RE: The Trinity
January 23, 2021 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2021 at 1:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No.
I'm pointing out that there is such a thing and a studied phenomena as creedal trinitarians expressing what are very accurately categorized as anti-trinitarian positions - and that we've seen examples of this in thread. No christian -has- to offer an anti-trinitarian position...it's not like the sun rising or objects falling down - it's a choice. This was also the field of play when trinitarian beliefs were arrived at. After first having declared these things to be heresies, they successfully rooted them out and maintained their orthodoxy for quite some time. Now, though, we're back to something like what they faced in the first four centuries of christianity. A large concentration of this phenomena comes from the protestant reformation (which also influences catholics, especially in predominantly protestant regions), and the overriding modern push for analytic theology.
Do you think that this is related to the possibility you offered before? That trinitarian belief was a product of anti-trinitarians dying out, and that non trinitarian belief is a function of trinitarian belief dying out. It's not hard to see how the tightening of the ideological funnel at the middle stifled the creative enterprise of early christendom - or how that orthodoxy's loosening grip has produced so many new lines today. The extent to which those new beliefs and positions or people who advocate for them require a belief that, essentially, they're the "right version" of the old belief rather than a recognizably and categorically distinct belief of their own in order to communicate their christian continuity, is fascinating. Very much relevant to the subject of the thread as what we're seeing is very likely to be a similar process to whatever created the thing we call christianity today. Since we don't get to rewind time, this is as close as the social sciences get to an experiment on the subject.
You are, ofc, invited to point out where and why you don't feel that your stated explanations and beliefs are representative of that trend. That's part of the phenomena of functional non-trinitarianism as a product of a decline in religiosity, after all. If it helps, I think that your beliefs are an improvement...but that's very likely to be an effect of our shared commitment to and high valuation of rational thought. I would reform theology by reason also, rather than the reverse - which is what trinitarian beliefs are an archetypal expression of. Time place, other guys dying out, all that.
I'm pointing out that there is such a thing and a studied phenomena as creedal trinitarians expressing what are very accurately categorized as anti-trinitarian positions - and that we've seen examples of this in thread. No christian -has- to offer an anti-trinitarian position...it's not like the sun rising or objects falling down - it's a choice. This was also the field of play when trinitarian beliefs were arrived at. After first having declared these things to be heresies, they successfully rooted them out and maintained their orthodoxy for quite some time. Now, though, we're back to something like what they faced in the first four centuries of christianity. A large concentration of this phenomena comes from the protestant reformation (which also influences catholics, especially in predominantly protestant regions), and the overriding modern push for analytic theology.
Do you think that this is related to the possibility you offered before? That trinitarian belief was a product of anti-trinitarians dying out, and that non trinitarian belief is a function of trinitarian belief dying out. It's not hard to see how the tightening of the ideological funnel at the middle stifled the creative enterprise of early christendom - or how that orthodoxy's loosening grip has produced so many new lines today. The extent to which those new beliefs and positions or people who advocate for them require a belief that, essentially, they're the "right version" of the old belief rather than a recognizably and categorically distinct belief of their own in order to communicate their christian continuity, is fascinating. Very much relevant to the subject of the thread as what we're seeing is very likely to be a similar process to whatever created the thing we call christianity today. Since we don't get to rewind time, this is as close as the social sciences get to an experiment on the subject.
You are, ofc, invited to point out where and why you don't feel that your stated explanations and beliefs are representative of that trend. That's part of the phenomena of functional non-trinitarianism as a product of a decline in religiosity, after all. If it helps, I think that your beliefs are an improvement...but that's very likely to be an effect of our shared commitment to and high valuation of rational thought. I would reform theology by reason also, rather than the reverse - which is what trinitarian beliefs are an archetypal expression of. Time place, other guys dying out, all that.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
