Trinity

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

Re: Trinity

Postby met on Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:56 am

I think there was historically a political statement there? As small dissident group making a claim that the real Son of God was this other guy, executed in a humiliating way, instead of the Roman emperor? "Ie the ruler of the world and divine himself, worthy to be worshipped!"

That, too, is ambiguous as far as 'substances and essences' go, but then again the platonic stuff came later, & in the beginning, there were 'not many of the wise' is we take Paul at his word....it was "foolishness to the Greek!"
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Trinity

Postby Metacrock on Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:13 am

met wrote:I think there was historically a political statement there? As small dissident group making a claim that the real Son of God was this other guy, executed in a humiliating way, instead of the Roman emperor? "Ie the ruler of the world and divine himself, worthy to be worshipped!"

That, too, is ambiguous as far as 'substances and essences' go, but then again the platonic stuff came later, & in the beginning, there were 'not many of the wise' is we take Paul at his word....it was "foolishness to the Greek!"


I don't thinking the Jews were thinking about Cesar as son of God when they spoke of messiah, But messiah was a theme of liberation for them agaisnt Rome.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9924
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Trinity

Postby met on Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:22 pm

. I find it really undoes any kind of rational warrant for belief in God, when God is this ultimately simple, perfect, necessary Being....until you really get to know Him.


..??? How does this relate to trinity? Maybe I'm misreading you....


. It's impossible to imagine a human and a God sharing the same essence. And if you do consider that you imagine just such a thing, then I am God too.


Yet, there are a Million Mystics in both our traditions who verge on saying exactly that? (See my Keller quotes on the other thread.)

I think when we assume we know, at least in part, what "the essence of human" is and that it is (at least relatively) "not much", we're in deep water already, cuz we've opened spaces for all kinds of reductions & objectifications & their related forms of cruelty. This was Emanualle Levinas's point, that ethics was impossible if we denied the "depth", the infinite unknowability, of the stranger and the Other.

Cf the "you did it to me" bit in Matt 25, which I read not as recommending "works salvation" but panentheistically and with underlying hints at the Great Reversal...."the first shall be last!"

Oh well, I dunno, but its something to talk about.... :)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Trinity

Postby sgttomas on Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:02 am

met wrote: ..??? How does this relate to trinity?


Precisely. How does one go from the God of the philosophers to the God-Jesus? What's the "transform function". I can't see anything that necessitates this. And here's the rub, if the necessary aspect of knowledge of God is Jesus' divinity (because how else can one arrive there, except to start there?!?) then the very essence of knowledge of God is based in obscurity, otherwise known as "mystery". That's not how one starts a rational warrant. I can appreciate that if a person's view of salvation is to have a specific belief about Jesus as God in order to atone for the sins of mankind that the Trinity might spontaneously generate. The rationality there is that, "well, you DO want eternal salvation, don't you?" Pascale's Wager is a type of rationality. I don't believe that's what Metacrock believes. And I'm not asking to debate every possible conception of the Trinity that has ever been invented through human history. I'm asking what Metacrock believes. From what I can recall, what he believes is more like God drawing near to man so that man can draw near to God. Is that what it is?

I think it undercuts the rational warrant argument and that a different definition of God is more rational. The definition is rational. The rationale could be expanded.

Belief is ultimately not a rational exercise. There has to be an initiating event, from which rationality can be applied. Metacrock calls this the "sense of the numinous" in The Trace of God. I actually support his argument to a large degree. I think it's an important book and I'll gladly go through it with other people. What isn't touched upon, for good reason, is how this sense of the numinous = Jesus, because the awareness of God is too universal to say that *rationally*.

. Yet, there are a Million Mystics in both our traditions who verge on saying exactly that? (See my Keller quotes on the other thread.)

I think when we assume we know, at least in part, what "the essence of human" is and that it is (at least relatively) "not much", we're in deep water already, cuz we've opened spaces for all kinds of reductions & objectifications & their related forms of cruelty. This was Emanualle Levinas's point, that ethics was impossible if we denied the "depth", the infinite unknowability, of the stranger and the Other.

Cf the "you did it to me" bit in Matt 25, which I read not as recommending "works salvation" but panentheistically and with underlying hints at the Great Reversal...."the first shall be last!"

Oh well, I dunno, but its something to talk about.... :)


Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)

I think Matt 25 does indicate the Great Reversal; the day we stand before our LORD and our lives are manifest, including all the consequences of our actions. Much that is "great" will be brought low.

What I object to is that I don't see any need to create something called the "Trinity" out of thin air. It has an historical context and a theological one too. Take away those frames and why should it be insisted that this Trinity remains? My conception of God is not compatible with this notion. Nor is it compatible with a lot of mystical flabbergabbing ( :twisted: :twisted: ). I get it that we have a profound mystery within our selves. It's an amazing thing and full of beauty and wonder (a real sign of "God" one may be inclined to say). And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing. Why not follow the words of a Prophet? It's a possibility they are closed to because of how they approach the subject. But again, what I'm asking is not what a bunch of mystics said, or what some people with highly active imaginations and a sincere introspective bent (people a lot like me) think about their relation to the mysteries of reality.

I'm trying to understand what the "transport function" is from what Metacrock believes more generally about revelation and God into the basis of Trinitarian thought. Why are there two different tabs on the Doxa homepage, and why do they not read anything alike? One sounds a lot like a man, the other like God.

If I read his testimonial it would appear that he fell in love with Jesus around the same time he was awoken to the reality of God. That's certainly meaningful and important in his life. I can't deny that. I think it's something to cherish. ....it might not be good theology.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Trinity

Postby Metacrock on Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:39 pm

I'm trying to understand what the "transport function" is from what Metacrock believes more generally about revelation and God into the basis of Trinitarian thought. Why are there two different tabs on the Doxa homepage, and why do they not read anything alike? One sounds a lot like a man, the other like God. ...

If I read his testimonial it would appear that he fell in love with Jesus around the same time he was awoken to the reality of God. That's certainly meaningful and important in his life. I can't deny that. I think it's something to cherish. ....it might not be good theology.


the person who led me to the Lord knew Jesus; Jesus is active reality in the present not merely a guy you read about in a book,I began belief in God as Jesus and not merely as a guy in a book /the active reality or presence i first realized was God was Jesus. when I called out to God for help the first tie I made it clear i was speaking to the Jesus in whom my parents believed. I got an answer then and there so i always assumed that's who answered,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9924
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Trini

Postby met on Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:19 pm

And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing.


....only if they decide on an absolute not-knowing? Further, how could an absolute not-knowing be anything but atheism?

Also your first two statements seem a bit paradoxical. You are choosing to work with concepts that are necessarily NOT what they say they are? Why is that a better strategy? ;) Seems like you just "unsaid" everything too .....

. Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)


K, I looked it up, & THAT one took me a minute, but I got it! :shock: :o the reference to communion.... My hunch is someone a bit out there, like maybe Zizek, might have noted this correlation before? Or is it yours?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Trinity

Postby Metacrock on Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:47 am

.
Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)



why should I think any differently about the Koran? What did ancient Muslims mean by saying Christian were people of a book? Didn't phrase imply respect for the Bible?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9924
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Trinity

Postby sgttomas on Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:25 pm

Metacrock wrote:.
Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)



why should I think any differently about the Koran?


I just want to say first that I was trying a really lame attempt at elliptical writing, or chiastic structure. The more accomplished authors in this thread are welcome to roll their eyes, or scoff, accordingly. :mrgreen: (there is a hyperlink in the expression "here's the rub" that goes to a cover page of a Philip K. Dick novel). So I wasn't trying to mock the Bible, but rather to say that it's in the same literary genre as one of my favourite all time authors. I was trying to use a very "high" or "elevated" form of literature to set that tone.

And I had a reason - within the structure of my argument (or rather, in response to met) - for saying this.

...And I would expect that at best you would see the Quran in the same way.


What did ancient Muslims mean by saying Christian were people of a book? Didn't phrase imply respect for the Bible?


Not as such. Not the Bible you're familiar with. Rather, the original revelation sent to Moses and to Jesus. It did imply respect for the people because of our shared set of values and beliefs about reality. The Bible you are familiar with is treated as an unauthenticated work of suspect origin.

....I don't like to tell a Christian how to read the Bible since I don't approach it with the same assumptions and values that they usually would.

And respect for people's humanity, dignity, and closeness based on shared values and concepts of reality doesn't imply that bad theology is allowed to go without inspection, or spared of critical analysis.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Trini

Postby sgttomas on Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:54 pm

met wrote:
And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing.


....only if they decide on an absolute not-knowing? Further, how could an absolute not-knowing be anything but atheism?


I'd like to consider it differently, which is *active* not-knowing. This is how Islamic theology discusses the lack of belief: it's akin to ingratitude, or covering over, and yes this is the same behaviour that exists along the spectrum of denial of the "Truth" from lacking belief in the Quran all the way to lacking belief in any kind of deity besides the self. When referring to extreme agnosticism or "atheism" I have characterized this as a "black hole". By this I mean a person turns away from anything that could be given meaning as a sign of God and instead they look inwardly to their own desires, sense of self, or the world within their own preconceived borders....and nothing exists beyond that "event horizon" and nothing that comes to the person as a "sign of God" will come back out of them as belief.

met wrote:Also your first two statements seem a bit paradoxical. You are choosing to work with concepts that are necessarily NOT what they say they are? Why is that a better strategy? ;) Seems like you just "unsaid" everything too .....


So this only makes sense if you take seriously the notion that knowledge is not a product of our selves but rather something revealed within us from God. I mean ALL knowledge. Islamic theology is on the far end of the scale of the "omni-God" being taken seriously. I think even Calvin would blush. So there's a whole host of things that probably spring to mind, but focusing specifically on the issue you raise here I would respond:

The reality of God being "Merciful" is beyond our complete comprehension (something like what Jim is saying in the thread on symbols, maybe? ??? perhaps?) but God gives us the limited form of knowledge so that we can appreciate something that is indeed real about Him. God is the "Creator" but it doesn't take effort, and He doesn't work from a set of instructions.

Is it better? Well....what's the criteria? God clearly thinks so :ugeek:

Striking the balance between fixating on the words (making them idols, which really means the idolatry of the self) versus being open to the intended guidance from God is literally the entire point of our lives. This is why we are here. Why? There is no answer for that which will be entirely objective and free of the whims of a person, except to completely accept that this particular knowledge (our purpose in life) is revealed from God and then to spend the rest of one's life struggling to realize the answer.

This is how Islam frames the "problematic" of man's separation from God. We have been sent here to come to know God, because that's how God intended it, for reasons that we have to actively surrender control over our selves in order to realize. And this is the test. ....to see who does it best.

....aaaaanyways, not trying to hijack this thread with evangelism for Islam. This is the paradigm I'm working in. From my perspective everyone is in active denial of the truth from their Lord (including me). It's a matter of degree, not black/white absolutes.

met wrote:. K, I looked it up, & THAT one took me a minute, but I got it! :shock: :o the reference to communion.... My hunch is someone a bit out there, like maybe Zizek, might have noted this correlation before? Or is it yours?


Uhh...well, you might be giving me too much credit because I didn't see that specific imagery until you pointed it out. ....see, that's why I love Philip K. Dick. :) I was speaking more generally how much I enjoy these "deeper" themes in his books. And it was a cheap trick chiasm.

Literary white belt lololol

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Trinity

Postby Metacrock on Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:17 pm

you just disagree because you see things differently :mrgreen:
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9924
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

PreviousNext

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests