Okay, you got me, its Bart not Bert. You are still avoiding the issues.[/quote]

I'm not avoiding anything. There are no issues to discuss and as I've demonstrated time and again, you are too self-preoccupied to see the issues.

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

It is true that some Christians employ unwarranted methods to prove their point. But the "rationalists" don't really critique Christian beliefs, they attack them with irrational arguments and angry rhetoric which only proves their own irrationality. Therefore, they don't seem to be genuine rationalists. They are more fanatical anti-Christians. Fanaticism itself is irrational.

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours. — Fooloso4

You are avoiding the issue again, aren't you? This is your own statement, is it not?

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

People do make typos, but if I have to tell you 5 or 6 times that you've misspelled Ehrman's name and you still don't register, then you've got some serious issues there, my friend. I've pointed that out many times when it comes to leaving out parts of translations, etc.

Just because you believe only in reason, that doesn't make you reasonable. — Gregory

He doesn't believe in reason at all. He believes in skewed reason or lies to promote his hidden agenda. In actual fact, he is being unreasonable and irrational, possibly due to ignorance, loneliness, and frustration.

I did not say Foolso4 quoted the bible. I said he referred to it — god must be atheist

That was exactly what I said. He isn't quoting the Bible he talks about his own misconstructions of Biblical statements. Surely, you can distinguish one thing from the other. Or maybe not.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name.

Edit Here's your statement:

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

Besides, @god must be atheist claims that you are quoting the Bible. I haven't seen even one single quote. So, one of you must be lying. Or possibly both.

No Ehrman is not. It is the bible itself. You were fooled by your own idiocy.[/quote]

I think you were fooled by your idiocy. At no point has Fooloso4 referred to the Bible.

I may not have a clue, but I’m not trying to imagine anything. I wasn’t aware he was reciting scripture. So I’m fine with tossing out that example. — Pinprick

Well, that only proves that you don't have a clue. There was no offence intended, it was a statement of fact which you yourself now admit. I do realize that atheists and other non-Christians often raise rhetorical questions of this type but they tend to stem from lack of knowledge about Christian scriptures and beliefs. So it looks like you're tossing out your arguments about the Trinity and about Jesus' last words.

As already stated, Jesus had a dual nature. He was both human and divine. If you will you can take the example of an actor who is his own person in everyday life but assumes a distinct identity on stage as prescribed by a particular role at a particular time. There is no contradiction there.

First of all, if I misspelled his name then so have you. — Fooloso4

As usual with your statements, there is no logic there whatsoever. I haven't, you have. Look again or get you eyesight checked. Here's your statement:

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

Your words, not mine. As I said, you seem to be confused. Could be Alzheimer's or something, so you should be concerned.

You skip the stuff about Ehrman's professorship at a major university, that his text on the history of early Christian writings is widely used in American colleges and universities, and that he serves on the board of several journals of Biblical scholarship. — Fooloso4

That's a typical leftist straw man. Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship".

The fact that you are agitated by scholarly work on Christian history does not make him an agitator. — Fooloso4

lol I'm not agitated at all. On the contrary, you make me laugh. Ehrman is an atheist who is devoting his life to constructing Christian texts as "forgeries". That qualifies him as an anti-Christian activist and agitator IMO.

Here is Ehrman's own statement:

"If a student is a fundamentalist, I hope they finish the semester as a wiser and more thoughtful fundamentalist than when they came into the class. If that happens, I’ve done my job".

So, according to Ehrman, everyone who disagrees with his unfounded claim that Christian texts are "forgeries", is a "fundamentalist", and his job is to make them "less fundamentalist".

As I said, it isn't in the least surprising that anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone.

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

First of all, you can’t even spell Ehrman’s name.

Second, Ehrman is only “eminent” to atheists and anti-Christians like yourself.

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general:

"Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text."

"Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus, saying: "It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." "

Ehrman is an atheist and anti-Christian agitator. I'm not surprised that you seem incapable of citing impartial sources in support of your spurious theories.

Bart D. Ehrman – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Reception

What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics? — Xtrix

It's monopolism window-dressed as "socially conscious" economics. Concentration of financial, economic, and political power in the hands of self-interested elites. Power taken out of the hands of people and governments by stealth.

I am struggling to understand why anyone would think eliminating the industrial leaders would be a good thing. Marx wasn't even capable of supporting himself. Why would anyone think he could create a healthy economy for a whole nation? To be an industrial leader, first a person has to have a good idea, and the ability to promote that idea and get others to invest in it. Then create an organization that turns the idea into a reality and markets it to a population. At no point in the process does a person take a weapon and start killing people. What went so wrong that made people think a violent revolution is how to achieve anything of value? — Athena

I think you are making some very good points there. Marx was an authoritarian, domineering, and argumentative person from the start. He studied law and philosophy and tried to use philosophical arguments and legalistic language to impose his views on others. But that didn’t work out, he fell into disrepute at university and could never get an academic job. So, he turned to journalism but his revolutionary rhetoric got his paper (funded by wealthy bankers and industrialists) closed down. He then turned to revolutionary activities, used his father’s inheritance to fund insurrection in Belgium where many German factory workers lived, which failed, and he was on the run from the police ever after.

In 1847 Marx and Engels set up the Communist League in London to promote violent revolution among German workers living in England who had links to workers’ organizations in Germany and other European countries. Their plan was to infiltrate the socialist labor movement, join the Democrats to seize power from the Conservatives, and then overthrow the Democrats and install a Socialist regime run by the Communist League, i.e., by themselves.

The whole Marxist ideology was constructed for that particular purpose, to incite people to insurrection, whilst hiding the leadership’s true intentions of assuming power for themselves. They wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848) to promote their ideology. All the central concepts of Marxist political theory were formulated in ambiguous, suggestive, and misleading language.

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

People were not stupid. The English working classes completely ignored Marx and even among the German workers he had only a very small following. The Communist League never had more than a few hundred members. Engels in his 1890 Preface to the Communist Manifesto wrote:

“… “Working men of all countries, unite!” But few voices responded when we proclaimed these words to the world 42 years ago, on the eve of the first Paris Revolution [of 1848] in which the proletariat came out with the demands of its own.”

Manifesto of the Communist Party (marxists.org)

Of course “few responded”. Practically no one, because the German-language Manifesto (printed in London) was seized by the German police at the border, the French version remained unpublished at the time, and the English translation was published two years after the revolution!

So, Marx and Engels’ “revolution” is a myth, a fairy tale, and a hoax. It never happened, because nobody believed in it and very few had actually heard of it. Marx then turned to writing his economic theory and after about twenty years published the first volume of Capital (1867) but nobody bought that either. It was long after his death that Engels and other German socialists, with the help of the London Fabians and Russian Marxists, managed to spread the ideology of revolution to Russia where in October 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, and a few other Marxist ideologists seized power with the help of radicalized factory workers and some elements of the armed forces - all of whom were later liquidated by Stalin.

Essentially, this is what Marxist political theory can be reduced to, an ideological tool for seizing power. It has absolutely no viable political program or anything except total state control and dictatorship of the Communist Party (a self-appointed intellectual elite), not of the working classes who are simply reduced to servants of the state. Marxism comes to power through a mixture of deception and force of arms.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

Marx was also suffering from a skin disease that was causing frequent episodes of self-loathing and alienation and making him fly into a rage and behave like a tyrant even in his own home. You can almost hear his anger and frustration in some of his writings and this was reflected in the violent language that he was using to attack everyone that contradicted him.

“The nature and consequence of Karl Marx's skin disease” - National Library of Medicine

Mao is a good example of a charismatic leader with no merit. He had the power to rule but not the ability. Science is essential to democracy. We once understood this but don't seem to understand that now because half of us followed a leader who ignores science, proving what happened in China can happen in the US. That is quite frightening to me. Only democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected and I think the US stopped doing that. — Athena

Correct. Mao was just a brainwashed farmer and a Soviet Russian puppet. He was worthless without Russian backing. After the death of Stalin, the Russians started a de-Stalinization program to make Russia’s Communist dictatorship slightly more moderate. Mao went in the opposite direction and turned more and more dictatorial and bloodthirsty.

Even before seizing power, Mao proclaimed that it was “necessary to bring about a reign of terror all over the country” – S. Schram, ed., Mao’s Road to Power: Revolutionary Writings 1912-1949.

Remember that the British Fabian leadership were admirers of Stalin and thought that the Soviet Union was a “Union of Fabian Republics”. The Fabians were for violent revolution in places like Russia and Africa that didn’t affect them, but in Europe and America they advocated communism by gradual steps and by stealth, and their main tool was education.

Wells who was a master Fabian tactician wrote in New Worlds for Old:

“Unless you can change men’s minds you cannot effect Socialism, and when you have made clear and universal certain broad understandings, Socialism becomes a mere matter of science and devices and applied intelligence. That is the constructive Socialist’s position. Logically, therefore, he declares the teacher master of the situation. Ultimately the Socialist movement is teaching, and the most important people in the world from the Socialist’s point of view are those who teach—I mean of course not simply those who teach in schools, but those who teach in pulpits, in books, in the press, in universities and lecture-theatres, in parliaments and councils, in discussions and associations and experiments of every sort, and, last in my list but most important of all, those mothers and motherly women who teach little children in their earliest years. Every one, too, who enunciates a new and valid idea, or works out a new contrivance, is a teacher in this sense.

And these Teachers collectively, perpetually renew the collective mind. In the measure that in each successive generation they apprehend Socialism and transmit its spirit, is Socialism nearer its goal.”

New Worlds for Old, by H. G. Wells (gutenberg.org)

And they do that through education, culture, politics, and pretty much every single movement or trend that they instigate, manipulate, and direct. This is the real danger of Fabianism: it advances communism and totalitarianism under the pretense of “progress” without anyone realizing it until it’s too late.

I think both of us agree having both sexes and tolerance for gender differences is a good thing. Personally, I think the traditional family of a man who supports the family and a woman who stays home to care for the family has great value. However, within this traditional family structure, everyone needs to be supported for self-actualization and this would involve sharing responsibilities. Cooperative families making a cooperative nation. — Athena

Correct. Humans have evolved into what they are now for a reason. Men and women have different roles but should be treated with equal respect. The Fabians started by claiming to change capitalism and, following their own logic of permanent revolution or permanent change, they have begun to change not only politics but also culture, society, the family, and, ultimately, man himself in accordance with their Darwinist and Eugenicist agenda of making man and woman in the image of Fabian sociopathic ideology. This is, literally, the deliberate and systematic destruction of humanity for the sake of some psychopathic dream.

I lost interest in communism when I read it "liberated women" with a propaganda campaign declaring full-time homemakers are not valuable citizens. In the US we shortened this to "just a housewife" and effectively destroyed the value of full-time homemakers.

When the communist destroyed the value of full-time homemakers women got jobs in order to be valued citizens and they began working like men. The state had to provide child care, because someone has to care for the children.

The flood of women into the workforce increased the size of a cheap source of labor and this increased the economy. However, the divorce rate soared and so did the abortion rate. Women were not fairing better, because, with both the responsibility of caring for children and having to work, they did not have the time and energy to get an education and advance a career. Not until my X walked out and I had to care for the children and support them too, did I appreciate the value of a full-time homemaker. It would have been wonderful to come home to a clean home, a cooked dinner, and have someone else resolve all the problems that come with having children, so I could just eat and relax. I realized if the only thing I had to do was focus on supporting the family, then I would have the time and energy to develop a career. In old books about family, it was stressed how the woman should manage things so her husband was free to what he needed to do to support the family. My point is, single mothers are not liberated, women unless they can pay someone to care for the children and the home and the relations that a full-time homemaker cares for. When women are forced to both care for the children and support them, they tend to fall into poverty, and this becomes a state burden. It becomes counterproductive.

That makes communism the worst possible thing for family values and a society that values humans. We are proving Capitalism can be just as destructive to family and human values. — Athena

Correct. Any system can be destructive without appropriate checks and balances. In capitalism the destructive forces are unchecked money interests. In communism it is unchecked political ideology.

What is interesting is that in answering the charge that socialism destroys the family and the home, Fabians like Wells use the argument of the Communist Manifesto which was that capitalism destroys the home anyway. As if that settled the matter. In fact, it only shifts the problem without solving it, and it really only exacerbates it.

New Worlds for Old, by H. G. Wells (gutenberg.org)

And, of course, communism never abolished poverty. Millions died of starvation under communist dictators like Stalin and Mao.

Soviet famine of 1932–33 – Wikipedia

Famine in Stalinist Russia – Images

The Soviet Union was propped up by US investments and loans from 1917 to the 1980s. In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan found out and stopped all technical and financial assistance to Russia. Russia’s Communist regime collapsed soon after. This clearly exposes the mythology of the "superiority" of communist economics.

Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War | The Heritage Foundation

I think Marx and Engels needed the voice of a woman who thought her role in society as a homemaker was extremely valuable. I think the men had an exaggerated sense of their own importance. — Athena

Yes, Marx and Engels certainly had an exaggerated sense of their own importance, especially in relation to women. Engels was a womanizer and Marx treated his wife as a servant. Marx got his housemaid Helene pregnant and he and Engels did their utmost to cover it up, Engels even pretending to be the father to protect Marx’s so-called “reputation”.

Helene Demuth – Wikipedia

According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women's labor is uncompensated.— Wikipedia

Darn right much of women's labor is not monetarily compensated for. Caring for people freely because that is what a good woman does, is not a bad thing. Turning a woman into a commodity whose function is dependent on a monetary reward destroys our human values. — Athena

Absolutely. Marx criticized capitalism for devaluing and dehumanizing people, but communism does exactly the same only worse. Man and woman in communist society only have a value to the extent they are of use to the state. Very few women made it to leading positions in Soviet Russia or Maoist China.

Communism only advocates the “liberation” of women and other groups until it comes to power. After that, it’s another story.

Perhaps that goes with thinking a violent revolution and killing industrial leaders is a good thing, because everyone is reduced to a commodity. No one's unique. — Athena

Yes, killing not just industrial leaders but everyone that has any degree of power, influence, or talent that can be inconvenient to the communist leadership. That’s why they built concentration camps long before the Nazis did.

Gulag – Wikipedia

My point is that Platonists appear to mistake the dialogues themselves (or Socrates’ voice) for truth, not as an instantiated demonstration of ‘the way’ to truth. And I’m suggesting that the mistake is a common one in relation to ancient sacred texts and/or heuristic devices within them. — Possibility

Yes, some Platonists do appear to do that. Of course Socratic arguments may sound like speculation but they tend to be rational speculation and they serve to stimulate inquiry. If, as you say, they demonstrate the way to truth, that's even better. I for one see Platonism as a practical system, "applied philosophy" if you will, and I think its followers are quite capable of distinguishing truth from purely intellectual consideration.

In my opinion, Socrates’ argument about the quest for beauty (Symposium 207a – 212c), for example, in which appreciation of physical beauty leads to intellectual and spiritual beauty and, ultimately, to the experience of beauty itself, encapsulates the Platonic method of constantly searching for the realities beyond concepts and experiences. As long as this procedure is followed, there can be little danger of misinterpreting the original texts.

I don't question the claim that test-tube Marxism doesn't pass an academician's close scrutiny. — tim wood

Of course you're not questioning it but you're questioning it all the same. I would suggest you read the well-known scholarly criticism and then we can discuss. How about a thread on it?

"Criticism of Marxism (also known as Anti-Marxism) has come from various political ideologies and academic disciplines. This includes general criticism about a lack of internal consistency, criticism related to historical materialism, that it is a type of historical determinism, the necessity of suppression of individual rights, issues with the implementation of communism and economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals and reduced incentives. In addition, empirical and epistemological problems are frequently identified" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism

Plenty of interesting stuff to choose from.

Seems to me, then, that you're seeing or making problems where there are none. — Bartricks

Correct. @Pinprick doesn't have a clue. He is substituting imagination for fact.

The fact is that there is nothing in the Gospel text to suggest that Jesus was “forsaken”. He only said “Why have you forsaken me?” because he was reciting from the Psalms. When someone is about to die, the normal procedure is to ask for forgiveness after which you say the final prayers (viduy) that contain verses from the Psalms - any verses you want.

1. Jesus asked for forgiveness but not for himself (as he was naturally blameless):

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34

2. He then said:

“Why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46 (from Psalm 22:2)

and

“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46 (from Psalm 31:5)

So, Jesus’ last words were consistent with tradition. He never said anything that would suggest he was literally forsaken or anything of the sort.

Taking statements out of context can lead to all kinds of interpretations or "conclusions" but that only amounts to deliberate misconstruction of the text, which is what @Pinprick is doing for his own agenda.

How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness? — Pinprick

He didn't. He was about to die and was reciting from Scripture, Psalm of David, Psalm 22:2

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm

I wouldn't say the Chinese are inferior to Europeans. In some respects they may even be superior. However, my personal impression so far is that The Philosophy Forum does have a leftist-atheistic, pro-Marxist and pro-China slant.

So, "woke" and "PC" is probably not far of the mark.

And whatever substance lies in your clams of inconsistency, ambiguity, and nonsense, first, that's not what people want, so I question, "long been demonstrated," and second, the same criticisms can be leveled at just about any political system. — tim wood

Have you been living under a rock in China for the last 50 or so years?

"The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.[1] Andrew Kliman argues that since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.[62]

Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,[63] Nobuo Okishio,[64] Ian Steedman,[65] John Roemer,[66] Gary Mongiovi[67] and David Laibman,[68] who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in Capital.[69]

According to Leszek Kołakowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of Marxism are fundamentally flawed: some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others just "nonsense". Some Marxist "laws" are vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations generally fall into one of the aforementioned categories of flaws as well.[82]"

Criticism of Marxism – Wikipedia

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

I think people should be free to take or reject the vaccine. Governments may pressure people to get vaccinated to show that they are doing something but I doubt it can make much difference if the virus keeps mutating or if China decides to release another one.

"BlackRock, the world's largest investment manager, has become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC as a poster child of the revolving door between finance and politics.

The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and two executives with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes are now set to hold prominent roles in President-elect Joe Biden's cabinet."

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-to-know-about-blackrock-larry-fink-biden-cabinet-facts-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

what good reason is there for rejecting the 'same person, different properties' analysis? — Bartricks

No particular reason, to be honest. However, seeing that non-Christians or anti-Christians can sometimes be a pain in the neck and make up all kinds of spurious objections, I thought it wouldn't be bad to formulate it in a way that sounds more convincing even to the more recalcitrant ones.

Having said that, I've found that for everyday purposes, even my formula of (1) God the Father (God in his transcendent aspect), (2) Holy Spirit (God in his immanent aspect), and (3) God the Son (Jesus), tends to work.

But as you say, it needs to be confirmed with theologians. I think you did a good job on the justification for reincarnation as well. I do appreciate that. :up:

lol But he didn't, did he? Is that your "evidence"?

Everybody or most people know or should know BlackRock. I know people who work for BlackRock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock

Likewise, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon he may have authorized some crazy general, colonel, what-have-you to carry out an attack on China. — boethius

There was no Trump attack on China though, was there?

The fact is this, there were at leas 12 (twelve) virus lab escapes from 1963 to the present.

That makes an average of one escape every 4.8 years. Is that "extremely rare"? I don't think so.

Ergo, @Banno's article is misleading to say the least.

The argument seems to be that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it happened. — Banno

Not at all.

The argument is that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it shouldn't be excluded.

The counter-argument is "it happens rarely, therefore it didn't happen".

Which of the two arguments is the most rational one?

However, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon, the (potential) last year of his presidency is the optimum moment to carry out a strategic bioweapons attack. — boethius

The question that needs to be asked is cui bono?

Obviously, in a dictatorship like Communist China, the state has the means to keep an epidemic under control. In liberal democracy, it's a different story.

So it's a calculated risk worth taking.

China has been building up its military capabilities, massively expanding its worldwide intelligence networks, infiltrating Western universities, think tanks and research institutions, and tightening its grip on our economies.

The idea that lab mishaps are rare is piffle. — NOS4A2

Of course. The Australian article is obviously pro-China propaganda.

The bit leading up to
While viruses certainly do escape from laboratories, this is rare. So, we concluded it was extremely unlikely this had happened in Wuhan.. — Banno

"Extremely rare" is relative and in this case totally misleading. There are viruses escaping from labs every now and then:

1 H1N1 Influenza in 1977
3 Smallpox from 1963 to 1978
1 VEE in 1995
6 SARS since 2003
1 FMD (Foot and Mouth) in 2007

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-escaped-from-laboratories-2014-7?r=US&IR=T

And if you don't have all the necessary data to measure the probability against, then "most likely" becomes pretty meaningless.

A cube of clay that is then formed into a sphere and then into a pyramid is one and the same lump of clay through all of these transformations. The same clay, but with different properties. — Bartricks

True. Classical texts use a similar analogy where a lump of gold assumes the form of different pieces of jewelry. But in the Trinity case all three exist simultaneously, so I thought it wouldn't be bad if they could be visually represented as occupying the same or almost the same space.

There was no personal attack, just a statement of fact. I don't need to "defend" the rationality of the Trinity because there is nothing irrational about it except in your imagination. Basically, you're talking to yourself and struggling with your own irrational doubts.

In other words, this hyperbolic possibility constitutes a hyperbolic doubt that cannot be overcome by my Cogito Sum performance despite its existential consistency and existential self-verification. — charles ferraro

Correct. Some religious or philosophical systems hold this to be the case, viz. that we exist within, and are a product of, a universal mind that holds all things and beings within itself. Even scientists have proposed something along those lines.

I will prove that Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. — 3017amen

One of the associated belief systems that are unquestionably not logical is Marxism. It has long been demonstrated to be inconsistent, ambiguous, and nonsensical. And it has failed every single time it was put into practice.

I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument. — Fooloso4

Given that according to at least one moderator The Philosophy Forum considers Christians and other believers to be a "blight", I think we can imagine what that decision will be.

It looks like he's trying to wriggle his way out already:

I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ??? — 180 Proof

... my posts ... myself ... I said ... I keep pointing ... I have offered ... — Fooloso4

It's all "me, me, me" all the time, isn't it?

There is no "problem of the Trinity" whatsoever. There was some discussion regarding its precise philosophical interpretation. That is all. Of course anti-Christians latch on to that because they have no other arguments. But that's their problem, not anyone else's.

Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! — 3017amen

Personally, I've got the feeling that 180 has lost already. But I think it might prove difficult to find impartial moderation on this forum.

The Christians are a blight on the forum — Banno

claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.

These merit deletion or banning. — Banno

I could be wrong, but you might find yourself banned before you even know it ....

This thread is about the Trinity, not about you. I think you are confused.

There seems to me to be a misunderstanding here with regard to Plato’s dialogues - taking Socrates’ speculations as the core philosophical theory, — Possibility

It seems to me that the misunderstanding lies in the unwarranted attempt to interpret Platonic texts as "speculations" which can only lead to nihilism. The OP is about how Platonists view the dialogues, not their detractors.

The reasons are given in the article I cited above, but your eccentricity prevents your seeing them. — Banno

Is that really the case? Where exactly are the "reasons"???

Your article says:

"Our investigations concluded the virus was most likely of animal origin. It probably crossed over to humans from bats, via an as-yet-unknown intermediary animal, at an unknown location. Such “zoonotic” diseases have triggered pandemics before. But we are still working to confirm the exact chain of events that led to the current pandemic. Sampling of bats in Hubei province and wildlife across China has revealed no SARS-CoV-2 to date."

"The market in Wuhan, in the end, was more of an amplifying event rather than necessarily a true ground zero. So we need to look elsewhere for the viral origins."

"Then there was the “cold chain” hypothesis. This is the idea the virus might have originated from elsewhere via the farming, catching, processing, transporting, refrigeration or freezing of food. Was that food ice cream, fish, wildlife meat? We don’t know. It’s unproven that this triggered the origin of the virus itself. But to what extent did it contribute to its spread? Again, we don’t know."

These are the statements that hold the article together:

"Probably", "unknown intermediary", "unknown location", "still working to confirm the exact chain of events", "no SARS-CoV-2 in Hubei bats", "we need to look elsewhere", "there was the hypothesis", "we don't know", "it's unproven", "again, we don't know", etc., etc.

There are more unknowns than knowns there. And even the "known" is just speculation. This isn't a scientific paper, it's whitewashing propaganda copied and pasted from official Chinese papers.

The fact is that the WHO team “lacked access to the complete data”, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has admitted that “data was withheld from the investigators”, “China refused to provide raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team”, one of the team’s investigators has already said.

U.S., 13 countries concerned WHO COVID-19 origin study was delayed, lacked access - statement

So, on what basis do they reach a conclusion when the data on which a conclusion could be drawn is missing?

What I said is that one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality. — Fooloso4

Nobody is preventing you from doing that, so you can calm down now.