Originally posted by Esther
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
To Shunydragon-Christianity and Polytheism
Collapse
X
-
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Well, first I do not believe from the human perspective we can define nor explain God to the degree that the Trinity is traditionally defined as 'three persons.' As a Baha'i I believe that God is unknowable and undefinable. Second, I believe the concept of the Trinity is the spiritual relationship between God, Creation and humanity. Third, The Word of God is the Manifestation of God in Creation and Revelation through the Son of God Jesus Christ.
Yet man/woman believe they experience that which we call God. Therefore all that we say is, as it only can be, from the human perspective. We experience and believe we discern God and we then talk and write about God with us. Thus all the holy books of humanity and all the philosophical and theological reflections on our human experience of divinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity reflects our Christian belief that we experience God in different ways. And the philosophical system of the day was used to express (define?) this experience, this belief in the triunity of God. My concern, based on my experience, is that the idea of Trinity and the explanation of the Trinity does not speak to people in the 21st C. Even if we agree that God is mystery, if we cannot understand our own human insights and explanation of God..............then, it cannot speak to us, it cannot have an impact on our lives; it cannot be good news that plays a part in our humanization (or what the Eastern Fathers called our divinization).
Therefore, some theologians have used a a present day philosophy and modern day insights, sensibilities, experiences and worldview to re-present how we understand and confess that God is Father, Word (Son) and Spirit.Last edited by thormas; 10-07-2020, 08:13 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Well, first I do not believe from the human perspective we can define nor explain God to the degree that the Trinity is traditionally defined as 'three persons.' As a Baha'i I believe that God is unknowable and undefinable. Second, I believe the concept of the Trinity is the spiritual relationship between God, Creation and humanity. Third, The Word of God is the Manifestation of God in Creation and Revelation through the Son of God Jesus Christ.
I differ a bit in that I believe the concept of the Trinity is the spiritual relationship between God and humanity (and therefore all of creation). I too believe that the Word manifests God (as our word shows us, gives us to the world) and I believe that Jesus is the 'fullness' of the Word made manifest: it is 'in' Jesus that God is 'fully' revealed.
The revelation of God in his Word, in Jesus, is a self-revealing or a self-giving' of God to us. In Jesus, God is fully ......given. Therefore, we can say of Jesus, He and the Father are One or simply Jesus and Love are One....... and we are invited to be as the Christ.
I also believe that much of what I have written here has to be carefully explained so it actually makes sense to the hearer, only then can it begin to speak and give (reveal) God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by thormas View Post
Sorry, I didn't really respond to the 2nd part of your comment.
I differ a bit in that I believe the concept of the Trinity is the spiritual relationship between God and humanity (and therefore all of creation). I too believe that the Word manifests God (as our word shows us, gives us to the world) and I believe that Jesus is the 'fullness' of the Word made manifest: it is 'in' Jesus that God is 'fully' revealed.
The revelation of God in his Word, in Jesus, is a self-revealing or a self-giving' of God to us. In Jesus, God is fully ......given. Therefore, we can say of Jesus, He and the Father are One or simply Jesus and Love are One....... and we are invited to be as the Christ.
I also believe that much of what I have written here has to be carefully explained so it actually makes sense to the hearer, only then can it begin to speak and give (reveal) God.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Actually my goal is to harmonize the New Testament and traditional Christian beliefs with the Jewish beliefs and Hebrew understanding of the Tanakh. The Baha'i view is not that the traditional view if the Christian Trinity is absolutely wrong, but needs to be harmonized with the Hebrew Tanakh and a more universal perspective of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Esther View Post
Yes I know this is the traditional and perhaps only view and that millions of highly intelligent Christians hold this view. At the same time I see 3 Gods in the Bible and can understand the unbeliever's and even believers struggle with the concept.
One God in what sense? I have also heard that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 separate persons or beings with the same surname, "God".
What do you think about the word,"one" as having 2 meanings? One in absolute number and one in unity for example? Also the word, "one" to describe a husband and wife?
God is One:
We think of God as Being as opposed to a being. And as Paul said, 'we live, move and have our being in God (in Being).' God or Being is the very possibility and the reason there are beings in the world, in the universe.
In the language of the trinity, the word 'substance' speaks to this: there is only Being and the three are all Being, all God and none is less than God.
3 persons not 3 separate persons:
The meaning of the word 'persons' in the early church does not mean what we mean by the term persons. Today we think of persons separate and distinct centers of consciousness. This is not what the early Church meant or could envision.
The early Christian community's experience of God could not be adequately expressed by the single word,God. Christians experienced God as the creator (1) who had become incarnate in a particular man (2), Jesus and still dwelt with the community (3). The Christian experience of God needed a fuller expression - thus the Trinitarian formula: the attempt to express their belief in a new language.
