RE: The Utter Irrelevance of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 4:23 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(May 16, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Whateverist-
In one sense, it doesn't matter whether they believed it or not. It only matters whether or not it was true.
If it wasn't, then your assessment is correct. But if it was, then since much of the content of the NT concerns what happens after we die, many people would find that highly relevant.
Well gosh, I guess the fact that so much of it is horseshit pretty much supports Whateverist's point.
Nice of you to back him up that way, though.
(May 16, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: There is only one God.
Within that one God are three persons.
They are not three Gods.
How is that possible? Well, consider that a dog is a being but not a person. A man is a being and one person. God is a being and three persons. From this you can see that while we usually think one being = one person, in fact, the number of persons "in" a being can vary depending on the nature of that being.
Generally speaking, we think of that as a mental illness, not a cause for worship.
In seriousness, you're hiding behind language. You write, "A man is a being and one person. God is a being and three persons", which is simply a restatement of the trinity concept without any explanation. The example about the dog is entirely irrelevant, but leads the point in order to muddy the waters.
And to top everything off, you're pontificating about the nature of an inscrutable being whose existence is actually at the center of the discussion -- you you've not done anyone the courtesy of explaining where you've gotten this knowledge. The Bible? It mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but at no point does it ever say that the three are one.
You've no solid basis for your claim even enough to convince other Christians, seeing as many of them disagree with you.
By the way, how do you know that a dog is not a person, but a god is?
