"The same way ice can be water". Hmmm..... for ice to be water requires the addition of heat. Exactly what R U suggesting?
And if you add more heat still, you get 'steam'. I have seen this metaphor for the 'big three' used quite a bit by the fun-duh-mentalists. It doesn't hold water (pun intended).
There is a fourth state of matter known as 'plasma'. Doesn't this ruin the elegant math of the metaphor? And why use water? ALL elements and combinations thereof can exist in four states depending on the application of heat.
"The Trinity is a doctrine that is beyond our comprehension. We believe in the Trinity because it has always been taught by the church."
Notice how they always 'punt to mystery' when they don't have a good answer? The writer exhibits a good example of one way belief systems work: tradition; i.e. believing in something 'just because' it has been believed for a lengthy time. This is a pure example of longitudinal expression of a cultural meme.
The fact that something has been believed for a lengthy time does not confer validity on the belief. This is a logical fallacy. Consider the 'flat earth' meme: it was believed for a long time but is completely false. Something doesn't become 'more true' just because much time has gone by.
The scripture-quoters can be safely ignored. Any argument they offer fails due to the logical error known as 'begging the question'. This means, simply put, that any conclusion they offer presupposes the truth of their initial statement. This is not rational thinking. It is magical thinking.
To break this idea out a bit: you cannot tell me (A) the Bible is true because (B) the Bible tells me so. Conclusion (B) presupposes the truth of argument (A).
But it boots nothing to tell them so. Once they have been infected by the viral meme of religion, nothing suffices to convince them otherwise. All counterarguments are thus undermined in their eyes. They will normally not even consider opposing viewpoints.
They happily pursue their lives being told what to think and believe, and how to behave, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
If their arguments cannot stand on their own merit, i.e. they must 'punt to mystery' and 'beg the question', then why consider their arguments at all?
So, by all means please go on asking such questions. There is no reason I see that religion shouldn't be subjected to inquiry and scrutiny. I see no reason at all to confer on them some 'automatic respect'.
If they can't back up what they say without invoking mystical, supernatural psychobabble, then their statements have no validity.
"The more you know, the less you believe. The more you believe, the less you know."
