trinitarian or arian: (split from:Angels and Free Will)

Well, as i said, i don t know 100%, i state based on what i see - - and what i see, to be candid, are in fact a lot of judeochristian type angelics, that base both thier beliefs of self and thier actions/moral code on thier personal interpretations of the various interrelated judeochristian faiths - all basicly translating into the same thing. they beleive themselves to follow one paticular deity (or even a servant of such deity), and take such servitude to the point where its very difficult for them to either comprehend the possibility of errors from such a line of faith, or to the absolute extent where they will in fact ignore reality because of thier beleifs - not unlike many fundamentalists. While this is generally harmless in and of itself, it can, and does, lead to times where rather than stopping and analising situations they are in to try to find a reasonable plan to deal with it, they will accept things as thier masters doing/bidding and not work to change it.

Examples? well, i could rip one straight out the bible, i suppose (since its the only thing i can think of that would be relatable in this case) - the whole concept of putting jesus on earth, then making him suffer the inhumanities humanity is capable of, just to ressurect the guy to start a cult. Fast forward to today,however, and its all hypothetical - again, not being specificly a "god serving angel" i cant state to any degree to such.

however, when i have *asked* those that ARE angelic (including yourself) that IF there had to be a choice, what would you do, the reaction and response has been , to be blunt, dissapointing - they would place thier faith in thier deity above thier own selves and do as bidden. Personally? i trust whats within over what is without. further, the fervor i see, in response to such questions (the whole "my god would NEVER do that to me" idea), in something that, while they may have *experienced*, they cannot *prove*, is telling. Me? i freely admit i could be fit for a straight jacket in a rubber room for what i beleive - i freely admit i could be totally out to lunch for what i beleive. would i bet my life on it? most of the time, not without good reason, itd depend on the situation. but angelics? almost invariably the response is, "if my deity told me to do so, id do it regardless of what i felt". Not Me. i personally dont care if the queen, my parents and "god" all told me to do something, if i thought there was somethign wrong, id analise it, if ihad time, or if i hadnt, id trust my instincts above all else. thats the point im driving at - id rather trust in myself than something that cant be proven.

I'm a bit late to this one, i haven't read all of the posts so i apologies for any subsequent ignorances.

I'm going to firstly assume a system where there's possibly multiple types of celestials with multiple creators...each as omnipotent as the next. The 'creator', being all-knowing, would design the creation in a way that fit into some sort of scheme (assuming there is one)...if one's creator is more of an anarchist (lol)...they wouldn't tell them what to do anyway...so that's a null notion. With such in mind, and witnessing the intricate detail of the 'planes' (apologies for the new-ageish term)...i assume that my creator is quite micro-oriented...down to my nature (as in characteristics). It's popular to believe angels to be mere tools of the divine. To the contrary, each is quite individual (with noted similarities, especially amongst choirs). The reason (i feel) that most celestials are so inclined to perform the task that their creator sets forth...is because of their innate connection to the will of their creator. Most, if not all, angelic tasks wreak of 'higher' intent...which may supersede comfort or 'tentative' gains/pains. The being then has an enlightened understanding of such...(which sometimes blinds them to the somewhat heinous 'physical' realities of situations...which is part of why i feel the divine do at times incarnate....but that's another topic). I feel that angels, likewise all celestials, can choose...it's merely that the choice is made in 'tangent' with their creator...as opposed to a command (if that makes sense). Essentially we're all still human to whatever degree, thusly we only have but pieces of understanding as to the currents of divine will...and what it means to enact such. What may seem like the lack of decision to us...may simply be instant rapport and perhaps even care as to which being is asked to perform a task. (which goes back to one's 'design')

On the biblical example used by RKCoon:

The council of Nicea decided to support the trinity, the thinking that Jesus was God made man. Take your analogy of God making some sap suffer in the Bible, and now apply the concept that God came down and let himself suffer all the hatred and anger that mankind could throw.

The other example you used, asking questions. Your entire train of thought is predicated on one point, God gives unjust and morally objectionable orders. Maybe you don't like the order, maybe you don't like God. I however do not believe that God gives unjust orders, and this opinion is based on weighing options, analyzing orders and in the case(s) that I do question an order, I believe I have been given a full and complete sense filled answer that justifies the action requested.

Is it so hard a concept to believe that while not benevolent, God is neutral, rather than malevolent?

As far as what Auriel said:

The idea of higher intent, a greater understanding, hitting the nail on the head. What seems like a terrible idea now, may pan out in 10,000 years better than any other alternative, however it takes one with such a concept of time to understand that. Quick fixes seem very appealing at the time, but hardly ever pan out well past the six month mark.

Now theres a topico f hot debate - was jesus separate from god? was he the son of god, or was he god? often i hear the answer, both - well thats a bit of inbreeding, isnt it? I would say tho, that "god/jesus suffered all the hate and anger that mankind could throw" is a vast overstatement - Humanity is capable of a LOT more than that, and id venture to state there are a long list of people that would love to demonstrate that to said being - in great detail.

Personally? as i said, i try to keep myself neutral (if oppinionated) on the thought of a judeoxtian god, ive not seen enough to convince me, all i HAVE seen, however, is enough to dislike the idea a considerable amount. No one and no thing has yet to solidly prove it to me tho, which is fine too. Would it be possible such a being is neutral? Possible, yes - likely, Nope.

One other thing - This concept and notion of tolerating what is bad or wrong for now in the hopes that it will pan out in the future is one i hear all too often - rare does it work, usually, its either born out of pure lazyness, or more iritatingly, blind faith in a leader - all the while, if one chose to offer aid, one could improve the situation, ones self.

the issue of neutrality is one that can be seen by moving beyond the relative good and evil that people seem to be so obsessed with. In my beliefs, and in the basic belief of God from most religions, God embodies the role of Creator, and whether or not it is an active deity, or just the primary mover, the idea is this, There was Creation, and it has a path to run, God and the Host serve as a maintenance staff and security measure. Angels make sure all factors and systems are running correctly, and keep foreign influence from effecting the course of Creation as it moves throughout time.

As far as Jesus being part of God or not... I'm a Trinitarian, I believe in the Creator as an abstract being that takes different manifestations for different purposes. The Bible however was written and compiled based on the notion of Trinity, if you wish to use a Biblical example to show that God was heartless enough to torture some poor sap, don't use an example of endless mercy and sacrifice.

The concept of tolerating for a better future is different from the notion of a long term fix that people may not like right now. Long term investment, it would be like the US fixing it's economic crisis in the short term by printing more money and handing it out to people (which the people getting handed money would love, but would find themselves in a tougher bind by the following year), or by increasing tariffs on imported goods to stimulate the American economy with increased purchases of domestic goods. Is the latter malevolent because many people will not like it? Is the latter malevolent because it will take a long time to work?

Really, As you seem to continually state dislike for the God of Abraham and decisions and feel there is a lot of irresponsibility, dishonesty and even malevolent strides made by that God, I wonder if your personal opinion is creating a negative bias against actions of that God or the Angels that are loyal and would willingly follow that deity.

Terro Wrote:As far as Jesus being part of God or not... I'm a Trinitarian, I believe in the Creator as an abstract being that takes different manifestations for different purposes. The Bible however was written and compiled based on the notion of Trinity

I'm not getting into the wider debate, I just want to raise issue with this one point. Some Christian sects believe that the Bible was written and compiled based on the notion of Trinity. Some Christian sects believe that "trinity" is a later, man-made concept.

I'm in the latter camp and could argue it all day long with anyone who chose to (for this reason an RE teacher once told me, and I quote, "You're the thorn in my side.") You, as part of the other camp, could doubtless argue your point of view all day long as well. That said - the point is that it is very much a "live issue", and as such while it is accurate for you or me to say "I believe the Bible was written along these lines . . ." it is NOT accurate to say "It definitely was."

The majority of the Bible was compiled by the Council of Nicea who declared the Trinity to be correct and non-trinitarians or those later called "Arians" to be heretics.

Whether or not the concept of Trinity was invented at that very Council, whether or not different editions of the bible say different things, that was the original official opinion of the church the very first time the church had an official opinion. (This is the main reason I don't like the Bible as a source, so incredibly debatable)

And yet, a great many people far better educated in this topic than me (and I would guess, than you), after considered study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, believe it pretty conclusively is anti-Trinitarian.

hmm, my post was moved here...where it has nothing to do with the debate

my mistake, I just chopped it off after the initial de-railing.