Manipulating Facts and Denying the Truth: A Look at Christian Dogma


Once the God (or Gods (if your sect is Trinitarian)) speak via the written word (the Bible), divine truth is set for time and eternity. Since God is viewed as absolute truth, he and his “truth” are forever frozen in time and, as we have seen again and again here at DC, the God is so dogmatically connected to the ancient Near Eastern view of time an space, to admit change is to give God basically a theological death sentence.

Just as the Judaisms circled their wagons to apologetically defend their theology against the new Christian heresy with the Talmud, so to the original defense of Christianity was not against the non-believing secular word, but against believers be they fellow Christians (Heretics) or other God fearing people labeled “pagan” (a derogatory term used to belittle other God fearers just as African American were commonly called Niggers).

Since God acts and can only live via theological interpretations outside the Bible, to interpret an event in the wrong way can damage or even destroy faith. However, Christians have circled their wagons and issued dogmatic statements of faith called creeds drawn form selective readings of the Bible. This positive safe guard ensures that only positive or faith building interpretations are fed to the faithful laity it keeping all believers on the Yellow Brick Road to Oz (Heaven).

This can readily be seen in your local Mormon missionaries who are forbidden by their State Mission President not to read any book or view any video that is not officially approved by the LDS Church itself. All Mormons missionaries are familiar with the teaching that all non Mormons “lie in wait to deceive” (I attended the locale Ward here in Greenville for 20 years, though I never joined).

Likewise, the Southern Baptist purged all their colleges and universities of “liberal” professors when the conservatives took over the Convention in the late 80’s. Luckily, schools like Furman University saw the proverbial “hand writing on the wall” and left the control of the Convention for academic freedom. Once all dissenting professors were removed from questioning worked out Biblical dogmatics, the new Biblical patriarchs elites turned inward and terminate all women professors; not based on academic ability, but on St. Paul’s bias theology of Genesis that only men are created in God’s image and the woman was tricked by the talking serpent who later mislead the man. Thus, Biblical theology demands that gullible women be removed from areas were they may mislead men, especially those preparing to serve St. Paul’s God.

As a one time student at Bob Jones University I found it very ironic that while the University was anti Communist, they maintained their rigorous fundamentalism in exactly the same way dictators control the minds of their people (one thinks here of the policies of North Korea‘s Kim Jong ll). The rules dictated which radio stations students could listen to (I received 50 demerits for listen to Loretta Lynn sing a Gospel song on the local country station WESC), which church you could attend (a number of protestant churches are always off limits meaning a student could be expelled or a faculty or staff could be fired for attending).

Since the doctrine of Original Sin was pushed to its extreme, all students had to register for a one hour Discipline Committee per week each semester where all were students were required to weekly check a computer printout to see if his or her name had been list by one unknowingly being turned in by another student (doing God’s will). In other words, Original Sin for BJU meant you were considered guilty until your could prove yourself innocent.

Hatred for the secular world was only exceeded by the Universities hatred for other Christian denominations which the late Bob Jones Jr. considered “sold out wholesale to compromise and apostasy”. As such, the only man to exceed the deception of the Pope in Rome was Billy Graham. The last time Billy Graham had a crusade in Greenville, the University made it plain that any student who attended any of the services would be expelled. In fact, Bob Jones Jr. told the student body at chapel (I was there) that “Billy Graham has done more damage to Christianity than any man who has ever lived”. As such, all incoming Freshman had to attend a week long orientation fueled with anti Graham rhetoric.

As seen in the notice at the top of this post, all reading material was highly censored. The head of the Church History department told his un-graduate and graduate students that there never has been a truthful church history ever written. To lock this in, tenure for any professor at Bob Jones University a yearly signing a of a dogmatic creedal statement which demands adherence to the fundamental of the truths of the faith as listed in the university's creedal confession was required.

