Scripture for Trinitarians

[lucent]

[lucent]

[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.