- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,175
- 9,960
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, THAT is an interesting choice, because I have studied the history of the doctrine of the Trinity extensively and regard it as "highly negotiable"! Indeed, the history of the doctrine shows that it was "highly negotiated." To me, it is at best an almost incomprehensible attempt to come to grips with who Jesus was. I don't "disbelieve" it, but neither can I say that I really "believe" it.
I'm not sure that what I'm talking about could be limited to certain "forms" of Christianity. I am not completely convinced that what has postured itself as Christianity since the Resurrection has much resembled anything Jesus was talking about. I'm not setting myself up as having the answers. I simply have a nagging feeling that "something is really, really wrong here" - and I would have to say that I am talking pretty much monolithically. This is why I am not longer interested in anything but "working out my own salvation with fear and trembling."
Does Christianity as it exists in the world differ from, say, Buddhism in any meaningful way that is favorable to Christianity? Do Christians differ from, say, Jews or atheists in any meaningful way that is favorable to Christians? If Christianity were on the right track, would we not expect the indwelling and fruits of the Spirit to be far more obvious to nonbelievers than they are?
I see. Alright, I won't elaborate too much here because I know that you wouldn't really want this thread to go far askew from what you've envisioned for it in your OP. Be that as it may, I'll just say that I do think the Trinity is non-negotiable, even if by that saying this I don't mean that in all necessity for a person to be saved he/she needs to regurgitate "this or that" specific formula for this bit of traditional theology.
.... ok. Enough said on that topic since this is a thread devoted to the ways in which we all may conceptualize the separate but perhaps related nature of non-Christian moral intuitions from that of Christian moral intuitions and ethical formulation.
As to your last set of questions, I would have to answer that part of the way in which we'll each address these inquiries will be in how we decided to denote both the terms "Christianity" and "Christendom." I think this act of denotation is important analytically speaking since, like the term theory, these can very quickly become murky in their use and their connotations and thereby have everyone talking past each other. So as not to usurp your thread, I'll just end by saying that I think Christianity would be better thought of as our better intuitions of what we find in New Testament Theology and Ethics rather than simply applying it to the 'mess' we find today in the world at large that also goes by the moniker, Christianity, which really might better be termed, Christendom.
Ok. There. I've said my little piece and offered an inferred rejoinder, one of a milder sort I hope.
Peace.
Last edited:
Upvote
0