Just what is an "ontological experience"? The work of art, presumably, exists. So does the person having the experience. So does the experience. If that's the case, what ontological concerns, issues, feelings, questions arise?

Working from memory, but believe the major issue with the divinity of Jesus at Nicea was if He was begotten. Therefore had no beginning. Also if memory serves, the vote of the bishops was overwhelmingly in favor of being begotten. The “fight” or conflict between the bishops at Nicea on the divinity of Jesus is more driven by The Divinchi Code” type fiction than by fact — Rank Amateur

The issue was the "heresy" of Arius, and that was alive and well at the time of the Council and afterwards, in fact. Some of Constantine's successors as emperor were Arians, e.g. Constantius II. At the time of the Council, Arius and those who followed him had been driven out of Alexandria but were still going strong in Palestine and Nicomedia. Certainly the majority of bishops who attended the Council were followers of Athanasius, but it was believed that there was a very serious dispute and discord that Constantine wanted to address.

It was decided at Nicaea that Jesus was begotten but not made. The Arians took the position that Jesus was created by the Father, and so was not of the same substance, but of similar substance. That was not tolerable to the Athanasians, but it could not be denied that Jesus was the Son of God. It was apparently thought and decided that Jesus was not created, but was procreated (begotten), and in such a manner that he was the same substance as the Father. To quote the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed adopted at the Council--"begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

Constantine presided over the Council, but wasn't a decision-maker. The various Christian factions were--sometimes violently--opposed to each other, and it was hoped that there could be some sort of reconciliation, or at least a resolution of some kind. Constantine may have been there primarily to keep those who attended from beating on each other. The early Christians were intolerant not merely of pagans but of fellow Christians who failed to measure up to their standards.

But I've never heard that a non-Christian called the shots at Nicaea. Constantine, by the way, wasn't baptized until he was near death, so may not have been a "real" Christian before then.

Unless you can prove that something as small as human logic would be binding upon something as large as a god, then gotchas like "illogical" and "contradictory" are basically meaningless. — Jake

Well, no. What's illogical would still be illogical, and what's contradictory would still be contradictory. We've defined what those words mean, you see, and have no "God Logic" to refer to for different definitions. What you're claiming is that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, and can be "contradictory" (e.g., something and something else at the same time, I suppose).

My guess would be this claim wouldn't impress many atheists.

My whole point on apostolic tradition was in ref to this. Your own point below on the quote from John also seems in contradiction to your point above. — Rank Amateur

I don't understand what you're saying, in that case. As for the Gospel of John, it like other parts of the Bible contains language which made it necessary to come up with the concept of the Trinity. If Jesus is one with the Father, how can he be the Son? Did the Father die on the cross? If Jesus is the Father, does that mean Jesus existed before he was born?

The concept of the Trinity makes it possible for apologists to say Jesus is the Son of the Father, but he's the Father too in the sense that both are the same God but also different Persons. God didn't die on the cross--God's "mode of existence" or something or other which is the Jesus Person did. So, problem solved!

That was the Athanasian position, which became orthodoxy. The Gospel of John was used to rebut the Arian belief. The Arian belief can find support in the Bible as well, however, as Jesus frequently distinguishes himself from the Father and not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, though efforts were later made to find reference to his coming.

↪Ciceronianus the White Triple Goddesses occur in many religious belief systems, some long-predating the Christian Trinity. The concept doesn't seem unusual or novel. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

There certainly were triads of gods and goddesses and they may have influenced the conception of the Trinity. Early Christianity assimilated a great deal.

My understanding is that the Gospel of John, at least, in which Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one", was used to contest the claims of the Arians at the Council.

It's my understanding that most Protestants accept the Trinity, however. The First Council of Nicaea took place long before the Reformation, so I don't know if the doctrine of the Trinity can be characterized as solely "a Catholic doctrine" unless it has since been rejected by all Protestant communities.

Thanks for the reference.

That might be a fair characterization of Geach's motivation for coming up with the thesis of the relativity of identity. But that would be a bad mischaracterization of Wiggins' thesis of the sortal dependency of identity since the purpose of the latter was to disentangle the philosophical insight embodied in Geach's flawed thesis from Geach's own motivation to salvage a particular Christian doctrine. — Pierre-Normand

I say nothing of the validity of the thesis, which I know nothing about. What I find interesting is the belief that it's necessary to find a way to account for the text--in this case, the belief that although the Trinity seems to make no sense, it must make sense, so we must find a way for it to make sense, and the only way to do that is to provide an explanation which is lacking in the text. This tells us something about the text and also those who revere it.

I'd clap you in irons for that remark if I could — unenlightened

What is the sound of you clapping me in irons with one hand?

This I think would be an example of an effort to explain a text which seems inconsistent or unreasonable but assumed to be relating a truth. It's a kind of salvage operation.

Zen Buddhists are smart enough to head them off at the pass with the soundless sound of one hand clapping. — unenlightened

In fact, I can clap with one hand, and make a sound when doing so. Something to do with the length of my fingers, I think. So, I know what the sound of one hand clapping is, and can produce that sound at will, thus confounding Zen Buddhists everywhere.

I can tell you what in the Old Testament is referred to in support of the Trinity, from what I've read. They're consideredallusions to the Trinity, i.e. lesser indications than what you can find in the New Testament.

As noted in the OP, God's use of "we" and "us" in Genesis is taken to be an indication that God is more than one Person. (Genesis 1:26-27); likewise in reference to the Tower of Babel, when God says "Let us go down and confuse their language." The reference to "God" and "the Spirit of God" in Genesis 1:2 is claimed to support a "plural" deity, as is the word "Elohim" which some claim is a plural noun. Then it's noted God makes man in what he calls "our" image (make and female he makes them; two different kinds of man). It's claimed that God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men, indicating God is triune (I know the three men are called "angels" in some tellings).

Preachers don't like explaining it on Trinity Sunday, either. It's just one big headache. — Bitter Crank

Years ago I listened to a priest explain the Trinity to his congregation by comparing it to a ham sandwich.

Well, if you believe the early Christians came to believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as the Trinity solely because they read Plato, you're welcome to do so. I think it's more likely that they looked to the Bible first, then used pagan philosophy and religion to support it as needed. No doubt the various pagan trinities contributed to the Christian Trinity as well, e.g., the Capitoline Triad of Zeus, Juno and Minerva, or the Greek Triad of Zeus, Hades and Helios-Serapis.

Christianity was, and still is, a hodgepodge of borrowed religious and philosophical beliefs common in the ancient Mediterranean. I've seen the Trinity and the Logos referred to in John attributed to the Stoics. The Church made use of all it could in rationalizing its doctrines.

But I think you mistake what was used in justifying the Trinity on a philosophical basis (and the use of the Logos) with what made it necessary or desirable for the Christian God to be a triune God. I doubt the Arian/Athanasian dispute arose because some Christians read Plotinus or that it was resolved at the First Council of Nicaea by consulting the works of Plotinus.

Your right; I'm being less than clear myself.

The problem I'm addressing (or trying to address, in any case) arises when the text in question is itself accorded a special significance, by its author or by others who reverence the text or the author of the text. That reverence is such that efforts are made to rationalize, to justify, to explain statements which appear in the text which appear inconsistent, dubious or subject to interpretations those who revere the text find objectionable or which are believed contrary to the intent of the author.

The greater the effort, and the more elaborate the explanation, the more we're justified in questioning it and the status of the importance of the text itself (as opposed to the importance ascribed to it).

It's quite possible that the versions of the Bible I'm familiar with are not good translations of the originals, but I think that the Holy Spirit is referred to as something special and distinct in itself in those versions.

