There has been a lot of confusion and tension in another thread or two recently because of our arguments about the Trinity. I would like to clear them up. I propose that all talk about the Trinity is to be confined to this thread for as long as the thread lasts. Keep it here. This thing has a way of spilling out all over every other thread or subject around here.
Grace Seeker wanted to know what my own “understanding” of the Trinity is. I thought I had made it plain to him before that my understanding is that I understand that there is nothing to understand, even if he insistently will not. The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say. You can say till you’re blue in the face that the “Holy Spirit” “proceeds betwixt the Father and the Son” but that won’t make the words mean anything, however hard you may try to get them to, and you can force as many interpretations of your own onto them as you like but they’re still going to be different from those of a jillion other people’s who have set themselves to the same desperate task.
They never have answers, these Trinitarian evangelists, only analogies. Analogies which if you examine them carefully you’ll find are all depicting the Trinity differently. It’s high time you Christians woke up to the fact that we don’t need some metaphor to understand the idea that one thing can consists of various other things. Believe me, we get it. Every child who’s ever seen the rainbow or played with Lego blocks already gets it. The actual problem is whether we have any reason to believe that God Himself could or would exist in such a way. Funny how we never seem get any analogies about that.
Ice, water, mist; fruit tree, fruit, fruit juice; past, present, future. Petals of a shamrock, three-in-one-oil, fingers on a hand, six squares forming one cube, enough! What reason have we to think that God is like any of these things? And granting that, which one of them? How does it work Is He a single entity taking different forms (ice, water, mist)? A compartmentalized deity with each (still undefined) part performing different tasks (fruit tree, fruit, fruit juice)? A single being who somehow consists of two intersecting parts meeting at a nexus (past, present, future)? Three extensions of some core root (petals of a shamrock)? An amalgam of three otherwise different things into a compound with new properties of its own (three-in-one oil)? Different implements being controlled by another, higher god He’s part of (fingers on a hand)? Three identical and inseparable parts redundantly constituting a single identical and inseparable whole (six squares forming one cube)? Or could it be that you’re really the ones who don’t know what you’re talking about, not us, and this is why all you have is analogies? If you’re going to form an analogy about something then that should mean that you know the subject you’re talking about so well already that you shouldn’t find it at all incomprehensible yourself.
Why should we believe God is three in any capacity? Because there are exactly two (2) verses in the Bible which happen to mention the very names “father”, “son” and “holy spirit” in the same sentence? Awful long way from that to any of the creeds, even the Apostle’s. And as for what Answering Islam says on the matter about other verses, I’ve already taken them to the moon and back on that here. You need to read that, God willing.
Polytheism doesn’t have to be overt or even untempered in order to be what it is. Do you believe the Hindus when they tell you that their pantheon is really just one god? Do you care? Are they not still pagans?
The evidence of our world suggests a single cause. Something outside of spacetime which encompasses all. A single, neat infinity beyond infinities. The one point of origin. What about all this suggests to you that the number “three” even has anything to do with the subject at all? How many ways can and should an all-compassing First Cause be divided up? Why should such a perfect thing need multiple persons to it?
You’re denying the singleness. Just because you deny it by saying it’s a singleness that’s also a not-singleness does not change anything except to add self-deception or self-obfuscation to the mix. For the ninth time, saying “plural singularity” does not change the fact that there is plurality involved. It just piles semantics on top of the problem instead.
I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:
1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.
It’s as simple as that!
Why, if God was one but also three, didn’t the Old Testament mention it when it said that the great command was, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one.” Kind of an important fact to omit. Why didn’t it mention the fact anywhere? For that matter, why did the Bible not do so? You’d think that Paul would be interested that people know that and will have written about it in his letters at some point along with every other little detail. Did the ancient Jews know their Messiah would be part of a Trinity? Shouldn’t they, if they were supposed to be worshiping the same god?
And what exactly is “the Holy Spirit”? Nobody has any idea beyond the usual semantic pretenses which never hold water when actually challenged to be defined. Can’t you see that in the Bible the phrase means different things in different contexts? Sometimes it meant “angel”; sometimes it meant “prophet”; sometimes it seems meant in the ordinary English figurative sense that any of us might mean “the spirit” in. Sometimes it meant “presence”. And so on. Is it not plain that what the Trinitarians have done is lump all these different meanings together into one, big amalgam, and in the process make the whole thing totally incoherent?
Once again I return to the bottom line: bearing in mind what I said in the article linked above, what reason have we to believe that God would be in three persons?
Last edited by IAmZamzam; 12-10-2010 at 06:16 PM.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
I think the most you can plausibly claim for premise 2 is 'the Trinity is complex and incomprehensible to me', and hence the conclusion would not follow. Clearly there are many people who do not find it 'incomprehensible', or at least think they don't, in which case at worst 'the Trinity is complex but comprehensible to me' could be substituted as an equally credible alternative.
Actually, the only valid syllogism must conclude not that 'the Trinity is not monotheistic', but that 'the Trinity is not monotheism' - which is not the same thing at all. Nor is 'the Trinity is monotheism' a claim anybody has actually made.
So much for the logic. I'll leave the theists to fight over the theology.
Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.
What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
I think the most you can plausibly claim for premise 2 is 'the Trinity is complex and incomprehensible to me', and hence the conclusion would not follow. Clearly there are many people who do not find it 'incomprehensible', or at least think they don't, in which case at worst 'the Trinity is complex but comprehensible to me' could be substituted as an equally credible alternative.
Except that Trinitarians are never consistent about whether it is even supposed to be comprehensible or not. It all depends on which view allows them to defend the doctrine at the given moment. And whenever you ask the ones who purport that it is comprehensible to explain it, they either refuse as Grace Seeker did or they falter and improvise and completely fail and make it even more obvious that they don't genuinely have any idea what they're talking about. Or else they just hit you up with more analogies without reference point. Virtually all those who don't believe in the Trinity or do believe but aren't Bible bangers about it agree that it is incomprehensible.
Actually, the only valid syllogism must conclude not that 'the Trinity is not monotheistic', but that 'the Trinity is not monotheism' - which is not the same thing at all. Nor is 'the Trinity is monotheism' a claim anybody has actually made.
What, now you're going to pick on the grammar? It means the same.
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
do you mean to say are an atheist?
Yes, Trumble is an atheist, but let's not get into that again. I have a whole thread on the way, probably today or at least tomorrow.
Last edited by IAmZamzam; 12-10-2010 at 06:17 PM.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.
What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
Apparently God is His own grandpa.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
What, now you're going to pick on the grammar? It is not a case of an adjective having to be used to modify a noun: it is a case of one noun being compared to another. When people say, "You call this music? That isn't music," no one corrects them by saying they should have said, "That isn't musical."
You are just repeating the same error. No correction is needed as there was nothing wrong with the initial response. The 'correction' means something different, although in this particular context it is also obviously an appropriate response. But something can be musical without being music, and indeed music without being musical at least according to the general understanding of the term! Another example. Islam is monotheistic, but it is not monotheism.
A large chunk of 20th century analytic philosophy centres on the fact that far from being 'picky', such things are critical to understanding, and hence to the validity of any conclusions reached. In this case you argument is straightforward, and does not need the support of faulty logic.
Except that Trinitarians are never consistent about whether it is even supposed to be comprehensible or not. It all depends on which view allows them to defend the doctrine at the given moment. And whenever you ask the ones who purport that it is comprehensible to explain it, they either refuse as Grace Seeker did or they falter and improvise and completely fail and make it even more obvious that they don't genuinely have any idea what they're talking about. Or else they just hit you up with more analogies without reference point. Virtually all those who don't believe in the Trinity or do believe but aren't Bible bangers about it agree that it is incomprehensible.
That's no more than an opinion piece. You are quite entitled to that opinion, of course, but it does nothing to strengthen an argument based on logic. Indeed quite the contrary even if it is accepted; if only "virtually all" of those people agree it is incomprehensible, then some must find it comprehensible. As soon as that is the case, the argument collapses. Most people find quantum mechanics and chaos theory incomprehensible; but that does not invalidate them.
There were a lot of people who found the lyrics to "I Am the Walrus" comprehensible as well, even though the very idea of it was to be the opposite. People can find meaning in anything. The very Athanasian creed itself states that the Trinity is incomprehensible. If a Christian wants to dispute that then that's their right, but they're going to have to be consistent about it.
I'm not going to indulge you about the semantics issue, because regardless of what you may say, it is EXTREMELY picky, and no one is ever going to misunderstand it.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
I'm not going to indulge you about the semantics issue, because regardless of what you may say, it is EXTREMELY picky, and no one is ever going to misunderstand it.
Semantic understanding, or otherwise, of the terms is not relevant to the syllogism's validity. Your argument is quite clear and, indeed, nobody is likely to misunderstand it, but your attempted logical prop for it fails.
Instead of atheist (yes Trumble, I am looking at you) coming here and blabbering about semantics, I have been expecting christians to come here and shed any light on the subject/idea of trinity.
Yeah, he should set his religion to atheist in his profile to avoid people confusing him with a Buddhist
Trumble is an atheistic Buddhist.
That is, he is a Buddhist who believe the universe is uncreated, eternal.
There are, however, theistic Buddhists who believe that the universe is created by The creator.
Back on topic, I can't wait for Grace Seeker or Hugo to explain trinity.
Instead of atheist (yes Trumble, I am looking at you) coming here and blabbering about semantics, I have been expecting christians to come here and shed any light on the subject/idea of trinity.
In addition to the thread title, the OP offered a specific argument which he attempted to support with logic. I responded by pointing out that that attempt was invalid, and also in my last that the reason has nothing to do with 'semantics'.
What you may have been expecting is, of course, your business.
What I was expecting, Trumble, if anything, was someone actually addressing the whole, or even the majority, of my argumentation instead of just an isolated little snippet of it which is only one of a great many different points.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
While in the early years of Trinitarian development Mary was considered part of the Trinity in Eastern (Greek) Christianity. The concept lost out to the Western (Roman) Christians and very few Christians of today are aware that at one time Mary was part of the Trinity among some of the Christian churches.
When we mention Mary as being part of the Trinity to today's Christians we will often be met with the argument that Mary was never part of the Trinity and Christians never believed that. If we are going to use that in a refutation of the trinity, we had best be prepared to show evidence that at one time it was part of Christian teaching even though that concept of the trinity has not been part of Christian theology for over 1000 years.
It was most likely in the year 381 that the Holy Spirit began being introduced as the third part of the Trinity.
The 21 Ecumenical Councils
I. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 325
Summary: The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe the Nicene Creed, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
II. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 381
Summary: The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm
While in the early years of Trinitarian development Mary was considered part of the Trinity in Eastern (Greek) Christianity. The concept lost out to the Western (Roman) Christians and very few Christians of today are aware that at one time Mary was part of the Trinity among some of the Christian churches.
When we mention Mary as being part of the Trinity to today's Christians we will often be met with the argument that Mary was never part of the Trinity and Christians never believed that. If we are going to use that in a refutation of the trinity, we had best be prepared to show evidence that at one time it was part of Christian teaching even though that concept of the trinity has not been part of Christian theology for over 1000 years.
You're right. I was about to post in response to Perseveranze that Mary really has nothing to do with a discussion of the Trinity and will simply sidetrack what is likely to have lots of wandering rabbit trails of its own. So, I'm glad I read through to the end to see you believe that Mary was a part of the understanding of the Trinity in the distant past. I have to say that not only is it not relevant to my understanding of the Trintiy, I've not encountered this in any of my reading on the Trinity nor in any of my reading of Church history. Do you think that an exploration of that idea would be worth discussion in this particular thread?
Grace Seeker wanted to know what my own “understanding” of the Trinity is. I thought I had made it plain to him before that my understanding is that I understand that there is nothing to understand, even if he insistently will not. The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say.
OK. So, we Christians don't know what we are talking about. We are both confused and confusing. And the Trinity is pure fiction. You don't believe us when we say that one can accept the doctrine of the Trinity with regard to God and still be monotheistic. All of that I get.
But what I still need cleared up on is what it is that you actually think we are saying with regard to God. You object to it saying that we are saying God is three. But I've never actually said "God is three." Those are words that non-trinitarians put into our mouths. I continue to say that God is one. I might say that God is three-in-one, but I would never just say that God is three as a simple declarative statement, because I don't believe that is true.
A negative critique of the Trintiy can't be simply that it isn't true, you have to state what is untrue about it. And a critique that argues, "God is one, he is not three." is not a critique of the Trinity for it does not critique a belief that we as Trinitarians hold. That is why I wish to know what it is that you think we mean when we speak of trinity. Though I know you, and many others here, went to Christian schools. The objections that I've heard raised against the Trintiy seem to me to mostly involve mis-statements as to what we who hold to it actually believe. And frankly, if I thought it meant what I've heard some people say that it means, I wouldn't believe it either.
But as I said, you start this thread and tell us what its that you believe we mean by Trinity, and I will join you. Well, you've started the thread, and I've joined you. Now, I'm waiting for you to say what it is that you believe we mean by Trinity.
.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 12-16-2010 at 03:40 PM.
Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.
Sheikh Yusuf Estes gives an example, of the discussion at his home (before he accepted Islam). The video is called, something along the lines of "Priests and Preachers Entering Islam". It maybe available on youtube, and can also be watched at watchislam.com.
I am sure he is preparing a list of googled names as we write to place importance not on content, no but on their alleged distinctions which only he seems to appreciate.. The day Hugo writes anything of tangible substance hell will freeze over and all the devils will be ice skating..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks