Muslims in Balkan Should Promote Europe of Peace and Hope

[makedonche]

For example?

Vangelovski
For example anyone who hasn't fully read and understood the previous explanation, may well still hold the view that there is only one God, however Jesus was his son - and consider them separate.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski
For example anyone who hasn't fully read and understood the previous explanation, may well still hold the view that there is only one God, however Jesus was his son - and consider them separate.

When interpretations are discussed (of any text not just the Bible), it is generally understood that those interpretations are based on a complete reading of the text. I don't believe one could undertake an honest study of the Bible in its entirety and provide a different interpretation on the Trinity that stood up to evidence in the text.

If you're referring to an "interpretation" based on someone having read a few bits and pieces here and there (which you suggest in the text I highlighted in your quote), then anyone could interpret anything however they wished. While they may honestly hold that view, its not an informed view or an intellectually honest interpretation based on the entirety of the given text.

[makedonche]

When interpretations are discussed (of any text not just the Bible), it is generally understood that those interpretations are based on a complete reading of the text. I don't believe one could undertake an honest study of the Bible in its entirety and provide a different interpretation on the Trinity that stood up to evidence in the text.

When you're having a discussion on a forum it's based on what's being discussed and written in relation to it, not based on complete readings of texts or honest bible studies, it's people's opinions or views at that time.

If you're referring to an "interpretation" based on someone having read a few bits and pieces here and there (which you suggest in the text I highlighted in your quote), then anyone could interpret anything however they wished. While they may honestly hold that view, its not an informed view or an intellectually honest interpretation based on the entirety of the given text.

It's an interpretation based on peoples knowledge, experience and education and it's their interpretation, nobody elses, who gets to say whether it's right wrong or intellectually dishonest?

Interesting viewpoint, however.

[Vangelovski]

I can't tell if you've qouted someone or they are your responses?

[makedonche]

I can't tell if you've qouted someone or they are your responses?

The bold are my responses.

[Nikolaj]

Vangelovski
For example anyone who hasn't fully read and understood the previous explanation, may well still hold the view that there is only one God, however Jesus was his son - and consider them separate.

That's like saying light has to be either particle or wave. When we know it's wave and particle.

[makedonche]

That's like saying light has to be either particle or wave. When we know it's wave and particle.

Nikolaj
That's assuming we all know it's wave and particle?

[Vangelovski]

When you're having a discussion on a forum it's based on what's being discussed and written in relation to it, not based on complete readings of texts or honest bible studies, it's people's opinions or views at that time.

It's an interpretation based on peoples knowledge, experience and education and it's their interpretation, nobody elses, who gets to say whether it's right wrong or intellectually dishonest?

What you are saying is analogous to three people discussing a red kite. Two of them refuse to look up and don't know the colour of the kite. The first is of the opinion that the kite is blue. The second is of the opinion that the kite is green. The third looks up and sees that the kite is red. Are you saying that the first two opinions (that the kite is blue or green) are just as valid as the third opinion that the kite is red? And what is the point of the first two opinions? Do they hold any benefit whatsoever other than to misinform and confuse? Does the colour of the kite change just because they believe that the kite is a different colour to what it actually is?

What you seem to be saying is that all opinions, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, honest or dishonest are equal and valid. That is an extraordinary claim.

Who would you want to speak to if you had a medical question - a qualified doctor or someone who you ran into on the street that has no medical knowledge whatsoever? What if that stranger on the street gave you medical advice that he felt was true? Does the doctor have a right to determine whether that advice is right/wrong, informed/uninformed or intellectually honest/dishonest?

Everyone holds opinions, including intellectually dishonest ones, but do you actually believe that it is intellectually honest for a person to hold a view on something which they know nothing about? If so, can you explain how this equates to intellectual honesty?

In the end, I'm not sure what you point is exactly. You claimed there are different interpretations in relation to the Trinity - how are your latest questions related to that?

[Nikolaj]

Nikolaj
That's assuming we all know it's wave and particle?

We know for a fact light has both wave and particle characteristics, but taking what you wrote into account you are correct, we don't know if that's all it is.

We don't need to know thermodynamics to be able to know a stove is hot, for the same way we don't need to completely understand the holy trinity to believe in God.

[Philosopher]

I think appreciating the Bible as the Word of God, particularly when appreciating its supposed "types and shadows", does appeal to intellectual types.

Fair enough. But the "types and shadows" are not supposed. It is obvious from the Old and New Testaments. In fact, "types" and "shadows" are terms expressly used in the New Testament.

It doesn't mean the reader understands what they are reading, (as evident on this thread when interpretations clearly differ dramatically and fundamentally), but it does seem to nurture a kind of person at a point in their life.

Fair enough. But the differences in opinions are not essential elements of the Christian faith and the fact that there are disagreements does not mean an accurate interpretation does not exist.

I think the analysis I provided in Jeremiah makes it rather clear.

[makedonche]

Vangelovski

[QUOTEWhat you are saying is analogous to three people discussing a red kite. Two of them refuse to look up and don't know the colour of the kite. The first is of the opinion that the kite is blue. The second is of the opinion that the kite is green. The third looks up and sees that the kite is red. Are you saying that the first two opinions (that the kite is blue or green) are just as valid as the third opinion that the kite is red? And what is the point of the first two opinions? Do they hold any benefit whatsoever other than to misinform and confuse? Does the colour of the kite change just because they believe that the kite is a different colour to what it actually is?][/QUOTE]

Completely misconstrued and irrelevant analogy! BTW if any of these 3 people are colour blind will that affect opinions/views/colours?

What you seem to be saying is that all opinions, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, honest or dishonest are equal and valid. That is an extraordinary claim.

Completely misconstrued again!

Who would you want to speak to if you had a medical question - a qualified doctor or someone who you ran into on the street that has no medical knowledge whatsoever? What if that stranger on the street gave you medical advice that he felt was true? Does the doctor have a right to determine whether that advice is right/wrong, informed/uninformed or intellectually honest/dishonest?

We're having a discussion on a forum, each member of the forum is entitled to an opinion and a view, based on their upbringing/knowledge/education & experience, their opinions are equally valid - not necessarily equally correct, equally detailed or equally informed - but they are equally valid in being able to have those views/opinions based on their individual knowledge/experience/education & upbringing and are certainly not intellectually dishonest. If I wanted an opinion on anything I would use various sources not necessarily one - including but not limited to doctors opinions!

Everyone holds opinions, including intellectually dishonest ones, but do you actually believe that it is intellectually honest for a person to hold a view on something which they know nothing about? If so, can you explain how this equates to intellectual honesty?

How could anyone hold a view on something they know nothing about???? Once again for the sake of clarity, people hold views based on experience/education/upbringing - this is intellectual honesty at it's clearest - people discussing their views and opinions based on knowledge/experience/education - doesn't mean they can't broaden their knowledge, it means they are using what knowledge they have.

In the end, I'm not sure what you point is exactly. You claimed there are different interpretations in relation to the Trinity - how are your latest questions related to that?

If you're not sure of the point, why all the analogies?
Everything is open to individuals interpretations, based on their knowledge/experience/education and upbringing, including the Trinity!

[makedonche]

Nikolaj

We know for a fact light has both wave and particle characteristics, but taking what you wrote into account you are correct, we don't know if that's all it is.

It's incorrect to assume that "we all know for a fact light has both wave and particle"!

We don't need to know thermodynamics to be able to know a stove is hot, for the same way we don't need to completely understand the holy trinity to believe in God.

Agreed, but it doesn't mean we can't have different interpretations of the Trinity, and still believe in God?

[George S.]

Light has an origin snd a destinstinstion.
It can be a particle a photon of light or a wave.its sll according to the thheory that light is a inivrrsal condtant.it travrls at the dame speed in space.
Another way is to yhink of light travrlling in packets or ninfled of light.
Domeone has figured of a way to yransfer light matter from one room to another yhrough a dolid.YhEn reassemble it st yhe other end.LIke a beam me up scotty like star trek.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonche,

What is your interpretation of the Trinity and what is it based on?

[makedonche]

Makedonche,

What is your interpretation of the Trinity and what is it based on?

Vangelovski
My view is that the Trinity is open for interpretation, as evidenced by the discussions taking place, these are active interpretations.