Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

Argument for the uniqueness is not a good argument for ones choice of belief and/or non-belief. It is simply a fact of nature.

So then to claim man's uniqueness is not an egocentric statement - simply a fact of nature? Agreed.

[shunyadragon]

So then to claim man's uniqueness is not an egocentric statement - simply a fact of nature? Agreed.

Simple fact that it is nature is not an egocentric statement, but to claim it supports one world view over another is.

[mikewhitney]

Simple fact that it is nature is not an egocentric statement, but to claim it supports one world view over another is.

You have to take that up with our Creator who was revealed through the OT and NT.

[thormas]

Simple fact that it is nature is not an egocentric statement, but to claim it supports one world view over another is.

So we agree on the fact of nature that man is uniques in creation. And my particular faith expression simply affirms this insight.

[shunyadragon]

So we agree on the fact of nature that man is uniques in creation. And my particular faith expression simply affirms this insight.

No, not exactly, you used it to justify an affirmation of your belief, which is different. If that was not the case why even bring it up?

Being a fact of nature would be an argument for the metaphysical naturalist, but I believe it is neutral to any argument either way.

[Tassman]

It seems obvious that there is something unusual and special about man in comparison to other creatures.

There is “something unusual and special about” all creatures.

I'm not saying that atheism is or has an issue but it is not simply a passive denial it is an active stance.............as evidenced by your very active role in this discussion.

The irrational beliefs of theists impacting on others via legislation etc. demand an “active role” by non-theists.

Again, if one can go against instinct - especially one as vital and basic as survival - there is more than just instinct involved. And the second we get a 'man' who sacrifices himself for a stranger, the case is made.

A 'man' who sacrifices himself for a stranger is obeying his instinct as a social species to preserve the community of which he is a part. Such behavior is not uncommon, even among other social animals. “Altruism in animals describes a range of behaviors performed by animals that may be to their own disadvantage but which benefit others. … So, by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the likelihood that other organisms are to produce offspring”. Wiki.

Actually that is an old time take on religion (albeit true of some past Christian societies): Christianity is or should be about the now for it is here and now that one (can) becomes truly, fully human (what the Greek Fathers called divinization) and the understanding is that once one has such life, it does not end in death but continues. However, if all one does is look to some future life they are sure to trip over their own feet and . So, life eternal is to be lived in the here and now and the rest is out of our hands. Eternal life is not about time after death but about a depth of life that is not lost. And of course there is no evidence of consciousness after death because science does not deal with that which is outside of history. Plus if we had such evidence it would personally freak me out!

The plain fact is that there is no good reason to think that conscious creatures such as us (or ANY creatures) survive beyond the physical activity of their brains.

I have no problem valuing science, the areas it explores and the answers it provides.........but it can never answer 'why.' As to the why........I have spoken about the alternative, the atheist stance, that, if understood, results in meaninglessness and absurdity so it would be absurd for me or many/most to accept that position.

There is no absurdity in gaining satisfaction and self-fulfillment beyond our evolved position as cooperative intelligent social animals – something we share with other intelligent animals to some extent.

Again you are dealing with 'old time religion' as I know of no modern, or liberal or progressive or even many (any?) traditional Christians who are looking to escape. I grew up a Catholic and none of my friends or family were looking to escape anything (of course there was crazy Uncle Harry).

Fine, provided you accept that at death you will cease to exist.

[thormas]

No, not exactly, you used it to justify an affirmation of your belief, which is different. If that was not the case why even bring it up?

Being a fact of nature would be an argument for the metaphysical naturalist, but I believe it is neutral to any argument either way.

Actually I just acknowledged the uniqueness of man - which my Christian expression of faith speaks to and confirms. And the discussion was on the uniqueness of man amidst all creation and both science and religion speaks to this.

Not sure what you imagine the issue to be but all is well from my side.

[shunyadragon]

Actually I just acknowledged the uniqueness of man - which my Christian expression of faith speaks to and confirms. And the discussion was on the uniqueness of man amidst all creation and both science and religion speaks to this.

Not sure what you imagine the issue to be but all is well from my side.

Your in a discussion with an atheist concerning the justification of your belief and the existence of God. The above bold is the problem may reflect your personal view, but is the debate with an atheist no meaning.

[thormas]

There is “something unusual and special about” all creatures.



The irrational beliefs of theists impacting on others via legislation etc. demand an “active role” by non-theists.



A 'man' who sacrifices himself for a stranger is obeying his instinct as a social species to preserve the community of which he is a part. Such behavior is not uncommon, even among other social animals. “Altruism in animals describes a range of behaviors performed by animals that may be to their own disadvantage but which benefit others. … So, by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the likelihood that other organisms are to produce offspring”. Wiki.



The plain fact is that there is no good reason to think that conscious creatures such as us (or ANY creatures) survive beyond the physical activity of their brains.



There is no absurdity in gaining satisfaction and self-fulfillment beyond our evolved position as cooperative intelligent social animals – something we share with other intelligent animals to some extent.



Fine, provided you accept that at death you will cease to exist.

There is, I have no issue with the specialness of all creatures (perhaps not flies and mosquitoes though) but man is unique among all.

I agree with you on some theists and legislation, so no argument there.

We might have to bring in an expert in anthropology but it seems that sacrifice for a stranger is different in kind that protecting and sacrificing for one's own (ancient) tribe. Simply a stranger is not part of 'his (i.e. the one who saves him) community of which he is part' - that's why he is a stranger. Actually such an action is a leap forward.

I have no problem acknowledging that there is "no good reason to think that conscious creatures such as us (or ANY creatures) survive beyond the physical activity of their brains." It is a belief statement just as is its opposite: there is no evidence, no facts either way. It is Belief.

The only absurdity is thinking that "gaining satisfaction and self-fulfillment beyond our evolved position as cooperative intelligent social animals" makes any actual difference in the vastness, the endlessness, of time and space. Ultimately it means nothing, it is self-delusion. Given the atheist stance, one small life, or the entirety of humanity. counts for nothing, changes nothing, means nothing..................is less than nothing, is never even noticed: it is less than a flicker in the timelessness of the universe if indeed the atheist is right.

But I am not an atheist, I do not believe as an atheist does. I do not believe that we cease to exist (actually such an idea is absurd to me).
I have no idea what happens (at death) but I can hold both thoughts: we are not trying to escape anything and life, human life, transcends this mortal coil. It is here and now in which and by which we are enabled to become and such becoming transcends this life.

[thormas]

Your in a discussion with an atheist concerning the justification of your belief and the existence of God. The above bold is the problem may reflect your personal view, but is the debate with an atheist no meaning.

Actually my discussion is with an atheist, whom I respect yet disagree. There is no justification since justification or evidence for religious (and atheistic) belief is not possible. My atheist friend has simply and strongly stated his position and I have mine. Simple........I have no need to justify anything.

The atheist personal view makes no sense to me or, better, I simply disagree........but we can still have a conversation. So still not sure of what issue you are having.

[shunyadragon]

Actually my discussion is with an atheist, whom I respect yet disagree. There is no justification since justification or evidence for religious (and atheistic) belief is not possible. My atheist friend has simply and strongly stated his position and I have mine. Simple........I have no need to justify anything.

The atheist personal view makes no sense to me or, better, I simply disagree........but we can still have a conversation. So still not sure of what issue you are having.

I do not believe you have addressed the issue. Actually the atheist and agnostic positions make more sense to me than clinging to ancient world views that do not remotely relate to a universal spiritual perspective of humanity through Revelation. Yes, I disagree with the atheists, because I do believe in God.

[thormas]

I do not believe you have addressed the issue. Actually the atheist and agnostic positions make more sense to me than clinging to ancient world views that do not remotely relate to a universal spiritual perspective of humanity through Revelation. Yes, I disagree with the atheists, because I do believe in God.

Well it is fine that you like the agnostic or the atheist POV........and I'm happy that you're happy. That is your belief. I have no problem with that.

But you simply miss my point: I do not cling to an ancient world view as I am quite comfortable in the 21st C world view and its appreciation of the sciences. I am also not a theist snd I have a number of differences with traditional theism. Mine is more a philosophical perspective or, also, a more progressive or liberal theology.

So atheism males sense to you yet you cling to Revelation - yet it could be said that Revelation and God are from ancient world views also?? So how exactly is that different? Is it simply because it is your belief?


Universal spiritual perspective through Revelation is a mouthful .............

[shunyadragon]

Well it is fine that you like the agnostic or the atheist POV........and I'm happy that you're happy. That is your belief. I have no problem with that.

But you simply miss my point: I do not cling to an ancient world view as I am quite comfortable in the 21st C world view and its appreciation of the sciences. I am also not a theist snd I have a number of differences with traditional theism. Mine is more a philosophical perspective or, also, a more progressive or liberal theology.

So atheism males sense to you yet you cling to Revelation - yet it could be said that Revelation and God are from ancient world views also?? So how exactly is that different? Is it simply because it is your belief?

Careful you are not citing me properly, and snapping. The problem is clinging to one particular ancient Revelation as the only Revelation from God and that is the Reality of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and you describe yourself as a Christian, unless you are describing your self as a Jeffersonian Deist Christian youare a matter of fact a Theist. Philosophical wanderings aside you still present a traditional theist view in your posts here and in other threads. The above is not clear in light of your previous posts. My acknowledging the perspective of the atheist and agnostic as rational and possible further exemplifies the fact that I do not cling. I have openly described myself as philosophical agnostic, and got me in administrative hot water and grief from the powers to be at Theologyweb.

Universal spiritual perspective through Revelation is a mouthful .............

Very very relevant and a phrase only five words, which is rejected by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[thormas]

Careful you are not citing me properly, and snapping. The problem is clinging to one particular ancient Revelation as the only Revelation from God and that is the Reality of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and you describe yourself as a Christian, unless you are describing your self as a Jeffersonian Deist Christian youare a matter of fact a Theist. Philosophical wanderings aside you still present a traditional theist view in your posts here and in other threads. The above is not clear in light of your previous posts. My acknowledging the perspective of the atheist and agnostic as rational and possible further exemplifies the fact that I do not cling. I have openly described myself as philosophical agnostic, and got me in administrative hot water and grief from the powers to be at Theologyweb.

Very very relevant and a phrase only five words, which is rejected by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Now don't get all defensive and accusatory on me. No snapping - just making the same points about your position :+}

I like panentheism - and although one could classify it under theism, I use the 'panen' to clarify since it is considerably different and to have a commonly accepted language and definition. That said, it is perfectly valid to say that I have numerous issues with 'theism' and no longer consider myself a theist. Actually many theists don't consider me a theist. However, you continually fall back on 'clinging' while not recognizing that just as one can value ancient Greek philosophy or Milton or Shakespeare - discerning their timeless value, power and relevance - so too Christianity; such recognition is not clinging. I have never said that Christianity is the only revelation and I have previously explained my take on revelation (self-revealing of God to man): given such an understanding, it would be impossible to state that revelation is exclusive.

I have no problem speaking in theistic language since many here remain theists or are against theism (i.e. a-theists) but again it this is not clinging - it is discussion.

As for the rationalism of atheism or agnosticism - that is in the eye of the beholder.

It is still a mouthful if only a few words and the atheist would not consider a 'universal spiritual perspective through Revelation' rational or acceptable. And it could be consider a clinging since it echoes the Christian mystics. Regardless, it is not rejected by the mystics or by panentheist Christians.

Note: I must have missed the philosophical agnostic as I have never taken you as one - given your comments.

[shunyadragon]

Now don't get all defensive and accusatory on me. No snapping - just making the same points about your position :+}

. . . which did not reflect what I posted. YES!!!! A retort snapping.

I like panentheism - and although one could classify it under theism, I use the 'panen' to clarify since it is considerably different and to have a commonly accepted language and definition. That said, it is perfectly valid to say that I have numerous issues with 'theism' and no longer consider myself a theist. Actually many theists don't consider me a theist. However, you continually fall back on 'clinging' while not recognizing that just as one can value ancient Greek philosophy or Milton or Shakespeare - discerning their timeless value, power and relevance - so too Christianity; such recognition is not clinging. I have never said that Christianity is the only revelation and I have previously explained my take on revelation (self-revealing of God to man): given such an understanding, it would be impossible to state that revelation is exclusive.

I have no problem speaking in theistic language since many here remain theists or are against theism (i.e. a-theists) but again it this is not clinging - it is discussion.

Yes, Panentheism may be considered Theism and comes closer to the Baha'i beliefs. It would not change your perspective as a Christian Theist.

Your position has become slippery, foggy and vague, but when I dialogue with Christians, and you call yourself Christian, but describe something else here.(?). My discussion up to this point reflected your previous posts, which reflected a Theist Christian particularly concerning the Trinity.

It is difficult to wrestle with a ton block of Jello.

As for the rationalism of atheism or agnosticism - that is in the eye of the beholder.

As the sky is Carolina blue at noon on the 4th of July on a clear day and ot the issue. It was the fact that you were not willing to understand the atheist perspective as rational or whatever.

It is still a mouthful if only a few words and the atheist would not consider a 'universal spiritual perspective through Revelation' rational or acceptable. And it could be consider a clinging since it echoes the Christian mystics. Regardless, it is not rejected by the mystics or by panentheist Christians.

Note: I must have missed the philosophical agnostic as I have never taken you as one - given your comments.

I am a Theist as my posts reflect. Philosophical Agnosticism does not reflect one's religious beliefs.

I did not say it was not a question for the atheist, and an example of what I would not use in an argument. This is a theist question and an issue in our discussion.