Interesting discussion here. I just wanted to butt in to ask TZaia for some more information about that weekend walk she spokee of earlier, and where her Momentus thread is. I'd like to learn about the 'walk' so I can give it a try if it's offered in my area. The interest in the Momentus thread, I must admit, is just morbid curiosity. :-)
By the way, I thought JAL stepping down when he was confronted was pretty admirable too. Somewhat inspiring even.
Had the Momentus thing almost done and made the mistake of calling up a web site from my mail reader and Poof! it was gone.
The long and short of the momentus thing is that I never went. I didn't go because I was seeing fruit I didn't like. I saw a lot of corp mentality at work in the recent attendees and I wasn't too thrilled about that. It caused a rift between the enlightened and those of us who preferred to not go. The 4 page (mine was 4) hold harmless agreement didn't sit well considering that they wanted full control of my life without the responsibility of dealing with the outcome. JAL's response to that was for me to ignore that part. JAL and I had a major argument over him using his considerable influence over people to get them to go. I told him it was plainly a misuse of influence. I also believe that Dan Toccini used JAL because he knew the numbers that JAL could bring to the momentus seminars.
That's my experience.
The three day weekend is called many things, but it is comprised of 15 talks prepared and given by lay people that follow a formula. There are meditations and communion at least once per day. You have to be invited, although that isn't much of problem. The great banquet is a bit different in that it is ecumenical and we are allowed a bit of straying from "the formula". The community is very involved and that goes further than being assistants. Like at our church, you stay there in a dorm like setting. All your meals and snacks are provided by the community. There are people there the entire weekend filling various roles. If 40 are going through, then there are at least 40 on team. The guests are not aware of who's on team and who's a guest at the tables until well into the weekend. That makes for interesting dynamics.
I think the weekend is a great way to get you hooked back up with Christ in a healthy way.
Judgment precedes logic. If your logic is based on flawed judgment, your syllogism may be logically valid, yet in reality, unsound.
Ahh ooopsie! Not quite. It is logic should precede judgement. I.e., you use logic to render a judgement. Informed and mature logic.
Using judgement to render 'logic' is like making a decision before you have all the relevent and consistant information. And, as so often is in cases like this, this results in stubborness and 'blind faith' to embrace and be loyal to that decision rendered irrespective of what logic can convey.
Sorry Charlie. .... Reality is like that, pain in the assets as that might be. ;)-->
Where did you learn logic, Garth?
Mental Action - Simple Apprehension
Verbal Expression - Term
Mental Action - Judgment
Verbal Expression - Proposition
Mental Action - Deductive Inference
Verbal Expression - Syllogism
Mental Action - Rhetoric
Verbal Expression - Thesis
When we exercise simple apprehension, we assign names to things and experiences. These names are "terms".
When we exercise judgment, we recognize relationships between things. The statement of a judgment is a "proposition", or a sentence composed of terms that states the relation between things.
When we exercise logic, we use a formalized set of rules to gain new knowledge from that which is already known, by comparing and contrasting propositions. This is called "deductive inference". The verbal expression of deductive inference is a "syllogism", which consists of three propositions. Each of these propositions is a sentence which expresses a judgment.
When we exercise rhetoric, we propose an answer to some question. Cicero's description, "the practical application of knowledge for the guidance of human affairs" seems to me to be the best definition of rhetoric. The verbal expression of a thesis is usually in the form of a proposition, which may be simple or complex, an exposition of arguments for the thesis, a rebuttal of the obvious arguments against the thesis, and a conclusion which reiterates the thesis statement. Logic is a tool for presenting, attacking and defending a thesis.
You have mistaken my use of the word "judgment" for what happens when a person decides either to accept or reject a thesis.
Judgment, the ability to recognize and accurately describe the relations between things, precedes both logic and rhetoric. If the judgment is flawed, both logic and rhetoric are flawed.
Yepper, Garth... reality is like that, pain in the assests as that might be. ;-D
When we exercise logic, we use a formalized set of rules to gain new knowledge from that which is already known, by comparing and contrasting propositions.
The problem encountered in that is who's rules?
Example: (keeping with the subject) The rules in forming and supporting a trinitarian theological position involve the "logic rule" that you first form your doctrine and then use scripture to support the doctrine.
We call that proof texting, but who's to say that our methodology is any more honest? Only our perception of logic. And where did we get that? From a cult, or from science, or from some other 5 senses realm, which from a trinitarian viewpoint leaves out holy spirit and tradition as a resource, and therefore disqualifies our logic.
When I have the trinity discussion with people it becomes easy to attack the logic by which it was formulated. Such as:
The trinity has withstood the test of time.
My response? It has withstood the "test of time" because it really hasn't been put to the test. Have you seriously challenged the doctrine? And if not, then why not? If your only reason is that it has stood the test of time, then I challenge you to challenge the trinity.
Steve, nice explanation altho' there is more to the definition of the word 'judgement' than you realize: (following definition pulled from Dictionary.com)
quote:
Jdgement n.
1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.
2.
a. The mental ability to perceive and distinguish relationships; discernment: Fatigue may affect a pilot's judgment of distances.
b. The capacity to form an opinion by distinguishing and evaluating: His judgment of fine music is impeccable.
c. The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense: She showed good judgment in saving her money. See Synonyms at reason.
3. An opinion or estimate formed after consideration or deliberation, especially a formal or authoritative decision: awaited the judgment of the umpire.
Notice here that the judgement is rendered after due consideration and thought; logic, as it were. After, not before. (supposed to be anyway)
Need any aspirins yet? ;)-->
quote:
You wrote, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
Au contrare, my dear friend. Here is where rational logic fits into the scheme of things:
I noticed that in your 'judgement' here, you left out explaining why rational logic can have blind faith as one of its foundations. As a matter of fact, if anything, your explanation only helps give strength to the logic of my tag line.
Garth - Here are three more synonyms for judgment; perception, "aisthesis" and common sense. They all describe the mental action required to form a "sentence".
If logic operates by comparing and contrasting "sentences", which it does, then judgment, "aisthesis", perception, or common sense HAS to precede logic.
I can form syllogisms that are logically valid, but untrue, because they are based on flawed premises (sentences that don't accord with objective reality).
Now this whole sidebar discussion illustrates an important thing to keep in mind about discourse. I used the word "judgment". If you had been sharp, you would have asked something like "What do you mean by "judgment"? If I had been sharp, I would have said something like "I think you've mistaken what I meant by 'judgment'. In what sense are you using the word?"
These are called "probing questions", and are used to assure agreement on basic definitions and principles.
I was using the word "judgment" as a term of art, as it is used in the formal study of logic. It accords most nearly with your dictionary definition #2.a.
Thanks for the dialogue, Garth! I'll address some of the other points you and Raf have raised sometime in the next few days. Art is long and time is fleeting.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - We really do train our students to think like this! It's fun to actually exercise the skill in the real world :-D
Example: (keeping with the subject) The rules in forming and supporting a trinitarian theological position involve the "logic rule" that you first form your doctrine and then use scripture to support the doctrine.
We call that proof texting, but who's to say that our methodology is any more honest? Only our perception of logic. And where did we get that? From a cult, or from science, or from some other 5 senses realm, which from a trinitarian viewpoint leaves out holy spirit and tradition as a resource, and therefore disqualifies our logic.
The first paragraph of the above quote is a strawman characterization of both Trinitarians and the basis of Trinitarian theology. Concerning the second paragraph, I suspect it would be interesting to examine whatever “logic” Tzaia and her polemical Unitarian colleagues might be able to bring forth to attempt some supposed disproving reductio of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine, although it is a biblically unarticulated one. A Trinitarian view of God necessarily follows one’s belief of scriptural indications that:
God is one;
the Father is God;
Jesus Christ existed eternally;
Jesus Christ is God;
the Father and the Son are individually spoken of under the divine name Jehovah;
scriptural pronouns indicate a singularity and a plurality about God;
the Holy Spirit has personal identity alongside the Father and the Son;
there is a distinction between the Son and the Father;
the Father is God to the Son;
there is an aspect of inequality between the Son and God the Father;
there is an aspect of equality between the Son and God the Father;
there is distinction and there is non-distinction between Jesus Christ and God.
Scripture indicates such things. In a Trinitarian view of God, one can recognize all these things as fully and simultaneously true. The problem Socinians, Arians, Sabellians, polytheists, henotheists and Unitarians fundamentally have with the Trinity is their own disbelief of some of these things.
*****
For a robust piece that touches on supposed logical objections against the Trinity, try:
The first paragraph of the above quote is a strawman characterization both of Trinitarians and the basis of Trinitarian theology. Concerning the second paragraph, I suspect it would be interesting to examine whatever ?logic? Tzaia and her polemical Unitarian colleagues might be able to bring forth to attempt a disproving reductio of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Strawman characterization? I think not. One of my friends, a PHd in New Testament studies, has confirmed that is the way doctrine is approached in the evangelical church. The Catholic church doesn't even bother. There's is more along the lines of "We say this is the way it is, therefore it is", which is pure Hellenistic thinking.
As my brother often says, "Don't confuse me with facts." The trinitarian church finds itself confounded with the inherent contradictions of a triune concept of God, but the first mode of acceptance is putting away any semblance of rational thought.
With God, nothing is impossible. Therefore God can act in an arbitrary and capricious manner defying his own laws.
The question is that begs to be asked is just because nothing is impossible with God, does that mean he can and will do or be anything?
God is a mystery. Therefore we cannot even begin to comprehend him, but here's our best shot (the trinity).
If God is, in fact, an incomprehensible mystery, then how do YOU know that the best way to describe Him is as a triune entity?
When we exercise logic, we use a formalized set of rules to gain new knowledge from that which is already known, by comparing and contrasting propositions.
The problem encountered in that is who's rules?
Example: (keeping with the subject) The rules in forming and supporting a trinitarian theological position involve the "logic rule" that you first form your doctrine and then use scripture to support the doctrine.
We call that proof texting, but who's to say that our methodology is any more honest? Only our perception of logic. And where did we get that? From a cult, or from science, or from some other 5 senses realm, which from a trinitarian viewpoint leaves out holy spirit and tradition as a resource, and therefore disqualifies our logic.
When I have the trinity discussion with people it becomes easy to attack the logic by which it was formulated. Such as:
The trinity has withstood the test of time.
My response? It has withstood the "test of time" because it really hasn't been put to the test. Have you seriously challenged the doctrine? And if not, then why not? If your only reason is that it has stood the test of time, then I challenge you to challenge the trinity.
my .02 worth
Tzaia
The Trinitarian doctrine has been seriously challenged over the millenia, it just keeps winning out. Check your history again and see where it came from.
Actually, the main reason it 'keeps winning out' is because of wide spread public acceptance due to orthodox instruction based on appeal to authority, browbeating, peer pressure, intimidation, extermination, control of resources, and other like 'influences' rather than on valid point-by-point comparison of the two ideologies.
Fer instance, up until around 150-200 years ago, disbelieving in the trinity was often dealt with by a prison term, if not a death sentence. ... Some persuasion of 'superior wisdom', huh? -->
Why don't you ask our good and verbose friend Cynic who Micheal Servetus was, and why he got the death penalty, and in John Calvin's Geneva too. (Careful, Cynic old boy. I've got references to that event, just in case you 'forget' some of the details. ;)-->)
And if he doesn't wish to oblige you, then I'll be more than happy to.
Oh, and trinitarianism being seriously challenged?? My a$$! Not when it was the dominant view of Christ for the better part of 1600 years!
The Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine, although it is a biblically unarticulated one.
So you say that it is necessary, but not really in the bible. Does that mean the apostles who were an eye witness to Jesus' resurrection did not really know Jesus as well as the people from the 4th century who never met the man? Or does that mean Paul and the apostles really did not get it right and needed extra doctrine?
yes, cynic, are you truly a follower of Calvin?? was his "rule" of Geneva in accord with ALL Biblical Doctrine?? ... was this at the behest of the LORD Jesus Christ..or nay????
