Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Interesting discussion on the Trinity. Unitarianism rejects it as not rational. Unitarians are all about reason. Universalists on the other hand were about love. The union of the two traditions suggest that reason and love, viewed from a higher level of consciousness are one and the same thing.

(note: uus have moved beyond the doctrines and are now something quite different although the gist is the same, but speaking literally Unitarians Universalists (with exceptions) are neither Unitarians nor Universalists, in the same way that a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut and to understand this is not necessarily to be under or to stand.. but then again english is an interesting language as are all languages...

but to get back to the point, the traditional Unitarian idea was that the Trinity equaled a belief in three gods rather than one,, a statement which trinitarians reject and traditional christianity is the only religion that divides god in this way, so who is to say that other religions (not thereby true) are not better? So why the Christian idea that there way is the only way?)

[°Leprechaun]

If an idea is too complex for you to understand, it isn't the idea that's dumb. Christianity's paradoxes are what make it more likely to be true.

If that is the criterion for truth then Zen must be the one true religion, since Zen is all about Koans (a similar concept to the paradox concept).

So, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Isn't life itself a paradox full of contradictions?

[°Leprechaun]

The search for meaning in life is perhaps a puppy dog chasing its tail. Would it not be better to see the meaning in life as the mystery of life and leave it at that?

[°Leprechaun]

I have never understood how Jesus could be "God". Jesus was a finite human being. "God" is infinite.
If Jesus is divine, perhaps we all are.

I think the Muslims have a better understanding of all this, because they see Jesus as a prophet, rather than as a god. Likewise with the Jews. Perhaps Muslims and Jews have more in common with each other than they have with Christians.

[°Leprechaun]

I have never understood how Jesus could be "God". Jesus was a finite human being. "God" is infinite.
If Jesus is divine, perhaps we all are.

Maybe you're only finite, but I don't consider myself as such.  Even from a completely atheistic POV, I find the idea that we're finite a self-limitation on who we are.  Are we merely a collection of atoms that changes over time as we eat, breathe, and otherwise participate in the physical attributes of life or are we something else? I'm here, writing on this computer, but at the same time I'm present in the memories and thoughts of my wife, my family, my acquaintances, and even my enemies. As horrifying as the thought may be, Donald J. Trump is a part of everyone who participates in this forum, with the possible exception of "Greatest I am".

Infinity is not just a divine attribute, it's an attribute that is shared by all who think and communicate.

I am finite because I am trapped inside a body. I can transcend that in my mind/brain, so I agree with you 50%. Perhaps non human animals can't transcend their bodies, but I don't know since I can see their minds in action.

[°Leprechaun]

Although I wouldn't call myself a Zen Buddhist they have some good ideas.
Taoism could be described as Zen Buddhism without the "Buddhism".
If you meet the Buddha on the road you can (f.s.o.c.) kill him.

My zen favorite Buddhists are Stephen Batchelor and Brad Warner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Batchelor_(author)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Warner

There is no "god" and "he" (she?) is always with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aXg-BOCIvo

[°Leprechaun]

I have never understood how Jesus could be "God". Jesus was a finite human being. "God" is infinite.
If Jesus is divine, perhaps we all are.

I think the Muslims have a better understanding of all this, because they see Jesus as a prophet, rather than as a god. Likewise with the Jews. Perhaps Muslims and Jews have more in common with each other than they have with Christians.

Perhaps.

It depends on which flavor of each religion you favor.

Christians have, what, 3,000 sects and Islam has 60 odd.

Islam is also the foulest ideology that I know of.

Both Christians and Muslims would have been better served if they had kept the morals of the Jewish stories when they usurped them instead of changing and reversing them.

The Jewish view for instance, of Eden, is that it was where man was elevated and not where man  fell.

That makes a lot more sense that what Christians and Muslims have done with Genesis.

Regards
DL 

Interesting, I do think that Judaism has a lot to offer, although I don't know if I will ever convert.

[°Leprechaun]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

[°Leprechaun]

Here is something that some of you may like, I certainly find these ten traits to be good, for the most part:
https://www.elitereaders.com/10-surprising-characteristics-intelligent-people-have/

[°Leprechaun]

It is highly unlikely that the historical Jesus believed he was God.  So, to me, it's not a problem. 

Good point, and as I've said the idea that he was, doesn't click with me. Why not regard him as you would any other person?

[°Leprechaun]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

[°Leprechaun]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways.  

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

The number 2 is finite yet is part of the infinite set of finite numbers.

Why then is it so difficult to accept that it would be possible for Jesus to be finite and yet be a part of an infinite God.  Everyday we interact with finite things that are part of infinite things.

It's part of standard Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  One can view Trinitarian theology as one of the earliest applications of set theory and non-reflexive equality developed before we even had the mathematics to properly describe it.

Well, by that logic pantheism is the truth. The infinity of "god" is different than mathematical infinity. To say that Jesus is part of "god" is different than to say that he is "god". If there is only one deity and that deity were all knowing, all present, all powerful, it couldn't be divided. It would be one, and one does not equal three. That is an obvious logical fallacy. Not all Christians believe in the trinity, as I am sure you know. It would seem to me that to believe in a deity one would have to think outside the box. Would this deity be four dimensional, something which our finite minds can conceptualize, but not see with our physical eyes? To be truly infinite would be to infinitely dimensional, but perhaps that is all speculation anyway.
It is a self evident truth that the trinity is not to be taken literally. Can a person literally be born again? The book of proverbs, for example is a book of parable, because proverbs are simply parables and parables, of course are myths. It is erroneous to think that the Bible should be taken literally, yet that seems to be the natural inclination of many people.

[°Leprechaun]

There are three kinds of people:
Those who can count and those who can't.

[°Leprechaun]

Of course, what do I know? There are three things that you lose with old age, the first is memory...
and the other one is... oh what was I saying.... um uh...something about old age..

[°Leprechaun]

Why do you continue to assert Divinity can't be divided? It's hardly a concept unique to Trinitarianism. It's an integral part of panentheism in all its myriad manifestations. Relations need not be reflexive.

Unity means, by definition, indivisible...
"One nation... indivisible"
The Earth is one world, not three.
The Universe is one, not three.
I am one person, not three.
Of course there may be many universes, but the idea is ("one") multiverse.
Is it just a case of semantics?
The trinity interpretation of the Bible, the literalistic interpretation divides the deity
into three persons which are not united, Jesus (according the literal interpretation)
is at odds with "the father", if you take it literally and believe it as undeniable fact...
(which I don't), the Jesus is abandoned by his father and doesn't understand why.
If you see the Bible as not literal, then it follows that the trinity is not literal.
The "doctrine" of the trinity as believed by some Christians does not come from the Bible, it
is mere speculation and not biblically based.

[°Leprechaun]

It's very simple. If you divide something it is no longer one. If you cut an apple in half it is no longer united as one apple, but becomes two divided into two parts. It is two not one. So when I say "one can't be divided" I am saying if something is divided it is no longer one.

To suggest that god is three is no different than to say that god has a multiple personality disorder.
If the three persons were integrated they become one.

[°Leprechaun]

Apples and oranges... a false dichotomy... You are dividing the divine into spiritual and natural.

A natural divine would be the universe (pantheism? panentheism?)

If you are defining the divine in mathematical or scientific terminology your view of the divine is that the universe itself is divine.

If the divine is spirit only then the divine can't be a person, three persons, or an infinite number of persons. The problem is solved.
It's as easy as ABC 123.
If the divine is infinite, is that the same as saying all odd numbers? Not to my mind.
If you add an indefinite number of odd numbers you get an odd numbers. Add even numbers then you get an even number. Two infinities -- that are therefore not equal. Logically they can't be.
The devil is in the details; do I need to have an infinite knowledge of quantum mechanics to understand why the trinity Dogma is false? No, I don't. It has been argued ad nauseum for millenia. I can't add much to it. Jesus was natural. The divine is spiritual. How can those two be one and the same?
Limited as I am by time and space I have to leave this discussion until my finite person can come back. Although we are going in circles, so what's the point? I shall return when my finite universe allows it.
This discussion is also a tangent. The point of the thread is to ask whether Christianity is moral.
The problem of the trinity is that it involves the doctrine of the vicarious atonement, which is more important than the discussion of math and quantum reality, at least as far as this thread is concerned. So, at least as far as this is concerned the issue is whether the atonement as posited by orthodoxy is a way to avoid responsibility and accountability for ones' actions.

[°Leprechaun]

Correct me if I am mistaken but nuclear weapons are based on dividing atoms and therefore very evil.
(fission).
So I should say not that you can't divide the divine, but that you shouldn't.
You can divide an atom, but that doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily a good thing.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?
[/quote]

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL
[/quote]Absolutely nothing.

[°Leprechaun]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

In a sense, I wish I was forced to back down on my positions. Then I would lose an argument and actually learn something new. Having a mental paradigm shift is one of the greatest pleasures I know of.

I think that that is what this quote refers to.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

This reigning, to me, is talking about our mental positions reigning over other positions.

In a sense, this monarch/me wants to be a peasant again when it comes to arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

Thai is why I have a hard time understanding why some resort to lies to win arguments. They do not recognize the joys of losing an argument and learning something new. They place the win above being correct while I just prefer to be correct.

Regards
DL



 

An argument or a debate can not by definition have any emotional aspects to it. When emotion is added it morphs into a fight.
An argument or a debate is a contest, like a game of chess. Still there can be ego involved, as there is in a game of chess. The best way to improve at chess is to play someone better than you. That is the best way to learn.

[°Leprechaun]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

[°Leprechaun]

Does O god =good?
They are the same letters but they don't mean the same thing.
god is found in the word good by erasing one letter... but that is not my point, it isn't a semantics game. Good is what matters not god, since we can be good without god.

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

[°Leprechaun]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

That may well be the crux, but I was addressing specifically the question raised by the thread. By defending the proposition it answers that question. I have no problem with reasonable debate about theology. I have difficulties with those who use specious arguments to attack religion. I find that making a claim about the apparent self-contradiction of the Trinity by assuming something that contradicts physical reality to be specious.

Fine, actually, as I said the Trinity may or may not be a plausible concept, although I don't think it is.. so rather than challenge your statement, myself, I will link to the arguments against it...