Religion or Science - How do they compare?

I believe the list of dozens of verses has been posted in discussions here before. There are lots of apologist verses, and the reason that there is such a large number of citations is due to the huge stretch it takes to call any single one or small group of the verses evidence of their position.And of course, there are equal numbers of verses that non-Trinitarians cite that provide very clear proof that Jesus considered himself and his Father to be not the same.The only reason for the doctrine is that early Christians were accused by Jews of not having a monotheistic religion. The Trinity doctrine is the response to that accusation.In my view, Trinity doctrine is at best iffy, and certainly not essential. But it is not the worst thing that fundamentalist graft onto the Bible. Calvinism would hold that bottom spot.

Faith has also admitted that coming to her conclusion involves reading the references as she thinks they are supposed to be read. In short, the meaning would only be apparent to someone who already accepts the conclusion and is looking for any faint hope that the Trinity doctrine is correct.The number of required references is not strictly speaking the problem. The problem instead is the requirement that you follow the commentary of some folks in order to get what Faith claims is the meaning.If, in fact, the verses reach the correct conclusion, then someone should be able to present an argument, using as many sources as they need, that makes the point. Maybe someone can do that, but it is clear that Faith cannot do it.

Well, then I guess that's all the evidence you need.

A lot of things justify folks doing bad stuff including capitalism, racism, love of family. Most of the stuff that motivates us can also provide justification for doing bad stuff.

Yes, those are distinctions. But the point remains. The fact that people use something to justify evil does not make the something evil. It instead means that people do evil. I maintain that it is not a directive from God to do evil, and that the evil comes first, and the excuse or justification comes after.

If you have a case to make after conceding that your original statements don't prove your case, then make it. Christianity was not conceived to do evil, but because some folks believed it freed them from evil.

Well, that depends upon if your religion is Biblianity or Christianity. As far as I am concerned, the New Testament sorted that stuff out completely.

You don't know because you are not even trying. Why did the Baptist Church splinter in 1845? Why did the Methodist Church have a similar split?Sometimes it is best just to keep silent. As if Luther's anti-Semitism was a one-time thing. You are aware that we only know about his beliefs because he wrote about them, right?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In had assumed that you were able to follow my lead. The split was because the Southern Baptist Church and the Southern Methodist Church endorsed slavery. The claim was not about general Protestant wickedness, but instead about your claim that evil was not an issue with the Protestant church. It was an issue. And of course, I could name other issues like punishing people for witchcraft.

None of which excuses Martin Luther, or allows us to excuse his evil as an "outburst". We are not having a contest, we are pointing out that Protestants and their churches are not blameless. You cannot defend that with, "well look at the Catholics."

Nice attempt to excuse evil. But that's what you always do when problems with Protestants are pointed out.

I don't believe I said that, so I appreciate that you phrased this in the form of a question rather than as an accusation. If you want me to be more specific, I will point out that as I Christian, I believe we should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. My experience is that doing so does not present me with any moral dilemmas.

I am a bit puzzled by this response.'I noted your concession about not having proved your position. But since you did not drop your position, asking for you to make a case seems appropriate. Are you instead conceding that you were wrong?

I haven't pointed out any mere "slip-ups", and I haven't even bothered to debate the things you say about Catholics.But I appreciate the acknowledgment of your denials of fact. So what if it is not like Catholicism? According to your BS, Catholicism is the purest evil. Not being like Catholicism is really not all that much to brag about.Protestants have done their own evil. Out of respect for the request from the moderators, I am going to let this opportunity pass.

Was liar the worst epithet thrown around here? Weren't folks being called Nazis? What was in that message you removed in that response to me?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.