Question

[Freodin]

You need to explain a little to me on that. Do you mean deities such as fire god, thunder god, or sea god?

Yes. Gods of love, of the hunt, poetry, wine, sadness... all that.

 

[juvenissun]

Nice one.

It is more than just a nice one. It is a fatal one. The idea of Trinity is the foundation of Christianity. From the human point of view, does it make sense such a religion could even go beyond the front door? How could any one "invent" such a doctrine and hope it would survive?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. Gods of love, of the hunt, poetry, wine, sadness... all that.

What is wrong with that? We do not understand these things. So everything has its own governing god.
I think it is one of the most reasonable thing to do to facilitate a religion.
Greeks are one of the most reasonable group of people. They even have a "god of unknown". Which makes a perfect sense to me.

 

[Freodin]

What is wrong with that? We do not understand these things. So everything has its own governing god.
I think it is one of the most reasonable thing to do to facilitate a religion.

This is not an argument. This is a claim. Explain to me why this is reasonable and logical.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't. YOU reword it.

How would I reword something that I don't understand in the first place. If you don't want to explain that's your prerogative, but communication depends on mutual understanding on some level.

 

[juvenissun]

This is not an argument. This is a claim. Explain to me why this is reasonable and logical.

We do not understand thunder. So we think there must be a god who is in charge of the thundering.
Logic enough?

 

[popsthebuilder]

We are talking about a religion, which is accepted by millions of people. Except Christianity, which doctrine of a religion is not logical and not reasonable?

What religion is that?

 

[juvenissun]

What religion is that?

How about Buddhism? Or Islam?
All of their doctrines are very reasonable.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I can give you several of them. But one first:
The Triune God in Christianity is illogical and unreasonable.

Your turn.

Please do not claim that the Trinitarian view of God is universal throughout all Christianity as it is from Catholicism and is can be shown that the Ancient rcc is responsible for not only most atrocities of times past, but also the leading astray off most denominations on one level or another.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It is more than just a nice one. It is a fatal one. The idea of Trinity is the foundation of Christianity. From the human point of view, does it make sense such a religion could even go beyond the front door? How could any one "invent" such a doctrine and hope it would survive?

That is not the foundation of Christianity. You speak of things out of assumption. Have you ever heard of Arius.

 

[popsthebuilder]

How about Buddhism? Or Islam?
All of their doctrines are very reasonable.

Buddhism not Islam contradict true Christianity.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Nor

 

[Freodin]

We do not understand thunder. So we think there must be a god who is in charge of the thundering.
Logic enough?

I don't think you understood my argument at all, so your explanation is a little lacking. We do not understand lightning either, so there must be a god of lightning... and it is a different guy from the first one. And we do not understand a lot of other things, so every single thing must have its own god, doesn't it?

But there isn't a different god for everything. Religion seems to break even your understanding of logic and reasoning.


Ok, though, my turn.

The trinity is not a concept within original christianity (and it doesn't exist in the prior judaism at all). It is a concept that orgininated from the debate about the nature of the Christ. Logical and reasonable debates were held and arguments were made to support or deny certain positions, until the triune version used its majority of support to surpress the other positions.
As the concept of divine trinities wasn't to foreign for the enviroment in which Christianity arose, it could find enough support in the population... especially as "understanding" it was not required, and even wrong understandings were accepted as long as they didn't threaten the establishment.

Any potential logical contradictions that could be perceived in this new doctrinal idea can be either ignored (which most Christians do) or be reasonably and logically explained (which many theologians attempt to).

The modern Christians concept of the trinity would indeed by unreasonable and illogical... but only if it was an instant doctrine. Considering the way it came to be and evolved, it is reasonable and logically explainable.

 

[juvenissun]

Please do not claim that the Trinitarian view of God is universal throughout all Christianity as it is from Catholicism and is can be shown that the Ancient rcc is responsible for not only most atrocities of times past, but also the leading astray off most denominations on one level or another.

So?

 

[juvenissun]

That is not the foundation of Christianity. You speak of things out of assumption. Have you ever heard of Arius.

That what is the foundation of Christianity?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think you understood my argument at all, so your explanation is a little lacking. We do not understand lightning either, so there must be a god of lightning... and it is a different guy from the first one. And we do not understand a lot of other things, so every single thing must have its own god, doesn't it?

But there isn't a different god for everything. Religion seems to break even your understanding of logic and reasoning.


Ok, though, my turn.

The trinity is not a concept within original christianity (and it doesn't exist in the prior judaism at all). It is a concept that orgininated from the debate about the nature of the Christ. Logical and reasonable debates were held and arguments were made to support or deny certain positions, until the triune version used its majority of support to surpress the other positions.
As the concept of divine trinities wasn't to foreign for the enviroment in which Christianity arose, it could find enough support in the population... especially as "understanding" it was not required, and even wrong understandings were accepted as long as they didn't threaten the establishment.

Any potential logical contradictions that could be perceived in this new doctrinal idea can be either ignored (which most Christians do) or be reasonably and logically explained (which many theologians attempt to).

The modern Christians concept of the trinity would indeed by unreasonable and illogical... but only if it was an instant doctrine. Considering the way it came to be and evolved, it is reasonable and logically explainable.

Too complicated.
The simple form of Trinity is what we are looking at.

And yes, the thunder god is male and the lightning god(dess) is a female. Too many gods could also be confusing. So, very very logically, there are classifications of them. For example, a grass god are in charge of many different type of grasses. Hey, it is not only logical, but is also very scientific.

 

[-57]

Well it was the a step in cell replication...though not the entire process.

It's all knowledge I already had...and it wasn't the knowledge that I was expecting. I was expecting the video to explain how the "information" in DNA provided evidence of an intelligent designer. It showed nothing of the sort.

The video did an excellent job of showing an extremely complex system...that when each co-dependent step of the process string...is examined evolution is ruled out. There is currently no model, theory, whatever that can explain the process described in the video using evolutionism as the creation.

 

[Freodin]

Too complicated.
The simple form of Trinity is what we are looking at.

Too simple.

First of all, there is no "simple form of Trinity". You are making a classical mistake that believers tend to make: you see something and think that it has always been this way.

And yes, the thunder god is male and the lightning god(dess) is a female. Too many gods could also be confusing. So, very very logically, there are classifications of them. For example, a grass god are in charge of many different type of grasses. Hey, it is not only logical, but is also very scientific.

So there is a logical, reasonable and scientific method of which number of gods are ok, more would be confusing and less would be... not enough?

No, sir, wrong kind of logic. The ideas of deities, their attributes and their dominions are indeed "logical and reasonable". But not in the way you seem to think. The idea of deities rise and grow, shrink and decline... and change and evolve and adapt. At any point, the ideas presented in a religion is the logical and reasonable result of the previous ideas.

Taken by themselves, as isolated positions in time and space, they will seem to be unreasonable and illogical. Thunder god is male and lightning goddess is female? Sounds reasonsable. But why is there a single male thunder-and-lightning god just a tribe further? Both logical and reasonable.
Why is there a single divine, and there is also the deities of growing, keeping and declining... who are the single divine. Logical and reasonable?

It is not different with the trinity.

 

[juvenissun]

Too simple.

First of all, there is no "simple form of Trinity". You are making a classical mistake that believers tend to make: you see something and think that it has always been this way.


So there is a logical, reasonable and scientific method of which number of gods are ok, more would be confusing and less would be... not enough?

No, sir, wrong kind of logic. The ideas of deities, their attributes and their dominions are indeed "logical and reasonable". But not in the way you seem to think. The idea of deities rise and grow, shrink and decline... and change and evolve and adapt. At any point, the ideas presented in a religion is the logical and reasonable result of the previous ideas.

Taken by themselves, as isolated positions in time and space, they will seem to be unreasonable and illogical. Thunder god is male and lightning goddess is female? Sounds reasonsable. But why is there a single male thunder-and-lightning god just a tribe further? Both logical and reasonable.
Why is there a single divine, and there is also the deities of growing, keeping and declining... who are the single divine. Logical and reasonable?

It is not different with the trinity.

It is obvious:
Trinity can not be reasoned. Christianity is not likely invented by human.
Polytheism can be reasoned. Polytheistic gods are invented by human.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That what is the foundation of Christianity?

Conequal Trinitarianism.

I mentioned Arius;

Even though "Arianism" might suggest that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before his advent; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other "Arians" such as Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with his contemporary,Eusebius of Caesarea) proved much more influential in the long run. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[4][5] However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated—is generally labeled as "his".

Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that rocked the Christian world and led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Leading up to the council of Nicaea, the Christian world had many different competing Christological formulae.[12][13] After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying "Arianism" as a radical disagreement to the "norm". The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement.[12]

That's some of what I was talking about. Thanks to Wikipedia.