Jesus Loves Your Mom

The thread this is from.

There is one infinite God, who we know as Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not ⅓ God, neither is the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. Each is God.

I think that the focus of the Sh’ma on God being one, and the understood deity of Christ is where the trinity doctrine finds its roots. While the doctrine certainly originates in the third century, it does not have its roots in any of the pagan triads or trinities. No, those triads were three gods in unity to become one, and the trinity of Christianity is one God who has revealed Himself three ways.

I believe that much has been added to this doctrine, separating the three persons (modes, representations, manifestations, emanations) of God, and much has been added to this doctrine to blur the lines that separate these persons.

“Timothy, could you please expound on “Each is God”, as this is where the problem exists.
When you say “Each is God” in your mind are you saying Each as in Father=1, Son=2, Spirit=3, each one is a whole, together these One’s are The Supreme Being we call G-d?”

∞ x 3 = ∞

Together these infinites are the Supreme Being we call God. I know the Father to be infinite in nature, I know the Son to be infinite in nature, and I know the Spirit to be infinite in nature, which I get the ∞ x 3 equation from.

Timothy, it creates more [questions], the problem I think that exists and I see this with all Trinitarians, is that if they were to just speak plainly, I think it would sound like polytheism to them as well, and they do not want to give that impression.

Honestly I think the majority of people that embrace the trinity do not fully understand it, and always just look for far out allegories to explain, however, the more we drill down to the simplistic, we always end up at the same place:

Jesus is G-d but He is Not The Father (This is 1)
The Father is G-d, but He is NOT Jesus (this is 2)
The Holy Spirit is G-d, but He is neither The Father or Jesus (This is 3)

If each one of these manifestation are indeed G-d, and they are eternal deities that remain individual and NOT the others, than this is the very definition of a Triad, therefore Polytheistic.

∞ is indivisible

Where I say The Father is not without the Son, and neither are without the Spirit, others say the Father is God (1), the Son is God (2) and the Holy Spirit is God (3), and yet they are one. This speaks against monotheism, and is heresy. It is based in trying to better explain that which is abstract, and thus leads away from the original intent; the trinity is an abstract explanation of the deity of Christ in monotheistic Christianity, anything further is heresy.

Regarding John 8:16, the man Jesus relied on the testimony of those who heard the Voice from Heaven say “This is my Son,” and is not proof that the Son and Father are not the same.

Regarding John 14:26, this is showing that the Spirit is sent in the same manner as the Son, and so to understand separation there, you must preconceive that the Son is separate from the Father.

Regarding Acts 10:38, again this needs the preconception of the Father and the Spirit being separate, and the Father and Son being separate in order to interpret that the son and Spirit are separate.

I like to avoid the idea that the Father is not the Spirit or the Son, the Spirit is not the Father or the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit or the Father because I staunchly believe that God is indivisible and so one part is never without any other in any instance (accepting Jesus’ humanity at the point where he bore all sins on himself). Saying otherwise to me sounds like calling one 2D square face of a cube separate from another face.

I will give one more statement regarding the issue

but the more I expound on my two mathematical statements, the further from the Sh’ma and the deity of Christ I stray, so I do not wish to explain this very much, and will likely be the first to abandon it.

If we human beings are able to understand the vast difference between our nature and God’s, it would be like a 2 dimensional square realizing the difference between itself and a 3 dimensional cube. God has revealed Himself to us in three very personal ways, if we call these persons, modes, forms or what have you, it takes away from the fact that He IS God. The trinity doctrine was formed in an attempt to understand these three ways that God had reveal Himself to us.

Christianity is quite old, and has since the very beginning had copycats trying to seduce the masses.  These were called anti-christs, which from the Greek would mean other christs, with another gospel, and another fire.  When the sons of Aaron lit a strange fire before the Lord, He destroyed them.  It’s not good to play with another fire.

In my life I have seen revival with the fire of God preceded by contrition and real humility, and I have seen people search for revival, only to find a revival of the strange fire.  I think that there are too many people in the Body right now who are seeking revival rather than seeking humility, but I may be wrong about that.

In the time of Christ, and all times prior, religion was political, and what politics you held decided what god(s) you served.  Jesus was asked probably the most politically loaded question in first century Palestine, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar?”  And Jesus replied with “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” which serves as the first time recorded that anyone suggested that there be a separation of Church and State.

We are, as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, not to stand in between this dark world and it’s darkness, but to reflect the light of God into this world.  Deuteronomy 30:18 says, “Now choose life” and this should be the motto of the pro-life movement.  The Bible is fully pro-choice, and fully pro-life.  Every child is a blessing, and every abortion brings a curse, but it is up to the pregnant woman to choose, not for any ambassador to push legislation on someone, only to push them away from the love of the God you claim to serve.  Make no mistake in what I am saying; Making abortion illegal would only serve to make outlaws of perfectly forgivable people.

The sin of Sodom is that it was overfed and unconcerned; they did not care for their poor. (Ezekiel 34ish:17ish)  There are many people declaring that Sodomy is an abomination before the Lord, and that is true!  Neglecting the poor is the worst thing a Christian can do.  True and perfect religion that is honoured by God is this; to look after widows and orphans in their distress and to keep yourself from being polluted by the world (James 1ish:26ish).  Nowhere does the Bible say that God wants his people who are called by his name to demand that their country abide by God’s rules, and Christianity got it’s start in one of the most horrific empires the world has ever known in regards to abortion and homosexuality.  It’s a non-starter.  Why are there Christians ostracizing people because of a sin that is just barely one of the 613 commands of Torah/Hallakah, when Covetousness, one of the top 10, is so prevalent?

The Bible is the Most Holy Book, and in any translation, it must be read literally*. Note that I said “translation” and not “paraphrase;” just because the New Living Translation translates from the three dead languages into modern English, does not mean that it is a translation. It is only a paraphrase, no matter how inaccurately I portray that word.

Christianity will be preached to all people, even if Christ is not. This means that every bum who asks for a quarter should not be given a hot bowl of soup and a sandwich, which would enable him to spend his scavenged money on wine and whatnot. NO!! He must be given a Bible Tract with the Four Spiritual Laws written plainly in several languages on it. That way when God sends him to Hell to be punished for all eternity, he can’t say we didn’t warn him.

Christian nations must always prevail over other nations**. We will get God on our side, so that’s a given anyway, but to be on the safe side (since God doesn’t always do His job) we must enforce the Geneva Convention when it is in our best interest to do so, and avoid the topic when it’s not. When ever a war breaks out in the world, the side that gives the most benefit to the Christian Agenda will get the most support from Christian nations, and the more benefit, the more powerful the support.

The Conservative movement is the only God approved movement whether in the United States of America or any other Christian country. No True Christian™ can ever join a liberal party, unless it is to infiltrate and destroy***. If a liberal leaning party supports a cause, the Whole Christian Agenda® may be revamped to suit an all out assault on such a cause, even if it is a biblically sound cause like the separation of Church and State.

If someone claims to be a centrist, they’re actually claiming to be lukewarm, even if they are known to be very extreme in their views. And we all know where lukewarm believers go..

If someone claims to be a liberal Christian, they need to be informed that it’s actually a contradiction of terms. I’m sure they’ve been told this by other liberals, but this is a very stupid person.

The sanctity of marriage refers to the fact that it’s never between a man and a man, and nothing else. The sanctity of marriage does not have anything to do with fidelity, and never has. Homosexuality is the utmost abomination against our Lord the baby Jesus.

Pro-choice means abort every foetus that comes along. If someone says that they are both pro-choice and pro-life, you must correct them that they cannot be both. They are going to burn in hell because they want every foetus to be aborted, and they have no idea what being pro-life is about anyways.

The universe was created by God in 6 days 5770 years ago and science proves it. Anyone who says otherwise just hasn’t looked at the same facts as we have and there’s no reason for a True Christian™ to look at the facts that say otherwise.

*The Bible must be read literally unless a literal rendering supports a liberal cause.
**Prevail against all other nations unless that’s the Jewish nation, because we’re still trying to pay them back for all of them that suffered from previous, less righteous, Christian Agendas (we know they were less righteous because they didn’t register their trademark).
***Thank you Ed Rendell and Terry McAuliffe in America and Stephane Dion and Michael Iggnatieff in Canada, you’ve served the Christian Agenda® well

> Dear Mr.
> Harper,
>
> Please find below my suggestion for fixing Canada’s
> economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to
> banks and car companies, that will squander
> the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the
> following plan:
>
> There are about 20 million people over 50 in the work
> force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for
> early retirement with the following stipulations:
>
> 1) They MUST retire. Twenty million job
> openings – Unemployment fixed.
>
> 2) They MUST buy a new Canadian CAR. Twenty
> million cars ordered -
> Auto Industry fixed.
>
> 3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their
> mortgage – Housing
> Crisis fixed.
>
> 4) They must send their kids to school / college
> /university – Crime
> rate fixed
>
> 5) Buy $50 of alcohol / tobacco / gasoline a week…
> there’s your money
> back in duty / tax etc
>
> It can’t get any easier than that!
>
> P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of
> parliament pay back
> their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances.
>
> If you think
> this would work, please forward to everyone you
> know. If not, please
> disregard.

Here’s my reply:

For starters, Mr. Harper would not listen to a petition that made sense, let alone this.

Secondly, the amount of oversight to ensure the stipulations to the million dollar giveaway are met would take more paperwork and money than it’s worth.

Thirdly, 20 million new employees will not solve the unemployment problem as much as it would create problems in the human resources departments of nearly all employers.

Fourthly, twenty million cars in one shot will produce a glut in demand that would be immediately followed by a shortage in demand when those twenty million car buyers have their cars.

Fifthly, if all the mortgages are paid off, the interest rates will shoot through the ceiling making it harder for the next generation of home-owners to get by, and may cause even more foreclosures of mortgages which were previously quite manageable. At the same time, with all those houses being bought, the demand will again spike, driving the price of houses up.

Sixthly, college and university educated people will commit just as much crime as high school dropouts if given the opportunity. The crimes might be white collar crimes, but crime is crime. Criminal behaviour is not based on education or poverty, but psychology.

Finally, even assuming that our Honourable Members of Parliament make false claims on their income tax, it seems doubtful that they fraud so much as to fix the economy with their corrections.

As much as it pains me to say it, the economy will only be fixed by trickle down economics, as it was taken down by an outright rejection of the same. Right now would be a great time to revamp our entire economic structure, while spending billions on our infrastructure. Our economy penalizes employment and rewards slothfulness. Our economy does nothing to discourage the destruction of the environment. What would have been great to go along with the major changes to the infrastructure, would have been a huge shift in our taxation laws, in which earning and spending are no longer taxed, but maybe spending on environmentally detrimental products would be taxed to make up for lost revenues. That seems like a really good plan, I think I’ll call it the Shift-away-from-income-tax… or the Environmental Shift… How about… nah, nobody will ever buy into the Green Shift.

(Not to mention that this is only a copy of a pettition to Obama with Harper’s name on it. There aren’t 20 million employees in Canada, let alone 20 million employees over 50 years of age.)

The time for true revival is coming, and the time of the Lords visitation is upon us.  A messianic Jewish friend of mine recently gave a sermon on the days of the Lord’s visitation.  Starting with the Feast of Trumpets, Yom Teruah,  a day of introspection (and the start of the days of awe), and repentance from past mistakes, 1st day of the Seventh month, Sept. 29th, 2008, which in started the economic crash and America saw the largest stock market crash recorded of 777 points (retrospectively, many Americans would have bought a much cheaper house).  Then the day of Atonement, showing God’s mercy, the 10th day of the Seventh month, Oct. 9, 2008, where America saw the second largest crash to date.  The feast of Tabernacles, for rejoicing in the first harvest, 15th day of the Seventh month, Oct. 14, 2008 when the markets again had the second largest crash to date of 737 points.  Throughout Chanukkah, oil prices crashed and have stabilized around $42/barrel.

In regards to the end times, and having read the entire Bible in a dozen English translations, I am sure that nearly all speculation as to what the actual beast will be is false.  The anti-Christ is a matter I have of contention with much the rest of Christendom. Anti-Christs have been around throughout church history and the actual Greek could be read “another Christ”, as in a strange Christ teaching a strange gospel with strange fire.  In the end times undoubtedly there will be a tremendous falling away from the true historic Messiah Jesus of the Bible, and a turn toward one specific variation of Jesus who christians will set up for themselves.  At this time the Jewish community will turn to their true Messiah and will be the greatest light in the world’s darkest darkness.

It is much like a bride who has expectations of who her husband is, but doesn’t try to get to know him.  Just like the non-christian Jews of the first centuries, such is the fate of the gentile church in the end times.  I pray that this is not our current condition.

Purim starts this Sunday at sunset with the fast of Esther, which according to current customs starts the following sunrise, although I’ve heard that this one fast was to be a 25 hour observance, to be sure that the full day is fasted.  This fast is to commemorate the three day fast commanded by Esther for all the Jews in Shushan (Susa) praying for the fate of the children of God who faced certain doom.  Without food or water, one is to pray every time they have a craving for either.  This fast is followed by giving gifts, reading Esther and celebrating for one (Mon)day.  It is required to “celebrate” until one cannot tell the difference between “cursed be Haman” and “blessed be Mordecai”.

The Conservative Party of Canada has been in government for three years, and contrary to the party history of the traditional conservative movement in Canada of small government and small taxes, it has increased the size of its governance at every opportunity and has unproportionally decreased taxes for the highest income earners. Their latest budget gives modest broad tax breaks and large tax breaks for high income earners. $1 to $65 in tax breaks for the underemployed and high income earners respectively as pointed out by the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. The CPC was forced to give concessions in their budget to the fact that Canada is currently in an economic recession by the combined efforts of the opposition parties forcing reality on them. Their budget had provisions for the Minister of Finance to act unilaterally against the will of Parliament should unforeseen events occur in the market. Considering the Minister of Finance, who has a three year track record of cooking the books, the Liberal Party of Canada decided that although the budget has only half measures in the right direction (and continues full measures in the wrong), the only major problem is the level of accountability this elitist would have to implement the good deeds.

If the budget works in producing the job creation it sets out to, it will entirely be on account of the efforts of the Liberal Party, Bloc Qeubecois, and New Democratic Party. Without their tireless efforts to force the governments hand in effecting positive change in fiscal matters, the Minister of Finance would likely not have endeavoured on the “unprecedented” comprehensive discussion on the state of the economy. The budget does not account for the fact that under the current regime the average Canadian household has seen an increase of taxes over the past three years, nor does it stop the decrease in taxes for the highest income earners. The budget does not ease the transition between working and collecting employment insurance. It does nothing to reduce the government size that has grown to be the largest in Canadian history accept the selling off of assets. From a conservative standpoint, this budget is a failure, from a centrist standpoint, this budget is a failure, from a socialist standpoint, this budget is a failure. From the traditional standpoints of the three opposition parties this budget is a failure, and yet it passed in a parliament dominated by these three parties for the simple reason that doing something immediately is better than nothing now, and little different later. The budget is highly biased towards neo-conservative elitism with small concessions to the more centrist ideals of the Liberal Party, but fortunately, the centrist party will be able to hold them accountable to their concessions. If the CPC doesn’t act by March in the interests of Canadians, we could have a Liberal minority government in April, which I deem the best possible outcome.

I can think about nearly a hundred amendments that aught to be suggested by the most powerful man in Canada, and the one previously mentioned must be non-negotiable. I have full confidence that Mr. Iggnatieff will suggest amendments tomorrow and let the government know that they are not going to support the “Action Plan” unless the amendments are enacted. The budget is definitely optimistic as to where the floor of this recession is and doesn’t seem likely to spark surpluses after the recession.

Also, as I mentioned already; Jim Flaherty is trying to do what George Bush did in trying to remove obstacles like oversight in making executive decisions. If it were Ralph Goodale, I could agree with it…  even if it were Gilles Duceppe I could agree with it more than I can when it is Jim “I hate poor people” Flaherty.

The exact wording he used in his speech on the budget was, “recent history tells us we must take nothing for granted. Canadians need to be confident that their government has the ability to respond to unforeseen crises. For that reason, our government proposes to give the Minister of Finance the authority required to act quickly to protect the country’s financial system, should it ever come under significant additional pressure. This will include the authority to provide loans and lines of credit, and the provision and payment of guarantees. And it will enable the government to inject capital directly into federal financial institutions, should such a measure ever be necessary. We do not foresee the need to use this authority. But we have a duty to be prepared, should the unforeseen suddenly emerge.”

Now, I’m not one for rehashing the past, but Flaherty and Harper both said that Canada would not be in recession. That means that the unforeseen is already here. They both said that there would be no deficit, so again, this is unforeseen. And still, with $34 billion in overspending there’s really only in the teens of billions of new spending in this budget, so obviously we were heading towards a deficit before the recession because of their corporate tax cuts and over spending from previous budgets. We might even have a deficit in this fiscal year that is being hidden, so when they chose to reveal that, it will be an “unforeseen” event “suddenly emerging”.

If Iggnatieff allows the Harper government to get away with this one…  boooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Jim Flaherty, a man known for cooking books, is presenting a budget that includes a provision for the Minister of Finance to have fewer restrictions and hoops to jump through when he decides it is in the best interest of the country to act. His office has caused a deficit, that will likely begin in this fiscal year, that has been kept hidden from the public (it is slowly coming to light), and now he is trying to clear the way to do as he wishes with the federal coffers whenever he deems necessary. This will have to be a non-negotiable rejection. If Iggnatieff lets this one issue through I will petition Bob Rae to run for leadership as soon as possible.