Trinity:A fraud

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

At 09:02 AM 5/3/99 +0100, you wrote:

>> > Matthew Bell

>> > You are speculating that it could ever be known for

>> > definite which of the two groups are correct in their 

>> > doctrine, i.e. the trinitarians or the non-trinitarians. 

>> 

>> BAKKE

>> If it can't be known for definite which side is right, how

>> can you possibly label the non-Trinitarians as not being

>> "*REAL* Xians (TM)" and consider your opinion to be

>> anything more than pure speculation?

>

>Matthew Bell

>It is seldom the case that the trinity is the sole area of theological

>disagreement between the two groups, hence a cumalitive case is built by

>each of them for rejecting the other. On saying that, if two groups existed

>where the only major point of theological difference was the trinity then

>such, being related to the essential nature of God, would be sufficient

>grounds to reject the other as non-Christian. 

>

>As to your latter point, are you really arguing that unless one is 100%

>definite about a matter, they cannot make any commitment to a position?

>Where would such put atheism?


TILL
This wouldn't pose any problems for atheism that I can see.  I am 100% sure
that there isn't enough evidence to justify my believing in a god, just as I
am 100% sure that there isn't enough evidence to justify my believing in
fairies.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

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