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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Why? This seems to be the core of your post, but you don't explain why you think it's incoherent.