independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 29th Mar 2017 2:16am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > For you theology geeks: A bit of heretical humour on this St. Paddy's Day
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/17/17 4:29pm

Lammastide

avatar

For you theology geeks: A bit of heretical humour on this St. Paddy's Day

[Edited 3/17/17 16:43pm]

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/17/17 8:56pm

morningsong

avatar

lol lol lol I lost it at Voltron.
“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/18/17 6:11am

Lammastide

avatar

morningsong said:

lol lol lol I lost it at Voltron.


Cute, eh?

Think you could come up with your own (orthodox) analogy?

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/19/17 9:33am

Dasein

The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa, or whatever the fuck Rahner
said.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/19/17 10:06am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Extremely offensive and racist.

Ezekiel 25:17 "Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/19/17 10:43am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Lammastide, what is your faith?

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/19/17 1:20pm

morningsong

avatar

Lammastide said:



morningsong said:


lol lol lol I lost it at Voltron.


Cute, eh?

Think you could come up with your own (orthodox) analogy?




It looks like a many of the debates thats taken place here over the years.

I am hardly qualified nor am I seeking to be qualified.
“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/19/17 2:56pm

Lammastide

avatar

morningsong said:

Lammastide said:


Cute, eh?

Think you could come up with your own (orthodox) analogy?

It looks like a many of the debates thats taken place here over the years. I am hardly qualified nor am I seeking to be qualified.


Gotta dig the humility.

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/19/17 2:57pm

Lammastide

avatar

Dasein said:

The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa, or whatever the fuck Rahner
said.


smile

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/19/17 3:16pm

Dasein

I enjoyed watching the video but am glad to not be a part of goofy Christian theological
expressions that are confusing and abstruse despite being so intelletually stimulating as
Rahner's Thomistic rendering of trinitarian theology is.

Funny . . . the Jews don't have this Hellenic problem!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/19/17 5:02pm

Lammastide

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Lammastide, what is your faith?


I'm finding it a bit difficult to get at a concise answer these days, if you don't mind.

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/19/17 5:26pm

Lammastide

avatar

Dasein said:

I enjoyed watching the video but am glad to not be a part of goofy Christian theological
expressions that are confusing and abstruse despite being so intelletually stimulating as
Rahner's Thomistic rendering of trinitarian theology is.

Funny . . . the Jews don't have this Hellenic problem!


Frankly, I'm surprised you give it that much credit.

I've always found this exercise a hubristic circle jerk devoid of much merit above poetic.

"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/19/17 6:19pm

Dasein

Lammastide said:

Dasein said:

I enjoyed watching the video but am glad to not be a part of goofy Christian theological
expressions that are confusing and abstruse despite being so intelletually stimulating as
Rahner's Thomistic rendering of trinitarian theology is.

Funny . . . the Jews don't have this Hellenic problem!


Frankly, I'm surprised you give it that much credit.

I've always found this exercise a hubristic circle jerk devoid of much merit above poetic.


Well, I'm the product of a Jesuit theological education so I love hubristic circle jerks
regarding the trinity!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/19/17 11:00pm

toejam

avatar

Yeah, the Trinity is an illogical concept that is so obviously the result of desperate political compromise.

Here's another good one:

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/20/17 1:32am

morningsong

avatar

Lammastide said:



Dasein said:


The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa, or whatever the fuck Rahner
said.




smile




Oops mistake.
[Edited 3/20/17 1:33am]
“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/20/17 1:34am

morningsong

avatar

Lammastide said:



morningsong said:


Lammastide said:



Cute, eh?

Think you could come up with your own (orthodox) analogy?



It looks like a many of the debates thats taken place here over the years. I am hardly qualified nor am I seeking to be qualified.


Gotta dig the humility.


Naw. It's just a paradox in a world filled with paradoxes and I don't get why this one just HAS to be resolved by every single believer..
“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/20/17 4:54am

toejam

avatar

The best way to resolve it is to simply acknowledge that it's illogical. Just as it would be illogical to say that 1+1+1 is 1, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. A truly humble approach would at least consider 'illogical nonsense' an option
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/20/17 8:51am

morningsong

avatar

toejam said:

The best way to resolve it is to simply acknowledge that it's illogical. Just as it would be illogical to say that 1+1+1 is 1, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. A truly humble approach would at least consider 'illogical nonsense' an option



So only the simple answer is the only possible correct answer but only if it's about religion? Ok got it.
“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/20/17 11:24am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Geeks 4 justice.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/20/17 12:46pm

toejam

avatar

morningsong said:

toejam said:
The best way to resolve it is to simply acknowledge that it's illogical. Just as it would be illogical to say that 1+1+1 is 1, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. A truly humble approach would at least consider 'illogical nonsense' an option
So only the simple answer is the only possible correct answer but only if it's about religion? Ok got it.

.

Clearly you didn't get it.
.
Go back and read what I said. Carefully.
.
The Trinity - whether it be a religious concept or otherwise - is an illogical concept. It is not humility for one to believe that 5 x 3 = 19.56 and dismiss criticism by giving it the benefit of the doubt because "the world is full of paradoxes". It's either ignorance, equivocation, gullibility, or stupidity. For one to appeal to paradox doesn't change the fact that 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It's illogical to say so. 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It equals 15. In the same manner, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3.
.
Christians would be better off either admitting that each of the 'god persons' are not fully God in and of themselves - perhaps going down the paths of Partialism or Modalism, which, as the St. Patty's video explains, were written off as heresy. In this way, I still wouldn't believe it, but it would at least escape my criticism as being illogical at its core. But this is not the path Orthodox Christianity went down. Alternatively, Christians could have gone down the path similar to where Jehovah's Witnesses find themselves today, in that Jesus is not God but something of his right-hand man angel. This is actually closer to what the Historical Paul had in mind I think. Again, I still wouldn't believe that, but at least it would not be illogical as a concept.
.
Like I said, I don't see it as humility to continue belief in Orthodox Trinitariansm once one has been exposed to its illogic by dismissing criticism by way of appealing that "the world is full of paradoxes". A truly humble approach would, at the very least, consider false 'illogical nonsense' an option. Do you at least consider that it might actually be false illogical nonsense?

.

[Edited 3/20/17 12:50pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/20/17 1:38pm

morningsong

avatar

toejam said:

morningsong said:

toejam said: So only the simple answer is the only possible correct answer but only if it's about religion? Ok got it.

.

Clearly you didn't get it.
.
Go back and read what I said. Carefully.
.
The Trinity - whether it be a religious concept or otherwise - is an illogical concept. It is not humility for one to believe that 5 x 3 = 19.56 and dismiss criticism by giving it the benefit of the doubt because "the world is full of paradoxes". It's either ignorance, equivocation, gullibility, or stupidity. For one to appeal to paradox doesn't change the fact that 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It's illogical to say so. 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It equals 15. In the same manner, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3.
.
Christians would be better off either admitting that each of the 'god persons' are not fully God in and of themselves - perhaps going down the paths of Partialism or Modalism, which, as the St. Patty's video explains, were written off as heresy. In this way, I still wouldn't believe it, but it would at least escape my criticism as being illogical at its core. But this is not the path Orthodox Christianity went down. Alternatively, Christians could have gone down the path similar to where Jehovah's Witnesses find themselves today, in that Jesus is not God but something of his right-hand man angel. This is actually closer to what the Historical Paul had in mind I think. Again, I still wouldn't believe that, but at least it would not be illogical as a concept.
.
Like I said, I don't see it as humility to continue belief in Orthodox Trinitariansm once one has been exposed to its illogic by dismissing criticism by way of appealing that "the world is full of paradoxes". A truly humble approach would, at the very least, consider false 'illogical nonsense' an option. Do you at least consider that it might actually be false illogical nonsense?

