Christian business owners . . .

[Sava]

At some point, troller becomes the trolled

[Sava]

Or something

[Aeson]

At some point, troller becomes the trolled

The only thing that matters is if the participants are enjoying themselves. I for one hope BK responds again

[Kidlicious]

The Jews were living under Babylonian rule, thats when they began compiling the Bible... The trinity is ancient.

No. The Trinity is a doctrine created by the catholic church. There are places in the OT that talk about the Spirit of God and of course the Son of God, but the doctrine is catholic.

[Thoth]

Ever hear of the Beatitudes?

John, Paul, George and Ringo?

[Berzerker]

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

The Trinity is a doctrine created by the catholic church. There are places in the OT that talk about the Spirit of God and of course the Son of God, but the doctrine is catholic.

Then why do Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists all believe in the Trinity?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're just making the assumption that God has to be the thing that always existed.

The concept of a created God within a monotheistic system. makes no sense at all, because then there'd be something older than "God" and that older thing would be God, the created being would not be God. Again - this is straight out of Descartes.

Even if your logic that something had to exist eternally is accepted as a given, there's nothing to prove it had to be God. Certainly not a specific form of God.

It's like the Standard Model. It makes predictions as to what we would expect to find, and the characteristics of yet undiscovered particles. Same thing here. If God does exist - these are the qualities we would see in God. This includes God being eternal, etc.

There, I just created an internally logical mathematics system. Doesn't mean it's applicable to reality.

You have two systems. One which claims a created God, and one which does not. The system that claims that God is eternal is internally logically consistent, whereas the one with a created God is not. Ergo, we conclude that the system with an eternal God is better than the alternative with a created God. I'm quoting Descartes straight out here.

Because the statement was explicitly about the whether the dictionary definition applied to Mormons. The only possible way to judge the validity of that statement is to use the dictionary definition.

*sigh*

Just answer the question, Aeson. If you want further replies. Why is the dictionary an authoritative source for the definition of what is or is not a Christian?

I understand your argument. You disagree with the dictionary

you are intellectually dishonest

Ok, done. Call me when you're willing to discuss sans personal attacks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is stuck in the 17th century.

Why reinvent the wheel?

[ZEE]

Ben KenoBi I am tired of your Personal attacKs. I am now going to rePort you to DanQ. You might as well turn off your cKomPuter and watch TV or something.

you are HISTORY.

[Kidlicious]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Descartes never said 1 equals three. Gribbler was giving you too much credit.

[Kidlicious]

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Content...%20Trinity.htm

You said they were influenced by ancient Sumerian religion because the Israelites were captives in Babylon. That's not the argument that he used.

[Aeson]

The concept of a created God within a monotheistic system. makes no sense at all, because then there'd be something older than "God" and that older thing would be God, the created being would not be God. Again - this is straight out of Descartes.

There's nothing that requires that God to be the God you believe in. There's nothing that requires it to be a monotheistic system, or even a theistic system. You're just starting with those leaps of faith.

Even if you start with monotheism as a given in a hypothetical, there's no need for a Trinity. In fact it's much, much simpler to say 1 is 1 without trying to explain how 1 is 3 and 3 is 1.

It's like the Standard Model.

No, it's not.

You have two systems. One which claims a created God, and one which does not. The system that claims that God is eternal is internally logically consistent, whereas the one with a created God is not.

Neither is falsifiable, and both (and an infinite number of other systems) can be internally consistent.

Just answer the question, Aeson.

I've already answered it from every conceivable angle.

You are the one who keeps dodging the question of whether or not the dictionary definition, as it is defined, applies to Mormons. That is why you are intellectually dishonest. Posed with a simple yes or no question, all you can do is resort to throwing up strawmen.

Ok, done.

Again with the tease ...

[Kidlicious]

Then why do Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists all believe in the Trinity?

Most of the Christians that I've spoken to believe what they are taught until they learn the real story about how the Roman government manipulated the process in which not not believing in the Doctrine of the Trinity became heresy and punishable. Then they want nothing to do with it. They believe what the Bible says. They don't believe in the Roman emperors. That's my experience.

[Sava]

The only thing that matters is if the participants are enjoying themselves. I for one hope BK responds again

Agree.

Fun is the most important thing