There has been some discussion about the Trinity lately, and an ancillary discussion that talked about the sex or gender of God which resulted in some Trinitarian concepts being thrown around. So, this is a thread for that discussion.

As far as possible I will not present my own opinions, because I am not personally given to know these things. I'm just trying to faithfully represent the teachings of the Church. As such, if I introduce an error, it is my own.

As a second disclaimer, I'd like to quote St Gregory the Theologian in his First Theological Oration. He was answering philosophers of his day (Eunomians) who sought to refute Christianity by sophistry. St Gregory was known to be exceedingly humble, so I am always struck by how he begins this first of four orations: "I am to speak against persons who pride themselves on their eloquence; so, to begin with a text of Scripture, 'Behold, I am against you, O thou proud one,' (Jeremiah 50:31) not only in your system of teaching, but also in your hearing, and in your tone of mind." His phrasing suggests to me that he was speaking obediently, not out of his own desire: "I am to speak" because "our Great Mystery is in danger of being made a thing of little moment."

That being said, he explains, "Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits...Next, on what subjects and to what extent may we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and to such an extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend. No further, lest...the arguments should suffer loss even in respect of the strength they originally possessed."

PASTOR FIENE IS RUNNING MY CHURCH'S WOMEN'S RETREAT THIS YEAR!!!
/fangirl

I wasn't going to go that deep at all! Just start with some basics.

5 paragraphs and delving into the humility of St. Gregory, we are already in Jacques Cousteau depths!

Quote:

---

That being said, he explains, "Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits...Next, on what subjects and to what extent may we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and to such an extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend. No further, lest...the arguments should suffer loss even in respect of the strength they originally possessed."

---

Not a fan of this statement at all. I know what he means. I certainly wouldn't go to 4chan and start discussing the philosophical fine points of the Godhead. But it also comes across as terribly elitist. I see no reason why any well read Christian can't discuss these things.

Honestly I like the Jewish attitude a lot better. Disagreement is expected and encouraged, but only if bolstered by coherent thought, knowledge and research.

As to the OP, I'm always a little amused when people spend time arguing over something that is by definition unknowable.

The basics of the doctrine of the Trinity are pretty straightforward, as they are confessed in the Symbol of Faith. There are three general points to be made.

1. There is One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal in Nature, or are of the same substance or essence (homoousia). Everything that we say of God in the universal sense we say of the One Essence. (cf Mark 12:29-31)

2. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique persons. Everything we say of particulars we say of one of the Three. The most basic way to put this is that they all have one unique feature, which I will bold below.

Of the Father:

• We know the Father is Almighty (Ephesians 4:6, Malachi 2:10, Genesis 35:11)
• He is the maker of heaven and earth, and of all things (visible and invisible). (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Colossians 1:16, Romans 1:20)
• By this we also confess that the Father is the sole cause of the Trinity and Godhead

Of the Son - we know the most about the Son, because He came to us and taught us.

• The Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 1:3, 1 Thess 1:1, Romans 13:14) is the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14)
• The same essence as God, light of light, etc. (Phil 2:6, John 1:1, 1 John 1:5, John 8:12, John 20:28, 1 John 5:20, Hebrews 1:5, John 10:30, John 14:9, Isaiah 44:6, Rev 1:8, Phil 2:6, John 10:38, Col 2:9)
• The Only-Begotten of the Father (John 3:16, Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33, Psalm 2:7) before all worlds, outside of time. (John 17:5, Colossians 1:15, John 8:58, John 1:2, Proverbs 8:23, Revelation 1:8). Begotten is a mystical representation of generation not to be confused with creation .
• All things are created through Him (Hebrews 11:3, John 1:1-3,10,14, Eph 3:9, 1 Cor 7:6, Col 1:15-17)
• He came down from Heaven to save us (1 Thess 5:9, Acts 4:12, John 6:51, John 6:38)
• He was incarnated as a Man from the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:5, Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27,35, Phil 2:6-7, Romans 1:3)
• He was crucified, died, and resurrected (Acts 2:36, Mark 15:46, Luke 24:5-7, 1 Cor 15:3-4)

Of the Spirit

• The Spirit of Truth (John 14:17, 15:26)
• The giver of life and freedom (2 Cor 3:17, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Luke 11:13)
• Eternally proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)
• Is sent by the Son in time (John 15:26)
• Spoke by the prophets in the OT (2 Peter 1:21)

So we say, the Father is Cause, the Son is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds from the Father.

3. That this is the One God, there is no plurality, no changing, no multiplicity of Gods. (Exodus 20:2-3)

To really understand the way the Trinity is spoken of in the creed, you need to understand two words: ousia and hypostasis. In pre-Christian philosophy (which Philo of Alexandria - a Jewish philosopher - says is really an imitation of the divine realities of Judaic wisdom) the two are related by the concept of universals and particulars. These terms were baptized for use to describe God, much as any metaphor or analogy can be, with the understanding that they expressed ineffable divine realities.

Ousia is essence or being -- literally, it is a noun formed from the verb to be, eimi, "I am". This is the idea of being, of existing. Properly, it is the idea of being in one thing that doesn't exist in another thing. When we say this of God, we say that is of His Being - His Uncreatedness, His self-Existence. When Christ says "Before Abraham was, I AM" that He exists, He IS in the same way the Father is.

Hypostasis or existence is the particulars (now depending on Aristotle or Plato it is used differently, but we'll stick to basics). A thing has a unique hypostasis but can still belong to the same ousia. So the existence or expression of the common essence is how we perceive God.

This is why St Maximos writes:

Quote:

---

...The Monad is truly a Monad: it is not the origin of the things that come after it, as if it had expanded after a state of contraction, like something naturally poured out and proliferating into a multitude, but is rather the inherently personal reality of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly a Trinity, not the sum of a divisible number, (for it is not an aggregation of monads, that it might suffer division), but the inherently essential subsistence of the three-personed Monad. The Trinity is truly a Monad, for such it is; and the Monad is truly a Trinity, for as such it subsists, since there is one Godhead that in essence is a Monad and in subsistence a Trinity.

---

If I could sum this up, God is truly One by Being ("such it is" is used for the verb to be) and is truly a Trinity by how it exists ("such it subsists" speaks of the three persons). Perhaps it is accurate to say that we should distinguish the What He Is from the How He Is (I'm speculating here).

//////////

As with all councils, Nicaea did not create anything, but preserve and define that which already existed. This is not unlike a scientist who rigorously defines an extant phenomena. The thing he categorizes existed before he measured it, and continues on afterward unchanged by his typifying mathematics or description.

We can see the confession of the same reality without the rigorous definition that came later (to defend against incorrect teachings) in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. (I will write a separate post on this next).

I would say he is saying a positive philosophizing, trying to add to knowledge. Discussion and learning isn't what's being admonished, or of thinking about God (he explicitly explains that in the next paragraph, I just didn't link it).

The truth is we should approach God with fear and awe always. This includes talking about Him, especially the great mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Sure, that's right. I could do it with law.

But it's not just the jargon. My real problem is that even if the explanations are given in plain English they still aren't anywhere close to satisfying. Gibberish is still gibberish even if a couple of Ancient Greek words are added to the mix.

I won't go into detail again about the Ascension of Jesus, but the plain reading of the text suggests that he still had a scarred human body after the resurrection and that he ascended into the sky. That sounds like a sky god, not some transcendent consciousness. Remember, we're not talking about God coming to earth as a zygote; we're talking about God going to be with God. Did his body dissolve after he was out of sight? Was he leading the disciples to believe he was flying up to some physical material location up in the sky when he really wasn't?

The Mormons have a silly explanation but it frankly makes more sense than those claiming an immaterial God. Other places in scripture do suggest God is immaterial but the Ascension is problematic. So far no Christian on this forum has even admitted it is a problem.

And it's been a while since this was posted here:

Why does the ascension bother you in particular? I mean, Christ rose from the dead, appeared into locked rooms, appeared incognito then vanished to people on a road and so forth. The cloud is a common theophany motif describing ineffable light (cf Luke 9:34 among others), so He ascended into blinding godhood. Besides, even if He went "up" purely for dramatic effect, I'm not sure why it's "problematic".

Regardless...start your own thread! Or discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

Christ's body didn't vanish, he is still in it.

Paul writes in Philippians 3:20-21:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

His body is glorified, but just as ours will be in the resurrection. It is part of the sacrifice that God the Son took when he became flesh for our sake. He took on and kept a body like ours.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Why does the ascension bother you in particular? I mean, Christ rose from the dead, appeared into locked rooms, appeared incognito then vanished to people on a road and so forth. The cloud is a common theophany motif describing ineffable light (cf Luke 9:34 among others), so He ascended into blinding godhood. Besides, even if He went "up" purely for dramatic effect, I'm not sure why it's "problematic".

Regardless...start your own thread! Or discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

---

Obviously you do recognize this is problematic or you wouldn't be changing the clear reading of the text to fit your beliefs. You claim the cloud represents an ineffable light because you believe the nature of God to be something immaterial and transcendent and you see how that would be a problem if God the Son was going in his scarred body to be at one with God the Father and Spirit. Even if the cloud does represent something beyond description in other places, does that cloud motif include disciples watching Jesus ascend until he is no longer in sight? There are passages in the bible where God appears immaterial and omnipresent and there are places where he appears as an alien sky god. Obviously the message isn't clear as Pro Sandy has just demonstrated.

I'm sorry you can't see how this is relevant to the doctrine of the trinity.

you must have been in a hurry to leave out 4 very important words when describing the Holy Spirit

I'm a nonbeliever so my thoughts here matter not and I certainly don't want to derail. I just wanted to point out something I think is kinda funny.

I read the first sentence:

Quote:

---

The basics of the doctrine of the Trinity are pretty straightforward

---

And then the following dissertation follows. LOL.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The basics of the doctrine of the Trinity are pretty straightforward, as they are confessed in the Symbol of Faith. There are three general points to be made.

1. There is One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal in Nature, or are of the same substance or essence (homoousia). Everything that we say of God in the universal sense we say of the One Essence. (cf Mark 12:29-31)

2. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique persons. Everything we say of particulars we say of one of the Three. The most basic way to put this is that they all have one unique feature, which I will bold below.

Of the Father:

• We know the Father is Almighty (Ephesians 4:6, Malachi 2:10, Genesis 35:11)
• He is the maker of heaven and earth, and of all things (visible and invisible). (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Colossians 1:16, Romans 1:20)
• By this we also confess that the Father is the sole cause of the Trinity and Godhead

Of the Son - we know the most about the Son, because He came to us and taught us.

• The Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 1:3, 1 Thess 1:1, Romans 13:14) is the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14)
• The same essence as God, light of light, etc. (Phil 2:6, John 1:1, 1 John 1:5, John 8:12, John 20:28, 1 John 5:20, Hebrews 1:5, John 10:30, John 14:9, Isaiah 44:6, Rev 1:8, Phil 2:6, John 10:38, Col 2:9)
• The Only-Begotten of the Father (John 3:16, Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33, Psalm 2:7) before all worlds, outside of time. (John 17:5, Colossians 1:15, John 8:58, John 1:2, Proverbs 8:23, Revelation 1:8). Begotten is a mystical representation of generation not to be confused with creation .
• All things are created through Him (Hebrews 11:3, John 1:1-3,10,14, Eph 3:9, 1 Cor 7:6, Col 1:15-17)
• He came down from Heaven to save us (1 Thess 5:9, Acts 4:12, John 6:51, John 6:38)
• He was incarnated as a Man from the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:5, Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27,35, Phil 2:6-7, Romans 1:3)
• He was crucified, died, and resurrected (Acts 2:36, Mark 15:46, Luke 24:5-7, 1 Cor 15:3-4)

Of the Spirit

• The Spirit of Truth (John 14:17, 15:26)
• The giver of life and freedom (2 Cor 3:17, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Luke 11:13)
• Eternally proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)
• Is sent by the Son in time (John 15:26)
• Spoke by the prophets in the OT (2 Peter 1:21)

So we say, the Father is Cause, the Son is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds from the Father.

3. That this is the One God, there is no plurality, no changing, no multiplicity of Gods. (Exodus 20:2-3)

To really understand the way the Trinity is spoken of in the creed, you need to understand two words: ousia and hypostasis. In pre-Christian philosophy (which Philo of Alexandria - a Jewish philosopher - says is really an imitation of the divine realities of Judaic wisdom) the two are related by the concept of universals and particulars. These terms were baptized for use to describe God, much as any metaphor or analogy can be, with the understanding that they expressed ineffable divine realities.

Ousia is essence or being -- literally, it is a noun formed from the verb to be, eimi, "I am". This is the idea of being, of existing. Properly, it is the idea of being in one thing that doesn't exist in another thing. When we say this of God, we say that is of His Being - His Uncreatedness, His self-Existence. When Christ says "Before Abraham was, I AM" that He exists, He IS in the same way the Father is.

Hypostasis or existence is the particulars (now depending on Aristotle or Plato it is used differently, but we'll stick to basics). A thing has a unique hypostasis but can still belong to the same ousia. So the existence or expression of the common essence is how we perceive God.

This is why St Maximos writes:

Quote:

---

...The Monad is truly a Monad: it is not the origin of the things that come after it, as if it had expanded after a state of contraction, like something naturally poured out and proliferating into a multitude, but is rather the inherently personal reality of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly a Trinity, not the sum of a divisible number, (for it is not an aggregation of monads, that it might suffer division), but the inherently essential subsistence of the three-personed Monad. The Trinity is truly a Monad, for such it is; and the Monad is truly a Trinity, for as such it subsists, since there is one Godhead that in essence is a Monad and in subsistence a Trinity.

---

If I could sum this up, God is truly One by Being ("such it is" is used for the verb to be) and is truly a Trinity by how it exists ("such it subsists" speaks of the three persons). Perhaps it is accurate to say that we should distinguish the What He Is from the How He Is (I'm speculating here).

//////////

As with all councils, Nicaea did not create anything, but preserve and define that which already existed. This is not unlike a scientist who rigorously defines an extant phenomena. The thing he categorizes existed before he measured it, and continues on afterward unchanged by his typifying mathematics or description.

We can see the confession of the same reality without the rigorous definition that came later (to defend against incorrect teachings) in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. (I will write a separate post on this next).

---

I think the basic rules of baseball are pretty straightforward, but in order to tell people how to play a game, I'd need lots of words. Does many words = confusing or evasive?

Well this is as good a place as any to talk about the Filioque I suppose. Although I had a thread on that and everyone said my posts were too long.

7thGenTexan said:

---

On a side note, I find theological jargon and explanations grating and unsatisfying. Gibberish isn't sophisticated just because it sounds esoteric.

---

I think it is ironic that you ended this sentence in the word 'esoteric' and not just 'fancy'

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think the basic rules of baseball are pretty straightforward, but in order to tell people how to play a game, I'd need lots of words. Does many words = confusing or evasive?

---

The rules of baseball actually explain baseball.

I may have missed that one. I'm not on this board as often as I want. I'll see if I can dig it up

"Clear reading of the text"?

Luke 24 says "While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven."
Acts 1 says "And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." So... what have I changed here? I suggested we could contrast this with Luke 9/Matthew 17/Mark 9 "While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them" etc.

But cloud or no, I still don't understand your objection.

The very thing you're suggesting (immaterial vs material, transcendent vs immanent) is exactly the discussion we're having. And I don't have any response to that other than what I already said - if you reject an immanent Deity, that's fine. You're not rejecting the Trinity in particular, you're rejecting a knowable God in any way, which is a rejection of cataphatic theology (i.e., theology that asserts positive knowledge of God). Again, I'm fine with that discussion, but it's different than this one.

Besides, it's not necessary to deny that God has anything that we could recognize as a form, or to say that He can't be any particular where or when. You're objecting to a material Son going to be with the Father, because "with' the Father can't be any "where" or "with" any matter as we know it. But, we can't say anything about God the Father because He is outside of -- He preexists -- our Creation. So anything we can compare Him to, any empirical posits we could make (bigger than this, like this, etc) are empty other than by way of negation (apophatic theology). That doesn't mean He can't exist in a way that is "compatible" with physical objects, or that there's no way an outside-of-creation God can have a human in His "presence". It also doesn't preclude the introduction of another time in this creation, or place similar-to-but-different than this one. It just means we don't know. Absence of a positive answer to a question doesn't mean the subject of the question is a problem.

No, you're right, it was a little wordy. I just wanted to cite things to be able to reference back to later. This is a split off of another thread where the nature of Christ's incarnation came up, so I wanted to be able to support what I wrote scripturally.

The truth is you could write three sentences on it or three volumes. It's not much of a discussion-starter to talk about the three points in isolation (God is One by being, God is Three Persons by existence, there is only one God) without more meat.

I tend to write too much.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2818901

The issue isn't merely whether a transcendent God can be known by or interact with his creation. What we're talking about is the nature of God himself and therefore how God interacts with himself.

On another note, God is either ineffable or not. If God is ineffable then screeds about the character of God are kind of pointless, no?

So I'm guessing that you don't recite the Athanasian creed?

7thGenTexan said:

---

The issue isn't merely whether a transcendent God can be known by or interact with his creation. What we're talking about is the nature of God himself and therefore how God interacts with himself.

---

Right. The Fathers call the Trinity the interpersonal relationships of God.

So, I guess there is a key piece missing to this discussion. In no way is the OP intended to persuade anyone of the existence of God, or even a non-Christian that the Christian formulation is necessarily correct. The idea is to discuss the doctrine as it expresses the Christian faith. It is an article of faith, the symbol (or creed) represents the faith. It's not a scientific dissertation, and at the end of it, acceptance is a matter of faith. That's why I supported it with Holy Scripture, not some kind of logical or empirical proof. If you don't consider scripture to be authoritative, or believe in God, there's not much to discuss here. This is way down the line of things to believe, as far as that goes.

Quote:

---

On another note, God is either ineffable or not. If God is ineffable then screeds about the character of God are kind of pointless, no?

---

By this logic most poetry and lyrics should be discarded as useless screeds, no? Should I ever bother trying to express how my sons make me feel when I look at them, or the taste of my food, or what a sunset looks like? All of these things are ineffable, the words and concepts use to describe them are shadows of the actual thing. Even photographs don't come close to capturing the reality of experiential images.

It's the same with this. The Orthodox believe that the Fathers spoke theologized from within the Church, from experience of God, from within God, of God. Basically their words are safe ways to describe God, in that they are not false. That doesn't make them true, though, because they are descriptors of divine realities.

When we say "I believe in One God" we're trying to express a truth as we have faith in a divine revelation. These concepts are the same in kind with any other posit any human ever uses to describe reality to another human -- whether that is something like "salty" or "solid". Reality is underdefined by description and experience, both by individual humans and all mankind. It doesn't matter whether those realities are physical or metaphysical.

I do believe in God, a God beyond our understanding or knowledge or ability to describe. If God showed himself he might be describable and comprehensible. God might be showing himself without our ability to comprehend what is there. I've never met anyone who really convinced me he knew **** about God, and I've never read or heard the words of men who I thought spoke for God or through whom God revealed himself. I nevertheless believe that the evidence for God(s) is overwhelming. We have an understanding of the tastes of foods or a father's love for a son, and we can communicate those sorts of things (albeit not perfectly) without resorting merely to faith. Turning to "it's a matter of faith" is a conversation stopper. Appealing to the authority of the Orthodox Church does nothing for me. I will say that Russian Orthodox Christians appear to be the only Europeans left who have their **** together.

I guess I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing vehemently with me while disagreeing that you're doing it. God is unknowable as a being, full stop. What we call His being is His essence. It's completely incomprehensible, beyond our understanding or ability to describe. I believe, though, that God did show Himself, and He has done it in a way that is describable and perhaps somewhat comprehensible. Your position begs the question -- if you allow for an immanent God, what makes you disallow His immanence by way of incarnation?

I think you are overestimating our ability to describe taste or emotion and underestimating the participatory element in acceptance of these concepts. Have you ever eaten sushi in Tokyo made by a real sushi chef, in a legit high-end sushi restaurant off the beaten path? I could describe the whole scene and tastes and textures for you, but you'll only "get" it as far as you've experienced similar things. If you've never had sushi, you'll have no idea. I can tell you about how I feel looking at my sons, but I had no idea what it was like before having a son... which is pretty incredible, considering I have BEEN a son.

The reason the Church puts the saints and Fathers forward is not because they're smart, but because they confess the same thing with the same voice. And, as far as I have participated in the grace that they obtained, I can confess a faith that is the same. When I read the Fathers, I understand some of what they're saying in some way, and the rest I take in obedience. It's hard to describe. It's like a song or a taste, but it [[feels/senses/whatever]] real or right to me. The parts I can confess myself, are the parts I've experienced. St Paul talks about going up into heaven and experiencing things no one can describe. I can't talk about that, but I can understand some basic things.

It's not about the Orthodox church, necessarily...everything I've written in this thread is inclusive of all Christians (except the intentional omission of the filioque, but that came later). All of this stuff predates any sort of major schism in Christianity at all, with the exception of Arianism. But, of course, if you want to talk about Arianism, you would have to discuss who Christ is; even Arius acknowledged scripture

Quote:

---

if you allow for an immanent God, what makes you disallow His immanence by way of incarnation?

---

I never said God could not be immanent by way of incarnation. We haven't been discussing Jesus as zygote or carpenter. We've been discussing what is supposed to be Jesus with his glorified body (still scarred unless he got a different body after Thomas' doubts) as he ascended into the sky to be with God the Father and Spirit.

Regarding sushi and sons, we all know these things can be experienced and we can all relate. We can taste food. We can experience relationships with humans we love. And we can describe these things. Is it based on shared human experience? Yes. So what? It's not a matter of faith. It's not evidence of things not seen or the substance of things hoped for. These things have been or can be experienced with the senses.

When you describe God you are merely repeating what other men have attributed to God. The church fathers are no more convincing than any other men. Any experience you share that you claim to have had directly with God can easily be explained away by a host of other explanations of which you well aware.

7thGenTexan said:

---

Quote:

---

if you allow for an immanent God, what makes you disallow His immanence by way of incarnation?

---

I never said God could not be immanent by way of incarnation. We haven't been discussing Jesus as zygote or carpenter. We've been discussing what is supposed to be Jesus with his glorified body (still scarred unless he got a different body after Thomas' doubts) as he ascended into the sky to be with God the Father and Spirit.

---

Well, to be fair -we- weren't discussing that, -you- were.

7thGenTexan said:

---

Regarding sushi and sons, we all know these things can be experienced and we can all relate. We can taste food. We can experience relationships with humans we love. And we can describe these things. Is it based on shared human experience? Yes. So what? It's not a matter of faith. It's not evidence of things not seen or the substance of things hoped for. These things have been or can be experienced with the senses.

---

Isn't it? If you agree that gods and solids are both posits identical in kind that we accept because they help us deal with reality you're really now just discussing the relative value of one posit vs another, not whether one is valid or not.

Also, it is a belief of the Orthodox Church that the energies of God can be experienced with the senses.

Why is emotion of love toward my son, or the feeling of being loved by him, a valid experience...but the same experience of love to and from God is not? Because you don't share it? You also have never loved or been loved by my son, or eaten that sushi. You just imagine you know what it's like.

Quote:

---

When you describe God you are merely repeating what other men have attributed to God. The church fathers are no more convincing than any other men. Any experience you share that you claim to have had directly with God can easily be explained away by a host of other explanations of which you well aware.

---

When you describe Mt Kilimanjaro you are doing the same thing. Are you now suggesting that the difficulty of repeating an empirical observation is somehow inherently linked to the ontological reality of the experience?

Or are you rejecting all metaphysics whatsoever? Some on this forum do - like AstroAg I believe. It's a logical belief, but I don't believe it is provable (or unprovable).

It's an interesting thing to be a theist who sees undeniable evidence of God but also rejects metaphysics.

Come on man.

I haven't been to Kilimanjaro but can see it on google earth, which I can trust based on its accurate images of the places I have been. I could also travel to Kilimanjaro to test the claim that Kilimanjaro exists. I could then describe what it's like to climb it to others who could then climb it themselves and test my claims about the climb. I could tell you were boulders were, where snow was, the types of flora, etc etc.

I can't definitively say that you love your son, but based on experience can say it's likely because most fathers I've seen love their sons. I could also meet you and your son and observe how you interact with one another. I could ask people who know you about your relationship with your son. I could never read your mind but could test the claim and arrive at a confident level of probability.

A blind man can safely trust that others can see because he can be lead by them. A person with sight could tell him that a mud puddle was 10 feet ahead and he could then step in it a few seconds later to test the claim.

You're comparing things that can be tested with things that can't.

Admittedly, the notion of God (for lack of a better term) can't be tested in this way but I reject the atheist's argument that Occam's razor precludes or deminishes the the likelihood of God. If I see a car, the simplest answer to the question of how it originated is that an intelligent being designed and built it. It matters not that humans are more complex than cars. I don't want to get into this tired debate again with lurking atheists; just giving you a very brief explanation of why I believe there is some sort of intelligence far greater than us. Anything I assume about that intelligence is based merely on the design I can witness.

Regarding metaphysics, I could say that perhaps Kilimanjaro or sons or sushi are illusory. And so they might be. It may all be a simulation. Or it could all be thought into existence by some all powerful consciousness in the great beyond. I'm limited by the perameters placed on my reasoning regardless of what or who placed those perameters there.. Unless you're able to astroproject into another dimension I'm assuming you suffer from those same limitations. So I don't reject metaphysics, but can't tell you any ultimate truths about human ontology or teleology or the nature of God or much of anything else. I freely admit I don't know *****

You're going to have to do something to demonstrate that what you say about God is true. Quoting some ancient scholar or manuscript isn't going to cut it.

Well, I never set out to prove anything -- I already said that. So if you're expecting me to call down fire on -my- altar, I got nothin for you. Again, I don't believe in orthodoxy because it's good reading (but it is) or because the fathers were smart (they were). I believe it because my faith in God is confirmed, affirmed, and reaffirmed. It's useful to me... it's real.

Who am I in your blind man analogy? Who are the Fathers? Who are you? I think, to some extent, I've walked through the puddle. After that, when they say "and a thousand miles away, there is an ocean" I believe them.

Your position is tenuous because you're hiding behind a shield of empiricism. Testable hypothesis only result in a test of your interpretative structure of reality, not reality itself. So our posits (mountains or atoms or whether we believe trickle down economics works) are really only subject to affirming or recalcitrant experiences. You're suggesting that because you can't think of a way to subject an experience to one or the other, it's not real. That doesn't follow. Even things we don't know of yet (such as a thing no scientist has introduced as a hypothesis to even think about testing) are real or not. Reality is, our posits stack on top, they're lenses we look through.

You say you could go to Kilimanjaro - sure. You could also read all the books I have, and put yourself to the exact same set of experiences I have with regard to church, participation in liturgy, etc. Do you think those would be affirming or recalcitrant experiences? You don't know. You're happy to have your affirming experiences and observations about God that others reject as valid, but you turn around and say mine are useless or empty. Doesn't that strike you as odd?