Creationism vs. ☐ - 2015-12-11 (page 2 of 2)

« first day (1561 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (294 days later) »

5:38 PM

@curiousdannii It's not so much that none of the previous ways God reached out to people (priests, prophets, laws, etc.) solved the problem of sin, as that they didn't provide a permanent solution to the problem of sin.

With every downward step humanity took, God provided accommodated ways for them to deal with sin. Those ways did work for a certain time period. But then the people took another downward step, and God had to make another accommodation to their new and lower spiritual state.

Eventually humanity took enough downward steps that none of those accommodations and adaptations to increasing human sin were sufficient anymore, because humanity had become almost entirely materialistic and worldly-minded, and were no longer open to any of those indirect ways of dealing with sin. That's when Christ finally came to provide a permanent solution that would not have to be supplanted (though it would have to be renewed).

Still, during the time those previous means of salvation were in place, they did work for those who took advantage of them conscientiously. Otherwise many statements in the OT in which God exhorts people to repent and live righteous, law-abiding lives, and gives them a choice between life and death, would mean nothing to the people to whom they were delivered.

And otherwise, all of the people who lived before Christ would necessarily be condemned to eternal death, because no means of salvation was available to them. That would be incompatible with the universal love and mercy of God.

So Paul has a point about the Law, etc., being inadequate, but I don't think it's quite as radical and stark as people often read his remarks to imply. The failure of the Law was not absolute. It did provide a means for salvation for a certain section of history, and for the people who lived in that section of history. However, it was only a temporary solution, whereas Christ provided a permanent solution.

And even with the permanent solution provided by Christ, people still sin and bring damnation upon themselves. The solution Christ provides does not guarantee universal salvation or the end of all sin. Rather, it provides a means by which all people can choose eternal life over spiritual death. So what Christ provided was the universal, permanent availability of salvation.

6:01 PM

@JamesShewey About eisegesis vs. exegesis, if you want the exegesis, get Swedenborg's Secrets of Heaven vol. 1, and read the hundreds of pages he devotes to minute exegesis of all of these early chapters of Genesis, including parallel passages from elsewhere in the Bible to support his interpretation.

I can't really do justice to it here in chat, with these short little snippets of text.

Yeah - I know what you mean. To be clear - I don't think eisegesis is (all) bad. Jesus did it. The Midrash has quite a bit of it and it can be a useful learning tool.

@JamesShewey Having said that, Swedenborg did say a number of times (and I think with a bit of hyperbole) that the spiritual meaning is completely hidden, and does not appear at all in the literal meaning of the text. Without the concept of correspondences, none of the meanings he assigns to the text would be clear at all--though there certainly have been shadows and mirrors of them brought forward throughout Christian history.

According to Swedenborg, the Bible is intentionally written and structured such that readers who have a materialistic mindset will see very little of its meaning—only a bit of the surface meaning sufficient to provide them with salvation—whereas those whose "eyes [meaning minds] are open" can see as much depth of meaning as their minds are willing to see. "Eyes open" means open to a spiritual understanding of the text, rather than being stuck in a materialistic mindset and interpretation.

So while I will certainly answer any sincere and legitimate questions, if I see that someone simply can't think beyond a materialistic and literalistic view of the Bible, I generally keep on walking, and don't engage, because no matter how many words I use, they won't see it because their eyes are not open to see it.

I know I've referred to it several times earlier, but John 6:25-71, in my reading of it, illustrates Jesus performing major surgery in order to separate those who can think spiritually from those who can think only materialstically.

And there is a poignant, plaintive tone to it in the later verses. It's clear that it pains Jesus that so many people do not understand what he is talking about because they are stuck on a literal understanding of his words: that people must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood to have any life in them. Many stopped following him at that point—and it was the ones who could see no deeper than the literal surface who abandoned him.

The same plaintive, poignant tone sometimes comes through in Swedenborg's writings when he recognizes that only a few people will understand and embrace the spiritual understanding of the Scriptures that he is delivering to the world, and that most (traditional) Christians will reject it. Their minds are simply not open to see the deeper meanings in the Bible, just as the minds of many of Jesus' followers were not open to see the spiritual force of Jesus teachings.

I myself find it immensely sad that so many hundreds of millions of Christians are stuck in such materialistic and superficial doctrines about the nature of the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, and Redemption. However, those doctrines are fading and being rejected as society moves forward, so I look forward to a time when they will finally be consigned to Gehenna (the trash incinerator) where they belong.

6:21 PM

Do you think people were able to think beyond materialistic interpretations before Swedenborg 's writings?

@JamesShewey In the early days of Christianity I think people's minds were open to a more spiritual understanding. The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most polished, literary pieces in the NT, and it shows a mind capable of grasping spiritual meanings in the OT story and ritual practices.

And re: John 6:25 - is this how you think John's audience would have understood the text?

What about before Christianity (judaism)

As time went on, though, that early openness to spiritual understandings began to fade--and fairly quickly--and Christianity reverted back to an old Jewish-style priestly system. This was accompanied by increasingly materialistic understandings of the Bible text and of redemption and salvation.

It did not take long for Christianity to become corrupted by materialism. The Council of Nicea, which resulted in Christianity becoming a state religion, focused on worldly power, was one of the big turning points.

@JamesShewey Clearly the writer of the Gospel of John (whoever he was) had some sense of the meaning and thrust of the dialog, or he couldn't have recorded it as he did.

@JamesShewey By the time the story gets to the Israelite people and the ancient Jewish religion, there was little or no understanding of spiritual meanings left, because humanity had fallen to a very low ebb spiritually, and thought almost entirely materialistically. This is shown in the nature of the laws (very concrete) and ritual practices (focused on physical animal sacrifices) that constituted the core of their religion.

Actually, the Council of Nicea did NOT result in Christianity becoming the state religion.

After Constantine was overthrown Christians were exiled and persecuted for many years. They died for their trinitarian beliefs.

@JamesShewey You can quibble about the exact history, but when a Roman emperor calls a council and obliges it to come up with a creed that will be the official creed of the empire, I would call that making Christianity into a state religion.

6:28 PM

He never promised it would become the creed of the empire, and again - even if he had done that it was totally and completely reversed by the emperor who succeeded him.

@JamesShewey So it didn't happen in simple, linear fashion. But the Council of Nicea set the precedent and the tone that, in time, solidified the Roman Catholic Church into a major worldly power.

History rarely happens in simple, follow-the-dots fashion. But the trends of history are clear enough, and beginnings lead to middles, which lead to endings.

This is true. But the point that I am making is that the members of the council believed so thoroughly in the doctrine of the trinity they were martyred for it.

For many years bofore a state religion was instituted.

It actually became state religion under theodosius and there were something like 6 emperors between.

@JamesShewey Sure. A certain amount of stubbornness is required for a religion to persist. That's why God chose Jacob instead of Esau through which to found the Israelite religion. Esau was weak-kneed, and did not have the stubbornness and persistence of character required to push through all the resistance and stick with a monotheistic (or perhaps henotheistic) religion in the face of a world full of polytheists.

@JamesShewey Details, details. Nicea was the origin point. The rest was just the two steps forward, one step back working out of history.

And not coincidentally, Swedenborg traces the spiritual downfall of (traditional) Christianity to the Council of Nicea.

I understand - but details are important many people (Mormons in particular) like to link this doctrine to the "evil roman catholic empire" but the truth is that it just isn't. It's part of the purer early Christianity - the era before the "evil roman catholic empire"

Which makes me think of Darth Vader in a pope hat.

He was concerned primarily with the heresy of a Trinity of Persons. But the history around it shows that it was the turning point from Christianity being a spiritual religion, as it was in its early days, to Christianity being a worldly religion, as it has largely been ever since.

6:33 PM

That's a pretty important detail.

All of this is to answer your question about whether Christians saw these spiritual meanings. At first, yes, though not really clearly. But that early spiritual focus quickly gave way, within the space of a few short centuries, to materialism and worldliness.

Correlation does not prove causality. Especially when the items correlated are separated by so many years and social changes.

But anyway, your point is taken - whether at the first council or the second council the worm turned, I can agree it turned.

@JamesShewey The earliest Christians had no doctrine of a Trinity of Persons. Even the Nicene Creed didn't state it very clearly. It took another century or two, and the writing of the Athanasian Creed, to really spell it out. So the Trinity of Persons certainly was not a part of the purer early Christianity of the first century or two.

I've read the original creed as ratified by the first council. I think it was actually MORE trinitarian than the revised creed. But the first council was in 325AD I believe.

The invention and adoption of the Trinity of Persons was, in our (Swedenborgian) view, both the result and the cause of Christianity falling away from the pure teachings of Jesus Christ, and making Christianity a matter of doctrinal "correctness" rather than a matter of love for God and love for the neighbor, as Jesus taught.

6:37 PM

I guess trinitarian isn't the right word

Since the holy spirit was largely absent.

Bitarian?

Don't forget that Christians were not only martyred for their beliefs, but they martyred each other for beliefs that didn't accord with their own particular doctrines. When you have Christians killing other Christians over matters of doctrine, I would say that is a clear sign of a corrupted church that has long since abandoned the teachings of Jesus.

I am totally unfamiliar with those events. Do you have any sources that I could read more?

You also can't really understand the Council of Nicea and ensuing doctrinal battles without seeing it as a struggle for power among various factions of Christians. In addition to Constantine's empire-building, Nicea was also called to combat Arius and Arianism. And there were various councils on both sides that mutually anathematized and excommunicated one another. The whole thing can be seen as an internecine power struggle among the various factions of Christian bishops.

@JamesShewey I'm not a historian. Some others here can probably point you to better historical resources than I could. But my sense is that it started out somewhat less virulently with Christians excommunicating and exiling other Christians, and then over the centuries developed into Christians executing other Christians for "heresy." There are many, many examples of this through Christian history.

This is true - but it was called by secular forces, not Chrstians. The point of the exercise was to prevent unrest and/or keep the Christians bickering so that they did not rise up against the Roman empire. Constantine didn't really care what the outcome was so long as it didn't start a war and prevented any uprisings agains the empire. So those struggling for power were those who could really care less about the outcome.

That was after the Roman Catholic church was formed as a state religion - many years after the creed was ratified.

In Swedenborg's view, once a few generations of Christians had gone by, and the initial spiritual focus was lost, more and more heresies (i.e., false beliefs) sprung up and battled one another. The heresy of a Trinity of Persons just happened to be the particular heresy that prevailed over the other heresies, and became orthodox doctrine throughout the vast bulk of Christianity.

6:44 PM

Like I said - I certainly agree that the Catholic church went apostate, but I do not associate the Doctrine of the Trinity with the State-sponsored Roman Catholic Church.

@JamesShewey As I said, history does not happen in follow-the-dots linear fashion. It takes time for beginnings to lead to their middles, and their ends. Early Christianity did not have so much worldly power as it did later, so it could not crush its opposition as effectively as it did later, when it became, for a time, the supreme political power in western Europe. That was when Christianity itself began torturing and executing anyone who dared to publicly challenge its doctrine and its power.

But anyway - circling back around to John - I'm pretty sure John's audience would have interpreted this text as referring to Roman mystery cults - like the Cult of Dionysus. That's why the Pharisees struggled so much with his statement - he was basically advocating a pagan practice.

This horrible corruption in Christianity (effectively, the Roman Catholic Church) led in time to the Protestant Reformation, and to the pitched battles between Catholics and Protestants for a few centuries after that. This was the beginning of the breaking of the power of a Christianity that had become utterly corrupt and doctrinally false.

Unfortunately, Protestantism adopted yet more heresies, such as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, thus sealing its own eventual fate.

@JamesShewey The doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrinal foundation of Roman Catholicism, and also of Protestantism, not to mention Orthodox Christianity. All of the doctrines of these churches rest upon the Trinity of Persons as on their foundation. Take away that doctrine, and the whole edifice of doctrine crumbles. That's why traditional Christians defend it so fiercely despite the fact that it simply is not taught in the Bible.

Actually - It is pretty clearly biblical. Are you familiar with the 7 I AM statements of John?

Of all the "sins" of Emanuel Swedenborg, the one most heavily attacked is his rejection of the Trinity of Persons. That's because it lays the ax to the root of the tree of falsified Christian doctrine.

6:50 PM

Just as a for example?

Jesus was constantly claiming to be God - basically every time the Pharisees accused him of Blasphemy.

It's actually because that is the basis of salvation according to protestant doctrine.

@JamesShewey The Bible never uses the word "trinity," and more importantly, the Bible never identifies the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit as "persons." The doctrine of the Trinity is simply never stated in the Bible. That's why it took several centuries to come up with it.

See:

5

A: What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Yes, it's long! Yes, I know this is a long answer. Sorry about that! However, given the huge amount of ink (and pixels) that has been expended on the doctrine of the Trinity for almost two thousand years now, I do not see how justice can be done to the subject in the brief answers that are pref...

That is true. But the bible never used a lot of fancy words that we come up with to describe doctrine.

The idea of the trinity is that Jesus is God and God is Jesus (and the holy spirit too).

So the question isn't the appearance of the word "trinity" it is if the idea appears.

@JamesShewey The Bible is perfectly able to clearly state any doctrines necessary for salvation, and any doctrines that are to be taken as fundamental to Christianity. As I point out in the above-linked answer, the Trinity of Persons entirely fails that test.

The bible never uses the term rapture, but that simply means bodily resurrection which it sounds like Swedenborg even agrees with. The fact that that those seven words aren't in the bible doesn't really concern me as much as if the idea is.

It is true that the Bible does not provide a clear theology by which to understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. The Trinity of Persons was probably the least damaging heresy that third- and fourth-century Christians came up with to try to explain it. But it still is not taught in the Bible, and therefore cannot be rightfully established as the foundational doctrine of Christianity.

@JamesShewey Swedenborg rejected the resurrection of the physical body.

6:55 PM

It clearly does - For example Acts 16:31. Believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

@JamesShewey It clearly does what?

So if Jesus claimed to be God and you don't believe that, you do not believe in Jesus Christ.

It really is that simple.

It clearly state any doctrines necessary for salvation

@JamesShewey None of that requires believing that Jesus Christ is a distinct person of God.

I believe that Jesus Christ is God. I simply don't believe that he is somehow a different "person" of God than the Father or the Holy Spirit.

It does if that is who he claimed to be.

But the doctrine of the trinity doesn't say that he is a distinct person.

@JamesShewey Did Jesus claim to be the Second Person of the Trinity? Where is that in the Bible? I don't see it there.

@JamesShewey Oh, come on. Yes it does. Read the Athanasian Creed.

6:57 PM

Perhaps not in english...

So, for example - homousous literally means "of the same substance" as God.

@JamesShewey Then read it in Latin. It says the same thing in Latin as it does in English.

> For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

But that being said, the Athenasian is not the same as the Nicene creed.

And the core contradiction embodied right in the Athanasian Creed itself:

> For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

^ THAT is the doctrine of the trinity.

@JamesShewey True enough. The Nicene Creed is not explicitly Trinitarian. But it's clear enough that that's where its writers were headed. The Athanasian Creed simply clearly articulates the concept that was developing in the minds of the writers of the earlier creed.

@JamesShewey You can't quote one part of it and leave out the rest. The Trinity as defined in traditional Christianity is a trinity of Persons. And that is the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Athanasian Creed is accepted as authoritative in Roman Catholicism and in the major Protestant denominations as well. The whole thing.

7:03 PM

The doctrine of the trinity as Alexander understood it does not say that they are distinct separate persons. Nor does it say they are the same person. They are three persons in one person.

It something which escapes human comprehension - which makes sense (that it doesn't make sense) when you are talking about God

@JamesShewey Well, the doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradictory, as the Athanasian Creed at least has the presence of mind to tacitly admit. You can't be both three persons and one person at the same time. You're either one person or you're three people.

The Doctrine of the Trinity states that God is three people (to use ordinary language). That's polytheism, no matter how much the catholic religion forbids saying "three Gods and three Lords."

That is simply false.

3

Q: Why do some Christian groups view the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) as a belief in three gods rather than in one God?

The vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three persons." Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims commonly charge Christians with believing...

trinity trinitarian non-trinitarian

I understand why people think that - I'm just saying that are wrong. That's not what Alexander thought and it isn't what the Nicene creed says.

But the bottom line is that the Trinity of Persons is not stated in the Bible. It therefore cannot rightfully be placed as the foundational doctrine of Christianity.

@JamesShewey Do you reject the Athanasian Creed?

7:06 PM

Are you familiar with the 7 I AM statements of John and all the times the Pharisees accused Jesus of Blaspheme?

I'm not sure - I really haven't studied that creed to be honest.

Possibly.

@JamesShewey If you mean have I read the Gospel of John, then yes.

@JamesShewey I would suggest reading it, because that's where the Doctrine of the Trinity was clearly defined and codified. And it is accepted as authoritative doctrine in Roman Catholicism and in most of the original Protestant denominations.

The Athanasian Creed was simply the clear articulation of the idea that the Nicene Creed was leading to. And that is recognized and accepted in the vast bulk of traditional Christianity.

If you have read it, there are several times where Jesus says things like I AM the bread of life. I AM the light of the world. I AM the resurrection and the life.

Mark 14:55 states "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said "I am", at which point the high priest tore his own robe in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy."

When he says I AM he is using the tetragrammaton and claiming to be God.

Swedenborg did reject the Nicene Creed, saying that it was the beginning of the doctrinal destruction of Christianity. But he spent much more time on the Athanasian Creed, because that's where the Trinity of Persons was clearly articulated, and that's where the heresy that began with the Nicene Creed came to full fruition.

He is basically hijacking Exodus 3:14.

@JamesShewey Yes? I believe that Jesus is God. What's your point?

7:10 PM

So then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?

In Gethsemane for example. Or who spoke on the Sermon on the Mt.

"This is my son in whom I am well pleased"

@JamesShewey That question has already been asked of me, and answered by yours truly, here:

5

A: How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?

From a Swedenborgian perspective, there is a simple answer and a complex answer to this question. The Simple Answer The simple answer does not require the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) at all. It only requires common human experience: Jesus was talking to himself. People often ta...

See also this article on my blog, which is an edited version of a response I gave to similar questions on an LDS discussion board: Was Jesus Christ Human from Mary, or Human from God?

That explains the praying, but what about the Transfiguration?

@JamesShewey The Transfiguration happened during one of Jesus' states of "glorification," or oneness with the Father, who was his own divine soul.

OK, but who was the voice from above that the disciples witnessed?

Did you read the part about Jesus' alternating states while on earth?

7:16 PM

Yes - it says sometimes he is more connected to his divine soul, but other times more human. I'm assuming that this was one of the times he was more unified with it?

The transfiguration?

@JamesShewey Don't let your mind get stuck in materialistic, human understandings of "Father" and "Son." God had to use some language that we humans could understand. As with so many other things in the Bible, "Father" and "Son" are used as metaphors, from human language, about the nature of God. If you think of it materialistically, like human fathers and sons, you will never understand what the Bible tells us about the nature of God.

(I'm sure I grossly over-simplified that)

Do you think that we must literally eat Jesus' flesh and drink Jesus' blood? Do you think that something like transubstatiation or consubstantiation is necessary for the Holy Supper to have efficacy? Was Jesus really talking literally about cannibalism, and establishing it as a necessary practice for salvation to occur?

I'm not getting stuck on the verbiage I am wondering who or what the voice from above - that is the voice not emanating from Jesus body was that spoke to the disciples

When our minds get stuck in literal, physical, human understandings of these words used in the Bible to convey to us ideas that are essentially spiritual, we totally miss the point, and our minds get caught up in all sorts of fallacies and falsities--the greatest of which is the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons.

7:19 PM

No - I do not believe in transubstantiation nor do I believe that communion is necessary for salvation.

@JamesShewey Have you never had a conversation with yourself? Have you never heard a voice in your head saying, for example, "Don't do it!"

I have, but another voice from a corner of the room has never said anything back to me.

Why do you think God would be incapable of making the disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration hear a voice coming from the Divine Being of God?

And that has never been witnessed by other people.

I don't think he is incapable of it, I am asking if that is what you think happened at the Transfiguration.

Or do you not think that scene actually happened.

@JamesShewey The Transfiguration involved the partial opening of the spiritual eyes of the three disciples who saw it. There were no other onlookers or witnesses. The experience was limited to those three.

The Transfiguration was meant to open their eyes more fully to the true, divine nature of Jesus. Keep in mind that they knew him as a physical, flesh-and-blood man. It's hard to think of that guy sitting next to you, who just went to the latrine a few minutes ago, as being God. Jesus had to ease them into it over time.

7:23 PM

So what about John 12:27-33 where the voice speaks from above to a crowd?

In a sense, it's easier for us to think of him as God than it was for them to think of him as God. We're not walking around with a flesh-and-blood human being, who probably smells pretty much the way others did in those days, whose feet are dirty and whose family thinks he's crazy. We have the benefit of distance from all those physical encounters, which makes it easier for us to deify him than it was for those who knew him personally during his lifetime.

@JamesShewey God was still God in heaven, even when he came down as Jesus.

God is not limited to one space or time as we are.

Is that ventriloquy by Jesus, or Jesus using his divine nature to make people think they heard something? Or is that allegorical writing?

Or something else?

Ah. So now you have arrived at the doctrine of the trinity.

@JamesShewey It is necessary to understand that during his lifetime on earth, Jesus did have a dual nature: a finite humanity derived from his mother Mary and an infinite divine nature that was his own divine soul. Without this understanding, the Gospel narratives are confusing and contradictory. But with it, they all begin to make sense. I'd recommend reading the other article I linked above, which goes into this a bit more.

Will do.

I skimmed it - but I should give it a thorough read.

@JamesShewey No. There are not three persons of God. There is only one person of God. And in that one person, the "Father" is the divine soul or the divine love, the "Son" is the divine body or divine truth, and the "Holy Spirit" is the divine power, which we experience as God's words and actions.

There are not three persons of God any more than each of us consists of three persons.

7:28 PM

The trinity is not 3 persons.

Nor is God 1 person.

Neither is an appropriate expression of God or the trinity.

@JamesShewey That's precisely how it's been clearly and emphatically defined to me by others right here on this site.

But that seems contradictory.

And once again, read the Athanasian Creed. If you have not read it and studied it, you simply don't understand the Trinity as believed in the vast bulk of Christianity.

Another on my to do list.

I'll make you a trade - I'll read those, if you are willing to look over A.W. Tozer's view of it.

And for my own basic introduction to the nature of God, see my article, Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit? That article crams a lot of doctrine into a small space. It should answer most of your basic questions about our view of the Trinity (not of Persons) in God.

7:32 PM

Mostly Chapters 3 and 4, though his book is short - good and quick read. The thinnest theology book I have every read actually.

@JamesShewey I will read it for your sake. I find almost all traditional Christian theology to be tiresome because it's based on a false foundation, and therefore quite regularly comes to false conclusions. Plus, it unnecessarily ties my mind in knots as I attempt to pretend that the contradictory stuff they're saying somehow actually makes sense, when in fact it doesn't make sense.

But I accept your trade, and I'll force my way through it. Sorry to be so negative, but I've read a lot of these recommendations from traditional Christians, and it really never gets any better.

I get the sense I will have the same issue the more I read Swedenborg.

But I appreciate you being willing to give it a try.

@JamesShewey Perhaps you will. In particular, if your mind is already firmly settled and crystallized on traditional Trinitarian theology, you probably won't like it, because it will, if accepted, demolish the foundations of that particular belief. But I have hope, since you haven't actually read and codified in your mind the Athanasian Creed, that perhaps there is still some openness. And perhaps Tozer won't be as bad as my mind, jaded by so many Protestant treatises, expects he will be.

At least chapters 3 and 4 anyway.

I typically am pretty negative when it comes to Theology. I really don't like Barth; hate Calvin and Spurgeon. Didn't like Tillich. But I did like this one.

@JamesShewey I'm about to load it onto my tablet, for more comfortable reading, as we speak.

7:42 PM

It's an examination of the attributes of God so it is not very tied up in responding to other's theology. It's a fairly fresh start proceeding directly from the texts for the most part.

Though not quite as fresh as Swedenborg.

@JamesShewey I presume you mean conceptually. Swedenborg did his writing in the 18th century.

Yes - conceptually. Swedenborg is fresh in that it tosses out about 15 centuries worth of doctrine and starts over (mostly) directly from the texts. Then once the texts are understood Swedenborg re-engages in critiquing other doctrines.

This is often not done in theology.

More often they are responding to what came before.

@JamesShewey It was quite a struggle for Swedenborg. After all, he grew up as the son of a Lutheran clergyman--and a strongly opinionated one at that. My uncle, who is also a Swedenborgian scholar, is currently doing an intense study of one of Swedenborg's major unpublished transitional works. It's clear that it took Swedenborg several years after the initial opening of his spiritual eyes to leave behind the old theology that had been inculcated into him from birth.

I believe it was this experience that caused Swedenborg to refuse to take any credit for the theology he saw himself as delivering to the world from the Lord Jesus Christ. He knew from his own experience that on his own he never would have arrived at these doctrines, because they assailed all of the doctrines he had been taught throughout his life.

So it's not too surprising that in his later, published theological works, he reserves his most deadly venom for Lutheran theology--the very theology that he had grown up with. (Though he was quite vicious about Calvinist theology as well. Just not at such length as his attacks on Luther's Sola fide theology.)

@JamesShewey But yes, Swedenborg essentially dumped almost 15 centuries of Christian doctrine, as you say, and started over directly from the Bible. I am not aware of anyone else who has done so in such thorough fashion.

7:59 PM

Well I'm sure luther would have been just as incendiary and venomous to Swedenborg. Have you seen this?

@JamesShewey Venomous polemics against doctrinal enemies were the order of the day in those times. Swedenborg's earliest published theological works were quite pacific. Secrets of Heaven is quite enjoyable reading, and has little or no polemical content. Swedenborg's most polemic work was his last major published work: True Christianity. And it was written after Lutherans and others began their systematic attacks on Swedenborg and his doctrines.

8:17 PM

@JamesShewey Okay, I'm actually enjoying it so far, despite it's turgid early 20th century writing style. But I haven't gotten to chapters 3 and 4 yet. So far, he's making several points that Swedenborg had also made earlier about the importance of our concept of God, and of having a right concept of God. And his gloss on Ezekiel's vision of God in heaven recalls talks by my uncle who said similar things about how Ezekiel was clearly struggling to convey something beyond human words.

Yeah - his take on Ezekiel is amazing.

Chapter 4 would (possibly) be the one you wouldn't like, but after that he moves on to other attributes.

@JamesShewey Well . . . right after that amazing stuff he starts wandering into murky areas, from my perspective, essentially rejecting what we could learn about God by accepting the force of the statement in Genesis 1 that God created humans in the image and likeness of God. But I'll keep reading . . . .

Our being created in the image and likeness of God is a key concept in Swedenborg's exposition of the nature of God. Not that we are God in any sense, but the fact that Genesis says we reflect God's nature provides us with a sound basis for understanding, on our own intellectual level, the true nature of God. And Tozer seems to be throwing out that basis of understanding. Which is not a good sign . . . .

It is true that the core being and reality of God is beyond human comprehension because it is infinite, whereas human minds are finite. However, as God comes down to the level of our minds, God does become comprehensible to us, on our own level of thinking.

Citing the "mystery" of God is a common way of banishing all rational and sensible thought when it comes to God, as a basis for supporting fallacious and contradictory doctrines about God under the cover of God being "incomprehensible." The core of God may be incomprehensible to us, but God is in no way contradictory, and any doctrine that requires God to have contradictory attributes is false.

And in case that's too abstract, as an example, a doctrine saying that God is both three persons and one person is self-contradictory, and therefore false. And its falsity is seen when we understand exactly how we humans are created in the image and likeness of God.

8:38 PM

@JamesShewey Okay, now Tozer is quoting the Athanasian Creed. You really should read it, you know! :-)

Lol. I did.

I think you were quoting it quite out of context.

@JamesShewey I think I'm paying attention to what it actually says, which is quite self-contradictory.

It is admittedly (or can seem) quite-self contradictory. And I think that is intentionally so.

@JamesShewey Which only underlines the fact that its authors did not understand the nature of God.

The best analogy I can come up with with my "creature words" as Tozer calls them is that the trinity is like quantum superposition. Just as God is neither one nor three, he is also both one and 3, Schrodinger cat is both dead and alive and/or neither dead nor alive.

I agree.

They did not. As Tozer discusses it is beyond human comprehension.

8:43 PM

@JamesShewey Perhaps that's what distinguishes Swedenborg's theology from all others. Swedenborg believes that we actually can gain an accurate understanding of the nature of God, even if that understanding is at our own finite human level rather than at the infinite divine level.

Basically, what that comes down to is no matter what way you try to interpret, explain or analygize the trinity as, I will say: nope - that's wrong! Because I believe it defies human understanding. I don'

This is a consequence of his doctrine of correspondences, in which divine things express themselves in spiritual things, and spiritual things express themselves in material things. Without understanding this concept about the nature of reality, the human mind is bound to wander into fallacy, error, and illusion about God and everything else.

t really understand it myself and can't adequately explain it.

@JamesShewey And that's precisely why it is an utterly useless doctrine.

But I am comfortable in owning that position.

8:45 PM

It's main "use" was in staving off even worse heresies that denied the divinity of Jesus. It was the least destructive heresy that could be entertained by materialistic minds, while preserving a belief in Jesus as God.

I would agree that we can gain an understanding of God at our finite human level, but I think that also has limitations.

That, in my view, is why God allowed it to become dominant in Christianity. The alternatives would have been even worse.

Haha. That's probably an apt description.

The progression of Unitarianism as a church illustrates what would have happened to Christianity as a whole if the Trinity of Persons had not been adopted. The Unitarian Universalist Church is no longer a Christian church, despite its Christian roots. That's because it denies the divinity of Jesus, which is the basis of Christianity.

But in my opinion Swedenborg did no better and basically has a modalist interpretation.

8:48 PM

Most of the other heresies that arose in the third and fourth centuries also denied the divinity of Jesus in one way or another. The Trinity was a stopgap measure to preserve Christianity as a religion until humanity was ready for a genuine understanding of the nature of God.

The Unitarians don't deny the divinity of Christ. Neither do they affirm it. If that works for you, please enjoy yourself and feel free to share.

My wife calls Unitarianism church for agnostics.

@JamesShewey In fact, the Trinity of Persons is far more modalist in concept than Swedenborg's trinity is. It posits God in one substance but three persons. And the Latin word persona has the basic meaning of a mask worn by an actor in a play. So the roots of the Trinity of Persons is precisely modalist: one God who appears in three different guises to human beings.

@JamesShewey FYI, I've already refuted the common charge against Swedenborg of being modalist here:

2

A: What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

The revelation of the Trinity for the New Church, as given to Emanuel Swedenborg, is very similar to that of the Oneness Pentecostals. Both state that there is one God in one person in Jesus Christ. Swedenborg was given the doctrine of the Trinity as the Divine itself (the Father), the Divine Hu...

@JamesShewey Read the history of Unitarian doctrine. It does historically deny the divinity of Jesus.

The "unitarian" name comes from seeing God as one, not three as in trinitarianism. And the way Unitarian doctrine achieved this was to say, essentially, that the Father is God, but the Son is not. That's a simplification, but it is essentially what the historical Unitarian doctrine says.

That's why Unitarian doctrine was rejected by Trinitarians.

@JamesShewey So . . . What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness? A: Someone who knocks on your door but isn't quite sure why. ;-)

2

That is true. But instead of persons Swedenborg's interpretation is that the father is like our sole, the son is like our body and the holy spirit is like our words and actions. But this just means that god is acting in these roles.

Instead of a modalism of persons, you have a modalism of attrributes.

Or at least as I understood it from you blog.

With my own interpretation of course.

@JamesShewey No. the soul is not a role, nor is the body, nor are the words and actions. They are not different parts that we play. They are the source, means, and expression of all of our roles.

@JamesShewey That's not what modalism is.

Read my answer linked above. That explains it more fully and clearly.

How many uniterians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb. During next Sunday’s service, we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted; all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

8:57 PM

@JamesShewey Yep. That pretty well sums it up.

@JamesShewey Tozer's whole book is about the attributes of God. Does that mean Tozer is a modalist?

I think Tozer would say that God is entirely those thing. They are not parts of his whole - they are his whole.

And incidentally, Tozer seems to be contradicting himself in saying that God does not have parts, and then going on to say that God does have parts: "An attribute, then, is a part of God."

Perhaps he might say that each attribute is like a diamond facet - each one strikes in different ways at different us when we look at God from different angles.

Right, but he qualifies that by starting from a place of saying "this is a lost cause anyway because God cannot be contained in mere human speech, but... I'll take my best crack at it anyway"

So I think that kind of contradiction is to be expected (As I think Tozer does)

@JamesShewey Unfortunately, he lacks the doctrine of correspondences, which would get him out of that difficulty.

As a function of our limitations of creature words and creature thoughts when considering the creator.

9:01 PM

Okay, now I'm starting chapter 4. Here's where it could get ugly . . . . ;-)

I think that if you think Correspondances are able to explain god fully you are going to end up with a limited that is a creation of our own.

@JamesShewey But words are not false pictures of God. They are merely limited pictures of God. They are accurate, but finite, representations of God, if we understand them more spiritually than literally.

But if they are limited, they are by nature inaccurate.

@JamesShewey Not fully in an infinite sense. But fully to the extent that a finite mind can receive an accurate representation of the nature of God.

@JamesShewey I think you're getting stuck in terminology here. A (non-3D) movie is a flat representation of an originally three-dimensional reality. It is not an inaccurate representation, because it is accurate as far as it goes. It is simply a flattened representation.

I don't know - I am able to distinguish 3D from reality.

9:04 PM

If we think that the original thing it represents actually is two-dimensional, then yes, our thinking is inaccurate. But if we recognize that the movie is a flat representation of a reality that is actually three-dimensional, then we can gain an accurate, if limited, view of that original three-dimensional reality.

I think a finite mind can only ever receive an approximation of the nature of God.

Correspondences are precisely how greater realities accurately represent themselves in lesser realities.

Math literally lacks the ability to describe infinity. In order to perform equations that involve infinity, we have to take approximations.

Can the human mind contain or comprehend the full reality of God? No. But can the human mind contain an accurate representation of the nature of God within its (the human mind's) own level of comprehension. Yes, according to Swedenborg and his doctrine of correspondences, it can.

I wouldn't call that accurate - just good enough.

9:07 PM

I am suspicious of any doctrine of God that relies on incomprehensibility to establish its description of and beliefs about God.

Are you familiar with Escher's work? He plays around with perspective and the flattening of three-dimensional reality into two-dimensional representation. And one of the meta-lessons is that two-dimensional representation can, in fact, be a false representation of three-dimensional reality. The corollary is that two-dimensional representation can be a true representation of three-dimensional reality, flattened down to two dimensions.

I usually agree, but I I am suspicious of any doctrine which posits that God can be fully explained and understood by our perceptions of reality. As creator of reality, humans should lack the ability to understand a God beyond reality.

Which makes me think that a comprehensible God is not the true God at all.

In other words, this is one of the few times that it makes sense that it doesn't make sense and never will.

Here's an example from Escher of a two-dimensional reality presenting a fallacious picture of three-dimensional reality:

user image

The contrast with the flat picture of a cube on the paper on the floor is provided to make the point clear. Escher has purposely mis-drawn the cube, such that it does not actually represent the reality of a three-dimensional cube.

So the idea that two-dimensional reality necessarily falsely represents three-dimensional reality does not hold water. It can represent three-dimensional reality accurately within its two dimensions. That is what the doctrine of correspondences says about the divine nature being represented in spiritual and material reality.

The picture we can have of God is not a false one. It is merely a limited one.

And words can, I believe, present a true picture of God--which is, however, similarly a limited picture of God.

Why leave it at 2d to 3d - here is a 4 dimensional rotation of a Tessercat youtube.com/watch?v=5xN4DxdiFrs

@JamesShewey It can work with whatever cross-dimensional layering your heart desires.

Two- and three-dimensional realities are simply the easiest for us ordinary humans to think in terms of.

That is a 3 dimensional depiction of a Tessercat. Being able to explain it and being able to understand how it works are two different things.

If I built that out of sticks, it would break. I don't understand how you can do 4 dimensional rotation. Yet that is a depiction of it - albeit one which is clearly inadequate to make me understand it.

9:15 PM

@JamesShewey Does that video present an accurate picture of a tesseract in two dimensions? Or is it a false picture of a tesseract in two dimensions?

Neither.

@JamesShewey Then how does it have any relationship at all to a tesseract? Clearly a tesseract is being represented in two dimensions. But you seem to be saying that it has no relationship at all with an actual tesseract.

@JamesShewey To me, what this illustrates is that God can be represented in our limited minds, and we can gain an accurate picture to the extent that our minds are capable of perceiving the reality of God, but that the actual nature of God goes beyond what our mind is capable of perceiving, because our minds are finite whereas God is infinite.

The tesseract can be represented accurately in two dimensions. But the reality goes beyond two dimensions.

The relationship is that it is our best, inadequate representation of a tessercat. It is inadequate because we can't actually build a 4 dimensional tessercat and rotate it.

@JamesShewey And yet . . . two- and three-dimensional representations of tesseracts do enable us to mentally contemplate the nature of an actual four-dimensional tesseract.

Yes. I'm not saying we can't contemplate God.

9:20 PM

That's precisely what's going on when an infinite God is being represented in finite minds.

I'm not even saying that we can't understand God to a degree.

We see an accurate representation of God in finite dimensions.

But we will never be able to fully comprehend God without becoming a god.

We can see the most accurate representation we are capable of rendering.

@JamesShewey Right. And that's impossible. What I'm saying is that we can have an accurate understanding of God within the limits of our finite thinking capabilities.

Right. But that is different in that is is a qualified statement.

9:22 PM

To simply invoke the "mystery" and "incomprehensibility" of God and use it as an excuse to engage in sloppy, illogical, contradictory thinking about God is to fall into fallacy, error, and illusion. And that's precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons does.

We can understand God is a far cry from "we can have an accurate understanding of God within the limits of our finite thinking capabilities."

No - the doctrine of the trinity is like our depiction of the Tessercat.

@JamesShewey Speaking loosely rather than technically, it's the same thing.

The tessercat doesn't make sense. It can't exist./

If I built something like the Tessercat, it would snap in half when I tried to rotate it.

The laws of physics don't allow me to make a tessercat, just as God can't be three persons and one person.

@JamesShewey No. Because the Bible itself tells us how God is represented within physical and spiritual reality. It says that we humans are created in the image and likeness of God. So we are projections of God, and we (to the extent that we are uncorrupted) are accurate representations of God in physical and spiritual reality.

He has to be one or the other.

9:24 PM

Now, since we humans did become corrupted, it was necessary to provide a fully accurate picture and manifestation of God. That's where Jesus Christ comes in.

Right, but a representation isn't the same as god.

@JamesShewey It is a picture of God. And as I showed earlier, a picture can be either accurate or inaccurate in its representation of the reality that it pictures.

Right, but isn't that idolatry? Isn't an idol a picture of a god?

In order to approach God at all, we must have some picture of God in our minds. That picture can either be accurate or inaccurate.

@JamesShewey No. An idol is something that's not God that's worshipped in place of God. A statue only becomes an idol when we think it itself is God, and is to be worshipped.

That picutre will always be inaccurate unless and until your or I become a God.

9:26 PM

Non-idolatrous statuary has the function of enabling our minds to approach the reality of God through physical representations. As long as we don't think that the statue is God, there is no problem.

@JamesShewey Once again, I think you're confusing inaccurate with flattened.

I really think that a knowledge of the basic principle of correspondence is necessary to grasp what this is all about.

If it's flattened, it isn't accurate.

@JamesShewey So you see no difference between a picture of a woman and a photoshopped picture of a woman? They're both equally inaccurate and false?

Shocking Female Model Body Photoshop Airbrush Transformation Video

They are both inaccurate representations of the woman - they are not the woman herself.

@JamesShewey But do you really see no difference between the original photo and the photoshopped version?

The picture does not smell like the woman. It does not have the soft feel of the woman. One could not make love to the picture. One cannot be in a relationship with the picture. The picture is not the same as the woman.

I do.

There is a difference between the origional photo and the photoshopped one.

But the woman herself is neither depiction of her.

The depictions are by their very nature inaccurate representations of the woman herself.

They might be sufficiently accurate to server whatever purpose you need them for.

Yet we understand that that photo is of a real person who exists and that there is more to that person than that which is depicted in the photo.

9:33 PM

@JamesShewey No. The original picture is an accurate representation of the woman to the extent that she can be accurately represented in a flat, static picture. The photoshopped version is an inaccurate and therefore false picture of the woman. No, the original photo doesn't fully express the woman. But it does accurately express her to the extent that that can be done in a photo, which is not real life.

Just so, we well never fully know the reality of the infinite, eternal God. But we can know God accurately (or inaccurately) within the limits of our finite minds' ability to perceive God.

Correct.

Incorrect.

We can know the PICTURE of god.

Because with God our minds are limited to the two-dimensionality.

@JamesShewey But the picture of God represents in two-dimensions the reality of God, which goes beyond two dimensions. Whereas a "photoshopped" "two-dimensional" picture of God, such as the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons presents, provides a false and distorted picture of the reality of God.

Right, but that is still a mere representation. It is, buy it's nature a degradation of the actual 3 dimensional God. Some information is always lost in that translation.

And that is my point is the Trinity loses something in the translation.

God actually is the trinity - the woman.

God has presented us with a four-dimensional (three space dimensions, one time dimension) picture of God in our own selves. That's the message of Genesis 1:26-27:

> Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

But since we can only ever see in two dimensions it's like saying "so god is two dimensional then"

And I say no, god has height, width AND depth.

Yet since we only exist in two dimensions you are basically saying "You can only have two at a time."

"Having three wouldn't make sense"

It only doesn't make sense because we are two dimensional creatures.

9:39 PM

@JamesShewey A doctrine that is self-contradictory is not a translation, but a distortion of the true nature of God. We humans do not contain internal contradictions in our essential nature. Neither does God.

just like a picture is a distortion of the actual woman

The Trinity of Persons does contain internal contradictions:

> For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

The contradiction is only a seeming contradiction because our perceptions are limited.

In other words, although we must think of them each separately as God, we're not allowed to say that there are three gods, despite the fact that that's what we're thinking.

In Swedenborg's concept of the trinity, there is no such internal contradiction, and no need to think one thing while being obliged by the church to say another.

" And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."

"we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords."

9:42 PM

The reality is that people who believe in the trinity are thinking in terms of three gods, but speaking in terms of one God. Once again see:

3

Q: Why do some Christian groups view the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) as a belief in three gods rather than in one God?

The vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three persons." Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims commonly charge Christians with believing...

trinity trinitarian non-trinitarian

We are allowed to say it, but need to understand that it is merely the most accurate representation of it - which is to say it isn't really accurate at all.

They also do vice-versa interchangeably.

I could not express in better than Swedenborg does in the quote from True Christianity #172 provided in that answer.

As a non-trinitarian (in the traditional tri-personal sense), in my conversations with Trinitarians it quickly becomes obvious that they think of the Father and the Son as two distinct gods, each with distinct characters, personalities, experiences, and goals. No matter how many times they say "one," they're actually thinking at least two, and then the Holy Spirit gets thrown in as a sort of shadowy third.

Ultimately, by saying God can't be both/neither three persons or one person - that He cannot be in that superposition you are limiting God to your perception of reality.

They think of them, not only as different modes of God as in modalism, but as quite distinct personalities of God. Or, to put it plainly, as two different gods interacting with one another in various ways.

I agree.

9:46 PM

@JamesShewey And the fact remains that the Bible never says that God is three persons. That was a human doctrine, whose history and origins we can trace in human doctrinal history.

Which is why Tozer points out that out that on some level we are always worshipping a false-god.

I would also agree with that.

History shows generally that it starts with Tertullian, then proceeds through the Nicene Creed to the Athanasian Creed, which is where it's major codification and crystallization take place.

But it also never says that he is one of three parts.

So at minimum, it's necessary to accept that the Trinity of Persons is not a Biblical doctrine, but a human interpretation of the Bible.

@JamesShewey Except for the almost certainly spurious Comma Johanneum, every time the Bible assigns a number to God, that number is always one.

That should tell us something about what the Bible considers essential doctrine about God. The oneness of God is plain, essential, Biblical doctrine about God.

I would agree.

9:50 PM

God's "threeness" is, though present, distinctly secondary. So any concept of God's threeness that runs afoul of God's oneness is suspect and fallacious.

The Trinity of Persons falls into that error by affirming that each "person" is by himself "God and Lord." This is something that the Bible simply never says.

Right, but that's why god is triune, not just tri. If you say god is just tri or god is just une, you are no longer triune

If the Trinity of Persons were essential Christian doctrine, it should and would have been stated somewhere in the Bible. But it never is. And I simply don't believe that God would be so careless as to not tell us something in the Bible that is essential to Christian doctrine--as traditional Christianity has made the Trinity of Persons to be:

> This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

That is the final line of the Athanasian Creed. It is stating clearly and plainly that if a person does not believe foregoing description and explanation of a Trinity of Persons, that person cannot be saved.

Does the Bible really omit a clear statement of a belief without which we cannot be saved? It is a terrible blasphemy against God to claim so.

I see it stated everywhere, From Deut 6:4, to every instance of the plural Elohim, to the holy spirit being present with the father at Creation to Jesus praying to the father to the transfiguration to John 10:30 where Jesus claims two seemingly distinct entities are one to John 27-33.

*This list is not exhaustive.

Tie that with Acts 16:31 and that's the game.

So, no it's not omitted. It's all over the place.

Just because God is hard to square with our reality doesn't mean the architect of that reality isn't real.

1 hour later…

11:12 PM

@JamesShewey Who said anything about God not being real? What the Bible doesn't say is that there are three of 'em. And reading it as if the various names for different parts, attributes, and appearances of God are actually distinct "persons" of God is a very materialistic and physical-minded reading of the text.

That is the whole problem. Within a few centuries of Christ, Christianity quickly fell from the spiritual and loving focus of the early Christians to a materialistic and doctrinally-oriented focus. That proved to be a deadly combination, since the doctrines derived from that materialistic mindset were themselves crude and materialistic.

Thinking that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons" of God is thinking in physical terms, as if the Bible meant to describe God as a literal, human Father, Son, and Breath.

You yourself were earlier vociferously arguing that human words don't accurately represent the realities of God. Yet you're insisting that the various names and attributes of God in the Bible must mean there are separate persons, as if they were names for different human beings who form a committee called "God."

That is materialistic, unspiritual thinking, plain and simple. It is focusing on the letter that kills, and not on the spirit that gives life.

If we wanted to read the different names for the different parts or attributes of God as being different "persons" of God, we could have a whole pantheon of 'em. Why stop at three? Why not include El, Shaddai, Jah, Adonai, Elohim, YHVH, and every other name denoting some aspect of God's being, and have a whole Congress of Persons of God?

There are certainly dozens of names of God in the Bible. But why stop there, why not go all the way, as Arthur C. Clarke did with his classic short story, The Nine Billion Names of God? Why not have nine billion "persons" of God? It would be just as easy to support that as three persons of God.

11:37 PM

It would be very easy to bring back the whole Greek and Roman Pantheon of gods, and paint it with a veneer of "monotheism" and "Christianity."

« first day (1561 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (294 days later) »

Transcript for

Dec '1511

Creationism vs. ☐

Ongoing discussion related to Creationism

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile