There are a lot of people who seem to be against the Trinity while being completely oblivious to what the Trinity is. Often they argue that the Trinity doesn’t make sense while, at the same time are able to accept Trinities found on nature. So I thought why go through one of these articles that are against the Trinity. Now the original article that I will be commenting on can be found here: My response will be in blue: The subjects in black.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, [Here the subject is not stating the obvious but stating an opinion and asserting his own opinion as something being obvious.] but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, [ I've always been fascinated with time ever since reading Relativity, written back in 1952 by Albert Einstein. Mr. Einstein believed although the past, present and the future are each distinct aspects of time all of them existed simultaneously. Although the word Trinity is not used by Einstein, like it is not used the the bible, it does form a Trinity. And I do suspect the subject who wrote this article probably doesn't feel the same about the Trinity of time, as he does about the Christian Trinity. If the subject who wrote this article is going to claim that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is ridiculous, unfeasible, and nonsensical then I do hope that he does holds many other theorists including Albert Einstein's idea on time to the same opinion as he does that of the Christian's Trinity. Otherwise he would be guilt he was called doublethink.] but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist. [I suppose there is truth to that, as there are some Christian denominations out there that don't believe in the Trinity although those of us that do would argue they are biblically wrong. With that said subject statement here does not in any way deduce that there is not a Trinity and that it is ridiculous, unfeasible or nonsensical.]
These two criticisms are extremely intertwined; I’ll try to differentiate them though. The first relates primarily to the absurdity of it. What is the trinity? How can one god be three persons/people? How can three distinct aspects of time past, present and future all exist simultaneously? [Again, I suspect he does not hold that the many different forms of the Trinity found in nature to the same standard he does the biblical Trinity.] Does Yahweh have multiple personality disorder? [The subject here shows a lack of understanding of the Trinity. I find it completely unfair that the subject attacks that which he seems not to understand. Of course it could be that he does understand and chooses to reject it based upon what he wants to believe about the Trinity. But just like how time is made up of three distinct parts (past, present and future) so is the biblical Trinity but instead of three distinct parts it is three distinct persons. Jesus himself had two natures one being God and one being man. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." It may be hard to understand but again, it does not falsify the biblical Trinity] These questions raise interesting concerns, which are never answered by theologians, the only answers we ever receive are statements of overwhelming inanity like “God is mysterious” or incredibly weak analogies. [I suspect the subject here has never actually ever asked theologian, but instead has only read articles produced by fellow atheists or articles found on the web that support the view that he already has. There are many great works by theologians that address the subject's concerns. A simple Google search would reveal a lot on the subject. Although I'm not a Catholic I can tell you that Catholics have done a lot of work in this area. Maybe the subject can start by reading other sources then the ones that support the view he already has. Maybe stating with the The Catholic Encyclopedia] Most of the analogies that are used by Christians actually better demonstrate other non-Trinitarian doctrines that were deemed heretical. [As it stands the subject is just making claims but not baking up his claims.] Does Christianity even require the trinity? In my opinion, no it doesn’t. [An opinion is not a very good argument against the Trinity.]
I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that deriving the doctrine of the trinity from the Biblical texts requires some mental and theological gymnastics. [The irony of the subject comment here is that while he denies the Trinity and believes it requires '' theological gymnastics'' he apparently does not hold the same view of the many different Trinity's found in nature to the same standard making him guilty of doublethink. This shows a bias agenda where he's rejecting only that which conflicts with his preconceived views while accepting the very same thing that don't conflict with his views.] Besides the polytheistic/Henotheistic/Monolatrist vibes one gets from many Old Testament passages, the rest is extremely monotheistic, and there are no hints that Yahweh is actually three entities. [I believe it's safe to say from this, the subject has never actually read the Bible but instead is getting his information from others who are making claims. Because the Bible actually, not only hints at it, but the Bibles screams out loud of it. Like in Colossians 2:9. even the subject himself here in his comment about the Old Testament stumbles upon how the Bible gives subtle hints to the Trinity, when he thinks the bible gives vibes of polytheism. Like in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image" if there was only one person in the Godhead I would suspect He would not use such words as “us” and “our.” and in Isaiah 6:8 God refers to Himself as both “I” and “us” given a very big hint to his plurality of being the same being when he says, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"] The doctrine of the trinity isn’t even implicitly taught in the New Testament, but rather seems to be a poorly constructed doctrine based on a few scattered verses mentioning the spirit of God, various passages from John and Paul’s writings that allude to the supposed divinity of Jesus, and some of the polytheistic references from the Old Testament. The only time they are all mentioned at once as far as I know is in the prescription of the Rite of Baptism, which I suspect may even be a later interpolation. [Again, I suspect from what the subject has stated here shows that he has not actually read the Bible. May be pieces of it, or some website book that talks about it from somebody who shares the same agenda, but it would appear from the subject's ignorance that he has never read the Bible. Maybe the subject should take the time to read the Bible starting with such passages as II Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:5-8 or my favorite found in “John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ]
As many will be aware, some early sects of the Christian cult were not even Trinitarian, [just because there are denominations that do not accept the trinity does not mean the Trinity is not biblical or as the subject put it ridiculous, unfeasible and nonsensical. So far the subject hasn't made any actual arguments against the Trinity and seems to be basically make an appeal to particular populations. This would be similar to somebody saying that the Holocaust is ridiculous, unfeasible and nonsensical because there are historians that don't believe the Holocaust happened.] and the primary reason that most denominations today are, is because this was the position of the various Catholic councils that deemed other views heretical. [If this comment from the subject is not a load of bull then I don't know what is. Not to mention it seems to be counter to what the subject previously pointed out that there were Christian cults that did not accept the trinity. Even when it is considered heresy like many today do. And I suspect if that was the case, that people just simply believed it because “various Catholic councils deemed the view heretical”, then I would suspect we would have far less denomination's than we do today. I also suspect if that was the case Sunday school would not be teaching about the Trinity (for and against) in the Bible giving classes and studies on it, but would be teaching simply that it is heresy to go against it and to read the bible any other way.]
Some examples of other views are the Modal view of God, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different ‘modes’ of God, or expressions. In this view, the deity was still very much singular. Other views included ones where Jesus was either not human, or not divine such as Arianism (Do not confuse this with Aryanism). [It's no surprise that some people will have different opinions this does not show the Trinity is be true, ridiculous, unfeasible or nonsensical. It only shows that the primary reason why people accept a particular position on the Trinity not because that “various Catholic councils” says it's heresy, but because they come to a different conclusion reading the Bible.]
What does the trinity even bring to the religion? Nothing. [Is this an opinion again?] What doctrines are illuminated by God being split into three personalities? Why would an infinite deity require being composed of 3 parts? [Salvation? The sacrifice made for sinful man?] It is questions like these remaining almost entirely unanswered that makes me more certain that the religion is of purely human origin. Doctrines were invented whimsically to try to explain ideas, but instead they only serve to confuse. [Again, this appears to come from somebody who's never actually read the Bible or done any research outside of the books and websites that support the subject's preconceived views. As already shown by my responses to the subject's comments here] Apparently the god of the Bible is the author of the confusion, because the god of the bible is mankind. [I suppose I can see how this subject would view it that way, when the subject is arguing against something he is ignorant of. As stated before it seems very unfair to be arguing against something one has no clue what they're arguing against.]