Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 06:34 am
@Axis Austin,
Axis Austin;41618 wrote:
But isn't the idea of the Holy Trinity, . . . Any thoughts?:perplexed:


Well, with, and only with, this invitation, I'd wish to be allowed to comment on this otherwise, happily growing happy new year's thread.

For all practical purposes, yes, the trinity concept is an illogical and non-natural hypothesis.

It is illogical and non-natural because regardless of quantum theory, we don't find blends of being in a single space/time frame--once the box is opened, it's gonna be either a living cat or a dead one.

It's illogical and non-natural because no pre-last-decade-traceable exemplars of Christian documents of single penmanship (as can best be determined by scholarship) ascribe fathership to anyone other than YHWH.

And, bearing on this immediately above paragraph, it is illogical (in my view, though admittedly not non-natural) because the earliest form of Christian didn't demand it, but such demand was overwritten by later Christianity.

As for some comments here and there (especially early on), no, it's not in the writings--up to a certain point well on into the late fourth century, and while it may mainstream 'Christianity,' it was not infant Christianity at all.

Someone seems to have presented the statement that Isalm considered Yeshua has having been the messiah. Islam, however, is not Jewish--Yeshua is considered to have had the office of prophet only.

But anyway, yes; the trinity, in official documentation, is illogical and non-natural, in my take on it. (but I guess I never did like the doctrine, in the first place)
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 06:44 am
@KaseiJin,
What do you mean by "non-natural"?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 06:52 am
@Axis Austin,
Careful consideration there. I simply use it as a 'non-' word, to lessen the degree of negativity that is usally associated with an 'un' (etc.) word. Thus my intention is to label it as something that we do observe in a any manner of what is usually considered natural occurance. For that reason, I disattach it from that last point--since it is natural for social constructs to evolve over time.

I hope this clears the matter a bit more. (and I just noticed I have left out an 'and'...will edit that)
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 02:54 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
What do you mean by "non-natural"?

It is unnatural, in that as a social organization it does not grow out of the family...It is my understanding that Mohammed confused the holy family with the trinity, and perhaps for this reason... It is un-natural; but so is much in human behavior, such as circumcision, or tattooing... We deliberatly do not do what is natural, so perhaps, for us the un-natural is the natural...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 03:06 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:
Well, with, and only with, this invitation, I'd wish to be allowed to comment on this otherwise, happily growing happy new year's thread.

For all practical purposes, yes, the trinity concept is an illogical and non-natural hypothesis.

It is illogical and non-natural because regardless of quantum theory, we don't find blends of being in a single space/time frame--once the box is opened, it's gonna be either a living cat or a dead one.

It's illogical and non-natural because no pre-last-decade-traceable exemplars of Christian documents of single penmanship (as can best be determined by scholarship) ascribe fathership to anyone other than YHWH.

And, bearing on this immediately above paragraph, it is illogical (in my view, though admittedly not non-natural) because the earliest form of Christian didn't demand it, but such demand was overwritten by later Christianity.

As for some comments here and there (especially early on), no, it's not in the writings--up to a certain point well on into the late fourth century, and while it may mainstream 'Christianity,' it was not infant Christianity at all.

Someone seems to have presented the statement that Isalm considered Yeshua has having been the messiah. Islam, however, is not Jewish--Yeshua is considered to have had the office of prophet only.

But anyway, yes; the trinity, in official documentation, is illogical and non-natural, in my take on it. (but I guess I never did like the doctrine, in the first place)

In a couple of instances, I think Jesus refered to himself as a prophet... And there is the parallel of an Earthling Man having his hands run through with iron to discourage prophecy, as was done generally after the return from Babylon... Even Lincoln made note of that line from the Bible, that no injury was worse than one received in the home of ones friends...

Considering that no charges so condemned the Jews as those from their own prophets, it is no wonder they hated them.... Who wants to be the bearer of good tidings??? Not if it cuts into some ones income, and Jesus clearly threatened that particular power structure.... Jesus was lucky those people didn't shove that cross up his back side... Think of how many people would have prayed to that image...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:20 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
It is unnatural, in that as a social organization it does not grow out of the family...It is my understanding that Mohammed confused the holy family with the trinity, and perhaps for this reason... It is un-natural; but so is much in human behavior, such as circumcision, or tattooing... We deliberatly do not do what is natural, so perhaps, for us the un-natural is the natural...


Yet you still refuse to show how the Trinity is a metaphor for some social organization. Until you do, claiming that the Trinity is unnatural because the implied social order is unnatural is unconvincing.


KaseiJin - That the first Christians did not demand the Trinity is beside the point. The Church Fathers who coined the concept did not "demand" the Trinity either: they simply offered the notion as a meditative tool.

At Nicea, the Trinity was ratified as dogma, and thus "demanded" in a way: but it should be recalled that Nicaean Creed was accepted to appease the Emperor: many of the Bishops in attendance, who ratified the Creed, promptly returned home and continued teaching as they had before Nicea. Many of these Bishops, who ratified the Creed, were Aryans and would teach Arianism to their death. Arianism being one of the major heresies the Council was supposed to put an end to.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 11:24 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Yet you still refuse to show how the Trinity is a metaphor for some social organization. Until you do, claiming that the Trinity is unnatural because the implied social order is unnatural is unconvincing.


KaseiJin - That the first Christians did not demand the Trinity is beside the point. The Church Fathers who coined the concept did not "demand" the Trinity either: they simply offered the notion as a meditative tool.

At Nicea, the Trinity was ratified as dogma, and thus "demanded" in a way: but it should be recalled that Nicaean Creed was accepted to appease the Emperor: many of the Bishops in attendance, who ratified the Creed, promptly returned home and continued teaching as they had before Nicea. Many of these Bishops, who ratified the Creed, were Aryans and would teach Arianism to their death. Arianism being one of the major heresies the Council was supposed to put an end to.

First of all; everything human that does not grow out of our navels is unnatural... Look at the words you use: nation, native, natural, from natal, and navel.... If it does not grow naturally out of a natural society, it is not natural... Consider your scientific classifications: Genus speces phratries, that sort of thing, all family relations used to describe just about everything... But, if the trinity is family, the natal part has been neglected...Where is momma??? Consider that the Jews may trace their heritage back to Abraham; Yet, he was a hero of judah; and they are the children of Sarah, and you hear it in their name: I-sarah-al...

It is unnatural because it denies the family; but; it is for that very reason, that the catholic church was the first modern state; because they denied nativity to build a Community of Christ, their idea of the family of man... But if the trinity is a model, again, it leaves some one out... The model of Christian society was of church and king and nobility being the essential people in society... And each group supported the claims to power of the other...But the people of society were largely neglected, just as the mother of God was neglected by the trinity...


In fact, women were one target of those who pushed the trinity... The trinity party thought they should have no voice, and no say in the community what ever...Considering the place women hold in the story of Jesus, and what part they played in the growth of the early church they must have felt betrayed... And they were...If you can take a person's rights, there is no reason to tolerate them...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 11:48 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
First of all; everything human that does not grow out of our navels is unnatural... Look at the words you use: nation, native, natural, from natal, and navel.... If it does not grow naturally out of a natural society, it is not natural... Consider your scientific classifications: Genus speces phratries, that sort of thing, all family relations used to describe just about everything...


What's the relevance? Even if we accept the claim that "everything human that does not grow out of our navels is unnatural", which is beyond dubious as humans are part of the natural world, so what?

Fido wrote:
But, if the trinity is family, the natal part has been neglected...Where is momma??? Consider that the Jews may trace their heritage back to Abraham; Yet, he was a hero of judah; and they are the children of Sarah, and you hear it in their name: I-sarah-al...


Who said the Trinity is family? Not the Cappadocians who coined the term.

Fido wrote:
It is unnatural because it denies the family;


The Trinity does not deny the family: it just has nothing to do with the family. It's a personal meditation.

Fido wrote:
but; it is for that very reason, that the catholic church was the first modern state; because they denied nativity to build a Community of Christ, their idea of the family of man...


We were talking about the Trinity, not the Catholic Church. The Trinity pre-dates the Catholic Church.

Fido wrote:
But if the trinity is a model, again, it leaves some one out...


The Trinity is not a model as far as I can tell: you are the one who suggests the Trinity is a model, yet you have also neglected to produce an argument. I, on the other hand, have introduced the historical record.

Fido wrote:
The model of Christian society was of church and king and nobility being the essential people in society... And each group supported the claims to power of the other...But the people of society were largely neglected, just as the mother of God was neglected by the trinity...


The model according to whom? To Jesus? Not in anything we have that is attributed to him. According to the Trinity? Not in the writings of those who coined the concept.

Fido wrote:
In fact, women were one target of those who pushed the trinity... The trinity party thought they should have no voice, and no say in the community what ever...Considering the place women hold in the story of Jesus, and what part they played in the growth of the early church they must have felt betrayed... And they were...If you can take a person's rights, there is no reason to tolerate them...


And this is all beside the point: just because Group X pushes the Trinity does not mean their unrelated misogyny is inherent in the concept of the Trinity.

I'm with you: I also think the way women came to be treated in the Church was deplorable. But you have yet to connect that treatment to something inherent in the concept of the Trinity: you have yet to provide a single argument to support your claim that the Trinity is a metaphor for some particular social order.

That the Trinity became dogma as part of an Emperor's attempt to consolidate power is no argument that the Trinity is a metaphor for some social order. Go back to your history: check up on the origin of the concept.
The Trinity was irrelevant to Constantine: he needed some unifying concept, any unifying concept. The Bishops at Nicea chose the Trinity. Had Arianism been more popular, that doctrine could have just as easily served the same purpose.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:23 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;50469 wrote:
KaseiJin - That the first Christians did not demand the Trinity is beside the point. The Church Fathers who coined the concept did not "demand" the Trinity either: they simply offered the notion as a meditative tool.


Thanks for the point mentioned, Didymos Thomas. You could be correct, yet I take that matter to show the trinity doctrine to be illogical--and in that way, relevant.

Yes, it actually appears as though the trinity doctrine, as something demanded for the belief-system, did not get so fully accepted even after the council of Constantinople in 381. Also, the Athanasian Creed, is fairly enough considered to have not been penned by Athanasius himself, but is perhaps of product of somewhere around the 5th century.

However, as I see it, regardless of when acceptance of the doctrine became a full demand for the believer of Christianity, that the originators of the system did not demand it, makes the concept illogical. I reason that if the original system as a general whole is to be considered the true form, it would be illogical to add on to it--although I'll acquiesce that religious belief-systems don't usually concern themselves with that matter of logic:bigsmile:
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 07:18 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:
Didymos Thomas wrote:
What's the relevance? Even if we accept the claim that "everything human that does not grow out of our navels is unnatural", which is beyond dubious as humans are part of the natural world, so what?


We may be a part of the natural world, but not all we do is natural...You asked; I answered... Natural has to do with a certain sort of relationship; which is to say it is not a construct... There is no basis for the trinity in the natural world... It is an unnatural form of relationship, but so is the Catholic Church.... Consider that Roman and Greeks societies were natural... Consider that when the Romans first formulated the law of nations, the beginning of natural law which is the first place besides Paul where the equality of mankind is put forth, in that instance it is not individuals who are equal, but nations...

Quote:
Who said the Trinity is family? Not the Cappadocians who coined the term.


So, if it is not family, it is unnatural... And it is a prototype, or model of an unnatural relationship...

Quote:
The Trinity does not deny the family: it just has nothing to do with the family. It's a personal meditation.

Non sense...You really should learn more of the politics of the time, because the power of the emperor was used to do for those who held the correct doctrine and injure, and even outlaw those who did not.


Quote:
We were talking about the Trinity, not the Catholic Church. The Trinity pre-dates the Catholic Church.


It may predate it as an idea; but the moment it became doctrine the Catholic Church came into being.. The trinity is the Catholic Church...

Quote:
The Trinity is not a model as far as I can tell: you are the one who suggests the Trinity is a model, yet you have also neglected to produce an argument. I, on the other hand, have introduced the historical record.


The trinity as accepted in the East, and the trinity as accepted in the West resulted in different forms of governmental relationships between Church and Emperor that have cast a shadow right down to the present moment...If the Church had not claimed individual freedom for its Bishops we would not have individual freedom in the West...

Quote:

The model according to whom? To Jesus? Not in anything we have that is attributed to him. According to the Trinity? Not in the writings of those who coined the concept.


I am out the door, I will have to review the context of this question... And while I do not have any direct evidence that this was used as a model of governmental relationships, I take it as obvious... Look at how Medieval philosophers, and even those today, believe God lives by the same logic as ourselves...

Quote:

And this is all beside the point: just because Group X pushes the Trinity does not mean their unrelated misogyny is inherent in the concept of the Trinity.

I'm with you: I also think the way women came to be treated in the Church was deplorable. But you have yet to connect that treatment to something inherent in the concept of the Trinity: you have yet to provide a single argument to support your claim that the Trinity is a metaphor for some particular social order.

And yes, I have supported the claim with anacdotal evidence... People read Plato... Some parts of the republic seem to show up in European society....But the Trinity shows up throughout feudal Europe... Is that an accident, that people would reproduce their real society out of their ideal society??? I doubt it... Accidents do not happen...
Quote:

That the Go back to your history: check up on the origin of the concept.
The Trinity was irrelevant to Constantine: he needed some unifying concept, any unifying concept. The Bishops at Nicea chose the Trinity. Had Arianism been more popular, that doctrine could have just as easily served the same purpose.


Trinity became dogma as part of an Emperor's attempt to consolidate power is no argument that the Trinity is a metaphor for some social order.
I believe your conclusions are incorrect.... He was looking to unify the church so it could provide political support to him, so he support unification....It is for the same reason that kings often resisted the unification of their nobles... The nobles have their own agendas, like the Church, but the church supports peace before justice, and that makes it the perfect prop for any tyrant. got to go..I will revisit this to correct
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 12:14 pm
@Fido,
KaseiJin wrote:
Thanks for the point mentioned, Didymos Thomas. You could be correct, yet I take that matter to show the trinity doctrine to be illogical--and in that way, relevant.


That the first Christians did not make use of the Trinity is not an argument demonstrating the illogical nature of the Trinity; instead, it's the beginning of a solid argument as to why a Christian need not necessarily accept or make use of the Trinity.

KaseiJin wrote:
Yes, it actually appears as though the trinity doctrine, as something demanded for the belief-system, did not get so fully accepted even after the council of Constantinople in 381. Also, the Athanasian Creed, is fairly enough considered to have not been penned by Athanasius himself, but is perhaps of product of somewhere around the 5th century.


The Athanasian Creed, which does not seem to have been written by that Bishop as you say, is a much later explication of the Trinity.

You are also correct about the First Council of Constantinople.

KaseiJin wrote:
However, as I see it, regardless of when acceptance of the doctrine became a full demand for the believer of Christianity, that the originators of the system did not demand it, makes the concept illogical. I reason that if the original system as a general whole is to be considered the true form, it would be illogical to add on to it--although I'll acquiesce that religious belief-systems don't usually concern themselves with that matter of logic:bigsmile:


That the concept of the Trinity is illogical is no strike against the Trinity: if the Trinity were presented as a logically coherent concept, it would lose it's meaning.

Fido wrote:
I believe your conclusions are incorrect.... He was looking to unify the church so it could provide political support to him, so he support unification....It is for the same reason that kings often resisted the unification of their nobles... The nobles have their own agendas, like the Church, but the church supports peace before justice, and that makes it the perfect prop for any tyrant. got to go..I will revisit this to correct


Now notice something: none of this constitutes an argument supporting your claim that the Trinity is a metaphor for some social order.

You say my conclusions are incorrect, yet go on to speak about things on which we agree: that Constantine wanted to unify the Church so as to consolidate his vast and hard to manage empire.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:34 pm
@Axis Austin,
Didi; when has anything been easier for a king??? I simply do not think it is a coincidence... It is like the words testify and testes... Do you think it is a coincidence when people used to swear oaths on their balls???
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:27 pm
@Fido,
Fido, I respect you, but brother that's a stretch. First, I've never heard anyone swear on their balls. In any case: did kings in other parts of the world, which had no knowledge or connection to Trinitarian notions, have a more difficult time?

I'm not sure what the coincidence is, anyway. There has always been kings. If you mean that kings had a better time under feudalism, maybe, but even if they did what makes you think the Trinity has anything to do with this? And even if the Trinity does play a role, that does not mean that the Trinity is a metaphor for some particular social order.

To argue that the Trinity is a metaphor for something, you would have to explain the metaphor.
 
Axis Austin
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 06:16 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
That the concept of the Trinity is illogical is no strike against the Trinity: if the Trinity were presented as a logically coherent concept, it would lose it's meaning.


Thomas: You've been stating throughout that the Trinity is a meditative tool to be used to understand God. I have no problems with that. Above you seem to argue that the notion of the Trinity is illogical. Yet, getting back to my original question, I don't see where you've argued how the Trinity is illogical, you've merely stated it. Please elaborate. You say the if the Trinity is presented as logical then it looses meaning. Why? Do you have any thoughts about my ice, water, steam analogy? Thanks.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 06:36 pm
@Axis Austin,
Axis Austin wrote:
Above you seem to argue that the notion of the Trinity is illogical. Yet, getting back to my original question, I don't see where you've argued how the Trinity is illogical, you've merely stated it. Please elaborate.


Because it does not follow logical principles.

Axis Austin wrote:
You say the if the Trinity is presented as logical then it looses meaning. Why?


The Trinity's meaning rests in the meditative value of the concept. If we were to try and establish the Trinity as a logically demonstrated truth, then there is nothing upon which to meditate.

Axis Austin wrote:
Do you have any thoughts about my ice, water, steam analogy? Thanks.


Yes, and it is interesting, but I'm not a priest. I encourage you to pursue the thought, and even discuss the thought with spiritual teachers.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:53 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Fido, I respect you, but brother that's a stretch. First, I've never heard anyone swear on their balls. In any case: did kings in other parts of the world, which had no knowledge or connection to Trinitarian notions, have a more difficult time?

I'm not sure what the coincidence is, anyway. There has always been kings. If you mean that kings had a better time under feudalism, maybe, but even if they did what makes you think the Trinity has anything to do with this? And even if the Trinity does play a role, that does not mean that the Trinity is a metaphor for some particular social order.

To argue that the Trinity is a metaphor for something, you would have to explain the metaphor.

Sure...It is in the Bible... In the King James, in Genesis, when the aging Abraham sends on of his servants on a quest to find a wife for his Isaak...He tells the guy to put his hand under his thigh... Jews were required to swear that way when giving court testimony in France, I believe into the 17th century, if not later...And they hated it... Since the guy taking the oath had to hold the jewels it is hard think of a fib and not pucker up a little.. And I think that is what happened in the Merchant of Venice, since that is about a pound of flesh on a good day, and also that he loves best, actually, can't love without...

Let me give you two examples of allegories, and you tell me what they allegorize... First, the Bob Dylan song: All along the watch tower... And second: The Wizard of Oz...

