/lit/ - Literature

>>22617454
>Asking Christians to think beyond the boundaries of reason
For what purpose?

>>22617458
>Haha lmao bro just don't think! An important feature of every religion. Don't think about all the contradictions in scripture either. Or the clear exploitation of other people with religion as a basis. Or about other religious beliefs that don't fall apart from the beginning at the seams...
Faggot.

>>22617475
>Just think ouside the bounds of reason bro
No thanks.

>>22617475
>I need to know the exact mechanics of an omnipotent god like it's some sort of rpg mechanic.

>>22617487
Could you give an overview of why you think it’s rational to have faith in the Christian god?

>>22617494
>you think it’s rational to have faith in the Christian god?
Could you explain why you think that?

>>22617494
I'm not him, but I personally don't believe it's rational to believe in the Christian god. that being said, other theists who claim to believe in. an omnipotent criticizing the trinity as irrational pretty much have deeply contradictory beliefs.

>>22617497
You ought to if you believe in god. At least in the sense that you can justify whatever leap of faith you take to believe that say the trinity is true

>>22617504
>the trinity is true
I never said anything that could imply that. Human reason can't comprehend this statement. Same for "the trinity is false".

>>22617506
Nah the trinity is real and comprehendable via reason you just have a skill issue

>>22617515
Sure, if you admit you can't explain it to anyone other than yourself.

>>22617516
I’ve actually told everyone else but you and they seemed to get it pretty easily

>>22617518
Appearances can be deceiving.

>>22617520
If you want I’ll tell you too, I don’t know if you’d get it though

>>22617491
If ineffable mystery is the focal point, prove that the Trinity is the only mystery to choose, among its rivals that also contemplate ineffable mystery.

If you can't, don't expect anyone who can actually think to buy into Christian bullshit.

>>22617521
Yeah just pm me anytime.

>>22617523
I think it being a mystery is its strengths. I go so far as to say the need for a total understanding of the mechanics of a god is something fundamentally atheistic, and these attempts inevitably bound god so severely that that it makes them a secondary authority
.From my observation, "theists" that try to dispute the trinity on logical grounds are always are atheists who use the concept of god solely as the the metaphysical justification for fulfilling their violent urges.

>>22617532
Now explain why the Trinity should be chosen rather than alternative theological traditions like Neoplatonism, Advaita Vedanta, and Islam. If you can't figure it out, I will promote these among others, and many of the out-converted souls will be because you were too weak.

Its three persons in one entity. It's not complicated.

>>22617609
no its three entities one essence. not that complicated.

Consider a prism stone. Depending on how you shine light into it, the light appears very differently. People who accept the trinity basically think God manifests in three different ways at the same time, which you can totally do with a prism. The difference is that God produces the light, metaphorically speaking.

>>22617649
Okay but that's just an analogy. It's not a total proof. You're also forgetting there are at least 16 million colors, so why shouldn't the Trinity be dividable into further entities, especially since the Holy Spirit doesn't do anything that the Father and Son can't?

>>22617649
Same God that appears in different ways is the heresy of modalism, you will burn in hell

1 nature, 3 persons. They are 3 distinct persons, who all share in the same nature that is God. No, they’re not 3 modes of 1 God. No, they’re not 3 Gods. They are 3 distinct persons who are all 1 God.

I really don’t see what’s so difficult about this.

>>22617706
For most people a God is a kind of being. An omnipotent one who created everything. Person is a kind of being, like you and me. God is 3 distinct beings who are all 1 being. This makes no sense. The solution is to define person and God differently, and it's what these threads eventually devolve into.

>>22617706
why 3 and not 2 or 4 or any other number? what makes 3 necessary, and why is the holy spirit there, when the holy spirit doesnt do anything the other 2 cant? why not believe in unlimited gods sharing the same essence?

>>22617717
You just said God is a being who is omnipotent right? If God is omnipotent, how is not possible that he can also be 3 persons? Besides, what you take persons to mean is totally irrelevant because persons meant something specific. It referred to a real concept and not some common vernacular usage that a person would be liable to take unquestioningly 2000 years in the future. But just objectively speaking, you can’t come up with any logical reason for why 1 omnipotent God would be incapable of also being 3 distinct persons.

>>22617725
It’s not a functional argument because God is as He is, and we merely take Him as he really is. That’s the objective answer to why 3 and not 2 or 4. But beyond that, it wouldn’t make sense if it was 1, 2, or 4 because each person works in a certain way specifically in regard to us creatures. If God were just the Father and just the Holy Spirt as they are taken from revelation without the Son, then we could possibly know God but He would have to be impersonal, unsalvific sort of God. And if he was impersonal and unsalvific then first of all we would have no dignity, there would be no reason to worship him, and it would actually be debatable whether we could know God because he would be mature be impersonal. Remember, Christians believe we know the truth about God not only because God spoke to Abraham but also because God came to us via the Son, the real, living person who established a church and conquered death. A God who does that can’t be impersonal.

>>22617732
>If God is omnipotent, how is not possible that he can also be 3 persons?
It is possible to make it so that 1 = 3. But what does it mean in practice?

>It referred to a real concept and not some common vernacular usage that a person would be liable to take unquestioningly 2000 years in the future.
You said:
>I really don’t see what’s so difficult about this.
But now you're using words in a different way than most people understand them without explaining, and expecting people to understand.

>>22617741
>It’s not a functional argument because God is as He is, and we merely take Him as he really is. That’s the objective answer to why 3 and not 2 or 4.
>B-because he just is! Okay?!

You're a stupid faggot, next!

>>22617748
It means the trinity in practice lol. If you’re interested in good reading, check out The One and the Many by Rushdoony.

What do you not understand? The point I was making is that when medieval theologians and clergy explain the trinity, they explain it using language that refers to real things. If we as moderns speak in a vernacular wherein those words are more ambiguous but taken commonly and unquestioningly, it’s not a refutation of their position to take issue with language errors. So person can mean something to us in general when you and I speak and we can understand each other but it’s not the case that what we take person to mean is necessarily what a medieval person meant when they wrote it. So yo say “I take person to mean…” is pointless. It refers to a real thing so you have to challenge it on the basis of that thing and what it really is rather than how you take it.

>>22617766
Do you have an actual challenge or a question or this just your rage quit?

>>22617766
Christians believe that God is literally real and that He revealed Himself to us. It’s never been a consequence of discerning what is like the sort of god that fits the notion of god that you want god to fit but rather taking God as He really is and as he really revealed Himself. It’s like asking why you are the way you are. You really exist. I didn’t make you exist. I have no choice but to accept you as you really exist and explain rather than create your attributes. That should really be obvious and it’s not you probably can’t engage seriously with philosophy or theology to be perfectly honest with you.

>>22617454
The Good, The Beautiful (not fleeting beauty of material) and The Virtuous. That which is, That which points to what is, And the manifestation of what is in man. Christianity is Neo-Platonism with a new coat of paint. Get with the logos or get lost.

>>22617555
Aw, did Mommy make you go to church again, Timmy?

>>22617900
That's not the issue. The issue is that the Christian claims of revelation have no real apparent truth value, especially when compared to other revelation, like that of Advaita Vedanta, which attracts more intellectuals outside of India. When compared against other self-consistent systems, choosing between Christianity and those from a rational standpoint, is no more than 1:1.

My question is this:
What makes Christian revelation more true for outsiders to accept, than any other claim to revelation?

Not even going to address the Rushdoony retard.

>>22617523
>ineffable mystery
What about mysteries in general?

literature?

>All you can do is jabber besides the point and post memes. And until this most important part of your theology can be salvaged, don't expect anyone else to believe your bullshit.
This has held ITT so far. Though at least some of the Christians have had flashes of philosophizing. I promise Christianity can't win the intellectual battle until you guys square up.

>>22618027
>Bible
>Aquinas' theological literature
>Neo-platonic literature
Happy now? These and many others are sources being drawn on in this thread implicitly. Eat shit.

>>22618072
>>Bible
>>Aquinas' theological literature
>>Neo-platonic literature
Yet none of them make a total case for the Trinity. Bible is schizo and Aquinas not much better, who jabbers and dodges the issue, like mentioned in the OP.

>>22617883
>It means the trinity in practice lol.
Sure, but again I'm coming from the point of view of a common person. What does it mean that 1 = 3 in practice? If look at Jesus am I looking at God too? If I talk to God am I talking to Jesus too? If I feel the holy ghost am I feeling Jesus? If the answers are yes, doesn't that mean it's just one person and not 3? If the answers are no, doesn't that mean there is more than one God? I know about the 3 hypostasis and 1 ousia thing, but don't you see how it's extremely unintuitive and hard to understand with the common notions of person, essence and being?

>>22618077
>Lists 3, denounces 2
>none of them do thing
You are not only wrong about Aquinas but the Neo-platonic roots of christianity is undeniable and gives an account of what the trinity is meant to be in multiple ways.
>God as The Good in principle, The Beautiful manifest in the intelligibles, and Virtue in material
>The trinities of gods as one active, one potential, and one harmonizing aspect

>>22618104
>You are not only wrong about Aquinas but the Neo-platonic roots of christianity is undeniable and gives an account of what the trinity is meant to be in multiple ways.
>>God as The Good in principle, The Beautiful manifest in the intelligibles, and Virtue in material
>>The trinities of gods as one active, one potential, and one harmonizing aspect
Please go in depth and explain why you think the Trinity is theologically necessary.

And why can't the Father do all of these by himself? Too unimaginative? Too weak?

>>22618128
>And why can't the Father do all of these by himself? Too unimaginative? Too weak?
He does. The trinity is a statement of the manifestation of god. I thought that was basically understood by all. Do you think that it is somehow less powerful to take multiple forms at once?

>>22618132
Why did he need to become Christ? Couldn't he have done it while still being invisible? Why shouldn't he manifest as others too, like Krishna?

>>22618132
>multiple forms
That is modalism. You will burn in hell for eternity.

>>22617454
Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 8. Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

Q. 10. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
A. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

Q. 11. How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father?
A. The Scriptures manifest that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father, ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.

>>22618211
>Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
>A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
>
>Q. 10. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
>A. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

which means that persons different in power are different in power to beget other members, ergo unequal.

what a shit catechism. written by retards.

>>22617454
I don't want to generalize, but I think that most of us stick to the New Testament rather than in the theological debate of paleochristianism and christianism.
I like to think that christian are more defined by our love for this simplistic but strong philosophy "you find your life by giving it to the other" (some how this philosophie is a proof of the election) rather than by an obscure debate on the nature of the divinity. even if the theory is prolific in beautiful ideas.

>>22618150
You are assuming that he "needs to do" anything. The fact that he did doesn't mean he had to. Also you are still using language that implies god became something else for a time. In a Neo-platonic view he would be manifesting from top to bottom. He doesn't stop being the father to become christ or the holy spirit. He manifests emanationally down from the father which is the highest manifestation we can know, to the son or logos which points us toward the father and the holy spirit which is the virtue in us that is drawn out when we follow the example of christ toward the father (the holy spirit is always there but interacts in a kind of platonic harmony with the father harmonized by the christ). These things exist simultaneously in aeonic time but we comprehend them separately in chronological time.
>>22618151
Not modalism because they are not separate but aspects or emanations of the one god.

>>22618646
>aspects
Still modalism

>emanations of the one god
As in, they come from the one god, but are not him? That is even worse, it's arianism

>>22618646
im tired of reading your midwit posts that dont say anything significant. stop posting before you damn yourself.

>>22618646
>The fact that he did doesn't mean he had to.
So God does things that aren't necessary? Then he is not ultimate simplicity and symmetry. He does things for amusement and play? Then he is not the perfect agent. Does he also make mistakes? Then he is not perfect, period.

As the other posters pointed out, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Now stop posting in my thread and let potent Christians give it a try.

>>22618572

That's because easily-digestible quotes about being nice and peaceful and all that Jesus stuff appeal to the common folk. The don't want war to destroy them. They don't want to be hurt. They hope that by saying profound-sounding quotes about peace and love, others will be peaceful to them.
But from what I see, Christians have an ulterior motive. They want DESPERATELY to convert you so that when they slap you, you turn your cheek, so they can slap you again.

Sometimes on 4chan I'm an atheist.
Other times I'm a transgender girl.

Depending on which, I'm either trying to be converted, or being smacked with as must sadistic brutality as is possible for a human on the internet to smack another. I wonder if it's only when they're routed utterly and are cornered that they begin to talk desperately about forgiveness and stone-throwing.

>>22618675
>Still modalism
Not really man. If you see the same thing from different perspectives its still one object, It just happens that God extends past spacial allegories
>As in, they come from the one god, but are not him?
Nope, they extend LIKE emanations. They are still him.
>>22618724
Then don't read them. Im not your dad and you aren't mine. Control yourself and Ill keep doing my thing.
>>22618746
He does what he will. None of what you said has anything to do with the coherence of the trinity as a concept. I would add to your list that if he does things out of necessity then he is not all perfect because necessity implies something that needs correcting in some way.

>>22618787
>If you see the same thing from different perspectives
3 different appearances for the same 1 thing is modalism. There are 3 persons. They are not different perspectives or aspects of one single thing.

>they extend LIKE emanations
3 things extend from one thing? That means they are created or separated, still arianism. Watch this, you need it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

>>22618787
>None of what you said has anything to do with the coherence of the trinity as a concept.
Yes it does you imbecile. All this relates to God's perfection, which you have not shown the Trinity is the ultimate exemplary of.

>necessity implies something that needs correcting in some way.
No it doesn't and if you don't understand philosophical terms, just don't talk.

>>22617454
You are not your body, you are not your mind, you are not your soul, yet they are all you at the same time.
If you can't understand something this simple you need to go back.

>>22618833
>You are not your body, you are not your mind, you are not your soul, yet they are all you at the same time.
A mere analogy doesn't reveal the definite nature of God, retard. Muslims use analogies to support their religion too, does that make them right?
Here's an analogy: Your religion is an empty shell, which you proudly displayed in your picrel.

>>22618847
What you call "analogy" means that even a r*dditor like you is living proof of the Holy Trinity, but alas pearls to swine.

>>22618833
Those are all parts of me, I'm made of all 3. If that applies to God, that would be partialism, which is a heresy.

One of the first things I sought to understand about my faith is the Trinity. I considered becoming a Muslim because I could not wrap my head around it, but I came back to Christianity and decided just not to question too much. I began slowly understanding the concept in different ways, pulling at it in ruminations.

what I have come up with at this time is that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are worthy of worship. As in, if you did not believe Jesus was God, then who is he to you? Do you simply believe he is another prophet, that he is not "the image of the Father"? I accept Jesus as my God, as my king, and so I find it easy to say he is worthy of worship equally to the Father.

The Holy Spirit was another point of contention for me. In the first place who or what was the Holy Spirit? I came to the conclusion he is an actual spirit, a being whose existence equals his essence. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church he does not talk, but is known by his influence. So I see him as being behind the events of daily life, guiding us towards the light of truth.

>>22618869
Partialism where retard? You are not those things, they are not "parts" of "you". What are you by the way? They don't exist independently but maybe I'm wrong and you don't have a soul

>>22618897
>maybe I'm wrong and you don't have a soul
If I have a soul then I'm not a soul. If I'm not a soul, then my soul is part of me. If that applies to God, it's partialism. But if I am a soul, then I can't also be my mind and my body, which means the trinity wasn't explained.

>>22618868
More like turds at wolves, but at least you're proving your Christianity by your vanity and arrogance.

>>22618886
>decided just not to question too much. I began slowly understanding the concept in different ways, pulling at it in ruminations.
The stupid Christian tripfaggot has a point. What is Christianity if not switching off the brain, and practicing it for cultural and brainlet reasons? Which are the main reasons every other major religion is practiced.

Now keep in mind that I am never methodologically unfair, and if I had a different mindset, I wouldn't have the right to make this thread. I never disrespect thinking Christians who have made their case fully. But everyone else, I will stamp on their faces.

>Christian cowards flee /lit/ and beg for help on questions on the Trinity from /his/
Don't make me link them and shame you guys. I know you're reading this.

>>22619995
The problem is that I debunked all anti-Trinitarian objections on /his/.

The persons are identical in reality but distinct in concept.
>but that’s modalism
Only if that concept is intramental. It’s extramental since ‘concept’ here is referring to an actually existing logical order which isn’t nominalistic.

>>22620026
Post, I'm interested.

Jesus isn’t God

>>22620036
>On the contrary, Boethius says (De Trin.) that in God "the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity." Therefore, if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there would be no real trinity in God, but only an ideal trinity, which is the error of Sabellius.

>I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (Article 1), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute—namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity—but according to that which is relative.

>Reply to Objection 1. According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are identified with each other, if the identity be real and logical; as, for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is the same as motion, and likewise passion; still it does not follow that action and passion are the same; because action implies reference as of something "from which" there is motion in the thing moved; whereas passion implies reference as of something "which is from" another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence they are distinguished from each other.

>>22620048
So, TL;DR, God is of absolutivity and relativity, where relativity is predicated to this absolutivity, where there is only one reality in God (absolutivity), but that due to the relativity in God, these real relations are identical to this reality but are really distinct from each other, just like in physical relativity a body moving is identical to the universe around that body moving, even though there is a distinction in concept, they are predicated to the same substance (the body and the universe the body exists in), even if their referents are distinct to each other conceptually. Yet, the movement of a body and the movement of a universe besides a body are both really identical to the same reality of a body and a universe, and the same concept of referents and motion, even if those referents are individually distinguished from the other.

That works. So why 3 and not 2 then? (I know the answer. This question is for our audience, since as I see it, apparently we're doing a stage performance.)

>>22620068

You can save yourself from the insanity of these brainworms if you just become an atheist.

>>22620083
Please stop, he's a superior visitor to my thread.

>>22620082
>why 3 and not 2 then?
Because in intellection, which is all God is able to do (due to the fact that God is intellect and everything in God is identical to each other absolutely), there must be a perfect understanding of God within God, so that there is a generation of a second referent in God. In this case you have God-as-intellect and God-as-intelligible, but you also need the communion between these two, God-as-intellection, and in these three you have the total termination of all relations you can create with God, for any images of God-as-intellection through self-reflection would be contained within God-as-intellection, so in this case self-reflection is exhausted, and therefore there can only be one communion between any self-image in God with God Himself.

>>22620083
On the contrary, “there is no god but God”, la ilaha illallah.

Correct. Watch and learn, Christian youngins, this is how you present theology.

This explanation is both sufficient and necessary. I threatened to make threads on alternative theologies, but will cease, though I remain an esoteric theist.

>>22617454
First you must let go of the instinctive and ridiculous belief in the atomism of the soul.

>>22620507
what do you mean by atomism

>>22620106
What do you say about Aquinas' objection to the notion of the Holy Ghost as the bond of Love between the Father and the Son