The trinity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The trinity » The trinity

The trinity

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The trinity

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 905

Posted 10/04/09 - 01:52 PM: Subject: The trinity	#1
The doctrine of the trinity includes that (1) There is one god. (2) The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. (3) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. This looks inconsistent to me. The obvious (?) interpretation of (2) and (3) is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical to God, but not identical to each other. That is, (2') f = g & s = g & h = g (3') ~(f = s v f = h v s = h) But those are inconsistent because identity is transitive. There's an argument that "is God" should be construed in (2) and (3) as a nonidentity predicate. I don't how that's even grammatical, but suppose it is. Then there still seems to be a contradiction, because (1) says there's only one god. That is, (1') Ex [Gx & Ay [Gy -> y = x]] (2'')Gf & Gs & Gh (3') is also inconsistent.

Virgil Fontaine
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Penn's Woods

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/04/09 - 03:14 PM:	#2
I'm not totally sure what you're trying to get at, but if it's that the Trinity doesn't exactly make sense, well, that's because it's probably just a small point in what is simply a mythological belief system (just in my opinion, not trying to start a religious debate). On a semi-related note, one of the best "explanations" of the Trinity I've heard was from Bill Maher's Religulous, in which one of the interviewees said that the Trinity was like water; it could sold, liquid, or gas, but it was all the same thing. I thought it was a rather clever analogy.
Believe nothing, no matter where you've read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 10/04/09 - 04:46 PM:	#3
I think the difficulty of understanding the Trinity comes from the view that God is only transcendent. If God is both transcendent and immanent it becomes much easier. There is a great difficulty with understanding the Trinity but there is not a great difficulty in understanding when there are visions of God and when God speaks in the Old Testament. But when God speaks from a burning bush what are we to understand is happening? There are two possibilities regarding the ontology of Moses' vision (1) The voice of god is a physical phenomena and thus not God. It is an effect that proceeds from the cause which is God's will to speak to Moses. When we hear God speaking it is only us inferring the cause from the effect. The Word of the Gospel of John and the words uttered to Moses are different things. The first is not to be understand as human speech but as the act of a creation which unlike human speech has no beginning and no end. The latter is temporal and therefore not properly God speaking. This I believe to be a transcendent perspective. God is above the world and all earthly things are distinct from God. God revealed himself to Moses and made his presence known but not himself known for no man knows God. The bush and the words are signs but in themselves are not God. (2) It is the voice of God, because God can speak directly to us without any intermediary or the intermediary is not defined to be distinct from God but as a part of him. This follows if you adopt an immanent view of God, something like a panetheistic view. Viewed in this way God is manifest in the world in all times and in all places. This lump of matter is given form and existence from God. All cause and effect is from God. A rock does not fall to Earth except through God. We call this effect gravity but God is behind this effect at all times. The lump of matter is not God but it's principle of existence is God and God is 'contained' in it. So although the matter only exists through God, it has a nature that is distinct from God. As it says in Genesis, man is created in the image of God. This is why we can call a man God-like or Christ-like or God-fearing and not a rock or a dog. I believe this also means that we can approach God through our beliefs and actions. We can by choice be closer to him or further away from him. Other objects do not have this property. For a regular human our consciousness can approach God but it can never truly be like God's in any way whether moral or the knowledge we have based on reason. Our inability of perfect moral knowledge is due to the Fall of Adam. The reason for the limitation on our knowledge is less clear. Now Christ is seen as being perfectly moral and there is some basis for this in the Gospels because we do not witness him sinning or repenting over any particular sin. But a man cannot be perfectly moral, only God can. So the Christ is also God. But the Christ is God in the same way the burning bush was God. It is not that there are two Gods because God is a unity. A manifestation of God does not take away from Him. Say God creates two objects. He creates one first and then the other. Has anything been taken from him by creating the second one? Has he been diminished in any way? The conception of the Christian God says that in no ways is he diminished. I find this plausible although currently I have one problem with Christ as God. As I've mentioned God is perfectly moral and omniscient. But Jesus does not appear to be omniscient. He says that only the Father knows when he will return. This indicates that it is possible to know when he will return but he does not know this. He does not say 'In time this will be revealed but you are not ready for this yet'.The reasoning behind why he is not omniscient is that his human nature limits his omniscience in some way. But this is a slippery slope so that we can explain deficiencies he might have in terms of his human nature. There seem to be two possibilities (1) Either he tells the truth and he is not God (2) Or he is lying in which case he is not perfectly moral and not God Either way it appears as though Jesus cannot be God.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/04/09 - 06:49 PM:	#4
The classic idea is the they are "triune", meaning they are different modes or aspects of the same deity. I found this to be inconsistent with Christian scriptures, however, which shows them to have quite different properties. The most popular exception is that, at one point, Jesus mentions that God knows when he will return to earth, but he doesn't. That indicates that they have different access to information and separate minds. The fact that Jesus purportedly died and was resurrected contradicts the idea that God is immortal. There is also a verse which says there are sins which Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit could forgive or not forgive differently. A point is often made that nobody can stand in the presence of God with sin and live, (look at the precautions taken to enter the holy-of-holies in the Old Testament), yet no mention is made of anyone dropping dead in the presence of Jesus or even the Holy Spirit. Jesus also mentions that only the Father, but not himself are "good", when someone attempts to call him good or worship him. They appear to be 3 distinct individuals from the readings of the gospels. I think the trinity evolved from early church discussions about the nature of Jesus. The church was pretty strongly divided on whether he was of the same essence or not. Eventually, the Roman church won out, and Roman pagans would probably not have any difficulty with "triune" since they had already many examples of triple deities, (look at Capitoline Triad). Actually the Christian trinity went through several variations before being established. Early gnostic and apocryphal works referred to "Sophia" a female aspect of wisdom, while the earthly aspect was the "Logos", as recorded in John.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 10/04/09 - 08:10 PM:	#5
Virgil Fontaine wrote: On a semi-related note, one of the best "explanations" of the Trinity I've heard was from Bill Maher's Religulous, in which one of the interviewees said that the Trinity was like water; it could sold, liquid, or gas, but it was all the same thing. I thought it was a rather clever analogy. No, it is more of a diversion, than an analogy. A rather popular one, because it identifies something nonsensical with something common to everyday experience. Saying that water freezes and evaporates; doesn't say anything about the nature of God and God's Gods.
Or not.

