Christians

[Ace Otana]

I never did get the whole two gods thing. There's god, then there's jesus who is also god? Yet they are one god?
Explanations just go on and on for decades when it comes to this. So I've stuck with Occam's Razor.

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct, use the simplest until more evidence comes along.

In this case the simplest explanation is that it's all complete bollocks.

[Ryft]

Ah, but those are merely three different labels for the same entity, you. ... Your analogy falls short, but I understand the point you are trying to make.

The analogy certainly does break down, yes; specifically, applying it to the Trinity leads to modalism, the heresy of Sabellius. I was simply pointing out that it is not "rubbish" at all, not even close, to think a grandfather, father, and son could all be one person; that is, the objection fell flat on its face, requiring a restatement that is rational this time.

The trinity is comprised of three separate entities, because when you go to heaven Jesus and God are separate, right?

Incorrect. The Son is a distinct person; so is the Father, and so is the Spirit. They are three persons. But none is a god distinct from the others; the deity of one is identical to the deity of the others, so that they are not three gods (polytheism denied) but eternally and equally one and the same God, singular (monotheism affirmed). The problem arises from people thinking of God as a person, and thus they rightly point out the incoherence of three persons being one person. But God is not a person; rather God is a nature and category of being, shared equally by three distinct persons eternally (never ceasing, diminishing, becoming, etc.). In other words, in heaven Jesus and God are not separate. Jesus is God; so is the Father, and so is the Spirit.

I would argue, though, that since Jesus is worshiped as a separate entity, regardless if he is of the same essence as god, is polytheism.

You may argue that if you like, of course. However, polytheism (Gk. 'polus' + 'theos') is defined as many gods, not many entities. Changing the definition of a word to suit an argument is not exactly a rational course.

---

---

But Jesus is a god, as is Yahweh. Saying they are the same God yet somehow separate beings is just a nonsensical evasion.

Jesus is not a god. He is God, Yahweh. Period. He is not separate from himself. (That would be nonsensical.)

The problem with citing scripture to justify this creed ... is that scripture is actually not so clear on the issue. Read the synoptic gospels and nothing else in the NT and you would come to the conclusion that not only is Jesus not God but is clearly subordinate to God.

Yes, I suppose the Bible would be rather unclear on this (and practically all teachings) if you segregated a part from the whole. Those who need to do that in order to make their point can knock themselves out. It is pretty revealing.

... aside from your apparent circular reasoning that the creeds confirm the creeds ...

Except I never did that. Again, quite revealing.

---

---

Arguing that he was displeased with them and so refused to help ... and sent an angel to say as much isn't a solid argument. The wording in Judges 1 was that they could not, because the enemy had iron charriots. It says nothing about refusal to help ...

Yes, it does: "I will not drive them out before you." Because of their disobedience and lack of faith, he ceased being with them. Thus their enemies were left to remain in the plains as punishment. Chapter four marks a turnaround in their obedience and faith, and this time they were given success against their enemies—iron chariots and all. You need to read beyond single passages. The details of this story are recounted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.

[Epimethean]

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

[DeistPaladin]

Jesus ... is not separate from himself. (That would be nonsensical.)

Agreed and yet this is the claim of Trinitarianism. One God in three separate persons.

Would you like some Bible verses where Jesus is a separate being from Yahweh? The quote "not my will but thy will be done" leaps to mind.

Yes, I suppose the Bible would be rather unclear on this (and practically all teachings) if you segregated a part from the whole. Those who need to do that in order to make their point can knock themselves out. It is pretty revealing.

And I suppose the point that the Synoptic Gospels were written first and the advanced theology of John came later is lost on you? Or you pretend it is lost on you?

If the Holy Spirit were inspiring the authors all along and/or the authors were reliable eye-witnesses, one would think that such an important detail would be nailed down from the earliest writings. On the other hand, if Christology evolved over time to resolve the conundrum of reconciling strict Jewish monotheism with the idea of an intercessor god, we might expect to see this evolution by comparing the early writings with the later ones.

... aside from your apparent circular reasoning that the creeds confirm the creeds ...

Except I never did that. Again, quite revealing.

Do tell. Feel free to clarify what you were saying then.

[reverendjeremiah]

I never did get the whole two gods thing. There's god, then there's jesus who is also god? Yet they are one god?
Explanations just go on and on for decades when it comes to this. So I've stuck with Occam's Razor.

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct, use the simplest until more evidence comes along.

In this case the simplest explanation is that it's all complete bollocks.

I brought up Occams razor at work to help someone who thought ghosts were in his house. He got really quiet really quick after he answered "Oh..I get it..so in this case the simplest answer would not include ghosts."

Maybe I reached him...

A few hours later I asked him if he ever trapped a mouse in his home and if he ever saw the ghosts of those mice hanging around afterwards... he got a big kick out of it,.. especially when the topic switched to "Cock roach ghosts" and "Brontosaurus ghosts".

..apparently them ghosts arent as popular

[Darth]

Arguing that he was displeased with them and so refused to help ... and sent an angel to say as much isn't a solid argument. The wording in Judges 1 was that they could not, because the enemy had iron charriots. It says nothing about refusal to help ...

Yes, it does: "I will not drive them out before you." Because of their disobedience and lack of faith, he ceased being with them*. Thus their enemies were left to remain in the plains as punishment. Chapter four marks a turnaround in their obedience and faith, and this time they were given success against their enemies—iron chariots and all. You need to read beyond single passages. The details of this story are recounted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.

*In judges 2, after judges 1. In judges 1, he is with them. It says so right before the iron chariots, same verse. It it not "would not because he was sulking because judah had sinned" it is "could not, because they had iron chariots"

[Ryft]

Agreed and yet this is the claim of Trinitarianism. One God in three separate persons. Would you like some Bible verses where Jesus is a separate being from Yahweh? The quote "not my will but thy will be done" leaps to mind.

You begin by getting trinitarianism right, but then end by getting it wrong. That is rather curious. If God is in three separate persons, as trinitarianism teaches, then Jesus cannot be a separate being from Yahweh; that suggests Jesus as separate from himself, which is nonsensical. When Jesus prayed, "Not my will, but yours be done," he was addressing the Father: (Luke 22:41-42) "He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done" (cf. Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:35-36). He was praying to the Father who is God no more or less than Jesus himself is; that is, he was praying to a distinct person, not a distinct god.

And I suppose the point that the Synoptic Gospels were written first and the advanced theology of John came later is lost on you?

No, it is the relevance thereof that is lost on me. All of Paul's letters predate both the synoptics and John's gospel, as do other letters in the New Testament, all of which correspond to the rich Christology and soteriology found in John's gospel (e.g., Titus 2:13). As for what God revealed to the various authors of the New Testament, it spoke to the church in specific times and circumstances; they did not all address the same issues and themes, so it is not surprising that what is revealed in this letter is not revealed in that letter. But the scriptures taken as a whole include the entirety of all revelation.

Do tell. Feel free to clarify what you were saying then.

That the scriptures, ancient creeds, liturgies, systematics and so forth all confirm that orthodox Christianity has never taught three separate gods. As I had said, the teaching is polytheistic only if it is held that each member of the Trinity is a unique god distinct from the others; searching the creeds and so forth shows that such was never held by orthodox Christianity. Therefore, supposing that the Trinity is comprised of three distinct gods is thus exposed as a straw man caricature. If one wishes to criticize what Christianity teaches, then one ought to work with what Christianity actually teaches.

---

---

I brought up Occam's razor at work to help someone who thought ghosts were in his house ... A few hours later I asked him if he ever trapped a mouse in his home and if he ever saw the ghosts of those mice hanging around afterwards. He got a big kick out of it ...

I think it has to do with disembodied souls; that is, the sort of people who believe in ghosts would not expect mice and cockroaches to have souls, which is why human ghosts are the only ones ever seen. (Assuming, of course, that I understand their view right, and I am pretty sure that I do.)

---

---

In Judges 1, he is with them. It says so right before the iron chariots, same verse. ... [snip rest]

Enjoy your proof-texting, slick. I prefer exegesis, so you are on your own.

[Epimethean]

I really dislike the notion Christians have that only humans must have souls. If there were such a thing, all living things would have them. It is just more of the stupid rubbish spewed out by a sect that used religion to control the masses, and now finds itself looking a bit tarnished and grubby in the light of reason.

Such crap-just amazes me.

[Minimalist]

[Darth]

Enjoy your proof-texting, slick. I prefer exegesis, so you are on your own.

