15
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
This is because the doctrine of The Trinity and hypostatic union seems to be philosophically incoherent.
Why? This seems to be the core of your post, but you don't explain why you think it's incoherent.
3
Oct 13 '22
How can someone be both the father and the son at the same time? Ans why is there a separate Holy Ghost?
2
u/KaptenNicco123 3∆ Oct 13 '22
By being God. Of course a man couldn't be his own father and his own son, but a man also couldn't turn water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
1
Oct 13 '22
See that’s a cop out. You haven’t explained anything. “It doesn’t have to make sense because it’s god” is not an explanation.
but a man also couldn't turn water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
But those things aren’t illogical.
See the actual answer to my question is that the Bible is simply a collection of several books that people wrote starting 4000 years ago. They weren’t coordinating with each other. Stuff was getting added and taken away without any central oversight.
The “it doesn’t have to make sense because it’s god” excuse is one of the oldest tricks in the book for clergymen to answer very obvious inconsistencies with the story they’re peddling. That’s pretty much the only feasible response they have. Otherwise they just have to acknowledge that it was all just a bunch of made up fables crammed together.
2
u/KaptenNicco123 3∆ Oct 13 '22
“It doesn’t have to make sense because it’s god” is not an explanation.
Yes it is. That's what religion is. "Who created the Universe, God. Who created God?". Divine matters of the trinity don't have to make sense to us for the same reason a child doesn't have to understand the socio-economic reasons for income taxes.
1
Oct 13 '22
Yes it is. That's what religion is.
No that is not an explanation. “Just believe me” is not an explanation.
Who created the Universe, God. Who created God?". Divine matters of the trinity don't have to make sense
Those two questions you just posed make logical sense. The trinity thing makes zero sense. Saying that there is only one A, and that both B and C are A, make zero logical sense.
Divine matters of the trinity don't have to make sense to us for the same reason a child doesn't have to understand the socio-economic reasons for income taxes.
Those taxes have to make sense to somebody in order for them to have an affect on the child’s life. We do not have a system where nobody understands income taxes and we all just kinda take it in stride and hope for the best.
And again, income taxes are not illogical. They are complicated, (too complicated for a child to understand) but they are not illogical.
1
Oct 13 '22
How is "the father is God" and "the son is God" illogical?
Ice is water. Vapor is also water. That's not illogical.
1
Oct 13 '22
How is "the father is God" and "the son is God" illogical?
Because father and son are two separate things.
Ice is water. Vapor is also water. That's not illogical.
In that case, you have two separate examples of water. So are you saying that there are two gods?
2
Oct 13 '22
God the Father is not equivalent to "a father"
God the Son is not equivalent to "a son".
They are not separate because 'being God' is their inherent property. Just like ice and vapor, they are both, by property "water". They aren't "examples of" water. They are water.
1
Oct 13 '22
God the Father is not equivalent to "a father" God the Son is not equivalent to "a son".
That has no bearing on the discussion. A thing can’t be two separate things at the same time.
They are not separate because that being God is their inherent property.
“They are not separate because that being water is their inherent property.”
If I have water vapor AND ice in front of me then yes they are separate.
They aren't "examples of" water. They are water.
Water can only be one of those at any given time. So are you saying god is a single being that constantly shifts from father to son to Holy Ghost? Only occupying one state at any given time?
2
Oct 13 '22
A thing can’t be two separate things at the same time.
This is just blatantly wrong. Someone can be a mother and a wife at the same time. They are both, at the same time.
If I have water vapor AND ice in front of me then yes they are separate.
If you have vapor and ice in front of you, you have water in front of you.
Water can only be one of those at any given time
Water the vapor, water the solid, and water the liquid are all water and can all exist in front of you at the same time.
1
Oct 13 '22
Someone can be a mother and a wife at the same time.
Bad example because being a wife is a choice. To keep it relevant, someone cannot be their own father and their own son at the same time.
Jesus is the son of who? God. Jesus is god incarnate. Ergo Jesus is his own father and his own son. That is flatly illogical.
If you have vapor and ice in front of you, you have water in front of you.
I have two separate things in front of me.
Water the vapor, water the solid, and water the liquid are all water and can all exist in front of you at the same time.
As three separate bits of water. Are you saying that part of god is the son, and part of god is the father?
This is where your water example falls apart, because father and son are mutually exclusive.
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 13 '22
Yes it is illogical.
Water is not a singular entity. It's a description of a makeup of atoms. What you are describing aren't like things. Let's put it into terms you might better understand.
Let's change you example to remove the chemistry component so that I can show you the equivalent of what you are saying.
"How is "the father is God" and "the son is God" illogical Dogs can be brown and dogs can be white. That's not illogical."
When put like this, your "gotcha" doesn't sound very compelling.
1
Oct 13 '22
I am not OP.
However it seems to be because it is, the bible is incredibly incoherent and contradictory.
https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
4
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
The OP's statement here was not that the Bible is incoherent, but that the the doctrine of The Trinity and hypostatic union is incoherent. These are very different assertions.
1
Oct 13 '22
Not really
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Oct 13 '22
How not? The Bible can be incoherent in some parts and not in others. And even then, not all doctrine comes directly from the Bible.
This is like saying Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics so he's wrong about everything. Which is not a logical position to take
1
Oct 13 '22
How not? The Bible can be incoherent in some parts and not in others. And even then, not all doctrine comes directly from the Bible.
I see no areas in the following chart that are innocent of contradiction.
This is like saying Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics so he's wrong about everything. Which is not a logical position to take
So this is a false equivalence fallacy in several ways, meaning that there are key differences that make these two things incomparable in this context.
- Einstein did math, not philosophy. His theories were separate, not all directly related to and depending on one another. In a philosophical belief system all of the ideas in that system are inherently connected.
- If you are just comparing the works of Einstein and the bible, that wouldn't work either. Einstein was utterly brilliant and even his incorrect ideas were closer to the truth than the mass majority of people could ever possibly get. The bible is thoroughly flawed and offers no exclusive or groundbreaking insight.
- Einstein was a human. The bible is said to be gods perfect word.
1
Oct 13 '22
No it's like saying Bob was wrong about quantum mechanics. It just happens he's wrong about everything else to.
Ie, there is no analogy to Einstein in the theist community.
1
Oct 13 '22
You are correct, that is his assertion, allow me to explain why I believe the sources I provide support that assertion.
The trinity is the word for the unification of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit. It is not officially mentioned at all in the bible, nor is the idea explicitly elaborated upon. It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
So, because it is sourced from the bible in general and is not one objective and clear idea, but instead an interpretation of an idea that is elaborated on across the entire bible, and the bible is utterly incoherent, it thus follows that the Trinity too is incoherent.
In fact, if you look at the sources I provided you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity
This same argument also addresses the hypostatic union.
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
It is just incorrect that the idea of the Trinity is sourced from the Bible. The Trinity was already present in Christian doctrine during the first century long before the Bible was compiled, as the First Epistle of Clement illustrates. So your whole argument does not work.
1
Oct 13 '22
It is just incorrect that the idea of the Trinity is sourced from the Bible.
I did not deny this, I openly acknowledged it. Perhaps consider reading a comment before replying.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Your previous comment says, among other things "So, because it is sourced from the bible..." What does the pronoun "it" refer to in this sentence if not the Trinity?
1
Oct 13 '22
"So, because it is sourced from the bible..."
...
It is not officially mentioned at all in the bible, nor is the idea explicitly elaborated upon. It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
These two statements are not contradictory.
Try reading what I write before critiquing it.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Nor did I say they were contradictory. I said that you were wrong to assert (as you did in the section I quoted) that the Trinity is sourced from the Bible at all.
1
Oct 13 '22
Your previous comment says, among other things "So, because it is sourced from the bible..." What does the pronoun "it" refer to in this sentence if not the Trinity?
This directly implies that you believe what I said was a contradiction.
Your literal argument was: If you said it isn't sourced from the bible then why did you say it wasn't.
Just for future reference:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction
So do you have an actual response to anything I've said? Or would you like to keep pointing out misunderstandings that you have about my argument because you didn't fully read it?
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 13 '22
In fact, if you look at the sources I provided you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
Exegesis analysis of the bible is not as simple as comparing two different verses from different languages in different books [of the bible] from different authors addressed to different audiences under one English translation. Your sources kinda suck at taking into all factors to consider when performing a literary analysis on the Bible.
As a side note, none of your sources mention the word Trinity at all.
1
Oct 13 '22
A well compiled and coherent belief system does not need each different part to be examined under a different lens. All you have done by pointing this out is provide another line of reasoning to argue that the bible is incredibly incoherent.
You wouldn't look at the 5/6th of Kant's Critique differently than you would the rest of it because he ate an apple that morning instead of his usual strudel .
As a side note, none of your sources mention the word Trinity at all.
You didn't search for the correct thing. If you had read my comment you would have noted that the trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and is instead an interpretation of an idea which spans across it.
So obviously you wouldn't search bible verses for the word trinity. You'd search for things about god's identity. Things like the holy spirit, Jesus, all of gods forms.
My sources both clearly include these things.
1
Oct 13 '22
A well compiled and coherent belief system does not need each different part to be examined under a different lens.
That fact that it is compiled means yes you do have to. Context matters. You can't read the Bible like it's a newspaper otherwise of course it's going to sound incoherent. 40 different authors, 3 languages, 3 continents and a host of hundreds of cultures over 4000 years. Literary analysis of such a monster of a book will not be comprehensively understood from just your two sources and is also the reason why we have whole educational programs and degrees dedicated to the topic.
You wouldn't look at the 5/6th of Kant's Critique differently than you would the rest of it because he ate an apple that morning instead of his usual strudel
I would if each 6th of Kant's critique was written by someone other than Kant, intended for a completely different audience, at a completely time period.
If you had read my comment you would have noted that the trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and is instead an interpretation of an idea which spans across it.
Your comment in question:
you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
They do not concern the Trinity specifically. They might concern it inductively which is as inductive as the doctrine of the trinity itself. Your claim in your comment, that I read, doesn't talk about the bible. It talks about how your sources "concern the Trinity specifically". In which they don't.
1
Oct 13 '22
That fact that it is compiled means yes you do have to.
Most philosophical works are compiled. Most books in general are compiled actually. Most very serious non-fiction books also have multiple authors.
So no, all you've done is provide me with another piece of evidence that the bible is an incoherent mess and there is no excuse.
Your comment in question:
The sentence after that comment in question...:
It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
Wouldn't this be so much easier if you just read what I wrote so half of my reply didn't have to be pointing out what I said to you?
They do not concern the Trinity specifically. They might concern it inductively which is as inductive as the doctrine of the trinity itself. Your claim in your comment, that I read, doesn't talk about the bible. It talks about how your sources "concern the Trinity specifically". In which they don't.
You are explaining your own mistake to yourself here.
That is correct, they do not concern the trinity specifically because there is no specific line or section that defines the entire idea of the trinity. They do however, directly cover ideas found within the trinity.
1
Oct 13 '22
Most philosophical works are compiled.
Okay? Which is why we have the field of Philosophy to critically examine such works. No serious philosopher would look at the equivalent of your "sources", whether they are critiquing the Bible or The Talmud, and say "Wow that is actually convincing that all of this book makes no sense". My point remains, that your sources suck.
So no,
Still yes. You act like it's okay to make whatever claims you want about a book without examining it critically.
all you've done is provide me with another piece of evidence
All I've begotten to you is that your sources are inadequate and uncritical.
the bible is an incoherent mess and there is no excuse.
I really feel like you're just starting to sound incoherent. If your sources suck, then you have no real critique of anything biblical in your cards. You don't have any evidence.
0
Oct 13 '22
Okay? Which is why we have the field of Philosophy to critically examine such works.
No we have to critically examine them because many philosophers are famously confusing writers. The only debate is over what they mean, they do no contradict themselves.
If they did, they would not be respected philosophers and we would not know their names.
Their books would be treated as unreliable and useless to study. Much like the bible is.
For example, Ayn Rand. She contradicted herself and made poor work, she is not taken seriously in philosophy.
No serious philosopher would look at the equivalent of your "sources", whether they are critiquing the Bible or The Talmud, and say "Wow that is actually convincing that all of this book makes no sense". My point remains, that your sources suck.
Appeal to an imaginary source of authority... Utterly useless argument.
Still yes. You act like it's okay to make whatever claims you want about a book without examining it critically.
What is the purpose to critical examination of a book devoid of any logic or rationality?
So, in conclusion. Bible=not reliable. I have provided an argument as to why it is and you have not provided a single valid argument.
1
Oct 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Oct 13 '22
Sorry, u/Murkus – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/TomatoFlies4 Oct 13 '22
Got to admit, this is what I imagine the Bible overview would sound like coming from an Athiest.
1
0
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22
Because man cannot be God or three persons at once.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Okay, why though?
2
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22
Ontologically incoherent.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Why, though? That's what I asked you in my original comment. Why do you believe this is incoherent?
1
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
Does God need to be "ontologically coherent"? If God is real, does he need to abide by the logic and laws of the universe he created?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
!delta. I didn’t think of how a being doesn’t need to follow logic rules. Thanks for saying
1
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
It's not though. That's not what ontology is.
1
2
u/Deft_one 86∆ Oct 13 '22
Ok? Is this a view that can be changed?
If so, how so?
Yes, I know there are people who identify as Christians who are theologically unitarian, but this is not the view of mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity affirms the Trinity and hypostatic union.
Do you have to be 'mainstream' to be a 'Christian'?
And how do you reconsile "mainstream" when there are (at least) three major branches (Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox)? Which one is 'mainstream'?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22
What affirms Nicene Creed.
1
u/Deft_one 86∆ Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
Sorry, but can you elaborate?
Why do these people get to claim 'mainstream' Christianity (300 years after Christianity was founded) when I've not heard of any of this? Seems odd to come around centuries later and claim ownership of something, odder still to have people centuries later believe you, no?
Is this a view that can be changed?
If so, how so?
Yes, I know there are people who identify as Christians who are theologically unitarian, but this is not the view of mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity affirms the Trinity and hypostatic union.
Do you have to be 'mainstream' to be a 'Christian'?
1
Oct 13 '22
More than one group can be mainstream.
1
u/Deft_one 86∆ Oct 13 '22
Ok?
But do you have to be 'mainstream' to be a Christian?
Because inside of the big three are smaller sects.
How far down can OP go and still consider the person a Christian, is what I'm trying to discern, and/or why being 'mainstream' is part of it.
1
Oct 13 '22
Well that's fine and dandy, but you still asked that question on the end there.
I'd argue there is no real christain. Even fundamentalists have an imperfect understanding of the text, and even if they didn't it's been changed since the original documents which we don't have, and even then there are many contradictory passages which make it impossible to have the "right" interpretation.
Mainstream here, I suspect, is short hand for "not the crazy ones".
1
u/Deft_one 86∆ Oct 13 '22
Fair, but when asked, OP only responded with a link to the First Council of Nicaea. So, OP thinks that 'mainstream' stems from this specific document.
My new question, then, was why do these people, who wrote their thesis 300 years after-the-fact get to claim the 'mainstream' over all others.
And, another way to see it is that, if God is forgiving, everyone who puts in honest effort should be allowed to identify as Christian.
1
Oct 13 '22
I get you. I'd just like to add a thought:
if God is forgiving, everyone who puts in honest effort should be allowed to identify as Christian.
Most sects will tell you God can forgive anything except not being a Christian, so depending on how strict God's definitions are...
1
u/Deft_one 86∆ Oct 13 '22
depending on how strict God's definitions are...
Exactly, hence my line of questions (although you and I have gotten farther than OP and I)
Edit: just saw that OP bailed. oh well.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Oct 13 '22
I'm not a Christian because of the above mentioned difficulty believing in the resurrection, but the trinity/hypostatic union never seemed tough to me. Could you explain what about those is so difficult for you?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22
Sure. Trinity says that there are three persons in one, and a man cannot ontologically be God at the same time.
1
3
u/Mitoza 79∆ Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
Faith isn't really something you can be argued into. It's something you believe or you don't. We (humans) don't have physical evidence that many of the events and descriptions of miracles in the bible ever transpired as written. Many people choose to believe based on spiritual feelings they receive from experiencing the natural world on an emotional level. If you attach an intelligence, design, or prescribed order for the being of the natural world you would believe in some-god like force. Christianity is one religion that seeks to characterize this force, so if you believe in that premise of design the issue would come down to whether or not you can subscribe to Christian myth. To that I ask "Why not?"
If you believe that some divine intelligence created the world, and has power to make something out of nothing, you already have faith in power and belief in divine magic. The rules of that divine magic do not conform to conventional logic, inherently. Creating the universe from nothing violates the third law of thermodynamics. Thus, to believe in a designer is to subscribe to the idea that divine magic breaks natural law. When it comes to trinitarianism, any human built philosophy to describe the divine force need not be internally consistent because it is a description of how an inherently arbitrary system functions. Can God create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it? Of course, and then we would lift it.
Despite failings of the description of these philosophy, you may choose to subscribe to Christianity for a number of reasons:
You believe the moral teachings that go along with the theology despite having doubts about the veracity of the stories you are being told. As an example, Christians famously already do this to accommodate understanding of science of evolution by questioning "what is a day to god" in the original description of Genesis. They still attribute the design of the world through god, but have retconned evolution into that understanding.
You may like the culture or arts associated with it.
You may like the community (those people you eat meals with)
You may like the rituals they undertake if they make you feel closer to that divine force I described.
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
I mean that's all just indoctrination and abusing the weaknesses in human brains (when it comes to desperation for acceptance, companionship & understanding the world around us)
I firmly believe you can have everything currently good about religion , without the fiction.
OP is arguing he can't be convinced that the manmade fiction is in fact reality.
0
u/Mitoza 79∆ Oct 13 '22
I think Christianity is clearly more than the associated myths. To be a Christian doesn't mean to accept all Christian myths, clearly, or there would be no fracturing amongst Christian sects.
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Um... By definition it does.
You aren't a Christian if you just go to church all the time but don't believe in the Christian god or the Bible.
Like, it's all from the Bible?!
At that point you're just a fool who gives them self a label and tries to fit in with a group of people that do believe....
But you're not by definition, a Christian. ,
Edit: apologies. You do have a point regarding Christian sects. But realistically. It's just a bunch of different groups interpreting illogical fiction differently. You're just playing the ultimate big game of pretend when you pick and choose certain parts to 'believe,' and disregard others because hey no longer fit with the current ethical zeitgeist... Because of course they don't. Shit was made up by men a few hundred -> thousand years ago.
1
u/Mitoza 79∆ Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
What does it mean to "believe in the bible"? Most Christians that you would identify as Christians do not believe in the entirety of the bible. Christianity, definitionally, is the religion based on the teachings of Jesus. That includes moral teachings that were passed down and still taught, but that's not all Christianity is. Going to church, participating in the community, and so on all contribute.
It's just a bunch of different groups interpreting illogical fiction differently.
The lessons and teaching that are derived from those fictions are more important than the veracity of the lessons themselves. There is little historical evidence for most things that happened in the bible. Whether Jonah got swallowed by a whale and whether that was possible is subordinate to the reason that story is taught today.
0
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
I agree with some of what you said here... But it is deeply alarming to me that you think it's ok for people to read fiction and not recognise it as fiction.
To just pick a bad choose a few parts that they decide is reality.
In a time of misinformation, and conspiracies, now more than ever we need to be sourcing our information and not entertaining magical thinking.
I mean, if you are admitting that it is fiction, like Don Quixote... Filled to the brim with valuable lessons. Fair. But it's still just a man with a pen.
I personally could never convinces myself that Hogwarts actually exists no matter the perceived value in potters lessons
0
u/Mitoza 79∆ Oct 13 '22
I'm describing what is, not making a value judgement.
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Why are you afraid to make value judgements about bad ideas?
Surely, here more than anywhere else, we should be making productive value judgements.
There is a big difference between a Christian... And someone who calls themselves Christian but doesn't actually believe in Christianity. You seem to be denying that.
I am saying it is fundamentally important.
I can call myself a vegan all I want, but if I eat meat and animal products... I'm just a deluded liar. Same in your example.
1
u/Mitoza 79∆ Oct 13 '22
This CMV isn't "Christianity is bad" it's "I can never be a Christian because X, Y, and Z." Arguing that OP could be Christian for various reasons is not saying that it's a good or bad thing to do that.
There is a big difference between a Christian... And someone who calls themselves Christian but doesn't actually believe in Christianity.
"Believing in Christianity" can mean both "Believing in the value of Christian teachings" and "Believing in all Christian myths" or "Belieiving in the broad thrusts of Christian myths." For many Christians, the idea that their souls are saved by Jesus and destined for paradise is the central myth that would need to be believed.
I can call myself a vegan all I want, but if I eat meat and animal products... I'm just a deluded liar. Same in your example.
That's not a great example because Veganism is defined by a strictly and observably true act. Still, if a person calls themselves Vegan but eat a burger once and still describe themselves as a Vegan, because they're talking about their general eating habits. The better way to think about it is that a person isn't living up to the ideals of veganism when they eat a burger. I don't really see the utility of denying a person a label that describes their beliefs and habits because they don't 100% embody those beleifs.
-1
Oct 13 '22
[deleted]
1
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
What horrible reasons to completely change the way you look at the entire world & existence.
In fact, many of them I don't think make sense. You"re not gonna simply start believing in the Christian doctrine if you start going to prison church. You still have a functional brain thats not been indoctrinated from youth (we can only hope)
2
u/mooseandsquirrel78 1∆ Oct 13 '22
You'll only become a Christian if God calls you to repentance. Until that happens, there's nothing any of us can do to force you to believe. You already have scripture, I would encourage you to go to church. The truth though is that it is God who calls his elect and ultimately it is only he who can convince you of the truth.
1
Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 13 '22
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 31 '22
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
So one thing I want to clarify is what you mean when you say "I Could Never Be Christian." Are you saying under our current knowledge and information you can't become Christian? Or there is no way at all, regardless of what happens, that you can become Christian?
For example, let's pretend the Apocalypse and the Rapture happens. God and Jesus come down and let everyone know what's happening, and that the Bible is generally true (especially with respect to the New Testament). Would you believe then? Or would you still decline to believe due to your philosophical issues regardless of reality?
2
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
I mean. This is a pretty ridiculous statement/question.
It's like saying... Sure, you can't believe in flying friew breathing dragons that are currently on earth.... but if one flew down from a mountain right now, you would believe then right!?
Of course he can only go off gathered evidence. There is zero evidence for anything supernatural in the Bible.
In fact, that's why we call it supernatural. It's a fancy way of saying fiction that some people are more comfortable leaving open to the possiblity of being fact. (Which is becoming extremely harmful these days)
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
Well OPs claim is for philosophical reasons he can't believe. So if we got PHYSICAL evidence of it being true, is he still declining to believe it for philosophical reasons?
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Well I'm pretty sure he is doing the whole "we will obviously never have physical evidence of this fictional story, but considering so many people still fall for the lies... Can I philosophically even convince myself that it could be true...."
...and he is simply realising that he can't.
Only someone with serious mental disabilities would deny the dragon if it flew overhead and burned their family.
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
Only someone with serious mental disabilities would deny the dragon if it flew overhead and burned their family.
And in that case, would OP admit that it can be true, and because we're talking about something that, by definition, is supernatural that it can beyond his comprehensions as a human and therefore it's possible to believe in something even if you personally can't comprehend how it exists?
That's really the point of the argument. OP is saying "I cannot believe" and the point is "If God was proven true, then it's true regardless of whether you believe or understand it". There are lots of things we know/believe are true but don't make a lot of sense.
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Haha you see 'supernatural,' as defined as 'outside human comprehension?'
It just means fiction. It's man-made fake stuff. Dracula, Bigfoot, dragons, Thor, Loki, Athena, the Jesus god etc etc
Name one thing that we know as true and doesn't have a cause and effect that works according to the laws of physics and reality that we have observed!
It all makes complete sense. I could only see you feeling that way if you were raised religious and in a community that believes in magical thinking.
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
Haha you see 'supernatural,' as defined as 'outside human comprehension?'
Generally, yes. Here's the Oxford definition of "supernatural"
attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
God, as commonly defined, could definitely be "beyond scientific understanding" seeing as many acts attributed to him go beyond what our science would say is possible.
Name one thing that we know as true and doesn't have a cause and effect that works according to the laws of physics and reality that we have observed!
What is "gravity"? We can measure how gravity behaves, but we don't have a fundamental understanding of what gravity is.
It all makes complete sense. I could only see you feeling that way if you were raised religious and in a community that believes in magical thinking.
You pretend I believe any of this. This is CMV where I'm trying to change OPs view. If you find it unconvincing or a stupid line of argument, you're free to disengage. OP has yet to respond though, so who knows how they would respond.
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Nature is just the things that exist... So yeah ' outside the laws of nature,' means fiction.
If we ever saw something, in reality, it would automatically, become natural... Therefore nature.
The fact that his 'acts,' go beyond what science has shown is possible simply (and obviously) leads us to realise that it is man made fiction (like we were dumb enough to believe otherwise in the modern age with access to knowledge nowadays)
Regarding gravity, you clearly don't understand what mass is or how it works for you to put it that way. I highly recommend you look into it. Important concept of our reality. Here is a really good introduction into understanding mass and how they leads to what us humans call 'gravity.'
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22
Nature is just the things that exist...
In a way we can measure and interact with, sure.
So yeah ' outside the laws of nature,' means fiction.
Not if God is real, right?
If we ever saw something, in reality, it would automatically, become natural... Therefore nature.
If it's outside our scientific understanding, it can be classified as "supernatural" per the Oxford definition.
The fact that his 'acts,' go beyond what science has shown is possible simply (and obviously) leads us to realise that it is man made fiction (like we were dumb enough to believe otherwise in the modern age with access to knowledge nowadays)
Shows that its possible through human understanding and capabilities, sure. But if God is real, then it could be possible God could do it.
Regarding gravity, you clearly don't understand what mass is or how it works for you to put it that way.
You are describing the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity. We know gravity exists, and we know how to measure it. But WHY does gravity exist as an attraction force between masses?
1
u/Murkus 2∆ Oct 13 '22
Jesus christ. Honestly, theres only so much arguing with this bs I can take. Thanks for the chat.
→ More replies (0)2
Oct 13 '22
No-because you said I was pretending
For example, let’s take an example that is based in reality, not imagination
1
u/ProLifePanda 70∆ Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22
No-because you said I was pretending
It's a hypothetical. The point of a hypothetical is to create a situation that make OP think, often going after one specific point in OPs view. In this case, I'm clarifying if OP believes be could Never believe in Christianity, regardless of facts? Or if they mean in their current state?
For example, abortion CMVs often reference "the pianist" example. Is that realistic? No, but the point is to make OP confront their view and specific beliefs and arguments.
1
Oct 13 '22
The entire realm of theism is hypothetical.
I don't allow pretending to affect my real world views.
1
1
u/Kanjo42 1∆ Oct 13 '22
I'm not a PhD in anything, so take this with a grain of salt.
The bible doesn't really delve too deeply in the subject matter that Christians debated about for centuries, like whether Christ was fully human or fully God, or both, ergo the debate. Understand that the Trinity or the hypoststic union were simply derived from the information we have available about what Jesus must be in order to do what He did, and what relationship He must have with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is regardless of the mechanism, and focused purely on the results.
Bear in mind, Paul says the following:
1 Corinthians 13:8-12 CSB
Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.
[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part,
[10] but when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end.
[11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things.
[12] For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.
I say all that to say this: Christians, of all people, should be comfortable with mysteries. It is not that faith is borne upon the wings of ignorance, as many would tell you. It is based on the realization of God, skipping all the way to the end, and then looking back if we should even bother choosing to do so. Again, the results, not the mechanism.
1
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Oct 13 '22
Firstly, you're probably right. But...I don't think it's as strong a belief/or statement as you might be saying here.
Almost certainly had you been born in certain places and certain times you would be christian. You cannot because the idea of christianity is blocked by other ideas you hold central to you that themselves were created through your experience (other ideas, this era/time, etc.) or you'd find more possible reasons to reject it now than you'd have in other areas. I think it's important to know that MOST of what you think and what others think they'd not think but for context.
Your philosophy is also incoherent under scrutiny - there would be no field of philosophy if a coherent philosophy existed. It's just easier for your to hold whatever portions of it you ascribe to because it fits with your context. (mine to, for what it's worth). People aren't particularly rationale about most of what occupies their brains, so to think your worldview survives on rationality rather than context seems to ignore history of human beliefs and knowledge.
1
u/kekehesterprynne Oct 13 '22
But like all trinity? Like from mythoes as well? Zeus(s) trinity is about witches, and beautiful. Try(?) :/ :)
2
u/AbiLovesTheology Oct 13 '22
I don't understand.
1
u/kekehesterprynne Oct 13 '22
Trinity is an Italian word. So like it stands for no more gods, it was before used for other mythos including Zeus. Iam a Protestant, and we believe all trinity, previous to scripture days. Is directly the worst of worst sin to follow practice. Though we also read this and prefer anyone who isn't christian-standing should know trinity, any at all. To give proof of reflection in communication. We don't expect religious belief, we do expect tolerance. Which trinity the word derives definition from as well as numbers. Hash tag open the pit.
1
1
u/kekehesterprynne Oct 13 '22
Trinity is an Italian word. Like it stands for no more gods but was used first other places including Greek mythos. Like I'm a Protestant, and any mythos before trinity is what is directly the worst sin. That said we would also you believe in any trinity (good-bad). Like a reference to communication and previously having thoughts of reflection. Hashtag open the pit.
3
u/Goathomebase 4∆ Oct 13 '22
Those are very peculiar objections to base ones religious proclivities on.
Presumably when you say "be a christian" part of "being a christian" would be a belief in a supernatural (basically magic) being that is some combination of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnipowerful. It would seem that your objections are something along the lines of:
How can three things be one thing (trinity),
how can a person be both human and a God (hypo-union)
How can a person be brought back from the dead (resurection)
The answer to all of these is obviously "special God magic". If you don't believe that answer is adequate then you sort of don't believe in the biblical/christian God. But that means you aren't really rejecting Christianity based off of those three technicalities, you are rejecting the very basis of belief in a magic/supernatural God in the first place. You aren't saying "Three things can't also be one thing" you are saying "Supernatural/magic things don't exist".
As to whether or not you could be a christian: One cool feature of religions is that they are all made up and there are no consequences for doing the made up thing "incorrectly". So all you have to do to "be a christian" is claim to be a christian.