Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time (page 6)

AllTimeJeff

Sulla, the journey continues.

You are a very difficult fellow to agree with, Jeff. Like I said, I'm in substantial agreement with your observation that the Trinity is not usefully discussed on boards like this. I happen to think that is mostly because people on your side don't bother to educate themselves about what it is they disagree with. And because they have a fudamentally dishonest approach to things where they prefer to engage the weakest arguments of their opponents instead of the strongest arguments.

So, if people only educated themselves on the Trinity like you did, they would believe? Ok. Duly noted. Still haven't heard any arguments from you, as you put out this odd "strong/weak" dichotemy. You just say that "we" Trinity debunkers take pot shots at the weak arguments. Yet you haven't put out a strong or weak argument. However, if you have, let me/us know. Thanks in advance! As for your dishonest approach, you haven't given anyone here an alternative. So frankly, you are the dishonest one.

Look, I see that you now say you've studied the matter extensively and still conclude it is illogical. I don't believe you. I think, if you had, you would not toss out things like 1+1+1~=1 or the amazing observation that, in humans, natures and persons are not separable. You'd be entitled to think the same of me if I tried to defend the teaching with some H2O example, or egg example, or clover. I didn't, of course, and wouldn't because I know that those are not compelling arguments. Anybody who would be convinced by those arguments for the Trinity is probably not engaging the question at a very high level.

So what is your high level argument again?

But, back to you. I think this thread has generally supported my viewpoint that anti-Trinitarians like you prefer cheap shots to real discussion. And I think this thread has shown a high level of bad faith from your side: you keep changing the subject: for example, asking me to offer up a strong argument for the Trinity (how many times do I have to agree with you that there isn't much point in that sort of discussion?). And I think this thread has shown how you mis-understand things like the observation that the Trinity is a mystery, preferring to suppose that means those who believe it accept illogical arguments.

I don't really give a rats ass what you think this says about me. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT WEAK ARGUMENTS YET HAVEN'T PRESENTED A "STRONG" ONE. What I think this says about you is that you would rather frame the argument instead of joining in it.

I, on the other hand, have shown no particular inclination to adopt illogical reasoning at all. I am the paragon of rationality.

You on the other hand have shown no inclination to discuss your beliefs. You are the paragon of bullshit.

So, where do you think the problem lies?

That you will not present any argument at all and insist that all any anti-Trinitarians do is take pot shots at the "weak" arguments.

So you Sulla, our local Trinitarian hot shot, where is your "strong" argument again?

Thought so......

AllTimeJeff

The problem isn't with the Trinity.

The problem is if you insist that the Trinity is THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD.

That's all.

I have beliefs (purposely not disclosed) that are good enough for me. I don't think them weird, just my own personal views on spirituality, not unlike how the Trinity can ground a believer for his life and worldview. Fair enough.

So Sulla, believe all you want. But please don't think that with me, you will get away with maintaining that it is THE way to view god, or that criticism of it comes ONLY from the (easy) bludgeoning of "weak" arguments.

What are the strong ones?

I keep saying that because, while you keep trying to change the conversation to a superior "if you only knew" argument, you still haven't shared what you know.

The only certainty you have expressed is that I don't know what I am talking about. I suppose if that is good enough for you....... But trust me, I feel the same you about you. You don't know what you are talking about either.

Anyway, I hope all Trinitarians hold a nice, hand holding, Trinitarian party tonight and feel good as a result!

AllTimeJeff

Shamus, dude, you and Sulla have something in common... ;)

Sulla

My, my! This board moves so fast! Where were we? Ah, Jeff was insulting me again.

So, if people only educated themselves on the Trinity like you did, they would believe? Ok. Duly noted. Still haven't heard any arguments from you, as you put out this odd "strong/weak" dichotemy. You just say that "we" Trinity debunkers take pot shots at the weak arguments. Yet you haven't put out a strong or weak argument. However, if you have, let me/us know. Thanks in advance! As for your dishonest approach, you haven't given anyone here an alternative. So frankly, you are the dishonest one.

Who ever said that familiarity with the best arguments for the Trinity would necessarily result in belief in it? No I, that's for sure. All I have said is that the lack of understanding of those arguments leads to silly assertions, like that the Trinity is illogical. That is the sort of statement that ignorant people make.

I haven't put out an argument in favor of the Trinity doctrine since, as you may have observed, I have serious reservations about whether such a thing is a useful way to spend time. This is me agreeing with you, but you seem to be a fellow who doesn't like to have people agree with him. And, no, I don't think that makes me dishonest; consistent, more like.

I don't really give a rats ass what you think this says about me. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT WEAK ARGUMENTS YET HAVEN'T PRESENTED A "STRONG" ONE. What I think this says about you is that you would rather frame the argument instead of joining in it.

Exactly how stupid is it for you to insist that arguments about the Trinity are a waste of time and then turn around and demand to engage in an argument about the Trinity? You'd have made an excellent JW missionary. Really, I suspect that was your true calling in life.

You on the other hand have shown no inclination to discuss your beliefs. You are the paragon of bullshit.

Uh, ok. Fuck you. Is this getting us anywhere?

The problem isn't with the Trinity.

The problem is if you insist that the Trinity is THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD.

That's all.

This is the opposite, I suppose, of your non-dogmatic approach to the entire question? Don't you listen to yourself?

The only certainty you have expressed is that I don't know what I am talking about. I suppose if that is good enough for you....... But trust me, I feel the same you about you. You don't know what you are talking about either.

Well, you're the one who offerd us the observation that 1+1+1 =3. If you think that makes you sophisticated with respect to this question, then there is hardly any need for me to point anything out, is there?

botchtowersociety

Gilead complex. It isn't just a building in NY.

Vanderhoven7

Why are Arguments and Debates on the Trinity a Waste of Time?

Because believing the Trinity saves no one.

However to be "saved" scripturally, forgiven, adopted into the family of God and imputed Christ's righteousnes, one must treat Jesus Christ as he/she would the God of scripture. You don't get to the Father without communion with the Son.

AllTimeJeff

So Sulla, you believe in the Trinity, right?

Ok. Have fun. I don't.

Betcha that fact won't affect the quality of either our lives one iota.

It's pretty easy to find insults where two people disagree. However, my statement that you are "full of shit" wasn't meant to be an insult. It was meant to describe your efforts at arguing your position, not your position per se.

Would it be helpful to say that I have friends who are Trinitarians and I like them and we agree to disagree?

You are just here acting all insulted because you can't prove what you believe anyway. I get that. That's a tough place to be.

Nice try at changing the conversation. It's pretty clear you can't prove anything, so... whatever.

designs

Some of the early Caballists drew from the Egyptian trinity that involved Isis and Osiris if that helps

botchtowersociety

So, calling someone full of shit isn't an insult?

OK. I'm game.

You are full of shit, ATJ. Full of some really foul arrogant shit.

But hey, it isn't a personal insult, you know?

AllTimeJeff

You know Bothchtower, you are right. I was trying to parse too many words.

I did insult Sulla by saying he/she was full of shit.

Mea culpa on that.

So, having said that, I think Sulla is still full of shit for the following reason: (please read carefully botchtower)

Sulla stated and insinuated many times that those against the Trinity were responding to the weak arguments, but never strong ones. Also, (and please anyone who disagrees, re-read this thread) Sulla insinuates very plainly that he/she does have a strong argument. BUT. SULLA. NEVER. SHARED. IT. ONCE.

All Sulla has done is self righteously and condescendingly imply that she is right without offering any proof.

Botchtower, I sure hope this helps explain why I said Sulla is full of shit. Thanks for the opportunity to explain.

Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time

Share this