Assuming the Trinity does imply a contradiction (which I personally do not think it does given the correct framework but that's besides the point) why would that be such a big deal anyway? Many philosophers are totally fine with dialetheism (the idea that there are true contradictions) and have formalized logics that allow for true contradictions called paraconsistent logics. Idk why people treat LNC like its the end all be all. LNC may not even apply in every situation. I mean if God is transcendent why does he even have to obey the classical laws of logic anyway assuming the classical laws of logic are true of the cosmos? God is outside of the cosmos. God could be beyond logic or operate on a totally different logical framework where the classical laws of logic do not hold. I believe that it was Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who stated that within God every fact holds, which is why God can have contrary properties (God is light but he is not light, God is love but he is not love, etc.). Why is this such a big deal? What's wrong with the idea that God is a trivial being? What's wrong with triviality per se?
what
>>18286363I'm just saying that even if a contradiction arises I don't think it matters that much, especially for a transcendent entity like God. I've also been seeing a Trivialist anon posting on here lately and looked into the idea myself and found that some Christians philosophers have advocated for it. Maybe God, and by extension, reality is trivial. So what?
>>18286362>why would that be such a big deal anyway?because getting the key doctrine wrong about your religion that shapes most other things basically makes the religion fall apart as ever being true.
>Rejecting the law of non-contradictionI feel like this requires an LLM-tier understanding of logic where language is cut off from what it actually means. Like, I can *say* "The colour green drank 12°F of music by kicking me in the head late last night while the sun was high in the sky because it was 3pm." And although it might evoke some interesting images and be grammatically correct, it doesn't actually make sense as a statement. Or do you think it does?
>>18286362The Trinity makes sense and it’s better to just read Plotinus and the other Neoplatonists like Proclus to see what the Greek Church Fathers were getting at. The Bible is a Platonic work. The description in Genesis of the creation of the world is the Father uttering the Word and giving form to matter through the Spirit. I’d be a Christian, since I was already baptized and chrismated years ago, but I have an instinctive distrust of Judaism and YHWH.
>>18286362>Assuming the Trinity does imply a contradictionOnly a contradiction if you use the wrong concepts in its formulation.
>>18286362confusing and contradictory interpretations of the trinity are promulgated because the church itself has forsaken the truth of the matter in favor of a universalism which can save nobody from anything
>>18286724Unitarianism leads to hell.
>>18286831Allah repeatedly states that He is one. Denying that is shirk and will damn you.
>>18286833The Koran is not divine and Muhammad was a false prophet. Jesus does outline his own divinity in the New Testament. Do you really want me to body slam you in a debate about the divinity of Christ? Because I will, Mudslime. I will utterly destroy your position and refute you, showing the truth of the incarnation and Trinity.
>>18286841You are possessed and a liar.
>>18286362If it is a contra-diction. You are essentially abdicating your right to ever use reason in regard to god. Which betrays the entire point of theology in the first place. If God is not logically consistent, then he is not intelligible, and if he is not intelligible, you cannot tell any anything about its nature. This makes all of Christianity useless speculation because it rests on the asusmption that you can make sense of God, its words, and its actions.
