[Serious] The Trinity

[zwanzig]

@OP- do you have any specific questions I can help with? Are you thinking of the trinity as a paganistic like triad?

No, not anymore. This thread has been great for satisfying my lingering questions about this bit of lore, in that the responses and discussion have confirmed my original impressions: that the "same guy but three in number" does not make sense. You have to change the parts of that equation to get to "=" . Those who don't change anything about it and still hold it as a core belief(I do not think anyone who holds this opinion has commented in the thread; but these Christians have been referred to by others in the thread, so, take my broad strokes with a grain of salt) they seem content to think of faith and the Trinity as an esoteric, unknowable fact. God(s) are just so above humans, it only makes sense in heaven. Which, considering that the more authority based versions of Christianity(read: Catholic Orthodox) rely on this fluid definition, it implies that those in charge use this "non-defined" doctrine to control the faithful, and those who believe it willingly bow to it because thinking about your religion isn't the important thing. Faith is what they get out of it.

Others who feel the need to alter parts of the equation usually break the ephemeral rules of the Trinity itself and there's a poly flavor to the new equation in the same way the Mormons do. Whether you use the metaphor of three in a family using the same name or an atom with electrons, there are three separate gods all of one unified purpose. Before this topic, I didn't consider these as being a part of the same lore. But now coming to the conclusion that as soon as we start talking about the Trinity in any concrete way it automatically breaks the paradox, I do consider them in the same bucket.

Thank you.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've got it backwards. The orthodoxy didn't use that belief to control. Conceivably, they might have preferred a less mysterious belief that could be rationally articulated - that's what we see all over christendom now as well.

They themselves were controlled by the disparate threads of proto-christian belief that they were wrangling together into a unitary church. That's what catholic means. That's what they were trying to do. Christinity, as a whole, had come to believe a list of things to be true. As religious proclamations - those things cannot be untrue. They simply have to be accepted alongside in each other as concurrent if unintuitively true. If you reject the truth of a significant community you utterly prevent that community from being considered as part of your unified moral whole, your religion.

Obviously, the hitch here is that a persons social status or political capital can very much be transferred to their beliefs with a seat at the negotiating table. So that's how we end up* with the items for consideration as truths like those above. Trinitarian belief is a particularly strong example of that kind of collaborative process.

*or, if we prefer, at least a prominent part of - leaving room for things like revealed theology or a more nebulous sense of guidance by the holy spirit, etc etc etc.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Whether you use the metaphor of three in a family using the same name or an atom with electrons, there are three separate gods all of one unified purpose.

Thank you.

I think the bigger point I wished to make is that whenever things don't seem to make sense the best way to be certain of that is to search for metaphors. If my atom metaphor fails to remain monotheistic, for example, here are two more metaphors that perhaps do a better job:

1. The three corners of a triangle. They are perceptually distinct and yet indivisible from each other. All three are the same triangle.

2. A person looking at three mirrors. There are three perceivable reflections, and each image provides a unique perspective, but all are still the same being.

Our brains have a press secretary whose job it is to make things make sense. And it can do so to an exceptional degree. I think that rather than arguing why something like the Trinity doesn't make sense, it's better to argue why it is false nonetheless. Even a "square circle" makes sense, and any inherent contradiction can be ironed out (there's optical illusions of cubes that look square from one angle but circular from another).

[The Grand Nudger]

What could be false about trinitarian belief, and, even more particularly, what could be false about anything once we admit the notion that anything can be ironed out?

[Fake Messiah]

And it's also strange that if Trinity is so important that it was never mentioned in the Bible.

If you believe the Gospels then you believe that Jesus came on Earth as all knowing god who didn't tell us anything about the universe or something from his bank of knowledge like how to cure diseases, but he came to tell us and teach us about how to get saved, but he didn't even do that (properly) because then generations of theologians (including Paul) had to figure out (invent) what is nature of sin, what are angels, what is God (Trinity), what is original sin and how it spreads from generation to generation, what is hell, et cetera; because Jesus was interrupted by being hanged which was also his plan.

So in other words, Jesus did not do shit.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What could be false about trinitarian belief, and, even more particularly, what could be false about anything once we admit the notion that anything can be ironed out?

Every model and belief is open to rejection or revision. W.V. Quines work on the "web of belief" offers a famous metaphor on this very topic. Making sense of information and resolving contradictions is a natural and necessary part of every cognitive endeavor.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trinitarian belief is found in the stories, just not all of them, and never all in one place. It's precisely because this collection of beliefs is present in early christianity that the forces of orthodoxy were lead to make such a difficult statement.

@John 6IX Breezy

Does that seem to be the case with religious beliefs in practice, or is that an ideal-of-form. With religious beliefs, the underlying point of reform or revision often seems to be to reassert their truth in a rehabilited form, not deny it. Consider the protestant reformation. It was not the aim of the reformers to deny a christian truth - but to reconcile christian truth with objections arising from the institution of catholicism. Additionally, because they believed they could improve the religion - to more forcefully assert that truth by different means.

Consider the anti-trinitarian explanations for how the trinity makes sense, in this thread, as a demonstration in real time of the above. The things that we believe religiously appear to be highly resistant to any urge or impulse we may have to make sense (in any non novel sense) of information or to resolve contradictions. Often enough, they're the place where we begin when we seek to make sense of a thing. Not the items that we're willing to negotiate over.

[John 6IX Breezy]

With religious beliefs, the underlying point of reform or revision often seems to be to reassert their truth in a rehabilited form, not deny it.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Neither religious beliefs nor scientific theories require rejection over revision. There's is always some auxiliary hypothesis in the model which can be modified to prevent rejection. That is why science often progresses, not by the weight of evidence, but by older generations dying out and taking their ideas with them.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC there's always that, for anything - but with respect to religion and the things we deem religious beliefs...by their nature, nothing can do anything but confirm them or be resolved (to whatever level of competence) into those types of hypothesis to prevent rejection.

If anything did anything else, they would no longer be our religious beliefs by definition. A religious belief is an unviolable truth - a statement not even remotely truth evaluable in the manner of any other common truth assertion.

This, to me, seems to be what happened with trinitarian belief, and, ironically.... the same with anti-trinitarian belief. Each is a consequence of other things asserted to be true as an article of faith. Do you think that the past or current state of christian belief might be a consequence of something you describe above. Of things changing on the basis of opposition viewpoints simply dying off? Trinitarianism was true because the anti-trinitarians died off and now non-trinitarianism is true because the trinitarians are dying off?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Religious beliefs are under no special privilege. Theories, models, and beliefs of any kind function the same in every domain. Rejection can always be logically avoided.