Controversial?

[hyphenate]

Quote:

"Science will always prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Unlike some religious groups out there who insist that 1 = 3."

[Deep13]

1. Apaprently, since someone tried to convince me that...

1+1 sometimes = 1.

Someone had said that absolute statements always indicate fundamentalism without seeing the irony in the statement. I wrote 2+2=4 as an absolute state to prove that some statements really are always true. Well what is two water drops are added and one ends up with a single drop. Or what if wolves and sheep are put together? Won't the wolves kill the sheep leaving one with just wolves?

So, yeah, it may be more controversial than you think.

Also, 1 only = 3 if you redefine the terms halfway through the equation. Otherwise 1 always = 1 and 3 always =3 which discredits Christianity's claim of monotheism.

[hyphenate]

8. Let's face it

A molecule of water still remains water whether it is physically one "drop" to us, or a hundred. No matter how small or large, it remains H2O--unless you get down to an atomic level, where you can change a few things.

I can see where the empirical data for mathematics proves that H2O will remain 2 atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, and not turn into another element altogether.

Science works with making sure that "laws" of one sort or another can be repeated time after time without that being somehow changed.

I think that the point is that religion doesn't employ such fact, but makes things up as it goes along. Depending on fairy tales, legends, mythology, and simply the desire of the people who write the sections of the holy texts in any culture, facts were relatively obscure.

I also think it's one of the reasons that there are more atheists now than ever--we live in a world dominated by facts, technology and reason, and many religious groups refuse to budge when it comes to proof or even substantial evidence to the contrary.

[cleanhippie]

14. Using your water drop anaolgy...

Isn't that like claiming 6+6= a dozen, not 12? Its semantics, not philosophical math. Its nonsense, no?

[Deep13]

23. It's not my analogy. nt

[cleanhippie]

25. I just saw where you talk about it in another thread.

No worries, Poe's law and all...

[Deep13]

26. I had to look that one up.

Poe's law. I'll keep that in mind. :)

[cleanhippie]

27. There has been some discussion lately that perhaps a one or two posters

just might BE a Poe. Some of the statements are SO off-the-wall, that they have GOT to be playing a game.


Maybe...maybe not.

[laconicsax]

2. You have to have flexible mathematics to match what the Bible has.

Examples of Biblical maths include:

-10π=30
-2499=5269
-29,818=31,089=42,360
-43=44.

[humblebum]

3. So tell me.

Just as an example, cannot a man be a doctor at work, and a little league coach on weekends, and a husband at home? Three separate roles, but the same man.

Not really too controversial or difficult to understand.

[darkstar3]

4. So you disagree with "yesterday, today, forever"?

Interesting.

[humblebum]

6. Where you come up with such off-the- wall ideas is beyond me.

Yes, I do agree with "yesterday, today, forever" and what has that to do with the Trinity?

[darkstar3]

7. Are you really that thick?

Your chosen example of a single man changing roles through time completely disagrees with the unchanging nature of God put forth by "yesterday, today, forever." So your analogy contradicts your views.

[humblebum]

9. Where in Scripture does it say those roles ever began or ended?

It doesn't. Your quotation was spot on.

[darkstar3]

11. Where in scripture does it say the Trinity is one being?

If you want to go that route, you're going to lose any debate on the Trinity damn fast.

[humblebum]

13. Where in Scripture does it even mention "Trinity"?

As usual, you claim to be the expert on all things religious. There is no person who is an expert on all things and concepts in the Bible. Not possible. However, understanding that a person can assume more than one identity is not hard to understand. Don't try to debate something you have rejected or don't believe.

[darkstar3]

16. My point exactly. ;)

Oh, and several of your friends have already tried the "shut up, atheist" gambit. Do you see it working? I don't.

[humblebum]

18. You sure spend a lot of time blathering about non-issues.

Why is it so hard to under stand that any idea or concept is later given a name. Where is Separation of Church and State mentioned in the Constitution? And yet, we sure hear much about it. And I have never told you to shut up. You're free to express yourself as am I.

[deacon_sephiroth]

38. here

"Don't try to debate something you have rejected or don't believe."

Have you rejected Atheism? If so, you really shouldn't try to debate it.

[darkstar3]

10. BTW, you do know that the Trinity was made up and finalized in the Nicene Creed

in order to deal with heresies of the time regarding Jesus' divinity?

[humblebum]

12. The Trinity was not made up then, however, the term and concept

used to define the 3 natures, or manifestations, or personalities of God were established. The identities had existed in Scripture long before the Council of Nicea.

[darkstar3]

15. As. Separate. Identities.

The 3 were not considered to be one until it was decided that heresies like Arianism needed to be dealt with. Read up on it.

[humblebum]

17. Here we go. We are not talking about what people understood or considered

before the Council. We are talking about what Scripture says. But, you were right when you said I would never win an argument about this because it is unwinnable. Always has been as history demonstrates.

However, there are many references in Scripture to different identities to the same God, e.g. "..a son is given... and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9

"Here is ... my chosen one....I will put my Spirit on him..." Isaiah 42

Elohim - a name for the Hebrew God meaning plural gods.

And Jesus eluded to the idea several times - John 10 - "I and the Father are One" John 14 - "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father ......will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth." "I would not leave you as orphans, but I will come to you."

There are many other statements to that effect, but it is not hard to see why the idea of a Trinity was codified. You can make whatever you will of it. I'm sure you have your own take, but the simple fact is that there is no firm answer, therefore NO winners or losers.

[laconicsax]

19. Ooh! The ellipsis game! Can I play?

"Jesus...put him to death..." Mark 14
"a certain man was...that Mary..." John 11
"Herod...was serving as a priest before God..." Luke 1

[humblebum]

20. Well if it bothers you so much, look it up for yourself. It changes nothing

but saves a lot of unnecessary typing. Your turn.

[laconicsax]

You failed so hard I can't believe it didn't hurt.

Let's start with an easy one--"Elohim."

There are three ways to look at this:

1) The plural refers to the Trinity, a concept not found elsewhere in Judaism and therefore highly unlikely to have been the origin.
2) It's one god speaking with the royal 'we.'
3) "Elohim" is a remnant of the polytheistic religion the myths in Genesis was taken from.

The truth is most likely a combination of the latter two, and almost certainly not the first. It makes zero sense that the Jews, who never believed in the Trinity, would have written their holy book to include it.

Now for your ellipsis party...

Your Isaiah 9 excerpt is so far removed from context it's laughable. You've altered the meaning of the chapter so much I don't even know where to begin. You also conveniently left out the veritable boatload of prophecy in Isaiah 42 that Jesus didn't fulfill.

I take it that it has never occured to you that the 'allusions' in John are metaphorical and not literal. I guess I'll just have to remember that you're a Biblical literalist.

[humblebum]

22. The comical thing here is that you are trying to paint your own

opinion as fact, and that you have totally missed the point of the contention. I am merely trying to show where the concept of the Trinity came from, period. That I have done.

But as to your interpretations of these points, it is only your opinion, and certainly not established fact.

It is impossible to WIN a religious argument, and what you are demonstrating is your fanaticism toward attacking the beliefs of others.

[laconicsax]

28. Yes, you showed how misinterptretation can be used to suit your theological goals.

The Trinity isn't scripturally supported when those passages are returned to the broader context from which they came.

[humblebum]

29. Totally supported. But then again it is in the interpretation.

I would not expect the atheistic mind to agree since it is all myth to you anyway. your reaction is nothing new.

[laconicsax]

31. Yes, your interpretation does require a fundamentalist reading of scripture.

I wouldn't expect the fundamentalist mind to grasp concepts such as metaphor and context.

[humblebum]

32. Trouble is your opinion is your opinion and certainly not supported

by anything other than more unsupported opinion. You also have that prejudice thing going than limits your ability to think objectively. Up to this point you have demonstrated no scholastic credibility.

[laconicsax]

33. Are you speaking into a mirror?

:shrug:

[hyphenate]

30. Umm

Response to another post? I can tell you're not talking about my original post. ;)

[laconicsax]

34. That's odd...

I was replying to #20, and that's what the tree shows. I don't know why it says that my comment is the OP or is replying to the OP or whatever it says. That's weird.

[laconicsax]

21. Dupe. n/t

[hyphenate]

5. I think the point

is that science can come up with an observable, reliable answer everytime, while religion uses fuzzy logic to come up with their numbers. I believe the Trinity is the example from the religious POV in the quote. I remember that from being a Catholic when I was a kid. I don't do religion any more.

[Deep13]

24. Christianity claims...

...that the trinity are distinct entities while somehow remaining singular.

[NMMNG]

35. If the party...er, the church says that 1=3, or 2+2=5

who are we to disagree?

[laconicsax]

37. Especially when so many sophisticated theologians say so. n/t

[edhopper]

36. 327

That's how many angels...

[sk2020]

39. Not controversial at all.

Not controversial at all. In fact, a very witty and truthful remark ;)

[hyphenate]

41. I thought so as well!

Enough to remember it! ;)

[Odin2005]

40. LOL! I always pissed off my sunday school teachers because I told them that...

...the doctrine of the Trinity made no sense.

Don't try to argue theological BS with an Aspie kid he/she will pwn you! :rofl:

[hyphenate]

42. Agreed

Determination and single mindedness probably help, too. ;)