There’s no general theory of the law either. Neither enterprise will clear that particular bar. (By way of preemption, I suspect there’s some sense by which legal opinion is more grounded than theology, but I do not know of it.)
Nevertheless, there is some element of science to it, if one considers human psychology to be science. The law has to conform more-or-less with what most citizens consider to be just and appropriate or it becomes useless. But if someone claims Christianity is monotheistic and someone else calls it polytheistic, what objective standard, if any, can be brought in to resolve this?
If one wants to debate the effectiveness of a law, one can at least look at crime statistics to see if enforcement is having any effect. Unless someone comes up with a test to see if God is happy or mad, what’s the theological equivalent?
But that’s criminology -the study of crime: it’s not what lawyers do when they practice law.
The first question is easy to answer: you determine Christianity’s monotheism by referring to the sacred book, just as those giving a legal opinion refer to the law. In both cases there will be apparent contradictions to resolve, but so what?* (Anecdotally, I knew a lawyer once who majored in religion in college: it’s not an unnatural career path.)
Religious studies is a separate discipline, one which might be analogous to criminology. Both endeavors can be practiced as social sciences.
Er Brian, could you answer my question: am I mistaken or do you think this board has become more hostile towards theists over the past several years?
- ETA: Ah, here’s a distinction. Judges on occasion can and do plead for legislative guidance. I suppose priests can do the same, but the results are not as observable by third parties. So there’s a feedback mechanism in the law which operates shall we say differently in theology.
So a Kohen is a kind of Jewish religious leader and putting a big 'ol scratch on the nose is a ritualized rendering of the statue so as the de-idolize it?
It wasn’t the point of the analogy, but it does seem to be a point I was missing. Once you admit something does not make sense, there is no way to have a rational discussion about it. (Whether something nonsensical is inherently untrue is another matter–something the OP apparently missed.)
Most Creationists I know argue from a position of incredulity: it doesn’t make sense for such complex life to have evolved by chance, ergo, evolution is false. It’s the entire focal point of Intelligent Design, which we all know was just Creationism in disguise. It’s a position known as “irreducible complexity”.
My point is that polytheism is defined as “a belief in more than one god.” Thus, for someone to be polytheistic, they must believe in multiple gods. Trinitarians don’t, despite how incoherent that belief appears.
The Trinity was specifically designed to attempt to reconcile the fact that three different beings in the Bible appear to be worshiped as God, yet other parts claim there is only one God. It says that all three are actually just one being. They are all completely God, yet have distinct personalities. I don’t see a problem with you declaring that each of these personalities is a separate god. My problem is that trinitarians explicitly don’t believe that, no matter what it seems.
In the GD thread, I don’t think you were making that declaration (because you weren’t using my definitions). But I can understand why the OP thought you were. My point was to explain why he might believe that, since the OP was doing such a crappy, crappy job. (Heck, I’m apparently not doing so hot myself. If it were just Der Trihs, I’d chalk it up to the same problem he has understanding that not all Christians are the same. But it’s not.)
HAW HAW 
ETA: I almost wish I would stop feeling the need to respond. Y’all get going on some much more interesting direction when I’m gone.
They believe in multiple spirit-things; the argument isn’t whether they believe, it’s over whether or not they are using the right terminology about what they believe. And angels were also used as an example of Christianity being effectively polytheistic, not just the Trinity.
IOW, it was specifically designed to define the problem away.
Nobody can be their own son, and God can’t die. Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins.
Seems to me that calling Christianity polytheistic, is much better than calling it contradictory or nonsense.
Pick your battles, you have a LOT to choose from.
Well, it’s what legislators should to when making laws, renewing laws, or repealing laws, i.e. consider their effects and then examine the results.
If it was that straightforward, why are there even debates on the subject? Any science textbook is bursting with facts that can be independently verified or refuted. If someone writes a bible in which God rests on the eighth day, how can any amount of theological study determine if this is more accurate or less accurate than existing seventh-day bibles? Why is the seven-day book more “sacred” than the eight-day book? Or is it?
Sure, if one wants to study why people get some psychological satisfaction from religion. It says nothing about the truth of religion itself. People also derive pschological satisfaction from watching sports.
Maybe. So? Religion hasn’t gotten nearly as much scrutiny as it deserves.
[quote=“Measure_for_Measure, post:157, topic:521594”]
[list][li] Setting aside this thread, I perceive that the board is significantly more hostile to believers than it was 5 years ago. Do you disagree? I haven’t been a continuous participant in GD (I find it time consuming) so perhaps it’s more obvious to me. Anyway, my question remains: when did the transition occur?[/li][/QUOTE]
If you mean “hostile to certain religious ideas / religion” you may be right. The “new atheism” (oh how I hate that term) may have something to do with it. Especially in the US and the UK, the idea that religion does not deserve any automatic respect has been pushed quite a bit in the last decade.
Speaking for myself, I’ve always been very skeptical of religions as institutions and of religious beliefs in general, but I used to think it was better to deal with that in a “let the believers in piece / they don’t know any better / it makes them feel good / makes them behave” kind of way. I don’t believe that anymore. I think it’s critical that religious beliefs be examined and judged by the same standard we judge everything else - like political beliefs/goals - and if that pisses people off, then so be it - I only hope they sometimes wonder why they’re getting so pissed off.
As for the OP: Trinitiy = polytheism is a good example of a rather trivial point in christianity that apparently still cannot even be argued without some idiots coming out of the woodwork and claiming to be offended. God dammit. If you’re already offended by that argument, grow a thicker skin, because you’ve obviously never seen any critique of your religion at all. It fucking ridiculous. You are not special for believing in any (or no) religion. You cannot deflect criticism on your beliefs by claiming you and your imaginary friends are offended by it. Either defend your beliefs with some sort of argument or shut the hell up and think about what you believe. Read the sign at the top of the page.
However, Ray Stevens proved that you can be your own grandpa.
I don’t think questioning a religion is hostile. Pointing out contradictions is not hostile. Most atheists were raised religious. Whatever quit making sense to us continues today. Just pointing out the flaws is helpful to religious people. All beliefs should be questioned .
It’s amazing that the person who said, “It has nothing to do with logic, it is a religion. If you think you know of a logical religion, that itself is illogical” could possibly fail to grasp this point.
I think that is his point, actually. Religion is illogical, so insisting it adhere to logic is inappropriate and rude.
I think he’s rather a nutter, but the point itself is consistent.
That would be fine, except that apparently, pointing out a way in which it’s illogical constitutes mockery. That’s the part I don’t get.
Hence: nutter.
What is wrong with rethinking your beliefs? When you give it some thought, and think I see that we do have lots of gods and demi-gods, what changes? You are polytheist instead of a monotheist. The rest of the belief structure is intact.
The problem may be once you start questioning the teachings, it is hard to stop. Religions don’t encourage reflection. That is why you are taught to chant and repeat prayers. Get them so ingrained into your brain, that you don’t think, then you will stay with them forever.
Especially in a thread asking “Is the Trinity Incoherent?”.
Just think how much better it got. You started thinking you had only one god, and now you have lots of them. How much better can it get?
If the practical result of this eight-day creation myth is a three day weekend, I will convert tomorrow.