Y1gtfmd74i5u
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
*Vanishing*
LOL o2b, I'll need to spend a bit of time with everything you have written rather than responding ad hoc.I happen to believe time is linear for God. Regardless, isn't your assertion a postulate, meaning an unproven assertion from which other things are deduced (sort of like the postulates in Euclidean geometry)? If unproven, how is it known to be true?
If God does stand outside of time and past reality is as much reality as present reality, I feel bad for Him. Because I believe the presence of evil is something God has contingencies for, such that eventually evil no longer exists and never will.
I would hope that eventual state of things is the entirety of His "reality" and the converse, the idea that this season of evil with all its attendant pain is as much God's reality as that future state, is bigtime discouraging.
Revelation 21:4
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Will this not be the entirety of God's reality as well? Can He not wipe away His tears as well? Or is the reality of death and tears always every bit as much His reality?
For His sake, I hope not.
But the same argument still applies to the other texts: that it can't possibly be taken literally. Surely even if there were dozens of statements and if it meant the same thing without factual evidence to back it, it would be difficult to take it for what it is. What if the revelation simply referred to Christ's second coming as in that glorious epiphany that come into each of our lives? These descriptions to me evoke a feeling of warmth and of being saved, which I think happens to us in our lifetime. What if the second coming does not happen in the blockbuster way that it was literally described? What if it happens in increments, often within us? Aren't we in the danger of anticipating a falsehood if, hypothetically, we had a very precise but highly imaginative anticipation of it?Someone might opine that Revelation is so cryptic, it may not be correct to force such a literal interpretation. Perhaps so, but there are other texts.
Yes, I am of the same view. He had Faith in humanity. He had a profound love for humanity and this is how I am convinced that Christ is indeed of God, whether as a literal son or not. I personally believe that the most encompassing definition of God is of God being the alpha and omega. To me this can be acceptable as it makes sense owing to its broadness. There is no such finitely humanized God but a God that is simultaneously beyond us and through us. With this premise, I can then accept the thought of Christ and all beings as children of God for this is consistent with God being the alpha and omega, and effectively, of Christ as piece of God, which falls in line with the logic of the holy trinity. I don't think that we need the certification of Christianity to exclusively characterize us as children of God because theology or religion isn't exactly a birth certificate. What I accept these religions to be are pathways.I suggest what sets Him apart is the faith He had.
Well @Ren did include god within the scope of the thread, so it’s easy to drift into things religious rather than philosophical. In fairness, the issue of the Trinity, and what we mean by ‘person’, that kicked off these last few posts does lie on the boundaries between the two. As does the issue of the relationship between god and time, touching as it does on whether time as we experience it is fundamental, or more like one of the human qualias.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
Sorry professor.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
I know the Church literally set it as this but I now don't see why the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had to be separated and differentiated entities. I've come closer to a personal interpretation of the Trinity = Universe. However my view is based mostly on personalized and instinctive opinion, formed out of poor logical deduction so I'm not quiet confident about its philosophical argument. If you would humor me though, it's mostly based on recognizing the danger in accepting simplified biblical statements. There's always the possibility of the writings being flawed whether in the way it is verbalized or the way it is interpreted. This leaves the Bible with a lot of open endings for me.
Jesus is that aspect of God that relates to sentient beings, but that is only a small part of God, most of which is related to things beyond our horizons.
Yes, but also I see this as owing to the complex history of Christianity as a force that changed the power plays of the world. This is Christianity as a massive and complex organization with a history and inconsistencies. I think at the crux of it, where the understanding should begin is in the teachings of Christ. Christianity begins in understanding Christ's life, to me at least.orthodox Christians are pretty much flirting with a form of polytheism
Have you read my reply to O2b? Particularly the second quote? Does it clarify my point of view a bit? Or nope?What I don't understand is why, if you think in terms of the Universe, you still seem to acknowledge the Trinity. Why not be a Unitarian?
Now the issue remains, of course, that if you think God = Universe, you're a pantheist, somewhat in the vein of Spinoza. It's not really a Christian viewpoint anymore. You're essentially rejecting Genesis, etc.
I screwed up. I saw the header Philosophy and Religion, but did not realize this thread is a subset of that more inclusive title.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
I screwed up. I saw the header Philosophy and Religion, but did not realize this thread is a subset of that more inclusive title.
I have no problem with a new thread perhaps titled Christian thought or something.
Hope it's OK if I continue to dialogue, but sure appreciate this better belongs in another thread.
Thanks, Ren.It's completely fine to continue posting here. The only condition is to rely on argument rather than appeal to authority, if possible. (Which doesn't mean you can't rely on Scriptural sources).
Hey mintoots,But the same argument still applies to the other texts: that it can't possibly be taken literally. Surely even if there were dozens of statements and if it meant the same thing without factual evidence to back it, it would be difficult to take it for what it is. What if the revelation simply referred to Christ's second coming as in that glorious epiphany that come into each of our lives?
...
Now here is where Christ plays a pivotal role to me because I believe what Catholicism brought to us with Christ as the ultimate pathway to God is showing us a path to God through the likeness of Christ. This is when it becomes necessary to scrutinize Christ's way of life.
You bet - and a most incorrigible one!John—I just realised you are a heretic!
Actually, I'm just thinking that for any red-blooded INFJ, the idea of three persons in one individual is just business as usual. I'm sure that all of us INFJs have as many persons in us as the differing social contexts we frequent lol!Joke aside:
Do you mean Jesus's human nature, or Jesus as a whole?
As I understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it rejects the idea that Jesus is only a "small part" of God. I discovered recently (thanks to the podcast I was listening to) that a lot of controversies arose in the time of the early Church from this idea of subordination to the Father. If Christ is con-substantial with the Father then he is not in any way subordinate. "Fully God" suggests he is not a part.
I think this is the sort of issue that got the early Greek philosopher-Christians knotted into a tangle. It's quite clear from the gospels that Jesus is subordinate to the father, because he said so and the human analogy used is the human relationship between father and son. That's not the same as saying that he is not the whole of god, and it's probably better to think of the relationship between a reigning king and his eldest son, or the relationship between the president and VP of the United States as an analogy, rather than the son of an ordinary family. They each have access to full power in principle, but one wields it only under the direction of the other.as for the concept of person, I agree that it is frustratingly fuzzy. It gets even fuzzier when the notion of two natures in one person (Jesus) is added to the mix. But if, indeed, God's omnipotence transcends logic, then I suppose he has the power to manifest as three persons. Why it has to be three is a mystery. I believe Augustine spends a great deal of time justifying this triadic relationship by means of analogies—lover, loved, and loving, etc.
Thanks to my girlfriend, I have learned that from the Muslim point of view, orthodox Christians are pretty much flirting with a form of polytheism. Muslims just can't make any sense of the Trinity.
But yeah, I am a Catholic on paper but I've been exploring a lot of its aspects in the not so conventional sense of it (see spoiler). I am inclined to not take the teachings in the Bible literally. I feel like there's a code to it that simply cannot be in its stories at face value. I still profess to believe in God though and I respect and if I may so boldly say, love Christ with a profoundness that has defined my life for the most part. So at this I see my self as a Christian nonetheless. I see the Pope as supposedly the closest living example to Christ as much as possible but I know the facts are hazy on that. I'm a Catholic and I have ires against the organization but I do find power in some of its longest standing practices like its prayers and chants and novenas. I don't know if it's valid to think of myself as religiously eclectic but I am that. I guess? I do feel a lot like a heretic most times. I don't know. I just want to sleep at night.