Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 17:56:16 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Evolution Statement"

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 20:13:18 -0500 george murphy <>
    > "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:I don't think "Trinity" is a very good
    > basis
    > for your point. I believe that, while the term is not biblical, the
    > concept is, and could be recognized only on the basis of revelation.
    > The
    > traditional rejection, on the basis that 1+1+1 cannot equal 1, is
    > philosophical in nature. Only recently have some recognized that
    > aleph-null x3 necessarily equals aleph-null.
    > Both arguments miss the point since they fail to realize
    > that
    > the unity of God can be organic rather than mathematical. The
    > doctrine
    > of the Trinity is not theological algebra.
    > Shalom,
    > George
    Yes, George, you know that. But how many who are not trained in theology
    will recognize your point? In contrast, it seems that all Jews and
    Moslems, along with many others, know the addition problem.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 18:00:52 EST