Nobody Dies for a Lie

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm waiting for you to explain the logic of how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three” a straw man.

ftfy n/c

[Tassman]

ftfy n/c

Nonsense. You've "fixed" nothing, merely avoided the issue. I’m still waiting for you to explain how “three” can simultaneously be “one” and "one" can simultaneously be “three”...as per the Athanasian Creed.

“So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.”

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[37818]

The three leaf leaf of the clover. It is one leaf with three leaves, yet it is a single leaf. Leaves are not persons nor is a leaf God. Leaves are one kind of thing. Persons and deity are two kinds of things. Three distinct persons who happen to be the one and the same God is not even any kind of contradiction.

[One Bad Pig]

Nonsense. You've "fixed" nothing, merely avoided the issue. I’m still waiting for you to explain how “three” can simultaneously be “one” and "one" can simultaneously be “three”...as per the Athanasian Creed.

“So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.”

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Because the "three" and the "one" do not refer to identical concepts: three persons but one God. The only way this causes problems is when people are incapable of grasping (or are unwilling to grasp) the distinction. Debating the fine points with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, Tassman. It's not so much "avoiding" as recognizing that you're simply not going to grok what we're saying.

[Mountain Man]

The three leaf leaf of the clover. It is one leaf with three leaves, yet it is a single leaf. Leaves are not persons nor is a leaf God. Leaves are one kind of thing. Persons and deity are two kinds of things. Three distinct persons who happen to be the one and the same God is not even any kind of contradiction.

Bad analogy, because each leaf in a clover can not be said to be the whole clover but only a single part. Littlejoe's treaty analogy is much better: three separate and distinct documents that share the same essence.

[Cow Poke]

Bad analogy, because each leaf in a clover can not be said to be the whole clover but only a single part. Littlejoe's treaty analogy is much better: three separate and distinct documents that share the same essence.

Yeah, the Trinity is so unique that we can only come close to describing it - when I give an analogy, it comes with disclaimers.

[Cow Poke]

Because the "three" and the "one" do not refer to identical concepts: three persons but one God. The only way this causes problems is when people are incapable of grasping (or are unwilling to grasp) the distinction. Debating the fine points with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, Tassman. It's not so much "avoiding" as recognizing that you're simply not going to grok what we're saying.

I think he's being purposely and aggressively obtuse on this.

[One Bad Pig]

I think he's being purposely and aggressively obtuse on this.

Yes, that's the Tassman we all know and love.

[Sparko]

I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm waiting for you to explain the logic of how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”.

I already posted a lengthy article on that. In response you made up straw man claims and tried to accuse me of modalism and couldn't even get that definition correct.

[37818]

Bad analogy, because each leaf in a clover can not be said to be the whole clover but only a single part. Littlejoe's treaty analogy is much better: three separate and distinct documents that share the same essence.

I made the point that leaves are not persons nor deity. The clover leaf is an example of three being one. Not of them being an analogy of three persons being one God.

[Tassman]

Yeah, the Trinity is so unique that we can only come close to describing it - when I give an analogy, it comes with disclaimers.

So "unique" that it amounts to a contradiction. To try to make sense out of how “three” can be simultaneously “one” and "one" can simultaneously be “three” is equivalent to arguing that “black" can simultaneously be “white” and "white" can simultaneously be “black. You're better off with the traditional disclaimer that the Holy Trinity is a "Divine Mystery".

[Cow Poke]

So "unique" that it amounts to a contradiction.

The way you stubbornly and obtusely pervert it, yes.

[Tassman]

The way you stubbornly and obtusely pervert it, yes.

Nothing "stubborn" or "obtuse" about it! It's a contradiction. For you to argue that “three” can be simultaneously “one” and "one" can simultaneously be “three” is equivalent to arguing that “black" can simultaneously be “white” and "white" can simultaneously be “black".

[Cow Poke]

Nothing "stubborn" or "obtuse" about it! It's a contradiction.

Here you are proving my point. How bout throwing in a few more exclamation points for good measure?

For you to argue that “three” can be simultaneously “one” and "one" can simultaneously be “three” is equivalent to arguing that “black" can simultaneously be “white” and "white" can simultaneously be “black".

No, it's really not. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, you're perverting the doctrine. You're falsely forcing it to be a comparison of 'three items' to exactly the same 'one of those items'. That's not the Trinity.

[Mountain Man]

How bout throwing in a few more exclamation points for good measure?

Like the old joke about a man preparing a speech, and in his notes he writes, "Weak point. Yell louder."