Keith Russell

Amos: Freud really has no territory because he was wrong (I put Frued down after three pages so I really do not know).

Keith: So, should I take your word that he was wrong—or not?

Amos: The subconscious mind is our soul wherein we are incarnate and therefore eternal.

Keith: Define ‘soul’ and ‘eternal’, please, and give supporting, independently verifiable evidence that these terms refer to valid, rational, and existing concepts.

Amos: The famous "One Thousand Year Reign" exists in our soul and if we come to know who we really are we dwell in this approximate duration of time.

Keith: The above sentence in no way corresponds to reality.

Amos: It contains the vices and virtues of our ancestors (sins of the clan, tribe and nation) but they will be annihilated when understood (Jesus spend three days in the netherworld of his subconscious mind for the realization of these 'sins' in answer to "who am I."

Keith: The above sentence in no way corresponds to reality.

Amos: The "human mind" is strictly our conscious mind and opposite this is the "woman mind."

Keith: I guess you believe that ‘women’ aren’t ‘human’. Silly.

Amos: The human mind is conscious (TOK) and the woman mind is subconscious

Keith: So now women aren’t only inhuman, but they aren’t conscious, either? More silliness.

Amos: (TOL) and the mind of God is the neuter form of Lord God which is greater and includes both the human and woman mind. Some indication of this is the difference in sexual arousal between males and females and also the increased spermcount after intense foreplay (this affirms that God is part of the conscious mind).

Keith: I’m stupefied. Do you really expect me to believe that sperm count in some way ‘affirms that God is part of the conscious mind? Are you sure you read only three pages of Freud?

Amos: The woman mind is our soul and based on this it was held that women do not have a soul . . . which is not to say that females do not have a soul.

Keith: Maybe you’d better tell me what this does say…

Amos: This whole position become more clear if Mary and Eve are brought into the picture but this is not the place for it.

Keith: Well, given that nothing is clear thus far, I have to doubt that your position could be made clearer, but why not give it a shot?

Amos: The id, ego and superego are strange at least. I can go along with two or four identities but never three because there is always two stands needed in a rout and never three. Each of the two stands will have a negative and a positive to make four, but never three.

Keith: It just goes to show that just because a couple of sentences appear to have been written in a valid language, they will not necessarily—just by virtue of that fact—convey any information.

Amos: We can speak of three minds, or three levels of comprehension, but I do not see the superego to be part of this. The first is the conscious mind, the second is the subconscious and the third is these two combined. It is the mind of God or higher knowledge of Pure Reason without emotion.

Keith: Okayfine. Why do I even bother?

Amos

Hi Keith, I wrote a 2 page post on this but lost it when I send it (that happens often lately and I should copy it first).

Since that happened I've concluded not to bother again.

Kenny

FYI, part of your objection here seems to be based on a misconception of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that Jesus and the Father are the same person nor does it deny that Jesus is distinct from the Father – that would be the ancient heresy of modalism. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, though they are one being, each partaking fully in the same, undivided divine nature. Since the doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there are real relational distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, verses which point out such distinctions support rather than argue against a Trinitarian interpretation.

As far as the phrase, “My father is greater than I” is concerned, the typical Trinitarian interpretation is that this refers to organizational relationships within in the Trinity, not to greater orders of being. A private, for instance, might say, “My sergeant is greater than I.” By this, he means that his sergeant is of higher rank than him, not that his sergeant is a superior being than him. Likewise, according to the most common Trinitarian interpretation of John 14, Jesus is affirming that the Father, and not Himself, is the head of the Trinity. He is not saying that the Father is a greater being than he is.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Agnos1

Kenny, thanks for the clarification. It does seem rather convenient that the very verses that distinguish Jesus from the Father (or God) are the ones that bolster the argument FOR the Trinity.

Question: If Jesus was "emptied" and as a manifistation of God became a real corporeal human, he also must have relinquished his knowledge or omniscience, am I right? (He even needed to be baptized like everyone else)This would explain his needing to communicate with the Father and the verses that show he didn't know what the Father knew. This is all well and good, but then how did Jesus "know" he was God? Wouldn't he think he was NOT god (being human and all) and if Jesus himself thought he wasn't God, then why should WE think so? Is it the "before Moses I am" verse in John 14? If so, then how did Jesus "know" this if he had been "emptied?"

Isn't it true, Kenny, that the Trinity was an attempt by the Catholic Church to reconcile Roman pantheism with Jewish monotheism after the fact (381 A.D.) and from sources extrinsic to the Bible? Would this not be considered an interpolation and therefore not "true" to Scripture??

99Percent

This is non-sensical. Kenny, are you being rational?

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

99Percent

Sorry, but your analogy does not apply. A private in a military environment certainly has that idea that the sargeant is greater than him. But, and this is a great but (which I wonder why you don't see it) in the real world a private can certainly say that he is superior to the sargeant in many other ways. He can think that militarily the sargeant is better than him, but in many other ways the private can think of countless of attributes he had that shows he is far superior to the sargeant - he can memorize the bible much better than him, for example. He can put back a Rubik cube 10 times faster than the Sargeant, or even, he can do 500 push ups while the older sargeant can barely do 50! There is just no comparison of real life military examples with your supposedly "trinatarian" godly examples. Just cut the f*cking bullshit! It makes me so mad to see such smart people as yourself, Kenny to be deceived by such stupidity as the "trinity".

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

regardless of how much better at some things a private might be, than his sargeant--

--the sargeant and the private are--always and only--two different people.

As for this three persons, one being crap, well, you can string words together in this fashion, but doing so removes all meaning.

Keith.

Agnos1

Keith, 99, most Christians consider it part of Christianity to believe in the Trinity. I would like you to post well thought out answers as to why Trinitarianism is wrong, but you can of course do as you like. I certainly understand your feelings about its non-sensibility but some cogent thought would be more helpful.

Explain, for instance, why Jesus saying "Before Moses I Am" which is what God has previously said, should be superceded by verses that conflict with Jesus as deity. Why were the Cappodocians in error when they established the Trinity?

Amos

There is not one such argument but the Trinity is resolved when first the Son and the Father become one and because of this at-one-ment the HS becomes redundant and is why Catholics celebrate the Assumption and subsequent Coronation.

On a personal level, rebirth is supposed to be when the father and the son become one and the decent of the HS upon the son is the time that the HS becomes superfluous. After all, who needs the HS if we are one with the father. The decent of the dove symbolizes the entrance into the purgation period wherein Mary, who heretofore was in charge of HS, becomes our personal guide and she will take us directly (??) to heaven (divine love affair with Mary instead of Jesus).

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Keith Russell

Agnos:

The Trinity is wrong, for the exact same reason that the concept of 'God' is wrong; it violates the Laws of Identity and Causality. The concept of 'God' contradicts reality; and so does the concept 'Trinity'.

A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

A thing cannot thus be both itself, and God; nor could a thing be itself, and something else simultaneously.

Keith.