[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8cup / arepa / fascist / htg / leftpol / sw / tacos / vg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: aee98758875ebad⋯.jpg (70.42 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (25).jpg)

48ec38 No.677748

Hey /christian/, what I'm about to post has been on /islam/ for a while in a Trinity discussion thread, I just want to see if /christian/ has a rebuttal to what is being claimed by this Muslim.

>The laws of the excluded middle and contradiction do not undermine monotheism, they demand it. They undermine the trinity which is rank paganism. Logic can be seen as negative theology (what God isn’t) while revelation is positive theology (what God is). Monotheism can only be undermined when the imperfect reasoning abilities of men are placed above revelation – which is exactly what the trinity doctrine does.

>Divinity can be seen as “irrational” in the sense that the human mind alone cannot be expected to properly quantify it, hence the need for revelation from above. If we accept the premise of unrevealed divinity and its “irrationality” then monotheism is less irrational a priori than polytheism. In this same manner Unitarianism is less irrational than Trinitarianism. Then if we accept the premise of revealed divinity along with the veracity of Abrahamic scripture we find that monotheism is more veracious a posteriori than polytheism; similarly Unitarianism is more veracious than Trinitarianism. Trinity is subrational whereas Tawhid is (supra)rational; Trinity is extra-scriptural whereas Tawhid is scriptural.

>God is fully Beyond-Being because God is not limited in anyway like/by/or part of God’s creation. An understanding of God based on observing the createdness of being (God’s creation) would be by necessity induced rationally, however the Trinity is irrational. An understanding of God based on revealed scripture would be deduced from beyond being, yet Trinity theory is not revealed in scripture. While most though not all Christians accept the trinity theory axiomatically as a compelling paradox it is wholly artificial in the sense that neither scripture nor rationality can account for it; it is an equivocation. Catholics claim to be against continual revelation yet they endorse “internal locution” and believe the “holy spirit” has helped them do everything from write their own Bible to carry out the Second Vatican Council. They’ve signed the front and back of a theological blank check.

>Trinitarian Christianity holds that the Godhead is the ideal form of and over the “Three Persons” that share the same essence. This theory opens the door for “all potentialities” which is how it is disproved by the Third Man Argument. We can observe the infinite regress of divine powers in the Catholic Church in ways such as Mary being called “The Mother of God”, calling Anne “The Grandmother of God”, the Immaculate Conception not only of Jesus but of Mary along with her perpetual virginity, the neverending litany of new Saints, doctrinal infalibility. Protestants do not deny Jesus is God, nor do they deny that Mary was the mother of Jesus yet they deny she is Mother of God. So Catholics can be said to operate logically from an illogical premise whereas Protestants operate illogically from the same illogical premise.

Any formal response?

eac118 No.677751

>>677748

This is horribly verbose and badly written. That aside,

>An understanding of God based on revealed scripture would be deduced from beyond being, yet Trinity theory is not revealed in scripture.

Untrue. The gospels reveal the existence of the trinity. The Gospel of John is the clearest but if the trinity is not true, parts of each gospel must be false.

>While most though not all Christians accept the trinity theory axiomatically as a compelling paradox

It's not a paradox, it's often badly communicated and often misunderstood.

>it is wholly artificial in the sense that neither scripture nor rationality can account for it;

Again, scripture point already made. Rationality can also comprehend it- get ready for some studying though, took me a good six months of actively seeking to understand it. I could give you a quick explanation, but it probably wouldn't sink in for awhile.

>Catholics…

Not my problem

>We can observe the infinite regress of divine powers in the Catholic Church in ways such as Mary being called “The Mother of God”, calling Anne “The Grandmother of God”, the Immaculate Conception not only of Jesus but of Mary along with her perpetual virginity, the neverending litany of new Saints, doctrinal infalibility. Protestants do not deny Jesus is God, nor do they deny that Mary was the mother of Jesus yet they deny she is Mother of God. So Catholics can be said to operate logically from an illogical premise whereas Protestants operate illogically from the same illogical premise.

The idea here that Jesus being God is an illogical premise simply hasn't been proven or even shown so extrapolations mean nothing.

I rarely see so many words used to say so little. Rather than being written by an educated person, this appears to have been written either (A) by a high school student with a Thesaurus, or (B) by someone who's first language isn't English, and shouldn't be trying to argue theology in a language they're not comfortable in.


9ad98d No.677766

>>677748

Ah, that. I never considered it worthy of a full reply, but since you have requested it (presumably out of some doubt sparked by it) I shall attempt to provide one.

>They undermine the trinity which is rank paganism

That is a weighty claim which requires equally weighty substantiation. I propose that the argument will actually take it for granted, rather than prove it.

>Monotheism can only be undermined when the imperfect reasoning abilities of men are placed above revelation

I disagree. As the muslim will say just a few sentences later in direct contradiction to this, monotheism is more rational than polytheism. Reason reveals a creator of all things, who having created it, is also master of it. This leaves no providence to other gods, so why are they fit to be called gods? Indeed, reason reveals these other gods to be mere creatures, since they are so limited in their alleged providence (a god of thunder, a god of war, a god of love), but the creator, being before all limitation, is naturally unlimited. Therefore idolatry is incredibly irrational, since only God is worthy of worship.

>which is exactly what the trinity doctrine does

That is ridiculous. The trinity is often criticized as being absurd, Christians have argued the lack of reason in it proves its divine origin (since no man would think of it). No Christian has ever believed in the trinity because of how rational it is. The only good reason to believe in the trinity is because it is how God revealed Himself to be in the Holy Bible.

>Divinity

I think they're saying this instead of God because they're considering monotheism and polytheism equally. That's an error. The eminence of God and the creatureliness of the gods is such an obvious and fundamental separating difference that anyone who believes in the former should take it for granted – unless the muslims are just pagans who worship one strange god instead of many.

>Divinity can be seen as “irrational” in the sense that the human mind alone cannot be expected to properly quantify it

The human mind can absolutely never quantify it. This muslim keeps thinking of God as like creation. God is so far beyond our created minds that at best we might be able to comprehend the reasons why we cannot comprehend His majesty.

>hence the need for revelation from above

We do not "need" God to reveal Himself. That He does is a tremendous condescension that requires inestimable gratitude. We already know who God is from our first thoughts, what we need is to be graciously given eyes to see and ears to hear, so we may stop suppressing the truth of Him which we know in our hearts.

>In this same manner Unitarianism is less irrational than Trinitarianism

Ignoring their inconsistent accusations of rationalism and irrationality, we know God through reason because the creation reveals in its form how it interacted with its creator. To be crude, it only shows us the "exterior" of God. The question of unitarianism and trinitarianism is about God's "interior", the things which have been made cannot shine a light on that. However, I'm sure the muslim knows that. The reason he claims this is because he is presupposing his thesis, that the trinity is paganism. In reality this statement creates undue distinction with the previous one, since what he actually means is that unitarianism is monotheism, and trinitarianism is polytheism.

>God is fully Beyond-Being because God is not limited in anyway like/by/or part of God’s creation

Existence is neither a limiting nor created attribute. God is not "beyond being" because God is the very definition of being. In fact, we might even say that being the greatest of God's attributes, since above all else, God is. This is why more than any of the other things which are properly His name like Lord or God, His name is YHWH, which is derived from Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, "I am that I am" (or, more precisely, "I am substantially being").

>yet Trinity theory is not revealed in scripture

Unsurprisingly he does not even reference scripture, he merely asserts the condtradiction.

>While most though not all Christians accept the trinity theory axiomatically

I must correct this. There is no such thing as a Christian who denies the trinity. As scripture says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also".

>Catholics

Perhaps he should've spent more time forming a legitimate argument than ranting about papists.

>Trinitarian Christianity holds that the Godhead is the ideal form of and over the “Three Persons” that share the same essence.

I can only assume that was ignorance, since what he described is not Christianity. The Godhead is merely the three together. Divinity does not increase by us considering them altogether.

All in all, I would say I did not rebut an argument against the trinity.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8cup / arepa / fascist / htg / leftpol / sw / tacos / vg ]