Re: POLITICS: Religion & Science don't mix - Trinity

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/04 7:55:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> [Deanna's reply] Fair enough. Please note my usage of " != " to be the same

> as " is distinct from " and the equal sign speaks for itself:

>

> God the Father != God the Son

> God the Son != God the Holy Spirit

> God the Holy Spirit != God the Father

>

> The Trinitarian supposes three distinct aspects, as I have shown above.

> Proceeding, incarnating, or otherwise separating from the Father, shows

> distinctness (does not equal).

>

> God the Father = the One True God

> God the Son = the One True God

> God the Holy Spirit = the One True God

____

[CHRIS]

Both sets need qualifications. It should read:

The hypostasis of the Father != The hypostasis of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

and:

The essence of the Father = The essence of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

or, The essence of the Father = The essence of God (etc)

____

[Deanna]

> For the sake of monotheism, Trinitarians must have all aspects, characters,

> or whatever term you want to call the individual components, point to (or be

> equivalent values of) the God of Israel, as shown above. BTW, I am using

> these conventions purely to give some basic logical structure to my argument,

> without referring to theological constructs, which I find can be very vague

> and <gasp> sometimes even circular in reasoning. I am arguing by logic, not

> theological jargon.

_____

[CHRIS] You seem to be suggesting that logic can operate without premises.

To formulate premises is not the domain of logic. It is the domain of logic

to reason from premises and to deduce or prove conclusions from premises. A

phrase such as " God the Son " cannot be defined by logic any more than the word

" chair " can be defined by logic. Defining these concepts are the domain of

understanding and language. That the phrase " God the Son " or any such phrase

pertains to God necessitates that any definition be theological.

Once theological definitions are arrived at to form premises, logic can be

used to deduce and prove conclusions based on these premises.

_____

[Deanna]

>I would ask that if you want to engage my logic, that you(all) do so

without

> referring back to some flowery supernatural ideal that can not be

> comprehended, only maybe apprehended, by mere mortals.

_____

[CHRIS] Comprehension and understanding are not the domain of logic. One

cannot understand what " chair " means or " sitting " or " standing " means by logic.

But if one has arrived at definitions of " chair, " " sitting " and " standing " by

other means one can use these concepts to make logical proofs and disproofs.

One can reason that one cannot sit in a chair and stand up at the same time,

for example. But logic requires a premise to operate, and it is absolutely

necessary that there be some ultimate given that is an ultimate premise that

cannot be arrived at logically, but must be arrived at by some other means.

If your point is that one cannot UNDERSTAND God by logic then I agree, but

not any more than one cannot understand what " wood " is by logic. With respect

to where logic is APPLICABLE, logic is as applicable to anything theological as

it is to anything physical. With respect to where logic is applicable, the

doctrine of the Trinity is soundly logical.

____

[Deanna]

>

> If God the Father != God the Son, and God the Son != God the Holy Spirit,

> and God the Holy Spirit != God the Father, then, by transitive property they

> all != each other and therefore by substitution principle, they cannot all !=

> the One True God, logically speaking.

_____

[CHRIS]

This is a fallacy that is derived from your incorrect premises. God the Son

is not distinct from God the Father in all respects, and is not equal to Him

in all respects. God the Son is a distinct hypostasis from God the Father but

shares one essence of God the Father. If you are not satisfied with these

definitions, then you must find fault not in the soundness of *logic* but in the

definition arrived at, which are wholly different matters belonging to two

separate discussions. The fact is that no one claims that God the Father is

equal to God the son in the same respect in which they are distinct, and thus

your

premises are faulty because they fail to make the proper distinctions.

____

[Deanna]

My personal beliefs matter not. I am illustrating a divergence of religion

and

> science, where theological descriptions can and do defy logical speaking as

> they concern often the supernatural which is simply not quantifiable in the

> physical realm that most of us inhabit.

____

[CHRIS]

There is nothing about logic that requires quantification. Logic can be used

for purely qualitative matters. Praxeology, for example, is a whole branch

of a priori science that is qualitative but arrives at its laws through logic.

______

[Deanna]

> If you think otherwise, please provide examples of quantifiable entities

that can be

> measured in both the *supernatural* and natural. I would imagine this task

> is difficult since we are bound to 3 dimensions by our sensory perception.

____

[CHRIS] I have no idea what quantification has to do with our discussion. I

also don't know what it means to " measure " something in the " supernatural. " I

also suspect I would strongly object to your dichotomy of " natural " and

" supernatural " which I suspect is a fallacious distinction.

____

[Deanna]

> The Trinity as a doctrine was not Biblical and was fought fiercely over in

> the early Church:

____

[CHRIS]

The doctrine of the Trinity absolutely is Biblical. The uncreated Spirit of

God is mentioned in the first sentence of Genesis. God refers to himself as

" us " in Genesis, indicating a multiplicity of hypostases. In the Psalms the

Messiah is referred to as " Mighty God. " That the Logos became flesh in Jesus

Christ and is God is described in 's Gospel as well as that the Spirit

proceeds (has its origin in ) from the Father.

That the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated as a concise theological

formulation in the Bible in the way that it was defined in Ecumenical Synod does

not mean it is non-Biblical. The more precise definitions and concise

explanations offered by the Synods were reactions to anti-Biblical heresies.

The fact

that it was " disputed " by those who opposed the traditional teaching is simply

a reflection of the fact that some reject and oppose the truth. That there

would be heresies IS Biblical, and there were heresies and schisms in the time

of the Apostles.

____

[Deanna]

> As an aside, and not part of of my argument, both Judaism and Islam often

> reject the Trinity as an example of polytheism. It may also be argued by some

> that this Christian Trinitarian doctrine has roots in paganism; and in fact

> some claim the early Church mimicked pagan symbols, ideas, calendars and

> rituals in the hopes of gaining adherents.

____

[CHRIS]

I'm aware of these arguments.

____

> [Deanna] Again, the supernatural and natural do not mix.

>

> [Chris] Then why is it you consider yourself a Christian? What do you make

> of

> the enhypostatic union of Christ's divine and human nature?

>

> [Deanna's reply] How in the world does it follow that if I see a

> separateness in the physical world and the extra physical world, that my

Christianity

> is somehow at stake?

_____

[CHRIS]

The incarnation of Christ is the central and essential event to Christianity.

This is the joining of the divine and human, the entrance of the so-called

" super-natural " into the " natural " world.

______

[Deanna]

> I will proceed as if it is not a veiled attack at my integrity as a

Christian and ask

> that you proceed academically as well.

_______

[CHRIS]

It wasn't veiled; it was quite straightforward. It also wasn't an attack on

your Christianity, but a question of how you can possibly reconcile the

essential tenets of Christianity to the view that seems to be directly opposed

to

these tenets? It is essential to Christianity that the divine and the human

join.

Granted, I'm assuming that as an Anglican you believe in the incarnation of

the Logos.

I don't consider a Christian to mean anyone who believes Christ existed, or

believes his ethical teachings were important. For example, I don't-- and most

people don't-- consider Muslims to be Christians.

_____

> First, perhaps you are unaware that there are such Christians, now and in

the

> past, who are Unitarian. Second, and to reiterate, I cannot give one

> example of supernatural and natural mixing. Can you give such evidence?

____

[CHRIS]

I can't even begin to think of them because I don't know how you define

" natural " and " supernatural. " I'm not sure I would accept your distinctions.

_____

[Deanna]

> Referring to theological jargon, such as enhypostatic union of divine and

human in

> Christ is an assumption that begs the question in this sort of discussion.

_____

[CHRIS] I don't see how it does. This particular discussion, which has

changed from the previous one of the soundness of the logic of the Trinity, is

whether one can be a Christian and simultaneously believe that the " natural " and

" super-natural " worlds are distinct realms of existence that do not mix.

Whether one believes in an enhypostatic union of the Logos of God and the human

nature of Jesus Christ is absolutely essential to the discussion.

______

[Deanna]

> If you'd like to define the particulars of Christ's divinity within His

humanity, then

> enlighten the group, using real world terminology, logic, and relevant

> science, if you please.

_____

[CHRIS] I have absolutely no idea what you're asking me to do.

______

[Deanna]

> Because, if, as appears, you claim that the supernatural and natural

worlds *do*

> mix, then please support this premise. I have complied with your request

> to give argument to the logical validity of the Trinity.

_____

[CHRIS]

Ok, but first please define " natural " and " super-natural. "

____

[Deanna]

>A good place to start may be with Jesus's statement from Luke 17: " the

kingdom

> of God is within you. "

____

[CHRIS] I think that would represent an example of the natural and

super-natural mixing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

[Deanna] Just because it has some defined theological meaning does not

mean the Trinity is a sound logical construct in the general

non-theological sense.

[Chris] Why don't you point out the logical fallacy in it? You've asserted this

several times now, and have yet to make an argument to support your

assertion.

[Deanna's reply] Fair enough. Please note my usage of " != " to be the same as

" is distinct from " and the equal sign speaks for itself:

God the Father != God the Son

God the Son != God the Holy Spirit

God the Holy Spirit != God the Father

The Trinitarian supposes three distinct aspects, as I have shown above.

Proceeding, incarnating, or otherwise separating from the Father, shows

distinctness (does not equal).

God the Father = the One True God

God the Son = the One True God

God the Holy Spirit = the One True God

For the sake of monotheism, Trinitarians must have all aspects, characters, or

whatever term you want to call the individual components, point to (or be

equivalent values of) the God of Israel, as shown above. BTW, I am using these

conventions purely to give some basic logical structure to my argument, without

referring to theological constructs, which I find can be very vague and <gasp>

sometimes even circular in reasoning. I am arguing by logic, not theological

jargon. I would ask that if you want to engage my logic, that you(all) do so

without referring back to some flowery supernatural ideal that can not be

comprehended, only maybe apprehended, by mere mortals.

If God the Father != God the Son, and God the Son != God the Holy Spirit, and

God the Holy Spirit != God the Father, then, by transitive property they all !=

each other and therefore by substitution principle, they cannot all != the One

True God, logically speaking. My personal beliefs matter not. I am

illustrating a divergence of religion and science, where theological

descriptions can and do defy logical speaking as they concern often the

supernatural which is simply not quantifiable in the physical realm that most of

us inhabit. If you think otherwise, please provide examples of quantifiable

entities that can be measured in both the *supernatural* and natural. I would

imagine this task is difficult since we are bound to 3 dimensions by our sensory

perception.

The Trinity as a doctrine was not Biblical and was fought fiercely over in the

early Church:

From Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chap. xxvii., it states that:

" Theodosius declared his resolution of expelling, from all churches in his

dominions, the bishops and their clergy who should obstinately refuse to

believe, or at least to profess, the doctrine of the Council of Nice. His

lieutenant Sapor was armed with the ample powers of a general law, a special

commission, and a military force. . . . In the space of fifteen years,

Theodosius promulgated at least fifteen severe edicts against the heretics; more

especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; and to

deprive them of every hope of escape, he sternly enacted that, if any laws or

rescripts should be alleged in their favour, the judges should consider them as

the illegal productions of either fraud or forgery. "

From the Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4 states plainly: " Hear O Israel: The Lord our God

is one Lord: "

As an aside, and not part of of my argument, both Judaism and Islam often reject

the Trinity as an example of polytheism. It may also be argued by some that

this Christian Trinitarian doctrine has roots in paganism; and in fact some

claim the early Church mimicked pagan symbols, ideas, calendars and rituals in

the hopes of gaining adherents.

[Deanna] Again, the supernatural and natural do not mix.

[Chris] Then why is it you consider yourself a Christian? What do you make of

the enhypostatic union of Christ's divine and human nature?

[Deanna's reply] How in the world does it follow that if I see a separateness

in the physical world and the extra physical world, that my Christianity is

somehow at stake? I will proceed as if it is not a veiled attack at my integrity

as a Christian and ask that you proceed academically as well. First, perhaps

you are unaware that there are such Christians, now and in the past, who are

Unitarian. Second, and to reiterate, I cannot give one example of supernatural

and natural mixing. Can you give such evidence? Referring to theological

jargon, such as enhypostatic union of divine and human in Christ is an

assumption that begs the question in this sort of discussion. If you'd like to

define the particulars of Christ's divinity within His humanity, then enlighten

the group, using real world terminology, logic, and relevant science, if you

please. Because, if, as appears, you claim that the supernatural and natural

worlds *do* mix, then please support this premise. I have complied with your

request to give argument to the logical validity of the Trinity.

A good place to start may be with Jesus's statement from Luke 17: " the kingdom

of God is within you. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

{Deanna} Typo found in hindsight; should read:

If God the Father != God the Son, and God the Son != God the Holy Spirit, and

God the Holy Spirit != God the Father, then, by transitive property they all !=

each other and therefore by substitution principle, they cannot all *=* the One

True God, logically speaking.

[Guest guest]

> {Deanna} Typo found in hindsight; should read:

>

> If God the Father != God the Son, and God the Son != God the Holy

Spirit, and God the Holy Spirit != God the Father, then, by

transitive property they all != each other and therefore by

substitution principle, they cannot all *=* the One True God,

logically speaking.

>

(Connie H.) Now, whereas logic was preserved through the Dark Ages

by monks in safe houses (monastaries), Logic was not and is not the

organizing principal of religion.

Religions, to the best of my knowledge all religions, are the way

humans try to recreate and hold on to a Moment of

Grace/Epiphany/Ecstactic Event with Content that happened to a

person in the course of his/her life which he/she then talked about

and tried to invoke/evoke/create in others. That Moment is just not

logical and really can barely be talked about. None of the

Apostles, nor any of the people between then and now had/have the

same relationship with the Numinous that Jesus did. They/we may (or

may not) have had their/our own relationship and have thought about

it and talked about it in ways and words that we are most familar

with - the language that we speak, the culture that we live in, the

education that we have, the habits of our lives.

Many will try to shape their language about their experience of

Grace using the words and images that they have been taught to think

of as " religious " or " Christian " or " Jewish " or whatever. But

still, how can my private and personal experiences with <insert

deity of choice here> be the same as your experience with <insert

deity of choice here>?

We will each think that our own is " better " merely because it is the

one that is alive to us. We will talk about it with other people

who use that particular language and metaphor to discuss what is

really not translatable.

In addition, others who simply have not had that moment of Grace

themself, but really want it, will talk with us about our experience

and try to make it happen for themself (Doesn't work - the Gods are

dancing and may not be by this way again). Some of them may decide

that if more people believed in that Moment the way they want to,

then it would be easier for them to believe and they try to convince

more people to believe in it. Others, swept up in their Moment,

really want everyone to have that wonderful Moment and try to convey

it to everyone they know - also not very useful as it creates more

hassle in the long run.

So I just stop and remember that

Grace Is.

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

>(Connie H.) Now, whereas logic was preserved through the Dark Ages

>by monks in safe houses (monastaries), Logic was not and is not the

>organizing principal of religion.

>

>Religions, to the best of my knowledge all religions, are the way

>humans try to recreate and hold on to a Moment of

>Grace/Epiphany/Ecstactic Event with Content that happened to a

>person in the course of his/her life which he/she then talked about

>and tried to invoke/evoke/create in others. That Moment is just not

>logical and really can barely be talked about. None of the

>Apostles, nor any of the people between then and now had/have the

>same relationship with the Numinous that Jesus did. They/we may (or

>may not) have had their/our own relationship and have thought about

>it and talked about it in ways and words that we are most familar

>with - the language that we speak, the culture that we live in, the

>education that we have, the habits of our lives.

>

>Many will try to shape their language about their experience of

>Grace using the words and images that they have been taught to think

>of as " religious " or " Christian " or " Jewish " or whatever. But

>still, how can my private and personal experiences with <insert

>deity of choice here> be the same as your experience with <insert

>deity of choice here>?

>

>We will each think that our own is " better " merely because it is the

>one that is alive to us. We will talk about it with other people

>who use that particular language and metaphor to discuss what is

>really not translatable.

>

>In addition, others who simply have not had that moment of Grace

>themself, but really want it, will talk with us about our experience

>and try to make it happen for themself (Doesn't work - the Gods are

>dancing and may not be by this way again). Some of them may decide

>that if more people believed in that Moment the way they want to,

>then it would be easier for them to believe and they try to convince

>more people to believe in it. Others, swept up in their Moment,

>really want everyone to have that wonderful Moment and try to convey

>it to everyone they know - also not very useful as it creates more

>hassle in the long run.

>

>So I just stop and remember that

>Grace Is.

>

>Connie H.

>

Bravo, Connie H.! Beautifully written, open-minded piece, even

including the possibility of non theistic religions such as Buddhism

(well kinda if we could change <insert deity> to <insert nirvana

concept>). The logical and the theological just don't dance so well.

Absolutely. Even the languages of science and religion don't mix, let

alone the concepts.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>[CHRIS]

>

>Both sets need qualifications. It should read:

>

>The hypostasis of the Father != The hypostasis of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

>

>and:

>

>The essence of the Father = The essence of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

>

>or, The essence of the Father = The essence of God (etc)

>

>

>

[Deanna] Where's the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in this Trinitarian view

above? You know what? This is exactly why science and religion don't

mix, and my exercise in logic was unnecessary but obliging all the

same. You don't even refute what I have given. You come up with

something less than Trinitarian and we are supposed to go on from there.

[Chris] Once theological definitions are arrived at to form premises,

logic can be used to deduce and prove conclusions based on these premises.

[Deanna] For real? If theological definitions are ever " arrived at "

then we would all agree. It's those definitions that separate the

orthodox from the heretics. They are not logical in nature. Do you

even know what the Jews think of Satan? Have you ventured very far out

of the comfort zone of your own religion to see circumspectly this

concept of religion as a whole? If you choose to accept definitions and

not think further, then that is you prerogative, of course. I cease

this pointless discussion. May you reap what you sow.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

[Deanna] Again, the supernatural and natural do not mix.

[MAP] Good point! It's like zero and five don't mix. If you add

zero to five, you get... five!

Sorry to interrupt your thread with this... :-) I occasionally read

a random message in threads I generally ignore based on subject

lines... I was feeling naughty... :-) I now return you to your

regularly scheduled theological debate!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/04 10:13:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> >Both sets need qualifications. It should read:

> >

> >The hypostasis of the Father != The hypostasis of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

> >

> >and:

> >

> >The essence of the Father = The essence of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

> >

> >or, The essence of the Father = The essence of God (etc)

> >

> >

> >

> [Deanna] Where's the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in this Trinitarian view

> above? You know what? This is exactly why science and religion don't

> mix, and my exercise in logic was unnecessary but obliging all the

> same. You don't even refute what I have given. You come up with

> something less than Trinitarian and we are supposed to go on from there.

____

~~~> Deanna,

Why do you think I used " (etc) " at the end of each equation? You gave two

sets of three equations, and I modified the first line of each and used " etc " to

indicate that each line of the set should be modified likewise.

Also, I'd like to point out another fault in the equations you used as

premises:

The equation, The Holy Spirit = The One True God, is false. The Holy Spirit

in itself is not The One True God, but one of three hypostases of the One True

God. The equation should, rather, read:

The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

_____

> [Chris] Once theological definitions are arrived at to form premises,

> logic can be used to deduce and prove conclusions based on these premises.

>

> [Deanna] For real? If theological definitions are ever " arrived at "

> then we would all agree.

____

[CHRIS] But we are, at the moment, addressing the issue of LOGIC. All logic

depends on ultimate premises that must be defined by a method other than

logic. That you find theological definitions to use " circular " logic (from your

last post) should be no surprise, since *all* logic is inherently tautological.

I will append a quote from Mises, _Human Action_ on this subject at the

bottom of this email.

_____

[Deanna]

>It's those definitions that separate the

> orthodox from the heretics. They are not logical in nature.

____

[CHRIS]

Of course they aren't! I agree! But NO definitions are " logical in nature "

unless they are dependent upon other definitions that are not logical in

nature. It is impossible to have logic without ultimate premises arrived at by

a

non-logical method. This is true with all a priori sciences, including

mathematics. Mathematics cannot function without the concept of a whole number

that

is arrived at without the use of mathematic equations. Two can be defined as

1+1 and 1/2 can be defined as 1 divided by two, but the concept of a singular

unit must be defined for all of these mathematical equations to function.

That singular unit cannot be defined by mathematical functions, and if it were,

it would have to depend on some other ultimate premise.

Once we arrive at theological definitions in a non-logical manner, we can

deduce conclusions using them in a logical manner, and we can observe the

absence

of logical contradictions between those definitions. The fact that the

definitions are not logical in nature does not differ from the fact that all

things

in the natural world are either defined non-logically or are defined

logically, depending on some other ultimate premise(s) that are not defined

logically.

Your claim that Trinitarian doctrine is illogical is only meaningful if it is

illogical in some way that all other ideas and doctrines are not.

_____

Do you > even know what the Jews think of Satan?

_____

[CHRIS]

I've watched a documentary on the evolution of the theory of Satan that

included the views of Jews, but I don't see how that is remotely relevant to the

logic of Trinitarian doctrine.

_____

> Have you ventured very far out

> of the comfort zone of your own religion to see circumspectly this

> concept of religion as a whole?

____

[CHRIS] I'm not sure what " this concept of religion " refers to.

_____

> If you choose to accept definitions and

> not think further, then that is you prerogative, of course. I cease

> this pointless discussion. May you reap what you sow.

_____

[CHRIS]

Apparently you only fleetingly bothered to participate in it. You raised the

issue of Trinitarian logic, but your posts seem to be going way off track.

Whether or not I am familiar with other religions (I am) and what Jews think of

Satan is irrelevant, not simply to the specific example of doctrinal logic,

but to doctrinal logic as a whole. All one needs is the capacity to think

logically and understand basic logical rules, and to know and understand the

ultimate premises one is discussing, in order to discuss the logic of a given

doctrine. One does not need to know whether others object to the ultimate

premises

being used.

I tried to address the issue you had initially raised-- the logic of the

Trinitarian doctrine, and I made a worthy argument in pointing out how the

equations of your premises did not accurately represent the premises used by

those

who believe in Trinitarian doctrine. To insist upon using your premises despite

this fact is not to show the illogic of Trinitarian theory, but simply to

show the illogic of your distortion of Trinitarian theory. (And I must

emphasize, as I've unfortunately failed to in the past, that I am not accusing

you of

intentionall distorting this theory.)

You appear to think that I was disingenuous by apparently changing the

subject by using equations that did not include all three hypostases of the

Trinity.

I hope I cleared that up in this email, and I hope you would like to respond

in the way you would if you had not initially come to the conclusion that I

was being disingenuous.

Also I would like to apologize again for the several misunderstandings within

this thread in which I have appeared to throw accusations your way. I

apologize for the appearance of questioning your honesty, and I apologize for

appearing to insult your religious beliefs. I meant not to question your

committment to Christianity, but to point out the inherent contradiction that I

see

between two beliefs you apparently hold, and to ask you how you reconciled the

two.

Here is the quote from Mises I promised. It comes from section three, " The A

Priori and Reality " of chapter 2, " The Epistemological Problems of the

Sciences of Human Action " of his treatise, _Human Action: A Treatise on

Economics._

" Aprioristic reasoning is purely conceptual and deductive. It cannot produce

anything else but tautologies and analytic judgments. All its implications

are logically derived from the premises and were already contained in them.

Hence, according to popular objection, it cannot add anything to our knowledge.

" All geometrical theorems are already implied in the axioms. The concept of

a rectangular triangle already implies the theorem of Pythagoras. This

theorem is a tautology, its deduction results in an analytic judgment.

Nonetheless

nobody would contend that geometry in general and the theorem of Pythagoras in

particular do not enlarge our knowledge. "

He is addressing the issue of whether a priori reasoning (logic, mathematics,

praxeology) is valuable, but I posted it not for that argument, but for the

description of a priori reasoning as inherently tautological.

As an aside, there *are* logical proofs of the Trinity available that use

basic premises that most people would agree to. If you'd like, I could

reference

them. However, I would like it to be clear that they are irrelevant from the

current discussion. The current discussion is not whether it is logical that

God *must* be a Trinity or a multiplicity of hypostases, which are the

arguments that I refer to, but whether or not there are inherent logical

contradictions within Trinitarian doctrine. The fact that Trinitarian doctrine

uses

theological concepts that are distinct from the concepts you were using

disallows

us from considering your argument to pertain to genuine Trinitarian doctrine.

That you may not like the definitions of the concepts Trinitarian doctrine

uses does not affect the fact that it is those concepts, not the ones you have

been using, that Trinitarian doctrine uses.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 4:36:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> [Deanna] Again, the supernatural and natural do not mix.

>

> [MAP] Good point! It's like zero and five don't mix. If you add

> zero to five, you get... five!

____

[CHRIS]

Mike,

I'm interested in

1) Whether you even believe in a supernatural, and

2) How you define supernatural as distinct from natural.

We had a private discussion in the past in which we shared information about

the neurological etiology of out-of-body experiences. Some people would

consider these experiences supernatural. Neurons are clearly natural. To those

who consider the experiences supernatural, this would clearly be evidence of an

interplay between natural and supernatural. To others, it would merely be

evidence that apparent evidence of supernatural is actually explained naturally,

and many of these might believe that no such thing as supernatural exists.

I have no idea what " supernatural " is supposed to mean. However, I do know

what " physical " means and I do know what " metaphysical " means, and modern

science makes clear that physical phenomena at least interplay with, if not

cause,

metaphysical phenomena. For example, there is clearly a " mind " that is

distinct from " brain. " The brain has neurons that fire. The mind has thoughts

and

concepts and paradigms. A thought is quite clearly and obviously more than

the sum of the neurons that fire when it occurs. Neurons, synapses, and action

potentials clearly are part of the physical or " natural " world, and follow

natural, physical/chemical laws. Thoughts do not. Thoughts are not subject to

gravity, electrostatic force, etc. They are not quantifiable, and cannot be

manipulated physically and do not obey any physical laws. Thus, they are

metaphysical.

Yet it appears that neurological processes are directly associated with, and

possibly generate, thoughts.

Is the " metaphysical " " supernatural " ? If so, isn't this an example of the

" natural " and " supernatural " mixing? If not, what IS " supernatural " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 7:59:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> " Red " is a thought, but it most assuredly *is* subject to physical

> laws, physically manipulable and at least indirectly quantifiable, and

> that's despite the extreme primitive state of neurological science.

______

~~> But that's my point! The indirect quantifications and manipulations are

manipulations not of the thought, but of the corresponding physical entities

involved in producing the thought. If it is true that all thoughts are

entirely generated by physical phenomena, that does not change the fact that the

ego,

the mind, and thoughts exist, all of which are metaphysical phenomena. My

point is not that there is a ghost riding in the machine, but that the machine

may entirely generate the functions that we attribute to the ghost, and thus

there is no clear distinction between the machine and ghost, despite the ease

with which we can divide those phenomena belonging to the machine (physical) and

the resultant phenomena belonging to the ghost (metaphysical.)

Whether the metaphysical is entirely caused by the physical or not does not

affect the existence of the metaphysical.

____

> You might just as well say that the operating system on my computer is not

> subject to the physical laws of reality, but that too would be a mistake.

___

I wouldn't say that. I would consider that to be similar to making the same

claim about the neural structure of the brain, with which I disagree.

Chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 9:09:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> If you want to go back and find opposition with my generalized proposal as

it

> was stated after the typo was found and give a constructive argument in

> return, then I can work with that. But when you ask me to give structure

and

> then you say, no this is this is the structure, well, that is just not how

we

> do it now, is it?

____

[CHRIS]

Ok. I think I'm complying with your request with the following. All I'm

doing is reiterating what I'd already said, but I'm doing so in a much more

thorough fashion to present a complete model with revised terminology.

In order to determine whether there are logical conflicts in the doctrine of

the Trinity, we must use the concepts that are actually contained within this

doctrine, or else we are not evaluating the doctrine, but a different

reworking of it.

The essence of the Father = the essence of the Logos.

The essence of the Father = the essence of the Spirit

The essence of the Spirit = the essence of the Logos

The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Logos

The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Spirit

The hypostasis of the Spirit != the hypostasis of the Logos

The One True God = The Holy Trinity

The Holy Trinity = Father + Logos(/Son) + and Spirit

The One True God = Father + Logos (/Son) + Spirit

The Father : 1 distinct hypostasis

The Logos : 1 distinct hypostasis

The Spirit : 1 distinct hypostasis

The Father + The Logos + The Spirit = One undivided essence

The Holy Trinity = 3 hypostases

The Holy Trinity = 1 essence

The One True God = 3 hypostases (The one refers to essence)

The One True God = 1 essence

[Father (1 hypostasis) + Son/Logos (1 hypostasis) + Spirit (1 hypostasis)] (1

essence) = 3 hypostases, 1 essence.

So that 1=1, and 1+1+1=3.

Are there any mathematical or logical contradictions within this construct?

Are there any reasons you believe that this construct does not accurately

represent Trinitarian doctrine?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Neurons, synapses, and action

>potentials clearly are part of the physical or " natural " world, and follow

>natural, physical/chemical laws. Thoughts do not. Thoughts are not

>subject to

>gravity, electrostatic force, etc. They are not quantifiable, and cannot be

>manipulated physically and do not obey any physical laws. Thus, they are

>metaphysical.

Though I'm loath to feed this rather tedious discussion (it reminds me of

people parsing the word " is " ...) I couldn't in good conscience let that stand.

Perception of color is perception of a physical phenomenon, even though the

color red, for example (the redness in or of our perception, if you will)

has no exterior (outside the body) physical reality by itself. But we can

manipulate the exterior physical phenomenon that we perceive as red by

changing lighting characteristics, by painting or dying, by filtering,

etc., and we can change the perception of red by knocking out receptors in

the eye, by damaging or temporarily suppressing parts of the brain,

etc. " Red " is a thought, but it most assuredly *is* subject to physical

laws, physically manipulable and at least indirectly quantifiable, and

that's despite the extreme primitive state of neurological science.

Yes, it's true that we cannot yet mechanically decode memories stored in

the brain or monitor brain activity and deduce that a test subject is

wishing he were home eating oatmeal cookies instead of being poked and

prodded by lab techs, but the idea that thoughts are metaphysical is the

idea that they're immaterial, a product of a ghost in the machine rather

than the physical wetware of the body, and yet thoughts manifestly cannot

exist without the wetware generating them.

You might just as well say that the operating system on my computer is not

subject to the physical laws of reality, but that too would be a mistake.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>[Chris] Both sets need qualifications. It should read:

>>>

>>>The hypostasis of the Father != The hypostasis of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

>>>

>>>and:

>>>

>>>The essence of the Father = The essence of the Son (or Logos) (etc)

>>>

>>>or, The essence of the Father = The essence of God (etc)

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>[Deanna] Where's the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in this Trinitarian view

>>above? You know what? This is exactly why science and religion don't

>>mix, and my exercise in logic was unnecessary but obliging all the

>>same. You don't even refute what I have given. You come up with

>>something less than Trinitarian and we are supposed to go on from there.

>>

>>

>

>____

>

>~~~> Deanna,

>

>Why do you think I used " (etc) " at the end of each equation? You gave two

>sets of three equations, and I modified the first line of each and used " etc "

to

>indicate that each line of the set should be modified likewise.

>

>

[Deanna] <Takes a deep breath and a sip, hoping words will be enough>

Usually in a formal debate, or even an informal one, rules of etiquette

and protocol govern the nature of the discussion, in this case, a

written forum. You asked me to give an argument for the illogical

nature of the Trinity, which stems from my belief that science does not

mix with religion (I actually began this thread with the title above).

I complied with this request. If you have a rebuttal to my argument on

any grounds, it is usually presented first and then argued on the merits

the rebutist can pull out of his/her hat. In this instance, you did not

present evidence of a problem with my argument. Instead you proposed

your own model to work from. Major faux pas. First, you should go

through my pseudolanguage (which I did add for ease of perusal, btw) and

find fault with it. THEN you can rework it and present it back to me

for consideration. What you have done is analogous to both of us vying

for a bid to a third party.

I haven't quoted you here, but you went into wood and chairs ... ah,

here it is:

[Chris]

You seem to be suggesting that logic can operate without premises.

To formulate premises is not the domain of logic. It is the domain of logic

to reason from premises and to deduce or prove conclusions from premises. A

phrase such as " God the Son " cannot be defined by logic any more than the word

" chair " can be defined by logic. Defining these concepts are the domain of

understanding and language. That the phrase " God the Son " or any such phrase

pertains to God necessitates that any definition be theological.

[Deanna] No I am not using logic for definition, as I made clear in my last post

in this thread. The difference in your examples above - which may come from

Bertrand 's work - is that the concept of a chair or a piece of wood are

concrete and quantifiable in the 3D world we operate in. The Trinity is an

abstract for all practical purposes. I can touch a chair, sit in a chair, burn

a chair. We can agree upon the fact that a certain concrete physical structure

is indeed a chair. The same is NOT blatantly obvious with the Trinity. We

fight over Who proceeds, begotten, died for sins, and so on. So you are

comparing apples and oranges above.

Please please please do not assume that if I make a claim that my heart and soul

is in it. I feel strongly that you were assuming to much when you personalized

this argument to my personal beliefs. What I can believe and what I can prove

may be two different things. For instance, in all probability, life on other

planets exists, but no, I can't support this idea. It is a weak course of

action, to come after what you perceive to be my beliefs, and I do

appreciate your acknowledgment and apologies in it. I might argue one side or

the other depending. Sometimes we are not given a choice. Or sometimes it is

just fun to debate someone like my Father about whether zero is a number or a

reference point only.

If you want to go back and find opposition with my generalized proposal as it

was stated after the typo was found and give a constructive argument in return,

then I can work with that. But when you ask me to give structure and then you

say, no this is this is the structure, well, that is just not how we do it now,

is it?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>~~> But that's my point! The indirect quantifications and manipulations are

>manipulations not of the thought, but of the corresponding physical entities

>involved in producing the thought. If it is true that all thoughts are

>entirely generated by physical phenomena, that does not change the fact

>that the ego,

>the mind, and thoughts exist, all of which are metaphysical phenomena. My

>point is not that there is a ghost riding in the machine, but that the

>machine

>may entirely generate the functions that we attribute to the ghost, and thus

>there is no clear distinction between the machine and ghost, despite the ease

>with which we can divide those phenomena belonging to the machine

>(physical) and

>the resultant phenomena belonging to the ghost (metaphysical.)

I'm starting to think there's an uncrossable divide of faith separating us,

so there may be no point in further discussion. Apparently you think that

because you experience thought, thought is non-physical, regardless of

whether it's generated by physical machinery. Is that about right?

Consider a PC running Word on top of Windows. The word processor is

generated by physical processes, but in the same way you could believe that

the word processor is a metaphysical function generated by the hardware of

the PC. That would be the exact same misconception.

The thought *is* a function, the subjective experience *is* a function, the

awareness *is* a function.

Unlike in the case of brains and minds, though, we (mostly) understand the

mechanics of how programs and operating systems work and interact, so that

even though there are bugs, and Microsoft churns out ever-larger amounts of

bloat and spaghetti code, we know at least roughly and theoretically how

things work, reducing our propensity to believe in the supernatural.

-

[Guest guest]

>[CHRIS]

>

>Ok. I think I'm complying with your request with the following. All I'm

>doing is reiterating what I'd already said, but I'm doing so in a much more

>thorough fashion to present a complete model with revised terminology.

>

>In order to determine whether there are logical conflicts in the doctrine of

>the Trinity, we must use the concepts that are actually contained within this

>doctrine, or else we are not evaluating the doctrine, but a different

>reworking of it.

>

>The essence of the Father = the essence of the Logos.

>The essence of the Father = the essence of the Spirit

>The essence of the Spirit = the essence of the Logos

>

>The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Logos

>The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Spirit

>The hypostasis of the Spirit != the hypostasis of the Logos

>

>The One True God = The Holy Trinity

>The Holy Trinity = Father + Logos(/Son) + and Spirit

>The One True God = Father + Logos (/Son) + Spirit

>

>The Father : 1 distinct hypostasis

>The Logos : 1 distinct hypostasis

>The Spirit : 1 distinct hypostasis

>

>The Father + The Logos + The Spirit = One undivided essence

>

>The Holy Trinity = 3 hypostases

>The Holy Trinity = 1 essence

>The One True God = 3 hypostases (The one refers to essence)

>The One True God = 1 essence

>

>[Father (1 hypostasis) + Son/Logos (1 hypostasis) + Spirit (1 hypostasis)] (1

>essence) = 3 hypostases, 1 essence.

>

>So that 1=1, and 1+1+1=3.

>

>Are there any mathematical or logical contradictions within this construct?

>

>Are there any reasons you believe that this construct does not accurately

>represent Trinitarian doctrine?

>

>Chris

>

[Deanna] Your grade is D- . Try again to refute my simple, generalized

version. You just can't " reiterate what you said. " You must reply to

MY model and show fault in it. That is the nature of debate. I gave an

argument. Now you refute that argument. Sorry. You must pick apart my

work FIRST. Then present me with this if it is your rebuttal, since it

is already done, after you can demonstrate clearly why mine is faulty.

Show that I have argued ineffectively. Prove it! Think high school

geometry. Or chess. Demonstrate my view is lacking or accept it. I

talked of distinctness and equality (refer back to the second post with

the " all cannot = " as the crux when in doubt), which IS in a basic sense

the Trinity stripped down for those of us western types. You must first

demonstrate that my version of the Trinity is somehow lacking. You must

show that my terms or logic are inadequate or untrue somehow first.

THEN you can state your case. You could have easily taking my assertion

and run with it and been the first to propose. But you asked me to

propose it. Refute *MY ARGUMENT* if you can. Or discontinue.

Revise and resubmit, si vous plait. Oh, y'all join in now, ya hear?

Deanna

" Let me see you stripped down to the bone. " ~ Depeche Mode

[Guest guest]

[Note from Deanna] Folks, this is an academic debate. Please don't

take any of these arguments to be personal or disrespectful in any way.

In a nutshell I am saying the Trinity cannot be understood logically, as

sciences can. Faith is required to apprehend the nature of the Divine,

it cannot be described or comprehended by mere mortals.

>[Chris]The equation, The Holy Spirit = The One True God, is false. The Holy

Spirit

>in itself is not The One True God, but one of three hypostases of the One True

>God. The equation should, rather, read:

>

>The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

>

>

[Deanna] Out of the kindness of my heart, since you did bring up one

point of contention in *my* argument, I will respond here.

From dictionary.com:

hypostasis in the Christian sense

a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.

b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures

are united.

It is plain since you used a plural version of this word, that you must

be using definition a. above. By substitution, you claim:

The Holy Spirit in itself is not The One True God, but one of three *persons* of

the One True God.

A God consisting of 3 persons fits in the paradigm of polytheism. If we have 3

distinct hypostatic entities, then we have 3 distinct entities and it us upon

you now to demonstrate that these 3 distinct persons can somehow add up to one

person. Your equation - which I am assuming is a sum of F, S, and HS - does not

add up.

[Chris's equation] The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

One final observation: You said that God said us, and that proves

plurality:

[Chris] God refers to himself as " us " in Genesis, indicating a

multiplicity of hypostases.

First, I am surprised a history buff such as yourself would be lacking

context in this regard. Using " us " is and was a very common usage among

royal folks. But, okay, I'm game. Since you use it to show

multiplicity of hypostases, then you are using poor English, imo which

needs clarification. (I do it all the time) You cannot assume that

which you are attempting to prove as you do when you say above that one

God would call _himself_ " us. " You must choose plural throughout, as

the KJV Bible does.

God refers to themselves as " us " in Genesis... would be the more

grammatically correct way to say it.

Genesis 1:26 : And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over

the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and

over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This verse demonstrates a polytheistic nature of God. Of course, I see

it as royal usage, not some sort of multiplicity. Be reasonable, eh?

Um, wouldn't the Jews see polytheism and multiplicity with this usage if

it was really meant that way? Judaism is monotheistic. Deut. 6:4: Hear

O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

[CHRIS]

>>Ok. I think I'm complying with your request with the following. All I'm

>>doing is reiterating what I'd already said, but I'm doing so in a much more

>>thorough fashion to present a complete model with revised terminology.

>>

>>In order to determine whether there are logical conflicts in the doctrine of

>>the Trinity, we must use the concepts that are actually contained within this

>>doctrine, or else we are not evaluating the doctrine, but a different

>>reworking of it.

>>

>>The essence of the Father = the essence of the Logos.

>>The essence of the Father = the essence of the Spirit

>>The essence of the Spirit = the essence of the Logos

>>

>>The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Logos

>>The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Spirit

>>The hypostasis of the Spirit != the hypostasis of the Logos

>>

>>The One True God = The Holy Trinity

>>The Holy Trinity = Father + Logos(/Son) + and Spirit

>>The One True God = Father + Logos (/Son) + Spirit

>>

>>The Father : 1 distinct hypostasis

>>The Logos : 1 distinct hypostasis

>>The Spirit : 1 distinct hypostasis

>>

>>The Father + The Logos + The Spirit = One undivided essence

>>

>>The Holy Trinity = 3 hypostases

>>The Holy Trinity = 1 essence

>>The One True God = 3 hypostases (The one refers to essence)

>>The One True God = 1 essence

>>

>>[Father (1 hypostasis) + Son/Logos (1 hypostasis) + Spirit (1 hypostasis)] (1

>>essence) = 3 hypostases, 1 essence.

>>

>>So that 1=1, and 1+1+1=3.

>>

>>Are there any mathematical or logical contradictions within this construct?

>>

>>Are there any reasons you believe that this construct does not accurately

>>represent Trinitarian doctrine?

>>

>>Chris

>>

>>

>>

>[Deanna] Your grade is D- .

>

[Deanna] I was vague here concerning your grade. Let me 'splain:

1. You are not responding to my argument as instructed. This is failing

to follow directions

2. You introduce unneeded complexities to the argument, and with

Occam's Razor we can get rid of the words " essence " and Logos (either

use Son, Jesus, Logos, but don't combine them redundantly). Also, the

Holy Trinity is what we are attempting to prove or disprove in my case.

You cannot assume what you are trying to prove for the umpteenth time!

You are driving me to the brink of sarcasm as you may have noticed.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>1. You are not responding to my argument as instructed. This is failing

>to follow directions

Uhh, Deanna, though I don't think is doing an especially good job in

your debate, he's certainly not under any compulsion to obey you...

-

[Guest guest]

[] Uhh, Deanna, though I don't think is doing an especially

good job in your debate, he's certainly not under any compulsion to obey

you...

[Deanna] Ah, come on, why not? I'll spank him with sarcasm if he won't

obey, lol. That'll learn him, hee hee.

Deeeeeee

[Guest guest]

[CHRIS]

In order to determine whether there are logical conflicts in the doctrine of

the Trinity, we must use the concepts that are actually contained within this

doctrine, or else we are not evaluating the doctrine, but a different

reworking of it.

[Deanna] After 's observation, and before someone labels me the Debate

Dominatrix, I have decided to parse through Chris's stuff here. I will comment

below each piece.

[Chris]

The essence of the Father = the essence of the Logos.

The essence of the Father = the essence of the Spirit

The essence of the Spirit = the essence of the Logos

[Deanna] Okay. I'd say essence needs definition and proof of its genuine need

in the Trinitarian argument before I will consider it.

[Chris]

The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Logos

The hypostasis of the Father != the hypostasis of the Spirit

The hypostasis of the Spirit != the hypostasis of the Logos

[Deanna] This is a reiteration of my original work in different words showing

three distinct persons.

[Chris]

The One True God = The Holy Trinity

The Holy Trinity = Father + Logos(/Son) + and Spirit

The One True God = Father + Logos (/Son) + Spirit

[Deanna] I flat out reject the introduction of the provable as a given. Big no

no. The Holy Trinity is being assumed.

[Chris]

The Father : 1 distinct hypostasis

The Logos : 1 distinct hypostasis

The Spirit : 1 distinct hypostasis

[Deanna] I think the colon means equal. If so, then this is fine and dandy.

[Chris]The Father + The Logos + The Spirit = One undivided essence

[Deanna] I think the Holy Trinity refers to 3 persons in One Divinity. The more

I think about it, the more I reject this essence nonsense. Also, you are

missing some steps before you can come to this sort of conclusion. I will wait

to see you work through just exactly how you can arrive at 3 distinct persons

being one distinct person, because you haven't yet. *Essence* is a red herring,

plain and simple. It may not be intentional, but it needs to be shaved out of

here Occam style.

[Chris]

The Holy Trinity = 3 hypostases

The Holy Trinity = 1 essence

The One True God = 3 hypostases (The one refers to essence)

The One True God = 1 essence

[Deanna] Prove it without that stinky *essence*.

[Chris][Father (1 hypostasis) + Son/Logos (1 hypostasis) + Spirit (1

hypostasis)] (1

essence) = 3 hypostases, 1 essence.

[Chris]So that 1=1, and 1+1+1=3.

[Deanna]Well, sure, you can multiple *essence* through each side of the

equation. I can divide it out and we will have:

essence = essence

Father + Logos + Spirit = 3 hypostases

[Chris]Are there any mathematical or logical contradictions within this

construct?

[Deanna] No. After all your reasoning you have come up with the identity

property which proves nothing. But it is quite sound. You have NOT shown the 3

distinct hypostasis equal to the One True God.

[Chris]Are there any reasons you believe that this construct does not accurately

represent Trinitarian doctrine?

[Deanna] Yes, you have failed to prove the 3 in 1 of the Holy Trinity, plain and

simple. You have shown 3=3 and 1=1, but not 1=3 or 3=1, in Trinitarian style,

not by math. I use shorthand to keep from getting too impatient. And I didn't

once get sarcastic. Hubby would be proud of me. :-)

~ Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 10:49:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> Deanna] Your grade is D-

_____

[CHRIS] I'm not particularly interested in sharing letter grades, but I

guess I'll give you an F+ for effort. :-P

_____

[Deanna]

> . Try again to refute my simple, generalized

> version.

______

[CHRIS] I already refuted it! Then you told me I had to offer my own model!

Here, I will refute it again:

<<<The Holy Spirit = The One True God>>>

False. Trinitarian doctrine does not consider the Holy Spirit to be equal to

the One True God. This critcism applies to each line of said set of

equations. Neither is the Son equal to the One True God nor is the Father equal

to

the One True God.

<<<The Father != the Son>>>

True, but imprecise. A more precise, and therefore preferred way of

statement (preferred because it avoids confusion) is to say the hypostasis of

the

Father != the hypostasis of the Son. This criticism applies to each line of

said

set.

____

[Deanna]

> You just can't " reiterate what you said. " You must reply to

> MY model and show fault in it. That is the nature of debate.

____

[CHRIS]

I DID do that already, and I've done it again. You never refuted my argument

the first time I pointed out the flaws in yours. I hope you will this time.

I provided an alternative model because I thought you asked me to.

_____

[Deanna]

> I gave an

> argument. Now you refute that argument. Sorry. You must pick apart my

> work FIRST. Then present me with this if it is your rebuttal, since it

> is already done, after you can demonstrate clearly why mine is faulty.

_____

[CHRIS]

I already showed that all of your premises are faulty and some of them are

outright false, distorted representations of Trinitarian doctrine.

_____

[Deanna]

> Show that I have argued ineffectively. Prove it!

____

[CHRIS]

It is not that your argument is ineffective. Your argument is pristine based

on the false premises you have provided. If your premises were correct, your

argument would be successful. Since your premises are false, your proper

logical reasoning says nothing about Trinitarian doctrine but only about the

fictitious misrepresentation of Trinitarian doctrine you've provided.

_____

[Deanna]

Think high school

> geometry. Or chess. Demonstrate my view is lacking or accept it. I

> talked of distinctness and equality (refer back to the second post with

> the " all cannot = " as the crux when in doubt), which IS in a basic sense

> the Trinity stripped down for those of us western types.

_____

[CHRIS]

If you change the essence of the doctrine when you " strip it down " you can no

longer use the " stripped down " version as representative of the original

doctrine. The fact that *your* *distortion* of Trinitarian doctrine contains

logical inconsistencies and the true Christian version of Trinitarian doctrine

does not shows that your stripping down of the argument is changing the essence

of it.

_____

[Deanna]

> You must first

> demonstrate that my version of the Trinity is somehow lacking. You must

> show that my terms or logic are inadequate or untrue somehow first.

> THEN you can state your case. You could have easily taking my assertion

> and run with it and been the first to propose. But you asked me to

> propose it. Refute *MY ARGUMENT* if you can. Or discontinue.

______

[CHRIS]

I did that before and I've done it again in this email.

The One True God is not equal to the Father. Nor the Son. Nor the Holy

Spirit. All three of your equations in this set are false. The One True God is

equal to the Holy Trinity, and to the Father + Son + Holy Spirit.

To say that a part of a whole is equal to the whole is false. It is

analogous to saying

bag of apples = handle

bag of apples = bottom portion containing contents

bag of apples = apples.

If these premises were true, one could correctly reason that, since

handle =! bottom portion

bottom portion != apples

apples != handle

a bag of apples cannot exist because it is a logical contradiction.

But it isn't, because the three lines in the first set are all false, like

the premises you had used.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 10:10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> [Deanna] Out of the kindness of my heart, since you did bring up one

> point of contention in *my* argument, I will respond here.

>

> From dictionary.com:

> hypostasis in the Christian sense

> a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.

> b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures

> are united.

____

[CHRIS]

These definitions are not adequate. When I have more time I will return to

this issue. (They also aren't helpful since in our context they are defined

circularly.)

_____

[Deanna]

> It is plain since you used a plural version of this word, that you must

> be using definition a. above. By substitution, you claim:

>

> The Holy Spirit in itself is not The One True God, but one of three

*persons*

> of the One True God.

_____

[CHRIS]

That's true, although it should be kept in mind that the Latin " persona " is

not from original Trinitarian doctrine, but is a result of its translation from

Greek to Latin. The word " persona " is used in large part as a compromise

because Latin does not have a word that directly corresponds to the Greek

" hypostasis. " Translating the Greek " hypostasis " into the English " person "

represents a decrease in accuracy and understanding. It would be superior to

investigate the meaning of the Greek " hypostasis " and incorporate the word into

English

with a proper understanding of its meaning.

_____

[Deanna]

> A God consisting of 3 persons fits in the paradigm of polytheism. If we

> have 3 distinct hypostatic entities, then we have 3 distinct entities and

it

> us upon you now to demonstrate that these 3 distinct persons can somehow

add

> up to one person.

____

[CHRIS]

It is not upon me to do any such thing, because Trinitarian doctrine NOWHERE

claims that God is one person. If YOU claim that God is one person, that does

not affect the fact that Trinitarianism does NOT.

_____

[Deanna]

> Your equation - which I am assuming is a sum of F, S, and

> HS - does not add up.

_____

[CHRIS]

Of course it doesn't when you change it. But then it is no longer " my "

equation!

______

[sNIP]

[Deanna]

> This verse demonstrates a polytheistic nature of God. Of course, I see

> it as royal usage, not some sort of multiplicity. Be reasonable, eh?

> Um, wouldn't the Jews see polytheism and multiplicity with this usage if

> it was really meant that way? Judaism is monotheistic. Deut. 6:4: Hear

> O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

_____

[CHRIS]

That's definitely possible, but in one of my history classes we discussed

Jewish interpretations of this that did not simply explain it away as a form of

polite grammar. For example that the " us " referred to different aspects of

God. If this is a matter of debate in the Jewish community (I'm assuming my

professor was not making them up out of thin air), I don't find it unreasonable

for me to suggest it has a meaning other than the polite grammar you believe is

so obvious.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 12:50:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> I will wait to see you work through just exactly how you can arrive at 3

> distinct persons being one distinct person, because you haven't yet.

____

[CHRIS] While I have much to say in response to you in this thread, I'm

going to back out now, because the Trinity you are arguing against is not the

Trinity I am arguing for. Your understanding of the Trinity is not compatible

with the orthodox Christian understanding that, if it isn't now, at least was

common to all Trinitarian Christians for centuries.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 6:22:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> [CHRIS] I'm not particularly interested in sharing letter grades, but I

> guess I'll give you an F+ for effort. :-P

____

I don't deserve an A for clarity. What I meant here is not that the effort

deserved an F+, but that the + was given for the show of effort.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Let me ask all of you: How many names do you have?

" Why, only one! " you exclaim.

Judith Alta Kidder is my name.

But. . .at various times I have been called Judy (don't you dare!), Miss

Babcock (my maiden name), Mrs. Kidder, Mom, Dear, Sweetheart, and several

unmentionables.

Does this make me a crowd?

Of course not.

My personal belief is that there is a supreme power that makes this universe

and our planet work. It does not matter if it is referred to as THE one true

God of the Bible or the multiplicity of gods and goddess of Voodoo, it is

still the same power.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Bright blessings for this Yule season.

-----Original Message-----

[Note from Deanna] Folks, this is an academic debate. Please don't

take any of these arguments to be personal or disrespectful in any way.

In a nutshell I am saying the Trinity cannot be understood logically, as

sciences can. Faith is required to apprehend the nature of the Divine,

it cannot be described or comprehended by mere mortals.

>[Chris]The equation, The Holy Spirit = The One True God, is false. The

Holy Spirit

>in itself is not The One True God, but one of three hypostases of the One

True

>God. The equation should, rather, read:

>

>The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

>

>

[Deanna] Out of the kindness of my heart, since you did bring up one

point of contention in *my* argument, I will respond here.

From dictionary.com:

hypostasis in the Christian sense

a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.

b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures

are united.

It is plain since you used a plural version of this word, that you must

be using definition a. above. By substitution, you claim:

The Holy Spirit in itself is not The One True God, but one of three

*persons* of the One True God.

A God consisting of 3 persons fits in the paradigm of polytheism. If we

have 3 distinct hypostatic entities, then we have 3 distinct entities and it

us upon you now to demonstrate that these 3 distinct persons can somehow add

up to one person. Your equation - which I am assuming is a sum of F, S, and

HS - does not add up.

[Chris's equation] The One True God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

One final observation: You said that God said us, and that proves

plurality:

[Chris] God refers to himself as " us " in Genesis, indicating a

multiplicity of hypostases.

First, I am surprised a history buff such as yourself would be lacking

context in this regard. Using " us " is and was a very common usage among

royal folks. But, okay, I'm game. Since you use it to show

multiplicity of hypostases, then you are using poor English, imo which

needs clarification. (I do it all the time) You cannot assume that

which you are attempting to prove as you do when you say above that one

God would call _himself_ " us. " You must choose plural throughout, as

the KJV Bible does.

God refers to themselves as " us " in Genesis... would be the more

grammatically correct way to say it.

Genesis 1:26 : And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over

the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and

over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This verse demonstrates a polytheistic nature of God. Of course, I see

it as royal usage, not some sort of multiplicity. Be reasonable, eh?

Um, wouldn't the Jews see polytheism and multiplicity with this usage if

it was really meant that way? Judaism is monotheistic. Deut. 6:4: Hear

O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

Deanna