Musika:
To me, it stills seems like you're making a generalised complaint rather than a specific one. The generalised complaint appears to be that you wish some people were better educated than they are - or perhaps that you wish they shared your specific education. Point taken, but it doesn't actually advance any argument you might wish to make.
There is a whole stack of difference of opinion, controversy and mystery surrounding the development of early christianity. Unfortunately, one cannot enter in to it unless one is somewhat familiar with early christianity. BTW, this phenomenon between diversity and familiarity is not unique to early christianity. Its kind of the rules for, well anything you might want to discuss.
Again, this is a very general complaint. You don't know what people have or haven't studied. And you're also lumping a whole bunch of people into one basket, as if every atheist here has the same lack of education in all things religious that you consider important.
Plenty of atheists have made valid statements about "all religions", usually as a consequence of having some familiarity with them.
Similarly, many atheists have said valid things about the development of trinitarianism, usually as a consequence of being somewhat familiar with it.
And - you'll agree I'm sure - if somebody wants to talk about atheism or, say, evolution, then it would pay to invest a bit more time other than quote mining religious hate sites. Right?
I'm sure you would have brought that to such people's attention on more than one occassion.
I see a lot of "highlighting" of the supposed ignorances of other people on this site. In my opinion, there's far too much pointing out that people are wrong (supposedly) and far too little effort put into showing why those people are wrong, from certain posters anyway.
Well, for example, if someone wants to talk about the influence of egyptian polytheism on trinitarianism, one would assume that they would have some historical point of reference in the timeline of the development of trinitarianism. I guess you could say pointing out this gargantuan absence in someone's argument is fault finding, but its a bit much to turn around and say such antagonists are also now duty bound to provide a concise presentation on the development of trinitarianism.
Realistically, what's your expectation in this thread? That you will assert your superiority in matters philosophical and historical and religious, and then ... what? People will accept that you're the authority, based on nothing but your own claims to a superior education?
Demanding that others who make claims about historical developments provide a historical framework or point of reference for their claims is not superiority. Its the rules of engagement. I guess we could do some sort of DIY/DUI anthropology or something if one is interested in creative writing or something.
If your aim is to feel superior to other people, then I guess this is one way to stroke your own ego. But it's not likely to lead to any fruitful discussion.
If citing the name "Tertullian" is sufficient to blow people out of the water in a discussion about trinitarianism, you certainly set the bar very low.
So you say, but it's all a bit vague as to which particular facets of history are relevant.
Geez.
And you don't think a person leveling claims about egyptian polytheistic influence on trinitarianism is duty bound to take their claims out of shapelessness by providing a bit of historical context?
Not that everything said herein is impervious to criticism, but just to provide a bit of a taste of how practically "everything" points in the opposite direction:
https://www.quora.com/To-what-exten...r/Keith-Rockefeller?share=e3ed8d12&srid=hM5pX
I checked the wiki page on trinitarianism and found only a brief definition and an index to other wiki articles. I couldn't see any references to Egypt on that page. What specifically are you referring to?
Fancy that, eh?
I see. I'm supposed to go away and read the entire works of Tertullian and try to guess at what you might think is relevant in them to the current discussion? It sounds like a lot of effort for me with little prospect of satisfaction at the end. It also - conveniently for you - would appear to require no actual effort on your part.
It was more a reference point for understanding how trinitarianism developed. He falls snuggly in the political timeline, in terms of determining his influences and his opponents, for understanding how things developed. If you want to read his entire works, that's your prerogative. However if one does not have at least a rudimentary understanding of who and what he was, its difficult to understand how one could launch a valid opinion on the development of the trinity doctrine.
Presumably you are already familiar with all the relevant works and passages already. So, as a courtesy, and seeing as you brought it up, maybe you could summarise the most pertinent points for me, and we can discuss.
Aside from having a desire to engage in fallacious argument, it's a mystery why you would presume that.
