My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

[Christian3]

The logic is simple: if it is true it can't be self-contradictory. Or it is 1, or it is 3. 1 and 3 at the same time cannot be true.

(If you still don't get it, that was a reference to the Trinity).

I have a book called "Science and the Bible" written by Henry M. Morris and he explains the concept of the Trinity. I cannot type the Trinity section without getting written permission by the publisher, but I found an article written by Henry M. Morris that might help you.

https://www.icr.org/article/tri-universe

Clip: "Skeptics can deride the Trinity doctrine as mathematically impossible. One plus One plus One does not equal One, but three. Nevertheless, the Bible reveals God to be a Trinity—one God in three Persons. Are we naïve and credulous to believe such a thing?"

"Consider: The created universe is actually a tri-universe of Space, Matter, and Time, each permeating and representing the whole. However, the universe is not partly composed of space, partly of matter, and partly of time (like, for example, the three sides of a triangle). A trinity is not a trio or a triad, but a tri-unity, with each part comprising the whole, yet all three required to make the whole. Thus, the universe is all Space, all Time, and all Matter (including energy as a form of matter); in fact, many scientists speak of it as a Space-Matter-Time continuum.

Furthermore, note the parallels between the divine trinity and the tri-universe in terms of the logical order of its three components. Space is the invisible, omnipresent background of everything in the universe. Matter-and-Energy reveal the reality of the universe. Time makes the universe understandable in the events occurring in it. Note that exactly the same sentence will apply if the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit replace the words, Space, Matter, and Time.

Space itself is also a tri-unity, comprised of three dimensions, with each dimension permeating all space. The reality of any portion of space is obtained by multiplying the three dimensions together (the "mathematics of the Trinity" is not 1+1+1=1, but rather 1x1x1=1). Further, Space is identified in the first dimension seen in the second dimension, experienced in the third dimension. The same sentence could be used with Father, Son, and Spirit replacing first, second, and third dimensions.

Similarly, Time is future, present, and past. The future is the unseen source of time, manifest moment-by-moment in the present and understood in the past. Again substitute Father, Son, and Spirit."

[Sparko]

Is there discussion among the mods about having him curb the baby talk on the forum? It's pretty trolly behavior, and I believe CP mentioned a thread about it. I suppose I could just set him on ignore, but was just curious if you folks were doing anything about it.

Yes there is a discussion going on. I am hoping demi will just stop it on his own accord. It's not like anyone is buying his fake "russian accent" here. It makes his posts nearly impossible to parse and makes him look like a moron.

[Adrift]

Hulk think demi talk funny.

Is there discussion among the mods about having him curb the baby talk on the forum? It's pretty trolly behavior, and I believe CP mentioned a thread about it. I suppose I could just set him on ignore, but was just curious if you folks were doing anything about it.

[rogue06]

Hulk think demi talk funny.

00000000000000ab000-00aal.jpg

[Sparko]

In hindsight, demi surprised New Atheism had such yuge hype as big threat, cos turned out so very, very shallow.

Hulk think demi talk funny.

[demi-conservative]

Comments?

In hindsight, demi surprised New Atheism had such yuge hype as big threat, cos turned out so very, very shallow.

[Seeker]

Non sequitur.

I don't deny the possibility that one of them is true. But all shout ''I am right!'', and none of them show any evidence. For example, what concrete evidence is there to decide whether salvation is obtained by works, by Scripture, or by what one believes? Actually, there is not even evidence of any salvation or any condemnation to eternal suffering, so this is rather meaningless anyway...

I'd have to see what you had in mind for that. This is simply a vague assertion as is.

The logic is simple: if it is true it can't be self-contradictory. Or it is 1, or it is 3. 1 and 3 at the same time cannot be true.

(If you still don't get it, that was a reference to the Trinity).

...what?

I mean the claims are circular. What evidence from outside can be verified to validate the truth claims? And I am using the usual definition of truth from Philosophy. The only functional definition of truth is the correspondence between mental and supposedly factual contents; that is what I meant by ''truth is the relation between description and that which is described''.

[mikewhitney]

Scholars find Paul to be contradictory all the time. What i have observed is that the scholars have misunderstood what Paul was saying. But the scholars blame Paul. From my viewpoint, I am not surprised when people consequently have contradictory doctrines.

This observation probably only addresses a small portion of the complaint in the original post.

[KingsGambit]

Dear Twebbers,

Christian doctrine cannot be true. First off, there are dozens, hundreds of Christian doctrines which are mutually exclusive.

Non sequitur.

Two, they are full of contradictions.

I'd have to see what you had in mind for that. This is simply a vague assertion as is.

And third, because truth is the relation between description and that which is described. Well, a large chunk of Christian doctrine is about Christian doctrine. Thus, it is self-referential and leads nowhere.

...what?

[Sparko]

You will need to provide specifics if you expect any sort of cogent response.

Otherwise: I have found Christianity to be true, and it's doctrines and beliefs to be also true and valuable to not only this life but the one to come.

There. Battling opinions.

[One Bad Pig]

To be honest, I was expecting some sort of debate. I apologize if I posted this in the wrong section -- please move it if necessary.

Cheers!

If you want debate, maybe post something substantive? All I see in the OP is an assertion which is on the face of it absurd. "Hundreds of doctrines which are mutually exclusive?" Your opinion is duly noted and filed with those not sufficiently interesting to discuss.

[Seeker]

I don't quite see a problem with an observation that Christian doctrine is wrong ... as long as you don't mean that the gospel is wrong.

If we are saved by having totally correct doctrine, we all are in trouble.

If we misunderstand a math book, this doesn't mean that math itself is wrong. We just goofed up somewhere.

Speaking personally as a skeptic, I don't see how saying that the Gospel is wrong can be ''wrong''. I am obviously open to that possibility as well. And yes, it's a possible extension of my comment.

Thanks for your comment.

[Seeker]

The description is "Apologetics Lite. Open and very polite discussion on theism. Must be able to play well with others".

You and I have both been polite.

Fair enough. But maybe I should have posted this in the Apologetics section. Sorry, will do better next time.

[mikewhitney]

I don't quite see a problem with an observation that Christian doctrine is wrong ... as long as you don't mean that the gospel is wrong.

If we are saved by having totally correct doctrine, we all are in trouble.

If we misunderstand a math book, this doesn't mean that math itself is wrong. We just goofed up somewhere.

[Cow Poke]

To be honest, I was expecting some sort of debate. I apologize if I posted this in the wrong section -- please movie it if necessary.

Cheers!

The description is "Apologetics Lite. Open and very polite discussion on theism. Must be able to play well with others".

You and I have both been polite.