Polytheistic Christianity? Excellent, +1 for you sir.

fr0d0 Wrote:He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.

The first sentence contradicts the last, but I'll assume that's a typo.

You now need to define what you mean by "way" as there are multiple definitions of the word "way". If you mean a definition of "way" contrary to the existing definitions, you've now created a new definition which provides no new identifying characteristics. This makes the definition pointless. I believe this is what Scarlett was referring to:

Homosapiens have distinct, definable, identifiable properties. Homospaien is short-hand for these properties.

When one is asked what a man is, a person can say man is short-hand for homosapien (this is defined by its properties).

The word 'diety' has multiple meanings that vary widely to multiple people and has no clearly understood definition. Hence, it is not really short-hand for anything meaningful.

So, if when asked what God is, one says a diety, a person hasn't clarified the meaning at all.

... Also, do you mean that there are other correct "ways", but God is just the only "correct way" that is worshipped? This would mean if I began to worship another "correct way", God would no longer be the only worshipped one.


A concept needs to have all properties relevant to discussion produced before discussion can take place. God has multiple definitions, none of which are agreed upon. Like it or not, this means a person discussing God needs to first define the properties of the God they are talking about.

Simply saying things such as "the one I'm talking about", "the funny one", "the one named James", or "the really cool one my priest talks about" only provides the properties you say and therefore provides little useful meaning.

It would be similar to all elements being simply called "element". Before we can discuss the properties of the "big element" we are discussing, we need to know which element one we are each referring to.

(November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You. It was an insult and I wanted to get it removed. Apologies.

Does not matter on any level. Accepted.

(November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: In Christianity 'God' is not the only deity. He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.

2 things. It is a whole new experience for me that xtianity is now polytheistic, ie more than 1 Deity. Using Deity as primary attribute is still invalid as previously explained the term Deity, is not positively identified. Your in danger of equivocation with this response Frods, ie slippery use and interchange of the term Deity, god/s, which you are proposing is both a primary attribute (although I deny that for reasons stated), and presumabley ? a multitude of being springing forth from the godhead. But I cannot grasp the full meaning of your response given the polytheistic bombshell (which I am sure you do not mean to convey).

(November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: False. You also try to limit words by trying to limit it to Xtianity. So that's a double failure.

You like the word failure but your rebuttals so far have brought you no joy. As this doesn't. Again a projection of your own position onto me.

(November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What besides man is homosapien? Only man. So therefore man = man?Again a fail.

No homo sapien is a place holder for a species which can be described, ie there nature is describable and is a positive primary attribute. I think you are focussing too much on the terms: 'god', 'Deity, 'man', 'homo spaien' and not enough on the description I have provided with them. The failure is either mine to convey information, yours to understand or both. But the argument is sound.

(November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you are assessing God on his material properties? And then dissmissing him on his lack of material properties? I see a gross violation of logic going on there. Nothing complicated needed to dismiss it, it's very plainly obvious.

OK I am happy for you to point out that failure, but you haven't. And then you accuse me of not telling you why you committed logical fallacies (which I did), and then not explaining them (which I did). Again a projection of your own failures. But let me grasp the nettle as I think I know what you are driving at and explain why you are wrong.

I am not assessing a god on his material properties. You are erecting a straw man again to knock over yourself. Again go ahead. I said that 'theists tell us'. I really have no axe to grind here, you guys can describe your terms how you wish in the negative sense. I am just playing back the Theist position at a Theist.

However it is FOR YOU NOT ME to offer some poistive primary attribute of a god (or in your case the xtian god (or 3 gods or whatever)). Please do so as that is the graviman of this case and would defeat my argument if those secondary and/or relational attributes could flow from that primary one. The only slightly awkward thing for you position is that your arguments have spectacularly failed to do any such thing. We are left with the impression that god is mysterious, unknowable, etc currently which would ultimately render the term god meaningless as per the original argument.

(November 10, 2011 at 10:52 pm)toro Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.

The first sentence contradicts the last, but I'll assume that's a typo.

Then you misunderstand.

He is the only god worthy of our worship - is the biblical quote. ie amongst the gods on choice - he is the only 'way' (to salvation).

Yes deity is a generic categorisation that the Christian God would fit within. Along with all the Hindu gods, Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc etc etc.

When we address the Christian God, we have a set singular entity defined in the Christian bible. He has many attributes, just like people have many attributes. But they are not unknown to us. We can all look in the bible and find out exactly what those are.

(November 10, 2011 at 10:52 pm)toro Wrote: ... Also, do you mean that there are other correct "ways", but God is just the only "correct way" that is worshipped? This would mean if I began to worship another "correct way", God would no longer be the only worshipped one.

That's crazy talk.

If you weren't worshipping the Xtian God you'd be worshipping another god, as referenced in the bible. Different god, different attributes.

(November 10, 2011 at 10:52 pm)toro Wrote: God has multiple definitions, none of which are agreed upon. Like it or not, this means a person discussing God needs to first define the properties of the God they are talking about.

And this God is fully defined.

Sorry to sound flippant fr0d0..but why do I need to be "saved"?

Am I some collectable from a Breakfast cereal Packet? Or a Pokemon perhaps??

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: 2 things. It is a whole new experience for me that xtianity is now polytheistic, ie more than 1 Deity.

Well quite. You don't understand Christianity. See my response to toro above.

Xtianity isn't polytheistic: holds that many gods make up the Godhead. But monotheistic: has only one God in the Godhead, whilst acknowledging that other gods (which are already evidenced in the cultural context) do exist.

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Using Deity as primary attribute is still invalid as previously explained the term Deity, is not positively identified.

Of course the terms 'deity' and 'God' are both fully identified and obviously seperate in definition, in exactly the same way as man and homosapien are!

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You like the word failure but your rebuttals so far have brought you no joy. As this doesn't. Again a projection of your own position onto me.

Captain... you are trying to say that 'gods', because the term can be applied to all religious deity's, invalidates the word 'God' when considering ONLY the Christian God. This is a point made that you just by saying 'oh no it isn't IS NOT CHALLENGED. Sorry for the caps but I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.

You seem to have changed from a person who could make and take vlid points into someone who like Rhythm, ignores everything put to them and baselessly repeats the same old bullshit.

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: No homo sapien is a place holder for a species which can be described, ie there nature is describable and is a positive primary attribute. I think you are focussing too much on the terms: 'god', 'Deity, 'man', 'homo spaien' and not enough on the description I have provided with them. The failure is either mine to convey information, yours to understand or both. But the argument is sound.

I'm sorry Captain I can't see a point there.

How is God (The specific Xtian God)'s nature not described and describable?

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: However it is FOR YOU NOT ME to offer some poistive primary attribute of a god (or in your case the xtian god (or 3 gods or whatever)).

I see. So you are saying that God isn't defined because you don't know the definitions. An argument from ignorance? Because he is very thoroughly defined in the bible, for you to check out and know exactly that definition.

If you claim that this God has no definitions, surely the oness is upon you to find out if that claim is correct. I'm not making any claims: I'm just pointing out the flaw in yours, and showing you the evidence.

(November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: We are left with the impression that god is mysterious, unknowable, etc currently which would ultimately render the term god meaningless as per the original argument.

A gross generalisation intended to make something undefined where it clearly isn't. Only to you is God meaningless and unknowable. Internally, to you, therefore, is the only place where this supposition works. You define your own misunderstanding.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:27 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Sorry to sound flippant fr0d0..but why do I need to be "saved"?

Am I some collectable from a Breakfast cereal Packet? Or a Pokemon perhaps??

Is this you or your kid posting kichie?

You have to be 'saved' coz you're 'lost'. (scary words there)

If you accept that humans are not perfect (like the Adam n Eve story establishes for the Xtian perspective).... then you are lost > to perfection.

Perfection is offered in Xtianity in the form of Jebus removing the barrier to perfection.

Yeah... you too can be perfect like me!

^^that was a joke right

You (God/ mummy - same thing) provide Pokemon containing cereal box to kid who is now 'with Pokemon'. His Pokemon was lost, and now he is a complete Pokemon kid - so he can be like all his mates.

(Did I drag this analogy on too long alreddy?? )

Your "if" is showing.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well quite. You don't understand Christianity. See my response to toro above.

Yes lets say I don’t understand xtianity and the nuances of the trinity. My argument is of the meaningless of god. Calling god The or A Diety does not help and you can repeat ad nauseum if you like but there is nothing on offer from you.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Of course the terms 'deity' and 'God' are both fully identified and obviously seperate in definition, in exactly the same way as man and homosapien are!

So tell us what they are then so that you might refute the argument. The floor is yours. Please do not respond that you already have, you really haven’t.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Captain... you are trying to say that 'gods', because the term can be applied to all religious deity's, invalidates the word 'God' when considering ONLY the Christian God. This is a point made that you just by saying 'oh no it isn't IS NOT CHALLENGED. Sorry for the caps but I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.

Yes SO AM I. Still waiting for something concrete……..

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You seem to have changed from a person who could make and take vlid points into someone who like Rhythm, ignores everything put to them and baselessly repeats the same old bullshit.

I am happy to take valid points. I just haven’t seen any. Frods I think you are a genuinely nice fella, and bright. I also think you have a developed a pattern of argumentation which goes something like:
Offer up some mystical and wooly response > argue that it is solid and the other person fails because of your rejoinder > argue that they have failed to show why you are wrong despite the glaring problems not concede them > gloss over problems in your rejoinders and pick at the edges of arguments without addressing the central questions > argue that you already answered it but provide nothing in reality > argue that the other person is ignoring you > argue that its their fault > ridicule sound arguments as being baseless/ bullshit/straight fails > sound all hurt/ad hom the other person.
Not once I you ever started a post arguing FOR xtianity (to my knowledge and I could be wrong). Why don’t you tell us on what basis you believe, instead of these sniping tactics. Why don’t you say I cannot identify gods primary attribute because…, or I can because….. Calling god a Diety is poor, I’ve showed you why and I don’t intend to repeat it.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I see. So you are saying that God isn't defined because you don't know the definitions. An argument from ignorance? Because he is very thoroughly defined in the bible, for you to check out and know exactly that definition.

Stop playing to the crowd and answer the points. It isn’t for me to define something I do not believe exists, and for which I have provided an argument against its existence. You are making the counter claim that I am wrong and there is a god. So identify his primary attribute so we can all understand gods nature and move on from dictionary definitions. I have no burden of proof, and I really do not know how you can accuse me of an argument from ignorance, that is bizarre. If I am ignorant its because no theist (inc you) has identified gods positive primary attribute. Its your concept so make my argument less ‘ignorant’…you do not seem able too and want to shift the burden onto me…see below

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you claim that this God has no definitions, surely the oness is upon you to find out if that claim is correct. I'm not making any claims: I'm just pointing out the flaw in yours, and showing you the evidence.

In the absence of any coherency in the bible or anywhere else in reality as to the nature of god, I am left wholly unimpressed. Lets not pretend its as clear cut as you want to make it either. How many responses will we receive to the question: What is god?, to xtians. We might get back: Hes love, an immaterial being, a mind floating in a supernatural realm, a timeless being, the almighty, the creator, Jesus, the lifeforce, the alpha and omega, or more or combinations thereof. All totally meaningless unless we know a positive primary attribute, particularly one that’s makes sense against the framework of reality.

(November 11, 2011 at 4:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: A gross generalisation intended to make something undefined where it clearly isn't. Only to you is God meaningless and unknowable. Internally, to you, therefore, is the only place where this supposition works. You define your own misunderstanding.

Or god is meaningless as argued for and there is nothing to understand.

Oh so now, at this late stage, you are asking ME for a definition of the Xtian God.

This is my whole point: you dismiss Xtianity on a false assumption: that the xtian God is not defined.

Just for you, since you seem to have missed all of the other discussions, here's one accurate investigation into this charachter so elusive to yourself: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=165

YOUR argument is for the meaningless God that YOU CREATED. IT IS YOUR STRAW MAN. < take it from me and every other Xtian who keeps telling you the same thing.

Scarlett Wrote:Yes SO AM I. Still waiting for something concrete……..

& this is the first time you've requested it. How honest of you.

Scarlett Wrote:It isn’t for me to define something I do not believe exists

If you present an argument as you have done here.... yes it is for you to understand even one little bit what it is you're presenting an argument against. You are as good as saying: "here's my proof against something I have no clue about". And you say I'm not addressing your central point?

Scarlett Wrote:Not once I you ever started a post arguing FOR xtianity

That would be preaching and I'd be banned for it.

I have no interest in forcing my ideas onto other people. I do defend my beliefs and claim the right to hold them no matter what anybody else thinks. that happens to be an idea I hold very dear.

I have presented full and accurate explanations of my beliefs when requested.

You say that there is no coherancy in the Bible and I say the bible is 100% coherant. I can and do defend that at all times. In my experience over the years I have yet to see one successful piece of evidence to suggest that you are correct. And I have spent all but 6 years of my 52 years as either an atheist or a non believer. I've looked hard, and I've challenged others to help me with that. Still I find no proof of incoherancy.