So, I was just sitting there thinking about the Trinity

[castle007]

and I just don't see how it makes sense 

I am not looking at it from a muslim point of view, but from a non-religious view.

I just don't get how you have the father, the son, and the holy spirit, and they are all supposed to be god.


Someone please explain this picture!! I just don't understand how, supposedly, the father is god, the son is god, and the holy spirit is god. Yet, the son is not the father, and the holy spirit is not the son, etc.. Doesn't that mean that there are three different gods using this logic? 

[Great Rumbler]

Three parts of a whole that serve different functions. That's the best way I can describe it, I guess.

[Himu]

It doesn't make sense at all.

[TVC15]

What a stupid question.  It's simple.  Just go read up on quantum chromodynamics and m-theory, and it will become clear.  Wiki is your friend.

[Great Rumbler]

Wikipedia:

On the face of it, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be logically incoherent as God is both one and three at the same time. It appears to imply that identity is not transitive—"for the Father is identical with God, the Son is identical with God, and the Father is not identical with the Son". Proponents of the doctrine agree, explaining that the nature of God is beyond human comprehension, and attempts to fit God within human ideas is itself an error.

Recently, there have been two philosophical attempts to defend the logical coherency of Trinity, one by Richard Swinburne and the other by Peter Geach et al. The formulation suggested by Swinburne is free from logical incoherency, but it is debatable whether this formulation is consistent with historical orthodoxy. Regarding the formulation suggested by Geach, not all philosophers would agree with its logical coherency. Swinburne has suggested that "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods". Geach suggested that "a coherent statement of the doctrine is possible on the assumption that identity is "always relative to a sortal term".[64]

Some Messianic groups, the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, and even some scholars within (but not necessarily representing) denominations such as Southern Baptist Convention view the Trinity as being comparable to the concept of a family, hence the familial terms of Father, Son, and the implied role of Mother for the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word for "God", Elohim, which has an inherent plurality, has the function as a surname as in Yahweh Elohim. The seeming contradiction of Elohim being "one" is solved by the fact that the Hebrew word for "one", echad, can describe a compound unity, harmonious in direction and purpose; unlike yachid which means singularity.[65]

Others reject this view, and present the Trinity from the inherent complexity and transcendental nature of God. In this view, God created the universe, including time itself; God is larger and more complex than the universe itself; and God cannot "fit" in any way humans can understand within the smaller, created universe. Only God alone is capable of existing in multiple places simultaneously.

Thus, God is seen as not actually having three persons at all but simply being too complex for humans to understand any other way. It is argued that the Trinity does not really reflect a "family" or three personalities of God, so much as human inability to comprehend God's infinite nature. The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an over-simplified explanation of an infinite God geared to human understanding.

Illustrating this alternative theology, God is seen like a person tending an aquarium which represents the entire universe. Too large to fit inside the aquarium, a man can slide his hand inside the aquarium. The fish will see a hand in one place in the water. The man can also put his face into the water, and the fish will see a face in an entirely different place. The fish will think the hand and the face are two entirely different beings, which look nothing like each other. The fish may also become dimly aware that outside the aquarium a larger being tends to their needs, spreading food in the water regularly. Thus intelligent fish would perceive three different beings from their perspective – even though in fact these three manifestations come from one, single being beyond their comprehension.

Similarly, if God chose to come to Earth and visit humanity in the body of a man named Jesus, God would essentially break off a piece of himself (so to speak) and that piece would enter a human body. The main part of God would remain in "heaven" being God "the Father". The part of God that entered a man's body could be described as the Son, Jesus. The part of God that moves throughout the universe can be described as the Holy Spirit.

If God has compositional parts, they are either finite or infinite parts. If finite, then God is finite. If infinite, then there are multiple infinities. Each case becomes a denial of monotheism. By definition, therefore, the belief in compositional parts has been regarded as a heresy since the establishment of the Nicene Creed, and reaffirmed in Protestant Creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which state "God has no parts."[66] Louis Berkhof describes the doctrine of the Trinity requiring belief in a "simplex unity" and not a complex (or composite) being. "There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence" and "The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons."[67]

[Greatness Gone]

PAY FOR GOD

BEAT YOUR WIFE

[castle007]

So, God is made up of three parts??

And God broke himself into three pieces (the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Neither one is god, but together they form god?). Then God, sent the son part of him down to earth to die and be tortured in order to save humans from their sins and from the wrath of God ??  

If Jesus is part of God, then why was he asking God why he is forsaken him, even though god sent him to die for humans.  

[MCD]

play more jrpgs.

[Greatness Gone]

Castle, convert to techno paganism with me.

[castle007]

PAY FOR GOD

BEAT YOUR WIFE

I am so sick and tired of people making fun of me for that post on neogaf. I never promoted wife beating. I am against it.  

Islam doesn't promote wife beating, and prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said that the best men are the ones who treat their wives with respect. If you ever meet me in person, you will see how I can't even lay a hand on a cockroach  

[castle007]

Castle, convert to techno paganism with me.

 

thanks for the offer, but I can't stand techno. 

[Flannel Boy]

Wikipedia:

On the face of it, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be logically incoherent as God is both one and three at the same time . . . Proponents of the doctrine agree, explaining that the nature of God is beyond human comprehension. . . .


God cannot "fit" in any way humans can understand within the smaller, created universe. . . .

. . . .simply being too complex for humans to understand any other way . . .

. . .human inability to comprehend God's infinite nature.

I see . . . we humans think the Trinity doesn't make sense because we're stupid.

That or "here's a silly analogy that doesn't explain anything".

OR "here's an explanation, but it requires some polytheism." whoops.

  budget religion  

[Phoenix Dark]

makes perfect sense to me

[Flannel Boy]

makes perfect sense to me

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Ice, Water, and Steam are completely different substances but are all H20

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seriously, it makes no sense at all. The Trinity was made up by the Council of Nicaea along with a whole bunch of other dogmatic bullshit and has no business being believed

[close]

[castle007]

makes perfect sense to me

can you explain it please??  

[Bocsius]

There are no parts to God that build to a whole. Each portion of the trinity is fully God, just a different manifestation. The Father is the God spoken of throughout the old and new testaments. Jesus is God in human form sent to Earth to teach and then to be offered as the ultimate, final sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Jewish law required blood to be shed for sin, as the "wages of sin" were "death." Usually it was a lamb or goat or bull substituted for the sins of men, which is why Jesus is also referred to as the "Lamb of God." And the Holy Spirit is the manisfestation of God that works within the lives of his followers throughout the Bible but most specifically in new testament times through the present. Like the Wiki article pointed out, the concept of the Trinity is to explain to men what they could not possibly comprehend, and the fish analogy seemed appropriate. Even the fact that Jesus took on a physical representation can still be baffling, as you pointed out in your question of why did he pray. You could take two (or more) views on that. 1) To teach. He had to show his disciples how to speak to God, what to ask for, what to desire, etc. 2) While fully God, Jesus was also man. During times of prayer, it was his humanity seeking the divine presence of God.

[Phoenix Dark]

makes perfect sense to me

can you explain it please??  

To me it's like three faces of the same being in a sense - they're all the same being, but each has a different look, and different objective, etc. The Father is the dominant, most familiar face, appearing in both testaments of the bible. Obviously Jesus isn't featured in the old testament (although his coming is prophesied, if you believe he was the messiah). He's the second face. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, and present in those who are saved. Jesus was basically the trojan horse for the Spirit, a living sacrifice which unleashed the spirit on mankind after Crucifixion. Before that salvation was only attainable through works, ie animal sacrifices, following the law, baptism, building the Arc, etc.

I've questioned much of my former faith, but even today I "get" the trinity.

[Great Rumbler]

This argument reminded me that I still haven't finished reading Flatland...

[castle007]

makes perfect sense to me

can you explain it please??  

To me it's like three faces of the same being in a sense - they're all the same being, but each has a different look, and different objective, etc. The Father is the dominant, most familiar face, appearing in both testaments of the bible. Obviously Jesus isn't featured in the old testament (although his coming is prophesied, if you believe he was the messiah). He's the second face. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, and present in those who are saved. Jesus was basically the trojan horse for the Spirit, a living sacrifice which unleashed the spirit on mankind after Crucifixion. Before that salvation was only attainable through works, ie animal sacrifices, following the law, baptism, building the Arc, etc.

I've questioned much of my former faith, but even today I "get" the trinity.

You are saying that these three parts are the same being?

Then why does God need to have three parts, that are the same, in order to function?

And why does He have a "face" that eats, sleeps, drinks, etc.. and then that it gets tortured and killed in order to save humans from His wrath??

[recursivelyenumerable]

It's pretty simple, actually:

Code: [Select]

union God {
  stern_old_man_in_sky* Father;
  long_haired_hippie_nailed_to_cross* Son;
  spooky_energy_field* Holy_Spirit;
}

Clients that handle this type improperly are susceptible to buffer overflow exploits allowing a third-party attacker (e.g. Satan) to inject arbitrary code into their souls, which is why the Arian heresy had to be put down so harshly.  Sadly, the spread of new trendy ideological frameworks like liberalism and socialism has led to a decline in Christian belief as most can't get the interop declarations right.

[ToxicAdam]

I think they were just looking to fill time for catechism teachings..

[Bacchus7]

It's pretty simple, actually:

Code: [Select]

union God {
  stern_old_man_in_sky* Father;
  long_haired_hippie_nailed_to_cross* Son;
  spooky_energy_field* Holy_Spirit;
}

Clients that handle this type improperly are susceptible to buffer overflow exploits allowing a third-party attacker (e.g. Satan) to inject arbitrary code into their souls, which is why the Arian heresy had to be put down so harshly.  Sadly, the spread of new trendy ideological frameworks like liberalism and socialism has led to a decline in Christian belief as most can't get the interop declarations right.

Hahahah.

On topic, Castle, it's not that God requires these three "parts" to function, but that they are in and of themselves God and God's definition.

[Phoenix Dark]

makes perfect sense to me

can you explain it please??  

To me it's like three faces of the same being in a sense - they're all the same being, but each has a different look, and different objective, etc. The Father is the dominant, most familiar face, appearing in both testaments of the bible. Obviously Jesus isn't featured in the old testament (although his coming is prophesied, if you believe he was the messiah). He's the second face. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, and present in those who are saved. Jesus was basically the trojan horse for the Spirit, a living sacrifice which unleashed the spirit on mankind after Crucifixion. Before that salvation was only attainable through works, ie animal sacrifices, following the law, baptism, building the Arc, etc.

I've questioned much of my former faith, but even today I "get" the trinity.

You are saying that these three parts are the same being?

Then why does God need to have three parts, that are the same, in order to function?

And why does He have a "face" that eats, sleeps, drinks, etc.. and then that it gets tortured and killed in order to save humans from His wrath??

He doesn't need 3 parts to function. As I said, it wasn't until the new testament that Jesus and the Holy Spirit showed up. Before it was just God laughing at the jews because they could never follow the law. Now, through Jesus people have a much easier path towards salvation, ie getting the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, Jesus was the means of salvation, a trojan from god. The son came to earth. He was rejected. God changed his focus from the jews - now jew and gentile are equal and both able to attain salvation (Holy Spirit). Those who accept it meet the son, those who don't will meet the Father's judgment

if you believe that sort of thing
/indiana jones

[Mupepe]

Okay, with flour you can make many different things.

let's say you can make bread and you can make a cake.

They're similar, maybe even share a large amount of traits, but they're not the same thing.

[recursivelyenumerable]

you'd best be careful where you put those iotas of yours, someone might get hurt

[Fresh Prince]

In school it was described as this; Jesus is the switch, the Holy Spirit is the electricity and God is the light bulb. 3 in 1. Hence God is a system.

[brawndolicious]

I was told that it was decided at the Council of Nicea that Jesus was not a prophet but some sort of son of god.  Apparently, there were some christians disagreed with the idea that Jesus was the son of god.

I'm guessing that there were a bunch of politics involved with it and the idea was that if jesus was god's son, and a sacrifice for mankind, that the then christians wouldn't be so likely to convert or disobey the church (which was basically a branch of the government) by believing in whatever new "messiah" spouts some smart-sounding shit.  This would explain why the early muslims were able to accept that jesus was a prophet.

[Barry Egan]

why are you asking for coherence and rationality out of an organized religion in the first place?

[Ninja]

An aspect of religion doesn't make sense!? Inconceivable.

[castle007]

This is the first time I have heard about the council of Nicaea and Arianism. 

Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed

That doctrine that Arius wrote was based on Scriptures such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I" to John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become "one as we are one" so that all of them including Jesus and God become one. This is interpreted as indicating that the oneness refers to thought and will, and not a unity in a Trinity.

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

 I view this as the turning point when Christians rejected the idea that Jesus is a human just like eveyone else. This is all very interesting

[Guybrush Threepwood]

And the fact that all this happened about 300 years after Jesus lived is pretty much proof that it's completely made up.

[dammitmattt]

The anti-religion contingent is becoming more annoying than the religious contingent.  Instead of attempting to seriously answer any religious question, they have to pop up in every religious thread to tell everyone how stupid religion is.  Dudes, we get it.

It reminds me of this brilliant Onion article:

"Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own a Television
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

CHAPEL HILL, NC–Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers–as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.

Jonathan Green, who tells as many people as possible that he is "fully weaned off the glass teat."

"I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television," Green told a random woman Monday at the Suds 'N' Duds Laundromat, noticing the establishment's wall-mounted TV. "I don't even own one."

According to Melinda Elkins, a coworker of Green's at The Frame Job, a Chapel Hill picture-frame shop, Green steers the conversation toward television whenever possible, just so he can mention not owning one.

"A few days ago, [store manager] Annette [Haig] was saying her new contacts were bothering her," Elkins said. "The second she said that, I knew Jonathan would pounce. He was like, 'I didn't know you had contacts, Annette. Are your eyes bad? That a shame. I'm really lucky to have almost perfect vision. I'm guessing it's because I don't watch TV. In fact, I don't even own one."

According to Elkins, "idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term for television.

"He uses that one a lot," she said. "But he's got other ones, too, like 'boob tube' and 'electronic babysitter.'"

Elkins said Green always makes sure to read the copies of Entertainment Weekly and People lying around the shop's break room, "just so he can point out all the stars and shows he's never heard of."

"Last week, in one of the magazines, there was a picture of Calista Flockhart," Elkins said, "and Jonathan announced, 'I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. Calista who? Am I supposed to have heard of her? I'm sorry, but I haven't.'"

Tony Gerela, who lives in the apartment directly below Green's and occasionally chats with the 37-year-old by the mailboxes, is well aware of his neighbor's disdain for television.

"About a week after I met him, we were talking, and I made some kind of Simpsons reference," Gerela said. "He asked me what I was talking about, and when I told him it was from a TV show, he just went off, saying how the last show he watched was some episode of Cheers, and even then, he could only watch for about two minutes before having to shut it off because it insulted his intelligence so terribly."

Added Gerela: "Once, I made the mistake of saying I saw something on the news, and he started in with, 'Saw the news? I don't know about you, but I read the news."

Green has lived without television since 1989, when his then-girlfriend moved out and took her set with her.

"When Claudia went, the TV went with her," Green said. "But instead of just going out and buying another one–which I certainly could have afforded, that wasn't the issue–I decided to stand up to the glass teat."

"I'm not an elitist," Green said. "It's just that I'd much rather sculpt or write in my journal or read Proust than sit there passively staring at some phosphorescent screen."

"If I need a fix of passive audio-visual stimulation, I'll go to catch a Bergman or Truffaut film down at the university," Green said. "I certainly wouldn't waste my time watching the so-called Learning Channel or, God forbid, any of the mind sewage the major networks pump out."

Continued Green: "People don't realize just how much time their TV-watching habit–or, shall I say, addiction–eats up. Four hours of television a day, over the course of a month, adds up to 120 hours. That's five entire days! Why not spend that time living your own life, instead of watching fictional people live theirs? I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to own a television."

[recursivelyenumerable]

the anti-anti-religious crowd is becoming even more annoying etc., etc.

[brawndolicious]

dammitmatt, well I don't think there's any point in understanding the reasoning behind the Trinity of you want to understand Christianity (as in Jesus' beliefs).

The one person that I would really want to hear explain the Trinity is Uncle Ruckus.

[Great Rumbler]

All that stuff about it being outside of human comprehension is such massive bullshit that I can't believe people can say it seriously.

There are a lot of things that are beyond human comprehension. Can we understand something that exists outside this universe? Something that we can't see, experience, or measure? Of course, the obvious follow-up question relates to whether such a thing exists in the first place. But if we have no way of piercing the barrier of our universe, how will we ever know for sure?

[Bloodwake]

Honestly, the Roman councils came up with this shit to make God an enigma, which to weak-minded people means "an infinite being that we can never understand but should blindly listen to"

The Romans also manipulated the teachings of Jesus to make shitloads of money and to easily control a population. That was one of the techniques.

Seriously, Understandings of Christianity at Berea College FTW. Best class I've taken here.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Honestly, the Roman councils came up with this shit to make God an enigma, which to weak-minded people means "an infinite being that we can never understand but should blindly listen to"

Yeah, it looks like that to me too.  They seem to have deliberately gone out of their way to make it not make sense (ruling out plausible rationalizations like modalism, etc.) and to trumpet the fact that it doesn't make sense (I thought the image posted in the OP was probably from some skeptic site, but it's an actual Christian symbol that was used as a coat of arms!)

[Fresh Prince]

3 in one is more to describe God's functions imo, then three entities.

[brawndolicious]

All that stuff about it being outside of human comprehension is such massive bullshit that I can't believe people can say it seriously.

There are a lot of things that are beyond human comprehension. Can we understand something that exists outside this universe? Something that we can't see, experience, or measure? Of course, the obvious follow-up question relates to whether such a thing exists in the first place. But if we have no way of piercing the barrier of our universe, how will we ever know for sure?

"Universe" is arbitrary.  The fact is that we don't have any known fact to reference anything against.  Stephen Hawkins gave a good speech proving that the universe never existed since nobody knows, or can even know, what it is.

Basically, science is about making sense of observations, not theories.  Hawkins then explained that the God could exist or not exist, but it's impossible to prove either theory.  Science doesn't depend on one pool of knowledge, which is what a lot of religious people try to believe argue in debates against scientists.

[recursivelyenumerable]

3 in one is more to describe God's functions imo, then three entities.

There are a lot of ways to rationalize it, the problem is that theologians have actually gone out of their way to rule out all the obvious sensible rationalizations.  You're not allowed to believe they're just three ways of looking at God --- that's a heresy --- OR that they're three separate parts of God.  They have to be three entirely distinct entities which are also completely the same entity.

[Great Rumbler]

There are a lot of things that are beyond human comprehension. Can we understand something that exists outside this universe? Something that we can't see, experience, or measure? Of course, the obvious follow-up question relates to whether such a thing exists in the first place. But if we have no way of piercing the barrier of our universe, how will we ever know for sure?

When you start saying that its very existence is beyond the scope of the human mind what's the point of even talking about it?  We can't even properly reference it.  It has no comprehensible properties.  It's meaningless.

Well, that's why it's called faith rather than hard science.

[patrickula]

I have no difficulty accepting that there are forces within and possibly beyond the universe which man cannot comprehend.  I do have difficulty accepting that man can therefore somehow comprehend the incomprehensible.

God as an enigma works because he doesn't seem to act sensibly, so you'd better make him a mystery!

The Trinity seems a bit two plus two equals five to me... if you can accept it, you can accept anything.

[xnikki118x]

I always kind of thought of it as water--ice, liquid, gas.

[brawndolicious]

Isn't light the fourth state?

[Yeti]

Do you guys remember that episode of Batman the Animated series where Robin was trying to help this girl out who was being stalked by her creepy father, only she could never get away from him? Only her father had turned out to be Clayface and she was just a piece of him that he had split off to go see if things were safe but had grown her own sentience.  And at the end she was absorbed back into Clayface.

The trinity is kind of like that.