.

[Edited 3/20/17 12:50pm]



Bad statement on my part, I apologize. I'm not saying whether or whether not the Trinity is a logical statement. Not my fight.

I'm just saying that simply applying the concept of 1+1+1 to something and saying that if it doesn't fit then it must mean it isn't true. That is not a true statement unless it applies to everything in existance. It does not.

I mean, history has shown that one mathematical equation may work for many useful things up to a point but then it hits a wall that doesn't work for another, maybe, more complicated concepts. Another mathematical equation has to be invented. And to this day that continues on.

No equation explains the function of everything. So why MUST it explain a religious concept?

[Edited 3/20/17 13:38pm]

[Edited 3/20/17 13:40pm]

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/20/17 1:50pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

toejam said:

.

Clearly you didn't get it.
.
Go back and read what I said. Carefully.
.
The Trinity - whether it be a religious concept or otherwise - is an illogical concept. It is not humility for one to believe that 5 x 3 = 19.56 and dismiss criticism by giving it the benefit of the doubt because "the world is full of paradoxes". It's either ignorance, equivocation, gullibility, or stupidity. For one to appeal to paradox doesn't change the fact that 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It's illogical to say so. 5 x 3 does not equal 19.56. It equals 15. In the same manner, it is equally illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3.
.
Christians would be better off either admitting that each of the 'god persons' are not fully God in and of themselves - perhaps going down the paths of Partialism or Modalism, which, as the St. Patty's video explains, were written off as heresy. In this way, I still wouldn't believe it, but it would at least escape my criticism as being illogical at its core. But this is not the path Orthodox Christianity went down. Alternatively, Christians could have gone down the path similar to where Jehovah's Witnesses find themselves today, in that Jesus is not God but something of his right-hand man angel. This is actually closer to what the Historical Paul had in mind I think. Again, I still wouldn't believe that, but at least it would not be illogical as a concept.
.
Like I said, I don't see it as humility to continue belief in Orthodox Trinitariansm once one has been exposed to its illogic by dismissing criticism by way of appealing that "the world is full of paradoxes". A truly humble approach would, at the very least, consider false 'illogical nonsense' an option. Do you at least consider that it might actually be false illogical nonsense?

.

[Edited 3/20/17 12:50pm]



Bad statement on my part, I apologize. I'm not saying whether or whether not the Trinity is a logical statement. Not my fight.

I'm just saying that simply applying the concept of 1+1+1 to something and saying that if it doesn't fit then it must mean it isn't true. That is not a true statement unless it applies to everything in existance. It does not.

I mean, history has shown that one mathematical equation may work for many useful things up to a point but then it hits a wall that doesn't work for another, maybe, more complicated concepts. Another mathematical equation has to be invented. And to this day that continues on.

No equation explains the function of everything. So why MUST it explain a religious concept?


I'm with Toejam in that Trinitarian theology is silly and that's probably why its supporters often
appeal to it being a matter of Christian "mystery."

But I must say that what I've highlighted and italicized is a really interesting argument on your
part, Morning. I'm awaiting Toejam's response . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/20/17 1:57pm

morningsong

avatar

Dasein said:

morningsong said:



Bad statement on my part, I apologize. I'm not saying whether or whether not the Trinity is a logical statement. Not my fight.

I'm just saying that simply applying the concept of 1+1+1 to something and saying that if it doesn't fit then it must mean it isn't true. That is not a true statement unless it applies to everything in existance. It does not.

I mean, history has shown that one mathematical equation may work for many useful things up to a point but then it hits a wall that doesn't work for another, maybe, more complicated concepts. Another mathematical equation has to be invented. And to this day that continues on.

No equation explains the function of everything. So why MUST it explain a religious concept?


I'm with Toejam in that Trinitarian theology is silly and that's probably why its supporters often
appeal to it being a matter of Christian "mystery."

But I must say that what I've highlighted and italicized is a really interesting argument on your
part, Morning. I'm awaiting Toejam's response . . .



