Christianity is a falling religion

[shunyadragon]

Where does it appear in your quotation?

That indeed was my view of his article.

You've yet to show that the rest of the article is relevant to this discussion. Certainly what you've quoted does not make your case.

Regarding brushing up on one's English, notice that the this statement begins with a double conditional clause. If you would read the footnote that you left out of your quotation, you would realize that this is a condition contrary to fact in his view.

[robrecht]

False

Do you have any way to try and support your assertion?

[shunyadragon]

Do you have any way to try and support your assertion?

Your ignoring the context of the references to justify your own agenda.

False. Selectively pick and choose from the article to justify your agenda as you please, but his conclusions are clear and specific. Rea said: ."

[robrecht]

You're still missing the point that the double conditional clause prior to the section you've underlined represents a conditional contrary to fact in his view. If you had understood the footnote that you left out of your citation, you would understand this.

[shunyadragon]

You're still missing the point that the double conditional clause prior to the section you've underlined represents a conditional contrary to fact in his view. If you had understood the footnote that you left out of your citation, you would understand this.

[robrecht]

Your ignoring the context of the references to justify your own agenda. ...

But you are the one who left out the part of his text that shows you are reading his conditional clauses incorrectly. Clearly it is you who are not reading the the bolded words in context.

[shunyadragon]

But you are the one who left out the part of his text that shows you are reading his conditional clauses incorrectly. Clearly it is you who are not reading the the bolded words in context.

[robrecht]

Now you're just repeating your incorrect understanding of the text without responding to my attempts to explain the grammar to you. Do you understand what a conditional clause is? Do you understand what a conditional contrary to fact is?

[shunyadragon]

Now you're just repeating your incorrect understanding of the text without responding to my attempts to explain the grammar to you. Do you understand what a conditional clause is? Do you understand what a conditional contrary to fact is?

."


You are also hogging a thread off topic, and not giving polite consideration to the thread author. Your usual arrogant disrespect as in previous threads where you bulled yourself in off topic.

Again, again and again . . . you have not answered the question: What sort of evidence is there possible in this kind of argument?

[robrecht]

."


You are also hogging a thread off topic, and not giving polite consideration to the thread author. Your usual arrogant disrespect as in previous threads where you bulled yourself in off topic.

Again, again and again . . . you have not answered the question: What sort of evidence is there possible in this kind of argument?

I did already respond about the types of evidence. When you do not respect the right of others to define their own beliefs (eg, Christians defining themselves as monotheists), you will not succeed at meaningful dialogue with them. Rather, if you insist on pejoratively defining the beliefs of others, contrary to their own assertions, you will never rise above your religious polemics. While I did say that I was not speaking of scientific replicated evidence, I suppose someone could make the case that you have proved this point over and over again.

This thread began with a critique of trinitarian beliefs from a Mormon perspective. You wanted it to also be about a critique of Mormon beliefs. You also added your own difficulties with Christian views of the Trinity. I fail to see how you can accuse me of hogging a thread off topic any more than you have. It is true that I have been responding to your difficulties with the Trinity, but that is only because you are expressing them here. If you do not want this thread to be about correcting your errors of interpretation, then you can simply stop posting them here. If, on the other hand, you would pay attention to my attempts to explain the grammar of conditional clauses, specifically conditionals contrary to fact, you would succeed in finally understanding the text you keep repeating over and over again.

[Adrift]

brush up on your English.

Your ignoring the context

The irony. It burns.

[Bill the Cat]

The irony. It burns.

I thought the same thing. Shuny chiding ANYONE for their grammar skills is like an internationally wanted thief lecturing a child for stealing a pack of gum

[One Bad Pig]

The irony. It burns.

No more ironic than Shunya's regular assertion that his opponents "duck, bob, and weave."

[shunyadragon]

I did already respond about the types of evidence.

No you did not.

When you do not respect the right of others to define their own beliefs (eg, Christians defining themselves as monotheists), you will not succeed at meaningful dialogue with them. Rather, if you insist on pejoratively defining the beliefs of others, contrary to their own assertions, you will never rise above your religious polemics. While I did say that I was not speaking of scientific replicated evidence, I suppose someone could make the case that you have proved this point over and over again.

Differing in the interpretation as in all religious disagreements on interpretation has nothing to do with respect. It is simply a different interpretation of the belief.

What sort of evidence are you referring to?

This thread began with a critique of trinitarian beliefs from a Mormon perspective. You wanted it to also be about a critique of Mormon beliefs. You also added your own difficulties with Christian views of the Trinity. I fail to see how you can accuse me of hogging a thread off topic any more than you have. It is true that I have been responding to your difficulties with the Trinity, but that is only because you are expressing them here. If you do not want this thread to be about correcting your errors of interpretation, then you can simply stop posting them here. If, on the other hand, you would pay attention to my attempts to explain the grammar of conditional clauses, specifically conditionals contrary to fact, you would succeed in finally understanding the text you keep repeating over and over again.

As I said you need the review your English. Yes it refers to a conditional statement, but that does not change the conclusions of his article that a clearly 'positive' kataphatic Trinity is some form of polytheism. He said, If they were distinct than the conclusion of this essay would probably be that Rea:"Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists". In 'positive' kataphatic definition of the Trinity there are three distinct persons as one God. He described if the three beings were defined otherwise as a form of 'manifestations' other than three distinct persons than that would be different case, and not a specific 'positive' kataphatic nature of three distinct persons.

Actually if you are arguing for a more apophatic position of the concept of the Trinity you would come close to if not in agreement with the Baha'i belief that there are 'manifestations' of God, and not distinct persons in a 'positive' kataphatic Trinity. Rea rightly concludes that this would not be considered polytheism.

[Cerealman]

I can see the day where Christianity or at least what people call Orthodox, corrupts and falls at the seams. The whole idea of the trinity makes no sense at all. People need to wake up and see the light. Three persons? One entity? That doesn't work. Its quite apparent, even with scripture that Jesus and God the Father are two separate entities. One day, we are going to see the uprising of the Mormon people. Stand and Unite for the LDS church, and praise our founder of the religion, Joseph Smith.

Pretty sure that's idol worship by definition.