The Meaning Of The Trinity

That's because you have no idea what philosophy is. In you're world it seems to be just making shit up because you like the sound of it.

And I am guessing that in your world even philosophy must bow to logic and evidence. My argument is that you can then assert that logic and evidence are only defined through human reason and thus human reason is the final standard.
'
We are so far doing a bang-up job of it, aren't we?

Basically I am asking if you as a believer can speak on behalf of God. Critics despise apologists because they claim that apologists make up random stuff and in essence claim to speak on Gods behalf. Philosophically I see no reason why you can't. Scientifically is another issue, however. Science is science and is based on testable logic. Even if God could change the rules of logic, it does not appear that He does so.

Have you heard people usually say: Because God says so and so, so that this and that should be true.

Do you think that person is speaking for God?

Definitely not. God's words give us basic data. We use logic to elaborate it and show something hidden in the words. We do not speak FOR God, we are trying to use tools (logic) God gives us to "understand" God. You can have your logic and I can have mine. So, to the same verse, we could have different understanding. And that is GOOD.

even philosophy must bow to logic and evidence

To me, philosophy is no more than logic. Correct me with an example if I were wrong.

Juvenissun writes: But in this Trinity issue, the question is NOT if God exists, but is "Is God one or three"?.

To me, the question is whether or not the Bible supports the Trinity. I don't have to believe in Frodo to figure how far it was from Rivendell to Mordor according to the story. And I don't have to believe in God to know what the Bible stories say either.

Juvenissun writes: If you say: God does not exist. Then you can leave this thread alone.

You don't get to tell me which threads to leave alone.

Phat writes: To assert that the snake tells the truth throws a whole plot twist into the definition of the character.

But that so-called "definition of the character" is a lie.

Phat writes: One problem, however, is if God Himself is a fictional entity there is no absolute truth nor is any Deity any holier than any other.

On the contrary, ONLY a fictional character could have absolute truth and ONLY a fictional character could be holier than all others.

Phat writes: Relativism is a plot of Satan.

There is no Satan. Relativism is reality.

Phat writes: You cant have a heaven full of independent thinkers when it comes to who is in charge...

And yet, that is exactly what the Bible suggests. See the story of the prodigal son. Unconditional acceptance.

Phat writes: ... or who is truth personified.

That's just another bumper sticker.

Phat writes: What color is the sky in YOUR world?

I live in The Land of Living Skies. It says so right on our license plates.

Phat writes: So what do you do if God is reality and yet is by nature UN evidenced to some?

Unevidenced to EVERYBODY. You've said so yourself.

I'd do the same thing you would do if leprechauns were reality and yet hiding from us.

Phat writes: I am talking about the Creator of all seen and unseen.

No you're not. You're talking about a god made up by apologists. The god you talk about is consistently puny.

Phat writes: Apart from whining about no evidence, do you have any other reason to prefer chemicals as the beginning of everything we know?

It isn't about preference. It's about what we do know versus what we don't know. We know about chemicals, so we can hope to understand how chemicals make up the universe.

Phat writes: And where did they come from?

That's a much bigger problem for your god scenario. Where did he come from?

quote:

---

To me, philosophy is no more than logic. Correct me with an example if I were wrong.

---

That’s because you don’t understand logic.

Where does philosophy get it’s starting premises from? Logic needs premises but gives you none to begin with.

Where does philosophy get it’s starting premises from? Logic needs premises but gives you none to begin with.

You are right. Logic is a tool to process other thing, in philosophy, it is idea, any idea.

To me, the question is whether or not the Bible supports the Trinity.

OK, that is a much simpler case.
Jesus says: My Father and I are one.
What does that say to you about the Trinity?

Juvenissun writes: Jesus says: My Father and I are one. What does that say to you about the Trinity?

For one thing, it says two, not three - it may be support for a Binity.

Going around and around with ringo

As a sidenote to the peanut gallery, ringo and I have a long history here at EvC Forum debating and discussing religions, philosophy, political and sociological reality and what the Bible means. (For the record, he claims that it means what it says, but does not allow for the acceptance of the common Christian tradition of meaning which many if not most apologists push. In order for ringo to win the argument, he must convince all of us to take the book as written, throw any God (or Jesus) character away in our mind and that the message is the important feature of the book rather than the messenger, who I would argue was and is Jesus Christ.

Moving on to the debate:

Correcting my argument in line with Message 456

God if God exists is unevidenced to everyone by ringos logic. He cant seem to grasp the idea that only some people (whosoever has an ear to hear) will grasp the spirit behind the message. He seems to think that an unbeliever can understand the Bible as well as a believer, though in his case he charges all of the apologists of lying for an ulterior motive and planned agenda. One question is why on earth ringo was at one time a believer and changed his mind. I get hints as to why.

ringo writes: I'd do the same thing you would do if leprechauns were reality and yet hiding from us.

But don't you see? Leprechauns are in no way the same thing. They are at best myths made up by a minority culture within Ireland. They are cultural (and local) myths. Nobody claims that Leprechauns changed their life...apart from a superstitious pagan who swore by stories their grandmother taught them

One might ask if a changed life in and of itself counts as evidence, and I know that ringo claims that he sees no evidence of better behavior(works primarily) being done by Christians. Which is a valid point.

You're talking about a god made up by apologists. The god you talk about is consistently puny.

I suspect you think He is too right wing.

For one thing, it says two, not three - it may be support for a Binity.

The third member is what makes believers unique from non believers. Everyone may have inner gumption and spirit, but not everyone is in communion with the Spirit of CVreativity, Love, and Justice that makes the kum ba yah flower power spirit of the sixties and of todays BLM movements puny by comparison. I think that ones political ideology colors their idea of the Holy Spirit as being too judgemental, too white, too authoritarian and whatnot.

For one thing, it says two, not three - it may be support for a Binity.

Very good. We have two.
If A=B and B=C, would you agree that A=B=C?
the Bible also says many times:
God's Spirit IS God.
I think this is a much more common concept. Deity usually has "spirit" which is another form of the deity who can reach out. Right?

What do you say now?

Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

Phat writes: In order for ringo to win the argument, he must convince all of us to take the book as written, throw any God (or Jesus) character away in our mind and that the message is the important feature of the book rather than the messenger, who I would argue was and is Jesus Christ.

Not at all. In order to "win", all I have to do is tell the truth and point out that you and the apologists are not.

Phat writes: He cant seem to grasp the idea that only some people (whosoever has an ear to hear) will grasp the spirit behind the message.

You can't seem to grasp that YOU are living proof that belivevers do NOT have a "special" understanding.

Phat writes: ... he charges all of the apologists of lying for an ulterior motive and planned agenda.

And you consistently refuse to defend the apologists' lies. Why is that?

Phat writes: One question is why on earth ringo was at one time a believer and changed his mind.

Why on earth do many children believe in Santa Claus and then change their minds? Same answer.

Phat writes: Leprechauns are in no way the same thing.

They are in every way the same thing.

Phat writes: They are at best myths made up by a minority culture within Ireland. They are cultural (and local) myths.

So is your God. Have you forgotten how many different gods there are?

Phat writes: Nobody claims that Leprechauns changed their life...

The claim that God has changed your life is a false claim.

Phat writes: I suspect you think He is too right wing.

The god made up by your right-wing cult is understandably right-wing. You want divine confirmation of your political beliefs.

But the Jesus in the Bible was, in your own words, an "extreme socialist".

Phat writes: The third member is what makes believers unique from non believers.

I was responding to a supposed Bible reference to the Trinity by pointing out that that reference doesn't mention a "third member" at all.