Why i don't believe in the Trinity

Discussion in 'Religion' started by vampyregirl, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    BTW when Jesus sat at the right hand of the throne of the father was it his own right he was sitting at? Clearly the father and the Son are not one in the same.
     
  2. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    She is not "wrong" and she is not right. Some early christians believed in the trinity and some didn't. It was resolved by the church but not right away. It took a couple of hundred years. I know I am be a stickler here but this is not a black and white issue. There is plenty of shades of gray.
     
  3. aikiMac

    aikiMac "BJJ Over 40" club member Moderator Supporter

    That's not what the OP argued. Here's the 3rd sentence of post #1: "It wasn't until centuries later, when the doctrines were standardized that the idea of the Holy Trinity, all three combined into one being, came about."

    She's saying that initially only the Arian position existed, and that the trinitarian position arose later in time. But that's just wrong. The wrong claim is what I take issue with.

    I do not deny that there was a dispute in the early centuries. The fact of the Arian controversy is well known. Rather, I deny that the trinitarian position came later in time. I do not deny that one can chapter-and-verse an excellent argument against the trinity. The fact that you can is well know. Arian's followers had excellent chapter-and-verse arguments. Rather, I deny that anybody today has come up with a chapter and verse citation that was not argued to death way back then. I deny that the trinitarian side never addressed whatever textual argument now is raised.

    In fact, some of the people who pushed for the trinitarian doctrine actually voted for the canon. (The controversy spanned a long period of time.) This, plus the fact they also chapter-and-versed some of their arguments, demonstrates that the text of the NT taken as a whole is consistent with the trinity doctrine.

    The whole "I don't believe it" argument really then is just a rejection of the ecumenical councils' (plural) authority. That's fine. To each his/her own, but it'd be nice to admit that's what you're doing.
     
  4. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    AikiMac, I'm a buddhist. I have no dog in this fight. I just think the arguments, from both sides, were way too black and white. The division has roots in earliest Christianity and even though the orthodox churches considered it resolved there are still those sects who disagree.

    Besides, she was getting hammered pretty bad and by the compassion of the Buddha I decided to toss her some arguments from which she could make her point.

    Alas, she choose not to use them or perhaps didn't understand them.

    Anyway, I found the discussion and the research it lead me to very interesting.

    Although I have to admit that the "mystery" of the trinity is indeed quite mysterious.

    :)

    Your friend,
     
  5. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    I'm still anti-religion as a whole, but I prefer to try and understand the enemy when I can. :evil:

    Plus I've never understood why there's so much debate around the trinity. It isn't that difficult to understand, surely?
     
  6. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    There seems to have always been a huge amount of debate about every last thing where Christianity is concerned! In days gone by there was no theological point too insignificant for it's adherents to be declared heretics at some point.

    What makes me laugh is the way that one particular viewpoint (forget which one) alternated between being heretical and being Church doctrine on at LEAST three occasions, on each of which the opponents of the Church's position were declared heretics (and probably got burnt to death.)
     
  7. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    If God can create the world as we know it in 7 days, who says he can't be in two places at once? If God is supposed to be omnipotent, if you're saying it's impossible for God to do that then you're going against a core tenet of Christianity.
     
  8. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    If God could be in two places at once then he probably would have got it finished in three and a half days.
     
  9. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Actually I find the trinity pretty weird. You have 3 separate and distinct beings who are not each other and are god themselves and god collectively. Someone had to do some serious theological juggling to come up with that.

    Also isn't Jesus begotten of the father? Wouldn't that mean that the father preexisted Jesus to do the begotting? If so that means that god(the sum of the parts) was missing a part until Jesus was begotted. If Jesus was always in existence then how was he begotten?

    Never understood how something so convoluted became a major article of faith or more importantly why it was so important.
     
  10. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    It's easy - God suffers from MPD.
     
  11. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Finally, someone explained it in a way that makes sense.
     
  12. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Seems like that's something you'd want all your attention on.
     
  13. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    News just in...god can't multitask. Quick...do some sin while he's not looking!
     
  14. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Or is more like Sooty, Sweep and Matthew Corbett?

    When you're talking to Sooty, you're actually talking to Matthew's hand.
     
  15. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden? Who appeared as a white dove at his baptism.? I think the Bible is clear about the Godhead. The Nicene Creed is wrong.
     
  16. aikiMac

    aikiMac "BJJ Over 40" club member Moderator Supporter

    You're entitled to an opinion, but in frankness, I genuinely do not get the impression that you've considered the opposing arguments. The people you're objecting to literally handcopied the Bible for a couple centuries, and literally wrote commentaries on what they handcopied. This includes the Gospels and the NT epistles. For you to say that those people never considered your one-line arguments is ridiculously arrogant.
     
  17. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Read 1 Nephi. It tells of the coming of the abominable church, and the Devil is its founder.
     
  18. aikiMac

    aikiMac "BJJ Over 40" club member Moderator Supporter

    I have zero reason to think a book dug out of the ground, all covered in worm slime and mud, with no people-group on the planet to connect it to, came from God. Your very assertion is meritless. Give me the Koran instead. We know who wrote the Koran, when, where he lived, who he lived with. We have an unbroken people-group cultural body to trace backwards in time, from today back to the first page of the Koran. I can accept the Koran as inspired from God. Likewise, give me all the Discourses of the Buddha. Unbroken human connection again, wrapping around the planet. I can accept the Discourses as coming from the Buddha.

    The worm-covered book that has no connection to anybody, anywhere? And that quickly was lost, so we can't even look at in a museum? That's blatantly phony.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  19. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    It wasn't lost. Read the testimony of Joseph Smith, the 8 witnesses and the 3 witnesses to get to know the whole story.
    If you want to know if the truth i already told you how.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2012
  20. aikiMac

    aikiMac "BJJ Over 40" club member Moderator Supporter

    You're ignoring history, and you're doing it on purpose. "Your cup is full," to quote a martial arts proverb. There's nothing more to be said to you.
     

Share This Page