(June 19, 2011 at 3:03 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

(June 17, 2011 at 8:35 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 17, 2011 at 2:36 am)Ryft Wrote: I have witnessed some extraordinary mental gymnastics here over the years but I cannot even imagine the sort required to argue that "a god" constitutes polytheism. Statler beat me to the punch when he said, "You just proved his point." When you are reduced to stating that "a god" constitutes polytheism, it would seem the confusion is indeed yours.

I laughed when I read this, trying to take in the overwhelming irony of a Christian defending the concept of the Trinity (and citing arguments presented by Statler to boot) accusing a skeptic of "mental gymnastics". You've done some textbook projection here before, Ryft, but this one takes the cake.

Yes, Ryft, you claim to believe in "one god". The part you gloss over is that this "one god" is composed of three separate beings. That's where the polytheism part comes in. It's not the "one god" that's polytheistic. It's the "three separate beings" part. Essentially, Trinitarian Christianity is unique among religions in that it is both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. Anyone who seriously tries to defend this concept should not bandy around accusations of "mental gymnastics" and "confusion".

---

It is not Ryft nor Statler Waldorf that's confused DP, it is you that has no idea of what the Trinity is. First thing here is that no christians I know, and that would be many, believe that God is three separate Gods. We worship only one God who is Yahweh who is the three persons, not three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not understand why you can not see this, or maybe you can and do not want to admit your argument is wrong. Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will. Every polytheistic religion has different gods with different agenda and this is not so in christianity, the three persons of Yehweh have the same will (agenda).

Which one of the brothers in christ is going to be the first one to say, "your human mind just cannot comprehend it, because god is so amazing" ??

...but this is what's most interesting about this post:

Godschild Wrote:Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Your own Bible contradicts this argument again and again. The Son is often NOT PRIVY to the will of the Father. The Son also specifically asks the Father questions. The Son is supposedly "the great intercessor" for man. CLEARLY, they are not of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Also, to all of you who are defending the Trinity of god by telling Paladin, "no, it makes complete sense - you just don't understand." This is NOT a valid argument anywhere on planet earth where a legitimate debate is taking place, religious or otherwise. So stop insulting the intelligence of everyone else by using it.

(June 19, 2011 at 3:03 am)Godschild Wrote: It is not Ryft nor Statler Waldorf that's confused DP, it is you that has no idea of what the Trinity is. ... We worship only one God who is Yahweh who is the three persons

Which is precisely what I said the Trinity is supposed to be.

Quote:however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will. Every polytheistic religion has different gods with different agenda and this is not so in christianity, the three persons of Yehweh have the same will (agenda).

TRIPLE FAIL.

Same will? The Bible says that Jesus, just before his arrest, prayed to his father and asked the cup be taken from him but then said "not my will but yours be done". This establishes that there are two separate wills at work here.

Same mind? Jesus in the Gospel of John proclaims that "none come to the Father except through me". This establishes Jesus as the intercessor between humanity and Yahweh. An intercessor is, by definition, a separate "mind", else we have Jesus saying "no one comes to me except through me."

Same thoughts? Jesus says that the father alone knows when the end of days will be, that even the son doesn't know.

I guess the Bible authors didn't understand the Trinity either.

^
^
^
YOU JUST GOT CINJINIZED. KAPOW!

Quote:About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

"Matthew" 27:46

So apparently the fucker was talking to himself, huh?

Jesus was a suicide!

Quote:"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What makes you wonder, is why would jesus say that if his plan was to be sacrificed? It's like he was expecting his god to show up and save him or something.
Hmm

Jesus's so called 'sacrifice' was nothing but a suicide. Or reckless endangerment if you will. Seeing as being crucified and his ultimate death may not of been his intention. Either case, he's fucked.

Perhaps he was waiting for.....................................

(June 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Nobody really understands it.

Please do not impose your ignorance on everybody else. You do not understand it; others likewise do not, even here at these forums. But myself and many others understand it just fine, which renders your ignorance being imposed upon us a brutal non-sequitur.

DeistPaladin Wrote:So three separate persons can't be separate from each other?

That is precisely the opposite of what I said. Reading comprehension fail. Each member of the Trinity is a person distinct from the others.

DeistPaladin Wrote:Jesus is a separate person from Yahweh but can't be separate? I'm so glad you cleared that up.

And another reading comprehension fail, again the complete opposite of what I said. Jesus is not a separate person from Yahweh; he IS Yahweh.

Your ability to complicate the trinitarian view does not make it complicated. There is a pattern emerging in these responses against the trinitarian view, including yours: there are some who change the meaning of words in order to suit an argument, in this case polytheism, and others who invert trinitarian statements into their complete opposite in order to suit an argument, like you are doing. All of it is transparently dishonest. Rhetorically delightful and elicits back-slaps and cheers from the choir, but transparently dishonest.

DeistPaladin Wrote:So he's a distinct being with a different will but part of the same god and therefore the same being but they're separate and distinct but not?

There are so many things wrong in this nonsensical straw man that I scarcely know where to begin, aside from pointing out that it is a nonsensical straw man; that is to say, your statement represents nothing recognizable to orthodox Christian teaching, fails to correspond with anything orthodox Christianity teaches, and is not even coherent in the first place. A triple fail.

Do you want to try again, this time rationally and with intellectual integrity? Or are you content with that straw man nonsense, leaving the trinitarian view untouched?

DeistPaladin Wrote:Roughly half the epistles of Paul are of dubious authenticity. Titus is one of the dubious epistles.

Irrelevant to the point being argued (ignoratio elenchi).

DeistPaladin Wrote:There was no orthodox Christianity prior to Nicaea ... [snip rest]

Irrelevant. We are not living either before or near the time of Nicea, but in fact over sixteen hundred years afterward. My point stands firm: the scriptures, ancient creeds, liturgies, systematics and so forth (across nineteen hundred years) all confirm that orthodox Christianity has never taught three separate gods. The Marcionites, Ebionites, and Arians were all denounced as heretical each in their time by the Christian church through scriptural appeal and, in such cases as Arianism, gave rise to creedal formulations. This orthodox Christianity is what we find in the scriptures, creeds, etc., and the reason why such teachings as that of Arius are called Arianism.

---

---

(June 19, 2011 at 9:17 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Okay, so God is not three gods. He's three 'persons'. Well that clears it up, then: God is schizophrenic.

Only if God is a person who is three persons—which is rejected by trinitarian Christianity.

The brothers don't even agree with each other now.

Ryft, you are extremely well-spoken, but the defense of the assault upon reason constituted by the trinity is ludicrous. This is like a bad law case. It has no good logical grounding, and is even bad on philosophical scales. To suggest that one being is three, who are each distinct while remaining integral parts of a whole is simply silly. As far as Christianity goes (and that isn't far for atheists), the Arians were much more logical and well-reasoned. Beyond the limited sphere of Christianity, on theological grounds, it is aspectually polytheistic, regardless of any attempt to salvage it.