Understanding the Christian Trinity
The Trinity is a theological concept I’ve always had trouble understanding. In the Bible, The trinity seems to be explicit in descriptions of God’s nature. For example, in Matthew 28:19, it is written “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. The Godhead seems to be described as a three-in-one relationship between three different personalities, all of which participate in the same divine identity.
However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet the Trinity feels more like a pantheon, or maybe a relationship hierarchy or some sort.
My argument against the logic of the Trinity looks something like this
1.A monotheistic God is one distinct being
2.The Trinity is three distinct beings
3.God cannot be both one and three distinct beings
4.Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory
Perhaps my understanding of the Trinity is incorrect - maybe the Trinity really is just three different forms of expression, all conducted by the same being. If this is the case, why does each form of the trinity act as if it were its own distinct being in the Biblical narratives? There are accounts of Jesus seemingly conversing with “The Father” as if they are two different entities, one in service to the will of the other. The Holy Spirit seems to act in a similar way, as if it has its own personality and substance that is unique compared to the natures of the other two representatives of the Godhead. Can God have three different forms, while each only participates in only one ultimate form?
If any of you have thought through this issue and have come to make sense of it in your own spiritual walks, I would love to hear any analogies or descriptions that have helped you to make sense of this confusing element of the nature of God.
However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet the Trinity feels more like a pantheon, or maybe a relationship hierarchy or some sort.
My argument against the logic of the Trinity looks something like this
1.A monotheistic God is one distinct being
2.The Trinity is three distinct beings
3.God cannot be both one and three distinct beings
4.Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory
Perhaps my understanding of the Trinity is incorrect - maybe the Trinity really is just three different forms of expression, all conducted by the same being. If this is the case, why does each form of the trinity act as if it were its own distinct being in the Biblical narratives? There are accounts of Jesus seemingly conversing with “The Father” as if they are two different entities, one in service to the will of the other. The Holy Spirit seems to act in a similar way, as if it has its own personality and substance that is unique compared to the natures of the other two representatives of the Godhead. Can God have three different forms, while each only participates in only one ultimate form?
If any of you have thought through this issue and have come to make sense of it in your own spiritual walks, I would love to hear any analogies or descriptions that have helped you to make sense of this confusing element of the nature of God.
Comments (210)
One can read this in light of the later doctrine of the Trinity or in the plain sense of this, that, and the other, that is, three separate but related things. For example, "In the name of God, Country, and our Community.
Quoting tryhard
One can take the position of Credo quia absurdum
The doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense because it is an attempt to combine the monotheistic God of Judaism with the pagan belief in a man who is a god.
A more pious view might regard it as pointing to the limits of human understanding which cannot comprehend the divine. Or as something to be contemplated rather than something to be rationally understood.
The way I see it, it is describing them as ‘beings’ that leads to contradiction. The Trinity refers to three aspects of our potential relation to ‘God’:
1. Father: this is the concept of infinite possibility, and its relation to us.
2. Son: this is the concept of our human potentiality in relation to infinite possibility.
3. Spirit: this is the concept of the relation itself.
Christianity has spent far too much time trying to reify these concepts, trying to make ‘God’ appear more substantial. There’s no need. There is an interchangeable symmetry of logic, quality and energy in this triadic relation.
The Hydra, a mythical polycephalic beast, was considered as one creature. Quite unlike how the dicephalic parapagus twins Abby & Brittany Hensel are treated as two individuals.
The same issue is found in Hinduism, Ravana (the 10-headed demon) is one person and so is Brahma (4 heads) of the Trimurti.
Methinks this is a case of confusion in re personhood. Just picture Yahwheh with 3 noggins and bewilderment is unavoidable. Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus.
So, if F = The Father, S = The Son, H = The Holy Spirit, and G = God then,
1. F = G
2. S = G
3. H = G
but
4. F [math]\neq[/math] S
5. S [math]\neq[/math] H
6. F [math]\neq[/math] H
The law of identity has been shot to pieces.
7. G [math]\neq[/math] G (substitute G for F, S, H in 4, 5, 6 above)
Negation has a different, unconventional meaning. For example,
8. F [math]\neq[/math] S doesn't imply that F = S is false.
[quote=Cratylus]:zip: Wriggle finger.[/quote]
Apart from the unsavory truth that God's a mother f**ker, I'd say we may need to explore:
1. Temporal logic
2. Identity & Change (Metaphysics).
Many different people heard different meanings in those words in Matthew.
The Great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches highlighted whether the Nicene Creed should say the Spirit comes from the Father (as was originally agreed upon) or whether it should say the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.
I figure centuries of religious wars within 'Christianity' should make referring to it as an identifiable object more problematic than is commonly done.
If something good is Christ's doing or can be ascribed to the Holy Ghost, it can also be said to be God's benevolence in action. In short, God gets the credit for Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's kindness. The Father is the Son is the Holy Ghost.
However, if Jesus had flaws or the Holy Ghost slipped up, God can't be blamed because the Father is neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit.
This doesn't follow. What follows is that if the trinity is true, polytheism is true. This means that the trinity is inconsistent with monotheism, but not that it is self contradictory.
Polytheism isn't necessarily inconsistent with Christianity.
https://mormonchurch.com/668/are-mormons-polytheists
I suspect that the concept of a trinitarian deity resulted from 2nd & 3rd century theological debates over the nature & status of Jesus. The Jews, and most likely, Jesus's own disciples were strict monotheists. But after his unexpected & humiliating death, various rumors arose to explain why he didn't fulfill his messianic role of re-establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in Jerusalem. One speculation (based on cherry-picked scriptures) was that he had further work to do on the spiritual plane, so had to return to heaven. But that would require him to be a god himself (or a reincarnation of Elijah), instead of a mere sword-wielding human leader (messiah = royal descendant) of a political rebellion. Some of his recorded statements were sufficiently vague & provocative that various interpretations could apply.
But, for polytheistic gentile converts, monotheism was not inherent in their tradition. So they didn't consider the god-man concept to be blasphemous or sacrilegious (e.g Pantheon). Also, Jesus had made metaphorical references to the Holy Spirit as-if it was a person, not just a divine force. As the Catholic Church was being cobbled-together from a variety of Jesus cults, their contradictory myths became an obstacle to unification within the Roman empire ("catholic" = universal). So, the leaders from various places began to hold unification meetings in order to hammer-out their differences. Since it was mainly a political argument, they didn't depend on a sign from God, but merely debated & voted, and the majority opinion became the "Truth"
Unfortunately, their good intentions were frustrated, and in order to establish a single authoritative myth & origin-story of the new religion, they were forced to vote the heretics out of their club. But first they had to legally define what beliefs were orthodox, and which were heresy. Ironically, a crux of the debate was on the vexing question of Jesus' role in the religion : god apparition, or inspired prophet, or pretender to the throne, or god-man avatar. Since the latter option was unacceptable to monotheists, the Jewish Christians soon found themselves expelled as reverse Gentiles (literally, not God's people).
Therefore, instead of a continuation of the Abrahamic genetic-tribal heritage of the Jewish religion, Christianity became a distinct new faith-based religion, excluding the Chosen People of the Old Testament God, in favor of the the uncircumcised "Gentiles". With the Jews rejected from their own religious movement, there was no one left, in the radically new Roman imperial Church, to point-out the logical contradictions found in the authorized scriptures of the official state religion. Besides, mystical mythical paradoxes were not unusual in ancient religions. And, the gentiles were typically not as piously legalistic as the Jews. So, even as the theologians continued to debate privately, for the sake of unity, they decided to convince the uneducated common people that a piece of physical (material) bread could also be a metaphysical (spiritual) hunk of flesh. To some, that was a divine spiritual insight. But, the paradox-vs-precept debate continued on the fringes to this day. :smile:
I have never heard an understandable or persuasive explanation from a priest or pastor as to what the Trinity is. I don't find the trinity to be useful in terns of lived faith (which I pretty much don't have any more). The unitary God--omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni etc.--seems to be fully sufficient. The Godhead and Jesus, maybe God became Jesus, the resurrection all present problems too, Never mind the virgin birth (and Mary still being virgin after giving birth to Jesus' brothers).
So, no. The Trinity doesn't do much for me. I don't think it (the concept) actually does much for anybody else, either,
Yep! That's it! Most of Christian doctrine were voted into "truths" (Councils).
A lot of time was spent/wasted on trying to then put these "truths" on a rational foundation much, much later. Unfortunately, those who were tasked to do this realized, to their dismay, that none of what made it through the numerous Councils made any sense.
This is a textbook case of backwards "reasoning" - first decide what one wants to believe in and, after that, justify 'em. Warped logic it is. Quite typical of faiths, won't you say?
Christ being the shadow of God?
Christ as the Nous.
Aha! :grin:
Hallelujah!
(The Father)[math]\frac{1}{2} \equiv[/math] (The Son) [math]\frac{4}{8} \equiv[/math] (The Holy Spirit) [math]\frac{6}{12}[/math] [Equivalence]
(The Father) [math]\frac{1}{2} \neq[/math] (The Son) [math]\frac{4}{8} \neq[/math] (The Holy Spirit) [math]\frac{6}{12}[/math] [Equality]
The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are indiscernible (to us); hence all 3 are the same (for us). However, they're distinct entities; hence the 3 are not the same.
They're like identical triplets you see. Bring them one by one in front of you and you wouldn't be able to tell one apart from the other. Nevertheless, each is a unique, different person.
Why couldn't those just be three names for the same person?
Quoting tryhard
A cube does not have the same properties as a pyramid. And a pyramid does not have the same properties as a sphere. They have contradictory properties: if something is a cube, it is not also a sphere etc.
But one and the same lump of clay can be all three at different times. It can start out a cube, become a pyramid, and then become a sphere.
Why couldn't it be like that? (I"m not a Christian and haven't read the bible, so I don't know).
For example, the term God is typically used to denote a person who has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. But the person is distinct from the properties. They 'have' those properties. THey are not constituted by them. To qualify as God they have to have them. But they'd be the same person if they gave some of them up, just as the cube remains the same lump of clay if it morphs into a sphere.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
There's nothing puzzling here. The suggestion is just that there is one named person who qualifies as the Father, the son and the Holy spirit. It's no different from saying 'in the name of the chair of the board, the founder of the company, and the major shareholder (titles shared by Mr Rich Boss).
Another one:
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
Again, if I said "you have the permission of the chair of the board, the support of the founder of the company, and the good will of its major shareholder" - and all of those were one and the same person - that's fine. No puzzle. No contradiction.
Here's another:
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work"
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Chairperson distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same company founder. There are different kinds of working, but everyone is working for the same majority shareholder.
And so on. No puzzle. Note, even if it is true that the Chairperson has powers that the founder does not necessarily have, or that the majority shareholder does not have, even that is not puzzling once one understands that these are roles that one and the same person can occupy at the same time. It just means that Mr Rich Boss cannot, qua majority shareholder, do things that Mr Rich Boss, qua Chairperson, can. And so on.
It seems to me, then, that any impression of a puzzle here has been generated by curious use of the word 'person' and an insistence that the trinity involves there being 'three persons in one [person]". That's manifestly incoherent. But it is not called for by any of the quotes from the bible (assuming the internet sites from which I got them are reliable).
I suggest to Christians concerned to be coherent that the trinity be understood either as one person occupying different roles - just as the founder of the company, the chairperson, and the majority shareholder can all be the same person - or that it is one person who has had three incompatible sets of properties at different times, or some combination of those two.
Nice work. So when Jesus says things such as - 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do...' is he reasoning with himself?
Nour Hadidi (Lebanese comedienne) [paraphrasing]: I talk to myself in Arabic so that if people discover me doing that I can always pretend I'm praying!
:snicker:
:rofl: :yikes: :rofl:
Oh haha, Oh ha hee! Great job boys!
I mean, that seems an obvious contradiction. One person is not also three persons. A 'person' is a mind, a soul, a spirit, a subject of experiences. They're indivisible. So the idea that there can be two other persons 'in' a person, makes no sense at all.
But I can see no motivation to say such things. So far as I can tell, nothing in the bible calls for it. I mean, you could take certain passages to be consistent with the incoherent thesis, but why would one think they support it given that the thesis is incoherent? And there are alternative, coherent interpretations.
For example, let's say I say "I am in France and I am in trouble". Now, one could take that statement to be expressing a contradiction: that I am in two distinct places at the same time. But why would one give that interpretation, given it makes no sense? There's an alternative interpretation - I mean that I am located in France and that I have a problem (which is what 'I am in trouble' can express).
So, where in the bible is the incoherent notion of there being three persons in one person expressed? Or is it just that apparently incompetent interpreters have foist this silly view onto the Christian tradition? (To its detriment - as I understand it, those who subscribe to alternative religious worldviews typically give the incoherence of the trinity as the main reason to reject Christianity.....yet the incoherent version of the trinity is not in the bible!)
Don't sweat it. It's just religion. It's not meant to be taken literally or rationally. The concept of the trinity is meant to be a sort of brain teaser - the contemplation of the trinity is merely a practice that helps one to reduce dependence on reason. It is only for people interested in cultivating their religious faith.
For example, someone above mentioned that Jesus supposedly said something about 'the Father' that made it sound as if 'the Father' might be a distinct person from himself. He said "forgive them father, for they know not what they do" or something.
But there's nothing incoherent about talking to oneself. We write ourselves messages and tell ourselves things all the time. So. it's more reasonable to interpret Jesus as doing that, than it is to suppose that Jesus is a person distinct from the Father who is nevertheless 'in' the Father or some such nonsense.
I don't think anyone had a master plan of what the trinity was "meant" for, whether a brain teaser or something else. It's a doctrine that arose out of the chaos of the post-Jesus era in which Romans were persecuting Christians because they saw them as "atheists", and Christian views on what would become theology were just as chaotic. And the canon wasn't even set yet. I don't see any need to worry about the trinity. It's a human construction.
Nice! I recall saying that any book, the Bibilia Sacra included, that makes the reader go huh, WTF? is either many or one giant Zen Koan(s), meant to evoke :chin: (deep thought) then :confused: (aporia) then :smile: (ataraxia)
If you talk to yourself, do you refer to yourself as "mom" or "uncle", for instance? I don't think that's a good argument against the trinity, but I think there are plenty of other options.
In terms of non-trinitarian suggestions in the Bible, there are of course the several words used for "God" in the old testament (I'm hazy on this and going to bed soon, apologize for the low post quality). "El" is one, which I think was the name of a Babylonian God. Some scholarship suggests that the ancient Hebrew religion grew from polytheistic to suddenly monotheistic. Of course this says nothing about a fervent believer's position.
Oh no, are you adopting @180 Proof's {idiolect?} :chin:
:snicker:
The Father = The Son = The Holy Spirit (Unus Deus)
:chin:
This is a symptom.
Precisely. It comes in handy when dealing with the irrationallities of real life.
:up: Rationality is its own kinda irrationality. Paradoxically, if you haven't ever contemplated ending your own life, you're most definitely insane!
:lol: very true. Your wisdom is endless
Interpretations vary widely, so rather than try to offer a summary of a very diverse field, I'll just try to put forth my own understanding.
The Trinity is a representation of Pierce's semiotic triangle.
God exists in this way because, in order to exist onto Itself, It must contain these necessary relations.
The Father is the object. The name given to Moses, "I am that I am." The Father is the ground of objective being, the thing-in-itself. You see this through the numerous references to the Father creating and taking action in the "physical" world.
Christ is the symbol. Christ is the Logos (see: the opening of the Gospel of John and a similar passage in the opening of Colossians). Philo of Alexandria is good example of how Logos was interpreted in this period. The Logos is a universal reason, the laws of logic, of cause and effect itself. Man shares in the image of God in that he possesses some portion of the Logos. Man exists within the circuit of cause and effect, but can understand these laws (which is a condition for freedom).
In Romans 7-9, Paul discusses dying to sin. He speaks of how he loses a war with the members of his body and becomes dead in sin. This is obviously not a physical death, Paul still lives, but rather a death of personhood. It is no longer he who lives, but his animal desires. He is driven on as an effect that does not apprehend its own causes. He is then resurrected (again not biologically) in Christ, the Logos, and set free by the ability to apprehend what moves him.
The Spirit is the interpretant. It is Atman, that which experiences the symbol. The "Spirit of God," in the Tanakh uses the Hebrew word ruach, which means "wind" or "spirit." Ruach is also the Hebrew word used in the "breath of life," that enters living things (all living things, not just man).
There are two creation stories told back to back in Genesis with different details. In the first, the ruach of God, the Spirit, is hovering over the "Waters of the Deep." The Waters of the Deep are somewhat like Greek primordial chaos. A vaccuum of nothing, but a nothing packed with all possibilities, but since there is no definiteness, this all encompassing something is total abstraction, and thus not really anything. I'm using the more modern language of Hegel here, but the ancient understanding contains the same basic conception of a sort of "pregnant silence."
At the opening of Genesis, the Spirit is "above" this "full vacuum" and creates the world by speaking (through symbols). A lot of the Patristics saw this as the role of Christ in creation, as the symbol giving meaning to the things of creation. The pattern in which the Spirit utters things is very interesting, and there is a great book called "The Beginning of Wisdom," that covers the intricacies there, but I'll pass over that for now.
So, that's the start of Genesis, the Spirit of God speaking pregnant vaccuum into being. What do we get next?
Another creation story! But this time God is forming things out of physical dust. Man is shaped of clay and ruach is breathed into him.
The two stories make sense as viewing different relations between the triad of the Godhead. Things are created for the interpretant through symbol, whilst the objects being formed gives rise to the names of things (genesis of the symbols) in the second story.
God has this triadic structure because it's a basic necessity of being, part of what it takes to get "somethings" from the Waters of the Deep.
If I have time I'll try to add my exegesis and references to support this interpretation later.
Some traditions focus more on the historical Jesus, Jesus as a man, more than others. This makes it hard to square the Logos with the Christ who is the "Son of Man." I won't get into this much, except to recall one of the sayings of the man Jesus when a crowd asks him about how he can know Abraham when Abraham lived long ago, which is: "before Abraham was, I am." The mixing of tense, which recalls the idea of the eternal, is in the original, and it also recalls the name of God given to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM."
:rofl: You jest!
By Law of Identity, if “two” things have the same set of properties, then they are one-and-the-same, and if not, then they are distinct.
The Trinity is 3 divine persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in 1 nature (Godhead).
Each of the 3 persons and the Godhead have the same set of absolute properties, but each person has a distinct property of relation, which is the relation they have with one another. These properties of relation are: Paternity, Filiation, Procession and Spiration. Here is a flow chart showing them.
With respect to absolute properties alone, each person = Godhead.
With respect to absolute properties along with the property of relation, each person is distinct.
Do I know the meaning of absolute properties and properties of relation? Honestly, no.
I would say it makes no sense because it is an absurdity. No matter how it is explained, it will always seem preposterous. However, it has an undeniable edifying ineffability for any one who approaches it with humility and due respect.
:up: Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, we are in the epoch of reason, and religion has no place in this world.
The former are properties that are imutable and self evident, the latter are relativistic - contingent on their relation to other things.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Not so sure what procession and spiration are specifically referring to. Any thoughts?
:lol:
Ancient Aliens: Was Noah an Alien? (Season 9) | History
;)
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
The law of identity (1st law of logic), and identity of indiscernibles (Leibnizian metaphysics), aren't the same, at least they aren't in philosophy.
What does that mean?
A person is a mind, a bearer of mental states. A 'nature' is had by something. You can't be 'in' a nature - that makes no sense.
So, what do you mean? There are three distinct minds 'in' what? And if they're distinct minds, they are not one and the same mind.
What passage from the bible forces one to think that there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as opposed to there being one person who is, say, the founder of the company, the chair of the board and the majority shareholder? Or one person who has different properties at different times - just as I was once short and now I am tall?
Here is what I know. Spiration is the "making" of the Holy Spirit through the love between the Father and the Son. Procession is the opposite relation from the Holy Spirit towards the Father and Son.
There is no distinct passage in the Bible that spells out the Trinity, although the idea of Christ, the Father, and the Spirit as three distinct entities is definitely in the Bible. But so is the idea that Christ is eternal and took part in creation (John, Colossians).
Every theology book I've ever readily admits that the Trinity is not explicit in the Bible but is merely implied. Not all Christians are trinitarians. Early in the church there were a lot of non-trinitarians, but the success of the Church in consolidating its control on doctrine in the early middle ages meant that these groups became marginalized and disappeared over time.
Non-trinitarian groups have sprouted up throughout history though and there are certainly many today. Some even exclude Christ from the Godhead and have him merely as a subservient figure. However, these types specifically mostly date to the early church when there was no one set canonical Bible. Once you have John and Paul's epistles in the Bible, it becomes hard to argue against not only the divinity of Christ, but his eternal nature (given you accept the Canon, not all Christians do). Christ is also not part of the Godhead in Gnostic Christianity, but is normally framed as an Aeon of the Pleroma, like Sophia/Wisdom, and thus an emanation of the ineffable Entirety/Monad. Hell, in some versions of Gnosticism, Christ is the snake in the Garden, sharing the Fruit of Knowledge to save humanity from the evil demiurge Yaldaboath, who is the "God" that creates the material world in Genesis.
That all said, there is a whole ton of justification for the idea of the Trinity throughout the Bible. Just throw it into a search engine.
Sure. It can be rewritten as "3 divine persons having the same nature".
Quoting Bartricks
I'm not sure we can equate "divine person" with "mind". In catholicism, properties assigned to God are said to be analogical and not literal. But that may not matter as long as they are something. Now, divine persons are indeed not one-and-the-same, due to having distinct properties of relation.
Quoting Bartricks
I am not a theologian, but here are some possible passages:
Quoting Bartricks
God is said to be eternal, unchangeable (due to being all actual and having no potential), and thus its properties are not in time.
But then don't you have three distinct persons - three gods - not one?
I don't see anything in those quotes that forces one to posit three gods rather than one god.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
That's no different from me saying "in the name of the founder, the chair of the board, and the majority shareholder". Those can all be one and the same person.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
But there seems to be an alternative interpretation that does not commit one to contradictions. Let's say that Jesus denotes a particular mind - p - that has property x. The holy spirit denotes the same mind, but when it has property y (a property incompatible with x). Well, then in order for the holy spirit to come and help, Jesus would need to lose property x and acquire property y. Just as, say, a bachelor, to become a married man, needs to acquire a wife. It's the same person, it's just that now the person has a wife. So, let's say you need a married man to help you, but I'm a bachelor. Well, then I could say "a married man can't come and help you until I go away and get married. And giving oneself an instruction - or giving an instruction to the married version of yourself - is not incoherent, even if it is a little eccentric.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
If 'the father' refers to the same person as himself but with different properties, then I do not see why that line could not be interpreted as Jesus reminding himself that it is this version of his self whose will is being done, or some such.
We make promises to ourselves and sometimes to earlier versions of ourselves that we might refer to in this way: I owe it to my teenage self to do this or that or to realize this or that plan of his.
i don't deny that these interpretations might look a little strained, but outright incoherence is worse, and to maintain that there are three persons in one person - which is what I take the trinity to involve (perhaps mistakenly) - seems incoherent because contradictory.
:snicker:
That's probably the logic at the core of any Christian theologist, yaah. Then you just construct a bewildering web of faulty logical proofs around it to get from 1 to 3 in a way that squares with the canonical texts. Easy.
I'm too dumb to catch half of those references, sorry. All I'm saying is the trinity is bullocks. :pray: [prayer emoji]
I see. I'm dumb too. Join the club!
The Trinity isn't nonsense in my humble opinion because religion was never about rationality. Were it so, why all the logical boo-boos in religious texts. The objective of religion, if there's one at all, isn't to make sense to classical logicians and their fans viz. philosophers!
Did you know, the law of contradiction is considered sacrosanct only because it would trivialize truth, not because there's anything wrong with saying stuff like: I'm here & I'm not here. This is a riddle I don't have the wherewithal to examine in the right way. Random thinking gets you nowhere.
It's like Fight Club; now we know we're both in it...? What...?
Quoting Agent Smith
Sure, but religion's objective is different than arguments for or against the trinity.
The Son = S
The Holy Spirit = H
There was, I guess, a felt need to violate two of the laws of thought:
1. The law of identity [F = S = H and F [math]\neq[/math] S [math]\neq[/math] H and so F [math]\neq[/math] F, S [math]\neq[/math] S, and H [math]\neq[/math] H]
2. The law of noncontradiction (LNC) [F = S & F [math]\neq[/math] S; S = H & S [math]\neq[/math] H; F = H & F [math]\neq[/math] H]
If so the last of the 3 laws of thought - the law of the excluded middle - is also blown to bits (rejecting the LNC implies that).
Put simply the very foundation of classical logic has been demolished by the Triune God.
Anticipates or hints at a revolution in logic! Hasn't happened yet! Waiting...patiently...oh no! :death:
No wonder Newton was anti-Trinitarian. He knew!
Here is the catholic take as I understand it. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, thus, 1 God. That God has a set of absolute properties plus a few properties of relations. "The Divine Persons are none other than these relations" (from the same article mentioned above). My understanding is that since properties of relations do not make a new substance, they do not make a new God. Yet they are something, and when it comes to divine properties, these make a thing called a divine person.
Regarding your interpretation of the passsages: I agree that if there is a contradiction, then we must look for a different meaning. But it may be only an apparent and not a real contradiction. This is the take of Christian theologians who have thought about this over many years, including the many objections that typically come up.
Christians were killing each other over the belief that Jesus is God or the Son of God. If Jesus is not God there is a very serious problem. The trinity would be three gods and not one. The Greeks had no problem with a trinity of god, but Romans didn't have the necessary word or concept for that. It took a while to create and spread a Roman word/concept for a trinity of a god. I am rather surprised that the argument has come up again.
