Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

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



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 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.



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.

Again, no snapping on my part :+}

Well on panentheism, we disagree but I have no problem recognizing what remains valuable in theism.

There is no intention to be slippery or foggy, it is the nature of the theological/philosophical beast to try to put this stuff in words. I always liked the quote (by O'Henry I believe): "Tis what I feel, but can't define.Tis what I know, but can't express."

Actually my take on the Trinity is probably not considered theistic at all by theists. But, thank you, I do like Jello and of course it is a moving, developing, shifting target and is for most.

The sky is indeed blue unless day has turned to night and we can no longer see it. I don't see the atheistic view as rational: i see it as a belief that speaks to the meaninglessness and therefore the absurdity of everything. They see the same thing and say X,while I say Y. Both are beliefs beyond evidence, beyond proof.


Ok so you are a theist but an agnostic simply says. "I don't know." So you have beliefs but you actually don't really know - but you still present your beliefs and seemingly dismiss the beliefs of some others? in a real sense we are all agnostics but in discussions many/most people differentiate between agnosticism and belief.

[shunyadragon]

Again, no snapping on my part :+}

Well on panentheism, we disagree but I have no problem recognizing what remains valuable in theism.

There is no intention to be slippery or foggy, it is the nature of the theological/philosophical beast to try to put this stuff in words. I always liked the quote (by O'Henry I believe): "Tis what I feel, but can't define.Tis what I know, but can't express."

Actually my take on the Trinity is probably not considered theistic at all by theists. But, thank you, I do like Jello and of course it is a moving, developing, shifting target and is for most.

The sky is indeed blue unless day has turned to night and we can no longer see it. I don't see the atheistic view as rational: i see it as a belief that speaks to the meaninglessness and therefore the absurdity of everything. They see the same thing and say X,while I say Y. Both are beliefs beyond evidence, beyond proof.


Ok so you are a theist but an agnostic simply says. "I don't know." So you have beliefs but you actually don't really know - but you still present your beliefs and seemingly dismiss the beliefs of some others? in a real sense we are all agnostics but in discussions many/most people differentiate between agnosticism and belief.

Careful confusing disagreements and reasons I do and do not believe. I probably more blunt than others and my reasons, but nonetheless I believe I give more acknowledgment of atheists than apparently you do.

[thormas]

Careful confusing disagreements and reasons I do and do not believe. I probably more blunt than others and my reasons, but nonetheless I believe I give more acknowledgment of atheists than apparently you do.

I am always glad and look forward to discussions with you. But I have found the atheist position beyond the pale -if someone actually considers the ramifications of such a position.

Not sure about your opening sentence??

[shunyadragon]

I am always glad and look forward to discussions with you. But I have found the atheist position beyond the pale -if someone actually considers the ramifications of such a position.

What ramifications do you consider to be so negative. I so not consider the belief in atheism in and of itself a major issue. It carries far less potentially serious consequences than for example: Christian fundamentalism, and Islamic extremism.

Not sure about your opening sentence??

In response to this:

" . . . but you still present your beliefs and seemingly dismiss the beliefs of some others?" in a real sense we are all agnostics but in discussions many/most people differentiate between agnosticism and belief.

[thormas]

What ramifications do you consider to be so negative. I so not consider the belief in atheism in and of itself a major issue. It carries far less potentially serious consequences than for example: Christian fundamentalism, and Islamic extremism.




In response to this:

I think we covered it exhaustively in the earlier and daily discussions with my atheist friend. I would first point to David Bentley Hart's book 'God' for a nice summation of the faulty reasoning behind atheism.

However, the crux for me is that life is not purposeful but happenstance, an accident. Given this, then no matter how much one says they can or will make life meaningful as an individual or part of a group/society, it is still all for naught. There is no, let's call it ultimate or over arching 'reason to be' therefore, in spitr of all the wishes or attempts to make 2 years or 14, 29, 33, 49, 66. 90 or however many years one has mean something, however much one says they make life meaningful - it is delusion. In the incredible vastness of time and space (both perhaps 'timeless') the individual life and indeed the life of all humanity is less than a flicker on the cosmic scale - and it did not matter a wit. All human effort is absurd. Sisyphus might be considered a hero of sorts, fighting against the futility of life.........but in the end it matter not and he is Absurd.

I don't buy Fundamentalism or Islamic extremism and recognize their dangerous consequences also.

[shunyadragon]

I think we covered it exhaustively in the earlier and daily discussions with my atheist friend. I would first point to David Bentley Hart's book 'God' for a nice summation of the faulty reasoning behind atheism.

However, the crux for me is that life is not purposeful but happenstance, an accident.

This reflects a strong Theist perspective and weak scientific understanding of evolution. There is nothing happenstance nor accidental about evolution.

[Tassman]

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

Man is not unique among other creatures, merely the most intelligent - just as gorillas are more intelligent than monkeys. It's all relative.. Even our superiority in this regard could conceivably change when we enter the age of self-modifying spiritual machines. They will have the potential for far greater intelligence than us.

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

Good to hear.

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.

It’s only a matter of degree. The bottom line is that altruism among social animals is not uncommon. Check out the work of Frans de Waal on moral behavior in animals.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/338936897

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.

It’s not a “belief statement” it’s a factual statement. There are no “facts” concerning the survival of consciousness beyond the physical activity of the brain.

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.

What meaning would this provide that is somehow greater than deriving fulfillment and satisfaction from our community and loved ones.

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).

There is no substantiated evidence for an alternative of ceasing to exist when we die.

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.

You say you have “no idea what happens death” yet you say you “KNOW” that you will NOT cease to exist when your brain ceases to be and rots. But you don’t know this. This is wishful thinking.

[thormas]

This reflects a strong Theist perspective and weak scientific understanding of evolution. There is nothing happenstance nor accidental about evolution.

I have no problem acknowledging a theistic or a panentheistic perspective - after all I do believe that God IS.

As for evolution, I understand and accept evolution, gravity and all the natural laws and processes but that anything exists at all - in the atheistic belief - comes down to happenstance. But even if we argue it had to evolve this way - that's nice, since we are part of that process, but it remains utterly meaningless in the vastness of everything. Man doesn't matter or make any difference: thus all is absurd. As my friend, an atheist says, "we are a rock hurling through space going nowhere,"

[shunyadragon]

I have no problem acknowledging a theistic or a panentheistic perspective - after all I do believe that God IS.

As for evolution, I understand and accept evolution, gravity and all the natural laws and processes but that anything exists at all - in the atheistic belief - comes down to happenstance. But even if we argue it had to evolve this way - that's nice, since we are part of that process, but it remains utterly meaningless in the vastness of everything. Man doesn't matter or make any difference: thus all is absurd. As my friend, an atheist says, "we are a rock hurling through space going nowhere,"

Still a severe problem with the science of evolution. Absolutely NO by the science the process of evolution is NOT happenstance, accidental, random nor by chance this remains an erroneous bad statistical language of strong Theist non-science conclusion. Atheists who are more honest about science do not support these foolish notions. This sounds too much like the bad science of the Discovery Institute. There is a thread in the science section that covers now research on this. This is one of the reasons that I find atheists more honest about the science than theists.

Your anecdotal comment by your atheist friend has absolutely no relevance to the actual science of cosmology. It is now determined that there are millions of earth like rocky planets in our galaxy alone. Not all are suitable for life' of course, but the odds are we are not alone.

[thormas]

Man is not unique among other creatures, merely the most intelligent - just as gorillas are more intelligent than monkeys. It's all relative.. Even our superiority in this regard could conceivably change when we enter the age of self-modifying spiritual machines. They will have the potential for far greater intelligence than us.

It’s only a matter of degree. The bottom line is that altruism among social animals is not uncommon. Check out the work of Frans de Waal on moral behavior in animals.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/338936897

It’s not a “belief statement” it’s a factual statement. There are no “facts” concerning the survival of consciousness beyond the physical activity of the brain.

What meaning would this provide that is somehow greater than deriving fulfillment and satisfaction from our community and loved ones.

There is no substantiated evidence for an alternative of ceasing to exist when we die.

You say you have “no idea what happens death” yet you say you “KNOW” that you will NOT cease to exist when your brain ceases to be and rots. But you don’t know this. This is wishful thinking.

I'm saying that man's intelligence and consciousness of self make him unique or special.

I will check your reference but I don't really regard animals as having moral behavior in the sense that man does; there could be analogous behavior but it is not the 'moral behavior.'

It's a belief statement because no one has proof/evidence that there is or is not life beyond death: science can investigate a dead body but they can't examine anything beyond that. Death is a fact; life or no life after that death is a matter of belief.

That's the point: satisfaction and fulfillment are meaningless, signifying nothing in the universe and make no difference. Whether one is satisfied or fulfilled or not - matters not.

You keep going to evidence when I have simply stated that this is a belief statement, both the Christians and the atheist position. No one can prove there is or is not God, no one can prove or disprove 'eternal life' and on and on.

I don't think I said I know as I have tried to be consistent saying this is belief. But it is not wishful thinking, it is ..........belief, religion belief that begins with the faith statement that God IS.

[shunyadragon]

I'm saying that man's intelligence and consciousness of self make him unique or special.

I will check your reference but I don't really regard animals as having moral behavior.

It's a belief statement because no one has proof/evidence that there is or is not life beyond death: science can investigate a dead body after death but they can't examine anything beyond that. Death is a fact; life or no life after that death is a matter of belief.

That's the point: satisfaction and fulfillment are meaningless, signifying nothing in the universe and make no difference. Whether one is satisfied or fulfilled or not - matters not.

You keep going to evidence when I have simply stated that this is a belief statement, both the Christians and the atheist position. No one can prove there is or is not God, no one can prove or disprove 'eternal life' and on and on.

I don't think I said I know as I have tried to be consistent saying this is belief. But it is not wishful thinking, it is ..........belief, religion belief that begins with the faith statement that God IS.

Tassman is correct, and I have posted numerous references over time that higher mammals like primates have degrees of moral and rational behavior

[thormas]

Tassman is correct, and I have posted numerous references over time that higher mammals like primates have degrees of moral and rational behavior

And that he is correct is your opinion and I am find with that.

If you read what I said I allowed that some behaviors were analogous but not the same as, for example, man's moral behavior.

[shunyadragon]

And that he is correct is your opinion and I am find with that.

If you read what I said I allowed that some behaviors were analogous but not the same as, for example, man's moral behavior.

Not analogous, demonstrated the same.

[thormas]

Not analogous, demonstrated the same.

Then pleas point me to that famous book, 'Canine Moral Behavior.' As I said it is only analogous.

Again, my dog's love is not the same as the compassionate care, i.e. agape, of Christianity. Let's not travel to far into absurdity:+}

[thormas]

Still a severe problem with the science of evolution. Absolutely NO by the science the process of evolution is NOT happenstance, accidental, random nor by chance this remains an erroneous bad statistical language of strong Theist non-science conclusion. Atheists who are more honest about science do not support these foolish notions. This sounds too much like the bad science of the Discovery Institute. There is a thread in the science section that covers now research on this. This is one of the reasons that I find atheists more honest about the science than theists.

Your anecdotal comment by your atheist friend has absolutely no relevance to the actual science of cosmology. It is now determined that there are millions of earth like rocky planets in our galaxy alone. Not all are suitable for life' of course, but the odds are we are not alone.

So you say.

Even, if for argument sake, we say that evolution is not happenstance and that man was inevitable - in the atheist position, it is still meaningless and all human effort is absurd - again in the vastness and endlessness of time and space man, humanity, does not even register. Not so in the Christian perspective.