You say the trinity has a meditative purpose...I say it is a heavenly model for eathly power... It is also a means of reconciling the old testament God of the Jews with the psychological, and mystical understanding of God Jesus put forth... I don't really believe he ever intended to be caught up in the trinity... He was trying to give us a new perspective on God, and ended up as God when He could not prevent it...
 
Axis Austin
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:29 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Because it does not follow logical principles.
It seems obvious that it doesn't, but I'm prodding to see if perhaps it does (hence the analogy). Also, quantum mechanics doesn't follow logical principles either.



Didymos Thomas wrote:
The Trinity's meaning rests in the meditative value of the concept. If we were to try and establish the Trinity as a logically demonstrated truth, then there is nothing upon which to meditate.
Wouldn't it be better to find the truth than to find a tool to think about the truth?



Didymos Thomas wrote:
Yes, and it is interesting, but I'm not a priest. I encourage you to pursue the thought, and even discuss the thought with spiritual teachers.
No you're not a priest, you're a philosopher. While I am curious what a priest/preacher would say, I am also curious what competent philosophers think. So I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 04:33 pm
@Axis Austin,
Interesting stuff about swearing, thanks.

Fido wrote:

Let me give you two examples of allegories, and you tell me what they allegorize... First, the Bob Dylan song: All along the watch tower... And second: The Wizard of Oz...


Any particular reason for this?

I have not seen The Wizard of Oz since I was a kid, and have never read the book.
As for the Dylan song, it can be approached in a few different ways, but all seem to be a reflection on society; though the Joker is a bit downcast, he and the Thief see through the wasted lives of businessmen and plowmen who are confused about the worth of life: the confusion is one of values, the businessman being the hedonist and the plowman desiring the material success of the businessman. The princess, the ruling elite, is on the watchtower, a fortification protecting her status. But the wildcat, untamed nature, is lurking in the distance, threatening the watchtower. Two riders, the Joker and Thief, are approaching: untamed nature and these two archetypes, both outsiders of society, threaten the established order and social hierarchy. Something like that.

Fido wrote:
You say the trinity has a meditative purpose...I say it is a heavenly model for eathly power... It is also a means of reconciling the old testament God of the Jews with the psychological, and mystical understanding of God Jesus put forth... I don't really believe he ever intended to be caught up in the trinity... He was trying to give us a new perspective on God, and ended up as God when He could not prevent it...


Jesus never taught the Trinity, that is clear. But you still have not explained your interpretation. That's all I'm asking for.

Axis Austin wrote:
It seems obvious that it doesn't, but I'm prodding to see if perhaps it does (hence the analogy). Also, quantum mechanics doesn't follow logical principles either.


I don't know enough about QM to comment on that.

If you think that the Trinity can be stated in such a way as to follow logical principles without reinventing the notion, I'd be interested in seeing this.

Axis Austin wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to find the truth than to find a tool to think about the truth?


What we should remember is that the Trinity is a tool for discovering God; as the truth of God cannot be logically demonstrated, but is something that is experienced, producing a logical demonstration will not be the truth of God.

Besides, logical demonstration is not necessarily tantamount to truth.

Axis Austin wrote:
No you're not a priest, you're a philosopher. While I am curious what a priest/preacher would say, I am also curious what competent philosophers think. So I'd like to hear your thoughts.


Something of a philosopher, perhaps: but this is a spiritual notion. I think you may be on to something, but that's all I have for you at the moment. Maybe in time, after more reflection, I'll have something more substantial to relate.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:26 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Interesting stuff about swearing, thanks.



Any particular reason for this?

I have not seen The Wizard of Oz since I was a kid, and have never read the book.
As for the Dylan song, it can be approached in a few different ways, but all seem to be a reflection on society; though the Joker is a bit downcast, he and the Thief see through the wasted lives of businessmen and plowmen who are confused about the worth of life: the confusion is one of values, the businessman being the hedonist and the plowman desiring the material success of the businessman. The princess, the ruling elite, is on the watchtower, a fortification protecting her status. But the wildcat, untamed nature, is lurking in the distance, threatening the watchtower. Two riders, the Joker and Thief, are approaching: untamed nature and these two archetypes, both outsiders of society, threaten the established order and social hierarchy. Something like that.


It is a test pure and simple...No grade, but some people simply have an ear to symbology.... As the rest of the album would suggest, the song is about religion... Though it is never said, Jesus was there, talking from the cross... The Joker and the thief make it obvious... My wine, My earth says it all... The wildcat is the debil....

The wizard of oz is a story about America....It is the wizard of US...The lion is the symbol of government, the scare crow is a farmer, and the tin man is industry. The tin man gets a watch, an eight hour work day... The farmer gets a diploma, as from the near by land grant agricultural college, and the lion got courage, a medal and a testimonial- needed to deal with our problems...Ya; were still waiting on that one...The witches were resolved or unresolved sectional differences....

Quote:

Jesus never taught the Trinity, that is clear. But you still have not explained your interpretation. That's all I'm asking for.



I don't know enough about QM to comment on that.

If you think that the Trinity can be stated in such a way as to follow logical principles without reinventing the notion, I'd be interested in seeing this.


I don't think it is logical, and it is not natural.. It combines the magic number with an unatural relationship so it is the perfect device of a mystery religion...

Quote:

What we should remember is that the Trinity is a tool for discovering God; as the truth of God cannot be logically demonstrated, but is something that is experienced, producing a logical demonstration will not be the truth of God.

Besides, logical demonstration is not necessarily tantamount to truth.


God is not discovered through tools... Of course, dogmas are effective expressions of authority... And if you ever suffer authority you are bound to discover God...

Something of a philosopher, perhaps: but this is a spiritual notion. I think you may be on to something, but that's all I have for you at the moment. Maybe in time, after more reflection, I'll have something more substantial to relate.

I can most easily cnceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected..

For I am not so much in love with my conclusion as to not weigh what others will think about them, and though I know that the meditations of the philosopher are far removed from the judgement of the laity, because his endeavor is to seek out the truth in all things, so far as this is permitted by God to the human reason, I still believe that one must avoid theories altogether foreign to the orthodoxy.

Accordingly, when I considered in my own mind how absurd a performance it must seem to those who know that the judgment of many centuries has approved the view that the earth remains fixed as center in the midst of the heavens, if I should on the contrary assert that the earth moves; I was for a long time at a loss to know whether I should publish the commentaries I have written in proof of its motions, or whether it were not better to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and of some others who were accustomed to transmit the secrets of philosophy not in writing but orally, and only to their relatives and friends, as the letter from Lysis to Hipparchus bears witness...

They did this, it seems to me, not as some think, because of a certain selfish reluctance to give their views to the world, but in order that the noblest truths, worked out by the careful study of great men, should not be despised by those who are vexed at the idea of taking great pains with any forms of literature except such as would be profitable, or by those who, if driven to the study of philosophy for its own sake, or by the admonitions and examples of others, nevertheless, on account of their stupidity, hold a place among philosophers similar to that of drones among bees..

To which I reply: BZZZZZ!
From he Dedication of the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Copernicus to Pope Paul III, 1543

Pardon me for replies to your replies to others...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:51 pm
@Fido,
Yes, "All Along the Watchtower" has spiritual overtones. But it isn't so much about religion as it is about the role of religion with respect to the established order of society: namely, that right religion will be a critic and a danger to abusive social structures.

And God can most certainly be discovered with the use of certain tools: all of meditative practice, in all religion, is a tool for discovering/experiencing God/Nirvana/what-have-you. A shovel is a tool for digging holes, meditation is a tool for reaching enlightenment.

And yes, the Trinity is a great device for a mystery religion: and Christianity is often such a religion.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 02:17:50