"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces."

[evilmonk]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

[DarkWolf]

Interesting site. I've seen a few like it, but none as concise, with all the cross-referencing. Good find :)

[DFWminis]

I just do not understand why people come in just to be rude...it would be like me going in the Garage forum saying ford sucks all the time...but really that is just pointless.... cause no matter what I would say .. people who are Ford people will always be ...and same goes for our Faith in Christ

[DarkWolf]

I don't think it's being rude necessarily, at least not in this particular instance. Christians are generally so intent on pointing out how the bible is infallible, and has never been show to have inconsistencies, while all other holy books have. This is just pointing out in no uncertain terms (by using your own bible) the number of inconsistencies within the bible that we've (being people who don't accept the bible as the be-all-end-all) known about, or at the very least suspected, for a long time.

It's ok though, it's just a book written by man, inspired by God. Same as other holy books. Sure they're not perfect, but that's to be expected due to the nature of the authors.

[edit] Oh, one more thing... Christians think it's rude when non-christians point out the flaws in their religion. Point taken. But the same applies to you as well. You don't think it's rude, the christian mindset of "this is the only way, all others are false"? You don't think it's rude pointing out that the other 4+ billion people (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) in this world are going to hell because they're not christian?

[Renee]

I'm sorry but lol. :D

[SlowLX]

Howcome Jews don't make alot of ritual sacrifices like they did in olden days.

[SVT93Style]

Howcome Jews don't make alot of ritual sacrifices like they did in olden days.


The ritual of sacrifces was a foreshadowing of things to pass, the coming of the Christ. The reason for the sacrifice was a reminder to Gods people that sin kills. They would take a blameless, perfect lamb, and slaughter it....sound familiar.

[SlowLX]

Yes, but they were supposed to offer sacrifices to God, it says give God sacrifices. Since they obvioulsy didn't/don't believe Jesus was the song of the God, shouldn't they still be cutitng up lambs and spilling there blood all over the temple or something?

[DFWminis]

I don't think it's being rude necessarily, at least not in this particular instance. Christians are generally so intent on pointing out how the bible is infallible, and has never been show to have inconsistencies, while all other holy books have. This is just pointing out in no uncertain terms (by using your own bible) the number of inconsistencies within the bible that we've (being people who don't accept the bible as the be-all-end-all) known about, or at the very least suspected, for a long time.
It's ok though, it's just a book written by man, inspired by God. Same as other holy books. Sure they're not perfect, but that's to be expected due to the nature of the authors.
[edit] Oh, one more thing... Christians think it's rude when non-christians point out the flaws in their religion. Point taken. But the same applies to you as well. You don't think it's rude, the christian mindset of "this is the only way, all others are false"? You don't think it's rude pointing out that the other 4+ billion people (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) in this world are going to hell because they're not christian?

I understand what you are saying .....I do not think it is rude to do so (as in post the link for the intent to discuss)...but we know he did not do it for that purpose of trying to stir the pot ...... I do think it is wrong for people to try to force anything on anything regardless of what it is ...I can not speak for all Christians though....interesting link though

[DarkWolf]

The ritual of sacrifces was a foreshadowing of things to pass, the coming of the Christ. The reason for the sacrifice was a reminder to Gods people that sin kills. They would take a blameless, perfect lamb, and slaughter it....sound familiar.

Actually, it was pretty much any animal. Cows, calves, lambs, goats, and even birds for some rituals. Killed, gutted, and the intestines and "cut up pieces" burned to produce a "sweet savour unto the lord", sometimes the intestines or other parts were to be held up high and "waved before the lord" for a wave offering.

Also, sacrifices weren't just for sin, they were also for peace and prosperity for the people, sometimes for medical remedies, and sometimes just to please God.

[SlowLX]

Actually, it was pretty much any animal. Cows, calves, lambs, goats, and even birds for some rituals. Killed, gutted, and the intestines and "cut up pieces" burned to produce a "sweet savour unto the lord", sometimes the intestines or other parts were to be held up high and "waved before the lord" for a wave offering.

Also, sacrifices weren't just for sin, they were also for peace and prosperity for the people, sometimes for medical remedies, and sometimes just to please God.
That doesnt answer why we don't see them anymore damnit.

[SVT93Style]

That doesnt answer why we don't see them anymore damnit.


Not sure, you would have to ask a Jewish person. There is a temple in Flower Mound right off Morris Rd, maybe you could email someone there.

[SVT93Style]

That doesnt answer why we don't see them anymore damnit.

Here is the link:http://tx001.urj.net/

[TexasDevilDog]

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

What came first the chicken or the egg, light or light producing objects? How could you have a light producing object without light? :rolleyes:

[DFWminis]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (third sentence in the bible)


Ofcourse I really dont know, but perhaps the light of god was the light in the beginning used....

[DarkWolf]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (third sentence in the bible)


Ofcourse I really dont know, but perhaps the light of god was the light in the beginning used....

That's the commonly accepted explaination. Big Bang, Light of God, however you want to look at it. Same difference, really.

That's one of the problem traits fanatical skeptics generally portray, overly analyzing the bible trying to find as many contradictions as possible... not stopping to think logically sometimes. Of course, he's arguing against the stance some christians take, that every word of genesis is to be taken literally. When genesis is viewed as an allegory, rather than a literal explaination, some skeptical rebuttals seem awkward... such as this one... and simultaneously we see a pretty close meshing of biblical, and scientific explainations of how the universe and eventually Earth was formed, and how life came to be.

[DFWminis]

I believe the bible is no doubt different from what it started off as....and I know it says the bible is written by men through god no mistakes etc etc..... I take this as the bible is a tool for how to live ...it no doubt has a good messages for lifes purpose and shows us what good man should do through out his life..... perhaps it changed through out the years for the changes in the world...granted not drastic ...

[DarkWolf]

I dunno, I'd say God going from being a vindictive, half-cocked, plague-happy, fly-off-the-handle-kill-everyone, bloody sacrifice craving, indecisive, second guessing, unsure of himself, imperfect ... asshole (for lack of a more appropriate word), that's constantly interacting with "his people", to being this perfect, omnipotent, kind and loving, happy-go-lucky dude, that never directly interacts with anyone, but has appointed "his son" to do that duty.

I'd say that's a pretty big change. And yet God is supposedly unchanging.

Granted, it's in the same book, so not necissarily a sweeping editorial change in that sense... but a pretty good example of how christians re-defined God to suit their needs/wants. (And yet, I get accused of defining God to suit my needs/wants. :rolleyes: So much for "judge not" eh?) God took second fiddle to Jesus as christianity came into prominence.

[DFWminis]

I am not change my wants what so ever (I ask of God and I give what he wants of me).... Rather I have a open mind towards things... once Jesus died on the cross things did change...... People came to realize that God himself loved us so much he had to show us our errors by giving up his own son ... Really we can post back and forth...but we both know it is pointless... I respect your views and see where you are coming from .....plus I am better at video games then you :D ..which in the end is the most important

[DarkWolf]

I am not change my wants what so ever (I ask of God and I give what he wants of me).... Rather I have a open mind towards things... once Jesus died on the cross things did change...... People came to realize that God himself loved us so much he had to show us our errors by giving up his own son ... Really we can post back and forth...but we both know it is pointless... I respect your views and see where you are coming from .....plus I am better at video games then you :D ..which in the end is the most important

*head bobbing, finger waving*

OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

:D Actually I do kinda suck at games...

[DFWminis]

lol nice

[HookEm]

God took second fiddle to Jesus as christianity came into prominence.

Untrue. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are all equal parts.

[DarkWolf]

Untrue. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are all equal parts.

The trinity is the three "faces" of God.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59322&stc=1

Judaism worships God. Christians worship Jesus, but consider the trinity to be equal parts. Doesn't change that God is more an afterthought, next to Jesus. Jesus is the savior. In Jesus' name we pray. Jesus delivered us from the old laws... God's laws.

All this came about, some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea. The Trinity God concept is very common among pagan beliefs, but unique for religions that proclaim to be monotheistic. Until the council, God and Jesus were seperate entities. Jesus was God's son. Jesus was not God. But in order to diefy Jesus, it was necessary to make Jesus equal to, and one and the same, as God.

Which lends credence to Christianity being a re-labled pagan religion.

[Fobra]

I don't think it's being rude necessarily, at least not in this particular instance. Christians are generally so intent on pointing out how the bible is infallible, and has never been show to have inconsistencies, while all other holy books have. This is just pointing out in no uncertain terms (by using your own bible) the number of inconsistencies within the bible that we've (being people who don't accept the bible as the be-all-end-all) known about, or at the very least suspected, for a long time.

It's ok though, it's just a book written by man, inspired by God. Same as other holy books. Sure they're not perfect, but that's to be expected due to the nature of the authors.


Hey man, I've been browsing through this section of the forum every now and then and have noticed that you are always in the front giving your 2 cents of skepticism. Based on the things you've said, I can tell you've spent some time researching theology and that you seem to enjoy trying to prove the Christians wrong in here. I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that you've never really had a challenge. I have a buddy that will probably debate you on whatever topic, but perhaps you could start out with the inconsistancies you think the Bible has, or that all religions are essentially the same at the core as you noted in another thread, or the existance of God or whatever. So how about it? :D If yes, then let me know and I'll post his email address and once you get a response from him, post up yours and his repsonses in a new thread so we all can see the dialouge.

[TexasDevilDog]

Untrue. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are all equal parts.

You are correct on your reply to DW. God was not demoted.

[DarkWolf]

Hey man, I've been browsing through this section of the forum every now and then and have noticed that you are always in the front giving your 2 cents of skepticism. Based on the things you've said, I can tell you've spent some time researching theology and that you seem to enjoy trying to prove the Christians wrong in here. I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that you've never really had a challenge. I have a buddy that will probably debate you on whatever topic, but perhaps you could start out with the inconsistancies you think the Bible has, or that all religions are essentially the same at the core as you noted in another thread, or the existance of God or whatever. So how about it? :D If yes, then let me know and I'll post his email address and once you get a response from him, post up yours and his repsonses in a new thread so we all can see the dialouge.

It's not really a matter of trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm just posting my thoughts based on both personal experience and study. What I do try and do, is open people up to seeing things from a different point of view. Shed the narrow-mindedness that all to often associated with a religious belief. Not to change their beliefs per se, just to help make them more tolerant of others beliefs. One of the problems with religion is this "my way or hell" attitude... which might be understandable if there was only one religion... but when there's 4-5 billion people on this planet that are not Christian, and there are many religions... that attitude just doesn't fly. And granted, it's not just Christians... and that's another problem. When so many are claiming superiority, and their way being the only way... it's inevitable there's going to be tension ... at best... outright hatred, typically.

If he wants to debate, he's welcome to sign up, the forum's open to anyone now (used to be private when it first started). No reason to email back and forth and I post the results (wouldn't want anyone thinking I tampered with 'em :) ).

[DarkWolf]

You are correct on your reply to DW. God was not demoted.

I beg to differ. Who provides you with salvation, according to the bible? Jesus. In whose name do you pray? Jesus. Who came to fulfill the old laws, and create a new covenant, thereby delivering you from the old laws? Jesus.

In no other religion is the prophet viewed on equal grounds with God. But Christian's took it even farther, and not only is Jesus on equal ground with God, but he IS God. Yet he wasn't promoted to this status until 300ish years after his death, when conveniently no one that new him directly, nor even within a generation or two, were still alive. Easy enough to apply this deity status to the prophet at that point, especially in a time when literacy of the general populace wasn't exactly top notch... combine rampant iliteracy with texts written in languages rarely spoken, makes for an easy transition from the way of life Jesus taught, to creation of the religion of Christianity ... and while they were at it, adopt the old pagan traditions, renamed to things like "Christmas", and "Easter", and "All Hallow's Eve"... Mix in a millenia and a half of constant reinforcement/brainwashing of Jesus's divinity, and poof! Here we are... the very thought of questioning the inerrancy of the bible is so unthinkable to most Christians, even mention it and their minds shut like steel traps... might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you!!"

[Fobra]

One of the problems with religion is this "my way or hell" attitude... which might be understandable if there was only one religion... but when there's 4-5 billion people on this planet that are not Christian, and there are many religions... that attitude just doesn't fly. And granted, it's not just Christians... and that's another problem. When so many are claiming superiority, and their way being the only way... it's inevitable there's going to be tension ... at best... outright hatred, typically.

Then that's an area you could talk about, I can assure that he'll point out where your position fails, he's done that to everyone he's debated through emails. One thing that's interesting when reading his debates with skeptics is that they end up failing to hold on to logical principles (inductive/deductive reasoning) and end up appealing to logical fallacies.

If he wants to debate, he's welcome to sign up, the forum's open to anyone now (used to be private when it first started). No reason to email back and forth and I post the results (wouldn't want anyone thinking I tampered with 'em :) ).

He won't sign up because he's too busy running his website and other things. So if you did engage in a debate with him, he'd post his response as well as yours on his site, as he has done that with other people who've tried to argue their case and end up conceding towards the end and to ensure nothing was tampered with, those debating him would post up the responses on their site. His name is Brady.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/page2.htm

DFWstangs isn't exactly to best source to go to for debating theology since probably most of the peeps haven't done an extensive amount of research relative to theology. BTW, I'm not claiming that I've done an extensive amount of research.

[TexasDevilDog]

I beg to differ. Who provides you with salvation, according to the bible?
You can differ all you want.

God, through Jesus

In whose name do you pray?
God, through Jesus

no problem

[TexasDevilDog]

In no other religion is the prophet viewed on equal grounds with God. But Christian's took it even farther, and not only is Jesus on equal ground with God, but he IS God.

Jesus is god, not a prophet.

[SVT93Style]

One of the problems with religion is this "my way or hell" attitude... which might be understandable if there was only one religion... but when there's 4-5 billion people on this planet that are not Christian, and there are many religions... that attitude just doesn't fly. And granted, it's not just Christians... and that's another problem. When so many are claiming superiority, and their way being the only way... it's inevitable there's going to be tension ... at best... outright hatred, typically.

I now what you are saying here but the problem is that the idea has been hijacked by people who would call themselves Christian's...and maybe they are..but some do have this rub it in you face attitude.."my way or hell" but they ( and you ) are missing the real message and are misguided.

The idea behind this is that only through Christ will you find where life burns the hotest and brightest...it doesn't mean you can't have it, but you will never know the fullness of it and seperation from it...in turn is hell.

[DarkWolf]

You can differ all you want.

God, through Jesus


God, through Jesus

no problem

If they're one and the same, why differentiate?

Fobra, if he has time to debate through email, surely a debate on a forum isn't that much more of a timesink... being that he's busy with his website and all.

[DarkWolf]

I now what you are saying here but the problem is that the idea has been hijacked by people who would call themselves Christian's...and maybe they are..but some do have this rub it in you face attitude.."my way or hell" but they ( and you ) are missing the real message and are misguided.

The idea behind this is that only through Christ will you find where life burns the hotest and brightest...it doesn't mean you can't have it, but you will never know the fullness of it and seperation from it...in turn is hell.

And again I point out, almost all other major religions have this same view... their way is the right way. The stance that "only through Christ " doesn't fly with the other religious beliefs, and will always produce animosity. Just as the other religious beliefs don't fly with Christianity.

[Fobra]

If they're one and the same, why differentiate?

Fobra, if he has time to debate through email, surely a debate on a forum isn't that much more of a timesink... being that he's busy with his website and all.

He doesn't even know about this site and I really don't think he'd go out of his way to register on this site "just" to debate you given that there are tons of forums and skeptics like yourself, the time would be overwhelming, that's why he'd rather have the skeptics come to him based on the material he has on his site or whatever they want to debate him about. I don't know what he does all the time, but from talking to him through email and on the phone, he seems pretty busy (could be wrong, but it seems unlikely) from family, running the site, church activities etc etc.

[zorro]

The trinity is the three "faces" of God.


Judaism worships God. Christians worship Jesus, but consider the trinity to be equal parts. Doesn't change that God is more an afterthought, next to Jesus. Jesus is the savior. In Jesus' name we pray. Jesus delivered us from the old laws... God's laws.

All this came about, some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea. The Trinity God concept is very common among pagan beliefs, but unique for religions that proclaim to be monotheistic. Until the council, God and Jesus were seperate entities. Jesus was God's son. Jesus was not God. But in order to diefy Jesus, it was necessary to make Jesus equal to, and one and the same, as God.



Hi Darkwolf,

I hope you don't mind my saying so, but that is not exactly right. You find Jesus refered to as God in the New Testament (NT) numerous times. Also the Apostiolic Fathers (late first century, early second century, they knew the Apostoles) have passages refering to Jesus as God. Hippolytus wrote an entire book on the Trinity in the early 200's called, " De Trinitate." And other fathers before and after him refer to Jesus as God.

Nicea came about because there were those inthe fourth century who denied what the Churches had been teaching all along, i.e. that Jesus was God.

Thought you want to know.

Regards,

Z

[DarkWolf]

The same St. Hippolytus who stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the son and the father, so as to represent Jesus as a divine person separate from God and at the same time altogether subordinate to the father?

The same St. Hipplolytus who represented Pope Zephyrinus as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus?

The same St. Hippolytus who consequently when Callistus was elected pope on the death of Zephyrinus, he immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers?

The same St. Hippolytus that was banished to the island of Sardinia for his views of the popes and the church? And not until after his death was he reconciled with the church, for unknown reasons, though it's assumed he repented and made amends with the church (wouldn't you, being banished to certain death, and desperately wanting to not die?)... though odd, if he'd made amends, why they waited until after he was dead before reinstating him as a proper bishop.

And really, does it surprise anyone that the men whose intent it was to start the church, to build this religion of Christianity, would want to deify Jesus? Especially when of the three generally accepted Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, and Polycarp are considered direct disciples of John... whom is the only apostle to quote Jesus as claiming his divinity, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke quote Jesus as defining himself as seperate from God... then you've got two other unknown authors that are considered Apostolic Fathers. Clement was the 3rd successor of Peter, and had seen Peter and Paul, and conversed with them.

So there was dissent in the church as to the divinity of Jesus, which was finally settled at the Council of Nicea. I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer in that aspect, rather than sounding like it was accepted church-wide that Jesus and God were seperate beings. Dissenters were banished/excommunicated/put to death for heresy... one has to wonder why anyone would think to question Jesus' divinity, knowing what they would be facing by the papacy.

So, to refine my statement:
All this came about, some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea. The Trinity God concept is very common among pagan beliefs, but unique for religions that proclaim to be monotheistic. Until the council, there was dissent within the church, and some viewed God and Jesus as seperate entities. Jesus was God's son. Jesus was not God. But in order to diefy Jesus, it was necessary to make Jesus equal to, and one and the same, as God. Those that dissented were fast becoming extinct, or silencing themselves, to avoid the fate of their fellow dissenters, and so with no real opposition to the council, the divinity of Jesus was now unquestionable.

[edit] One more thing, De Trinitate was written by St. Augustine, not St. Hippolytus... and it was written around 400BCE, well after the Council of Nicea.

[zorro]

The same St. Hippolytus who stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the son and the father, so as to represent Jesus as a divine person separate from God and at the same time altogether subordinate to the father?

I am not really sure what you mean by this. The doctrine of the trinity has always held to a separation of the persons of the God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. That is the point; there are three distinct person, yet only one substance (homoousia) or nature.

The same St. Hipplolytus who represented Pope Zephyrinus as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus?

SoThe same St. Hippolytus who consequently when Callistus was elected pope on the death of Zephyrinus, he immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers?

Usually when we speak of the "Roman Church" and Popes we are referring to the current structure of the Roman Catholic Church. That didn't exist back then. There were no real Popes, just the Bishop of the church at Rome. He held no more sway at that time than did the bishop of any other large church. It wasn't until the 12th centuy that the Roman Catholic Church came into existece as such, when the eastern and western churches split. It wasn't until 1870 that papal infalability was a formal position of the Roman Catholic Church. But to answer your question, yes that was the same Hippolytus.

And really, does it surprise anyone that the men whose intent it was to start the church, to build this religion of Christianity, would want to deify Jesus? Especially when of the three generally accepted Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, and Polycarp are considered direct disciples of John... whom is the only apostle to quote Jesus as claiming his divinity, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke quote Jesus as defining himself as seperate from God... then you've got two other unknown authors that are considered Apostolic Fathers. Clement was the 3rd successor of Peter, and had seen Peter and Paul, and conversed with them.

That is really a change in position. You have gone from "Until the council [of Nicea, 325 AD], God and Jesus were seperate entities. Jesus was God's son. Jesus was not God," to John, Ingantius and Polycarp did recognize Jesus as God in the first two centuries. I would also disagree with you on Matthew, Mark and Luke. Although they do not diectly identify Jesus as God they indirectly identify Jesus as God, unmistakenably.


So there was dissent in the church as to the divinity of Jesus, which was finally settled at the Council of Nicea. I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer in that aspect, rather than sounding like it was accepted church-wide that Jesus and God were seperate beings.

I thought you made yourself quite clear.


Dissenters were banished/excommunicated/put to death for heresy... one has to wonder why anyone would think to question Jesus' divinity, knowing what they would be facing by the papacy.

Who was put to death for denying the trinity in the first 1000 years of the church? Who was excommunicated for denying the trinity prior to 300? What"papacy" in 325 AD are you talking about?

So, to refine my statement:
All this came about, some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea. The Trinity God concept is very common among pagan beliefs, but unique for religions that proclaim to be monotheistic. Until the council, there was dissent within the church, and some viewed God and Jesus as seperate entities. Jesus was God's son. Jesus was not God. But in order to diefy Jesus, it was necessary to make Jesus equal to, and one and the same, as God. Those that dissented were fast becoming extinct, or silencing themselves, to avoid the fate of their fellow dissenters, and so with no real opposition to the council, the divinity of Jesus was now unquestionable.

I appreciate your revision, and I guess that I shouldn't be a stickler on these things, but there was quite an opposition at Nicea. True, the majority sided trinatarian, but the Arians had a nice contengency and fought hard. Even after the councel the Arians held strong positions. Even Augustine, who you mention below, was fighting against the remaining Arians in the 5th century.


[edit] One more thing, De Trinitate was written by St. Augustine, not St. Hippolytus... and it was written around 400BCE, well after the Council of Nicea.

Augustine wrote his own work on the trinity. De Trinitate is Hippolytus'. It has also been atributited to Novation, who wrote about the same time, early to mid 200's.

Regards,

Z

[DarkWolf]

The info on Hippolytus came directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/). It would seem, from the same source, that Novatian was also quite the loon back then... even suspected of being possesed by satan, also electing himself antipope, and even setting himself up as a rival pope. Both, quite exemplary sources of information on the Trinity God, certainly. As to the existance of the papacy prior to the present "Roman Catholic Church", again, info directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

And perhaps you missed where Hippolytus was banished to the island of Sardinia until his death... I'd say that's equivalent to being put to death for his dissenting views.

I think what's the crux of the matter though, is not whether early churchmen believed or didn't that Jesus was God (certainly there would be some of either mind)... but the fact that a trinity is not mentioned within the New Testament... and however you may wish to interpret Matthew, Mark, and Luke... when a man calls Jesus a good man, and Jesus responds in kind "Why call me good? There is none good, but God". If Jesus is God... why would he tell the man that he's not good, but God is good? That's a clear distinction between Jesus and God, as being seperate entities.

And, here's the other problem when arguing the trinity, is that it's accepted that the father, son, and holy ghost/spirit are seperate beings that make up one entity, God. As I said before, that's polytheism, plain and simple. God said thou shalt have no gods before me... and yet you recognize 3 gods/deities that make up God. The Trinity God concept is not unique in religion... but it is unique in so-called monotheistic religions, which Christianity portends to be. The very definition of Trinity, suggests 3 entities, and if there's 3 entities, there's more than one god/deity, and monotheism is negated. Yes, even in other religions where there's a Trinity God, there are 3 entities that are equal and are God (take, for instance, Hinduism, where you've got Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu that make up the trinity, whom are all seperate but equal, and they are the three "faces" of God, or Sat-Tat-Aum, or the Being, the One, the Word, etc). It's precisely the same philosophy taken by Christians, and yet you continue to insist it's a monotheistic religion.

But that's what you get with a millenia and a half of brainwashing... unquestioning obedience to the inerrancy of the bible. Which ironically enough, itself doesn't even support the idea of a Trinity God, but you'll gladly overlook that because it's not convenient... for Jesus to NOT be God, would more or less negate the foundation of Christianity.

[DFWminis]

we are all brainwashed some way or another...

brain·wash·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brnwshng, -wôshng)
n.
Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

[zorro]

The info on Hippolytus came directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/). It would seem, from the same source, that Novatian was also quite the loon back then... even suspected of being possesed by satan, also electing himself antipope, and even setting himself up as a rival pope. Both, quite exemplary sources of information on the Trinity God, certainly. As to the existance of the papacy prior to the present "Roman Catholic Church", again, info directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don't know why we are still on this. Your initial post said that trinitarian doctrine didn't come about until "some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea." Hippolytus and Novation was just one of many examples proving you
wrong. You were wrong, let's move on.

And perhaps you missed where Hippolytus was banished to the island of Sardinia until his death... I'd say that's equivalent to being put to death for his dissenting views.

Why don't you ask Hippolytus if it is the same thing. Or John, who wrote Revelations while being exiled. Or Napeoleon, who returned to rule a second time. The point is that being banished and being killed is not the same thing. And further, Hippolytus was not banished because of the trinity. As I said before it is time to move on.

I think what's the crux of the matter though, is not whether early churchmen believed or didn't that Jesus was God (certainly there would be some of either mind)... but the fact that a trinity is not mentioned within the New Testament... and however you may wish to interpret Matthew, Mark, and Luke... when a man calls Jesus a good man, and Jesus responds in kind "Why call me good? There is none good, but God". If Jesus is God... why would he tell the man that he's not good, but God is good? That's a clear distinction between Jesus and God, as being seperate entities.

Please, Athanatius dealt with this, Augustine dealt with this, and numerous others through the centuries to our time. "And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." The manner in which the rich young ruler addressed Jesus was based on a mixture of truth and error. The truth was, Jesus was good. The error was, Jesus was only a good man. Jesus did not deny that He was good, or say anything to indicate that He was not God. Rather, His response gave the young man opportunity to conclude for himself, according to his own observation of Jesus' real goodness, that Jesus must be not only a man, but also God in human flesh. Sadly, the man did not so conclude; he did not put his full faith in Jesus, as his action moments later would show.

One cannot imagine these verses teach any separation between the Father and the Son in their essential nature, unless one is willing to concede that Jesus was also teaching that He Himself was not good.

Jesus is good, and Jesus is God.


And, here's the other problem when arguing the trinity, is that it's accepted that the father, son, and holy ghost/spirit are seperate beings that make up one entity, God. As I said before, that's polytheism, plain and simple. God said thou shalt have no gods before me... and yet you recognize 3 gods/deities that make up God. The Trinity God concept is not unique in religion... but it is unique in so-called monotheistic religions, which Christianity portends to be. The very definition of Trinity, suggests 3 entities, and if there's 3 entities, there's more than one god/deity, and monotheism is negated. Yes, even in other religions where there's a Trinity God, there are 3 entities that are equal and are God (take, for instance, Hinduism, where you've got Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu that make up the trinity, whom are all seperate but equal, and they are the three "faces" of God, or Sat-Tat-Aum, or the Being, the One, the Word, etc). It's precisely the same philosophy taken by Christians, and yet you continue to insist it's a monotheistic religion.

The Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed and virtually every other Roman, Orthodox and Protestant creed to the present day deny that there are three entities. They affirm three persons, but only one entity. Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent their position? Is it because you cannot deal with it unless you create this straw man?

As for Hinduism, their view of God is quite different. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are personal and therefore not considered "real." Only Brahman is impersonal and considered "real." Remember, Hinduism is pantheistic and everything is considered to be God. It is through reincarnation that we lose our personality and return to the true state as part of the impersonal God. While we have personality we are still part of "maya," the illusion.

But that's what you get with a millenia and a half of brainwashing... unquestioning obedience to the inerrancy of the bible. Which ironically enough, itself doesn't even support the idea of a Trinity God, but you'll gladly overlook that because it's not convenient... for Jesus to NOT be God, would more or less negate the foundation of Christianity.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. We could re-argue the whole of Nicea, but what good would it do? You don't like the idea that Jesus is God. If I show from each Gospel that they teach the deity of Jesus will that change your mind? I don't think so. All of that information has been available for 2,000 years. All you have to do is look it up. The Internet makes it easy. So it is not a matter of the info being unavailable. It is simply a matter of insisting upon being contrarian.

The fact that many of the Fathers prior to Nicea and going back into the NT believed that Jesus was God, was there, but you either ignored it or just didn't care to find out if what you were making up was true.

What is the real problem you have with Christianity? I am really interested in finding out.

Regards,

Z

[SVT93Style]

I don't know why we are still on this. Your initial post said that trinitarian doctrine didn't come about until "some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea." Hippolytus and Novation was just one of many examples proving you
wrong. You were wrong, let's move on.



Why don't you ask Hippolytus if it is the same thing. Or John, who wrote Revelations while being exiled. Or Napeoleon, who returned to rule a second time. The point is that being banished and being killed is not the same thing. And further, Hippolytus was not banished because of the trinity. As I said before it is time to move on.



Please, Athanatius dealt with this, Augustine dealt with this, and numerous others through the centuries to our time. "And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." The manner in which the rich young ruler addressed Jesus was based on a mixture of truth and error. The truth was, Jesus was good. The error was, Jesus was only a good man. Jesus did not deny that He was good, or say anything to indicate that He was not God. Rather, His response gave the young man opportunity to conclude for himself, according to his own observation of Jesus' real goodness, that Jesus must be not only a man, but also God in human flesh. Sadly, the man did not so conclude; he did not put his full faith in Jesus, as his action moments later would show.

One cannot imagine these verses teach any separation between the Father and the Son in their essential nature, unless one is willing to concede that Jesus was also teaching that He Himself was not good.

Jesus is good, and Jesus is God.




The Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed and virtually every other Roman, Orthodox and Protestant creed to the present day deny that there are three entities. They affirm three persons, but only one entity. Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent their position? Is it because you cannot deal with it unless you create this straw man?

As for Hinduism, their view of God is quite different. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are personal and therefore not considered "real." Only Brahman is impersonal and considered "real." Remember, Hinduism is pantheistic and everything is considered to be God. It is through reincarnation that we lose our personality and return to the true state as part of the impersonal God. While we have personality we are still part of "maya," the illusion.



I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. We could re-argue the whole of Nicea, but what good would it do? You don't like the idea that Jesus is God. If I show from each Gospel that they teach the deity of Jesus will that change your mind? I don't think so. All of that information has been available for 2,000 years. All you have to do is look it up. The Internet makes it easy. So it is not a matter of the info being unavailable. It is simply a matter of insisting upon being contrarian.

The fact that many of the Fathers prior to Nicea and going back into the NT believed that Jesus was God, was there, but you either ignored it or just didn't care to find out if what you were making up was true.

What is the real problem you have with Christianity? I am really interested in finding out.

Regards,

Z


Seems Darkwolf has met his match :) , or at least some one who can hang with him. In any regard Z welcome to the board...good to have you. It seems you and Darkwolf are going to have some great posts that we all can learn from...and enjoy.

[Fobra]

Seems Darkwolf has met his match :) , or at least some one who can hang with him. In any regard Z welcome to the board...good to have you. It seems you and Darkwolf are going to have some great posts that we all can learn from...and enjoy.

X2! :D

welcome Zorro! I'm enjoying the discussions :D

[zorro]

Seems Darkwolf has met his match :) , or at least some one who can hang with him. In any regard Z welcome to the board...good to have you. It seems you and Darkwolf are going to have some great posts that we all can learn from...and enjoy.

Thank you and Fobra for the welcome!

But there are no matches to be met here. We are just people sharing ideas with one another. Darkwolf seems like a very intelligent fellow. I am sure we will learn lots from each other.

Regards,

Z

[DarkWolf]

I don't know why we are still on this. Your initial post said that trinitarian doctrine didn't come about until "some 300 years after Jesus died, during the Council of Nicea." Hippolytus and Novation was just one of many examples proving you
wrong. You were wrong, let's move on.

Correct, and I conceded my error, and refined my statement. However, you had mentioned that "De Trinitate" was sometimes attributed to Novatian instead of Hippolytus. I was merely pointing out how both men were of similar nature, and not particularly in favor with the church.

Why don't you ask Hippolytus if it is the same thing. Or John, who wrote Revelations while being exiled. Or Napeoleon, who returned to rule a second time. The point is that being banished and being killed is not the same thing. And further, Hippolytus was not banished because of the trinity. As I said before it is time to move on.

He was banished because of his opposition to the pope, and electing himself antipope. I said he was banished for his dissenting views... which included the trinity, but was not limited to the trinity.

Please, Athanatius dealt with this, Augustine dealt with this, and numerous others through the centuries to our time. "And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." The manner in which the rich young ruler addressed Jesus was based on a mixture of truth and error. The truth was, Jesus was good. The error was, Jesus was only a good man. Jesus did not deny that He was good, or say anything to indicate that He was not God. Rather, His response gave the young man opportunity to conclude for himself, according to his own observation of Jesus' real goodness, that Jesus must be not only a man, but also God in human flesh. Sadly, the man did not so conclude; he did not put his full faith in Jesus, as his action moments later would show.

One cannot imagine these verses teach any separation between the Father and the Son in their essential nature, unless one is willing to concede that Jesus was also teaching that He Himself was not good.

Jesus is good, and Jesus is God.

Or it could be that Jesus was saying he is not God. The man choosing not to give up his riches shows Jesus is God? But then there's

Mark 10:26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

where Jesus is again differentiating himself from God. He doesn't say "believe in me, and you'll be saved" as paraphrased from John's gospel... he tells his followers, those already believing in him, that God is salvation.

The Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed and virtually every other Roman, Orthodox and Protestant creed to the present day deny that there are three entities. They affirm three persons, but only one entity. Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent their position? Is it because you cannot deal with it unless you create this straw man?

As for Hinduism, their view of God is quite different. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are personal and therefore not considered "real." Only Brahman is impersonal and considered "real." Remember, Hinduism is pantheistic and everything is considered to be God. It is through reincarnation that we lose our personality and return to the true state as part of the impersonal God. While we have personality we are still part of "maya," the illusion.

Again, the three persons one entity, is the same as the Hindu view. The Hindu trinity does not appear in the Vedas, much the same as the Christian trinity does not appear in the Bible. The three gods are all manifestations of God... much like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all manifestations of God. Seperate persons (personas), but the same being/entity.

I'm not misrepresenting their position at all. What I'm saying is the idea this position constitutes monotheism is unfounded. If the three faces of God in Christianity is monotheistic, then it would have to be so for all Trinity God religions. The Trinity God concept is a pagan concept, rejected by Judaism, resurrected by Christianity.

An interesting tidbit, Jesus's name is often shortened/abbreviated to the monogram "IHS". The Egyptian Trinity God consists of Isis, Horus, and Seth (or Seb)... or I.H.S. Certainly intriguing. Then, there's the Greek god Bacchus, who's name is also abbreviated as IHS... he's known as Tammuz in the Old Testament. His birthday was celebrated on December 25. His symbol is a fish. All nicely wrapped in Sun God worship... and Jesus is depicted with a sun disc (halo) eminating rays of light... much like all the pagan Sun Gods before him. There's plenty more examples, easily found by simple google searches, if you're interested.

I more or less innocuously mentioned in the christmas tree thread that it could be argued that Christianity is a resurrected Sun God religion, under a new name. It was a statement made on nothing more than taking the symbolism of christmas, and Jesus, and knowing that christmas was originally a pagan festival for the rebirth of the sun god.

But I've since been looking more into it, and it's either a huge coincidence, or Christianity really is a revived pagan religion of Sun God worship.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish. We could re-argue the whole of Nicea, but what good would it do? You don't like the idea that Jesus is God. If I show from each Gospel that they teach the deity of Jesus will that change your mind? I don't think so. All of that information has been available for 2,000 years. All you have to do is look it up. The Internet makes it easy. So it is not a matter of the info being unavailable. It is simply a matter of insisting upon being contrarian.

The fact that many of the Fathers prior to Nicea and going back into the NT believed that Jesus was God, was there, but you either ignored it or just didn't care to find out if what you were making up was true.

What is the real problem you have with Christianity? I am really interested in finding out.

Regards,

Z

I have no problem with Christianity. I think Christians have been duped, however. And it's certainly not a matter of making up the information. Most of the information comes directly from Christian sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Cross-referencing is done when a recurring theme is found... such as the IHS, sun disc, fish, and December 25 themes mentioned above. I make an effort to be concise, as I tend to be wordy... because of that, occasionally I must either revise my initial statement(s) (such as previous posts), or refine them, or expand upon them in followup posts.

But there are no matches to be met here. We are just people sharing ideas with one another. Darkwolf seems like a very intelligent fellow. I am sure we will learn lots from each other.

I do agree with this :)

[Fobra]

<--- sits back eating popcorn :D

[zorro]

Correct, and I conceded my error, and refined my statement. However, you had mentioned that "De Trinitate" was sometimes attributed to Novatian instead of Hippolytus. I was merely pointing out how both men were of similar nature, and not particularly in favor with the church.

Then we agree that De Trinitate was written between 200 AD - 250 AD by Hippolitus or Novation. Both of whom fell out of favor with the Roman church.


He was banished because of his opposition to the pope, and electing himself antipope. I said he was banished for his dissenting views... which included the trinity, but was not limited to the trinity.

Hippolytus was not banished because he belived in the trinity. You will find no historical fact to that. He was banished because he set up and maintained for years a counter-see to the bishop of Rome. This was because the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus, would not rule on the on the newly emerging salbellian heresy (c. 215 AD).


Again, the three persons one entity, is the same as the Hindu view. The Hindu trinity does not appear in the Vedas, much the same as the Christian trinity does not appear in the Bible. The three gods are all manifestations of God... much like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all manifestations of God. Seperate persons (personas), but the same being/entity.

In Hinduism you are as much God as is Shiva. Shiva is an avatar, but no less Maya than you. Once again in pantheism, everthing is God. That is what pantheism means, "all is God." Do you think because there is the number three that Hinduism and Christianity are somehow the same? Are three Gods the same as three scoops of ice cream? They both have the number three. The cosmological position of pantheism and theism are mutually exclusive. That means if one is true the other is necessarily false. There can be no comparison between them.

In pantheism everything is God. There is no seperation and God and the universe are the same substance.

In theism the universe is seperate and different substance from God.


In Hinduism Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are imperfect manafestations of God, because they are personal.

In Christianity the three persons are not manafestations God, they are God.


In Hinduism personality is to be loathed and rejected.

In Christainity personilty is specially created and intended and celebrated.


In Hinduism casts are set by skin color, wealth and gender.

In Christainity all are one in Christ.


In Hinduism one achieves "salvation" by doing enough "good works" (karma) from one life to another (reincarnation) that personality is finally conquered and one returns to the impersonal.

In Christianity salvation comes by admitting you are a sinner and trusting the work of Christ on the cross as a sufficent sacrafice for your sins. Therefore, receiving the righteousness of Christ as your own.

With the exception of the number three, there are no similarities between Hinduism and Christianity.



I'm not misrepresenting their position at all. What I'm saying is the idea this position constitutes monotheism is unfounded. If the three faces of God in Christianity is monotheistic, then it would have to be so for all Trinity God religions. The Trinity God concept is a pagan concept, rejected by Judaism, resurrected by Christianity.

This shows a misunderstanding of paganism, Judaism and Christianity. The pagan relligions are mostly based on some sort of animism. Once again you think because the number three appears that there is some intricate connection. You could also make the same case for the numbers one, two, four and five. This is a genetic fallacy and nothing more.


An interesting tidbit, Jesus's name is often shortened/abbreviated to the monogram "IHS". The Egyptian Trinity God consists of Isis, Horus, and Seth (or Seb)... or I.H.S. Certainly intriguing. Then, there's the Greek god Bacchus, who's name is also abbreviated as IHS... he's known as Tammuz in the Old Testament. His birthday was celebrated on December 25. His symbol is a fish. All nicely wrapped in Sun God worship... and Jesus is depicted with a sun disc (halo) eminating rays of light... much like all the pagan Sun Gods before him. There's plenty more examples, easily found by simple google searches, if you're interested.

Once again, genetic fallacies and nothing more.

I more or less innocuously mentioned in the christmas tree thread that it could be argued that Christianity is a resurrected Sun God religion, under a new name. It was a statement made on nothing more than taking the symbolism of christmas, and Jesus, and knowing that christmas was originally a pagan festival for the rebirth of the sun god.

The origins of the decorations of Christmas mean nothing to the essence of the Christianity. Do you think there were Christmas trees in 100 AD? 200 AD? 300 AD? etc... The Christmas tree and the surounding decorations had their origins in other festivals. They were taken and given new Christian meanings. They have nothing to do with the origin of Christianity. Why would anyone even bring that up? No one has ever suggested that there was a Christmas tree at the manger scene. Or that it is in some way a sacrament. You confuse the trapping that have developed over time with the essence of the Christian position. Don't do that. It is a fallacious argument. By showing that the original Christmas trees were used by Germans, in no way disproves the resurrection of Jesus.


I have no problem with Christianity. I think Christians have been duped, however. And it's certainly not a matter of making up the information. Most of the information comes directly from Christian sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Cross-referencing is done when a recurring theme is found... such as the IHS, sun disc, fish, and December 25 themes mentioned above. I make an effort to be concise, as I tend to be wordy... because of that, occasionally I must either revise my initial statement(s) (such as previous posts), or refine them, or expand upon them in followup posts.


Well this is far more to the heart of the matter. Let's get rid of all the above and work on this. Let's also rid ourselves of the genetic fallacies you mention here. Let's deal with how Christians have been duped. Shall we start with the resurrection?

Regards,

Z

[Fobra]

Just in case nobody knows what a genetic fallacy is...

The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it.

So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

[zorro]

Just in case nobody knows what a genetic fallacy is...

The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it.

So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Satan has the title of "The Dark Lord"

Our friend on this site has the title of the "Dark Wolf"

Since they both have "dark" in their titles, they must be related. Ergo "Dark Wolf" is another verson of Satan!

Kinda silly, huh? But an exact equivalent to what was presented.

Regards,

Z

[DarkWolf]

And this is precisely why it's pointless arguing these basic foundations of christianity with christians. You can so easily throw out the "genetic fallacy" or "simple logic" arguments, without even beginning to contemplate the matter. You might as well be ... as I said before, poking your fingers in your ears, and saying "la la la I can't hear you!"

Facts about symbolism were presented for you, linking Christianity to paganism. "Genetic fallacy" you say. Oh how convenient it must be for you in your unquestioning faith, to turn a deaf ear to the facts surrounding you, whenever it's convenient. Why challenge your faith? Certainly you're not worried that you'll somehow lose it, are you?

The point I was making in referring to the christmas tree thread was, as I said, innocous at the time, but the more I've looked into it, the less innocous it seems. It was not to infer that the christmas tree had something to do with Jesus' birth (which it certainly doesn't from a christian perspective). The point of that thread is you have taken a pagan tradition, and continue it today... and yet you find nothing wrong with that. Even though God said no gods before him. As the tree represents the rebirth of the sun god... or by some convoluted way of thinking, Jesus' birth (convoluted by contemporary thinking... certainly wasn't convoluted when the tradition was taken back up since Jesus seems to be a new name for a sun god), it's an idol, which is forbidden by the 2nd commandment... and yet you see nothing wrong with that. OH YEAH... convenient that Jesus delivered you from the old laws so now you don't have to worry about following those crazy commandments anymore.

Regarding the Trinity God, you fail to understand that it doesn't matter that some pagan practices are associated with animism, or that Hinduism may perceive the three gods as personal (you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus?)... The trinities serve the same purpose in those religions, as it does in Christianity. The three gods of the trinity are THE God... whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, Egyptian, Greek/Roman, Wiccan, Druidic, etc. For the christian trinity to work, Father, Son, Holy Spirit MUST be manifestations of God. Seperate though they may be. If they aren't manefestations, then they cannot be ONE... they can only be seperate entities that are not God, and then you've got 3 gods at the head of christianity.

Simply because the cultural tennants of the religions differ, doesn't prove their cores to be different. At their cores, they teach a way to salvation. It's no doubt there will be cultural differences between the religions, being they were generally isolated from one another. I've no doubt in my mind that if God wanted us to know about him, that he would've given his message to all cultures, not just one isolated group of people in the middle east. His "chosen people"? Please. That's a cultural interpretation. If you're to believe Genesis, and that Adam and Eve were the only two people created, then we're all from the same bloodline so we're all his "chosen people". Bearing that in mind, the idea that God would choose one group over all others is absurd. Instead of choosing one group and forcing them to suffer oppression by other groups of similar thought (ie: they're God's chosen... their way is the right way, etc), he simply could've wiped everyone else out, and been done with the whole mess if he really wanted to play favorites.

It's impossible to have a reasonable, rational debate, when you immediately retreat to the tired old lines as soon as something you don't want to deal with is brought up. You stick your head in the sand, you throw out misdirections, you offhandedly reject any factual content brought up that's contrary to what you believe... calling it "genetic fallacies" or "simple linear logic", among other catch phrases. I honestly was excited that we might have a healthy debate going, based on your first couple posts... but you've shattered those illusions with these last couple posts. I can see it's going to be another round of pointless, circular reasoning, and arguing in circles ad nauseum. And yet I'll probably trudge on, as always. I might as well be arguing with a brick wall :-/

Here, let me try out your tactics

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Satan has the title of "The Dark Lord"

Our friend on this site has the title of the "Dark Wolf"

Since they both have "dark" in their titles, they must be related. Ergo "Dark Wolf" is another verson of Satan!

Kinda silly, huh? But an exact equivalent to what was presented.

Simple linear logic and nothing more! Not even a genetic fallacy! Let's shed these fallacies and move on, ignore everything up until this point because it's irrelevant.

...

Should I be puffing my chest out now, or something, showing myself how awesome I am that I just simultaneously discredited everything you said, and I didn't bother to back up my rebuttal, leaving it as a proclamation that surely you can't argue against? :rolleyes:

The pure absurdity that one can't use historical facts to back up their arguments is mind-numbing. However that's not a genetic fallacy as it's defined... you simply want it to be one so you can ignore the facts presented. The facts presented are completely relevant to this discussion, in that they present a clear link between Christianity and various pagan religions. You won't even accept it as coincidental evidence, you simply reject the idea outright, and claim it's irrelevant.

Bravo.

How about, instead of starting with the resurrection, we start with you giving a resonable explaination as to why Yeshuha, was changed to Jesus (or Iesus/Iesous) in the bible, when no other names were changed? Why change the savior from the proper Jewish name Yeshuha (Joshua would be the modern usage), to the Greco-roman Iesus? And given the name change is the masculine form of Ieso, a Greco-roman goddess, grandaughter of Apollo... should we ignore once again the link between Christianity and paganism... more specifically sun god worship?

[zorro]

And this is precisely why it's pointless arguing these basic foundations of christianity with christians. You can so easily throw out the "genetic fallacy" or "simple logic" arguments, without even beginning to contemplate the matter. You might as well be ... as I said before, poking your fingers in your ears, and saying "la la la I can't hear you!"

Facts about symbolism were presented for you, linking Christianity to paganism. "Genetic fallacy" you say. Oh how convenient it must be for you in your unquestioning faith, to turn a deaf ear to the facts surrounding you, whenever it's convenient. Why challenge your faith? Certainly you're not worried that you'll somehow lose it, are you?

Let's see how this works. I point out that your argument is based on a logical fallacy and you respond with another logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Hominem). My position is that logical fallacies are bad and lead to false conclusions. Do you really want to be the one that holds that logical fallacies are OK?

You want to try and link Christianity to paganism? OK, give it a try, but why not try to do it without committing a fallacy. If the only way you can do it is by committing a fallacy, it becames quite clear to everyone reading this that it is a bad agrument on the face of it. You really need to rethink this before moving forward with it. I gave you the opportunity to just let it go, without anything more being said, you should take it.


The point I was making in referring to the christmas tree thread was, as I said, innocous at the time, but the more I've looked into it, the less innocous it seems. It was not to infer that the christmas tree had something to do with Jesus' birth (which it certainly doesn't from a christian perspective). The point of that thread is you have taken a pagan tradition, and continue it today... and yet you find nothing wrong with that. Even though God said no gods before him. As the tree represents the rebirth of the sun god... or by some convoluted way of thinking, Jesus' birth (convoluted by contemporary thinking... certainly wasn't convoluted when the tradition was taken back up since Jesus seems to be a new name for a sun god), it's an idol, which is forbidden by the 2nd commandment... and yet you see nothing wrong with that. OH YEAH... convenient that Jesus delivered you from the old laws so now you don't have to worry about following those crazy commandments anymore.

This is what you don't seem to get, and why it is a fallacy. It's origin (or genesis, hence the term genetic fallacy) has no bearing on the meaning today. Egads! for many it is not even a Christian symbol. Many Jews and atheists put up Christmas trees. Do you think they are worshiping Jesus or a Sun God? There are only so many symbols out there, some of them are bound to get recycled. An idol is something that is worshipped. How many Christians do you know that worship a Christmas tree? I don't know any. Not much of an idol is no one is worshiping it. But that is what happens when you insist on holding to a fallacy as the core of your argument.

Regarding the Trinity God, you fail to understand that it doesn't matter that some pagan practices are associated with animism, or that Hinduism may perceive the three gods as personal (you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus?)... The trinities serve the same purpose in those religions, as it does in Christianity. The three gods of the trinity are THE God... whether it's Christianity, Hinduism, Egyptian, Greek/Roman, Wiccan, Druidic, etc. For the christian trinity to work, Father, Son, Holy Spirit MUST be manifestations of God. Seperate though they may be. If they aren't manefestations, then they cannot be ONE... they can only be seperate entities that are not God, and then you've got 3 gods at the head of christianity.

Once again, the only thing they have in common is the number three. They also have the numbers one, two, four and five in common in other areas. The same can be said for any other philosophy too; including atheism.

Let's try this: Christianity says that there is only one original being. Atheism says that there is only one original being. Therefore, atheism is really Christianity in disquise. Does that make any sense? They both insist on only one orginal being, therefore they must be the same, or at least based on each other.

That is the same fallacy you use. It draws the same false conclusion.


Simply because the cultural tennants of the religions differ, doesn't prove their cores to be different. At their cores, they teach a way to salvation. It's no doubt there will be cultural differences between the religions, being they were generally isolated from one another. I've no doubt in my mind that if God wanted us to know about him, that he would've given his message to all cultures, not just one isolated group of people in the middle east. His "chosen people"? Please. That's a cultural interpretation. If you're to believe Genesis, and that Adam and Eve were the only two people created, then we're all from the same bloodline so we're all his "chosen people". Bearing that in mind, the idea that God would choose one group over all others is absurd. Instead of choosing one group and forcing them to suffer oppression by other groups of similar thought (ie: they're God's chosen... their way is the right way, etc), he simply could've wiped everyone else out, and been done with the whole mess if he really wanted to play favorites.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of the worlds religions. Most of them don't have salvation anywhere in them. That is a cultural term we in the west give to their ultimate end. In many of them, there is nothing to be saved. In some, this world we live in is just an illusion. There is nothing to save and nothing to be saved from. Billions of people believe this.

As to your second point, no religion stands or falls simply because you do not like it. Your subjective preference on how you think things should or should not be done, has no bearing on the truth value of anything.

It's impossible to have a reasonable, rational debate, when you immediately retreat to the tired old lines as soon as something you don't want to deal with is brought up. You stick your head in the sand, you throw out misdirections, you offhandedly reject any factual content brought up that's contrary to what you believe... calling it "genetic fallacies" or "simple linear logic", among other catch phrases. I honestly was excited that we might have a healthy debate going, based on your first couple posts... but you've shattered those illusions with these last couple posts. I can see it's going to be another round of pointless, circular reasoning, and arguing in circles ad nauseum. And yet I'll probably trudge on, as always. I might as well be arguing with a brick wall :-/

What we mean by rational debate is a debate without logical falalcies. But in the above you insist on maintaining your fallacy, and rejecting rational debate. Facts of themselves mean nothing. To understand the meaning of facts, they must be put into a inductive or deductive framework to draw conclusions. No framework, no conclusions. Your framework is fallacious, ergo your conclusions are fallacious. This is simple logic, because you have only offered simple and obvious fallacies. But why do I even have to say this? IF you choose to reject logic and maintain this fallacy, there is nothing more to say. I have only rational arguments, I don't have any irrational arguments to offer you. Everything I say will be based on either inductive or deductive logic. If you reject logic you will also reject my arguments. You deicde what you want to do.


Z

[DarkWolf]

Let's see how this works. I point out that your argument is based on a logical fallacy and you respond with another logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Hominem). My position is that logical fallacies are bad and lead to false conclusions. Do you really want to be the one that holds that logical fallacies are OK?

You want to try and link Christianity to paganism? OK, give it a try, but why not try to do it without committing a fallacy. If the only way you can do it is by committing a fallacy, it becames quite clear to everyone reading this that it is a bad agrument on the face of it. You really need to rethink this before moving forward with it. I gave you the opportunity to just let it go, without anything more being said, you should take it.




This is what you don't seem to get, and why it is a fallacy. It's origin (or genesis, hence the term genetic fallacy) has no bearing on the meaning today. Egads! for many it is not even a Christian symbol. Many Jews and atheists put up Christmas trees. Do you think they are worshiping Jesus or a Sun God? There are only so many symbols out there, some of them are bound to get recycled. An idol is something that is worshipped. How many Christians do you know that worship a Christmas tree? I don't know any. Not much of an idol is no one is worshiping it. But that is what happens when you insist on holding to a fallacy as the core of your argument.



Once again, the only thing they have in common is the number three. They also have the numbers one, two, four and five in common in other areas. The same can be said for any other philosophy too; including atheism.

Let's try this: Christianity says that there is only one original being. Atheism says that there is only one original being. Therefore, atheism is really Christianity in disquise. Does that make any sense? They both insist on only one orginal being, therefore they must be the same, or at least based on each other.

That is the same fallacy you use. It draws the same false conclusion.




This shows a complete misunderstanding of the worlds religions. Most of them don't have salvation anywhere in them. That is a cultural term we in the west give to their ultimate end. In many of them, there is nothing to be saved. In some, this world we live in is just an illusion. There is nothing to save and nothing to be saved from. Billions of people believe this.

As to your second point, no religion stands or falls simply because you do not like it. Your subjective preference on how you think things should or should not be done, has no bearing on the truth value of anything.



What we mean by rational debate is a debate without logical falalcies. But in the above you insist on maintaining your fallacy, and rejecting rational debate. Facts of themselves mean nothing. To understand the meaning of facts, they must be put into a inductive or deductive framework to draw conclusions. No framework, no conclusions. Your framework is fallacious, ergo your conclusions are fallacious. This is simple logic, because you have only offered simple and obvious fallacies. But why do I even have to say this? IF you choose to reject logic and maintain this fallacy, there is nothing more to say. I have only rational arguments, I don't have any irrational arguments to offer you. Everything I say will be based on either inductive or deductive logic. If you reject logic you will also reject my arguments. You deicde what you want to do.


Z

I'll be quick with this.

Yeah, I used the ad hominem fallacy. It was intentional. If you're going to reject any facts presented simply because you don't agree with them, then why should I bother formulating rational arguments?

Your stance against the Trinity God philosophy has been nothing but fallacy. The underlying meaning is the same for them all, yet you're fixated on assuming that simply because each has three, that that is the reason I'm arguing their similarity.

As for "salvation" being the core of religion, my intention was not to indicate salvation as being "saved", as in the christian definition, but salvation as eternal life. To my knowledge, none of the major religions preach that there's nothing after death... they all preach "life after death". Some adhere to one life, then afterlife, others adhere to reincarnation as a way to "perfect" your soul for the afterlife. I used salvation, as it's the most recognizable term to indicate a life after death for religion, that doesn't include an eternity in some hell/hades/gehenna/etc. You fail to distinguish the christian definition of salvation, from the general definition which includes liberation from ignorance and illusion, and preservation from desctruction or failure, which quite acceptably describes the core of the major religions... their teachings of salvation.

So, to end this one... Yeshuha... what's up with that? I see you completely ignored that as well.

[Fobra]

I'll be quick with this.

If you're going to reject any facts presented simply because you don't agree with them, then why should I bother formulating rational arguments?

I could be wrong on this and Zorro can correct me if I'm wrong but...

I don't think he necessarily "rejected" the facts, it's just that he rejected your conclusions due to their fallacious structure.

Your stance against the Trinity God philosophy has been nothing but fallacy.

Which fallacy?

[DarkWolf]

I could be wrong on this and Zorro can correct me if I'm wrong but...

I don't think he necessarily "rejected" the facts, it's just that he rejected your conclusions due to their fallacious structure.



Which fallacy?

What's fallacious about presenting facts? I made no definitive conclusions on them, simply presented them as they are. Jesus's name is often shortened to IHS. Bacchus name is often shortened to IHS, his birthday is celebrated on December 25th, and his symbol is a fish. The Egyptian Trinity is the initials IHS. While it's not absolutely conclusive, it raises some questions ... or should raise some questions, if your rational mind hasn't been completely wiped out. Questions that should prompt further investigation as to why these recurring themes exist.

As for which fallacy pertaining to his stance on my view of the Trinity God phillosophy, it's appealing to consequences. Rejecting my argument based on some irrelevant perception that I must be arguing for them being the same based on the fact that there are 3 entities in each trinity. I must be wrong, because for me to be right would prove the Christian Trinity is pagan in origin. And if that's pagan in origin, then Christianity is pagan in origin. We can't accept that, so we'll reject it and throw out a red herring (part of the genetic fallacy of assuming I'm arguing based on them all having the recurring 3 entities) to distract other readers from the real argument.

It's classic misdirection. You guys seem to love it. Personally I don't see the point, because to anyone thinking rationally it's blatantly obvious... and it just makes you look weak minded, because you resort to ignoring the real issue, and change the subject to something unrelated. It indicates you can't effectively argue the point, so rather than trying and potentially seeming foolish, you misdirect and change the subject.

[zorro]

I'll be quick with this.

Yeah, I used the ad hominem fallacy. It was intentional. If you're going to reject any facts presented simply because you don't agree with them, then why should I bother formulating rational arguments?

The point is I didn't reject any facts. I acknowledge that a pine tree had been used by other groups and that Dec. 25th had been used by other groups. I just rejected your argument that those facts constituted an argument against Christianity. I did that because, as I showed, your argument was nothing more than a logical fallacy. You are the one who has decided to throw logic out the window, rather than a bad argument. That is not a good thing. Do you mean to say that the only way you can maintain your contra Christian position is to use fallacies? If not, then let's have a real rational argument and see how that goes. You can't expect people to roll over and say Christianity is false based on your fallacious argument. If I offered you a fallacious argument for believing Christianity would you accept it or would you say, "that's a fallacious argument, I'm not going to accept that"? I think it would be the latter; I hope it would. So, you can't expect other people to accept bad arguments when you make them. Doesn't that seem fair? I won't insist you accept fallacious arguments, you don't insist that I accept fallacious arguments.

Your stance against the Trinity God philosophy has been nothing but fallacy. The underlying meaning is the same for them all, yet you're fixated on assuming that simply because each has three, that that is the reason I'm arguing their similarity.

Oh yeah, name the fallacy and show where it was committed. In Hinduism, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma and the other millions of avatars are not real. They are part of Maya, the illusion. They are just the three best known avatars. Krishna is another well known avatar. What do you do with him? Now you got four. Would you like me to list a few hundred more? They are all just as much God as Vishnu. You are just as much God as Vishnu. Where in the world do you see any similarity besides the number three.

As for "salvation" being the core of religion, my intention was not to indicate salvation as being "saved", as in the christian definition, but salvation as eternal life. To my knowledge, none of the major religions preach that there's nothing after death... they all preach "life after death". Some adhere to one life, then afterlife, others adhere to reincarnation as a way to "perfect" your soul for the afterlife. I used salvation, as it's the most recognizable term to indicate a life after death for religion, that doesn't include an eternity in some hell/hades/gehenna/etc. You fail to distinguish the christian definition of salvation, from the general definition which includes liberation from ignorance and illusion, and preservation from desctruction or failure, which quite acceptably describes the core of the major religions... their teachings of salvation.

Here you agree with my point. Salvation is different amoung the religions. They are not the same. For Hinduism the object is for NO AFTERLIFE. If you have an after life, you did something wrong, and you have to do it over again. They want only to have their personality eliminated.

The fact that all religions has some goal does not make them the same. Virtually everything you do has some goal in mind. Sports fishing has a goal and so does working the assembly line at General Motors. That doesn't mean work and fishing are the same thing, even though they both have goals. Even within similar things there are diferences. For instance you can make money by working at GM, you can also make money by holding up liquor stores. Do you consider these the same because they both have the same end in mind? Unlike the religions of the worlds, this last example has the exact same end in mine, i.e. money.

So, to end this one... Yeshuha... what's up with that? I see you completely ignored that as well.

I ignored it because it is insignificant. This happens all the time, even today. My Dad came to the USA from Greece when he was 14 years old. He didn't use his Greek name Charolos here, He used one of the several English equivalents, Harry. When he got letters back from Greece, my releatives didn't use my American name, they used a Greek equivalent.

This was common in Jesus culture too. He had a Hebrew version of his name, which was used at his circumcision, but a Greek version that was used by Pilate and Herod and everyone speaking Greek. He had no problem with that, neither do I. The NT is written in Greek and the writers used the Greek version.

It is not just Jesus. Do you think they said "Peter" back then, or "James." Even "Pilate" is a cut down version. You realize in Latin it is pronounced Yeah-su, and in spanish it is hey- suz. This happens to the great majority of names when they go from one culture to another. Its not a big deal and has no significance.

How do you know that his name was Yeshuha? We have no documents about him with that name. The only way we know it is because we assume he had a Hebrew equivalent of the Greek. Everything early document we have written uses the Greek. Those are the facts.

Once again these are irrelavent, peripheral arguments. When you want to deal with the core issues and use logic, let me know.

Z

[zorro]

As for which fallacy pertaining to his stance on my view of the Trinity God phillosophy, it's appealing to consequences.

The fallacy you are trying to referent could be "appeal to consequences." This is a fallacy that says a position is true or false based on the outcome. For example, Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences. However, I never referred to the outcome as a basis of my criticism, but to the form of the argument that is based on a fallacy. The other possibility that you might be trying to cite is called "affirming the consequent." It is a formal fallacy that can be committed in a conditional syllogism. The problem is that I offered no conditional syllogism, so there is no way to have committed that fallacy either. It might help if you understand the fallacy before accusing someone of committing it.

[DarkWolf]

Matthew = Mattithyahu <- Hebrew
Mark = Marcus <- Roman
Paul = Paulus <- Roman
Luke = Luca <- Roman
Simon = Shim'on <- Hebrew (Peter was the name given to him by Jesus)
James = Jacob = Ya'aqov/Yakov (pronounced Yay-kub) <- Hebrew
Pilate is the surname of Pontius <- Roman

Jesus = Iesous <- Greek

Which namesake doesn't fit with biblical culture, during the time of Jesus prior to his crucifixion? That culture being Hebrews and Romans.

It's not irrelevant when the only name significantly altered was that of Jesus. True there is no solid documentation that his name was actually Yeshuha... but there is documentation that he was born Jewish/Hebrew, so it's reasonable to assume he would not be given a Greek name. Since Yeshuha has no actual Greek equivalent, it's ok to change his name to a derivative of a pagan god? With a lack of proper equivalent, while translating to a native tounge, it's a general practice to retain the original word/name (sometimes italicized to show emphasis). In the case of a non-name word, a parenthetical description/definition is given to show what the word means. In the case of a name, no definition is needed... it's accepted that it's a name. No need for transliteration, in writing, or speaking.

Sadly, you still aren't getting that the relation of the various pagan Trinities with the Christian Trinity has nothing to do with the number three.

Here, this picture perfectly sums up our ... "debate" thusfar:
http://www.sanko-wild.com/sirent/ham712.jpg

[zorro]

Matthew = Mattithyahu <- Hebrew
Mark = Marcus <- Roman
Paul = Paulus <- Roman
Luke = Luca <- Roman
Simon = Shim'on <- Hebrew (Peter was the name given to him by Jesus)
James = Jacob = Ya'aqov/Yakov (pronounced Yay-kub) <- Hebrew
Pilate is the surname of Pontius <- Roman

Jesus = Iesous <- Greek

Which namesake doesn't fit with biblical culture, during the time of Jesus prior to his crucifixion? That culture being Hebrews and Romans.

It's not irrelevant when the only name significantly altered was that of Jesus. True there is no solid documentation that his name was actually Yeshuha... but there is documentation that he was born Jewish/Hebrew, so it's reasonable to assume he would not be given a Greek name. Since Yeshuha has no actual Greek equivalent, it's ok to change his name to a derivative of a pagan god? With a lack of proper equivalent, while translating to a native tounge, it's a general practice to retain the original word/name (sometimes italicized to show emphasis). In the case of a non-name word, a parenthetical description/definition is given to show what the word means. In the case of a name, no definition is needed... it's accepted that it's a name. No need for transliteration, in writing, or speaking.

Sadly, you still aren't getting that the relation of the various pagan Trinities with the Christian Trinity has nothing to do with the number three.

Why are we still talking about this I already told you Yehoshua and Iesous are equivolents. All you have to do is a quick search and you would find that they both mean "The LORD saves." This has been known by everyone with any knowledge of the languages for the last 2000 years, or by anyone with the ability to do a search. Why don't you know it? And why are you still talking about it if you are not willing to do the simple research?

As for the trinity why don't you go over all the similarities without committing any fallacies or misrepresentations of any of the religions? That is all you have done so far, give us something new that doesn't make those errors.

Z

[DarkWolf]

Seriously I used to hold out some hope that there were rational people among Christians.

I knew one once. Great guy.

Haven't met any since.

And that's sad.

Bravo again. You've got the ultimate trump card for any reasonable debate. The bible. The bible says it's so, and the bible says it's the word of God, so it must be so. Perfection. Oh, you can try to hide behind a wall of psuedo-intellect and throw out philosophical terms and such, but it always boils down to rejecting anything that's contrary to the bible, because the bible can't be wrong.

Bravo.

You fawn disdain that'd I'd even consider proclaiming you've commited your own share of fallacies in this "debate". You claim you never refer to an outcome to base your critisism... and yet you state "For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false". I'd say that's a pretty clear statement of an outcome to base your critisism on. In otherwords, for the Hindu trinity to be true, would prove Christianity's pagan origins, and that's not an acceptable possibility for you, so you reject it.

Good job.

Spinning, spinning, spinning...

[TexasDevilDog]

Off topic, from left field psychobabble.

[SVT93Style]

I enjoyed reading this thread, but there is one thing I have to say...I am tired of hearing about this Christmas tree stuff!! I see both sides of the argument but I take the position that Zorro took a few post earlier...enough said.

Just curious how old are you DarkWolf...Zorro...whats your background as far as educaton goes...if its to personal don't answer...just curious.

[Fobra]

I enjoyed reading this thread, but there is one thing I have to say...I am tired of hearing about this Christmas tree stuff!! I see both sides of the argument but I take the position that Zorro took a few post earlier...enough said.

Just curious how old are you DarkWolf...Zorro...whats your background as far as educaton goes...if its to personal don't answer...just curious.

you can check out the profile of peeps to determin age, but Zorro didn't fill out his profile.

[Fobra]

Seriously I used to hold out some hope that there were rational people among Christians.

Bravo again. You've got the ultimate trump card for any reasonable debate. The bible. The bible says it's so, and the bible says it's the word of God, so it must be so. Perfection. Oh, you can try to hide behind a wall of psuedo-intellect and throw out philosophical terms and such, but it always boils down to rejecting anything that's contrary to the bible, because the bible can't be wrong.



If by 'rational' we mean using facts under an inductive and deductive framework and not appealing to logical fallacies, then yes, zorro fits a rational position.

As he noted:
What we mean by rational debate is a debate without logical falalcies. But in the above you insist on maintaining your fallacy, and rejecting rational debate. Facts of themselves mean nothing. To understand the meaning of facts, they must be put into a inductive or deductive framework to draw conclusions. No framework, no conclusions. Your framework is fallacious, ergo your conclusions are fallacious. This is simple logic, because you have only offered simple and obvious fallacies. But why do I even have to say this? IF you choose to reject logic and maintain this fallacy, there is nothing more to say. I have only rational arguments, I don't have any irrational arguments to offer you. Everything I say will be based on either inductive or deductive logic. If you reject logic you will also reject my arguments. You deicde what you want to do.

Zorro didn't have to use the Bible as the trump card. He merely pointed out the fallacies in your logic and perhaps that may have seemed as the trump card. Seems to me that you are having a hard time admitting defeat when zorro points out the fallacies in your arguments. It took you 3 posts to reject logic, what's the point for zorro to continue if you reject logic?

Why not start over and at a topic that is probably one of the important events in Christian history; the resurrection?

[DarkWolf]

No no, believe me the rant was a long time coming. Zorro's posts were merely the final straw. I really don't know why I bother attempting to shed any kind of reason upon people who clearly want none.

So, I guess congratulations are in order to all who worked to crack my sanity. Your complete and utter lack of comprehension, logic, and reason has combined it's efforts for the truely impressive task of making me break my normally calm demeanor, and lashing out in a fit of insanity (I really was actually cackling like a madman while writing that last post... it was surreal). I bow to your supreme ignorance and close-mindedness.

As for the resurrection, there's no solid evidence that it happened, and at the same time there's no solid evidence that it didn't happen. What's the point of arguing it? It either did or it didn't. It had to, for your beliefs to work. Me, however, it doesn't really matter whether or not it happened. If it did, then Jesus was God, and God is salvation, so the point is moot. If it didn't happen, then Jesus was just a man, a prophet, who himself proclaimed that salvation comes through God. Either way. God is salvation. I see no point in arguing whether or not it happened, because it's pointless, will only lead to more circular arguments, and ultimately there will be no clear cut answer as to whether or not it happened. We've had 2000 years of people looking for definitive proof one way or the other, and none has been found. I assure you, we aren't going to find proof on a message board.

The point of this last debate wasn't to prove or disprove. Zorro made the mistake that ... well pretty much every other Christian makes, by assuming that I'm attacking Chrisitianity. I don't care about Christianity. I don't care about Hinduism. I don't care about Islam. I don't intend to argue for or against any one particular religion. You're free to do what you want, my intent is to make you aware of where some of the things you do, come from. Take the christmas tree, for example... I know you're tired of it, SVT, I'll try to make it brief. Zorro wants to argue that it's irrelevant where it started, because it means something different now. But what he fails to understand is that it actually doesn't mean something different now. The truth has been obscured by a millenia and a half of doubletalk and propoganda. It doesn't change the fact that it's a pagan practice still in use to this day (by both pagans and Christians). It doesn't change the fact that it's forbidden by the 1st and 2nd commandments. But the church says it's ok, so why question? Papal infallability and all that good stuff.

The fact of the matter, is that Christianity adopted so many pagan traditions in its early efforts to convert pagans ... that it's now more related to those pagan religions than it is to Judaism from where it was born. Pagan themes, symbology, idols, rituals, holidays/festivals, names... I could go on, but there's really no point. You aren't going to see it, because you can't see it. To see the connection would at the least, raise questions... more likely doubts, and in extreme circumstances, a loss of faith. It's sad that you build your faith on this religion of Christianity, instead of the way of life, of spirituality, that Jesus taught. From the outside, as I am, it's easy to shed the religious ties. I see them for their true nature. I prefer God given spirituality over man-made religion.

There's a great line, unfortunately it comes from the movie Dogma, so the truth of it probably won't be recognized as it will be seen as nothing more than that: a line in a movie. But, the line goes something like this: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."

Religion builds up these structured belief systems, and constantly reinforce them to "drive the nail home" so to speak. But for the religions to be profitable (because let's not fool ourselves, religion is about two things, money and power... go back and read that passage from Mark, where Jesus tells the man to give up his money and come follow him. Now, how exactly do the massive cathedrals, awe inspiring and beautiful as they are, how do they communicate that message of living a humble life? What about the mega-churches popping up all over lately? Sure, there's still some small town, country churches that might fit 50 people or so, but they're a dying breed, and quickly being replaced by the megaplexes, which themselves are simply modern versions of the ancient cathedrals. And why exactly does God need 10% of my earnings?), there has to be a hook... that hook is fear. Fear induced, and reinforced by the "my way or hell" attitude.

The idea that there's only one right religion is absurd. All religions are flawed by their very nature. To follow one over any other is a fallacy. But once your sucked into those structured beliefs, it's nearly impossible to see things objectively. You are, by default, subjective in your reasoning (or lack of), because to be otherwise would require you to also argue against your beliefs. You can't be objective and only present one point of view. Because beliefs are structured on a subjective point of view, arguing contrary to them, is pointless... the believer will reject any contrary evidence, because otherwise it would call into question their own beliefs.

Ideas, on the otherhand, are inherently objective. It's easy to argue ideas against each other, switch back and forth and see things from all points of view. Philosophy is built on ideas. Using philisophical methods to argue religion will always result in deadlock. All parties will see error in each others arguments in any philosophical debate, but instead of reasonably discussing the differences and learning from each other... the subjective nature of religion requires contrary ideas to be rejected. Religion is not a philosophy, it is a rule.

And finally, to wrap up (told you I get wordy)... SVT, I'm 27, majored in computer animation and multimedia design.

Fobra, Zorro didn't have to reveal the bible as his trump card. It was quite evident by how he argued that this wasn't an objective debate, but instead was a debate from the subjective standpoint of "I'm right, so you're wrong". The only way to reinforce that standpoint (based upon this particular argument) is the bible, and it goes back to the circular reasoning. The bible says so, and the bible says it's the word of God, so it must be so. He even clearly pointed out his reasoning was purely subjective, by saying "For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false". In an objective debate, that statement would never be uttered. There's no hard and fast rule that if A is true, then B is false. In an objective debate, both can have truth, and the point of the debate is to ultimately reveal the underlying truth connecting the two ideas.

[zorro]

Bravo again. You've got the ultimate trump card for any reasonable debate. The bible. The bible says it's so, and the bible says it's the word of God, so it must be so. Perfection. Oh, you can try to hide behind a wall of psuedo-intellect and throw out philosophical terms and such, but it always boils down to rejecting anything that's contrary to the bible, because the bible can't be wrong.

What are you talking about? I haven't made any reference to the Bible. You have gone completely off your rocker. Surely your not suggesting that showing the Greek name, Iesous and the Hebrew name, Yeshuha mean the same thing is appealing to the Bible? That would be completely nuts.


Bravo.

You fawn disdain that'd I'd even consider proclaiming you've commited your own share of fallacies in this "debate". You claim you never refer to an outcome to base your critisism... and yet you state "For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false". I'd say that's a pretty clear statement of an outcome to base your critisism on. In otherwords, for the Hindu trinity to be true, would prove Christianity's pagan origins, and that's not an acceptable possibility for you, so you reject it.

Good job.

Are you intentionally trying to be dense? You accused me of "appealing to the consequent." I explained that fallacy to you, because you obviously had no clue what it was all about. Here, again, you prove to the world that you still have no clue how it works. The way this fallacy works is by arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences. Show the post that I ever said anything like that.

Now, the statement, "For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false," is the necessary implication of the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. Those are two of the four laws of logic. Hinduism and theism are mutually exclusive, therefore, for one to be true, the other must necessarily be false. Examples:

Hinduism says that God is impersonal
Theism says that God is personal

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Hinduism say the universe is illusion.
Theism says the universe is not illusion, but real.

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Hinduism says there is reincarnation.
Theism says there is no reincarnation.

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Need I go on?

The only thing I can really do at this point is suggest you take a course or two on logic. You really don't know how rational thought works and until you do, you will continue to commit fallacies and elementary logical errors (like asserting, as you did above, that the law of non-contradiction is a fallacy). The biggest problem is that even after a fallacy is pointed out to you and explained, you refuse to understand it, or you are simply are incapable of understanding it. I would think that before you reply, you would at least look it up. But, instead, I have to continually explain why a fallacy is a fallacy and how logic works, over and over again (that's the spinnig you were referring to). Life is too short for me to continue on like this. You need to get the background on how to reason before we can move on, or you can stay stuck on stupid for the rest of your life.

Z

[TexasDevilDog]

Out of no where comes......................

[DarkWolf]

Hinduism says that God is impersonal
Theism says that God is personal

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Hinduism say the universe is illusion.
Theism says the universe is not illusion, but real.

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Hinduism says there is reincarnation.
Theism says there is no reincarnation.

Both of those can not be true. For one to be true, the other must necessarily be false.

Need I go on?

No, you should really stop. Because you continue to fail to understand that the theological differences of the religions are irrelevant. The function of the Trinity's are the same. Judaism and Islam both reject the idea of a Trinity God, because the existance of such is polytheistic. Christianity embraces the Trinity God, yet tries to claim it's somehow still monotheistic. It's a theological impossibility to have 3 entities that are seperate persons/personas, but one God, and still be a monotheistic religion. The rule applies for Hinduism the same as it applies for Christianity, regardless of their theological differences.

The problem is that Christianity is accepted as monotheistic. Largely because the idea has been beaten into our heads for over a thousand years. From a time when people by and large couldn't read anything... much less latin and greek, or even hebrew. It was just accepted based on what was told. Unquestioned. Now, we're in a time when people by and large can read, and often including various languages. It's possible now for people to see the fallacy of Christianity's claim of monotheism... but arguing it is near impossible, because the very thought is rejected by Christians.

[TexasDevilDog]

I see it as the three states and purposes of god. It has nothing to do with a tree. :rolleyes:

[zorro]

No, you should really stop. Because you continue to fail to understand that the theological differences of the religions are irrelevant. The function of the Trinity's are the same. Judaism and Islam both reject the idea of a Trinity God, because the existance of such is polytheistic. Christianity embraces the Trinity God, yet tries to claim it's somehow still monotheistic. It's a theological impossibility to have 3 entities that are seperate persons/personas, but one God, and still be a monotheistic religion. The rule applies for Hinduism the same as it applies for Christianity, regardless of their theological differences.


Once again your ignorance of logic gets you into trouble. Hinduism is Monistic. The millions of Gods, not just three, (why do you ignore all the rest?) are either non-existent avatars or if materially existent, they are just part of the "real" God like everything else (like rocks, your house, you, etc...), depending on the denomination of Hinduism you are looking at. You are stuck on the number three, but that is just you. Hindus know that they believe in many, many Gods as explained aboved. In other words, you are just plain wrong. Ask a Hindu. You keep repeating the same stupid mistake. Learn something about Hinduism, before you make a fool of yourself again.

The problem is that Christianity is accepted as monotheistic. Largely because the idea has been beaten into our heads for over a thousand years. From a time when people by and large couldn't read anything... much less latin and greek, or even hebrew. It was just accepted based on what was told. Unquestioned. Now, we're in a time when people by and large can read, and often including various languages. It's possible now for people to see the fallacy of Christianity's claim of monotheism... but arguing it is near impossible, because the very thought is rejected by Christians.

Once again, your ignorance, lack of education, and lack of logic is showing. How do you get to be 27 years old and go through college and not have any classical education? Why do people believe that the Christian trinity is monotheistic? Why don't you try reading Athanatius (4th Century), Eusebius (4th Century), Ambrose of Milan (4th Century), Chrysostom (4th Century), Jerome (4th Century), Gregory of Nyssa (4th Century), Augustine (5th century), Anselm (11th Century), Thomas Aquinas (13th entury), Calvin (16th Century), Martin Luther (16th Century), John Wesley (18th century), George Whitfield (18th Century), Johnathan Edwards (18th Century), Charles Hodge (19th Century), or C. H. Spurgeon (19th Century). I picked these because they cover a wide time frame, all of them wrote heavily on the Trinity and why it is monotheistic and all of them are readily available on the Internet. There are another hundred or so, if you would like. Let me know when you have finished reading everything on this list and I will give you some more.

The fact is that these authors offered real arguments for their positions. Do you realize the average high school student of 50 years ago had to learn either Greek or Latin? Most college students knew both at graduation. It is only in your generation that a student can graduate college without knowing Greek, Latin or even English. I think you are projecting the ignorance of your generation on the rest of mankind. Oh sure, in every generation there are those who have no education at all, and some eras are worse than others. But your opinion that everyone accepted what they were told for thousands of years is just false. You do realize that there has just been TWO thousands of years since Christ, don't you?

So, here is the problem with your opinion. You once again commit a fallacy. This time it is a categorigal fallacy. If the doctrine of the trinity stated that there are three person and just one person, we would have a problem. If it stated that there are three substances and just one substance, we would have a problem. But it doesn't say that. It says that there are three person and only one substance. There is no logical problem with that. That is logically sound. You may not like it; but what do I care if someone who knows nothing about logic or history likes it or not? Once again, you need to get an education, not a meaningless diploma, but an education.

Z

[DarkWolf]

I see it as the three states and purposes of god. It has nothing to do with a tree. :rolleyes:

What?! :confused:

Your dumb confuses me.

Once again your ignorance of logic gets you into trouble. Hinduism is Monistic. The millions of Gods, not just three, (why do you ignore all the rest?) are either non-existent avatars or if materially existent, they are just part of the "real" God like everything else (like rocks, your house, you, etc...), depending on the denomination of Hinduism you are looking at. You are stuck on the number three, but that is just you. Hindus know that they believe in many, many Gods as explained aboved. In other words, you are just plain wrong. Ask a Hindu. You keep repeating the same stupid mistake. Learn something about Hinduism, before you make a fool of yourself again.

Good god man... do you really think this line of arguing is going to get you anywhere? You're fixated on this position of the number three. Please... you and TDD, stop being stupid and actually pay attention.

I'm not going to explain it again. It's pointless. You'll either pay attention ... for once ... and see where you've been getting it all wrong, or you won't, and will continue to fixate on something that doesn't exist. I'm betting on the latter.

I don't care either way.

And uh... I said "for over a thousand years"... not "thousands of years". 2000 years is over 1000 years. 1500 years is over 1000 years. 1001 years is over 1000 years. For now, I'm going to assume you just misread what I said, and really aren't that dumb. But please, next time, read a bit more carefully so you avoid simple mistakes like this.

[edit] And I want to thank you for listing all those authors. You just proved my point.

[zorro]

Seems to me that you are having a hard time admitting defeat when zorro points out the fallacies in your arguments. It took you 3 posts to reject logic, what's the point for zorro to continue if you reject logic?

Forba,

You are quite right, DarkWolf has rejected logic and doesn't care to educate himself on the topic, there is no reason to continue. He just keeps repeating bad arguments over and over, as if that is somehow going to change them into good arguments. Of course, it never will. There is a term for people like DarkWolf, it's "invincible ignorance." Once the errors have been pointed out numerous times and he still insists on maintaining fallacy after fallacy, the discussion is over. There is no movement, because the person has committed intellectual suicide. He is willing to reject logic rather than abondon his fallacious arguments.

If you find someone that can have a real intelligent discussion, let me know. I will be happy to come back.

Until then,

Z

[TexasDevilDog]

What?! :confused:


Looks like confusion to me.

[DarkWolf]

Looks like confusion to me.

It is, because your statement made no sense. What point were you trying to convey?

[DarkWolf]

Forba,

You are quite right, DarkWolf has rejected logic and doesn't care to educate himself on the topic, there is no reason to continue. He just keeps repeating bad arguments over and over, as if that is somehow going to change them into good arguments. Of course, it never will. There is a term for people like DarkWolf, it's "invincible ignorance." Once the errors have been pointed out numerous times and he still insists on maintaining fallacy after fallacy, the discussion is over. There is no movement, because the person has committed intellectual suicide. He is willing to reject logic rather than abondon his fallacious arguments.

If you find someone that can have a real intelligent discussion, let me know. I will be happy to come back.

Until then,

Z

Ah yes. There you go. Run along. Buff up that superior intellect once more before you leave. Show everyone how smart you are. I'm sure they're quite impressed. I am.

No, really.

Honest.

Feel free to come back when you can wrap your mind around the fact that theological differences of religion have no relevance when arguing recurring themes and functional equivalents.

[TexasDevilDog]

It is, because your statement made no sense. What point were you trying to convey?

You should know. You said I can't confuse you.

It doesn't really matter what I mean or anyone else thinks, does it? It is all about what you think the meaning is, no matter how absurd, for any subject.

[DarkWolf]

You should know. You said I can't confuse you.

... when?

You confuse me quite often, because you rarely make any discernable sense.

[Fobra]

There is a term for people like DarkWolf, it's "invincible ignorance."
lol


If you find someone that can have a real intelligent discussion, let me know. I will be happy to come back.

sure thing! :)

[zorro]

Given the discussion on this board, I think the following link might be helpful:

http://www.apologeticsnetwork.org/william-craig2-D.htm

It is a short lecture by William Lane Craig that might be fodder for discussion. It is in both text and audio format. Enjoy!

Regards,

Z

[SVT93Style]

And finally, to wrap up (told you I get wordy)... SVT, I'm 27, majored in computer animation and multimedia design.

Cool, so that means...and I am sterotyping here, that you like Mac's. Mac's being the computers...if so what do you use and what do you think about the new powerbooks?

[DarkWolf]

Haha, actually I've never really liked the MacOS. I used to hate having to use it in some classes. OSX is still pretty ... weird, to me. But not as bad as previous versions. The hardware, on the otherhand, I've always liked Mac hardware. I have to admit, Apple really does have the whole artistic industrial design thing down. One of the new powerbooks is certainly on my list of wants, but I'm going to wait a bit for the kinks to be worked out with the Intel transition before jumping into one.

[SVT93Style]

One of the new powerbooks is certainly on my list of wants, but I'm going to wait a bit for the kinks to be worked out with the Intel transition before jumping into one.


Me too.