Christians

[DeistPaladin]

Please do not impose your ignorance on everybody else. You do not understand it; others likewise do not, even here at these forums. But myself and many others understand it just fine, which renders your ignorance being imposed upon us a brutal non-sequitur.

Wow! You understand the Trinity? You've solved the mystery that no Christian "scholar" has ever unlocked? Are we in the presence of legendary genius? Let's hear it then. The world is waiting.

That is precisely the opposite of what I said. Reading comprehension fail. Each member of the Trinity is a person distinct from the others.

You know, Ryft, when someone strawmans me, I usually post what I actually said as part of the correction. So, let's go to the tape again.

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.

Jesus is not a separate person from Yahweh; he IS Yahweh.

So to review:

three separate persons

and

not a separate person

So glad you're around to explain this stuff.

All of it is transparently dishonest. Rhetorically delightful and elicits back-slaps and cheers from the choir, but transparently dishonest.

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.

aside from pointing out that it is a nonsensical straw man; that is to say, your statement represents nothing recognizable to orthodox Christian teaching, fails to correspond with anything orthodox Christianity teaches, and is not even coherent in the first place. A triple fail.

It's called "ridicule".

Do you want to try again, this time rationally and with intellectual integrity? Or are you content with that straw man nonsense, leaving the trinitarian view untouched?

I think the ball is still in your court to explain what the Trinity is with no self-contradiction this time, never mind in a way that is consistent with all canonical Gospel accounts.

Irrelevant to the point being argued (ignoratio elenchi).

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

[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).

[Godscreated]

What a crock of shit. How can you be so gullible? How can you seriously believe it and not feel an inkling of stupidity? Or do you?

If that comment was meant for me I do not feel stupid nor should I, actually I feel blessed that I can understand the Trinity, why is it that you can not respond to the question at hand with something that shows intelligence toward the subject.

---

It never ends. "Hey, what we worship is clearly one god, divided into three parts, all of whom are equal total parts of a whole which cannot be divided but which is in a way that you heathens could never understand."

Thank god for that-and I mean it. Christianity is its own worst enemy.

We do worship only one God, that should be obvious, this one God is not three parts, three parts could be anything, He is three persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of one mind and one will, they do not and have never had different agenda and scripture shows this as truth. As far as heathens not understanding, your own arguments prove that.

[Godscreated]

---

I have witnessed some extraordinary mental gymnastics here over the years but I cannot even imagine the sort required to argue that "a god" constitutes polytheism. Statler beat me to the punch when he said, "You just proved his point." When you are reduced to stating that "a god" constitutes polytheism, it would seem the confusion is indeed yours.

I laughed when I read this, trying to take in the overwhelming irony of a Christian defending the concept of the Trinity (and citing arguments presented by Statler to boot) accusing a skeptic of "mental gymnastics". You've done some textbook projection here before, Ryft, but this one takes the cake.

Yes, Ryft, you claim to believe in "one god". The part you gloss over is that this "one god" is composed of three separate beings. That's where the polytheism part comes in. It's not the "one god" that's polytheistic. It's the "three separate beings" part. Essentially, Trinitarian Christianity is unique among religions in that it is both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. Anyone who seriously tries to defend this concept should not bandy around accusations of "mental gymnastics" and "confusion".

---

It is not Ryft nor Statler Waldorf that's confused DP, it is you that has no idea of what the Trinity is. First thing here is that no christians I know, and that would be many, believe that God is three separate Gods. We worship only one God who is Yahweh who is the three persons, not three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not understand why you can not see this, or maybe you can and do not want to admit your argument is wrong. Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will. Every polytheistic religion has different gods with different agenda and this is not so in christianity, the three persons of Yehweh have the same will (agenda).

Which one of the brothers in christ is going to be the first one to say, "your human mind just cannot comprehend it, because god is so amazing" ??

...but this is what's most interesting about this post:

Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Your own Bible contradicts this argument again and again. The Son is often NOT PRIVY to the will of the Father. The Son also specifically asks the Father questions. The Son is supposedly "the great intercessor" for man. CLEARLY, they are not of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Also, to all of you who are defending the Trinity of god by telling Paladin, "no, it makes complete sense - you just don't understand." This is NOT a valid argument anywhere on planet earth where a legitimate debate is taking place, religious or otherwise. So stop insulting the intelligence of everyone else by using it.

I have not tried to insult everyones intelligence, what I did was to point out that by his own arguments that DP does not understand the trinity or he does and doesn't want to give up his argument, I think it's the latter but then that's me.

Christ did not always speak from His divinity, He also spoke from His humanity, as when He said, "I have come to do the Father's will and not my own," Christ understood the weakness of man. When Christ spoke from His divinity He would say things of this nature, John 10:30 " I and the Father are one." Later in chapter 10 when the Jews wanted to stone Him, Christ said V.37 "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. In John 14:7 Christ tells Thomas " If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well." In the same chapter Christ tells Philip v.9 " Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say,'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? Cinjin, you need to reconize when Christ speaks from His humanity and when He speaks from His divinity to truly understand what the meaning of the passage is. I could go on and on with passages that show that the Son and Father are one God along with the Holy Spirit, but I think you can see what I'm saying with these few verses.
I will be out of town for a few days so I can not respond until wednesday at the earliest. Sorry, a death in the family calls us away.

---

---

It is not Ryft nor Statler Waldorf that's confused DP, it is you that has no idea of what the Trinity is. First thing here is that no christians I know, and that would be many, believe that God is three separate Gods. We worship only one God who is Yahweh who is the three persons, not three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not understand why you can not see this, or maybe you can and do not want to admit your argument is wrong. Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will. Every polytheistic religion has different gods with different agenda and this is not so in christianity, the three persons of Yehweh have the same will (agenda).

Which one of the brothers in christ is going to be the first one to say, "your human mind just cannot comprehend it, because god is so amazing" ??

...but this is what's most interesting about this post:

Polytheism would have each of the three as separate Gods and of separate minds, separate thoughts and separate wills, however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Your own Bible contradicts this argument again and again. The Son is often NOT PRIVY to the will of the Father. The Son also specifically asks the Father questions. The Son is supposedly "the great intercessor" for man. CLEARLY, they are not of the same mind, same thoughts and same will.

Also, to all of you who are defending the Trinity of god by telling Paladin, "no, it makes complete sense - you just don't understand." This is NOT a valid argument anywhere on planet earth where a legitimate debate is taking place, religious or otherwise. So stop insulting the intelligence of everyone else by using it.

---

^
^
^
YOU JUST GOT CINJINIZED. KAPOW!

Surely not. Kaput

---

It is not Ryft nor Statler Waldorf that's confused DP, it is you that has no idea of what the Trinity is. ... We worship only one God who is Yahweh who is the three persons

Which is precisely what I said the Trinity is supposed to be.

however they are of the same mind, same thoughts and same will. Every polytheistic religion has different gods with different agenda and this is not so in christianity, the three persons of Yehweh have the same will (agenda).

TRIPLE FAIL.

Same will? The Bible says that Jesus, just before his arrest, prayed to his father and asked the cup be taken from him but then said "not my will but yours be done". This establishes that there are two separate wills at work here.

Same mind? Jesus in the Gospel of John proclaims that "none come to the Father except through me". This establishes Jesus as the intercessor between humanity and Yahweh. An intercessor is, by definition, a separate "mind", else we have Jesus saying "no one comes to me except through me."

Same thoughts? Jesus says that the father alone knows when the end of days will be, that even the son doesn't know.

I guess the Bible authors didn't understand the Trinity either.

See above reply to Cinjin. The scriptures say that the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God, and Christ is saying that there's order to Yahweh and He also knows that He is returning, He told this to His disciples on more than one occasion, and knew this before the beginning of time, so yes they are of one will and one mind and one thought.

[Epimethean]

Ryft, you just went in circles there in trying to point out that any argument that the trinity is illogical is flawed. It isn't, we've shown this, but your refusal to accept that devolves upon your faith-not on it making any cogent sense. My compliment was simply to praise your writing ability-not to suggest you were correct. What you offer, as always well-wrtten, is just a circular runaround apology against reason. Faith has that option. In fact, that is its chief option.

[DeistPaladin]

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.)

So are you going to explain the Trinity then or do you think your babbling about "one god being in three persons" is sufficient?

Only for someone who either willfully conflates "being" and "person"

Evidently, I'm in good company. Thesaurus.com makes the same mistake.

Thesaurus.com on synonyms for "person"

Dictioonary.com doesn't offer much to distinguish the terms:

World English Dictionary
being (ˈbiːɪŋ)

— n
1. the state or fact of existing; existence
2. essential nature; self: she put her whole being into the part
3. something that exists or is thought to exist, esp something that cannot be assigned to any category: a being from outer space
4. a person; human being
5. Compare becoming (in the philosophy of Aristotle) actuality

and another link to dictionary.com

person (ˈpɜːs ə n) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n , pl persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing: guns hidden on his person
3. a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc
4. a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations
5. philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul
6. archaic a character or role; guise

At the end of the day, all your fancy words can't hide the fact that you're trying to say that one conscious being can exist as three separate conscious beings (or "persons" if you prefer). These conscious persons can be unaware of what the other person knows (like when the end of days will be) even though they're part of the same being. One of these conscious persons can be the intercessor for another conscious person ("no one comes to the father but by me") even though they're part of the same being. One of these conscious beings can submit to another even though they should have the same will as they are part of the same being ("not my will but thy will be done"). One person can feel abandoned by the other person even though they're part of the same being ("my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?").

Gratuitous invective without a shred of justification.

Oh please, Ryft. I've already exposed you as a liar in our exchange in the thread on God and Morality: Two separate issues. I even offered you the opportunity to explain yourself but you ignored the chance you were given.

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.

I disagree with the first two and the third is part of the nature of ridicule.

As I have done throughout this thread so far.

No, you haven't.

[Epimethean]

The trinity sound Borg-ish. God can be 1 of 3, Jesus 2 of 3, and the holy spook 3 of 3.

Resistance is far from futile: It is easy.

[DeistPaladin]

The trinity sound Borg-ish. God can be 1 of 3, Jesus 2 of 3, and the holy spook 3 of 3.

That's very insulting to those for whom the cherished story is sacred. You should apologize to Star Trek fans everywhere for the unfair comparison. First of all, at least Star Trek admits to being fiction. Second, the Borg are at least believable as a collective or hive mind. Any Borg unit is always in contact with all others and there isn't any independent will of the units.

Compare this with the badly written Jesus story where this fictional character is constantly demonstrating throughout the early synoptic Gospels that he's an independent being, separate from and subordinate to Yahweh.

[Napoléon]

Remind me not to fuck with DeistPaladin...

[DeistPaladin]

Remind me not to fuck with DeistPaladin...

It depends on how cute you are.

Oh wait, married now, damn. Bad Paladin. *Goes to cast atonement spell*