Which is risker?

[Elijah John]

Which approach is riskier?

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not?

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is?

Why?

[marco]

It would be risky to follow a church that does not claim to have authority.

The RC Church obtains its authority from tradition, from the contested belief that Peter was in Rome and acted as first Pontiff. The verse about petra the rock is interesting but the vast theology extracted from it is more hope than truth.


However, if it's God's imprimatur we seek then the Koran, God's first novel, must beat the NT which is a collection of tales merely inspired by holiness.

For me, those are some things that would be huge red flags for me and I would consider risky moves. If a person wanted to reduce the risk in being wrong about God, he or she would need to look at history, look at the facts, acknowledge the world we live in, and use reason and logic to determine if what we plan to put our trust/faith in meets certain rational components. Faith and reason work together. They do not contradict one another.

Yes, historians do look at history but the glass is rather dark. There is no historical evidence, for example, that Mary was born sinless; this is derived by an appeal to human reason and theological argument. If we accept God interacts with the world, we might say that the conversion of billions of Muslims to Islam coldl not have taken place without God's approval.

As for faith and reason refusing to contradict each other, this is not quite so. The mystery of the Trinity contradicts reason but is held on faith.


It would be nice to think that the faith we have is free of the pitfalls of modern imitations but alas, there are gaping questions. Each defends his own with equal ferocity and fervour. Such is man.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

It would be risky to follow a church that does not claim to have authority.


The RC Church obtains its authority from tradition, from the contested belief that Peter was in Rome and acted as first Pontiff. The verse about petra the rock is interesting but the vast theology extracted from it is more hope than truth.

I’m not sure how/why you would say this. The verse about petra demonstrates Peter at the helm. I’m sure lots of people didn’t want Peter in charge. He wasn’t exactly the strongest or most courageous or maybe even the nicest or most popular Apostle, but since the verse is not based on hope, rather history -- wishful thinking is irrelevant.

However, if it's God's imprimatur we seek then the Koran, God's first novel, must beat the NT which is a collection of tales merely inspired by holiness.

Sacred Scripture reveals that the NT is fulfillment of the OT. Therefore, to accept and believe the history of Christ’s Church does not negate the OT. Again, this thread refers to Jesus. If you want to know about Jesus, like I said, follow the history.

Yes, historians do look at history but the glass is rather dark. There is no historical evidence, for example, that Mary was born sinless; this is derived by an appeal to human reason and theological argument.

Yes, it appeals to human reason and theological argument AS WELL as can historically be found in the writings of the early Church. There’s that pesky historical record again. And since no where in Scripture itself does it say we can only listen to that which is in Scripture itself, rather we were to adhere to that which has been passed down to us orally, or by word of mouth (Tradition) as well. So that in fact is what I mean by follow history. Historical record shows we are supposed to turn to Christ’s Church regarding questions like the one posed in this thread – is Jesus God? Elijah screams, prove it – show me the evidence. I say, what does the Church say? There is your proof.

If we accept God interacts with the world, we might say that the conversion of billions of Muslims to Islam coldl not have taken place without God's approval.

And Satan, an angel with perfect intellect, could not have revolted without God’s approval. So, what is your point? God grants free will.

As for faith and reason refusing to contradict each other, this is not quite so. The mystery of the Trinity contradicts reason but is held on faith.

And where is the contradiction?

When properly understood the Trinity is anything but unreasonable.

As an infinite act of love between the Father and Son, this "act" is so perfect and infinite that "it" becomes (not in time, of course, but eternally) a "He" in the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This revelation of God's love personified is the foundation from which Scripture could reveal to us that "God is love" (I John 4:8).

God is not revealed to "be" love in any other religion in the world other than Christianity because in order for there to be love, there must be a beloved. From all eternity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have poured themselves out into each other in an infinite act of love, which we, as Christians, are called to experience through faith and the sacraments by which we are lifted up into that very love of God itself (Romans 5:1-5).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... he-trinity


It’s about love and giving and receiving and relationships and how for there to be love, there must be a beloved. Sounds more than reasonable to me.

It would be nice to think that the faith we have is free of the pitfalls of modern imitations but alas, there are gaping questions. Each defends his own with equal ferocity and fervour. Such is man.

Yes, or lack there of. Ironically, defending skepticism is right in that list of fervently defending one’s own view, ripe with its own limitations.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 77 by RightReason]

So you are attempting to turn it around and saying that not accepting the Trinity is risky?

Remember, theologically speaking the docrtine of the Trinity is the "Johnny come lately". Precedence favors the absolute Shema monotheism of Judaism, which Jesus himself preached. (It's in Mark)

The burden is on Trinitarians to prove that the Trinity is more than just a theological contstuct designed to accomodate the Jesus-worship that was evoloving at the time, so that Jesus-worshipers could still claim to be Monotheists.

If you cannot prove that Jesus is God without appeals to authority, that seems pretty risky. Jesus had better be God or else "Jesus-worship" risks violating the "charter", the "prime directive", the first commandment.

Or are you saying that violating the teachings and dictates of the RCC is risky to one's eternal soul? Remember, that even if Jesus is God, there is no Biblical commandment to worship him as such. Nor did Jesus ever say "worship me".

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Which approach is riskier? 

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not? 

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is? 

Why?

I propose the greater risk is to stone folks because one believes a god they can't show exists has him an opinion they can't show he does.

Jesus, if the tale be told, never said don't y'all do it.

I'll not worship me neither a god, nor a Jesus, that doesn't come to me and ask me to do it. I will not accept the word of the religious promoter on it.

The only gods are those we create within our own minds.

And there's a big bunch of y'all that created y'all a big 'ol hate filled god.

[brianbbs67]

Yay! The gates of hell have opened. Beware, topic question won't be answered but ridicule of believers will be.