Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

@charles brough,

To interpret the Trinity as polytheism is nonsensical. It's similar to claiming that Buddhism is polytheistic because some Buddhist literature mentions traditional deities.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

To interpret the Trinity as polytheism is nonsensical. It's similar to claiming that Buddhism is polytheistic because some Buddhist literature mentions traditional deities.

I think you are correct in this... The Christian God is different from the God of the Jews and the Muslims... Jesus presented a different vision of God from that of the Jews which was one that had evolved some in its own right... The Muslims in turn conceive of the God having virtually no human elements excepting mercy, justice, and power... I don't buy Jesus as God, but since the God Jesus presented was very like our conception of Jesus, if you think of Jesus, you think of his God, forgiving, healing loving, powerful, just with his own justice, and knowing... If you think of it... The God of Jesus was at once more humane, and much larger...It is a problem with the old Jewish God, and with pagan Gods that they are both small and stupid, easily bribed, and unable to fathom our souls... Jesus's God knows us, and cares nothing for our offerings, and rather cares for the way we treat each other... The Christian conception of God looks at the whole experience of God through the new and old testament...It is only an attempt to unify the vision, but only a few protestants really consider the God of the Jews as our God... God the Father is just too much of a narrow minded son of a bich.

@Axis Austin,

Then which part of the bible are we supposed to believe? Jews have it easy, only having the Torah, but christians have the two conflicting gods. Are we supposed to believe that mankind will all eventually go to heaven because a man died, or are we to believe that one toe out of line means eternal hellish damnation?

@Kolbe,

Kolbe wrote:

Jews have it easy, only having the Torah.

That's not all Jews have. :perplexed:

Jewish scripture and religious literature includes the Torah, the Haftorah, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Rashi commentary, and the work of various Jewish philosophers and theologians like Nachmanides and Maimonides. There are other works that are not scripture per se, but are strongly influential in various traditions, like the Kabbalist literature. Rabbinic Judaism, which is what virtually all Jews in modernity ascribe to, is about the same age as Christianity, and its dominance in Jewish tradition is younger than Christianity (it dates from the destruction of the second temple in 71 AD). It is characterized by a lack of central authority on subjects and scriptural interpretation, and a great diversity of beliefs.

And believe me that the nature of God is NOT uniformly agreed upon among different Jewish traditions.

@Axis Austin,

Ah, apologies then. I should probably look more into faiths than I was taught in a Catholic school.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I think you are correct in this... The Christian God is different from the God of the Jews and the Muslims... Jesus presented a different vision of God from that of the Jews which was one that had evolved some in its own right...

My reading of the NT Gospels leads me to think that Jesus was not presenting a different vision of God, but that his theology was based upon a kind of radical Judaism. Radical in the best sense of the term--he went back to the roots. In fact, as I have proposed (in a different thread?) I think that Christianity, properly understood, is essentially a sect within Judaism. Over the years, many religious expressions that claim to be Chritianity have thoroughly corrupted the basic teachings of Jesus, to the point that I would characterize them as merely various kinds of heresies springing from Judaism.

The three biggest and most destructive heresies, in my view, are (1) the exceedingly anthropomorphic images of God (which give fuel to atheism), (2) the defining of "faith" in Jesus as giving mental assent to one or more propositions about him, and (3) the concept of "eternal suffering in hell" for all unbelievers, which many critics of supposed Christianity (meaning traditions that merely masquerade as Christianity), point to as a ridiculous inconsistency with the image of God as being loving and merciful.

@Dichanthelium,

The God of the Jews, and the various notions of God in the various Jewish sects, are different from the Christian God, and the various Christian notions of God, and all are different from the Muslim God, and the varying notions of God found within Islam: just as they are all different, they are also all the same.

Remember that Buddhist phrase: "The hand pointing at the moon is not the moon." Each faith tradition, and the variety of sects within a given tradition, have different language expressing God: sometimes they fight over this language. But it's all just language, and however different, it all points toward the same truth.

The only real debate is about which language is most efficient and successful at expressing God given the limitations of language. Of course, this is not much of a debate as the best language surrounding God is entirely dependent upon the individual. Like in literature: no interpretation is wrong, but some interpretations are better than others, but no interpretation is the best.

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

Growing up as a Christian, I thought God could do anything, including the logically impossible. Once I became a competent philosopher I concluded, as I think most would, that God cannot make square circles. Further, I don't think it is just philosophers who've realized this, but most Christians as well. But isn't the idea of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is both WHOLLY one and WHOLLY separate, logically impossible? Yet most Christians believe in this, and I personally have not come up with a satisfactory answer for myself. Any thoughts?:perplexed:

The sort of idea that you're describing, namely, a certain kind of objective duality--a thing is both at the same time one thing and another thing--has come up in human thought quite often. The Hindu Trimurti, that Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu, above all other gods are the greatest aspects of Brahman, features many aspects similar to the Trinity (and in fact I have used this equivocation to try and persuade radical evangelicals to get their heads around the concept of continuing validity of enduring traditions); again in Hinduism, that the Brahman is at one and the same time the entirety of Life, the Universe, and Everything (although that's just a finger pointing at the moon) and the most intimate and central part of you, the atman or self or soul; in quantum mechanics, consider the nature of light, at one and the same time both waves and particles. The point being, just because something may seem illogical on the surface doesn't mean there isn't a deeper logic underlying it.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

The point being, just because something may seem illogical on the surface doesn't mean there isn't a deeper logic underlying it.

I would like to think so, I just can't see the deeper logic. I want to know how God can make square circles (or how the notion of the Holy Trinity can be logically consistent).

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I would like to think so, I just can't see the deeper logic. I want to know how God can make square circles (or how the notion of the Holy Trinity can be logically consistent).

The Metatron and The Vesica Piscis.

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I would like to think so, I just can't see the deeper logic. I want to know how God can make square circles (or how the notion of the Holy Trinity can be logically consistent).

God created logic.

@Axis Austin,

Why wouldn't he abide by his own rules?

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

God created logic.

Logic is man's vice, not God's. Give credit where it is due and don't lump God in to our creation. To create something is to suggest that one would have a use for it. So what need does God have for logic?

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I would like to think so, I just can't see the deeper logic. I want to know how God can make square circles (or how the notion of the Holy Trinity can be logically consistent).

How anyone does anything is not nearly as illogical as why... Anyone who looks for logic in this world should look at motivation because ones motivation for one action may result in one action on day and another at another time...The change in our form of God really illustrates the change in our understanding of reality, morality, and society and yet the trinity allows continuity which we equate with legitmacy...Still, once faith demands a leap there is no difference between a ditch and tall buildings at a single bound..

@Axis Austin,

I am human and you are human, but you are not me.

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I would like to think so, I just can't see the deeper logic. I want to know how God can make square circles (or how the notion of the Holy Trinity can be logically consistent).

One way this may be so is that we're trying to comprehend an essence human minds weren't meant to comprehend. For instance, I was reading in A Brief History of Time that Hawking seems to believe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes about because we think of matter as being particles when in actuality they are waves (yeah, go figure that out). Perhaps the Trinity is the result of trying to reconcile the nature of God as a basic force in the Universe, i.e., causality, with our Semitic notions of Him being an altogether separate entity.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Logic is man's vice, not God's. Give credit where it is due and don't lump God in to our creation. To create something is to suggest that one would have a use for it. So what need does God have for logic?

:brickwall:

Logic is not a vice, it is a system of understanding. Perhaps God is bound by logic, not that he "needs" it. If he did create it, then presumably he'd use it so that we may understand him better (because we appeal to logic).

@ACWaller,

ACWaller wrote:

I am human and you are human, but you are not me.

Are you sure???...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Are you sure???...

Good point. In the Buddhist concept of interdependent origination we are, were, and will become everything and everything else. Therefore, I was/will be Fido and Axis Austin and jgweed and presumably everybody else who has/will have lived.

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

:brickwall:

Logic is not a vice, it is a system of understanding. Perhaps God is bound by logic, not that he "needs" it. If he did create it, then presumably he'd use it so that we may understand him better (because we appeal to logic).

This is remarkably toned down from the one statement post of "God created logic", and is much more acceptable to me.

Philosophy Forum

Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Quick Links

My Account

able2know