I'm just pointing out the consequences of that diagram. — Banno

Serious work, that. An attack on a diagram. :roll:

You have nothing but ad hominem attacks? "You mother wears army boots" and "My Daddy is a policeman"?

Where's your logic, man!?

Operating in this way does no service to Christianity.

You have nothing but ad hominem attacks? "You mother wears army boots" and "My Daddy is a policeman"?

Where's your logic, man!? — Banno

I provided you with actual texts from Aquinas to help you with your so-called refutation of Thomist Trinitarianism. I was hoping that would get us out of the preschool mindset of attacking diagrams. ...Well "hoping" is much too strong a word, to be fair. It's no coincidence that you're doing nothing more than attacking a diagram. Don't expect a serious response if you have nothing serious to offer in the first place.

Quotes are part of your religion; you and Tim use them to bury objections, not to address them. Quotes are not arguments.

If you are in agreement with Tim, then set out for us how "is" is used in the Trinity, such that it is not subject to transitivity.

Quotes are part of your religion; you and Tim use them to bury objections, not to address them. Quotes are not arguments. — Banno

So you will attack a diagram but you won't look at quotes from religious sources? :yikes:

Are you attempting to attack Trinitarian dogma? What do you take it to be? You're obviously ignorant of Christianity, Thomism, and all the rest of the things you pretend to have conquered. You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea. Yet even to read the diagram charitably is to not assume that "is" is being used numerically, which you obviously have not managed.


* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos

, watch out for explosions.

Now you quote yourself! Not your most noble habit.

If pointing to the consequences of your doctrine is, for you, an attack, that's about you, not me. I'm just pointing out the logical problem of the breach of transitivity.

It was the elephant in the corner, but now you have made it the elephant in your lap.

Now you quote yourself! — Banno

No need to restate what you have already failed to answer. If you want to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, you have to tell us what you are attacking. If it's nothing more than a diagram, then who cares? That level of laziness and unseriousness is precisely what everyone has come to expect from you. Stop turning a philosophy forum into your infantile anti-religious playground.

, the diagram shows clearly the denial of transitivity. It's that denial, not the diagram, that is at issue.

Again, that you see this as an attack is down to you. But this is how you respond, universally, to those who disagree with you. You attack them personally, then misrepresent their arguments, then pretend to have already answered their objections.

If you have an argument as to how it is that the dogma can coherently deny the transitivity of identity, set it out for us.

Otherwise, what use are you?

the diagram shows clearly the denial of transitivity. It's that denial, not the diagram, that is at issue. — Banno

That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. — Leontiskos

Your whole approach requires hyper-focusing on a random internet diagram and ignoring everything else. You clearly have no interest in looking at actual theological expositions of the Trinity. Surely you see how absurd your approach is?

Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, and explain to @Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate.

Put up.

Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, — Banno

No, dumbass. If you are going to criticize Trinitarian doctrine, then the onus is on you to say where your concept of Trinitarian doctrine is coming from. If your only answer is, "This diagram I found online," then we will have a good laugh and be on our way. Besides, I already gave you the Thomistic texts that your anti-Thomism would supposedly be interested in.

explain to Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate. — Banno

Wayfarer may have underestimated the extent to which this is a thread filled with trolls seething to invalidate Christianity. The diagram is a highly simplified heuristic, and one which will consistently backfire when set before a troll (Mt 7:6).

The whole thread may have been given too much credit. It's fairly hard to salvage a thread that begins that way. — Leontiskos

You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. — Wayfarer

Indeed. :up:

You have to know when someone is genuinely trying to understand something, and when they're not.

No, dumbass. — Leontiskos

Thanks for that.

Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!"

But you will not put up your own account.

We all may have underestimate the extent to which this is a thread filled with seething trolls, indeed.

Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!" — Banno

For the third time:

You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea.

* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos

So if you want to attack Catholicism then you should be objecting to something specifically Catholic, such as the Council of Nicea or the Catechism or a doctor such as Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, etc. I literally pointed you to the Thomistic texts.

Your objection to a diagram is ridiculous. No one thinks heuristic diagrams such as that one are meant to be theologically rigorous, or are meant to repel anti-religious attacks.

Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. I want a coherent account of the Trinity. But that you see my doing so as an attack speaks loudly to the overarching theme here, that you already have your answer and any rational account given is mere ad hoc rationalisation. Certainly not philosophy.

Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation.

From Father = God and Son = God we are usually able to derive Father = Son but instead we find not(Father = Son). Apparently, according to Tim, this is becasue the "is" of doctrine is not the "is of "=".

So, the obvious question - what "is" is it?

How does it work?

That's the elephant in your lap.

Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. — Banno

We all know better.

Look in the mirror. You will see a man who is too lazy to take the time to understand what Christians believe, and is at the same time deeply committed to attacking Christian beliefs. Think about that for a few minutes.

Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation. — Banno

If your objection has naught to do with the diagram, then give your objection without the diagram. You can't. Your objection is obviously an objection to what the diagram represents. As I have said, the diagram is not a reliable representation of the Trinity at a philosophical level, and no one thinks it is.

So given that you are hell-bent on attacking the Trinity, you will have to find a real theological source in order to first understand what the Trinity is. Go inform yourself that you may then satisfy your anti-religious passions. Come back when you have something more than a heuristic diagram.

The bit where you attack me instead of addressing the issue. Again.

If your objection has naught to do with the diagram, then give your objection without the diagram. — Leontiskos

From Father = God and Son = God we are usually able to derive Father = Son but instead we find not(Father = Son). Apparently, according to Tim, this is becasue the "is" of doctrine is not the "is of "=". — Banno

:roll:

For Tim, the answer seemed to be both that we had to understand the account analogically, and yet there could be no analogically account of God, he being so transcendentally different to his creatures. That doesn't seem very satisfactory to me.

_________
The actual argument Leon is presenting is not dissimilar to that in the article he presented in his thread:
St. Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding (G. Klima)

His animosity perhaps follows from my dismissal of the argument there.

Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument.

Presumably, that's what Leon is suggesting here; that the proper understanding of "is" in the Dogma of the Trinity is dependent on having spent time reading Catholic doctrine and praying lots.

Again, not that satisfactory.


_________
Leon, we are up to the part where you usually tell us that you already gave the answer, and won't give it again.

Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument. — Banno

That's a pretty idiotic misrepresentation of Klima, but anyone who has looked at the thread is already aware of this. I guess if you don't know how to do philosophy then misrepresentation is the next best strategy.

From Father = God and Son = God — Banno

Where are these premises coming from? I don't know of any Catholic theology which says, "Father = God and Son = God..." Oh, right: they are coming from the all-powerful diagram that your whole argument revolves around!

Where are these premises coming from? I don't know of any Catholic theology which says, "Father = God and Son = God..." — Leontiskos

That's the Trinity, dude.

That's the Trinity, dude. — frank

frank said so. How could it not be true?

frank said so. How could it not be true? — Leontiskos

Well, it is true.

Frank, no one takes you to be an authority when it comes to Christianity, much less Trinitarian theology. Sorry to break it to you. You'll have to do better than, "It's true because I said so."

So tell us what your account is!

This is just becoming sad, Leon.

So tell us what your account is! — Banno

"Tell me what you believe so I can shit all over it."

The correct answer to this request is, "Fuck off," or some variant thereof.

If you guys want to want to attack Christian theology, you'd better have an understanding of Christian theology beforehand. That you don't underlies the problem and the mauvaise foi of this whole thread. If you want to attack a real theological source I would likely defend it, but I am not going to defend heuristic diagrams from trolls.

When someone who is serious offers a critique of Christianity, it is engaged (for example). In such a case there is a serious and charitable understanding of the thing being critiqued. It is also possible that someone genuinely interested in Trinitarian theology would start a thread intending to learn more about it. But in neither of these two cases would the OPs name be "Banno" or "frank."

It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine is an attack on Christianity. smh

For those with an interest in background stuff, the diagram, which Leon says is most certainly not a representation the Trinity, can be found in the Wiki article on The Shield of the Trinity, where there is a bit of historical background.

It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine — frank

What's odd is that you think the crazy shit you're whipping up is a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine, but this has already been pointed out to you quite a few times.

What's odd is that you think the crazy shit you're whipping up is a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine, but this has already been pointed out to you quite a few times. — Leontiskos

Set me straight then.

"Fuck off," — Leontiskos

Cheers.

The elephant is too heavy for your lap.