Are you—or anyone you can call on—capable of demonstrating that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory?
Ok, I'll bite. Here are the facts:
1. God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree. He said that man would surely die.
2. Adam ate from the tree.
3. God said he would put emnity between the serpent and the woman.
Making Jesus God puts God in the position of personally doing battle with Satan, which I think is erroneous. Satan battles God, but the notion that God battles Satan doesn't fit my theology.
Giving Adam a commandment that no man could possibly obey is capricous, which doesn't fit my theology.
The idea of God becoming his own sacrifice in order to reconcile man to Him doesn't fit my theology.
Cynic,
You can believe anything you want. I have no need to change your mind. I choose to believe that God provided the sacrifice through the supernatural conception of a perfect human who made the free will choice to obey God, even though it meant his death. I don't believe God became a perfect man to provide a perfect sacrifice.
Until Jesus died on the cross, no human ever trusted God from first breath to last breath. I believe that if you make Jesus God, that becomes meaningless.
The church I go to struggles with conveying the humanity of Jesus, and rightly so. It's hard to imagine God being tempted in all things, even in human form. And the reason why it's hard to imagine that is because we are rightly taught that God can't be tempted.
How do you reconcile that contradiction? How do you reconcile God becoming human flesh when Numbers specifically states that God is not a man...or the son of man?
I can't. So I don't go there.
I do believe, however, once God raised Jesus from the dead that he also gave Jesus temporary, functional equality. i.e. for all intents and purposes Jesus is Jehovah in the same sense that Joseph was Pharoah.
And thank God we live in a time where believing something like that doesn't get us murdered.
I gotta do this. I want to have some more fun with Cynic and Garth, but I owe this to Raf before going ahead with that :-)
quote:
Originally posted by Raf:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Lortz:
Raf - Perhaps I have been too sarcastic,
A tad.
quote:
but I don't back down from the truth of what I've said about "partnership".
Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth.
To say that something is true is not the same thing as calling everything else a lie. Remember the blind men and the elephant.
It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it.
Nothing consciously deceptive or misleading, just like "cash cows". But "partner" carries with it unconscious values. "Free will regular donors" is value free, but "partner" is not. "Partner" is used by ALL the organizations that use it, for the positive assocoations it carries, not because it matches the actuality of partnership.
"...especially since they tell you what they mean by it." There was a time, Raf, back in the late-'80s and early-'90s, when people actually COULD function like real partners. The people who associated with CES could counsel Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser, and those men would receive it. Not any more. "What they mean by" being a partner has been a step down, not a step up.
quote:
If I see a person in need (and sometimes just in "want"), and I have the money to give, I give. If I go to someone's service, I'll kick a few bucks into the collection plate to help cover expenses.
Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception?
You are responsible for your life, Raf. You have the authority for how you use your power. When you give an organization money, you give them a piece of your life. You give them some of your authority for how to spend a piece of your life. You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. If I'm going to give the leaders of some organization my money, then I want them to give me a corresponding degree of holding them accountable. Otherwise, I am abdicating my responsibility for my authority which I've extended to them. It ain't right, no matter how sweet they make it sound.
quote:
But it was due to my experience with CES that I have pledged never again to pledge money to an organization where I can't cast a vote to throw out the leaders in charge.
Fair enough.
quote:
You guys pledged money to CES. What did they pledge to you in return? Copies of the Contender?
Yes.
quote:
Copies of teaching tapes?
Yes.
quote:
Did you read what Tzaia posted the other day?
Yes.
...
quote:
Your ABS... er... free-will regular donations at work.
Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare.
What do you mean by the words "fair" and "unfair"? Do they mean something like "kosher"? or something like "unpleasant to stop and consider"? Am I presenting a line of argument, or a line of persuasion? ABS "was not about donation but obligation... it was debt." What exactly do you think you generate when you make a "pledge", Raf? Isn't it an obligation? Isn't it a debt? Free-will regular (pledged) donations are just as much about obligation and debt as ABS ever was.
quote:
Raf, you wrote, "A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done."
Is this the job you teamed up with Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser to get done?
No.
Well said.
quote:
Are the things they are spending your money on any more ethical than Wierwille's plagiarism?
Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no.
Don't take Tzaia's word for it. Don't take my word for it. Don't take Lynn's, Schoenheit's or Graeser's word for it. Use the mechanism they've put in place for you to hold them accountable... uh...wait... IS there such a mechanism?
quote:
Are you partners or accessories?
If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know.
See my answer immediately above this one.
quote:
P.S. - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I hold you in very high regard, Raf. My pop was a professional newspaperman, and it was his love for the truth in the work he did that set the example for me to love the truth.
:)--> I really appreciate what you're saying here. If I may offer a bit of public critique, sometimes your criticism of CES appears perfectly sound and well-reasoned, while other times it just seems overly critical and bitter. I think your concerns on doctrine are valuable. Your concerns on the meaning of partnership baffle me. But that's just me. Don't worry: if I don't agree with you on that point, it doesn't mean I'm not listening on the others. K?
I noticed something really interesting the other day when I was looking at II Timothy 3:16&17. The passage is one sentence consisting of two clauses. The second clause gives the purpose for the first. The whole sentence is bracketed by the word "all". "All Scripture... that... all good works." Doctrine and practice are inextricably connected. Some of CES' doctrines and practices are good. Some of them are not. Their scriptural errors are very closely connected with their practical errors, and vice versa; to a degree that Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser do not seem to see.
The question is not whether everything they do or teach is right or wrong. Nobody has perfect knowledge or perfect execution. The question is, how can they be so blind to such obvious error of both doctrine AND practice?
This is not an abstract, theoretical question. Some people have been hospitalized and others divorced as results of CES's errors.
Thanks for the backup Steve re: Cynic's 'don't post about the Calvin/Servetus incident as an illustration of the topic here, cause it pi$$es me off' approach. :)-->
However (you knew it was coming, didncha? ;)-->) I agree with Raf in that you are taking the usage of the word 'partner' here too seriously. As a matter of fact, it has an eerie similarity to how a Momentus grad would talk, what with them getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts, et al. Read again in a comprehensive, over all manner what he said in his first post using 'partner' and I think you'll see what I mean.
Plus, I think you know and I know Raf well enough that he is independent enough in his thinking, that just because he uses the word 'partner' here, doesn't make him either a CES puppet, nor is he heading towards being dishonest (spiritually or otherwise) with us.
I.e., as Fraud--err, Freud would say, "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar."
...I agree with Raf in that you are taking the usage of the word 'partner' here too seriously. As a matter of fact, it has an eerie similarity to how a Momentus grad would talk, what with them getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts, et al...
How true, how true!
Remember, Garth, I AM a Momentus grad.
So are Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser. What puts a burr under my tail is the hypocrisy in THEIR use of manipulative or sloppy terminology after "getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts,et al." It's almost as if they can't hear what's coming out of their own mouths.
quote:
Plus, I think you know and I know Raf well enough that he is independent enough in his thinking, that just because he uses the word 'partner' here, doesn't make him either a CES puppet, nor is he heading towards being dishonest (spiritually or otherwise) with us.
I don't have any real beef with Raf using the word "partner", as long as he's aware that Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser don't necessarily regard the word the same way he does. Raf is being honest. I don't think the corporate owners of CES are, but I don't think they're being deliberately dishonest either. I think they are operating on autopilot, and are too busy speaking the truth in love to consider whether the things they say are really true, or the things they do are really loving.
Anal AND nit-picky...
I would attribute this poem if I knew who the author was, but I don't. I learned it as a child:
"Little drops of water,
Tiny grains of sand,
Make the mighty ocean
And the mighty land.
"And the little seconds,
Humble though they be,
Make the mighty vastness
Of eternity."
Every word that passes through a person's mind makes an impression on his heart. Every word...
Every word that passes through a person's mind makes an impression on his heart. Every word...
What *kind* of impression on your heart they make, however, is up to you, hmmm? ;)-->
And since you are a Momentus grad, AND you also have a beef with Momentus, and how they operate in this manner, why not just throw off their anal-retentive "OHH MY GOD, don't you KNOW the *EFFECT* your words HAVE on your commitment?!?" Martindale-wannabe approach.
... or, in the words of that ever-fun-loving Sargent Hulka, "Lighten up, Frances!" ;)-->
When you give an organization money, you give them a piece of your life. You give them some of your authority for how to spend a piece of your life. You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. If I'm going to give the leaders of some organization my money, then I want them to give me a corresponding degree of holding them accountable. Otherwise, I am abdicating my responsibility for my authority which I've extended to them. It ain't right, no matter how sweet they make it sound.
Steve -- can you manage to do this (successfully) to either your local government, or to the federal government, when you pay taxes each year, paying them to do that which you may or may not have control over?
If you can't do it with them, then don't criticize CES, or any other orginazation - using this arguement. At least CES is trying to be responsible -- which I see the local and federal government doing less, and less of -- daily.
quote:
If I'm going to give the leaders of some organization my money, then I want them to give me a corresponding degree of holding them accountable.
When you're talking politics -- the option offered is called *the vote*. If you're talking *partnership*, the option offered is withdrawing support.
Personally -- I think withdrawing support from a religious group is easier done, than withdrawing support from some governmental agency, but if you can make it *fly* in the governmental circles -- I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say in the religious ones.
dmiller - When it comes to local and federal elections, I DO have the right to vote. If I don't like the ways my representatives are spending my money, I cast my vote to throw them out. If I don't like the ways my executives are running my government, I cast my vote to throw them out.
I can talk to them and they listen, because they know I can vote to thow them out.
I DO vote!
What do you think I found out back in '86 after hearing POP read? Hey, when it came to the way the Trustees spend my money and rape my sisters, I ain't got any kind of vote! I can't vote to throw ANYBODY out. And you know what, they don't have to give a rat's patoot about what I think.
When Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser set up CES, lo, these many years ago, what do you suppose they did? They imitated the power structure of TWI! EXACTLY!
What do you suppose I found out when I spoke up against THEIR errors? Hey, I can't vote to thow them out, consequently, they don't give a rat's patoot about what I, or any other of their followers think.
Do I think they deliberately planned it that way? No, I don't think so. They were just going by their gut feelings, by what seemed like the right thing to do. Their intentions were good, but thier results were wrong. And still are.
We CAN'T trust what Paul wrote in Romans, because he hadn't yet had the Momentus experience at Jerusalem that broke his "Jewish mindset".
Steve; maybe I missed something, but is this what someone in CES stated?
Graeser, Mark, The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy CES, Indianapolis, IN, bimonthly audiotape for July/August, '96
The New Testament defines the Church as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith (see Romans 11, Ephesians 2, 3:6).
Dispensationalism teaches that the Church is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. In order to support this, dispensationalists have to negate Romans 11.
Bullinger taught that the new "administration" couldn't begin until the new revelation had been given (which is logically consistent with the tenets of dispensationalism), and so, the Church "administration" couldn't have begun before the penning of Ephesians. Therefore Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians weren't written during the Church "administration".
Wierwille negated the chapter by claiming Romans 11 wasn't addressed "TO" the Church, but rather to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. I believe this was the primary reason why Wierwille included "To Whom Addressed" in PFAL, because it's obvious who Paul was addressing, if we just read what's written.
In Romans 9:3&4, Paul distinguishes his "brethren", his "kinsmen according to the flesh" as Israelites, who may or may not necessarily also be Christians. Wierwille taught that Romans 9:4 through 11:12 are addressed TO unbelieving Israel. If we read closely, we see that this section of Scripture is written ABOUT the Jews, but it isn't addressed TO them.
(By the way, if Wierwille were consistent, he would also have to teach that Romans 10:9&10 were addressed to Israel ONLY.)
The first clue to the addressees of Romans 9 is in verse 24, "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles.
The congregation at Rome was mixed, that is, some of its members had come to Christ from Jewish backgrounds, and some from Gentile. Romans 9:24 confirms this, and also confirms that this section is still addressed to the book's original addressees, "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7).
Romans 10:1 says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."
If this was addressed to Israel, instead of the Christians at Rome, it would read, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is, that YOU might be saved.
The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 11:20 says "thou standest by faith". In 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren". Verse 30 says "...ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy..."
This stuff is there for everybody to read. Back in the mid-'90s, a number of CES followers were actually reading the Bible for themselves and beginning to question the dispensationalism we had been taught in PFAL.
CES could have re-examined the things we had been taught about the "mystery", but they decided not to. They decided to develop their own rationalizations to support the dispensationalist stance they had already published. They came up with their own way to negate Romans 11.
Their response was a one-two punch, the first punch being The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy by Graeser, and the second being The Mystery Revisited by Schoenheit on the bimonthly audiotape immediately following Graeser's.
In TAPMMM, Greaser taught that God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul right away because of Paul's "Jewish mindset", as evidenced in Romans 9:1-11:12.
God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul before he had his "Jewish mindset" "broken". This happened when Paul made his final trip to Jerusalem. Paul was so shaken and disappointed when his Jewish friends betrayed him, that he finally gave up his own Jewishness (mindset). Then God was finally able to give Paul grade-A, 100% unadulterated revelation.
Graeser never used the word "Momentus", but those who have taken Momentus would recognize his line of reasoning as having come straight out of the training.
Graeser was subtle enough not to come straight out and say that the revelation in Romans is inferior to the revelation in Ephesian, but he sure did a weasel-word dance to imply the same idea.
Cynic - You know, I actually DO understand how some of the fourth century thinkers could consider God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to be of "the same substance". It depends on how you understand the word "substance". Their understanding was conditioned by fourth century neoplatonism.
Unfortunately, neither Paul nor we ourselves think like fourth century neoplatonists.
Steve complains, essentially, that the way fourth-century orthodox Christians acknowledged and defended the Deity of Christ involved an ontological perspective that was absent from the thinking of the apostles and from whatever generally goes on in the minds of the Socinian Unitarians here at Grease Spot.
While doing that, Steve seems also to have conceded that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within certain ontological perspectives. If Steve has conceded that, he also has revealed that he cannot do what he implicitly pretended to do (in his “1+1+1=...1?” post): Demonstrate that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
Which is it, Steve? A Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory? A Trinitarian view of God is inherently non-contradictory?
Adding a bit to Steve's post above on Dispensationalism. For people that pride themselves on doing word studies, CES leaders apparently do not believe the results of the one below. Below is the foundational word study for CES for their view of Dispensationalism. Yes, as you probably know that would be for the Greek word "Oikonomia". In the Way denomination and now with CES oikonomia is taught as a period of time. As you will plainly see when looking at the actual scriptural usages of this word and the noun form oikonomos, this word is not a period of time. It means Stewardship or Steward. Here is every New Testament usage with preceeding Thayer's lexical definition.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy "stewardship"; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the "steward" said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the "stewardship": I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the "stewardship", they may receive me into their houses.
KJV
Luke 16:8
8 And the lord commended the unjust "steward", because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
KJV
1 Cor 9:17
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, "a dispensation" of the gospel is committed unto me.
KJV
Eph 1:10
10 That in the "dispensation" of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
Eph 3:2
2 If ye have heard of the "dispensation" of the grace of God which is given me to youward:
KJV
Col 1:25
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the "dispensation" of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
KJV
Titus 1:7
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the "steward" of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
KJV
NT:3623 (noun form of oikonomia)
oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise "steward", whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
KJV
Luke 16:1
16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had "a steward"; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
KJV
Rom 16:23
23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the "chamberlain" of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.
KJV
1 Cor 4:1
4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and "stewards" of the mysteries of God.
KJV
1 Cor 4:2
2 Moreover it is required in "stewards", that a man be found faithful.
KJV
Gal 4:2
2 But is under tutors and "governors" until the time appointed of the father.
KJV
1 Peter 4:10
10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good "stewards" of the manifold grace of God.
What do you mean by the words "fair" and "unfair"? Do they mean something like "kosher"? or something like "unpleasant to stop and consider"? Am I presenting a line of argument, or a line of persuasion? ABS "was not about donation but obligation... it was debt." What exactly do you think you generate when you make a "pledge", Raf? Isn't it an obligation? Isn't it a debt? Free-will regular (pledged) donations are just as much about obligation and debt as ABS ever was.
I haven't read everything and won't have time to right now, but to answer a coupole of things:
1. By fair/unfair, I meant that you deliberately compare my decision to give a certain amount with the compulsory/guilt tripping of TWI's ABuSe, which detracts from the value of your argument.
2. Making a pledge and following through on it is not even close to being told that giving less than 10 percent is ROBBING God, and anything above that is just peachy. They're not the same thing, and your comparison of them is ludicrous.
When Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser set up CES, lo, these many years ago, what do you suppose they did? They imitated the power structure of TWI! EXACTLY!
What do you suppose I found out when I spoke up against THEIR errors? Hey, I can't vote to thow them out, consequently, they don't give a rat's patoot about what I, or any other of their followers think.
Do I think they deliberately planned it that way? No, I don't think so. They were just going by their gut feelings, by what seemed like the right thing to do. Their intentions were good, but their results were wrong. And still are.
And if you think so, you did well to withdraw your support.
...Steve seems also to have conceded that a plurality-of-persons/singularity of substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within certain ontological perspectives...
...Which is it, Steve? A Trinitarian view if God is inherently contradictory?...
Yes, indeed! Absolutely!
I concede that the trinitarian view of same-substance makes sense within the neo-platonic frame of reference, but I do not concede that neo-platonism, or even platonism for what it's worth, corresponds with actuality.
The situation is this: there exists an objective (outside of the mind) actuality, but our experience of it can only be subjective (within the mind).
Plato confusedly gave primacy of consideration to the subjective experience rather than the objective actuality. He declared his subjective experience to be more "real" than objective actuality is.
Platonism can accept any flight of fancy, such as 1+1+1=1, because it does not submit its theories to any kind of objective standard. That which is objective is only illusory.
That was platonism. Neo-platonism was degenerate superstition.
I do concede that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within the frame of reference of a degenerate superstition.
What I don't see is why we have to continue using degenerate superstition rather than the Bible as our touchstone for truth.
I do concede that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within the frame of reference of a degenerate superstition.
I don't know much about Platonism and Neo-Platonism, having taken only Philosophy 101 way back in `79. But I think I know a little about logic and the Scripture so I'll offer up my two cents' worth.
From a purely Biblical perspective, I don't see any logical reason to believe the Trinity. We all know the arguments, both from JCNG and I suppose from Tzaia's highjacked Biblical Unitarian website, so I won't burden you all with a comprehensive rehash. Instead, here's my short list of obstacles to Nicene thinking
1) God cannot die--Jesus was dead for 72 hours
2) God is not a man and his ways are as high above ours as the heaven above the earth--Jesus was a man and was in all points tempted like as were are.
3) God is one person and his will at any one time is singular, not schizophrenic. Jesus said, "not my will, but thine be done" indicating that what God wanted and what he wanted were not identical. (This is the biggest obstacle in my mind to seeing Jesus and God as indentical persons)
4)Jesus is called the Last Adam. Therefore it is illogical to believe that, to correct the disobedience of Adam, God himself died on the cross. Unitarian logic makes the redemption of man by an obedient man perfectly logical
5)In the garden, Jesus prayed that his apostles would be one, even as he and the Father were one. Therefore, if we interpret "I and my father are one" as Jesus' claim of divinity, then the apostles are just as much God as he was. So now, it's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=1. Zounds! What absurdity!!
However, having said all that, I must also confess two important caveats. The first is my belief that there is NO WAY to come up with a doctrine that explains all of the Bible's apparent contradictions. No matter what side we choose on any doctrinal debate, we will have to concede that there are a few verses that don't fit our creed. So it really is futile, imho, to try to develop a perfectly cohesive understanding of the Scripture.
And more importantly, it seems that both Trinitarans and Unitarians get people saved, minister healing, speak in tongues, and serve God. God seems to accept the worship and bless the ministries of both camps. So, if it doesn't make any difference to HIM, why should it be such a big deal to us?
Platonism can accept any flight of fancy, such as 1+1+1=1, because it does not submit its theories to any kind of objective standard. That which is objective is only illusory.
That was platonism. Neo-platonism was degenerate superstition.
I do concede that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within the frame of reference of a degenerate superstition.
Steve,
Unicorns, leprechauns, two hundred-foot-tall rabbits and Way Corps virgins are not logically contradictory concepts—however unlikely it is that such entities exist in “objective actuality.” Notions about such existents can be said to be epistemically unwarranted, but such notions are not inherently contradictory.
Notions that are inherently contradictory would include those positing square circles or married bachelors.
Your waving around the 1+1+1=1 caricature is a mere denial of Trinitarian ontological views. I think it is obvious that you know it. You interjected it, however, in a discussion about an alleged inherent contradictoriness in a Trinitarian view of God. Challenged by my previous post, you did not retract it, but played it again, in a deranged championing of your ontological assumptions and your Platonism/neo-Platonism fetish.
Again, the subject in which you interjected your arithmetic quip, and thereby pretended to be addressing, was the alleged inherent contradictoriness of a Trinitarian view of God. Do you really not understand there is a difference between pressing something through your it’s-all-Platonism-and-neo-Platonism processor and your trite-though-incredibly-presumptuous version of the correspondence theory of truth and observing whether something is inherently contradictory or non-contradictory?
You can deny ontological views explicating a Trinitarian view of God and assail them as “degenerate superstition.” You have not demonstrated, however--and face it, Pal, you cannot demonstrate--that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
Nice post above Jerry. Well thought out and communicated and it shows that you actually read your bible.
As for Cynic and his last post. Huh? Cynic inspite of your posturing here. Since the word Trinity is indeed not found in our bibles would that not place the burden of proof for its existence on your shoulders and not vice versa? Perhaps your argument would be better served by quoting from the now religiously famous Nicean Creed or from another of the works of your forefathers from the 4th century until now? What, that is not part of the biblical canon of scripture? Never mind.
You can deny ontological views explicating a Trinitarian view of God and assail them as “degenerate superstition.” You have not demonstrated, however--and face it, Pal, you cannot demonstrate--that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
Ahh, but he did. You just choose not to consider it, for in doing so, you would run the risk of questioning your orthodox creed. And you just won't do that.
You are quite capable of thinking for yourself (I've seen it in some of your other posts)-- until that thinking runs square against the aforementioned creed. At that point, it shuts irrevocably off.
A classic case of the mental slavery I finally walked away and declared my independence from a few years ago.
No he did not, unless saying that a Trinitarian view of God is false and extremely un-cool would also qualify as logical demonstration that it is inherently contradictory.
Did your rush to say that Steve actually has demonstrated that a Trinitarian view of God is logically contradictory issue from reflexive emotions, or have you really considered, and not to any degree understood, the logical issue here?
No, he demonstrated with his illustration likening it (the 'logic' of the trinitarian view) to the rationale that Plato used and the derivative (degenerate? ;)-->) neo-platonic view. Read it again. *I* understood it. I'm surprised that you do not. -->
Now tell me something, Cynic. Do you fully understand the trinitarian concept, enough to prove it that is? (Prove, not parrot. ;)-->) Since you say that none of us 'incontinent' heathen cannot 'demonstrate the contradiction' of the trinity, you therefore speak as tho' you do. Understand it, that is. ... And not just simply pledge obedience to it out of appeal to authority.
And, if you do, then how does that fit with those trinitarian apologists who readily admit that it is non-understandable, even non-comprehensable?
You can deny ontological views explicating a Trinitarian view of God and assail them as "degenerate superstition." You have not demonstrated, however--and face it, Pal, you cannot demonstrate--that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
You have the highest syllable/word ratio of anybody I've seen post here in quite awhile. If you simplify your language it would be easier for you to persuade people. That is, unless you are being volitionally loquax for purposeful obfuscation of your paucity of ousia.
Read your history, Cynic! Platonism was a well-thought-through philosophy, even though I don't believe it was well-founded. Neo-platonism WAS poorly thought-through, as well as poorly-founded. It WAS a degenerate superstition that displaced Stoicism around the turn of the third century. It was taken for granted by the fourth, and laid the foundation for many of the medieval thought patterns we find so silly in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Western thinking didn't start recovering until the rediscovery of Aristotle.
Speaking of philosophies, one the great goals of the classical philosophers was to figure out how to live the "happy" life. Some of them looked around and asked, "What is the happiest creature in the cosmos?" They fixed on dogs, and said, "In order for man to be happy, he should live like a dog." They proceeded to do so with great gusto. This was the origin of the cynic ["kynos" = "dog"] school of philosophy.
You wrote, "...you cannot [demonstrate] that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory."
I say, YOU CANNOT PROVE that a trinitarian view of God is inherently NON-contradictory.
For these reasons:
A logical system is a ret of rules whose purpose is to define "proof".
Every logical system is built on a foundation of assumptions, or presuppositions, which are accepted as self-evident.
Because of this, no logical system can ever be used to prove ANY of the presuppositions upon which it is itself based. To try to do so will ALWAYS result in recursion, tautology, circular reasoning... which is NOT valid.
You are operating a logical system that takes the trinitarian position as one of its presuppositions. None of us can use your system to prove that the trinitarian position is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] contradictory.
HOWEVER....
...neither can YOU prove that the trinitarian system is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] NON-contradictory. To attempt to do so will result in invalid logic, since the trinitarian position is one of your foundational presuppositions.
To discover more information in order to make a decision about the trinity, we have to go outside your logical system to some objective standard... say... the Bible. What do we find there? That the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit is much more sophisticated than the fourth century dock workers at Alexandria were taught.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
Tzaia
Ok, I'll bite. Here are the facts:
1. God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree. He said that man would surely die.
2. Adam ate from the tree.
3. God said he would put emnity between the serpent and the woman.
Making Jesus God puts God in the position of personally doing battle with Satan, which I think is erroneous. Satan battles God, but the notion that God battles Satan doesn't fit my theology.
Giving Adam a commandment that no man could possibly obey is capricous, which doesn't fit my theology.
The idea of God becoming his own sacrifice in order to reconcile man to Him doesn't fit my theology.
Cynic,
You can believe anything you want. I have no need to change your mind. I choose to believe that God provided the sacrifice through the supernatural conception of a perfect human who made the free will choice to obey God, even though it meant his death. I don't believe God became a perfect man to provide a perfect sacrifice.
Until Jesus died on the cross, no human ever trusted God from first breath to last breath. I believe that if you make Jesus God, that becomes meaningless.
The church I go to struggles with conveying the humanity of Jesus, and rightly so. It's hard to imagine God being tempted in all things, even in human form. And the reason why it's hard to imagine that is because we are rightly taught that God can't be tempted.
How do you reconcile that contradiction? How do you reconcile God becoming human flesh when Numbers specifically states that God is not a man...or the son of man?
I can't. So I don't go there.
I do believe, however, once God raised Jesus from the dead that he also gave Jesus temporary, functional equality. i.e. for all intents and purposes Jesus is Jehovah in the same sense that Joseph was Pharoah.
And thank God we live in a time where believing something like that doesn't get us murdered.
Tzaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I gotta do this. I want to have some more fun with Cynic and Garth, but I owe this to Raf before going ahead with that :-)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Thanks for the backup Steve re: Cynic's 'don't post about the Calvin/Servetus incident as an illustration of the topic here, cause it pi$$es me off' approach.
:)-->
However (you knew it was coming, didncha?
;)-->) I agree with Raf in that you are taking the usage of the word 'partner' here too seriously. As a matter of fact, it has an eerie similarity to how a Momentus grad would talk, what with them getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts, et al. Read again in a comprehensive, over all manner what he said in his first post using 'partner' and I think you'll see what I mean.
Plus, I think you know and I know Raf well enough that he is independent enough in his thinking, that just because he uses the word 'partner' here, doesn't make him either a CES puppet, nor is he heading towards being dishonest (spiritually or otherwise) with us.
I.e., as Fraud--err, Freud would say, "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Garth - You wrote:
How true, how true!
Remember, Garth, I AM a Momentus grad.
So are Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser. What puts a burr under my tail is the hypocrisy in THEIR use of manipulative or sloppy terminology after "getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts,et al." It's almost as if they can't hear what's coming out of their own mouths.
I don't have any real beef with Raf using the word "partner", as long as he's aware that Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser don't necessarily regard the word the same way he does. Raf is being honest. I don't think the corporate owners of CES are, but I don't think they're being deliberately dishonest either. I think they are operating on autopilot, and are too busy speaking the truth in love to consider whether the things they say are really true, or the things they do are really loving.
Anal AND nit-picky...
I would attribute this poem if I knew who the author was, but I don't. I learned it as a child:
"Little drops of water,
Tiny grains of sand,
Make the mighty ocean
And the mighty land.
"And the little seconds,
Humble though they be,
Make the mighty vastness
Of eternity."
Every word that passes through a person's mind makes an impression on his heart. Every word...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What *kind* of impression on your heart they make, however, is up to you, hmmm?
;)-->
And since you are a Momentus grad, AND you also have a beef with Momentus, and how they operate in this manner, why not just throw off their anal-retentive "OHH MY GOD, don't you KNOW the *EFFECT* your words HAVE on your commitment?!?" Martindale-wannabe approach.
... or, in the words of that ever-fun-loving Sargent Hulka, "Lighten up, Frances!"
;)-->
Besides, it's Friday. Miller time!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Steve -- can you manage to do this (successfully) to either your local government, or to the federal government, when you pay taxes each year, paying them to do that which you may or may not have control over?
If you can't do it with them, then don't criticize CES, or any other orginazation - using this arguement. At least CES is trying to be responsible -- which I see the local and federal government doing less, and less of -- daily.
When you're talking politics -- the option offered is called *the vote*. If you're talking *partnership*, the option offered is withdrawing support.
Personally -- I think withdrawing support from a religious group is easier done, than withdrawing support from some governmental agency, but if you can make it *fly* in the governmental circles -- I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say in the religious ones.
As Song says --- just a thot.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
duuuude
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
dmiller - When it comes to local and federal elections, I DO have the right to vote. If I don't like the ways my representatives are spending my money, I cast my vote to throw them out. If I don't like the ways my executives are running my government, I cast my vote to throw them out.
I can talk to them and they listen, because they know I can vote to thow them out.
I DO vote!
What do you think I found out back in '86 after hearing POP read? Hey, when it came to the way the Trustees spend my money and rape my sisters, I ain't got any kind of vote! I can't vote to throw ANYBODY out. And you know what, they don't have to give a rat's patoot about what I think.
When Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser set up CES, lo, these many years ago, what do you suppose they did? They imitated the power structure of TWI! EXACTLY!
What do you suppose I found out when I spoke up against THEIR errors? Hey, I can't vote to thow them out, consequently, they don't give a rat's patoot about what I, or any other of their followers think.
Do I think they deliberately planned it that way? No, I don't think so. They were just going by their gut feelings, by what seemed like the right thing to do. Their intentions were good, but thier results were wrong. And still are.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
Steve; maybe I missed something, but is this what someone in CES stated?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Graeser, Mark, The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy CES, Indianapolis, IN, bimonthly audiotape for July/August, '96
The New Testament defines the Church as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith (see Romans 11, Ephesians 2, 3:6).
Dispensationalism teaches that the Church is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. In order to support this, dispensationalists have to negate Romans 11.
Bullinger taught that the new "administration" couldn't begin until the new revelation had been given (which is logically consistent with the tenets of dispensationalism), and so, the Church "administration" couldn't have begun before the penning of Ephesians. Therefore Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians weren't written during the Church "administration".
Wierwille negated the chapter by claiming Romans 11 wasn't addressed "TO" the Church, but rather to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. I believe this was the primary reason why Wierwille included "To Whom Addressed" in PFAL, because it's obvious who Paul was addressing, if we just read what's written.
In Romans 9:3&4, Paul distinguishes his "brethren", his "kinsmen according to the flesh" as Israelites, who may or may not necessarily also be Christians. Wierwille taught that Romans 9:4 through 11:12 are addressed TO unbelieving Israel. If we read closely, we see that this section of Scripture is written ABOUT the Jews, but it isn't addressed TO them.
(By the way, if Wierwille were consistent, he would also have to teach that Romans 10:9&10 were addressed to Israel ONLY.)
The first clue to the addressees of Romans 9 is in verse 24, "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles.
The congregation at Rome was mixed, that is, some of its members had come to Christ from Jewish backgrounds, and some from Gentile. Romans 9:24 confirms this, and also confirms that this section is still addressed to the book's original addressees, "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7).
Romans 10:1 says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."
If this was addressed to Israel, instead of the Christians at Rome, it would read, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is, that YOU might be saved.
The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 11:20 says "thou standest by faith". In 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren". Verse 30 says "...ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy..."
This stuff is there for everybody to read. Back in the mid-'90s, a number of CES followers were actually reading the Bible for themselves and beginning to question the dispensationalism we had been taught in PFAL.
CES could have re-examined the things we had been taught about the "mystery", but they decided not to. They decided to develop their own rationalizations to support the dispensationalist stance they had already published. They came up with their own way to negate Romans 11.
Their response was a one-two punch, the first punch being The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy by Graeser, and the second being The Mystery Revisited by Schoenheit on the bimonthly audiotape immediately following Graeser's.
In TAPMMM, Greaser taught that God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul right away because of Paul's "Jewish mindset", as evidenced in Romans 9:1-11:12.
God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul before he had his "Jewish mindset" "broken". This happened when Paul made his final trip to Jerusalem. Paul was so shaken and disappointed when his Jewish friends betrayed him, that he finally gave up his own Jewishness (mindset). Then God was finally able to give Paul grade-A, 100% unadulterated revelation.
Graeser never used the word "Momentus", but those who have taken Momentus would recognize his line of reasoning as having come straight out of the training.
Graeser was subtle enough not to come straight out and say that the revelation in Romans is inferior to the revelation in Ephesian, but he sure did a weasel-word dance to imply the same idea.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Steve complains, essentially, that the way fourth-century orthodox Christians acknowledged and defended the Deity of Christ involved an ontological perspective that was absent from the thinking of the apostles and from whatever generally goes on in the minds of the Socinian Unitarians here at Grease Spot.
While doing that, Steve seems also to have conceded that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within certain ontological perspectives. If Steve has conceded that, he also has revealed that he cannot do what he implicitly pretended to do (in his “1+1+1=...1?” post): Demonstrate that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
Which is it, Steve? A Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory? A Trinitarian view of God is inherently non-contradictory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Did it come in the form of an orange Book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Adding a bit to Steve's post above on Dispensationalism. For people that pride themselves on doing word studies, CES leaders apparently do not believe the results of the one below. Below is the foundational word study for CES for their view of Dispensationalism. Yes, as you probably know that would be for the Greek word "Oikonomia". In the Way denomination and now with CES oikonomia is taught as a period of time. As you will plainly see when looking at the actual scriptural usages of this word and the noun form oikonomos, this word is not a period of time. It means Stewardship or Steward. Here is every New Testament usage with preceeding Thayer's lexical definition.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)
Luke 16:2-4
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy "stewardship"; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the "steward" said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the "stewardship": I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the "stewardship", they may receive me into their houses.
KJV
Luke 16:8
8 And the lord commended the unjust "steward", because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
KJV
1 Cor 9:17
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, "a dispensation" of the gospel is committed unto me.
KJV
Eph 1:10
10 That in the "dispensation" of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
Eph 3:2
2 If ye have heard of the "dispensation" of the grace of God which is given me to youward:
KJV
Col 1:25
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the "dispensation" of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
KJV
Titus 1:7
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the "steward" of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
KJV
NT:3623 (noun form of oikonomia)
oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)
Luke 12:42
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise "steward", whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
KJV
Luke 16:1
16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had "a steward"; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
KJV
Rom 16:23
23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the "chamberlain" of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.
KJV
1 Cor 4:1
4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and "stewards" of the mysteries of God.
KJV
1 Cor 4:2
2 Moreover it is required in "stewards", that a man be found faithful.
KJV
Gal 4:2
2 But is under tutors and "governors" until the time appointed of the father.
KJV
1 Peter 4:10
10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good "stewards" of the manifold grace of God.
KJV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I haven't read everything and won't have time to right now, but to answer a coupole of things:
1. By fair/unfair, I meant that you deliberately compare my decision to give a certain amount with the compulsory/guilt tripping of TWI's ABuSe, which detracts from the value of your argument.
2. Making a pledge and following through on it is not even close to being told that giving less than 10 percent is ROBBING God, and anything above that is just peachy. They're not the same thing, and your comparison of them is ludicrous.
Other points later. Off to dinner in NYC!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And if you think so, you did well to withdraw your support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Cynic - You wrote,
Yes, indeed! Absolutely!
I concede that the trinitarian view of same-substance makes sense within the neo-platonic frame of reference, but I do not concede that neo-platonism, or even platonism for what it's worth, corresponds with actuality.
The situation is this: there exists an objective (outside of the mind) actuality, but our experience of it can only be subjective (within the mind).
Plato confusedly gave primacy of consideration to the subjective experience rather than the objective actuality. He declared his subjective experience to be more "real" than objective actuality is.
Platonism can accept any flight of fancy, such as 1+1+1=1, because it does not submit its theories to any kind of objective standard. That which is objective is only illusory.
That was platonism. Neo-platonism was degenerate superstition.
I do concede that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within the frame of reference of a degenerate superstition.
What I don't see is why we have to continue using degenerate superstition rather than the Bible as our touchstone for truth.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
*Ouch!*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I don't know much about Platonism and Neo-Platonism, having taken only Philosophy 101 way back in `79. But I think I know a little about logic and the Scripture so I'll offer up my two cents' worth.
From a purely Biblical perspective, I don't see any logical reason to believe the Trinity. We all know the arguments, both from JCNG and I suppose from Tzaia's highjacked Biblical Unitarian website, so I won't burden you all with a comprehensive rehash. Instead, here's my short list of obstacles to Nicene thinking
1) God cannot die--Jesus was dead for 72 hours
2) God is not a man and his ways are as high above ours as the heaven above the earth--Jesus was a man and was in all points tempted like as were are.
3) God is one person and his will at any one time is singular, not schizophrenic. Jesus said, "not my will, but thine be done" indicating that what God wanted and what he wanted were not identical. (This is the biggest obstacle in my mind to seeing Jesus and God as indentical persons)
4)Jesus is called the Last Adam. Therefore it is illogical to believe that, to correct the disobedience of Adam, God himself died on the cross. Unitarian logic makes the redemption of man by an obedient man perfectly logical
5)In the garden, Jesus prayed that his apostles would be one, even as he and the Father were one. Therefore, if we interpret "I and my father are one" as Jesus' claim of divinity, then the apostles are just as much God as he was. So now, it's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=1. Zounds! What absurdity!!