differential
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/04/09 - 08:15 PM:	#6
I am of the belief that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved slowly, due to a number of contradictions inherent to Christianity itself, as well as the problems that arose from reconciling different biblical texts. The Christology presented in the Gospel of John for instance (which presents the conception of a shared divinity between followers and savior), is strikingly different from that of the other gospels.

nelvan
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 101

Posted 10/04/09 - 08:58 PM:	#7
I am no theologian and the Holy Trinity has never been a focus of my Christian belief but I will give it a try. There seems to be a time line and so the focus should be on a process. First comes the Father, then naturally the Son, and lastly the Holy Spirit. Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit in future tense, as taking precedence after his mission on earth. In my opinion, Jesus came to earth to bring the good news, which could only come through a human way (parables). The Holy Spirit is the aftermath of the good news. If Jesus is witness to the truth, the truth is not enough. Spiritual truth can become an idol and so the Holy Spirit is needed. One can know truth in an abstract way and not be moved by it or if employed, go through the motions of truth as Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. I read in a book of which the title I have forgotten describing the Holy Trinity as the sun (instead of water, ice, and vapor). God is the sun, Jesus is the light (truth), and the Holy Spirit heat. The sun is an actual object and light and heat deriving from the sun are a result of the sun. The sun takes precedence but could not be affective without light and heat or at least could not be effective concerning humans. The light and heat are the sun's gifts to earth. On the other hand, the planet earth (humans) is not necessary in order for the sun to exist but the other way around. The sun, light, and heat are one in the same and act in accordance.

Sangye Rinchen
Chronically Dissatisfied

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 36

Posted 10/05/09 - 02:45 AM:	#8
If you are really interested in the Trinity and the other subjects brought up in the replies I reccomend that you read A History of God by Karen Armstrong. She does a wonderful job laying out the history and debates within the Church itself about God and the Trinity.
"In the teachings spoken without words, who is it who listens, who explains? As impositions upon unchanging nature, a hearer and a teacher are assigned." Buddha - Samadhiraja sutra

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 10/05/09 - 04:20 AM:	#9
swstephe wrote: The fact that Jesus purportedly died and was resurrected contradicts the idea that God is immortal. This is not a contradiction. The soul is immortal but the body dying does not mean that this disproves the immortality of the soul. And besides this immortality is not a concept used in defining God. God is eternal, this differs from immortality. Zeus is immortal but it's kind of meaningless to speak of God as so, immortality usually meaning the body not dying. The body of Christ dying no more contradicts his Godliness than does the temporal duration of a miracle. For if God exists in the miracle and the miracle has a beginning and end in time, this does not contradict the fact that God is eternal. swstephe wrote: A point is often made that nobody can stand in the presence of God with sin and live, (look at the precautions taken to enter the holy-of-holies in the Old Testament), yet no mention is made of anyone dropping dead in the presence of Jesus or even the Holy Spirit. I don't know where this is mentioned, can you cite scripture? swstephe wrote: There is also a verse which says there are sins which Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit could forgive or not forgive differently. Matthew 12:31-32 "So I tell you, people can be forgiven for every sin and everything they say against God. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, now or in the future." It is clear that sinning against the Holy Spirit is different from sinning against Jesus. I would say that a sin against the Son of Man is something like what the unbelieving Jews did. They rejected Jesus but for reasons that seem appropriate. The Holy Spirit is different. It is God acting through you. A rejection of this is tantamount to rejecting salvation. Jesus is supposed to be the redeemer and the one who gives us salvation but from this passage it seems like a rejection of him is not a rejection of salvation. The Holy Spirit either is God or comes from God. But rejecting God is not an unforgivable sin but sinning against the Holy Spirit is. Are we to interpret that the Holy Spirit is above God? Of course not. In this passage I believe that God is to be perceived intellectually, not experienced, while the Holy Spirit is experienced. I would interpret this passage as the different ways we can 'experience' God. One is intellectually, God, the other is emotionally, Jesus, and the third is spiritually, the Holy Spirit. This passage is often overlooked but if it's interpreted in the way I've given it then it's a great argument for religious tolerance in Christianity, even for those who reject Christ. This is understandable and can be forgiven but rejection of the Holy Spirit cannot. swstephe wrote: Jesus also mentions that only the Father, but not himself are "good", when someone attempts to call him good or worship him. Jesus says: Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good. Only God is good". He does not say "I am not good". If Jesus is God then he is good too. Virgil Fontaine wrote: On a semi-related note, one of the best "explanations" of the Trinity I've heard was from Bill Maher's Religulous, in which one of the interviewees said that the Trinity was like water; it could sold, liquid, or gas, but it was all the same thing. I thought it was a rather clever analogy. nelvan wrote: The sun is an actual object and light and heat deriving from the sun are a result of the sun. The sun takes precedence but could not be affective without light and heat or at least could not be effective concerning humans. The light and heat are the sun's gifts to earth. On the other hand, the planet earth (humans) is not necessary in order for the sun to exist but the other way around. The sun, light, and heat are one in the same and act in accordance. These are both termed modalist views because they refer to different modes of existence by one substance. This is explicitly rejected by most Christian denominations and is not the orthodox Trinitarian view.\\ These are modes of existence. What I am advocating is modes of experience. Modes of existence are liquid water and solid ice. These are two different things ontologically and the arrangement of water molecules is different as well. Different modes of experience are something like Statistical Thermodynamics and Classical Thermodynamics. They are talking about the same things but may be incommensurable in some sense. Edited by Ghosthack on 10/05/09 - 04:26 AM

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/05/09 - 06:44 AM:	#10
A priest at my (former) parish once explained the doctrine of the trinity by reference to a ham sandwich. Bread, ham and something else, probably some kind of mustard (I can't remember) each nominally separate combining to make a single entity. Augustine would probably disagree, but really, if you're going to expend time and energy contemplating the Trinity, the analogy of the ham sandwich will probably get you as far as any other explanation.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.