Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 22:13:26 GMT
Why would He do that when He as the Son was was talkng to the Father, a distinct person? The Trinity= God is one BEING, Who exists in three PERSONS. I think most here are aware of how trinity is usually described by its proponents. But it doesn't mean that explanation has ever made sense. The idea that many persons could make up one being is illogical. Moreover, the idea that they could be co-equal is even more ridiculous given the limitations the Bible itself sets on Jesus's powers. He has so many attributes that disqualify him from being God under the Bible's own rules that he could not possibly be a member of this so-called trinity, even if a trinity did make sense. Not necessarily. For example we are all human BEINGS, we all share that in common. Yet each of us is a different PERSON. A BEING is what makes something WHAT it is. A PERSON is what makes someone WHO they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 22:56:45 GMT
Oh, I thought you were (for whatever reason). I remember someone being one from the old IMDb board. In any case, I understand the CONCEPT just fine. What I'm saying is that it's hard for some people to picture it in their heads because it's not like any other being that we have on this planet (which would be expected of a being like God). Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. This is an imperfect analogy, but one could think of it as one body with three heads (and three brains). I don't mean that LITERALLY, but it demonstrates the idea. One unified essence with three distinct centers of consciousness. A transcendent consciousness, an incarnate consciousness, and an indwelling consciousness. We're not going to agree on this, so you can say whatever, but it makes sense to me. And it's backed up by Scripture (which is why most Christians are Trinitarians). I think most Christians are trinitarians NOT because it makes sense, but because that's what the Catholic Church has taught ever since they invented the concept 300+ years after the death of Christ. The original Christians certainly never believed in Trinity, and it is not recorded anywhere in scripture. And in true contradictory fashion, scripture also invalidates trinity in perhaps even more ways than it validates it. People who have been taught to believe in it (again by the Church) blindly accept it, and then reinterpret scripture through that lens in order to make it fit in with trinity. But the plain reading of scripture would not reveal any trinity to someone who doesn't already have a trinitarian background. Appeal to tradition does not validate that tradition as truth. The doctrine was "developed" to make sense of what the Scriptures plainly teach. None of the arguments you (or anyone else) have brought up are new. They've been thoroughly examined and found to be not all that convincing. In fact, the vast majority of the arguments against it are grounded in just a plain misunderstanding of what the doctrine actually says. So it's not like there's some "secret truth" that only a few Unitarians are getting. We're not going to agree on this though, so it's not worth arguing over. But feel free to get the last word if you want it. Just know that you're not bringing up anything new or groundbreaking. Same old arguments that have been addressed ad nauseam.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 27, 2017 23:30:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 27, 2017 23:34:11 GMT
I think most Christians are trinitarians NOT because it makes sense, but because that's what the Catholic Church has taught ever since they invented the concept 300+ years after the death of Christ. The original Christians certainly never believed in Trinity, and it is not recorded anywhere in scripture. And in true contradictory fashion, scripture also invalidates trinity in perhaps even more ways than it validates it. People who have been taught to believe in it (again by the Church) blindly accept it, and then reinterpret scripture through that lens in order to make it fit in with trinity. But the plain reading of scripture would not reveal any trinity to someone who doesn't already have a trinitarian background. Appeal to tradition does not validate that tradition as truth. The doctrine was "developed" to make sense of what the Scriptures plainly teach. None of the arguments you (or anyone else) have brought up are new. They've been thoroughly examined and found to be not all that convincing. In fact, the vast majority of the arguments against it are grounded in just a plain misunderstanding of what the doctrine actually says. So it's not like there's some "secret truth" that only a few Unitarians are getting. We're not going to agree on this though, so it's not worth arguing over. But feel free to get the last word if you want it. Just know that you're not bringing up anything new or groundbreaking. Same old arguments that have been addressed ad nauseam. Dennis, I think you are misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to convince you (or any other Trinitarian) NOT to believe in Trinity anymore. Trying to convince a person that their religious belief is wrong is futile, which is why I don't get into "religious arguments". I accept that you believe in Trinity, just as I accept that most Christians believe in Jesus. The issue isn't me trying a new argument to get you to change your mind. It's presenting my opinion as to why I think your belief is not logical and cannot be explained logically. And so far, it seems that most of the Trinitarian believes who have replied have essentially conceded that point by saying that God (nor by extension trinity) can be properly explained. And that was my only point! Telling me that my argument isn't "new" doesn't really award you any points because your argument isn't new either. Neither argument is new, which is why the argument cannot be settled and is therefore pointless. And your assumption that I do not know what the doctrine teaches is also false. I know very well what the doctrine teaches (and how it came into being) because I've studied it for years. Accusing me of ignorance is a form of well poisoning. You may disagree with my position, but you cannot tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about in this case. Moreover, the real difference between you and me is that you cannot be "unconvinced" that what you already believe isn't true, because this is the belief system you've likely been indoctrinated into. I CAN be convinced with a logical, coherent argument (which is impossible when it comes to the Trinity doctrine because the Trinity is inherently illogical). Also, you cannot tell someone else what the scripture "plainly teaches" when you've had it interpreted for you through a pre-existing doctrine. If it "plainly taught" a trinity, then EVERYONE who read it would have arrived at the same conclusion without the need for a doctrine at all. Obviously, that's not the case, and if Jesus made anything clear at all, it's that his teachings are NOT clear. They are in fact intentionally unclear. That's why doctrines had to be developed in the first place -- so that the Church could explain to people what the bible teaches, and what it means.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Apr 27, 2017 23:35:07 GMT
I also find it one of the most interesting quotes from Christ, and I think he said it because he was in extreme physical pain, and because in that moment, his human side was speaking - humans have been asking why God has abandoned them in dark situations since the dawn of time. It reflects the mystery and enigma of Christ, about him being both fully human, and yet aware that he is the Son of God at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:37:00 GMT
Cupcakes, you are truly an ignoramus. I'm not talking about addressing it here (which wouldn't be a very good use of my time). I'm talking about his arguments being historically addressed (yes, ad nauseam). You probably knew that, but it didn't stop you from being facetiously stupid about it. But that's kinda your shtick. If you're a one-trick pony though, you better know the trick.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 27, 2017 23:39:18 GMT
I think most here are aware of how trinity is usually described by its proponents. But it doesn't mean that explanation has ever made sense. The idea that many persons could make up one being is illogical. Moreover, the idea that they could be co-equal is even more ridiculous given the limitations the Bible itself sets on Jesus's powers. He has so many attributes that disqualify him from being God under the Bible's own rules that he could not possibly be a member of this so-called trinity, even if a trinity did make sense. Not necessarily. For example we are all human BEINGS, we all share that in common. Yet each of those is a different PERSON. A BEING is what makes something WHAT it is. A PERSON is what makes someone WHO they are. Cody, you are inadvertently defeating your own argument here. You literally just said "human beings" -- a plural noun. Just think about that for a moment and consider what you are arguing. I agree with you that human beings (plural) can be made up of many different "persons" (plural). That makes perfect logical sense because each being distinctly makes up a collective! In the case of trinity, that argument fails entirely because the claim is that multiple persons make up a SINGULAR being. Your analogy is not very clever in that it actually advances my argument and cuts against your own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:44:14 GMT
The doctrine was "developed" to make sense of what the Scriptures plainly teach. None of the arguments you (or anyone else) have brought up are new. They've been thoroughly examined and found to be not all that convincing. In fact, the vast majority of the arguments against it are grounded in just a plain misunderstanding of what the doctrine actually says. So it's not like there's some "secret truth" that only a few Unitarians are getting. We're not going to agree on this though, so it's not worth arguing over. But feel free to get the last word if you want it. Just know that you're not bringing up anything new or groundbreaking. Same old arguments that have been addressed ad nauseam. If it "plainly taught" a trinity, then EVERYONE who read it would have arrived at the same conclusion without the need for a doctrine at all. And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it. But there's a reason the majority agree with the doctrine that was developed: It's what the Scriptures teach. They just gave it a name by calling it the Trinity. I bet you 99% of the arguments I hear against it come from people just plainly misstating what the doctrine actually says (which we've seen in this very thread). Truth be told though, it doesn't bother me that you're not a Trinitarian. As I said before, I can understand why someone wouldn't be. But I just think the vast preponderance of evidence from the NT supports it.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 27, 2017 23:48:11 GMT
And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it. But there's a reason the majority agree with the doctrine that was developed: It's what the Scriptures teach. They just gave it a name by calling it the Trinity. I bet you 99% of the arguments I hear against it come from people just plainly misstating what the doctrine actually says (which we've seen in this very thread). I'm not sure exactly what you were quoting, so I think there may be some context lost from your response. You may want to adjust/edit your post for clarification. In any case, with regard to your first statement, my answer is this: Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Secondly, if you can demonstrate (in any way, shape, or form) that I have somehow misunderstood the Trinity doctrine, you're welcome to try. By the way: "And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it." - There is no rational basis for that line of reasoning. There are many examples of things that are "obviously fake" that are believed by the masses. I can pick examples from any number of religions to make that point if necessary!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 27, 2017 23:48:19 GMT
tpfkar You ok there brilliant guy? You keep going on, ad nauseum, about how it's all a waste of time that you keep expending. You, yourself know that what you're shoveling is absolute bullsh!t, which is why you don't try to support it, you can't. Instead you continuously try to excuse around it, say it's been done, etc., when you don't collapse into purely vapid responses and personal invective, that is. You couldn't possibly be more transparent. And diversions and inane crap historically, whether over the years by apologists, or meta-non-attempts and diversions by you here, still don't make it up to addressing anything. I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:53:07 GMT
And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it. But there's a reason the majority agree with the doctrine that was developed: It's what the Scriptures teach. They just gave it a name by calling it the Trinity. I bet you 99% of the arguments I hear against it come from people just plainly misstating what the doctrine actually says (which we've seen in this very thread). I'm not sure exactly what you were quoting, so I think there may be some context lost from your response. You may want to adjust/edit your post for clarification. In any case, with regard to your first statement, my answer is this: Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Secondly, if you can demonstrate (in any way, shape, or form) that I have somehow misunderstood the Trinity doctrine, you're welcome to try. By the way: "And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it." - There is no rational basis for that line of reasoning. There are many examples of things that are "obviously fake" that are believed by the masses. I can pick examples from any number of religions to make that point if necessary! I think your line of reasoning depends too much on people not being able to read what's clearly written. It's a weak argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:56:13 GMT
tpfkar You ok there brilliant guy? You keep going on, ad nauseum, about how it's all a waste of time that you keep expending. You, yourself know that what you're shoveling is absolute bullsh!t, which is why you don't try to support it, you can't. Instead you continuously try to excuse around it, say it's been done, etc., when you don't collapse into purely vapid responses and personal invective, that is. You couldn't possibly be more transparent. And diversions and inane crap historically, whether over the years by apologists, or meta-non-attempts and diversions by you here, still don't make it up to addressing anything. I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question.Support it for what reason? To convince an ignorant person with a clear axe to grind who is impossible to reason with in the first place? Yeah, definitely not worth the time. I don't come here to argue. It's people like you who try to turn simple commenting into an argument. And I'm not interested in that.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 27, 2017 23:56:56 GMT
There are a lot of words that we use to explain things which we can never understand. The Grand Canyon is beyond all description, & yet, we always try to describe it to others, who until they see it for themselves, can never fathom how breathtaking it is. With all due respect...I don't think so! The Grand Canyon is NOT beyond all description. It can be (and has been) described quite adequately, and in much detail. In fact, every facet of it can be described -- length, width, depth, composition, location, history, etc. Fathoming how "breathtaking" it is has to do with how someone feels about it. It deals with ones emotional response to the experience, not the facts about the canyon itself. It may be more breathtaking to one person than it is to another, but it is ALWAYS 277 miles long! I cannot describe how you should feel about the Grand Canyon, but I can describe facts about its nature. It is most certainly not beyond all description. God Is Far More, than the Grand Canyon. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4. Likewise, 2 x 2 = 4 also. However, 2 x 1 = 2, & likewise, 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is thereby explained by 1 x 1 x 1, not 1 + 1 + 1. But one person, times one person, times one person, equals ONE PERSON, not three persons in one God! With all the descriptions about how long, wide, deep, etc., it is still beyond description, until a person experiences it first hand. Yes, one person times one person, times one can equal One God. Remember when God Revealed Himself to the ancient Israelites? He Identified Himself as "I Am the God of thy fathers: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He first Identified Himself as the God of their ancestors PLURAL, & then proceeded to Identify Himself INDIVIDUALLY by each ancestor.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 28, 2017 0:00:01 GMT
tpfkar I'm fully aware that you're perfectly satisfied with chanting "nanny-nanny boo boo you poopyhead", followed by posting about how uninterested by it you are. I'm perfectly satisfied with having you do it. not worth my time, except to
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 0:04:00 GMT
Sure, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 28, 2017 0:29:25 GMT
I'm not sure exactly what you were quoting, so I think there may be some context lost from your response. You may want to adjust/edit your post for clarification. In any case, with regard to your first statement, my answer is this: Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Secondly, if you can demonstrate (in any way, shape, or form) that I have somehow misunderstood the Trinity doctrine, you're welcome to try. By the way: "And if it was obviously false, no one would believe it." - There is no rational basis for that line of reasoning. There are many examples of things that are "obviously fake" that are believed by the masses. I can pick examples from any number of religions to make that point if necessary! I think your line of reasoning depends too much on people not being able to read what's clearly written. It's a weak argument. You are assuming that the bible is clearly written. In my opinion, that is a weak argument since biblical scholars have historically demonstrated that to be false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 0:33:02 GMT
I think your line of reasoning depends too much on people not being able to read what's clearly written. It's a weak argument. You are assuming that the bible is clearly written. In my opinion, that is a weak argument since biblical scholars have historically demonstrated that to be false. I don't think so. The various translations aren't that drastically different. And they're all using the same Greek manuscripts.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 28, 2017 0:36:34 GMT
With all due respect...I don't think so! The Grand Canyon is NOT beyond all description. It can be (and has been) described quite adequately, and in much detail. In fact, every facet of it can be described -- length, width, depth, composition, location, history, etc. Fathoming how "breathtaking" it is has to do with how someone feels about it. It deals with ones emotional response to the experience, not the facts about the canyon itself. It may be more breathtaking to one person than it is to another, but it is ALWAYS 277 miles long! I cannot describe how you should feel about the Grand Canyon, but I can describe facts about its nature. It is most certainly not beyond all description. But one person, times one person, times one person, equals ONE PERSON, not three persons in one God! With all the descriptions about how long, wide, deep, etc., it is still beyond description, until a person experiences it first hand. Yes, one person times one person, times one can equal One God. Remember when God Revealed Himself to the ancient Israelites? He Identified Himself as "I Am the God of thy fathers: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He first Identified Himself as the God of their ancestors PLURAL, & then proceeded to Identify Himself INDIVIDUALLY by each ancestor. That argument doesn't even make sense using your own logic. None of that demonstrates the plurality of God, only the plurality of the ancestors. Nobody argues that there were not many ancestors. If President Trump claimed to be the President of all Texans, and all Floridians, and all New Yorkers, that doesn't mean he is claiming to be multiple persons in one President. God is a title, and the bible says there is only one! Being the God of multiple things does not demonstrate multiple persons sharing the role of God. And I don't think you understand what the word "description" means because as I've just proved, the Grand Canyon is not beyond description. It can be fully described in all facets. Experiencing something grants an emotional response, but does not imply a "description" at all.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 28, 2017 0:49:08 GMT
You are assuming that the bible is clearly written. In my opinion, that is a weak argument since biblical scholars have historically demonstrated that to be false. I don't think so. The various translations aren't that drastically different. And they're all using the same Greek manuscripts. Uh, first of all -- no they're aren't! Some of them aren't even using the Greek Manuscripts at all. Some use Latin texts based on Greek manuscripts, while others use older ENGLISH translations, modernized into contemporary language. And ALL translations suffer from the same issues at some point or another (which is terms, phrases, and ideas becoming lost in translation). More to the point, while YOU may not believe they are translated drastically differently, there are many, MANY examples of differences in translation that can lead to doctrinal disagreements between denominations. Beyond that, it isn't so much the translation that's at issue but rather the interpretation of that translation. Just because you and I read the same text doesn't necessarily mean we are going to come away with the same meaning. For chrissake, the entire Trinity doctrine was formulated without the Trinity appearing anywhere in the bible either in verbiage or description. And the same thing for other doctrines like "rapture", or "transubstantiation", or "purgatory", or "hellfire", or "excommunication", or "sola scriptura", or "inerrancy". These are not biblical terms in ANY translation, but they made their way into Christianity through canonized doctrines and expressed articles of faith at some later date. And they did so only after "councils" of elders and priests convened to discuss what should be doctrine and what should not be. In other words, what you claim to be plainly read in scripture is something that was invented by men after they agreed upon a "correct" interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 0:53:38 GMT
I don't think so. The various translations aren't that drastically different. And they're all using the same Greek manuscripts. Uh, first of all -- no they're aren't! Some of them aren't even using the Greek Manuscripts at all. Some use Latin texts based on Greek manuscripts, while others use older ENGLISH translations, modernized into contemporary language. And ALL translations suffer from the same issues at some point or another (which is terms, phrases, and ideas becoming lost in translation). More to the point, while YOU may not believe they are translated drastically differently, there are many, MANY examples of differences in translation that can lead to doctrinal disagreements between denominations. Beyond that, it isn't so much the translation that's at issue but rather the interpretation of that translation. Just because you and I read the same text doesn't necessarily mean we are going to come away with the same meaning. For chrissake, the entire Trinity doctrine was formulated without the Trinity appearing anywhere in the bible either in verbiage or description. And the same thing for other doctrines like "rapture", or "transubstantiation", or "purgatory", or "hellfire", or "excommunication", or "sola scriptura", or "inerrancy". These are not biblical terms in ANY translation, but they made their way into Christianity through canonized doctrines and expressed articles of faith at some later date. And they did so only after "councils" of elders and priests convened to discuss what should be doctrine and what should not be. In other words, what you claim to be plainly read in scripture is something that was invented by men after they agreed upon a "correct" interpretation. Pretty much any Bible you pick up tells you how it was translated. Not sure which ones you're reading, but the vast majority I've seen come from the original Greek. Again, I'm going to defer to the majority of scholars who agree that the original language points to this interpretation. You don't have to agree. But you're simply not going to convince me to take your word over theirs. Sorry.
|
|