Then that is a personal opinion not a empirical fact.

The only thing I can think of is...I know that one can build a 3 story building with simple engineering, but that same engineering doesn't apply to a 18-story building, but I damn sure couldn't tell you in detail why, but I am quite comfortable living and working in a 18-story building, nor would anyone demand that I explain it's construction in detail just because I work and live there.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/20/17 2:42pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:


I'm with Toejam in that Trinitarian theology is silly and that's probably why its supporters often
appeal to it being a matter of Christian "mystery."

But I must say that what I've highlighted and italicized is a really interesting argument on your
part, Morning. I'm awaiting Toejam's response . . .



Then that is a personal opinion not a empirical fact.

The only thing I can think of is...I know that one can build a 3 story building with simple engineering, but that same engineering doesn't apply to a 18-story building, but I damn sure couldn't tell you in detail why, but I am quite comfortable living and working in a 18-story building, nor would anyone demand that I explain it's construction in detail just because I work and live there.


Trinitarian theology, at this point, is never going to be a matter of objectivity like other empirical
facts are, so I think that is why it is usually referred to as a "mystery" within Christianity. I have
no argument with you here, but am wondering why you're making it a point to state this much,
unless it's to scold me for calling something you believe "silly" which is justified on your part and
I apologize.

I'm still going over your argument about how some theological expressions are not so easily re-
presented mathematically, which is so fucking interesting a concept . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/20/17 2:46pm

morningsong

avatar

Dasein said:

morningsong said:



Then that is a personal opinion not a empirical fact.

The only thing I can think of is...I know that one can build a 3 story building with simple engineering, but that same engineering doesn't apply to a 18-story building, but I damn sure couldn't tell you in detail why, but I am quite comfortable living and working in a 18-story building, nor would anyone demand that I explain it's construction in detail just because I work and live there.


Trinitarian theology, at this point, is never going to be a matter of objectivity like other empirical
facts are, so I think that is why it is usually referred to as a "mystery" within Christianity. I have
no argument with you here, but am wondering why you're making it a point to state this much,
unless it's to scold me for calling something you believe "silly" which is justified on your part and
I apologize.

I'm still going over your argument about how some theological expressions are not so easily re-
presented mathematically, which is so fucking interesting a concept . . .



Definitely not trying to scold you, maybe over reaching a bit I do that sometimes, ok a lot.

Maybe the math isn't available yet, I can tell you I'm sure not going to invent it so I can't say too much about what is or what isn't beyond I believe and give my personal reasons why.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/20/17 3:57pm

toejam

avatar

By morningsong's reasoning, I guess we can't say that square-circles don't exist or that rolling a 7 on a standard 6-sided dice is impossible. It must also be extreme arrogance of us to say that 3 x 5 does not equal 19.56 or that monkeys don't fart green toothed pixies while we're not looking. After all, the world is full of paradoxes...

If one can see why it's illogical to say that 3 x 5 = 19.56, then one can see why it's illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3.

Morningsong, do you at least consider it a possibility that the Trinity is false illogical nonsense or will you always attempt to give it the benefit of the doubt, pulling "possibility" out of thin air by way of an appeal to the infinite ("oh well we don't know everything therefore it's possible" sense)? If you can't acknowledge the possibility that it is false illogical nonsense, how is it fair to label your position here "humble"?

.
[Edited 3/20/17 16:09pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 03/20/17 4:24pm

morningsong

avatar

toejam said:

By morningsong's reasoning, I guess we can't say that square-circles don't exist or that rolling a 7 on a standard 6-sided dice is impossible. It must also be extreme arrogance of us to say that 3 x 5 does not equal 19.56 or that monkeys don't fart green toothed pixies while we're not looking. After all, the world is full of paradoxes... If one can see why it's illogical to say that 3 x 5 = 19.56, then one can see why it's illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3. Morningsong, do you at least consider it a possibility that the Trinity is false illogical nonsense or will you always attempt to give it the benefit of the doubt, pulling "possibility" out of thin air by way of an appeal to the infinite ("oh well we don't know everything therefore it's possible" sense)? If you can't acknowledge the possibility that it is false illogical nonsense, how is it fair to label your position here "humble"? . [Edited 3/20/17 16:09pm]



In truth you can't. Sure the word "square" has a specific designation that a circle doesn't have and visa versa for "circle", so in theory they shouldn't exist as one entity. And for all our own personal uses they aren't needed as a single entity but it still doesn't mean that somewhere in the natural "world" it doesn't exist. As far as the 6-sided dice, I'm sure even you can figure out that it is possible to get a seven, it all depends on the dice, therefore the word impossible doesn't apply.

You're the one applying the words "impossible" and "illogical" but in our world today your argument doesn't hold water because there are already concepts that explain those types of paradoxes. So my question goes back to, if those concepts can apply to other complex ideas then why can't they apply to God and Christ?

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 03/20/17 4:29pm

morningsong

avatar

toejam said:

By morningsong's reasoning, I guess we can't say that square-circles don't exist or that rolling a 7 on a standard 6-sided dice is impossible. It must also be extreme arrogance of us to say that 3 x 5 does not equal 19.56 or that monkeys don't fart green toothed pixies while we're not looking. After all, the world is full of paradoxes... If one can see why it's illogical to say that 3 x 5 = 19.56, then one can see why it's illogical to say that Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit are each distinct fully god persons in their own right and yet there is only one god. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 1. It equals 3. Morningsong, do you at least consider it a possibility that the Trinity is false illogical nonsense or will you always attempt to give it the benefit of the doubt, pulling "possibility" out of thin air by way of an appeal to the infinite ("oh well we don't know everything therefore it's possible" sense)? If you can't acknowledge the possibility that it is false illogical nonsense, how is it fair to label your position here "humble"? . [Edited 3/20/17 16:09pm]



Yes, I do consider it but it's not what I hinge my faith on so if I come to the conclusion it's wrong then for me it's wrong.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 03/20/17 6:13pm

toejam

avatar

I'm glad that you acknowledge the possibility and that your faith doesn't hinge upon it. If so... why is the conclusion that the Trinity isn't simply false illogical nonsense better than it actually being so?

I don't think I'm being unfair in saying that square-circles and rolling a 7 on a standard dice are impossible. Sure, in a highfalutin philosophical sense nothing can be proven with absolute certainty to be impossible, it doesn't mean that the word should be discarded from its general sense.

.
[Edited 3/20/17 18:23pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 03/20/17 7:27pm

morningsong

avatar

toejam said:

I'm glad that you acknowledge the possibility and that your faith doesn't hinge upon it. If so... why is the conclusion that the Trinity isn't simply false illogical nonsense better than it actually being so? I don't think I'm being unfair in saying that square-circles and rolling a 7 on a standard dice are impossible. Sure, in a highfalutin philosophical sense nothing can be proven with absolute certainty to be impossible, it doesn't mean that the word should be discarded from its general sense. . [Edited 3/20/17 18:23pm]



Because it is stated as an fact which I don't accept as fact. We haven't found a point that both we agree is factual. I accept you find it a "simply false illogical nonsense", I'm not disputing that but it still doesn't make it true, and doesn't make it true for me, which is what I care about. I My point of view is I don't hold that a simple math equation proves or disproves god, the trinity or whatever, since there are multiple other equations, which are not simple and basic that describe very complex ideas and even those equations fall apart when you get to a certain point, why do I HAVE to agree on your math analogy to describe something that I accept as cosmically complex?


Given all the conditions and limitation then of course the 7 doesn't exist because the dice is limited and finite, but if the dice were infinite than the word "impossible" goes away.

[Edited 3/20/17 19:36pm]

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > For you theology geeks: A bit of heretical humour on this St. Paddy's Day