• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus' Four Failed Prophecies About Him Returning In The Lifetimes Of His Apostles

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Your endless misapplied logical fallacies. They were not properly applied. You also may have been making some assumptions of your own. When certain people are rejected due to their failed arguments that is not a "Genetic Fallacy" That was one that you misapplied. I did not say that you were wrong for using WLC. I said that he does not help your case at all. That is not a genetic fallacy. If I said that you were wrong because you relied on WLC that would be a genetic fallacy. What you did was an appeal to authority fallacy by referring to him, as if he helped your case. He did not.

You could try to use his arguments yourself rather than citing him. You would still be laughed at since his favorite trick is to attempt to define a god into existence which fails on several levels, and then he uses a special pleading fallacy that it has to be the Christian God.

If I reject a poor source because it does not help you that is not a logical fallacy. I tell people that they can use those arguments if they wish but referring to those poor sources does not help them. If I constantly referred to a known liar in debates would that help me or hurt me in those debates? Would that make the claims that I based using that lying source any more believable than if I simply stated them myself. One has to know how to use sources properly when one attempts to support an argument. I have to repeat this: Citing a poor source only tells us about the poor reasoning capabilities of the person that used that source.
LOL! And let me guess -- who is going to decide that the source is 'poor'? Well, SZ of course.
To say that because the source is, in your opinion, poor is to deny that the source can produce some good information. This denial is called the Genetic fallacy.
You say that the source I used did not help my case. However, maybe you did not understand the info. Could this be possible, I wonder? You say that I would be 'laughed at' for citing Craig. :laughing: I have found that to be laughed at by an atheist is a kind of compliment.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It appears that I don’t reach your reasonable standards, and you certainly don’t reach mine.


If not answering questions is an act of "running away", please tell me why YOU run away from so many questions I ask you? I have a long list.



No, I would not be rude and tell the person to ‘shove off’. I would explain that this question is an example of a logical fallacy called a false assumption. I would explain why this is so, and hope that she/he would remember the next time they were tempted to ask such a question.

I hope this answer did not offend your delicate sensibilities by being “rudely posted”.
When you are rude and make false claims you cannot expect someone to answer you. This should not be that hard to understand.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
LOL! And let me guess -- who is going to decide that the source is 'poor'? Well, SZ of course.
To say that because the source is, in your opinion, poor is to deny that the source can produce some good information. This denial is called the Genetic fallacy.
You say that the source I used did not help my case. However, maybe you did not understand the info. Could this be possible, I wonder? You say that I would be 'laughed at' for citing Craig. :laughing: I have found that to be laughed at by an atheist is a kind of compliment.
Pay attention. i have explained why the sources are poor.

The time to ask is when your sources are rejected, not days down the road. You appear to be very ignorant about your own sources. Then when others reject them as the garbage that they are you make false claims of "logical fallacy" when no such fallacy is made.

Using poor sources does not mean that you are automatically wrong. It only makes it look that way. By using poor sources you have not met your burden of proof in a debate.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And why is it taught by the Church?
Because it is Scriptural.
Okay, you seem to think you are very logical, so here is the test.
If the Trinity doctrine is Scriptural why is it that non-Trinitarian Christians who are reading the SAME scriptures do not adhere to the Trinity doctrine?

The article below explains why the Trinity doctrine came to be taught by the Church.
I suggest you learn some Church history.

The largest nontrinitarian Christian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo and the Iglesia ni Cristo, though there are a number of other smaller groups, including Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, ...

Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia

Now don't run away. ;) Please answer the question and address what it says in the article below (red emphasis mine).

Which Christian denominations do not believe in the Trinity? Why not?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, Iglesia Ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, the United Church of God, and Armstrongism do not believe in trinitarinanism because they do not share history with the post-apostolic process that concocted the doctrine. Also, Unitarians believe that the Father is the sole deity and the Savior was not God.

Virtually all other Christian denominations believe in the 3-in-1 Trinity because of the influence from Roman Catholicism.

The seeds of trinitarian ideas were fabricated over the course of centuries following Jesus' death and came into vogue in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine, an unbaptized pagan, threw his weight behind it for political reasons. After decades of controversy and much bloodshed over the issue, the doctrine of trinitarianism was made official by the Council of Constantinople 381AD. By then, there were no 12 apostles living to contradict it. (I redacted “Athanasian Creed” from this paragraph in response to Francis Mardsden’s comment.)

Trinitarianism is not Biblical - just the opposite. Jesus said, The Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28) That alone explodes the trinitarian myth. Also, all three godhead members were manifested separately at Christ’s baptism; Jesus in the river, the Father's voice from heaven, and the Spirit descending like a dove. (Matthew 3:16-17) On many occasions, Jesus prayed to His Father with words that prove they were two distinct individuals, Jesus conforming His will to the Father’s. The risen Lord told Mary He had yet to visit His Father. Jesus claimed not to know when the end would come and said only His Father knew. (Mark 13:32) Jesus said, The Son will judge but not the Father. (John 5:22) He said, blasphemy against Him and the Father was forgivable but not against the Holy Ghost. On the cross, He asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. (Mt. 27:46) “After the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” (Mk. 16:19) As Stephen was being stoned, he looked into heaven and saw “Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55) These are but a few examples of Jesus teaching and demonstrating that He was separate and distinct from His Father.

The references in the Bible declaring the Father and the Son to be “one” are explained by Christ Himself in His intercessory prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asked His Father to help the disciples to become “one” even as He and the Father were one. The Bible says a husband and wife become “one flesh” but nobody suspects that marriage transforms a couple of humans into an incomprehensible binity. (Mark 10:8) Unity of mind and purpose is a common theme in life.

Only extremely twisted logic allows a person to believe in a Jesus who is also His own Father conceived by His own Holy Ghost self! Trinitarianism pollutes the true character of the godhead and contradicts the scripture that "God created man in his own image" as we are not triple-personality nor composite individuals. Trinitarianism hyper-mystifies God, unnecessarily distancing us from the Father of our spirits while depersonalizing our Savior by denying Him of His distinct individuality.

Even those who believe it have trouble explaining it, invoking obscure terminologies that the average person finds foreign and obfuscational. “God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases.” The Athanasian Creed repeats the same theme multiple times, as if verbosity stabilizes the nonsense. “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.” And so on and on and on.

The question should be rephrased, “Which Christian sects hold to trinitarianism and why?”

Which Christian denominations do not believe in the Trinity? Why not? - Quora
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Pay attention. i have explained why the sources are poor.
No. You have explained why YOU believe the sources are poor. This means nothing.
The time to ask is when your sources are rejected, not days down the road. You appear to be very ignorant about your own sources. Then when others reject them as the garbage that they are you make false claims of "logical fallacy" when no such fallacy is made.
No. It is YOU who appears to be ignorant about my sources. So ignorant in fact that you refuse to accept that material from the source could possibly be relevant. That, my friend, is called the Genetic fallacy. And it is not a false claim.
Using poor sources does not mean that you are automatically wrong. It only makes it look that way. By using poor sources you have not met your burden of proof in a debate.
It makes it look that way to YOU. It is YOUR opinion. I simply disagree with you. You really must learn to accept that people are different, SZ. Try to be less rigid.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Okay, you seem to think you are very logical, so here is the test. If the Trinity doctrine is Scriptural why is it that non-Trinitarian Christians who are reading the SAME scriptures do not adhere to the Trinity doctrine?

Well, I have no idea, Tb. Why not ask them?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No. You have explained why YOU believe the sources are poor. This means nothing.

No. It is YOU who appears to be ignorant about my sources. So ignorant in fact that you refuse to accept that material from the source could possibly be relevant. That, my friend, is called the Genetic fallacy. And it is not a false claim.

It makes it look that way to YOU. It is YOUR opinion. I simply disagree with you. You really must learn to accept that people are different, SZ. Try to be less rigid.
Nope, I explained. At best you did not understand. You should have asked questions. Instead you made false accusations.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
I know. Crazy, isn't it? Only threatened people tend to act as you do. It is almost as if you know that you would lose a proper debate.
SZ, you are neither astute, adept or perspicacious enough to threaten anyone. Don’t delude yourself.


On another note, what in your opinion is a ‘proper debate’?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, as I said, you explained why YOU believe the sources are poor. This means nothing.
Actually it does. It refuted your false claims about assumptions. Your inability to understand does not make something an assumption. You made a false claim that you were not able to justify.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SZ, you are neither astute, adept or perspicacious enough to threaten anyone. Don’t delude yourself.


On another note, what in your opinion is a ‘proper debate’?
Obviously far more astute than you. I am not the one that made endless failed "logical fallacy" claims. When a person does that it is quite often due to them losing arguments by relying on logical fallacies. In fact almost all of your posts in this thread are unsupported personal attacks. You refuse to discuss the topic of the thread. Why is that? Again, this is the act of a person that is threatened. If I am such a failure then why do you act exactly like a threatened person would act? I just can't wrap my mind around that.

And a proper debate is one where both sides have to support their claims. If a source is used it cannot break various rules. For example in the sciences one can be wrong. That is allowed. It is expected at times. Being wrong is a minor setback. But lying can be career ending. If someone uses a source that openly lies that is not a valid source. If someone uses a source loaded with failed arguments that is not a valid source. If you need to learn why a source has failed I will gladly explain that, but you cannot make false and unjustified claims if you want an explanation.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Christians don't believe in reincarnation. They say it's a Hindu belief therefore it is a pagan belief.

I believe Christians have a lot of false beliefs as in the wine turns into the blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Reincarnation has been a traditional Hindu belief but it is based on human philosophy and incorrect in the way they understand it. Buddhists have something similar in rebirth but that is based on Whatever the Buddha had to say about it and he does not claim to have heard from God.

What is in the Bible about reincarnation is what is true reincarnation.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Yet another example of how disjointed the religion is. I think most Christians have their own particular set of beliefs on everything Christian from soup to nuts. For them "Christian" is just a label, it's not a way to actually believe.

I believe there is a way to believe but not every person calling himself Christian finds it. My church SBC accepts a person as Christian if he/she has accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.
 
Top