Re: 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.”
That’s a tricky verse for Christians (I’m a Christian) of all stripes to interpret. One popular reading is that Jesus Christ emptied himself of certain divine properties (including knowledge of the date of the Second Coming) when He became a man.
Incidentally, the Father and the Son are definitely not “the same”, for most Christians. They have the same substance/nature/essence, but they are three distinct Persons. I think Richard Swinburne’s analogy is the best: three Persons who love each other so much that they could be said to be one, in a similar way to how a husband and wife become “one flesh”.
Man, I hate that term “Godself” (it’s popular among certain brands of clergy in my church, because it allows them to avoid using the dreaded masculine pronouns for God- part of the same trend of replacing “He”, “Him”, “His”, etc. with ‘God’).
I see it as a form of ‘oneness’ and the trinity has a additional part, the church, who is married to Christ therefor as much God as Jesus and the rest of them, with the very same spirit and therefor equal status and indivisible from God.
Because a paradox is logically impossible. And because the believers constantly go on and on and on about what their god is like, until someone points out an embarrassment like this; then and only then does their god become incomprehensible.
And, if your god is so incomprehensible then you have no grounds to claim that he’s deserving of respect, much less being followed. You can’t simultaneously claim that he’s incomprehensible and that you know he’s good.
This! It’s absurd to say, “He is paradoxical” and then say “His word is revealed to us and we understand what he wants.” If he’s incomprehensible, then anything is possible, and no one’s understanding is valid at all. Meanwhile, if he is comprehensible, then we have the ability to assess his actions and behaviors (attributed in scripture) according to rules of logic and sense. And the guy who flooded the earth, or caused people to speak different languages, doesn’t make sense!
(Besides, if everyone suddenly was speaking different languages – it would take only a few weeks for us to regain mutual comprehensibility, first via sign language, then via simplistic demonstrative language “You, Jack, me, William,” and “Where Wolf, there castle,” etc. The idea that everyone would have to move away from the city and form new nations is preposterous! We’re not that stupid!)
If the stories are “literally true,” then God is an evil monster and must be rejected. If the stories are “metaphors,” then no one person’s interpretation is any better than any other person’s.
Re: but that it is illogical, self contradictory. It is not just atheists who think so, either. Ask a Muslim, or a Jew.
Muslims and Jews are wrong about the nature of God, I don’t know how to say it any plainer than that. And the statement “God is Love” is meaningless if you postulate a non-Trinitarian God. If God is Love, than who was He loving before creation existed?
Even if one accepts this argument, surely any number of gods greater than or equal to two works? Is an Infinitarian God is even more love than a Trinitarian one?
“God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology.”
But, what is “the church”? Based on your posting history, I’m sure you are not Catholic, nor anything that most Christians would recognize as “Christian.”
I consider myself a Christian. For a while, I was in a similar sort of situation, where I had a set of “walk around” beliefs and “sit down and think about it” beliefs, and I didn’t see the contradictions. It worked well until, well, I sat down and thought about it. I was raised to believe certain things, and I didn’t question them until, as a young adult, a good friend of mine started asking me questions that I didn’t have answers to, or at least nothing other than “because that’s what I was taught.” Frankly, saying that was so thoroughly unsatisfying, not just intellectually, but spiritually, that it put me on a quest to unify my beliefs. This is a journey I’m still on, but I can definitely see I’ve made a lot of progress along the way.
One thing I have learned, though is that I think ultimately, science and religion are orthogonal systems for determining different kinds of truth. The ideas that science can prove or disprove religion, or that they’re in conflict at all, is a misapplication of one, or more likely, both to try to uncover a truth that it’s not intended to do.
I think almost all people have this longing. We don’t all address it the same way. Obviously, much of the world does it through religious practice, worship, prayer, meditation. But there’s other ways we connect with it. Some of my greatest spiritual experiences have actually come through some of the arts (for me, largely music), through moments of inspiration, and through service. Many also just try to satisfying that longing through other means or even simulating it. But the point is, I don’t think this is even an inherently religious thing, there’s solid scientific reasons why we’ve evolved this way. That is, even if there is no God, we’ve still evolved this way, and it’s probably an integral part of how our societies work.
And this is a part where I disagree. Though I am a Christian, I am not a Trinitarian. Where does it come from? As far as I can tell, the Biblical basis is from the baptism of Jesus, but even reading that without already believing that to be true, I just don’t see it. It seems to me that the idea of the trinity comes from elsewhere, and it was imposed. Now, looking back, we have confirmation bias that it was always there.
To that end, I can appreciate and agree with the idea that there aspects of God beyond my comprehension, but at the same time, even those aspects I don’t understand serve a meaningful purpose. For instance, the idea that there is a divine plan, without agreeing or disagreeing with the concept itself, I may not see the end state of it, but at least I can understand that there is some purpose. But the Trinity doesn’t do that. It’s just “this is the nature of God” without any real justification or proof, without any real benefit or drawback, and without any meaningful consequences.
The thing is, this contradicts so much of the rest of what I was taught and what I believe. God knows we can’t understand everything, but he wants to us to understand what we can. He wants to have a relationship with us on some level. But then we’re given this part, that has been made such a huge part of the theology, that has little justification in the scripture he’s given us, and we’re just supposed to believe it despite that it makes no sense. Even the other stuff that most Christians just believe and take as it is is stated rather directly, like various commandments or other assertions, but not this.
So, I just can’t see how you see it as being necessary for explaining anything to a more primitive people. Instead, I see it as a primitive people imposing other pre-existing ideas on the nature of God.
As others said, the trinity isn’t in the realm of science. As far as I see it, Christians may or may not believe in it, but there’s nothing for science to say about it one way or the other. In fact, science has very little to say about any theology. The only time science should even enter the discussion is if a theology makes a scientific assertion, but that’s more because theology has drifted out of it’s realm rather than science drifting into it.
And this is why I won’t try to make any sort of scientific argument about why I don’t believe in the trinity. The trinity doesn’t attempt to make any scientific argument or prediction, it’s outside of that realm. The real question is whether it is consistent with the rest of the theological context and whether it serves any theological purpose.
