Maybe the sermon was about nudity being a norm established at creation

[The_Professor]

Reading Scripture differnetly is obviously a major reaosn we have do many denominations. Is that a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? I am not entirely sure. Regardless, jsut because different people, including Jews, read Scripture differently does not invalidate it.

Being a construct of the early Church does not make the concept of the Trinity invalid.

Again, we enter the domain of Faith.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Being a construct of the early Church does not make the concept of the Trinity invalid.

Again, we enter the domain of Faith.

=====================================================================
It hardly makes it valid, either. The Messiah was supposed to be a king of the Hebrews, NOT the "son of God", not a divine being. The definition of the Messiah as believed by the Church was decided by scholars who were told to accept a specific definition or be executed.

The Church maintained for centuries that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with the Sun and all the planets revolving around it, that there were just three continents, and that madness was caused by diabolical possession. 

[Plane]

That one God might have three aspects is no stranger than a single man haveing two hands, so the Trinity makes sense to me.

However that may be right or wrong, it is definately not one of the things one must beleive to be saved or to be considered a Christian.

Its importance is as an attempt to be logical , which I think Jesus specificly stated is not a requirement.

[Plane]

The Church maintained for centuries that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with the Sun and all the planets revolving around it, that there were just three continents, and that madness was caused by diabolical possession. 

If by "the Church" you mean the central authority of the Roman Catholic church , then I as a Prodestant agree that this was a mistake.

[The_Professor]

Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarily opposites nor do they have to be.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That one God might have three aspects is no stranger than a single man haveing two hands, so the Trinity makes sense to me.

However that may be right or wrong, it is definately not one of the things one must beleive to be saved or to be considered a Christian.

Its importance is as an attempt to be logical , which I think Jesus specificly stated is not a requirement.
=================================================================

The Trinity does not say "God in three aspects": it says "God in three PERSONS".

Any fool can see that a man has two hands. Seeing that the same being is really three different entities: two of them totally invisible, one that only pops in once in 2000 years, promises to return and then doesn't, well that takes major amounts of faith, or self-delusion, depending on your point of view.

If you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, which is the least mentioned and vaguest of the three parts of the Trinity, you are in a world of hurt, says the Bible:

Truly I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they say, ‘He has an unclean spirit’. Mark 3:28-29

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:30-32

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. Hebrews 6:4-9

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Hebrews 10:26-27

[Xavier_Onassis]

Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.
   

Logic is revealed by reasoning such as syllogisms:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Biblical "scholarship" (Protestant, Catholic, it really makes little difference)

BEGINS with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and entirely true, then tries to explain how it could be true.

The Earth is 4000 years old, but the years in the early times years were longer, the Earth appears to be older because SATAN is deceiving us, Dinosaur bones were planted by God or Satan to test our faith, The Earth is really old, and 4000 years is only a way of saying really, really old, etc.

Jesus is the Son of God and is not just 50% divine, because Mary was also divine, because God made her that way without sin.

Jesus is 100% divine because his human side was transformed. etc., etc., etc.

In other words, Biblical scholarship differs from all other logical studies, because it begins with an unproven and illogical assumption.

If you fail to believe, then somehow you are an "enemy of God".

How is that? If my cat ignores me, she is not my enemy. She just is not interested in eating or being petted at the moment.

[Plane]

Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.

  Logic is so valuable that I always wonder why it is not more popular, it applies to so many things and allows the rejection of so much dross that I would favor teaching it as a required subject in school.

But it does not apply to everything, Logic does not answer every question or meet every need , you can no more use logic to prove Gods existence than you can use logic to prove that you should go on living.

I have faith in God and faith that my living is a good thing. Descartes tried hard to prove these things were related and fully logical but I credit him with only partial success , and I don't consider myself more capable of logical analysis than Descartes.

[Plane]

Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.
   

Logic is revealed by reasoning such as syllogisms:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Biblical "scholarship" (Protestant, Catholic, it really makes little difference)

BEGINS with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and entirely true, then tries to explain how it could be true.

