What don't non-Christians understand?

What don't non-Christians understand? Because the Trinity isn't hard to understand, only those who strawman Christian beliefs say so.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lets ask for the sake of argument, did the "son" always exist? Well if you look at the Bible, there is evidence where Jesus says he is before abraham was but was he there when god created everything? If not could god potentially create a daughter? Potentially even a trans daughter?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      mfw there is an actual reason to modify the doctrine

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Lets ask for the sake of argument, did the "son" always exist? Well if you look at the Bible, there is evidence where Jesus says he is before abraham was but was he there when god created everything?
      1 Collosians 1:16-17
      For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
      Unless this was purely shitpost, you need to look up stuff.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Colossians was not written by Paul

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    But the Trinity isn't composed of three things, it's one thing with three relations.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Each relation can be called x or y or z, though, no? They're variables.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, the Trinity is a metaphysical concept which is best described by the categories constructed by the ancient authorities, it is a category error to attempt to apply modern logic to it because it fundamentally deals with different sorts of entities than what the Trinity deals with. In the Latin tradition the best way we talk about the Trinity is through Aristotelian categories which have been given further theological technical senses. The Trinity simply is the way God is, it is a metaphysical description as physics describes the natural world.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Trinity describes one eternal entity, God, who in himself has three relations because of his fundamentally communal nature. The three relations are hypostases by which the attributes of the divine essence communicate and exist in relation. Read St. Augustine.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The three relations are hypostases by which the attributes of the divine essence communicate and exist in relation
        Why can't each hypostasis be called "x", or "y" or "z"?
        >it is a category error to attempt to apply modern logic to it because it fundamentally deals with different sorts of entities than what the Trinity deals with
        I don't get it, why can't you write in in first-order logic terms? What kind of entities can't be expressed by first-order logic?
        >In the Latin tradition the best way we talk about the Trinity is through Aristotelian categories which have been given further theological technical senses.
        But Aristotelian categories can be expressed by first-order logic

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Also, do you guys then consider the Trinity illogical?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're presenting a nominalist assessment of this category which the Trinity, as a doctrine, does not fit into.
          >Do you consider the Trinity illogical?
          Do I consider the Trinity to be illogical? Well no in the case of a universal logic. Do I think the categories of the Trinity can be accurately represented through 19th and 20th century analytic philosophy of logic? No, because we aren't't even dealing with the same entities.
          >But Aristotelian categories can be expressed by first-order logic
          You could try to represent them through that, doesn't mean it's an accurate accounting of what Aristotle meant by them in the first place. You can do the same with Kant's categories. But your conclusions about them do not follow.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're presenting a nominalist assessment of this category which the Trinity, as a doctrine, does not fit into
            Why nominalist? I never said that x, y or z wouldn't have correspondents in reality.

            >Do I think the categories of the Trinity can be accurately represented through 19th and 20th century analytic philosophy of logic? No, because we aren't't even dealing with the same entities.
            We are talking about God and persons. Why aren't they accessible by logical terms? They're like "Socrates", "philosopher" etc.
            >You could try to represent them through that, doesn't mean it's an accurate accounting of what Aristotle meant by them in the first place
            What do you mean? Aristotle developed the logic that we use.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why nominalist? I never said that x, y or z wouldn't have correspondents in reality.
            Not sure you understand what nominalism is. But it's also clear that, motivation wise, you're attempting to strawman the Christian position by collapsing this antique metaphysical description into one of pure 19th and 20th century logic developed by philosophers of the analytic tradition to describe fundamentally different entities so you could use its axioms to construct something you can defeat by somehow proving a contradiction by whatever category you arbitrarily assign to something in the Trinity doctrine from these theories of logic. It makes you sound smart because you get to use a lot of big boy words but which in itself is actually logically fallacious as a form of argumentation on your part.
            >We are talking about God and persons. Why aren't they accessible by logical terms? They're like "Socrates", "philosopher" etc.
            Why do you think quantifiable variables like the ones you assign "x, y, and z" are applicable to the relations of the Trinity? It's been explained to you that Christians do not think this way about the Trinity, you're using a starting point which isn't even validly applicable to what Christians are talking about in the first place so you can strawman.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not sure you understand what nominalism is.
            What did you mean by it?
            >you're attempting to strawman the Christian position by collapsing this antique metaphysical description into one of pure 19th and 20th century logic developed by philosophers of the analytic tradition to describe fundamentally different entities
            No, I'm trying to parse the Creed using any logic at all. Why would natural language sentences have correspondents in formal, logical language?
            >so you could use its axioms to construct something you can defeat by somehow proving a contradiction by whatever category you arbitrarily assign to something in the Trinity doctrine from these theories of logic
            Do you consider that the categories of the Trinity are logically parsable or not?
            >It makes you sound smart because you get to use a lot of big boy words but which in itself is actually logically fallacious as a form of argumentation on your part
            Analyzing sentences logically is a strawman?
            >Why do you think quantifiable variables like the ones you assign "x, y, and z" are applicable to the relations of the Trinity?
            Do you agree that, because each relation is a category, it falls into the definition of something that can assume various possibilities (a variable)?
            >It's been explained to you that Christians do not think this way about the Trinity
            How do they think about it, then? Do they think about any logically parsable way at all? Why do you think saying that each person is a relation imply them not being writable as variables just like any other noun?
            >you're using a starting point which isn't even validly applicable to what Christians are talking about in the first place so you can strawman
            My starting point is the Athanasian Creed. As I said, do you consider that it can be logically analyzed anyhow?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What did you mean by it?
            Exactly what I said above, your approach to collapse a metaphysical concept into one of pure language so you can strawman it by whatever rules or axioms you arbitrarily assign. Not saying you are a nominalist on the ontological level, but your approach to the topic is. The Trinity is not resucible to particulars in the first place, which your arbitrary assignment of "x, y and z" defined according to the theory of logic you are utilizing seem to be.

            >No, I'm trying to parse the Creed using any logic at all. Why would natural language sentences have correspondents in formal, logical language?
            >Analyzing sentences logically is a strawman?
            >Do you consider that the categories of the Trinity are logically parsable or not?
            >My starting point is the Athanasian Creed. As I said, do you consider that it can be logically analyzed anyhow?
            You're using the wrong method of analysis though, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. The Trinity has been analyzed already, in theology, because it is a fundamentally theological and ontological concept. If you want a valid analysis of it, read the one put forth by men like St. Augustine in his book about the Trinity, and specifically the Athanasian Trinity which you are attempting to analyze using the wrong tools.

            >How do they think about it, then? Do they think about any logically parsable way at all?
            Yes, in terms of relations that commune the attributes of the divine essence. St. Augustine explains self-relation in further detail if you'd like to actually read him.

            >Why do you think saying that each person is a relation imply them not being writable as variables just like any other noun?
            Your reasoning is circular at the basic level and it stinks of logical positivism which is rejected by most modern philosophers in the first place. Do you think that something can only be meaningful if it is verifiable according to your theory of logic?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >logical positivism which is rejected by most modern philosophers in the first place.
            Is it? I hope so, but why is it still so dominant and influential?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your approach to collapse a metaphysical concept into one of pure language
            Isn't the Athanasian Creed already in natural language, which can be written in predicate logic and analyzed in possible contradictions? What do you say that can be written in predicate logic afterall, then?
            >The Trinity is not reducible to particulars in the first place
            Why not?
            >You're using the wrong method of analysis though, that's what I've been trying to explain to you.
            See, you can use various tools to analyze a text. Now you are saying that transcribing in to predicate logic is wrong, because the Trinity is not reducible to particulars, because reasons. That seems like a trick to avoid logical analysis.
            >The Trinity has been analyzed already, in theology, because it is a fundamentally theological and ontological concept. If you want a valid analysis of it, read the one put forth by men like St. Augustine in his book about the Trinity, and specifically the Athanasian Trinity which you are attempting to analyze using the wrong tools.
            I asked if it's possible to use any kind of logic to analyze it. You appear to be saying that it's simply wrong to do so and that ontological and metaphysical analysis has already been done.
            >Yes, in terms of relations that commune the attributes of the divine essence. St. Augustine explains self-relation in further detail if you'd like to actually read him.
            What kind of logic was used? Which passages are about logical consistency?
            (1/2)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your reasoning is circular at the basic level and it stinks of logical positivism which is rejected by most modern philosophers in the first place.
            I'm not even familiarized with logical positivism to be honest, but, for example, there is a dissertation by Beau Branson (Christian PhD) centered around logics, so I don't know why you say that it's a wrong method of analysis. Here: https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATLP-3
            >Do you think that something can only be meaningful if it is verifiable according to your theory of logic?
            No, but I'm just interested on whether there are logical contradictions in the Athanasian Creed or not.
            (2/2)

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of incoherent things aren't "hard to understand"

    A=not A

    Is that hard to understand? No, but its nonsense and contradicts the law of identity. This is what the trinity is like.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    In the name of Jesus Christ, delete this Roman papist prograganda regarding the Holy Trinity.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's in the Athanasian Creed

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christians don't understand it either

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christians attempt at creating a triad of gods. Cute.
    Shame it makes no fricking sense and is such a load of cope.
    Christians have 0 original ideas, kek.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shen the Father
    Qi the holy Spirit
    Ching Chong the Son

    are all one
    and if you don't belive it...

    YOU'RE A CHINK!!!!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *