Scripture for Trinitarians

[lucent]

Ah, something that involves dreams, feelings or something along those lines that would be wholly unconvincing to any skeptic.

As a skeptic, are you skeptical of skepticism? Don't you just have a worldview which you use skepticism to defend and to justify your core beliefs?

So they're always separate but they are one.

Every explanation you offer just makes it clearer and clearer. [/sarcasm]

The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too. Yes, they are separate people, and together they are one God.

Translation: He bled on a cross because that was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us for being sinful beings which we are because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake.

Your meme is inaccurate, and theologically illiterate. It's not a clever way of condensing the account of scripture, it is just plainly false, for reasons I have already demonstrated. Since you don't consider mindlessly repeating atheist memes beneath you, I'll just have to keep hoping that you'll elevate the conversation and say something substanitive at some point. And, I think it's the height of hypocripsy to mock the supernatural when you yourself believe in the supernatural. Your account of reality isn't any more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster, but you take it on faith without any evidence at all. IE, you have blind faith in Deism.

So how do you think that would play out in International Court?

Here is a more accurate account:

Soldier: Unit 37 has gone AWOL sir. We've gotten reports they are killing civilians.

General: I want that situation contained. Send in medical supplies and additional troops. Send out a search party to find those soldiers and bring them back to me.

Soldier: Sir, we located the rebels but they fired on us and we took some casualities. They also captured some of us and took the prisoners back to their base.

General: Send in additional troops and saturate the area. I want you shelling them day and night. Continue to protect the civilians and give me a report every 2 hours.

Soldier: Sir, yes sir!

Yes, I've read McDowell and the likes. It's utter crap. Real history shows that Christianity was dragged kicking-and-screaming the whole way and after the dust settled has the nerve to try to take credit.

You must think history is "utter crap" then. Let's take science for example. It had its birth place in Christian Europe, and many of its founders were deeply committed Christians. The development of the scientific method owes a lot of Christianity. Not only that, but it was the belief that God created a well ordered Universe based on laws that Christians felt they could describe the Universe according to those laws. Check these out:

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm#conclusion
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...deslibrary

Yes, brutal dictators who might have been atheists have done terrible things but were they really inspired by atheism? As opposed to religious tyrants inspired to torture and murder to save souls from eternal torments in Hell? Cause and effect is much easier to map with religion.

I would reply here but John Lennox already said it far better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdgmUY7MtY4

Yes I do. A personal god would create a world where heart attacks and strokes bring a quick death instead of cancer or Alzheimer's.

A personal God created a world without death but His creation corrupted it. Let's explore this.

God uses everything in our lives for the greater good. Let's say that a persons extended death witnesses the reality of death to 5 people who wouldn't have otherwised realized it, which leads them to eventually accept Christ and avoid hell. If they hadn't witnessed it, they never would have realized it and would have died in their sins.

Yes, I do feel rage under the surface.

Meaning, you are driven not by reason but by emotion. I wonder if you have any ability to separate the two things in regards to this subject, or if you have even realized that they aren't separate.

It's hard to take in the horrors of Christian history,

The horrors of history are not exclusive to any particular group of people or belief system. Taken as a whole, the only logical conclusion you can make is that humanity is corrupt, and that people can pervert anything, including, or especially, what is beautiful and true.

the lies that are told,

What lies?

the human potential that is wasted

I guess Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory) just wasted their potential.

, the stagnation of society for the thousand plus years prior to the Enlightenment

What a primitive view of history you seem to have. I think the decline and fall of the Roman Empire had something to do with it, as well as the barbarian hordes forming a bunch of warring nation states that kept civilization in the mud for centuries. Perhaps the spread of disease, lack of food and drinking water, as well as natural disasters, and volcanos contributed? Also, this was just western europe. Civilization continued in Arabia, China, Japan and elsewhere..

, the bigotry promoted by it and its scripture,

scripture says all people are equal and have equal rights, that every single person is in the image of God. what is bigoted about that?

the minds that it terrorizes

you mean liberated

and the political problems it creates

hah. the biggest political problems we have have nothing to do with Christianity, they have to do with corrupt politicians.

without feeling that righteous rage.

Your rage is a wicked little fountain of hubris. It is unreasoned, ignoble and misdirected, and you need to dig a little deeper because you're still not at the core of it yet.

I try to keep it under control, remembering that those under Islamo-Christianity's spell are victims, not enemies. No apologies for that rage. You'd feel it too if only you knew.

Well, you can toss this argument in the bin because I used to think just like you. I used to be an agnostic materialist, remember? I thought religion was a delusion, especially Christianity. I hated it more than any other religion and I would engage Christians and point out what I felt were flaws in their beliefs, just like you do. I was liberal, pro life, pro gay, pro-femenism, anti-republican, pro-euthanasia believed in evolution, believed in the big bang, etc. I didn't believe Jesus was a real person, and as far as I was concerned, anyone who had spiritual experiences were either lying or insane.

Even when I found out there is a God, I still believed some of that. It's only when I found out the reality of evil that I woke up to the truth and realized I had been deceived. Let me put it this way.

The reason you don't know who God is because of this:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You don't know there is real and orchaestrated evil in the world, that you are deceived, and that everything you believe about God has been carefully spoonfed to you your entire life, to add up to one specific answer: that Jesus is not the Son of God. You have been given positive evidence as well, but you have chosen to ignore it in favor of keeping your favorite scapegoat, which you use to explain all the problems in the world. Without it, you might have to admit that humanity is wicked and incapable of ever building a utopia.

Seriously, it's called a definition. In fact, it's more like a tautology. A conscious mind is a conscious mind. Your attempt to change the subject by speaking of a shared body is not a distraction for me.

You say it's everything, you have no proof, you don't even have a theory for where it comes from. Seriously, it's an empty statement which doesn't invalidate my comparison. The fact that you want to be so obtuse as to debate an analogy is beyond me. If you just want to debate a specific subject here then name it.

Appeal to popularity

Yet, evolution is rock solid because nearly all scientists agree that it is correct. Your fallacy, btw, doesn't apply. I am not appealing to popularity, I am stating a basic fact that the more people who testify about something, the more reliable the claim. It could still prove to be ultimately false, but in a court of law having multiple witnesses is extremely powerful. The fact that you so easily dismiss that is ridiculous.

From beginning to end.

Have you even watched it? I know you *have* to believe it is a lie, because if it were true, you would be wrong about everything you believe. Pride won't ever let that happen, so you have to create the story in your mind that it is a lie. It's not a lie, however..he is a real person, with a real testimony.

beginning to end.

---

The fact that early xtians were so embarrassed by the lack of historical reference to their boy that they went back and forged a few speaks volumes to me about the reality of your beliefs.

First, thank you for being honest enough to admit your complete bias and closed mindedness to anything I have to say.

There is another 1st century source, who confirms the events of the crucifixion:

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/lib...blical.htm

If you're referring to Josephus, yes apparently some scribes added things, but the core testimony remains according to scholars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXY...re=related

All you have are the gospel ramblings which, no matter when they were originally written have been extensively edited by men with an agenda of their own

Debunked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lK2hLf_Sg

[lucent]

First off, this whole 3=1 thing. I'm really struggling to get my head around the concept, truly I am. The closest I can figure is that Yahweh, Jesus and Holy Ghost are all seperate entities with individual personalities etc, but they are all part of the same global organisation; I imagine it as GodCorp International. When any single one of them speaks or acts in terms of a single entity, in practise it really means that individual is representing the Company. Am I on the right lines? I know I may have some little reputation as a piss-taker, however this is really quite a genuine question and it's the only way I can make "separate, but also the same essence" work for me.

It's not something which lends itself to easy study. I'll tell you how I relate it..

If we think about this in terms of numbers, the basic problem is that the Trinity is both 1 and 3 at the same time. My rosetta stone for this paradox is the number 333

Let's say each digit represents a different member of the Trinity. They are one in that each of them have the same number, which is 3. That is what unifies them in that they are each representing the same number. It's not three different 3's, it is three digits which are all the same 3 at the same time. They are each representing 3 because there are three of them. If you took away one of them you would have 2 left, and their number would be 22. They are each a 3 because their sum is three, and they are one because they are they are all the same 3..

Ultimately their number is just 3 by itself. If 3 = God, it is because 1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Holy Spirit = 3 (God)

I realise it's all too easy simply to post videos and links to articles in lieu of forming one's own thoughts on the matter - which is precisely why I'm about to do just that.

Again I'm not trying to be facetious; I'd just like to ask by what definition of 'quality' were all these lives improved?

"Because Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of others, they use this belief for their own purposes by “letting Christ suffer while they, the Christians, go on committing sin and crime.” That is why the Christians go on slaughtering the Non-Christians, totally worry-free and with a totally clean conscience, because Christ will take care of their sins and crimes, and because they don’t have to face the laws of Karma and Re-incarnation or the veritable consequences of these laws"

http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com...trocities/

Hebrews 10:26

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

The rest are Christians behaving badly. I fully admit people have done some sick things in the name of Christianity, but in every case it was because they disobeying Christ. Evil often cloaks itself under the guise of something good. However, by comparison, I could find hours upon hours of testimony of people, including my own, that say God changed our lives for the better, and that would only be scratching the surface.

Finally I thought I'd throw in this little titbit of my own personal testimony for those among who may be amenable to such things. All I can say is I swear this is a genuine anecdote. Several nights ago I dreamed that a blazing light beamed down at me through pearlescent clouds, accompanied by choral music, and God appeared before me with a message. He told me he doesn't exist.

If you're actually being serious then that came from Satan..

[KichigaiNeko]

Oh luce you are such an entertainment!!

[DeistPaladin]

The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too. Yes, they are separate people, and together they are one God.

THANK YOU. I mean that sincerely. This brief admission is refreshingly honest. You've admitted that it's bullshit to try to reconcile strict Jewish monotheism with the concept that a godman on earth can forgive sins and be an intercessor.

With regards to the OP: Q.E.D.

Your meme is inaccurate, and theologically illiterate.

Don't just say "Nuh uhuh". Point out where.

Do you claim Jesus is not the lamb of God? Do you not believe in the redemptive value of his sacrifice on the cross? Do you not believe this sacrifice was essential to our attaining forgiveness? Do you not believe that this sinful state came about because of the fall at Eden? If you do believe all these things then don't whine because I tell it like it is without mincing words.

So how do you think that would play out in International Court?

Here is a more accurate account:

Soldier: Unit 37 has gone AWOL sir...

Pulling the plug on your fantasy right there. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. There is no AWOL.

You must think history is "utter crap" then. Let's take science for example. It had its birth place in Christian Europe

And Christianity did all it could to prevent it and enforce dogma in place of inquiry. The Enlightenment was only possible when the monolithic power of the Church was broken by the Reformation. The Protestants were just as anti-intellectual but the fight between them and the Catholics gave scientists the room to maneuver they needed.

, and many of its founders were deeply committed Christians.

Or were wise enough to say so in a society that burned heretics at the stake.

The development of the scientific method owes a lot of Christianity.

Care to elaborate on that bold assertion? At least the Muslims have some ground to stand on with their claim to modern science, since they kept Greeco-Roman learning alive while Christian Europe was in the Christian Dark Ages.

Let's say that a persons extended death witnesses the reality of death to 5 people who wouldn't have otherwised realized it, which leads them to eventually accept Christ and avoid hell. If they hadn't witnessed it, they never would have realized it and would have died in their sins.

Sorry, I don't even know where to begin. Should I explain that it's a non sequitur to witness a drawn out death and to convert to Christianity. Shall I muse on how an omnipotent god might find more coherent ways to speak to people? Maybe I could point out that everyone older than 20 is already aware that we die? Or perhaps I should just remark how twisted it is to be so terrified of a non-existent hell that you can mentally justify such flimsy rationalizations.

At this point in your post, I'm exhausted dealing with your fucktardary. I'll return later to deal with the rest of your drivel.

[lucent]

THANK YOU. I mean that sincerely. This brief admission is refreshingly honest. You've admitted that it's bullshit to try to reconcile strict Jewish monotheism with the concept that a godman on earth can forgive sins and be an intercessor.

With regards to the OP: Q.E.D.

I've admitted no such thing. Your interpretation of scripture leaves everything to be desired. It's fairly clear in the OT that there are many references to the plurality of God. I could list them if you want.

Pulling the plug on your fantasy right there. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. There is no AWOL.

AWOL means absent without leave. Either answer to the spirit of the argument or drop the sad pretense of critiquing a metaphor.

And Christianity did all it could to prevent it and enforce dogma in place of inquiry. The Enlightenment was only possible when the monolithic power of the Church was broken by the Reformation. The Protestants were just as anti-intellectual but the fight between them and the Catholics gave scientists the room to maneuver they needed.

In other words, your statement was incorrect and you have no argument to the contrary.

Or were wise enough to say so in a society that burned heretics at the stake.

Easy enough to say, isn't it

Care to elaborate on that bold assertion? At least the Muslims have some ground to stand on with their claim to modern science, since they kept Greeco-Roman learning alive while Christian Europe was in the Christian Dark Ages.

I guess you've never heard of Francis Bacon?

Sorry, I don't even know where to begin. Should I explain that it's a non sequitur to witness a drawn out death and to convert to Christianity. Shall I muse on how an omnipotent god might find more coherent ways to speak to people? Maybe I could point out that everyone older than 20 is already aware that we die? Or perhaps I should just remark how twisted it is to be so terrified of a non-existent hell that you can mentally justify such flimsy rationalizations.

Or perhaps these situations are little more complex than you comprehend and your immediate leap to emotionalism negates anything more than a superficial understanding. Your ultimate argument is, any pain proves God is cruel. To which I reply, I expect someone who is content to die forever in a meaningless Universe to be a little more accomodating to pain. Are you a terrible parent because you let your kid play by yourself and he got hurt? Should you put him in a bubble and never let him out again?

Oh by the way Lucent, I just want to be sure I understand you clearly:

A bit more brief:

Unable to prevent evil = moral monster
Able but not willing to prevent evil = OK

A god that creates a universe too big for it to micromanage, which creates untold numbers of life forms which suffer and die without any hope, crying out for answers which never come = moral monster

A god that creates a universe and, due to being omnipotent, omniscient and capable of personal relationship with all of us, who upholds the entire Universe and is responsible for your every breath, who allows for evil and restrains it, who uses life and death for the greater good = OK

At this point in your post, I'm exhausted dealing with your fucktardary. I'll return later to deal with the rest of your drivel.

I'll answer these while I am waiting.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you just attempt to explain the trinity with thinly veiled numerology?

1+1+1=3, x=3, 3=x At no point does 1+1+1=1 Nor can you fob off 333(three hundred and thirty three, not three three's) as 1(one). Don't even pretend that some incorrect sum or addition can possibly make 1+1+1=333 or 1. Going even further, nothing here has anything to say about god whatsoever. You've invented a number, you've invented the math behind it, all to support some other invented absurdity. Complete asshatery.

[Cinjin]

yep ... right back around the circle.

At some point you just have to say, "I've listened to enough pseudo-intellectual diarrhea. You have nothing to offer." and then walk away.



...or go right back 'round the circle.

[DeistPaladin]

yep ... right back around the circle.

At some point you just have to say, "I've listened to enough pseudo-intellectual diarrhea. You have nothing to offer." and then walk away.



...or go right back 'round the circle.

Quite correct. He's generating fucktardery faster than I have the energy or patience to debunk. Much as I compulsively try to reason with the unreasonable, I'm seeing the futility in having a discussion with someone who doesn't understand that:

1. A Pat Robertson staged and edited propaganda piece is not a credible testimony.
2. You can't be AWOL from a commander that is omniscient (no chance to be absent from someone who can see everywhere) and omnipotent (no chance to escape the commander's authority).
3. Saying "I'm having my cake and eating it too" is an admission of believing an absurdity just because you want something both ways.

That said, for the benefit of the other readers, I will focus on the topic of the OP and post the conflict of scripture and why they came up with this contrived word salad known as The Trinity.

OT Yahweh says "I forbid you to have an intercessor:

Exodus 20:3 (First Commandment) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Isaiah 43:10-12 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Yahweh makes it clear through the OT that he is a jealous god who interacts personally with his followers ("speaking face to face as one speaks to a friend") who needs no intercessor and who delegates the role of judge or savior to no one! Often, the crime that would cause him to bring plagues and invaders to Israel would be idolatry or turning to other gods.

Now compare this jealous attention hungry god to the one of the NT, who requires you to have an intercessor:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So how do you reconcile the two? Say Jesus is God. So who is Jesus praying to, talking to, being subordinate to? Well, that's when Jesus is not God. And so the mental gymnastics commence.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is one of the major bones that islam picks with christianity, and I agree with muslims completely in this regard. They got softhearted and called jesus a prophet, which was generous of them considering. It's very easy to make the case the the OT god is not the NT god, completely different religions with completely different gods. What would we expect when (at least) three very different cultures attempt to lay claim to the "same" deity?

[Cinjin]

If my father were answering the question:

With great ease who would simply answer, "we do not have the capability to understand the almighty god." He would then proceed to bask in the warmth that this answer allows him to feel about completely side-stepping a legitimate answer.


...and of course that's about the time I walk away from him as well, and like Lucent, he declares himself the winner of a debate because I couldn't stand to tolerate the mind-numbing stupidity a moment longer.