Christianity is a falling religion

[robrecht]

Again, again, again and again . . .

You have failed to describe, define nor demonstrate what you want in terms of 'evidence.' 'Again, 'Any indication . . .' just jumps up the fog index.

I merely wanted you to provide any kind of evidence you thought you could provide. As it turns out you conceded that you had no evidence and that no evidence was even possible.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, let's try to approach this one step at a time.
I am not trying to change Rea's conclusion but to help you understand it.

Above, you seem to concede that these two conditional statements describe conditions contrary to fact, according to Rea. Is that correct?

"If there were no orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity according to which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might meaningfully be said to be manifestationsdistinct but still, somehow, the same God ..."

You cut off the important part of the citation . . . "Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists".

Actually, I described this and demonstrated this in detail in previous posts. The belief in three 'distinct' persons as the Trinity in traditional Christianity is a form of polytheism. The concept of 'manifestations' of a single Divine Reality is an apophatic belief in the nature of God as in the Baha'i Faith, and not considered a form of polytheism without any belief in three distinct persons as one Divine reality.

[robrecht]

You cut off the important part of the citation . . . "Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists".

Actually, I described this and demonstrated this in detail in previous posts. The belief in three 'distinct' persons as the Trinity in traditional Christianity is a form of polytheism. The concept of 'manifestations' of a single Divine Reality is an apophatic belief in the nature of God as in the Baha'i Faith, and not considered a form of polytheism.

Yes, because I want you to confirm your seeming concession that these two clauses are considered conditions contrary to fact according to Rea. Yes or no?

the same Godsorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, because I want you to confirm your seeming concession that these two clauses are considered conditions contrary to fact according to Rea. Yes or no?

Absolutely no concession whatsoever.

If there were no orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity according to which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might meaningfully be said to be manifestations distinct but still, somehow, the same Godsorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose.

The sort of polytheism Christianity must oppose is the belief in 'three distinct persons' as one Divine, but somehow, the same God, the traditional Christian belief.

If the Trinity is defined as 'three manifestations of God,' than that would not be considered a form of polytheism, as in the Baha'i Faith.

[robrecht]

Absolutely no concession whatsoever.

The sort of polytheism Christianity must oppose is the belief in 'three distinct persons' as one Divine, but somehow, the same God, the traditional Christian belief.

If the Trinity is defined as 'three manifestations of God,' than that would not be considered a form of polytheism, as in the Baha'i Faith.

So when you said, "Being a conditional statement or condition contrary to fact does not help your case at all," were you agreeing with me that these two clauses were conditions contrary to fact or not?

the same Godsorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, because I want you to confirm your seeming concession that these two clauses are considered conditions contrary to fact according to Rea. Yes or no?

the same Godsorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose.

No concession whatsoever. My case and citations are clear and specific. You are still manipulating references to justify your agenda.

[robrecht]

No concession whatsoever. My case and citations are clear and specific. You are still manipulating references to justify your agenda.

But do you realize that these are, according to Rea, conditions contrary to fact or not?

[shunyadragon]

But do you realize that these are, according to Rea, conditions contrary to fact or not?

I cited Rea's conclusions specifically and accurately. There is no further need for your manipulative nonsense.

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

[One Bad Pig]

If you only assert the apophatic nature of the Trinity, and ignore the 'positive' kataphatic belief in at the foundation of traditional Christianity than yes you are being selectively manipulative in your dialogue.

I think I'm beginning to understand the difficulty here. Shunya appears to assume that conditional clauses are necessarily true.

[robrecht]

I cited Rea's conclusions specifically and accurately. There is no further need for your manipulative nonsense.

I realize it is very hard for you to admit the truth here. But why not explain what you meant about conditions contrary to fact?

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

I have no idea what kind of evidence you might appeal to, you even say none is possible, and you seem to think that somehow strengthens your position, as if an absolutist claim can merely stand on its own.

[shunyadragon]

I think I'm beginning to understand the difficulty here. Shunya appears to assume that conditional clauses are necessarily true.

No, I never made that claim, but the conditional clauses gave the conditions for different conditions. The condition where the belief is that there are three 'distinct' persons in one Divine reality is that,

[shunyadragon]

I realize it is very hard for you to admit the truth here. But why not explain what you meant about conditions contrary to fact?

Already explained that repeatedly. 'Admit the truth?' are really deluded to the egocentric position that we really could come to a conclusion of 'Truth' in this dialogue.

I have no idea what kind of evidence you might appeal to, you even say none is possible, and you seem to think that somehow strengthens your position, as if an absolutist claim can merely stand on its own.

I am glade you agree with my view, that there is no kind of evidence one may appeal to a resolution of our disagreement. At least you have conceded one point, and stop requesting some vague nebulous delusion that there would be some sort of 'evidence.'

[robrecht]

Already explained that repeatedly. 'Admit the truth?' are really deluded to the egocentric position that we really could come to a conclusion of 'Truth' in this dialogue.

I am glade you agree with my view, that there is no kind of evidence one may appeal to a resolution of our disagreement. At least you have conceded one point, and stop requesting some vague nebulous delusion that there would be some sort of 'evidence.'

I do not recall ever requesting some vague nebulous delusion. I have always opposed your view that you understand the Trinity better than those who believe in the Trinity and clearly express their faith as monotheistic belief in one God.

[One Bad Pig]

No, I never made that claim, but the conditional clauses gave the conditions for different conditions.

Of course you didn't explicitly make the claim; that's not your MO.

The condition where the belief is that there are three 'distinct' persons in one Divine reality is that,

Your repetition of this quote is but yet further proof of my observation.

[shunyadragon]

I do not recall ever requesting some vague nebulous delusion. I have always opposed your view that you understand the Trinity better than those who believe in the Trinity and clearly express their faith as monotheistic belief in one God.

You requested evidence in post #25 & #29, and never defined nor described what sort of evidence would apply to this discussion, That is a vague nebulous deluded request with no explanation.

Belief nor a different view of any doctrine, dogma nor specific interpretation does not in itself make one better than another. Again, just because Christians believe the Trinitarian belief in monotheism is true does not make it necessarily so.

As with other beliefs like the claim that Vedic beliefs (Brahman) believe in one God equals monotheism does not make it necessarily true. As with traditional Christianity they believe in multiple Divinities are one God.