Too bad Mary missed out on the fourth 'O'

I agree to what you wrote about God. God cannot exist in where evil breeds. I disagree though about what you wrote of Jesus. Jesus is all-knowing. What he said wasn't a question, but rather a statement. God wasn't with Jesus because all the evils of the world were on Jesus' shoulders. Jesus knew that, but he asked why God abandoned him. I also disagree about what you wrote of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is omnipotent. It's just that we fail to follow the holy spirit. That's why many doubt the existence of miracles, when in fact there are miracles, through the power of the holy spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.

Hi dexter,

Thanks for the post. First let me say that I am NOT a theologian, and I have not put as much time into studying the doctrine of the Trinity as I should have. So I'll proceed on the basis you asked: how do _I_ think about it, not what would I think if I studied more and gave you a theologically nuanced answer.

So, in some ways I think of things the way you mean. For example, I do occasionally wonder if the Son is not omniscient in the way the Father is (an even more acute example is Mark 13:32: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.")

However, I don't find your part about the Father not being Omnipresent as compelling: SOME part of God certainly is, and all three parts are all good, so we'll have to go elsewhere to solve that problem. Moreover, I certainly do think of the Father as Omni-all three.

As far as omnipotence, I guess I think all three share that, but in delicate and nuanced ways. It's clear at various places, for example, that the Son's power is in many ways a gift to Him from the Father, and / or He exercises it with His Father's approval. (Psalm 2).

I also don't think I'd say the Holy Spirit is not omnipotent. Choosing to let us have free will and not being able to stop us from it are different things.

Still, though, I do think that the doctrine of the Trinity is an important concept for addressing the kinds of issues you're bringing up, and analysis of such issues should always be cognizant of possible Trinitarian responses or sub-issues. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think I agree with the particular way you've split things up, but I do appreciate your desire to be cognizant of this important doctrine, and to realize that, not as a matter of anti-Christian hostility but as a matter of Christian theology, it must be treated carefully and thoughtfully, and is a hugely important fact.

I do think logic probably dictates that God's nature must be split, also for reasons such as the existence of unity and diversity in God's creation: both are somehow part of God's nature.

At the end of the day, I think about it much like I think about the Banach-Tarski paradox (in the slightly less religiously charged field of mathematics): it is something we accept as true, yet can never hope to get our minds around; and at the same time, trying to think about it and its nature is always helpful in realizing how things are.

Regards.

And though I am very familiar with Christian doctrine, I wouldn't say that I follow the faith.

I should clarify, by the way, that I don't really have a firm opinion about Christ's omniscience, and it's quite possible that 20 minutes reflection all in a row would show me that He must be omniscient. The partial contrary is just an idea I've played with, not one that I am at all committed too.

The Trinity is a very alien concept, thinking about it now.

@Furball - Not really. We all have a trinity going on within us. In fact we have many, depending on your point of view. The first is Id, Ego, and Superego (what our subconcious says we need, what our concious says we want, and what our moral/social compass says we should do) and the second is Body, Mind, and Spirit. This last is very similar to Christ (Body), the Father (Mind), and the Holy Spirit (Spirit).

I'm living apart from such a concept. Mine is do or die baby.

@Furball. Uh....when Jesus said, "WHY hast thou forsaken me?" That is most CERTAINLY a question, NOT a statement.

Generalized statement regarding the whole topic: The "Trinity" is an attribute of an *infinite* God. Are you infinite? Clearly the answer is no....and thus, it is *literally* impossible to comprehend the attributes of an infinite God. Yes, you can see the concept exists, but you can not comprehend it. Just as, if you are a scientist, you can understand the attributes of a 4-dimensional world, or even a two-dimensional world for that matter, but you will never comprehend what it would be like to live in an x (non-3) - dimensional world. That is why "faith" is at the heart of religion, and not science, because religion acknowledges that there are certain attributes that are incomprehensible to the limited human mind.

I know...all the athiests will say this answer is a cop out....to which I say, "You don't understand the concept of faith". to which I say, "we go back in time, and then we find the singularilty that supposedly exploded into all the matter in the universe and before that, it came from...." and you take it as a matter of faith, not science, that somehow a singularity existed without cause....

Actually, krellin, it's a rhetorrical question. It's like asking TMW for a copy of his Doctorate's thesis. You know you won't get it, so you ask it out of exasperation and dismay.

@semck, Mark 13:32 pretty much seals it as far as Jesus not being omniscient (assuming Biblical inerrancy). I never noticed that quote in that way before. You say the Father is omni-all three... so there is no name for (or distinct personality of) the Father "by himself" (as in quantity = God - [Jesus + Holy Spirit])? (in your view) As far as sharing omnipotence in delicate and nuanced ways... well, that is sort of where I lose it as far as the Trinity... it seems to require delicacy and nuance... which just comes out as "curiouser and curiouser" to my ear... and down the rabbit hole we go (i.e. it devolves into chaos and nonsense... at least from my level of understanding). As to the Banach–Tarski paradox... that is clearly something that I cannot get my mind around either... but then paradoxes are not meant to be something that you can make sense of I guess. I wish I understood the mathematics more so I could really puzzle on it. As it is it simply seems absurd.

Question is, in regards to the Trinity that is, does it just appear to be a paradox/nonsense or is it complex beyond our ability to understand. I guess therein lies the debate that cannot be solved. I thought I had a model that might at least bring it to a level that ties up Christian belief with only a handful of assumptions and tenets... but maybe I didn't. Delicacy and nuance and the fact that the trinity is something that Christian theologians themselves can't all agree on seems to firmly put it in the camp of: unknowable and only "resolvable" by faith or lack thereof and what assumptions one brings to the table. ...which is kind of where I was a couple of hours ago... though I understand the question better.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

"Actually, krellin, it's a rhetorrical question. It's like asking TMW for a copy of his Doctorate's thesis. You know you won't get it, so you ask it out of exasperation and dismay." lol. Actually not rhetorical. I figure that people to varying degrees employ logic - and simply have different starting points as to assumptions. I was trying to suss out the assumptions and how much is logic and how much is faith. I know that there are assumptions - some of which I clearly do not hold... but I want to understand how Christians get to their views about the Trinity. And I guess I never understood there to be any logical underpinning about the Trinity before my question formed in my head. It always seemed to be a bizarre grouping of cultural trappings and details from the bible constructed into a three-headed monster. ...and it occurred to me, even though I'm not close to believing in such a construction, it might be partly constructed using logic - with each entity of the whole taking on a personality - not simply a personality defined empirically by the bible - by "god said it, therefore end of story" but that there was a structure to it that went beyond that. That is what I was after.

It is not unlike wanting to understand the assumptions and logic of both libertarians and communists - even though I am neither. For one thing, it might assist in making conversations more on point.

Maybe this could help:

Don't try to understand it. You can't explain it. And no, the different "persons" do not have different properties, simply different jobs, which can be simplified this way: Father, creator. Son, redeemer. Holy Spirit, giver of faith.

Perhaps this will make the issue more distinct:
the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the HS is God,
BUT
the Father is not the Son or the HS,
the Son is not the Father or the HS,
the HS is not the Father or the Son.

The Athenasian Creed puts the whole thing well without trying actually to explain it. The part you're interested in is the first paragraph. The word "Catholic" in this context means "Universal."

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Hope that helped.

dexter,

Thanks for the response, and for caring to understand. Just a couple remarks in response to your post. I think there is a distinct name for the Father "by Himself" -- the Father. I don't mean to be flip by saying that. Just, I don't think that His Omni(potence + presence + science + benevolence) leaves no room for the others. Or if it does, I don't see that.

Next, I would just point out that the Banach-Tarski paradox, while it's called a paradox because it's so surprising to our intuition, is _not_ a paradox in the technical sense. Rather, it is a theorem of mathematics, and thus something that (almost all) mathematicians simply accept as true -- while at the same time admitting that, like you, they just can't get their head around it. (I think if you knew more mathematics, you might understand why mathematicians accept it as true, but I don't think it would ever start making sense to you. Such are the limitations of our minds).

That's why I bring it up: it's an example of the fact that, if we have independent reasons to believe something is true (Christianity, in the case of a Christian, or the Axiom of Choice, in the case of mathematicians), an extremely unintuitive corollary that we can't get our minds around (the Trinity, in the case of Christianity, the BTP in the case of the Axiom of Choice) is not, by itself, a reason to drop it. Some things, we just don't understand.

Now, of course, you're quite right: whether the Trinity is just impossible to grasp (like the B-T Paradox) or actually absurd might be a matter for debate. I've never seen a proof of the former, though, that does not sneak in some kind of axiom which might be extremely intuitive, but need not be universally true. And thus, I leave it as just something very hard / impossible to fully understand.

I do think that looking for such models as you suggest can be extremely useful. After all, the existence of a single model that _could_ work, even if it might not be THE correct one, clears up a lot in terms of the ability to believe a true model might exist.

Regards.

@Draugnar....It's a rhetorical question???? Really? And what athiest professor did you get THAT from? For God's sake...for ONCE in your life admit that you are wrong! That is just idiotic to suggest that jesus was not asking a question.

@Draugnaur...I mean...for crying out loud....if you athiests hear "the sky is blue and God said so" your natural reaction is to say the sky is green. You are so hateful to the ideology that no matter WHAT is said in the name of God...even the inane stories of scripture (which NOBODY can rovie took place!!! Or are accurate!!!) Instead of saying "Prove that sentence was spoken" you instead counter with "that obvious statement meant something else" Do you have ANY idea what a jackass that makes you look like? Instead of using a totally viable defense (prove God said that) you instead try to suggest that God said that very obvious thing, but meant something totallt different.

I pray to God you are not married....because if you are that stupdi with your wife, then I guarantee that someday she will cut off you dick and grind it in the blender simply to prove what an asshole you are.

OK....for all you atheist lunatics....can you please explain to me how scientists have come to the conclusion that, despite *ANY* scientific PROOF, there once was an infinite singularity....and let's understand what a singularity is: It is an Inifintely SMALL point of existence...unmeasurable...contained in which is the ENTIRE MASS of the known universe....

And somehow this "Singularity" was in/became into existence...and was there....waiting...

And somehow this "Singularity" decided to become unstable and explode....

And from an infinetly small, nothingness area of space the ******entire****** universe erupted and was brought into being....

....and then, instead of being chaotic....this universe defied the known laws of physics and became ordered....

Wow....sounds like a god-damned ***RELIGION*** to me....because it takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe in what you believe in.

Universe always existed.

You can't explain that.

@baumhaeuer, Thanks - I've heard bits and pieces of that before... never read the whole thing. Interesting. One thing it made me think of is that it is, at least in regards to Jesus, denying mind-body duality - at least in a sense and embracing beings as being unified wholes... which is interesting in light of the common view of a soul inhabiting our bodies almost like a driver in a vehicle. Much of the rest comes out as simply as stating "this and that are so" rather than explaining (you noted this, of course).

@baumhaeuer and semck, again thanks - probably the closest I'll get to understanding the Trinity - I appreciate your posts.

I have a simpler question about The Holy Trinity:

Why?

Why would a being that was omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent need to divsersify and divide that power amongst itself a la dexter morgan's model--though I'll concede that though this Trinity bit seems nonsense to me, at least there is method in dexter's explanation/theory of said nonsense--or in any other way?

Why should a God NEED or WANT to divide itself up...to say nothing about the logical impossibility of having three seperate forms and beings that are all supposed to be one and the same being at some level (though I guess it could be argued that God might work outside logic, so that'd explain how he can do the logically impossible, but still...why would he WANT to divide himself up?)

And I don't buy a "because he had to send Jesus down, so he had to take Human Form/the form of the Son" answer, either, because:

1. If Jesus came to die for our sins and all that, and God knows about out sins, he could more easily have just waived the debt if the way he was going to "pay it off" was to essentially mutilate himself and have his human form crucified...you're telling me there wasn't a simpler way God coulkd've fixed that problem, to say nothing of the illogic of paying for the sins of others by harming yourself?

2. Even if God DID for some perverse reason feel the need to mutilate himself on the Cross for our sins--that he allowed us to committ, incidentally, and so can really be linked back to His failings as a parent, but I digress--why not pull a Greek God trick and merely come disguised as a human being? Zeus and Hermes did it...and then transformed themselves to punish their bad hosts and reward their good hosts beofre the Greek version of the Flood Myth...why can't God do it? Better still--why not send an angel? He did that with Lot, right? And other stories? Why not send an angel representative or, again, if he had to go in person, come with all his powers a la Zeus...or is Yahweh really losing out to Thunderbolt Man in the end?

