[Blue_Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

They are under no obligation to explain any part of their faith to us. But it is a missionary religion, just like ours, and the Trinity is the most fundamental concept in Christianity, so doesn't it make sense that their audience (us) should be able to comprehend the basics of their religion before accepting it?

Again, there's not a whole lot to give out when logic or the lack thereof is not a problem and can be explained away by saying god can do things that make no sense and his logic is well above and beyond ours. I believe I've seen that very excuse dished out in various incarnations right here on Islamica. In fact it may even help give an impression of how great god supposedly is.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Two things:
First, I hope you can see why, if you still believe the bolded phrase you quoted, you are (mostly) wrong. Obviously I can't speak for each and every individual everywhere, but overall I think that when Muslims say they "don't understand" the Trinity, what they mean is they don't understand how it can be monotheism despite what Christians call it.

I'm not saying everyone secretly understands it, but dismiss it vocally because Islam commands it of them. But do a portion of people do that? sure, I think so. Maybe not on a conscious level, but yeh, I certainly think this is the case. (there's been more than one Islamican who has privately told me they tow something of a 'party line' in the public forums, and can't always say what they really feel. I think this may be a similar case)

Also, I believe that many who dismiss it, are almost re-defining monotheism to a more exacting standard (as they percieve it) and ignoring what Christians have to say about it. They're not giving it a lot of thought because it ties everything up in a neat package that fits satisfyingly with their own world view.

I think so because the Trinity, when viewing it within it's own context, free of the positions of other world views that are powerfully against it, it is aboslutely, one hundred percent pure monotheism. It's not even a question, and not particularly difficult to understand. (this coming from someone who doesn't accept any of it as some kind of ultimate Truth of our universe, in any way shape or form)

When people don't get it, it simply leaves me baffled. When people make innacurate statements like, 'Christians are polytheists' it actually annoys me.

Second, what I hope I've conveyed is that this statement:


is NOT the same as the statement we are discussing above, nor does it go hand in hand with the former.

I've had a look through, but I'm not entirely sure which statements were being compared.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

How is my statement inaccurate? There are three sentences in the statement.

I'm pretty sure that Christians don't believe in the J-Trinity, since that is a made-up just-for fun Islamica phrase.

You agreed yourself that Christians believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as the Trinity.

The sentence where I said "Christians don't believe in that bit", was in direct response to Jaysh quoting "Hear O Israel your God is One!" which if you know your Bible is from Deutronomy, which is part of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the Jewish part of the Bible. Christians believe that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament in terms of the rules of their religion.

Sorry, I missed your post.

You'll notice the quoted passage was from the New Testament, with Jesus reaffirming a part of the Old Testament. So Christians do in fact take this statement as gospel. Literally.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Variable

I think so because the Trinity, when viewing it within it's own context, free of the positions of other world views that are powerfully against it, it is aboslutely, one hundred percent pure monotheism. It's not even a question, and not particularly difficult to understand. (this coming from someone who doesn't accept any of it as some kind of ultimate Truth of our universe, in any way shape or form)

When people don't get it, it simply leaves me baffled. When people make innacurate statements like, 'Christians are polytheists' it actually annoys me.

I would allow this view to anyone who also agrees that the Hindu conception of gods as avatars/incarnations of a single Godhead is likewise monotheistic. The point is, most people don't have any trouble seeing Hinduism as a polytheistic faith (though I know Hindus who do consider themselves monotheists) though they may argue that Christianity is "obviously" monotheistic. I absolutely agree with you that Islam has a stricter definition of monotheism than Trinitarianism does, but you appear to be implying that this strictness is in itself arbitrary and with this I must disagree.

In other words, if Trinitarianism is monotheism, I would submit that it is fundamentally the same sort of monotheism as Hinduism. Jesus in Christianity has the same metaphysical relationship to God as Krishna has to the Oversoul/Brahman. If you disagree with this, and believe that people are justified in calling Hinduism polytheistic but can NOT use the same logic to call Trinitarianism polytheistic, I would be interested to understand how you draw a distinction between the two.

For the sake of the discussion, let us not assume that anyone is using "polytheism" in the pejorative, though of course many people DO think of it as a pejorative. I think it would be helpful to focus on the concept at hand and the definitions involved and ignore for the time being any moral subtext these words carry.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Khairan

I would allow this view to anyone who also agrees that the Hindu conception of gods as avatars/incarnations of a single Godhead is likewise monotheistic. The point is, most people don't have any trouble seeing Hinduism as a polytheistic faith (though I know Hindus who do consider themselves monotheists) though they may argue that Christianity is "obviously" monotheistic.

I've never really seriously looked into the ins and outs of Hinduism, but from what I do know there isn't 'one Hinduism' that can be easily categorized. But the answer is - if those groups within Hinduism do see their 'various' deities as in fact different manifestations of a single God then I would say yeh, they're belief is monotheistic.

The only reason I'm cautious about that is that from the discussions I have had, with a few close friends who are interested in the topic, they have no problem describing the Hindu pantheon of Gods as distinctly separate entities. But then again, Hinduism takes an entirely different approach from either Christianity or Islam... the oneness of God (as a separate entity) isn't an emphasized part, it's fairly inclusive, creation is not seen as separate from creator. On that last point, according to many Hindus, everything is one... we are all part of God. It's just an entirely different world view.

But yeh, in short my feelings are, if someone says they believe in one God, then I consider them monotheists... because who am I to say what they believe?

I absolutely agree with you that Islam has a stricter definition of monotheism than Trinitarianism does, but you appear to be implying that this strictness is in itself arbitrary and with this I must disagree.

My definition of monotheism is simply the belief in one God - the general definition of most English speakers. There's no precondition on how that god manifests itself, simply that it's a single God.

I understand that Islam has a somewhat different definition, with preconditions on how God manifests itself. Even so, from an external point of view, I think it's inaccurate to apply one's own definitions to the internal workings of another's religion and make a call on what their own beliefs are, when they say otherwise.

For the sake of the discussion, let us not assume that anyone is using "polytheism" in the pejorative, though of course many people DO think of it as a pejorative. I think it would be helpful to focus on the concept at hand and the definitions involved and ignore for the time being any moral subtext these words carry.

I wasn't really taking it as a pejorative, (mostly), simply as inaccurate. My annoyedness comes from people taking it upon themselves to describe to others what they believe. And that goes for anyone talking about any religion; it annoys me equally when people describe inaccurate beliefs of Muslims in such a way that it would be offensive to them if they were around to hear it.

[Bruinrab]

For some reason, these discussions always remind me of Nuns on the Run.

Charlie: You've got the Father, the Son and the holy ghost. But the three are one - like a shamrock, my old priest used to say. "Three leaves, but one leaf." Now, the father sent down the son, who was love, and then when he went away, he sent down the holy spirit, who came down in the form of a...
Brian: You told me already - a ghost.
Charlie: No, a dove.
Brian: The dove was a ghost?
Charlie: No, the ghost was a dove.
Brian: Let me try and summarize this: God is his son. And his son is God. But his son moonlights as a holy ghost, a holy spirit, and a dove. And they all send each other, even though they're all one and the same thing.
Charlie: You've got it. You really could be a nun!



And later...

Brian tries to explain the dove to a religious studies class...
Catholic school girl: Isn't that a metaphor?
"Sister" Brian: No, it's a bird.



P.S. Charlie was played by the guy who was Hagrid.