The question I asked here seems to be like a NP-hard problem in that a single example would answer the question with a "yes" but a "no" would require an exhaustive search of all Christian thought (presumably including works no longer extant!). I do not think it is worthy of being closed--it is p...
@Caleb I tend to agree, but I am not finding a Meta post or place in the FAQ to support that such questions are off-topic. Frustratingly on the Meta post that asks this specifically, tho top voted answer is the polar opposite of what we're actually looking for. meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/245/…
It actually endorses the idea that the site is a place to come for Truth.
@DavidStratton Ya I found that too when I was looking for material to explain a close vote on that one. Unfortunatly that post is from '11. Before we had a clue what we were doing. I think we need to shelve it and raise it on meta again.
@Narnian I deleted my comment on your answer to christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14050/… because your fix made it no longer relevant (good edit), so you can delete your comment response to that comment (I am guessing this is proper etiquette)
@PaulA.Clayton I'm not sure I've seen Narnian in chat much so your ping might not reach its target. Flagging obsolete comments for a moderator would be a good alternative.
@Ali It's playing with stereotypes. I think @DavidStratton is educated enough to know that there's not much actual truth in it. It's still problematic, though: it takes the piss out of everyone except the Christians. And taking the piss out of everyone except the socially dominant group is, to my mind, precisely the opposite of how humour is supposed to work.
But I couldn't, at the time, think of a way to say that without being very pissy myself, which is why I chose to ignore it and take a digression on that "gay rights" symbol instead (which, as @DavidStratton pointed out, is actually a "gender equality" symbol which looks rather like some form of trans symbol).
@AlUmmat "The Trinity doesn't make sense" is not, in itself, a good argument against the Trinity. Plenty of things which don't make sense are, nonetheless, true. Quantum mechanics, for a start.
@TRiG The Allah of Islam is entirely unknowable. I'm not sure why they expect Christians to have a God that fits in a neat little box that can be measured by science or proved by math (did you get to that part in yesterdays transcript?)
In any case, have fun being controversial, I'm toddling off to bed. I got <4 hours last night and it didn't fare me well today.
@Caleb I didn't get that far. The fact that @Ali was not actually engaging you in debate at all, but rather setting you up as a mannequin zie could throw half-understood arguments at was annoying me enough.
@TRiG Ha ha, you didn't even get to the good parts. Ali dropped out (no complaints there, my patience for non-engaged discussion is limited) but then Al Ummut picked it up and we went at it for hours. For 9.5 total with Ali's prelude.
@Caleb Ha, the math part was interesting. The guy (oswari) got the idea of isomorphism pretty much right, but something went horribly awry in his attempt to apply it to the Christian God.
@El'endiaStarman Ye honestly I didn't try to dissect it from a math standpoint because you could get all the math right and yet you still couldn't use it to paint the creator into a box like that.