You’re actions belie your words. To cast me as the one wholly interested in ‘proof-texting’ is disingenuous. In your response to my original post three points were picked up: Monotheism in Christianity, monotheism in Hinduism, and Judges 1:19. The Hinduism one we can discount, I had originally qualified it with “could the argument not be made that…” I was uncertain and was asking. As well as the need for further research, asking some people of the Hindu faith (Philosophical Hinduism). The Christianity being monotheistic I still disagree with. I think the monotheistic trinity can be left alone as mysterious garbage, but the dualistic idea of Satan, cast as a powerful enemy, with many powers conceded to him, I feel discounts Christianity as monotheistic. The Jewish ideas of an accuser, a ‘devils advocate’ in Yahweh’s employ are much closer to monotheism.

In picking me up for the use of Judges 1:19 you yourself ended up picking 2 nearly sequential verses, judges 4:13 and 4:15 and then later selected judges 2:3 (or 21?). You ignored the ‘exegetic’ points in my original post such as the my claiming the characteristics he is attributed with are internally incosistant, the immorality and illogicality of original sin and crucifixion, Yahweh’s overall kill count, his malevolence, not being fit for worship, and the creation story and flood story being at odds with evidence.

The part of your repsonce calling me up on my use of judges 1:19 (an aside) was the least respectful part of an otherwise polite reply (Not that my original post was particularly polite itself, but then again it wasn't aimed at you in particular), and the ellipses left out vital, contextual information (What was that about proof texting again?). Thus, it became the focus, and I still maintain that you are completely wrong.

Trying to insert the proclamations in judges 2 does nothing to explain away the problems of judges 1.

Judges 1: Character X and followers, were unable to do Y, because of W
Judges 2: Character X proclaims that he will not do Y, because of Z

Judges 1 does not say: Character X was unable and unwilling
Nor does it say anything about will, it only talks of inability, inability due to W. It's simple grammar.

Claiming that it is of little or no interest to you once you have entered the debate, and belittling your opponent for arguing those points, is poor form.

*Reading through judges, (and no I had not read through the whole thing in a while, nausea inducing as it is), a bit repetitious don’t you think? Predictable? The Israelites forget or rebel and worship some other god. Yahweh sells them into the hands of (Insert enemy here). Lets them suffer under cruel (Even by the bible’s standards?) oppression for x amount of time. Then he rescues them, usually through appointing someone, bit of a battle, resulting in a huge loss of life, many people massacred, and sometimes some body parts being removed and blood sacrifices offered. A bit of rumpy pumpy perhaps. Repeat ad nauseam. Follow it up with the story of Sampson and there you go. Oh yeah, and a repeat of the situation in Lot where an ‘honourable’ bloke offers up his concubine to a bisexual raping mob, shortly followed by the dismemberment of a corpse. Throw in some mutilation, round it all off with a bit of sexual slavery and you’ve got one truly horrific ‘innerant’ book.

Lets look at the characters. The Israelites have had the misfortune to attract the attention of this Yahweh chap. Let’s just say you wouldn’t be bringing him home to show mom anytime soon. He’s violent, malicious, vengeful, and jealous. He thinks little of selling entire peoples off into oppression and slavery. Who can blame them for rebelling, worshiping any other god that comes their way, no doubt in the hopes it will rescue them from this rather unpleasant Yahweh fellow. My exegetic analysis? Your god is a dick.

*Can't really be bothered qualifying everything here with "were he real", taken for granted.

The free dictionary:
Prooftexting is the practice of using quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Using discrete quotations is generally seen as decontextualised. Critics of the technique note that often a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition for which it was cited.

Oxford:
noun
Prooftext
a passage of the Bible to which appeal is made in support of an argument or position in theology.

Oxford:
noun (plural exegeses /-siːz/)
[mass noun]
critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture:
the task of biblical exegesis

Oxford:
could   
[kood; unstressed kuhd] Show IPA
–verb
1.
a simple past tense of can1 .

Oxford
can1    
[kan; unstressed kuhn] Show IPA
auxiliary verb and verb, present singular 1st person can, 2nd can or ( Archaic ) canst, 3rd can, present plural can; past singular 1st person could, 2nd could or ( Archaic ) couldst, 3rd could, past plural could. For auxiliary verb: imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. For verb (Obsolete): imperative can; infinitive can; past participle could; present participle cun·ning.
–auxiliary verb
1.
to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2.
to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3.
to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4.
to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5.
may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
6.
to have the possibility: A coin can land on either side.

Your's faithfully
-'Slick'

Edit: Oh Deistpaladin, sent you a Pm a while ago, (i think), did it get through?