interesting you went this far. to me it’s like completing linear algebra, then deciding to question the validity of an imaginary number that we learn in pre-algebra.
it would make more sense to me if you were to question Jesus as the real Messiah, or the validity of the Church Fathers, but it seems like you didn’t even make it past the “algebra/geometry” phase.
granted i wouldn’t be the best at explaining why the Trinity is not a form of polytheism, but i know it is because i have not bothered to research it properly. everything i have ever questioned about the faith has been adequately answered ever since i came looking for Truth, and i know the answer that you can understand is out there somewhere.
it would take lifetimes to even scratch the surface of the deposit of faith, and it’s a given that you haven’t even nicked the surface yet. even Judaism has a formidable deposit of knowledge, so why you would go to Islam for truth is another mind bender…
I would liken it more to Frege. Although Calculus and analysis were developed, Set theory and transfinite numbers were on the march, and non-Euclydian geometry was beginning to be seen as more than “Mathematical Fictions” he still felt it necessary to write a book about the foundations of arithmetic and establish an effective means for verifying proofs.
I am absolutely not comparing my questions, either in scope or intellectual depth to Frege, that is simply the best empirical refutation I can think of. I have always thought the credence the Church paid to Church Fathers made a great deal of sense, while the protestant Sola Scripture seemed a bit odd.
I’ve studied quite a few issues in the Church, from it’s rejection of Fideism, a heft blow to the Kierkegaardian in my during my Junior days, per Vatican I, to Joseph Ratzinger’s criticism of Jacques Monod’s “Chance and Necessity”.
While I hold great esteem for many Christian intellectuals, abstract postulations must occasionally be suspended to examine mundane foundational issues.
As you referenced mathematics I would cite Bertrand Russell’s observation that often the most “simply” notions in mathematics cause the greatest existential angst in mathematicians in the foundational base of their subject.
I think a fundamental question, one that greatly contributes to my difficulties reguarding Christianity is this one.
Can anyone truly say that a first century Aramaic speaking Rabbi advocated the complex metaphysical doctrine found in current Christendom?
Even in mainstream Christian Cannon Christ’s allusions to his divinity are vague at best, as are allusions to the Trinity. Jesus was quite specific in his criticisms of the Jewish religious establishment at the time, yet he decided to drop only timid hints regarding the doctrines which compose the very core of Christianity?
seems suspect.
