Peter,
>>Socinius in the early 17th C made the same point about the two natures of Christ, to say that he was both human and divine is like saying that something is both fire and water.<<

There is no need to go into 17th century. The quantum physicist/theologian John Polkinghorne in his “Belief in God in an Age of Science” (Yale Univ. Press, 1998, 2003) compares the scientific investigation into the nature of light that led to the quantum theory with the theological investigation of the nature of Christ's being that led to the Chalcedonian Creed.

Well, nothing can be both fire and water but contemporary physics has forced us to accept that something can be both particle and wave.

AJ Philip,

>>It’s pretty unfair to compare atheists who have naive understandings of scripture with theists who have naive understandings of science<<

I did not make any such comparison. Since there are more atheists than theists on these threads I think one can safely assume that there are also more atheists than theists among them who have a naive understaning of e.g. quantum physics, although that was not my point.

I apologise if my remark came out as “pretty unfairr” to you, although it was addressed to Peter, not to you. As for what a “naive understanding of scripture" is ("naive" here usually means "verbatim") maybe you keep on providing good enough examples yourself, although I agree it does not constitute an “objective demonstration”, whatever that means in this context.

You do not believe in the compatibility of contemporary science and Christianity (more precisely appropriate interpretations thereof). The same as e.g. runner and many others. This I have been aware of for a long time, and I respect it; the difference is that runner has never become personal by expressing his inability to understand me by describing my world-view as “just a mechanism you employ to assuage both the discomfort of the position your intellect has lead you to and the sheer absurdity” of beliefs and opinions he does not share.

Ah the much hyped "trinity".
Has anybody ever seen this trinity?
Where is the photographic evidence of this trinity?

There is of course the famous trinity of Curly, Larry and Moe, plus Groucho, Harpo and Chico, plus the three Musketeers Athos, Porthos and Aramis. They are of course real because you can still see them on TV.

Trinity was of course the code name for the first nuclear bomb test by the USA. That dreadful trinity project did occur.

One wonders what century Sells lives in? It would seem to be the 19th.

It is as though Einsteins famous E=MC2 equation never occurred.And the entire realm of quantum physics and theory.

Notice too that Sells does not (as usual) even use the words Consciousness or Light (the Energy of Consciousness). And yet Consciousness and Light are the two irreducible and intrinsic features of Reality.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx

http://www.dabase.org/dht6.htm

http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm

http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm

I much prefer the Hindu trinity, namely Brahma the "creator", Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer (the overwhelming reality of change and death, or conditional existence as a Klik-Klak machine).

The Christian "trinity" does not even take death into account, and is therefore not true to the real facts of conditional existence.

Namely that all of this marvelous "creation" rots and dies, and that the creative force or Primal Energy that generates it all, is completely indifferent to the well-being or survival of any of the billions of forms that arise - they all disintegrate and die.

And yet this Primal Energy always remains the same. Primal Energy is neither created or destroyed, it only goes through beginning-less and endless changes of form. In a Process that is ultimately unexplainable.

The only way to understand this Process is to surrender to IT unconditionally. After all IT did (in the first place, and over and over again life-time after life-time )"create" the body-mind complex that we all identify with.

Such unconditional surrender is the nature of True Faith.

First mentioned Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180, the Trinity was further defined by Origen in the next century. The Trinity is never referred to in scripture.
You have to give it to the Catholics though because they have attempted to meander down the dangerous path of theology by using logic as a map! They actually attempt to define it! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
I claim this piece of theological nonsense as described by the Catholics should be used by all schools in the study of reason and logic.
I have read Peter at length on the subject and I confess I just plain don't get it......maybe it's me.

Energy is Eternal Delite (Light) declared Billy Blake.

Old William Blake was one of the first to see the dark consequences of the Newtonian world-view. Much of his writings were effectively a tirade against Newton's single vision.

Sells world-view is mis-informed by that of Newton. It certainly has nothing to do with that of Blake.

Peter

Thanks for the revised link, I appreciated the article.

I wonder if you and George might find some common ground in the theology of Thomas F. Torrance, a student and admirer of Barth, and Templeton prize winner who wrote extensively on the Trinity and on relationship of theology and science. He wrote of “hidden traffic” between theology and science, as both are in different ways concerned with apprehending and being conformed to reality. He argues that science and theology both let reality reveal itself to us as we submit out minds to their coherence and order – echoes of Bart here. He argues that theology benefits from natural science (and vice versa), as theology is not just about God-man relations but God-world-man relations – echoes of Polkinghorne. We are situated in the universe and related to God, and need to develop our understanding of both with scientific rigor.

George,

<<I did not make any such comparison [between theists and atheists].>>

Oh okay then, sorry. I should have said “equate” rather than “compare”. Although I would have thought you knew me well enough by now to know what I meant; especially since I made the same point in regards to your very next sentence.

<<I apologise if my remark came out as “pretty unfairr” to you, although it was addressed to Peter, not to you.>>

Thanks for your apology, but whether or not your remark came out as pretty unfair to me personally is a side issue that has no bearing on the accuracy of my point. So whether your remark was addressed to Mr Sellick or not is inconsequential.

<<As for what a “naive understanding of scripture" is ("naive" here usually means "verbatim") maybe you keep on providing good enough examples yourself...>>

Yes, I predominantly criticize naive/verbatim interpretations of the Bible for two reasons:

Firstly, contrary to the impression sophisticated Christians like to put out there when accusing Dawkins et al of attacking strawmen, the ‘unsophisticated’ ‘people in the pew’ whom sophisticated Christians look down on are actually a vast majority. So criticizing their interpretation of god and the Bible is more productive than criticizing the beliefs of the more benign sophisticated Christian.

Secondly, if the Bible can’t be taken at face value, then the Christian god has failed the most basic test of communication.

If the Bible was inspired by god, then surely it would be timeless; surely it could have occurred to this god to include one tiny paragraph to explain why slavery is wrong instead of wasting chapters on ancient barbaric law; surely there would be no competing holy books as no book written by humans could possibly compete.

But that doesn’t mean that that is how I interpret the Bible for myself. Personally I interpret it all as insignificant ramblings of primitive people; some of whom were clearly undiagnosed schizophrenics.

Continued...