Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent?

Great Debates
161

Cleveland Steamer,

Your OP, “Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent,” is a gratuitous, ill-conceived attack on the Christian religion, thinly disguised. Very thinly.

But let’s try to take your question at face value. Evidently your desideratum is coherence. Otherwise, why question it’s apparent absence?

In the Western scientific tradition, broadly speaking, myriads of data are collected piecemeal and myriads of theories are developed. If you think these are coherent, think again. Ask a physicist. The universe is not COHERENT, as human beings understand coherence. Humans believe in coherence like squirrels believe in trees. It’s our refuge and home. We believe in it religiously, against all evidence.

Precisely, what do you think you mean by “coherent?” I’m guessing you mean: makes sense to you on the face of it. The world is not waiting for your verdict on what is, and what is not, coherent.

Why limit your jejune attack to the Christian religion? Is it “coherent” for Moslems to worship a pre-Mohamedan rock? For Hindoos to acquiesce to karma in the midst of starvation?

Or for Jews to mutilate the penis of every eight year old boy?

By the way, I think it’s germane to ask, what is your religion, if any? As for me, I’m a Christian, I hope. And I particularly admire Buddhism.

As for atheism, well, atheists like to compare ideal atheism to real religion. They fondly imagine that an atheist society will be just, compassionate, whatever: wave your magic wand and make a wish. In fact we have seen officially atheist societies in the real world, and they were paradise! That is, The Workers Paradise. The USSR, for example.

I know, I know, that’s not what atheists MEAN when they envision an atheist society. When they envision an atheist society what they MEAN is: everything nice.

Cleveland Steamer, I would be most appreciative if you took the time to respond, in detail.

Regards,

KLR 650 (The prince of motorcycles)

162

I don’t suppose you read the other 159 posts?

163

It’s a valid question about a bit of incoherent theology.

No, that’s not what “coherent” means in this case. It just means logically consistent. The “face of it” is neither here nor there.

It’s spelled “Muslims,” and Hindus."
Muslims don’t worship a rock. Hindus don’t “acquiese to karma.”

Eight days, not eight years, and yes it’s coherent, in that it has a comprehensible, internally consistent reason. “Do it because God said so,” may not be provable (or in my mind, believable), but it’s not incoherent.

Atheists generally don’t believe this at all, actually.

Communism is a religion. Atheism per se is not. Disparaging atheism also does not make the Christian Trinity any more coherent.

Most atheists don’t “envision” anything at all, dude. They just lack belief in gods. It’s not an ideology. It entails no goals or visions.

164

Pardon me, I meant “eight days.”

And pardon me again, I have not read the rest of the thread. I’ll correct that.

I know that “coherent” means “logically consistent.”

Penis mutilation is hard to distinguish from torture. Correction: penis mutilation is torture. Sexual torture, perhaps. What is “logically consistent” about obeying a god who demands it? Why not tell that god to go mutilate himself? THAT would be logically, and ethically, consistent, not to mention heroic.

Logic has it’s specific uses. It’s a tool. It’s not a MEASURE of any objectively existing thing. Human religion is an objectively existing thing. Like dance. People do it; get over it.

Regards,

KLR 650

165

What’s logically inconsistent about doing something because you believe your God commands it? Whether a belief strikes you as ethical or reasonable is a different issue from whether it’s coherent.

The Gospels say that Jesus was circumcised, by the way, and even the Hebrew Bible is part of the Christian Bible, so if you want to argue that circumcision is incoherent, then you’re arguing that Christian scripture is incoherent.

166

To Diogenes,

If can use the word “jejune” correctly (and I can) then I can spell the word Hindoo. Let me explain. It’s an “alternative spelling.” You see, languages are organic processes, and the recent notion of “correct” spelling … well, that’s another thread.

When I spell it Hindoo, I mean to spell it Hindoo.

So I read the thread, which is of course mostly dross. A notable exception is CJJ, whom no one has seriously responded to, because who wants to work that hard?

By all means do correct me if I’m wrong, but this thread has the odor of Jewish attack on the Christian religion. Judaism being, after centuries of rabbinic logic, “coherent.”

Haven’t heard from Cleveland Steamboat lately. Cleveland, in your opinion, is it coherent to obey a god who demands penis torture of eight day old infants?

You will observe that the infant cannot make an informed, consensual decision.

How long before we hear from the ACLU on that one?

Regards,

KLR 650

167

It’s Hindu.

“Jewish attack,” huh? You’re arguing with mostly gentile atheists here. You’ll also find that the practice of circumcision is mostly opposed here, but that doesn’t mean it’s theologically incoherent. It’s perfectly explicable.

168

Correct spelling is teh bomb.

169

To Diogenes,

Correct: as you said: “mostly.”

Cleveland Steamboat! This is your thread, bro. Are you there?

If god is supposed to be some arbiter of ethical behavior, then it is by no means coherent for him to demand the torture of infants. Unless ethics itself should be conceived as incoherent. In which case mere “logical” incoherence will take a back seat. What would be the purpose, exactly, of discussing the logical consistency of Moloch, or Hitler?

My point is that the OP is disingenuous. He has a (possibly Jewish) axe to grind with the Christian religion, and who can blame him? But axe grinders are not looking for logical answers. They are looking for revenge.

Cleveland Steamboat: how about this: the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent. Therefore, Christians should all abandon their religion. However, Jews can keep on torturing infants, because it’s logically consistent.

OK?

We have laws in this country forbidding excessive spanking. And the ACLU is ready willing and able to help enforce those laws.

No really, when WILL the ACLU address the cruel, unusual, superstitious, and coherent practice of penis mutilation? This is apposite because the OP singles out one religion as incoherent. Of all human processes, why should religion be construed as having the need for coherence?

If anyone in this thread really wanted an answer to the OP, then that answer has been given, repeatedly: Schrodinger’s cat, for example. Or, the fact the light is both a wave and a particle.

How difficult is it to just accept that there are plenty of things that don’t appear to be coherent? Unless you’ve got an axe to grind with the Christian religion.

And no, the wave/particle theories are not coherent. They just are. We are inured to the incoherence of some physics theories, because we are familiar with them. But it is not “logically consistent” for x to behave both like a wave, and like a particle.

Our little friend “logical consistency” has his limits. Why should we expect religion or science or philosophy or any other human endeavor not to exceed them?

170

Since when has the Jewish god been an arbiter of ethical behavior? I thought he was an arbiter of obedient behavior - you do what he says because he says to do it, not because it’s more ethical. (The whole “ethical god” thing with regard to that diety was a Christian invention, I thought. And yeah, POE-speaking that is pretty incoherent.)

171

Note the word “BANNED” underneath The Cleveland Steamer’s handle. You will be waiting a while, I’m afraid.

172

The Cleveland Steamer was banned about a week after he started this thread. The reasons weren’t related to this topic.

Given that The Cleveland Steamer can’t respond to you, and that this speculation is irrelevant anyway, I’m going to encourage you to drop this Judaism angle.

173

My speculations as to the religion and motive of the OP are not irrelevant, I think. My reasons are as follows: the OP as posed is disingenuous and has an ulterior motive.

It’s disingenuous because of course the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent. It’s not supposed to be amenable to capture by human reason.

The ulterior motive is simply to discredit Christianity in one way or another. Therefore his background is fair game, in my opinion, insofar as it elucidates his motive in the OP.

Why was Cleveland banned? How do you go about achieving that distinction?

Regards,

KLR 650

174

I think it’s fairly obvious that anybody who has the temerity to bring up the incoherence of the trinity is not vehemently pro-christian. (Honest christians may admit that it’s incoherent when pressed, but I don’t see them bringing it up.) That said, how is his background relevent again? From here it looks like you’re just trying to make and ad-hominem attack, which is invalid argument and irrelevent to debate.

175

Post script.

Well I reviewed the threads begun by Cleveland.

Case closed.

I apologize for suggesting that he was Jewish. Evidently he’s just a garden variety … well, just a garden variety. Takes all kinds.