God sent His Son out of love so that He can be both just and merciful. God is not wrathful: I don’t know why the OT describes Him that way, but the NT makes it clear He is not. — Bob Ross

Instances of God's wrath in the NT:

Matthew 3:7
Luke 3:7
Matthew 21:40–41
Matthew 25:41
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:5
Romans 5:9
1 Thessalonians 1:10
Revelation 6:16–17
Revelation 14:10
Revelation 19:15

I have no problem if you want to create a hermeneutic that demands an always loving God, but while you're at it, apply it to the OT God as well, and pretend there is only one God referenced in the OT as well.

Nothing I'm saying here is anti-religious. It just forces an admission that belief is not the product of brute force logic and rationality (and the same holds true atheistic beliefs).

To the OP, which asks why folks believe in Christianity, I'll respond by telling you why I believe in Judaism. It's because I explored all the world religions one by one and I chose it after a lifelong search. Yeah, right. Amazing coincidence that I searched the world over and found what my parents had been teaching me was right and true in my own house.

I think we'd all gain a bit of credibility to own our biases and even to unapologetically celebrate them. To those who might want to tell me they are too open minded to accept religion. Save it. You're just a parrot from a different teacher.

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. — Banno

I already told you that the Nicene Creed would be the ideal source. If you want to use the Athanasian Creed, on which the diagram is based, be my guest. Do some actual work in understanding what you wish to attack. Use a source that is not so open to misrepresentation by the hostile.

we are up to the part where you usually tell us that you already gave the answer... — Banno

I already told you... — Leontiskos

There it is...!


I'm off to do some shopping. Cheers.

As @Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. They're separate, but they're One. The origin of this scheme is Neoplatonism, and it's mystical. It defies logic, and this has been recognized for the last 1600 years.

The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated by the church fathers in the councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381), which penned the Nicene Creed. We will see that Nicene Trinitarianism teaches the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being. These terms, in their ancient Greek context, indicate that the Trinity is three subjects who share a single nature. However, this formulation naturally raises the question whether Nicene Trinitarianism is monotheistic. In affirmation of Nicea’s monotheism, we will see that all three uses of the word “God” in Christian theology are singular, despite the Trinitarian plurality of subjects. Hence, Nicene Trinitarianism is rightly labeled monotheistic, even though it is a unique type of monotheism. We will then look at three important differences between God and creatures that must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of Nicene Trinitarianism. These are (1) the divine subjects are not spatially or materially separated the way created individuals are; (2) the divine subjects, unlike created individuals, are distinguished by their relations to one another and not by material accidents of size, color, or location; and (3) because the divine subjects are differentiated by their relations, they, unlike created individuals, have no autonomous existence apart from one another. — CRI

Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. But ask what an essence is, and the answer is circular - that which makes a thing what it is, and not something else.

What is "that which makes something what it is" if not identity? It's not a property...

So what we are left with is that Christianity wanted to affirm monotheism, together with the divinity of Christ, and that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person - a problem set by apparently conflicting revelations. The answer was to claim the three persons had the same essence, which might work provided one doesn't pay too much attention to what an essence is. What follows is centuries of increasingly sophisticated theology moving from substance and person, through essence and existence, create enough technical distinctions and qualifications that people lose track of the original logical problem.

This sort of thing perhaps ought upset those of a logical, as opposed to a mystical, disposition. Hence, perhaps, Leon's disquietude.

This isn't an attack, it's setting out dogma, in it's original sense, and instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?"

Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. — Banno

This would be a great take if not for the fact that the Nicene Creed predates Thomism by some 900 years. When religious topics are broached on TPF the level of both historical and general ignorance is breathtaking.

Isn't this the same thing that always happens with Banno? He takes his parochial, historically ignorant version of Analytic Philosophy... — Leontiskos

...the Nicene Creed predates Thomism by some 900 years — Leontiskos

I understand that, Leon. You missed the point, again. The creed doesn't help us make sense of you and Tim, of itself. We need the Thomism as well.

This isn't an attack, it's setting out dogma, in it's original sense, and instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?" — Banno

Right. There were versions of Christianity that didn't hold Jesus to be God, but they didn't survive.

As Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. — frank

Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? Is it really so odd to think that in the Source of all created being there is a reality that transcends the distinctions commonly found within created being? Isn't that pretty much what everyone would expect to find? That's how analogy cashes out when applied to God. It means that there is not a one-to-one mapping between what is found in creation and what is found in God. It means that there is more in God than there is in creation. None of this is incoherent.

...but they didn't survive. — frank

An interesting euphemism...

The creed doesn't help make sense of you and Tim, of itself. We need the Thomism as well. — Banno

On that thesis it would be very difficult to understand how Christians got along without Thomism for 900 years. Or how non-Thomists got along even after Thomas. Like before, you are trading in factual inaccuracies.

And so the use of analogically argument in order to understand God is fundamentally flawed?

Ok. So deductive logic doesn't work because of the failure of transitivity, and analogical reasoning also fails.

So faith it is. Thomism set aside.

Nice attempt at deflection. Called.

Called. — Banno

Called? You say that we cannot discuss the Creed without bringing in Thomism. This is obviously false, but ignoring that for a moment, you haven't the slightest interest in discussing Thomism. I provided you with three central texts from Thomas, and pointed you back to them twice, and yet you refuse to touch them. You aren't interested in the Creed, or Thomism, or any specifically Christian theology. The only thing you are interested in is a simplistic diagram and your hostile translation of its meaning. You know that if you go beyond that diagram then your strawmen will fall to pieces.

You say that we cannot discuss the Creed without bringing in Thomism. — Leontiskos

No, I didn't. The only connection is the one you and Tim make. I'm just asking for a coherent account of the Trinity.

So we are back to where you intentionally and blatantly misrepresent folk who dare to question your ideas.

Same old.

How does that look from outside that milieu? — Banno

However it looks, I’m sure we’ve all been there on the outside of some impossible question with some subject - I’m sure there is mystery in your life for instance.

I’m not going to disrespect your curiosity or attempts to share observations about what is mysterious to you.

This thread could be about Catholicism, but it’s not.

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask?

I wouldn’t ask someone to explain themselves if I already thought (or knew) they had to be nonsensical.

The OP and most of what followed did not involve honest questions.

How does it work? — Banno

Some things are hard to say.

Some things work, but it is hard to say how.

That is the starting point. When talking about how Jesus on the cross is God, or how God is one while three persons. It’s going to be hard to say.

Do you think there is a step two? Honestly.

How do you think the milieu of this thread looks to someone who understands God anyway?

I don’t sense any real curiosity about Catholicism here.

Is it really so odd to think that in the Source of all created being there is a reality that transcends the distinctions commonly found within created being? — Leontiskos

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible?

watch out for explosions. — jorndoe

Life is full of peril. Trinity or not.

God the son told me his father and he are one God. It’s a bitch.

I think it’s everyone’s preconceived notions of what and who God is supposed to be that impede the clear meaning of his revelation, not the impossibility of it all - but that is just me, another fool Catholic.

why I believe in Judaism. It's because I explored all the world religions one by one and I chose it after a lifelong search — Hanover

I believe in the same God as you do. You just haven’t met the Messiah yet. You will. God promised Abraham. You will.

God bless brother.

I'm just asking for a coherent account of the Trinity. — Banno

I’m sure you understand the concepts. Because you are picking them apart with logical precision.

God is one being.
But in this God, He is with Himself, because He proceeds from himself. God is gift, given, and received, at once.

So to make this easier to understand, let’s just say God is one being, in the person of the father, and the son and the Holy Spirit.

Worth any further analysis?

The next step isn’t done with a calculator (1+1+1=3 persons and/or =1God.)

The next step isn’t done with logic (because logic tells me this is nonsense so far).

The next step only occurs when you say “I don’t quite get the math or the logic yet, but what else does this mean about me and about God? What is the significance of a father and of a son? Why spirit?”

I do agree we have to get back to the logic and the math. It is important NOT to believe there two Gods, so math and reason are important there. We must use logic to see one God, and to distinguish a father from a son. So logic can’t be abandoned.

But why is God so difficult to grasp?

Maybe because God is difficult to grasp.

(Now I’m using the opposite of a contradiction, a tautology.)

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible? — frank

Anything that defies logic is the definition of impossible.

Miracles are impossible, for instance. If there was an explanation, they might not be miraculous, unless the explanation was more impossibility, like a Triune God. Then they make perfect sense.

instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?" — Banno

This is off.

And I’m not judging you or your beliefs. I’m saying I, as a Catholic (if you are interested in how Catholics think) would never say it this way.

You brought the term “ought to believe” into it.

If there is a purely logical, rational accounting for the Trinity or God on a cross, we don’t ever need to ask the question “why ought?” If we could make a perfect syllogism concluding the Trinity then it’s no longer a question of “ought believe” - it’s just logical inference. It is just “must know”.

You are not really asking “why ought you believe this.”

So here is where the question “why ought I believe this” arises: you love and trust your father, he’s brought you life and raised you, and now he asks you to believe him and do something nonsensical as far as you can tell, but something he simply asked for and simply wants and that he says will help you like he helped you as a child - why ought I believe him? He defies my reason and logic? Why ought I believe him anyway?

That is where a question of “ought believe” arises.

This whole thread is about “what is the logic of Christianity” not “why ought I believe.”

Only after facing a situation where you truly ask yourself “why ought I believe” AND you choose to believe AND act in this belief accordingly, THEN you start to see the logic in it, and come up with pictures of trinities and God’s becoming human to sacrifice their own lives on a cross to rise before us and then leave us to continue our seeking….

It won’t make sense starting with a calculator set at 0. We ought not believe it if we are living in a purely rational world of IS and no real ought to choose from anyway.

But “ought” is real for us. We are like God in this way (which, in this thread, is ironic).

The trinity is three entirely seperate personages, not a single entity. They have a common purpose, and they're referred to as the godhead. Such is true Christian theology. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity

When you say "the Christian narrative" and then start going on about the Nicene Creed which was arrived at 325 years after Jesus' death, you're just taking about your peculiar brand of modified Christianity.

5.1 in the Stanford General Catalogue of Variations on the Trinity?

This forum knows how to beat dead horses that's for sure. How many posts does this forum have that discuss all this already? Pretty much every God post is this same back and forth. Haven't we learned already? There is no communication here, just people talking at closed gateways. Why waste time on what other people believe? It's pretty much the same people: with the same adamantine, unchanging, determinism... Yall just kicking rocks.

"God is Good!" <-> "No, God is Evil!"

:point: :ok:

The Cathars believed that Jesus was pure spirit, not a physical human. But, they were run over, so their faith was largely stomped out.

, I just meant that where a mystery is accompanied by contradiction, you can derive anything; that's the principle of explosion.

The trinity is three entirely seperate personages, not a single entity. They have a common purpose, and they're referred to as the godhead. Such is true Christian theology. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity

When you say "the Christian narrative" and then start going on about the Nicene Creed which was arrived at 325 years after Jesus' death, you're just taking about your peculiar brand of modified Christianity. — Hanover

This is me and Hanover riding around trying to convert people to Mormonism.

hasa diga eebowai!

I just meant that where a mystery is accompanied by contradiction, you can derive anything; that's the principle of explosion. — jorndoe

I know.

So what is a “self”?
How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, like “I said to myself that there is no such thing as the ‘self’.”

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

So yes, you can derive anything if you want to hold a contradiction is not a contradiction. Or you can say that the contradiction only means the words still fail to capture the diction, and keep talking.

But there is no use talking about a mystery with someone who doesn’t believe in the mystery.

hasa diga eebowai! — flannel jesus

:lol:

There is no communication here, — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes. People “ask questions” without any sense of actual curiousity.

The reason the faithful beat this dead horse is because belief in God is attached to hope for all of us - we hope someone might be moved because we hope someone says something clarifying and true.

But yeah, I have no idea why I hope for you all, or me. I’m a mystery to myself.

Speaking to some people produces a contradiction of the word “communication”. We are all living explosions. The contradictory animal.