An Explanation of the Trinity?

[Faith No More]

I think this is the same as what I said in the OP though: Mr. Steam, Mr. Ice and Mrs. Water all work for the company "H2O". It's a valid equivocation, because essentially what we're both saying is that these three things are a different manifestation of the one thing, whether it be a company or a liquid etc.

Except the trinity wants to have Mr. Steam, Mr Ice, and Mrs. Water equal to the company H20, when in reality, they are separate pieces that create a whole. For your example to work, Mr. Steam would have to be equal to the whole company H20, while both Mr. Ice and Mrs. Water are also equal to the whole company. The trinity concept seeks to divide something into three parts while having each of those divided components being equal to the whole. It violates the basic principle of the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

[FallentoReason]

I think this is the same as what I said in the OP though: Mr. Steam, Mr. Ice and Mrs. Water all work for the company "H2O". It's a valid equivocation, because essentially what we're both saying is that these three things are a different manifestation of the one thing, whether it be a company or a liquid etc.

Except the trinity wants to have Mr. Steam, Mr Ice, and Mrs. Water equal to the company H20, when in reality, they are separate pieces that create a whole. For your example to work, Mr. Steam would have to be equal to the whole company H20, while both Mr. Ice and Mrs. Water are also equal to the whole company. The trinity concept seeks to divide something into three parts while having each of those divided components being equal to the whole. It violates the basic principle of the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

Yeah, I know :p I was just saying that the water/ice/steam example is actually on par with/equal to the OP, which is itself a failed attempt at making sense of the Trinity.

[Minimalist]

The Trinity is a simple enough concept to understand. Think of it like ice, steam and liquid water; Different things made of the same stuff.

Except those examples cannot exist at the same time. Water must be in one of the three states. The jesus freaks insist their nonsense is all lumped together.

Childish silliness.

[Faith No More]

Yeah, I know :p I was just saying that the water/ice/steam example is actually on par with/equal to the OP, which is itself a failed attempt at making sense of the Trinity.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were trying to say that it was a viable concept.

But you see what I meant from my first response that you are going to get nothing but "humans just can't understand it" answers?

[max-greece]

Not a good time to mention the triple point of water then.

[FallentoReason]

Yeah, I know :p I was just saying that the water/ice/steam example is actually on par with/equal to the OP, which is itself a failed attempt at making sense of the Trinity.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were trying to say that it was a viable concept.

Forgiven!

But you see what I meant from my first response that you are going to get nothing but "humans just can't understand it" answers?

I guess I put faith in our resident theists that they have some ounce of rational thought to their beliefs - that they aren't just nilly willy believing just 'cause - and I was hoping to understand these thought processes behind their view of a particular fragment of reality. But it seems like I'll just have to accept disappointment.

And they have the guts to carry on preaching, as if they are perfectly rational in all they believe

[Minimalist]

Not a good time to mention the triple point of water then.

High school chemistry was a long time ago - and I hated that class, anyway, but isn't it that at the triple point you must still change one factor in order to attain one of the actual states?

[max-greece]

Not a good time to mention the triple point of water then.

High school chemistry was a long time ago - and I hated that class, anyway, but isn't it that at the triple point you must still change one factor in order to attain one of the actual states?

I don't think so:

"The single combination of pressure and temperature at which pure water, pure ice, and pure water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 kelvins (0.01 °C) and a pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373057 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapor by making infinitesimally small changes in pressure and temperature."

Its all 3 at the same time - sorry. Otherwise I liked your argument.

[Bucky Ball]

Aquinas said if anyone says they understand the trinity, they are lying. Even he said he didn't get it.

What it is though, is unequivocal proof of how humans cooked up this shit, then demanded assent to their stew of crap. For centuries, they (the old guys in dresses) argued about this.
The "filioque procedit" argument went on for centuries, as they argued over it's recipe. The term ("filioque" ... Latin for "and the son") refers to their holy spirit, and refers to the phrase in the Western version of the Nicene Creed which says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father "and the Son". This was NOT in the confessions actually agreed to in the councils, .. Nicaea (325 BCE) and Constantinople (381). You can read the proceedings of all the councils online. The "preceeding FROM BOTH" first appears/inserted, in the proceedings of the Council of Toledo (589) and was vehemently opposed. It was not officially endorsed until 1017. Photius of Constantinople denounced it in the ninth century, and it formed the main doctrinal issue in the rupture (Great Schism), along with the primacy of Roman authority, in 1054. There was an attempted compromise at Florence in 1439, but it flopped. Among the "fathers", Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Alexandria may be seen to have agreed with it; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against it; and the Cappadocians tried to walk in the middle .. "from the Father through the Son."

In support of the Eastern side, there's this : John (15:26) speaks only of a proceeding from the Father. Second, the addition NEVER had "ecumenical" approval.

There's so much wrong with this crap, it's impossible to know where to even begin. First and foremost, it refutes Judaic monotheism, (except by Special Pleading it away). Divine beings in the OT were in no way held to be equivalent to Yahweh, (and there were many).

[Faith No More]

I don't think so:

"The single combination of pressure and temperature at which pure water, pure ice, and pure water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 kelvins (0.01 °C) and a pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373057 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapor by making infinitesimally small changes in pressure and temperature."

Its all 3 at the same time - sorry. Otherwise I liked your argument.

It's still not applicable to the trinity, because the trinity wants each individual part to be equal to the whole.