Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 22:35:24 GMT
All Trinitarian theology is "misunderstood" because the concept is inherently incomprehensible. No one understands it insomuch as their capacity to articulate it logically. I understand it just fine (as do many others). There is one divine essence that has three centers of consciousness (which we call "persons"). If God is love (and we're told that he IS love, and not just loving), then God has to exist as a "community" of "persons" who can love one another, for that's what love is. It's relational. One essence with three centers of consciousness. The transcendent (invisible and above all) source of everything is called the Father. The eternal incarnate image of the Father is the Son. The indwelling spirit of love between and within them is the Holy Spirit. These three centers of consciousness can communicate with one another, but they all share one essence. If God is an infinite being beyond what humans can comprehend, then we'd expect him to exist as something we can't completely wrap our head around. That's an interesting interpretation. Very philosophical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 22:40:22 GMT
I understand it just fine (as do many others). If that was true, then Trinitarian Christians have some kettle logic they need to work out if they ever hope to make a convincing case for it. I just got finished responding to a poster who claimed right before you that the Trinity demonstrates that's God is above and beyond all human understanding. Yet here you claiming that you understand it. Sounds like an internal problem with the doctrine. There is one divine essence that has three centers of consciousness (which we call "persons"). If God is love (and we're told that he IS love, and not just loving), then God has to exist as a "community" of "persons" who can love one another, for that's what love is. Well, you are certainly at liberty to rationalize it that way. But I don't think that rationale actually works as a convincing argument. Narcissistic people love themselves, and vain people love material possessions. There are different kinds of "love" and not all of them are good. Evil people love the treasures of this world at the expense of other people. So love need not necessarily involve a community at all. And even if it did, if you believe that God created everything and everything, then he already has a community to love. So why would he need to be different people? Why would you place a limitation on God (he has to exist as a community?), why exactly? Couldn't an all powerful being exist as anything he wanted? If God is an infinite being beyond what humans can comprehend, then we'd expect him to exist as something we can't completely wrap our head around. And yet you claim to understand it, which is an inconsistency in your own logic! The Trinity is three entities. God The Father -> creator ultimate spiritual being. The Son -> God's divine son Jesus and the Holy Spirit -> Jesus as a spiritual being Jesus has almost as much power as God does. Jesus is the interceder when we repent for our sins.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 28, 2017 23:36:53 GMT
[Physical evidence, no. Eye witness evidence, tradition, etc., yes. Tradition is not evidence! As far as eyewitness go, that is a CLAIM that the Bible makes. There are no actual living eyewitness to any bible events, no were there any eyewitness reports of any such events from extra biblical sources. All you really have are the accounts of Matthew and John (disciples of Christ), and an assumption that those accounts are authentic, accurate, and true. Thats it! Everything else is extrapolation from that, including Mark, Luke, Paul, Timothy, James, etc. None of those are eyewitness accounts of anything. They are claims of eyewitness testimony which cannot be validated. Trying to use bible accounts to prove themselves to be true is circular logic. Let's not forget, for example, the millions of Jewish people who heard the Voice Of God at Mount Sinai, for example. There is a bible story that makes that claim. But the claim cannot be validated with any evidence, therefore one must take it on faith that such a claim is true. Those people who reject religion only accept what is materialistic. They can't think beyond that. That's not necessarily true. Many people can and do think beyond the materialistic. But thinking something and knowing it are two different things. I can imagine any scenario being true, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to just blindly accept that any scenario that I can think of (or that someone tells me) is true without a valid reason for believing it. And humans have always been able to use science & reason. Contrary to popular belief, people had scientific knowledge regarding the Earth & the universe, for thousands of years. They just lost that information for some centuries, before rediscovering it again. What are you basing that assumption on exactly? What evidence do you have to back up this statement? So you do not believe the Holy Bible? Wow, that's pretty extraordinary for a Christian!!! Actually, 3 of the Gospel writers knew Christ. St. Mark was a disciple, although he wasn't an Apostle. The Jewish people hold God's Revelation at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people as Sacred as Christians hold the Resurrection of Christ! Where do I base my evidence on ancient scientists, mathematicians, historians, etc? Look up the history of ancient Alexandria Egypt. There is plenty of info online, including Wikipedia, & elsewhere. You would be amazed at what philosophers at Alexandria had learned.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 13:19:55 GMT
