Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-12-2002, 06:06 PM

"I would personally like to hear your interpretation of the Trinity, rather than silly arguing. Would you please be kind enough to post that here?"

What is there to say after Athanasius bored the pants of everyone with his unexpurgated ravings on the trinity?

If we remember however the words given to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, "For you father all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but you want." We see that Jesus is portrayed as having a separate volition to the father, ie they are two separate volitional entities.

The closest analogy I can find is Zaphod Beeblebrox with two heads, each with the one body but the two heads giving separate volitions.

The history of the trinity is worthwhile trying to recover. In the end, during the time of poor Arius, the fight was over the placement of a vowel in a word, which changed the meaning from like substance to same substance. But to get to the trinity the church had to steer a course between one heresy and another until it was so backed into a corner it provided this masterful piece of doublethink (they are three, but they are one), which, if you didn't accept, excluded you.

theophilus · 03-12-2002, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
Belief and therefore faith in something requires free will, because it involves the choice between two or more possible alternatives.

I hope you don't mind me returning to your original post at this point, but there are a couple of points. Your statement above is only true if human will exists in a neutral state where it may choose either for or against a proposition. The bible is clear that this is not the case. Human will is in bondage to sin and, therefore, incapable of choosing to respond to truth (I am not proposing to make an extended defense of this here, just point out that your statement begs a very large question.)

For example if my wife is pregnant I can say "I believe the baby is a boy" because there is the possiblity that it could be a girl too.

Actually, there is no issue of "will" here. Your choices are circumscribed by the limitations of genetics and your understanding of human reproduction (it is theoretically possible that it would be neither). Also, your statement that you "think" it is a boy, is not really an expression of a conviction, just a hunch or intuition. I guess you might have a "test" you could apply, e.g., all the children born in your family have been boys for the last 50 generations, but then you are not making a statement of "belief," just statistics.

If we did an echo and the doctor determines that the sex of the baby is indeed male then I can no longer say "I believe the baby is a boy", I would have to say "I know the baby is a boy". There is no longer an element of free will in my statement.

Actually, all you can say is that you "believe" on the basis of the test that the baby is a boy. You can never "know" until the baby is born, as my friend can attest who had two boys after untra sound said they were girls.
As I pointed out above, there never was an "elememnt of free will" in your statement.

Correct me if I am wrong but in the Christian faith, the faith one has in God must come from ones own free will. This means that the belief in God comes from the real possibility that God indeed does not exist.

Okay, you're wrong. The "real possibility" only exists in a world where everything is contingent and knowledge arises from pure chance and matter. If God exists, there is no possibility that he does not exist (and vice versa - except that we couldn't know that).

If a theist claims he knows that God exist then he is in fact commiting a sin by his own logic because he is not having faith in God at all!

I think your misunderstanding of "faith" has been dealt with sufficiently elsewhere, so I won't remark on that. However, your statement about committing a sin when we say we "know" God exists, is mistaken. We do not know that he exists because we have determined it to be so. We know it because he has revealed himself. The sin is to deny him when he has sufficiently revealed himself.

In fact the theist is having faith because he is going against his empirical knowledge and is even joyous of the idea that he is doing it because of his own free will to do so.

Once again, you assume that empiricism is a sufficient means of ascertaining knowledge for or against God. It is not, neither is natural rationality. They can "apprehend" the evidence which God has given, but do not of themselves provide such evidence.

Sort of like affirming his own free will. The atheist is in the opposite position. He is an atheist because there is no possibility in his mind that God exists, there is no choice in his belief and therefore becomes a lack of belief. It becomes knowledge.

Actually, the atheist begins his investigation by assuming the non-existence of the creator God (he does not submit his thinking) and assumes his own thinking as normative and authoritative. He has already exercised his free will not to believe.

In short theists are really hanging in their faith with a very fine string, once a single doubt creeps in they are in great danger of losing it.

There is always a danger in using the phrase "in short," at it is susceptibe, as here, of completely missing the point.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 06:08 PM

Spin,

I'm still waiting on Thedophile's interpretation of the trinity, though. He's repeatedly bashed my alleged ignorance of the trinity, and I'd like to see him explain it here.

Jeff

bonduca · 03-12-2002, 06:10 PM

*sigh*

Am I to be disappointed?

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 06:12 PM

Quote:

There is always a danger in using the phrase "in short," at it is susceptibe, as here, of completely missing the point.

That's "susceptible", if I'm not mistaken.

(See why you shouldn't make fun of the spelling errors of other posters? Unless your spelling is always perfect, your attacks will come back to haunt you.)

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Am I to be disappointed?

Bonduca, be patient. No doubt he still has an array of ad hominem attacks to dish out first. I'm sure he'll get around to his explanation ... eventually.

Jeff

theophilus · 03-12-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:


That's "susceptible", if I'm not mistaken.

(See why you shouldn't make fun of the spelling errors of other posters? Unless your spelling is always perfect, your attacks will come back to haunt you.)

Jeff

There is certainly a difference between a typo and "consistantly" misspelled words. I have never made a point of the former as I am as guilty as anyone. I only made a point of the latter because it was part of a much larger collection of false assertions, i.e, "theists in general," and a gross misrepresentation of the Trinity, i.e., one God in "three beings."

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

There is certainly a difference between a typo and "consistantly" misspelled words. I have never made a point of the former as I am as guilty as anyone.

Well, that's pretty impressive of you to recognize my horrible trend of mispelled words from my very first post on the topic. I believe your carefully-constructed logical argument went, "Inconsistency! Learn to spell."

But I'll tell you what: I'll stop jumping on your typos if you will reciprocate.

Jeff

theophilus · 03-12-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
Spin,

I'm still waiting on Thedophile's interpretation of the trinity, though. He's repeatedly bashed my alleged ignorance of the trinity, and I'd like to see him explain it here.

Jeff

I have no "interpretation," of the Trinity and, if you'd read carefully, you'd have noticed that I stated the doctrine in my original post.
The doctrine of the Trinity is an historic doctrine of the church and there is no disagreement as to its "interpretation."
If you are looking for an "explanation," I readily confess that it is empirically inexplicable, which proves nothing about its veracity.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 06:39 PM

When I attempted to interpret your statement, you explained quite delicately (not!) about how I must be ignorant, yet you haven't explained why what I said was incorrect. I'd like to find out what was wrong with my intepretation that merited such contempt.

Jeff

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2002, 06:06 PM	#81
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	"I would personally like to hear your interpretation of the Trinity, rather than silly arguing. Would you please be kind enough to post that here?" What is there to say after Athanasius bored the pants of everyone with his unexpurgated ravings on the trinity? If we remember however the words given to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, "For you father all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but you want." We see that Jesus is portrayed as having a separate volition to the father, ie they are two separate volitional entities. The closest analogy I can find is Zaphod Beeblebrox with two heads, each with the one body but the two heads giving separate volitions. The history of the trinity is worthwhile trying to recover. In the end, during the time of poor Arius, the fight was over the placement of a vowel in a word, which changed the meaning from like substance to same substance. But to get to the trinity the church had to steer a course between one heresy and another until it was so backed into a corner it provided this masterful piece of doublethink (they are three, but they are one), which, if you didn't accept, excluded you.

03-12-2002, 06:08 PM	#83
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Spin, I'm still waiting on Thedophile's interpretation of the trinity, though. He's repeatedly bashed my alleged ignorance of the trinity, and I'd like to see him explain it here. Jeff

03-12-2002, 06:10 PM	#84
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	sigh Am I to be disappointed?

03-12-2002, 06:39 PM	#90
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	When I attempted to interpret your statement, you explained quite delicately (not!) about how I must be ignorant, yet you haven't explained why what I said was incorrect. I'd like to find out what was wrong with my intepretation that merited such contempt. Jeff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.