definition B
Say you’re Der Trihs, with the well thought out worldview you currently possess, walking down the street, and the burning bush were to appear to you. That would certainly not be harmonious to the way you viewed the world up until that point.
That’s equivocation. A comic-book superhero with unusual powers or said voice emanating from a burning bush would both be remarkably new to my experience, but neither involves illogic the way “five-sided triangle” does. You could, I suppose, brand all of those as “incoherent”, but it’s missing the point as to whether the Christian trinity is merely ‘pretty incoherent to one’s worldview’ or ‘incoherent by dint of being illogical’.
Why?
That’s just being surprised, or wrong about how the world works, or being fooled by some special effects. As The Other Waldo Pepper says, there’s nothing “incoherent” about it.
Because a god or anything else “beyond logic” would lack internal consistency, structure, definition, reality; or, well everything.
The issue is that a god that is beyond logic could act within the bounds of logic and without those bonds, at the same time. No contradiction could be applied to such a god.
Which is why you can’t say that a god that is beyond logic could exist, because, equally, any evidence that there might be for it is also evidence against it, at the same time. Any definition you might have is at the same time both correct and not correct, and neither, and one. A god beyond logic could choose to act within the boundaries of logic and act illogically. Or logically. Or both logically and illogically. Logic at its very basic point allows us to say “A is A”. Remove logic, and we can’t say anything at all.
**Polycarp’s **favorite analogy to explain Biblical contradictions (with me, at least: see this trainwreck) is of the Bible and literature. Since they are both written by fallible men, errors are inevitable, yet these errors ought not detract from any truth or beauty contained in the work as a whole. But **Poly’s **analogy is just a little more accurate than he lets on, because Biblical truth and literary truth share one more component than **Poly **will allow: both are based on fundamentally false premises. Superman doesn’t exist, never has, and so when we retrofit the contradictory texts so that they align, we understand that we are making sense of a narrative that is at its core based on a pure wish-fulfillment fantasy. Wouldn’t it be great if you had a guy who appeared to be human on the surface but who could actually fly, and bend steel with his bare hands, and see though ladies’ dresses? Wow, what a concept.
**Poly **prefers to reject his own analogy as the simplest, most elegant explanation of religious thinking: it is based on a wish-fulfillment fantasy (that God exists) that various flawed humans have tried to codify over the past few millennia, and their contradictions over time are flawed, not just because they contradict each other, or contradict logic, but because they have all been composed in an attempt to rationalize a concept that is essentially irrational and untrue. The problem isn’t so much that Superman would break any sidewalk he flew straight up off of, or that a humanoid body is poorly designed for flight, but that Superman is an imaginary character.
It would be a wonder if there were NOT logical contradictions contained within a fantasy-based premise, so such problems as the nature of the Trinity fit perfectly with the understanding that all of religious thought is fundamentally misconceived. What I find comical is the attempt to turn this crippling evidence in favor of atheism into a kind of Bizarro-proof of the validity of religion. “Hmmm, you seem to have me caught dead to rights there, I can’t make ANY logical rational sense of this whole Trinity A=not-A thingie I’ve committed to as the gospel truth, so let me say this: Logic doesn’t count with God! It’s supposed to be a contradiction, yeah, that’s the ticket, it’s a mystery, deliberately planted by God, like the dinosaur bones, to make you wonder at his incomprehensible wonderfulness. The less logical I am, the more right I am! My Bible is my cite! Black is white, day is night, Jesus is both man and God and dessert topping AND a floor-wax!” This type of thinking is, while amusing, more than a little pathetic, the complete abandonment of rational thought while insisting on some sacred right to be above mockery and ridicule.
All you need do to understand how predictable this defense is would be to imagine that DC Comics instead of providing entertainment were in the business of selling the Superman myth as the single most important truth to understand about the universe. In response to “Uh, you guys DO get it that your story doesn’t actually make a whole of sense, don’t you?”, we would get the whole “Logic doesn’t apply to Superman” thing instead of what we do get, which is “Hey, we’re just trying to make a living here, peddling this wish-fulfillment nonsense as plausible. Give us a break, wouldja?” which no one can really argue with.
