mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/18/85)
At the moment, I do not have the time to reply to this long question. As a theologian, I am only an amateur, and this will require serious study on my part. I will, however, attempt a few sentences now. Discussion of a religious idea such as the Trinity leads quite quickly into a dark valley. Allegedly, what we are talking about is an existence which, if it exists, resists direct observation. It is further alleged that the true object is unknowable (i.e., that it is impossible to mentally represent it correctly). Therefore, there is an important sense in which the doctrine is symbolic of existence rather than descriptive. On the other hand, mystics have claimed to have experienced this and similar states of being. I therefore have to wonder whether C. S. Lewis's story of the mystical and erudite limpets does not indeed have a point to make here. Charley Wingate
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/21/85)
Charley Wingate: > Discussion of a religious idea such as the Trinity leads > quite quickly into a dark valley. Allegedly, what we are talking > about is an existence which, if it exists, resists direct observation. > It is further alleged that the true object is unknowable (i.e., that > it is impossible to mentally represent it correctly). Therefore, > there is an important sense in which the doctrine is symbolic of existence > rather than descriptive. This makes perfect sense to me. What I do find confusing, however, is that some would say that the decision to adopt this one particular symbolic visualization of God, rather than another, would make the difference between an afterlife of constant bliss, versus one of eternal torture. Frank Silbermann
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/22/85)
In article <185@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >> Discussion of a religious idea such as the Trinity leads >> quite quickly into a dark valley. Allegedly, what we are talking >> about is an existence which, if it exists, resists direct observation. >> It is further alleged that the true object is unknowable (i.e., that >> it is impossible to mentally represent it correctly). Therefore, >> there is an important sense in which the doctrine is symbolic of existence >> rather than descriptive. >This makes perfect sense to me. What I do find confusing, >however, is that some would say that the decision to adopt this >one particular symbolic visualization of God, rather than another, >would make the difference between an afterlife of constant bliss, >versus one of eternal torture. I wouldn't claim that it does. I'm one of those wishy-washy Anglicans, and, while we'll argue at great lengths against non-trinitarian heresies, we stop short of claiming that ANYONE is destined for eternal death. Charley Wingate The wind blows where it pleases