Cryptic Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 So I came across an interesting gem today. I was having a discussion with some fellow Christians about how being a believer makes you God's child and being a non-believer makes you "not" his child. So I pose the simple question: So the only way to become God's child is believe that God sent himself to down to Earth [as Jesus] and sacrificed himself, to himself on the Cross, to atone for all of mankind's sins because Eve chose to eat a fruit she was forbidden to eat from in the first place? I was privileged to be told that I was making a strawman and a hasty generalization for these reasons: 1. The Father sent the Son. 2. There was no ransom paid. 3. And he was slain before the foundation of the world. Anyone care to explain to me how I created a strawman and hasty generalization because I clearly do not see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 You weren't fallacious, its saying a tomato is not the same as a tamoteo if you buy there arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I thought he was slain on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Woos do not understand the debating/discussion fallacies. They are so built into their rhetoric and they cannot see when they create them. You just challenged them on the ridiculous premise of jesus being the son of god while at the same time god hisself. That is after all what the trinity doctrine boils down to. Xians always make blanket statements that all folk sin and when I quiz them on exactly what sins I commit, they remain silent or at minimum project their own weaknesses on others. It anyway comes down to sex and lust which apparently are bad. You are not allowed to have phun as an xian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 If you did engage in the straw man fallacy, they certainly didn't demonstrate it in their response. Their response is essentially a non sequitur. Ask them to demonstrate where your error is, not just give you meaningless platitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Can't argue with that. Some sheep are just begging to get fleeced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I honestly don't see how the Christian's answer is actually an answer. All he did was spout the same Christianese phrase that seems to explain everything to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. I know. That's one of the dumbest excuses of them all. I don't debate religion with people who say they have the "truth" because God gives it to them through revelation or holy spirit or whatever. It's not use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 I know. That's one of the dumbest excuses of them all. I don't debate religion with people who say they have the "truth" because God gives it to them through revelation or holy spirit or whatever. It's not use. Another thing with this is they claim the Trinity, but then assert that Jesus sits to the right-hand side of God. This implies that God is able to sit outside of himself; which makes zero sense. That also makes Christianity polytheistic as there is two God-figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. Which kinda flies in the face of faith being a gift you receive. Ask them why there are sooooo many interpretations and doctrines derived from the same verses and all allegedly holy spook inspired? These excuses are mere platitudes and regurgitated w/o really thinking about them first. It is called christianese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I know. That's one of the dumbest excuses of them all. I don't debate religion with people who say they have the "truth" because God gives it to them through revelation or holy spirit or whatever. It's not use. Another thing with this is they claim the Trinity, but then assert that Jesus sits to the right-hand side of God. This implies that God is able to sit outside of himself; which makes zero sense. That also makes Christianity polytheistic as there is two God-figures. It not only makes little sense, it contradicts scripture in both the Old and New Testaments. Those that claim the Trinity will usually fall back on the "it's a mystery" excuse when asked to explain all the problems with it. They'll steadfastly ignore any scripture or argument that shows it as a deeply flawed, concocted doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 From my understanding of the trinity, Jesus is god the son, but not God the father or God the holy spirit, God the father is god but not God the son, nor god the spirit and finally God the Spirit is god but not god the father nor god the son. As for how these three gods can be one is a "mystery". So technically: "So the only way to become God's child is believe that God the father sent god the Son to down to Earth [as Jesus] and sacrificed the son, to the father on the Cross, to atone for all of mankind's sins because Eve chose to eat a fruit she was forbidden to eat from in the first place?" Take a look at this image: http://upload.wikime...dei-English.svg As ridiculous as it all seems, its hard to argue with them when you get the definition of the trinity wrong and perhaps that's what he meant by straw man. Back in my fundie days, I'd get so pissed when watching Christian vs Muslim debates and they Muslim would accuse the christian of serving three gods. The old greek orthodox way of explaining it was to take three sticks bundle them together and light them on fire, with the three you have the son, father and spirit yet the fire is god, with the three bundled sticks you can't tell which flame comes from which individual stick and the flame is god. So you have three yet one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptic Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 The old greek orthodox way of explaining it was to take three sticks bundle them together and light them on fire, with the three you have the son, father and spirit yet the fire is god, with the three bundled sticks you can't tell which flame comes from which individual stick and the flame is god. So you have three yet one. You still have three sticks, even if they are bundled together as one. So technically Christianity isn't a monotheistic religion according to their standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 If I have do discuss the trinity I don't have a problem with their being made of the same "stuff." I can use the stick example I guess. The fire is what they are...they're "god" that is their "stuff." This was a big deal back at Nicaea (and why the creed exists). God, for lack of a better way of putting it, acted like a single cell creature and out came these others. They're the same "thing." Not created. Just more of the same bit. Okay. Whatever. The problem I have is with the sticks. Their "personalities." This makes them distinctly different. Individuals. So even if we accept the "cell division" god are these three of the same mind? No. It's said they're not. They answer to the original. Jesus-cell (or stick) was sent. To die. It didn't like the idea but did it anyway. That was it's purpose and apparently the reason it was "divided" in the first place. It had no idea when it was going to "return" so it lacks what the original lacks. It's the same "stuff" but it's not the same. It's different. So when you have identical twins isn't this basically what happens? They split and are the same "stuff" but two different personalities? This being the case worshiping one *isn't* like worshiping the other. They are distinct individuals. The same but different. Identical triplets are exactly like this. And then we have the trinity. The same "stuff" is fine. Different personalities are the problem if they are like minded (we're told the son and spirit lack information and "work" for the father making them all distinct). I think I have made my point clear by now. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The trinity doctrine is really not supported by scripture. It is merely a creed and their proof texts all relate to at best inferences of binity. The holy spook took some time to make it into the mix. The only verse in one of John's epistles that emphatically declares, and these three are one is a known forgery. The trinity was a an evolved doctrine and really proves it was all made up BS anyway. To many evangelicals, the trinity is a sacred cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. So then they essentially are saying you can't look at any evidence they present to convince you of faith either, since you have to be saved in order to understand what the Bible says according to them. Why then do they have all these elaborate apologetics with which to defend the faith then? No one but them can possibly see the truth of them anyway, so why not busy themselves doing something productive instead? Ask them that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. So then they essentially are saying you can't look at any evidence they present to convince you of faith either, since you have to be saved in order to understand what the Bible says according to them. Why then do they have all these elaborate apologetics with which to defend the faith then? No one but them can possibly see the truth of them anyway, so why not busy themselves doing something productive instead? Ask them that. Then they'll just tell you to take a leap of faith and say the sinner's prayer, and hence you'll see. It's the secret Captain Crunch decoder ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. So then they essentially are saying you can't look at any evidence they present to convince you of faith either, since you have to be saved in order to understand what the Bible says according to them. Why then do they have all these elaborate apologetics with which to defend the faith then? No one but them can possibly see the truth of them anyway, so why not busy themselves doing something productive instead? Ask them that. Then they'll just tell you to take a leap of faith and say the sinner's prayer, and hence you'll see. It's the secret Captain Crunch decoder ring. Then they should take a leap of faith and say the Muslim Adhan. How else can they know if Islam isn't the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The good old leap of faith is just another way of saying, you have to make yourself believe to be true. Its dishonest but common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I was told I can't debate scripture since I'm spiritually discerned. I need to ask Jesus into my heart and accept him as my lord and savior before I can start understanding the Word. How convenient. So then they essentially are saying you can't look at any evidence they present to convince you of faith either, since you have to be saved in order to understand what the Bible says according to them. Why then do they have all these elaborate apologetics with which to defend the faith then? No one but them can possibly see the truth of them anyway, so why not busy themselves doing something productive instead? Ask them that. Then they'll just tell you to take a leap of faith and say the sinner's prayer, and hence you'll see. It's the secret Captain Crunch decoder ring. Then they should take a leap of faith and say the Muslim Adhan. How else can they know if Islam isn't the truth? Everyone knows Captain Crunch is a Christian silly rabbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Take a look at this image: http://upload.wikime...dei-English.svg *That* is fabulous! The old greek orthodox way of explaining it was to take three sticks bundle them together and light them on fire, with the three you have the son, father and spirit yet the fire is god, with the three bundled sticks you can't tell which flame comes from which individual stick and the flame is god. So you have three yet one. First of all, it is so refreshing to be able to finally say that the Trinity makes no sense, without fear of burning in hell!!! This doctrine was a stumbling block to me for my entire life as a believer. It never ceases to amaze me how many different so-called analogies are used to explain away the obvious (that's it's an absurd concept and a doctrinal afterthought). The bundle of sticks analogy makes no sense because the sticks really are not equal at all. They morph and are one yet separate. As well, fire is simply the release of energy, which is finite (except the burning bush...lol). Trying to understand the Trinity broke my brain. Let's hope God doesn't throw me into hell for being too dumb to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 First of all, it is so refreshing to be able to finally say that the Trinity makes no sense, without fear of burning in hell!!! This doctrine was a stumbling block to me for my entire life as a believer. I remember trying to get the "correct" idea of the trinity down because I thought it was essential to my salvation, including the idea of the nature of christ (fully man yet fully god). I tried to correct wrong interpretation because if someone had it wrong they were going to burn in hell. In hindsight, one has to think that if christianity was true and Jesus was god, then surely he would have made the essential points more obvious, therefore the emphasis on the trinity is man made not divine. Of course now I have even more freedom to just simply say that the idea of the trinity is absurd, most christians serve multiple gods (so called heretic sects such as the Oneness Pentecostals excluded) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 One god is three parts. You either are one god or your not. Yes the trinity makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 At least walking on water, talking donkeys and raising the dead makes perfect sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts