About the Trinity and being Christian

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So Cheezy, I'm hearing your understanding of Catholicism for the most part comes through an art history course, and your personal interpretation of St Augustine... Thats not quite a substantial study of the Catholic Religion, Im afraid Augustine /= The Catholic Faith.

Not "an" art history course. More like a dozen. Anyway, I'm not applying to become a theologian, now am I? I've read a bit about Plotinus, Origen, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Thomas as well.

Anyways as to Islam: (spoilered as an aside).

Spoiler :

In my opinion it has the same fundamental flaw as protestantism, textual hyper-literalism. Perhaps even to a greater degree since the Quran is held as an article of faith to be free from all error and to literally have been dictated to Muhammad by God. This becomes problematic when you have such idiosyncracies such as a conflicting number of "days of creation". (Sura's 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days) and conflicting statements about the forgivability of shirk (Shirk is considered the worst of all sins, but the author of the Qur'an seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin. problematic no?).

In short if we accept the claim that the Quran was dictated directly by God, then God must be a liar or an idiot since these contradictions exists. It is simply inconceivable that an omniscient God (as monotheism in general accepts) could craft a book with such contradictions in it as I mentioned above (there are many more) while simultaneously declaring itself to be free from error.

I don't think the Quran claims to be the literal word of God. It was originally orally kept, and only compiled and codified by Caliph Umar in the years following Muhammad's death. So the people who collected it had heard it spoken by the Prophet himself (as opposed to the Gospels, which were written by people who were not alive while Christ was), and played a key part not just in compiling and ensuring the accuracy of the Quran, but also the Sunan, aka the personal notes of Muhammad about how people should live. Indeed, it would be contrary to one of the central foundations of Islam to claim that its perfection was divinely ensured; the Muslims believe that God sent Muhammad his revelations precisely because previous attempts by him to deliver His message to mankind had failed because the fallibility and carelessness of men corrupted it over time. Thus, Muslims emphasize its importance in its original form, and do not allow the Quran to be translated into other languages (when it appears in another language, it is not called The Quran, but merely a translation of the Quran. The true Quran always appears and is read in classical Arabic), and still consider the writings and sayings by Mohammad to be the best guide as to how to act and structure society.* Granted, there are sometimes very liberal interpretations of the meanings of those sayings and statements, but no one would ever claim them to be irrelevant today, as we do, for example, the statements about selling daughters into slavery that appear in the Bible.

The emphasis on literal interpretation (taqlid) is also just one school of Muslim thought, albeit today the predominant one. The opposing mindset, which is called, ijtihad, focuses on independent interpretation of the Quran, both in a religious as well as a legal environment. It was very popular during the early centuries of Islam, but gradually fell by the wayside several hundred years ago. And as in all religions, there are opposing schools of thought about many concepts, even within particular branches of Islam.

*There was a school around the tenth century called the Mutazilites who believed the Quran to be a historical text with a definitive date, which thus allowed it to be reinterpreted for new societies and even treated as a dated text, but they never got very popular. The predominant view was, and remains, that it is an ageless document as old as God, that was merely revealed to Muhammad in the mid-seventh century.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not to nontrinitarians, it isn't. And that's a problem because we're viewed as non-Christians by a lot of people. Thing is... this whole trinity thing isn't even in the Bible. It's made up after the fact by the ancient equivalent of a 'good ol' boys' network. It was just another tool used to impose their views on the rest of the Christian world and make themselves supreme. I guess it was a power grab at the start more than anything.

It's how a trinitarian explains the faith. It doesn't matter if you roll them into one, cut it into three, or divide it into every single iota of every single atom everywhere everywhen. God is the creator. Jesus is his son. God is alive in the world. It's a convenient thought tool to explain the nature of reality in human terms, like math is, and all that other jazz covered in the thread. It's why it's important, it is one offering as to the core of the religion, but getting bent out of shape about the details of trinitarianism or deciding to cut things differently is really rather a complete failure on either side to understand the point of the religion, which is Love.

 

[_random_]

(as opposed to the Gospels, which were written by people who were not alive while Christ was)

Eh? I believe the general consensus is that they weren't written by eyewitnesses, but unless the authors were quite young, at least the Synoptics were probably written by people who lived at the same time as Jesus.

 

[Jehoshua]

I don't think the Quran claims to be the literal word of God.

The Quran itself claims to be a direct revelation from God to Muhammad, with Muhammad then transmitting that revelation and having the book written for posterity.

Incidentally I did not claim muslims believe its infallibility was divinely assured, rather that muslims believe it was directly transmitted by God to Muhammad and is unmarred by human fallibility (due to that care you speak of on their part presumably, and in line with what you said on it being a timeless document). This then becomes problematic since if it is as they believe unmarred, and revealed directly by God, why is it replete with obvious inconsistencies (despite what many muslims claim)?.

The answer would be that their claims are false.

-

Anyways the relevant Sura's.

Spoiler :

Sura 10:37. This Qur’an could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the Scriptures. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe

Sura 43:2-4. We have revealed the Qur’an in the Arabic tongue that you may understand its meaning. It is a transcript of the eternal book in our keeping sublime and full of wisdom.

Furthermore islamic scholars for the most part concieve of sura 85:21-22 which says, "Nay this is a glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved." to mean that the Quran is an exact copy of the "heavenly book" in God's keeping, right down to the chapter divisions.

 

[Masada]

Haroon sign!

Sura's 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days

The usual response is that the four days in 41:10 is inclusive of the two days in 41:11 which is rather more obvious in the Arabic than the English or so I'm told.

 

[HannibalBarka]

To me Jesus is at the level of Prophet Mohammed (Politics Being Upon Him), as my atheistic view of religion founders. Leaders only.

Oh i loved this . thanks for the laugh

 

[holy king]

I have visions of a window cleaner singing "Nein, je ne regret a thing" off-key.

 

[holy king]

But why's it so freaking important?

because it distincts the catholics from other christians ever since that council of whatever.

traits that draw a distinction between groups are always seen as important, especially if those groups are very similar overall.

Not to nontrinitarians, it isn't. And that's a problem because we're viewed as non-Christians by a lot of people. Thing is... this whole trinity thing isn't even in the Bible. It's made up after the fact by the ancient equivalent of a 'good ol' boys' network. It was just another tool used to impose their views on the rest of the Christian world and make themselves supreme. I guess it was a power grab at the start more than anything.

well, analogous to that, the true followers of christ were jews. that followers of christ dont need to be circumcised and follow the law of moses was made up after the fact at the council of jerusalem.

 

[_random_]

because it distincts the catholics from other christians ever since that council of whatever.

Not really. Orthodox and a strong majority of protestants believe it as well.

 

[bhsup]

well, analogous to that, the true followers of christ were jews. that followers of christ dont need to be circumcised and follow the law of moses was made up after the fact at the council of jerusalem.

Yes, the very Council of Jerusalem accounted for in the Bible in the Book of Acts, convened by the original apostles of Jesus Christ, given special authority under the power of the Holy Spirit. Thank you for validating my point. Also, for the sake of clarification, they only exempted gentiles.

 

[holy king]

Not really. Orthodox and a strong majority of protestants believe it as well.

whatever the details, the point of it was saying "we are no fuilthy aryanists."

 

[Agent327]

Well, there's also the view that all of creation is made out of God himself, which would propel the concept of trinity into something far more vast.

Hardly. Substance is a quality. The amount of substance is irrelevant.

I haven't heard of a view that has the world being created out of God.

It is inherent in creation, though. In the beginning there was nothing, therefore everything proceeds from God.

Except the Son and the Holy Ghost aren't "created" as such. The Son is begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds, but this is a matter of eternal relationship, not creation.

To make and to beget are variations upon to create (begetting a son meaning to proceate a son); that the H. Ghost proceeds from God suggests, to my mind at least, an unintentional creation. In the end, however, it's semantical: all things proceed from God.

But why's it so freaking important?

It isn't. It's a dogma. Take it or leave it. God doesn't care one way or the other.

 

[Masada]

It is inherent in creation, though. In the beginning there was nothing, therefor everything proceeds from God.

You seem to be suggesting that the world is of the same substance as God?

 

[Farm Boy]

I think that is really rather unknowable. How would you consider it to actually matter?

 

[Agent327]

You seem to be suggesting that the world is of the same substance as God?

That is one possible conclusion, and also a theological point of dispute (as apparently most things are), more commonly referred to as pantheism. But since it is said that God created from nothing, not a necessary conclusion, nor a very likely one, since nothing has no substance. (Nothing being the opposite of substance, or the complete lack thereof.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hardly. Substance is a quality. The amount of substance is irrelevant.

Except that 'vast' is a description of quantity, so I'm puzzled about your response.

 

[Agent327]

There's nothing 'vast' about substance. Quantity is not at issue.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's nothing 'vast' about substance. Quantity is not at issue.

Yes it is. Since my comment, the one which you replied to, was about quantity or rather size as the term "vast" signifies. And to which you replied: "Hardly"

You might think it's irrelevant, fine, but the God Alone Is concept I was referring to is far more vast than the concept of trinity. This is why your response puzzled me.

 

[timtofly]

It would not be vast if we did not have ethnic variations. Perhaps there should have been a "revelation" to all people groups?

Else people should not have such a vast view of themselves, but realize that all are human and there are no barriers; linguistic, ethnic, nor cultural.

I would prefer the later. No people group has any revelation or insight that places them on a higher "level" than any one else.

The Trinity should have never been a dogma that would describe God, but only a discriptor of how one views God. There is a difference, if one holds that God even exist. If there is no God, then the Trinity would just be another way of trying to describe God.

If there was not John the Baptist who baptized Jesus, then there never would have been an incident where people heard a voice from heaven and saw a dove materialize out of no where. To tie that in historically, one would have to connect that John was a renegade that was beheaded by Herod.

For most every incident where God revealed himself to man though, there seemed to be a point where people were surprised that it was God they were with, that they were afraid upon receiving knowledge, and that there was more than a physical contact which then resolved their fear. Now it is possible that the mental capacity of each individual could have passed through each stage on it's own, but usually something happened that resulted in a major historical change. That would not explain why only certain people who experience such a "hallucination" would bring about an historical change, because the phenomenon more than likely happens all the time. Or so people claim that it does.

 

[Agent327]

Yes it is. Since my comment, the one which you replied to, was about quantity or rather size as the term "vast" signifies. And to which you replied: "Hardly"

You might think it's irrelevant, fine, but the God Alone Is concept I was referring to is far more vast than the concept of trinity. This is why your response puzzled me.

1) Quantity is irrelevant to quality.

2) Concepts and 'vastness' disagree. Concepts are abstracts, so vastness doesn't apply.

I suppose by the 'God Alone Is' you are referring to the idea of pantheism. Since 'vast' applies neither to God nor to substance (unless it is a substance) I remain puzzled as to why you are puzzled. (As you put it yourself, God has no 'size'. The term simply doesn't apply.)