The mistake was made (IMO) because the theologians were monotheists first, and Christians only secondarily; such that they assumed the reality of Jesus's divinity "must" mean that he and God the Creator were ultimately One.
But this is untrue.
Consequently there are plenty of rational people throughout the past two millennia who have coherently believed in God as Creator, but disbelieve the divinity of Jesus Christ - or reject what Jesus offered Mankind.
Atheism on the one hand and non-Christian-theism (belief in God, but not the divinity of Jesus) on the other are - or should be - two different things; and they have different consequences.
To be a atheist is to reject purpose, meaning and the coherence of reality - it therefore renders the atheist self-trapped in a state of sustained irrationality: a kind of insanity.
A non-Christian theist may therefore be rational and coherent.
The difference that being a Christian makes is additive to coherence: it is hope.
For the not-Christian theist there is no hope for himself. Himself-specifically does not matter, perhaps is unreal, or perhaps the self will dissolve.
The not-Christian theist will therefore intrinsically regard mortal life as a tragedy - because it contains much evil, because it contains change/ entropy (ageing, disease and disaster) - and because it is inevitably terminated utterly, by the death of himself.
So a Christian has hope of resurrection and eternal life in a Heaven without death or evil.
But, so far, this hope is located only beyond death.
To believe only in post-mortal salvation is to recognize the coherence of reality, and to anticipate joy in eternity - but, of itself alone, this makes our present mortal life into (at best) merely an inferior version of Heaven, a time of waiting.
It is belief in the Holy Ghost - which I understand to be our experience of the living presence of Jesus during this mortal life - that converts the remote hope of post-mortal salvation into something that can, potentially, make our present lives into something better than a mere putting-off of Heaven.
The Holy Ghost is what enables integration of our our personal and present life with both salvation to come, and the reality of this world as purposive, meaningful and coherent.
The usual "Christian" (but actually dogmatically monotheist) habit-compulsion conceptually to conflate the nature and role of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; is therefore not merely a theological error, but leaves people permanently-confused and systematically-misled - about the consequences of not being fully-Christian.
4 comments:
I think you are right. I've always been unconvinced by most ot the theology of the Trinity I've read, but your post makes me realise I have experienced the Holy Ghost all my life even to today - Michaelmas - my 83rd birthday. My physical body is weary but my heart and mind are less worried than they have ever been. I have always been accompanied - even a boy of two wandered off by himself in the woods - perhaps much as Shackleton was. For me these days, the Annunciation seems to be the moment everything changed. Thank you!
Lots to think about. One thing that always bothered me is Heaven and Hell. In our Protestant (Congregational) church, we were taught if you don't believe in Jesus, you are going to Hell. That bothered me from a young age. I used to ask, "But God created us with doubting minds. Is that fair?" Also, "But what about people who never heard of Jesus?" The answer was always (something like), "Well, the Bible tells us everyone will hear about Jesus."
I wonder if you wrote any papers about this. I enjoy reading your papers. I re-discovered you after a friend reminded me of "Not Even trying." I read that years ago and loved it. I witnessed the problems as a Research Scientist in Academia, but no one was talking about it at the time. I saw lots of fraud.
@Igude - Very pleased to hear this post "hit the spot" for you.
@L - Probably it would be best to read this mini-book: https://lazaruswrites.blogspot.com/
When I wrote Not Even Trying, few few copies were read, only a few people seemed to appreciate the book, but most considered it wildly exaggerated.
However, it seems to have a bit of a new lease of life in the past few years - certainly a lot more people have read it and (on the whole) agreed with it than in 2012. But even after the events of 2020, I think most people greatly underestimate the level of dishonesty in science - that dishonesty is completely normal, and indeed encouraged and enforced.
Post a Comment