Is my doctrine of God monotheistic or polytheistic?

[Sochi]

Question: Is my Infinitarian

Hmmm…Could you be an infant panenthiest? Could resolve your butting those other two together.

 

[Counterpoint]

The account of Jesus’ resurrection – which category would you put that into?

I would characterized that as mythological. That being said, I do believe in psychic or paranormal phenomena. For example, I believe there is something to “Marian” apparitions. So, I see it as conceivably possible that some of his disciples might have experienced something psychic or paranormal.

I was kind of talking about the New Testament era…I think it was my brother who once made the argument that the Apostles had a lot of incentive for making up the New Testament because of all the benefits you get as the leader of a mass movement.

Well, I don’t necessarily agree with your brother. I don’t believe that the “Jesus movement” was completely fabricated. It was a religious movement that caught fire and spread. But it is hardly the only one that caught fire and spread. For example, Islam also caught fire and spread.

Like, tithes and stuff. I think that makes sense in the case of Islam, where the leader made all sorts of moral exceptions for himself and really constructed a morality that allows for a lot of immoral stuff. But that’s not what you get with the New Testament, and that tells me that the authors weren’t doing this for self-seeking purposes. I think that’s evidence that they really believed in what they were teaching, they weren’t making up the stories they told about Jesus but believed them. Do you agree?

No, I don’t agree with you. I see both Christianity and Islam as genuine (but imperfect) religious or spiritual expressions.

In John 10:7-9 He says that all who came before Him were thieves and robbers. I think that’s incompatible with the view that they were prior incarnations of God. What do you think?

I don’t believe this qualifies as any specific claim that “I am God” and the “rest of you are not.”

 

[empther]

Why are you evading the question I posed in the OP?

Because it’s so completely wrong it’s no more worth discussing than the legitimacy of the ancient Roman gods.

 

[dmar198]

I don’t believe this qualifies as any specific claim that “I am God” and the “rest of you are not.”

Do you think God would call prior incarnations of God thieves and robbers in whom there is no salvation?

I do believe in psychic or paranormal phenomena. For example, I believe there is something to “Marian” apparitions. So, I see it as conceivably possible that some of his disciples might have experienced something psychic or paranormal.

Okay, that sounds fair.

The account of Jesus’ resurrection – which category would you put that into?

I would characterized that as mythological.

I think there is evidence that the Apostles knew it happened or at the very least believed it did. For example, they spent the rest of their lives spreading the belief in the Resurrection even when their faith brought them persecution.

it is hardly the only one that caught fire and spread. For example, Islam also caught fire and spread.

I think that the early Islamic warriors really believed their leader had received visions from God. I think it was a central organizing influence on their lives, I think they remained unconvinced by purely philosophical reasons to doubt Mohammed’s teachings, and I think they were taught that they had a great responsibility to fight for their faith, and that they would receive a great reward for dying in its cause. If Mohammed’s revelations were a myth, I don’t think his followers would have necessarily known it. But if the Resurrection of Jesus was a myth, I think the Apostles would have known it, and I don’t think they would have died for something they knew to be false. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Counterpoint]

Because it’s so completely wrong it’s no more worth discussing than the legitimacy of the ancient Roman gods.

If you are not interested in addressing my question, then you should not be participating in this thread.

 

[Counterpoint]

Do you think God would call prior incarnations of God thieves and robbers in whom there is no salvation?

So, you believe the “thieves and robbers” refer to “prior incarnations of God?”

I think there is evidence that the Apostles knew it happened or at the very least believed it did. For example, they spent the rest of their lives spreading the belief in the Resurrection even when their faith brought them persecution.

I think it is reasonable to believe that some believed in it so strongly that they were willing to die for it. But I suspect that the Muslim terrorists who flew two planes into the World Trade Center really believed they would be rewarded by Allah with 72 virgins in the afterlife for their ‘heroic’ deed.

