Trinity:A fraud

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

<snip.>
DF :
In the following exchange, SIMS confuses opinions about something with the
ontological status of that something.  Christianity is a minimum set of
statements about reality. A god exists &  man is depraved & man needs to be
saved & god has a son & that son died on the cross &  was resurrected  &
his death and  his resurrection provides for man's salvation & man must
accept that salvation, etc. You can't accept some of these without accepting
all of them. If  god does not exist, or if man does not need salvation, then
none of the other statements  has
any meaning. As Paul said, i f  [Joshua the Messaih] be not  risen, then our
faith is in vain.

BAKKE:
Since Xian belief (some versions of it, in any case) have Trinitarian
doctrine as
 an extremely important supporting leg, if that leg is kicked out from under
one
 particular version of that doctrine, the entire belief system becomes
untenable
 and comes crashing down and its defenders go along with it.

 SIMS:
How does it follow that because one element of a belief system is
rendered as disputable, or even false, that the entire system is
demolished?

 BAKKE
I don't think you read my statement correctly.  Trinitarian doctrine is
not just "one element" of Christianity that is equal to all other
elements.  That doctrine is a foundation principle of the entire belief
system (similar to the resurrection story).  If it fails, the foundation
becomes unstable and the entire system risks collapse.

 SIMS
Applying this to everyday life would render a
multiplicity of views into extinction.  [this could be true DF]

 BAKKE
 If such views have similarly critical principles on which they are
 founded, then they would also risk the effects of the undermining of
 those principles.

 SIMS
 Does it follow that because we  have disagreements about what the founding
fathers intended with  regard to the constitution, that the constitution as
a whole is in  danger of collapsing?

 BAKKE
That would only happen if the Constitution is based upon one or more
critical foundation principles upon which it is completely dependent for
 its intellectual and/or doctrinal basis.  Is that the case?

 SIMS
Does anyone totally agree about what Marxism
really is? Well, I guess that means that Marxism is false? Hardly.

 BAKKE
You're taking the argument to undefendable extremes.  Can't you defend
Xianity directly?

 SIMS
Oh, and let us not forget atheism. Ayn Rand and George Smith have
their ideas about what atheism really is. But, so does Maddy O' Hair;
and her version finds the philosophical atheism of George Smith to be
distasteful. Is atheism the denial of God, or is it merely the lack
of belief in God? Well, I've heard atheists argue both sides. So, I
guess atheism is false as well. Gee, I had no idea this could be so
easy.

 BAKKE
It's easy if you can't (or won't) understand the arguments.  Do you
realize that your arguments are affirming that Xianity is false?

<snip>

• Previous message: Trinity:A fraud
• Next message: Trinity:A fraud
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]