rdrcofe articulates why the doctrine of the trinity is necessary. He said:
“It is at best an attempt to reconcile seemingly irreconcilably contradictory scriptural statements regarding the nature of the Godhead as illuminated by Old and New Testament writings.”
I agree. I can understand why it is important for you to believe that way.
Next when I said “to me religion and logic has never mixed” woodsong said:
“logic doesn’t mix with a lot that life is comprised of. Love isn’t logical, hate is even more illogical.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying everything must be logical, the only reason I said that was because the person I was talking to at that time was under the impression that I was insisting upon a logical answer to the trinity.
“Second, belief in Christ is supposed to be based on faith, which of course is another of those illogical things that nonetheless is a part of the reality of life (and don’t go asking for secular examples of faith, they are there and even you could mention a few if you thought about it).”
I believe you have a flawed definition of “faith”
“forget the analogies. We (at least Chris and I) went with analogies because you seem to refuse to accept that the trinity DOES NOT mean three separate gods, but ONE God with three forms with respect to our encounter with or “seeing” God.”
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind analogies, it is just when I asked a question, (is Jesus a complete God by himself, apart from the others, and the same as the other 2 God Heads) rather than giving a straight answer (yes or no) I was given different analogies that made the exact same point, which didn’t answer the question. Is it fair to assume that this horse has been beaten to death and the chances of me getting a straight answer is zero to none? or does anyone else want to try.