Leaderboard

I read the original post to be asking and exploring whether the Trinity doctrine has been a net asset or liability to Christianity, its purpose, mission and spread. And that's a profound question. I eventually came to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine gives its believers an advantage in appreciating the Lordship of Christ, while rejecting the doctrine gave us an advantage in appreciating his faithfulness, obedience, commitment and sacrifice. I'm not impressed by a sinless God. I am impressed by a sinless man. I can say I certainly found it easier to believe Jesus was a man than that he was God. Too much didn't make sense, and I have to wonder how many people over the centuries have rejected Christ in their hearts because its central claim, that God became a man, was so absurd. But you could say that about a lot of beliefs. The virgin birth, for example (or virgin conception). The Great Flood. Lots of beliefs. Is the Trinity really that different? Of course, Johniam's question is also a spiritual one. He sees the trinity as spiritually harmful to those who believe it. So to agree with him is to reject the trinity, and you must disagree with him if you embrace the Trinity. Is it an asset or liability? Does believing it make you a better Christian or does it hinder your walk? Well, that depends, doesn't it? I believe the earliest Christians were not Trinitarian. Paul gives us a Jesus who is subservient to the Father. In fact, Paul speaks nothing at all about Jesus' earthly ministry [the last supper being the only real exception]. Paul is much more concerned about the spiritual aspect of Christ's ministry, the "principalities and powers" behind what took place on Earth. Jesus wasn't crucified by the Jews, the Romans, or Pilate. He was executed by "the princes of this world," which is not a reference to human beings. What's interesting, then, is that the Christ of this spiritual storyline is referred to as "the firstborn of all creation," which can be interpreted a number of ways. The way most consistent with TWI Christology is that Jesus was first... not chronologically, but in order of importance. But other Christians take it literally. Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, means that he was the first being created by God, and the agent by which God created everything else. Yahweh and Son, from the beginning. To Trinitarians, that is not a creation of Jesus but a begetting, and it's something that happened before there was any such thing as time. It's not something that can be explained. Just accepted. So there. So what's all this mean? I believe it demonstrates that the New Testament tells two separate Jesus Christ stories. One is down to earth, and the other is, for lack of a better word, cosmic. It becomes easy to see why the early church couldn't settle on his identity. The two stories are not compatible except when one is recognized as metaphorical from a human perspective. Unless he really is God or the first creation of God. Obviously I'm in no position to answer whether the doctrine has helped or hindered God's plan. I think BOTH stories are made up, one largely and the other entirely. But I am fascinated by the exploration of the question. Enjoy. While you can.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-can-i-find-depth-water-table-specific-location That is correct. I've used a couple methods, sometimes using a simple bailer.

I work quite a lot with homeless and other very needy people. My heart hurts for what they suffer. It's not a vague "compassion in the abstract." I'm very fortunate to have a supportive group of friends, with some of whom I can be very open and vulnerable. Still - there's something missing. Some passion that used to be there, that isn't. Still fenced in. Doesn't help that some that should be supportive just kick me down. Maybe it is just "getting older." But that should mean more self-assuredness. Which, mostly, I am. Hey! I'm alive and well. And thankful. Emotions are GOOD things. Even Jesus wept.

It's a lot easier to find compassion for people in the abstract (like the starving children in India or the kids with no access to schools in Africa) than it is to find compassion for people you can interact with. There's actual interaction, there's direct emotional contact, there's risk. What if you trust someone and they break your trust and hurt your feelings? It's certainly a risk we all face every day. It's generally a CALCULATED risk for many of us. You decide who is most trustworthy with your self and your privacy, and who's least likely to backstab you or betray you. Then you act accordingly- sometimes discovering later that you chose poorly. But, we are people, and we interact with people. Shutting down from EVERYONE isn't healthy. So, we risk our hearts.

The Hudson River is not potable. First, it is an ESTUARY (not, strictly, a river, just like the East "River.") So, it contains not just the fresh-water river from upstate, but it also contains seawater, so, that changes everything and introduces all sorts of contaminants into the Hudson. Second, in the 20th century, it was used for transport and other industrial things- including General Electric dumping PCBs into the water for about 40 years. (Other sources added their own "contributions" like mercury and raw sewage.) The Hudson has previously been declared a SUPERFUND site, something only really disastrous places get declared, places that need lots of toxic cleanup immediately. So, unlike the aquifers, treating the Hudson wouldn't result in potable drinking water. Treating water from the aquifers DOES result in potable drinking water, and that's why NYC has clean drinking water coming from its taps.

It's a good thread, and thought provoking. I myself feel significantly more compassionate towards some people and incidents - the homeless on the streets, for example, or (currently) the Ukrainian situation. Much more compassionate. But in regard to issues that touch me personally, family matters or love interest, etc, I feel that there is something missing, something I haven't retrieved, something absent. At some other level, the passion for others at a more intimate level has gone. Too buttoned down. Is that something to do with getting older? Or am I still TWI-stunted in this area? Am I afraid to share what's going on inside? Ah well. Half a bottle of good red wine, and I could be anybody's/ No not really: I just sent The Man home, with barely a goodnight hug. Where's my cat, for a cuddle?

Nirvana Floy is what Mad Magazine in their parody called Troy! Yes, I have had people call Deanna Troi before! (There was an empath in ST:TOS too!) EEEGAD! Kay's a Trekker! (I should only look like Deanna! We may be the same height but there is far more of me than she! I weigh in at 260. My husband loves well upholstered women!) Chas--I am glad you finally got past the point of self condemnation regarding breast feeding. I have been a lactation counselor and the guilt that was laid on some of the women I worked with (NOT BY ME!) was enormous. I was a labor coach too, and the guilt that some women felt when their labors didn't go all 'natural' was enormous as well. Having a baby is tough enough without beating someone with the guilt stick! In 1975 I asked my tc about vaccinations and told her that no matter what twi believed about vaccinations, I was going to have my son inoculated. Tc said that God gave those inoculations so parents didn't have to believe for kids not to get polio, whooping cough, etc. Made sense to me! Steve: "To deny emotions is to say that God is an idiot" I wish I'd said that because it is perfectly true! Emotions are what make us real. I Love you guys! I can feel my heart growing with love for all of you! Muchly Loving, Kay Kay1952