Trinity:A fraud

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

At 10:38 PM 5/2/99 PDT, you wrote:


>> > 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?  Applying this to everyday life would render a

>> > multiplicity of views into extinction.  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? Does anyone totally agree about what Marxism

>> > really is? Well, I guess that means that Marxism is false? Hardly.

>> > 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.



>>

>TILL:

>>Well, gee, Sims, while we're not forgetting, let's not forget about the

>>resurrection. Would it be appropriate to say that if this one element of 

>>the

>>Christian system is rendered disputable, or even false, then the entire

>>system is demolished?

>

>SIMS:

>What makes you think that the trinity is like the resurrection in this 

>respect?

>


TILL
Take a look at what you said above, and I think you will see that you were
arguing as a general principle that the rendering of one element of a belief
system would not demolish the entire system.  Although your statement was
made in reference to a comment about the trinity, it was a general
(unlimited) statement that questioned whether the rendering of one element
of a belief system false would  demolish the entire system.  My purpose was
to show that it is possible to demolish a belief system by showing that just
one element of that system is false.


>TILL:

>If you say no, I'll let you argue with the apostle

>>Paul who said that if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is vain 

>>(1Cor. 15:17).

>

>SIMS:

>So, because of this verse, it follows that the truth of Christianity depends 

>upon the truth of the trinity? I'd love to know how you came to this 

>conclusion.

>


TILL
Well, why don't you show me where I concluded that?  You made a general
statement, and I showed that your general statement can be incorrect.  If
you meant for your comment to apply only to the trinity, why didn't you say
so?  You went on to argue by analogy that showing one element of the
constitution or one element of atheism to be false would not demolish these
entire systems.  Since neither the constitution nor atheism entail
acceptance of a belief in the trinity, it is obvious that you were making a
general, all-inclusive statement that the falsity of one element of a system
would not demolish the whole.  I merely showed that is is possible to
demolish an entire belief system by showing the falsity of just one of its
elements.


>TILL:

>>What you apparently can't see is that some Christian doctrines are so

>>central to this religious system that if those doctrines are shown to be

>>false or indefensible, then the Christian system is rendered virtually

>>worthless.

>

>SIMS:

>Great. Now show me that the trinity is such a doctrine. 


TILL
See the above.  Is this the way you intend to argue if our debate ever gets
off the ground?

SIMS

>What you apparently 

>can't see is that Disagreements about interpretations within a particular 

>philosophy, do not relegate an entire philosophy into non existence. If this 

>were the case then it would show not only Christianity to be false; it would 

>show virtually every school of thought within Philosophy to be false as 

>well.


TILL
Once again you are making a general statement that is not limited to
consideration of a specific element like the doctrine of the trinity in
Christianity, so all I need do is refer you back to what Paul said about the
resurrection.  Would you not agree that if the resurrection could be shown
to be a false doctrine, the whole belief system of Christianity would be
rendered useless?  If not, then you can take the matter up with your chief
apostle.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

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