Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Trinity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

What the hell is going on with this article? - π 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't think someone's chat log is the makings of a wiki article. - π 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Then where should I put it? I felt that the chat log would help show how Christians have difficulty describing the "3 and 1" nature of the Trinity. Plus "God is not a pretzel" is gold. AndroidWe are all machines 05:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Put it in the Saloon bar and see if it gets any laughs. - π 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. AndroidWe are all machines 05:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Or you could make a funspace article made up of such examples. - π 05:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2+2=5[edit]

Maybe my memory is hazy, since I read the book about two years ago, but I don't believe 2+2=5 was any kind of official inner party 'logic test'. Wasn't it something O'Brien found in Winston's diary? I also believe he would only accept that Winston was broken when Winston gave the answer 'I don't know', which was in line with the party's method of 'collective solipsism'. He did not like the answer 'five'. That was greeted with a nasty shock, or something similarly unpleasant. --√2 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm[edit]

I get that you know little about this topic and that you honestly don't care, but even under these circumstances the article is pretty bad. Trinity is a Christian mystery and it is not meant to be fully understood by humans. If we did understand it, however, we should see that Trinity is not something that contradicts logic. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings. Just like on a flat sheet of paper one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities, but combined in new ways which we (who do not live on that level) cannot imagine. In God's dimension you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. --Earthland (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

who is "you"? the authors of this article? Trinity is not "just" a mystery - or rather, even if it is a mystery it is one that can be addressed historically and biblical. there is no reason at all, in biblical studies that "it is not meant to be understood". that is an easy out, but it is not the view of the Roman Catholic Church, nor most protestant groups. they will tell you, by and large, that they do know what the trinity is. "In God's dimension you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being" that is ONE interpretation. it is not the only one. it is not the most common one when it gets right down to it. 1) The bible does not mention the trinity as such, anywhere. 2) the bible mentions the Holy Spirit but does not give any explanation of what the HS should be. Is it an emanation of God? Is it a separate being of god? is it like an angel doing god's bidding.?
Churchs have traditionally tried to answer these questions, but as there is nothing in the bible to justify any of their answers, all they have is confusion and fights over dogma.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The cube analogy is a partialist heresy, by the way. ProfessrCox (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The Trinity (as a concept) can be much easier to understand if you read the texts in light of their socio-cultural and theological context properly. Check this and this out, for starters, to get a better idea on what primitive Christianity affirmed and what to evaluate and believe/refute, if you will.— Unsigned, by: bonbon / talk / contribs

The section about the logic of the Suctum Fedei is indeed correct for proper transitive logic, but not for informal transitive logic. Many Trintiarians argue it is this informal logic that is used and not the regular transitive logic. For Example, Mary is Sam's mother, Sam is Susan's father, but Mary is not Susan's Mother. She is her mother from an ancestral relation, but not directly her mother. This is an example of informal transitive relation. Of course I do not accept the trinity at all but just saying that the article did not mention this.Starcomet (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Some fun[edit]

Well, St Patrick is said to have used shamrock to explain the Trinity. I do have something even more fun. Mystery-shmystery:

Trinitytoo.png Sultan Rahi (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your Jesus might be the Illuminati Jesus, or something like that[edit]