# Does the Christian Trinity violate the Law Of Identity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200 "2014-12-14T12:23:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/21 "2014-12-14T16:29:46Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > no, i’m referring to the definition of Justice, like, the actual definition of the word. Which definition are you using? Just a quick glance at the dictionary doesn’t indicate any gloating inconsistencies with what **JRDelerious** wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/22 "2014-12-14T16:33:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Which definition are you using? Just a quick glance at the dictionary doesn’t indicate any gloating inconsistencies with what **JRDelerious** wrote. the one they use in court. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/23 "2014-12-14T16:56:05Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > the one they use in court. Which court? Where? No two nations on Earth share an identical view on “justice.” Are we looking to the concept of justice employed by US criminal courts? Saudi courts? German courts circa 1940? The ecclesiastical courts administered by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? The court of a David from the Old Testament? The a Code of Hammurabi as interpreted by the courts of Babylon? Each of these courts had radically different ideas about what constituted justice. Which of these conceptions of the term are you using, and why does that definition necessarily override the Christian conception of justice as briefly described by **JRDelerious**? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/24 "2014-12-14T16:59:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Which court? Where? No two nations on Earth share an identical view on “justice.” Are we looking to the concept of justice employed by US criminal courts? Saudi courts? German courts circa 1940? The ecclesiastical courts administered by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? The court of a David from the Old Testament? The a Code of Hammurabi as interpreted by the courts of Babylon? > > Each of these courts had radically different ideas about what constituted justice. Which of these conceptions of the term are you using, and why does that definition necessarily override the Christian conception of justice as briefly described by **JRDelerious**? wow the united states of ameirca or any country in europe. places wher they actually send the criminal to jail once he is convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/25 "2014-12-14T17:15:53Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > wow > > the united states of ameirca or any country in europe. places wher they actually send the criminal to jail once he is convicted. You’re dancing. Just give us the definition of “justice” you are referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/26 "2014-12-14T17:17:38Z")
The Law of Identity isn’t so much a law as a definition of identity. There are also ways to dodge the apparent contradiction. The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, right? But after the Beatles split up, the four of them in a room, are they the Beatles? Well, yes, and no; it depends on what you mean by the words and becomes a semantic argument. Likewise, I think this argument is a semantic one. Or better yet, the Christian theology of the Trinity is a semantic riddle to begin with. In any case, I don’t think there’s much point in this argument. As mentioned above, it won’t convince any Christians (OMG! I must be wrong! There can’t be a Trinity, because LOGIC!). And even a lot of atheists wouldn’t say that it’s a particularly strong argument against Christianity, although it might be a good argument against some specific theological positions held by certain branches. The different branches of Christianity even disagree considerably about what it might mean. Furthermore, I believe it’s based more on interpretation of the Bible than on literal text in the Bible. It’s an inference based on (a) there is but one God, and (b) three things are described as God or God-like. Here are a couple random googlings from Christian sites defending the concept: [https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible](https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible) [http://carm.org/cut-trinity](http://carm.org/cut-trinity) See if you follow the logic. When you take the Bible as Gospel, you have some tricky hoops to jump through to make it all logically consistent, and this is what they came up with. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/27 "2014-12-14T17:19:24Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Can light be both a particle and a wave? Can an electron’s location be determined - is it ever, in fact, the same with itself? Actually, can subatomic particles truly be said to have distinct identities? I’m no physicist, and I certainly don’t believe in any Trinity, but it seems to me that concepts of identity are a bit more… fluid today then they were 2,500 years ago. > > My point is that we shouldn’t be asking whether the Trinity violates the Law of Identity; we should be asking whether the Law of Identity is even valid any more. That seems like a much more interesting discussion than yet another futile attempt to prove or disprove God. If you think you have a more interesting topic than the O . start your own thread rather than hijack this one ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/28 "2014-12-14T17:22:38Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > wow > > the united states of ameirca or any country in europe. places wher they actually send the criminal to jail once he is convicted. Okay. Why should the definition of justice used in these courts (which is, arguably, only a couple centuries old) trump the definition of justice as used in the Bible, which is a couple _thousand_ years old? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/29 "2014-12-14T17:29:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay. Why should the definition of justice used in these courts (which is, arguably, only a couple centuries old) trump the definition of justice as used in the Bible, which is a couple _thousand_ years old? because their definition is illogical ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/30 "2014-12-14T17:35:27Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > The Law of Identity isn’t so much a law as a definition of identity. > > There are also ways to dodge the apparent contradiction. The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, right? But after the Beatles split up, the four of them in a room, are they the Beatles? Well, yes, and no; it depends on what you mean by the words and becomes a semantic argument. > > Likewise, I think this argument is a semantic one. Or better yet, the Christian theology of the Trinity is a semantic riddle to begin with. > > In any case, I don’t think there’s much point in this argument. As mentioned above, it won’t convince any Christians (OMG! I must be wrong! There can’t be a Trinity, because LOGIC!). And even a lot of atheists wouldn’t say that it’s a particularly strong argument against Christianity, although it might be a good argument against some specific theological positions held by certain branches. > > The different branches of Christianity even disagree considerably about what it might mean. Furthermore, I believe it’s based more on interpretation of the Bible than on literal text in the Bible. It’s an inference based on (a) there is but one God, and (b) three things are described as God or God-like. Here are a couple random googlings from Christian sites defending the concept: > > [https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible](https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible) > > [http://carm.org/cut-trinity](http://carm.org/cut-trinity) > > See if you follow the logic. When you take the Bible as Gospel, you have some tricky hoops to jump through to make it all logically consistent, and this is what they came up with. yeah… i was mainly curios as to what people thought but if you define god as monotheistic… one and only one true god… you can’t keep the trinity ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/31 "2014-12-14T17:47:05Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > yeah… i was mainly curios as to what people thought but if you define god as monotheistic… one and only one true god… you can’t keep the trinity As was previously explained, this only works if you insist that monotheism implies only one _person_ is God. That claim is not accepted under classical Christian theism. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/32 "2014-12-14T17:49:22Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > The Law of Identity isn’t so much a law as a definition of identity. > > There are also ways to dodge the apparent contradiction. The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, right? But after the Beatles split up, the four of them in a room, are they the Beatles? Well, yes, and no; it depends on what you mean by the words and becomes a semantic argument. > > Likewise, I think this argument is a semantic one. Or better yet, the Christian theology of the Trinity is a semantic riddle to begin with. > > In any case, I don’t think there’s much point in this argument. As mentioned above, it won’t convince any Christians (OMG! I must be wrong! There can’t be a Trinity, because LOGIC!). And even a lot of atheists wouldn’t say that it’s a particularly strong argument against Christianity, although it might be a good argument against some specific theological positions held by certain branches. > > The different branches of Christianity even disagree considerably about what it might mean. Furthermore, I believe it’s based more on interpretation of the Bible than on literal text in the Bible. It’s an inference based on (a) there is but one God, and (b) three things are described as God or God-like. Here are a couple random googlings from Christian sites defending the concept: > > [https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible](https://www.gci.org/God/3Bible) > > [http://carm.org/cut-trinity](http://carm.org/cut-trinity) > > See if you follow the logic. When you take the Bible as Gospel, you have some tricky hoops to jump through to make it all logically consistent, and this is what they came up with. > [@Frylock](#): > > As was previously explained, this only works if you insist that monotheism implies only one _person_ is God. That claim is not accepted under classical Christian theism. well, let me explain. i dont care how christians “define” their own terminology i am - attempting - to apply objective standards. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/33 "2014-12-14T17:55:56Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > If you think you have a more interesting topic than the O . start your own thread rather than hijack this one As the text you quoted was a response to a specific question asked by the author of the OP, as long as it does not become a hijack, I see no reason to object to it. = = = Robert163, you started a thread with an open ended question, providing no context, guidelines, or definitions for that discussion, and have provided only the most cryptic responses for attempts to get you go actually set the parameters of the debate. I would strongly urge you to spend the effort to actually establish those parameters. If you continue in your current vein of unresponsive borderline rudeness, I will close this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/34 "2014-12-14T18:01:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > As the text you quoted was a response to a specific question asked by the author of the OP, as long as it does not become a hijack, I see no reason to object to it. > > = = = > > Robert163, you started a thread with an open ended question, providing no context, guidelines, or definitions for that discussion, and have provided only the most cryptic responses for attempts to get you go actually set the parameters of the debate. I would strongly urge you to spend the effort to actually establish those parameters. If you continue in your current vein of unresponsive borderline rudeness, I will close this thread. > > [/Moderating] really? monotheism = one and only one true god trinity= father, son, holy ghost it seems pretty clear cut. and to accept the “christian” explanation of a logical fallacy seems hardly worth even responding too. objective standards are what i am interested in. but i’m not a logician nor a linguist… let me put it another way… is there a non-christian justification of the logical fallacy between the law of identity and the trinity? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/35 "2014-12-14T18:12:18Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > well, let me explain. i dont care how christians “define” their own terminology i am - attempting - to apply objective standards. But you haven’t explained what that standard is, so it’s impossible for any of us to evaluate your claim. We can’t say whether you’re right that there’s a contradiction unless we know what you mean by “monotheism.” Then if you want to insist that you are more right to mean what you mean by “monotheism” than what Christian theologians have meant by the term, then we’ll need to know what makes you more right to define it as you do. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/36 "2014-12-14T18:13:19Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > really? > > monotheism = one and only one true god But this doesn’t settle the issue. It is ambiguous in a way that’s already been explained to you in this thread. Do you define monotheism as the view that only one _being_ is God, or the view that only one _person_ is God? ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/37 "2014-12-14T18:20:03Z")
1. God consists of his three hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. G = F + S + H 1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal and cosubstantial. F = S = H 1. Each of the three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is God, whole and entire. F = G S = G H = G This means: F = F + S + H S = F + S + H H = F + S + H How do these things make sense, logically speaking? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/38 "2014-12-14T18:29:02Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > How do these things make sense, logically speaking? What’s the part the doesn’t “make sense, logically speaking”? I don’t know whether you’re trying to use the + and = signs mathematically, but even then, equations like those you wrote all “work” mathematically if all the “letters” are equal to aleph-null. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/39 "2014-12-14T18:31:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > But you haven’t explained what that standard is, so it’s impossible for any of us to evaluate your claim. We can’t say whether you’re right that there’s a contradiction unless we know what you mean by “monotheism.” > > Then if you want to insist that you are more right to mean what you mean by “monotheism” than what Christian theologians have meant by the term, then we’ll need to know what makes you more right to define it as you do. > [@Frylock](#): > > But this doesn’t settle the issue. It is ambiguous in a way that’s already been explained to you in this thread. > > Do you define monotheism as the view that only one _being_ is God, or the view that only one _person_ is God? mono means one, right? mono:“alone,” “single,” “one” ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200/40 "2014-12-14T18:33:28Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > mono means one, right? > > mono:“alone,” “single,” “one” You totally ignored **Frylock** ’s question, which was essentially: one _what_? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-trinity-violate-the-law-of-identity/707200.md?page=3)