Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ The texts don't mention the word "trinity" - and it took theologians several centuries to come up with the concept. You did not prove me wrong, you came up with some verses that, in hindsight, can be said to vaguely support the concept of the trinity.   Dopn't want to e offensive Mike, but you are being ridiculous.   The Bible clearly mentions:three persons and one God The Father The Son The Holy Ghost The name to be used (Trinity, trilogy or Triumvirate if you want) is not important THE CONCEPT IS WHAT MATTERS, NEITHER OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE THOLOGISTS. You are acting like the Amish...If it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist.   Iván Just for the record: My initial claim was that the holy trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible. Of course the father, the son and the holy ghost are mentioned, but the trinity is about how these three can be reconciled with the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. So I'm in fact saying "if it's not in the bible, then it's not in the bible".

It's in the Bible, not in the LITERAL name trilogy:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 12 2010 at 14:19

From Wikipedia:

"The concept of Trinitarianism came about 300 years after Jesus' passing, when certain non-standard views such as Arianism were coming to prominence (cf. First Council of Nicaea). A central concern among Church leaders was that the holiness of Jesus be regarded and reinforced in teaching, such that Jesus would not be viewed as a mere prophet, but as the Son of God (cf. Arian controversy). It was also believed that God the Father employed the image of Jesus as an angel of divine manifestation, such that Jesus —as known in iconic form —had become the human face and personae of the immaterial God (cf. illumination). Leaders were also concerned that due to the invisibility of God and the iconic visibility of Jesus, that Jesus might increasingly be viewed as the deity, rather than as the Son and messiah (cf. Personhood of the Holy Spirit). Trinitarianism thus incorporated God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit (a manifestation of God's presence) into a single concept such that made clear that God the Father is at the head of the Trinity and Jesus the Son was the human being in whom God's presence was most manifest. The Trinity thus expanded upon Jesus' statements regarding God's presence within him, and his place within God (for example, 1 John 14:09-10 and 1 John 4:15-16)."

Yes 

Put the way that only Penn so wonderfully can put it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUNqer9N12U

Mr ProgFreak wrote: From Wikipedia: "The concept of Trinitarianism came about 300 years after Jesus' passing, when certain non-standard views such as Arianism were coming to prominence (cf. First Council of Nicaea). A central concern among Church leaders was that the holiness of Jesus be regarded and reinforced in teaching, such that Jesus would not be viewed as a mere prophet, but as the Son of God (cf. Arian controversy). It was also believed that God the Father employed the image of Jesus as an angel of divine manifestation, such that Jesus —as known in iconic form —had become the human face and personae of the immaterial God (cf. illumination). Leaders were also concerned that due to the invisibility of God and the iconic visibility of Jesus, that Jesus might increasingly be viewed as the deity, rather than as the Son and messiah (cf. Personhood of the Holy Spirit). Trinitarianism thus incorporated God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit (a manifestation of God's presence) into a single concept such that made clear that God the Father is at the head of the Trinity and Jesus the Son was the human being in whom God's presence was most manifest. The Trinity thus expanded upon Jesus' statements regarding God's presence within him, and his place within God (for example, 1 John 14:09-10 and 1 John 4:15-16)."

Oh yes, we are improving our research... now it's wikipedia... Now I believe it...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ So when the three entities are mentioned in one sentence, that's an "explicit" reference to the trinity? Sorry, still seems somewhat implicit to me.   Please Mike, you can only  Baptize in the name of GOD, not in the name of anybody else...So if the Bile says you must baptoize in the name of  Father, Son and Holy Spirit....Then Father Son and Holy Spirit are God.   If you don't see this, is because you don't want to see it.   Iván   EDIT: Whatever Wikipedia says..Means nothing, the text is clear.

Who says that you can only baptize in the name of God? These are all circular references to scripture. And again: If it's all so clear, why did it take 300 years until some form of agreement could be reached among Christians?

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Personally, I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science.   I think Shakespeare may lay claim to that thought.     ...and it refers to the belief in ghosts, not holy ghosts Believe it or not, that's actually kind of what I was talking about.

Edited by Dean - August 12 2010 at 15:37

If god doesn't exist, why does he exist?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Who says that you can only baptize in the name of God?   Please Mike, you are not an ignorant, don't pretend to tell us you don't know that any religious Baptism is purifivcation made in the name of God or by God.   Mr ProgFreak wrote: These are all circular references to scripture.   Of course Mike, YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT THE TRINITY IS POSTERIOR TO THE NEW TESTAMENT...I HAVE TO SEARCH THE BIBLE AND FIND IF YOU ARE SAYING YHJE TRUTH   Mr ProgFreak wrote: And again: If it's all so clear, why did it take 300 years until some form of agreement could be reached among Christians?   Please Mike, you are an expert making "Reductio ad Absurdum", the differences between Churvhes are for many terrestrial or interpretion reasons.   Just remember that England made their own Christian religion because the King wanted to divorce, and he turned into the head of the new Church"   Mormons for example believe in other sources as The Book of Mormon.   Most Protestant Churches don't believe in the divinty of the Virgin or the authority of the Pope (If you check the origins, many of them will have political roots).   So don't blame the  Bible, for the incapacity of the people to understand it.   Iván

All these splits and factions within the church came about after 1500 years of dominance from Rome and 1200 years after the first formation of the holy tinity as a concept. Aside from the East/West split of the 11th century, (800 years after the concept of trinity became doctrine), the church was pretty stable so that cannot cited for a reason why it took 300 years to reach agreement.

Any Colour You Like wrote: I think we've answere the question, it's not settled.

WHAT?
NO! It's totally settled