A) That is still circular reasoning because bringing up how many people who believe it something in the first place is an attempt to validate the belief as correct. The claim is that so many people believe this because the bible clearly says it, and the "proof" that the bible clearly says it is the fact that so many people believe it. Again circular reasoning! No different to many atheists when they appeal to the fact that the overwhelming majority of PhD qualified scientists accept evolution as fact based on evidence. A) Thank you for admitting that circular logic was used in a failed attempt to validate the Bible as true or correct about anything, much less "clear" about anything. B) The difference when people evoke science is that all scientific claims can be validated! Science tests itself through peer review, while religion forces an interpretation onto non-biblical scholars through indoctrination. MAJOR difference! Scientists are actually professionals who KNOW things about astronomy, physics, geology, and biology through direct observation and testing. Christians on the other hand know absolutely NOTHING about God, Jesus, or the Apostles, other than what the Church has passed down through traditional, and what their pastor tells them to accept on faith. No one has ever seen God, met Jesus, or had a conversation with any of the apostles, and no one can verify that any of the stories in the bible ever actually happened. They are not testable or falsifiable, and none of the claims have been observed by any living person or documented in any source outside the Bible itself. So one is an appeal to the educated, to which anyone can validate their claims, while one is an appeal to the ignorant masses, who have no evidence, and whose claims can not be validated. MAJOR DIFFERENCE!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 13:35:57 GMT
So you do not believe the Holy Bible? Wow, that's pretty extraordinary for a Christian!!! Actually, 3 of the Gospel writers knew Christ. St. Mark was a disciple, although he wasn't an Apostle. The Jewish people hold God's Revelation at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people as Sacred as Christians hold the Resurrection of Christ! Where do I base my evidence on ancient scientists, mathematicians, historians, etc? Look up the history of ancient Alexandria Egypt. There is plenty of info online, including Wikipedia, & elsewhere. You would be amazed at what philosophers at Alexandria had learned. My question to you was: "What are you basing that assumption on exactly? What evidence do you have to back up this statement?" after you claimed that people have always had scientific knowledge and that such knowledge was just lost. Are you going to validate your claim? The fact that ancient Egyptians had advanced knowledge (comparative to the rest of contemporary society at that time) some of which was lost in the fall of their culture isn't in dispute. But their scientific knowledge was A) quite limited compared to what we know today, and B) NOT recorded anywhere in scripture. Their society predates the bible , so why wouldn't this knowledge be recorded in the bible? Why would God not pass the same knowledge down to the Israelites (the chosen people)? Why allow them to remain in darkness and ignorance for thousands of more years? It makes no sense whatsoever! With respect to the Bible, I believe any claim that can be validated (only few of which can). Oh, and I am not a Christian by the way.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2017 13:56:19 GMT
So you do not believe the Holy Bible? Wow, that's pretty extraordinary for a Christian!!! Actually, 3 of the Gospel writers knew Christ. St. Mark was a disciple, although he wasn't an Apostle. The Jewish people hold God's Revelation at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people as Sacred as Christians hold the Resurrection of Christ! Where do I base my evidence on ancient scientists, mathematicians, historians, etc? Look up the history of ancient Alexandria Egypt. There is plenty of info online, including Wikipedia, & elsewhere. You would be amazed at what philosophers at Alex History Message Board: Alexandriaandria had learned. My question to you was: "What are you basing that assumption on exactly? What evidence do you have to back up this statement?" after you claimed that people have always had scientific knowledge and that such knowledge was just lost. Are you going to validate your claim? The fact that ancient Egyptians had advanced knowledge (comparative to the rest of contemporary society at that time) some of which was lost in the fall of their culture isn't in dispute. But their scientific knowledge was A) quite limited compared to what we know today, and B) NOT recorded anywhere in scripture. Their society predates the bible , so why wouldn't this knowledge be recorded in the bible? Why would God not pass the same knowledge down to the Israelites (the chosen people)? Why allow them to remain in darkness and ignorance for thousands of more years? It makes no sense whatsoever! With respect to the Bible, I believe any claim that can be validated (only few of which can). Oh, and I am not a Christian by the way. The scientific knowledge of the ancient Egyptians & Greeks was very advanced. I invite you to come over to this topic thread I made on the History message board, & look at this documentary on Alexandria, that I got off of Youtube (its hosted by the late, Great Leonard Nimoy). History Message Forum - Alexandria
I thought that you were a Christian, but, just didn't believe in the Holy Trinity?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 14:35:16 GMT
I thought that you were a Christian, but, just didn't believe in the Holy Trinity? I was up until this year (and for most of my life). Now, I'm an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2017 14:44:52 GMT
I thought that you were a Christian, but, just didn't believe in the Holy Trinity? I was up until this year (and for most of my life). Now, I'm an atheist. Oh, okay. What made you change your mind? (If you don't mind my asking.)
