Summations Only

Amen. Same with unicorns.

How would He "be a savior"? And why would He have to come to earth to do it? Why couldn't He poof us "saved" from heaven?

Good point. We are all "fathers" to each other in the same sense that God is a "father" to us - only we tend to be more hands-on about it. So give us some examples from the Bible. It is, and I have been wrong a time or two. If you actually think about things you're likely to be wrong sometimes. How else would you suggest a person can become "right"?

Yes indeed. So how does the relationship with "God the Father" differ? Psalm 23 comes to mind:

quote:

---

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:

---

You might be able to weasel around the word "obligation" but I don't think you can deny that protection is expected.

We don't "strive to be wrong". We do test a metaphor by stretching it to its breaking point, like we test anything else. Your predictions of the breaking point are less reliable than actual testing. I'm not trying to persuade you. I don't. The Bible does. Sure he is. Ever hear of "child endangerment"? Been there, done that, the T-shirt is in the laundry. To recap: The Bible emphasizes a metaphorical father-child relationship between God and His people. I contend that that relationship implies an obligation to protect His people. His people expect that protection (e.g. Psalm 23). You don't seem to feel inclined to refute my contention with Biblical references, so the contention stands.

Well done, my son.

You fundies and your talking snakes.

Apparently you're not aware of the Clean Slate Defense? That would certainly apply if those "past discussions" were in another thead. And since I have a short attention span, I feel free to invoke it at will. That would be the Watering The Soup Defense - the soup may be thinned to cover more territory but all of the ingredients are still there.

I don't look at it as "backing out" of a position. Arguing a position is not the same as taking a position.

quote:

---

The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease. link

---

Some can argue both sides of a debate; some have to believe what they debate; some can't argue either side effectively.

quote:

---

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

---

Jesus hung out with publicans and sinners. Chances are He watched the 1st century equivalent of football and ate the 1st century equivalent of chips and hot dogs. He may or may not have had kids to pick up.But He definitely did "volunteer at the shelter". So yes, that would be doing like Jesus taught.

On the contrary, objectively ridiculous doctrines encourage faith.

I've used the same analogy myself. The two end parts are still infinite on one end. The middle part is finite; which part of the Trinity is that?

You said a number line. Draw the line. You can only divide it at finite places. You can't have three infinite pieces when you only have two infinite ends.A concept like infinity is not going to be of much help in describing voodoo like the Trinity.