Perhaps if you could coherently explain the Holy Trinity to me then I too might leave Christianity.
Can you do that?
Do you understand the Holy Trinity deeply enough to thoroughly reject the idea? Do you know so much about God that you are able to confidently declare that God can’t have a Son?
Many atheists ask me to define God. That surprises me. How can you be an atheist when you don’t even know what it is you dont believe in?
I’m afraid you are committing a logical fallacy, because it would only be a contradiction if the Triune God was: 1) a created being; and 2) was bound by the laws of physics. While bananas, apples, & trees are bound by those laws & are created, God is “not” created. Therefore, the rules of non-contradiction would not apply to God, since He exist OUTSIDE of our physical universe. So, a NON-physical Triune God, Who is not bound by the physical universe could include “Members” of that Trinity Who are the same GOD, but different “Persons” of that same God. The reason this appears to be a contradiction is because you are attempting to use examples in the physical realm (like bananas) & then apply them to a non-physical Entity outside of the physical realm. You cannot do this, since you cannot apply physical rules to non-physical examples.
Plus, it is illogical to believe there is no God, because you need an explanation for the existence of a finite universe, which the Creator itself would have to be infinite & non-physical, as well as exist eternally outside of the physical universe. If there is no God, there is no logical explanation for the universe, and therefore it should not exist.
Hallucinations are individual experiences, not group ones. And the apostles eyewitnessed the Resurrected Christ TOGETHER at the same time. Plus, another 500+ eyewitnesses saw Him simultaneously. The reason they died excruciating deaths & did not recant what they saw, wasn’t because they were experiencing the EXACT SAME hallucination at the EXACT SAME time. It was because they eyewitnessed the Resurrection of the Triune God with their own eyes.
I would recommend “The Case for Christ” by former atheist Lee Strobel, who spent two years attempting to disprove Christianity, only to discover through his research that the claims of Christianity really were true.
Realize - come to see - we use human analogies to present spiritual realitieses, that’s your problem.
Trinity refers to relationships / distinguishments
Let’s say a Man is Created in the Image of God
And This Man Loves all Good things
This Man’s Heart/Spirit are on the Same Page as are His Actions/Words.
These Components of this Man are One… Are United.
The Man’s Heart/Mind and Word Spoken are never at Odds -
This Man’s very Word is His Bond.
They’re all always in 100% Agreement This man is One man
There’s God the Father and God’s Word/Son
And God’s HOLY Spirit of LOVE flows in both.
God is One
There is the root of the doctrine. Opposing relations distinguished by origin are thus demarcated, and yet the Essence remains the same in each suppositum. The distinction is real but not absolute as with creatures.
It tends to be how jan10000 argues. I had a long argument about how God being omniscient not negating free will, but even after the argument, jan10000 couldn’t make the connection that was there. Profile says cultural catholic, but tends to argue more like an agnostic or deist. Nothing Catholic about them. Like most who come here to argue, no point in arguing for it goes no where.
God is God- He is who He is. There are no attributes God posseses per Divine Simplicity. We can make logical distinction between God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence but they are logical distinctions. They are not really distinct. In God, His attributes are same as He is as He is non-composite.
“Minds no longer object to the Church because of the way they think, but because of the way they live. They no longer have difficulty with the Creed, but with her Commandments, they remain outside her saving waters, not because they cannot accept the doctrine of Three Persons in One God, but because they cannot accept the moral of two persons in one flesh; not because Infallibility is too complex, but because the veto on Birth Control is too hard; not because the Eucharist is too sublime, but because Penance is too exacting. Briefly, the heresy of our day is not the heresy of thought, it is the heresy of action.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Communism and the Conscience of the West)
Advice regarding my disbelief of a virgin birth, in confession…
^pray on it.^, I did and it was soon resolved in Our Lady’s favour.
Good advice I received, yes.
String theory, whereby all things come from three vibrating strings. There is only one discipline, one love, one God. We are one. But this in no wise eliminates the possibility of all potentials.
God would nuke us by virtue of his omnipotence should we see Him.
Ergo, all God, all man incarnate shows us who God is.
And leaves the Advocate to help and guide.
I found Julian of Norwich very helpful in understanding this. When God shows her something the size of a golfball in her palm and says, “This is all that was ever created.”, and science says exactly that, before the big bang all matter was condensed into an infinitly heavy ball., … it just needed some leaven.
In that case, God is not benevolent by your definition.
Being good means doing osmething for absolute good, not for momentary gain. Suffering works on basis of receptors and hence if we feel bad it is to alarm us about something. Suffering helps us grow and helps us accustom to outside effects. My definition of “good” is God.
Do you ever choose to suffer? As soon as you will choose to suffer for no good reason, you will be taken seriously. Of course a “good reason” is usually subjective. But let’s examine one of the most horrible suffering every newborn must endure. It is the pain of teething. There is no good reason why breaking through the soft tissue of the gums must be so painful. For an omnipotent being to make teething painless would be simple - since it does not contain nor leads to a logical contradiction.
Yes, suffering is not inherently “bad”, but useless suffering IS. And teething is a prime example of gratuitous, meaningless suffering. If you can refute this, by bringing up some valid, biological reason why is pain of teething “beneficial”, I will be happy to examine your argument.
Of course it is my contention that an omnipotent being could remove any and all sufferings, and yet retain the alleged “good” results, without having the suffering.
Of course not. But that is not the problem with the definition, it is the problem with God’s actions or lack of them.