Summations Only

Wrong. There was ample motivation. Bible codes are in there too, along with just about any amount of numerological nonsense you might imagine. Some of that numerology is the subject matter of the sermons jack legs bellow to their congregations on Sundays. No they couldn't do that. Their doctrine required that Arians were heretics.Your entire post is just revisionist nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the exact relationship between Yahweh and Jesus is anything but clear from reading the Bible because the relationship is express in multiple, and inconsistent ways. Even if the Divinity of Jesus Christ an absolute requirement, there are many possible relationships Christ might have to the God of the Old Testament. It's also possible that the relationship varied over time.But of course it is not possible that all of those various answers is completely and exclusively correct. It may in fact be the case that none of the answer people have gravitated towards are correct. What's clear is that during the early years of Christianity, people whose desire to follow Christ is beyond any question favored different approaches. Each of those factions would have the strongest and purest possible motives to justify their interpretation using scripture.Nobody is denying the earnestness of the Trinitarians but it should not be doubted that the Arians were earnest and loved Jesus Christ with equal fervor.Today we have doctrines like Unitarianism and Oneness that are essentially equally supportable from the Bible text. Proponents of each doctrine are sure that the others are in danger of missing salvation. Yikes.

I feel like pleading with you both to rethink what you are saying because it's scary you could think such a conspiracy could be the history of the Church, it's like seeing people turn reality inside out and backwards, and of course you think that's what I'm doing. This is really depressing.

Yes, some things have to be accepted on faith.--Percy

Let me revise that.Yes, some things can only be accepted on faith, but if they have no evidence there's no reason to accept them at all.--Percy

But the history of the Church is of groups of people deciding what will be accepted as dogma, finding support for that position and then declaring the other side as heretics.It has happened repeatedly and continues right down to this day.You have called me a heretic and call the Roman Catholic Church not just heretical but headed by the anti-Christ.That is a great example.That is reality and to deny that is just plain silly.

Who sez so? The Bible? If you have to assume the truth to conclude the truth, that isn't just circular; it's a maelstrom.

This seems logical. Everyone is convinced that their way is THE way. One question---Is it within human nature to attempt to get everyone else to agree with ourselves on major issues of belief and/or logic, reason, and reality? Do we feel threatened or otherwise uncomfortable with others who disagree with our beliefs? I would say yes....comments?

I think what she means is that in her belief, we (humans) are to understand truth through the light of the truth. Proponents would claim that there is one truth, one light, and one God.For whatever reason, this God appears to have made you a contrarian who questions not only God but human logic, reason, and belief.So be it.

Sounds logical enough. For some, evidence is a prerequisite to faith. Perhaps the question is what constitutes evidence? Is an internal subjective "born again" experience qualified? How about a vision? a dream? For some, a UFO close encounters experience works. For others, simply being around believers who are full of testimonies and who seem different is enough.Perhaps another qualifier is to ask about our personal bias. Do we want to have evidence to convince us, to change us, or to confirm what we already are comfortable suspecting?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That's what I said. And we are to understand oxygen by breathing. It's a lot cheaper than those pesky laboratories. And His name is Allah.

Where is the logic and reason when it comes to beliefs like the Trinity? Did you actually look at the diagram you posted?

I briefly glanced at it. Does it look like an M.C. Escher sketch?

It's a pyramid.

It is certainly not reasonable or logical or even very revealing.Try substituting colors. Start with Red is red.

A = G AND B = G AND C = G AND A ≠ B AND A ≠ C AND B ≠ Cis false.