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 15:25:14 GMT
I was up until this year (and for most of my life). Now, I'm an atheist. Oh, okay. What made you change your mind? (If you don't mind my asking.) It wasn't one specific thing to be honest. It was basically a long, sleepless night of pondering, reflection, and critical thinking. Basically, I just had an epiphany. I could go into more specific details, but it would require much more time and space than this thread calls for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 19:31:32 GMT
No different to many atheists when they appeal to the fact that the overwhelming majority of PhD qualified scientists accept evolution as fact based on evidence. A) Thank you for admitting that circular logic was used in a failed attempt to validate the Bible as true or correct about anything, much less "clear" about anything. Do you then admit that your argumentum ad populum accusation was misapplied? As can the trinity using scripture. Science is also constantly having to correct itself. Hypothesis widely regarded as 'facts' are changing all the time. Not really.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2017 19:53:15 GMT
Oh, okay. What made you change your mind? (If you don't mind my asking.) It wasn't one specific thing to be honest. It was basically a long, sleepless night of pondering, reflection, and critical thinking. Basically, I just had an epiphany. I could go into more specific details, but it would require much more time and space than this thread calls for. Everyone goes through those, every now & again.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 19:55:26 GMT
A) Thank you for admitting that circular logic was used in a failed attempt to validate the Bible as true or correct about anything, much less "clear" about anything. Do you then admit that your argumentum ad populum accusation was misapplied? How was it "misapplied" exactly? As can the trinity using scripture. Uh, no it can't. Cody I don't think you understand what validation means. You cannot use the bible to validate itself. That's not how the validation process works. Science is also constantly having to correct itself. No it doesn't. The scientific method has been consistent ever since it was posited. It does not change. Hypothesis widely regarded as 'facts' are changing all the time. Hypothesis are only widely regarded as facts by people who do not understand science. Scientists do NOT regard hypothesis as facts because that's not what a hypothesis is. Yes, really! For a number of reasons that seem to go beyond your comprehension based on your argument.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 19:58:45 GMT
It wasn't one specific thing to be honest. It was basically a long, sleepless night of pondering, reflection, and critical thinking. Basically, I just had an epiphany. I could go into more specific details, but it would require much more time and space than this thread calls for. Everyone goes through those, every now & again. I only wish that was true. Sadly I don't think it is.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2017 20:02:27 GMT
Everyone goes through those, every now & again. I only wish that was true. Sadly I don't think it is. Oh, I think everyone has periods of questioning & struggle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 20:06:15 GMT
Do you then admit that your argumentum ad populum accusation was misapplied? How was it "misapplied" exactly? By the fact that argumentum ad populum and circular reasoning are two separate fallacies. And that you misunderstood the point Dennis was making.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 20:06:40 GMT
I only wish that was true. Sadly I don't think it is. Oh, I think everyone has periods of questioning & struggle. Perhaps, but that's not really what I experienced. It hasn't actually been a struggle at all, for which I am very happy.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 20:34:07 GMT
Uh, so Chrisitians who believe in the trinity cannot use the bible to validate their position? No, they can't... The belief in Trinity is claimed to come from the bible in the first place. Thus, it cannot be validated by the same source. One must first establish that the bible itself is valid in its claims (which as I've already pointed out cannot be done). Then one must establish that the belief is actually biblical (which in my opinion is not). But even if it was, it's still not validated. A Christian can convince themselves that trinity is biblical, and then choose to accept the belief. But that doesn't mean the belief is "validated", as in confirmed to be true. I'm not talking about the scientific method. Well that's what "science" is. Scientific theories. What's universally