"The Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine, although it is a biblically unarticulated one. A Trinitarian view of God necessarily follows one’s belief of scriptural indications that:
God is one;
the Father is God;
Jesus Christ existed eternally;
Jesus Christ is God;
the Father and the Son are individually spoken of under the divine name Jehovah;
scriptural pronouns indicate a singularity and a plurality about God;
the Holy Spirit has personal identity alongside the Father and the Son;
there is a distinction between the Son and the Father;
the Father is God to the Son;
there is an aspect of inequality between the Son and God the Father;
there is an aspect of equality between the Son and God the Father;
there is distinction and there is non-distinction between Jesus Christ and God.
Scripture indicates such things. In a Trinitarian view of God, one can recognize all these things as fully and simultaneously true. The problem Socinians, Arians, Sabellians, polytheists, henotheists and Unitarians fundamentally have with the Trinity is their own disbelief of some of these things."
And the Bible clearly states that:
I am a son of God,
I am equal with Christ Jesus,
I am a joint heir in the heavenly household;
I can do greater things than Jesus could do when he walked the Earth;
??Therefore I am god??
Sorry but "The Trinity is NOT a biblically necessary doctrine".
The trinitarian church finds itself confounded with the inherent contradictions of a triune concept of God, but the first mode of acceptance is putting away any semblance of rational thought.
Tzaia,
You have made extravagant assertions about “logic,” “rational thought” and “inherent contradictions.” Are you—or anyone you can call on—capable of demonstrating that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory?
Why don't you ask our good and verbose friend Cynic who Micheal Servetus was, and why he got the death penalty, and in John Calvin's Geneva too. (Careful, Cynic old boy. I've got references to that event, just in case you 'forget' some of the details. ;)-->)
And if he doesn't wish to oblige you, then I'll be more than happy to.
Garth,
If you desire a discussion about John Calvin and the honesty of various blood-laden accusations you have made, start another thread. I am going to try to refrain from distractions while posting to this one.
Damn! Is that something like the term 'blood libel'? How Klingon sounding of you.
Oh wait, so you're trying to imply that John Calvin had nothing to do with Servetus' murder (Yes Virginia, I'm saying it was murder, because that is exactly what it was.) ... As a matter of fact, I do believe I read in a previous post of yours where you conceded this very point. That Calvin was responsible for Servetus' murder.
I didn't get you upset at that, did I? Chief, you have just got to stop believing everything the church tells you about that man, and read from more independent sources.
quote:
Are you—or anyone you can call on—capable of demonstrating that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory?
Since trinitarianism is taught in the realm of faith, it relies not upon rational thought, logic or common sense for its basis, but a straight appeal to the trust and obedience of the orthodoxy and authority of the church.
Rational and independent thought is not subject to that orthodoxy and authority, thus resulting in angry reactions like yours and other fundy apologists. (As my example re: Calvin plainly illustrates)
Which explains a lot about why folks like me have left that sick mentality behind in the dust.
I find that numerical characterization surprisingly banal and dimwitted for you. For it to work, a Trinitarian view of God would have to entail holding that God were one and three in the same way. Care to try articulating an argument that it does?
The Trinitarian position, as I think you know, is there is one undivided essence of God existing in three persons. There is really no question that that notion does not entail logical invalidity. A charge that a Trinitarian view of God entails contradiction appears generally to be based on ignorance or a disguised denial of the personal/ontological distinction Trinitarians generally believe must exist in God, under biblical warrant.
I am going to control my part in the discussion in this thread. I am not going to be controlled by your manipulative rhetoric or by your incontinence.
Got that itch to foam and rave against John Calvin? Start another thread. Be informed, however, that I deem your various previous errors, rabid accusations and cheap fabrications fair game.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
Jbarrax
Hello all. God bless!
Interesting discussion here. I just wanted to butt in to ask TZaia for some more information about that weekend walk she spokee of earlier, and where her Momentus thread is. I'd like to learn about the 'walk' so I can give it a try if it's offered in my area. The interest in the Momentus thread, I must admit, is just morbid curiosity. :-)
By the way, I thought JAL stepping down when he was confronted was pretty admirable too. Somewhat inspiring even.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
JERRY,
:)-->
Good to see you dude! Join the frey--errr, discussion.
:D-->
Don't be strange, -- ahh I mean a stranger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Had the Momentus thing almost done and made the mistake of calling up a web site from my mail reader and Poof! it was gone.
The long and short of the momentus thing is that I never went. I didn't go because I was seeing fruit I didn't like. I saw a lot of corp mentality at work in the recent attendees and I wasn't too thrilled about that. It caused a rift between the enlightened and those of us who preferred to not go. The 4 page (mine was 4) hold harmless agreement didn't sit well considering that they wanted full control of my life without the responsibility of dealing with the outcome. JAL's response to that was for me to ignore that part. JAL and I had a major argument over him using his considerable influence over people to get them to go. I told him it was plainly a misuse of influence. I also believe that Dan Toccini used JAL because he knew the numbers that JAL could bring to the momentus seminars.
That's my experience.
The three day weekend is called many things, but it is comprised of 15 talks prepared and given by lay people that follow a formula. There are meditations and communion at least once per day. You have to be invited, although that isn't much of problem. The great banquet is a bit different in that it is ecumenical and we are allowed a bit of straying from "the formula". The community is very involved and that goes further than being assistants. Like at our church, you stay there in a dorm like setting. All your meals and snacks are provided by the community. There are people there the entire weekend filling various roles. If 40 are going through, then there are at least 40 on team. The guests are not aware of who's on team and who's a guest at the tables until well into the weekend. That makes for interesting dynamics.
I think the weekend is a great way to get you hooked back up with Christ in a healthy way.
Tzaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Garth, You wrote,
Where did you learn logic, Garth?
Mental Action - Simple Apprehension
Verbal Expression - Term
Mental Action - Judgment
Verbal Expression - Proposition
Mental Action - Deductive Inference
Verbal Expression - Syllogism
Mental Action - Rhetoric
Verbal Expression - Thesis
When we exercise simple apprehension, we assign names to things and experiences. These names are "terms".
When we exercise judgment, we recognize relationships between things. The statement of a judgment is a "proposition", or a sentence composed of terms that states the relation between things.
When we exercise logic, we use a formalized set of rules to gain new knowledge from that which is already known, by comparing and contrasting propositions. This is called "deductive inference". The verbal expression of deductive inference is a "syllogism", which consists of three propositions. Each of these propositions is a sentence which expresses a judgment.
When we exercise rhetoric, we propose an answer to some question. Cicero's description, "the practical application of knowledge for the guidance of human affairs" seems to me to be the best definition of rhetoric. The verbal expression of a thesis is usually in the form of a proposition, which may be simple or complex, an exposition of arguments for the thesis, a rebuttal of the obvious arguments against the thesis, and a conclusion which reiterates the thesis statement. Logic is a tool for presenting, attacking and defending a thesis.
You have mistaken my use of the word "judgment" for what happens when a person decides either to accept or reject a thesis.
Judgment, the ability to recognize and accurately describe the relations between things, precedes both logic and rhetoric. If the judgment is flawed, both logic and rhetoric are flawed.
Yepper, Garth... reality is like that, pain in the assests as that might be. ;-D
Love,
Steve
[edited to correct terminology - Steve]
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think judgment and logic are symbiotic. But what do I know?
:)-->
JERRY!
JERRY!
JERRY!
JERRY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
What is momentus and what did JAL step down from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The problem encountered in that is who's rules?
Example: (keeping with the subject) The rules in forming and supporting a trinitarian theological position involve the "logic rule" that you first form your doctrine and then use scripture to support the doctrine.
We call that proof texting, but who's to say that our methodology is any more honest? Only our perception of logic. And where did we get that? From a cult, or from science, or from some other 5 senses realm, which from a trinitarian viewpoint leaves out holy spirit and tradition as a resource, and therefore disqualifies our logic.
When I have the trinity discussion with people it becomes easy to attack the logic by which it was formulated. Such as:
My response? It has withstood the "test of time" because it really hasn't been put to the test. Have you seriously challenged the doctrine? And if not, then why not? If your only reason is that it has stood the test of time, then I challenge you to challenge the trinity.
my .02 worth
Tzaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Steve, nice explanation altho' there is more to the definition of the word 'judgement' than you realize: (following definition pulled from Dictionary.com)
Notice here that the judgement is rendered after due consideration and thought; logic, as it were. After, not before. (supposed to be anyway)
Need any aspirins yet?
;)-->
I noticed that in your 'judgement' here, you left out explaining why rational logic can have blind faith as one of its foundations. As a matter of fact, if anything, your explanation only helps give strength to the logic of my tag line.
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Garth - Here are three more synonyms for judgment; perception, "aisthesis" and common sense. They all describe the mental action required to form a "sentence".
If logic operates by comparing and contrasting "sentences", which it does, then judgment, "aisthesis", perception, or common sense HAS to precede logic.
I can form syllogisms that are logically valid, but untrue, because they are based on flawed premises (sentences that don't accord with objective reality).
Now this whole sidebar discussion illustrates an important thing to keep in mind about discourse. I used the word "judgment". If you had been sharp, you would have asked something like "What do you mean by "judgment"? If I had been sharp, I would have said something like "I think you've mistaken what I meant by 'judgment'. In what sense are you using the word?"
These are called "probing questions", and are used to assure agreement on basic definitions and principles.
I was using the word "judgment" as a term of art, as it is used in the formal study of logic. It accords most nearly with your dictionary definition #2.a.
Thanks for the dialogue, Garth! I'll address some of the other points you and Raf have raised sometime in the next few days. Art is long and time is fleeting.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - We really do train our students to think like this! It's fun to actually exercise the skill in the real world :-D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hello all. Geez, Raf, thanks for the enthusiastic greeting! :-)So nice to see old friends still hanging out at the Cafe.
And thanks for the Momentus /Walk post Tzaia. I'll look into it.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The first paragraph of the above quote is a strawman characterization of both Trinitarians and the basis of Trinitarian theology. Concerning the second paragraph, I suspect it would be interesting to examine whatever “logic” Tzaia and her polemical Unitarian colleagues might be able to bring forth to attempt some supposed disproving reductio of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine, although it is a biblically unarticulated one. A Trinitarian view of God necessarily follows one’s belief of scriptural indications that:
God is one;
the Father is God;
Jesus Christ existed eternally;
Jesus Christ is God;
the Father and the Son are individually spoken of under the divine name Jehovah;
scriptural pronouns indicate a singularity and a plurality about God;
the Holy Spirit has personal identity alongside the Father and the Son;
there is a distinction between the Son and the Father;
the Father is God to the Son;
there is an aspect of inequality between the Son and God the Father;
there is an aspect of equality between the Son and God the Father;
there is distinction and there is non-distinction between Jesus Christ and God.
Scripture indicates such things. In a Trinitarian view of God, one can recognize all these things as fully and simultaneously true. The problem Socinians, Arians, Sabellians, polytheists, henotheists and Unitarians fundamentally have with the Trinity is their own disbelief of some of these things.
*****
For a robust piece that touches on supposed logical objections against the Trinity, try:
Re: Logic and the Trinity, from the REFORMED list
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Strawman characterization? I think not. One of my friends, a PHd in New Testament studies, has confirmed that is the way doctrine is approached in the evangelical church. The Catholic church doesn't even bother. There's is more along the lines of "We say this is the way it is, therefore it is", which is pure Hellenistic thinking.
As my brother often says, "Don't confuse me with facts." The trinitarian church finds itself confounded with the inherent contradictions of a triune concept of God, but the first mode of acceptance is putting away any semblance of rational thought.
With God, nothing is impossible. Therefore God can act in an arbitrary and capricious manner defying his own laws.
The question is that begs to be asked is just because nothing is impossible with God, does that mean he can and will do or be anything?
God is a mystery. Therefore we cannot even begin to comprehend him, but here's our best shot (the trinity).
If God is, in fact, an incomprehensible mystery, then how do YOU know that the best way to describe Him is as a triune entity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
The Trinitarian doctrine has been seriously challenged over the millenia, it just keeps winning out. Check your history again and see where it came from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, the main reason it 'keeps winning out' is because of wide spread public acceptance due to orthodox instruction based on appeal to authority, browbeating, peer pressure, intimidation, extermination, control of resources, and other like 'influences' rather than on valid point-by-point comparison of the two ideologies.
Fer instance, up until around 150-200 years ago, disbelieving in the trinity was often dealt with by a prison term, if not a death sentence. ... Some persuasion of 'superior wisdom', huh?
-->
Why don't you ask our good and verbose friend Cynic who Micheal Servetus was, and why he got the death penalty, and in John Calvin's Geneva too. (Careful, Cynic old boy. I've got references to that event, just in case you 'forget' some of the details.
;)-->)
And if he doesn't wish to oblige you, then I'll be more than happy to.
Oh, and trinitarianism being seriously challenged?? My a$$! Not when it was the dominant view of Christ for the better part of 1600 years!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
So you say that it is necessary, but not really in the bible. Does that mean the apostles who were an eye witness to Jesus' resurrection did not really know Jesus as well as the people from the 4th century who never met the man? Or does that mean Paul and the apostles really did not get it right and needed extra doctrine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
yes, cynic, are you truly a follower of Calvin?? was his "rule" of Geneva in accord with ALL Biblical Doctrine?? ... was this at the behest of the LORD Jesus Christ..or nay????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Cynic:
"The Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine, although it is a biblically unarticulated one. A Trinitarian view of God necessarily follows one’s belief of scriptural indications that:
God is one;
the Father is God;
Jesus Christ existed eternally;
Jesus Christ is God;
the Father and the Son are individually spoken of under the divine name Jehovah;
scriptural pronouns indicate a singularity and a plurality about God;
the Holy Spirit has personal identity alongside the Father and the Son;
there is a distinction between the Son and the Father;
the Father is God to the Son;
there is an aspect of inequality between the Son and God the Father;
there is an aspect of equality between the Son and God the Father;
there is distinction and there is non-distinction between Jesus Christ and God.
Scripture indicates such things. In a Trinitarian view of God, one can recognize all these things as fully and simultaneously true. The problem Socinians, Arians, Sabellians, polytheists, henotheists and Unitarians fundamentally have with the Trinity is their own disbelief of some of these things."
And the Bible clearly states that:
I am a son of God,
I am equal with Christ Jesus,
I am a joint heir in the heavenly household;
I can do greater things than Jesus could do when he walked the Earth;
??Therefore I am god??
Sorry but "The Trinity is NOT a biblically necessary doctrine".
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Tzaia,
You have made extravagant assertions about “logic,” “rational thought” and “inherent contradictions.” Are you—or anyone you can call on—capable of demonstrating that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
If so, let's see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
If you desire a discussion about John Calvin and the honesty of various blood-laden accusations you have made, start another thread. I am going to try to refrain from distractions while posting to this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
1+1+1=...1?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Damn! Is that something like the term 'blood libel'? How Klingon sounding of you.
Oh wait, so you're trying to imply that John Calvin had nothing to do with Servetus' murder (Yes Virginia, I'm saying it was murder, because that is exactly what it was.) ... As a matter of fact, I do believe I read in a previous post of yours where you conceded this very point. That Calvin was responsible for Servetus' murder.
I didn't get you upset at that, did I? Chief, you have just got to stop believing everything the church tells you about that man, and read from more independent sources.
Since trinitarianism is taught in the realm of faith, it relies not upon rational thought, logic or common sense for its basis, but a straight appeal to the trust and obedience of the orthodoxy and authority of the church.
Rational and independent thought is not subject to that orthodoxy and authority, thus resulting in angry reactions like yours and other fundy apologists. (As my example re: Calvin plainly illustrates)
Which explains a lot about why folks like me have left that sick mentality behind in the dust.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Steve,
I find that numerical characterization surprisingly banal and dimwitted for you. For it to work, a Trinitarian view of God would have to entail holding that God were one and three in the same way. Care to try articulating an argument that it does?
The Trinitarian position, as I think you know, is there is one undivided essence of God existing in three persons. There is really no question that that notion does not entail logical invalidity. A charge that a Trinitarian view of God entails contradiction appears generally to be based on ignorance or a disguised denial of the personal/ontological distinction Trinitarians generally believe must exist in God, under biblical warrant.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
I am going to control my part in the discussion in this thread. I am not going to be controlled by your manipulative rhetoric or by your incontinence.
Got that itch to foam and rave against John Calvin? Start another thread. Be informed, however, that I deem your various previous errors, rabid accusations and cheap fabrications fair game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.