Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    BTW, I am sorry you guys didn't like the OP. I will try to do better next time. I also am not really sure, is this a majoritarily Christian website? I read that somewhere. If so, it might be rude of me to post atheist thoughts and claims. I assumed this was a open debate forum, though I realize some sections are restricted to obviously avoid unnecessary conflict (this remembers me much of sport's teams rivalry).

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Seeker View Post
      I should have also mentioned this isn't even ''Apologetics 301'', but ''General Theistics 101''. So, one more thing you didn't get right...
      To be fair, it really should be in Apologetics; General Theistics is meant to be for irenic, not polemical discussion.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Seeker View Post
        BTW, I am sorry you guys didn't like the OP. I will try to do better next time. I also am not really sure, is this a majoritarily Christian website? I read that somewhere. If so, it might be rude of me to post atheist thoughts and claims. I assumed this was a open debate forum, though I realize some sections are restricted to obviously avoid unnecessary conflict (this remembers me much of sport's teams rivalry).
        Yes, it's a Christian-run website. No, it's not rude to post atheist thoughts and claims. Yes, it's an open debate forum.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Yes, it's a Christian-run website. No, it's not rude to post atheist thoughts and claims. Yes, it's an open debate forum.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Seeker View Post
            We love you anyways. And by that, we will pray for your eyes to be opened! Or at least make an informed decision regarding the Gospel.
            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
              I don't like using analogies for the Trinity because they all seem to eventually fall apart. Some are horrible like water, steam and ice.

              I thought Morris's explanation was a place to start.

              Seeker said: "Or it is 1, or it is 3. 1 and 3 at the same time cannot be true."

              We don't know what seeker really means by his statement. Some people think the Trinity is three Gods; it doesn't. Some think "three persons" means three people; it doesn't.

              Seeker needs to clarity what he thinks the concept of the Trinity is.
              As for the concept of the Trinity, I cannot say I have a clear idea of it, because it is like the concept of a square circle. I cannot have an idea of what a square circle is the same way I cannot have an ideia of what are three persons in only one substance.
              Last edited by Seeker; 09-04-2019, 12:21 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                As for the concept of the Trinity, I cannot say I have a clear idea of it, because it is like the concept of a square circle. I cannot have an idea of what a square circle is the same way I cannot have an ideia of what are three persons in only one substance.
                I agree that the Trinity is something beyond human understanding. I very much disagree that it is "like the concept of a square circle" however, i.e that it is logically contradictory. I have yet to see one single argument that has been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the orthodox conception of the Trinity.
                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                  As for the concept of the Trinity, I cannot say I have a clear idea of it, because it is like the concept of a square circle. I cannot have an idea of what a square circle is the same way I cannot have an ideia of what are three persons in only one substance.
                  How about a circle as a superposition of an infinite number of squares each rotated relative to the next by an infinitesimally small amount about a common center?

                  Not that that has anything at all to do with the Trinity part of the analogy.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Nationalist.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I agree that the Trinity is something beyond human understanding. I very much disagree that it is "like the concept of a square circle" however, i.e that it is logically contradictory. I have yet to see one single argument that has been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the orthodox conception of the Trinity.
                    I'm sympathetic to the objection.

                    I believe in the Trinity. I understand and accept the standard explanation that it is, in simplistic terms, one "what" and three "whos." It is not a logical contradiction, because the categories are different.

                    But it is still outside and apart from anything in normal experience. The only time we experience multiple "persons" in a single "being" is in certain psychotic individuals.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Nationalist.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                      I'm sympathetic to the objection.

                      I believe in the Trinity. I understand and accept the standard explanation that it is, in simplistic terms, one "what" and three "whos." It is not a logical contradiction, because the categories are different.

                      But it is still outside and apart from anything in normal experience. The only time we experience multiple "persons" in a single "being" is in certain psychotic individuals.
                      William Lane Craig used to use the analogy of Cerberus, the three-headed hellhound of Greek mythology to help get the idea across of 3 persons in one being which I found helpful, but has since put it to the side,

                      Source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/is-there-a-good-analogy-for-the-trinity/

                      I don't like to use analogies like the triple point of water, or water being steam and ice and liquid, these sorts of things. I just see no reason to think that there should be anything truly analogous to the Trinity. Rather in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview what I am doing is trying to make sense out of the doctrine of the Trinity that the notion that there are three persons who are not three beings, but are one being. And what I look at is this illustration of Cerberus, which was this three-headed dog guarding the gates of Hades in Greek mythology, and I press this and adapt it and adjust it in certain ways to try to see if we can make sense of the idea of three persons which are nevertheless one being rather than three beings. And in the end I reject the analogy of Cerberus. I say it doesn't go far enough because even if we adjust the Cerberus story so that we now have not three canine minds, which are one dog, but we invest them with self-consciousness so that we actually have three persons which are one dog, which seems now getting very much closer to the idea of the Trinity, still, the difficulty is when Cerberus dies, when his body dies, it would seem that you have three separate persons three souls or whatever, three minds that wouldn't be one being. So ultimately Cerberus, though it gets you some direction toward the Trinity, it ultimately falls short. And so what I finally propose is that we need to think of God as a soul, an unembodied mind, endowed with three sets of rational faculties each of which is sufficient for personhood. And that will get you a doctrine of three persons in one being.

                      Now in the Florida Veritas Forum I think I spoke too quickly in saying this is an analogy of the Trinity. Certainly there are analogous elements in the Cerberus story, but it's not a complete and finally satisfactory analogy for the Trinity, as I explain in Philosophical Foundations. The good thing about the illustration, though, is it does help to get us thinking about how can you have a tri-personal being? That's the question that unitarians and other skeptics of the Trinity would pose for us trinitarians. What sense can you make of a tri-personal being? And I think the Cerberus story can help us to make some advance in understanding that if we invest these three canine minds with self-consciousness and hence personhood. And then we do see here we seem to have a tri-personal dog, a tri-personal entity.

                      The reason I feel uncomfortable with the Cerberus story is not because it isn't helpful in understanding the question of how you can have a tri-personal entity.[2] But rather because people who are unsympathetic to the doctrine of the Trinity, who are just looking for something to criticize or to mock, will find it disrespectful and unhelpful to compare God to a dog. And that is obviously something that makes one very uncomfortable.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      I personally like the analogy of Marvel's The Living Tribunal (being a Norrin Radd fan, you obviously know something about that), but ultimately all analogies fail for one reason or another.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        William Lane Craig used to use the analogy of Cerberus, the three-headed hellhound of Greek mythology to help get the idea across of 3 persons in one being which I found helpful, but has since put it to the side,

                        Source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/is-there-a-good-analogy-for-the-trinity/

                        I don't like to use analogies like the triple point of water, or water being steam and ice and liquid, these sorts of things. I just see no reason to think that there should be anything truly analogous to the Trinity. Rather in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview what I am doing is trying to make sense out of the doctrine of the Trinity that the notion that there are three persons who are not three beings, but are one being. And what I look at is this illustration of Cerberus, which was this three-headed dog guarding the gates of Hades in Greek mythology, and I press this and adapt it and adjust it in certain ways to try to see if we can make sense of the idea of three persons which are nevertheless one being rather than three beings. And in the end I reject the analogy of Cerberus. I say it doesn't go far enough because even if we adjust the Cerberus story so that we now have not three canine minds, which are one dog, but we invest them with self-consciousness so that we actually have three persons which are one dog, which seems now getting very much closer to the idea of the Trinity, still, the difficulty is when Cerberus dies, when his body dies, it would seem that you have three separate persons three souls or whatever, three minds that wouldn't be one being. So ultimately Cerberus, though it gets you some direction toward the Trinity, it ultimately falls short. And so what I finally propose is that we need to think of God as a soul, an unembodied mind, endowed with three sets of rational faculties each of which is sufficient for personhood. And that will get you a doctrine of three persons in one being.

                        Now in the Florida Veritas Forum I think I spoke too quickly in saying this is an analogy of the Trinity. Certainly there are analogous elements in the Cerberus story, but it's not a complete and finally satisfactory analogy for the Trinity, as I explain in Philosophical Foundations. The good thing about the illustration, though, is it does help to get us thinking about how can you have a tri-personal being? That's the question that unitarians and other skeptics of the Trinity would pose for us trinitarians. What sense can you make of a tri-personal being? And I think the Cerberus story can help us to make some advance in understanding that if we invest these three canine minds with self-consciousness and hence personhood. And then we do see here we seem to have a tri-personal dog, a tri-personal entity.

                        The reason I feel uncomfortable with the Cerberus story is not because it isn't helpful in understanding the question of how you can have a tri-personal entity.[2] But rather because people who are unsympathetic to the doctrine of the Trinity, who are just looking for something to criticize or to mock, will find it disrespectful and unhelpful to compare God to a dog. And that is obviously something that makes one very uncomfortable.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        I personally like the analogy of Marvel's The Living Tribunal (being a Norrin Radd fan, you obviously know something about that), but ultimately all analogies fail for one reason or another.

                        Is the Living Tribunal kind of like Alien X in the Ben 10 Alien Force series? I remember the Living Tribunal being mentioned in the Secret Wars comics, but they didn't explain much about it.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Is the Living Tribunal kind of like Alien X in the Ben 10 Alien Force series? I remember the Living Tribunal being mentioned in the Secret Wars comics, but they didn't explain much about it.

                          I'm not certain. I never watched Ben 10. The Living Tribunal is an extremely powerful cosmic being in the Marvel universe (likely the most powerful outside of The One Above All) whose duty it is to safe guard the universe and keep things in order. I think. He doesn't really show up very often in the comics (at least, not when I was reading them). He has three faces representing different aspects of judgement: equity, just vengeance, and necessity, and they all must agree before the Tribunal passes judgement on someone or something. Again, analogies to the Trinity always break down, but yeah.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            I'm not certain. I never watched Ben 10. The Living Tribunal is an extremely powerful cosmic being in the Marvel universe (likely the most powerful outside of The One Above All) whose duty it is to safe guard the universe and keep things in order. I think. He doesn't really show up very often in the comics (at least, not when I was reading them). He has three faces representing different aspects of judgement: equity, just vengeance, and necessity, and they all must agree before the Tribunal passes judgement on someone or something. Again, analogies to the Trinity always break down, but yeah.
                            Kind of similar, the Alien X has three internal faces that represent various aspects(reason, aggression, compassion IIRC), and they have to agree to do anything. There are however more than one Alien X. It was one of the more interesting parallels I have seen, even though it does break down pretty quick as an analogy. I think it was either inspired by Living Tribunal, or very loosely by the Trinity.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I agree that the Trinity is something beyond human understanding. I very much disagree that it is "like the concept of a square circle" however, i.e that it is logically contradictory. I have yet to see one single argument that has been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the orthodox conception of the Trinity.
                              It is logically contradictory because it is has, as we would say, mutually excluding attributes. That prevents us from having a clear idea of what it is.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                One God, three persons not three gods or one person and three persons
                                So, one What and three whos. No reason a being outside of our space time continuum should have the same psychology as a human. There's a buch of terrible analogies though.
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X