V
Veritas41
Guest
No, to be unreasonable means to go against reason, to be illogical is to go against logic. The Trinity does neither. It’s something we cannot discover by logic or reason alone, but is revealed.
- Status
M
Montalban
Guest
Sums up your posts. Hey, you’re on a role now, noting your own shortcomings, and now those of your posts.
If you want to deal with the idea that we can’t know everything about God, then please do.
M
Montalban
Guest
Well said. We can logically accept something if we have reason to trust the source, even if we don’t understand it. Then we can be said to have a reason for doing so.
P
pro_universal
Guest
The problem is that in this case, the thing revealed itself doesn’t make sense. So yeah, if you presume that the authority is correct, you can believe anything…even a contradiction.
But if you aren’t comfortable believing that even contradictory teachings must be accepted, how do you justify believing in the trinity?
J
JimG
Guest
If the Trinity were a contradiction, it would not have been part of the depost of Faith for 2,000 years.
But there is no rule of logic that requires that there must inevitably be a one to one correspondence between person and nature.
Sometimes there is a zero to one correspondence between person and nature, as in plants and inanimate objects.
In human beings there is a one to one correspondence–one person for each human nature.
There is no requirement in nature or reason that God must inevitably be in the same way as humans.
But there is no rule of logic that requires that there must inevitably be a one to one correspondence between person and nature.
Sometimes there is a zero to one correspondence between person and nature, as in plants and inanimate objects.
In human beings there is a one to one correspondence–one person for each human nature.
There is no requirement in nature or reason that God must inevitably be in the same way as humans.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Why is that? Why can’t something that’s contradictory be believed by large numbers of people?
It certainly has not been a well accepted part of the faith for that long. There have been intellectual battles and accusations of heresy relating to specifically that doctrine since the earliest days of the Church.
Again, that point isn’t really the problem for the trinity. The fact that a distinct person would require anything at all in addition to the divine “nature” would make the doctrine contradictory; no assumptions about this one-to-one ratio are necessary to see that contradiction.
C
cestusdei
Guest
I suppose I could say that believing in only one God is illogical and unreasonable. Why shouldn’t there be lot’s of Gods? For Muslims what evidence do they have that there is only one God? Don’t quote the quran to me since I don’t buy it for a second. Basically this kind of argumentation can be turned right around to attack any concept of God.
The point remains that the Trinity does not go against reason and is supported by revelation. Nothing illogical about it.
The point remains that the Trinity does not go against reason and is supported by revelation. Nothing illogical about it.
S
Sir_William
Guest
The trinity is our best explanation of how He chooses to reveal himself to us. And that’s all there is. It’s hard to understand how is able to be what He claims to be, but we believe him. Personally, I find the concept of the Trinity a bit easier than conceptualizing the square root of negative one; which apparently is a number…but it’s tough to digest. Too hard for you? Not willing to try, so be it…go in peace.
P
pro_universal
Guest
You do not understand what “illogical” means.
“There is one God.” Unprovable. Not illogical. There’s nothing there that even possibly could constitute contradiction.
“There is one God, and each of three persons is wholly God, yet each person is distinct”…that’s the contradiction part.
Do you see the difference?
P
pro_universal
Guest
The degree of difficulty and the willingness to try have zero bearing on whether or not the teaching can be elaborated in a coherent fashion.
Maybe you can try to imagine something like a trinity; you can also try to imagine a square with three angles too. That doesn’t mean that the square with three angles constitutes a coherent thought.
That’s my issue with the teaching, not the degree of difficulty it requires to “conceptualize” it.
J
JimG
Guest
Let us suppose that God possesses all perfections. His love is perfect. His knowledge is perfect. He creates all things from nothing. He is a personal God, not a Deist clockwork.
Now God’s knowledge is perfect. But what does God know? All of creation, of course. But first and foremost, God knows himself.
Since whatever God does is done perfectly, He also knows himself perfectly.
What does this mean? It means that there is nothing lacking in God’s knowledge of Himself. There is nothing whatever lacking in his knowledge of himself. His knowledge is a perfect mirror of himself, possessing every perfection of God, including even personhood. (Otherwise, his knowing would be imperfect.) St. John calls this the divine logos, or the Word: God speaking his knowledge of himself is the Divine Word.
In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.
It is not a creation, God creating a new being. The Word is rather his own being perfectly expressed—begotten, not made. Of one essence. One nature. One God, expressed in personhood as Father and Son.
I am not going to continue with the theology of the Holy Spirit; others have done it better than me. None of it is contradictory. It is no more a contradiction for God to be three persons in one nature than it is for you and I to be one person in one nature. (If I am one person in one nature, shouldn’t I be two rather than one? No. If God is three persons in one nature, shouldn’t he be three beings rather than one? No.)
While the nature of God as trinity is not something that we could have arrived at without divine revelation, there is nothing contradictory about it. Nobody is saying that three natures = one nature, or that three persons = one person. We affirm one nature, one being, one essence in God, but a trinity of persons. Persons are not distinct entities from their nature; they are only distinct in personhood.
Now God’s knowledge is perfect. But what does God know? All of creation, of course. But first and foremost, God knows himself.
Since whatever God does is done perfectly, He also knows himself perfectly.
What does this mean? It means that there is nothing lacking in God’s knowledge of Himself. There is nothing whatever lacking in his knowledge of himself. His knowledge is a perfect mirror of himself, possessing every perfection of God, including even personhood. (Otherwise, his knowing would be imperfect.) St. John calls this the divine logos, or the Word: God speaking his knowledge of himself is the Divine Word.
In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.
It is not a creation, God creating a new being. The Word is rather his own being perfectly expressed—begotten, not made. Of one essence. One nature. One God, expressed in personhood as Father and Son.
I am not going to continue with the theology of the Holy Spirit; others have done it better than me. None of it is contradictory. It is no more a contradiction for God to be three persons in one nature than it is for you and I to be one person in one nature. (If I am one person in one nature, shouldn’t I be two rather than one? No. If God is three persons in one nature, shouldn’t he be three beings rather than one? No.)
While the nature of God as trinity is not something that we could have arrived at without divine revelation, there is nothing contradictory about it. Nobody is saying that three natures = one nature, or that three persons = one person. We affirm one nature, one being, one essence in God, but a trinity of persons. Persons are not distinct entities from their nature; they are only distinct in personhood.
J
JimG
Guest
Let us suppose that God possesses all perfections. His love is perfect. His knowledge is perfect. He creates all things from nothing. He is a personal God, not a Deist clockwork.
Now God’s knowledge is perfect. But what does God know? All of creation, of course. But first and foremost, God knows himself.
Since whatever God does is done perfectly, He also knows himself perfectly.
What does this mean? It means that there is nothing lacking in God’s knowledge of Himself. There is nothing whatever lacking in his knowledge of himself. His knowledge is a perfect mirror of himself, possessing every perfection of God, including even personhood. (Otherwise, his knowing would be imperfect.) St. John calls this the divine logos, or the Word: God speaking his knowledge of himself is the Divine Word.
In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.
It is not a creation, God creating a new being. The Word is rather his own being perfectly expressed—begotten, not made. Of one essence. One nature. One God, expressed in personhood as Father and Son.
I am not going to continue with the theology of the Holy Spirit; others have done it better than me. None of it is contradictory. It is no more a contradiction for God to be three persons in one nature than it is for you and I to be one person in one nature. (If I am one person in one nature, shouldn’t I be two rather than one? No. If God is three persons in one nature, shouldn’t he be three beings rather than one? No.)
While the nature of God as trinity is not something that we could have arrived at without divine revelation, there is nothing contradictory about it. Nobody is saying that three natures = one nature, or that three persons = one person. We affirm one nature, one being, one essence in God, but a trinity of persons. Persons are not distinct entities from their nature; they are only distinct in personhood.
Now God’s knowledge is perfect. But what does God know? All of creation, of course. But first and foremost, God knows himself.
Since whatever God does is done perfectly, He also knows himself perfectly.
What does this mean? It means that there is nothing lacking in God’s knowledge of Himself. There is nothing whatever lacking in his knowledge of himself. His knowledge is a perfect mirror of himself, possessing every perfection of God, including even personhood. (Otherwise, his knowing would be imperfect.) St. John calls this the divine logos, or the Word: God speaking his knowledge of himself is the Divine Word.
In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.
It is not a creation, God creating a new being. The Word is rather his own being perfectly expressed—begotten, not made. Of one essence. One nature. One God, expressed in personhood as Father and Son.
I am not going to continue with the theology of the Holy Spirit; others have done it better than me. None of it is contradictory. It is no more a contradiction for God to be three persons in one nature than it is for you and I to be one person in one nature. (If I am one person in one nature, shouldn’t I be two rather than one? No. If God is three persons in one nature, shouldn’t he be three beings rather than one? No.)
While the nature of God as trinity is not something that we could have arrived at without divine revelation, there is nothing contradictory about it. Nobody is saying that three natures = one nature, or that three persons = one person. We affirm one nature, one being, one essence in God, but a trinity of persons. Persons are not distinct entities from their nature; they are only distinct in personhood.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Again, that really does not address the challenge. If each of the three persons is 100 percent one, indivisible God, then what possible distinction can there be between the persons? Unless, of course, God has parts, or…there’s something other than God added on to God to form a person. If so, then each person is “100 percent God and not 100 percent God.”
So again, the issue isn’t the three persons…it is the distinctions vs. the undivided oneness that poses the problem.
Again, you seem to be responding to a point that hasn’t been made. If there is any distinction at all, then it must be that personhood adds something to Godhood…in which case, each person isn’t 100 percent God, but rather has a “personhood” part that distinguishes each person from the other.
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s not a contradiction.
E
exoflare
Guest
LOL This is basically what all Muslim “thinking” boils down to … when logic goes against your claim, just parrot it around several times and supposedly it will become the truth.It’s not a contradiction.
In this case, three persons in one nature would not normally be a contradiction. But that’s because you haven’t repeated that line enough times! Keep saying “it’s a contradiction” and eventually it will somehow change into a contradiction. I’m not sure the exact number of times you have to say it for this to happen, but I imagine the answer is found in one of the more obscure hadeeths, next to how many stones you’re supposed to wipe your a** with.
This is why as I’ve said before, it’s good to have these Mohammedan cheerleaders in here as they illustrate this themselves better than I ever could.
E
exoflare
Guest
In short, I’m constantly amazed at Mohammedans’ knack for breaking all bounds of common sense… If something is not a contradiction, just simply claim that it IS enough times and it will BECOME a contradiction!
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed. He refuses to state how it is we’d know everything about God - isn’t this too a contradiction, that God is both knowable, and beyond knowing?
P
pro_universal
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t state that because it’s not a part of my claim here, and it has absolutely zero relationship to my critique of the trinity.
If you are trying to imply “God is unknowable, therefore the trinity makes sense”, well…I think anyone can see why that’s not really much to talk about.
My point is that the language that elaborates the trinity is itself contradictory and confusing, not that “God should be knowable” or any remotely similar thing. You do not seem to be understanding or at least are not willing to recognize my actual claim here, which is not that the trinity is tough to understand, but rather…that if you understand it, you’ll see contradictions.
“God is one, undivided, and each person is 100 percent God, and each person is distinct…” is a pretty obvious contradiction. I’m not sure why that is so confusing or why you read that as saying “God must be knowable”, because it’s not even close to that point.
M
Montalban
Guest
I know it isn’t part of your claim. I’m stating it as an analogy that shows by way of analogy how one can believe in two opposites that God is both knowable, and unknowable.
I’m giving you yet another example.
It was your contention that it was irreconcilable. I’m giving you an example of the possibility that two things that are opposites are not irreconcilable; the nature of God causes us to believe both about Him. I’m doing this because I’ve already demonstrated how ‘1’ and another ‘1’ are both the same yet different, which alas although another example seems to have passed you by. (recall 1x1x1=1) In that equation they all equal 1, each number 1 is a different number in that equation. They are of equal value, they altogether make 1, and yet each ‘1’ is different. You don’t need to believe in the Trinity, but I’m sure you can at least grasp this example.
The language that describes God can be seem to be contradictory and confusing.
As stated ‘1’ is the same as ‘1’, but they are two different numbers.
Your response is to simply repeat
a) it’s too difficult
b) it doesn’t make sense
etc.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Let’s see…there are two things approaching a claim here:
Of course, that’s not the teaching of the trinity, which is why I’m puzzled as to the use of this example of tokens. There’s really not even a remotely plausible way to fit the numbers example to the teaching of the trinity.
Okay, believing that God is two things, one of which negates the other, is a textbook example of a contradiction. “God is and God is not.” You could not get anymore clear. The word “opposites” that you’re using seems to be the problem here…there’s a reason I didn’t use it, and it appears to be confusing you.
Tokens of a thing and the persons of the trinity are apples and oranges. This is perhaps the worst analogy yet presented on this thread with respect to the trinity; each “1” that you have on a piece of paper is a token example of “1” in the abstract. If the persons of the trinity were just “tokens” or instantiations of one God, then God wouldn’t be triune…it would be one being that gets instantiated in three slightly different ways.
Of course, that’s not the teaching of the trinity, which is why I’m puzzled as to the use of this example of tokens. There’s really not even a remotely plausible way to fit the numbers example to the teaching of the trinity.
- Status