tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post7668527273677786158..comments2023-05-29T03:51:51.259-04:00Comments on A Pasta Sea: Nearly All Christians Are HereticsThe Apostatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07849387032571497899noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-30552329718587324392020-12-08T15:40:15.919-05:002020-12-08T15:40:15.919-05:00Don't worry. You're not alone. Very intere...Don't worry. You're not alone. Very interesting article, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08646334655991329682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-23228468310190576142020-06-21T15:56:19.209-04:002020-06-21T15:56:19.209-04:00I thought of myself as a fairly adequate theologic...I thought of myself as a fairly adequate theological pundit on the layman level but I have to admit...I'm so CONFUSED!KYGAL2009https://www.blogger.com/profile/11823684071243877464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-55911641133030200222016-01-29T11:27:01.164-05:002016-01-29T11:27:01.164-05:00I know I'm very late to the party here, but I&...I know I'm very late to the party here, but I've been reading through your blog from the beginning and just wanted to say WOW, thank you so much for all the time and effort you've put into this. I can imagine that you sometimes pour so much effort into these posts, wondering if they'll ever be read or appreciated, and I can say that on a personal level at least, they most certainly are. I've greatly enjoyed (and have been intellectually stimulated by) everything I've read so far, and in particular the "Mistakes of Moses" series. Your thoughtful and thorough rebuttals to nearly every verse are a joy to read, and you have taught me a great many things in the process about a book I only thought I knew and understood.<br /><br />But this post in particular was so good I finally had to post a comment telling you as much. After being raised in the Southern Baptist Church for the first 30 years of my life, I finally recently had my own deconversion experience, privately - and very recently, publicly - breaking away from the faith of my childhood. <br /><br />Since then, I've been astounded at how often my questions about God and the bible are ultimately answered with the "mystery of faith" nonsense. But what can you say when someone arrives at that answer? It's essentially a conversation killer, and once that line is trotted out there's really nothing more that can be said. Except that here, you've laid out an incredibly detailed and clear response to such an answer, one that I hadn't really considered before. Blind faith is one thing, but even to have blind faith in something, you still need at least a basic understanding of the nature of that thing. It's like if I said I have faith that the Great Snorfendorf will one day establish his Kerplaphen throughout all known Schimacofarl, but then I can't even establish a definition for any of those things that make sense from a logical, non-contradictory standpoint. How can I claim faith in such a statement when I don't fully understand what the hell I'm even talking about? As you've so perfectly explained, the concept of the Trinity is no different. One can say the words and claim belief in them, but it's impossible to truly have faith in their veracity if they are impossible to comprehend. The "mystery of faith" is the very wall that prevents true faith to begin with.<br /><br />Anyway, sorry to ramble, I'm just excited when I read something like this that gives me a new perspective I hadn't considered before. I truly hope you continue to post your thoughts and research, because I for one really want to continue benefiting from it!Justin Waltershttp://www.justinpaulwalters.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-8088276139432469792015-01-23T22:26:46.035-05:002015-01-23T22:26:46.035-05:00What a thoughtful reply! (No disingenuity intended...What a thoughtful reply! (No disingenuity intended) I am going to digest this in thorough fashion and see where I can make clarifications, and possibly even reconsider any aspects of my understanding. While you owe no service to me, I appreciate the insights! Irony at its best, for sure... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01873335138209242402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-64794821564262376192015-01-23T21:41:47.080-05:002015-01-23T21:41:47.080-05:00This comment actually does a pretty good job of il...This comment actually does a pretty good job of illustrating what I was talking about. Regardless of whether or not what you have constructed here is coherent (I would argue it isn’t), it in no way meaningfully distinguishes itself from heresy. That’s with a charitable interpretation. At worst it contains several blatantly heretical statements. For starters, the idea of the Father existing at any “point” before the other persons of the Trinity is a big problem. It’s not too bad if we’re only dealing with logical priority, but we’re not. You specifically suggest that God “enters into existence into material reality.” That’s a temporal occurrence and it’s suggestive of dramatic ontological change. When you construct that sheet analogy, it only makes that heretical portrait even more concrete. It’s pretty much blatant modalism. The Son is reduced to being a form of God that we can see. Simply using the word “person” as a descriptor doesn’t solve that. <br /><br />But it might actually be worse than pure modalism. You begin by confounding the persons into one like a modalist with statements like “there is <b>only</b> the Father” and “[the Father] can *reach* into existence with a <b>part</b> of himself” and “[Jesus] is <b>the part of God…</b>”, etc. But you also appear to divide the essence with your statement that “An infinite being cannot exist within measurable space,” which suggests that the Son does not equally and eternally possess properties like ubiquity, transcendence, eternality, and robs the Father of the property of imminence and turns him into the god of deism while making the Son into a demigod. That’s directly contradictory to the two most fundamental components of Trinitarianism: “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; <b>Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence</b>.”<br /><br />You could maybe clean some of this up by replacing words like “part” with “person”, drop the sheet analogy entirely, and change “Father” to “God” in a few places to make it less heretical. Even if you did that, though, whatever was left still wouldn’t address the core objection in my post with respect to the way in which the relational distinctions between the persons are meaningful and not merely a semantic avoidance of the law of identity. The words “begotten” and “proceed” imply time and change. When used to describe eternal relationships, those words lose semantic value. They become meaningless. But the moment you try to strip away the eternality of that relational identity, you venture into heresy. And then you’re conceiving of and worshiping a god other than the one described by Trinitarianism. Personally, that doesn’t bother me a lick, but it should concern you immensely.<br /><br />As an aside, it may interest you to know that there are quite a few theologians following Aquinas that will argue that the Father absolutely can manifest himself in some visible form perceptible to created beings and directly interact with them, based on their reading of passage like Daniel 7:9-14 and Matthew 18:10. At the very least, to suggest that every time the Father passes your imaginary threshold from the infinite into the finite he must do so through the Son by the power of the Spirit runs into serious problems when you encounter passages like Matthew 3:16-17 where the Father speaks about the Son in an audible voice and the Spirit descends upon the Son like a dove.The Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07849387032571497899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-2077085356666419912015-01-23T14:22:10.735-05:002015-01-23T14:22:10.735-05:00I got through until you stumbled on the Holy Spiri...I got through until you stumbled on the Holy Spirit proceeding part. Can I provide a thought exercise that may help illustrate? First, imagine nothing but God the Father. God the Father being a Spirit. He has no physicality because He does not exist within physical reality. He is timeless, immaterial, and capable of immense creative power. Picture a being that is infinite in nature. He is so outside of anything we could ever understand. Language, time, dimensions.... they all break down and their use would limit the nature of his being. <br /><br />At this "point" (understand language breaks down here because point denotes some measurable reference - but at this point there is no point. Right.) ... so, at this point in the thought exercise, there is only the Father. Nothing else. At some point the Father decided to create. This means he was able to make a choice (has a will). <br /><br />Now it's understood that in a material existence, the infinite does not exist. An infinite being cannot exist within measurable space. God the father cannot "fit" into existence as we know it. But, he can *reach* into existence with a part of himself. I picture it like this: Imagine a sheet hanging that separates God the infinite Father from material reality. Picture me (playing the part of the Father here) reaching into reality through that sheet. You wouldnt see me, but you would see the representation of me through the sheet. The point where God the Father enters into existence into material reality is the work of God the Son through the power if the Holy Spirit. Behind the sheet, the infinite God the Father still is ever-present... but He reached into material reality, creating it, and working within it. When God spoke the universe into existence, it was the power of His voice that extended into reality. The point that it passed the threshold from the infinite into finite reality can be again understood to be the person of God the Son. This is what we read in the book of John... and in this context it all makes sense:<br /><br />John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.<br /><br />The Word here being God the Son - Jesus. Now God the Son further extended into material reality by embodying Himself into the man we call Jesus. This is why we can say that Jesus is God. He is the part of God that we can know. We can't know God the Father in His true essence because it is so far outside of our ability to comprehend (or apprehend) Him. Jesus is the Word of God. So He is the part of God that we can communicate with. He has language. Again, language itself is a limitation on the infinite. Language only applies within the container (this side of the sheet). <br /><br />Hope that clears things up! I think if you meditate on the concepts it will begin to make sense... though that certainly presupposes a belief that He exists... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01873335138209242402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-19560830428975335272015-01-12T07:55:10.115-05:002015-01-12T07:55:10.115-05:00That's initially what I thought as well, but i...That's initially what I thought as well, but it turns out that <a href="http://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/" rel="nofollow">the standard plural of the noun "dwarf" is "dwarfs"</a> (the <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dwarf" rel="nofollow">OED appears to grant both.</a>) Although I will admit that using "dwarves" to refer exclusively to the mythic variety and "dwarfs" to the actual human beings would be helpful. It still leaves us with ambiguity about the singular "dwarf," though.The Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07849387032571497899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-88448388161147957192015-01-12T04:11:09.566-05:002015-01-12T04:11:09.566-05:00It's "dwarves", dude.It's "dwarves", dude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-46496731064498231362014-10-10T07:12:26.914-04:002014-10-10T07:12:26.914-04:00I love your blog. Keep it up!
It seems to me tha...I love your blog. Keep it up!<br /><br />It seems to me that one reason people live with their cognitive dissonance is the need for community. I've heard more than one Catholic say that in spite of the Church's position on various social positions (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), he stays because "those are the people I grew up with and love."<br /><br />My former "cell" church seems to me more like a club than anything else: a group of people who think alike (frequently quoting conservative radio hosts) and enjoy the same kinds of activities (sports, potlucks, game nights). These are the real criteria for membership.<br /><br />Mark<br />Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-11868589712047006982013-11-05T20:45:02.721-05:002013-11-05T20:45:02.721-05:00I don't think much of anybody really understan...I don't think much of anybody really understands or tries to define what they mean by just the supernatural, let alone this fuzzy-wuzzy idea of a "god."<br /><br />In the computer field we used to talk about the "Duh Factor." That was when you used a bunch of big words to a technical illiterate and very quickly the illiterate would just shut down all mental function and just nod along with whatever you were saying. I had a friend at one job who decided on the "explanation of the day" and use that on anybody who called. One day it was sunspots; another day it was El Nino. He'd always have this ultra-technical explanation using that excuse and I don't know of a single caller/client who called him on his routine. I think religious people do that too. If they just pack enough weird big words and concepts into things (IMMUTABLE, f.e.), they'll look super-intelligent even though they're no longer actually communicating in any meaningful way.Captain Cassidyhttp://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-81783586347586354682013-11-04T10:02:23.213-05:002013-11-04T10:02:23.213-05:00Thanks, Cap’n. I’m surprised anyone actually waded...Thanks, Cap’n. I’m surprised anyone actually waded through that muddled rambling.<br /><br /><i>“it got confusing so fast I just stopped thinking about it.”</i><br /><br />That’s kind of what I’m getting at. You recognized that it’s simply not a coherent concept. Very few conceptions of god that are put forward by what I was calling the “less-than-one-percenters” are. That’s why when it comes to this version of god, I’m more of a theological noncognitivist than agnostic or atheistic. This concept of god is not cognitively meaningful. The personal, anthropomorphic god-concept that the vast majority of Christians hold in their thoughts most often might have literal significance for them much of the time, but when you drill down and try to press them for definitions, that concept invariably breaks down to something that has no literal significance.<br /><br />Perhaps for the nontheist, the first response to the question, “Do you believe in God?” should not be “No, because I see no evidence for God,” but rather, “That depends on what you mean by ‘God’?” If coherent parameters for “God” cannot first be established, there is really no need to proceed with an existential discussion. That might be seen as a cop-out, but really it might be a way to get people who “stopped thinking about it” to start thinking about it again.The Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07849387032571497899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093286514666765146.post-36576474324766870542013-11-02T19:51:25.469-04:002013-11-02T19:51:25.469-04:00This was awesome. I was a Catholic for the first h...This was awesome. I was a Catholic for the first half of my Christianity, and a Pentecostal for most of the second half. I usually just punted to mystery the whole way through. I had a conversation about that sort of idea as a child with my aunt, a nun, and yeah, it got confusing so fast I just stopped thinking about it. I should have kept thinking about it.Captain Cassidyhttp://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com