Religion II

[Lemon Drop Husker]

WOW!

Only read one page, and this is part II?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

See below.

So you agree it's meaningless.

So you are opposed to Repug plans to eliminate Social Security.

The ancients believed here were many gods. The Greeks and Romans thought there were few. The Jews thought there was only one. The Christians bumped that back up to three. I'm three gods ahead of you.

Logically, the quote should be totally meaningless to you because you're quoting someone who is a non-existent entity in your mind or world.

And you don't know the bible either. The Tri-Unity of God is taught in the OT, as well as in the New.

And what does SS have to do with this discussion? Another of your non sequiturs?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Logically, the quote should be totally meaningless to you because you're quoting someone who is a non-existent entity in your mind or world.

I'm quoting an unknown author from about 70 C.E. at the earliest. Just because I quote Shakespeare does not mean I subscribe to the idea that Hamlet existed.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you don't know the bible either. The Tri-Unity of God is taught in the OT, as well as in the New.

So what? It's still a Christian doctrine which is all that I said.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what does SS have to do with this discussion? Another of your non sequiturs?

You're the one who brought politics into the thread in post #703.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm quoting an unknown author from about 70 C.E. at the earliest. Just because I quote Shakespeare does not mean I subscribe to the idea that Hamlet existed.
So what? It's still a Christian doctrine which is all that I said.
You're the one who brought politics into the thread in post #703.

Good grief, Actor. Learn to read already and quit responding with ridiculous replies. I had no idea that the bible had one playwright and that this non-existent Jesus was the playwright's star fictional character.

Also, since the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT unique to the NT, this must mean, logically, that it's a thoroughly Jewish doctrine -- rooted in Judaism -- and because all parts of the bible harmonize with each other, it stands to reason this Jewish doctrine would be embraced by first century Christians who for the most part were Jews.

And, yes, I brought politics into this thread, but not social security. The topic I broached was socialism and the welfare state.

Have a nice night. Try to get some rest. I think you need it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good grief, Actor. Learn to read already and quit responding with ridiculous replies. I had no idea that the bible had one playwright and that this non-existent Jesus was the playwright's star fictional character.

Equivocating again I perceive.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, since the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT unique to the NT, this must mean, logically, that it's a thoroughly Jewish doctrine -- rooted in Judaism -- and because all parts of the bible harmonize with each other, it stands to reason this Jewish doctrine would be embraced by first century Christians who for the most part were Jews.

I have Jewish friends. I'll ask them.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And, yes, I brought politics into this thread, ...

Why? Aren't there enough political threads on PA already?

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Actor

Equivocating again I perceive.
I have Jewish friends. I'll ask them.
Why? Aren't there enough political threads on PA already?

Boxcar, Actor is playing you again with his silly little program...

You don't see that..?..

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

Boxcar, Actor is playing you again with his silly little program...

You don't see that..?..

Yeah...that's what he does, since he rarely has anything of substance to say.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, since the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT unique to the NT, this must mean, logically, that it's a thoroughly Jewish doctrine -- rooted in Judaism -- and because all parts of the bible harmonize with each other, it stands to reason this Jewish doctrine would be embraced by first century Christians who for the most part were Jews.

My Jewish friends say you're wrong.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

My Jewish friends say you're wrong.

Your "Jewish friends" are ignorant of the OT scriptures. No surprises here since most of Christ's detractors, who were contemporaneous with him, were equally as ignorant.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your "Jewish friends" are ignorant of the OT scriptures. No surprises here since most of Christ's detractors, who were contemporaneous with him, were equally as ignorant.

The doctrine of the trinity dates from the 2nd century at the earliest and was controversial for centuries. Google it.

My original point was that belief has proceeded from many gods to a few gods to one god to zero. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a small retrograde. Your argument do include Jews in the retrograde, even if true, which it is not, does not alter the direction of the trend.

By the way, didn't Constantine (4th century) have Christians put to death if they did not accept the Doctrine of the Trinity?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your "Jewish friends" are ignorant of the OT scriptures.

Where in the OT is there any embrace of anything like the Trinity? Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Where is that in the Tanakh?

I know, you're going to cite all the instances in the OT where God refers or is referred to with a plural...as in Genesis:

"Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth"

That's a stretch and a half...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Where in the OT is there any embrace of anything like the Trinity? Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Where is that in the Tanakh?

I know, you're going to cite all the instances in the OT where God refers or is referred to with a plural...as in Genesis:

"Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth"

That's a stretch and a half...

Before I answer...explain, please, why are "all the instances in the OT a stretch and a half"? Would you have a reasonable, viable, logical explanation for each instance or do you just conveniently lump them altogether and summarily dismiss them in favor of some fanciful interpretation of the We's and Us's, etc?

[Actor]

An excerpt.

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world—its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is, and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence, and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time towards a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

* Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

[Greyfox]

Simply stated, Bertrand Russell was not a Christian because he couldn't bring himself to believe that there is a Hell.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Simply stated, Bertrand Russell was not a Christian because he couldn't bring himself to believe that there is a Hell.

That oversimplifies and distorts his position.

Belief in eternal hell fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override Their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

* Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian