Comments on: XFiles Friday: Yes and no http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/09/18/xfiles-friday-yes-and-no/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Swimmy http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/09/18/xfiles-friday-yes-and-no/comment-page-1/#comment-13404 Swimmy Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:26:02 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1102#comment-13404 This is a great counter of Trinitarianism--of course, however Trinitarians won't care. They'll just brush all the contradictions aside and say, "Humans can't understand it." And they're ok with this, usually. God can be illogical; he's allowed to because he's all-powerful! Not very satisfying after all that intro-speech about how the truth is consistent with other truths. but there it is. I think it works better as a counter of the transcendental argument for God, which holds in part that the laws of logic must be mental abstracts, and therefore must be products of God's mind. It furthermore asserts that any epistemology which can't give an account of the laws of logic can't be as good as one that does. But the TAG proponent has to argue that Christianity must be right because it accounts for the laws of logic, and also that it doesn't matter that one of its most basic tenets directly contradicts the laws of logic. I suppose one could counter that God didn't have to apply his mental logic laws to himself, but if that card is played, it's easy to point out that God could then exist and not exist at the same time, or be God and not God at the same time, or any other Christianity-disproving claim you can dream up. No, the TAG proponent must argue that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God and that his nature defies the laws of logic at the same time. It's meta-illogical! This is a great counter of Trinitarianism–of course, however Trinitarians won’t care. They’ll just brush all the contradictions aside and say, “Humans can’t understand it.” And they’re ok with this, usually. God can be illogical; he’s allowed to because he’s all-powerful! Not very satisfying after all that intro-speech about how the truth is consistent with other truths. but there it is.

I think it works better as a counter of the transcendental argument for God, which holds in part that the laws of logic must be mental abstracts, and therefore must be products of God’s mind. It furthermore asserts that any epistemology which can’t give an account of the laws of logic can’t be as good as one that does. But the TAG proponent has to argue that Christianity must be right because it accounts for the laws of logic, and also that it doesn’t matter that one of its most basic tenets directly contradicts the laws of logic. I suppose one could counter that God didn’t have to apply his mental logic laws to himself, but if that card is played, it’s easy to point out that God could then exist and not exist at the same time, or be God and not God at the same time, or any other Christianity-disproving claim you can dream up. No, the TAG proponent must argue that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God and that his nature defies the laws of logic at the same time. It’s meta-illogical!

]]> By: Bacopa http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/09/18/xfiles-friday-yes-and-no/comment-page-1/#comment-13403 Bacopa Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:24:20 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1102#comment-13403 The Trinity is an intellectual suicide drill. Get them to profess one incoherent doctrine and further incoherent doctrines are easy. Salvation itself is incoherent. We must be saved by another because we have wronged God? If someone has wronged me I want payback from that person. It's not like it's all business and someone owes me money. If I loaned money with the sole concern that I get that money back plus a little more, I don't care where the money comes from. But if someone has wronged me I want an apology and restitution from the offending party. No thord party can make up the difference. And if I decide to forgive the offense, no third party is needed. The Trinity is an intellectual suicide drill. Get them to profess one incoherent doctrine and further incoherent doctrines are easy.

Salvation itself is incoherent. We must be saved by another because we have wronged God? If someone has wronged me I want payback from that person. It’s not like it’s all business and someone owes me money. If I loaned money with the sole concern that I get that money back plus a little more, I don’t care where the money comes from. But if someone has wronged me I want an apology and restitution from the offending party. No thord party can make up the difference. And if I decide to forgive the offense, no third party is needed.

]]> By: g http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/09/18/xfiles-friday-yes-and-no/comment-page-1/#comment-13386 g Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:42:01 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1102#comment-13386 Your account of Geisler+Turek's Triangular Heresy reminds me of my depraved Christian past when, alas, I used to help on a children's Christian holiday. On one occasion, I had the unenviable task -- I don't remember, and cannot now imagine, why anyone thought this was a good idea -- of talking to the children about the Trinity (note: not terribly young children; say, 14 or thereabouts, and most of them very bright). I prepared some slides to illustrate the two standard ways of being heretical about the Trinity (tritheism and modalism). I was particularly pleased with my illustration of modalism: it showed a 3-dimensional shape whose projections in three directions were a square, a circle and a triangle, and also showed those projections. So *of course* I had at least one of the other leaders come up to me, point at this thing, and say "Wow, that's a really great illustration of the Trinity". But then, what can you expect when people are expected to believe something that (1) is, at the very best, flirting with contradiction, and where (2) just about every attempt anyone has ever made to clarify it has been officially declared a heresy? Your account of Geisler+Turek’s Triangular Heresy reminds me of my depraved Christian past when, alas, I used to help on a children’s Christian holiday. On one occasion, I had the unenviable task — I don’t remember, and cannot now imagine, why anyone thought this was a good idea — of talking to the children about the Trinity (note: not terribly young children; say, 14 or thereabouts, and most of them very bright). I prepared some slides to illustrate the two standard ways of being heretical about the Trinity (tritheism and modalism). I was particularly pleased with my illustration of modalism: it showed a 3-dimensional shape whose projections in three directions were a square, a circle and a triangle, and also showed those projections. So *of course* I had at least one of the other leaders come up to me, point at this thing, and say “Wow, that’s a really great illustration of the Trinity”.

But then, what can you expect when people are expected to believe something that (1) is, at the very best, flirting with contradiction, and where (2) just about every attempt anyone has ever made to clarify it has been officially declared a heresy?

]]>