The modern debate seems to be having trouble with "spirit". What is it? It seems we can imagine a God and a Jesus, one as Father and the others as Son, but spirit? Isn't Satan, demons, and angels spirit?
Is our soul a spirit? Kind of like water is a solid, liquid, and gas.
I think we need to think of geometry and the Triad.
"The Triad is the form of the completion of all things." Nichomachus of Gerasa (c. 100 A.D., Greek - philosopher and mathematician.
"All things divided into three." Homer (Ninth-eighth century B.C. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVu_JPj7v6A
It's possible that ancient people
a) had a very different notion of identity.
and/or
b) were using loose terminology.
and/or
c) left to the readee as an exercise.
The term I was lookin' for! :up: & Gracias.
How prescient of the First Council of Nicaea.
1[sup]st[/sup] person (I The Father)
2[sup]nd[/sup] person (You The Son)
3[sup]rd[/sup] person (S/he The Holy Spirit)
:lol:
Try it out (at your own risk of course): You (1[sup]st[/sup] person) can talk to you (2[sup]nd[/sup] person) about you (3[sup]rd[/sup] person).
3 persons!!! :chin:
He has a good version of the idea; the concept existed long before him in theology and philosophy in various degrees of formalization.
I had to look that up.
That can be a problematic understanding because energy such as the Holy Ghost and atomic energy can not be seen.
Quoting Wikipedia
I think Romans had a problem with thinking about things that can not be seen. If we consider India and the notion of "out of the one came the many" and the video of the trinity I posted, we might understand the whole of creation as the function of the trinity.
"The Triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentialities of the Monad (one)" Iamblichus (c. 250-c 330, Greek Neoplatonic philosopher.
It was a man from Carthage who presented the trinity to the Council of Nicea.
Quoting ?
Quoting Banno
I do not understand your point. I doubt if any Romans had the perspective of math and what would be the prescient thought?
That seems a clear misuse of language. Relations are not persons. I am in front of my computer. That's a relation. It's not a person. There's not me and, in addition, the person of the relation I stand in to my computer.
So, there's just one person. And a person has properties - and when the person is God, the person has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
Those are not essential to being a person of course, for I am a person and I lack those properties. And so the person of God could give up some of those properties - could make themselves something less than omniscient, omnibenevolent or omnipotent - and still be the same person, it is just that they wouild no longer qualify as 'God' anymore, just as a bachelor no longer qualifies as a bachelor when they get married, but they're still the same person.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Yes, if the passages can be interpreted in ways that do not contain contradictions, then those are more reasonable interpretations for that very reason.
But when i listen to Christians talking about the trinity they seem to be uttering contradictions: they say that there are three persons in one person - which makes no real sense at all.
There is no contradiction involved in the idea of there being one person who has incompatible properties at different times. And there is no contradiction involved in the idea of there being one person who occupies three different roles. And so I do not really understand why the passages in the bible that are appealed to as evidence for the 'three, but also one' interpretation when that's a clear contradiction and it is not something the passages commit one to.
I don't think it is. Which passage commits one to the view that there are three distinct entities rather than one entity that occupies different roles or has different properties (and thus answers to different concepts at different times)?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I did precisely that.
If one believes that the Father, Son and Holy spirit have incompatible properties, then one is not thereby committed to the view that they are different persons. That would be like thinking that because a pyramid and a cube and a sphere have incompatible properties, they can't all be made of the same lump of clay. But they can be - the clay can be a cube at one point, a pyramid at another, and a sphere at yet another.
Is one then a trinitarian or not? That is, if one holds that the Father is not the son and the son is not the holy spirit - just as one can hold that a cube is not a sphere and a sphere is not a pyramid - yet at the same time maintains that all three are one and the same person - just as one can hold that the sphere, cube and pyramid are all the same lump of clay - is one a trinitarian? Surely. ONe is simply not an incoherent trinitarian. For one is not maintaining that they are three distinct persons and one and the same person.
That is the beauty though for some thinkers. The seeming contradiction is the great mystery. It's the conscious overcoming of contradiction through meditation and prayer that is the revelation (sort of the same idea behind some koans).
The difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit appear explicitly in Christ's words. He refers to them as different entities in the same sentence.
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26
Christ also defines himself as different from the Spirit.
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Mathew 12:32
All three mentioned as different entities:
"“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:15-17, emphasis mine. There is "me" (Christ speaking), the Father, and the Spirit, who is "another advocate."
I would also point to Paul's description of Christ's role in creation in Colossians, when paired up against the creation story of Genesis I. There, God's Spirit is mentioned as distinct from God, as happens often throughout the Bible. God (or the Spirit) speaks creation into being. Creation is effected by words, and Christ is the Logos/Word.
The interpretation of this go back to the early church. See: Basil the Great Hexaemeron 1.5, Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis I. Origen has a take similar to this, but was condemned as a heretic; the Trinity shows up in heterodox theology as well. Obviously, the doctrine wasn't universal, or we wouldn't have the spread of Arianism, but it was common.
I don't think politics drove the acceptance of the Trinity. The Trinity emerges as a doctrine due to Christ referring to the Father and the Spirit as distinct entities throughout the Gospels. The doctrine was enforced to the exclusion of others due to politics, but it's present in Paul's writing, and explicit in early theologian's writing, before the Church had much political capital at all.
The founder, the chair and the majority shareholder can all be the same person. The founder is not the same as the chair, and the chair is not the same as the majority shareholder - these are not synonymous expressions - yet they can refer to one and the same person.
Thus the fact someone refers to the father, son and holy spirit is not decisive evidence that someone is referring to three entities.
Now in addition, a person can have different properties at different times and still be the same person. This makes sense of how it might be that someone might talk of giving instructions or reports to someone who will in fact be themselves. We do this all the time. It's what calendars are for. We tell our future selves about things for we know that our future selves will not have the memories that we do.
Note too that one can be the same person and not realize it. When Winnie the Pooh follows the trail of the Heffalump he does not realize that he himself is the Heffalump. So, Pooh talks about the Heffalump as if it were a different person, but that does not entail that it is (it isn't). And thus even if Jesus sometimes talks about the Father and Holy Spirit as if they are different persons, that would not establish that they are.
God is all knowing. But it does not follow that jesus is, even if God and Jesus are the same person.
I agree when we speak of "persons" as used in the common language. But properties assigned to God are to be understood analogically and not literally. E.g. when we say God is good, it is not meant in the same sense are we are good, i.e., that we obey the moral laws. God does not obey the moral law as though the law is outside of him and above him. It is meant analogically. Similarly, Divine Persons are not literally the same as persons in the common language. In the same article, Divine Persons are also called Divine Relations, so you can call them relations if that makes things clearer.
Quoting Bartricks
Indeed this statement does not make sense; but in catholicism, this is false. The trinity is not 3 persons in 1 person. It is 3 divine persons in (or having) 1 nature. 3 ? 1, but it is possible that 3x = 1y.
Your interpretation of 3 conditions for 1 person makes sense; but for reasons I do not know, theologians throughout history have opted against it.
I don't see why. Surely the literal reading enjoys the default? And if it makes sense when taken literally, that's surely the reasonable interpretation to give it? That is, it's only reasonable to give an alternative interpretation if taking it literally would betoken nonsense. But that's what is at issue: does taking what the bible says about the trinity betoken nonsense? I think it doesn't. I think the interpretations are nonsense as they involve insisting that three persons are also one person.
quote="A Christian Philosophy;721582"]But properties assigned to God are to be understood analogically and not literally.[/quote]
Why? Unless taking them literally committed one to saying nonsense, I see no reason not to take them literally.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Again, I see no reason to interpret 'God is good' as meaning anything different to what it means on normal usage. Indeed, I think there's a serious problem for those who do not. For what would you call a person who is all powerful, all knowing and all good in the normal sense of the term good? I'd call them 'God'. But presumably you wouldn't. Why? If you say that you understand 'good' to mean something different when applied to God, then you're saying that a person who is all powerful, all knowing and all good (where good means what it normally means) 'isn't' God. But yes they are.
So, I think it has to be understood the normal way, otherwise you'd have to say that someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all good isn't God. But who are they if not God?
And I see no problem in thinking it denotes exactly the same property it does when applied to us. That property being the property of possessing a character that is fully approved of by the personal source of all norms and values. That is, God is good by virtue of approving of himself. Which is what goodness in us consists in too - that is, to be good is to be such that God approves of how one is.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Yes, to refer to relations as persons is such an abuse of language one can only assume their intention was to be unclear.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Yes, I am puzzled too.
Frater domi dormit
Pater non domi scribit et studet
Sure, but generally if you're the founder, the chair, and the president, you're not going to say "the founder told me I have to go, but don't worry, he's going to send the chair to help."
Which is a point against the 3 = 1 position. However, on the other hand you have many references to a single God creating the world (but then again, also Christ's involvement in creation).
However, it's worth noting that there is an absolute ton of paradoxes when it comes to the idea of identity. Identity, as commonly defined, requires the satisfaction of:
A reflexive relationship, G = C
Liebnitz' Law: whatever can be said of G can be said of
That these relationships are necessary.
Necessary distinctness: if G is not x then this is true by necessity
The Trinity, inasmuch as it asserts that all three parts share an identity, fails to meet this criteria. That said, I'm not sure how big of an issue this is because it's unclear if the definition of identity has serious issues. There are tons of unresolved paradoxes that emerge from this definition of identity. Introducing the idea of relative identity solves some issues, but opens up others. Not being able to live up to the bar of a broken definition is not necessarily a huge issue.
But that's why i mentioned other cases. We ourselves give ourselves instructions. We do it all the time. We leave instructions for our future selves. Those are not distinct persons, but just us in the future.
There is nothing incoherent about it - giving an instruction to oneself is coherent (unlike the idea of three distinct persons also being one and the same person).
And it is to be positively expected if, say, you do not realize that you and the person you are giving the instruction to are one and the same person.
God is omniscient. But Jesus could be the same person as God and not be omniscient. Just as I know more than my child self, yet we're the same person.
So, let's say I have forgotten entirely that I am the chair of the company. I know I am the majority shareholder, however. Someone wants me to use my position as the majority shareholder to influence the chair into doing something. I decide to play ball and say "I will visit the chair and ask the chair to implement the thing you want implemented". I then set off to see the chair and find myself directed to my own office (whereupon I remember that I am the chair).
All perfectly coherent. Unlike the idea the three persons are also one person, which is just straight nonsense.
The mistake that many theists seem to be making is to think that if God and Jesus and the holy spirit are all the same person, then they must all have the same properties - which is false. God is god in virtue of possessing certain properties - the omni properties - but those are not essential to him being the person that he is. And so he can divest himself of those properties and still be the same person. So, God can be Jesus and Jesus can lack omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolence. They can be the same person, even though when God the person has different properties to Jesus. And Jesus can be unaware - or sometimes unaware - that he is the same person as God, consistent with God being omniscient.
I just think most theists don't realize this or have simply fallen into the habit of thinking that they are somehow committed to believing a contradiction: that three persons are also one person, and thus they find themselves committed to talking nonsense or abusing language to disguise the nonsense they are uttering.
I do not follow. I am the same person as my child self. Yet my child self has all manner of properties that I lack and vice versa. Indeed, I am the same person I was a moment ago, yet I had different properties a moment ago.
We should also note that there is no necessity to anything if God exists, for God can do anything and so nothing is necessarily the case. Any argument that appeals to necessity to try and raise a problem for God is question begging then, as it assumes the existence of something - necessary relations - that would not exist if God exists.
Schoolmaster: Three in one, one in three, perfectly straightforward. Any doubts about that see your maths master.[/quote]
There is a distinction between having properties essentially and having them non-essentially (or accidentally). It would be possible for a being to be all powerful, all knowing and all good in a non-essential way, which means they could lose these properties without losing their identity, and thus they would not be God. They would have these properties but not be these properties. God is identical to those properties.
Quoting Bartricks
They are not wholly the same because we can grasp the concept of goodness as it applies to beings to varying degrees (e.g. we understand that a sinner has a lower degree of goodness than a saint), but we cannot grasp the concept of a being that is goodness essentially.
Quoting Bartricks
Indeed God is also the source of these properties in the creatures (the things he has created). But these properties also need to be essential to him. He could not simply be able to disapprove of himself. I.e. the statement "I, God, am not good" is a self-contradiction.
They're not essential properties of a person. They are essential properties of God. But all that means is that to qualify as God you need to have them.
For instance, it is an essential property of a bachelor that they lack a wife. That does not mean that a person who is a bachelor is essentially wifeless. It just means that you have to lack a wife in order to qualify as a bachelor.
That's the same with God.
If a person is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then they are God. If you deny that, then you're just misusing a word.
But that does not mean that the person who is God is essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That's as confused as thinking that a person who is a bachelor is essentially wifeless.
