Friday, August 31, 2007
Semi-Coherent Reflections After Reading Some Moltmann
After reading some of the guy on the left this afternoon, I had a flurry of random questions and musings: Does a Trinitarian God have to be metaphysically necessary? Taking the Kripkian approach, am I able to imagine a world in which "God" was not Trinity? I think this is entirely possible. Is "Trinity" an attribute?
When we talk about God it is usually spoken of in terms of singular omni-attributes but how often do we say "Trinitarian God"? Some claim that Jesus is God, even in this sense are we able to coherently say that Jesus is God and God is Jesus? Or what about the Holy Spirit? Each time we seem to be referring back to this "God" who has attributes but what are the essential characteristics of God? These may be more in line with the God of the philosophers.
It appears that the Ontological Argument is rearing its head in a very different way than intended; it makes us realize what essential qualities this "God" possesses. After this I'm left wondering what sorts of arguments can be made in favor of a metaphysically necessary Trinitarian God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know this isn't a philosophical argument, and I feel completely unqualified to define God, most especially to myself, but sometimes the sheer beauty of the idea of the trinity really gets me. It's as though there is a Divine Family, with each member loving and being loved from eternity (whatever eternity is). It's the idea that God can never be alone, and that the closest we come to knowing God is when we experience love and community with others, that our "self" only really exists in relationship to others. The idea that relationship itself is the most holy and God-like thing in the world.
well lee, you know how I feel about Perichoresis =). But I am intrigued. Especially by this statement of yours: "Some claim that Jesus is God, even in this sense are we able to coherently say that Jesus is God and God is Jesus?" I hadn't thought about that before. It seems like we should be able to say it both ways if we believe the former to be true--but I can think of a couple theology profs off the top of my head right now who wouldn't say it...and neither would I. Interesting.
Post a Comment