# The mystery of the trinity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373 "2014-02-02T20:05:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/1 "2014-02-02T20:05:00Z")
As a child I was baffled by this, as an older adult it is starting to make more sense. I have my walking around beliefs and my sit down and think about it beliefs that are far different from one another. I don’t see science as any kind of contradiction to a belief in god on any level. I believe in intelligent design. I don’t believe science could ever disprove this by explaining how things came to be. ``` I have my walking around beliefs which are christian in nature for the most part. I meditate and catch myself talking to a very human form of God. I also find myself with a longing for the spiritual side and an eternal conciousness. If I assume I am for the most part a typical human not much different from humans 10,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago I can see where a trinity would be needed to comprehend and make any sense of anything. I don't feel I am even capable of not believing. I do enjoy the luxury of having a moral compass based on a divine law, it takes a lot of decisions out of my hands and creates a criteria for me to recognize when things are not my decision to make. This is a fairly broad view from a believers standpoint. Would athiests in general have a problem with believers at this level even if they did not agree with them? Is the concept of a trinity so unsientific that it really needs to be shot down as woo? Or is it simply a harmelss coping mechanism for a lot of humans like myself? ``` ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/2 "2014-02-02T20:13:14Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > If I assume I am for the most part a typical human not much different from humans 10,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago I can see where a trinity would be needed to comprehend and make any sense of anything. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Is the concept of a trinity so unsientific that it really needs to be shot down as woo?? It is not unscientific, it is simply not scientific, i.e., there is zero scientific evidence for it, and it does not even qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis, and it concerns matters with which science never has concerned itself because it has no way to study them using the scientific method. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/3 "2014-02-02T20:18:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It is not unscientific, it is simply not scientific, i.e., there is zero scientific evidence for it, and it does not even qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis, and it concerns matters with which science never has concerned itself because it has no way to study them using the scientific method. As I believe it should be. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/4 "2014-02-02T20:36:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It is not unscientific, it is simply not scientific… Outside of religion and woo, does this make any sense whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/5 "2014-02-02T20:46:56Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > ``` > If I assume I am for the most part a typical human not much different from humans 10,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago I can see where a trinity would be needed to comprehend and make any sense of anything. > > ``` Eh? What does it explain? Why not just have the one god? Of the major religions Christianity seems to do the worst job of explaining the world. Mostly the part about why it’s so screwed up. What about the Demiurge? Now that makes sense to me. A lower, dumber god made the world. Or he screwed up somehow. Or he was Satan, like the Cathars believed. Or something like Zoroastrianism where you can blame it on the evil god that’s actually part of the religion, as opposed to [fan fiction.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy) Or how about the other poly religions? The gods use us as pawns in their own games because they’re assholes like we are. Chaos in the Middle East? Someone pissed off Hera. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/6 "2014-02-02T20:50:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Outside of religion and woo, does this make any sense whatsoever? We’ll, I’ve never before seen a point of theology described even rhetorically as “unscientific.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/7 "2014-02-02T20:51:44Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > If I assume I am for the most part a typical human not much different from humans 10,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago I can see where a trinity would be needed to comprehend and make any sense of anything. Why a trinity? Why not a duality or a quaternity? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/8 "2014-02-02T20:57:55Z")
**Polycarp** posted a great explanation a few years back. I smiled and nodded and maybe rolled my eyes a bit, but it was well done. I miss him. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/9 "2014-02-02T20:58:08Z")
As a child I fully accepted the Trinity, since it was what I was told to believe. As an adult, I’m baffled by why anyone ever came up with the concept. But as a nonbeliever, I may disagree with you, but it doesn’t really concern me what shape or number of god(s) you might choose to believe in. “Intelligent design,” on the other hand, I have a very large problem with. ID is about creationism masquerading as science. It can easily be disproved, through the many examples of biological organisms and functions which are anything but intelligently designed. I’m happy to accept your “harmless coping mechanism” only as far as it actually remains harmless, and not when creationists try to bend politics and public education to their will. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/10 "2014-02-02T21:00:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why a trinity? Why not a duality or a quaternity? It’s like with stools. Two legs and it can’t stand, four legs is only stable on flat ground, but three legs is universally stable. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/11 "2014-02-02T21:02:36Z")
My post was obviously not very well thought out. My intent was two fold, the first was to simply point out that within my human limitations for comprehension a minimum of a trinity is needed to accept a belief in some higher authority. The second was to try and find some common ground where we didn’t feel like we were stepping on each other toes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/12 "2014-02-02T21:27:13Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > My post was obviously not very well thought out. My intent was two fold, the first was to simply point out that within my human limitations for comprehension a minimum of a trinity is needed to accept a belief in some higher authority. Why won’t a unity do? It has always served Jews and Muslims well enough. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/13 "2014-02-02T21:30:08Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > As a child I fully accepted the Trinity, since it was what I was told to believe. As an adult, I’m baffled by why anyone ever came up with the concept. [It’s a bit complicated, as theological history usually is.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History) > [@](#): > > The Ante-Nicene Fathers affirmed Christ’s deity and spoke of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[21] Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[22] exhorting obedience to “Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit”.[23] Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”.[24] The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word “Trinity” was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[25] in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the “Praxean” heresy.[26] > > Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[27] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[28][29] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved. > > Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers[27] in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, “of the same being”) in the sense he used it.[30] > > Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[31] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220. > > In the fourth century, Arianism, as traditionally understood,[note 1] taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming “Son of God”.[32] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of “three persons, one being”. > > Athanasius, who was present at the Council as one of the Bishop of Alexandria’s assistants, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[33] Moreover, the meanings of “ousia” and “hypostasis” overlapped then, so that “hypostasis” for some meant “essence” and for others “person”. Athanasius of Alexandria (293–373) helped to separate the terms.[34] > > The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[35] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[36] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[35] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[35] ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/14 "2014-02-02T21:30:52Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I don’t see science as any kind of contradiction to a belief in god on any level. But it is. The attributes given to gods violate the laws of physics, and the bad reasoning used to defend religion is innately hostile to religion. As well, science and religion are innately poisonous to each other (regardless of the intentions of anyone involved), as science is the search for the nature of reality while faith is the assertion of fantasy over reality. And Christianity specifically is hostile to everything but itself, due to its aggressive monotheism, its built-in hostility to all other belief systems. Something vividly demonstrated by history. Given the chance it would destroy science as it has always tried to destroy everything but itself. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I believe in intelligent design. I don’t believe science could ever disprove this by explaining how things came to be. Too bad, because intelligent design is nonsense. _And_ it’s rather insulting to your god, considering how poorly designed living things are. A human who had the power to do so in the first place could design living creatures _far_ better. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > ``` > If I assume I am for the most part a typical human not much different from humans 10,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago I can see where a trinity would be needed to comprehend and make any sense of anything. > > ``` Except the concept of a trinity _didn’t exist back then._ And it’s not “needed” in the first place anyway; most of humanity functions just fine without it. If the concept of a trinity magically vanished tomorrow, humanity would go on just fine. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I don’t feel I am even capable of not believing. I do enjoy the luxury of having a moral compass based on a divine law, it takes a lot of decisions out of my hands and creates a criteria for me to recognize when things are not my decision to make. That’s amorality, not morality. “I’m just following orders!” > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > ``` > This is a fairly broad view from a believers standpoint. Would athiests in general have a problem with believers at this level even if they did not agree with them? > > ``` Since the believers never leave the unbelievers alone, yes. I care very little for the details of a theology I consider pure nonsense from top to bottom; I do care about the constant attempts by believers to impose their fantasies on me by force. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/15 "2014-02-03T01:18:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Outside of religion and woo, does this make any sense whatsoever? Of course it does. My opinion that “Pride and Prejudice” is one of the finest novels every written in the English language is not susceptible of scientific verification - “fine” is not an empirically observable qualifty. It is therefore not a scientific opinion, but you’d never criticise it as “unscientific”. And the same is true in many other fields. An ethical claim (“Women have the right to choose abortion”) is not a scientific claim, but nor is it “unscientific”. Indeed, the claims made in pure mathematics are not scientific - how can you empirically examine the number 2? - but they are not “unscientific”. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/16 "2014-02-03T01:28:01Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Is the concept of a trinity so unsientific that it really needs to be shot down as woo? The problem with concept of the trinity is not that it is unscientific, but that it is illogical, self contradictory. It is not just atheists who think so, either. Ask a Muslim, or a Jew. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/17 "2014-02-03T01:57:38Z")
There are one of two verses in the Bible that seem to contradict the notion. For instance, the one where only the Father knows the date of the Second Coming, but not the Son. If they’re “the same” then all knowledge would be shared. If there is something Jesus doesn’t know, then he is not omniscient, and therefore not “God.” But…shrug. Others interpret that verse in different ways. (Good old Harold Camping tried to claim that, in that verse, the “Son” meant Satan, not Jesus! I found that to be a bit of a stretch, but he felt it was necessary, because it contradicted the notion of the Trinity.) Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait till we meet them and ask them personally. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/18 "2014-02-03T02:02:09Z")
Basically, the Trinity is what the Catholic/Orthodox Church came up with to codify the teachings & experiences of the prophets of Israel & the apostles of Jesus. The prophets experienced Yahweh as One Deity, so Above & Beyond Creation & so Holy that a human cannot see Him and live, but yet they would also see & hear a Being, sometimes enthroned, sometimes with Cherubim, Who identified Himself as Yahweh, and they would also feel His Power or Spirit within them. The apostles had Jesus, speaking of Yahweh God as His Father, and yet claiming for Himself various titles & authorities reserved to Yahweh, and also experiencing the Divine Power/Spirit within them. The Trinity- Three Persons is One Being/Essence- was how the C/O Church resolved the Oneness & Threeness of the teachings & experiences. The main two contenders with this were Arianism/Monarchism- One Deity the Father Who creates Two Divinities- His Son & His Spirit, and Sabellianism/Modalism- One Deity Who reveals Himself in Three Ways. I am a Trinitarism & the best analogy I can come up with is the same as Augustine. God Knows & Loves Godself so intensely that God’s Self-Knowledge (Logos) & Love (Spirit) are Two Additional Persons as much Eternal God as the Father. We experience a similar thing when we have internal discussions with ourselves. A second analogy I use is fire- Conventional fire has light & heat for as long as the fire lasts. The Fire is like the Father with the Light & the Heat like the Son & the Spirit. It ain’t perfect but it beats a Shamrock! Why should we expect the Creator of all this to be totally comprehensible & non-paradoxical to our limited minds? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/19 "2014-02-03T02:06:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There are one of two verses in the Bible that seem to contradict the notion. For instance, the one where only the Father knows the date of the Second Coming, but not the Son. If they’re “the same” then all knowledge would be shared. If there is something Jesus doesn’t know, then he is not omniscient, and therefore not “God.” > > But…shrug. Others interpret that verse in different ways. (Good old Harold Camping tried to claim that, in that verse, the “Son” meant Satan, not Jesus! I found that to be a bit of a stretch, but he felt it was necessary, because it contradicted the notion of the Trinity.) > > Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait till we meet them and ask them personally. I always took the Son not knowing the time of the Second Coming to be a matter of that moment. While He was in mortal flesh, Jesus didn’t know the time of His Return, but upon His Resurrection, He once more accessed His Omniscience. I certainly don’t think in the past 1980+ years, Jesus has been asking “So, Dad, how soon now?” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373/20 "2014-02-03T02:11:16Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I do enjoy the luxury of having a moral compass based on a divine law, it takes a lot of decisions out of my hands and creates a criteria for me to recognize when things are not my decision to make. No, it doesn’t; your moral compass is irrelevant to any decision not yours to make. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mystery-of-the-trinity/680373.md?page=2)