However, having said all that, I must also confess two important caveats. The first is my belief that there is NO WAY to come up with a doctrine that explains all of the Bible's apparent contradictions. No matter what side we choose on any doctrinal debate, we will have to concede that there are a few verses that don't fit our creed. So it really is futile, imho, to try to develop a perfectly cohesive understanding of the Scripture.
And more importantly, it seems that both Trinitarans and Unitarians get people saved, minister healing, speak in tongues, and serve God. God seems to accept the worship and bless the ministries of both camps. So, if it doesn't make any difference to HIM, why should it be such a big deal to us?
Peace
Jerry B
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Steve,
Unicorns, leprechauns, two hundred-foot-tall rabbits and Way Corps virgins are not logically contradictory concepts—however unlikely it is that such entities exist in “objective actuality.” Notions about such existents can be said to be epistemically unwarranted, but such notions are not inherently contradictory.
Notions that are inherently contradictory would include those positing square circles or married bachelors.
Your waving around the 1+1+1=1 caricature is a mere denial of Trinitarian ontological views. I think it is obvious that you know it. You interjected it, however, in a discussion about an alleged inherent contradictoriness in a Trinitarian view of God. Challenged by my previous post, you did not retract it, but played it again, in a deranged championing of your ontological assumptions and your Platonism/neo-Platonism fetish.
Again, the subject in which you interjected your arithmetic quip, and thereby pretended to be addressing, was the alleged inherent contradictoriness of a Trinitarian view of God. Do you really not understand there is a difference between pressing something through your it’s-all-Platonism-and-neo-Platonism processor and your trite-though-incredibly-presumptuous version of the correspondence theory of truth and observing whether something is inherently contradictory or non-contradictory?
You can deny ontological views explicating a Trinitarian view of God and assail them as “degenerate superstition.” You have not demonstrated, however--and face it, Pal, you cannot demonstrate--that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Nice post above Jerry. Well thought out and communicated and it shows that you actually read your bible.
As for Cynic and his last post. Huh? Cynic inspite of your posturing here. Since the word Trinity is indeed not found in our bibles would that not place the burden of proof for its existence on your shoulders and not vice versa? Perhaps your argument would be better served by quoting from the now religiously famous Nicean Creed or from another of the works of your forefathers from the 4th century until now? What, that is not part of the biblical canon of scripture? Never mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ahh, but he did. You just choose not to consider it, for in doing so, you would run the risk of questioning your orthodox creed. And you just won't do that.
You are quite capable of thinking for yourself (I've seen it in some of your other posts)-- until that thinking runs square against the aforementioned creed. At that point, it shuts irrevocably off.
A classic case of the mental slavery I finally walked away and declared my independence from a few years ago.
Sad.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
No he did not, unless saying that a Trinitarian view of God is false and extremely un-cool would also qualify as logical demonstration that it is inherently contradictory.
Did your rush to say that Steve actually has demonstrated that a Trinitarian view of God is logically contradictory issue from reflexive emotions, or have you really considered, and not to any degree understood, the logical issue here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
No, he demonstrated with his illustration likening it (the 'logic' of the trinitarian view) to the rationale that Plato used and the derivative (degenerate?
;)-->) neo-platonic view. Read it again. *I* understood it. I'm surprised that you do not. 
-->
Now tell me something, Cynic. Do you fully understand the trinitarian concept, enough to prove it that is? (Prove, not parrot.
;)-->) Since you say that none of us 'incontinent' heathen cannot 'demonstrate the contradiction' of the trinity, you therefore speak as tho' you do. Understand it, that is. ... And not just simply pledge obedience to it out of appeal to authority.
And, if you do, then how does that fit with those trinitarian apologists who readily admit that it is non-understandable, even non-comprehensable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Cynic - You wrote,
You have the highest syllable/word ratio of anybody I've seen post here in quite awhile. If you simplify your language it would be easier for you to persuade people. That is, unless you are being volitionally loquax for purposeful obfuscation of your paucity of ousia.
Read your history, Cynic! Platonism was a well-thought-through philosophy, even though I don't believe it was well-founded. Neo-platonism WAS poorly thought-through, as well as poorly-founded. It WAS a degenerate superstition that displaced Stoicism around the turn of the third century. It was taken for granted by the fourth, and laid the foundation for many of the medieval thought patterns we find so silly in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Western thinking didn't start recovering until the rediscovery of Aristotle.
Speaking of philosophies, one the great goals of the classical philosophers was to figure out how to live the "happy" life. Some of them looked around and asked, "What is the happiest creature in the cosmos?" They fixed on dogs, and said, "In order for man to be happy, he should live like a dog." They proceeded to do so with great gusto. This was the origin of the cynic ["kynos" = "dog"] school of philosophy.
You wrote, "...you cannot [demonstrate] that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory."
I say, YOU CANNOT PROVE that a trinitarian view of God is inherently NON-contradictory.
For these reasons:
A logical system is a ret of rules whose purpose is to define "proof".
Every logical system is built on a foundation of assumptions, or presuppositions, which are accepted as self-evident.
Because of this, no logical system can ever be used to prove ANY of the presuppositions upon which it is itself based. To try to do so will ALWAYS result in recursion, tautology, circular reasoning... which is NOT valid.
You are operating a logical system that takes the trinitarian position as one of its presuppositions. None of us can use your system to prove that the trinitarian position is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] contradictory.
HOWEVER....
...neither can YOU prove that the trinitarian system is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] NON-contradictory. To attempt to do so will result in invalid logic, since the trinitarian position is one of your foundational presuppositions.
To discover more information in order to make a decision about the trinity, we have to go outside your logical system to some objective standard... say... the Bible. What do we find there? That the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit is much more sophisticated than the fourth century dock workers at Alexandria were taught.
Face it, Pal :-D
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.