• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:220,1256]***Trinitarianism = Polytheism

The trinity is a prime example of polytheism...case in point...in the book of Deuteronomy, Israel had just been liberated from Egypt, where Osiris, Isis, and Horus...one of a number of triads of gods, were worshipped...that is why at Deuteronomy 6:4, Jehovah commanded the Israelites...

“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."
 
Surely claiming that one believes in the existence of Adam and Eve is an affectation? We know that the story is a myth with no basis in reality.
 
zyzygy said:
Surely claiming that one believes in the existence of Adam and Eve is an affectation? We know that the story is a myth with no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

The problem with that however is that the world's most dominant religion exists upon the premise that they were literal. Without "original sin" of the "only two people on the planet 6,000 years ago", Christianity would not have been conceptualized in the first place. Confirmation bias is bad enough, but try collectively challenging it among billions. Apparently living a decent life and treating others well isn't enough for many.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
The problem with that however is that the world's most dominant religion exists upon the premise that they were literal. Without "original sin" of the "only two people on the planet 6,000 years ago", Christianity would not have been conceptualized in the first place. Confirmation bias is bad enough, but try collectively challenging it among billions. Apparently living a decent life and treating others well isn't enough for many.


OM
Click to expand...

No religions are based on reality.
 
Omega Man said:
The problem with that however is that the world's most dominant religion exists upon the premise that they were literal. Without "original sin" of the "only two people on the planet 6,000 years ago", Christianity would not have been conceptualized in the first place. Confirmation bias is bad enough, but try collectively challenging it among billions. Apparently living a decent life and treating others well isn't enough for many.


OM
Click to expand...

Would add, not all denominations believe in a "young Earth". The concept of original sin is far more important than who it was committed by, or when.
 
Omega Man said:
The problem with that however is that the world's most dominant religion exists upon the premise that they were literal. Without "original sin" of the "only two people on the planet 6,000 years ago", Christianity would not have been conceptualized in the first place. Confirmation bias is bad enough, but try collectively challenging it among billions. Apparently living a decent life and treating others well isn't enough for many.


OM
Click to expand...

OlNate said:
Would add, not all denominations believe in a "young Earth". The concept of original sin is far more important than who it was committed by, or when.
Click to expand...

Correct. And even within certain denominations which believe in it, the members of those denominations might hold differing views concerning it. I most certainly do not adhere to every single stance that the WI Evangelical Lutheran Synod takes on specific topics. This topic is one which I don't fully adhere to the WELS stance. We simply don't know how old Earth is. It very well could be a "young earth" of around 6,000+ years; it could also very well be billions of years old...
 
OlNate said:
Would add, not all denominations believe in a "young Earth". The concept of original sin is far more important than who it was committed by, or when.
Click to expand...

What other Christian concepts of "original sin" don't involve the literal belief of two sole inhabitants of Earth eating "forbidden fruit"?


OM
 
zyzygy said:
None.
Click to expand...

That’s what does it for me, as a recovered Christian. If the cornerstone of your religion is built upon accepting the premise that a myth was literal – then that makes the religion itself a myth; wholly unbelievable. That’s not to say that there aren’t excellent principles within that religion to help guide oneself; same as with any religion really.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
What other Christian concepts of "original sin" don't involve the literal belief of two sole inhabitants of Earth eating "forbidden fruit"?


OM
Click to expand...


A literal belief? hehe...that's a loaded question. The story is told in every denomination, as far as I know. As far as literal belief goes, I'm not sure I can answer that for all of Christianity.

What I will say is that, once again, who and when is far less important than the concept of original sin itself. It lies at the core of our faith - without it, there would be no Christianity. It necessitates the Savior, it puts an infinite value on grace (by which faith alone can save us), it gives cause for humility in every single human being, irrespective of their place in history. Every single human sins - sin is what connects every single individual that has ever lived or ever will live. Compared to that, who and when doesn't get a lot of play, beyond Sunday school and discussions with atheists. ;) :)

Did it really happen that way? Is it symbolism to explain the human condition early in our history? I have faith in God, so this is unimportant to me. It says so in the Bible, so therefore it's good enough for me - not so much to prove that it happened exactly that way, but that what is important to be learned is being conveyed the best way possible, in a book designed to speak to whoever is reading it, over the thousands of years to follow.
 
OlNate said:
A literal belief? hehe...that's a loaded question. The story is told in every denomination, as far as I know. As far as literal belief goes, I'm not sure I can answer that for all of Christianity.

What I will say is that, once again, who and when is far less important than the concept of original sin itself. It lies at the core of our faith - without it, there would be no Christianity. It necessitates the Savior, it puts an infinite value on grace (by which faith alone can save us), it gives cause for humility in every single human being, irrespective of their place in history. Every single human sins - sin is what connects every single individual that has ever lived or ever will live. Compared to that, who and when doesn't get a lot of play, beyond Sunday school and discussions with atheists. ;) :)

Did it really happen that way? Is it symbolism to explain the human condition early in our history? I have faith in God, so this is unimportant to me. It says so in the Bible, so therefore it's good enough for me - not so much to prove that it happened exactly that way, but that what is important to be learned is being conveyed the best way possible, in a book designed to speak to whoever is reading it, over the thousands of years to follow.
Click to expand...

So where precisely, in mankind's history, did "original sin" occur? There is no mistaking the fact that "original sin" is THE cornerstone of Christianity itself. There is also no avoiding the fact that the Gospel narratives themselves speak of "Adam and Eve" in terms of literal sole inhabitants of the earth, to the point of even constructing a genealogy.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
So where precisely, in mankind's history, did "original sin" occur? There is no mistaking the fact that "original sin" is THE cornerstone of Christianity itself. There is also no avoiding the fact that the Gospel narratives themselves speak of "Adam and Eve" in terms of literal sole inhabitants of the earth, to the point of even constructing a genealogy.


OM
Click to expand...

Adam and Eve never existed. The concept of original sin is nonsense.
 
zyzygy said:
Adam and Eve never existed. The concept of original sin is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally get that part; but I'm trying to narrow down what this implied alternative Christian thought on it is. Every Christian I've ever known personally subscribes to "Adam and Eve" and the "Garden of Eden" as being historical.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
So where precisely, in mankind's history, did "original sin" occur? There is no mistaking the fact that "original sin" is THE cornerstone of Christianity itself. There is also no avoiding the fact that the Gospel narratives themselves speak of "Adam and Eve" in terms of literal sole inhabitants of the earth, to the point of even constructing a genealogy.


OM
Click to expand...

I don't know... :shrug: Again: faith doesn't get to say "I know for a fact". It happened "some time". Perhaps it's in our genes, a trait handed down from animal ancestors through evolution. Perhaps there was an Adam and Eve, and it took place in a garden when they listened to a talking snake. But I would assume there are few who would argue that sin, or whatever name one wishes to put towards the human inclination towards evil, is inherent in all of us.

A good way to find out what the more important part of the story is is to look at how much time is spent talking about Adam and Eve, vs. sin itself. Adam and Eve is an interesting academic conversation, but isn't all that important to faith, therefore scrutinizing that part of the story probably isn't high on the priority list of most Christians.
 
zyzygy said:
Adam and Eve never existed. The concept of original sin is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Is it, though? Do believe that any human being can be perfect? Maybe you'd prefer to call it something else...but to suggest otherwise? I'm not sure you'd be able to convince many of that.
 
OlNate said:
A literal belief? hehe...that's a loaded question. The story is told in every denomination, as far as I know. As far as literal belief goes, I'm not sure I can answer that for all of Christianity.

What I will say is that, once again, who and when is far less important than the concept of original sin itself. It lies at the core of our faith - without it, there would be no Christianity. It necessitates the Savior, it puts an infinite value on grace (by which faith alone can save us), it gives cause for humility in every single human being, irrespective of their place in history. Every single human sins - sin is what connects every single individual that has ever lived or ever will live. Compared to that, who and when doesn't get a lot of play, beyond Sunday school and discussions with atheists. ;) :)

Did it really happen that way? Is it symbolism to explain the human condition early in our history? I have faith in God, so this is unimportant to me. It says so in the Bible, so therefore it's good enough for me - not so much to prove that it happened exactly that way, but that what is important to be learned is being conveyed the best way possible, in a book designed to speak to whoever is reading it, over the thousands of years to follow.
Click to expand...

The Christian concept of original sin is one of the issues I have with the religion from a philosophical point of view. So many Christian denominations have the 'you are worthless' as a premise , and then 'you can get value by following our beliefs' as a carrot stick approach that I just don't like.
 
Omega Man said:
Yeah, I totally get that part; but I'm trying to narrow down what this implied alternative Christian thought on it is. Every Christian I've ever known personally subscribes to "Adam and Eve" and the "Garden of Eden" as being historical.


OM
Click to expand...

He's good at the double talk, while covering his own butt...in reality, that is not faith at all, but he possesses many doubts...just read James...;)
 
RAMOSS said:
The Christian concept of original sin is one of the issues I have with the religion from a philosophical point of view. So many Christian denominations have the 'you are worthless' as a premise , and then 'you can get value by following our beliefs' as a carrot stick approach that I just don't like.
Click to expand...

Listen, you can't even defend any objective basis and truths about your own reform religion, and then you try to screw up Christianity? Give it a rest. It's not working for you.
 
Elvira said:
The trinity is a prime example of polytheism...case in point...in the book of Deuteronomy, Israel had just been liberated from Egypt, where Osiris, Isis, and Horus...one of a number of triads of gods, were worshipped...that is why at Deuteronomy 6:4, Jehovah commanded the Israelites...

“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."
Click to expand...

Oh good, because trinitarians don't argue otherwise. We disagree on what constitutes God.
 
Logicman said:
Listen, you can't even defend any objective basis and truths about your own reform religion, and then you try to screw up Christianity? Give it a rest. It's not working for you.
Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting the issue. The issue is 'making claims you can back up'. When you can actually back up your claims with something other than lists, links too poorly written apologists, and arguement from assertion, I will be astounded.
 
jmotivator said:
Oh good, because trinitarians don't argue otherwise. We disagree on what constitutes God.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless debate for exactly that reason. The assertion of "polytheism" is meant to be smug and inflammatory. The concept of the Trinity is a deliberate attempt by humans to understand something that is much bigger than the mind can comprehend. It is not a definition, it is not an opinion, it is a representation of what our denominations have come to understand about the entirety of our God, through studying the his word. That JW's, and other non trinitarian denominations, have decided to adopt a different understanding. Ultimately they will come to understand the true story, as will we, when it is time for it to be revealed. I'm sure we're all have a few surprises when we meet our maker.

To assert that trinitarianism is polytheism, or make any assertion about another's faith or worship for that matter, one needs to demonstrate intent. Since no one can prove anything here about the exact nature of God, all that's left is what we say we're doing. :shrug: It's not polytheism because we believe it's not. It's what the sum of all our understanding tells us. If one can believe in a being that created the universe, and everything in it, simply by its will, then the trinity is well within the scope of what faith will allow. :) Therefore we believe we worship one God with three aspects, and call it monotheism. Who gets to tell us otherwise? No one can prove they are right, so no one can tell anyone else they're wrong. Back to, is religion debatable? :)
 
jmotivator said:
And what would the better logic be? The "better logic" as demonstrated by Elvira actually sounds like polytheism (many small "g" gods, one big "G" god), and your logic attempts to shoehorn a theological construct into an atheistic world view. Neither of you can explain the numerous Biblical references to Jesus being of God, and part of God... you just hand wave and stick to your myopic atheist view, or a grammatical turn of phrase and refusal to even address the parts of scripture that don't jibe with your belief.
Click to expand...

And some people are entirely clueless...:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom