Don't sweat it. It's just religion. It's not meant to be taken literally or rationally. The concept of the trinity is meant to be a sort of brain teaser - the contemplation of the trinity is merely a practice that helps one to reduce dependence on reason. It is only for people interested in cultivating their religious faith.
— Merkwurdichliebe
Nice! I recall saying that any book, the Bibilia Sacra included, that makes the reader go huh, WTF? is either many or one giant Zen Koan(s), meant to evoke :chin: (deep thought) then :confused: (aporia) then :smile: (ataraxia) — Agent Smith
1 = 3 — Agent Smith
The Trinity is a representation of Pierce's semiotic triangle. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Pierce's semiotic triangle. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Peirce's semiotic triangle
It consists of three objects: the sign (i.e. the world as filtered by the sensor), the object (i.e. the physical object), and the interpretant (i.e. the understanding reached by the observer of some sign/object relation).
https://www.researchgate.net — researchgate
References to the concept of atomism and its atoms appeared in both ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophical traditions. Leucippus is the earliest figure whose commitment to atomism is well attested and he is usually credited with inventing atomism.[4] He and other ancient Greek atomists theorized that nature consists of two fundamental principles: atom and void. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world.[5][4] — Wikipedia
Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) lived in Carthage and wrote around AD 197 to 215. He was the first Christian writer to write in Latin. He wrote lots of works. Around AD 210, Tertullian left the main church and joined the sect called the Montanists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVNGUx56JDc — ?
How prescient of the First Council of Nicaea — Banno
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, thus, 1 God. That God has a set of absolute properties plus a few properties of relations. "The Divine Persons are none other than these relations" (from the same article mentioned above). — A Christian Philosophy
Regarding your interpretation of the passsages: I agree that if there is a contradiction, then we must look for a different meaning. — A Christian Philosophy
although the idea of Christ, the Father, and the Spirit as three distinct entities is definitely in the Bible — Count Timothy von Icarus
That all said, there is a whole ton of justification for the idea of the Trinity throughout the Bible. Just throw it into a search engine. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree when we speak of "persons" as used in the common language. But properties assigned to God are to be understood analogically and not literally. E.g. when we say God is good, it is not meant in the same sense are we are good, i.e., that we obey the moral laws. God does not obey the moral law as though the law is outside of him and above him. It is meant analogically. Similarly, Divine Persons are not literally the same as persons in the common language. In the same article, Divine Persons are also called Divine Relations, so you can call them relations if that makes things clearer.That seems a clear misuse of language. Relations are not persons. I am in front of my computer. That's a relation. It's not a person. There's not me and, in addition, the person of the relation I stand in to my computer. — Bartricks
Indeed this statement does not make sense; but in catholicism, this is false. The trinity is not 3 persons in 1 person. It is 3 divine persons in (or having) 1 nature. 3 ≠ 1, but it is possible that 3x = 1y.they say that there are three persons in one person - which makes no real sense at all. — Bartricks
I agree when we speak of "persons" as used in the common language. But properties assigned to God are to be understood analogically and not literally. — A Christian Philosophy
E.g. when we say God is good, it is not meant in the same sense are we are good, i.e., that we obey the moral laws. — A Christian Philosophy
In the same article, Divine Persons are also called Divine Relations, so you can call them relations if that makes things clearer. — A Christian Philosophy
Your interpretation of 3 conditions for 1 person makes sense; but for reasons I do not know, theologians throughout history have opted against it. — A Christian Philosophy
But it is question begging to say that he is referring to different entities. The point is there are other interpretations.
The founder, the chair and the majority shareholder can all be the same person. The founder is not the same as the chair, and the chair is not the same as the majority shareholder - these are not synonymous expressions - yet they can refer to one and the same person.
Thus the fact someone refers to the father, son and holy spirit is not decisive evidence that someone is referring to three entities.
Sure, but generally if you're the founder, the chair, and the president, you're not going to say "the founder told me I have to go, but don't worry, he's going to send the chair to help." — Count Timothy von Icarus
However, it's worth noting that there is an absolute ton of paradoxes when it comes to the idea of identity. Identity, as commonly defined, requires the satisfaction of:
A reflexive relationship, G = C
Liebnitz' Law: whatever can be said of G can be said of
That these relationships are necessary.
Necessary distinctness: if G is not x then this is true by necessity
The Trinity, inasmuch as it asserts that all three parts share an identity, fails to meet this criteria. That said, I'm not sure how big of an issue this is because it's unclear if the definition of identity has serious issues. There are tons of unresolved paradoxes that emerge from this definition of identity. Introducing the idea of relative identity solves some issues, but opens up others. Not being able to live up to the bar of a broken definition is not necessarily a huge issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus
There is a distinction between having properties essentially and having them non-essentially (or accidentally). It would be possible for a being to be all powerful, all knowing and all good in a non-essential way, which means they could lose these properties without losing their identity, and thus they would not be God. They would have these properties but not be these properties. God is identical to those properties.what would you call a person who is all powerful, all knowing and all good in the normal sense of the term good? I'd call them 'God'. — Bartricks
They are not wholly the same because we can grasp the concept of goodness as it applies to beings to varying degrees (e.g. we understand that a sinner has a lower degree of goodness than a saint), but we cannot grasp the concept of a being that is goodness essentially.I see no problem in thinking it denotes exactly the same property it does when applied to us. — Bartricks
Indeed God is also the source of these properties in the creatures (the things he has created). But these properties also need to be essential to him. He could not simply be able to disapprove of himself. I.e. the statement "I, God, am not good" is a self-contradiction.That property being the property of possessing a character that is fully approved of by the personal source of all norms and values. That is, God is good by virtue of approving of himself. — Bartricks
There is a distinction between having properties essentially and having them non-essentially (or accidentally). It would be possible for a being to be all powerful, all knowing and all good in a non-essential way, which means they could lose these properties without losing their identity, and thus they would not be God. They would have these properties but not be these properties. God is identical to those properties. — A Christian Philosophy
What you say is true of concepts like bachelor because bachelor is a property and not a substance. Many things can be bachelors. It would also be true of gods (lower case g) such as in the greek mythology. But God in Christianity is not a property but a substance. That substance is goodness, is power, etc.For instance, it is an essential property of a bachelor that they lack a wife. That does not mean that a person who is a bachelor is essentially wifeless. It just means that you have to lack a wife in order to qualify as a bachelor. — Bartricks
This is in agreement with the Catholic doctrine. God can do anything that does not contain a contradiction. God being all-good, all-powerful and all-actuality means he cannot be evil, weak, or cease to exist. In general, this means God cannot have what would be seen as negative properties or conditions; but by common sense alone, this would not be considered a weakness.For to be essentially omnipotent is to be incapable of not being. But then that is a restriction. — Bartricks
Catholic theology is not solely derived from the bible but relies heavily on philosophy and science. A catholic saying is that God wrote two books: scripture and nature. These essential properties might be found in the works of scholastics who combined the bible with Aristotle, especially Aquinas' book called Summa Theologiae.I also see nothing in the bible that commits one to the view that God has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence essentially. — Bartricks
What you say is true of concepts like bachelor because bachelor is a property and not a substance. Many things can be bachelors. It would also be true of gods (lower case g) such as in the greek mythology. But God in Christianity is not a property but a substance. That substance is goodness, is power, etc. — A Christian Philosophy
This is in agreement with the Catholic doctrine. God can do anything that does not contain a contradiction. — A Christian Philosophy
All I can do is show that they do not entail any contradictions. — A Christian Philosophy
But I do not fully understand your view. If God can do anything such that there is nothing that he cannot do, then why also claim that he cannot become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time? — A Christian Philosophy
Sure. But in catholicism, the term omnipotence is meant in this sense: The ability to do anything that is logically possible. With that definition, there is no contradiction. Now if this is not how the term "omnipotence" is commonly used, then another term could be used instead.If you maintain that God is able to do all things that logic permits, but not those things that logic does not permit, then God is constrained by logic and thus not omnipotent - which is a contradiction. — Bartricks
Gotcha. It is possible for God to become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time, but he is not that in actuality.That God is not three persons and one person at the same time is entirely consistent with him having the ability to be. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.