"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message

Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that

Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.

This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to

some sense!

First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
"illogical". I gave a logically consistent model of the Trinity here:

I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
proper definition of "logically consistent" taught in logic classes:
it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.

I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I
used the proper definition of "logically consistent"
taught in logic classes....

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<O9-dnUYWEfw7QCLdRVn-hA@adelphia.com>...

Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.

This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!

First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
"illogical". I gave a logically consistent model of the Trinity here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031638.15ad54f0%40posting.google.com

I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
proper definition of "logically consistent" taught in logic classes:

it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message

The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.

Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that

Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.

We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just

at the stupidity of it all.

There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see. To
be more clear, there are versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that
are logically consistent (you might wish to consider the chapter on
the Trinity in the book co-authored by William Lane Craig and James
Porter Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview"). For example, here is a logically consistent version of
Trinity Monotheism:

(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.

Keep in mind I am not asserting that this description is true (i.e.
that it reflects reality). I am simply arguing that this is not
logically incoherent.

The only propositions that one might have trouble grapsing are (3) (4)
and (5), especially if one is not familiar with the philosophical
distinction between predication and identity. So, to help explain the
notion of being God in a sense of predication, I will quote from
Craig's debate with Shabir Ally on the subject of the Islamic
conception of God vs the Christian conception. In the debate, Craig
originally made the Trinity analogous to a triangle - one shape, with
three angles each being a part of the whole. Ally complained that each
angle is not itself a triangle, and Craig responded as follows:

"I don't want to distract the debate to be a debate tonight about
the deity of Christ. I want to simply say let's assume the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is what it is, and the question
is: is that rational to hold to? And all Shabir actually could
say here was that in a triangle each angle was not a triangle,
but according to the doctrine of the Trinity, each person is God.
This is simply based on a misunderstanding Shabir. The 'is' in
the statement 'Jesus is God' is not an 'is' of identity. It's
not like saying 'Cicero is Tully,' where those are simply two
different names of the same person - an 'is' of identity. Rather,
this is an 'is' of predication. It's like saying 'the couch is
red'. You don't mean that the couch is a color; you mean that
the couch has the property of being red. Similarly, when you say
'Jesus is God, the Father is God, the [Holy Ghost] is God,' that
is to say that they are all divine - they all share attributes
of deity. This is not an 'is' of identity, and unless you
understand that, you're bound to be confused. So, it is simply
not the case that according to the classic doctrine of the
Trinity that the Godhead as a whole is identical to any one of
the three persons. It is very much like a triangle, where you
have one entity comprised of three angles, or one entity
comprised of three persons. And if that is the doctrine, then
I ask you what is rationally objectionable about that? That is
the doctrine I believe, and I see nothing irrational about it."
[William Lane Craig, in his debate with Shabir Ally, "The Concept
of God in Islam and Christianity," McMaster University, March
6, 2002]

So, Craig specifically states that when his version of the doctrine
puts forth the assertion "Jesus is God," it puts forth a copula of
predication, not a copula of identity. The reality is that Craig's
position is perfectly in line with the gospel of John. Commenting on
John 1:1, Raymond Brown writes:

"Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each
of the three uses of "was" in vs. 1 has a different connotation:
existence, relationship, and predication respectively."
[Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]

So, Craig's doctrine would hold to the following propositions:

(1) Jesus is the Logos.
(2) The Logos is God.
(3) Jesus is God.

The first proposition is an identity statement, so whatever is true of
the Logos is true of Jesus. The second proposition is straight out of
John 1:1, and employs a copula of predication (and the grammar of the
Greek supports this). The third proposition also employs a copula of
predication, and is simply inferred from (1) and (2). We could think
of these propositions being rendered into formal logic as follows:

(1) j = l
(2) Gl
(3) Gj

I hope that is sufficient enough for explaining the third, fourth and
fifth propositions of the seven point statement laid out above. In
those seven propositions, we have a doctrine of the Trinity which is
neither logically incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent, therefore I
see nothing rationally objectionable about a Christian holding to such
a position.

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<GYOdnbpEgOtC6iDdRVn-vg@adelphia.com>...

The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.

Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.

We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.

There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see.

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<GYOdnbpEgOtC6iDdRVn-vg@adelphia.com>...

The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.

Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.

We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.

There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see. To
be more clear, there are versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that
are logically consistent (you might wish to consider the chapter on
the Trinity in the book co-authored by William Lane Craig and James
Porter Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview"). For example, here is a logically consistent version of
Trinity Monotheism:

(1) There is one God.

(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.

(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.

(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.

(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.

(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.

Keep in mind I am not asserting that this description is true (i.e.
that it reflects reality). I am simply arguing that this is not
logically incoherent.

"I don't want to distract the debate to be a debate tonight about
the deity of Christ. I want to simply say let's assume the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is what it is, and the question