any 'plastic skin' I came across in 10 years work in a hospital ... including O.T.

Yarrow does remarkable on cuts ... better than stiches ... I know, I have used it on myself instead of getting stiches ... Alexander the Great's physicians used it to heal sword and axe injuries (I am not talking a paper cut here )

But you stick to your nannites .... and your modern medicine, that somehow proves your point above that is ; I am right because of what they will invent in the future (that's what it boils down to )

and obviously all of this will be due to my lack of insight and vision in not comprehending your confused 'logic'

[Stubbly_Dooright]

As I understand it Henry wanted a divorce or annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't allow, and mainly at the urgings of Thomas Cromwell, was persuaded to make himself head of the church in England which achieved it's purpose ,he divorced Catherine and helped himself to the lands and money of the monasteries. His intentions were not to form another religion but just be the head of the English Church .It was the machinations of Thomas Cromwell that can be blamed or credited depending of your view with Protestant England .Henry carried on as if he was a Catholic except he was now the boss not the Pope

fullywired

Yup, that pretty much of what I have read, and always understood. And interesting enough, from what I understand, both Anne and Cromwell, he ended up cutting their heads off too. But he did change a country, didn't he?

[Mr Walker]

Perhaps there is a miscommunication somewhere here. The very moment you wrote:

You strongly entered the world of Modalism. Then you went on to declare that humans are also triune beings, a comment that I don't see reflected in any mainstream teaching, not backed by the Bible. You did show how the three elements of the Trinity interacted (say, at the baptism by John the Baptist) but no such interaction happens with humans, we are just one being, this perpetuated the confusion about "three elements of one being", much like "I, Paranoid Android, can be a teacher and a student and a son and a brother all at once" - that's four elements, but for the sake of the "trinity" the issue is condensed down to three. That is modalism, the idea that one person simply takes on different roles depending on how the situation calls for it. It sounded like that is how you were describing it.

Though I would argue that JI Packer does not address "just HOW the trinity exists and operates" because by his very own words, it is a "mystery" that is beyond us.

Perhaps i should have said three beings in one being or one being comprised of three separate beings. The one"being" is god but it has 3 separate components with individual characteristics. . I didn't get the idea from the short piece that the author found god to be a mystery, but that might well be his pov. NO the idea of humans being a triune form is my own. I use it to try to explain HOW three beings can be one being or one being can be three separate beings Humans have this potential in the future.because we are at least 3 beings coexisting in one body ATM, with potential in the future to separate out each part into separate parts.

[Mr Walker]

See! This proves my point, you did it straight away ! You write rubbish, that another can clearly see IS rubbish and when they point it out you revert to the Walker default position that the other does not comprehend you.

You even did it as a response to me pointing out this Walkerism above ..... its pretty funny actually.

Listen up! I do not suffer lack of vision nor from a closed mind ... its you that are mixed up .... it isn't that I cant believe in any 3rd force it is just the ridiculous proposition you stated that the third force will be valid when we discover what you postulate in the future ... do you even get how silly that is ... or does it have to be explained to you ... I doubt you would get it either way, as this too has been engrained into your consciousness . evidenced by you continually doing it.

I will prove a thing by making up something and justify its existence by imagining it will exist in the future.

yeah right .... do you actually know what SF is ????

It is the extrapolation , imaging, projection, fiction, etc extended from current science into the future ..... you cant even get that right !

So ..... aloe vera does the same on burns and leaves you with a covering better than any 'plastic skin' I came across in 10 years work in a hospital ... including O.T.

Yarrow does remarkable on cuts ... better than stiches ... I know, I have used it on myself instead of getting stiches ... Alexander the Great's physicians used it to heal sword and axe injuries (I am not talking a paper cut here )

But you stick to your nannites .... and your modern medicine, that somehow proves your point above that is ; I am right because of what they will invent in the future (that's what it boils down to )

and obviously all of this will be due to my lack of insight and vision in not comprehending your confused 'logic'

Its funny that two english speakers can occupy such different conceptual realities You STILL don't have a clue what i am saying, and i really have difficulty understanding how you perceive the same reality as I do, in such a different way.

Take my point about science fiction. It is FICTION whatever it is based on The concepts and developments I mention are CURRENT scientific realities in primitive or basic form. They WILL be extrapolated and developed now tha the basic theories are understood. My question originally was this, "would it be easier to understand the trinitarian nature of god if we were able to make oursleves trinitarian in nature?"

Ie that once we achieve something like electricity it is no longer incomprehensible or unknown. I think your underlying attitude to science is getting in your way despite your denials. There is no comparison between natural remedies, no mater how effective and medical nano technologies . There isn't even a comparison between them and penicillin or polio vaccine. As one who has undergone open heart surgery i wouldn't be alive without modern medical science.

This was also my point with the bandages. UNless you KNOW the current state of play with science, you will assume a lot of what i base my ideas on is science fiction, or worse pure fantasy It is not . It is based on modern,real science and technology Given a choice between yarrow and modern medicine i would take the latter every time. But lacking access to modern medicine i would grab the yarrow with both hands. Ps my wife has been using aloe juice to protect and moisturise her skin for 50 years I don't get your point She wouldn't use it as a first priority medical treatment if she had severe burns, although it is great for superficial ones and for long term skin healing.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

As I understand it Henry wanted a divorce or annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't allow, and mainly at the urgings of Thomas Cromwell, was persuaded to make himself head of the church in England which achieved it's purpose ,he divorced Catherine and helped himself to the lands and money of the monasteries. His intentions were not to form another religion but just be the head of the English Church .It was the machinations of Thomas Cromwell that can be blamed or credited depending of your view with Protestant England .Henry carried on as if he was a Catholic except he was now the boss not the Pope

fullywired

Henry's aim was not so much head of the English church but head of state in England. Until Henry, the pope was the head of state in all catholic countries and kings exercised their divine right through him. Henry was the first monarch to prioritise the king's role, power and authority over that of the pope But even then, there was a lot of power retained by the church for centuries, and two separate legal systems operating in England. Because the catholic church would not accept this, henry created a new state religion of which he was secular head.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Henry's aim was not so much head of the English church but head of state in England.

He already had that. He was the king, and had been since he was 18.

[141]

1. What makes me right is my belief that I am right. It comes from within. Like when I try something new on a menu, which I rarely do out of fear of wasting my money. When I make the right choice, I know it. Same with my belief in God.

2. I think nonbelievers need God in their lives because there is no better way to live than worshiping God. Knowing that the Maker of the Universe loves you is far more grand than any human relationship or human experience can compete. This belief even comes with the disclaimer that cultural difference is beautiful to Him.

3. What motivates me is purpose. Like I said, I don't like wasting money. I don't like wasting anything. When I do, I feel terrible about it. I like things, including life, to mean something. Purpose, in my opinion, is always established by a higher power. My bed received its purpose from its makers. Every night it receives its purpose from me, and sometimes during the day. Same for my iPad, my breakfast, my TV, and my car. I believe that the Maker of the Universe has purposed mankind to worship Him and be exceedingly blessed doing so (Genesis 3:1-3).

4. I do follow my faith for personal reasons. Having grown up around many different teachings and having seen the flaws in many of them, I sought out God personally. After a few years of mindless partying and a devastating divorce, I found myself in shame of all my past hypocrisy. I almost forsook God because of how twisted my thinking had become over the many years and how I felt like I had wasted my life (remember how I feel about wasting things). Three separate times, three separate people who did not know each other informed me that the local church was looking for musicians and that I should try out. All three times I rejected their suggestions. After the third time, however, I believed that the Maker might actually be pursuing me. I gave that church a try and found so much grace toward my spiritual growth. I decided that if I was going to give religion another chance, God would have to be far more forgiving than people I grew up around said He was. That led me to Jesus and I truly have not been the same since.

5. If my God isn't God, but is a demon or the devil, then he must be outsmarting even his own self. What evil demon desires good and the contagious spread of goodness? What evil demon wants people to treat each other fairly and seek after a truly meaningful life? I strongly doubt that my God, the Maker of this wonderful universe, is a demon.

6. If I practice idolatry through Jesus, then my sins are still counted against me and I am condemned for not complying with archaic and culturally-specific religious commands that were established in a historical setting far different than ours. In this case, Jesus is still more appealing. The grace of God is more than just a magical phrase or the easing of suffering. The grace of God is a living example that I daily cling to. That grace is the person of Jesus Christ, the best manifestation of the Maker of the universe to such feeble-minded people like myself. If I reject the deity of Jesus, I reject the divine power of the grace that flows through His veins. If he was just a man, then nobody is saved nor can they be.

7. I do not consider myself superior. I consider myself extremely fortunate. I've hung my head down in shame too many times to consider myself superior. I am also an evangelist. Evangelism and superiority-complex are not as compatible as most people thing. An evangelist's main concern is the welfare of others and the glory of God. There is no room for superiority in the evangelism field. People who do feel superior often turn others away from the gospel or are found out soon after calling people to the alter.

8. What makes my faith better than other belief structures is the tenacity to love and to love beyond logic. Jesus died for me even while I was still sinning. Then He called me to love others the same way. In what other religion does the supreme being love like that? There are sun gods, ocean gods, sex gods, war gods, gods of love (erotic love), dying gods, resurrecting gods, nature gods, drunkeness gods, light gods, dark gods, lightning gods, and the list could go on. But none of them have love like Jesus and none of them relentlessly pursues human beings like Jesus. The other gods sit far off and call others at the cost of misery. Jesus alone pursues us and took on the miseries of all of human history until it killed him. Name a god who loved like Jesus and relentlessly pursues human affection like Jesus. I cannot think of any gods that meet that criteria, only bits and pieces. That is why I believe my faith is better. It's not out of superiority that I write this. My entire life I have faced rejection from everyone around me, even family. The only person that actually stuck by me and defended me was Jesus.

This is beautiful ... be blessed

[back to earth]

Its funny that two english speakers can occupy such different conceptual realities You STILL don't have a clue what i am saying, and i really have difficulty understanding how you perceive the same reality as I do, in such a different way.

Take my point about science fiction. It is FICTION whatever it is based on The concepts and developments I mention are CURRENT scientific realities in primitive or basic form. They WILL be extrapolated and developed now tha the basic theories are understood. My question originally was this, "would it be easier to understand the trinitarian nature of god if we were able to make oursleves trinitarian in nature?"

Ie that once we achieve something like electricity it is no longer incomprehensible or unknown. I think your underlying attitude to science is getting in your way despite your denials. There is no comparison between natural remedies, no mater how effective and medical nano technologies . There isn't even a comparison between them and penicillin or polio vaccine. As one who has undergone open heart surgery i wouldn't be alive without modern medical science.

This was also my point with the bandages. UNless you KNOW the current state of play with science, you will assume a lot of what i base my ideas on is science fiction, or worse pure fantasy It is not . It is based on modern,real science and technology Given a choice between yarrow and modern medicine i would take the latter every time. But lacking access to modern medicine i would grab the yarrow with both hands. Ps my wife has been using aloe juice to protect and moisturise her skin for 50 years I don't get your point She wouldn't use it as a first priority medical treatment if she had severe burns, although it is great for superficial ones and for long term skin healing.

Nup ... you did it yet again, you are the loopy one ...

take this classic " Humans have this potential in the future.because we are at least 3 beings coexisting in one body ATM, with potential in the future to separate out each part into separate parts. "

This is a fact Walker .... how many others here keep telling you that ... in case you have not realised ... it is not just me ....

In case your particular syndrome or condition is STILL causing you this problem I will outline how your brilliant deduction reads :

I will explain part of the tricky nature of a trinitarian god concept by comparing him to people, who are not Trinitarian as yet, but in the future we will be able to separate out each part of ourselves into separate parts and we will be like that ... and that explains how god is like that .

brilliant ... sheer brilliance ! Quick! Someone contact the theological college of Queensland.

And you stroll around your town, shops, etc chatting to people (as you previously listed ) ... poor town! "here comes that guy again "

[back to earth]

He already had that. He was the king, and had been since he was 18.

No ... don't argue with Walker ... the reason the (already) King and 'head of state' wanted to be head of the church was so he could be head of state of the state he was already in a state of being head of

Now, wait for it .... Walker will pop up explaining what head of state actually means ( to him ) and how you have totally misinterpreted him ( he used to teach kids history, you know )