Re: Trinitarianism = Polytheism
According to the bible, there is only one god, yet somehow the believers in the trinity seems to think that this god has three different persons, and are distinct as well.
Basic math will tell you that 1+1+1=3, yet trinitarians somehow think it is just one.
This so-called problem has been with Christianity since the very beginning of the religion and it has never been resolved. In fact, it is the reason why there are so many different denominations, its an inherent flaw that makes the trinity unworkable since it has no sound logical basis, and is therefore incompatible with the modern world and basic thinking in general.
The trinity can only work if you believe in 3 gods, and thats polytheism, not monotheism.
Sorry I missed this thread until now. But to have this conversation we are going to have to mash a few subjects, in this case namely theology, philosophy, and history.
On the surface and using today's context you would be right, in terms of how we define monotheism and polytheism. The issue is how New Testament books were written and the language used to record the text trying to explain trinity. Originally we are talking about a mash of largely Greek and some Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated into Latin. In that context, Trinity did not mean three gods but three forms. That word itself is not really used, it was a concept used to explain the text. Granted the original text in the original languages is a bit all over the place but majority speaking the idea of Trinity is "threefold" as a means to explain the idea of a God, a son of a God, and a Holy Spirit. It is not three Gods by their interpretation and idea at the time, it is three forms of the same God.
The rest is simply what is typical of religions, interpretation and expression. Usually falling back to the tried and true idea, "his ways are beyond us."
That the last point is the core reason that all Abrahamic religions eventually splintered. Interpretation and expression. In order Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all splintered in their own ways all due to the basic same reason of how text was recorded, then spread, then interpreted against concepts understood at the time, then translated into some other language, then spread again, then repeat. Theological concepts, basic ideas for the masses, and translation of core text then and now allows for wide ranging interpretation of what religious ideology really means no matter which splinter of whatever religion is followed.
In this case Trinity is a concept to explain yet something else beyond reasonable explanation that the text does not explicit offer reasonable conclusion with. If it was really that explicit we would not see splinter based on that point. But we do.
Our real issue is the arrogant certainty of any splinter of any religion suggesting they are above all others as correct. And that division usually leads to social consequences, namely various degrees of persecution and ultimately loss of life.
Even through that is another conversation, it is still realization enough to amplify the conversation on what Trinity means then or now. I would also agree that concept is a core reason (of several) as to why so many splintered away from Catholicism since we have 100 or more verses speaking to Trinity in some way without calling it that, and 100 or more verses suggesting some other concept other than Trinity. History has recorded since what that splinter did to Christianity, and it also recorded how all of this was interpreted then to now.