I'm just pointing out the consequences of that diagram. — Banno
You have nothing but ad hominem attacks? "You mother wears army boots" and "My Daddy is a policeman"?
Where's your logic, man!? — Banno
Quotes are part of your religion; you and Tim use them to bury objections, not to address them. Quotes are not arguments. — Banno
Are you attempting to attack Trinitarian dogma? What do you take it to be? You're obviously ignorant of Christianity, Thomism, and all the rest of the things you pretend to have conquered. You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea. Yet even to read the diagram charitably is to not assume that "is" is being used numerically, which you obviously have not managed.
* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos
Now you quote yourself! — Banno
the diagram shows clearly the denial of transitivity. It's that denial, not the diagram, that is at issue. — Banno
That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. — Leontiskos
Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, — Banno
explain to Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate. — Banno
The whole thread may have been given too much credit. It's fairly hard to salvage a thread that begins that way. — Leontiskos
You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. — Wayfarer
No, dumbass. — Leontiskos
Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!" — Banno
You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea.
* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos
Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. — Banno
Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation. — Banno
If your objection has naught to do with the diagram, then give your objection without the diagram. — Leontiskos
From Father = God and Son = God we are usually able to derive Father = Son but instead we find not(Father = Son). Apparently, according to Tim, this is becasue the "is" of doctrine is not the "is of "=". — Banno
Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument. — Banno
From Father = God and Son = God — Banno
Where are these premises coming from? I don't know of any Catholic theology which says, "Father = God and Son = God..." — Leontiskos
So tell us what your account is! — Banno
It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine — frank
What's odd is that you think the crazy shit you're whipping up is a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine, but this has already been pointed out to you quite a few times. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.