tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post112614770962544585..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Mathematical Analogies For the Holy TrinityDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-25027888461862419492015-05-29T02:21:22.487-04:002015-05-29T02:21:22.487-04:00Theology for Beginners is more on point with this....Theology for Beginners is more on point with this.Rinkevichjmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020874424809729738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23263350341246581322014-04-13T14:53:43.787-04:002014-04-13T14:53:43.787-04:00Interesting stuff, but over my head!Interesting stuff, but over my head!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23206209320350958592014-04-13T12:47:01.197-04:002014-04-13T12:47:01.197-04:00Ok, here's a link to actual C programming code...Ok, here's a link to actual C programming code I came up with that acutally works (according to the compiler) and proofs that the Trinity isn't all that contradictory, it all depends on the context. As with all pointers declarations, it's easier to read each line from right to left to know how the pointers work. http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2012/06/c-constant-pointers/ <br /><br />http://ideone.com/SgxC11<br /><br />Of course, this isn't suggesting exactly how the Trinity actually works...but i find this approach doesn't exactly fall to much into aspects of modalism, tritheism or hierachism (despite the use of nested pointers, access is still on the same level, and initialization is synchronous). Also, if you think about it, it matches the chronologicla order of the revealing of persons in Scripture, and how the Son points to the Father and the Holy Spirit points to the Son, etc. and yet different and unique from one another. Yet, all of them equate to God nevertheless.<br /><br />Now, my only critique of the code is "Bleh, that's just a trick with the pointers...". BUt as always, it's just an illustration.G|_3/\//\/https://www.blogger.com/profile/07441760136948197325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36941335957058215092014-04-12T13:25:33.675-04:002014-04-12T13:25:33.675-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.G|_3/\//\/https://www.blogger.com/profile/07441760136948197325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77331275304103029382014-04-12T13:17:28.187-04:002014-04-12T13:17:28.187-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.G|_3/\//\/https://www.blogger.com/profile/07441760136948197325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51857367329373155902014-04-12T12:14:37.738-04:002014-04-12T12:14:37.738-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.G|_3/\//\/https://www.blogger.com/profile/07441760136948197325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22770786537921908202009-09-18T11:27:43.032-04:002009-09-18T11:27:43.032-04:00So you're critiquing him from a specifically T...So you're critiquing him from a specifically Thomist approach?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31630775525058382672009-09-18T11:11:43.496-04:002009-09-18T11:11:43.496-04:00I've got a google blog search alert set up for...I've got a google blog search alert set up for "frank sheed trinity", and this post just popped up, evidently four years after the fact.<br /><br />Let me recommend the excellent and accessible paper <a href="http://www.proginosko.com/docs/InDefenceOfMystery.pdf" rel="nofollow">In Defense of Mystery</a> by James N. Anderson, which introduces a cool new acronym: MACRUE (merely apparent contradiction resulting from unarticulated equivocation).<br /><br />One of the problems with Frank Sheed in <i>Theology and Sanity</i> is that he fudges between implying that nature means individual nature and implying that nature means universal nature. If nature means universal nature, then you get tritheism. If nature means individual nature, then you get a contradiction, because by definition there <i>is</i> a 1-to-1 correspondance between individual and individual nature. If nature means something else, then Sheed didn't share what he had in mind, and didn't point back to his sources. And speaking of sources, the terms Sheed uses and the ways he uses them seem both somewhat traditional but also somewhat idiosyncratic.Ryan Herrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09621830563944405807noreply@blogger.com