Enduring Problems in Philosophy
- Thread starter Ren
- Start date
LOL o2b, I'll need to spend a bit of time with everything you have written rather than responding ad hoc.
On this one though I think it's quite clear - time is something that God created and is part of our universe. He exists outside our universe as well as in it and from the outside he sees it as a created whole in full extent in both time and space. I expect there are other universes as well that he created, each with their own separate attributes which could well mean they all have their own equivalent to time.
To suggest that God experiences time linearly is to necessarily constrain him to his own creation, which doesn't make sense. Of course I'm sure he can experience time linearly as a voluntary act, but he isn't bound to do this. There aren't any surprises in our future for God - he created the universe as a complete fiat with all its history in place from beginning to end. The paradox is how he can do this while still giving us freedom of choice, which of course is why it's such an extraordinary thing.
Of course even for us, time isn't a universal flow, but is in a sense private to each of us, and flows at different rates according to how we move and where we are - as Einstein proved so ably. There is no common now, as modern physics so admirably demonstrates.
But the same argument still applies to the other texts: that it can't possibly be taken literally. Surely even if there were dozens of statements and if it meant the same thing without factual evidence to back it, it would be difficult to take it for what it is. What if the revelation simply referred to Christ's second coming as in that glorious epiphany that come into each of our lives? These descriptions to me evoke a feeling of warmth and of being saved, which I think happens to us in our lifetime. What if the second coming does not happen in the blockbuster way that it was literally described? What if it happens in increments, often within us? Aren't we in the danger of anticipating a falsehood if, hypothetically, we had a very precise but highly imaginative anticipation of it?
Yes, I am of the same view. He had Faith in humanity. He had a profound love for humanity and this is how I am convinced that Christ is indeed of God, whether as a literal son or not. I personally believe that the most encompassing definition of God is of God being the alpha and omega. To me this can be acceptable as it makes sense owing to its broadness. There is no such finitely humanized God but a God that is simultaneously beyond us and through us. With this premise, I can then accept the thought of Christ and all beings as children of God for this is consistent with God being the alpha and omega, and effectively, of Christ as piece of God, which falls in line with the logic of the holy trinity. I don't think that we need the certification of Christianity to exclusively characterize us as children of God because theology or religion isn't exactly a birth certificate. What I accept these religions to be are pathways.
A good friend of mine showed me that religion is a pathway to God and while I accept his argument, I question the very definition of what God is like. If God is the alpha and omega, then God is encompassing of both the good and evil. If religion is a pathway, then as alpha and omega, God will be there at the starting points, end points, and throughout the pathways no matter what it looks like.
Now here is where Christ plays a pivotal role to me because I believe what Catholicism brought to us with Christ as the ultimate pathway to God is showing us a path to God through the likeness of Christ. This is when it becomes necessary to scrutinize Christ's way of life. Whether projected mythically as angels and demons or not, I believe that the internal battles that we experience now must be a similar to what people experienced around Christ's existence. Whether then or now, there are very clear pulls of light and dark within us. I accept this because it occurs among all of us and it occurred in Christ. We each have such battles, which we call by a hundred names. We may attribute science (psychological diseases) to it but the core dilemma is the same: good or bad, moral or immoral, sane or insane... and so on. Whatever may be our respective cases, the examples of Christ's life provide us finite pathways on how to potentially deal with this internal conflict. For example, Christ's life teaches us to forgive even lepers and whores, etc. Effectively, Christ's life is a model pathway for our very living so in this sense, Christ is indeed the way.
Then again, even with Christ as the way, the very polarity of light and dark is stark. I think this is an essential paradox because without such polarity, God as alpha and omega is refutable. With God as alpha and omega, God is also both light and dark. This is critical because this is aligned to how sinners are forgivable: because darkness is essentially God, anyway so then forgiveness is a valid exercise. This also means, that even if we were in the dark, it does not necessarily mean that we are not of God's. So then, what would be the point of Christ's life, you may ask.
To me the point of Christ's life is for us to exercise our free will relative to the polarities of lightness and darkness. Christ is the way to the light. This is my assumption. Following Christ requires my will and my volition. While this assumes that I am essentially from the dark, it does not mean that I am any less of a person or that I am not of God, but that simply I am away from that spectrum of lightness. You may ask, why is it necessary to have a will and to move to the light? Motion is my answer. We must move to the light to keep the cycles going. We are effectively hamsters in this giant wheel of life. If we stop moving, we stop life. What would be the relevance of existence if all of time stopped? None.
You may ask, why not move to the dark as though some counterclockwise motion. I suppose, it's an acceptable direction, hence Lucifer. So there then is the point of exercising our will: at the crossroads of lightness and darkness, to which direction would you rather move? I think the very distribution of our souls and our wills among so many of us makes it totally impossible for us to have a totally stagnant universe, so the argument of the validity of both directions as cancelling out each other is not viable due to the very multiplicity of our existences.
Personally, for me, I choose Christ's way. It's healing, loving, accepting, warm... simply because these are the desires that I gravitate towards. I suppose if there were another individual with different desires, I would stand in awe of this individual but also be simultaneously capable of understanding said individual.
Okay. So that was a kilometer of text. I hope I made sense. Whew.
Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
Well @Ren did include god within the scope of the thread, so it’s easy to drift into things religious rather than philosophical. In fairness, the issue of the Trinity, and what we mean by ‘person’, that kicked off these last few posts does lie on the boundaries between the two. As does the issue of the relationship between god and time, touching as it does on whether time as we experience it is fundamental, or more like one of the human qualias.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
Of course these explorations do presuppose the existence of god, and the truth of Christ - but that’s ok because in philosophical terms you don’t have to believe in something to explore its philosophical implications and rationalisations. In historical terms I guess the exploration of these issues, rooted in ancient Jewish thought, is as much an antecedent of modern philosophy as are the Greek fathers.
Last edited:
Sorry professor.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
What I don't understand is why, if you think in terms of the Universe, you still seem to acknowledge the Trinity. Why not be a Unitarian?
Now the issue remains, of course, that if you think God = Universe, you're a pantheist, somewhat in the vein of Spinoza. It's not really a Christian viewpoint anymore. You're essentially rejecting Genesis, etc.
Do you mean Jesus's human nature, or Jesus as a whole?
As I understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it rejects the idea that Jesus is only a "small part" of God. I discovered recently (thanks to the podcast I was listening to) that a lot of controversies arose in the time of the early Church from this idea of subordination to the Father. If Christ is con-substantial with the Father then he is not in any way subordinate. "Fully God" suggests he is not a part.
John—I just realised you are a heretic!
Joke aside: as for the concept of person, I agree that it is frustratingly fuzzy. It gets even fuzzier when the notion of two natures in one person (Jesus) is added to the mix. But if, indeed, God's omnipotence transcends logic, then I suppose he has the power to manifest as three persons. Why it has to be three is a mystery. I believe Augustine spends a great deal of time justifying this triadic relationship by means of analogies—lover, loved, and loving, etc.
Thanks to my girlfriend, I have learned that from the Muslim point of view, orthodox Christians are pretty much flirting with a form of polytheism. Muslims just can't make any sense of the Trinity.
Yes, but also I see this as owing to the complex history of Christianity as a force that changed the power plays of the world. This is Christianity as a massive and complex organization with a history and inconsistencies. I think at the crux of it, where the understanding should begin is in the teachings of Christ. Christianity begins in understanding Christ's life, to me at least.
Have you read my reply to O2b? Particularly the second quote? Does it clarify my point of view a bit? Or nope?
But yeah, I am a Catholic on paper but I've been exploring a lot of its aspects in the not so conventional sense of it (see spoiler). I am inclined to not take the teachings in the Bible literally. I feel like there's a code to it that simply cannot be in its stories at face value. I still profess to believe in God though and I respect and if I may so boldly say, love Christ with a profoundness that has defined my life for the most part. So at this I see my self as a Christian nonetheless. I see the Pope as supposedly the closest living example to Christ as much as possible but I know the facts are hazy on that. I'm a Catholic and I have ires against the organization but I do find power in some of its longest standing practices like its prayers and chants and novenas. I don't know if it's valid to think of myself as religiously eclectic but I am that. I guess? I do feel a lot like a heretic most times. I don't know. I just want to sleep at night.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
Hey John K,
Yeah, I guess I see time differently.
And that's OK!
I had the thought that maybe time is a relation-dependant attribute and before God begat His Son and was a singularity, time did not exist and in a way I am unable to fathom, there was no waiting. Then the moment God begat His Son, there were two, there was relationship, and time naturally spawned into existence. Not because God created it, but because it is a natural consequence of relationship itself.
Pretty esoteric. I sure ain't insisting it's true.
The idea of reality outside of time's linearity is devoid of tangibility. It is simply 100% outside of my experience. I don't see Scripture as ever operating outside the confines of linear time and I actually just have little interest in something that I don't see how it will ever have an experiential quality.
Yeah, I guess I see time differently.
And that's OK!
I had the thought that maybe time is a relation-dependant attribute and before God begat His Son and was a singularity, time did not exist and in a way I am unable to fathom, there was no waiting. Then the moment God begat His Son, there were two, there was relationship, and time naturally spawned into existence. Not because God created it, but because it is a natural consequence of relationship itself.
Pretty esoteric. I sure ain't insisting it's true.
The idea of reality outside of time's linearity is devoid of tangibility. It is simply 100% outside of my experience. I don't see Scripture as ever operating outside the confines of linear time and I actually just have little interest in something that I don't see how it will ever have an experiential quality.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
I screwed up. I saw the header Philosophy and Religion, but did not realize this thread is a subset of that more inclusive title.Y'all this is theology, not philosophy
I have no problem with a new thread perhaps titled Christian thought or something.
Hope it's OK if I continue to dialogue, but sure appreciate this better belongs in another thread.
It's completely fine to continue posting here. The only condition is to rely on argument rather than appeal to authority, if possible. (Which doesn't mean you can't rely on Scriptural sources).
o2b
Permanent Fixture
Thanks, Ren.
I am thankful my use of Scripture attends what I believe to be valid argument. Like my sense is Scripture, rightly understood, corroborates with reason.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
Hey mintoots,
Well, you sure put a lot of thought to this!
Hosea 6:1-3
Come, and let us return to the Lord;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2 After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
3 Let us know,
Let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.
His going forth is established as the morning;
He will come to us like the rain,
Like the latter and former rain to the earth.
Love your thoughts on Christ's coming! In the above text, Christ's coming is described as His manifestation in our hearts (coming to us like the rain). By the way, note that this manifestation is described as a 3 day experience. Scripture packs this term, three days, with meaning. Always it refers to a season of intense trial. Abraham up Mount Moriah to sacrifice Isaac. Paul's Damascus Road experience. Joseph and Mary losing Christ and returning to Jerusalem to find him. The heavy rains in Ezra 10. Jonah in the belly of the whale. Calvary.
To put it bluntly, Hosea is referring to a coming of Christ that is spiritual and it culminates in complete disclosure of soul, a very painful process given the human condition.
Colossians 1:26-27
26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Revelation 10:5-7
5 The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven 6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer, 7 but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.
(The finishing or completing of the manifestation of Christ in His believers.)
Hebrews 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
Isaiah 28:18-20
18 Your covenant with death will be annulled,
And your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
When the overflowing scourge passes through,
Then you will be trampled down by it.
19 As often as it goes out it will take you;
For morning by morning it will pass over,
And by day and by night;
It will be a terror just to understand the report.”
20 For the bed is too short to stretch out on,
And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.
Isaiah 33:16-17a
17 Your eyes will see the King in His beauty;
They will see the land that is very far off.
18 Your heart will meditate on terror:
To my understanding, biblical corroboration is simply too vast to not link Revelation 4 with the realities packed into full disclosure. Revelation 5 concurs, it seems to me. John cannot possibly believe one could be subject to the sword that reveals all and survive. No way. Lights out and no one's home.
The science of disclosure for the case where the process reaches its endpoint of full disclosure has been essentially completely overlooked.
The gospel from the perspective of the last days is gutted and empty without this essential ingredient. (It seems to me!)
Last edited:
o2b
Permanent Fixture
When Christ became "We." EVERY painful feeling applies. He had to max all of them out at Calvary and when He did so, He embraced us all. (This is what John, in Revelation 5, could not believe to be possible.)
Both are valid ways of look at time which explain the qualities of what would be considered God rather than at the character of who God is, which we would naturally want evidence, though it reduces faith and steps out with the sinful “emotions” that we avoid or vice faith with.
On one side if you look at time as linear, time is a way of expressing the power of God, though at its extreme can leave us usurping his authority as Ren had mentioned on using authority. It acknowledges creation, power, and choice, but doesn’t acknowledge Gods important attributes.
The other side of time in its philosophical and human context is that it is purely subjective to other things. When thinking of it within being human and subject to the power and authority of God, it professes our inability to be omnipotent and embrace our purpose, path, and life in moments given to us and outside our power. It ultimately acknowledges Gods power and his attributes, character, and our humanity.
Sorry I left the conversation. I haven’t had great experiences with talking about faith, though I want to contribute, it’s good to know it’s safe to talk about.
I’m a sense John kind of is a heretic in Jewish and pagan terms. I’m sure this was the very reason why they crucified Jesus on the cross and why He allowed it.
I would like to think that the gospel of John more or less explains the identity of Christ and the mystery of what that means better than any other gospel there is, and it’s interpretation is what leaves question for the one subjectively reading it.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
On one side if you look at time as linear, time is a way of expressing the power of God, though at its extreme can leave us usurping his authority as Ren had mentioned on using authority. It acknowledges creation, power, and choice, but doesn’t acknowledge Gods important attributes.
The other side of time in its philosophical and human context is that it is purely subjective to other things. When thinking of it within being human and subject to the power and authority of God, it professes our inability to be omnipotent and embrace our purpose, path, and life in moments given to us and outside our power. It ultimately acknowledges Gods power and his attributes, character, and our humanity.
Sorry I left the conversation. I haven’t had great experiences with talking about faith, though I want to contribute, it’s good to know it’s safe to talk about.
I’m a sense John kind of is a heretic in Jewish and pagan terms. I’m sure this was the very reason why they crucified Jesus on the cross and why He allowed it.
I would like to think that the gospel of John more or less explains the identity of Christ and the mystery of what that means better than any other gospel there is, and it’s interpretation is what leaves question for the one subjectively reading it.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Last edited:
You bet - and a most incorrigible one!John—I just realised you are a heretic!
As far as I understand it, the rational doctrine of the Trinity has similar validity problems as those of transubstantiation, in that it can easily turn into a discussion that attempts to identify a philosophical context within which to place god, but which he must of necessity transcend (not in the technical sense, but in the sense that he cannot be contained in any conceptualisation schema which must always be contained within him and have a scope lesser than him). What's worse is that the in depth attempts to shape these concepts are based on outmoded phiosophical ideas which I believe are discredited in our time. What would be fascinating is if someone with a greater comparitive knowledge of philosophical schemas, such as yourself, could set the ancient (Neoplatonic I presume?) thinking into a substantive modern alternative.
Actually, I'm just thinking that for any red-blooded INFJ, the idea of three persons in one individual is just business as usual. I'm sure that all of us INFJs have as many persons in us as the differing social contexts we frequent lol!
I think this is the sort of issue that got the early Greek philosopher-Christians knotted into a tangle. It's quite clear from the gospels that Jesus is subordinate to the father, because he said so and the human analogy used is the human relationship between father and son. That's not the same as saying that he is not the whole of god, and it's probably better to think of the relationship between a reigning king and his eldest son, or the relationship between the president and VP of the United States as an analogy, rather than the son of an ordinary family. They each have access to full power in principle, but one wields it only under the direction of the other.
My own personal view is that Jesus is that aspect of god that human beings are most able to approach. That doesn't mean he does not span the whole of god, but that he manifests to us in a form that humans can relate to. To us it looks like a distinct person. It probably goes deeper than that, because it looks like our kind of universe is a creation of the son. The incarnation adds to the complexity, because as a man, Jesus was not able to manifest as god in all this entails - you just can't fit all that into a human person. At the same time, by becoming a human being, he effectively made all humans 'blood relations' of god. As both god and man, he becomes the path for all of us to follow which can bring us access to both. The incarnation must be more of philosophical mystery than the trinity, thinking about it - how to become limited in that way, yet still remain god. Tolkien expored this sort of issue with the Istari - the wizards - who became incarnate, and all but Gandalf lost touch with their purpose and their spiritual selves.
The Holy Spirit seems to be primarily the immanent presence of god, both father and son, in all that is, including oureselves - the creative force that brings it into being and which sustains and inspires it in the great dance of love and unity that brings everything into intimate relationship with god. It is the spirit within us, and everything else, that gives us a direct experience of the divine. But this starts to take us well outside the scope of your thread lol. However, what it illustrates is that it seems to me it's impossible really to apprehend what the trinity is all about without looking at things from both a feeling as well as a thinking perspective. For a religious person, seeking a relationship with god is what matters, and using the language of the trinity is a means to that end for some rather than an end in itself.
As a philosophical puzzle, it's great fun that I expect is best taken playfully, rather than too seriously and dogmatically.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
I think Augustine favours an allegorical interpretation of the more difficult passages in the Old Testament. (Those which, among other things, seem to encourage genocide.)
Otherwise you have the option of Marcionism, lol. I think that, to the extent that I am a Christian, I am pretty close to Marcion -- minus the Gnostic undertones.
So yeah, I am also a heretic. Welcome to the club!