regarded as 'fact' within the scientific community today might not be the case in the future. History has show us that time and time again. First of all, scientific theories ARE universally regarded as facts because they are based on known facts. The theory of gravity for example is based on the fact that when things go up, they come down. And the force of gravity is determined by the mass of the object. Those are facts, which is why the theory of gravity is universally accepted. That has been the case ever since the theory was developed -- it has not changed! Secondly, this is once again demonstrative of your fundamental lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. It is NOT the same thing as an "hypothesis", which is what you originally brought up. Hypothesis are supposed to change based on the results of testing, experimentation, and observation. If a hypothesis never changed after new information is discovered, then it is no longer scientific and therefore not advancing knowledge! Science depends on NEW information and NEW discoveries adding to past knowledge. If it didn't, then knowledge becomes stagnant. That is what religion does; it hinders the advancement of knowledge by promoting beliefs that are not testable and based on tradition rather than knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 21:05:46 GMT
Uh, so Chrisitians who believe in the trinity cannot use the bible to validate their position? No, they can't... The belief in Trinity is claimed to come from the bible in the first place. Thus, it cannot be validated by the same source. One must first establish that the bible itself is valid in its claims (which as I've already pointed out cannot be done). Then one must establish that the belief is actually biblical (which in my opinion is not). But even if it was, it's still not validated. A Christian can convince themselves that trinity is biblical, and then choose to accept the belief. But that doesn't mean the belief is "validated", as in confirmed to be true. No, the belief can also only have to be demonstrated or supported to be considered validated. I'm not talking about the scientific method. Well that's what "science" is.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 29, 2017 21:27:28 GMT
No, they can't... The belief in Trinity is claimed to come from the bible in the first place. Thus, it cannot be validated by the same source. One must first establish that the bible itself is valid in its claims (which as I've already pointed out cannot be done). Then one must establish that the belief is actually biblical (which in my opinion is not). But even if it was, it's still not validated. A Christian can convince themselves that trinity is biblical, and then choose to accept the belief. But that doesn't mean the belief is "validated", as in confirmed to be true. No, the belief can also only have to be demonstrated or supported to be considered validated. If that's what you think then you don't know what "validated" means Which is enough to prove my point. That point being that scientific theories are based on FACTS that do not change. There are plenty others once advocated as facts using the "scientific method" which have turned out to be wrong. Such as? I don't read link by the way -- I hear arguments. If you want to copy and paste one that's fine too.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 29, 2017 22:40:56 GMT
Scientific theories. What's universally regarded as 'fact' within the scientific community today might not be the case in the future. History has show us that time and time again. No, history has not shown this. Theories change, yes, but the facts do not. For example, the theory of gravity has changed quite a bit since Newton's time, but never has gravity as a fact been refuted. Atomic theory has changed even more, but atoms are still factual. You see, the theory of gravity is a model (theory) explaining the natural phenomenon of gravity (fact). The model may change, but the fact, not so much. Both those links failed at the first hurdle: they don't know what facts or theories are in science, nor do they know theory from hypothesis. Many of those claims have also never been supported scientifically. For example, a coin dropped from the Empire State Building can kill you? That's an urban legend - it has never been a scientific claim. Indeed, the science that disproves that myth is older than that claim. The very first one, by the way, fails in a very peculiar way: "Heavy drinking kills brain cells." And then it goes on to explain why that is true. Theories do change all the time to accommodate new evidence. That's what makes science reliable: It does not claim to have all the answers, but instead presents the most likely scenario given the available evidence.
|
|