Holy Shit

[Gloomy]

@UncannyGarlic

You are trying to prove that the Oneness of Trinity is an invalid concept and has no place in Christianity. That may very well be, but that's not the point of this discussion. It doesn't change the fact that it is one of the core points of the major christian sects and that the majority of christians believe in it, which means that these sects are monotheistic and that these christians are monotheists.

It's almost like you're trying to argue, that Christians don't believe in something, even though they say they do, because you say they shouldn't.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

@UncannyGarlic

You are trying to prove that the Oneness of Trinity is an invalid concept and has no place in Christianity. That may very well be, but that's not the point of this discussion. It doesn't change the fact that it is one of the core points of the major christian sects and that the majority of christians believe in it, which means that these sects are monotheistic and that these christians are monotheists.

It's almost like you're trying to argue, that Christians don't believe in something, even though they say they do, because you say they shouldn't.

Sure, I can't deny that Trinity is widely believed in and a part of many sects. That doesn't make it a part of any of their holy texts, the core of the religion which all sects are based on. The fact is that the religion is, at it's core, polytheistic, even if the religion that it's an expansion on, Judaism, is not. For the basis of the religion is that Jesus was the messiah, the divine son of God, and not merely another profit like Moses. There are some Christians who take more of the profit approach but it nears contradicting the whole basis of the New Testament. Does the belief that Jesus was a (Northern-European shade) white man with a brown beard make it part of the religion that Jesus, a Jew in the Jerusalem, was in fact a man of that description? What about those who believe that he was of Asian (Chinese/Mongolian) decent? Of African decent? Odds are that he (assuming he was a real man) looked like most middle eastern Jews of the time, a dark tan with black hair and facial features common in the region. By your logic, the fact that he didn't look like people imagine him to have is irrelevant to their religion rather than their belief having a faulty basis. Sure, religion isn't based on fact, reasonable people will admit as much, but isn't there an issue when people believe things not supported by the text?

Here's a passage contradicting the concept of Trinity:
"Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
~John 20:17:

I've always understood that testament was the ultimate authority (granted interpretations depend on the sect) and when the testament contradicts a personal belief that the testament is ultimately correct. Is that wrong?

 

[Gloomy]

Almost every single word within the scriptures can, and has been, interpreted in a thousand different ways. The fact that Trinity breaks down on your interpretation of them is not exactly conclusive. The concept, in fact, can be traced to passages in both the New and Old Testaments. I'm sure you'd find these connections circumstantial and easily disproved (a debate I hope to avoid at all costs), but they have garnered a support big enough to integrate the idea into the religion (quantifications aside).

I'm afraid nothing more can be said. Christians found Trinity within their scriptures. You can't see it, but that doesn't really have any bearing on...well, anything. No matter how hard you try to prove that the concept doesn't fit, that it is unsupported, they will always point to their proof of how it does fit and how it is supported.

 

[Loxley]

Basically, within all written reøligious litterature, you can find ways to support whatever view you tout. It says in the bible you shall not kill, yet the catholic church had no problems killing and starting crusades. Witch burnings, religious wars ect ect ect. It can however, also be used the other way around.

 

[TheWesDude]

i dont know of anyone who prays to the holy spirit.

those who pray to jesus do so as he absolved sins and are praying to god through jesus as he is "mans path to repentance".

 

[SuAside]

Basically, within all written reøligious litterature, you can find ways to support whatever view you tout. It says in the bible you shall not kill, yet the catholic church had no problems killing and starting crusades. Witch burnings, religious wars ect ect ect. It can however, also be used the other way around.

actually, the bible says do not kill innocents. but that latter part is usually not translated in modern society.

that said, even then the church still doesn't follow that rule. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." ring a bell? it was spoken by Arnold Amaury, an Cistercian abbot.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Bird poop seen in the Virgin Mary.

I blaspheme in jest.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

The concept, in fact, can be traced to passages in both the New and Old Testaments.

The concept can be supported by passages in the text and disproved by others. It fundamentally comes down to whether or not the concept is actually written down in the texts, which it is not. The concept of Trinity didn't exist before 170 CE and wasn't accepted as part of Christianity until 325 CE. It's a part of many (not all) modern Christian religions but it's not a core part of Christianity. That is, of course, unless you want to say that if Mormon tenants and beliefs become popular enough that they too are a core part of Christianity. Religion does change over time, I won't argue that, but as long as the ideas aren't in the holy texts they aren't a part of the core religion, regardless of how popular they are within sects. For example, would you consider the nine circles of hell, as written by Dante, as part of Christianity? Many Christians consider it a part of the religion despite it having no basis in the religion. If not then why not?

 

[Gloomy]

It fundamentally comes down to whether or not the concept is actually written down in the texts, which it is not.

So you'd only accept things explicitly stated in the bible as 'core'? That's an interesting position to take...
Still, if you find the word 'core' so inappropriate, let me rephrase: Christianity practices single god worship through the concept of Trinity.
There are exceptions, but you simply cannot let the peculiarities of minorities define the whole. If you think the minority is strong enough to warrant quantification, it stands to reason that so is the majority.

Either way, stating that Christianity is polytheistic is wrong. It's either monotheistic, or mostly monotheistic, depending on how close a look one takes.

...or one could go the third way and describe the religion as polytheistic because those who practice it are simply wrong, but I personally find that approach questionable - it is not up to an outsider to tell people that they actually believe something else than they believe they believe...

Edit: as a BTW,

If not then why not?

Because they don't have the Nicene Creed. Note that the notion of trinity was accepted with overwhelming support by members of the council, who were representatives of the entire Ecumenical spectrum of Christianity at the time. The authority to do so is derived from the churches creator, Jesus Christ, not to mention the perceived involvement of the Holy Spirit.

Edit 2: While I'm at it.

It's a pretty classic fallacy of necessity.
* Doctrine states that Abraham religions are monotheistic
* Jesus (and to a lesser degree the Holy Ghost) are worshiped in Christianity
* Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God are all one being

It doesn't remotely fit the description of 'Fallacy of necessity' you have provided. First of all, the points go like this:

*Doctrine states that there is one God.
*Doctrine states that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine.
*Jesus and the Holy Spirit have to be of the same divine substance referred to in point one.

The conclusion is based on two tautologies, not a tautology and a fact placing the subject into the domain of the tautology. In this case, John cannot stop being a bachelor. As to your 'Affirming the consequent' argument, I can't even see how your statements fit the structure. Which way do the implications go? Which one is P, which one is Q?

 

[aenemic]

*smack*

that's the sound of me e-punching everyone in that video and everyone else who believes in that crap (pun intended).