Trinity:A fraud
Keith Sims errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 03 May 1999 16:11:51 PDT (00925791111, 19990503231152.15950.qmail@hotmail.com)
>From: Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net>
>Reply-To: errancy@infidels.org
>To: errancy@infidels.org
>Subject: Re: Trinity:A fraud
>Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 11:16:41 -0700
>
>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. 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>
> >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
>
>
TILL:
. I merely showed that is is possible to
>demolish an entire belief system by showing the falsity of just one of its
>elements.
No, I'm afraid not. You've merely defended your viewpoint based upon a
statement made by the apostle Paul. Do you think that because Paul said
this, it makes it so? How odd that a man who does not believe in the Bible
would interpret it in a way akin to the most fervent of fundamentalists.
Indeed, some would say that the falsity of the resurrection would entail the
falsity of the Christian faith. However, this is dependent upon how one
defines Christianity. Many people in the Jesus Seminar, for example, do not
believe in the resurrection but still believe that there was a man named
Jesus who taught a particular Philosophy called Christianity. This
Philosophy devoid of a resurrection is, to them, still a true Philosophy. I
give these examples to demonstrate that you cannot prove your assertion with
logical necessity. It does not follow necessarily that the falsity of the
resurrection entails the falsity of Christianity. Your quotation of
scripture, while intriguing, is not relevant. You need to provide reasons
why it is logically necessary that the falsity of one element within a
system causes the entire system to self destruct. It is still logically
possible that Christianity, even without the resurrection, could still be
true; and as long as this is logically possible, my argument still stands.
TILL:
>you meant for your comment to apply only to the trinity, why didn't you say
>so?
SIMS:
I assumed that since
I was responding to a post in which the writer argued a point about the
trinity, most would possess enough perspicacity to be cognizant of the fact
that I was referring to the trinity in my response. I apologize if I
confused you.
Now, having made the necessary clarifications, can you refrain from
evading the issue and prove to me that the truth of Christianity is
dependent on the truth of the trinity?
Good day,
K. Sims
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com