Scripture for Trinitarians

[DeistPaladin]

Really? We both agree there is a God.

Quick clarification. "God" with a capital "G" is a proper name. "god" with a lower case "g" is a classification, as in "a god".

You believe in Yahweh. I believe in Nature's God. We both use the word "God" with a capital "G". The similarity ends there.

It was proven to me before I read the bible.

I seem to remember some flimsy rationalization in the story behind this claim but I must have washed it out of my mind. I'm feeling adventurous so would you run it by me again? I'm prepared to be underwhelmed.

[Argument from Ignorance] That applies to your statement actually. I was simply commenting that your argument, even if it were true, proves nothing.

Adding shifting the burden of proof to your list of arguments, huh? You see, it was you who suggested something was happening (God is helping) and I said "really, can you cite any examples". That "thud" was the burden of proof landing in your back yard. "Well, how do you know it doesn't happen" is an appeal to ignorance.

He didn't sacrifice Himself to Himself. The Father and the Son are separate people.

Except when they're not.

He shed His blood for a purpose, which was to break the power of sin and death and make it possible for you and I to be reconciled with God and be forgiven for our sins.

Because bleeding on a cross was the only way that he could convince himself to change a rule that he made in the first place and 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.

People are still benefitting from His work on the cross 2000 years later.

Imaginary benefits are easy to make claims about, aren't they?

You have no idea of what He did or didn't do.

History tells us precisely what he didn't do.

Catholic Church: Inquisitions
Jesus: Nothing
Protestants in Mass: Witch burnings
Jesus: Nothing
Catholic Church: Crusades
Jesus: Nothing

Even if we buy into the flimsy free will defense for general acts of evil, natural disasters and horrid diseases, a personal god should at least take ownership of his personal foot soldiers on this world. The actions of priests and appointed pastors and what they do in his name, for his glory, are a reflection on him. We hold generals to no less of a standard and they are not omniscient.

The fact is Christianity is the worst disaster to fall upon humanity (its only rival being Islam). It has not only promoted bloodshed, hatred and torture but at the best of times, it has brought intellectual stagnation and reactionary policies in matters of social progress. If Christianity is any indication of the nature of Jesus, and I see no way it can't be since he is personally involved, your Jesus is as evil as the organization he spawned.

I'm sure you've never thought of this before but perhaps He did quite a bit and it could have been a lot worse than it was. In any case, no matter how many times you trot out the age old "evil disproves a loving God" argument, I can easily counter it with this:

Somewhere in the world, a little girl has been kidnapped, will be raped and then murdered. Crime statistics sadly tell us this much. She may have parents who pray for her safe return. Their friends may do as much. I'm sure it will comfort them all that God couldn't give the scumbag a heart attack or stroke at just the right moment to save her from a torturous death.

My grandmother died of Alzheimer's. My mother and father of cancer. How about heart attacks and strokes to provide a quick death instead of a lingering monstrous living death (particularly my mother after the cancer ravaged her brain)?

And if God were to ever contact me and ask for feedback, I'd be able to give him a few constructive suggestions. How about women get wider pelvises in order that the miracle of childbirth might not be so dangerous and painful? Maybe the lower spine could be reinforced so that now that we've evolved to walk upright (that was a good step forward, God, we can use our hands for tool making) it can support our upper body properly? Another boon for women, the vagina doesn't open unless she's aroused so rape is impossible? And for parents everywhere, we don't come of age until 20 so teen pregnancy is impossible. Just a few obvious suggestions that a personal god would surely pay attention to.

you want to judge Jesus for doing something about it. Amazing. He has nothing to be forgiven for and everything to be praised for.

He created the monster called "Christianity" and set it loose on the world like a rapid dog. A pet owner is held responsible more than you hold your omnipotent god to.

Do actually have an honest position here, or do you just have absolutely no defense?

What do I need a defense for? Maybe an atheist has a case to use the argument from evil against Nature's God. You have no leg to stand on.

if that God is an authority in your life, and holds you to a higher standard,

WTF are you even talking about? Are you speculating, as some Christians do, that I refuse to "acknowledge" God's authority because I'm living some sort of debauched sinful lifestyle? I'm drug free. I don't smoke or drink. I'm happily married and faithful to my wife. I'm a law abiding citizen and an honest businessman. When I can pay all my bills and have much leftover, I look for worthy charities. My business helps the homeless by providing free services. What sins do you imagine I'm enjoying too much?

That's your opinion.

No, it's called a definition.

I think it's funny that you don't believe personal testimony about nearly anything, but I am sure you think its fine for our legal system, or nearly everything we know about history, or all the facts that you believe about the world that you've never invesigated on your own.

OK, pay attention, here are a few basic points of credulity:

1. ECREE (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). If I tell you I had lunch with my friend today, you accept that claim at face value. If I tell you I had lunch with my deceased father who was back from the dead, you'd need to see some solid evidence and even then you'd be skeptical, right?
2. Testimony is weighed in terms of its credibility. In legal terms, it's called "consider the source". Historians do this too. If an accused murderer claims he's innocent, that's one thing. If his friend testifies that he's innocent, that's a little more credible. If a cop who was on the scene saw the one who did it and testified that the murderer was two feet shorter and female, that's really credible.

Clear?

And I got into trouble, how? When you ran away, you lost that debate.

No, when you held up Pat Robertson and a transparently obvious staged propaganda piece as an authority, you lost the debate. I didn't run away. I declared victory.

Yes they are separate, but also the same essence.

Ah, they're separate except that they're not. Glad you cleared that up. And no, the video didn't help your case.