|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 24, 2018 21:25:28 GMT
Do any of you agree that the arguments offered by the opposing side, while not convincing, are at least plausible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 24, 2018 21:38:05 GMT
No. Based on the full reading of the text, Genesis to Revelation, I don’t see how anyone can reach a non-trinitarian conclusion. The various passages that are often cited by uniterians are usually ripped from their context or completely misinterpreted.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 24, 2018 21:54:04 GMT
Not really since the trinity doesn't make sense even it could be explained plausibly.
Anu scripture used to support it is done so in absence of the verses that would disprove it or at least lend equal wait to distinct personalities.Besides the burden of it being a mandatory teaching is on the trinitarian as a non-trinitarian is only assuming that which is a normal relationship
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 24, 2018 23:07:55 GMT
The two last posters perfectly encapsulates the futility (and ridiculous) of religious beliefs as a whole.
You’ve got two guys who both believe in “god”, both believe in the Christian god, both who believe in the Christian god based on the same “bible”, and yet have two completely opposite interpretations of a central tenet of the religion. And both of them using exactly the same fallacious logic, the argument from personal incredulity (I cannot imagine how x can be true, therefore it is false). The counter argument for one of them towards the other can only be “there is something wrong with you”, or “you’re not a true Christian”.
And that’s the danger of religious indoctrination. It forces people to abandon all logic and reasoning and argue subjective points of merit as though they are universally objective truths.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 24, 2018 23:14:28 GMT
The two last posters perfectly encapsulates the futility (and ridiculous) of religious beliefs as a whole. You’ve got two guys who both believe in “god”, both believe in the Christian god, both who believe in the Christian god based on the same “bible”, and yet have two completely opposite interpretations of a central tenet of the religion. And both of them using exactly the same fallacious logic, the argument from personal incredulity (I cannot imagine how x can be true, therefore it is false). The counter argument for one of them towards the other can only be “there is something wrong with you”, or “you’re not a true Christian”. And that’s the danger of religious indoctrination. It forces people to abandon all logic and reasoning and argue subjective points of merit as though they are universally objective truths. This isn't really true since it assumes that all arguments (Except yours of course...) carry equal weight. They don't. All we have is two people disagreeing and if that's all it took then your view holds exactly the same weight and thus we can assume that atheism is is as futile as religious teaching (This isn;t true since it's far more futile and pointless). Granted I am willing to concede that your arguments are pointless and futile, but I will assume you would disagree. I intentionally ignored the ridiculousness of indoctrination being inserted in a conversation having nothing to do with it. I was raised a trinitarian so clearly it didn't stick. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 24, 2018 23:37:44 GMT
As I review both of their comments, it gets me to wonder which one is more pitiful. Cody believes in something ridiculous and completely illogical, and CoolJCS acknowledges the ridiculousness of it and cites that as one of his reasons for not believing in it. Yet, as easily as CoolJCS dismisses the ridiculousness of Cody’s belief, he still holds on to the believe in something else that is completely ridiculous (Noah had a pair of every kind of animal on an Ark, and somehow not only survived for an entire year, but then were able to populate the world with every species in only 6 thousand years). So who is more ridiculous? The one who is consistently ridiculous, or the one who picks and chooses which ridiculous thing to believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 24, 2018 23:40:45 GMT
I intentionally ignored the ridiculousness of indoctrination being inserted in a conversation having nothing to do with it. ...one sentence later, in the same paragraph... Enjoy the unintentional irony!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 25, 2018 9:39:26 GMT
As I review both of their comments, it gets me to wonder which one is more pitiful. Cody believes in something ridiculous and completely illogical, and CoolJCS acknowledges the ridiculousness of it and cites that as one of his reasons for not believing in it. Yet, as easily as CoolJCS dismisses the ridiculousness of Cody’s belief, he still holds on to the believe in something else that is completely ridiculous (Noah had a pair of every kind of animal on an Ark, and somehow not only survived for an entire year, but then were able to populate the world with every species in only 6 thousand years). So who is more ridiculous? The one who is consistently ridiculous, or the one who picks and chooses which ridiculous thing to believe? The trinity is neither ridiculous nor illogical. That would be believing something can come from nothing and create everything. In fact there are trinities all over nature. Past, present, Future = TIME Height, width, depth = SPACE Solid, liquid, gas = MATTER If the God of the bible exists then we would expect to find some things about his infinite nature a bit beyond our full human comprehension. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 25, 2018 11:26:21 GMT
As I review both of their comments, it gets me to wonder which one is more pitiful. Cody believes in something ridiculous and completely illogical, and CoolJCS acknowledges the ridiculousness of it and cites that as one of his reasons for not believing in it. Yet, as easily as CoolJCS dismisses the ridiculousness of Cody’s belief, he still holds on to the believe in something else that is completely ridiculous (Noah had a pair of every kind of animal on an Ark, and somehow not only survived for an entire year, but then were able to populate the world with every species in only 6 thousand years). So who is more ridiculous? The one who is consistently ridiculous, or the one who picks and chooses which ridiculous thing to believe? The trinity is neither ridiculous nor illogical. That would be believing something can come from nothing and create everything. In fact there are trinities all over nature. Past, present, Future = TIME Height, width, depth = SPACE Solid, liquid, gas = MATTER If the God of the bible exists then we would expect to find some things about his infinite nature a bit beyond our full human comprehension. This just verifies that the trinity is not something we need to accept or comprehend now. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 25, 2018 11:27:40 GMT
I intentionally ignored the ridiculousness of indoctrination being inserted in a conversation having nothing to do with it. ...one sentence later, in the same paragraph... Enjoy the unintentional irony! Even with my statement, we weren't discussing indoctrination and certainly not in the way you are trying to deflect from Do you want to in another thread? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 25, 2018 19:16:51 GMT
The trinity is neither ridiculous nor illogical. That would be believing something can come from nothing and create everything. Short-term memory loss? On another recent thread, some posters, myself included, explained to you that something can come from nothing. In fact there are trinities all over nature. Past, present, Future = TIME Height, width, depth = SPACE Solid, liquid, gas = MATTER Now you're really reaching. There are 4 states of matter (you conveniently omitted plasma); and the space-time continuum on the whole is four-dimensional. If the God of the bible exists then we would expect to find some things about his infinite nature a bit beyond our full human comprehension. For once, you're right. But the much simpler explanation is that there is no God. Just like in "The Emperor's New Clothes" by H.C.Andersen. The Emperor had no clothes on; not clothes that only the worthy could see. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 25, 2018 20:01:12 GMT
phludowinAnd can that something create everything? Btw those particles which appear spontaneously from nothing also disappear spontaneously back into nothing. If you can demonstrate that universes and planets appear from nothing and disappear back into nothing or any other macroscopic object then you’d have a decent argument. Wrong. There are in fact 5. Look up Bose-Einstein condensates. I cited the three because they’re the only forms matter can take in all environments. The other two can only be present in extreme environments so are very rare. “The world we experience is composed of three-dimensional space – width, depth, and height, in addition to the temporal dimension of time. But scientists have long assumed that there probably is a fourth spatial dimension that is beyond what we can experience or understand. Evidence of the existence of the fourth dimension (4D) is problematic due to the fact that we cannot directly observe anything that is outside our three-dimensional space. “
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 26, 2018 5:42:39 GMT
No, not really....because numbers begin at one and become perfect at three.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 26, 2018 6:02:38 GMT
Not really since the trinity doesn't make sense even it could be explained plausibly. A predictable dunce response. I could say the same about M theory and quantum physics....if I were arrogant. Gee, I don't understand it. Ergo, it "doesn't make sense."  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2018 11:43:37 GMT
Not really since the trinity doesn't make sense even it could be explained plausibly. A predictable dunce response. I could say the same about M theory and quantum physics....if I were arrogant. Gee, I don't understand it. Ergo, it "doesn't make sense." Of course I'm saying it doesn't make sense according to my ability to not understand it. That's why I am fine with people believing in the trinity. What do I care? I'm just waiting for someone to explain it in a way I can't refute and when that happens I will convert. Otherwise, I'm not a big "Lord works in mysterious ways" kind of guy. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 26, 2018 11:57:45 GMT
A predictable dunce response. I could say the same about M theory and quantum physics....if I were arrogant. Gee, I don't understand it. Ergo, it "doesn't make sense." Of course I'm saying it doesn't make sense according to my ability to not understand it. That's why I am fine with people believing in the trinity. What do I care? I'm just waiting for someone to explain it in a way I can't refute and when that happens I will convert. Otherwise, I'm not a big "Lord works in mysterious ways" kind of guy. Hopefully you believe that Christ is God come in the flesh, to repair this fallen state we are in. I never much thought about it when I was younger. Capitalism failed. Fascism failed. Socialism failed. Secularism failed. Materialism failed. Hedonism failed. All of the isms failed. I'm putting all the poker chips I have left on a 2000-year-old promise being true, because it's the only thing that hasn't failed yet. And if it fails, we're as down the drain as anyone could possibly be. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2018 12:20:13 GMT
Of course I'm saying it doesn't make sense according to my ability to not understand it. That's why I am fine with people believing in the trinity. What do I care? I'm just waiting for someone to explain it in a way I can't refute and when that happens I will convert. Otherwise, I'm not a big "Lord works in mysterious ways" kind of guy. . I never much thought about it when I was younger. Capitalism failed. Fascism failed. Socialism failed. Secularism failed. Materialism failed. Hedonism failed. All of the isms failed. I'm putting all the poker chips I have left on a 2000-year-old promise being true, because it's the only thing that hasn't failed yet. And if it fails, we're as down the drain as anyone could possibly be. Nope. I have no reason to believe that. You don;t need to be God to repair fallen flesh. We aren't that valuable. We're like 3rd, 4th, or 5th in line. If true, it should have been made clearer. If true, I'm betting that godjesusghost is going to say something like "That's ok, there were some hazy phrases..." |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 26, 2018 12:31:11 GMT
Hopefully you believe that Christ is God come in the flesh, to repair this fallen state we are in. I never much thought about it when I was younger. Capitalism failed. Fascism failed. Socialism failed. Secularism failed. Materialism failed. Hedonism failed. All of the isms failed. I'm putting all the poker chips I have left on a 2000-year-old promise being true, because it's the only thing that hasn't failed yet. And if it fails, we're as down the drain as anyone could possibly be. Nope. I have no reason to believe that. You don;t need to be God to repair fallen flesh. We aren't that valuable. We're like 3rd, 4th, or 5th in line. If true, it should have been made clearer. If true, I'm betting that godjesusghost is going to say something like "That's ok, there were some hazy phrases..." Look in the mirror and keep telling yourself that for as long as you can, bro.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 26, 2018 12:35:54 GMT
Hopefully you believe that Christ is God come in the flesh, to repair this fallen state we are in. I never much thought about it when I was younger. Capitalism failed. Fascism failed. Socialism failed. Secularism failed. Materialism failed. Hedonism failed. All of the isms failed. I'm putting all the poker chips I have left on a 2000-year-old promise being true, because it's the only thing that hasn't failed yet. And if it fails, we're as down the drain as anyone could possibly be. Nope. I have no reason to believe that. You don;t need to be God to repair fallen flesh. We aren't that valuable. We're like 3rd, 4th, or 5th in line. If true, it should have been made clearer. If true, I'm betting that godjesusghost is going to say something like "That's ok, there were some hazy phrases..." Mr Smith, do you believe Jesus is the archangel Michael? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2018 12:52:52 GMT
Nope. I have no reason to believe that. You don;t need to be God to repair fallen flesh. We aren't that valuable. We're like 3rd, 4th, or 5th in line. If true, it should have been made clearer. If true, I'm betting that godjesusghost is going to say something like "That's ok, there were some hazy phrases..." Mr Smith, do you believe Jesus is the archangel Michael? Yes, since by definition, there can only be one archangel, but it's probably not that important. I know there are people out there who think Jesus only name was Jesus and it's not worth debating. |
|
