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

[Christian3]

I think the analogy of "two persons make one couple" is a Biblical analogy of the Trinity.

"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27)

Blessings,
Lee

If God created mankind in His own image, then perhaps we could look at man as a Trinity -- perhaps using our thought, word and deed?

[lee_merrill]

I think the analogy of "two persons make one couple" is a Biblical analogy of the Trinity.

"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27)

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

Who was it that had that "treaty" analogy for the trinity? I thought that was a very good one.

[KingsGambit]

JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)

[rogue06]

I rarely involve myself in apologetics discussions, and you will see why.

1) If we're reduced to invoking Henry Morris for support, we're in trouble.

Just because he was woefully ignorant in matters related to science doesn't mean that he's an idiot about everything else

[Cow Poke]

I don't like using analogies for the Trinity because they all seem to eventually fall apart. Some are horrible like water, steam and ice.

I thought Morris's explanation was a place to start.

Seeker said: "Or it is 1, or it is 3. 1 and 3 at the same time cannot be true."

We don't know what seeker really means by his statement. Some people think the Trinity is three Gods; it doesn't. Some think "three persons" means three people; it doesn't.

Seeker needs to clarity what he thinks the concept of the Trinity is.

Just an aside, I was talking with some pastor friends about expository preaching, and one of them mentioned the notion that, if you only preach expository sermons - going through the Bible book by book, verse by verse -- you will never preach on the Trinity.

[Christian3]

I rarely involve myself in apologetics discussions, and you will see why.

1) If we're reduced to invoking Henry Morris for support, we're in trouble.

2) Honestly -- and I'm saying this as a thoroughgoing Trinitarian -- I have never ever heard an analogy, metaphor, parable, whatever that made "logical" sense of either the Trinity or the Incarnation. I can easily see why a rationalist could never be convinced of the doctrine logically, and why such a person would forever remain an infidel, apart from supernatural intervention. (Of course, it would probably be fair to say that NO ONE becomes a believer apart from supernatural intervention.)

I don't like using analogies for the Trinity because they all seem to eventually fall apart. Some are horrible like water, steam and ice.

I thought Morris's explanation was a place to start.

Seeker said: "Or it is 1, or it is 3. 1 and 3 at the same time cannot be true."

We don't know what seeker really means by his statement. Some people think the Trinity is three Gods; it doesn't. Some think "three persons" means three people; it doesn't.

Seeker needs to clarity what he thinks the concept of the Trinity is.

[Cow Poke]

Don't bother taking anything demi-conservative says seriously. He's only here to troll.

He reminds me of the old spaghetti western Indians --- "him in heap big trouble".

[KingsGambit]

You think my post is somehow representative of New Atheism ideas? How did you come to that conclusion?

Don't bother taking anything demi-conservative says seriously. He's only here to troll.

[Seeker]

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

You think my post is somehow representative of New Atheism ideas? How did you come to that conclusion?

[KingsGambit]

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''.

I'm just going to grant this point, because I don't see what the problem is. Yes, internal discussions of Christian theology are dependent on Christianity being true, and their verification may not be possible on the level of absolute certainty, but how many things are? Whether something can be validated or proved with 100% certainty does not, technically speaking, have anything to do with whether it is true.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Cow Poke]

I rarely involve myself in apologetics discussions, and you will see why.

1) If we're reduced to invoking Henry Morris for support, we're in trouble.

2) Honestly -- and I'm saying this as a thoroughgoing Trinitarian -- I have never ever heard an analogy, metaphor, parable, whatever that made "logical" sense of either the Trinity or the Incarnation. I can easily see why a rationalist could never be convinced of the doctrine logically, and why such a person would forever remain an infidel, apart from supernatural intervention. (Of course, it would probably be fair to say that NO ONE becomes a believer apart from supernatural intervention.)

Two words: Holy Spirit.

[NorrinRadd]

I rarely involve myself in apologetics discussions, and you will see why.

1) If we're reduced to invoking Henry Morris for support, we're in trouble.

2) Honestly -- and I'm saying this as a thoroughgoing Trinitarian -- I have never ever heard an analogy, metaphor, parable, whatever that made "logical" sense of either the Trinity or the Incarnation. I can easily see why a rationalist could never be convinced of the doctrine logically, and why such a person would forever remain an infidel, apart from supernatural intervention. (Of course, it would probably be fair to say that NO ONE becomes a believer apart from supernatural intervention.)

[NorrinRadd]

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.

It was kind of amusing for a time. That time has passed.