Re: THEORY: Languages divided by politics and religion

** This was going to be a couple of short paragraphs
but it exploded! I guess the only reason for posting
it is that I like people who interact with me to know
my philosophies and thoughts.

Danny Wier wrote:

> Well, I better take that back. Most Christians believe
> in one God in three Persons, thus the Trinity, from
> "tri-unity". The three Persons are equal in divinity
> and all agree in every way.
..
> Tom asked what should be the definition of a "person".
> It's easy to assume that's synonomous with a singular
> human being. But [...] It would then be possible for
> one to determine that God has DID since he's one being
> with three persons, if you assume that "person" is
> synonomous with "personality". After all, God relates
> to mankind in three ways through His three Persons:
> the Father the Creator, the Son the Savior, and the
> Holy Spirit the Sustainer.
> The notion of a Trinity more correctly refers to a
> notion of a complete, holistic Deity, and a Church
> built on that foundation which is both visible
> and invisible, both temporal and spiritual.
I'm a member of the Uniting Church in Australia, which
was formed in 1977 by Methodists, Presbyterians and
Congregationalists. I have noticed that many _other_
churches seem to read a lot more into the idea of the
Trinity than I do, and see obscure references to it in
a lot more Biblical passages. Myself, I don't like the
word. Not that it's incorrect as such, but I feel that
it gets the emphasis wrong. I feel that the label
"trinity" ties God to a number, and almost defines God
in terms of a number, which is not appropriate. Apart
from anything else, it seems to suggest that God equals
this plus this plus this. But there are passages in the
Bible that refer to God, passages that refer to the
Father and Son, and passages that refer to the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit; so why postulate that that's the
end of the list when we know perfectly well that God's
revelation of himself was never meant to be exhaustive?
I think Christian theology is better when it avoids the
label and sticks to phrase-descriptions and the
underlying idea, just as the Bible does. The underlying
idea is this: that there is one God, that the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit are all God, that these three are
not equal to each other, and that, for some
understanding of the word "exist" these three have
always existed. Beyond that, it gets ambiguous. It is
not necessary, for example, to postulate that the three
are eternally in a state of addressing each other in
the second person. I visualise the connection as
something dynamic, so that some degree of seperation
between the "Persons" may take place so that some task
of God might be completed (hence Jesus prayed to God on
Earth) but such seperation need not be the eternal
state of affairs. Yet I insist that the three have
always existed, just as a gravitational potential field
exists even when there is nothing to experience it.

The two analogies that I resort to a lot are (1) that of
the relationship between matter and gravity : we have a
sun that is an object in the sky, a source of light and
heat, and that keeps the planets in its grasp; and (2)
that of a circle, consisting of a Centre, a Circumference,
and a Holy Radius. I don't pretend that any analogy is
perfect, but these ones aren't bad. I see the Father as
the Originator or Mastermind (not exactly the same as
Creator; more on this in a minute), the Son as the
Transformer (of which the transformation from "unsaved"
to "saved" is but one example), and the Spirit as the
Sustainer and Nurturer. The beginning of John's gospel
parallels the beginning of Genesis, and I connect the
"Word" which John uses as a name for Christ with "and God
said" in Genesis. Thus I believe that "God said" might be
understood as, "God sent a portion of his Being into the
world to complete each task of Creation" -- and that (to
put it far too simply) God the Son might mean God in his
capacity to send a portion of himself into the world to
complete some task of transformation (whether from
"uncreated" to "created", "unsaved" to "saved" or
whatever). But even before there was a world at all, the
Transforming Power of God already existed - see my
earlier analogy with gravitational potential.

Incidentally: a lot of people, both Christians and
otherwise, assume that when the Bible says that Christ
is the only way to God, it means that _believing_ in
Christ the Historical Figure is the only way to God.
In its extreme form, this is used to imply that
salvation is some kind of cosmic guessing game. But if
Christ is understood as God's Transforming Power, then
this doesn't follow. A _path_ and a _way_ are not the
same thing. If I want to get to the other end of a
paddock of thistles, I can go around the fenceline, I
can run straight through the middle, or I can get
there via some intricate dance routine. But the only
_way_ to the other end of the paddock of thistles is
to wear shoes, yes? Likewise, to get to the other end
of the spiritual life it follows from "Seek And Ye
Shall Find" that the path is very flexible indeed, but
the only _way_ to the other end of the spiritual life
is to be transformed by the Power of God. Which, by
Christians, is called Christ. (Mind you, I do believe
that the knowledge of Christ is an intricate part of
that spiritual life - one that all seekers after the
God of Moral Truth will discover whether they do so
before death or after it - but I don't believe in the
cause-and-effect connection that is sometimes
perpetrated.)

Now, back to the Trinity, and areas where I take issue
over relatively minor matters. Firstly, some
Christians see reference to the Trinity in the story
with Abraham (I think) and the three "angels". But the
New Testament tells us that "Christ is the visible
expression of the invisible God", a description that
applies equally to all three, so that doesn't fit.
Secondly, many denominations (notably Baptists) argue
with pseudo-logic for a much stronger definition of
the Trinity than I am comfortable with. The argument
goes: (1) God has always existed; (2) The most
important aspect of God is love; (3) It is
inconcievable that the most important aspect of God
could ever have existed only in potentia; (4)
Therefore God must be capable of a relationship with
himself; (5) This leads to the notion of Trinity. I'll
admit this argument has a little merit, but it does
involve extrapolating statements about the nature of
God, which I hardly need tell anyone leads to very
shaky logic indeed.

But there's an extension to this logic which I find
far _less_ credible : the idea that if God is perfect
then he must be self-sufficient and that therefore
God's ability to love and form relationships must be
fully satisfied within himself. It is impossible for
God to "need" anything, because "need" implies
incompleteness, and incompleteness implies
imperfection. Now, where this logic falls down is
where it extrapolates the nature of God from the
nature of humanity. It takes human words like "need"
and tries attaching them to God while maintaining the
distinctly human connotations. But human words don't
apply directly to God - why should they? Either it is
in the nature of God that he does certain things and
feels certain things, or it is not. "He cannot deny
his own nature" (2 Tim). It is in God's nature to
create. Words like "need" neither express it nor fail
to express it : it is in God's nature. There was
never (I would suggest) a time when God was not
involved in _some_ kind of creation, somewhere, in
some universe, to some degree. A creative task _exists_
even in its planning stages, although I caution that
"planning" is yet another human word. The matter of
incompleteness in God simply does not arise, because
what God does is part of who God is, and God creates.

I've simplified a lot of things, and I really believe
that a lot of issues are more complex than I've made
them out to be, but here are a few of my thoughts.

Adrian.
http://www.flinders.edu.au