Dear david f,

>>Why should it bother you that I am unwilling to accept a 3-in-1 God as monotheistic? It doesn't affect your belief.<<

I was not arguing about how to understand the concept of Trinity or my beliefs but about accepted TERMINOLOGY.

Truly, I mentioned the fact that there were arguments against the trinitarian understanding of God. In square brackets, to emphasise that that was not the point of my post. I concede, that since irrelevant, I should not have mentioned it at all, brackets or not.

Dear George,

Labeling a triune god montheistic is accepted terminology only because there are a great number of trinitarian Christians who choose to ignore the contradiction. I see no reason why I or anyone else who does not accept the contradiction should.

Extropian1,<<>.Why/then..do some.of us..need/to self-flagellate..and excoriate others..for following..our natural..proclivities?>>

ITS..JUST HUMAN NATURE..tO HEAR/THE VOICES..OF Negative/DISINCLINATION ..rather than affirmation..Rather than the positive AFFIRMATION..simply/by our mindset

[to think low..is to attract..the low blow spirits][HIGHER THOUGHTS CAN BE..SO FLEETING]..BUT LOW ONES..DRONE ON AND ON..[so im told]

<<...Some of us..are inclined...to see themselves/as above the other animals..and thus..above nature itself..sometimes...Such presumption is complacent..and self-indulgent waffle.>>

yep..we all are..that we consume/IMBIDE/take-in.
[that/we..TAKE INTO OURSELVES]IS[THAT WE ACCEPT..AS OUR DUE]..more [of the same]..shall be..a given..

IF WE CHOSE/TO LIVE..IN THE MORTAL\MATERIAL/REALM

<<.We are subject to..the laws of nature>>..ALONE...<<..and can never be..in reality/outside nature...>>..ITS our right/god given right]..TO FREEWILL..FREE CHOICE..ITS Written..on our very soul.

[EVIL/Can claim..our/soul..
but..our/living/life-spirit/belongs..to god.

<<..I don't/see anything..in eating animal/flesh..that I should feel sorry about..or apologise for.>>

as jesus/himself said..[in/the remaining..notes of thomas]
MORE BLESSED..IS THE LION..consumed by man
than the man.oconsumed by lion.

of course..we are/what we eat..[AND THERE..IS NO INNOCENCE..IN EATING
anything..[think how many..living soy SEEDS DIED..SO WE CAN HAVE OUR 'guilt free'..soy latte*

OR HOW MANY..LENTIL SEEDS..DIED TO MAKE.-YOUR LENTLE Soup
the murdered peas..IN YOUR pod free/guilt free pea-soup

THING IS..FOR US TO LIVE/materially..[IN THIS MATERIAL-REalm/we need KILL..BUT ITS THE QUALITY..OF OUR LIVING..[AND/KILING]..I FEEL Is key[recall john..LIVED OFF GRASSHOPPERS..and honey..[NO BEES NEED DIE TO EAT HONEY..but when your so hungry/your eating a grasshopper..it fights you..all the way down/plus coming BACK OUT.

none/living is innocent/
guilt/IS INHERENT..LIVE WITH-IT*

I RECALL..the holy man test..where one.holy fella..was so hungry
HE BEGGED GOD FOR A FEED..[GOD MADE AN EAGLE..To swoop dOWN AND CATCH A FISH..THAT WAS DROPPED..AT THE HOLY ONES FEET..[the TEST OF THE HOLY MAN..IS NOT TO TAKE LIFE]..SO HE RETURNED THE FISH.TO THE WATER..AND ATE/GRASS INSTEAD.

BUT YET..ANOTHER TEST/*/COMES TO MIND..throw OUT THINE CAST-NET.

THE CATCH IS 100 small fiSH..AND ONE LARGE FISH..whICH DO YOU EAt
do you take the one fish..save the 100..or eat the hundred throwing back..the ONE..[full of eggs]

neither/:.under tribal law..discovery allows the finder/to keEP UP/TO..HALF..SO up to/THE 50 little/FISH..ARE TAKEN..AND THE BIG MOTHER FISH..RETURNED TO THe waters..to safe guard..home-turf..a playing/growing/learning-place for the wee ones.she protects..FROM THE OTHER FISH....thus given-THEIr chance to live...[OPPORTUNITIES-TO KILL]

NONE..ARE innocent..
so..THE WISE...OTHERWISE..dont name-CALL..NO-ONE.

Extropiant1 you are correct, why should we feel guilty of eating animal flesh, likewise why should as an example should a shark or lion feel guilty of eating a so called human being, which ever way you look at it animal and human being end up the same digested and excreted, no difference, goodbye animal,goodbye you, just a heap of poo, such is life or no life.

.
 
Dear david f. and George,
 
.
 
I was hoping George would come up with the solution to the unsolved mathematical problem of how the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity qualifies as monotheistic religion.
 
What I hadn't realised, of course, is that it is far too simple a problem for a university professor of pure mathematics like George to solve and, now that I come to think of it, it's also well under the level of a brilliant phyicist such as yourself, David.

I guess it's more for an ordinary person like me to work it out. So, please bear with me. I'll give it a go. If you don't mind, David, I'll start where you left off:

"God is one and indivisible". He is the essence. He exists simultaneously in three different forms (God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost) and in three diferent places at the same time ( just like two sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics theory ).

I suppose the algorithm couldn't be any simpler really :

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

As my dear wife often says: "On a toujours besoin d'un plus petit que soi" ( we always need somebody smaller than ourselves).

.

Re: SteeleRedux.
Thank you for your comments. I don’t disagree with your view of the prank, your comments on how religious views become engrained, or your question about the paper’s relevance to ‘ordinary religious folk’. The last brings to mind a comment by a critic of modern art who thought teaching art theory to students was like teaching horticulture to cabbages. This is not meant to denigrate religious folk - far from it.

Max Atkinson