With pleasure...
Nope, a strawman fallacy requires me to actually make an argument [a false argument] on their behalf. All I did we preface a question. Are you having a bad day?
I'm having a great day, thank you very much. I'd share the details, but they aren't PG-rated.
By the way, your reasoning fails. If I said, "Do you believe your great grand daddy had sex with a monkey?" then I would be strawmaning evolution.
This is because the tacit argument is understood: "Evolution is false *because* your great grand daddy didn't have sex with a monkey."
That is an argument - I'm sure you can't deny that - and it's a strawman.
Like if I said, "Can't be bothered" it would be understood as "*I* can't be bothered."
So I take your argument to be, "By the Trinity model, Jesus is our son... but he isn't! QED."
You presume to understand the Trinity better than it's 'adherents' it seems.
Indeed I do because I understand it is nonsensical. While some Christians accept this, or perhaps most, some do not.
Also, comprehension and belief are not interdependent.
My OP was intended to raise the issue of 2 Fathers, and Jesus by logical progression becoming the Father.
Jesus never became the father.
My question was simply that IF the bible CAN call Jehovah our Father, then it can also call Jehovah our Son, and this would be exceptable terminology.
Looks like you're the one having the bad day.
Oops, do I need to say that *it* looks like you're the one having the bad day?
First of all, you meant acceptable, not exceptable.
And you asked me if English is my native language? Lol.
Secondly, if Jehovah is our father, and if Jesus is his son, that doesn't make Jesus our son. Ever heard of this thing called a brother?
And... yeah... early Christians were called brothers in/of Christ/the Lord.
I'm wondering now if you denied beating up a strawman because you legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, I agree the Trinity is not logical. No, my argument still isn't what the Bible doesn't say.
So now you do have an argument? Which is it? You said you were only asking a question.
The only sentence in the OP that is not a question is a statement of what the Bible doesn't say. But your argument is not about what the Bible doesn't say. And your argument, according to you, is not in the form of a question.
And yet you have an argument?
I'm thinking of an integer that is neither even nor odd. Good luck guessing!
I'm questioning whether their statements are well defined, that's the point.
Short answer: no. Long answer: yes, but... problems.
How many Fathers do the Trinity adherents believe in?
1.
My arguments are exactly that their statements are not, and have never been, well defined!
By your reasoning, the OP contains no argument.
Every occurrence of the word "god" for example needs an explanation as to what is meant, that is not "well defined" my friend, just the opposite!
Not my problem. Not your problem.
Amazing that an atheist would defend their definitions.
I said that the Trinity is nonsense. That's defending their definition?
You know the difference between "well defined" and "[demonstrably] untrue", yet all my OP was about was definitions, not whether the Trinity is true or untrue specifically.
Ok... so why did you fail spectacularly?
Not even close... Logic is not your strong suit!
Lol, yes, just like English isn't my native language.
It's more like;
Why does Wednesday follow Thursday in this verse", shouldn't the statements at least be consistent throughout the Bible if the doctrine were true?
Whatever they are doing it's not consistent, hence my OP
Don't forget to have a biscuit...