Trinitarian or Unitarian? Which are you?!

[Traitorfish]

I was raised Trinitarian, although to be quite honest I never really understood it (what does the Holy Ghost actually do, exactly?), so I imagine if I was still into the ole religiosity, I'd be a Unitarian of some flavour. But, then, it's plain enough after five minutes conversation that I don't really understand Christian theology full stop, so who knows what a religious Traitorfish would believe?

 

[Arakhor]

That's not how the trinity works.

To be fair, in the other thread, you said that anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is infallible is faking being a Christian, so I'm not inclined to take your word on further theological queries.

 

[Plotinus]

Well either he is God or he is not God. If he is God, he is God and knows all that God knows and can do all that God can do.

Traditionally, Christians distinguish between Jesus' divine knowledge and his human knowledge. His divine knowledge is not necessarily available to him during his incarnation, but his human knowledge is.

It's a bit like the Doctor becoming human by means of that pocket watch thing. He "forgets" all the stuff he knows as a Time Lord. He still knows it, but the knowledge isn't available to him.

Some theologians go further and say that in order to become incarnate Christ really loses his divine knowledge (it doesn't just go dormant). This is kenoticism. However, there are problems with kenoticism, which mean that while it was big in the nineteenth century it's become less popular today. One is that it would follow that having perfect knowledge is not necessary for divinity, in which case the unincarnate God (who does have perfect knowledge) has properties which are accidental, i.e. not essential to him, and this is problematic. (I'm not sure why, though.)

A popular idea among some modern theologians is that of Jesus having two minds, or a split consciousness, one half of which experiences the divine "stream" of thought and the other of which experiences the human "stream". This is in line with traditional theology, which holds that Christ has a human soul in addition to the divine Son which already has the power of thought. i.e. Christ consists of the divine Son, a human soul/mind, and a human body. Both the divine Son and and the human soul/mind are centres of consciousness. If this sounds alarmingly like Nestorianism then that just goes to show that theology is a funny old thing; the traditional response is that the human soul/mind does not constitute a person in addition to the Son because it is hypostatically united to the Son, i.e. it is not a substance in its own right (although, in the absence of the Son, it would have been).

 

[Antilogic]

Anyone else reminded of the Clinton quote on the definition of is?

 

[Borachio]

I must say I'm really rather dubious about theology altogether. (No offence to anyone, btw, it's just my personal feeling about it. And there's other subjects my objections apply to, too.)

It's just idle speculation, isn't it? There's no way to test any of these theories, at all.

People just make stuff up out of thin air. Sure, it's possible to argue that this or that idea is internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with other ideas, but none of it actually gets anyone anywhere does it?

Or am I missing something?

I suppose you could say that it's an intellectual exercise in its own right, like philosophy, and therefore valuable as training for the mind. But, well, an engineering problem can be thought of in those sorts of terms too, with the added bonus that you've got a bridge, or a rocket to the moon, as a by-product of your thinking, at the end.

Still, we can't judge a human activity solely on its utility, I realize.

 

[Plotinus]

I must say I'm really rather dubious about theology at all. (No offence to anyone, btw, it's just my personal feeling about it. And there's other subjects my objections apply to, too.)

It's just idle speculation, isn't it? There's no way to test any of these theories, at all.

People just make stuff up out of thin air. Sure, it's possible to argue that this or that idea is internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with other ideas, but none of it actually gets anyone anywhere does it?

It does if people believe that the basic doctrines are actually true. If you believe that God was incarnate in Jesus, because (a) your church teaches it and (b) it is somehow consonant with your own spiritual experience, then it may be important to you to understand how this can be possible. The same with the Trinity. As for testing, there are tests, but they're rather subjective. There are tests of consistency, but also tests of faithfulness to the tradition and to people's spiritual experience. These aren't very convincing tests to someone outside that faith tradition, but to someone inside it, they may be very important. This is why, to return to the OP, the majority of Christians will straightforwardly rule out Unitarianism as certainly false, because it's not true to the creeds or teaching of the church or (in their view) to the Bible. And if you think those things are important, that makes a difference.

 

[Borachio]

the majority of Christians will straightforwardly rule out Unitarianism as certainly false, because it's not true to the creeds or teaching of the church or (in their view) to the Bible.

And this is saying Trinitarianism is true because..."It's the truth". Isn't it?

Paint me old-fashioned and cynical, but how can anyone find this satisfactory?

 

[classical_hero]

So he left behind the time of his second coming, but did come fully cognisant of the fact that Genesis was an accurate rendition of the creation?

Why, exactly?

You are comparing oranges to apples. One event is in the past and thus already happened and one event is in the future and thus hasn't happened. If Jesus doesn't have knowledge of what has already happened, then I would be worried. I am not worried that he didn't know the time of his second coming, since he didn't need to know that.

 

[Borachio]

How do you know he didn't need to know that.

How do you know he did need to know about Genesis being an accurate rendition of the creation. (It isn't, btw.)

 

[MobBoss]

To be fair, in the other thread, you said that anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is infallible is faking being a Christian, so I'm not inclined to take your word on further theological queries.

I never said that. I simply pointed out that it is indeed regarded as the word of God (even Jesus remarked upon the word if you recall) and as such should at a minimum be a guide for Christian faith.

And I don't really care what your inclined to do or not. That's your choice to make. Just like how you label yourself even though you don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

The way it was explained to me is that the Trinity is the correct way, as the universe is designed in three to reflect God. The three measures of distance (width, length, height), the three measures of time (past, present, future), the three parts that make up a person (body, mind, spirit) and the parts of personality (who they are, who they think they are and what others think of them).

 

[warpus]

I must say I'm really rather dubious about theology altogether. (No offence to anyone, btw, it's just my personal feeling about it. And there's other subjects my objections apply to, too.)

It's just idle speculation, isn't it? There's no way to test any of these theories, at all.

That's why the religious take so much stock in their holy books, I think, because that's the only "loophole" to your objections: it's a holy book, it was written by a holy supernatural entity -> it's a source of truth.

If you assume that you can get truth out of a book like that and you really believe it, it all ceases to be speculation, at least in terms of the basic axioms of your faith. You now have the truth, written down, and ready to be interpreted.

I wonder if there are any surviving religions out there which do not have a holy book that they view as the word of God or a god-like entity? And if so, do they only base their religion on oral tradition or is there anything else to it? And if they do not exist, could we then postulate that a religion needs such a "source of truth" as a holy book, because without it all you have is, as you put it, idle speculation?

 

[classical_hero]

How do you know he didn't need to know that.

What purpose would it serve for Jesus to know that? He came to earth to fulfil the will of the Father, and that was to die on the cross as our substitute. Where does knowing the time of his second coming comes into that?

How do you know he did need to know about Genesis being an accurate rendition of the creation. (It isn't, btw.)

Then say that Jesus is lying since he used Genesis many times to make points. So if Jesus spoke of Moses, does that mean he existed? So if He spoke of Noah, does that mean he existed?

 

[Borachio]

I wonder if there are any surviving religions out there which do not have a holy book that they view as the word of God or a god-like entity? And if so, do they only base their religion on oral tradition or is there anything else to it? And if they do not exist, could we then postulate that a religion needs such a "source of truth" as a holy book, because without it all you have is, as you put it, idle speculation?

Yes. I think you'll find there's plenty of religion that doesn't depend on holy books at all. That's not to say they don't read the texts, just that they don't consider them to be the essence of religion.

I'd say all the major religions have an esoteric or mystical branch to them.

The Kabbala for Judaism, Sufism for Islam, and whatever (I don't know what it's called) for Christianity. And all those other religions too. Yeah.

There's a superficial exoteric religious form, which is culturally dependent, and an esoteric basis on which the exoteric is very loosely based.

The esoteric forms are, as I expect you know, based on an individual's own experience, and exploration of their own consciousness, entirely.

Still, maybe I have it all wrong. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Actually, I can't see having a holy book does anything other than increase the idle speculation: this bit means that; oh no it doesn't; that bit's a missprint; and so on. Languages move on. Words change their meanings. Social structures, and significations, develop over time.

What purpose would it serve for Jesus to know that? He came to earth to fulfil the will of the Father, and that was to die on the cross as our substitute. Where does knowing the time of his second coming comes into that?

I've really no idea.

Then say that Jesus is lying since he used Genesis many times to make points.

I'm sorry, I can't make much sense of this sentence.

So if Jesus spoke of Moses, does that mean he existed? So if He spoke of Noah, does that mean he existed?

Does that mean who existed? Jesus or Moses? In the second sentence since the second he isn't capitalized I suppose you must mean Noah. Likewise, in the first sentence you must mean Moses.

I've still no idea. Why would speaking of someone mean that they necessarily existed?

But really, your sentences are just too hard for me to understand.

 

[warpus]

Yes. I think you'll find there's plenty of religion that doesn't depend on holy books at all. That's not to say they don't read the texts, just that they don't consider them to be the essence of religion.

But they are all sort of based on teachings found in their respective holy books and they rely on these holy books as a source for "what to believe", no?

 

[classical_hero]

I'm sorry, I can't make much sense of this sentence.

Does that mean who existed? Jesus or Moses? In the second sentence since the second he isn't capitalized I suppose you must mean Noah. Likewise, in the first sentence you must mean Moses.

I've still no idea. Why would speaking of someone mean that they necessarily existed?

But really, your sentences are just too hard for me to understand.

How can you trust Jesus on the future if you can't trust what he says about the past?

 

[Arakhor]

There are a few basic tenets of Christianity that all Christians agree on:
...
8 The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
...
If you don't agree to that and still insist on calling yourself a Christian then just maybe your doing it for the label, not as a belief.

Well, yes, you did use 'maybe' as a qualifier, but there is still a big difference between something being 'inspired' and something being 'infallible'. The Bible is certainly the first, but it physically cannot be the second without tying yourself up in pages and pages of 'interpretation' and 'proper reading' to ensure that its conflicting passages appear not to do so.

Whilst it makes very little difference to me whether God and Jesus are the same person or not, that is not what I taught when I was growing up and I'm not going to change now. The existence of Hell would make a vast difference to me, which is why I say that Hell does not exist, but say that I was taught that Jesus was 'merely' the Son of God.

Then say that Jesus is lying since he used Genesis many times to make points. So if Jesus spoke of Moses, does that mean he existed? So if He spoke of Noah, does that mean he existed?

And again you assume that if Jesus said something in error, he was lying. He was clearly not infallible, so it was possible for him to be wrong.

 

[Borachio]

But they are all sort of based on teachings found in their respective holy books and they rely on these holy books as a source for "what to believe", no?

No. I don't think so. It's rather, if anything, the other way round. The holy books are based on the teachings of various "mystical" (I'm not fond of the word, but I think we're stuck with it) experiences.

People following on in the tradition will of course read the holy books, and take that as a point of departure for their spiritual journey. But, I get the impression, the texts are very soon left far behind. And are really only a very small part of it. The books are just signposts indicating a general direction.

Also, most (if not all) mystics would hold that there is only one reality, or truth if you must, which transcends any culture. This is not what you'll hear from the exoteric traditions who maintain their particular truth is the only truth and they know what it is. Which seems strange. They're very nearly saying exactly the same thing. But I think it's crucially different, in that mystics maintain that truth is definitely not culture specific. At least, none of those I've read about have seemed to say it is.

BUT, I must emphasize that I really know nothing at all about this subject. Or maybe only what I've gathered from reading books about it!

 

[classical_hero]

And again you assume that if Jesus said something in error, he was lying. He was clearly not infallible, so it was possible for him to be wrong.

How do you know where he is wrong? Again if he was wrong about the past how would be able to trust him on what he said about the future, or even things he said in the present? If he is wrong on one thing then how can we know he is right on another thing?

 

[Arakhor]

Given that people aren't infallible, people are always going to be wrong at some point. If someone is exposed as being inaccurate, you don't trust them in that regard, but that doesn't mean that they're no longer regarded as an authority on other matters. After all, just because I dismiss the creationist movement's woefully misguided attempts to crowbar modern science to fit a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, that does not mean that I might not read one of their articles about contemporary religion with some interest.

Likewise, you might disregard anything I have to say about religion because you think I'm a sin-denying Arian heretic, but that does not mean that I am wrong when I say that you can find the area of a hexagon by squaring the distance from side to side and multiplying by 0.866. (My skill with paragraphs, however, is a different issue.)