/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1225732]

Protestant theologians argue that God is a person like we are, only without our bodily and other limitations. As Brian Davies points out in The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, one of the most remarkable things to note about this sort of claim is how foreign it is to what has historically been regarded as Christian orthodoxy:

>The formula ‘God is a person’ is (given the history of theistic thinking and writing) a relatively recent one. I believe that its first occurrence in English comes in the report of a trial of someone called John Biddle (b. 1615), who in 1644 was brought before the magistrates of Gloucester, England, on a charge of heresy. His ‘heresy’ was claiming that God is a person. Biddle was explicitly defending Unitarian beliefs about God, already in evidence among Socinians outside England.

>In other words, Biddle’s ‘God is a person’ was intended as a rejection of the orthodox Christian claim that God is three persons in one substance (the doctrine of the Trinity). One can hardly take it to be a traditional Christian answer to the question ‘What is God?’ According to the doctrine of the Trinity, God is certainly not three persons in one person. And when orthodox exponents of the doctrine speak of Father, Son, and Spirit as ‘persons,’ they certainly do not take ‘person’ to mean what it seems to mean for [Richard] Swinburne and those who agree with him. They do not, for example, think of the persons of the Trinity as distinct centres of consciousness, or as three members of a kind. (pp. 59-60)

[Anonymous No.1225734]

Davies goes on to emphasize that as used within the context of Trinitarian theology, “person” translates the Latin persona, which in turn was intended to translate the Greek theological terms prosopon and hypostasis – both of which have precise theological meanings and neither of which is intended to convey the idea of a “person” in the sense in which a human being is a person. Indeed, even apart from questions of orthodoxy, the idea that God is three Persons in one substance entails that God cannot “a person” in the way that we are, since for there to be two or more human persons is precisely for there to be two or more substances.

[Anonymous No.1225753]

Orthodoxy = God tier.

[Anonymous No.1225765]

Well, more to the point, once you start dabbling in the Arian heresy----and deny the Trinity by denying the essential identity of Father and Son---you have reduced Christianity to exactly what it appears to be in (say) Milton's Paradise Lost: a rather ugly human-sacrifice religion based on worship of a bloodthirsty tyrant.

This is more or less the point made by Sir William Empson in "Milton's God", but of course Empson was writing from the basic standpoint that the whole God business was ugly anyway. He didn't pause to notice that it's Milton's Arianism---and the basic anti-Trinitarian trend among Protestants generally--that is responsible for the debased form of Christianity that's taken for normative in America.

Unfortunately arguments for the superiority of Roman Catholicism---which did, I think, hold substantial weight at some point---are undercut at this point by the general trend in America, post-Vatican-II, for Catholicism to seek rather desperately to "assimilate" itself to American Protestantism generally, which has resulted in a bigoted pseudo-Catholicism practiced by the likes of Antonin Scalia or Bill O'Reilly.

How contemporary American Catholic zealots are part of the same religion that produced Father Damien or Dorothy Day is beyond me. They seem more eager to prove that they can summon a bloodthirsty intolerance equal to that of the heretic Calvin when he burnt Servetus.

[Anonymous No.1225767]

>>1225753

>You will never be a Russian and praise God in an Orthodox Church

;_;

[Anonymous No.1225784]

>>1225765
>Catholicism to seek rather desperately to "assimilate" itself to American Protestantism generally
This Protestantization of Catholicism saddens me greatly.

[Anonymous No.1225815]

>This Protestantization of Catholicism saddens me greatly.

Me too.

[Harold Bloom No.1225852]

I am a Gnostic

[Anonymous No.1225858]

>>1225784
>>1225815
me three

>>1225767
one of my roommates is a chinese dude who belongs to a russian orthodox church. he converted like 5 years ago.

[Anonymous No.1225859]

>>1225852

Saying "I am a Gnostic" is like saying "I am a heretic". What KIND of Gnostic are you? Valentinian? Carpocratian? Ophite?

[Anonymous No.1225860]

>>1225859
>Saying "I am a Gnostic" is like saying "I am a heretic"

Well, yes. Those two statements are synonymous. Well done.

[Anonymous No.1225863]

>>1225852

[Anonymous No.1225867]

>>Well, yes. Those two statements are synonymous. Well done.

"Gnostic" and "heretic" are NOT synonyms.

It's like what Richard Nixon said about Vietnam: "A Chink is always a Gook, but a Gook is not necessarily a Chink."

A Gnostic may always be a heretic, but a heretic is not necessarily a Gnostic. Arians, Socinians, Manichees are not Gnostics.

For fucksake, MUSLIMS are not Gnostics and you might recall that Dante places Mohammed in the heretics' circle in Hell.

[Anonymous No.1225872]

>>1225867
Right, right, the square-rectangle thing.

fwiw, by the way, dante placed muhammad in hell based on a pretty deep misunderstanding of islam. i think most people now would simply say that muslims are heathens, or just outside the religion entirely.

[Anonymous No.1225893]

>>1225765
>Dorothy Day
She needs to be made a saint already

[Anonymous No.1225902]

>>1225893
Too much of a commie. She'll get in when we finally get a liberation theology pope. (never) (actually, the guy who replaces Benedict SHOULD be fairly liberal, if all goes well)

[Anonymous No.1225907]

>>1225872

I think Dante classified Muhammad as a heretic because he was perfectly aware of Christ and scripture and founded his own earthly creed with himself as heresiarch.

A heathen is a pagan: someone who has never heard of Christ or Scripture.

Whether Dante lacked sufficient understanding of Islam is beside the point. He understood it well enough. And to understand it further would be to condone it.

[Anonymous No.1225908]

>(actually, the guy who replaces Benedict SHOULD be fairly liberal, if all goes well)

Are you kidding? It'll probably be Arinze, is my guess.

Unless you credit the Prophecies of Saint Malachi, in which case.....no-one will replace Benedict.

[Anonymous No.1225909]

>>1225902

>actually, the guy who replaces Benedict SHOULD be fairly liberal
One can dream (have nightmares)

[Anonymous No.1225922]

>>1225908
God, I hope it's not Arinze. He would be the worst choice. I do think it'll be someone more liberal, Benedict was rather conservative and I think they'll be prepared to go with someone to take the Church forward.

Also, isn't Arinze rather old? He's, like, 77, isn't he? And unless Benedict dies in like the next year, he'll be 78 or 79 if he's even young enough to be a candidate, and I don't think they'll go with someone that old twice in a row.

>>1225909
Yeah, yeah, yeah, liberal, conservative, there we go.

[Anonymous No.1225933]

>>I do think it'll be someone more liberal, Benedict was rather conservative and I think they'll be prepared to go with someone to take the Church forward.

Well, my take on it is: considering that Benedict was willing to close the gap with the Anglicans largely over the African bishoprics, they'll be most interested in trying to build a credible Catholic powerbase in Africa, hence Arinze. Plus, it would be an Obama-type maneuver for the Vatican. It *looks* radical or open-minded or like a modernizing gesture, but then turns out to be business as usual.

[Anonymous No.1225939]

>>1225933
Plus it would throw a wrench in the works for the neo-fascists in Europe that try to appropiate Catholicism as well as the racist elements among the hyper-traditionalist reactionaries

[Anonymous No.1225942]

>>1225933
>>1225939
Arinze is just too damn old. I could see it being a younger African who's still theologically conservative, though.

[Anonymous No.1225956]

What about some Latin American cardinal?
I just have this feeling that Rome is planning some 2nd Counter-Reformation aimed at Latin America (and the Phillipines)

[Anonymous No.1225966]

>>1225956
I do think whoever is elected is going to have to kick ass in terms of evangelization. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a theological conservative - particularly in the Latin / South American context.

And I do think a South American candidate is as likely as an African.

[Anonymous No.1225982]

>>1225966
>>1225956

I was just looking online, apparently most people think it will be Scherer from Sao Paulo. That would make sense. Particularly because the general trend of the thought is that---on the most basic level of current strategy---they need somebody who's a Vatican outsider and isn't tainted by the sex abuse scandals. A Brazilian Cardinal makes perfect sense in that context.

[Anonymous No.1225985]

>>1225982
lol i was just reading the same website as you

honestly, i don't really care who it is, i just really hope it's not a hardcore conservative.

[Anonymous No.1226011]

>>1225982
Yeah. Instead we need someone who has been tainted by ladyboys.

[Anonymous No.1226014]

I hope the Pope calls for another crusade. I'd join up.

[Anonymous No.1226016]

>>1226014


I agree. George Bush Jr. would make a great pope!

[Anonymous No.1226017]

I thought Ladyboys were only from Bangkok. There's Ladyboys in Brazil?

Fascinating creatures, though....

[Anonymous No.1226023]

>>1226017
At least 60% of the Brazilian population are shemales. Manly, muscular, negress shemales. My asshole puckers in delight.

[Anonymous No.1226030]

>>1226023

Now I don't want to visit Brazil so much anymore.

I prefer my shemales to be pale, frail, and not particularly male.

[Anonymous No.1226077]

>>1226016
He's not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.1226091]

>>1226077


Dick Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?

Bill Kristol?
Paul Wolfowitz?
sigh.....

[Anonymous No.1226099]

>>1226091
Protestant, protestant, jew, jew...

[Anonymous No.1226104]

The US Supreme Court currently consists of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews.

[Anonymous No.1226105]

>>1226099


Fuck.

Where are all my bloodthirsty Catholics at?

[Anonymous No.1226108]

>>1226105
just war theory b*tch

[Anonymous No.1226110]

>>1226105

well, of the non-bloodthirsty variety you've got:

Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry

of the bloodthirsty variety you've got:

Stephen Colbert

[Anonymous No.1226117]

Thomas Pynchon converted to Catholicism while at Cornell.

[Anonymous No.1226121]

>>1226105
John Yoo is a Catholic. So's Alberto Gonzalez

[Anonymous No.1226123]

>>1226117

He was raised Catholic and still practicing while at Cornell. Who knows what he is now.

[Anonymous No.1226126]

>>1226121

There you go. I knew there must be some dimwitted revanchists in the Bush League besides the various judges he appointed (Roberts, Alito)

[Anonymous No.1226154]

>>1226121

Yeah, but these dudes were just useful idiots who covered up all the bloodthirsty shit. Are Catholics only good for fucking little boys and covering it up? Covering up the work of the CIA? What else are Catholics covering up that the protestants and jews are doing?
Would love to get some true bloodthirsty Catholics named up in here so that the crusade can begin.

[Anonymous No.1226193]

I wish I would have lived back when the Church was powerful as fuck.

[Anonymous No.1226221]

>>1225732

That may be the case, but one of the most distinguishing features
about Christianity in comparison to other religions is its belief that God is a rational being who can be comprehended through his works; through the application of rational thought and logic one can progress to a truer understanding of God. There's a sense throughout Christianity in history that human beings do not understand God completely, but also that they CAN understand him, and will come to understand him more and more as time goes by. Essentially, they do not know the truth, but the truth can be uncovered, and as each year passes they are able to uncover more and more of it. This is why the study of theology exists.

Now, whether a Christian actually HAS hit upon the truth or is even progressing in the right direction is obviously debatable, and arguably another big reason why theology is so important a study to Christians.

So the idea of a difference in Christian thought today and Christian thought historically is totally expectable in itself. The religion is compatible with such realities/possibilities.

[Anonymous No.1226222]

>>1226221
>So the idea of a difference in Christian thought today and Christian thought historically is totally expectable in itself.

Ugh. Make that "acceptable."

[Anonymous No.1226423]

Is it wrong of me to not consider anyone's ideas of God prescient?
I simply feel human beings are incapable of comprehending such a thing in it's totality.
If they could they'd actually be God, no?

[Anonymous No.1226471]

>>1226423
People's ideas of God are thoughts derived from being able to see the future?

[Anonymous No.1226479]

>>1226423
As far as I am aware, the only thing dictating that God is incapable of comprehension is your belief such.

Even if you decide that God is not capable of complete comprehension by humans, consider that no scientist that has ever lived thus-far in history has ever understood the universe entirely. That doesn't mean that their efforts in studying the universe have been in vain, or that they didn't help humanity as a whole understand the universe BETTER. Just because complete understanding is impossible doesn't mean that a greater (yet still partial) understand is worthless.

[Anonymous No.1226716]

>>1226091
Newt Gingrich is a (new) Catholic and he seems to not really care about just war theory at all.
Also Tony Blair but he converted only after he left office so who knows what he thinks now

[Anonymous No.1226721]

>>1226423
>>1226479
There's also negative theology. Don't speak of what God is but rather of what God is not.

[Anonymous No.1226870]

>>1226423

>I simply feel human beings are incapable of comprehending such a thing in it's totality.
You've just described the orthodox Christian position.

[Anonymous No.1226872]

>theology thread

[Anonymous No.1227245]

Can anyone in this thread recommend a good modern day Thomist?

[Anonymous No.1227259]

>>1227245

Are you looking for an introductory work by one?
Feser's guide to Aquinas comes highly recommended.

You could check out Maritain (1882–1973). His stuff is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.1227261]

>>1227259
Correct, I was also thinking of picking up Peter Kreeft's Introduction to Socratic Logic. I have to say that only on /lit/ have I seen actual Catholic Threads take place

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.1227270]

>52 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

no

[Anonymous No.1227273]

>>1227270

>Asspained atheist

[Anonymous No.1227288]

muslims think Allah is the universe as a whole

just saiyan

[Anonymous No.1227327]

It's interesting that they make the claim that προσπον was one of the basis of the Latin persona, which is true, but…

That term was also explicitly rejected as a term for use in describing the persons of the Trinity as being modalist, which is exactly what the OP quote seems to be leaning towards.

Man, read the Cappadocians, y'all.

[Anonymous No.1227450]

bump?

[Anonymous No.1227503]

>>1226479

Yes I agree that attempting to comprehend more and more of the universe/god is a good thing. In fact it's the only thing. It's that struggle towards comprehension that we all have in common as humans.

What bothers me is when people use their incomplete knowledge to come to incomplete conclusions about the WHOLE of existence. As if their small windows of knowledge look out upon a reality to which others not in possession of same knowledge are incapable of observing. It seems to me that often the more scientists learn the less they see. Instead they just learn to apply their circumscribed rubric of reality onto any observable data. I feel this doesn't lead to enlightenment but instead towards a state of rationalized ignorance.

[Anonymous No.1227509]

>>1226870

My viewpoint might align with Christian Orthodoxy to a degree but they are not one in the same. My aversion towards human explanations of the totality of the universe applies to Christians as well.

[Anonymous No.1227518]

>/lit/ - Church Politics

I'd sage, but the rest of the board is so shitty I might as well not.

[Anonymous No.1227784]

So anyone else pumped about the New Missal translations due next Advent?

[Anonymous No.1227834]

Giving God human characteristics probably one of the worst things religion has done. With that being said I am a Roman Catholic. I do the trinity thing. God does not need to be a soldier, killer, or bloodthirsty vengeful being. SHITSTORM IN 3....2.....1...... RESPOND