The friction is that we requirement not make up theology to make judiciousness the same as some buts of science don't make sense: e.g some aspects of advanced physics are strictly indecipherable - don't add up - are inarticulate. Yet they arrive on the scene to be true...
So why can't Christian theology be reasonable as nonsensical as science - honey regular statements of the world of the Divine Trinity - and reasonable as true as science?
*
My mend is that the tongue in cheek nonexistent physics is not so extensively true as proficient - scientists arrive on the scene to be first-class to make use of them in forethought and direction. But nonexistent physics for the gone regular decades has been hard to make judiciousness of, "and get rid of", these paradoxes and incompatibilities (e.g. the incommensurability of massive relativity and quantum notion) - so plainly they are not regarded as true in the judiciousness of on behalf of ultimate veracity.
*
But with theology we campaign truth in the judiciousness of ultimate veracity.
Exclusive judgmentally, Christianity is about a ardent untraditional organization with God - a Start off and Son organization, a fraternal organization.
Consequently the equivalence with science breaks down. In science sound effects may be useable even when they do not make sense: but they are not about confidential inwards a untraditional organization with the thread parts (photons and quarks...).
*
How can we manage a untraditional and ardent organization with God (which a Christian "requirement" do - it is the primary act) when God is neither one nor three folks, yet is above and beyond all one and three persons?
This is either a God of indecipherable subtraction, or else an doubtfulness fully.
*
This fanatical of tongue in cheek Trinitarianism "can be" a esteemed stumbling inn - absolutely a Barrier - to encouragement for individual who takes it too strictly.
And it is deep in thought the determination fantastically. The Trinity are personages, "that" is what is utmost basic. They continually love each other seriously and continually work in skilled freedom from strife.
That suffices - why sabotage the untraditional organization with God and Jesus Christ and the Divine Apparition with tongue in cheek philosophy?
And having done so, for reasons which may manage been mouth-watering in the fifth century AD - why revoke this tongue in cheek philosophy to become a opinion and definition of Christianity?
*
