Seriously, arguments based on disagreements about definitions lack substance, provided (I suppose) that each set of definitions is roughly consistent internally.
My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox church preferred the “It’s a mystery!” formulation of the trinity, while the Catholic church leaned towards comprehensive explanation. Source: Karen Armstrong, A History of God, IIRC.
Should we adopt Czarcasm’s definition? As far as I can tell, all major religions are polytheistic within his framework. I’m not sure what the value is of erasing this particular distinction.
That depends on your definition presumably. But frankly that seems reasonable.
Back to seriousness: no, I doubt whether it’s complicated. But “Three-in-one” doesn’t necessarily sound nonsensical to me. I own a Swiss Army knife and I don’t spend too much time worrying about whether it is 1 object or 7.
BTW: Do you think my characterization of E. Orthodox vs. Catholic church is accurate?
BTW2: The trinity was an early Xtian political compromise right? Or not?
I can’t say as I disagree that it can be argued in good faith by someone who doesn’t know any better, but the clear doctrine of all mainstream branches of Christianity is that they are one and the same. One cannot, however, argue in good faith that the doctrine within the religions is not monotheistic. It’s our religion and we get to say what our beliefs and creed are, not it’s opponents.
That wasn’t what was going on in that thread. What was going on was a mockery.
When you get into the meaning of meaning, epistemology, and pick up a dictionary and follow the definition of a word, it will be defined by another word or words. It doesn’t take too many look ups to see this point. If you look all of them up and continue doing so, you will come back in a circle. Derrida noticed this and pointed out that the implication is that all meaning is therefore circular.
Russell couldn’t prove 1 + 1 = 2 in a non-self referential fashion despite spending three volumes that nobody reads trying. Godel strongly argued that nothing is absolutely provable without self-contradictions.
A person can put on three hats and do three different jobs and argue with himself while doing so and be self-defeating in his behavior etc. It doesn’t make him triplets.
The old kung fu movie trope where the master splits himself into separate images and kicks the crap out of the bad guy from four directions at once doesn’t not exist, I’ve seen it. If people can imagine it, people can imagine it. If people can agree on it for a religious concept, they agree on it. There are those who don’t like it, fine.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical when asking someone to explain their religion. But it is rude to mock their religious concepts and pretending to do so in the effort of fighting ignorance does not make one less of a jerk. If another religion wants to feel that their way of having only one god is more one godly, that is their business. Almost all religions do that. But it is jerkish and non-peaceful to go around being rude about it. What was going on in the GD thread was beyond the pale and so what has been happening here.
Kind of, although it’s an oversimplification.E. Orthodox does not shy aaway from explanation, but emphasizes it less than the RCC, and focuses more on an experiential, or sort of mystic understanding. A more significant distinction is the Filioque, which is sort of the epitome of hairsplitting, pedantic theological disagreements.
More accurate to say it was a defense against Arianism.
I’d be thrilled to leave religious people alone to believe whatever they choose, but I have to keep vigilant because they won’t stay in their tidy little corner. Ridicule is an effective counter-attack.
Jesus is not a corkscrew, but God is a kung-fu master. You’re gonna have to do better than that, you’re making the same arguments-by-analogy that you deride in others.
Also, I might point out the the other thread was ‘Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent’. Many of the posters on that thread said yes, it is incoherent, since Christianity looks like a polytheistic religion to an outsider, but uses some sort of special pleading hand wave mysticism to call itself a monotheism. I don’t think you have grounds to get you knickers in a twist.
Christian doctrine might construct a metanarrative of monotheism, but this omits the polytheistic, or monolatristic, elements of scripture. You may choose to disregard these sections, but this does not circumvent their existence, or the arbitrary nature by which you divine your creed.
Well the distinction between “that which is worshipped” and “That which is not worshipped” is certainly substantive. But I’ve conceded that it is probably an odd line to draw between monotheism and polytheism.
I suspect that a medieval theologian might stress that all power derives from the One God, which if true might be a reasonable basis for monotheism.
Incidentally, the Random House dictionary (via dictionary.com) defines monotheism as, “…the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.” The capitalization is in the original. So monotheists can believe that there are few or many gods but only one God. I opine that a Greek or Roman pagan or a Hindu would part company with that claim.
Czarcasm: Polytheism, according to dictionary.com: “the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.”
Ok, so by that definition Xtianity and Islam are monotheistic and polytheistic. Use a definition based whom is worshiped or on capitalization (i.e. overarching importance/omnipotence (variously defined) etc) and the conventional distinctions among main religions can be maintained.
DtC: "More accurate to say [the Trinity] was a defense against Arianism. "
Wikipedia: Arianism - Wikipedia
Um, why did the church need a defense against Arianism? I thought that the Trinity was a result of Constantine knocking heads together and demanding that the priests settle on a clear doctrine. (I’m not saying I’m right though - hence the question. Was the Trinity a compromise between 2 groups or a larger number of POVs?)
Second Stone: I wouldn’t sweat this. After all, when Xtian missionaries introduced the concept of transubstantiation to certain native Americans, they thought that the missionaries were advocating cannibalism!
Ok, but it’s not arbitrary: it’s mainstream Christian doctrine. Or rather it’s only arbitrary in the sense that the edges of any definition are arbitrary.
Ekers was mocking, I was making an analogy. There is a difference in tone. I doubt that you are tone deaf.
As for the Incoherent thread, yes, the concept is not clear. But that doesn’t require its open mocking. It’s Great Debates, not an open ended discussion on what people find heretical about the concept of the Trinity. Frankly, some of the posts here have been more enlightening on it as a concept. Some worse.
The thing I don’t get is when did it become acceptable to go around picking fights with other people’s religious concepts and mocking them in public out of any context?
99.999% of the world’s Christians are not Fred Phelps and his ilk. Some are ignorant and culturally self centered and superior, but most Christians want to take Christ’s commandments and teachings to be good to each other seriously. I understand and sympathize that a lot of people have been hurt by people acting under the color of Christian authority and that they want some justice. But hurting people deliberately who did not do that injustice isn’t going to get justice or comfort, it will only hurt someone else.
Perhaps I should have compared the Trinity to the Gillette Mach3Turbo. But Kung Fu Ninja Master is another possible analogy. It’s a mystery!
I dunno Second Stone, Ekers might have been joking.
Here at the SDMB… 2005 maybe? The Polycarp/Badchad brouhaha occurred in late 2003/early 2004, and sympathy ran against invective at the time. So I would date it after that. Check out any religious thread in GD and see whether a militant atheist feels obliged to make an noninformative comment within the first 10 posts.