The language of the Trinitarian formula is clearly metaphorical. So regarded, it is has its place in the cluster of narratives, metaphors and symbols around which Christianity is organised. While it may be axiomatic for the Roman and Anglican Churches it is not in itself an article of faith. My Salvation Army friends are assuredly not pagans. Your willingness to offend those who do not share your opinions is undignified and it is difficult to see how it is informed by... say... The Parable of the Good Samaritan or the principle of Love which Jesus identifies as the highest principle of Faith.
Given the circumstances in which the formula was forged it is hardly surprising that it should serve to identify and exclude but how much more powerful it might have been as a sign of the life-giving inclusivity of Faith as exemplified in the Life of Jesus Himself.
As you have so clearly demonstrated by the vehemenace of your 'defence' of Trinitarian dogma its purpose is to defend, explain and justify a particular Christology in the context of a monotheistic religion. Surely that is aplogetics. Your use of the dogma to identify and exclude is also entirely consistent with the general thrust of apologetic theology and its 'system of rationality'.
As long as your Church holds to such a 'system of rationality' it remains just another 'football' club and falls short of being the Body of Christ. How can it hope to fulfil its metanoic purpose from such a weakened state.

Waterboy.
I was reading my old article on creation when your latest post came through. I had not known that you had commented on it and saddened that you showed the same old sacrifice of crucial theological considerations in order to please groups that did not agree. This shilly shallying over essential concepts in order to please all is a mark of liberalism with which I have no sympathy. Surely these people are strong enough to stand some rigorous debate

Sells,

There are also significant issues regarding a comon ousia, if the Holy Spirit is singled out. The only direct reference to a godhead in the Bible to my knowledge is in Pslam 82 and that reads polytheistic.

Cheers,

O.

You clearly misunderstood my point, goodthief, since I am sure you wouldn't stoop to obfuscation.

>>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.<<

No, I meant justification. I wouldn't dream of asking for empirical proof, since I know from many years experience that such answers are not forthcoming.

The context was, I thought, clear on this. I said that "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."

What happens is that i) a self-proclaimed Christian gets stuck into someone else's religion, usually Islam and ii) I ask why their religion - based as it is on pure belief and faith - should be any more valid that the next one, which has the same foundation.

Proof, I don't need. But some justification for the apparent double standards would be nice.

>>I wouldn’t say I’ve absolved myself from the requirement to question my faith<<

But you give every appearance of having done so.

In every other field of endeavour, a human being will set out to understand as much as they possibly can. It is how progress is made, how the wheel, the steam engine and the Gameboy were invented.

By creating a circular path around your belief, it becomes untouchable. No amount of reason or logic can disturb it. You are therefore happy to leave it untouched, since its beginning and end are identical.

This is fundamentally different from saying yes, this is how it is perceived now, but if I think about it just a little bit more...

So whether or not you believe that the empiricist creates the same circularity, the outcome is fundamentally, one hundred and eighty degrees, different. This might just give you a clue as to why I think that asking for, or looking for, empirical proofs is a process, not a presupposition.

Pericles,

On re-reading the posts, you still seem to me to use “empirical proof” and “justification” interchangeably – at least when you are irked by some theist claiming a God monopoly.

Anyhow, I see the issue of “faith” as our main beef. I apply to empiricism all the things you say about religious faith. As far as I’m aware, a science library is full of books, all (or almost all) premised on empiricism. Particular lines of empirical inquiry are critiqued or developed, but empiricism itself is taken for granted. A Christian theological library is similar: critique and development of specific lines of scriptural interpretation or theological discourse, but usually premised on the existence of a personal God and, slightly less often, the divinity of Jesus. Some would stock Dawkins et al, others wouldn't.

I have found that, for empiricists, empiricism is untouchable. I have found them to be as securely bound to it as I am to God/Jesus. That’s why I call it a faith, but presupposition will do.

I seldom talk about other religions. Often, as you would imagine, the discussion centres on the divinity of Jesus. However, I’m not sure how your position is strengthened by the existence of different views about God.

The analogy might not be sound (I haven’t given it much thought), but scientists disagree about things, don’t they? Even in the one era. Is it so different? Especially if they’re in different “camps” or "schools", that is.

Regardless, I have to disagree with any denial of Jesus’ divinity – so long as I hold to it – whether the denial comes from an atheist or a Muslim. “Logically have to”, I mean.

If it matters, my natural tendency is to question, especially any idea that feels like it’s imposed. Even so, I have had no reason to disbelieve in Jesus’ divinity. And I’ve been listening to non-Christians and anti-Christians all my adult life. Listening carefully. That's why I read Dawkins: it's not my fault he didn't touch the sides.

Pax,

Sells

I am liberal. I do stand for all those things you rail against in this forum and I am much encouraged by your resort to condescension.

With typically Anglican arrogance you ascribe to me motives which makes no sense whatsoever and dismiss as pagan many faithful Christians simply because they do not conform to your rigid theological prescriptions.

Notwithstanding all of that I do thoroughly enjoy the vigorous and candid debate that frequently ensues from your efforts in publishing on such a wide range of specifically Christian subjects. Keep up the good work!

Peace be with you.... until the next thread!