| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2005 12:44:16 PM |
| Object: |
Questions about the Trinity of God? |
Some questions for experts on Christian religion;
God is supposedly made up of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Who was God the fathers wife? Who was Jesus's mother before he was born of
the virgin Mary?
If God the Father did not have a wife, how did he father a son?
Who is the Holy Ghost? Is he an uncle? What is his function?
If this trinity is all powerful and created the Universe and everything in
it, why did it create such
fallible, errant and grossly imperfect men and earthly catastrophes and
diseases of every
imaginable kind? Why did this supposedly infallible God make these many
serious
mistakes in his creation?
If God created everything, why did he create sin and punishment for the sins
he created?
What is his purpose of putting man on earth to suffer from hunger, diseases
and catastrophes and then
usually experience a painful old age and death before being delivered to an
infinitely pleasant and
perpetual heaven?
Does God enjoy toying with and torturing his creations?
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
13 Jan 2005 05:18:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:12:03 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Better to think in terms of one God who presented himself to mankind
as 3 distinct persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Tut, tut. I never knew you held such blatantly un-Christian,
heretical views.
---------
Levy Oates
What is un-Christian about Duke's perspective? I think he characterized the
trinity very well. He is one God present in three, distinct persons; not
manifestations (as some groups like the Oneness Pentacostals say).
That's over levi's head.
I think he's still waiting for the Messiah to appear.
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
14 Jan 2005 01:47:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:18:01 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:12:03 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Better to think in terms of one God who presented himself to mankind
as 3 distinct persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Tut, tut. I never knew you held such blatantly un-Christian,
heretical views.
---------
Levy Oates
What is un-Christian about Duke's perspective? I think he characterized the
trinity very well. He is one God present in three, distinct persons; not
manifestations (as some groups like the Oneness Pentacostals say).
That's over levi's head.
I think he's still waiting for the Messiah to appear.
I forgive you your heresy, but will your LORD?
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
14 Jan 2005 04:00:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:47:12 +0000, Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think he's still waiting for the Messiah to appear.
I forgive you your heresy, but will your LORD?
What heresy?
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
13 Jan 2005 10:04:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:18:01 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:12:03 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Better to think in terms of one God who presented himself to mankind
as 3 distinct persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Tut, tut. I never knew you held such blatantly un-Christian,
heretical views.
---------
Levy Oates
What is un-Christian about Duke's perspective? I think he characterized the
trinity very well. He is one God present in three, distinct persons; not
manifestations (as some groups like the Oneness Pentacostals say).
That's over levi's head.
A singular personal God who is three persons presents a problem that's
over anyone's head, including christians.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
14 Jan 2005 04:00:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:04:01 GMT, (William) wrote:
That's over levi's head.
A singular personal God who is three persons presents a problem that's
over anyone's head, including christians.
Absolutely. No one can comprehend why God is that.
However, I was making reference to the coming of the Messiah. Then again, maybe
you don't understand either.
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
14 Jan 2005 07:48:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:00:09 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
A singular personal God who is three persons presents a problem that's
over anyone's head, including christians.
Absolutely. No one can comprehend why God is that.
However, I was making reference to the coming of the Messiah.
Then again, maybe you don't understand either.
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I? And since whenever
christians are asked to explain these fundamental issues they say it
is a mystery and incomprehensible and that, anyway, most are their
scriptures are not to be taken as literally true and that church
traditional revealed truths have been in serious error, and that there
are at least 2000 versions of christianity - many of which are
mutually contradictory . . . no wonder so many sensible folk move on
and ignore them.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 08:31:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:48:24 GMT, (William) wrote:
Absolutely. No one can comprehend why God is that.
However, I was making reference to the coming of the Messiah.
Then again, maybe you don't understand either.
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I?
Nobody said you "should". A belief in God comes when one comes to an
understanding that all that is couldn't possibly be anything but an accident,
that we are here simply as an accident of nature, we live our lives as nothing
but an accident of nature, and that we die forever and ever - no purpose, no
meaning, no reason.
And since whenever
christians are asked to explain these fundamental issues they say it
is a mystery
Of course it is. We can't explain it. We believe.
That's like asking you to express why you don't believe in God. You have
nothing to fall back on except that you don't find the evidence convincing, we
do.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 10:05:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:31:43 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:48:24 GMT, (William) wrote:
Absolutely. No one can comprehend why God is that.
However, I was making reference to the coming of the Messiah.
Then again, maybe you don't understand either.
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I?
Nobody said you "should". A belief in God comes when one comes to an
understanding that all that is couldn't possibly be anything but an accident,
that we are here simply as an accident of nature,
I don't know anyone who believes that. My scientific colleagues
certainly don't. But for those odd folk who do believe that the
process of physics and chemistry is a series of accidents they can
also believe in God. They can believe that's the way he did it. The
concept of God can explain anything.
we live our lives as nothing but an accident of nature, and that we
die forever and ever - no purpose, no meaning, no reason.
Everyone lives their life with some purpose even if it is to just
survive (which is about all some folk have in this crap universe). If
you are claiming there is some ultimate purpose then you have to show
it and not just assert it.
And since whenever christians are asked to explain these
fundamental issues they say it is a mystery
Of course it is. We can't explain it. We believe.
You believe what? You believe you have an explanation? Or that
invoking God and purpose and religious teachings tell us absolutely
nothing about reality?
That's like asking you to express why you don't believe in God. You have
nothing to fall back on except that you don't find the evidence convincing, we
do.
You've already said that your beliefs don't provide an explanation.
There must be a lot of beliefs that fall into that category - the flat
earth belief being just one of them.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 09:17:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:05:04 GMT, (William) wrote:
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I?
Nobody said you "should". A belief in God comes when one comes to an
understanding that all that is couldn't possibly be anything but an accident,
that we are here simply as an accident of nature,
I don't know anyone who believes that. My scientific colleagues
certainly don't. But for those odd folk who do believe that the
process of physics and chemistry is a series of accidents they can
also believe in God.
"Who" established that two objects attract by gravity if not God establishing
those rules of Physics? That's exactly why they are not accidents.
we live our lives as nothing but an accident of nature, and that we
die forever and ever - no purpose, no meaning, no reason.
Everyone lives their life with some purpose even if it is to just
survive (which is about all some folk have in this crap universe). If
you are claiming there is some ultimate purpose then you have to show
it and not just assert it.
If you are claiming there is no ultimate purpose, then you have to show it and
not just assert it.
And since whenever christians are asked to explain these
fundamental issues they say it is a mystery
Of course it is. We can't explain it. We believe.
You believe what?
The existence of God almighty.
You believe you have an explanation? Or that
invoking God and purpose and religious teachings tell us absolutely
nothing about reality?
Reality is as God decreed.
That's like asking you to express why you don't believe in God. You have
nothing to fall back on except that you don't find the evidence convincing, we
do.
You've already said that your beliefs don't provide an explanation.
There must be a lot of beliefs that fall into that category - the flat
earth belief being just one of them.
Or that there is no God almighty is another.
You apparently believe it. You have no evidence or proof or reason to profess
it other than to just say no. All evidence points to the existence of God, or
else all is just an accident.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 09:53:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:17:46 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I?
Nobody said you "should". A belief in God comes when one comes to an
understanding that all that is couldn't possibly be anything but an accident,
that we are here simply as an accident of nature,
I don't know anyone who believes that. My scientific colleagues
certainly don't. But for those odd folk who do believe that the
process of physics and chemistry is a series of accidents they can
also believe in God.
"Who" established that two objects attract by gravity if not God establishing
those rules of Physics? That's exactly why they are not accidents.
You have to show that there is a 'who'. And you have to show that
there are 'rules' of physics. The laws of physics are simply
observations of what happens - they are descriptions, not
prescriptions. If things happen differently they will be described
differently, and often are.
we live our lives as nothing but an accident of nature, and that we
die forever and ever - no purpose, no meaning, no reason.
Everyone lives their life with some purpose even if it is to just
survive (which is about all some folk have in this crap universe). If
you are claiming there is some ultimate purpose then you have to show
it and not just assert it.
If you are claiming there is no ultimate purpose, then you have to show it and
not just assert it.
No. I'm not making a claim. I'm asking you. Are you claiming that
there is an ultimate purpose? If so, then the onus is on you to show
there is one and not just assert it.
And since whenever christians are asked to explain these
fundamental issues they say it is a mystery
Of course it is. We can't explain it. We believe.
You believe what?
The existence of God almighty.
You believe you have an explanation? Or that
invoking God and purpose and religious teachings tell us absolutely
nothing about reality?
Reality is as God decreed.
If you are postulating a God who decreed reality then you have to show
that such a being exists. Otherwise you have simply made an assertion.
In that basis anyone could assert anything that decreed reality, or
simply assert that reality has always been and was not decreed.There
can be any number of such assertions they are quite empty.
That's like asking you to express why you don't believe in God. You have
nothing to fall back on except that you don't find the evidence convincing, we
do.
You've already said that your beliefs don't provide an explanation.
There must be a lot of beliefs that fall into that category - the flat
earth belief being just one of them.
Or that there is no God almighty is another.
Correct. It doesn't explain anything.
You apparently believe it. You have no evidence or proof or reason to profess
it other than to just say no. All evidence points to the existence of God, or
else all is just an accident.
Neither the assertion that God exists nor the one that it is all an
accident explain anything. Both require proper objectively testable
evidence and neither of them have it.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 04:39:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:53:47 GMT, (William) wrote:
"Who" established that two objects attract by gravity if not God establishing
those rules of Physics? That's exactly why they are not accidents.
You have to show that there is a 'who'.
All evidence demands that, or else all is just an accident, like you.
And you have to show that
there are 'rules' of physics.
They are numerous, like gravity attracts.
The laws of physics are simply
observations of what happens - they are descriptions, not
prescriptions.
Sorry, gravity still attracts, only. God said it would be that way..
If things happen differently they will be described
differently, and often are.
But they aren't
If you are claiming there is no ultimate purpose, then you have to show it and
not just assert it.
No. I'm not making a claim. I'm asking you. Are you claiming that
there is an ultimate purpose? If so, then the onus is on you to show
there is one and not just assert it.
I believe there is an ultimate purpose, although I'm not able to clearly
establish that is. God did not pass on that specific information to me.
I believe it is to use our life on earth to choose love of God. Atheists reject
this love. It's their loss.
Reality is as God decreed.
If you are postulating a God who decreed reality then you have to show
that such a being exists.
No, I don't. I believe. If you don't, that's your loss.
Otherwise you have simply made an assertion.
But of course. However, I don't have to prove anything. You have the same
information as me. I say yes to God, you say no.
In that basis anyone could assert anything that decreed reality, or
simply assert that reality has always been and was not decreed.There
can be any number of such assertions they are quite empty.
Yet I have evidence, and you don't.
You apparently believe it. You have no evidence or proof or reason to profess
it other than to just say no. All evidence points to the existence of God, or
else all is just an accident.
Neither the assertion that God exists nor the one that it is all an
accident explain anything. Both require proper objectively testable
evidence and neither of them have it.
It doesn't have to explain anything. I believe.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
14 Jan 2005 08:15:40 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:00:09 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
A singular personal God who is three persons presents a problem that's
over anyone's head, including christians.
Absolutely. No one can comprehend why God is that.
However, I was making reference to the coming of the Messiah.
Then again, maybe you don't understand either.
Well, if no-one else understands then why should I? And since whenever
christians are asked to explain these fundamental issues they say it
is a mystery and incomprehensible and that, anyway, most are their
scriptures are not to be taken as literally true and that church
traditional revealed truths have been in serious error, and that there
are at least 2000 versions of christianity - many of which are
mutually contradictory . . . no wonder so many sensible folk move on
and ignore them.
William
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the end
of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions popping up in
the ideas of the messiah's nature. was he 'god' or 'child of god'.
this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i believe. men from all
around the mediterranean got together to hammer that out. all expenses
paid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 08:34:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:15:40 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the end
of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions popping up in
the ideas of the messiah's nature
Nope. "I and the Father are one." "I will send another in my place"
That's 3.
was he 'god' or 'child of god'.
Explained above.
this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i believe.
Nope, the Papacy. The Pope was always the Bishop of Rome, never Constantinople.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 09:44:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:34:15 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the end
of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions popping up in
the ideas of the messiah's nature
Nope. "I and the Father are one." "I will send another in my place"
That's 3.
was he 'god' or 'child of god'.
Explained above.
this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i believe.
Nope, the Papacy. The Pope was always the Bishop of Rome, never Constantinople.
And he only speaks for one Christian sect.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 09:11:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:44:51 GMT, (William) wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:34:15 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the end
of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions popping up in
the ideas of the messiah's nature
Nope. "I and the Father are one." "I will send another in my place"
That's 3.
was he 'god' or 'child of god'.
Explained above.
this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i believe.
Nope, the Papacy. The Pope was always the Bishop of Rome, never Constantinople.
And he only speaks for one Christian sect.
Yes, but it is the Church that Christ founded. Christ declared St Peter to be
the first human leader (Pope) of his Church on earth. The rest are breakaways.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 10:01:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:11:30 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Nope, the Papacy. The Pope was always the Bishop
of Rome, never Constantinople.
And he only speaks for one Christian sect.
Yes, but it is the Church that Christ founded. Christ
declared St Peter to be the first human leader (Pope) of his
Church on earth. The rest are breakaways.
They all claim to be based on the early church. And since Peter and
the Apostles laid their hands on all sorts of people and they, in
turn, laid hands on others, the numbers must go into millions down the
ages. Any sect can claim their church has authenticity.
Millions
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
16 Jan 2005 04:31:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:01:50 GMT, (William) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:11:30 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
(William) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Nope, the Papacy. The Pope was always the Bishop
of Rome, never Constantinople.
And he only speaks for one Christian sect.
Yes, but it is the Church that Christ founded. Christ
declared St Peter to be the first human leader (Pope) of his
Church on earth. The rest are breakaways.
They all claim to be based on the early church.
They can claim, but they don't provide.
And since Peter and
the Apostles laid their hands on all sorts of people and they, in
turn, laid hands on others, the numbers must go into millions down the
ages.
And then "they" rejected those teaching of Christ around 1500AD.
Any sect can claim their church has authenticity.
Yes, but mine provides, others don't.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
17 Jan 2005 02:02:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:31:07 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
They all claim to be based on the early church.
They can claim, but they don't provide.
You are probably right there. None around now.
And since Peter and
the Apostles laid their hands on all sorts of people and
they, in turn, laid hands on others, the numbers must
go into millions down the ages.
And then "they" rejected those teaching of Christ
around 1500AD.
It's doubtful that his teachings survived even that long. Paul saw to
that. And today, most churches don't even believe that what was
written about him should be taken as literally true. Most reject his
sayings which show he believed in an historical Adam, Noah and
universal flood and much more. Most reject his teaching that you
cannot be a follower of his if you don't get rid of all your
possessions, make no plans for the future, heal the sick and get what
you pray for.
Clearly the "they" you refer to above includes all current christians
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
17 Jan 2005 05:44:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:02:57 GMT, (William) wrote:
And then "they" rejected those teaching of Christ
around 1500AD.
It's doubtful that his teachings survived even that long.
They're now 2000 years old.
Paul saw to
that. And today, most churches don't even believe that what was
written about him should be taken as literally true. Most reject his
sayings which show he believed in an historical Adam, Noah and
universal flood and much more. Most reject his teaching that you
cannot be a follower of his if you don't get rid of all your
possessions, make no plans for the future, heal the sick and get what
you pray for.
Those churches that are 2000 years old do.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
17 Jan 2005 07:25:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:44:18 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
And then "they" rejected those teaching of Christ
around 1500AD.
It's doubtful that his teachings survived even that long.
They're now 2000 years old.
Paul saw to
that. And today, most churches don't even believe that what was
written about him should be taken as literally true. Most reject his
sayings which show he believed in an historical Adam, Noah and
universal flood and much more. Most reject his teaching that you
cannot be a follower of his if you don't get rid of all your
possessions, make no plans for the future, heal the sick and get what
you pray for.
Those churches that are 2000 years old do.
Never met one. And I would not have missed a church that had no
material possessions, lived according to NT principles, believed in
the Genesis account of creation, took no thought for it's future and
healed all the sick that it prayed for.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 07:38:26 AM |
|
|
Sam wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the
end
of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions popping up
in
the ideas of the messiah's nature. was he 'god' or 'child of god'.
this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i believe. men from all
around the mediterranean got together to hammer that out. all
expenses
paid?
Atheism is a patchwork of inconsistent and irrational beliefs, put
together for convenience and held together by shared animosity to the
Christians. This irrational religious position does not make its
followers get their facts right; and the malice means they rarely
bother.
This collection of statements above, for instance, is inaccurate almost
in every clause. A casual look around the web would have revealed the
facts. But then to many atheists, it's true if it's convenient.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 09:43:30 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 05:38:26 -0800, wrote:
Sam wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at the
end of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions
popping up in the ideas of the messiah's nature. was he 'god'
or 'child of god'. this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i
believe. men from all around the mediterranean got together
to hammer that out. all expensespaid?
Atheism is a patchwork of inconsistent and irrational beliefs, put
together for convenience and held together by shared animosity to the
Christians. This irrational religious position does not make its
followers get their facts right; and the malice means they rarely
bother.
This collection of statements above, for instance, is inaccurate almost
in every clause. A casual look around the web would have revealed the
facts. But then to many atheists, it's true if it's convenient.
All the best,
That's interesting. Have those (including the above poster) in this
thread who challenge the doctrine of the Trinity declared themselves
as atheist? Or is it that anyone who challenges it is an atheist (eg,
many of the early Christians and pretty well all the Eastern Orthodox
Christians)? Or maybe it is that anyone who challenges your particular
religious doctrines (and there are over 1000 different Christian
denominations, sects and cults) is an atheist.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 10:09:54 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 05:38:26 -0800, wrote:
Sam wrote:
the trinity was a patchwork devised at the council of nicea (at
the
end of the roman empire's reign) to explain the contradictions
popping up in the ideas of the messiah's nature. was he 'god'
or 'child of god'. this is what split the eastern orthodox off, i
believe. men from all around the mediterranean got together
to hammer that out. all expensespaid?
Atheism is a patchwork of inconsistent and irrational beliefs, put
together for convenience and held together by shared animosity to
the
Christians. This irrational religious position does not make its
followers get their facts right; and the malice means they rarely
bother.
This collection of statements above, for instance, is inaccurate
almost
in every clause. A casual look around the web would have revealed
the
facts. But then to many atheists, it's true if it's convenient.
All the best,
That's interesting. Have those (including the above poster) in this
thread who challenge the doctrine of the Trinity declared themselves
as atheist? Or is it that anyone who challenges it is an atheist (eg,
many of the early Christians and pretty well all the Eastern Orthodox
Christians)? Or maybe it is that anyone who challenges your
particular
religious doctrines (and there are over 1000 different Christian
denominations, sects and cults) is an atheist.
It is always amusing to watch Christian-haters weasel with little
diatribes phrased as questions. Thanks for the illustration of my
comment.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 11:12:41 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 08:09:54 -0800, wrote:
William wrote:
wrote:
That's interesting. Have those (including the above poster) in this
thread who challenge the doctrine of the Trinity declared themselves
as atheist? Or is it that anyone who challenges it is an atheist (eg,
many of the early Christians and pretty well all the Eastern Orthodox
Christians)? Or maybe it is that anyone who challenges your
particular
religious doctrines (and there are over 1000 different Christian
denominations, sects and cults) is an atheist.
It is always amusing to watch Christian-haters weasel with little
diatribes phrased as questions. Thanks for the illustration of my
comment.
You comment is what raised the perfectly reasonable question. Your
failure to answer it is noted.
And are you saying I am a Christian hater? YES or NO.
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 01:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:12:41 GMT, (William)
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 08:09:54 -0800, wrote:
William wrote:
wrote:
That's interesting. Have those (including the above poster) in this
thread who challenge the doctrine of the Trinity declared themselves
as atheist? Or is it that anyone who challenges it is an atheist (eg,
many of the early Christians and pretty well all the Eastern Orthodox
Christians)? Or maybe it is that anyone who challenges your
particular
religious doctrines (and there are over 1000 different Christian
denominations, sects and cults) is an atheist.
It is always amusing to watch Christian-haters weasel with little
diatribes phrased as questions. Thanks for the illustration of my
comment.
Yet more PEarse dishonesty and deliberaly nasty lies.
You comment is what raised the perfectly reasonable question. Your
failure to answer it is noted.
And are you saying I am a Christian hater? YES or NO.
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
In the mind of the binary thinking Christian it comes naturally.
One of my girlfriend's circle regularly uses anti-Christian when he
means Christian. In their mind they're the same thing.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 02:25:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:20:30 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
tielige@mail.clara.fl.com (William)wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It is always amusing to watch Christian-haters weasel with little
diatribes phrased as questions. Thanks for the illustration of my
comment.
Yet more PEarse dishonesty and deliberaly nasty lies.
It's the same old thing; to really drag Christianity into the sewer
just leave it to the Christians.
William
You comment is what raised the perfectly reasonable question. Your
failure to answer it is noted.
And are you saying I am a Christian hater? YES or NO.
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
In the mind of the binary thinking Christian it comes naturally.
One of my girlfriend's circle regularly uses anti-Christian when he
means Christian. In their mind they're the same thing.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 04:55:35 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
It's the same old thing; to really drag Christianity into the sewer
just leave it to the Christians.
Of course. How else would people like yourself ever encounter
Christianity?
I notice you seem exceedingly coy about discussing your own religious
position.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 01:35:52 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 08:09:54 -0800, wrote:
William wrote:
wrote:
That's interesting. Have those (including the above poster) in
this
thread who challenge the doctrine of the Trinity declared
themselves
as atheist? Or is it that anyone who challenges it is an atheist
(eg,
many of the early Christians and pretty well all the Eastern
Orthodox
Christians)? Or maybe it is that anyone who challenges your
particular
religious doctrines (and there are over 1000 different Christian
denominations, sects and cults) is an atheist.
It is always amusing to watch Christian-haters weasel with little
diatribes phrased as questions. Thanks for the illustration of my
comment.
You comment is what raised the perfectly reasonable question.
Disingenuity noted.
Your failure to answer it is noted.
Troll noted.
And are you saying I am a Christian hater? YES or NO.
Response by making demands noted.
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
Blasphemy noted.
Just another tedious little Christian-hating atheist...
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 02:13:49 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, wrote:
William wrote:
[snip]
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
Blasphemy noted. Just another tedious little Christian-hating atheist...
All the best,
You have had your opportunity. But instead you have repeated your
false accusation publically. You do it in full knowledge of what your
bible says about it. Be it on your own head.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions about the Trinity of God? |
15 Jan 2005 04:57:16 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, wrote:
William wrote:
[snip]
Be careful, there is a particularly dreadful Biblical punishment
waiting for false accusers.
Blasphemy noted. Just another tedious little Christian-hating
atheist...
All the best,
You have had your opportunity. But instead you have repeated your
false accusation publically. You do it in full knowledge of what your
bible says about it. Be it on your own head.
Thanks for the abuse, which is much appreciated. Do let me know when
you propose to apologise for the trolling and nastiness.
I notice you make no attempt to talk about your religious position.
I'd be ashamed of it too, if I behaved like you.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