The problem, as it seems you too are experiencing is that the formula of 1 substance and 3 persons fails to communicate, to really make sense with many in the 21st C. So what is needed is a new way to express the Christian experience of the god who creates, is incarnate in the man, Jesus and remains to guide the community.
Bookworm is correct in that the idea of modes is insufficient - at leas if they are thought as temporary modes and, as he said, we think of God changing costumes: first looking like the Father, then Jesus and then the Spirit.
However is we think of the 'persons' as the eternal modes of God, that means theater there is no change of costumes. God is eternally Father/Creator & Sustainer, Word/Son experienced in the man, Jesus and Spirit, always with and guiding the community. And it should be said that the same God is present in the 3 persons/eternal modes to all humanity.
The idea of eternal modes or ways that God is present and experienced by us is consistent with the original formula of the Trinity: God is one substance, simply God is Being; and, God is not changing costumes, rather God is always experience as Father, Alpha & Omega, Word and Spirit/Encourager. It is the One God experience in different ways by the community and we 'believe' that how he is experienced reflects who God is in himself.
The idea of Eternal modes neither confounds the persons nor divides the substance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostIf God is "unknowable ", how does one know that God is unknowable?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostIf God is "unknowable ", how does one know that God is unknowable?
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
The belief that God is unknowable does not preclude that God reveals the attributes of God through Revelation. It is the ultimate nature of God that is unknowable and definable in the the manner the Trinity defines God in traditional Christianity. Neither can any one religion define God differently and know what God is as some do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by thormas View Post
I agree with all you have written: the Trinity as mystery, some denominations accept the Eucharist as real presence and a mystery and both are considered more than mere symbolism. My point is there are ways to explain them that make senses and enable them to truly be 'good news:' such explanations allow them to be 'understood' and to become alive.
For example,the Eucharist is both symbolic and real presence. I always like the idea that a symbol is never 'just a symbol' if we actually understand what a symbol is.
And, actually, doesn't the Church regards the Trinity as more than a symbol? That is what God is. I think people say it, believe it, repeat it .........but have no idea what it means and, therefore, it really is 'separated' from life, from having a meaningful impact on life. I mean what is the Spirit? Where is the word - is it only in the pages of the NT? How is it a Living Word? Christianity has fallen off in much of the western world, in large part it seems because, it makes no sense in many instances and is at odds with our modern worldview - it is left to the side, even though many remain attracted to the very idea of Jesus.
That is why the need for explanations that provide insight and upon hearing those explanations, we see people 'nodding in assent' and saying, "of course, that makes sense." And, then it begins anew.
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Oh certainly the Church views both the Trinity and the Eucharist as more than just symbolism. My argument is that many Christians, whilst accepting both doctrines as reality, do not attempt to explain HOW they can be real. The RC's use Aristotelian philosophy with their doctrine of 'transubstantiation' to explain the 'real presence' at the Eucharist, whereas the Anglican Communion and Orthodox tradition and others merely acknowledge both the Trinity and Communion as a reality but a mystery which can never be explained. It's a faith thing. .
Again, I hear what you're saying about "a faith thing" but it is also true that Christianity is running into more and more difficulty (at least in the western world) with its believability. And without explanation, without an 'update' it seems it will continue on that course.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Oh certainly the Church views both the Trinity and the Eucharist as more than just symbolism. My argument is that many Christians, whilst accepting both doctrines as reality, do not attempt to explain HOW they can be real. The RC's use Aristotelian philosophy with their doctrine of 'transubstantiation' to explain the 'real presence' at the Eucharist, whereas the Anglican Communion and Orthodox tradition and others merely acknowledge both the Trinity and Communion as a reality but a mystery which can never be explained. It's a faith thing. .
My view is that IF God exists, God would ne be defined by any one ancient world view.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
I agree in terms of the problems of trying to justify traditional Christian beliefs using ancient logic in the context of the ancient worldview, and the rejection of alternate views of God. This neglects the universal nature of Creator God, which also can be foe some an argument against the existence of God. I understand you objections to the existence of God, and have more empathy with your view than any other ancient world view that in one way or another excludes others
My view is that IF God exists, God would ne be defined by any one ancient world view.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Oh certainly the Church views both the Trinity and the Eucharist as more than just symbolism. My argument is that many Christians, whilst accepting both doctrines as reality, do not attempt to explain HOW they can be real. The RC's use Aristotelian philosophy with their doctrine of 'transubstantiation' to explain the 'real presence' at the Eucharist, whereas the Anglican Communion and Orthodox tradition and others merely acknowledge both the Trinity and Communion as a reality but a mystery which can never be explained. It's a faith thing. .
And I presented Gregory Baum's take on Trinity in another section, Unorthodox Theology 201.
Also, Spong's idea of God as a verb (as opposed to a known) is useful in presenting a better take on incarnation.Last edited by thormas; 10-10-2020, 08:41 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment