Post Reply
Page 35 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 87 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:46AM #341
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,089

May 4, 2012 -- 11:21AM, Ed.W wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:14AM, tfvespasianus wrote:



Ed,



Did you mentioning you are taking words from other web sites in another post? In any case, you should attribute, lest somebody think you are stealing. I apologize if you are Bill Gothard.




What are you the police?  Sue me.  Call bill and tell him I copied and pasted four sentences from his site.  As they were not any original thought of his anyway.  The fact that the scriptures are hidden from the unitiated is in the "public domain".  Additionally a certain small amount of borrowing does not constitute "theft".  (1 to 4 sentences ie.) 


Also 97% of the post you are grieving over came from The Bible.



The essence remains.  If you aren't a born again Christian, "take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth1"


1 Originally uttered by "Scotty", at an AA meeting in Gulfport, MS sometime in ~1988.



Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:  2,3


  1. the purpose and character of your use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[29]


2Wikipedia>Copyright


3Pasianus, (STFU)




Ed,

 

I won't take you up on your offer to 'STFU'. I do think it's funny though, so thanks.

 

So, instead of saying something like 'I did appropriate someone else's words without crediting them', you get angry with me? I am sorry that you feel that way. If it were me, and I can only speak for myself, if I had inadvertently forgotten to attribute something, I would be contrite. I would be contrite because it would seem like I was trying to make myself seem more articulate through dishonestly appropriating someone else's prose. I am not making a legal argument, simply one based on propriety.

 

As for you argument in general, it is an example of what is called 'special pleading' and it is logically fallacious. As you stated in a slightly different context, if you think yourself right, but such means are inaccessible to everyone but believers, there's really no point in discussing things. It would work the same way if some one made a blanket assertion that the equation worked the other way around. I think claims stand or fall on their own merit and not through supernatural intercession. If you are always right because of supernatural intercession and not because of the strength of the argument putting that intercession aside, then there's no point in debating.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 12:11PM #342
jlb32168
Posts: 13,418

May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

The fact that anachrony is attributed to Peter is no reason for us to indulge it.


Of course there's reason to indulge it.  The oldest extant manuscript of Acts antedates AD 180.  Even if the writer is putting words in the Apostle Peter’s mouth it apparently demonstrates a popular belief among many Christians that both the Father and Jesus Christ were God – a Bi-unity, if you will.  To proceed to say that this could not possibly suggest the notion of the Trinity, only demonstrates that you can say an argument is absurd without actually demonstrating why it's absurd.


 

May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

As the Catholic Encyclopedia freely admits, the idea isn't complex, it's nonsense.


Whatever is or isn’t nonsense is your subjective value judgment.  Let’s stick to what is objectively debatable.


May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

The only reasonable explanation for why it then became popular was its political usefulness in its day: how could the Christian Jesus be made the equal of the Jewish Yahweh without polytheism? Answer - he can't, except by this kind of clumsy attempt at sleight of hand.


Then start a thread on that separate topic.


May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

The idea of the Ruach is found in the OT just as the Ghost is found in the NT. Those aren't co-equals in a single godhood and they're not the Trinity.


And that is what is being debated, Blü.  You don’t get to declare your point is the correct one. 


May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

Trinity claims fail because it's blindingly obvious . . .


Proof by assertion, you repeatedly restate an opinion regardless of contradiction.  All that means is that an assertion can be repeated.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 12:27PM #343
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,089

May 4, 2012 -- 12:11PM, jlb32168 wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

The fact that anachrony is attributed to Peter is no reason for us to indulge it.


Of course there's reason to indulge it.  The oldest extant manuscript of Acts antedates AD 180.  Even if the writer is putting words in the Apostle Peter’s mouth it apparently demonstrates a popular belief among many Christians that both the Father and Jesus Christ were God – a Bi-unity, if you will.  To proceed to say that this could not possibly suggest the notion of the Trinity, only demonstrates that you can say an argument is absurd without actually demonstrating why it's absurd.




jlb,

 

Small correction, but I assume you'd want the best argument possible. The oldest complete unical manuscripts (Vaticanus, etc) date from the 4th century and the oldest fragments of Acts date approximately (I would say insecurely which could be read either way) from the 3rd century. It still is a very logical argument that Acts was composed prior to extant fragments (the odds would seem to be against the earliest fragment being an autograph, but is rather a copy of an earlier document). Nonetheless, strictly speaking, an extant copy of Acts <180 is something we don't have to my knowledge.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 12:30PM #344
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

May 4, 2012 -- 11:46AM, tfvespasianus wrote:



As for you argument in general, it is an example of what is called 'special pleading' and it is logically fallacious. As you stated in a slightly different context, if you think yourself right, but such means are inaccessible to everyone but believers, there's really no point in discussing things. It would work the same way if some one made a blanket assertion that the equation worked the other way around. I think claims stand or fall on their own merit and not through supernatural intercession. If you are always right because of supernatural intercession and not because of the strength of the argument putting that intercession aside, then there's no point in debating.



I'm not or ever was 'angry' with you.


I don't think the fact that atheists and non-Christians will never be the authority on the interpretation of our scripture stifles any debate.


You can always compare a Christian poster's statement of interpretation to a number of other sources similar to peer review.  To name a few that I use before posting:


A.  RCC catechism (not to be solely "Catholic" but I don't know of any Protestant troves of info, that's one thing I do love about the CC.)


B.  Other Christian posters approval or disapproval


C.  Catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.org


D.  Relevant footnotes in scripture from a good Bible.  (I use more than 5 translations.)



To say that "the Son does only what he sees the Father doing" does not suggest unity of Essence has no support in any peer reviewed theological source.  It is a "private interpretation" and a bad one to boot.




‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:16PM #345
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,089
Ed,

 

With respect to the 'angry' comment, that's good to hear. It's difficult to discern nuance like that in this format. That being said, 'STFU' seems a little over the top for a dispassionate response, but to each his own.

Regarding your comments on the Trinity, I can find things in your post I agree with. That is, to me, this debate is very complex and a great deal of ink over the course of several centuries has been spilled on this topic. I sincerely doubt that someone that disagrees with the orthodox conception is going to formulate some 'trump card' that will single-handedly and without possible rebuttal settle this matter. I usually don't engage in extensive debate on the Trinity because I respect its complexity, I take seriously the 'heavy lifting' involved in making the contra case and have no desire to brush up on whatever good arguments that could be made. I do think some exist, but I haven't seen much in the way of them being offered here. So, yes, having a large store of apologetics on this matter surely helps your case.

 

Take care,

TFV
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:17PM #346
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,318

This just occurred to me, don't know if applies or not.


I've been an electrician for almost 32 years. I work alone a lot of the time. Sometimes a third hand is required. I've found ways to work around this (when working alone), it usually takes some planning. Sometimes mouth becomes the third hand. A pocket T-shirt is very handy, I almost can't work without a pocket T-shirt.


Maybe God only comes in a Trinity, as there are some things that can't be done alone?


So maybe Jesus is the pocket of the pocket T-shirt.           Laughing


sdp

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:27PM #347
jlb32168
Posts: 13,418

May 4, 2012 -- 12:27PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

jlb, Small correction, but I assume you'd want the best argument possible. The oldest complete unical manuscripts (Vaticanus, etc) date from the 4th century and the oldest fragments of Acts date approximately (I would say insecurely which could be read either way) from the 3rd century. It still is a very logical argument that Acts was composed prior to extant fragments (the odds would seem to be against the earliest fragment being an autograph, but is rather a copy of an earlier document).


I stand corrected.  The oldest extant text of Acts is a fragment of the work from the early 200s and yes, I don’t think that the oldest copy of Acts is the autograph.  I think it’s a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. of Acts.


That said, I think you read my mind.  If Acts has Peter saying that David thinks that Christ is YHWH, then that suggests that many if not most early Christians held a belief in a Bi-unity at minimum – whether or not the Apostle Peter said it.  For Blü to then say that the Trinity is something spun out of the air through violent misinterpretation of Scripture, is a statement founded upon no warrant of objective consideration of the evidence, but upon partisan bias.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:50PM #348
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,089
jlb,

 

Yes, at the risk of cheerleading, something we both don't like, that's correct. The real flaw in the argument is the hard 180 date (is it January 1st, 180 or just sometime that year?). In any case, it's a point that should be reiterated, a good case can be made for the idea of divinity being much earlier in the second century, if not before- solely based on the texts we do have. My stance is that this can be inferred and thus, as I think you've argued, it's at the very least a logical possibility. I think even if we disallow the attribution of certain texts (e.g. the pastorals, Hebrews, etc) as some famously do, you still have to allow that a) these texts most likely express extant sentiment at the time of their writing and b) their autographs are likely prior to 180.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:46PM #349
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

May 4, 2012 -- 11:46AM, tfvespasianus wrote:


I won't take you up on your offer to 'STFU'. I do think it's funny though, so thanks.



And there was a good bit of humor implicit in the remark.  At least 70% humor. 

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:52PM #350
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Since we all know what the"F" in STFU or even WTF stands for and we do have vulgarity rule lets try to refain from even hinting at it, Please?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 35 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 87 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook