FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Non Abrahamic Religions & Philosophies
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-02-2004, 11:08 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill
I don't think the Trinity is ever mentioned in the Bible. It's a doctrine of some forms of Christianity, but not all. Mormons are non-trinitarian, for example.
The word trinity didn't exist when the Bible was written. The concept of the Trinity is well supported however.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 07-02-2004, 11:14 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill
Mormons are non-trinitarian, for example.
Not a good example, since Mormons are Trinitarian; what takes them outside the pale of mainstream Christianity is that they’re polytheists as well. JWs are a better example of non-Trinitarian Christians (or Christianoids. I’ve had enough of Anitra’s thread...)
Heathen Dawn is offline  
Old 07-02-2004, 12:29 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magus55
The word trinity didn't exist when the Bible was written. The concept of the Trinity is well supported however.
Sure. I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Dawn
Not a good example, since Mormons are Trinitarian; what takes them outside the pale of mainstream Christianity is that they’re polytheists as well. JWs are a better example of non-Trinitarian Christians (or Christianoids. I’ve had enough of Anitra’s thread...)
I disagree.

Quote:
1. (Christian Theol.) The union of three persons (the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all
the three are one God as to substance, but three persons
as to individuality.
Mormons do not believe the three are one in substance.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Quote:
Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.
In Mormonism, the Father created the Son.
trendkill is offline  
Old 07-02-2004, 01:06 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill
Mormons do not believe the three are one in substance.

In Mormonism, the Father created the Son.
OK, thanks. That makes their godhead tritheistic.
Heathen Dawn is offline  
Old 07-03-2004, 12:04 PM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 293
Default Response to JBernier

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
I am not sure that the first line holds consistently with the late patristic understanding of the trinity. Or, to put it otherwise, there is no real claim being made in later trinitarian thought that God is the sum of J, F, and HS (an assumption upon which this mathematical argumentation is predicated).

In particular, this argument fails to take account of the Platonic base of later trinitarian thinking. To take account of this one would have to redefine G as not "God" but rather the "Form that is God" and F, J and HS would have to each be identified as an instance of the Form. Or, more precisely, F, J and HS would not equal G as much as they would participate in the essence of the Form. I do not think that you presented a disproof of the trinity as much you have demonstrated how one needs to think in Platonic terms in order to make sense of what the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers were saying. Really, the problem here is that this argumentation is trying to understand the doctrine of the trinity in ways that are totally foreign to the way of thinking of those who formulated it - in that case, no surprise that the trinity cannot be expressed in this idiom, thus appearing as an impossibility. However, this presupposes that this mathematical idiom is the highest form of knowledge - however can you demonstrate that without reference to the mathematical idiom in which you are arguing? In short can you demonstrate why I should prefer your mathematical approach to the trinity over the Platonic approach favoured by the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers?
Dear Jbernier,

Actually, this was really a light-hearted attempt on my part to both understand and demonstrate the validity of the trinity concept in very simple terms. But, as you have brought up an interesting and relevant issue to the table, it should be explored.

But, first ,there is one point in your post which I must address.

Quote:
However, this presupposes that this mathematical idiom is the highest form of knowledge - however can you demonstrate that without reference to the mathematical idiom in which you are arguing? In short can you demonstrate why I should prefer your mathematical approach to the trinity over the Platonic approach favoured by the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers?
Actually, I disagree with this statement. The "mathematical idiom" in this, or any other topic, is not the "highest form" of expression, but is merely a shorthand, albeit a more precise shorthand in many cases. As an example, let us consider Einstein's statement ;
Quote:
e = mc^2
This statement merely says that mass and energy are of an equivalent substance, proportional to one another by the speed of light squared. In other words, if we were to transform one into the other, c^2 is the transformation factor. We can further infer that, because c is such a large value relative to human experience, (and c^2 even larger), that we can potentially derive a lot (again relatively speaking) of energy from a process that could (even inefficiently) transform M into E.

Now, on to your issue. Let us define G' as "the form of god" as perceived by humans, or more precisely, a relative perception of that which is god. Let us assume that there exists a transformation function f(G') such that this form could be translated into that which truly is god. This is reasonable using literally Plato's allegory of the cave, inthat shadows are certainly transformable into their essences, given that certain factors are known.(i.e. We could determine the distance to an object from its shadow by knowing its cross sectional size, or we could determine its size by knowing the distance. Further, by parallax and either of the above, we could determine the other to the accuracy of our measurements )
This leaves the idea that the individual manefestations of god, are in fact instances of god. An instance, by necessity, requires an instantiation. And an instantiation, by neccesity, must take place in a time domain.(Interestingly, traditional ideas of god put him outside of space-time domains, but that is another baguette, lets stick to the material given). Thus, these instatiation are time dependant. Given this, we must assume that each instance has a relative start time, and perhaps a relative end time. This implies that J,F and HS can be expressed as functions of time(t), more precisely, of a time interval (dt). By implication, if the parts of the form of god exist in a time domain, then the form of god must be necessity also have a time domain dependency.
So, from a strictly trinitarian point of view, we could now say ;

J(f(dt1) + F(f(dt2)) + HS(f(dt3)) = f(G',dt )

This is really a shorthand way of saying, the total essence of god (from the human perspective of observation of the form) is equal to the total of the instances of those manefestations in the time domain of the observers (humanity).

What is intersting about this, is that it essentially says the same thing as the simple expression, with the addition of the time domain and the form transform.

We can also see that if we were to solve this by integration, several solutions are generated, but for now lets consider only the boundary conditions. If dt1 = dt2 = dt3, we have the same expression as above. It is only true when f(G',t) = 0. If we assume that dt1 != dt2 != dt3, then we have a value that is non-zero only during dt1, dt2, or dt3, but is zero for all other values.

The second solution might be saying that G is nonzero only when a manefestation of the form is perceived in the time domain. And, the philosophical interpretation of that is apparent, isn't it ?
Fortuna is offline  
Old 07-03-2004, 04:08 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 361
Default

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
~ Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
miata is offline  
Old 07-03-2004, 09:57 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miata
Give us one fact for charity.
Guilt.
Chili is offline  
Old 07-03-2004, 10:12 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
Guilt.
Hehehe

But you know that won't be enough for him Chili/Amos.
Evoken is offline  
Old 07-04-2004, 04:38 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 361
Default

Society would not tolerate legislation declaring that the theory that the sun circles the earth be given equal time with the theory of a heliocentric solar system; it should not pay attention to the equally preposterous notions of "scientific creationism"
~ Robert Ornstein

Pseudoscience known by its supporters as "scientific creationism" is strict Genesis literalism masquerading as science in a cynical attempt to bypass the First Amendment and win legislatively mandated inclusion of particular (and minority) religious views into public school curricula... Intense debates about how evolution occurs display science at its most exciting, but provide no solace (only phony ammunition by willful distortion) to strict fundamentalists.
~ Stephen Jay Gould

GIGO we will get out of our mind what we plant there.
miata is offline  
Old 07-04-2004, 04:51 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
Guilt.
Although certain religions are quite adept at producing guilt, I don't think methods of psychological manipulation necessarily qualify as miracles. :P
trendkill is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.