As Ed Babinski has often pointed out (now so in the Foreword to John’s newest book), all Christian sects including those running colleges believing the Bible as absolute truth, that is, believing a God breath verbally inspirited Bible as a fundamental bases for all faith and life only mellow with age. So be it Harvard or Bob Jones University, truth can only be denied for so long by manipulating the facts even if that be considered God‘s Word the Bible.

As sure as liberalism is a creeping indicator of reality; that truth demands attention, so to must all preachers and schools sooner or latter must face the fact that the only thing keeping God alive is yesterday’s faith deemed worth fighting for. It is in this sense that faith and hope are poor substitutes for truth, plus this new puppet labled "truth" must now dance to the tune church dogmatics. However, even when faith is renamed truth, objectivity can only continue to be denied in the trust that a positive interpretation can be maintained. Moreover, the circle of faith as sown to the masses is proof that circular reasoning has its place in the absolute truth of God and the Bible.

End the final analysis, just as the Jesus movements formed sects of emergent Christianity only to create dogmatic creedal institutions called churches which over time liberalized in the face of future facts, so too do new groups spring off from the stagnating formal churches to form new sects who, at least for a time are on fire for the truth and Jesus. But just as the old maxim states that “An apple does not fall far from the tree” so also these sect end up becoming the very thing that they despised in the first place. But then reality and objective truth can be denied for only so long!

38 comments:

AdamH said...

Well, right off the bat, you start by saying that Trinitarianism refers to Gods.

That is not the position of Trinitariansim, and whether you believe it or not you should try to understand what the other side is claiming for itself.

Not too auspicious beginning, IMHO.

T said...

Adamh,

Most here were trinitarians in their believing days. Its not a matter of correctly understanding the trinity, not even you can fully claim that. We just highlight that our math skills got better once we quit believing.

I thought that the heretic reference compared to derogatory racial slurs was interesting. While I'm not willing to claim equal status with the bigotry and hatred that Black America has had to endure, I have begun to feel the effects of what having non-theist beliefs means in the US.

At work, my supervisor said, "Do NOT let [highest boss] hear you say anything about this. He will not be understanding...so if you like your job, heed my words."

Jesse said...

The statement that trinitarians worship multiple gods isn't one a trinitarian would approve, true. However, there's no substantive difference between saying you worship three persons in one divine essence, and saying that you worship three different divine persons. They can claim they're monotheists all they want, but that doesn't make it true.

In characterizing Christian belief, an atheist doesn't really need to feel obligated to partake of their mathematical fallacies. 1 god + 1 + god + 1 god never will = 1 God.

I think that as a former student of Bob Jones University, the author has probably had Christian creeds hammered into him and is now unwilling to use their imprecise and obfuscatory language.

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks for inputs Toby and Jesse.

Adamh, who “saved “ you: Yahweh or Jesus? And just where is the Holy Spirit in all this too?

What we find is a polytheistic Israel who worshipped Elohim (Many Gods ("im" is masculine plural in Hebrew)) who latter only was defined as monotheistic.

The problem (as noted by Jewish rabbis) Christianity created a illogical contradiction and call it the Trinity. But, as in this presidential campaign: “A pig with lip stick on is still a pig!” And polytheism painted with the lip stick of “Trinity” is still just plain old polytheism.

Adamh, to claim that this man made idea can not be understood only begs the question as to just what, if anything, was formulated in the first place!

illogical "Trinity" works with the believing masses just as my post topic claims: Manipulating Facts and Denying the Truth: A Look at Christian Dogma

BahramtheRed said...

I find the toltarianism the scariest thing about this post.

Usually the way I try to expalin the trinity (told this to a sunday school teacher and he completly agreed back when I was 8):

They are not seperate distinct beings. Each is part of whole, and return to it and leave it with missions to complete.

I developed this theory watching a cheesy alien movie (not the weaver aliens, just some space monster). When it was running around doing whatever it was doing it started jumping people and leaving "parts of it's mind" in them possession style. While each wasn't the whole they where all part of it.



Or an example given to me from a chrisitian, Imgaine the world from the point of view of a fly before you on your keyboard. It can see your arms and your head. But not all of you. Therefor to it you seem to be three seperate lifeforms acing togthor, when in reality it is just beyond your perception and ablity to understand that it is one lifeform.

-great not I gave myself a headache trying to reunderstand that.

akakiwibear said...

Harry I can’t believe that you have chosen to so blatantly distort the obvious for your ends with ” Once the God (or Gods (if your sect is Trinitarian)) speak via the written word (the Bible), divine truth is set for time and eternity. Since God” blah blah blah …” . While I usually enjoy reading the posts on DC and normally disciple myself not to become involved, I could not resist this.

I apologise for not reading the rest of your post – the opening did not earn enough credibility!

I don’t know where to start in dismantling your post – for example ” or Gods (if your sect is Trinitarian)” nonsense, as you well know, Trinitarian sects believe that that there is one God in three persons they are monotheistic (check with the Pope) – no I don’t expect you to understand this or agree with it, but please acknowledge it as the belief that you are attacking, rather than misrepresent it for a cheap point.

To suggest that Christian theology has not evolved since the first book of the Bible ( “is set for time and eternity” is also a blatant misrepresentation. Come on we expect more from you than this.

Sala kahle - peace

Baconsbud said...

akakiwibear you say christianity has evolved but if as some christians claim that the bible is the word of god how can it evolve. The words mean the same as they did when it was first conceived of. Since they mean the same thing shouldn't it not evolve. Today the christian beliefs should still be the same as when it was first started. The only reason I see that it has evolved is because it has been forced to by society to change or disappear.
As to your explanation to the trinity as with most christians you are avoiding the truth. It is easier for someone to deny that there are three gods in their belief system then to ask why are we suppose to worship one god but in three different ways.

Evan said...

Personally I think that the idea of multiple Gods is inherent in Christianity and doesn't require any parsing of trinitarianism anyway.

Virtually all Christians believe in either angels, Satan, saints, devils, demons or all of the above. One certainly cannot hold to biblical inerrancy and not believe in Satan or demons.

Now what is a divine being? One who can travel faster than the speed of light, possess someone's mind, move without being seen, influence someone's thoughts and create miracles seems to be a pretty complete list. There's nothing about being omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent in Zeus, Mithras or Quetzalcoatl and yet we happily accept them as divine beings.

Therefore, if you believe that there is a lord of the underworld (name him Pluto or Beelzebub, it's the same gig), then you are a polytheist, plain and simple.

I doubt there are very many true monotheists since believing in such a thing would entail either deism or pantheism.

Harry H. McCall said...

Akakiwbear:

Just why are there Christian sects and denominations who do reject the whole idea of a Trinity as plainly pagan polytheism? Have you ever talked to a Jehovah Witness?

I challenge you to get a copy of “Handbook of Denominations in the United States” and, for a change, open your eyes to the truth that other Christian groups DO NOT understand the New Testament to be polytheistic (Trinitarian). Now to this add Judaism which includes Jesus himself!

If the Trinitarian doctrine is Biblical, please give me chapter and verse as to where to find it!

Now lets see if I can count correctly:

A. God the Father: That’s God # 1

B. God the Son: That’s God # 2

C. God the Holy Spirit: That’s God # 3

Finally, did you entirely miss the title of this Post: Manipulating Facts and Denying the Truth: A Look at Christian Dogma

Give me your address and I’ll be sure a Jehovah Witness come by your home and “teach you the truth”.

Innovative Defense said...

Another post that insufficiently debunks the Christian faith. Maybe if you guys actually took the Bible and Christian theology in context would your material be readable, but it is horrific for the "expertise" you all say to have.

Innovative Defense said...

Another post that insufficiently debunks the Christian faith. Maybe if you guys actually took the Bible and Christian theology in context would your material be readable, but it is horrific for the "expertise" you all say to have.

Evan said...

Innovative ... how about addressing where the post goes wrong instead of just declaiming that it is wrong?

That is generally the procedure for someone to adopt when arguing.

Harry H. McCall said...

Innovative Defense:
Unlike Christianity which is out to peddle its theology to the unaware masses, as a Secular Humanist and atheist, I don’t give a damn about religion much less correct Christianity. For me, truth is logical PROVEN facts and (as in the case of the Trinity) where basic logic states that 1+1+1=3, logic beats theology hands down!

Might it have ever occurred to you that you need to think a dogma through before you swallowed it “Hook, line and sinker”?!

T said...

Innovative wrote,

Another post that insufficiently debunks the Christian faith. Maybe if you guys actually took the Bible and Christian theology in context would your material be readable, but it is horrific for the "expertise" you all say to have.

Another post that insufficiently defends the Christian faith. Maybe if you guys actually took arguments here at DC in context as a whole, your material might then be readable, but it is horrific for the "expertise" you say to have.

akakiwibear said...

Oh Harry you offend me with your superficial reply and surprise me with what appears to be your revelation of being a closet Jehovah Witness. No you may not visit me and your colleagues already have!

Firstly I would expect a scholar such as you to know the origin of the Trinitarian belief before you attacked it with “If the Trinitarian doctrine is Biblical, please give me chapter and verse as to where to find it!”

The Trinity was alluded to in the Bible (Mt. 28: 19-20, 2 Cor 13:14 et al), but as the theology was only developed around 200 AD although its evolution can be traced further back.

So it is hardly a surprise that the term “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. Yet you seem to think that the lack of Biblical reference to the Trinity as such is a point worth making – why ??? ???

Try //www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm if you really are interested in getting the facts right.

Then you struggle with “Now lets see if I can count correctly:” - no wait you got the number right and you correctly identified the three persons of the Trinity – you just missed the point of Trinitarian theology, namely that they are the three persons of the same God.

Yes I know the theology is though to understand, but as I said in my last comment check it out with the Pope – one God, three persons! I can supply references, but only if you really care!

Your vitriol “and, for a change, open your eyes to the truth that other Christian groups DO NOT understand” …. etc is illuminating in its naivety.

However, let me assure you that I have no illusion that all Christian denominations have identical beliefs. It may be a source of regret to some, but it hardly a surprise considering the evolution of Christian theology. Certainly there is some difference on the Trinity as there is on a literal inerrant Bible.

Scholars normally refer to widely held alternative views rather than presenting a particular position to attack – I believe your approach is sometimes referred to the ‘straw man’. Still some folk need an easy target.

I trust the above answers your points. However I still wonder why you opened your OP with a statement that is clearly not accepted as correct by those who hold the belief you attack … ?

Perhaps you are right I missed the point of the title of the post – you were simply giving an example of “Manipulating the Facts and Denying the Truth” – so as fiction maybe it was worth a read.

Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Baconsbud, you ask “if as some Christians claim that the bible is the word of god how can it evolve.” ? Fair question.

Firstly, as you know the Bible was not written as a single book at one time.
So we have a collection of books separated by generations written in different cultures for different audiences.

Is it therefore a surprise that over time biblical scholars have come up with different interpretations of parts of the Bible and that later scholars have accepted or rejected or expanded on the work of earlier scholars. We see a very similar process with the study of other ancient texts (or even not so ancient).

Clearly with study the theology and understanding of the Bible has evolved. Not really a surprise.

Does this evolution in anyway contradict the view that the Bible is the word of God? No, why should it?

The authors of the Bible recorded the revelation of God to them, in their circumstances, in a way that was relevant to them. Certainly this means that the Bible is not to be taken as the literal inerrant truth, but that does not mean it is not a valid revelation of God.

Simple analogy. News reports over the number of people who watched the opening ceremony of the Olympics on TV vary. In all probability none are correct = true. Yet this does not mean the ceremony did not take place or that it was not watched on TV by a lot of people.

Hamba kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Baconsbud, you say “As to your explanation to the trinity as with most Christians you are avoiding the truth.” I have to have some sympathy with you on this one – the theology of the Trinity is tough.

When all is revealed to us will understand it and perhaps that understanding may be very different from what we (or at least I) have today.

To say I am avoiding the truth is simplistic, unless you can advance the truth. Perhaps you can convince me that there are three separate Gods in the Trinity, I am open to it.
Step one would of course be to prove beyond doubt that any one the Gods exist – should be easy as I already believe in God. Step two … Nah I will settle for step one this week.

BUT the validity of the Trinity was not what I was commenting on. My comment related to the straw man approach Harry had taken in the opening of his OP.

Hamba kahle - peace

T said...

Akakiwibear wrote,

Certainly this means that the Bible is not to be taken as the literal inerrant truth...

Amen!

akakiwibear said...

Evan, "Personally I think that the idea of multiple Gods is inherent in Christianity" . Good point! angels etc how many gods?

The nub of the issue is the definition of God. Divine being, speed of light etc is a bit simplistic.

Some religions regard ancestors as gods (saints?) or other angels etc. If we adopt an in/appropriate definition we get as many gods as the definition allows.

Monotheism is a definition that subordinates all others in the spiritual realm to a single God. One may well ask “if called by any other name …” – what indeed is in a name?

The important bit is not the semantics of mono/polytheism but the existence of the spiritual realm and an implicit hierarchy.

Hamba kahle - peace

Northlander said...

Another post that insufficiently debunks the Christian faith. Maybe if you guys actually took the Bible and Christian theology in context would your material be readable, but it is horrific for the "expertise" you all say to have.

Was Jesus a Trinitarian, do you suppose?

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."


Here, in Mark, Jesus seems to be objecting to being called "good" because he is not God. Of course, in later Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as having a more highfalutin' opinion of himself, but my guess is that Mark was closer to the mark (no pun intended).

It would be interesting to be able to go back in time and present the doctrine of the Trinity to Jesus. I dount that he would be able to make much sense of it, and what little sense he could make of it, he would probably consider blasphemous.

Unknown said...

akakiwibear ,

"The Trinity was alluded to in the Bible (Mt. 28: 19-20, 2 Cor 13:14 et al), but as the theology was only developed around 200 AD although its evolution can be traced further back."

Let's see
Mt. 28: 19-20 ---
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

2 Cor 13:14 --- 14May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all

I see where there are three gods. Where does it say that the three are the same being? I mean, why state the three, instead of saying "God"?

BahramtheRed said...

You guys really seem hung up on the idea of jesus god and the ghost being one. I just heard an intresting theory; maybe the son was being offered the same respect due to the father and it went a little to his head in later chapters. After all the bible dosn't say "trinity". Maybe this has taken on some kind of special significance that was never intended or alternaitvly simply a bad translation.


How am I defending chrisitainity in two posts on the same thread? What's happening to me... Oh yeah I like being the devil's advocate. Guess the "devil" is worse than usual.

Harry H. McCall said...

Akakiwbear:
You nailed my butt to the wall this time! I’m really over my head here, aren’t I?

Seriously, the term “τριας” was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in 180 and was only one view of the understanding creating monotheism out of what appears a polytheism.

So even if the theory of the Trinity as now understood is accepted, there was NO uniformity in the ancient church.

In the Shepherd of Hermas, the Trinity is accepted with subordination were Jesus and the Holy Spirit are confused. Origen too was a subordinationist.

Only at the council of Nicaea in 325 did "might make right" meaning Orthodoxy which eclipsed the theology of the Sabellianism, the Arianism and the Macedonianism in which the coequality of the three was confirmed.

No where in the Hebrew Bible is Yahweh’s spirit viewed as a dualistic, but co-equal identities as the Trinity is understood in latter Christianity.

The Trinitarian theology comes, not from God, but from religious battles where politics defined theology.

Evan said...

Akawikibear you say:

Monotheism is a definition that subordinates all others in the spiritual realm to a single God. One may well ask “if called by any other name …” – what indeed is in a name?

The important bit is not the semantics of mono/polytheism but the existence of the spiritual realm and an implicit hierarchy.


A divine being is a divine being. Angels are divine beings. Satan is a divine being in Christian theology. In what substantive way does the hierarchy of God, Angels, Satan, Demons etc. differ from the hierarchy of Zeus, Pluto, Mercury, and Athena?

Unknown said...

Hello Harry. Thanks for another great post. If you got 50 demerris for listening to Lorreta Lynn sing gospel songs, how many BJU demerits would you have gotten for listening to Patsy Cline sing Crazy ?

Unknown said...

(off topic but interesting)

How Memories Are Made, And Recalled

ScienceDaily (Sep. 16, 2008) — What makes a memory? Single cells in the brain, for one thing.

For the first time, scientists at UCLA and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have recorded individual brain cells in the act of calling up a memory, thus revealing where in the brain a specific memory is stored and how the brain is able to recreate it.

Reporting in the current online edition of the journal Science, Dr. Itzhak Fried, senior study author and a UCLA professor of neurosurgery, and colleagues recorded the activity of hundreds of individual neurons making memories in the brains of 13 epilepsy patients being treated surgically at UCLA Medical Center.

Surgeons had placed electrodes in the patients' brains to locate the origin of their seizures before surgical treatment — standard procedure in such cases. Fried made use of the same electrodes to record neuron activity as memories were being formed.

The patients watched several video clips of short duration, including such things as landmarks and people, along with other clips of Jerry Seinfeld, Tom Cruise, "Simpsons" character Homer Simpson and others. As the patients watched, the researchers recorded the activity of many neurons in the hippocampus and a nearby region known the entorhinal cortex that responded strongly to individual clips.

A few minutes later, after performing an intervening task, the patients were asked to recall whatever clips came to mind.

"They were not prompted to recall any specific clips," Fried said, "but to use 'free recall' — that is, whatever popped into their heads."

The researchers found that the same neurons that had responded earlier to a specific clip fired strongly a second or two before the subject reported recalling that clip. These neurons did not fire, however, when other clips were recalled. Ultimately, it was possible for the researchers to know which clip a patient was recalling before the patient announced it.

Fried noted that the single neurons that were recorded as they fired were not acting alone but were part of a much larger memory circuit of hundreds of thousands of cells caught in the act of responding to the clips.

The study is significant, he said, because it confirms for the first time that spontaneous memories arise through the activity of the very same neurons that fired when the memory was first being made. This link between reactivation of neurons in the hippocampus and conscious recall of past experience has been suspected and theorized for sometime, but the study now provides direct evidence for such a link.

"In a way, then," Fried said, "reliving past experience in our memory is the resurrection of neuronal activity from the past"

Other authors of the study included first author Hagar Gelbard-Sagiv, Michal Harel and Rafael Malach of the Weizmann Institute and UCLA postdoctoral scholar Roy Mukamel.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as well as the Israel Science Foundation and the U.S.–Israel Binational Science Foundation.
***************************
In the study, Dr. Itzhak Fried and his colleagues found memory to be a physical brain phenomenon. If human consciousness is a "supernatural" occurrence, then memory cannot be material or physical. But memory is a material and physical phenomenon. Then it follows that human consciousness is not "supernatural", and we do not have "souls".

This is a valid modus tollens argument of the form:

If P, then not-Q;
not-(not-Q) = Q;
Therefore not-P.

Since the logic is valid and the premise is true, the conclusion is sound.

Unknown said...

Evan wisely mentioned "I doubt there are very many true monotheists since believing in such a thing would entail either deism or pantheism."

Hey look. Here are two pennies laying on the cyber sidewalk. Cool.

Panentheism

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") A panentheistic belief system is one which posits that the one God interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.[1]

In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal truth. This concept of God is closely associated with the Logos as stated in the 5th century BCE works of Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), in which the Logos pervades the cosmos and whereby all thoughts and things originate; e.g., "He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." A similar thought expoused by Jesus and interpreted by Unity as being synonmous: "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30)

Panentheism is essentially a unifying combination of theism (God is the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims the God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe.

akakiwibear said...

Pwoon, focus on the word alluded

BahramtheRed, “After all the bible dosn't say "trinity". Maybe this has taken on some kind of special significance that was never intended or alternaitvly simply a bad translation” indeed, as I replied to earlier to Evan, perhaps it is all a matter of semantics. Unfortunately Evan did not rise to challenge and seems to have missed the point of what could have been an interesting discussion


Harry, you really are getting this! Thank you for taking the time to reply so fully.

While I understand your inclination to dramatise, you have clearly done your homework. Yes the Trinitarian theory is a human construct and yes there was disagreement about it, not only when it was being developed but there still is today … and yes the orthodox view is that of one God in three persons.

Of course you can now question the theology of the Trinity, as so many have done over hundreds of years, but at least you can now do so from a valid starting point rather than the straw man which did you no credit.

Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Robert_b, off topic yes and as you say interesting. It is therefore with some regret that I have to disappoint you – you have come up with the long awaited proof that there is no spiritual realm.

You say “If human consciousness is a "supernatural" occurrence, then memory cannot be material or physical.” but offer not a shred of justification for this, let alone proof! Yet you seem content to base you pseudo argument on this totally unsubstantiated premise.

There is scope for a lot of interesting discussion around the soul and consciousness, around where the bio-machine may end and a ‘driver’ (or is it ‘observer’ or perhaps ‘navigator’) comes into the picture. But there is really no challenge to dismantle an argument that ‘proves your point’ when you have not thought back to the premise.

Hamba kahle - peace

Baconsbud said...

akakiwibear you say that the interpretation and understanding of god and gods word have changed. Why has it changed? It didn't change as far as I can tell from some new revelation by god but by new facts that the bible doesn't support. What it sounds like to me is that christianity changes because people have a new view of what the truth is and have to change their interpretation of what the words mean. If you do that then aren't you changing the whole meaning of the bible. I just think to say religion has evolved is denying that it is society that forces it to change. Yes there are examples of how society has changed it. Look into slavery and interracial marriages. Slavery was for many years supported by christians until ending it was forced on them, at which time they changed their views for the most part. Today the majority of christians think it was their religion that ended it. There are still some that feel it is ok but they are the minority of christians. Interracial marriages were strongly opposed by chritianity until just the last 20 years or so. Of course some still see it as a sin but most have changed their view about it to fit with society.
Actually only trying to deny that it is a 3 god system makes it tough.
It doesn't take classes in theology to see that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit with what is called christianity today. Only if you ignore or change the meaning of the bible can you say it follows the bible. To me this is not evolving but fearing that what you want the truth to be might not be.

akakiwibear said...

Robert_b, interesting comment on Panentheism. You missed (or rather the author of the source of your cut & paste) the obvious link to John 1:1 and John 1:14 where the Greek ‘Logos’ is the source of the ‘word’.

… but I thought your comment was related to Evan’s polytheism position … did not see how bringing in the single all pervading God of Panentheism addressed this.

Hamba kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Baconsbud “facts that the Bible does not support” , but would you expect a book written thousands of years ago to contain reference to the knowledge we now have of say world geography, let alone quantum theory. Come on now; think it through and put it all in a reasoned context.

Also “It didn't change as far as I can tell from some new revelation by god” … and you base this on what – just “you think”. You ignore that Christian teaching holds that after the crucifixion the Holy Spirit was sent to guide and reveal the scriptures.

If you do that then aren't you changing the whole meaning of the bible. I just think to say religion has evolved is denying that it is society that forces it to change. Of course the evolution of Christian thinking and its interpretation of the Bible is influenced by the society around it – just as the original writing of the books of the Bible was – nothing new there!! It obviously detracts nothing from the Bible itself, but rather adds to it … it’s part of what enables the Christian message to be relevant today.

You seem to have the view that unlike any other intellectual discipline theology may not develop, that it needs to be trapped in the past. Why? Perhaps it because that by doing so you can use the straw man you created to attack theism or Christianity in particular.

The primary role of the Bible in Christianity is to reveal how God would like us to live our lives – that message has to change as society faces new challenges.
Your very point “It doesn't take classes in theology to see that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit with what is called christianity today.” while misguided, speaks to the very need for ongoing interpretation of the Bible.
Indeed the Christian New testament provides a dramatic update and revisiting of the theology of the Old Testament.

Hamba kahle - peace

Evan said...

Akawikibear,

I'm sorry you think I didn't rise to the challenge but if you're going to fault me for that doesn't that obligate you to rise to my challenge?

I'll repeat it for you:

A divine being is a divine being. Angels are divine beings. Satan is a divine being in Christian theology. In what substantive way does the hierarchy of God, Angels, Satan, Demons etc. differ from the hierarchy of Zeus, Pluto, Mercury, and Athena?

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks Robert for your commits.

The Bob Jones University of today is not the radical fundamentalist school it was when I attended in the early ‘70’s. If you do a search under Bob Jones University you’ll find many posts attacking the school for being sold out to liberalism. After over 80 years of hard core hair codes (no beards, hair not touching the shirt collar or ears) men now can have a beard and the hair code is highly liberalized. In fact most ever week end there is one are two protesters near the main entrance to the campus.

Great posts on memory and pantheism! Thanks.

Akawikibear,
From an objective point of view, there is no logical / theological difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation. In fact Jesus himself defines the Elements by stating: “This is my body.” “This is my blood.” Moreover, since the statements in the Gospels have Jesus stating that he and the father are one and at other times Jesus states they are separate, there is more support for Transubstantiation then the Trinity.

akakiwibear said...

Evan, forgive for having deemed your point unworthy of comment. You ask “In what substantive way does the hierarchy of God, Angels, Satan, Demons etc. differ from the hierarchy of Zeus, Pluto, Mercury, and Athena?” . Well why not try the obvious, that the one belongs to a religion which is no longer practiced. Or perhaps you consider the relationship between say Zeus & Athena as equivalent to God and …. I could not guess at what you might think.

Perhaps your question is based on seeing all hierarchies as the same simply because they are hierarchies in which case you would no doubt see no substantial difference between the hierarchy of the military and that of say a university … ;)

Now are you up to responding to “The important bit is not the semantics of mono/polytheism but the existence of the spiritual realm and an implicit hierarchy” ??
Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Harry, thanks for your informative comments on Trinity & Transubstantiation – interesting that the RC Church describes both as “Mystery” which is akin to a truly agnostic view of theism i.e. unknowable.

For me, I say “Mystery” = “too hard basket”.

Of course what these concepts highlight is the role of faith in theism, but then it’s much the same in atheism – neither know with certainty, so both start with a leap of faith. We have much in common and I trust that includes a seeking of the truth
(note to self, check if baconsbud has come up with the “truth” yet i.e. proof that 3 separate Gods exist in Trinity).

I enjoyed our exchange – thank for being a noble host

Sala kahle - peace

Evan said...

Akawikibear,

So your response to my question is that there is no difference in theological structure, there's just a difference in the number of extant believers?

Wow. So all we need is a pagan revival and we can call Olympian Greek paganism monotheist?

As to your mishmash of a statement:

The important bit is not the semantics of mono/polytheism but the existence of the spiritual realm and an implicit hierarchy” ??

I have no idea what you are talking about. What evidence do you have for the existence of a spiritual realm?

And are you suggesting that Christianity is in fact polytheist and that's not a big deal?

Baconsbud said...

Now I think I have a better understanding of you akakiwibear. till if you change the meaning of the bible or some part of it aren't you defeating what it is in your words suppose to be about. If society decided that something that is immoral according to the bible is ok now does that mean you will either ignore or change what the bible was saying?
I do know many around here where I live would see you in much the same light as they see a nonbeliever. I tend to direct my comments as if talking to a very conservative christian which I now know you aren't.