Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible

[Unknown Soldier]

Let me start out by explaining the Christian trinitarian version of God. This model is said to be monotheistic which is to say that it is based on one and only one God existing. Nevertheless, this one God is made up of three "persons" including the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Ghost. Each of these persons are distinct agents having their own unique wills, thoughts, and deeds. So the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Despite these persons being distinct, each one of them is "fully God," and therefore each completely encompasses the one God.

Now, in logic there is a very important principle which can be called the Transitive Property of Equivalence. This principle states that
if A is B, and B is C, then A is C.
For example, if Ed is Ted, and Ted is Theodore, then Ed is Theodore. In the trinitarian model of God, the Son is God, God is the Father, but the Son is not the Father! Similarly, the Holy Ghost is God, God is the Son, but the Holy Ghost is not the Son. So the trinitarian model of God is logically fallacious because it violates the Transitive Property of Equivalence.

One way for Christians to resolve this issue is to avow that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate Gods. Christianity resembles so closely polytheism that recognizing the trinity as three Gods wouldn't make much difference to Christian theology anyway. Besides, a polytheistic model of the trinity like I said resolves the logical fallacy in the dogma of the trinity.

 

[Politesse]

So if I am both a father and a son I've broken logic? Neat!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So if I am both a father and a son I've broken logic? Neat!

I fail to see your point.

 

[Politesse]

So if I am both a father and a son I've broken logic? Neat!

I fail to see your point.

I know the feeling.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible​

But... but... but.... Magic. You forgot Christian magic by which a believer can justify anything.... And faith, Faith and magic...and belief. Faith, magic, and belief that's the ticket. You only need faith, magic, and belief.. and submission. See you didn't think about faith, magic, belief, and submission so see anything is logically possible.

 

[steve_bank]

It is illogical and irrational to expect religious beliefs and mythology to be rational.

I believe the Trinity as it was handed down came from the Council Of Nicaea. There was a split between Christian factions on the divinity and supernatural aspects of Jesus.

The Holy Ghost is the feeling that believers feel when together, the spirit of god to them. I read Moter Teresa
s book, she considered to be real and something that can be physically transferred from one to another.

It is not unique. In Chinese traditions it is called chi, meaning that feeling of a life force. In mystical aspects of martial arts the belief is it can be used to ward off blows and injure at a distance along with healing.In the practice of Chi Gung it is about directing that force inside your body for healing and health. In Indian traditions it is pranja, in Japanese ki. In yoga it is Hatha Yoga or health yoga.

In Star Wars, The Force.

There is nothing generally unusual or unique about Christian mystical beliefs.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible​

But... but... but.... Magic. You forgot Christian magic by which a believer can justify anything.... And faith, Faith and magic...and belief. Faith, magic, and belief that's the ticket. You only need faith, magic, and belief.. and submission. See you didn't think about faith, magic, belief, and submission so see anything is logically possible.

Well, considering that Christianity has employed an army of theologians educated in philosophy (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) to try to smooth over the logical problems in their beliefs, if said smoothing over is impossible, then as you say blind faith is always something to fall back on. The dogma of the trinity will live on reason be damned (and be damned anything or anybody else who gets in the way).

 

[skepticalbip]

Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible​

But... but... but.... Magic. You forgot Christian magic by which a believer can justify anything.... And faith, Faith and magic...and belief. Faith, magic, and belief that's the ticket. You only need faith, magic, and belief.. and submission. See you didn't think about faith, magic, belief, and submission so see anything is logically possible.

Well, considering that Christianity has employed an army of theologians educated in philosophy (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) to try to smooth over the logical problems in their beliefs, if said smoothing over is impossible, then as you say blind faith is always something to fall back on. The dogma of the trinity will live on reason be damned (and be damned anything or anybody else who gets in the way).

The problem with trying to understand the trinity logically is that it wasn't the product of logic. The trinity was an attempt at a political compromise to unite strict monotheistic Christian groups who saw Jesus as a fully human prophet (like Moses) and polytheistic Christian groups who accepted Jesus as a god.

But then there is much in the Christian canon that most Christians don't even know is there or, if they know is there, they don't understand. Submission and faith is a funny thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The problem with trying to understand the trinity logically is that it wasn't the product of logic. The trinity was an attempt at a political compromise to unite strict monotheistic Christian groups who saw Jesus as a fully human prophet (like Moses) and polytheistic Christian groups who accepted Jesus as a god.

So they can have their Messiah and deify him too. I suppose nothing in Christian theology is based in logic. Logic only comes into play when people who actually think about it start asking questions. If those inquiring minds aren't convinced, then Christians may respond by calling those skeptics immoral and blame them for the world's problems.

But then there is much in the Christian canon that most Christians don't even know is there or, if they know is there, they don't understand. Submission and faith is a funny thing.

There is a profound ignorance of scripture on the part of many Christians. In my many debates with them I have found myself correcting them about the Bible all the time. Perhaps knowing scripture is not a good way to maintain faith.

 

[Thomas II]

Well, the Hindus have Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

Brahma is the Creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma
Vishnu is the Preserver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
Shiva is the Destroyer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

"The Father" is the Creator.
"The Son" is the Preserver.
"The Holy Spirit" is the Destroyer (The Transformer)

Three different aspects of "God".

 

[steve_bank]

In terms of poetic elegance Hindus are at the top. Christmas are at the bottom.

When Oppenheimer witnessed a nuclear test he quoted Hindu stricture.

J. Robert Oppenheimer Explains How He Recited a Line from Bhagavad Gita–“Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds”–Upon Witnessing the First Nuclear Explosion

No matter how little we know of the Hindu religion, a line from one of its holy scriptures lives within us all: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' This is one facet of the legacy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, an American theoretical physicist who left an outsized mark on history.

www.openculture.com

"We knew the world would not be the same,” Oppenheimer remembered in 1965. “A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'” The translation’s grammatical archaism made it even more powerful, resonating with lines in Tennyson (“I am become a name, for always roaming with a hungry heart”), Shakespeare (“I am come to know your pleasure”), and the Bible (“I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness”).

The Chritians do not see the comonality of ther beliefs in other traditions.

 

[steve_bank]

Aquinas tried to reconcile philosophy with Catholic theology. He was a Vatican theology 'hit man'. He traveled around debating contrary views.

He was said to be morbidly obese as we say today.

 

[Swammerdami]

Well, the Hindus have Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

Brahma is the Creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma
Vishnu is the Preserver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
Shiva is the Destroyer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

"The Father" is the Creator.
"The Son" is the Preserver.
"The Holy Spirit" is the Destroyer (The Transformer)

Three different aspects of "God".

Yes, and this is inherited from the ancient Indo-European religion with three functions, sometimes considered to correspond to Worship, War and Toil. Early Indo-European rituals involved the concurrent sacrifice of three different animals, e.g. ram, stallion and bull. (The species varied but there were always three.) The caste systems of the Hindus and other Indo-European cultures had three major castes, the highest being that of Worship (Irish Druid, Hindu Brahmin, Roman Flamen).

Three principal Gods of ancient Greece were the brothers Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. Zoroastrianism is often considered monotheistic but Ahura Mazda is sometimes shown as part of a Trinity. The ancient religions of Rome, Ireland and the Norse also borrow much from the prehistoric I-E religion.

Judaism was a Semitic religion so does not inherit the Indo-European Tripartition, but when Christianity replaced the I-E religions of Greece and Rome, it was natural that this millennia-old notion of a trinity was imposed.

I realize that this background is irrelevant to the thread topic, but I hope it gives a reason WHY the nonsensical Trinity got imposed on Christianity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, the Hindus have Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

Brahma is the Creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma
Vishnu is the Preserver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
Shiva is the Destroyer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

"The Father" is the Creator.
"The Son" is the Preserver.
"The Holy Spirit" is the Destroyer (The Transformer)

Three different aspects of "God".

I understand that all Hindu Gods aside from Brahma are merely "aspects" of the one God, Brahma. So this Hindu trinity you've posted is at least logically consistent, something that as I've proved is not the case for the Christian God. So in at least one way Hindu theology is more reasonable than Christian theology.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Three different aspects of "God".

Yes, and this is inherited from the ancient Indo-European religion with three functions, sometimes considered to correspond to Worship, War and Toil. Early Indo-European rituals involved the concurrent sacrifice of three different animals, e.g. ram, stallion and bull. (The species varied but there were always three.) The caste systems of the Hindus and other Indo-European cultures had three major castes, the highest being that of Worship (Irish Druid, Hindu Brahmin, Roman Flamen).

Three principal Gods of ancient Greece were the brothers Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. Zoroastrianism is often considered monotheistic but Ahura Mazda is sometimes shown as part of a Trinity. The ancient religions of Rome, Ireland and the Norse also borrow much from the prehistoric I-E religion.

Judaism was a Semitic religion so does not inherit the Indo-European Tripartition, but when Christianity replaced the I-E religions of Greece and Rome, it was natural that this millennia-old notion of a trinity was imposed.

I'm aware that the idea of a trinity is popular in religions aside from Christianity. What's so special about the number three? I'm not sure, but as we all know at least three legs are generally necessary to give a structure stability (try sitting on a chair with two legs, for example, and you might find yourself on the floor). So it seems to me that three represents completion. A triune God is then a complete God.

I realize that this background is irrelevant to the thread topic, but I hope it gives a reason WHY the nonsensical Trinity got imposed on Christianity.

I'd say what you posted is relevant to the doctrine of the trinity in that it explains that although the idea of the trinity is illogical, it does have theological and psychological appeal.

 

[Thomas II]

I don't know about illogical...Everything seems to have, appears to have, a "beginning", a "middle", and "an end". Energy is transformed, not destroyed...And the process is continued...These appearances are relative to our perception, so it might have a psychological appeal. One could say that it's all one continuum...

 

[bilby]

Aquinas tried to reconcile philosophy with Catholic theology. He was a Vatican theology 'hit man'. He traveled around debating contrary views.

He was said to be morbidly obese as we say today.

What the fuck does Aquinus's alleged obesity have to do with anything?

Why would any reasonable person raise this non-sequitur?

WTAF?

 

[steve_bank]

The why was the resolution of theological differences between sects and establishing a common theology.

Council of Nicaea concludes

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus...

www.history.com

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus resolving an early church crisis.

The controversy began when Arius, an Alexandrian priest, questioned the full divinity of Christ because, unlike God, Christ was born and had a beginning. What began as an academic theological debate spread to Christian congregations throughout the empire, threatening a schism in the early Christian church. Roman Emperor Constantine I, who converted to Christianity in 312, called bishops from all over his empire to resolve the crisis and urged the adoption of a new creed that would resolve the ambiguities between Christ and God.

Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy. The Emperor Constantine presided over the opening of the council and contributed to the discussion.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362.[95] The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD,[96] and a final form formulated in 381 AD, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa.[97]

It is obvious, the holy three'. God, Jesus, and the spirit. The Trinity is not 'logically impossible', it is simply a way to describe the fundamntal beliefs.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't know about illogical...Everything seems to have, appears to have, a "beginning", a "middle", and "an end". Energy is transformed, not destroyed...And the process is continued...These appearances are relative to our perception, so it might have a psychological appeal. One could say that it's all one continuum...

I don't see the relevance of any of this to the logic of the trinity. You are welcome to clarify.

 

[bilby]

Aquinas tried to reconcile philosophy with Catholic theology. He was a Vatican theology 'hit man'. He traveled around debating contrary views.

He was said to be morbidly obese as we say today.

What the fuck does Aquinus's alleged obesity have to do with anything?

Why would any reasonable person raise this non-sequitur?

WTAF?

The why was the resolution of theological differences between sects and establishing a common theology.

I see. And exactly how did Aquinus's body weight resolve those differences?