Summations Only

Yup, the "Kiss Hank's Ass" brand of Christianity. Keep marketing that travesty.

Sorry but that is simply a false assertion. There has never been anything like the Biblical floods stories found in Genesis during the period when modern man existed. The Biblical flood never happened and has been totally refuted not just by geology but also genetics, physics, chemistry, all areas of science. Again, speaking as one Christian to another, that is simply false. If you wish pick a prophecy and we will be happy to discuss it.

Actually in the Bible the God is described as destroying cities far more than just once. It seems to have been a pretty common form of entertainment with lots of options; floods, shakes, frogs. fire from the sky, kill off the kids and cattle, turn water into blood, send locusts ...

You would think that if the Bible actually was the inerrant word of God there would at least be one universal list of what books would be included.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

See. all that is simply utter nonsense.Your mistake is trying to pretend that the concept of the Trinity makes any sense or could ever be considered as reasonable or logical.It can't.What you need to do is simply admit it is nonsense but that it is also an article of belief. Trying to explain it just makes folk laugh.

What makes you think I have not Faith? It is one of the best examples of using the Bible to create a new dogma by taking passages out of context and misrepresenting their context.I happen to subscribe to the dogma as out lined in the Nicene Creed but I do not pretend that it is reasonable, logical, rational or understandable.It is an Article of Faith.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

How can you get any reference to Jesus from Daniel 7 without totally taking material out of context and adding stuff not found there?

But where is there any indication that the author of Daniel had any intention of referring to Jesus? There is little doubt that later authors picked pieces out of context and inserted them into what they wrote Jesus said or did.

But can you present any argument that can make the Trinity concept look reasonable, logical, rational or understandable?

I don't reject Bible verses; I just point out that the way people use them does not lead to something reasonable, logical understandable or rational.Now would you like to try to present a reasonable, logical, rational and understandable explanation of the concept of Trinity?

The verses are there but they are not together; they are each taken out of context to support an extra biblical bit or dogma.

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.

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

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

HUH?You have any support for that other than the fact that they won?The goal was and has always been political; our faction is right and your faction are just heretics. More utter bullshit.A main purpose of the Authorized King James Bible somewhat more than a century ago was to put aside the nonsense of the Pope as anti-Christ.AbE:And remember. The concept of the Trinity predated the Bible. The Nicene Creed is a great example. And there is still no such thing as "The Bible"Edited by jar, : No reason given.