Spirituality
02 Jun 10
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, I disagree. Firstly, the Trinity is not exclusively a Catholic concept. I am not sure why this is, perhaps American ignorance, but there are quite a number of Christians churches with equal antiquity to the Catholic Church -- for example, the numerous Orthodox and Oriental churches. Each of these also professes belief in the Trinity.
I believe the Catholic concept of the Trinity is an application of Orwell's concept "doublethink". What do you think?
Secondly, the criticism that Trinitarian thinking is essentially double-think depends on the premise that the Trinity is contradictory. I do not believe it is. Superficially, it seems contradictory because it states 'The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; but the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit'. That looks like a violation of the law of transitivity (if A=B, B=C. then A=C.) Not so. It is possible to say "Jim is the post-master' and 'Sarah is the post-master' but 'Jim and Sarah are not the same person'. The reason is that there is some limit to the predicate in the first two propositions -- 'Jim is the post-master at Milford' or 'Sarah is post-master next year'. In that case, no contradiction actually exists. The same with the Trinity -- the Father is God in nature; the Father and Son are not the same in person. The tension is resolved.
I think what bogs most people down is the confusion of terminology, of person, nature, substance, etc and certainly it seems far to complicated to be coherent. I think that this is simply the result of the heavily Western metaphysical approach to Trinitarian theology, which has a tendency to obfuscate rather than enlighten. Surprising, however, science fiction is better able to explain these concepts. I was recently watching an 80s classic, Red Dwarf. In one episode, one man, Rimmer, has been resurrected as a hologram (a spectral projection with the same personality, emotions, memories and intellect of his former self.) Rimmer, however, finds a way to create another hologrammatical version of himself. So in this episode, there are two Rimmers. They are the same in nature (same thoughts, feelings, motivations, same physical appearance, same limitations) but they are different persons (they occupy different areas of space; they talk to one another, etc) and different relations (one created the other.) Surprisingly, this science fiction piece very accurately conveys the ideas of Trinitarian metaphysics and it does so quite coherently.
02 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThis one caught my eye immediately...
Well, I disagree. Firstly, the Trinity is not exclusively a Catholic concept. I am not sure why this is, perhaps American ignorance, but there are quite a number of Christians churches with equal antiquity to the Catholic Church -- for example, the numerous Orthodox and Oriental churches. Each of these also professes belief in the Trinity.
Second rately conveys the ideas of Trinitarian metaphysics and it does so quite coherently.
It is possible to say "Jim is the post-master' and 'Sarah is the post-master' but 'Jim and Sarah are not the same person'
it isn't! The problem here is the word "the" in that it implies (in this setting) the existence of precisely one postmaster If Jim is not Sarah then only one can be the postmaster. Replace "the" with "a" and you're safe again, however the downside would be the analogy no longer applies.
It seems as though you're trying to argue that God is a partition made up of: Father, Holy Spirit, Son of God with each being disjoint. That being so, if some set A can be partitioned into three disjoint sets A_1, A_2, A_3 then though each A_i is in A it is not correct to say A_i = A which seems to be the case when dealing with the trinity.
02 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOh yeah, you're that really smart intellectual Catholic dude (or former Catholic dude). The intellectual rigor in the Catholic Church is impressive. I go to a Jesuit school and I see it there too.
Well, I disagree. Firstly, the Trinity is not exclusively a Catholic concept. I am not sure why this is, perhaps American ignorance, but there are quite a number of Christians churches with equal antiquity to the Catholic Church -- for example, the numerous Orthodox and Oriental churches. Each of these also professes belief in the Trinity.
Second ...[text shortened]... rately conveys the ideas of Trinitarian metaphysics and it does so quite coherently.
I'll have to spend time on this post.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agergit isn't! The problem here is the word "the" in that it implies (in this setting) the existence of precisely one postmaster If Jim is not Sarah then only one can be [b]the postmaster. Replace "the" with "a" and you're safe again, however the downside would be the analogy no longer applies.[/b]
This one caught my eye immediately...
[b]It is possible to say "Jim is the post-master' and 'Sarah is the post-master' but 'Jim and Sarah are not the same person'
it isn't! The problem here is the word "the" in that it implies (in this setting) the existence of precisely one postmaster If Jim is not Sarah then only one can be the postmaster. Repla ...[text shortened]... correct to say A_i = A which seems to be the case when dealing with the trinity.[/b]
But that is the very point of my analogy. The predicates have a domain. So Jim is the post-master of domain A (whether it is a separate place or time) and Sarah is the post-master of domain B (some different domain not overlapping with B). That is how the whole tension of 'the' is resolved -- by limiting the scope of 'the' and the predicate 'is a post-master' to separate domains. Obviously if we changed 'the' to 'a', there could be no logical problem but that's quite obvious.
The same kind of reasoning applies to the Trinity to avoid violating the law of transitivity (although in this case, it works differently). We can say the Father is God in respect to his nature; the Son is God in respect to his nature; and therefore the Father and Son are the same in respect to their nature (clearly keeping to the law of transitivity) but we are not forced to hold that the Father and Son are the same in respect to person. We avoid logical problem by limiting the predicate 'is God'.
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau Khttp://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm
[b]it isn't! The problem here is the word "the" in that it implies (in this setting) the existence of precisely one postmaster If Jim is not Sarah then only one can be [b]the postmaster. Replace "the" with "a" and you're safe again, however the downside would be the analogy no longer applies.[/b]
But that is the very point of my analogy. The predicat ...[text shortened]... ect to person. We avoid logical problem by limiting the predicate 'is God'.[/b]
An interesting point about this if you do take the time to read it, is if the Trinity were a Bible truth, why did it take so long to establish centuries later?
If it was a truth then it should have been obvious and simple to explain and learn.
If this trinity were a bible truth and something that Jesus would have known about, why did Jesus or his apostles not teach and explain this new trinity belief to anyone? That would have been a great time to do it as it would have been something contrary to everything they believed from Adam.
If this trinity was a Bible truth, why does it contradict so many bible scriptures that say the opposite about the beings of God and Jesus?
I'm sure you won't answer these but it may give others something to think about...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75An interesting point about this if you do take the time to read it, is if the Trinity were a Bible truth, why did it take so long to establish centuries later?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm
An interesting point about this if you do take the time to read it, is if the Trinity were a Bible truth, why did it take so long to establish centuries later?
If it was a truth then it should have been obvious and simple to explain and learn.
If this trinity were a bible truth and something that Jes ...[text shortened]... esus?
I'm sure you won't answer these but it may give others something to think about...
I have already addresed this point several times. In fact, I did so in our last exchange. You simply do not understand how Catholics and Orthodox Christians perceive and interpret their dogmas. Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus came as the revelation. He did not hand over dogmas. The dogmas were later developmental insights, confirming and explaining that revelation, but not the revelation itself. Why do Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that dogmas emerge later? Because Jesus himself promises that the Holy Spirit will teach them (John 15: 26). I don't see why you need to revisit these points constantly. Do you suffer memory loss or something?
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KNot a bit as my memoery is fine. Maybe it's just that your answers aren't good enough. The trinity is not in the Bible in any form and no matter what you think it's a contradiction to the Bible. Jesus said among many other things concerning his Father is that "his Father is greater then him". How do trinitarians not get that? But I guess they are so steeped in traditions it can't be seen.
[b]An interesting point about this if you do take the time to read it, is if the Trinity were a Bible truth, why did it take so long to establish centuries later?
I have already addresed this point several times. In fact, I did so in our last exchange. You simply do not understand how Catholics and Orthodox Christians perceive and interpret their do ...[text shortened]... 't see why you need to revisit these points constantly. Do you suffer memory loss or something?[/b]
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOh, stop trying so hard. You are defending an illogical triviality that is predicated on an obvious fallacy. Why don't you spend your time thinking about the real world instead of arguing distinctions in this religious hocus-pocus?
[b]it isn't! The problem here is the word "the" in that it implies (in this setting) the existence of precisely one postmaster If Jim is not Sarah then only one can be [b]the postmaster. Replace "the" with "a" and you're safe again, however the downside would be the analogy no longer applies.[/b]
But that is the very point of my analogy. The predicat ...[text shortened]... ect to person. We avoid logical problem by limiting the predicate 'is God'.[/b]
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by PalynkaA=D, B=D, C=D
I think you first need to show why the Trinity entails multiple contradictory beliefs.
A =/= B =/= C
D =/= D
Thus, D does not exist. If D is God, you should probably abandon that whole trinity thing. Just stick with D=D, or at least A=B=C. They cannot be separate entities and the same thing simultaneously.
If you say that one is on a different domain, that doesn't resolve the contradiction. If I am a biologist in the morning, a physicist around noon, and a chess player in the evening, I am still me. Sure, that's true. But the biologist, the physicist, and the chess player are not different people. They are just different activities. One never equals three.
Face it, Catholicism and associated trinity-based Christian denominations are tritheistic.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by UzumakiAiWell put! If Jesus is God, who raised Him? If God raised Himself then He was never really dead. The trinity is illogical and not biblical. The trinity evolved around the 4th century, and is mired in Greek Mythology. God is the Creator and the Father. Jesus is His Son, whom btw was created in Mary by God who is Holy and is Spirit. Jesus is also called the 2nd Adam. He was made like the 1st Adam in the sense that He did not have a sinful nature. The first Adam sinned and failed, the 2nd Adam did not, and succeeded in being the perfect sacrifice to redeem man.
A=D, B=D, C=D
A =/= B =/= C
D =/= D
Thus, D does not exist. If D is God, you should probably abandon that whole trinity thing. Just stick with D=D, or at least A=B=C. They cannot be separate entities and the same thing simultaneously.
If you say that one is on a different domain, that doesn't resolve the contradiction. If I am a biologist in t ...[text shortened]...
Face it, Catholicism and associated trinity-based Christian denominations are tritheistic.