And this...

Is why I hated that movie.
Remember watching "The Apostle" a few months ago? This is an example of why I disliked the movie. Why was everyone gathered around a man who just had his head bashed with a baseball bat praying loudly, when what he needed was immediate medical attention? Someone call an ambulance!
It happens in real life. I hate that.

Article

I would very much encourage all of you to head over to Religion Dispatches and read this interview. Questions to ponder and discuss when next you gather at the Buffalo Grille:

• is Paul really someone who espouses "love thy neighbor," or is he merely using an old Jewish addage to get what he wants?
• is morality a product of religion, or does morality give rise to its own religious context?
• do you agree with the book's title?

Just a few thoughts to get you going.

Ancient Bible put online

www.codexsinaiticus.org
Check it out. The manuscript, in Greek, is about 1600 years old.

It's time for... "Save Your Soul!"

A news story on CNN speaks about a new show to be aired on Turkish television, wherein a contestant listens to an Islamic imam, Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi and Buddhist monk (no, this is not the start of a bad joke) and chooses to be "converted." The story is here.
So, after reading the story, what are your thoughts? Do you feel that it's funny, or irreverent? Gutsy or dangerous?

News

Just wanted to make everyone aware of this. Thoughts?

A note on homelessness

I just wanted to point out this NPR story to all of you.

Easter

In the Christian calendar, Easter is the holiest of days, for upon it rests the proclamation of the Church, the hope of the disciples, and the conclusion of the "greatest story ever told." Or does it?
When Jesus speaks to the disciples, saying, "whosoever wishes to save his life will lose it, and whosoever loses his life for my sake and the sake of the gospel shall save it" (Mark 8:35, italics obviously mine), it is still long before his death. So what, precisely, is the gospel? It must be something Jesus had mentioned prior to that point in time.
I argue that the "gospel" (or "good news") is, in fact, the announcement of the coming of the kingdom of heaven, and those trappings which accompany it (such as the beatitudes). The kingdom of God, which is coming "and is now here," is a time in which God's will shall be done "on earth, as it is in heaven," a time when the meek shall inherit the earth and the pure of heart shall see God. The gospel of which Jesus himself speaks is not the resurrection, or the theological "defeat of death" which has been attached to it. The gospel is not that God will save you from your sin, or that God will save you from hell, or that "you shall not taste death;" it is that you shall see the kingdom of God on earth, the glimmer of hope that we are not striving to better ourselves and our societies in vain - the appearance of humanity as it is meant to be.

Yet Another Religious Study

I refer all of you to this story on the BBC. The gist of it is this: out of 345 terminally-ill cancer patients, those who prayed most often and categorized themselves as people for whom "religion was the most important thing that kept [them] going" were more likely to receive "aggressive" end-of-life care. Put another way, those who describe themselves as religious wanted everything that could be done to be done in order to prolong life - even at a cost of reduced quality of life (being kept alive by machines, forceful resuscitation, etc - things which other studies have shown to be immensely physically and psychologically stressful on both the patient and the patient's family and caregivers). The BBC waxed a bit philosophic by saying, "It is unclear why those who pray prefer more aggressive end-of-life care," but they didn't actually make an argument either way. In fact, the conclusion which is drawn is merely this: "These findings merit further discussion within religious communities, and consideration from those providing pastoral counsel to terminally ill patients with cancer."

My question is this: why do "those who pray" prefer more aggressive end-of-life care? Why should someone who believes death is only a portal to another life (presumably a better one) seek to prolong a painful life here?

Three Wise Men

Hello, all:

A new topic for today.

A few weeks ago, Father Kallio wrote in the Evangel on what we can learn from the parable of the "three wise men" - far away from their homes, "they caught a vision powerful enough to sustain them on a journey... until they discovered its object;" they persisted on this journey to seek the truth; they brought their gifts (our hearts, minds, faith) to the newborn God-in-the-world; and they returned home via "another route," a "metaphor for living a changed life" after encountering God's divinity incarnate in the temporal world.

I'd like to take this one step further.

Surely, we (as suddenly as a new star in the night sky) see a vision of the Truth, distant and small but there nonetheless, and if our hearts are open and willing, we seek that Truth, through a journey of great distances and great spans of time. We may find, at the end of that particular journey, an instance of God in the world - perhaps not "God incarnate," but a tendril of divinity within our ordinarily mundane circumstances - and it is enough to change us fundamentally. We have "found God" - or, more accurately, we have discovered experientially some aspect of God. Out of gratitude we lay our gifts at the babe's bedside: we are thankful for the experience of God, the "mountaintop" experience as Father Bailey puts it, and the best way we know to show this is to change our lives according to that Truth which we have beheld.

But take note here. The next step is that which I would like to emphasize. The wise men leave.

What does this mean for us? I agree that leaving by a different route indicates that our lives have been changed by this experience of God in the world. But does it mean we have reached the end of our journey? Isn't the important thing the fact that, instead of spending the rest of their lives huddled around the child's feet, fawning and worshipping, the wise men continue on a much grander journey?

I think that, if we take the parable all the way through to its end, we learn that we are not supposed to dwell upon these rare instances of incarnate divinity. We are not supposed to reach the end of one journey - Christ, for instance - and then refuse to continue. The wise men leave Jesus. They are changed for what they have seen, of course, but they take this new knowledge and experience with them as they continue on a much larger, more universal quest. They do not return to Herod, but neither do they remain with Mary and Jesus. The star and the divine child were momentous, but they were not the pinnacle of the wise mens' lives.

Similarly, when Jesus asked his disciples to "follow" him, did he not perhaps intend for them to do only that? Follow me for I have something to show you, something which will help you in the grander scheme of things. Do not stay at my feet and worship me, do not fawn over me or defend me by force, just follow me.

Thoughts?

Religion and data - two of my favourite things!

When I get going on a favourite subject, I have a tendency to ramble. This may be a long one ;-)

Recently, a study was brought to my attention. This study was an examination of correlations between religiosity (belief in God, church attendance etc) and quantifiable metrics of social health (rates of homicide, suicide, teenage pregnancies, abortion, STDs etc). The paper to which I refer is published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a refereed journal published through the Kripke Center at a Jesuit Catholic school, and is written very objectively, appearing to be free of any ‘secular’ agenda that the uninitiated might be tempted to suggest.

At the end of the manuscript, a number of figures are shown, plotting metrics of religiosity against those of social health. Some of these are largely in line with what one might expect, but some show trends that might come as a significant shock. I’d like to draw your attention to (in my opinion) some of the more startling correlations, in the hope of understanding the meaning behind them.

Figure 1 shows correlations between acceptance of human evolution and various metrics of religiosity. In a certain manner, acceptance of human evolution is a metric for popular scientific literacy. A reasonable anti-correlation is seen between acceptance of evolution and all positive measures of religiosity (for example, as belief in God rises, the acceptance of evolution falls). This probably comes as no surprise.

Figure 2, which plots homicide rates against the metrics of religiosity, shows no statistically significant correlation. That is, the murder rate is completely unaffected by beliefs of a society. Likewise, Figure 3 shows no correlation between religiosity and suicide rates in young adults, and Figure 5 indicates no correlation with life expectancy.

However, Figure 4 is staggering. It shows a tremendously significant positive correlation between the mortality rates of the under-5-year-old population and religiosity: The higher the belief in God, the higher the infant mortality rate. And significantly so; a doubling of belief in God brings a 50% increase in mortality rates. Furthermore, the correlation is tightest around belief in God; more so than the attendance of religious services. For example, by comparing the plot against absolute belief and the plot against service attendance, the data for Ireland and Italy (which are outliers in the latter, but lie in close correlation in the former) indicate that the correlation really is with belief in God, rather than with church attendance. (Note that these are two countries with strong cultural ties to the church (Roman Catholic), such that it is not uncommon for those who have tenuous personal belief to attend church services regularly).

Surprisingly, Figure 8 shows an unarguably strong positive correlation between teenage abortions and the metrics of religiosity, and Figure 9 shows positive correlation with pregnancies.

So, what are the data telling us? The inarguable fact is, in societies where a belief in God is more prevalent, there is more social dysfunction, often in the very realms to which the prevalent ‘religious’ teaching is most contrary. For example, it is interesting that in a society which is more vocally against all abortion, the abortion rates in teenage pregnancies (i.e. those which have the largest proportion of abortion for social reasons, rather than medical ‘necessity’) are highest. Further, there is no instance in any metric of a positive correlation between religiosity and social health; either the metrics show increased religiosity coincides with more social problems, or there is no correlation whatsoever.

Why is this? We know from personal experience that genuine belief in God ought not induce such trends. We also know that, as C.S. Lewis maintained, the moral law is ingrained innately within us – that it is all-pervasive, present irrespective of theological stance. This is indicated by the data on homicide – people are no more or less likely to murder based on their beliefs.

It seems like the social problems for which there are the strongest correlations are biased towards those of youth: teenage pregnancies and abortions, particularly. It may be that, in those societies where there is the most ‘religious’ pressure to conform to the ‘rules,’ there is a greater likelihood of the youth ‘careering off the rails.’ One can certainly see similar trends with attitudes to alcohol: those who were raised in cultures in which alcohol was an everyday substance throughout their childhood (wine with dinner etc) have a lower tendency toward binge-drinking in their teenage/early-adult years.

Alternatively, perhaps the correlation is actually in the opposite direction. One could argue that, in those societies where there are more social problems generally (for whatever reason) people are more troubled, and more likely to look to God. We all know, for example, how times of tribulation (for ourselves or out loved-ones) can invigorate our prayer life.

So, the data show that these trends exist, but I don't yet have a convincing understanding of what cause lies behind them.

Thoughts, friends?

Heaven and Hell

Hello, all.

This week's Good Words e-mail pertained to heaven and eternity: "It was made clear to me that we must not think of eternity from time, but from state," wrote Emmanuel Swedenborg. The transcendence of time, space, and (most importantly) ego is the "eternal life" of which the scriptures speak - that is heaven. Eckhart wrote that "time is what keeps the light from reaching us; there is no greater obstacle to God than time." In other words, heaven must be outside of time and space, because the love of God, which is heaven, transcends time and space.

However, a Baptist coworker of mine had this to say:

It is likely that the day slipped by without much recognition. I confess I completely missed it. Not all holidays--a contraction for the phrase "holy days"--are regarded with the care the word itself necessitates. But whether we missed it or not, last Thursday was indeed a holy day.

Forty days after the celebration of Easter and the resurrection of Christ is the remembrance of another eventful day. The gospel writer records: "Jesus said to his disciples, 'See, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.' Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God" (Luke 24:49-53).

The ascension of Christ may not seem as momentous as the resurrection or as rousing as the image of Jesus on the Cross, but no action of Christ is without weight, and this, his last action on earth, is weighed with great hope. The work God sent him to accomplish was finally completed. The ascension was a living and public declaration of his dying words on the Cross: It is finished. Ascending to heaven, Jesus furthered the victory of Easter. Thus, Ascension Day, a holy day falling inconspicuously on a Thursday in May, is the remembrance that Christ, who went to the depths of hell to reach us, is rightfully lifted on high.

But there are other reasons why the day merits our remembering and is worthy of import, and none is as simple as the fact that Jesus himself told us it was important. "It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (John 16:7). In leaving this earth, Jesus sent a greater Comforter, the Holy Spirit, our Counselor sent in Christ's name, who guides us into all truth, and testifies of all that is to come. Rising to life and then to the heavens, Jesus sent forth the one who leads us further into the kingdom, until he himself comes to take us home.

And indeed, within his parting, we are assured of his return. As the disciples were watching and Jesus was taken up before their very eyes, a cloud hid him from their sight. The text then refers to them "looking intently up into the sky as he was going" when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them: "'Men of Galilee,' they said, 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go'" (Acts 1:9-11). In his resurrected body, Christ ascended to heaven, fully human, fully divine, and entirely glorified. Therefore, we carry in our own flesh a guarantee that Christ will bring us to himself. We are not left as orphans. Jesus ascended with a body and is coming back for those in bodies. He is preparing a room for us, which we know is real because he is real. Christ will come again.

Until this day, the ascension of Jesus Christ furthermore means that we have in heaven our advocate before the Father. Jesus is enthroned in glory and seated at the right hand of the Father as our righteousness. The work of Christ on the Cross is not only finished, it has been declared by the Father entirely effective, and the presence of Jesus in heaven is our guarantee. As John writes, "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One" (1 John 2:1). Thus, the ascension of Christ is a fitting reminder of all that God has declared and all of creation will one day profess: "Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the Name that is above every name, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow in Heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11).

He "borrowed" the quote in his response from Ravi Zacharias' internet ministry page (it was actually written by Jill Carattini). Aside from the Protestant tendency to forget that Catholics and Anglicans still celebrate the holy days of the liturgical calendar (like the Day of Ascension), the point the author is trying to make is that heaven is a real, physical place: "He [Jesus] is preparing a room for us, which we know is real because he is real."

So the question for the weekend is: what is heaven (or, conversely, hell)? Is heaven/hell a state of being, or a state of mind, or is it a place, physical if not literal? Thoughts?

The Rosary

I encourage everyone to check out Teddy's post, and these useful links: how to pray the rosary, the wikipedia page, and the page on prayer ropes.

So, question for the day: is using a rosary (or other ikons/icons) beneficial? Is it idolatrous? In light of our last Wednesday night discussion (involving prayer and sacrament), do the beads and rope represent something more than just beads and rope? Do they represent more than the prayers we offer while practicing the rosary? If so, what?

New question

Here's a new question from Mary Charles:

WHAT DOES PRAY WITHOUT CEASING MEAN TO YOU? HOW DOES IT HELP YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS?

Thoughts?

Pondering lyrics

"...I see God upon the ceiling, I see angels overhead;

And he seems so close as he reaches out his hand,

But we are never quite as close

As we are led to understand."

~Counting Crows, A Dream of Michaelangelo

What Adam Duritz is essentially saying here is that, despite how near God may seem (so close that we can reach out and touch him), despite comforting words to the contrary ("Behold, for I am with you always,"), we are never really that close to God.

Thoughts? I'll let everyone say a few words before I post my own opinion.

Thinking on the Trinity

I've been thinking about the previous thread that we have been discussing on Trinitarianism, along with the disussion on 'wholeness' in Kelly's recent 'Good Words' email. It brought to mind the words of Conrad Noel, in discussing the Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity."

"Whosoever wills to be safe or whole must thus think of the Trinity; wholeness, then, depends not so much on feeling as on thought; every man or woman must 'think.' Safety does not depend on action, for action must arise out of right thinking. Safety does not depend on emotion, for essential as is true emotion, emotionalism may be your ruin. Every one must use his mind according to the degree of intelligence which God has given him; if the mind is never used it will become atrophied. ... When the followers of St Athanasius declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible, they do not mean that we are to not to think it out and understand it so far as may be, but that in the last analysis God is beyond all human understanding; the Infinite is beyond the intelligence of the finite.
Let us consider the Blessed Trinity as the source of our own personal lives and the life of the world. Each one of us is a trinity in unity - body mind and spirit: the disunity between these is not according to the original intention of the Triune God. The world has in it plenty of variety, but the variety is not always healthy, is often antagonistic and discordant, because it is not a variety in unity, and does not yet express the 'Three in One and One in Three.' It cannot be said of the world that, as at present constituted, that it contains no differences or inequalities, or that within it 'none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another.' We look forward to a world of infinite variety in harmony, of living unity, not of dead uniformity,; if man is to create so delightful a world, he 'must thus think of the Trinity' for it is the will of the Triune God to inspire men to renew the world in such a way as to make it the perfect expression of His own Being." - Conral Noel [Jesus the Heretic]

Thoughts?

The Creed of Saint Athanasius (select verses)

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Confession

Hello, all:

I have a new topic for you to ponder.

Modern protestantism, thanks to Martin Luther, does not observe the official rite of Confession, nor does the Anglican church. Instead, we either 1) admit to God our shortcomings and sins in private, either in solitary prayer or at an evangelical "alter call," or 2) admit to God those sins in public, but only in a vague and general way, by reciting the prayer in the penitential order during the holy Eucharist, as noted below:

The Deacon or Celebrant then says

Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbor.

Silence may be kept.

Minister and People

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed, 
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. 
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent. 
For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

The Protestant take on confession depends solely on the person confessing, and that all too often leads down a road of psychological extremes. Either we say we're sorry but don't mean it because, for all practical purposes, our sin carried no real consequences (I said my prayer to God, but no one else has to know, so really, who's watching to make sure I don't do it again?), or we can't get the guilt of something off our chest (it's like God doesn't hear me!) and thus carry it around like a dead weight, never coming to absolution.

Within the Catholic churches, however, the rite of confession (the "sacrament of penance") is still used, but we all know that the sale of indulgences, among other abuses, causes the rite to lose its usefulness; the priest becomes to powerful with his ability to grant or deny absolution, and penitence loses its gravity when we may instead "buy" our way out of it.

So it would seem that either extreme has its weaknesses. The Catholic confession grants too much power to the person running the confessional, and the Protestant confession is vague or nonexistent. Either way, we may "get out of" confessing, or even admitting, our sins, by buying our way out or by faking repentance.

I suggest that the observance of official confession (ie, admitting one's faults, sins and shortcomings to a "man of the cloth") be mandated within the Christian church. That said, I also suggest that the rite be slightly altered, such that the "Minister of the sacrament" holds no power of absolution over the penitent. If we do not have some form of official confession, we are never held accountable to those people around us whom our sinning actually affects. If we have an official, personal absolution from confession which is determined only by an individual priest, then we give the priest too much power. So we must strike a balance, and that solution must be mandated such that it is required of all, lest any person think themselves immune from the true consequences of sin. If we are forced to admit our sins before man (and not just before God), then we are "actually" (as in, "in actuality") held accountable for them. Psychologically, we recognize the consequences of our actions even if no penance is prescribed, and thus we learn from our mistakes and are not as likely to repeat them. Additionally, we are relieved of the burden of carrying that psychological weight, at least a little bit. We are grounded in reality by admitting our shortcomings to another human being, and aren't then likely to blow them out of proportion because we have no base from which to begin.

So that's my topic for the day - a mandated, but slightly altered, sacrament of confession within the church. Thoughts?

Community

I wanted to point everyone to an interesting video that Teddy has posted. Good stuff.

It's About Attitude

A new topic from Bailey.

The Trinity is a great topic; let's focus this on the question of the effect it has on how we live in the world. Specifically, is there such a thing as a proper attitude or perspective that is the guiding principle of our faith? If so, what does it look like? Check out this quote below from William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury during WWII, as he talks about salvation in the Trinity:

"All is of God; the only thing of my very own which I contribute to my redemption is the sin from which I need to be redeemed."

A few questions to think about:
1) How are we capable of goodness?
2) If Temple is to be believed, is our free will truly a gift or a curse?
3) What does it mean to be "human"?

See you Wednesday night!

Bailey

Old Topic #3: Trinitarianism

Steve:

I was thinking the other day about the Holy Trinity. Triunity, whilst something key and in a way unique to orthodox Christian theology, appears in differing contexts in many cultures and beliefs. To point to a few of these, and some concepts which are naturally described in base-3, at random:

The division of Being into Mind, Body, Spirit.
The division of Culture into Art, Science, Religion.
The Celts have been traditionally strongly tied to triune imagery: the Triskelion (the triune knot common to Celtic art). The division of Life into Mother, Father, Child. The division of a woman's life into Maiden, Mother, Crone. The Faery triad of Oak, Ash, Thorn. Examples are numerous.
In Hindu theology, the Brahmanical triad consists of Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva (respectively the Creator, Preserver, Destroyer).
The Taoist maintains the Great Triad (Heaven, Human, Earth).
We live within three spatial dimensions (hence the stability of the tripod).
Our eyes perceive color based on retinal cones which have sensitivities peaked at three wavelengths (red, green, blue) - hence three primary colors.
The components of music can be divided into Tone, Rhythm, Timbre.
Our sense of feeling is sensitive to pressure, texture and heat.
We are all subject to the natural and inescapable division of Time into Past, Present, Future.
Even in my own field of work, the symbol of radiation is the three-beamed trefoil, and radiation is commonly classed in three types: alpha, beta, gamma.
There is something compelling and universal about the number 3.

Why is there such pervasive appearance of triune concepts? One reason is that 'three' brings with it symbolism of balance. The division of one into two brings with it a natural conflict - a division based on extremes (think Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, Master and Slave, Teacher and Student, Yin and Yang, etc). Three brings balance to this division, where movement toward one aspect does not equate directly and linearly with movement away from one other.

Consider the Jews coming to terms with the meaning of Christ Jesus. For a people for whom the theology of a single, creator god - the One True God - was central to their spiritual and communal identity, the sudden division of their one God into Father and Son must have been a tremendous theological upheaval - an upheaval to which some were able to come to terms, and others not. Perhaps the advent of Christian trinitarianism was a natural resolution to the bifurcation of God - the One God that, when divided, still remains One. Despite our creedal definitions of Trinitarianism, and knowing that it is an effective working projection of God, we should be careful not to think that, because this is an effective theology, it is really an intrinsic defining quality of the Eternal Mystery that is God. If we think that we are able to define all that is God in so simple a manner, we must surely know that we have overstepped our capabilities.

But, returning to the functionality of Trinitarianism, it was the triune aspect of time that started me thinking about meanings behind the Christian Trinity, for it seems that our divisions of the Godhead are somehow symbolically compatible with the division of time. Christ, the historical embodiment of God in Man, is representative of the Past; He, as the man Jesus, provides us with an example of God within our time-bound world. His life gives us an anchor in the past which may keep our theology and our lives from drifting. The Spirit is representative of the present - it is the Spirit which we feel amongst us - manifest in our community. For me, it is through the Spirit that I experience God personally. The Father is symbolic of the Future - of creation, of potential, the Author of our future lives.

Thoughts, friends?

Steve

Me:

You forgot the three Fates. Also, in Hindu theology, all is contained within the one Atman, as far as I am aware; Christian mystics often like to point to the "persons" of the Trinity being, in fact, derivations of an eternal Godhead.
The point I was trying to make the other day is this: the Jews (the Old Testament is ripe with this imagery) had three main "components" to God - God, the Spirit of God, and the Wisdom (or Word) of God. However, it is easy to see that the second two stem (or eminate) from the first, Spirit and Word being derived from God, embodiments of God, manifestations of God's character, if you will. I can see how this would very simply and straighforwardly port over to early Christian theology - God is still God, the One God, there still exists the Spirit of God (derived from God), and now Jesus has become the physical, historical embodiment of the Word of God (but is still a derivation from God). What baffles me is the switch from this kind of hierarchy to the doctrine that all parts are totally equal; that now Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is equal with God, and is God. That's like saying my words or my breath or my legs are me. They are a part of me, they eminate from me, but they are not me.
Three is indeed a "magic" number. I understand why three should be naturally chosen over two, since two forces things to be diametrically opposed. But why choose two or three over one?

Steve:

My understanding is that in Hindu theology, the Brahman encompasses all, the Atman is representative of one's soul; and different schools equate the two in different ways. But I know little, so may be wildly wrong. Nevertheless, you are correct that in Hinduism all is brought together under One. But such is also the case in Christianity - all is under One God - or Godhead.

In talking about the Trinity, one must not make the mistake of talking about the three components being God, the Christ, and the Spirit. The three components are the Father, Son, and Spirit - the Father is certainly not to be equated with the God of the Old Testament - the entire Godhead is, instead.

I think there is no great overlap between the references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament writings and the Holy Spirit as referenced in the New Testament and Christian orthodoxy, nor is there the a direct correlation between the Wisdom and the Word, though I think these two are much closer than the Spirit case.

Ultimately, the Trinity provides us with a breakdown of the characteristics of the one God, providing us with a mechanism of conceptualisation of the Eternal and Infinite, by focussing on one or more aspects at a time. This is why I feel most comfortable thinking of the Trinity as projections of the Godhead, like a wavefunction.

One can think of the projections as, for example:
Father = < Psi_God* | Theistic Creator | Psi_God >

Son = < Psi_God* | Humanity | Psi_God>

Spirit= <Psi_God* | Personal presence | Psi_God>

But you could substitute your own operators in the projection, for we all take different meanings from the persons of the Trinity. Whatever you choose, the three projections (and it need not, in principle, be limited to three, in my opinion) are full projections of the entire Godhead. However, they do not contain all the information (that is, they do not allow you to work backward and reconstruct the Infinite God), as one cannot extract the wavefunction (and, for example, predict interference terms) from measurements of individual probability distributions projected from wavefunctions through measurement.

Ultimately, I don't think there is reason to choose three over one, and that is not what we have in orthodox Christianity - we have both Three and One.

PS - I extend my deepest apologies to everyone else for my geeky scientist's approach to theology - it is sadly just the way my brain works! :-)

Me:

Anyway, physics notation aside, here's a question. You said: "Christ, the historical embodiment of God in Man, is representative of the Past; He, as the man Jesus, provides us with an example of God within our time-bound world." But why should this particular embodiment be important? What about other "historical" instances of God? Biblically, there's Melchizedek, and elsewhere in different times and cultures we see "physical" manifestations of God (like Krishna, Buddha, etc). Is the important thing that the Avatar exists (once or always or ever), or that the Avatar concretely existed once? Because, if one assumes that God could, in fact, manifest himself in history again - in the future - then "God the Son" can't really be considered representative of the past. Ideas?

Teddy:

What about "...as it was in the beginnig, is now, and will be for ever."? (BCP) With God, all things are possible.

Old Topic #2: Hell

Teddy:

Help me with this. I was listening to a program on WUOT at 10 pm last Saturday night about this Pentacostal preacher saying that Hell does not exist and everyone is going to heaven. He got into trouble over this and was called a heritic. I am confused about this. So here it is and help me on this.

Steve:

The first topic is a contraversial one! Thanks Teddy :-)
Many (most?) denominations consider universalism as incorrect, if not heretical. There are (as usual!) biblical verses that are used to justify and refute universalism. I'd imagine that universalism is something that wouldn't go down so well in most Pentecostal churches, given their significant emphasis on outward manifestations following reception of the Holy Spirit.

Me:

I finally found the guy here. Additionally, the first scriptural reference in Pearson's book is this:
"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." 1 Tim 4:9-10

Sara:

I was once told by a five-year old that hell is a place where God puts you in time-out.

Teddy:

We talked about hell last Wed. night over pizza. And about heaven. Heaven is where I am with God 24/7. And hell is not I want to be. We are made to praise God and when we get there, we will praise God. I am praising God now and do have a fore taste of God's kingdom by fellowship and breaking of the bread and prayers and praises.

Old Topic #1: Atheism

Here is the "atheism" discussion as posted originally on facebook.

I wrote:

Ok... based on that NPR story from yesterday, as well as my reading and dealings with people, I'd like to pose this question:

Is it possible for human beings to be intrinsically atheistic?

I don't think it is, and I'll tell you why.
First, human beings are, by nature, social creatures. We need people. Anyone who separates themselves from people does so by a conscious choice (hermits, monks, etc), or else because of a severe mental or psychological disorder. This means that, on the whole, people are "created" to be communal - we need relationships, just as we need food and water. If we are separated from other humans against our will (some form of solitary confinement, be it physical or mental), we do not lose this need to be connected to another conscious and caring being. Atheism, at its very core, is a conscious acknowledgment of our "alone-ness" in the universe. It is my opinion (though it needs work, of course) that if people intrinsically desire to not be alone, we cannot also intrinsically believe that we are alone.
Second, humans have an innate sense of certain important things being outside our control - our births and deaths, for instance - and though we fight continually to gain control of these things, we ultimately cannot. We must accept, to some degree, that we cannot control everything. The degree to which we accept this premise must correspondingly be filled with something - in other words, we need someone or something to be in control of that portion of our lives of which we are not in control. This is why even a staunch atheist will shout "oh, God!" as their car crashes. We intrinsically need to believe that we have not "given up" that control to something which isn't even conscious of having control (ie, nature); hence most of us turn to God, while atheists turn to Luck and Chance.
Lastly, atheism is a very arrogant stance. I have heard it said that only someone who has a cursory understanding of science will allow it to negate his or her belief in God. If you know nothing, God exists; if you know much, God exists; but if you know something, God does not exist. This is the obvious reaction of someone who knows enough to know they know more than someone else, but who doesn't yet know enough to realize that they really know nothing at all. Unfortunately, many people fall into this category, but it is a conscious thing - not at all unconscious or inherent in the human brain, but instead the product of a little bit of "education" and human arrogance (which stems from it). Arrogance, and atheism, stem from that little bit of knowledge which is enough to make someone consciously convinced that they know better.

So those are my thoughts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but hey, I'm just trying to start a discussion :-)

With love,
K

Steve replied:

Thanks for starting the first official discussion thread going :-) You make some interesting points.

This may sound pedantic, but the first thing is that one has to be careful when it comes to definitions of terms, particularly that of 'atheist.' Do we take this to encompass a rejection of theism alone, or of deism also?

Secondly, there's something I'd not really considered until reading this and reflecting on my past philosophies. At one point, I'd considered myself atheist. However, my stance at the time was that I saw no evidence pointing to a god in my 'world model,' so I concluded that there was no reason to introduce one. This never reached the point of saying that science proves definitively the lack of existence of a god. However, in acknowledging the lack of evidence of necessity for a god as a working rejection of one, the view was stronger than strong agnosticism, because I genuinely believed that there was no god. However, I was open to being convinced to the contrary. In that sense, I was approaching it in a very 'scientific' manner - that is, it was very similar to my current view of evolution: I stand completely convinced of its validity, but if someone comes along with some groundbreaking alternative, I'd be ready to drop that model for a more insightful alternative. So, ultimately, I am trying to determine whether my viewpoint back then was 'weak atheism', or some variation on 'strong-agnosticism.'

Considering your argument along the 'alone-ness' line: one could argue that that we evolved the need to not be alone (that is, to be apart from humans), and consequently being more alone (from humans) makes us more likely to invent a fictitious god to fill that gap. This hypothesis would fit with the strong beliefs that have arisen from the nomadic Jews, or the reclusive ascetic. However, this overlooks the immanence of God within society, for it is here (where we are spared from this traumatic deficiency of social interaction) that God can be most keenly felt by many of us.

Another starting point is to focus on 'purpose.' The concept of 'purpose,' and the desire for it, is uniformly comprehended by all of humanity. I personally would find it harder to live, for a limited time, feeling that my existence is purposeless than I would to live without social contact for a time. But then, if I consider being completely alone in the universe, all purpose would cease. The two concepts (purpose and society) are very deeply tied, and therein lies a clue to God and His immanence among us. I cannot find purpose solely in seeking my own ends, even if I do it within the familiar and pleasant buffer of society.

Steve

I replied:

I just found this story. Interesting.

Welcome!

Hello, all! I will get the old posts ported over as soon as possible. Enjoy.