Christians

[Ryft]

Ryft, you are extremely well-spoken, but [trying to defend] the assault upon reason constituted by the Trinity is ludicrous. ... It has no good logical grounding, and is even bad on philosophical scales.

First, thank you for the compliment. That is very kind of you.

Second, if the Trinity is logically coherent then your comment no longer makes sense. You and others here consistently state the case that it is not logically coherent but none of you have yet to make that case. At least validly, anyhow, since there are several invalid arguments making that case (and there is nothing rationally compelling about invalid arguments). For example, let us examine your latest riposte. You said, "To suggest that one being is three, who are each distinct while remaining integral parts of a whole, is simply silly."

"To suggest that one being is three," you start, at which point you can be summarily cut off since that is neither what biblical Christianity teaches nor what is being defended. In other words, you are leading in to a straw man argument with how you began there. (And I happily concur: that straw man is logically incoherent.) Rather we suggest that one being is one, insofar as that being is God. There is nothing coherent about saying that one God is three gods, or that three persons are one person. But then that is not what is being argued at any rate. It is certainly not what I have argued; in fact, my arguments have explicitly rejected that, emphasizing repeatedly that one God is one God, and three persons are three persons (which feels a bit silly because such tautologies ought to be obvious, yet for some reason it seems to elude people).

So you go on to say, "who are each distinct," but here too an interruption must be made. Each member of the Trinity is distinct in what sense? Are they each distinct beings? No, they are all of the same being, that is, God. Are they each distinct persons? Yes, the Father, Son, and Spirit are each distinct persons. Do you see the fallacious ambiguity that results from not specifying the sense in which they are distinct? Each person of the Trinity is distinct from the others, but they are all of the same divine being, that is, God.

Then you continue by saying that they "[remain] integral parts of a whole," another point at which you have to be stopped. This likewise fails to correspond with the trinitarian view, since it is not the case that each person of the Trinity represents a part of the whole, or one-third of divine being. (1) The Father is not one-third divine being but fully divine being. (2) The Son is not one-third divine being but fully divine being. (3) The Spirit is not one-third divine being but fully divine being. Note this wording well: they are all fully of the same divine being, that is, God.

Therefore, having corrected these errors, what is actually being suggested by the trinitarian view is that there is only one divine being, that is, God (monotheism), and each member of the Trinity, as distinct persons one from another, by nature represent fully that divine being, that is, God. And this is a logically coherent view, that one unique divine being is represented fully in three distinct persons.

At what point is this logically incoherent or silly? I suppose one could argue from the assumption that "being" and "person" are essentially synonymous (and thus it is tantamount to saying that one person is three persons), but then I would counter by asking what that assumption is based on—since what I detect is two fallacies for the price of one, a question-begging equivocation fallacy which starts by taking the term "being" as used in the trinitarian view and ends by having it mean something else as held outside the trinitarian view. If one wishes to hold that "being" and "person" are essentially synonymous, then make that clear from the start, allowing your opponent to correct the context. For example, if you held that position and made it clear from the start, then I would be able to say to you, "Granted. However, when critically evaluating the trinitarian view under its own terms, we must allow it to define its own terms and work within that, just as we would if we were to critically evaluate your view under its own terms." Agreed?

As an aside in closing, the problem with Arius was not that his view was inherently inconsistent. It wasn't, I agree. The problem was that it was inherently unbiblical and thus contradicted apostolic teaching. That is what denouncing his view as heretical meant. But interact honestly with what I said above and tell me how that is not "logical and well-reasoned" or how it could ever constitute polytheism (without changing the definition of polytheism, please).

---

---

You've solved the mystery that no Christian "scholar" has ever unlocked?

Hardly. Where do you think I learned all this from? Christians scholars. (While I grant that you will find certain Christian scholars chalking up the Trinity to incomprehensible mystery, especially among the Eastern Orthodox churches who cherish mystery as sacrosanct, it does not follow that all Christian scholars do this.)

If God is in three separate persons, as trinitarianism teaches, then Jesus cannot be a separate being from Yahweh ...

Sure looks like you said there are three separate persons but they're not separate from each other.

Only for someone who either willfully conflates "being" and "person" or lacks basic reading comprehension skills. As I have argued repeatedly throughout this thread, especially to Epimethean above, each person of the Trinity is distinct from one another, but they are all of the same divine being, that is, Yahweh. It is a logical contradiction to suggest that divine being is not divine being, which is what results from suggesting that the deity of Christ is separate from divine being.

(1) The divine personhood of the Father, Son, and Spirit is distinct from one another. They are three separate persons.

(2) The divine being of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not distinct from itself. They are not three separate Yahwehs.

(As for conflating "being" and "person," see my note to Epimethean above.)

I can always rely on you to overload my irony meter, Ryft. First you accuse us of "mental gymnastics" while defending the Trinity and then you, a Christian apologist, accuse me of dishonesty. A psychology student could use you as a classic case of one who uses the defense mechanism projection.

Gratuitous invective without a shred of justification. Hopefully you have not esteemed logic and reason anywhere at these forums, for such twaddle as this would make a hypocrite of you.

It's called "ridicule."

It represents nothing recognizable to orthodox Christian teaching, fails to correspond with anything orthodox Christianity teaches, and is not even coherent in the first place.

Therefore, what is it ridiculing (aside from itself)?

I think the ball is still in your court to explain what the Trinity is with no self-contradiction this time ...

As I have done throughout this thread so far. If you think there is a self-contradiction, then demonstrate it. But rationally, please. None of this changing word meanings, inverting what I actually said, erecting straw men, etc.

Good luck.

Seeing as how you cited Titus, I don't think the fact that it's quite possibly pseudo-epigraphical is irrelevant.

It is "possibly" not a Pauline letter, a question that is quite separate from this issue in the first place (ignoratio elenchi).