The Trinity was the primary subject of the First Council of Nicaea, presided over by Constantine. The dispute was between the followers of Arius, who were non-trinitarians, and those of Athanasius, who were trinitarians. Arius and his followers believed Jesus was created by God the Father, and not of the same substance as the Father. Jesus according to them did not always exist. John 1:1 notwithstanding. This was an issue for the Church from very early times.

Am I to understand your position is that the triune God thing is just so much bullshit that arose from a poorly written but highly esteemed text? — Hanover

I'm saying it was necessary for the early Church to explain the text, and this is how the orthodox faith did so.

Some Christian communities reject the Trinity, yes. I didn't say they all did. My understanding is Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept it, also.

I merely think it pointless to question claims of others regarding what they think themselves to be if it poses no threat of harm, and that we usually do a disservice to ourselves and others when we disturb ourselves over matters which aren't in our control.

Who is it that is "requiring" you to believe their claims or behave as if you do?

What you are doing is engaging the the unequal treatment of others by implying that a certain group has special privileges where their claims can't be questioned yet others' claims can. I can imagine what you would say if a Christian said thet their claims can't be questioned and you have to treat them as if their claims are true. Hypocrisy. At least I'm being consistent. — Harry Hindu

I've said nothing of special privileges. If for some reason you feel the need to engage in diatribes regarding transgenderism (if that's the word), as it seems you do, I don't think transgenders have any special claim of any kind related to your compulsion. I think pontificating on the subject is peculiar and needless, true, and that absent harm to others they should be treated the same as anyone else, but I don't think I've said any more than that.

You're sad for it I understand, but they have certain legal rights and so can't (yet?) forcibly be committed to mental institutions, as common sense would dictate.

If you read my previous posts more carefully, you'll notice that I didn't particularly care nor put much attention to the transgender people or the feminists until the later comes knocking on my door spouting stupidities and the former insulting me on the internet. No one would dedicate time to talk about a subject they aren't concerned about or doesn't affect them in any way. I'll be pretty stupid and hateful if I despised those people for no reason what so ever. — Terran Imperium

This is your post I was responding to. I can understand being annoyed by people who, uninvited, knock on your door to declaim something or another, or who insult you on the Internet. So, I suggested that's what you found objectionable, not the fact they're transgender or feminist. But, your last response to me was to the effect that my suggestion was inaccurate. If that's the case, though, it would seem we may infer that you do, indeed, find it objectionable that people are transgender or feminist.

That's unfortunate, but it's not their problem, nor should you make it a problem for them.

So, its NOT harmful to encorage someone's delusions to the point where they allow a doctor to cut them up on a surgical table for profit? — Harry Hindu

Ah. So if we merely treat them as we would anyone else, we encourage them. Yes, that makes sense.

I know. It's claimed that certain people are able to so master their pain and their bodies as to give no sign of pain, even in such circumstances. But, who knows? Since his experience is unique, he may have found pleasure in burning or perhaps was merely bored.

Have you heard of the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire protesting in Vietnam? — Blue Lux

I haven't heard that the monk felt no pain. Nor have a heard that those who deprive themselves of food as a form of protest feel no hunger or pain.

I don't think it is possible to communicate in words in anyway the experience or sticking your hand in a fire. And while no issue that relative words like pain or hot would apply to all. IMO they would be woefully short of expressing the real experience. And while in some very general way two people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences, I hold to proposition each experience would be unique to the individual. — Rank Amateur

Well, I was referring to the experience. I merely said it would be quite clear what someone means when they say their hand got stuck in a fire.

But if you're correct and people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences only in some very general way, it would seem of little use to discuss, or describe, our experiences.

My personal belief is that we ascribe far too much significance to the supposed uniqueness of our experience. We're all human beings, with the same (for the most part) physical and mental characteristics, sharing the same world. We encounter and interact with the world as human beings have to do, being the kinds of creatures we are. Whether the fact that we are individuals will make any difference will depend on the circumstances, and in many cases if not most it will make no difference. We don't have to be the same person to understand one another.

If we stick our hands into a fire, there is every reason to believe that we will feel pain when we do so. There is no good reason to believe that Mr. X will not feel pain in that case, nor is there any good reason to believe that in most cases he will feel a pain that is significantly different from the pain felt by Ms. Y. That's because human beings are usually burned by fire, and it hurts when that happens.

If we say that nevertheless, X's and Y's experiences are unique, it strikes me we say very little of any importance, except in very limited circumstances where, e.g. X is incapable of feeling pain for unusual reasons. I think it's unreasonable to extrapolate general propositions from unusual circumstances. I think we're better advised to treat exceptional circumstances as exceptional.

So we can reasonably infer that in almost all cases a human being will experience pain if he/she is burned. And I think we can reasonably infer that if person X tells person Y that person X's hand got into fire somehow and was burned, it will be quite clear to person Y what that means, regardless of the fact that person Y isn't person X.

didn't have the exact same tactile feel on my keyboard that you did, we had a different and individual sense of our purpose. Inform, impress, selfish, educate, kill some time. We each felt something unique as we typed. — Rank Amateur

How do you know this is the case? If you're correct, in what sense is it significant? Do you think that if you told me you were typing or had typed something, I wouldn't understand what you said in any respect?

until the later comes knocking on my door spouting stupidities and the former insulting me on the internet — Terran Imperium

Then it would seem what you found offensive was the fact they knocked on your door saying things you thought stupid, and insulted you on the internet, not the fact they were transgender or feminist. Why bring up gender ideology, or feminism in that case?

think all experiences are unique to the person experiencing them - by definition. Any attempt to communicate an experience is an abstraction, a construct of the mind, and not the same as the experience — Rank Amateur

I just typed this. In what sense is my experience typing these words unique, compared to your experience in typing the foregoing?

If an understanding of life has to be boxed into this characterization of it... Then an understanding of life is completely nonspecific. Furthermore, this idea of an every life of ours implies that the experiences of people are interchangeable and the same. They are not. Our experiences are incomparably personal and unique.
The point is to say that in communication or expression of life tere is only abstraction and faith in an understanding. There is only a knowledge as if it is knowledge. — Blue Lux

Of course our experiences will differ is some respects, and some of us may be significantly different from the norm. Some climates in which we live are significantly different from others, cultures are different.

But we're all the same kind of living organisms and are parts of the same world, and interact with other parts of the world which are in many cases similar and in similar ways. So there is common ground. necessarily. Differences may exist, but can be addressed and explained on grounds other than "faith." In fact, we successfully communicate all the time. Simply put, there is no reasonable basis on which it can be maintained that each of us have, exclusively or even primarily, unique experiences which can't be communicated or expressed to others.

'Our everyday lives' is fundamentally an inauthentic expression — Blue Lux

Not a real, or sincere, or genuine expression? Not accurate? I think we all have a fairly good idea what we did, who/what we encountered, how we felt, etc., today and can describe it to another in a way satisfactory for most purposes. What we describe will be easily comprehended by most we describe it to. Perhaps your expectations are unreasonable. In some matters we deal in probabilities; nevertheless, we can make intelligent judgments based on less than absolute certainty or knowledge.

Which is extraordinarily vague! Inauthentic everydayness — Blue Lux

How vague will depend on the speaker, I would think. But what can be more authentic about us and our relationship with the rest of the world than our everyday lives?

Then what are people usually talking about? — Blue Lux

Usually? Their children, their spouses, their friends, their work, sports, politics, their health, their relatives; in short, their lives.

We seem to get along well enough. It isn't necessary that anyone superlatively express meaning in most cases.

There's some saying about teaching and doing...I can't quite remember it, but it came to mind when you mentioned you teach people to think. You should consider teaching them evasion as well. But if one teaches by example, perhaps you already do.

Tit for tat; ad hominem for ad hominem.

But there's no need to manufacture an elaborate and self-serving rationale for avoiding what seems a simple enough question. If you prefer not to answer it, so be it.