I think that the early Islamic warriors really believed their leader had received visions from God. I think it was a central organizing influence on their lives, I think they remained unconvinced by purely philosophical reasons to doubt Mohammed’s teachings, and I think they were taught that they had a great responsibility to fight for their faith, and that they would receive a great reward for dying in its cause. If Mohammed’s revelations were a myth, I don’t think his followers would have necessarily known it. But if the Resurrection of Jesus was a myth, I think the Apostles would have known it, and I don’t think they would have died for something they knew to be false. Does that sound reasonable?

Paul, according to the NT, did not actually witness the resurrection. Yet he did die for his beliefs.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther View Post
Because it’s so completely wrong it’s no more worth discussing than the legitimacy of the ancient Roman gods.

If you are not interested in addressing my question, then you should not be participating in this thread.

I’m protesting yet one more bogus theology that could confuse the impressionable.
Somebody has to. It’s disgusting. So sue me.

YOU should not be participating in this thread.

 

[empther]

What? I haven’t been suspended yet?

I was suspended five times in 2013. I haven’t been suspended yet this year.
I’m behind schedule. :crying:

Let’s see how far I can get into post 1 before I have to hit the ehhhhhhhh! buzzer:

**I’m an “Infinitarian.” I believe that God exists as an infinite number of persons or hypostases,
**

ehhhhhhhh!ehhhhhhhh!ehhhhhhhh!ehhhhhhhh!ehhhhhhhh!ehhhhhhhh!

Hypostasis is union of God with a man. There can’t be an infinite number of persons besides us. So we are all God, you, me, everybody.

You see where this guy is going?

This can be appealing to somebody with an inferiority complex.

What’s that? You say “That can’t happen to me” ?
Why don’t you think of somebody else for a change!

 

[annem]

Counterpooint:

I do believe in psychic or paranormal phenomena.

Hi. Certainly the course claims you can create your own MIRACLES!

For those who don’t know about a course in miracles, Schucman, the author, claimed she heard voices. Jesus, to be specific, and it was Jesus who told her to write the course. Not that Jesus claimed to be the one true God. No, we are all God! or perhaps god! was actually her take on it.

Clearly, she swiped pantheism from Hinduism and Buddhism.

Most of the consequences of pantheism in Hinduism and Buddhism are depressing, at best. Buddhism’s Maya means I am only an illusion, just as you are only an illusion, just as time and history and chocolate are all illusion, because we are all part of the same meaningless, passionless force. Reason is pointless, striving is pointless, everything is pointless. Nirvana is your death, the utter end of everything you think and care about. Are you crying yet?

No doubt feeling there would be few movie starlets and rich morons who would find this appealing, Schucman instead decided, or perhaps that chatty inner voice babbled to her, that no, the universe wasn’t meaningless. No, no. Centuries of unending misery and starvation in India and China…that was some kind of mistake! A silly boo boo! Now to be rectified by Schucman and her course.

Instead, the voices in her head assured her that the the entire universe is a throbbing, sobbing, sentimental blob of god/pantheistic/whatever that is longing, day and night, to shower you with miracles.

Yes, hence the title, a course in miracles! All you have to do is think your magical thoughts of happiness and money and happiness and money will shower over you.

And did I forget to mention the other concept she swiped from Hinduism? Pantheism means there is no good and evil. The entity/force/whatever is the communists slaughtering millions as well as Mother Teresa and…here is the important part…there is no difference between them.

No doubt it has suddenly struck you what it is about pantheism that appeals. No good and evil. No punishment for our sins. Really. It’s always explained the popularity of Deepak Chopra to me.

Now, if I have mangled the cult beliefs, please enlighten me,

And may God - the one, true God - flood you with light, Annem

 

[Sochi]

Now, if I have mangled the cult beliefs, please enlighten me,

Those “cults” (Hinduism and Buddhism are no more cults that Catholicism, and precede it,) would likely tell you that your “enlightenment,” whatever that might mean, is your own work, and is not someone giving you conceptual information, which I think is what you may be asking for. But even that ought be your homework, and until done, please be sure that your statements regarding your very incomplete and misleading opinions continue to be clearly labeled as such.

You are, to borrow a phrase, “seeing through a glass, darkly,” and none of what you said is accurate, especially in tone. Frankly, I have no doubt about your sincerity and your good intention. It’s only that it is very clear that your analysis is not inclusive of the actual meanings of those whom you disparage, and you won’t see them due to what I perceive as the the tenacity you have to your own faith, which I’m sure is considered admirable. But please be aware that the cost of that, in this instance, is misconception.

 

[empther]

Hogwash from previous thread:

Those “cults” (Hinduism and Buddhism are no more cults that Catholicism, and precede it,) would likely tell you that your “enlightenment,” whatever that might mean, is your own work, and is not someone giving you conceptual information, which I think is what you may be asking for.

From Empress Theresa:

“Let’s hear atheists explain a miracle like Theresa…
…
Someone who wants to do God’s will has an unconquerable ally. Theresa can’t be defeated.”

In other words, if God wills you to do it, you can do it.

Catholics defeated the all-powerful ( ? ) Roman Empire. “all of civilization”.
Catholics defeated paganism, in the West.
Catholics invented the university and higher learning, thus propelling the world into modern times.
Individual Catholics have performed wonders. Historians still can’t explain Joan of Arc.

There is a God, and he smiles on Catholicism.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Counterpooint: Hi. Certainly the course claims you can create your own MIRACLES!

The author being a psychologist makes one very good point in this book that I will never forget. Which is you can speak to someone until you are blue in face, and exhaust every method known and try every key to the door, and the progress date is still unknown “if” it ever occurs. Denial is indeed a difficult wall. And that’s not the worst part, its also as Augustine humorously states, you have to begrudge them the information while being insulted.

That vineyard of the Lord, the Catholic directional manual, a must read.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, I do not subscribe to Spinoism, but I probably do share in some aspects of his philosophy

The one that is important is his view on transient cause. rossum in so many words mentioned it on another thread which I felt no need to graduate. However its probably a good idea perhaps to reconcile this point so a logical conversation might proceed.

 

[Sochi]

Hogwash from previous thread:

Why, gracious me, Empther. You are so sweet. From your nice note, and having read your excerpt, diatribe, and following reader comments on Amazon, it is clear that parts of you need washing, particularly those that connect dots. Thank you for your attention and kind words.

 

[annem]

From an earlier post of mine: Now, if I have mangled the cult beliefs, please enlighten me,

Sochi

Those “cults” (Hinduism and Buddhism are no more cults that Catholicism

Sorry, but apparently you didn’t notice that I wrote cult, meaning I was referring to the course in miracles which I was describing, not cults.

Sochi:

You are, to borrow a phrase, “seeing through a glass, darkly,” … you won’t see them due to what I perceive as the the tenacity you have to your own faith. .But please be aware that the cost of that, in this instance, is misconception.

If I am wrong, then please tell me where I am wrong.

You speak of the cost of misconception. But surely you will agree that Hinduism, Buddhism, and, yes, I would include that favorite of the Roman elite, Stoicism, are all underpinned by a deep sense that life is suffering, even a horror.

Purpose and meaning and joy arrived with Jesus Christ.

So if I am wrong, please tell me where.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

 

[Sochi]

Sorry, but apparently you didn’t notice that I wrote cult, meaning I was referring to the course in miracles which I was describing, not cults.

Sorry, thanks for the correction. Not a fan of the Course in Miracles or The Secret, and their ilk. And yes, those, I agree, have a cultish following. But many things that encourage magical thinking do. Highly admire, however, the highly uninteresting Tolle.

You speak of the cost of misconception. But surely you will agree that Hinduism, Buddhism, and, yes, I would include that favorite of the Roman elite, Stoicism, are all underpinned by a deep sense that life is suffering, even a horror.

Can’t speak about stoicism, but no, I emphatically do not agree, even though there is one form of Buddhism that seems nihilistic. And I distinguish between Life and living, at least for conversational purposes… Those two religions, at least Buddhism, operate kind of in reverse from the Abrahamic religions. They are top-down, if you will, as distinct from ours, which is bottom-up. ie you earn your final reward in the A religions, in the B&H you re-discover what you always already are. If descriptions of those are in any way accurate, those who are successful find that the foundation of their Being is pure Joy. Other names for that are Emptiness and Nothingness, but they are not to be taken in the sense an ordinary English speaker might. And that is where you could do some further research, preferably experiential. Lack of that is where the cost lies. I will say nor more about this to you.

Purpose and meaning and joy arrived with Jesus Christ.

Ah, surely this is a view of very personal preference? The reading of much BCE literature would, to me, indicate otherwise. But to each his own. Of course, there is no doubt that using Jesus as an object of meditation, or thoughts about Jesus as a moral compass, many achieve at least what they think is, and for the most part can be felt as joy, even bliss, though likely misattributed. One only needs to note the Great Mystics here, or even the elevated feeling one might have in ordinary prayer or good works. Yet in a funny way, I might agree, if Jesus Christ is understood as a place holder for something far more Universal than what that title personifies for the vast majority of christianists.

So if I am wrong, please tell me where.

I can’t. I am powerless here. As I said, that is your job, and that of the Love that is the light to each of us. And what do I gain by “proving” anyone “wrong?” Nothing. I lose. Any argument I would bring to your attention would only trigger an argument on your part that would further convince you of your perceiving me to be in error. That is a waste of time, and I have none for conceptual sports. And this isn’t ultimately a matter of argument or information, anyway. Love can change your mind, or nothing. The rest is story.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

Thank you. That is a constant condition for all of us, save we perceive differently due to preference. And that is the closed door.

But none of this addresses the OP, yes? Let’s get back to that. It is not clear to me why the OP thinks that those are his only options, save that may people, perhaps most, think in pretty much either//or terms. And that is a relatively low order of logic. So what can expand the field of possibilities here?

 

[elijah]

I’m an “Infinitarian.” I believe that God exists as an infinite number of persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the “Infininity” (infinite in unity) are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.[1]

Question: Is my Infinitarian doctrine of God monotheistic or polytheistic? (Please explain the rationale for your response.)

Note:

[1] I have taken some liberties with Wikipedia’s definition of the “Trinity.” (I believe in giving credit where credit is due.)

Hello Counterpoint,

Your question is both legitimate and interesting, but it is not original; it was actually pondered upon by Catholic thinkers since the old days, among such thinkers was the great Thomas Aquinas.

In a straightforward way; while your doctrine of God may be monotheistic, it is definitely not Christian.

In addition to the fact that the Trinity is a product of revelation in Christianity, If God is infinitely simple -and- God is love, then it follows logically that God would - at most and at least - be a trinity (love, lover, love)

as simple as that

 

[elijah]

just a small correction to my above post: "… (love, lover, loved) "

 

[schaeffer]

I’m an “Infinitarian.” I believe that God exists as an infinite number of persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the “Infininity” (infinite in unity) are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.[1]

Question: Is my Infinitarian doctrine of God monotheistic or polytheistic? (Please explain the rationale for your response.)

Note:

[1] I have taken some liberties with Wikipedia’s definition of the “Trinity.” (I believe in giving credit where credit is due.)

I believe most would categorize such a belief as Monotheism, parallel to the understanding of the Trinity.

It could be considered soft polytheism, which is the belief that various “gods” are different aspects or facets of one god.

The shades of understanding can be subtle, and it can be impossible for anyone to definitively categorize which your particular belief is, other than yourself.

Again, that is similar to the Trinity. Many people understand it as the Catholic Church teaches, a God in three persons having one divine nature. Others, not sharing or perhaps understanding that concept, consider Trinitarianism to be soft polytheism.

From your own wording, I would categorize it as monotheism, because you use the same definition as Trinitarians do, and I have an understanding of that concept.

I am curious as to how the various hypostases manifest. Do they present as different beings, or do they present themselves also as every material/energy form in the Universe.

If the latter, many would consider that a form of pantheism.