Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines
Theists only.
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.
The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.
The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."
The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Help me! I'm beginning to abandon the Trinity.
Collapse
X
-
False
YesThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Because that's not what you asked. You said "In other words it pre-existed his body", which I said was false. God's breath in our nostrils is what becomes our spirit. It's not literal breathing, because God's spirit had no body and no lungs.
It is describing a hypothetical unnamed body and says without a spirit, it is just a dead body.
That's just stupid. It's using actual real human death as a simile for faith without the accompanying works.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWho says the soul exists before God puts it into the body? Personally I believe the soul comes into existence at the moment of conception.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBecause that's not what you asked. You said "In other words it pre-existed his body", which I said was false. God's breath in our nostrils is what becomes our spirit. It's not literal breathing, because God's spirit had no body and no lungs.
It is describing a hypothetical unnamed body and says without a spirit, it is just a dead body.
That's just stupid. It's using actual real human death as a simile for faith without the accompanying works.Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-29-2018, 08:01 PM.
Comment
-
Which the Jews understand as "ensoulment", or spirit birth, as I shared in my first few posts. That you don't believe it isn't my problem.
So, can a "living being" live without a spirit?
Wrong. The "breath" BECAME the spirit of that man when it entered him. When it left, it was the eternal spirit of that man. There was no spirit in the man that God formed from the dust UNTIL the breath was breathed into him. It was just a formed lump of dust.
I think you have no clue what a simile is. I'll ask again... is English your primary language?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIt came (was created) from God and returns to God. Doesn't mean it existed before God put it into the body.
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-30-2018, 12:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostGenesis 2:7 does not allow for the "breath of life" to have been created in Adam's body. Rather the text says that God breathed "the breath of life" (something already existing) into the nostrils of the man, which caused the man to become a living being. .
OK I am just going to consider you a kook and stop here. Not worth my time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBecause that's not what you asked. You said "In other words it pre-existed his body", which I said was false. God's breath in our nostrils is what becomes our spirit. It's not literal breathing, because God's spirit had no body and no lungs.
It is describing a hypothetical unnamed body and says without a spirit, it is just a dead body.
That's just stupid. It's using actual real human death as a simile for faith without the accompanying works.
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).Last edited by Unitarian101; 11-30-2018, 01:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postuh no it doesn't say anything about the spirit preexisting.
OK I am just going to consider you a kook and stop here. Not worth my time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostThat's NOT what the text says. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed the "breath of life" (something already existing) into the nostrils of the man, after which the man became "a living being." In other words "the breath of life" from God blown in the man's nostrils is what makes a man a living being. Remove "the breath of God" from the man, and he is no longer a living being.
Don't know what you mean by "a spirit," but if you change underlined above to "the breath of life" ( נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים) I would agree.
James 2:26 says nothing about a living, thinking, conscious human Spirit exiting from the human body and existing as such outside the human body.
It is an allusion to Genesis 2:7, to the body of the man before God breathed the "breath of life" (not a thinking, conscious Spirit being) into Adam's nostrils.
I humbly submit that you do not have a correct appreciation of what a simile is. Here's a simple dictionary definition:
Perhaps you meant to say "metaphor" ?
Though even then your position would be untenable.
(I can get into detail why if you like). The difference between a simile and metaphor is that a simile uses words like "like" or "as" to make a comparison whereas a metaphor states the comparison without such words.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment