The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The rationality of faith > Comments

The rationality of faith : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 16/1/2008

Our focus can no longer be on the survival of the Church, but on how the Church, weak as it is, can work towards the survival of society.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Sells,

Where in the NT is the Trinity explicity defined?

[The OT has a different godhead, consistent with tribal cultures. So, we can disregard the latter, perhaps. Serapis had a very similar godhead to that defined by Nicaea.]

Offline for a few months from Wednesday. Packing.

O
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 27 January 2008 3:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could you perhaps expand on this a little, goodthief?

>>The atheists involved in debate tend to insist on empirical proof before they will allow themselves to accept something as a fact. So, if God happens to exist, they will fail to apprehend Him<<

How do you reach the conclusion that I would fail to apprehend God, if he "happens to exist"?

This seems nothing more than a convenient sidestep, in order to avoid the necessity to provide any form of proof at all.

I don't "insist on empirical proof" for myself. Only when people use their religion as a weapon against those of a different religious persuasion do I feel the urge to ask them for some justification.

>>My fact-apprehending equipment begins with faith in God. It includes the senses, of course, but is not limited to them<<

This makes your faith entirely circular - which is the most honest self-assessment I have heard from any religious person. Since you start from the position that God exists, you absolve yourself of the requirement to question your faith in the slightest degree.

A position of some personal comfort to you, I suspect. Unfortunately the other side of the coin is that it effectively cuts you off from the true excitement of being alive in this world, right now, and knowing that you have only a few short years to experience it in its fullness and diversity.

Your approach to life would appear to be a little like looking at the world wearing mental blinkers. Your blind faith - for that is precisely what it is, given your own definition - provides a sadly narrow view of our existence here.

Sells wears the same blinkers, but his are the result of too long in academe. Anyone who can write a sentence like this needs to get out more:

>>That this has been the outcome in Western Christianity is obvious, Arius has won the day.<

Why would Arius winning the day have been a bad thing, Sells?

I have a private bet with myself that you cannot explain without indulging in theological doublespeak.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 27 January 2008 4:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells

You said
I must take issue at your suggestion that the Trinity may be divided into three separate stories with involving the three“persons”.

I do not'divide the Trinity'.You could only possibly draw this conclusion from your own dogmatic,"Trinity-centric"perspective.I merely point out that Christianity begins with the stories of Creation, Redemption and Immanence.The Trinitarian formula is a fairly sophisticated theological development of these Biblical narratives.It is not,as Oliver points out,what one might call primary revelation but rather an apologetic construct.Its primary purpose is to assert the monotheistic basis of Christianity over against those Christological proposals which seemed to divide the Godhead while maintaining some sense of the Divinity ofthe man Jesus of Nazareth. In the Christological debate over the nature of Christ itis surely the best solution but as you say itis"not all there is".

Your accusation of Arianism seems a knee-jerk reaction to'defend'your Trinitarian dogma but you must surely acknowledge that of the many different literary genres present in the Bible,narrative dominates and this is particularly true in the NT while systematic Theology is quite poorly represented.Pauls letters are occassional and hardly systematic.

The Bible works because narrative touches us deeply and has the power to reveal. How many people even read Calvins"Institues"or Augustines"City".They havent the same affective or pistogenic power as the story of the innocent suffering God.

By the way, your assertion that paganism is the only alternative to acceptance of Trinitarian dogma is likely to offend the Unitarian churches, Salvation Army, Jews and others. It is a desperate, some would say offensive, argument which is quite unsustainable. It derives, of course,from the arrogant conviction of the 'mainstream' churches that they have a monopoly on divine revelation.

One also needs to understand the difference between apophatic and metaphorical Theologies.Metaphor and narrative point to the Divine in a very positive way even if they do not assert particular propositions pertaining to God.To go further than this is surely hubris,if not actually blasphemous.Jesus revealed the nature of God through the parables he told and by his own direct actions.Does the Anglican Church know something that Jesus didn't?
Posted by waterboy, Sunday, 27 January 2008 9:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As soon as I saw the “perhaps”, the “a little” and the question mark, I knew it was you Pericles. So gentle.

You’re a sly boots, using “justification” when you mean “empirical proof”. I don’t agree with you that empirical proof is the only justification.

If God is not amenable to empirical scrutiny, God will not be apprehended by a person whose fact-apprehending equipment is limited to the empirical. That’s all I meant – I don’t see anything remarkable in it.

I use my senses. If I’m blind, then so is every empiricist. So, all the “fulness and diversity” of the world that can be experienced by an empiricist can be experienced by me as well. It’s just that I have some additional fullness and diversity to experience.

I wouldn’t say I’ve absolved myself from the requirement to question my faith. May depend what is meant by “requirement”. Before believing in God, I disbelieved – or at least ignored, it’s hard to say. Certainly, I’m am angry with God often (with the anger resulting sometimes in a walkout and a period of ignoring Him), but so far I have not stopped believing in God’s existence.

Nor have I noticed empiricists questioning their attachment to empiricism as the starting point of their thinking. Arguably, all presuppositions – God, empiricism, whatever – make all thinking circular. I know we’ve had this conversation before, and I still say it comes down to comparing presuppositions.

As far as I’m aware, I don’t use my religion as a weapon against others. Nor am I especially comfortable: losing one’s authority over one’s life is inconvenient. If I could choose whether or not God existed, or what kind of God it might be, I’m really not sure which way I’d jump. The cosy little empiricist box seems pretty comfortable by comparison.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 28 January 2008 10:28:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy.
The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly no “apologetic construct” but a faithful interpretation of the spirit of both the Old and New Testament witness to how God reveals himself. That is, the Trinity describes how God actually is as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is axiomatic for an understanding of God experienced in human history. It is to do with the structure of salvation history, there is the given from the past, the experience of the present and the promise that lies in the future. Thus the doctrine describes all human experience and is thus universal. So I have no trouble with offending certain groups who do not subscribe to the Trinity, all I would ask is the opportunity to explain it aright.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 28 January 2008 10:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Sells,

Above when I mention Trinity in the NT, I mean direct reference to the Godhead, terms like Father and Son being use separately. Where does the NT explain or make direct reference to the Trinity.

"I do not'divide the Trinity'." - Sells

The Bible does: The only unforgivable seen is a against the Holy Spirit/Ghost:

Matthew 12:30-32 "He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters. For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one."

If we test the NT for the Nicaean godhead, I, at least don't find, it, explicity. The OT has the El godhead, of the Cannanite Baal. The closest I can find the Eyptian Serapis godhead.

Please support your position from scripture. Thanks.

Cheers,

O.

c.c. David [invited from another thread.]
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 28 January 2008 2:09:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy