Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

The Trinity


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 369 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 19:24:27 BDT
Bellatori says:
""No... You are confusing theology which is the attempt to shore up religion when Faith weakens in the face of evidence. Try a dictionary..."
I'm happy with the first definition." Of course you are even though it is wrong! As Heinlein said...
"The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence."
How could you accept the correct (and dictionary) definition of faith. It undermines your whole argument.

"Now try 'theology' - the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
* religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed."

So you start of from a position that is supported by no evidence or proof and develop from there... fantastic! I find it hard to believe that you need a God to justify the Big Bang as you are promulgating Theology which is, by your own definition, a development of something from nothing!

"But to believe everybody turns to religion because they need a crutch is just untrue." If you did not need a crutch you would stand up for yourself instead of relying on 'faith'.

"I remember in geography regularly being taught "remember what you were taught two years ago - well it doesn't really work like that"." I don't suppose you see the irony involved in this. You won't rely on something from two years previously but its OK to rely on a book that is 2000 years old and of very shaky provenance. I have noted that theists rarely get irony.

"As an aside, why did you ever read theology?" I have catholic (small c and proper meaning) tastes.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 19:25:26 BDT
Bellatori says:
Hi kraka

a myth...

or maybe its turtles all the way down!!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 19:25:59 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Any evidence for this sillyness? Sorry Kraka, but you may as well invent anything from the depths of your imagination and say "what if".

What if Boris Johnson were god?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 19:33:12 BDT
Spin says:
Kraka; I have often argued that deity will not be found "up there" but "down there" at the quantum level. The first thing God created was a photon. God is currently relaxing with a picnic and bottle of "Blue Nun" on the wide, open and silent landscape of a Quark.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 19:52:58 BDT
Bellatori says:
What if Boris Johnson were god?

Well he'd split himself into three (a Trinity) and get them all eventually into government. Couldn't happen surely?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 20:25:28 BDT
Archibald F says:
"I'm happy with the first definition." - "Of course you are even though it is wrong!"
OK, so you're using the dictionary to prove me wrong, and then you announce that the dictionary is wrong?

"As Heinlein said..." Oh great, more Heinlein!

""The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence." Why limit this to religion - could equally be applied to a lot of people. But in my experience, my faith is constantly being modified in the light of evidence and experience. The trouble with Heinlein is he's just this guy, you know?

"How could you accept the correct (and dictionary) definition of faith. It undermines your whole argument." So the correct definition being the one that you agree with, the wrong one being the one you don't.

Let's try you on this one. atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm| - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Agree or disagree?

"If you did not need a crutch you would stand up for yourself instead of relying on 'faith'." - That's because, again, you judge everything on your pre-decided logic, so because you think people turn to faith because they need a crutch, you then try to apply that to all people. Well sorry, but you're wrong.

"I don't suppose you see the irony involved in this. You won't rely on something from two years previously but its OK to rely on a book that is 2000 years old and of very shaky provenance. I have noted that theists rarely get irony." Ah, sadly you have completely misunderstood me. Theories in geography taught at school are not cutting edge, at the forefront of a fast moving and evolving understanding of how rivers form valleys! When you are young, they teach a dumbed down, simplified form of the truth. As you progress, these simplistic explanations are replaced by more accurate and complex ones.

"I have noted that theists rarely get irony." Ironically, the irony you saw was caused by completely misunderstanding what I was saying.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 20:32:18 BDT
Archibald F says:
"No, I did think of that, but monotheists would deny that God can be "partial"; they insist He is "One".

No, I'm not saying God is partial. I'm saying that the death of Christ in Christian theology does not represent the wholesale death of God. Plus the death of Christ does not mean the ceasing of him to exist - the resurrection is a demonstration that death does not mean ceasing to exist!

"Such is the absurdity of the doctrine of "Trinity". Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is absurd. I don't understand Chinese, and it sounds like nonsense to me, but I know it isn't.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 20:35:39 BDT
Heretic says:
Wonderful Song

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 20:37:07 BDT
Spin says:
Archibald: The doctrine of "Trinity" is an absurdity created by a young church attempting to reconcile its various takes on a new religion. There is NOTHING in the Jewish or Christian bible to support the idea of a God composed of "three" aspects. The whole point of these prophets missions was to express the unity of God; they opposed the idea of polytheism in any form.

Posted on 29 Apr 2013 20:47:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Apr 2013 20:47:31 BDT
Bellatori says:
"I'm happy with the first definition." - "Of course you are even though it is wrong!"
OK, so you're using the dictionary to prove me wrong, and then you announce that the dictionary is wrong?

No just you...

"my faith is constantly being modified in the light of evidence and experience" Then it is not faith - see the dictionary definition.

" As you progress, these simplistic explanations are replaced by more accurate and complex ones." Exactly but your religion is still stuck 2000 years in the past... it has not moved on when faced with more complex and greater amounts of information. Your religion is clearly not informed by your experience in Geography.

""If you did not need a crutch you would stand up for yourself instead of relying on 'faith'." - That's because, again, you judge everything on your pre-decided logic, so because you think people turn to faith because they need a crutch, you then try to apply that to all people. Well sorry, but you're wrong." Sadly not... You are horsing and carting. Those who are secure in themselves do not need faith - that is a belief that is non-evidential, in order to manage their world. What is it about the world that scares you so much that you need faith (a belief unsupported by evidence) in some invisible, intangible being? What is missing from your life that leaves you so incomplete that you have to fill a void with an imaginary friend? I do find this a real puzzle

As for atheism I go for the Oxford Dictionary definition. There is a subtle but important distinction from your definition.

atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Irony - The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

" Ironically, the irony you saw was caused by completely misunderstanding what I was saying." So I actually got it right then... how ironic...

Posted on 29 Apr 2013 21:53:14 BDT
Spin says:
Atheists deride others for believing what they are told and employ arguments they have no experience of to counter arguments they claim others have no experience of. The atheist, on these threads, is as much a victim of conditioning as those he derides.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 21:56:02 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Guff

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 22:00:15 BDT
Spin says:
K; I rest my case.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 22:18:18 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Well really - you posture and pose as holier than thou, flitting from one point of view to another as it suits you. In the end it's all guff...you cannot be taken seriously when you deride others for being inexperienced and ignorant, but at least they have the strength of their convictions, one way or another.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 22:26:53 BDT
Spin says:
K; All I said was "I rest my case". It is your posts, not mine, that are "assuming" things.

Posted on 29 Apr 2013 22:49:38 BDT
Spin says:
If the "Trinity" is correct, What, exactly, is "Spirit/Holy Ghost"? I can understand duality, mind and body, positive and negative, right and wrong etc.. for it exists in nature and mind, but a "Trinity"?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 08:07:44 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Well Jo Johnson has just arrived- could there be a third Johnson in the pipeline?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 09:55:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Apr 2013 10:26:33 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Yes. I love his Narnia books. The films weren't great though. I preferred the old cartoon version of "The Lion..." to the newer movies (although I haven't seen it since I was very young).

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 10:20:10 BDT
Bellatori says:
Yup... there is a third brother so I believe... 'God' help us all...!?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 10:32:17 BDT
"Occam and I disagree." Yes, well Occam says he's been cross with you ever since you took his razor."
Can someone tell me what I'm supposed to disagree with, or even who?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 10:40:12 BDT
Bellatori says:
That was William of Occam whose name and authority I was taking in vain. A distant cousin?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 10:51:19 BDT
Fair enough, No relative. He's the original and I a mere homage.

Posted on 30 Apr 2013 11:15:26 BDT
I've been mainly reading two translations of the Koran, and one difference is becoming more obvious to me. In the Ali version, the subject of the spider is dealt with, as in that the spider builds a house which is flimsy. In this translation the spider is always referred to as 'it', whereas in the Rodwell translation the spider is always referred to as 'she'.

I find this curious. I'm not a zoologist, but don't both male and female spiders build webs, being the way they catch prey to feed? Could it be, to analyse, some subconscious feeling being displayed of the female being dangerous as well as vulnerable? And why would the European translation, which is rather whithering in it's attitude to Mohammed, be the one to be sexist here?

Time to get another translation, and not a European one, I think!

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 14:01:42 BDT
Archibald F says:
Spin: "The doctrine of "Trinity" is an absurdity created by a young church attempting to reconcile its various takes on a new religion."
No, the doctrine of the Trinity is the church's understanding (including the church today) of how God is represented in the Bible.
Yes there is. As this keeps coming up on this forum, I think I will have to write it up and paste it in each time. But for a starter, John 1:1-2 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God,
and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.
Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

"The whole point of these prophets missions was to express the unity of God" No, the purpose of the prophets was to bring people back to a God who loved them, and who they constantly rebelled against. But, the Trinity also reflects a complete unity of God, not division, since the 3 never vie against each other but always work in complete unity.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2013 14:07:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Apr 2013 14:10:35 BDT
Archibald F says:
Me - "OK, so you're using the dictionary to prove me wrong, and then you announce that the dictionary is wrong?"

You - "No just you..."

Me - "Let's try you on this one. atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm| - noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Agree or disagree?"

You - "As for atheism I go for the Oxford Dictionary definition."

Now that's ironic!

On second thoughts, more than ironic - more pure hypocrisy!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  369
Initial post:  25 Apr 2013
Latest post:  8 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions