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.