|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Trinity
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Jengie, where does that come from? I really like it.
It is my own work in that it arose from my own prayer time with me moving beads between my fingers and watching the breath. I am trying to focus on God.
Jengie
Thank you for sharing it, Jengie; it is a lovely, and quite profound, prayer.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I liked the prayer too, Jengie. Would you mind if I pinched it? I can't promise to commit it to memory though.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I do not mind people pinching it. Committing to memory is optional, I am far from perfect at it. If you do then do not worry about getting the wording quite right. At present, it is not finished, I am not sure I will ever get it in a final form.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I think Jengies prayer is a grand example of theology becoming doxology.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Leo
quote:
The Holy Spirit doesn't get much of a look in.
In the Apostles' Creed, how many words speak directly of the Holy Spirit? 6
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
How many words in the UCC Affirmation of faith speak directly of the Holy Spirit? I count 9.
who works in us and others by the Spirit.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I ran out of fingers and toes counting the relevant words in the Nicene Creed (the original one, which does not contain the filioque).
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hatless, you don't answer the question. Which item in the Creed (I refer to the Nicene, for the hard-of-thinking) do you think should be expunged, and why? What item or items would you have added, and why?
Is that really the question? I ask because I hadn’t noticed that anyone had asked this question up thread, but also because it sounds like the sort of question a lawyer with a contract and a signature would ask.
Clearly, then, you missed this:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But should we not build on what we have? If there is something in the ancient creeds of the Church that you think is wrong, then, well, you're probably wrong. But by all means explain what you think is wrong, and we can have a discussion. If there's something that you think should be a universal credal belief that isn't in there, bring it on. Propose a clause that you'd like to add.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hatless, you don't answer the question. Which item in the Creed (I refer to the Nicene, for the hard-of-thinking) do you think should be expunged, and why? What item or items would you have added, and why?
Is that really the question? I ask because I hadn’t noticed that anyone had asked this question up thread, but also because it sounds like the sort of question a lawyer with a contract and a signature would ask.
Clearly, then, you missed this:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But should we not build on what we have? If there is something in the ancient creeds of the Church that you think is wrong, then, well, you're probably wrong. But by all means explain what you think is wrong, and we can have a discussion. If there's something that you think should be a universal credal belief that isn't in there, bring it on. Propose a clause that you'd like to add.
Yes, I did miss that, but as I said, I think there are better questions to hear.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But two questions.
Does Trinitarian thinking help or hinder dialogue with Islam?
Why is that even a remotely relevant question? You should be asking whether Trinitarian thinking gives a correct picture of God.
It sounds like you're proposing that we should change doctrine that we think is correct because it puts Muslims off. Do I misunderstand? Because that sounds absurd.
[ 23. November 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, I did miss that, but as I said, I think there are better questions to hear.
Bringing us right back around to, why? Why is it better to scrap all that has gone before, worked out with sweat and tears (and maybe some blood, who knows?) by people no less devout than ourselves, and speaking the same language the NT was written in. Why throw that away for some new stuff born from God-knows-what theological fount of wisdom (or lack thereof) and what questionable understanding of God?
In other words, why reinvent the wheel?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does Trinitarian thinking help or hinder dialogue with Islam?
Who gives a fuck? The purpose of Christian theology is not to kowtow to some other religion's understanding of God. We're allowed to disagree with Muslims, and they with us. If some Muslim said, "We need to change our core doctrines so we can dialogue with Christians" I'd think they were off their nut.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The first Christians weren't Trinitarian, weren't creedal. But they still offend Islam. I like Trinitarian theology and all orthodoxy. It's all good as far as it goes. Which isn't very far at all. Beyond the ultimate offense of the Incarnation. It's actually less offensive. Further, more is less. Because it's less meaningful, less pivotal, by far. Than the offense of the Incarnation. As to whether the economic Trinity is immanent, i.e. God is what He does as revealed in ancient text, that depends on theism. Traditional theological (all the cataphatic omnis, Persons and the apophatic corollaries), philosophical, tending to the literal, theism. As opposed to theology struggling for authentic apologetic light with existentialism, ontology, epistemology, unknowing, transcendence; ineffable, ultimate Other, non-subject-object, personal-transpersonal God the ground of being below existence.
Trinitarianism addresses none of those concerns. Which is fine if you don't have them. I do.
Islam having a problem with it is a false dichotomy. Islam cannot be appeased by watering down Trinitarianism - which existential theology might appear to do - because there are worse things than that. The Incarnation alone. Which cannot be watered down.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The first Christians weren't Trinitarian, weren't creedal. But they still offend Islam.
How? Mohammed was born around 570 c.e. Christianity became creedal 381 c.e..
Jengie
[ 24. November 2017, 09:26: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You don't have to be Trinitarian, creedal to offend Islam. To interpret the gospels, the life of Christ as the NT writers did, as meaning God partook of humanity, that the man Jesus was fully divine in nature, is post mortem unforgivable shirk, as unforgivable as atheism which Christianity paradoxically was, i.e. atheism, to Rome. Jesus is the ultimate offense.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes but you claimed early Christians who were Non-Trinitarian Non-Creedal Christians offended Islam. As Christianity was definitely Creedal and Trinitarian after the Council of Nicea 381. I conclude that this is before then. Islam did not exist before Mohammed was born around 570. So I am wondering how these pre-Nicean Christians managed to offend a non-existent religion.
Jengie
[ 24. November 2017, 12:18: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
It is worth remembering that Islam was well thought of in early on by some Christians.
While there were bumps, Islam in it's heyday (600 something through 900 something) welcomed Christians. Texts from all sorts of religious traditions were studied as wisdom by islamic scholars.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Christianity didn't all of a sudden become creedal in 381. It took centuries for this to permeate. Additionally, we probably have most not understanding it.
There's the additional issue of how human the father is thought of. Which is both part of the supercessionist adoption of a Judaic foundation (very human characteristics sometimes in the OT) and the human fact of the son.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes but you claimed early Christians who were Non-Trinitarian Non-Creedal Christians offended Islam. As Christianity was definitely Creedal and Trinitarian after the Council of Nicea 381. I conclude that this is before then. Islam did not exist before Mohammed was born around 570. So I am wondering how these pre-Nicean Christians managed to offend a non-existent religion.
Jengie
Aye. The point is that the Incarnation offends, Jesus offended, offends Jews, Romans, Muslims, the rich, the powerful. And above all Christians.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
That is not what you said. What you said is factually incorrect, i.e you implied that early Christians somehow offended Islam at the time.
What you meant was even without the Trinity and creeds there is plenty in Christianity to offend Muslims theological sensibilities. I would assume that we do not place Mohammed in the same place of honour was enough to do that.
Jengie
[ 24. November 2017, 15:53: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If you say so JJ; it's all a matter of interpretation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
There is no need to be defensive on God’s behalf. Truth is not threatened by inquiry. There is nothing unsafe about wondering.
I suggest that the Trinity expresses God’s being in a non-competitive way, not by looking at where and what God is not, but by showing us a picture of God in dynamic relationship, with the intentionality, faithfulness and receptivity that are summarised by the word love.
God’s nature, therefore, is not known by God’s ‘boundaries’ but by the movements of sending, proceeding, glorifying, etc. God is for us, because purpose is not an extra to God, a job God has taken on, but is there in God’s deep nature.
A desire to engage and seek the expression and outworking of love for the healing and cherishing of others, is God’s nature and our mandate. We should seek dialogue with Muslims and non-Abrahamic sisters and brothers because of who and how God is. To ask who gives a fuck is not just a Trump foot stamp, it’s bad theology. Anyone who knows God and what it is to be known by God will seek dialogue and understanding.
The intentionality, openness and action of the Trinity should, I hope, help with this.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There can be no dialogue with Islam beyond the dialogue of respect for the irrevocably other who is nonetheless us in a distorting mirror. The only meaningful dialogue for me is the socio-politico-economic one of obtaining equality of outcome for all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's you being doubly agreeable to my ... directness ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The intentionality, openness and action of the Trinity should, I hope, help with this.
Not if we throw it away to make nice-nice with the Muslims, which is what your comment in context is calling for.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When wise, but not when competing or advocating.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When wise, but not when competing or advocating.
'strewth! Comforting predicted as competing!
[ 25. November 2017, 19:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