The Earth is 4000 years old, but the years in the early times years were longer, the Earth appears to be older because SATAN is deceiving us, Dinosaur bones were planted by God or Satan to test our faith, The Earth is really old, and 4000 years is only a way of saying really, really old, etc.

Jesus is the Son of God and is not just 50% divine, because Mary was also divine, because God made her that way without sin.

Jesus is 100% divine because his human side was transformed. etc., etc., etc.

In other words, Biblical scholarship differs from all other logical studies, because it begins with an unproven and illogical assumption.

If you fail to believe, then somehow you are an "enemy of God".

How is that? If my cat ignores me, she is not my enemy. She just is not interested in eating or being petted at the moment.

That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.

I have faith in the correctness of this observation , long experience tends to support it and little is there evidence that it is not correct.
But can it be logicly proven?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.
===================================
Not true:
Scientifically speaking, it is easy to prove.

Science requires a repeatable phenomenon. Every human who has died has eventually died before they reach a maximum age of 150.

Just as when you drop an object it is predictable that it will fall downward.

Just as the Sun has always set in the West.

Scientific proof is more reliable than syllogistic logic. Science does not require every single man must be dead before we can state the conclusion that men are predictably mortal to such an extremely high degree
that we can say that it might as well be an absolute. Science has no absolutes, of course.

[Plane]

That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.
===================================
Not true:
Scientifically speaking, it is easy to prove.

Science requires a repeatable phenomenon. Every human who has died has eventually died before they reach a maximum age of 150.

Just as when you drop an object it is predictable that it will fall downward.

Just as the Sun has always set in the West.

Scientific proof is more reliable than syllogistic logic. Science does not require every single man must be dead before we can state the conclusion that men are predictably mortal to such an extremely high degree
that we can say that it might as well be an absolute. Science has no absolutes, of course.

If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.

I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.

Must I defend both|?>

[Xavier_Onassis]

If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.

I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.

Must I defend both|?>

=====================================
You are not defending either.

To logically disprove the statement "all men are mortal", you must find an example of one immortal man.

Scientifically, it is already proven.

[Plane]

If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.

I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.

Must I defend both|?>

=====================================
You are not defending either.

To logically disprove the statement "all men are mortal", you must find an example of one immortal man.

Scientifically, it is already proven.

So the demands of Logic are lesser or more stringent than the demands of science?

Since a fellow who is actually several centurys old would have lived through several centurys in which "whichcraft " would have got him burnt , he would only exist if he were good at hideing his diffrence.

By now he is either extremely good at remining annonymous or he is a member of the ogliarchy and can actively surpress couriosity on his longevity.

So an absense of evidence is not evidence in this case , such a fellow would necessacerily be uninterested in makeing himself a couriosity.

I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.

=================================
It seems pretty obvious, more so than scripture would suggest.

Adam was told that he would die if he ate the Forbidden Fruit, but then the Bible says he lives over 800 years. My guess is that after 500 or so, he probably discounted the threat a tad.

If someone says they are going to kill you if you do X, and then you do X, and you are still alive even a year after that, I don't think you are likely to take threats from that person seriously.

The issue here is the trinity, which is a rather illogical hodgepodge, and is unmentioned in a Bible so specific it goes into which locusts you can and can't eat.

[Plane]

I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.

=================================
It seems pretty obvious, more so than scripture would suggest.

Adam was told that he would die if he ate the Forbidden Fruit, but then the Bible says he lives over 800 years. My guess is that after 500 or so, he probably discounted the threat a tad.

If someone says they are going to kill you if you do X, and then you do X, and you are still alive even a year after that, I don't think you are likely to take threats from that person seriously.

The issue here is the trinity, which is a rather illogical hodgepodge, and is unmentioned in a Bible so specific it goes into which locusts you can and can't eat.

How old was Adam when the forbidden fruit was eaten?