215 posts in this topic

I didn't claim to hold any particular belief. You claimed that Christians were not monotheists because of their belief in the Trinity, which you apparently perceive as belief in 3 gods. I'm not sure what the historical development of this idea changes to the fact that this doctrine defines that there is only one god, albeit in 3 persons, and that every Christian today professes monotheism, i.e. that there is only one god. This is the explicit text of the Nicean creed (which is professed by almost every Christian today) and is a widely accepted fact. See for instance:

 

Christians are not monotheist. 1 does not equal 3, the idea that 3 can be 1 in unity is known as sabellianism which the early church professed (as well as certain current denominations) when it dumped monotheism. Their are trinitarian and sabellianism  Christians, but no monotheistic ones (aside from the few unitarian churches are almost to small to figure in). The historical development matters because it just goes to show how the bible is irrelevant to debate with because its own followers mess up on the very principles of doctrine by combining elements of paganism such as the trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you didn't address my counter-arguments. Are you implying Wikipedia is wrong in every instance where it discusses Christianity and monotheism, including the ones I quoted? What about Encyclopedia Britannica then?
 

Modern scholars have located the focus of this faith tradition in the context of monotheistic religions. Christianity addresses the historical figure of Jesus Christ against the background of, and while seeking to remain faithful to, the experience of one God. It has consistently rejected polytheism and atheism. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115240/Christianity

Also, what about the fact that every Christian today professes belief in one God in the Nicean creed? "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, ..."

 

1 does not equal 3, the idea that 3 can be 1 in unity is known as sabellianism which the early church professed (as well as certain current denominations) when it dumped monotheism. Their are trinitarian and sabellianism  Christians, but no monotheistic ones (aside from the few unitarian churches are almost to small to figure in). 

No one claims that 1 is equal to 3... The idea that there are 3 persons in one God is the doctrine of the Trinity. Sabellianism (or modalism) is the idea that there are 3 modes in one God, i.e. 3 ways it is perceived by believers. None of these doctrines hold that there are multiple gods. The only difference between the two is that the latter holds that the "persons" aren't real, they're just perceived as such.

 

The historical development matters because it just goes to show how the bible is irrelevant to debate with because its own followers mess up on the very principles of doctrine by combining elements of paganism such as the trinity.

I get your point (although I don't agree with it), but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is monotheistic. We're already off-topic enough without going into whether the Trinity is biblical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you went from my statement that everyone should be allowed to express their religion to the homophobia certainly implied it. That's where the "as long as it doesn't hurt others" bit comes in. A Catholic can disagree with the gay lifestyle due to his faith; he may not attack or persecute a gay couple because he disagrees with their lifestyle. But that goes both ways - that gay couple should have no right to attack or persecute a Christian for simply disagreeing with their lifestyle. Both instances are wrong.

 

It is possible to coexist with people whose lifestyle and beliefs you don't agree with. And it doesn't require the suppression of anyone's free speech or expression of their beliefs. It's called respect for others, and too few understand the concept these days. And some religious groups fall into that category as well - I won't deny that.

 

And a group outside my house protesting like that would definitely fall in the "unless it hurts others" category. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong with their idiotic, often inappropriate protests. Just like protesting outside the house of a black family who aren't doing anyone any harm would be wrong.

 

By "a Catholic can disagree with the gay lifestyle", you mean "a Catholic can look down on someone as a deviant condemned to eternal torture and suffering in the depths of hell simply because of their sexual orientation", right?

 

It's incredibly dishonest of you to try and sweep this under the rug with weak terms as "disagreeing with the lifestyle", when the reality is anything but the sort - especially when "disagreeing catholics" keep trying to obstruct the fight for equal rights because of their bigotry.

 

Also I should note of the three examples of discrimination I put forth, you've explicitly singled out homophobia and turned it into an accusation, when the entire notion of the post was your justification of discrimination in general when based on religious grounds. How very telling.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "a Catholic can disagree with the gay lifestyle", you mean "a Catholic can look down on someone as a deviant condemned to eternal torture and suffering in the depths of hell simply because of their sexual orientation", right?

 

It's incredibly dishonest of you to try and sweep this under the rug with weak terms as "disagreeing with the lifestyle", when the reality is anything but the sort - especially when "disagreeing catholics" keep trying to obstruct the fight for equal rights because of their bigotry.

 

Also I should note of the three examples of discrimination I put forth, you've explicitly singled out homophobia and turned it into an accusation, when the entire notion of the post was your justification of discrimination in general when based on religious grounds. How very telling.

 

You spend a lot of time making up claims as to what a person has said and then use broad strokes to attack. You completely ignored the other statements he made and grossly took his words out of context.  You make it impossible to have a discussion with such an attitude.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you didn't address my counter-arguments. Are you implying Wikipedia is wrong in every instance where it discusses Christianity and monotheism, including the ones I quoted? What about Encyclopedia Britannica then?

 

Also, what about the fact that every Christian today professes belief in one God in the Nicean creed? "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, ..."

 

No one claims that 1 is equal to 3... The idea that there are 3 persons in one God is the doctrine of the Trinity. Sabellianism (or modalism) is the idea that there are 3 modes in one God, i.e. 3 ways it is perceived by believers. None of these doctrines hold that there are multiple gods. The only difference between the two is that the latter holds that the "persons" aren't real, they're just perceived as such.

 

I get your point (although I don't agree with it), but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is monotheistic. We're already off-topic enough without going into whether the Trinity is biblical.

 

Christians are not monotheist. 1 does not equal 3, the idea that 3 can be 1 in unity is known as sabellianism which the early church professed (as well as certain current denominations) when it dumped monotheism. Their are trinitarian and sabellianism  Christians, but no monotheistic ones (aside from the few unitarian churches are almost to small to figure in). The historical development matters because it just goes to show how the bible is irrelevant to debate with because its own followers mess up on the very principles of doctrine by combining elements of paganism such as the trinity. Now do Christians see it this way? Absolutely not and fight tooth and nail to say that they are monotheistic but the closest thing is sabellianism. I mean its not like the Christians don't have a history of changing concepts without biblical authority and finding non scriptural resources to back it up (4th commandment rings a bell here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You spend a lot of time making up claims as to what a person has said and then use broads strokes to attack. You completely ignored the other statements he made and grossly took his words out of context.  You make it impossible to have a discussion with such an attitude.

 

You mean the parts where he attempts to sweeten up the Catholic view of homosexuals? Please.

 

It's the same old rubbish attempts to justify religious-based discrimination through lies and misrepresentation.

 

Maybe I should post in vapid image macros instead, more your style?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the parts where he attempts to sweeten up the Catholic view of homosexuals? Please.

 

It's the same old rubbish attempts to justify religious-based discrimination through lies and misrepresentation.

 

Maybe I should post in vapid image macros instead, more your style?

 

Thank you for supporting my point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for supporting my point.

 

It's hard to support something you never made in the first place. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to support something you never made in the first place. ;)

 

Don't be so hard on yourself, you did an excellent job.  ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so hard on yourself, you did an excellent job.  ;)

 

Oh, I did? Would you care to explain? Because I've still yet to see you make a point and provide evidence for it.

 

You've only really managed to make yourself a hypocrite by derailing the discussion, but maybe that was your goal all along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians are not monotheist. 1 does not equal 3, the idea that 3 can be 1 in unity is known as sabellianism which the early church professed (as well as certain current denominations) when it dumped monotheism. Their are trinitarian and sabellianism  Christians, but no monotheistic ones (aside from the few unitarian churches are almost to small to figure in). The historical development matters because it just goes to show how the bible is irrelevant to debate with because its own followers mess up on the very principles of doctrine by combining elements of paganism such as the trinity. Now do Christians see it this way? Absolutely not and fight tooth and nail to say that they are monotheistic but the closest thing is sabellianism. I mean its not like the Christians don't have a history of changing concepts without biblical authority and finding non scriptural resources to back it up (4th commandment rings a bell here).

Apart from the last couple of sentences, that's literally a copy-paste of your last post! You're not adressing any of the points I raised in reponse to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I did? Would you care to explain? Because I've still yet to see you make a point and provide evidence for it.

 

You've only really managed to make yourself a hypocrite by derailing the discussion, but maybe that was your goal all along?

 

You like to dish it out and then complain when it comes back at you, that would certainly indicate hypocrisy. And name calling too, how very telling.   And claiming thread derailment, again, hypocrisy.  As I said before, you're doing an excellent job and no, an explanation would be a waste of time.  You have shown a disregard of others' responses to you, taken statements out of context and name calling; further discussion with you would be pointless.  Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You like to dish it out and then complain when it comes back at you, that would certainly indicate hypocrisy. And name calling too, how very telling.   And claiming thread derailment, again, hypocrisy.  As I said before, you're doing an excellent job and no, an explanation would be a waste of time.  You have shown a disregard of others' responses to you, taken statements out of context and name calling; further discussion with you would be pointless.  Good day.

 

I've not complained about anything, except maybe by pointing out your double standard of whining about discussion and then derailing + crapposting.

 

Your inability to provide evidence to support your assertions says it all. Obviously I was getting a little too close to home, so you tried to derail the discussion to cover up the truth.

 

How very malicious and insidious of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm confused. The image and her description don't match. :/

Good call, I was just adding the perspective of the Church of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of money people have is... 

 

Can I start an indiegogo campaign to fund me moving to another country? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.