The Instigator
riclanda
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
BahiraMalika
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The Holy Trinity is one God, but has three persons.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

riclanda

Pro

Some people, say that the Trinity is three gods. It is not, it is one God, with the persons of, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The three persons are all wound together to make one God. It is, and has to be perfect harmony between the three persons. The bible says that all three are equal. They all have different jobs, but all the jobs are of the same importance.
They all carry out the same plan, so they work with each other. So they are one God.
BahiraMalika

Con

How can it be one God when each of the persons are distinct? They are totally distinct persons with totally distinct roles. How can they possibly just be one God? When a person thinks of the Trinity, they must think of three separate entities, The Father (usually pictured as old man with long beard), The Son (pictured as Jesus, white or Middle Eastern with semi-long hair), and The Holy Spirit/Ghost (pictured as a ghost). They cannot picture one entity, because the Trinity is composed of three separate persons. To say that these three separate persons make one God is illogical and impossible for the human mind to effectively conceive of. Any attempts of explaining the Trinity by metaphor usually leads to what orthodox Christians call a heresy, that is, Modalism/Sabellanism/Oneness Pentacostalism, and no orthodox Christian would accept that view as an accurate representation of the Trinity they claim is found in the Bible.

You have Jesus. His role is said to be the savior of mankind. He is said to be God because it is said that he needed to be God in order to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Although in some instances it seems that he denied deity (Mark 10:18), and prayed to God (Luke 5:16), Christians still insist that he is God. In the instances where Jesus is seen praying to God the Father, Christians say that this is simply the persons of the Trinity interacting. If the persons are distinct, have different roles, and communicate with each other, how can anyone logically say that they are all one God?

Christians say that the Trinity must exist because the Bible says that there is one God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, but to that I must wonder why Christians don't try to understand the passages a different way, or admit that in the passages where deity is ascribed to a creation that those passages are flawed. Just because the Bible says something doesn't make it true. The Trinity view is totally illogical, and when you take into consideration what it says (that the persons are DISTINCT, have DIFFERENT roles, did DIFFERENT things, communicate with one another, have seemingly different personalities (Jesus compared to God in O.T.), and etc.), it's impossible to logically accept that it propagates monotheism. It may SAY that it propagates Monotheism, but logically, that is impossible.
Debate Round No. 1
riclanda

Pro

Ok, so you think that the Trinity is illogical? It actually isn't when you think of the Trinity, think of an apple. An apple is sensed by three things, your eyes, your tounge, and your nose. An apple is not complete without all those things. Same with the Trinity. God would not be complete with out the acts of all three persons.
You said that the Bible does not point to a Trinity, it does one place for sure is at the Baptism of Christ. It says "God said, This is my Son with whom I am pleased. Then the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus." That right there takes the argument that Jesus is God's Son. The Son is one with the Father, from the same house and line, so Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit, is the part of God that is still on earth. The proof of the Holy Spirit is like, proving that humans have a soul. The three are perfection, all together they have the perfect function. with out the others, it is not the same perfect God. The whole One God part, is as easy as, thinking of your entire life. You have a family life, a social life, and whatever other types of a life you may have. Put all those together and you have a complete life. Without one, your life would not be the same way, it wouldn't be as good. The Trinity is very logical! ☺
BahiraMalika

Con

Your first analogy is crazy. An apple is apple irregardless of whether you have the ability to taste it, or the ability to see it, or the ability to smell it. Your senses do not make the apple what it is. The apple's structure, irregardless of whether you can see it, makes it an apple. God is God based on His attributes, that is, His timelessness, His power, being the creator of the universe, not based on the actions of the persons of God. Jesus could not be God, but God would still be God, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. With your analogy, you make it seem like Jesus is a third of God, the Father is a third of God, and that the Holy Spirit is a third of God, but this is untrue with the orthodox view of the Trinity. The Trinity states that each of them are fully God and that they fully share the essence of God. Your analogy fails.

I never said that the Bible absolutely does not point to a Trinity, I just said that one could interpret the verses to state something different than the Trinity, admit that the Bible is in error, or that it propagates something totally illogical. If you are to take that verse and says that Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God, you are saying that there are three Gods. The Father is doing one thing, and is distinct from the Son who is doing another thing, and is distinct from the Spirit, who is doing another thing, they are all distinct beings performing distinct tasks, and if you are to assert that they are all God, you are asserting that there are three distinct Gods.

"Whatever other types of lives you may have"-You cannot even think of a third type. Your analogy fails again. "Life" here is just used as a word to describe the things I do, it is different than an essence. The Trinity states that there are three persons who are one in ESSENCE, not simply TITLE. Your analogy is not sufficient to explain the entirety of the Trinity.

Face it, the Trinity is known as a mystery of God because the human mind cannot comprehend it in it's entirety.

It is impossible to imagine THREE BEINGS, at the SAME time, being DISTINCT from one another, doing completely DIFFERENT things, as being ONE ITEM. The Trinity may state that it propagates one God, but when you actually trying to imagine the Trinity in action, three gods come to mind.
And again, the Trinity does not state that each person shares a PART of God. The Trinity states that they are each one God at the same time, and that they each are fully that God. With your analogies you trap yourself in heresies that the early church tried to put to rest years ago (See Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcedon, etc.)

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention in round one: Three separate beings can carry out one plan, like any team of three members. Just because The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit carried out the same plan does not automatically make them all one God. They can easily be said to be three gods who worked together, and when you think of them being distinct from each other, and doing different tasks at the same time, it's just human nature to see three gods working together for one goal.
Debate Round No. 2
riclanda

Pro

riclanda forfeited this round.
BahiraMalika

Con

BahiraMalika forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BahiraMalika 9 years ago
BahiraMalika
And again, the Trinity does not state that God the father is 1/3 God, God the Son is another 1/3 God, and that God the Holy Spirit is 1/3 God. They are stated to be three persons FULLY sharing the SAME essence of one God. This doesn't make any sense.
With the apple analogy, no one ever goes,"Skin the Apple, Flesh the Apple, and Core the Apple", people recognize the skin, the flesh, and the core as separately, no one ever sees each thing as one full apple, yet with the Trinity, people often see Jesus as fully God, the Father as fully God, and the Spirit as fully God, so, yet again, that analogy still fails.

@Double_Edged_Words: How are his opinions and point of view right on? If they were he would've been able to debate me well and refute me, yet he did not. I refuted all his points. I think you're only saying that because you're biased to already believe in the Trinity and you're not looking at it with an open, logical, and unbiased mindset.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
The apple analogy can also be expressed another way...
The apple has three parts, the skin, the flesh and the core. You can't deny that it is still one apple, but it has three parts. Just like there is only one God, there are three parts.
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
Pro I can se how arguing with her would be dificult. Good job though. your opinions and view point is very right on.
Posted by BahiraMalika 9 years ago
BahiraMalika
We are debating whether the orthodox view of the Trinity actually propagates true Monotheism. I am saying that it does not, and he is saying that it does.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
What are you debating .. the Father , The Son and the Holy Spirit , the Trinity .. whats to debate .
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by riclanda 9 years ago
riclanda
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by spoon171 9 years ago
spoon171
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BahiraMalika 9 years ago
BahiraMalika
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Opaz 9 years ago
Opaz
riclandaBahiraMalikaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03