Trinity

[Metacrock]

I'm trying to understand what the "transport function" is from what Metacrock believes more generally about revelation and God into the basis of Trinitarian thought. Why are there two different tabs on the Doxa homepage, and why do they not read anything alike? One sounds a lot like a man, the other like God. ...

If I read his testimonial it would appear that he fell in love with Jesus around the same time he was awoken to the reality of God. That's certainly meaningful and important in his life. I can't deny that. I think it's something to cherish. ....it might not be good theology.

the person who led me to the Lord knew Jesus; Jesus is active reality in the present not merely a guy you read about in a book,I began belief in God as Jesus and not merely as a guy in a book /the active reality or presence i first realized was God was Jesus. when I called out to God for help the first tie I made it clear i was speaking to the Jesus in whom my parents believed. I got an answer then and there so i always assumed that's who answered,

[met]

And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing.

....only if they decide on an absolute not-knowing? Further, how could an absolute not-knowing be anything but atheism?

Also your first two statements seem a bit paradoxical. You are choosing to work with concepts that are necessarily NOT what they say they are? Why is that a better strategy? Seems like you just "unsaid" everything too .....

. Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)

K, I looked it up, & THAT one took me a minute, but I got it! the reference to communion.... My hunch is someone a bit out there, like maybe Zizek, might have noted this correlation before? Or is it yours?

[Metacrock]

.

Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)

why should I think any differently about the Koran? What did ancient Muslims mean by saying Christian were people of a book? Didn't phrase imply respect for the Bible?

[sgttomas]

.

Well, from the get go, how seriously am I supposed to take the Bible as a source of divine knowledge? I wouldn't pick up a Philip K. Dick novel and make theology from it. (well....maybe)

why should I think any differently about the Koran?

I just want to say first that I was trying a really lame attempt at elliptical writing, or chiastic structure. The more accomplished authors in this thread are welcome to roll their eyes, or scoff, accordingly. (there is a hyperlink in the expression "here's the rub" that goes to a cover page of a Philip K. Dick novel). So I wasn't trying to mock the Bible, but rather to say that it's in the same literary genre as one of my favourite all time authors. I was trying to use a very "high" or "elevated" form of literature to set that tone.

And I had a reason - within the structure of my argument (or rather, in response to met) - for saying this.

...And I would expect that at best you would see the Quran in the same way.

What did ancient Muslims mean by saying Christian were people of a book? Didn't phrase imply respect for the Bible?

Not as such. Not the Bible you're familiar with. Rather, the original revelation sent to Moses and to Jesus. It did imply respect for the people because of our shared set of values and beliefs about reality. The Bible you are familiar with is treated as an unauthenticated work of suspect origin.

....I don't like to tell a Christian how to read the Bible since I don't approach it with the same assumptions and values that they usually would.

And respect for people's humanity, dignity, and closeness based on shared values and concepts of reality doesn't imply that bad theology is allowed to go without inspection, or spared of critical analysis.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[sgttomas]

And I agree that our notions of God are necessary NOT-God. But I am also working in a paradigm where I choose to fix concepts. Actually everyone is doing this, even when they choose "not to fix" them, because then they are insisting on a position of not-knowing.

....only if they decide on an absolute not-knowing? Further, how could an absolute not-knowing be anything but atheism?

I'd like to consider it differently, which is *active* not-knowing. This is how Islamic theology discusses the lack of belief: it's akin to ingratitude, or covering over, and yes this is the same behaviour that exists along the spectrum of denial of the "Truth" from lacking belief in the Quran all the way to lacking belief in any kind of deity besides the self. When referring to extreme agnosticism or "atheism" I have characterized this as a "black hole". By this I mean a person turns away from anything that could be given meaning as a sign of God and instead they look inwardly to their own desires, sense of self, or the world within their own preconceived borders....and nothing exists beyond that "event horizon" and nothing that comes to the person as a "sign of God" will come back out of them as belief.

Also your first two statements seem a bit paradoxical. You are choosing to work with concepts that are necessarily NOT what they say they are? Why is that a better strategy? Seems like you just "unsaid" everything too .....

So this only makes sense if you take seriously the notion that knowledge is not a product of our selves but rather something revealed within us from God. I mean ALL knowledge. Islamic theology is on the far end of the scale of the "omni-God" being taken seriously. I think even Calvin would blush. So there's a whole host of things that probably spring to mind, but focusing specifically on the issue you raise here I would respond:

The reality of God being "Merciful" is beyond our complete comprehension (something like what Jim is saying in the thread on symbols, maybe? ??? perhaps?) but God gives us the limited form of knowledge so that we can appreciate something that is indeed real about Him. God is the "Creator" but it doesn't take effort, and He doesn't work from a set of instructions.

Is it better? Well....what's the criteria? God clearly thinks so

Striking the balance between fixating on the words (making them idols, which really means the idolatry of the self) versus being open to the intended guidance from God is literally the entire point of our lives. This is why we are here. Why? There is no answer for that which will be entirely objective and free of the whims of a person, except to completely accept that this particular knowledge (our purpose in life) is revealed from God and then to spend the rest of one's life struggling to realize the answer.

This is how Islam frames the "problematic" of man's separation from God. We have been sent here to come to know God, because that's how God intended it, for reasons that we have to actively surrender control over our selves in order to realize. And this is the test. ....to see who does it best.

....aaaaanyways, not trying to hijack this thread with evangelism for Islam. This is the paradigm I'm working in. From my perspective everyone is in active denial of the truth from their Lord (including me). It's a matter of degree, not black/white absolutes.

. K, I looked it up, & THAT one took me a minute, but I got it! the reference to communion.... My hunch is someone a bit out there, like maybe Zizek, might have noted this correlation before? Or is it yours?

Uhh...well, you might be giving me too much credit because I didn't see that specific imagery until you pointed it out. ....see, that's why I love Philip K. Dick. I was speaking more generally how much I enjoy these "deeper" themes in his books. And it was a cheap trick chiasm.

Literary white belt lololol

Peace,
-sgttomas

[Metacrock]

you just disagree because you see things differently

[SayaOtonashi]

Sorry, my life is a bit crazy. Now I'm more confused about the trinity but it's interesting seeing all the disagreeing.

[Metacrock]

Sorry, my life is a bit crazy. Now I'm more confused about the trinity but it's interesting seeing all the disagreeing.

what confuses you ?