Indeed, it is more confused than that. As there is a contradiction involved in the idea. If the person who is God is essentially omnipotent, then they are not omnipotent. For to be essentially omnipotent is to be incapable of not being. But then that is a restriction.
Even I can divest myself of power. It is absurd to think that God - who is all powerful - lacks that ability.
So, the person who is God is demonstrably not essentially omnipotent. THey are omnipotent. But they are not essentially omnipotent. To be essentially omnipotent is to be manifesting a contradiction: it is to be unable to do a thing and to be able to do anything at the same time, which is incoherent.
I also see nothing in the bible that commits one to the view that God has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence essentially. Indeed, quite the opposite. God, Jesus says, can do anything. Well, then he can divest himself of those qualities if he so wishes. And presumably did do when he became Jesus.
What you say is true of concepts like bachelor because bachelor is a property and not a substance. Many things can be bachelors. It would also be true of gods (lower case g) such as in the greek mythology. But God in Christianity is not a property but a substance. That substance is goodness, is power, etc.
Quoting Bartricks
This is in agreement with the Catholic doctrine. God can do anything that does not contain a contradiction. God being all-good, all-powerful and all-actuality means he cannot be evil, weak, or cease to exist. In general, this means God cannot have what would be seen as negative properties or conditions; but by common sense alone, this would not be considered a weakness.
Quoting Bartricks
Catholic theology is not solely derived from the bible but relies heavily on philosophy and science. A catholic saying is that God wrote two books: scripture and nature. These essential properties might be found in the works of scholastics who combined the bible with Aristotle, especially Aquinas' book called Summa Theologiae.
As for Jesus, I believe the short answer is that he was not omnipotent in his human nature. But that's a whole other can of worms which arguably is even more challenging than the topic of the Trinity haha.
I believe that's incoherent. Yes, the person of God is a substance -a mind. And, qua God, he has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. But he, the person, is not one and the same as those properties.
A bachelor is wifeless. That 'is' is not the is of identity, though - it does not mean that the bachelor and wifelessness are one and the same. It just means that a bachelor is a person who lacks a wife.
And that's the same with God - God is 'all powerful'. But that does not mean that God and all-powerfulness are the same. It means that God is a person who has, among other things, the property of being all powerful.
As I said earlier - take a person and give them omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Well, that's now God. If you say otherwise, you're abusing language.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
You're ignoring the philosophical point. A person who can do anything but also not do some things is a contradiction, yes?
So, a person who is unable to do some things - things that even I can do, incidentally - is not omnipotent.
Being omnipotent means being able to do anything. Anything, Jesus is very clear on this: with God all things are possible. Not some things and not others. All things. And that's quite right - that's real omnipotence.
If you say - as so many confused theists do nowadays - that God is constrained by logic, then you are not dealing with an omnipotent being any longer but one who is constrained by something outside of him - logic.
But God is not constrained at all. And thus not even logic constrains him. (Logic is not without him, but within him - it is up to God what the laws of logic are and thus he is not constrained by them).
That does not mean that any contradictions are true. On the contrary, we are told, by our reason, that no contradictions are true and to reject any view that entails them.
THe view that God is all powerful yet unable to do some things is a contradiction and thus false.
Note, when someone says 'God can't lie' the word 'can't' is ambiguous and the expression is not open to just one interpretation. If I say, for instance, "I can't stand it!" I am not saying that I am incapable of standing it. I am expressing my disgust. And so likewise, when the bible says - if it does from time to time - that God can't lie, that is how that should be interpreted. For to interpret it differently is to say things that are plainly contradictory, for it is to say that a person who can do anything at all can't do some things.
I am not concerned with what Catholics believe. I am concerned with whether or not the bible commits a Christian to nonsense of the kind that many Christians - including many Christian scholars - spout.
I am not a Christian. I am a theist. But I am a theist on the basis of the evidence. It just seems to me that many CHristians say things that make not a blind bit of sense and when I check out whether the bible commits them to saying such things it seems clear that it does not.
So, that God is constrained - where is that in the bible?
That God has his properties essentially - where is that in the bible?
That God is one person and three persons - where is that in the bible?
There seem no passages that commit one unequivocally to these views, even if there are some passages that can taken that way. And yet there is excellent reason - decisive reason - to resist such intepretations, given they commit one to complete nonsense.
If you say that God 'is' omnipotence, that's nonsense.
God is a person.
He is omnipotent.
He is not omnipotence, though. He 'has' omnipotence.
And if God has his properties essentially, then he's not omnipotent - that's just an outright contradiction.
if you think God can't do contradictions (itself a contradiction - he can), how did he do that one!?!
And if God is one person, he is not also three distinct persons.
If Catholic doctrine says otherwise, so much the worse for Catholic doctrine - it's demonstrable nonsense.
But I do not fully understand your view. If God can do anything such that there is nothing that he cannot do, then why also claim that he cannot become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time?
I think they do - if you claim that God is unable to do some things and that God is also able to do anything, then that's a contradiction.
If you maintain that God is able to do all things that logic permits, but not those things that logic does not permit, then God is constrained by logic and thus not omnipotent - which is a contradiction.
To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything. After all, someone who can do anything is manifestly more powerful than someone who can only do some things and not others. So, God can do anything. And that means there's nothing he's unable to do.
Any biblical passage that could be read as suggesting otherwise should be interpreted to be employing words like 'can't' expressively rather than descriptively (as in "I can't stand it any longer!!").
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
I did not claim that he cannot be three persons and one person at the same time. My claim was that the idea is incoherent as it involves a contradiction. And that's sufficient grounds to reject it, as no contradictions are true.
God can do anything and so he can make contradictions true if he wants. But that's consistent with no contradictions being true. And our reason - which is from God - assures us that no contradictions are true and to reject a theory if it entails one. So we are told - by God - to reject the idea that he is three persons and one person at the same time.
That God is not three persons and one person at the same time is entirely consistent with him having the ability to be.
I am not in Paris. But I am able to be. But I am not. I really am not in Paris. I can be. But I am not.
God can do anything. But he does not, in fact, make contradictions true. Indeed, he tells us that none of them are true. And we call that the law of non-contradiction. But true though it is, it is true because God makes it so, not because God is himself subject to it.
So, that which is nonsense is nonsense because and only because he deems it so. And God deems it nonsense that 3 persons can also be 1 person. And so nonsense it is. And we should reject that which is nonsense - to not do so would be to not listen to God. But he can make it make sense if he so wishes.
Sure. But in catholicism, the term omnipotence is meant in this sense: The ability to do anything that is logically possible. With that definition, there is no contradiction. Now if this is not how the term "omnipotence" is commonly used, then another term could be used instead.
Quoting Bartricks
Gotcha. It is possible for God to become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time, but he is not that in actuality.
Omnipotence is latin for all powerful.
One can use the word omnipotence how one wants. One can insist it be used to denote a type of cat and insist that God is a cat according to Cat-olics. It misses the point.
Whether one calls it omnipotence or another thing, the simple fact is that God denotes a person who is all powerful. And jesus says that God can do anything. So, if you want to use it to mean something else, then you are just no longer talking about the person jesus was talking about. I am talking about that guy. The guy in the bible.
Now for the philosophical point (remembering that I don't care what Catholics think, I only care about what makes sense - which seems very different). If a person is constrained by logic, then they are less powerful than someone who is not. You can call them omnipotent despite this if you want, but then you are just mucking about with labels. Hell, you can call me omnipotent if you want - I am constrained by all manner of things. But if we are talking about power,then clearly a person who is able to do more than another is more powerful than another. To think power involves lacking abilities is just confused. So, a person who is not constrained by logic is more powerful than one who is. God is by definition all powerful, and thus God is not constrained by logic.
That does not mean logic is false and provides us with no insight. No, it is true and does. It just doesn't constrain God. We can still learn about God from it. Indeed that is how God tells us about himself. He tells us he is not three persons and one person by telling us that's nonsense.
The laws of logic are not like the laws of physics which are what they are but could have been otherwise. As you say, anything that is not logical is nonsense. But even an omnipotent being cannot do nonsense, not because they are limited, but because nonsense is simply meaningless. To say that God can create a rock that he cannot lift is as meaningless as saying that God can "afgnzx", where the term "afgnzx" is meaningless.
:fire: You're on a roll amigo!
Can it be said that logic frees rather than constrains? To be perfectly logical then is a divine attribute, oui? If so, the stone paradox is both a positive (god doesn't do irrational stuff) and a negative (god can't do irrational stuff).
Too, suicide, an exclusively human phenomenon (recall your previous coupla-months-old post) simply won't make sense to animals. Is our relationship with god of a similar character? Clearly, there's something inanimate about life - a stone, a plane full of screaming passengers, both follow the laws of gravity. How often do we stop and examine a worm, a bug? Do we feel any compassion for microbes (jains excepted)?
Do you agree that it is actual nonsense - an actual contradiction - to maintain that of two people, the one with less power is the more powerful?
I take it I do not need to wait for an answer, as the claim that "the less powerful is the more powerful" is a clear contradiction, and thus clear nonsense.
Do you agree that a person who is not bound by logic is more powerful than one who is?
No. If one is not bound by logic - because one is its author - then one has a power that someone who is bound by logic lacks, namely the power to alter logic. There's no power one gains by being constrained by logic.
Quoting Agent Smith
There is no paradox there. Can God make a stone too heavy for him to lift? Yes. There are at least two ways he could do this. He could divest himself of his omnipotence. Or, more impressively, he could make a contradiction true (by making a stone that is too heavy for him to lift and lifting it).
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't know what you mean.
Well, truth is, logic does set down impassable boundaries, clearly demarcates no-go areas in re thought/thinking. It can be likened to a cage of sorts, designed as it were to keep us confined within what passes as reasonable/rational/logical. In that sense, it does confine/restrain/constrain/limit the mind.
This then takes us to a very interesting topic, in question form, what lies beyond logic? Many have attempted to answer this question and one of the answers might give you goosebumps; that answer is God.
Yes.
Quoting Bartricks
No - not if the idea of "not bound by logic" is itself nonsense. If the concept of logic is in fact the way I understand it, then the question is equivalent to asking "Do you agree that a person who is capable of [insert nonsense, meaningless noise] is more powerful than one who is not?"
Here is a quick explanation of what logic is, which may help to confirm we have somewhat the same idea about it. https://youtu.be/a-PZP_5DPK4?t=221
(Really it's about deduction but logic in metaphysics is equivalent to deduction in epistemology).
So once more: a person who can do more things than another is more powerful than that person. And it is a contradiction - so, actual nonsense - to maintain that a person who has more power than another is also the less powerful one of the two.
Again then: I believe in a god who can do anything. You believe in a god who can do some things and not others. That is, you believe in a god who is constrained by some mysterious external power source that he is not himself the source of (else he would not be constrained by it).
You simply don't believe in God, then. You can say you do. But you don't. For your god is less powerful than mine. And your god is not the one described in the bible either.
This is not about the content of logic. This is about what logic itself is. And what logic itself is is a set of instructions from Reason, yes?
if this premise - P - is true, and if this premise - q - is true, then you ought to conclude that therefore P and Q is the case, yes?
So it is a set of instructions about what to believe.
And instructions need an instructor.
And only an agency - only a mind - can issue an instruction.
So, Reason - the source of all the edicts of Reason (for that is why she is called Reason) - is a person.
And she will have power 'over' logic, for logic is no more or less than instructions she is issuing.
And thus, she will be omnipotent. And so she will be God.
You can believe in a person who is subject to Reason's will rather than the source of it, but then you believe in a god, not God.
I believe it is you who does not understand logic. For what do you think it is? A strange cosmic glue that binds even God? Is it a straightjacket that God did not design yet that he is in and that constrains him?
A horse exists in the actual world.
A horse with a horn, i.e. unicorn, exists in a possible world.
A horse with a horn and not a horn at the same time does not exist in any possible world.
A god who can do x and not x at the same time does not exist in any possible world.
Fair enough Tom! I will copy my shoutbox question to this thread! Cheers.
If so, then you believe that god and Jesus Christ were the same entity.
I don't think the 3rd state of 'spirit,' matters much to my main question, unless a Catholic/theist/theologian/generalist thinker, has a counterpoint to suggest why it does.
Jesus/god is posited as an eternal, immortal, but, this immortal magicked itself into a mortal, and existed as a male human, for around 30+ Earth time years.
He got crucified/murdered/blood sacrificed, and experienced death as a human experiences death, well, not quite, as humans don't 'resurrect,' but let's say this immortal did die like a man dies.
So during the time after its death, and before it's resurrection, this immortal, cosplaying a human called Jesus, was dead, so, GOD WAS DEAD.
So during this time, do Catholics accept that the universe had no god? or do Catholics think that this immortal was only playing dead? And, if that's true then under what logic do they consider this fake death, a great sacrifice in favour of humans?
[quote="Hanover;811291"]I have serious doubts that an actual Jesus existed, but, to the extent they both died similarly, they both died similarly.
Wow! But I thought you considered yourself a Christian? The clue is in the name!
I assume my assumption on this has been incorrect. So is your theism a personal belief in a god rather than a religious following?
Are you familiar with Joseph Atwill's 'Caesars Messiah' or James Valliant and Warren Fahey's 'Creating Christ?'
Why did you think that?
I only said I was a theist. A thousand times I said I was Jewish as well.
Needless to say I am not a customer for any of this god business but I like to get the accounts people offer me as straight as I can. There are of course numerous accounts of the Trinity... this is just one of them.
So why not just be a secular humanist, who have a similar goal of creating a better existence for humans on Earth.
I tend to put the letters 'AS' in front of any reference to a human 'soul.' I know this makes the overall spelling of asshole, wrong but the textual phonetics sound correct to me when you say 'as' and 'soul' together as one, as does the anatomical and therefore scientific accuracy.
I am interested in people's actual belief systems, as they directly affect what they choose to act upon. I am interested, regardless of whether or not they comply with theism, manifest as organised religion or your less damaging, but equally submissive, theosophism.
Quoting Hanover
From an exchange we had months ago, when you declared yourself a theist.
I don't remember why I assumed you were a Christian.
Anyway, it was my mistake, and I appreciated the correction.
Yeah, I already posted a similar style description from wiki on the shoutbox and some of my well practiced response, to such descriptions. Copied below for your convenience, if you have not already read it in the shoutbox:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit.?'triad', from Latin: trinus 'threefold') is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God in most Christian churches, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion) As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds. In this context, one essence/nature defines what God is, while the three persons define who God is. This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus, the entire process of creation and grace is viewed as a single shared action of the three divine persons, in which each person manifests the attributes unique to them in the Trinity, thereby proving that everything comes "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."
You can almost feel the typographical traditions and verbal descriptions of storytelling and fables, being handed down from ancient human generations to today's generation. Lies, lies, lies!
This is just a bad attempt to move from a polytheistic model to a monotheistic model. Yahweh(jehovah) was part of a pantheon of gods. But the polytheistic model had a triune existence. A heavenly/mount Olympus/Valhalla type existence, a supernatural/spiritual/polymorphic/shapeshifter existence and they could also appear or become mortals. This maps onto the catholic trinity, imo.
Father, son and ghost is polytheistic in concept, but the trinity tries to (very clumsily imo,) pass them off as being a monotheistic entity
There is also this logically fallacious diagram called the shield of the trinity:
I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but you spelled "evangelicals" as "evanhellicals. I like that. I'll use it.
Evanhellicals and fundamentalists (incestuously related but not exactly the same) are hell on wheels.
Fundamentalism is essentially a reaction to the biblical and scientific scholarship of the 19th century (continuing into the 20th, 21st) which dethroned inerrant literalism and pre-scientific understanding. It has, in the US particularly but not only here, become allied to Christian Nationalism and other fascistic elements. It isn't uniquely 'Christian' as the same thing is happening in Turkey (Islam) and India (Hindu) or even Burma (Bhuddist). There is a right-ward shift in several unrelated religions.
Clearly religion is a going business, but
Oddly enough, China also has one of the world's largest Christian populations.
I am pretty sure the number of dis-believers, non-believers, and believers-in-name-only is a lot higher than 7%.
Where does trinitarian doctrine stand in Protestantis?
The Creeds (which many churches recite weekly) affirm the trinity. Liturgically minded Lutherans observe Trinity Sunday; the pastor may attempt an explanation, Or maybe find something else to talk about. Like sin and how they are against it. In many years of attending the Methodist Church there were few mentions of the trinity, except in the most formal rituals.
A lot of evanhellical crutches ignore it all the time, The Unitarians don't have to mention it.
"Being atheist means never having to say you're Lutheran." Name of a past long-running improv show in Minneapolis. The title was worth the show.
For the MILLIONITH time! Stop exaggerating!
Being Jewish does not mean you follow Judaism and the words in the Torah and Talmud, does it?
I know atheists who still call themselves Jewish.
For me, the strongest push toward socialism and liberation causes came from my reading of the NT and OT. I still counted myself a believer when I was being pushed, and the pushing continued after I concluded I didn't believe any more. I used to say that Protestant Christianity was my operating system. (It's a metaphor.) Whether I still believed or not, I couldn't delete it.
I have made that particular spelling mistake, since I heard about horrors like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker, and current horrors such as Kent Hovind and his vile son Eric, Ken Ham, all the evanhellicals, that have appeared and still appear on horror shows like 'God TV' etc.
I like to keep a sharp eye on such nefarious groups.
Quoting BC
I agree, but I think the reason why, is that they are under attack from a growing global secular humanist movement and they are more and more desperate, to hold on to their main traditional places of power and influence, whilst also trying to establish new ones, anywhere in the world where there are poor and mostly uneducated masses.
Quoting BC
Things are improving even more in places like the UK, where for the first time in recorded history, there are more brits who consider themselves non-religious, compared to the number who consider themselves religious.
From Wiki:
[b]Religion in the United Kingdom (2018 research)
None (52%)
Church of England (13.7%)
Catholic Church (8.7%)
Other Christian (13.2%)
Islam (6.7%)
Other religions (3.6%)
Not stated (2.1%)[/b]
Quoting BC
Afaik, protestants do not believe in the trinity.
Quoting BC
:up:
Quoting BC
I met some socialist believers in my early days, as a member of the 'young socialists' in Glasgow, who were affiliated to the Labour party and the co-operative labour party. I had a few debates with them (over many a beer) when they suggested Jesus was a socialist. I remember their annoyance when I responded with 'well if he was a socialist, he was a cowardly one with his:
Turn the other cheek
Love thine enemies
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars
If a Roman soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.
Etc.
Bullshit! I would then quote clause 4:
"To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the fruits of their industry and full control over the means of production, distribution and exchange."
I would also quote 'Governance of, for and by the people NOT god or gods!'
Sometimes I would even get a wee round of applause from the atheist socialists in the group.
Overall however, the atheist and theist socialists, got along quite well.
I am still very much a socialist and a secular humanist but I no longer believe in party politics.
I'm fairly certain the majority of protestants in the US are trinitarians, though some protestant denominations are not.
If you are interested in the history of how trinitarian beliefs evolved, Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God is pretty good.
There are so many examples like this. The way god treated Job in the OT is also barbaric and illogical.
I think it's very important to challenge all theistic claims Tom. YES! it does remotely matter. It REALLY matters, as global politics and many many politicians in positions of power, influence, and authority, are either very personally motivated by, and are invested in, some religious doctrine, that directs what policies they will support and endorse, no matter how much they deny such influence, OR they continue to use religion as a weapon, or as part of the means by which they become an established 'tour de force,' which quickly becomes nefarious, does terrible damage to a population and becomes damn difficult to remove. Putin and Trump being ideal examples.
I was saying whatever the story is meant to mean doesn't remotely matter.
Because I believe in the existence of God.
Why don't you become a theist so that you'll have an underlying reason to promote humanity?
Quoting wonderer1
Yes, I am sure that is pretty accurate. My experience of protestants is Glasgow bound, and was never important to me, even though my father told me I was one???? My knowledge perhaps extends a little into the rest of Scotland, as I know a fair amount about the Scottish reformation, and its main players, like John Knox etc. I know that many Scottish/Glaswegian 'Proddys,' would say that god, his son and the ghostie were all separate. It was only the 'tims' (catholics), that said they were all the same thing. That was just what I heard/experienced in the companies I was in. In the Glasgow pubs of my youth. It may well not have been official Church of Scotland doctrine.
I forgot to add, I am a fan of Bart Ehrman and watch him regularly on YouTube.
Which one?
Quoting Hanover
Two main reasons. The truth is important to me, and my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. I find this functionality, to be very useful, based on my 99.999% conviction level that your god does not exist.
Ok, but as I know you agree, regardless of the intentions of the authors of such fables, the net affect on real human lives can be freaking awful, when such stories are preached as factual events with moral dictates and consequences, that all humans must comply with.
This question is as coherent as mine to your question.
Quoting universeness
Which truth do you believe in?
Quoting universeness
Different Jews have different definitions.
Quoting universeness
If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason.
That's more like it. I hope this turns into a fruitful discussion. :wink:
Your assumption that @Hanover was a Christian because he's a theist is similar to the assumption about me you made in the shoutbox that I'm no longer a theist because I said I'm no longer religious. I am a theist, although I avoid declaring so because of the inevitable misunderstandings this leads to. Happy to elaborate. But these assumptions in a small way highlight what I'm saying: that a nuanced approach to this issue is best for gaining understanding. These blanket assumptions you made betray a lack of critical analysis of this issue, I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. I've made many an emotional argument myself and still do. But it's important, if you want to better understand religion, to become aware of ones biases and emotional positions and how they affect your perception of the issue. If you do this, your experience of exploring this will be greatly enhanced. That's all I was trying to get at in the shoutbox.
Is 'Truth' truth to everyone in the same way? If you have found a little, some, or all of 'the truth' have you found it not only for yourself, but for everybody else? I don't believe everyone has their own truth about the cosmos. But the truth in one person's circumstance may not be true in a different set of circumstances.
You believe that you know the truth that the god @Hanover claims does not exist. (It's probably considered rude in polite society to inform people that their deities do not exist. It's similar (in terms of etiquette) to informing dinner guests that after the revolution we'll take all their property away from them. It might be true, but not very polite.
Quoting universeness
Scholars of religion have noted that, while Europeans think they are the world's opinion leaders, on religious matters they are outliers.
Quoting universeness
How big an army does the secular humanist movement have?
Quoting universeness
It's part of the Christian belief set. It's referenced in the creeds (apostles, nicene, etc.). Lutherans, for one group, Angligans/Episcopalians for another, invoke the trinity in liturgy and may make the sign of the cross (which of course came from Catholicism). A lot of Americans attend "low churches" where ritual and liturgy is de-emphasized.
Quoting universeness
Jesus was not a socialist (which would be wildly anachronistic). What he was doing for the first 29 years or so nobody knows, but during his last few years he was busy proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and then becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God. His admonishments to turn the other cheek. love your enemies, and render unto Caesar what is Caesars were all in the context of his role. There isn't any other way to understand him that makes sense. Besides, very few public speakers were urging an aggressive in-the-emperor's-face revolt. The Jews were herring up against sharks. Their best practice was to avoid confrontation. Jesus wasn't preaching "best practice" of course. He expected an eminent judgement of mankind by God, and so did the early church who created and assembled the materials that went into the New Testament,
As it turned out, the Romans were, in fact, prepared to destroy the nation of Jews -- which they did between about 35 and 70 a.d. This caused the major Jewish diaspora out of the Israel and Judea, and the destruction of the Temple, producing 'the abomination of desolation' which persists 2000 years later.
Quoting universeness
You are being obtuse, there.
@universeness – Time is conventionally conceived of as consisting in past, present and future tenses and their simultaneity denotes eternity. The JCI deity is conceived of as 'eternal' which imples that all of the modes – personas – of its being simultaneously exist (like 'experiential time tense' in a block universe). 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective.
Btw, the Christian Trinity has nothing on the even more ancient Hindu Trim?rti. As Nietzsche points out, theological religion is "Platonism for the masses", or an imaginative way to stimulate some degree of reflective thinking with regard to our place in 'the grand scheme' for those without the leisure or inclination to explicitly philosophize. As much as we'd like to think so, religion hasn't yet outlived its utility because the atavistic emotional need for 'invisible support' still remains for so many in so many places.
Verily I say unto you, there is an old fart in the mythical realm of Wales, who does a bit of gardening. And it came to pass that the old fart sent his only seagull avatar even unto the old philosophy forum, and he was called "unenlightened". And behold, unenlightened was made administrator and did perform many wonders of banishment and casting out of trolls, calming the storms, and editing the 5,000. And His task being accomplished with the passing of the old forum, he did resign his post, and did not take it up in the new philosophy forum. But he did send his frog/horse avatar to be a discomforter, and to lead his people from the back-benches in the ways of philosophy. And though the gardener is not the administrator, and the administrator is not the annoying poster, yet they are the same person. This is a mystery unfathomable to mere mortals, and must be accepted on faith.
I think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, different Jews ARE indeed, different people.
Quoting Hanover
If you don't value my ability to discern what is credible to me and what is not, then why do you assume that I should credit your ability to discern or recognise a lie?
Do you know of another species that can affect its surroundings in the way humans can?
Does your god demonstrate meaning and cause and purpose to you in the same way or more so than humans demonstrate to you every day?
What is the strongest example of evidence you have that PROVES your god exists?
If you play stealth then it seems to me that misunderstanding becomes more likely.
Quoting Noble Dust
Please do.
Quoting Noble Dust
Any assumption I make is easily corrected by an honest interlocuter.
Making an assumption and stating it, can often result in obtaining clarification, even if reluctantly revealed.
Quoting Noble Dust
Emotion is a very important part of what it is to be human, I make no apologies for displaying passion, when I type about what I think of the world I experience. At least I do my best (at least in my opinion), to justify my emotions with rational support.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well, that comes across as an honourable intention, and I accept your claim that it is so.
In the same way, I hope you accept that my critique of the doctrine and practices of organised religions and of generalised or personal theism and/or theosophism is not 'knee-jerk,' or based on some neophyte level understanding of its current impact on everyday human lives, or the effects such has had, on the human experience, since any hominid species started to wonder wtf this existence was all about.
One of our best practices is our ability to question everything. I am sure you agree.
I remain a skeptic. If god has no ability or will to reveal itself then it either does not exist or it is a complete f***wit who thinks remaining divinely hidden, has a value.
Such a god would be a moron and of zero value to humans. Any human who does not agree, is completely free to defend this god using any actual evidence they have or can imagineer.
If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?' I would certainly contribute. If you want to try to do so in this thread, then I am also very willing to respond to your points.
These are old tired points about the nature of truth and objective and subjective truth, based on perceived reference frames. The annoying issue regarding that tedious debate, is that theists present their theism as deserving of a high credence level for its status as 'true,' much more so, than I expect from people when it comes to accepting my exclamations of what I consider to be deserving of the label 'true.' Theists have almost no compelling evidence AT ALL for their claims, yet you are complaining to me about my claims of what is true or not true. I find that quite misdirected.
Quoting BC
I don't consider TPF debates to be akin to, or comparable with, a polite dinner party environment.
If it was as tedious as that, then I would not bother to post here at all.
Quoting BC
Which scholars are you citing here? Provide example published statements from 'respected' sources, that make such dumb statements about a continent of over 700 million people.
Quoting BC
Getting bigger every day! How many atheist/ secular humanist groups would you like me to list.
Would you not prefer to research this yourself or are you already aware of the current rise and rise of secular humanism in the USA and Europe?
Quoting BC
There is 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.'. This 2nd century document presents Jesus the youth as a rather nasty little demonic character imo.
[b]"The text describes the life of the child Jesus from the age of five to age twelve, with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events. He is presented as a precocious child who starts his education early. The stories cover how the young Incarnation of God matures and learns to use his powers for good and how those around him first respond in fear and later with admiration. One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in Quran 5:110, and in a medieval Jewish work known as Toledot Yeshu, although Jesus's age at the time of the event is not specified in either account. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected. Jesus kills this first child, when at age one he curses a boy, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Later, Jesus kills another child via curse when the child apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).
When Joseph and Mary's neighbours complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher, instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier apparent cruelty. Subsequently, he resurrects a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and heals another who cuts his foot with an axe."[/b]
Quoting BC
Like @Hanover, I am fairly convinced that the biblical Jesus did not exist, as a real historical individual. I think he is a satire, a parody and a combinatorial of many rebel Jewish leaders, mostly from the Sicarii.
The words put in his characterised mouth, are from authors in support of or in appeasement of, Roman rule.
All the 'Jesus' quotes I mentioned are attempts to get rebellious jews to stop rebelling.
I know, but still, it's important to help push it towards being totally and permanently archived.
People everywhere would greatly benefit from supporting scientific endeavour towards improving human longevity and robustness, rather that waste time and money on hoping for supernatural intervention, while they are still alive or after they are dead. If you wanna live a lot longer or you want your progeny to have that option, then send your money and support to science, don't give it to religious authorities, so they don't have to actually produce anything of value to survive, thrive and (as the top evanhellicals do,) live luxurious lifestyles that their duped followers fully fund.
Not at all. You would not want me to misinterpret or make any more assumptions about which god @Hanover is convinced exists, merely based on the two words, 'theist' and 'Jewish.'
Should I also assume what he believes its main attributes are and what he supposes are the main functions it provides in his life?
Are you deliberately trying to get @Noble Dust to moan at me even more about my 'assumptions?' :scream:
There are many possibilities, but in keeping with my faith, I do accept the Trinity in all it's incomprehensible mystery. It's nothing that I think any Christian should get tripped up on and become troubled because it doesn't make sense.
One poster, 180 Proof made the comment : 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective
One can get creative with the underlying esoteric philosophy, and if it helps to stimulate reflection on the divine, then that's a good thing. Whatever it may be, the Christian religion holds there is an underlying 3 fold-ness. One could also contemplate all of this in light of the underlying three fold-ness of reality itself: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. You have to choose your intellectual battles, and this is not a battle I think that is worth the fight, nor do I believe it has any eternal consequences if your theology isn't exactly correct.
I have loved watching all the stuff about the unexpectedly large galaxies formed at distances of just 500 million or less light years after the big bang. They simply should not be there. Many astrophysicists seem to be distancing themselves from the big bang singularity as the beginning story alone. Many seem to be moving towards an oscillating or cyclical model. This should probably be in the JWST thread!
I watched another youtube vid last night, of prominent scientists explaining why Craig's Kalam is total BS and one about these galaxies found by the JWST. I was surprised at how many times prominent scientists made the comment 'not many of us still consider the big band theory sound.'
Just out of interest, what do you think of this:
Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC). That is when monotheism became universal among the Jews. Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh, the national god of Israel.
Asherah is posited as the consort of many gods and is proposed to have had 77 or 88 sons.
She is a sacred feminine who is proposed as consort to:
El (Ugaritic religion)
Baal (Canaanite religion)
Elkunirsa (Hittite religion)
Yahweh (Israelite religion)
Amurru (Amorite religion)
Anu (Akkadian religion)
'Amm (Qatabanian religion)
Assur (Assyrian religion)
Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?
I really have no background in any of this, although I realize there is much debate.
You didn't ask the details of my theism and I didn't ask the details of your epistemology. You asked which God I believed in and I asked which truth you believed in. Your question implies there are multiple gods and my question implies there are multiple truths. Our questions are similar in that they both inaccurately describe the other's position.
Your assumptions are imbedded in your posts, as if you have a list of gods, like the Muslim God, the Christian God, the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, etc and you want to know which I pick. This isn't a debate over religion. It's a debate over theism.
My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism.
You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position.
It's not two entities. It's two different vocalizations of the Tetragrammaton.
There is no basis of morality missing from secular humanism. Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. We need no book of fairy stories on which to base a moral code on. We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders. Is your required creator a supernatural mind? or could it be a mindless singularity?
Quoting Hanover
There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis.
You need no 'anchor' other that a willingness to cooperate with others in common cause, as the alternative is permanent war and m.a.d, and that is against out basic survival instincts.
Certainly no god shaped anchor required.
Quoting Hanover
Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. I wonder if your use of such words will gain you a accusation of being overly emotional from @Noble Dust? Consistency is important, don't you agree?
Quoting Hanover
No you are correct, such designations are certainly not scientific, but they are also not as benign as you seem to wish to flavour them. Is your concept of 'holy' and 'sacred,' ideals, that YOU personally covet or aspire to? How do these terms manifest in your daily life? and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis?
What do you conceive that your god shaped anchor offers you, that the godless me cannot match?
Quoting Hanover
I can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe????
Your point 2 is completely absurd and your point 3 invokes a non-existent state that I do not experience, in my day to day life. No matter how much you wish I was nihilistic, without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent.
Hello again Watchmaker! You need NO heavy background of study in this area to just offer your pov.
Having a look at any cited links can also help build the knowledge both of us have.
Your viewpoints are as valid as anyone else's on TPF, so, have at it. The theist pov is essential to the discussion!
Thanks for the link Frank. Yes, the info I had was that Jehovah was a mistranslation of Yahweh but the language details, and vocalisations discussed, in the link you provided offer much more detail.
There seems to be no doubt, that the Christian god, traces back to a pantheon of early gods, and that remains quite problematic for Christians to fully account for imo.
There is nothing particularly unique about Yahweh, in comparison with other characters from the same pantheon.
This adds to the folklore and mythic elements of the 'word of Yahweh,' as being nothing more than the word of it's scriptwriters. There are so many such god descriptions, that the Christian writings, Islamic writings and all 'word of god' claims, become no more reliable as 'the revealed word of our creator,' than the stories and characters in modern Marvel or DC comics. It REALLY IS as valid to claim that Odin or Zeus is the one true god that created our universe and everything in it, as it is to claim it was Yahweh or Allah!
We cannot build the future of the human race on such utter nonsense!
Isn't using "truth" the way you did also old and tired?
I don't feel any need to broadcast my beliefs, here or elsewhere. If I simply state that I'm no longer religious, the onus is not on me to elaborate on what that means. If you misinterpret it, that's your mistake.
That said, I will elaborate since you invited me to. I think consciousness is a universal state in the process of evolving which has it's genesis in a single, supreme, intelligent and ineffable source. We're all connected to this source; all life forms are. But this is nothing like the god of Christianity; it more closely resembles a Hindu conception. How I came to this belief is through experience, not logic or deductive reasoning.
Quoting universeness
I agree. But emotion also clouds judgement. I'm of course speaking from experience.
Quoting universeness
Yes I agree, and I of course think religion should be critiqued and called out when it causes harm. But the same is true of any organization, government, etc. I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided. Humans hurt one another and cause suffering in countless contexts, religion being one. Governments arguably cause as much or more harm, but no one is calling for the abolishment of government, or at least not for the most part.
Quoting universeness
I have zero interest in doing this. :smile:
What's your point? Are you asking me to confirm whether I think your statement quoted above, is true or not true? Which answer would suit the purpose you had in mind most, when you authored the sentence?
OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral?Quoting universeness
What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being?Quoting universeness
Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree?
Quoting universeness
That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory?Quoting universeness
Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. It's sometimes appropriate and other times not. You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. You need some ability to assert a moral realism in order to avoid having to admit to a subjective morality. A morality that exists without human beings is per se violative of secular humanity. That is, you cannot tell me rape is wrong if we all agree it is. That is the problem.
Quoting universeness
How is it meaningless if you just defined it?
Quoting universeness
How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise?
Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website?
Quoting Noble Dust
How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.
Quoting Noble Dust
What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence?
Quoting Noble Dust
In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva?
Quoting Noble Dust
It can do sure, if you can't control it.
Quoting Noble Dust
I disagree, as at its most fundamental level, it robs a human of their independence and forever leaves them a permanently scrutinised child, forever penitent to a master of pure imagination.
Christopher Hitchens put it best.
"Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.”
Quoting Noble Dust
Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'
Quoting Noble Dust
It's often healthy to test your rationality against dissenters but it's of course, YOUR choice.
Christ on a hand truck, who made you the arbiter of what is gained or lost by others choosing not to discuss some things?
At this point, you are putting words in other people's mouths and then arguing with those words.
Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you?
Quoting Hanover
This would be achieved on a case by case basis. Assistance with mental heath and physical addiction etc, should be well supported in all prison systems. Rehabilitation should also be a main goal, but there is no perfect justice system as there is no perfect anything. God is only ever used by the criminal mind, to excuse and even justify bad behaviour.
Quoting Hanover
You offer 'invalid' scenarios. There is no such state as absolute morality. The morality of a particular action of Pol Pot, Hitler or a rapist has never been judged by 'all the world'. I would judge the known acts of such people to be immoral yes. Most people would. Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will.
Quoting Hanover
No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent.
Quoting Hanover
Secular humanism is not a theory it is a day to day human practice. You are too quick to jump to absolutes such as 'ultimate.' Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, including those who see 'god' status as their true calling. Secular humanism is socialist and irreligious in mission and somewhat ignostic towards theism imo.
Quoting Hanover
No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct.
Quoting Hanover
Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.
Quoting Hanover
Braflabin infleuentic. I just defined the term! Does it have meaning to you?
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear.
Ok? but what the hell is a hand truck?
Quoting Paine
I was not arbitrating, If you don't want to discuss something on a discission site then don't post words beginning with 'I am a ...' Common sense really!
Quoting Paine
Nonsense.
You applied the Hitchens' argument as a counter to what was presented when the thesis Hitchen's was opposing is not being argued for here.
That is putting words in other people's mouths.
Quoting universeness
And upon what basis don't you support it, and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. Why is your basis applicable to me?
By way of example, the tree is either there or not. My opinion is irrelevant. Is the true for the immorality of the rapist?Quoting universeness
This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. Whether a tree, for example, would exist if the world denied it, isn't meaningfully answered by denying such ever occurred, but it is answered by recognizing that an object's existence isn't dependent upon a person's admission it exists.
Quoting universeness
This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants?
Quoting universeness
Why?
Quoting universeness
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality
Quoting universeness
They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes.
Quoting universeness
But it doesn't.
This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect?
This seems an attack on the doctrine of original sin and the concept of eternal damnation. It's not applicable against theism generally, but just certain religious belief systems.
But maybe Hitchens' quote here is better elaborated upon contextually to whatever else he was saying because this seems so obviously incorrect as a general comment.
But that just sounds like a magic spell - it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. Presto! Can you explain how you know that a god makes this possible? Isn't it simply the case that theists formulate a subjective morality based on what they think a god wants? The personal preferences of theists seem to be the foundation of god-based morality. Hence the broad range and incompatible moral views theists hold, even within the one religion.
Your claim that absolute morality can only exist if there is a guarantee of that absolute morality is reasonable to a point, but it doesn't seem tied to anything substantive. Isn't it like saying absolute morality exists if there is absolute morality? I'm not clear how you have demonstrated 1) That there is a god 2) How you know that god is the foundation of morality. 3) How you or anyone knows what this god's morality consists of.
I'm sure your account of god is more subtle and philosophical than anthropomorphic and personal, but I wonder how you know anything about this 'entity' that can be used to guide any practices or choices made in life.
No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs.
Quoting universeness
This system of belief is not beholden to rational thought, so none of these arguments have any meaning in relation to it.
Quoting universeness
I suppose Brahma, although I'm hazy on Hinduism. It's not important to me whether I'm right or not about the comparison; I'm not a Hindu.
Quoting universeness
I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion.
Quoting universeness
No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth.
Quoting Hanover
False trilemma ...
(1) n/a
(2) n/a
(3) non-sectarianism =/= "nihilism" :roll:
As I understand it, the ethical objective of secular humanism, faciltated by pedagogy and public policy, is non-sectarian, eusocial flourishing of human individuals. Esteemable in principle but, as history shows, woefully uneven and inadequate in practice; however, better than all / most of the major sectarian alternatives – especially for women and girls, homosexuals, ethnic / color minorities, natural & social sciences, nonreligious arts, as well as freethinkers & nonbelievers.
Anyway, as I discern it, Hanover, answering a mystery with a greater mystery actually isn't intelligible. Both "God created it" and "God commands it" only beg metaphysical and ethical questions, respectively, which constitutes, IMO, passive nihilism (i.e. literal make-believe). Plato's Euthyphro and Epicurus' Riddle make this abundantly clear to those of us without an overwhelming emotional – self-serving/flattering – need for 'providence' (or magical guarantees).
Quoting Noble Dust
I appreciare your honesty.
What then makes ethical realism intelligible? Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?
Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible.
Notice that when Hillel the Elder was asked to summarize the Torah, he did not reply: What God finds hateful, do not do to anyone. 'Myths of gods' were (are) only excuses (superstitions) for socially admonishing, even punishing (scapegoating), moral wrongdoing but, as mere question-beggars, gods do not intelligibly justify anything.
False dichotomy.
Recognize that it is an aspect of humanity's evolved nature, for things to matter to people, and that the nonexistence of moral facts doesn't change the fact that things matter to people. Then act in harmony with your nature. (Not necessarily the way I would put it to a psychopath.)
I appreciate the effort in grounding the ethical in the empirically measurable because that would seem a logical approach for someone who desires a scientifically based ethic, but it would seem to fail on a couple of grounds.
First, it over prioritizes the moral significance of personal behaviors that have typically been falling out of favor to be considered of moral value in Western culture. Things like drug use, sexual freedoms, risk taking behavior and the like are generally well accepted as moral, and considered immoral to restrain, despite many of those decisions being obviously unhealthy.
Second, I'm not convinced that an unjust decision must result in reduced societal flourishing. It's a nice thought to think, for example, that brutal honesty will lend itself to greater happiness, but it doesn't always seem the case. We can hypothesize that in the end things will be better if we're moral, but such takes a certain amount of faith.
As a rabbi joked with me, he told me that in the end, everything will work out, so if things are bad, be happy it's not yet the end.
Quoting 180 Proof
My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy.
Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?
Quoting Hanover
Simply because there's a third option of moral pragmatism, a fourth is eudaimonism, a fifth is dis/utilitarianism, a sixth is deontologism, etc. Anyway, I'll stick with my rabbi Hillel's pre-scientific yet naturalistic, ethical principle:
That actually is moral nihilism. It's saying that the higher law is love. So the answer would be that the only alternative to moral realism is nihilism, but a nihilist isn't necessarily a monster. It could be a very loving, self sacrificing individual.
I'm inclined to think so, but I'm not well enough informed about the way vocabulary is used by philosophers discussing ethics to feel confident making an argument for it.
I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist.
If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?
How do you know that?
Quoting Hanover
Buggered if I know.
Morality is typically defined as a collection of rules. Moral realism says these rules have their source in something that transcends the human psyche.
The golden rule requires a person to look within, to their own love for themselves to find the right path. Love replaces rules. The golden rule is moral nihilism.
The first 4 sentences are coherent. The last, 5th sentence, doesn't follow.
"Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong." I kind of doubt that is what Jesus (and other holy men) had in mind.
I can possibly see a bit of why you are reaching for moral nihilism. "Love" may seem like an altogether arbitrary and capricious rule to follow. It isn't.
"Love" in the Golden Rule means "love your neighbor in the same way, the same degree, you love yourself". Presumably, you want what is good for you, what is beneficial, pleasing, healthy etc. That's the substance of what love provides for your relationships with others. Or "behave toward others the way you would like them to behave toward you". Presumably, you like people to treat you well. So, do likewise to others. That isn't so mysterious, is it?
Those principles are not moral nihilism, because "love" is a positive value--not whatever we feel like doing upon checking within our beloved minds.
As I understand it, moral nihilism is an extremely subjective system of morality -- whatever you feel inside. Guidance by love has to meet a standard of normal self-caring. Clearly, someone who is sick in mind, hates themselves, and loathes their own existence, will probably be an all-around unpleasant person and not demonstrate much love.
Love, as a guiding principle, turns out to be a demanding master. Dorothy Day summarized the difficulty in the title of her autobiography -- A Harsh and Dreadful Love (that being the love that Christ bids us give 'the least of our brothers and sisters'. She began serving the very poor in the 'houses of hospitality' she established as part of the Catholic Worker movement, and found it to be immensely rewarding and at the same time very corrosive. The needs were so extreme, the resources always short, and many of the people they served were at their wit's end and pretty difficult to deal with. (She lived in the houses of hospitality -- it wasn't a 9 to 5 job.)
I was asking you to think outside the box for a second. Morality is a code of conduct. You can't codify the dictates of love, so the golden rule is nihilistic. "Love and do what you will.". That was Augustine's interpretation.
It's meaningful to me to see it as nihilism. If it's not meaningful to you, that's fine with me.
St. Augustine also prayed to God to make him chaste -- but not yet. A similar statement was made by Martin Luther -- "sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger" (edited for brevity)
I read about the ethics of love in a book on situational ethics (by Fletcher?). Yes, if one decides to get out of the box, to drop the 10 commandments, the list of laws in the Pentateuch, or Hammurabi's code, and let love be one's guide, one pretty much has to think out of the box, at least to get one bearings.
The people like Dorothy Day whose life I find admirable and inspiring, may have been guided by simple Christian love, but they also dug deep into Christian tradition for more specific guidance, and found it.
What??? :rofl:
Mr Dust posted:
[b]" I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided
— Noble Dust"[/b]
Christopher Hitchens spent most of his adult life debating others based on his insistence that ALL religion IS inherently bad Mr Dust IS INDEED arguing against that position, as the quote above CLEARLY indicates. My label of 'nonsense' towards your complaint stands.
[i]"Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?"[/i]
That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know.
I know of El, and Yaweh and Jehovah, and i've always heard and assumed they were the same. I always address God as "Heavenly Father." Whatever the truth may be on the matter, I believe God is understanding of the limitations we have in ascertaining the truth.
With God being a loving Father, none of this causes me any sort of wonder or doubt regarding the matter.
Frank said something very interesting and enigmatic:
"It's not two entities. It's two different vocalizations of the Tetragrammaton."
I've seen the movie Pi...
Quoting universeness
Quoting Hanover
My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule.
Quoting Hanover
The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community.
Quoting Hanover
Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. REAL every day experience and REAL every day events require REAL application of a moral code, based on a secular approach, applied by a completely non-theistic judiciary.
A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes?
Quoting Hanover
No, you seem to have a complete blind spot here. Matt Dillahunty often starts his call-in show on Jimmy Snow's youtube channel, 'The line,' by asking theists to call in and explain what is is they believe and why they believe it. YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. You just skirt around the edges, obfuscating and holding up shiney's in the hope of misdirecting others.
There is a very clear difference in the status that secular humans assign humanity and the status theist's such as yourself assign humanity. I don't employ terms such as 'holy' and 'sacred,' YOU DO. You know exactly the different status YOU assign to YOURSELF as a theist.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
The two quotes above CLEARLY reveal the status YOU covet for humanity, or more accurately, YOURSELF. This is the arrogant delusion your theism burdens you with. You should free yourself of this nonsense and ugly measure of what it means to be a 'godly human.' Then you can OWN your OWN awe and wonder of being alive and experiencing the world as a mentally free thinker.
Why don't you explain the details of your theism? What do you believe, regarding the supernatural and the esoteric, why do you believe such and what is your best evidence to support such?
If you don't want to discuss the details of your theism the all that is left, is the spectacle of reading your word and concept contortions, as you continue to skirt around the issue, using well worn philosophical shiney's
Quoting Hanover
Again, another shiney!! You only ask why, to the content of my above quote to be obtuse.
Do you value your children more that your money, your property, your material possessions or your ego?
Your children are humans, yes? Would you accept any other humans claim that your children are inferior because they are not, say, moslems? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)?
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet.
Quoting Hanover
Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister.
Fine, and the counter point is be as crystal clear and honest when you make statements about your beliefs of you will be misinterpreted, which is YOUR fault if you are unable to explain you belief sufficiently, to the average, reasonable, lay person.
As Einstein stated: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Quoting Noble Dust
You did offer both with the implication of comparison.
Quoting Noble Dust
It seems that you and @Paine have different opinions on exactly what words I am 'putting in your mouth.'
:up: :clap:
Well, the 'moral realm' (I prefer 'moral landscape' as 'realm' can invoke images of monarchy,) certainly exists in human aspiration and legacy and is at its most useful imo, when it acts as a guide towards tasking/compelling, personal aspiration, to be benevolent towards other humans, other lifeforms, and the environments/ecology they each depend on.
Keep probing sir!
Keep asking the type of questions you are asking.
Quoting Watchmaker
Yes they are the same BUT are you not then compelled to find out more about what is known regarding the origin story of Yahweh? If that is the god you actually assign as YOUR creator and YOUR leader and that which YOU are willing to invest something as potentially all consuming and very powerful as WORSHIP. Should you not be able to explain, why Yahweh went from a minor Mesopotamian/Levant deity, to become the main monotheistic, Abrahamic, god of the Christians, YOUR chosen god! Why was his wife/consort/sacred feminine, Asherah dropped by Christianity? For example.
Do you know about Adams first wife, Lilith? Made by Jehovah, from the same clay/mud that Adam was?
I know the story of Lilith from a Neil Gaiman comic book actually. Adam rejected her because he witnessed all her innards coming together and was grossed out by it.
Thanks for the info. I really don't have a response at the moment. I'll consult with a few wise men I know on the matter and get back with you.
:grin: It just occurred to me that both of those statements sound like Kierkegaard. According to him, the greatest faith is to believe that God accepts you as you are, in this moment, with all your screw-ups.
Trying that out changes the way I see other people. Instead of being offended, I see how they're just like me. I think the true Knight of Faith would be the one who accepts people like Hitler, though. To accept that all that bloodshed is accepted by God just changes what God is supposed to be.
Quoting BC
I'm just not emotionally mature enough to live that way. It hinges on self-love, which isn't exactly nurtured in my society. You know what I mean? Or maybe that's just me.
Quoting BC
Right. We all reach outward for moral guidance. That's just normal. One of the best ways to stay moral is to only hang out with people who have a strong moral outlook. If you hang out with gang members all the time, you'll end up just like them: no morals.
For me I understand the holy Trinity differently.
In my explorations I found it to regard the concept of "Truth" and it's revelation rather than the concept "God" per se. With truth being in the center and the triad acting as a sort of Venn diagram overlapping with one another.
There are 3 features in the trinity I explored:
1). Instead of "holy spirit" there is "language/communication/expression".
2). Instead of "The father" there is the universe/nature/external reality.
3). Finally, instead of the "son" there is "self" or "the conscious awareness/mind of people".
None of the individual items in isolation = truth (in the center).
All of the items combined do however = truth.
For example:
1). Language/communication or what is said about the other two facets: the self and the universe does not equal them. Language or "what can be said" does not = truth.
2). The universe or what it is objectively does not equal our awareness of it/mind nor the language we use to determine/describe it. Objective universe = does not equal truth.
3). Conscious perception/ what is a). perceived about external reality/the universe and b). Interpreted from language of others does not equal them.
The mind/self does not = truth.
But when we combine the universe, ourselves, and our communication between it and one another, this equals the full set of all things, all overlaps. Nothing excluded.
Thus the truth.
In essence the trinity is a triad between selves, communication between them as well as with reality. A three-way dynamic between them all.
I don't know if that was something from the comic book you referred to but Adam did not reject Lilith, yahweh/jehovah did that because she would not let Adam take the dominant position during sex.
She would not allow penetration whilst she lay underneath Adam, she would take a position on top of Adam. She is considered a hero by many feminists, for her defiance of god and its demand that she be subservient to Adam.
The second interesting part of the fable is that god turned her into a snake and that was the snake that spoke and tempted Eve etc.
I did all of those things. My point stands.
We seem to have lost the plot and are arguing about things that don't matter. This is partly why I don't get into these discussions anymore.
Sure, reduction to a panto style exchange of 'oh no you didn't and oh yes I did,' is quite common in any discussion between human beings anywhere, from global meetings between world leaders, to two strangers on TPF, to discussions with your nearest and dearest. I rarely get exasperated by such, as it comes with the territory.
It's very possible to have fruitful discussions on here; I've had many over the years. This is not one. Take care.
I also have had a range of personal measurement of discussions, I have had on TPF.
I have had fruitful and fruitless discussions, often with the same person from thread to thread.
The one here, between us, was inert in it's significance.
I always take care, I am sure you do to.
How is this not subjectivism?
Quoting universeness
Yes, IMO, in your opinion. You're just asserting your subjective morality, which you acknowledge here isn't universally accepted, as there certainly are "nasty individualists."
Quoting universeness
Nothing precludes the consideration of hypotheticals when judging someone on a case by case basis.
Quoting universeness
Why are you asking me this? I don't recall offering support for a biblically based court. I also don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of comparing various secular courts with various religious based courts. That is, why do you suggest a Chinese court would be more just than a beth din, for example.
In any event, I prefer the American court system, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Quoting universeness
I've indicated that I am a theist who believes as theists to, that there is a creator and that creator has a plan and purpose. That I don't subscribe to a particular theistic set of doctrines isn't a requirement to be theistic.
Quoting universeness
What I need is to understand why my opinion is correct that I value my children. Not everyone values children and many do assert that their murder is justified. I believe they are wrong. I believe that if the world were composed entirely of those who believed in the murder of children, then murder would still be wrong. That is, morality is not relative to time or person or individual opinion. It is absolute, which distinguishes it from the relative or subjective.
Unless I am willing to accept that a standard exists outside of humanity that determines right and wrong, then that standard will be dependent upon whatever state humanity happens to be at the time and place.Quoting universeness
And so we have a dispute. I say capitalism is morally correct, leading to the greatest advancements humankind has ever known and that you are morally corrupt. What to do? We have no standard to apply.Quoting universeness
It's not absurd or sinister to suggest someone has moral beliefs that vary from your own. It's just true. My question is how do you tell the rapist they are wrong no matter how many believe the way they do?
Quoting Hanover
That's a good enough summary of the 'dispute' between us, that you mentioned.
I say capitalism is vile and that you are the immoral one.
Your viewpoints merely reinforce my total opposition to them.
Thank you for the exchange.
I really don't know, and all I can do is self report what I feel. Intellectually, it's all over my head and when you go back that far, the history of it all gets really murky, the etymological roots run this way and that. Personally, I worship the Great I Am. That is the name given in the Bible that I most identify with, or that most resonates with me. Whether that was El or Jehovah or Yahweh, I really don't feel the need to make absolute certain.
All I know is that there is a being who exists and was not created. Jesus is the intermediary, as i'm sure you know, so all prayers sort of default to Him. These beings are ineffable in nature, and myself being a mere mortal with limited ability to comprehend such transcendent truths, I have learned over the years to keep it simple.
I've spoke with a few friends of mine who are well educated in all this, and they all pretty much lay out historical theories of how these names evolved. I really don't feel that the ultimate God, the Great I Am, is too much concerned with whether or not I get these facts hammered out. I do know Jesus though, and I have His Words and His Acts that I can learn and meditate on in my heart. Other than that, any contemplation that I do is on the wonder and awe of an ineffable God that is the all encompassing definition of existence and being.
What's the Father's Name? I really don't know. I understand that the ancient Hebrews wouldn't speak or write His Name. I know little factoids like that that add up to me concluding that it's not a big deal for me to know this stuff, and there are simply too many conflicting views and conclusions on the matter that suggest I am not alone.
So as far as my focus goes when praying or worshipping, I guess it may go back and forth between the man Jesus and the ineffable force that is the Father. They're one and the same anyway, in a sense. As I said, all of this I believe is not really to be rationally understood, but rather contemplated in the Spirit, so that we may remain humble before the Almighty.
Things that aren't too clear, I don't believe God really wants me to put a whole lot of energy into investigating. There are some things that are clear and plain as day to me, and other things that are dark and murky. I want to stay in the Light and not wander too far in to the dark. Now that may be just where I am at the moment, at this time of my life, but there is a personal unction for me from God to keep it simple. God's Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet, and right now, the only place that is illuminated and where I feel safe is underneath the Shadow of His Wings.
There is a mind that is self existent, eternal. That much I know for certain. There is a being that sees and knows all. It would also seem to me that this being is triune in some sense, and is reflected in the fundamental triune nature of reality.
As far as the story of Lilith goes, that may or may not be true. Again, I can't really see what bearing that has on the story of Jesus. I think it's interesting though!
Here's an interesting response I got from someone:
"Actually, El was the generic name for any heavenly being. The "sons of 'el (bene elohim) were "el " in their own right. Had a great discussion with former Mormon apologist Kevin Graham on the origin of the word "el" and he taught me quite a bit about pre-Hebrew assimilation of terms like YHWH. It was his assertion that the YHWH who was the consort of Ashera and the brother of Ba'al was not the same YHWH as the Hebrews worshipped, but that the name YHWH was assimilated from one to the other."
Things get assimilated by ancient cultures, then the evolution goes this way and that way and it's like trying to look at pre-history through a kaleidoscope.
You words are very familiar and I have heard them, or similar, many times before, especially from people who have managed to free themselves from such 'follower' style rhetoric.
Those who profit greatly from religion will be very happy to read your post.
Quoting Watchmaker
Quoting Watchmaker
These statements seem to contradict. What evidence do you have that this being exists? You claim to KNOW, but you have not evidenced HOW you know.
As Mr Dillahunty often says in mocking mimicry of theists. 'I know that I know that I know that god is real.'
When you make such a claim, then you have the burden of proof or else the flying spaghetti monster is just as REAL as your god, for all those who claim to know that they know that they know........
I might make the same claim against the existence of god, but at least I have the compelling evidence of divine hiddenness on my side, and all of the scientific evidence that shows that the biblical story of creation is utter tosh.
Quoting Watchmaker
Follow your own logic, if you as a mere mortal have limited ability to comprehend, then you DONT KNOW "that there is a being who exists and was not created," You might have been totally duped, fooled, conned into following the dictates of those who wish to use you to promote their BS and enhance their status, power and personal wealth. They promise you great reward, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!!!!! :lol: :halo:
Quoting Watchmaker
What evidence do you have that this is true?
Quoting Watchmaker
You can walk on paths lit up by electric light and carry a torch and have shoes on your feet with lights built into them. Having lots of people with you as you walk on unfamiliar paths may make you feel safer under their protection. Can you not see how you seem to crave superhero protection as you imagineer these dark paths you have to walk. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. Blind people deal with darkness every day without any help from gods. Darkness is as beautiful as light.
Touch, taste, smell, and audio are easily as beautiful as light. Your theism sounds stifling to me, it's restrictive, shallow and turns you into a subservient child waiting for its masters directives.
I hope you don't give any religious groups too much of your hard earned money or your valuable time.
If you do, then all I can say is that, the door towards theism does swing both ways and you can exit permanently as well as enter.
Good morning UV!
I'm not so sure that we could make any progress here. You and I have discussed this before at length, and my position really hasn't changed.
In a very very simple nutshell, I do not believe that something came from nothing. It is the greatest absurdity imaginable (if one can even imagine nothingness). All of my other worldviews are then built upon that.
It could very well have something to do with this. I'm not one to bring stuff like this up to fellow believers, nor do I try to nail it down to certainty, but I have thought before that the Trinity could very well be an abstract personification of the various ways God interacts with man.
Good Morning! Well, afternoon here!
We broadly agree on that, as I hold the opinion that such a 'state' as 'nothing' does not ( nor ever has had) an existent. I currently favour an eternally cyclical or possibly an oscillating universe but there is currently no strongly convincing evidence for either. There is some, such as Roger Penrose's hawking points, but there are other possible explanations for those, as suggested by folks like Alan Guth.
For me, God posits are as credible as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson, Marvel/DC comics etc by comparison.
I agree that we cant make much progress, whilst you remain convinced that a god exists and I don't.
I simply request that you don't completely abandon your ability to be a skeptical enquirer/scrutineer when it comes to god.
Does it directly communicate with you in a personally very convincing way, regularly, repeatedly?
If not, why not? if it is your benevolent creator?
:grin: Well, they seemed to, on the cross, when Jesus is supposed to have exclaimed,
"Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"
"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Perhaps it should be renamed/diagnosed by those who study psychiatry, as the schizophrenic trinity.
I wouldn't say that it's schizophrenic, but rather conflict within one's own self. We have all experienced this in our own minds. I've wrestled with my higher self many times in pursuit of what I think is the greatest good. If Jesus believed that His mission was to suffer and die, I can see how that would create no small amount of inner turmoil.
Good question. Let me get back with you on that. I will say though that I have never heard an audible voice, or any voices in my head...no burning bushes, etc.
Yeah, maybe if I was in so much pain as he was claimed to be in, then maybe I would talk to myself out loud as well. I know that if you do so in most human company, you come across as schitso!
IF Jesus KNEW he was god, then the whole scenario of the blood sacrifice was a staged spectacle, a con job. God is posited as immortal, therefore death is totally impotent to it. Via the trinity connection, the same MUST be true for Jesus, unless they were separated for his 30+ years of cosplaying a human male. If that IS the case then, for that time at least, the so called trinity CANNOT be disconnected manifestations of a single entity.
If the trinity is true, then when Jesus died as a human dies, god died, for 3 days, and that means it MUST have been 'unaware of self,' for 3 days! There is no escaping that logic, no matter what flowery claims about wearing different masks or occupying different versions of yourself are offered.
The trinity suggests that what one member of the trinity experiences, all 3 experience.
Including REAL human death which means NO AWARENESS AT ALL!
But surely that is exactly what it would have to be, even people who suffer from multiple personalities have some 'realisation' of that. Joan of Arc may have been such a person with multiple personalities that was undiagnosed and 'of her time.'
You should at least be experiencing Joan of Arc type messaging surely.
I have a trinity of voices in my head, me, myself and I. Perhaps because you can model the human brain as triune. The R-Complex, the Limbic system, and the Cortex.
Mr 'yes, go for it,' 'my no, run away, now.' and Mr 'now wait a minute, think carefully about this, don't listen to those other two guys yet!' If I die, all 3 of members of that triune die to. I die, myself dies and me dies.
The same law may not apply to Divinity.
I don't understand that argument if the proposal is that this divinity BECAME mortal man and the trinity remained FULLY connected so that what one experiences in its totality, all 3 experienced.
Jesus and the other 2 either became fully mortal or it did not.
This is just another example of how impossible notions such as omnipotent are.
If god is omnipotent then it must be able to die properly, in other words not be eternal any more,
If god cannot not exist, then it is not omnipotent. Can god make a mistake and be penitent?
Again, if it cannot, then there are some things that god is just not capable of doing, so it is therefore NOT omnipotent.
I don't pretend that there are no logical problems. I understand the objections.
The logical problems run quite deep. For instance, if God is a spirit, the what is the Holy Spirit? Is it the Spirit of a Spirit?
Dualism states that there are only two substances in all of existence: the physical and the non-physical (the mental). What then is the spirit made of? Some quintessential 3rd substance? Or is it too made of the non-physical, mental substance? The way it's referred to it seems even more non-material than mental.
I like even the more base considerations. Not for any chance at mockery, but from a purely human curiosity. For example, Did Jesus fart, urinate, defecate, produce sperm, have sex, shed skin cells, get a hair cut? produce nasal mucus that made him pick his nose etc.
Did he get uncomfortable itches in his genitalia?
Did he have any benign lumps or bumps on his body?
Did he ever trip and fall and hurt himself by accident?
Did he cry, laugh, experience hate, envy?
He must have had all these experiences and a lot more or else he did not experience life as a mortal man.
If he did produce every bodily excretion that a human male does, then would these also be gods and the holy spirits productions.
Is this for example, where the American exclamation 'holy shit' comes from?
We do have dinosaur poo, still preserved! whaddyafink? Could there still be some fossilised Jesus poo in existence?
Is it unreasonable or disrespectful or blasphemous to ask such questions of followers and believers who state that Jesus was a living god.
Do you think your god will punish you for asking any critical questions of it?
There is absolutely no disrespect in asking such questions. I believe that Jesus inhabited a human body, so yes, He experienced everything we experience.
I believe God wants me to probe as far as my intellect has the capacity for, as far as my imagination can imagine.
:up:
Quoting Watchmaker
Good, keep asking critical questions without fear then sir. I hope your god has the decency to answer you and does not decide to burn you in hell for eternity for your impertinence!