You need to analyze the sheer magnitude of WHAARGARBLE included in this quote, then maybe take a nap.
Taking in to consideration all the quotes that are attributed to Jesus, he really didn’t(at least in my opinion) ever claim to be God, any more than any other human being. I refer to His reply to the Pharisee’s who accused Him of blasphmey, when He called God His father, He referred them to the 82d(or 81st) Pslam where the writer say,“I say you are gods, sons of the most high”. he reminded them that their fathers also called God their father.
Jesus also said (according to the authors), My father and yours,He taught them to pray to Our father. In this context it would seem that he was using the word for God in a sense as a drop of water in an ocean, water looks all the same, but the whole is greater than the parts. In that sense He could be in the Father and the Father in Him.
Like 99% of Christian dogma, it’s mystical bullshit. You don’t need to understand the trinity, you just need to STFU, have faith, and believe. Oh, and tithe, for crissakes don’t forget to tithe!
Christianity has brought the world two, and only two, good things; The Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule. Neither of them being original concepts, but for shits and giggles, I’ll give Christianity the credit here. The entire religion could have just been a pamphlet.
Christianity brought the world the Ten Commandments? My old rabbi would have to differ.
Someone that thinks Christianity is mystical bullshit thinks the Ten Commandments are a good thing?
Well, if we are in the image of (imago), an avatar, or projection of God, then we would logically be bound to his logic.
But what if we are in the image of one of billions of unique lifeforms evolved in His image, unbound to homo sapiens in nature? Bound by life and existence… surely all other things in creation are no less or more a reflection of the divine, or to be objectified in His eyes?
The Buddha had the Golden Rule 500 years BC. So it was not a Christian or Jewish Idea, and the last 7 Commandments are the Golden rule just summed up into a couple of words. Common sense for humans who want to live in harmony with each other.
Of interest:
Website dealing with C.A. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, which addresses the natural law/perennial philosophy concept.
I assume you are not a Christian. Is this correct?
Your post highlights the dichotomy facing many Christians, to wit; the Trinity can’t be supported by the bible. I agree that the Trinitarian God is not the Jewish God v2.0, because even the NT Jews/Christians were not Trinitarians!
This v2.0 God gave birth in the first and second century after Christ, and was formalized in a convention presided by a politician non-Christian—400 years after Christ.
It’s not a coincidence that the modern Jews are not Trinitarians; their ancestors weren’t either. Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David-----the whole lot of them----were not Trinitarians. Nor was Jesus, his followers or Paul.
And sop when you say, *“Everything Jesus says distinguishes himself from God” *you’re I think understating the case. Starting with Matthew 1:1 and reading through all 4 Gospels one would be struck at the hundreds of times that the Trinity is directly, or indirectly, contradicted, including hundreds of times by Christ himself. In spite of this, those holding onto this error find quite literally a few texts and point to them as proof. In every instance they wither in context.
Not once did Jesus “give equivalence.”
Ah, but was he ever really “awake” in the first place? 
I’d like to add a qualification. Logic consists of the rules of valid inference. There is more than one system of logic. Presumably a coherent God could violate one or more logical systems and still have structure et al.
I know, I know: you’re writing about something else. I trust there is some meta-logical system that G-d must adhere to. But specifying it would require some care.
I didn’t read all the pages. But I think some of you are looking at this wrong. The way I always understood it is like this. When Jesus walked on the earth, he was God. But he did not have the “memories” of God. Jesus on earth was God in a human body and with human memories. He lived most of his like as a normal person, but with an understanding that he was ment for more.
How do you explain the psamist that tells the pople of his day,"I say you are gods and son’s of the most high? (81 in some Bibles, 82 in others).
Too late to edit Should be people not pople :). Sorry about that.