Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

[Mr E]

I am having a difficult time finding a rational train of thought in the above post. My understanding of the foundational beliefs of Christianity is no more my "personal feeling" or "opinion" than is my understanding regarding the shape of the earth. It is not my "opinion" that the earth is not flat. It is the evidence-based conclusion of every reputable scientist in every relevant discipline. If I state "the earth is not flat," it does not become my personal opinion merely because I state it. It is an objective fact, established to a level of scientific certainty.

The fact that you are having a hard time following says more about you, than me. I understand me perfectly. You once (quoting some unnamed source) that 'you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.' Apply that to yourself. You don't get to present opinions as facts. You can talk all day long about what you think, about your ideas and about your opinions of the opinions of others-- but you don't get to present your opinions of any of these things as facts.

I'd love to debate flat earth with you, but you're too afraid to have the conversation. Instead you take these little potshots in unrelated threads and try to act the bully. Bullies get punched in the nose and it usually shuts them up. But I'll allow the comparison here. Your premise that the earth is round and spinning and travelling through the cosmos at some ridiculous speeds is very much like your opinion of "foundational Christianity.' You establish the foundation as fact, when we both know it is opinion and belief. And then you moralize and pretend that your made up 'established fact' is foundational-- something everyone MUST believe and accept because you already established it as such. It's baloney. It's re-ification. You first say something silly like-- IF the earth was flat, people would fall off the edge.... and since that never happens, then it permits you to say things like Since the earth is round, people never fall off the edge. The same argument can be made regarding a globe earth-- If it was round, half the world would be upside down and fall off the bottom. But since it's flat, that doesn't happen. There we both established positions by creating foundational facts. Congrats. -but there is much more to it than that now, isn't there?

With respect to what you think regarding "Christianity" either being an accepted monolith as you often present it, or an abstract entity as you sometimes present it, there is no accepted consensus. The Catholics will call it monolithic and identifiable. So will the Evangelicals, but one of these is not at all the same as the other. They present ideas as different as Jews and Muslims do at times, yet both will purport to be true religion. There isn't even an accepted definition of 'mainstream Christianity' -- some would include Mormonism, Messianic Judaism, Seventh-Day Adventism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, all Protestants, all Catholics, and all 2.4 Billion adherents to a monotheistic Abrahamic faith as part of Christianity--- but wait! Muslims also are adherents to a monotheistic Abrahamic faith-- all 1.8 Billion of them-- are you counting them as part of Christianity? That's now half the world's population that we should count as at least in part Christian by association.

My "credentials," apart from the ability to think logically and rationally, are irrelevant.

I completely agree. Meaningless and entirely questionable.

The foundational beliefs of Christianity - what Christianity is - are likewise not matters of my feelings or opinions. They are shared by every branch of Christianity - Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant - because they define what Christianity is. NO branch of Christianity posits a God who created the universe and humanity for his own self-amusement - or anything like this. ALL posit deep purpose and meaning to creation and human existence. There may be bitter internecine wars within Christianity, but no version posits a God who created for his own amusement. Such an understanding cannot be derived from the Bible, which is indisputably the foundational document of Christianity.

Baloney. There isn't even agreement among 'mainstream Christianity' as to a definition of core (essential) beliefs. Some will say (and make you sign onto a statement of faith) that Jesus is God. Some will insist he is not, but a man empowered and inspired by God. Some will state as fact that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are all one and the same, yet not the same--- and no one can even challenge the premise and remain in good standing within such communities of faith. Ahhh.... there it is. All of these premises are faith-based.... beliefs. Not facts.

What you present is 'the tyranny of the expert.' You stand up and shout and make proclamations and declarations one after another that must never be challenged since you present them as facts. You do it here, and you do it there-- no matter the topic. Rarely will you engage on the actual substance of your proclamations-- that's beneath you. Prove me wrong-- come engage me on the flat earth thread. Let's examine 'your facts.'

It isn't a matter at all of "limiting" God. It's a matter of who the Bible says he is and who all of Christianity has always understood him to be. If you want to assign different plans and purposes, fine - but it isn't Christianity. I can posit that the creation is the product of the Evil Genius suggested by Descartes - but this wouldn't be Christianity either. To the extent I am able to characterize my own beliefs as Christian at all - which I am not particularly insistent about - it is precisely because they aren't completely inconsistent with the foundational beliefs of Christianity.

In your flawed epistemology, Christianity can be whatever you'd like it to be, just as the earth can be flat if you'd like it to be. It is your views that are the (exceedingly wacky) opinions. This is why the Gnostics weren't Christians - their matrix was an entirely different one, with the creation being the product of a badly flawed if not malevolent lesser deity; fascinating, yes, but not Christianity. To call your views "Christianity" is the equivalent of calling the flat earth a "legitimate scientific hypothesis." The fact that folks here apparently can't see through the nonsense - or at least aren't willing to admit they do - astonishes me.

Again.... sigh..... I hate having to repeat myself. I hate having to repeat myself.

There is no consensus on who 'the Bible says God is.' You've made this point a hundred times in your posts and blogs and here you attempt to make the opposite case. Will the real O'Darby please stand up. Am I speaking with the almost-atheist O'Darby who says all these things are unknowable, or this new, confrontational O'Darby that insists there are certain 'foundational beliefs' which must be accepted for one to be considered Christian at all? Bring that big mouth over to a flat earth thread and let's see what comes out of it.