More “Servant” Stupidities – Part 1

Last time in “servant” stupidities, I noted how the concept of God is the exact opposite of the notion of a servant. So saying that the servant of God is God is an utter contradiction.

This time on “Servant Stupidities”, in two parts we deal with the polytheistic or schizophrenic notion of God being the servant of God.

There are two ways of seeing Jesus as God. Either in terms of God being a group and the other as God being an indivisible unity. Let’s compare these notions with their consequences and the claims of the christians who hold them.

So the christians who see God as a trinity or a family or a “binity” (those who accept that the son and father are “God”) or whatever notion of separateness in the parties, these christians will claim to be fiercely monotheistic. Or at least they will fiercely claim that they are monotheistic. We’ll call these christians “groupers”, as their God is a group of one form or another. Yet look what happens when we apply such thinking to “the servant of God”.

Question: So is Jesus God?
Honest answer from grouper: Yes
Question: And Jesus is the servant of God?
Honest answer: Yes.
Question: So the servant of God is God?
Honest answer: Yes
Question: But in order to be the servant of God you have to be someone other than the God whose being served?
Honest answer: Well the God being served must be God the Father and God the Son became the servant.

At this point, you have an implicit fact. One “God” is not the other “God”. The God who has “the servant” is not the same as the God who is the servant. What does this mean? We have two Gods. Of course they’ll fiercely claim their monotheism, but, as is obvious, the claim is hollow. They acknowledge at least two Gods not one.

We’ll deal with the other sort of christian next time.

Advertisements

About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I wrote my songs when I was single and not so happy and since I've been married, I haven't written as much. I guess that shows how happy and blessed I am. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to More “Servant” Stupidities – Part 1

  1. Andrew says:

    There is a very large number of Christians who are not trinitarians. This post is, as usual, misinformed and misrepresentative of “Christianity in general” (if such a thing exists). I’d be happy to have a dialogue with you about it.

    • hesedyahu says:

      There was nothing, absolutely nothing in the article that stated “this is what all christians believe”. In my article, I never even said “christianity in general”. So you just made false accusations against my article again. There’s nothing to dialogue. If you do so well at misjudging my article, who knows what you can do with anything else I say?

      • Andrew says:

        You split a doctrine of Jesus’ divinity into a dichotomy of types (only two?, do Christian theologians agree with you on that?) then explore one type. Between the two (this and your next post) approaches I would have thought it was reasonable to conclude that you’re speaking about “Christians in general.” Otherwise there are more than two approaches. Since really what you’re talking about is the doctrine of the trinity, I found it relevant to point out that not all Christians hold to that doctrine. I see in retrospect that your intention was to handle multiple approaches each in its own post.

        I understand that you might be frustrated by my comment that your article is misinformed. But between the two of us, I’m Christian and, well, you’re not. It’s okay, I don’t hold it against you- I don’t think answering questions as a hypothetical Christian isn’t something that you should be expected to do perfectly, unless you’re also an actual Christian.

        I didn’t make any accusations. An accusation is “a charge or claim that a person has done something illegal or wrong.” My comment was about your post, I didn’t mention you or charge you with any wrongdoing.

      • hesedyahu says:

        Why would I need the agreement of christians? I don’t need the agreement of christians when I state that they worship idols, or that they accept a failure as a messiah. So I don’t need their agreement about this post or any other of my posts. In the end their own words condemn them (thank God!). Since I have experience at being a devoted christian and I have many christians around me to use the words of, I’m in a very good place to use christian arguments. Thankfully, I don’t need your permission, approval or grades to tell me how well I do.

        You said “I would have thought it was reasonable ….” I understand that this was what you thought. I’m here to tell you that what you thought was wrong. The fact is that in other places in this blog, I’ve openly stated that some christians don’t think Jesus is God. I don’t need to qualify every article with that. I don’t have to qualify these two articles with that fact.

        You said “I understand that you might be frustrated ….” I’m not. Because your response lack substance, there is nothing for me to frustrated about. You decided to, metaphorically, post yourself at my door (blog), so that many times I have something to say, I have you to try to “educate” me. I thank God that it doesn’t bother me to have you do what you choose to. I thank God that your existence, which neither adds nor subtracts from me, doesn’t both me. And I thank God that I have the ability to eject you and your comments, but there is reason not to … for now. And no, that’s not a veiled threat. I don’t need to veil my threats or hide my intent. It’s just the way things are. While I’m entrusted with this internet “property”, I can deal with you being in it. The oceans are calm when the empty wind blows. If you choose to create more a disturbance, then without a blink you’ll be gone.

        Yes, you made accusations. You make a good of them. I quoted you saying as such when you throw up the irrelevant statement that I was talking about “christianity in general”. Even in this response of yours, all you do is justify yourself. You seem comfortable pointing out the errors that you think you see, yet not so good at directing that focus on yourself. Anyway, most of this response of yours was how one thing seems like this to you, and how something would seem reasonable to you. Since it is about what is right in your eyes, there is little I can do to contradict that.

      • Andrew says:

        Sorry, that should say “- I think answering questions…”

      • Andrew says:

        Well, you tend to say a lot of things about Christians and Christianity that are not true in my experience. Sometimes I wonder about the churches you studied at while you were a Christian. For instance, I don’t fit your mold for a grouper or a oneness Christian. If you really did a fair survey of churches you’d probably find that while most doctrines do make concrete ontological statements about God, most Christians don’t. As another example, there are far more than two ways of approaching the divinity of Christ. It’s been a hotly debated topic in the church for, well, around two thousand years, and many men have said many things about it. The two ways you discuss aren’t exactly a sufficient summary of that work.

        I think it’s important that there’s at least one person around here not just high-fiving you in the comments. I’m sorry to rehash things you’ve already brought up, but I know the first time I got here was by Google search to a particular post- I didn’t start at the beginning. You shouldn’t assume your audience is familiar with more than a handful of your posts. I don’t while I’m commenting on them.

        You’re characterizing Christians. In my own personal experience and my experience interacting with other Christians, I don’t find your characterization to be accurate. I certainly know that you don’t care whether or not a Christian agrees with your characterization of Christians. Your audience may.

      • hesedyahu says:

        If I say a lot of things that are not true in your experience, then they are true in someone else’s as I have found. If my articles don’t apply to you, and I’ve told you that I know that all christians don’t believe these things, then I don’t understand your persistence on these issues. You said “if I did a fair survey of churches, I would probably find ….” I’m not you. So me doing a fair survey of churches doesn’t mean I would come to your conclusions. My two articles are not a summary of the whole discussion on the divinity of Jesus or Christ. So if you’re looking for that look elsewhere. In my articles, I give my point of view on what I want to talk about. If you want more, go elsewhere.

        You want to be the one person not high-fiving me? Eeerrrr …. whatever.

        I didn’t make any assumptions about what you should know. The statement I made said nothing about what you should know, only about what exists. The fact that your comments are shortsighted, making statements, claims, and accusations, rather than asking questions, is your problem. Not mine yet.

        I’m glad your experiences are different. What more is there to say? If the “audience” chooses to, they can think for themselves.

      • Andrew says:

        I’m sorry, the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Christ is a separate topic.

  2. searchinmyroots says:

    Who said anything about “Trinitarians”? I don’t see any reference to the father, the son and the holy spirit.

    This article is about whether G-d is a servant to Himself.

    Looks like you really haven’t read what is written and just decided to jump all over something that isn’t even there!

    So we must ask ourselves – Who is the one who is misinformed here?

  3. Andrew says:

    When talking about things like this, you’re discussing “the doctrine of the trinity”- you’re discussing the trinity whether you like to or not by implication of the Christology in which you’re engaging. Discussing the relationship between the Father and the Son is within the category of the doctrine of the trinity. Sorry to jump to something you might not see. I talk to Christians about these things so often that sometimes I forget that I should slow down for people who aren’t as versed in the teachings of Christ as we are.

    The term “trinitarian” refers to a person who holds that doctrine, not one of the Father, Son, or Spirit. Hesedyahu directly made statements about trinitarians when discussing “those who see God as a trinity…”

    • hesedyahu says:

      Actually, you are wrong in that you unfairly limit the scope of the article. Jesus being God in a way separate to the Father is discussing more than one doctrine, not just the trinity. Roots Searcher was right to say that my article wasn’t only about the trinity. Or in his words: “Who said anything about “Trinitarians”? I don’t see any reference to the father, the son and the holy spirit.” But I will admit that my article did include those who accept a trinity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s