So I'm taking this religion 101 class, and the professor mentioned that phrase we've all heard at one point or another:
"The Mystery of the Holy Trinity." As in, how can God be himself, his son, and the Holy Ghost all at once?
Thing is, I don't see a mystery; God is supposed to be omnipotent, so he wiggled his fingers and BAMF! He's now got three of Himself. It's like a magic-user in a ttrpg who wiggles his fingers to cast some miraculous spell; the explanation is inherent in the character. It's magic/will-of-god; what more explanation is required?
Maybe I just don't understand the question though. Are people looking for some kind of scientific explanation, like "God stepped into a replicator chamber, and pressed the copy button twice"? Seems unlikely, given how science and faith are generally seen as orthogonal (if not competitive) methods of thought.
...And yes, I'm going to ask my professor!
The problem is one of identity. If you define me as BigNorseWolf,that big bearded guy with the forestry degree who.... and continued a sufficiently detailed explanation you could define me. I am that definition, that definition is me.
If you try to describe god and jesus you wind up with VERY different descriptions. (not the least of which Jesus is corporeal)
I really don't understand how the holy spirit is supposed to enter into it. Near as i can figure it was just another name for god.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Please take with grains of salt. OSW is a cheeky anarcho-atheist)
God: Summoner
Jesus: Eidolon
The Holy Spirit: Summon Monsters.
Or: You are the Summoner, God/Faith/Belief is your Eidolon and the Holy Spirit is your Summon I-IX. As for Jesus - Expert/Adept.
Or maybe god is just a Fighter/Magic-user/Cleric (for Grognards). ;P
Biblically speaking, the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God that indwells people who choose to believe in the message of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts people of sinful behavior as well as reveals to them truths about the nature of God and Jesus.
I think a good way of thinking of it, at least in human terms, is to compare it to how people tend to view themselves. Most believe that people have a mind, a body, and a spirit. Similarly, God the Father could be seen as the "mind" of the Trinity, God the Son (Jesus) could be seen as the "body" of the Trinity, and God the Holy Spirit could be seen as the "spirit" of the Trinity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is one of identity. If you define me as BigNorseWolf,that big bearded guy with the forestry degree who.... and continued a sufficiently detailed explanation you could define me. I am that definition, that definition is me.
If you try to describe god and jesus you wind up with VERY different descriptions. (not the least of which Jesus is corporeal)
I really don't understand how the holy spirit is supposed to enter into it. Near as i can figure it was just another name for god.
God is God, up in heaven.
Jesus is a piece of God sent down the shepherd mankind who didn't quite get what God wanted to do. An argument can also be made that by living among man changed his perspective from the traditional God of the old Testament.
The Holy Spirit is the essence of God gifted to the Apostles so that they may understand the word of God and spread it.
(ie he granted them skill focus Knowledge Religion & Linguistics)
Thinking about it now, the Holy Trinity is God trying to find the best way to communicate with us.
First he tried yelling from the sky and igniting the foliage.
Next he walked among us handing out his wisdom
Lastly he spread himself out among his followers so that they would be less intimidating and could effect a wider region.
So I'm taking this religion 101 class, and the professor mentioned that phrase we've all heard at one point or another:
"The Mystery of the Holy Trinity." As in, how can God be himself, his son, and the Holy Ghost all at once?
Thing is, I don't see a mystery; God is supposed to be omnipotent, so he wiggled his fingers and BAMF! He's now got three of Himself. It's like a magic-user in a ttrpg who wiggles his fingers to cast some miraculous spell; the explanation is inherent in the character. It's magic/will-of-god; what more explanation is required?
That's ultimately it, but one hits a lot of theological difficulties if one full-on accepts the notion that omnipotence includes the ability to perform logical impossibilities. Most theologians consider that a bridge too far, since it would do a lot to put them out of work. Sometimes you'll get people saying that the trinity is just how our limited minds make sense out of something inherently incomprehensible, but that also tends to put theologians out of work so they're not too fond of it either.
