Religion or Science - How do they compare?

There is nothing vague about the main references as listed on the outline I quoted. Each refers to one essential aspect of the Trinity and all work together to demonstrate the doctrine as a whole quite clearly. Or maybe I shouldn't say "all," but I know many of them do. I haven't looked up all of them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is nothing vague about the main references as listed on the outline I quoted.

---

I think you will find that is not entirely true. For instance, if the Sin knows less than the Father is that not a reason to think that they are separate beings ? The sum of the statements read in context is far less clear than you would like it to be.

Read all in context it is quite clear that Jesus is God as well as a separate Person as are Father and Holy Spirit as well.

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.

The number of required references need not be a problem if we are assured that they are all aspects of a single coherent view. However the more references required the less likely that is to be true, and I would say that it is almost certainly false.The Trinity is not derived from statements reflecting a singke coherent view. It is an attempt to reconcile statements reflecting quite different views.

More accurately it is clear that the Biblical authors did not agree on the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

And in reality the Holy Spirit was a late political creation that evolved over time and was created solely by humans.

Well first off, no, I find hardly any of these convincing, as hardly any of his references have anything to do with the Trinity. Just copying and pasting the first few of his Scriptural points here: I apologize to everyone for the above annoying copy and paste but you can see this author is hardly even trying to stick to the doctrine of the Trinity in his arguments. He is all over the map here. The vast majority of his verse quotes have either nothing to do with the Trinity, or only tangentially sideswipe the issue on a distant flyby. I call bullshit on your "Hundreds of verses supporting the Trinity, Faith. Mostly because it's actually bullshit.I was reasonably amused when your referenced author, Robert Bowman in this work titled "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity" makes this point: Immediately followed by: 7000 times to 3 times, Faith. Edited by Aussie, : spelling...

It really boils down to "WE are not convinced" which of course is the singular WE.

I never learn that no matter how good my evidence is it will never be good enough for EvC.But I would like to end my role in this discussion with a very rare thank-you from one of my most steadfast opponents here, Dr Adequate, who years ago actually appreciated the reference to the Trinity presentation I've posted here. The url has changed since then but it was the same presentation:This is from Message 28, Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?: Of course I remembered this very very rare occasion when an opponent here actually appreciated something I posted. By now he may have changed his mind of course, but at the time it was thrilling to get such appreciation from such a stalwart enemy.Which I offer because MAYBE it might show some here that it isn't necessary to fight everything I say tooth and nail.Or not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to never tire in your attempt to maintain the first three words of your quote above true, despite all odds. The truth that seems always just beyond your grasp is the reality that your "Evidence" is just childish silliness Faith. Like your "700 quotes proving the Trinity in Scripture," it is trivially easy to demonstrate that your claim is nonsense. You have to somehow be aware that when you talk like this, other grown-ups are unable to take you seriously. In a desperate attempt to hide your lack of evidence, you try to throw others off your trail by making wild and baseless assertions in wide-eyed blustering arrogance, like an octopus trying to escape in a cloud of black ink. I mean, how many times do you need to be reminded that this is a debate forum? I've heard people tell you this for years... why can't you remember this? The entire purpose of this forum is for ideas to be presented and analyzed. Your blog is for preaching, but when you submit a post here, we don't just read it, we get to chat back and tell you why we disagree. And here you go again. You are running away. I want you to understand that you are running away from this conversation because you have absolutely nothing of any real worth to counter any of the points being made. Let this sink in Faith; I want to say it again for you. You have nothing of any value that can answer the points that have been raised in this thread, so you are choosing to run away while we watch. We know you well enough that if you had any real answer... absolutely ANYTHING at all, you would present it. Instead of responding to our points, you changed the subject to a random time when Dr. Adequate said someone (not even you) presented something reasonably well? Like your "700 versus" author, you aren't even trying to stay on topic.Instead you are running away.We have all seen you do this a hundred times. You are faking arrogant confidence, totally faking it, and trying to slip away to your hiding place in clouds of black ink. We can see you doing this, and we know what you are doing. It's a debate site, and it is more interesting with you here, but you can't bring the brutality of a Bronze age value system to a modern society and wonder why you are not taken seriously, the exact same way we don't take ISIS propaganda seriously: they have no place in the world. And you have found yourself more often than not on the same side as ISIS. In terms of slavery; the longing for an age of religious totalitarianism; hope of a paradise in the afterlife; strong defense of the slaughter of women and children of the Heathens in the name of religious intolerance; strong support of religious doctrine influencing the Federal Government; abhorrence of homosexuality, etc...Time after time your moral code lines up in lockstep to ISIS zealots, and you can't bring yourself to understand why we can't take anything you say seriously? It's not that we don't understand you; it's that we understand you perfectly, and are horrified.It is interesting that one major point of disagreement between you and ISIS is the point of the Trinity. ISIS is more in line with Moses, in that they believe that God is ONE Lord, not three (in One?), although Moses would have been happy to put all of you to death in public.So much death, so much blood spilling free. One further gentle reminder Faith, NO ONE here, I think, is your stalwart enemy. I don't post much, but I've been on this site weekly almost as long as you...early 2004 was when I started stalking regularly. I've seen people want to pull their hair out in frustration to your arrogant obstinance. But I don't remember anyone wishing any harm or ill health on you ever! No one here wishes anything but the very best for you. I wish you good health, a very long life, and a clear mind unencumbered by brutal superstition.P.S. Please don't run away.

I see your reasoning. I have never agreed with the idea that we are to throw God away and make the religion/belief/action center around us.To claim that we are Christians and yet also claim that we have no idea Who God is or whether GOD even exists is an insult to the name Christian.This whole idea that a bunch of ancient fables and mythos created by man only means that we are charged to do our best for each other is admittedly logical and reasonable apart from the fact that your Sunday school class mentions God only as an ancient myth created by humans. Not acceptable.

Why?Try this:A Christian is someone who wants to follow Christ and do good through God.
An honest Christian realizes that they do not know who God is or even if God exists because there is no evidence. But, despite this, the honest Christian continues to search for God and do good through God as best they can.An honest Christian realizes that there is no "easy set of rules" laid out on how to be good through God. No one "has the answer!" that will always work for all situations because such an answer is impossible because of the complexities of different possible situations and different possibilities that could work.Being good though God takes constant focus, learning and a willingness to say "oh... that wasn't good, but this is... I'll try to do this from now on!"
A Christian must continue to focus on God and doing good through God and attempt to get better at those ideas in any way they possibly can.What's so bad about a Christian like that? Fair enough. I'll spit upon that Straw Man too. I don't think anybody intends for anyone to do such a thing.But what about the whole idea of an honest Christian honestly trying to search for God and do good through God as best they can?
Adapting, learning and having the courage to accept the facts that are available and continue to have faith and continue to search for God and do good through God as best they can?Is that an acceptable path to claim to be Christian?

Yet what does the evidence show? Why are the descriptions of God in Genesis 1, Genesis 2&3, Genesis 18 and many other places so different? yet once again you misrepresent what I have said and said repeatedly.Please point to where I said "the fact that your Sunday school class mentions God only as an ancient myth created by humans"; but of course, you cannot do that without taking what I actually posted out of context and misrepresenting what I have said.And if you disagree or find what you quoted "Not acceptable" then present your supporting evidence.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Is it dishonest to believe that God is in communion with me through Spirit and that though there is no easy set of rules there is, in fact, an internal awareness made possible through this communion? I can honestly say that in the scientific sense, I do not know that God exists and cannot provide evidence, but my belief supports the idea that God is alive and eternally with us in Spirit and that this belief is an unevidenced one objectively. (Though strongly sensed subjectively)