The "Trinity"; When and Why "Confusing" Means "False"

Words in Bold Blue print are paraphrases, to help clarify and track the discussion. 

If I got any part of that wrong, please let me know.
I'll correct it immediately, and then re-share the corrected reply. 

 Thanks 
------
 In reply to this short-clip video, 

I said this:

re "Confusing does not mean false" --- It does mean false, when you're claiming that dogma was authored to us ... by the very same "God" who "is not the author of confusion".
---
In reply, someone else said this:


My initial reply is this:

​ @chanano1689  After I read that, a quote came to mind. "They muddy the waters to make them seem deep."

In all fairness, I do NOT think most Christians do this intentionally. Rather, they're plugged into a system or "matrix" of mental technologies that gradually installs mindblocks and "redirects", to prevent minds from following dangerous logical paths to logical conclusions. In effect, they ensure you get 'lost along the way' and don't realize it. That system took thousands of years to develop and refine, in an ongoing effort to maximize those effects. Many men who have stood atop those efforts "knew the score". They were intentionally helping to engineer the perfect PSY-OP; to their own benefit. However, I'm certain most participants didn't realize what they were helping to build and maintain. I don't mean to be insulting or negating. I'm fine with addressing the specifics of your perspective. But I think this needed to be said, since it is what's happening. This was "part 1" of my reply. The rest of my reply will be in the form of a blog, posted to my own channel's "community" tab. The title of that blog is: The "Trinity"; When and Why "Confusing" Means "False"
--------------------------

Here is the follow-up engagement.

Responding to:

@chanano1689

14 hours ago (edited)

I think you committed a categorical error the being of God and in his internal operations and ontology are not categorically similar to Gods external operations ie the way he communicates with creation. God being eternal and infinite already makes him incomprehensible to a limited finite being by definition. That verse you quoted has to do with Gods promises to his people not a declaration of his being or the comprehensibility of his being

Taking these points one at a time:

"[we should differentiate between] [a.)] the "being" of God [the claimed fact (or, idea; or concept) that a sentient being "as specified" by "b" and "c"... exists] [b.)] his internal operations [the feelings, thoughts, and "will" which emerge as inevitable expressions of his mind and character. -and which, thus, reveal (or "make evident") his traits/properties] and [c.)] ontology [the innate properties which define him; such as character (or "character traits), powers, and limits] [these] are not categorically similar to [in other words, these are "separate considerations" or "separate claims" (about)] (that specific) God's external operations. ie the way he communicates with creation. ---- My thoughts about that: I agree that those are different focuses or concepts. But I disagree about them being independent considerations. Instead, those are all mutually codependent concepts. If one of those categories fails, they all fail. In that case, specified "God" would = false. Although that list would be easier to follow if we listed a, b, and c in reverse order. Moving forward, .... Since most "Bibles" put words into that god's mouth, to say "I would never author confusion", ... We should notice that the claim contradicts reality.

**Whoever** is really speaking (either a "God" or a human pretending to be a "God")
...
 is saying an incorrect thing.

 If they don't realize how radically incorrect the claim it, then they are ignorant of:

 a.) all the times and ways in which Bibles (presumed to be the voice of GOD) DO author confusion,

 and
 b.) all the ways in which REAL LIFE
 [the stage and the play; arranged, by "God", according to bibles] additionally causes rampant and consequential confusion.

 Anyone that ignorant is then also:
incompetent.
 - So incompetent that it's as if they've never actually seen Earth; nor ever met a human.

 --
On the other hand,
...
--
If the author of that text DID realize that "The God" of "The Bible" (as expressed in all Bibles) DOES habitually "author confusion",
 and yet
still decided to say God does "NOT" (ever) do such a thing,
 ... then:

 In that case, ...
  The author (whoever or whatever is the true author of that text) committed:

a.) a lie

 and

b.) gaslighting;
 which (compounding the problem) is an insidious form of psychological violence.

 I'm working up to the moment when I explain how I didn't fail to make the necessary distinctions between *being, * ontology, *internal properties, and *behaviors.

 Please bear with me.

[Continuing what you said, in your initial reply]:
 "God being eternal"

My thoughts about that:

 I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 It can't mean "always existed in the past", if time itself had an absolute beginning.

 It also probably doesn't mean "will always exist", because according to Christians ... they will too.
So it's not really a great way of differentiating a "God" from anyone else.

 So I'm not sure what to do with that.

 However, I can and do grasp the concept of someone who "has always existed".

 I cannot picture the whole of an eternity-past, if we suppose there is one.
 But I fully understand what it means.

 I also fully grasp the concept of saying someone will never stop existing.

 ---
[Continuing what you said, in your initial reply]: "[being] infinite ... makes him incomprehensible (to us)" Again, I'm unsure what you mean by this. However, .... I'll just assume you meant ... something. And that whatever that "something" is ... is incomprehensible to humans. Fine. But that actually reinforces the point I made about Ryan's video. If a Super-Powered Super-Being: thinks, feels, does, or simply "is" anything which is beyond our grasp, ... None of that is relevant to the objection I expressed. Any of those things only become relevant to the point I made about Ryan's statement in Ryan's video, ... whenever/if ever that same Super-Being says (aka "offers" or "gives to us") a STATEMENT which cannot be grasped, ... or any alleged "choices" made by a "God" which we cannot objectively verify, ... or any alleged choices made by a "God" that confuses us (in other words, things we can't make sense of, because they do not comport with our available knowledge, ethics, or wisdom). Example:

Another example: Prayer ... as a remedy for doubt, when that same God refuses to listen to the prayers of people who offend his ego by doubting.

Or, my all-time favorite example of Christian fundamentalists authoring confusion in the name of a "God" who never authors confusion: Claiming that the true message and obvious truthiness of Bibles ... is hidden from the vision of people who don't already have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But at the same time, the Holy Spirit never indwells in anyone who doesn't already believe, feel, and live correctly. But at the same time, nobody can rightly believe, feel, and live ... until after they know what they're supposed to believe, feel, and do. But at the same time, nobody can know those things until after they read it correctly in a Bible. Seriously, you people relentlessly sow confusion as "the voice of (a) God" who you say never authors confusion.

Case in point: Trinitarian rhetoric. It doesn't matter to me how you think those communications happened. [direct utterances,

or holy-hints, or hidden information meant to be found, or cryptic references meant to be deciphered, etc] You all say we are supposed to TRY to grasp, and supposed to EMBRACE it as "true", ... even though it's not something we CAN understand. -Worse yet, if the REASON we cannot understand (whatever they said to us) is because that same "BEING" (as alleged) previously decided to "intelligently design" human limits such that we would not be ABLE to understand whatever they planned to tell us. That is literally a case of either: a.) intentionally "authoring confusion". or else b.) incompentently, accidentally authoring confusion, and then also being too dense to realize that has happened. Either way, as Brian Keith Dalton once said, "Whatever I cannot grasp, I cannot affirm". If someone doesn't understand what a block of words means, ... Then it's dishonest to claim they "believe in" whatever those words mean. If other humans are *recognized as* people who would not be able to grasp it either, then: It's unkind to share that block of words with those other people, in the context of being obligated to "accept" (as true) the meaning of those words. Because, in that case, you're giving them an obligation they can't satisfy. - And then, even worse yet, leaving them to worry about the consequences, if maybe a "God" might find their beliefs about "HIM" to be inadequately "correct". Nor could you say "that won't matter", if your religion teaches "believing in the Trinity" matters. "Belief" is, in part, an expression of "understanding". By definition, nobody can "believe in" a concept that they cannot grasp. Post-Nicean Christianity has created a cultural rhetoric which functions as a gatekeeping "Identity Marker" for its in-group. It's one of many evolved "mental technologies" which helped to create the larger complex PSY OP that IS Christianity. In this case, we're talking about a dogmatic MANTRA; not a dogmatic idea. It's not a concept. It's word salad. Originally, Catholic clergy came up with it via heated debate, dreams, and visions. They were dabbling in the occult. They were trying to find "hidden" spiritual insights. However, there wasn't anything there about a "Triune mystery" to find and extract. They eventually just gave up and decided to package their incoherent pieces as "revelation". But then they realized how useful it is to make the spiritual peasant-class feel LESS qualified to read and understand what's in a Bible. That, in turn, helped their spiritual elites (clergy) maintain power, because a LESS qualified sheep class needs a MORE qualified shepherd class. During the early centuries of Trinitarian nonsense, ... The clergy not only claimed to have "discovered" Trinitarianism hidden in their revered texts, ... They also claimed to be CLOSER to understanding it than the sheep class. They always admitted it was ungraspable to all humans. This is what they meant when they called it a "mystery". They were, in this way, at least more honest than modern Protestants. However, posturing as special people who are "closer" to understanding what they admitted to not understanding ... was an unfalsifiable claim. One of the results of that evolving mental gimmick was that it created an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation. This is not the only "Emperor's New Clothes" situation in Christian culture. But it's a standard example of it. Today, most Christians in Trinitarian churches feel a need to PRETEND to see ... what they cannot see; to be accepted in any church as "one of us". [Continuing what you said, in your initial reply]: " That verse you quoted has to do with Gods promises to his people" --- My thoughts about that: If we humor the premise, I agree. It's a broken promise; in fact, a promise broken before he even made it. It's also a lie. And it's also gaslighting. Which is also a form of psychological violence, committed against everyone that any bible-adocate *shares it with (*in other words, anyone they "aim and fire" it at). [Continuing what you said, in your initial reply]: [The claim(s), * as made by bible writers, * stated on the premise of speaking for "God", * per various later translators, and * per the interpretative lens of later Christians, * that he either: a.) is a Trinity or b.) would never cause any confusion] ... [is] not a declaration of his being --- My thoughts about that: [Clearing away the muddy cloud in the waters] Let's remind ourselves what it really means, in this context, to refer to that deity's "being": [a.)] the "being" of God [the claimed fact (or, idea; or concept) that a sentient being "as specified" by "b" and "c"... exists] With that in mind, ... The alleged "being" as DEFINED BY its biblically ascribed and described traits has been debunked. Because crucially imperative descriptors contradict in ways that cannot be honestly and coherently remedied. We cannot separate the essential descriptors that define that alleged "Being" from the alleged "Being". If we carry out such a retreat (from that problem) ... it means retreating to a BEING stripped (cleansed; separated) from all religious narrative; which then means we can no longer defer or appeal to religious narrative to define the Mystery-Being with; which means we are left with a necessary vague expression of deism (at most). [nor does it tell us anything about] ... the comprehensibility of his being" 
--
My reply to that last part: ​ Nobody raised that issue. We all understand that many truths exist ... which we humans are incapable of grasping.
Let's revisit what I said to Ryan.
First, here's the video clip:

 Here's what I said about it:
[In response to Ryan saying "Confusing does not mean false"]

--- My reply: It does mean false, when you're claiming that dogma was authored to us ... by the very same "God" who "is not the author of confusion". --- Afterwards, I offered a parallel example to illustrate what I meant. However, ... That example is now being used by Ryan, and also by you (but each with a different rhetorical strategy), as an opportunity to avoid the point, rather than being used as help to understand the point. So let's set the illustrative parallel aside. Ryan said that the mere FACT of Trinitarian rhetoric being confusing to humans ... does not mean that it can't be true. My point is this (rephrased): It's not merely hard to understand. It would be grossly dishonest to frame everyone's confusion as something merely caused by Trinitarian rhetoric being highly complex or spiritual. IF there is something "about God" which is beyond the grasp of all humans, then: Any ungraspable FACT itself, merely by existing as a fact, would not "author confusion". Nor do facts only qualify **as facts** if we humans can grasp them. Instead, my point about it was this: Concepts which a.) "are true" and which b.) are presented by a Super-Being who can grasp them c.) when we canNOT grasp them, cannot unpack "as concepts" within the human mind. Thus, we have not received them, because we cannot receive them. Thus, we do not have them. So then, when any such HUMANS claims they DO have them, they are LYING; -which makes the claim "untrue" aka "false". Additionally, if a.) "God" does not "author confusion" (in the lives of humans) and yet b.) Trinitarian rhetoric DOES cause confusion (in the lives of humans), then either c.) God did not attempt to communicate Trinitarian rhetoric to any humans. In this case, it is "false" to say that he has. It would also mean the "God of the Trinity" must be false. Because no human could ever correctly guess or intuit a truth they cannot grasp, and which a "God" did not offer them. So then there isn't a truth there to speak of. or d.) a God DID attempt (and fail; by presabotaging that effort) to communicate whatever "IS" ("Trinity"). But that means he IS a God who authors confusion, and planned it that way all along. But that means he's self-defeating. Now, if he ALSO claimed he never authors confusion, then he's (yet again) lying, or else critically mind-damaged. Either way, ... If he's a liar, or if he's critically mentally chaotic and confused, ... then the only way to salvage the claim that a "God" exists, ... is to have a "God" which is NOT correctly described/defined by Bibles; which then makes Bible-God false. Instead, we must retreat to deism, or else look for another idea of "God". - Unless we want to say that all possible descriptors of "God" are all talking about the same "Being". But in that case, we would be lying (now that we know better) to say we can rely on a Bible to provide data about "God". And then we'd also lose all available premise for saying any other "God" is false.