Yes, God is three in one, but it doesn’t follow that we should thereby be a threeness in any sense. How we image God has a grand variety of theories, none of which I feel comfortable with entirely.

The trichotomism I encountered was at a church I was part of and also a Christian magazine where I worked as editor. A lot of the theology was based on Watchman Nee’s writings, but it goes back through Pentecostal and Dispensationalist writings. One of the implications of it was a profound anti-intellectualism, whereby the redeemed me was my ‘irrational’ spirit, not my soul. As our spirits had a hot-line to God, it led to a very shallow view of the redeeming of the mind, and I have to say it was abused so often in church meetings and editorial meetings that the whole idea became an almost gnostic form of abuse. No one wanted to know what the mind might have to say on the matter (it was fallen, of course), they only wanted insight through the spirit to what the Spirit was saying to the church and througg the magazine.

Its abuse is evident in many/most ’second blessing’ theologies, from Pentecostalism through to many forms of charismatic Protestantism. Which ended up teaching we were only vessels for the Lord to work within. We were fallen, miserable worms, but the Lord could even use a rusty drain-pipe (if we even were that) through which to work his Spirit in the church and in the world. It really implied such a low view of self, a ‘less of us, more of Him view’, that really undermined so much biblical/Hebrew ideas of holism, not to mention the original goodness and grace in Creation.

I remember reading a book by Jerram Barrs, who was part of the L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland, where he biblially refuted such views, that I really found at the time that scales fell of my eyes. Suddenly, I meant something to God as me, not as an instrument (the heart of all ethical and justice definitions of humanity/personhood). We were brought into union with Christ, filled with God’s Spirit, to redeem us and all that we were — our minds, our gifts, our sexuality, everything! Still just a foretaste of heaven, but that image of God in us was to start to be restored, and of course, to be redeemed (even better), so that we in all that we were would be brought into the profound life and love of the triune God (not something the original cratures had).

That’s not to overstate rationality. Many Calvinist theologians and philosophers especially, still think our thoughts about God are only quantitavely different from God’s, not profoundly qualitatively different, analogical, really quite ‘other’. This biblical holism shouldn’t undermine mysticism and the way rationality/objectivity breaks down sooner than we would like.

Anyway, I think much of trichotomism failed to understand that words such as heart, mind, soul, strength, spirit are used interchangably in Scripture. God’s not giving us models, but explaining thoughts and desires within a relationship.

Anyway, that’s my threeness excursis. I am not a doctrinaire Calvinist, more an open Calvinist. I find Loftus’s work interesting, but his journey from faith seemed to me, as well, more personal than philosophical. So many atheists seem to me to be having an argument with God and Christians more than a pure journey in rationality. I was put on to his site by a former Christian friend whose profound self-centredness (not that he is the only one, mea culpa) was replaced with another form of self-centredness, not really just a search for the true and the good. Maybe even a reverse form of wish fulfillment, a la Feuerbach, but in the opposite direction.

Nevertheless, I find many people’s journey to non-faith was brought about by some bad examples of faith and life, theology and praxis. Some were sexually abused by the religious, some shunned/persecuated because of their sexual orientation. In short, they were caused “to stumble”, as Jesus phrased what was the more serious of sins. They became “poor in spirit”, though Jesus still pronounced them blessed. I think the gospel of the Kingdom showed the Jesus was much more on their side than those (some of them self-righteous) who caused them to stumble. That seems biblical to me.

I was interested to listen to a Christopher Hitchens lecture here in Australia when he said he didn’t know if God existed, but he would be disappointed if he did. At least, he said, imagining them meeting in the after-life, he hoped God would say to him, “Well, I admire your honesty.” That’s not quite the publican asking for mercy on him a sinner, and going home justified, but it does underline the profound I/Though relationship (c.f. Martin Buber) we intuitively know we exist within.

Yes, I’m praying for revival and justice to come on earth. I am glad you are indeed “Sophie”, as I thought it might have been a nome de plume about Wisdom, and I would have seemed to be rude.

Can’t wait to read more of your work.

Kind regards

Daniel

“[D]oes Jesus go to any cells where he gets turned away? And is John Loftus thereby someone who has gladly gone back to jail. Or does Jesus only go to the cells he knows via foreknowledge he will be met with a friendly reception? Or does God in fact not know how he will be received due to an open theism theory?

Yes, Jesus goes to every cell - it is not the will of God that any should perish - and gets turned away by the vast majority. Loftus’ is a pathetic situation. If indeed he was born again, there is no going back on the new birth. He has chosen to re-enter and remain within the cell, despite the fact that the door is wide open.

Open theism is an unnecessary attempt to overcome the problem that Hume posed - according to whom God cannot be both all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time. You might want to read the posts “Meaningless Suffering: Hume’s Definition of the Problem” and “What is the Meaning of Good?”

Lastly, I do find trichotomism (body, soul and spirit are three distinct entities) a little hard to maintain. I have seen many of the bizarre diagrams to explain it, but they always break down, and implicitly (to me, anyway) lead to a bad theologies of personhood, evidenced by Watchman Nee, the higher Christian life movement and many others.

Hmmmm. I think the pattern is the Hebrew Temple itself, which was tripartite; and God Himself, who is a Trinity. Man is made in his image. But I am interested in what you call the bad theology of personhood, as evidenced by Nee. Tell me more.

Regardless of whether you are Calvinist or Armenian, pray for fire and revival in the church.

I guess I am still currently a Calvinist, though I don’t see God as havind raped me. After all, to follow the analogy, I don’t actually recall going on a date. Nevertheless, I do accept many of the very negative implications (logical or otherwise) of Calvinism. And on John Loftus’s site Calvinist apologists turn up to show that the caricatures (or is it the truth?) of Calvinism are in fact too true, all too often.

But to take your prison anology a little further, does Jesus go to any cells where he gets turned away? And is John Loftus thereby someone who has gladly gone back to jail. Or does Jesus only go to the cells he knows via foreknowledge he will be met with a friendly reception? Or does God in fact not know how he will be received due to an open theism theory?

Lastly, I do find trichotomism (body, soul and spirit are three distinct entities) a little hard to maintain. I have seen many of the bizarre diagrams to explain it, but they always break down, and implicitly (to me, anyway) lead to a bad theologies of personhood, evidenced by Watchman Nee, the higher Christian life movement and many others. I find John Cooper’s “Body, Sould and life Everlasting” a much more reasonable account of biblical dualism.

Anyway, keep up the good work, Sophie.

Regards

Daniel

“Let us acknowledge that, on the surface, this is an absolutely horrible atrocity. But Farrell tries to persuade us that God is the responsible party here. It seems that in Farrell’s ethics, man never, ever bears any moral culpability. We are all powerless victims subject to the whims of a malevolent god. It’s always and forever God’s fault.”

Sophie appears to think that it’s OUR fault that God slaughtered 70,000 of us frail imperfect humans. He simply had no options. Poor Yahweh being forced to kill so many of his chosen people. He must have felt terrible for all those children screaming as their fathers struggled in vain against Yahweh’s scourge. He had to do it. We forced him into it.

Sophie:

“I have argued however, in The Bible is Mythology that such stories are not primarily history but attempts to convey the divine in terms of the human and should not be viewed literally; one needs to search the depths for the spiritual meaning of the story.”

“Such stories”? So where the Bible says Yahweh did rotten things, these stories ar just a “myth” but all the good stuff is historical? What’s the criteria for determining which stories in the Bible are historical and which are just made up? It seems a little too convenient just do say certain stories are fiction when it isn’t very palatable.

Sophie:

“Furthermore, within the Christian mythology and Pauline theology (see Man Gave the Law, Not God) the Law is something Man came up with, not God.”

According to Christian theology Yahweh gave man the law and not the reverse. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments? Most Christiand beleive Yahweh gave the law to man. Sophie appears to be a different kind of Christian. This is amusing to the skeptic because once again there are so many Christian sects with so many different views and interpretations of the Bible, it’s impossible to keep up. The Bible can be interpreted any way any Christian wants.

Sophie:

“ Military duty has its own laws of purity. For example, a soldier was consecrated before battle (Joshua 3:5). Purity also entailed sexual abstinence, which David was well-aware of: 1 Samuel 21:4-5; 2 Samuel 11:6-13.
A census of military men would expose any sexual impurity on the part of the military men. The census, then, was an act of self-righteousness on the part of David to expose the sin of his men. Joab knew this and tried to persuade David not to take the census. Let us be clear: the census did not cause the sin of the men; it exposed it. The plague that resulted stemmed from the impurity of the men; they knew the law, they knew the consequences, yet they went ahead with their behavior anyway and thus remain responsible. But David is culpable as well for it was his self-righteous, judgmental attitude that set the wheels of judgment in motion. It was this evil spirit he was referring to when he said, “I have sinned greatly by doing this.”

Ahh so, according to Sophie, Yahweh killed 70,000 people because they weren’t sexually “pure”. First of all this is pure speculation. There is nothing in the text that indicates this. This is yet another EXCUSE I’ve heard of this horrible passage. Christians are very creative when it comes up to excusing the horrible acts of Yahweh and this is just another example. It’s just Sophie’s excuse du jure. And, boy Yahweh is one heck of a task master. But what of the poor widows and orphaned children? Why should they suffer so just because their fathers had been sexually “impure”? Did someone masturbate? Was this sufficient to get you killed?

Here’s an idea. Why not just make them ill for a couple of days? Why slaughter 70,000 people (20 times as bad as the horror of 9/11) leaving widows and little children orphaned just because they men had had a bit on the side? It’s laughable.

This is yet another poor excuse for this horrible atrocity. Some Christians say it was because David counted his troops, which is relying on the strength of the army instead of relying on God. Others say counting one’s troops brings you closer to war so that’s why Yahweh punished the 70,000. Others say they had sinned in a different way that we’re not told because it says the Lord was angry with Israel. Others say when a census is taken the people have to provide a ransom and they didn’t, therefore they deserved to be killed, as if Yahweh was justified in killing 70,000 people for not paying their taxes. It just boggles the mind, the lengths Christians will go to to justify horrible acts of Yahweh in the Bible.

I’d like to hear Sophie’s take on other stories from Farrell’s book and web site. There are some fab Bible stories there and they all show that Yahweh is just a figment of the minds of these ancient people trying to understand the vicissitudes of life in the primitive world.

You asked about non-theistic religions. In Dan Dennents book “Breaking the Spell” he considered tribal ancestor worship to be a non-theistic religion. Other non-god religions might be those who think life was seeded by an alien intelligence, as they have only faith as evidence. Specifically, I think authors like Eller (and Dennet, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc) are promoting a public sphere where beliefs have little influence. Governance based solely on empirical evidence.

Your last comment ‘So much for freedom of religion and the First Amendment.’ provoked my ire. First off, this book was a call to atheist of the world, not atheists of the USA. The First Amendment is a nation specific document, and really has nothing to do with Ellers desire to evict religion as the dominant world view. Even if Ellers book was directed solely at the US, I never once had the impression that he was calling for the censorship of the religious. I think your last paragraph was just a red herring.

Secondly, Loftus seems to think that it is possible that this guiding principle or LAW might allow something coming from nothing. But the definition of nothingness can NOT allow this. Nothing means nothing, no potential. Something can not, by definition, arise from that which has no potential. The very emergence of something is evidence of potential. Thus, as you point out, Loftus must either define this happening as magic - something outside the bounds of the law - or redefine what was before the big bang or the universe as we know it as something other than nothing. The latter just flies in the face of all the things Loftus says about what he calls the VOID, which he seems to define as true nothingness.

Finally, it is incumbent upon Loftus and the rational atheists to either a) show cause as to why the VOID or guiding principle should not be considered evil or b) work tirelessly for the overthrow of the guiding principle. As I also stated, the unconsciousness of the principle can not serve as an excuse, for the rational atheists are conscious. THEY are aware that evil exists as a result of the guiding principle and so THEY become morally complicit if they stand by and do nothing. Thus, by attempting to show God as evil (via the suffering of fawns in a forest fire) they make themselves culpable.

I’d agree that, if Loftus and others are taken seriously on this point, and if they also contend that good and evil are objectively real things (though frankly, despite the popularity of using such language, that position doesn’t seem popular with contemporary atheists), then yes - that “VOID”, that thing beyond our universe, would have to be judged as evil just as quickly as God would. I’d further argue that it would have to be judged to be a deity as well. It would just be a deity more akin to something out of Lovecraft.