@krellin - I'm not an athirst you fucking moron. I'm Lutheran shit for brains.

Oh, and I'm not in college. I'm 45, married, and went to a technical school after serving my time in the Corps.

And rhetorical was the wrong word. My point was Jesus didn't expect an answer from the Father. He was calling out because, for the first time in His 30 year life the Father had turned His gaze away from His Son. Jesus knew why. Jesus knew what was about to happen from beginning to end, but part of Jesus was still mortal man and fear gripped Him.

The universe has existed *as far as we know*.

The fundamental difference between the theistic viewpoint and the rational viewpoint is this:

A theist has the answers. They were written down in a book that explains the world so they don't have to really think. There is nothing further to process after "God created the universe. Can we get a burger now?"

The rational viewpoint has but one thing that we take on faith: That we are capable of understanding the universe around us. Not even that we DO, but that we CAN. That is the one article of "faith" that we go on... and that is merely because to assume otherwise would be profoundly depressing. :) However, no rational thinker would say "We know the universe started with the Big Bang, etc etc". Because we don't know for sure. So far, the prevailing model shows that a Big Bang type event is how our universe came to be, but the key difference is this: If new data or observations come along that invalidate that theory, then that theory gets tossed, and a new (perhaps modified original theory) takes its place.

If evidence contradicts a holy book, then God is still right, and the evidence must be wrong. Or Satan did it, or God is testing us. The holy book can't be wrong, so there is no real way to have meaningful progress.

I don't claim to understand the universe. I only claim that we're going to get a hell of a lot further in doing so by being willing to examine all facts and test them as much as possible... and if the theory and the practice don't match, something is wrong, and we investigate.

That is why I'd rather hang my hat with men and women who aren't content to say "God did it!" but instead ask "How does this work?"

If you want to place your trust in Bronze age myth, knock yourself out. I for one pity you. But its a free country (at least until the Christian Dominionists take over), so believe in whatever crazy shit you like.

lol krellin

Dude, you're going to give yourself an aneurysm.

Do I know how the universe formed? No. But, I don't see why that means I have to believe in a personal god. If we figure it out, then we figure it out. If not, oh well; I never expected all of life's mysteries to be unlocked during my lifetime.

@semck

Using the Banach-Tarski paradox as an example for anything is a slippery slope. While it does technically seem to work, it relies upon finding an manipulating very specific sets which simply don't seem to exist in our universe. In fact, I would consider the BTP to be an argument against god, in the sense that it's something that could work, but doesn't.

abge, I'm afraid you badly misunderstand the BTP. Nobody is suggesting, or has ever suggested, that the BTP refers to physically realized sets of anything. They are sets of points in abstract 3-space. Unless your theology happened to require that God made the universe in such a way that matter could be precisely modeled by arbitrary bounded subsets of R^3 -- and I'm aware of nobody whose theology does or has ever required such -- then it's not much of an argument against God.

Furthermore, nothing you said weakens my usage of the BTP: it is something that is true and completely impossible to understand intuitively. It nowhere claims to involve physical sets of anything, so your point is simply orthogonal to the whole discussion.

Regards.

Really insightful questions. My stab at an answer: 1) God is omnipresent, but we don't experience the full awesome force of his presence. See Moses on the mountain where God passed by at his request and Moses just saw a glimmer and still it lit him up like crazy. And no sin could exist in the fullness of God's presence. 2) The very nature of God, being so full of love, incorporates even in himself the loving and the beloved, so there must be more than just one person/persona/manifestation/whatever you want to call it to try to understand it. 3) It's really hard to try to wrap one's mind around an infinite God, but here are three illustrations that helped me accept that there might be a logical way to understand the trinity: a.) Water exists in three forms--liquid, solid, and gaseous, each with it's own attributes and characteristics--but it's all H2O. No contradiction there. b.) If you cut an apple into three pieces, you'll get the full benefit "as long as you eat it all." c.) Exodus 2 and 3 talk about God hearing his people, seeing their plight, and coming down to save them. It's just that he came in a way that we could see and interact with, as one of us, a real human of real human descent on his mom's side. But yeah, the nature of the infinite God of the universe is a knotty question that's hard to wrap my 2 and a half pounds of brain around.