I don’t appreciate you making up things rather than addressing what I actually said. It is extremely dishonest. If you want to know my position on something, then you should ask. And then and only then you can make a comment on it. But these fantasy discussions where you make up both sides of the discussion are not good.
For example, you could ask me…
Does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? And I would answer, No.
Does the Bible teach the theory of evolution? And I would answer, No.
Does the Bible teach mathematics? And I would answer, No.
Does the Bible teach logic? And I would answer, No.
Does the Bible teach that the Earth is round? And I would answer, No.
If YOU want to derive conclusions from these then it is up to you do justify them. Though how you can justify some of the things you have been saying, I cannot even imagine since it would involve some very silly premises.
Or maybe you want to ask the following…
Is everything I believe found in the Bible? LOL LOL LOL No.
Can everything ANY Christian believes be found in the Bible? No. Not even the bizarre belief that everything he believes is in the Bible, if he happens to have that delusion.
Where is the doctrine of the Trinity taught? It is essentially in the creeds defining the Christian religion as agreed upon by the ecumenical councils starting with Nicea in 325AD.
That is like saying you reject the number 2 because it is less than the number 1. You can reject whatever religious beliefs you choose, whether it be theism, salvation, a spiritual dimension to existence, heaven, or Christianity. There is no objective evidence for any of it. But the “reason” you give here for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity is not very reasonable. Say you just don’t like it, and I can say nothing to that.
These are angels and yes the angels are ministering spirits created by God to do His will.
I do not know any such thing. I have heard this reasoning used to justify just about everything from the belief that God has a body, to the belief that God is male (or that he is both male and female at the same time). But I think that just reflects a typical human obsession with superficialities. I believe this image of God stuff means something quite different.
God’s most fundamental nature as I see it is that He is infinite – actual infinity in His very being. But how could we be created in the image of that when we are most definitely finite? And how is it that we are created in the image of God, but the angels who are spirit just as God is spirit are not created in the image of God? Well an image is not the same as equivalence – it is a reflection. In this case we reflect the infinite actuality of God for we embody the nature of infinite potentiality. By growth and learning we become more than we are, and thus like mathematical concept of addition, it marches to infinity. It is also connected intimately with God’s purpose in creating us because it means that we can receive all the endless gifts which an infinite God has to give. Indeed this is the substance of eternal life.
Yes, it sounds to me like you have remade them all in your own image with that justification. But I am very leery of such anthropocentric impulses.
I do not want to debate this either. By all means believe what you want. I have no condemnation for different beliefs when their is no objective evidence for any of it. If I were to make a friendly suggestion, it would only be to decide for yourself what to believe about the things of religion, just as I have. But I will not alter my beliefs to suit you in any way whatsoever. And my belief remains the doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but only one God. I like it.
I like it for what you would probably consider some very odd reasons.
- I like it because it is not in the Bible, and yet it practically defines Christianity.
- I like it because it is messy, confusing, and strange.
- I like it because it portrays God in a way that cannot be said to be made in our own image.