"The Jews cannot be placed on the same footing as Muslims in this because their understanding of the analysis of history together with the presence of God in the present and his directing them to a new future is basically trinitarian. I have this argument with OT scholars, the doctrine of the Trinity did not spring de novo from the NT but was implicit in the OT as was most NT theology." - Sells

Sells,

1. The concept of the Christian Trinity developed over centuries post-Jesus.

2. The Jewish faith is a monothesitic faith. What you describe regarding their Saviour is referred by historians as "futurism". Its complement is archaism: i.e., there "once" was the great House of David, (with the third temple?) there "will be" a Saviour. These cultural devices avoid living in the present. I would refer you to Arnold Toynbee on the topic.

3. The OT Hebrew godhead differs from the NT. Search the OT for the multiple instances of gods with an "s". Besides the Babylonians had a Trinity too. Trinities are a component from the "god factories" (Wells) of the time.

You would have a better understanding of the people of Biblical times were to stand back from the Bible and read some history and archaeology. You have focused on one thread of the parquetry and can’t see the floor

"The Jews cannot be placed on the same footing as Muslims in this because their understanding of the analysis of history together with the presence of God in the present and his directing them to a new future is basically trinitarian. I have this argument with OT scholars, the doctrine of the Trinity did not spring de novo from the NT but was implicit in the OT as was most NT theology." - Sells

Sells,

1. The concept of the Christian Trinity developed over centuries post-Jesus.

2. The Jewish faith is a monothesitic faith. What you describe regarding their Saviour is referred by historians as "futurism". Its complement is archaism: i.e., there "once" was the great House of David, (with the third temple?) there "will be" a Saviour. These cultural devices avoid living in the present. I would refer you to Arnold Toynbee on the topic.

3. The OT Hebrew godhead differs from the NT. Search the OT for the multiple instances of gods with an "s". Besides the Babylonians had a Trinity too. Trinities are a component from the "god factories" (Wells) of ancient times. Trinities are also known to Haiiwain islanders' religion. A trinity as such is no unique or should that be trique ;-).

O.

My post of Monday, 30 March, expressed concern at the way Sells used the term "liberalism":

"The ethics of liberalism is the line of least resistance. This is why harm reduction is the favoured excuse of governments who legalise abortion to reduce the deaths from backyard operators, prostitution to reduce disease, drugs to reduce the criminality of the drug culture."

Mr Sellick could clarify their idea of liberalism: a term associated with political aims and biases.

My own association with Christianity is crucially based on the parable of the good Samaritan. While I am ever doubtful of the retold story (as all of the Gospels are), I put far more faith in this story than in storytellers representing the authority of churches and other organisations.

This matter of reliance on authority was explored by Stanley Milgram, about 40 years ago, and described in the book "Obedience to Authority".

While I share Glorfindel's and others' disappointment with many posters who are messy and abusive toward others' faiths, I appreciate the skepticism behind some of those comments: particularly when it comes to distinguishing between faith-based action and political action. In my opinion, The Exclusive Brethren have clearly crossed the line.

see:
http://lobbyocracy.org.au/?title=Exclusive_Brethren
and
www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds150806.pdf
A Speech by Senator Bob Brown about the EB. He states that:
"[The sect] has now existed for almost 200 years and has some 40,000 members around the world, slightly fewer than 15,000 of whom are in Australia."

" ... as the sect has become wealthy it ... [has changed toward] ... extreme right Christian fundamentalism in the United States, which says that Christianity must take over the governance of the world before the return of Christ. That means, of course, a theocracy."

Here is an upcoming video on Christian Fundamentalism in the US:

"Onward, Christian Zionists, a powerful half-hour Alternate Focus documentary, is showing next weekend on Dish TV Channel 9415 (Free Speech TV).

Onward, Christian Zionists
Dish TV Channel 9415
Saturday April 18 7:30 pm (EST)
Sunday April 19 8:30 am and 6:30 pm (EST)

see also http://www.alternatefocus.org/

Sells,
Clearly, we no longer live in the same intellectual, ecclesial and cultural world of Augustine and Aquinas. The Christendom that emerged to stand on the shoulders of Augustine Christendom is long gone. I think you’d agree, no amount of romantic longing can bring it back - its own inner tensions helped bring about its downfall resulting in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, modernity and now post-modernity.

A recent wit gave comment that the Western tradition on the Trinity could be summarised as, “five characteristics, four relations, three persons, two processions, one God and no proof.” Perhaps stripped of the intelligibility to be provided by any psychological analogy, the Trinitarian formula becomes an odd collection of almost ‘mathematical facts’. From this it can be said, Christian discourse then becomes just another religious mythology in a post-modern world - which is becoming a market place of competing mythologies. So I can agree, Trinitarianism certainly gives an all important formula (albeit an ‘illogical’ one), defining Christianity of its unique identity.

What needs certain emphasis is that religious language, particularly theological language as a specialised form of religious language, is always symbolic and metaphorical – Jung was perhaps helpful in this. As you suggest, appeals to the supernatural are particularly unhelpful, perhaps eventually leading to groveling to an ‘all powerful’ entity. The sundering of knowledge with reality, through Kant’s proclamation that reason cannot not reach the noumenal reality of things illustrates the ultimate ‘unreasonableness’ of any religion, theology or even poetry. Simply, does universal reason indeed provide a sure guide for all practical, ethical or moral matters?

The central organising principle of Aquinas’ Trinitarian work in the Summa Theologiae gave plausibility without proof. The medieval mind found belief in the Trinity as not completely unreasonable – authority was a substitute for proof. An appeal to authority, once so central to the Western tradition, has been lost and must now face suspicion in the glare of the hermeneutic. All truth claims, for many, are now nothing more that an exercise of the will to power, now needing to be unmasked, with mystery lost.

A simple typo from Sells is as irrelevant to his argument as his argument is to the modern world. However, "in the latte there is no grovelling, only indifference" is inadvertently brilliant. I want it printed on a t-shirt.

Pericles (sigh)

I had a long series of almost totally civilized exchanges with John Passant (Passy) on an article he wrote from a doctrinaire, jargon-laden Marxist-Trotskyist standpoint. I do NOT resile from my characterization of the Socialist Alliance. Those people, just as much as Islamists (for different reasons), would suppress YOUR and my "Enlightenment" freedoms quick as a flash, if they ever had the chance.

From 40 years study of the Russian and wider communist experience - its impact on social life, culture, creativity, freedom of thought and belief and the economy - I believe that Marxism, as practically applied, has been profoundly evil. Why? Because although many of its followers, including plenty of Australians back in the 30s to 60s, were motivated by altruism and pursuit of what they saw as good, the reality was that HUMAN NATURE fouled the nest. I am by nature tolerant BUT I agree with Thomas Mann's statement that "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil".

On Islam: to quote Theodore Dalrymple ('Our Culture, what's left of it'):
"The problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. … The tension is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs."

True, the above quote says "so many" (not ALL) Muslims .... I have spent the last five years studying Islamic, Arab and Middle Eastern history and theology. But I won't sidetrack this blog into a discussion about Islam.