The main issue really is the question behind the trinity of how wise it is to behave in a manner that leaves you in that kind of intellectual fix.
|
If we are already explaining things about this concept, I am intrested to know how exactly the concept of the trinity differs itself from paganism (or polytheism or however you prefer to call it). I mean, I get it that all three aspects of the trinity are of the same thing, but they ARE three seperate powers, and none of them is omnipotent (Jesus, if I remember correctly, was killed by a bunch of puny romans).
I always thought that the idea of "one god, many faces" helped to convert people who were pagans before, since it's not all that different from the idea of multiple gods, so it's simpler to "ease in" to the new religeon.
However, I am 100% certain that beside that possible practical reason there must be some sort of theological explenation, which I am curious to hear.
Pfft, no true grognard would EVER be a fighter/magic-user/cleric. It is a fighting man, a magic-user or a cleric. Darn whippersnappers!
I see the idea of the trinity to be nothing more than a way to subsume the power of the number three into the concept of God. If he is omnipotent, then why make a fuss about some fireworks? It may also relate to ancient theological debates we no longer have, such as whether Jesus was born or created, which was important enough to get violent about in Byzance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the holy trinity was Bacon, Beer and Fries.
Nonono... that is the food circle.
Thinking about it now, the Holy Trinity is God trying to find the best way to communicate with us.
Probably the best explanation I've seen. It still runs into the problem that god 1 is supposed to be omniscient and eternal : already perfect. The idea of such a being having to change or experiment is a little contradictory.
No, because the son and the holy ghost are just examples OF his perfection. They're all the same god, just different aspects. In the same way that I'm meatrace the boyfriend, meatrace the forum poster, and meatrace the university student. Aspects of a deity are a pretty common concept in Hinduism.
I will agree, though, that the holy ghost has always smacked of capitulation to paganism. It's much easier to explain the phenomenon in a historical context than a theological one, because the theological basis is purposely mysterious.
According to Christian teaching, all three are fully God, including fully omnipotent, etc. (Jesus was killed, yes, but that was part of the plan.) It's generally considered one of those, "incomprehensible because we have mortal minds" things. It differs from paganism in that there are not three separate individual gods. All three are the same God.
Personally, I'm a fan of the clover metaphor. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are like the leaves of a three-leaf clover. Each leaf is separate from the others. But there is only one plant.
EDIT: I also like to borrow from Hindu concepts in terms of Jesus - Jesus would be the incarnation of God. So he's God, incarnated into human form.
Or, if you prefer computer science... Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like two different pointers to the memory location of God.
God: Summoner
Jesus: Eidolon
The Holy Spirit: Summon Monsters.
So what you're saying is -- if everything I hear about PF is true -- that Jesus is OP and needs to be nerfed? ;)
The main issue really is the question behind the trinity of how wise it is to behave in a manner that leaves you in that kind of intellectual fix.
My professor told me today that the mystery has answers of a sort, but anyone not knee-deep in studying that aspect of Christianity isn't qualified to express them correctly. Which I mentally translated as 'Christianity wants to be a special snowflake faith, so we can't have a simple answer like the deific aspects that Meatrace mentioned or "God is omnipotent; no further explanation is necessary."' And he did confirm that early Christians felt the need to cleave to the faith's monotheistic roots (Judaism), while incorporating two new divine figures.
Oh, and he also used an actor metaphor, which I liked. After all, an actor doesn't stop being himself while he's playing a character on stage.
If we are already explaining things about this concept, I am intrested to know how exactly the concept of the trinity differs itself from paganism (or polytheism or however you prefer to call it). I mean, I get it that all three aspects of the trinity are of the same thing, but they ARE three seperate powers, and none of them is omnipotent (Jesus, if I remember correctly, was killed by a bunch of puny romans).
As I believe someone mentioned, the crucifixation was all part of the divine plan. As I understand it, they're all omnipotent but share the same goals. So they never conflict with each other and therefore never call each other's omnipotence into question.
...Although what if they didn't share the same goals? Wouldn't that make an epic plot!
The main issue really is the question behind the trinity of how wise it is to behave in a manner that leaves you in that kind of intellectual fix.My professor told me today that the mystery has answers of a sort, but anyone not knee-deep in studying that aspect of Christianity isn't qualified to express them correctly. Which I mentally translated as 'Christianity wants to be a special snowflake faith, so we can't have a simple answer like the deific aspects that Meatrace mentioned or "God is omnipotent; no further explanation is necessary."' And he did confirm that early Christians felt the need to cleave to the faith's monotheistic roots (Judaism), while incorporating two new divine figures.
Your translation sounds right on to me.
None of this stuff mattered all that much until Constantine went and fouled things up by offering Imperial patronage. Then academic disputes suddenly became arguments over who got the cash. The formula that won out is something to the tune of:
There is one and only one god but he has three persons, each fully independent, fully god, fully omnipotent, eternal, and separate. It was actually the more extreme of the options available.
Those included things like Jesus being Yahweh's adopted son (as fairly strongly implied by a sequence in Mark that I riffed years ago in a game), some kind of created being built to be killed, very similar to but not identical with Yahweh, and so on. Probably any relatively positive interpretation you can spin off it had at least some adherents. Just like today.
And that all plugs into Jesus's dual nature as fully human and fully divine, over which there were similar arguments and which ended up winning despite being at least among the most extreme forms.
Complicating all of this is that the relevant arguments happened as part of the general suppression of Greco-Roman intellectual culture. Paganism and Ancient science didn't just drift away, but remained quite healthy well into what we usually think of as the age of Christianity. It's all messily interrelated and feeding into itself.
Which makes it neat to read about, but also makes that reading a bit hard to follow. :)
|
Thinking about it now, the Holy Trinity is God trying to find the best way to communicate with us.Probably the best explanation I've seen. It still runs into the problem that god 1 is supposed to be omniscient and eternal : already perfect. The idea of such a being having to change or experiment is a little contradictory.
The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.
The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.Thinking about it now, the Holy Trinity is God trying to find the best way to communicate with us.Probably the best explanation I've seen. It still runs into the problem that god 1 is supposed to be omniscient and eternal : already perfect. The idea of such a being having to change or experiment is a little contradictory.
And yet, 'the holy trinity' is a definable quality. Thus the conundrum. If god is truly unknowable beyond human understanding, why do people claim it has any qualities at all ? You can't worship a god with no definable qualities, because there's no basis for worshipful conduct. You need something.
And yet, 'the holy trinity' is a definable quality. Thus the conundrum. If god is truly unknowable beyond human understanding, why do people claim it has any qualities at all ? You can't worship a god with no definable qualities, because there's no basis for worshipful conduct. You need something.The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.Thinking about it now, the Holy Trinity is God trying to find the best way to communicate with us.Probably the best explanation I've seen. It still runs into the problem that god 1 is supposed to be omniscient and eternal : already perfect. The idea of such a being having to change or experiment is a little contradictory.
This. In fact, the quality, "undefinable" or "unknowable" are defined traits within the purview of human understanding, so that argument is self-defeating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, C.S. Lewis explained it best in Mere Christianity, Chapter 24, though it still remains hard to wrap your brain around.
You know that in space you can move in three ways - to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice :his. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two; you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube - a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.
Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways - in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.
Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings - just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal - something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.
TL;DR, "In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube."
The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.
If you know nothing of god, and can know nothing of god, you're kind of putting the priests, scholars, and bible publishers out of business.
The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.
Well, except that god is a human concept and the god of the bible is a purely fictitious character and is thus defined ONLY by human imagination...
The problem you're having here is that you're placing human constraints and concepts on God. God isn't definable by human concepts and logical fallacies. So the whole can God make a rock he can't lift, doesn't work. Those are human concepts and God is beyond that. Because God is unknowable and undefinable and beyond our limited understanding.Well, except that god is a human concept and the god of the bible is a purely fictitious character and is thus defined ONLY by human imagination...
If I were discussing the Church of Desna in a thread on that topic, and someone came in and said, "Well, it's all fiction, so it doesn't matter," it would be a pointless post because it doesn't actually contribute. In the same way, this response contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion.
You are entitled to your beliefs. But when discussing in a thread about a theological concept, it's kind of useless to dismiss it all as fiction - even at best, it simply doesn't answer any questions about the concept.
The theological trouble is, on the one hand, the Gospel of John is reasonably clear that Jesus is, in fact, God, and Jesus was God long before Jesus was born in flesh (so Jesus can't be merely the name of an avatar). And on the other hand, it's obvious in the Gospels (including John) that Jesus talked about and interacted with the Father in ways that make it clear the Father is a different person than he is. And on the gripping hand, the Old Testament is very definitely clear that there is exactly one God.
So, Jesus has to be the one God, and the Father has to be the one God, and Jesus and the Father have to be different people from the very beginning of time. The Trinitarian Mystery is simply a declaration that, yep, all three statements are true, ain't that a kick in the head? (With various curlicues, like how the Holy Spirit gets involved, and debates over what are the attributes of persons as opposed to the attributes of beings, et cetera.) And that maybe if you think and meditate on it long enough, you can sort of get insight into it in your head, like some mathematicians have claimed to be able to visualize four-dimensional objects.
Which, of course, elicits disagreement from Arians, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, and assorted others.
If I were discussing the Church of Desna in a thread on that topic, and someone came in and said, "Well, it's all fiction, so it doesn't matter," it would be a pointless post because it doesn't actually contribute. In the same way, this response contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion.
You are entitled to your beliefs. But when discussing in a thread about a theological concept, it's kind of useless to dismiss it all as fiction - even at best, it simply doesn't answer any questions about the concept.
Except that my comment was specifically in response to your assertions that god can't be questioned because he exists beyond the limitations of human understanding. I'm not allowed to retort?
To put it analogous D&D terms, your argument was "because god is magic and shut up!" which is at least as unhelpful as anything I've said.
"Because your puny human mind can't understand it" isn't a legitimate argument for anything, and is, at best, incredibly insulting and arrogant.
Which, of course, elicits disagreement from Arians, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, and assorted others.
As well this level of farcical intellectual chicanery should!
This kind of discussion always goes downhill fast. Makes at least me think about joining the church of me, myself and the holy I. Hey, you can do a lot with second level spells.
If I were discussing the Church of Desna in a thread on that topic, and someone came in and said, "Well, it's all fiction, so it doesn't matter," it would be a pointless post because it doesn't actually contribute. In the same way, this response contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion.
You are entitled to your beliefs. But when discussing in a thread about a theological concept, it's kind of useless to dismiss it all as fiction - even at best, it simply doesn't answer any questions about the concept.
Except that my comment was specifically in response to your assertions that god can't be questioned because he exists beyond the limitations of human understanding. I'm not allowed to retort?
To put it analogous D&D terms, your argument was "because god is magic and shut up!" which is at least as unhelpful as anything I've said.
"Because your puny human mind can't understand it" isn't a legitimate argument for anything, and is, at best, incredibly insulting and arrogant.Which, of course, elicits disagreement from Arians, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, and assorted others.As well this level of farcical intellectual chicanery should!
First, you weren't replying to me. Second, my point was that your response to, "God is magic and shut up!" was about on the same level. In fact, my reply to madclaw (the person you quoted) was an agreement with Blakmane and a furtherance that madclaw's position was self defeating.
The theological trouble is, on the one hand, the Gospel of John is reasonably clear that Jesus is, in fact, God, and Jesus was God long before Jesus was born in flesh (so Jesus can't be merely the name of an avatar). And on the other hand, it's obvious in the Gospels (including John) that Jesus talked about and interacted with the Father in ways that make it clear the Father is a different person than he is. And on the gripping hand, the Old Testament is very definitely clear that there is exactly one God.
And I suppose the obvious answer: that there's a contradiction arising from the authorship of multiple, imperfect humans, somehow gets tossed out as an explanation?
To me its a lot of the same pseudo-intellectual (psuedo wisdom? Pseudo enlightenment? pseudo-profundity?) claptrap that seems to come out of buddism (at least in the west). What happens is that people that aren't used to understanding things get in the habit of thinking that anything they don't understand is profound. So when they don't understand something (because its nonsensical) they ooo and ahhh over the obviously deep understanding of it.
First, you weren't replying to me. Second, my point was that your response to, "God is magic and shut up!" was about on the same level.
Yes indeed. Satire is meant to hold a mirror up to the one being satirized.
Could god make a replicator chamber he couldn't replicate?
Yeah, think about THAT one for awhile...
Far out, man.
It is what it is.
Could god make a replicator chamber he couldn't replicate?
Yeah, think about THAT one for awhile...
Far out, man.
Of course he could!
...The only question remaining is who would he replicate: Kirk or Picard?
Oh yeah, the second can of worms has been opened!
And for bonus points: Why don't trekkies ever seem to argue over Janeway, Sisko, or Archer?
Janeway is the worst captain of all time, real or imagined.
Sisko was fine, but he wasn't great. And I'm a bigger DS9 fan than anything. It's just that the strength of the show was the ensemble, not the captain. And Enterprise is unfairly maligned, but Archer doesn't hold a candle to Picard anyway.
You keep saying things that don't make sense, meatrace - Janeway was awesome. :P
ST:Voyager had it's problems, but I don't think Janeway was one of them. Much better than Archer. Possibly better than Kirk, though to be fair I'm not a fan of TOS as much as the rest.
Here's my problem with Janeway: she's dumb as a box of rocks.
One episode: "No, Chakotay, I'm not endangering our entire crew to go back for one member, it's irresponsible."
Next episode: "We're all going back for one crew member, and we'll probably all die."
Her decisions have absolutely no logic behind them, she's basically a walking plot-device to steer the show where the writers want it to without having to make it make sense.
As a character, she's outrageously irresponsible and incompetent.
And for bonus points: Why don't trekkies ever seem to argue over Janeway, Sisko, or Archer?Because we all know Sisko is the best.
Picard and Kirk fight over second place.
To be fair, Sisko might win by default because he is LITERALLY a god.
Here's my problem with Janeway: she's dumb as a box of rocks.
One episode: "No, Chakotay, I'm not endangering our entire crew to go back for one member, it's irresponsible."
Next episode: "We're all going back for one crew member, and we'll probably all die."
Her decisions have absolutely no logic behind them, she's basically a walking plot-device to steer the show where the writers want it to without having to make it make sense.
As a character, she's outrageously irresponsible and incompetent.
Okay. Fair point. At least Kirk is *consistently* irresponsible. On the flip side, I think Porthos made a good companion to Archer - that captain seemed very puppy-like, always confused, wondering why everyone wasn't his friend, rolling in his own... temporal anomalies. :D
Touche. Archer wasn't the strength of Enterprise, though I didn't dislike him as a character. I do wish other ships had pets tho.
Could god make a replicator chamber he couldn't replicate?
Yeah, think about THAT one for awhile...
Far out, man.
Of course he could!
...The only question remaining is who would he replicate: Kirk or Picard?
Oh yeah, the second can of worms has been opened!
And for bonus points: Why don't trekkies ever seem to argue over Janeway, Sisko, or Archer?
The characters are so radically different I'm not sure that argument even makes sense. Kirk is a cowboy with every known STD. Picard is an officer and a gentleman, sort of an updated version of the model Royal Navy captain. Janeway is a crazy person. Sisko is a utilitarian dude that needs more fiber in his diet.
And Archer is the one I didn't watch.
You should. Enterprise is pretty good.
...unless you're really sick n' tired of the time travel trope.
They stop with time travel in the second season.
And I suppose the obvious answer: that there's a contradiction arising from the authorship of multiple, imperfect humans, somehow gets tossed out as an explanation?
Well, of course. Once you start throwing out scripture, where do you stop? You might conclude there's no God at all, just stories written by humans. Whereas if you keep the contradictions, you can solace yourself by pointing to Plato's parable of the shadows on the wall of the cave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I suppose the obvious answer: that there's a contradiction arising from the authorship of multiple, imperfect humans, somehow gets tossed out as an explanation?Well, of course. Once you start throwing out scripture, where do you stop? You might conclude there's no God at all, just stories written by humans. Whereas if you keep the contradictions, you can solace yourself by pointing to Plato's parable of the shadows on the wall of the cave.
Various authorities have pretty much said that outright in the past. Back at Vatican 2, they convened a panel of experts who recommended by a healthy majority that the Catholic Church adopt a more permissive attitude toward contraception. (It's easy to forget, but back in the Sixties being bent out of shape about and adamantly opposed to contraception and abortion was almost exclusively a Catholic thing.) The hierarchy doubtless performed an anointing with the bowels upon the report on the explicit grounds that accepting it would entail the church being wrong about something and thus injurious to its authority.
Which probably says everything that needs to be said about the hierarchy.
To be fair, Sisko might win by default because he is LITERALLY a god.And for bonus points: Why don't trekkies ever seem to argue over Janeway, Sisko, or Archer?Because we all know Sisko is the best.
Picard and Kirk fight over second place.
Someday I'll finish watching DS9. I do believe it's the best ST show, though that's not saying much IMO. I wish there were a list of episodes that actually further the overarching plot, so I could skip all of the filler episodes.
Sisko and Picard both have the advantage of great voices.
And I suppose the obvious answer: that there's a contradiction arising from the authorship of multiple, imperfect humans, somehow gets tossed out as an explanation?Well, of course. Once you start throwing out scripture, where do you stop? You might conclude there's no God at all, just stories written by humans. Whereas if you keep the contradictions, you can solace yourself by pointing to Plato's parable of the shadows on the wall of the cave.
I guess it really comes down to this: do you start with the premise that God exists, and therefore that the Bible is His message to mankind? Or do you start with the premise that the Bible is true, and therefore God exists? The latter would seem to adhere to the notion that the Bible is inerrant (as opposed to infallible, a slightly different concept), but the former makes a lot more sense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it really comes down to this: do you start with the premise that God exists, and therefore that the Bible is His message to mankind? Or do you start with the premise that the Bible is true, and therefore God exists? The latter would seem to adhere to the notion that the Bible is inerrant (as opposed to infallible, a slightly different concept), but the former makes a lot more sense.And I suppose the obvious answer: that there's a contradiction arising from the authorship of multiple, imperfect humans, somehow gets tossed out as an explanation?Well, of course. Once you start throwing out scripture, where do you stop? You might conclude there's no God at all, just stories written by humans. Whereas if you keep the contradictions, you can solace yourself by pointing to Plato's parable of the shadows on the wall of the cave.
I start with an entirely different premise altogether :P
God did a pretty good job of designing the Core Bible, but he should have enforced stricter editorial control when he hired those freelancers to write the New Testament splatbooks. They completely messed up canon, to the point where I find the setting completely unusable.
I start with an entirely different premise altogether :P
God did a pretty good job of designing the Core Bible, but he should have enforced stricter editorial control when he hired those freelancers to write the New Testament splatbooks. They completely messed up canon, to the point where I find the setting completely unusable.
Don't you hate when that happens? It's like they changed all the rules. All the old stuff is incompatible, and I spent a fortune on it!