|
Listen to this post:
|
Here’s a story dedicated to a guy I interacted with on Facebook recently. It concerns theory-driven mis-readings of John 17:1-5.
The vice-president had said something to the effect of, “We’ll show them who’s boss,” implying that the USA would shortly bomb Syria. Asked about this by a Fox News reporter, the president contradicted his vice president, emphasizing that he, the president, hadn’t decided yet, adding, “You do know who I am, right?”
“Yes, Mr. President,” stuttered the Fox White House correspondent, “you’re the only true president.”
“And don’t you forget it,” said President Obama, firmly.
As he called on another reporter’s question, the CNN correspondent stifled a giggle and elbowed her neighbor.
“What?” asked the elbow-recipient.
“Did you hear how stupid that guy is?”
“What do you mean?”
“He said that Obama’s the only true president. But he didn’t say that only Obama is the only true president. That Fox News moron must think that maybe someone else is the only true president too!”
“Umm… he did say ‘only’ – isn’t one enough?”
There was an awkward pause.
“Yes… if he’d said only Obama is the true president, that would make sense. But he said that Obama is the only true president.”
“Isn’t that the same thing?”
“I say no, because he’s a moron. And did you hear that just before, he said something about Biden’s being in the Oval Office? Who’s office is that? The President’s! So, that rube thinks that Biden is also the only true president.”
“That doesn’t make any sense. Obama and Biden are two different men; that guy has seen both, as we all have, and surely he doesn’t think that they’re one and the same President. Biden’s not a president at all, but only a vice president, so he can’t be the same president as anyone.”
“No, that’s not what I mean. I mean, that Fox idiot thinks that both Biden and Obama enjoy the status of only-true-president.”
“I’m not sure why you think that…”
“He’s a fool! If he knew that Obama was president and no one else was, he would’ve said that only Obama is only-true-president.”
“I think you may have misunderstood…”
“Shhhhh,” spat the Secret Service man.
For those with longer attention spans, you can work through the point of this, which is in part 2 of this lecture. (You’ll want to start at part 1, though, if you’ve never had a college course in logic.) Or you can try this more direct story.
Dale,
“Christian monotheism”: I like that a lot. Thanks for the help!
I’m a native Texan. Born and raised in North Dallas.
The topic, we can say, is just: Christian monotheism, or the Christian God and how Jesus relates to him.
Blog on.
Hi Dale,
Thanks for taking a look at the blog. And I’m glad you liked the post on “Am I a Unitarian.” As I explained in the introduction to the post, the bit was originally something I wrote to a Christian friend of mine who is a trinitarian. It summarizes positively what I see the Scriptures saying about the identity of Jesus vis-a-vis God, while touching some on my journey to get there.
By the way, for the life of me I cannot come up with a good, concise term to describe this issue or topic. We’re not talking about the issue of the trinity precisely, nor unitarianism precisely. The best I can come up with is “the numerical identity of God,” but that doesn’t satisfy me either. I suppose simply “the identity of God” is sufficient. Do you see the problem I’m having? In other words, what is a good “heading” to describe everything we are discussing when we either oppose or support the trinitarian conception of God, and with that the various conceptions of Jesus people propose? On my blog, I categorized this “talk” as “God as One” talk. It was in trying to create a category for this “talk” that I realized the problem.
I appreciate your advice regarding comments. I just made sure that every post allows trackbacks and pingbacks (“Am I a Unitarian” had that disabled for some reason), but I think for now I’ll just stick with that. Frankly, I don’t trust myself to limit the time I spend on the blog if I’m allowing comments. So I want to, but it is probably better that I don’t, at least at this point. I will focus on putting up new posts and see how that goes. But, again, I appreciate your advice, and I may open the thing up in the future.
You asked where I am at: it’s Texas actually.
Blessings,
Michael
Dale,
I am a fellow unitarian Christian. I recently started my own blog (http://mindingthetruth.com/) where I’ve referenced you in a couple posts (one devoted entirely to your interview with Dan Gill). So I wanted to introduce myself. And I’m commenting on this post specifically because I have really appreciated the point you make here and in your previous lecture that you reference. I have viewed the lecture in its entirety. I think your analysis is a wonderful example of fruitfully applying formal logic to the unitarian/trinitarian debate. As I have time, I will try to join the conversation here at trinities.
Blessings,
Michael
Michael, the blog looks great. I liked this post, where you describe your own beliefs: http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/11/07/am-i-a-unitarian/
I was going to commment, but it seems they’re closed.
My blog advice is: leave ’em open forever, keep posts short, post at least once a week, and link a lot.
Whereabouts in the country are you? Just curious.
God bless,
Dale
Hi Randy
I have no problem with certain things being labelled as ‘mysteries’
God is certainly a ‘mystery’!
I absolutely reject a man -made concept such as the Trinity being declared a mystery !
Santa Claus is likewise not a mystery!
Keep up your search for truth!
Blessings
John
Since coming across Gill and Buzzard’s Youtube clips and videos, your interview with Gill, this web page, my eyes have been opened to things I’ve, in the past, dismissed as being beyond human comprehension. I must admit, although, that the analytical portion of my brain did not want Trinitarianism to be left as “just one of the many mysteries of God”. I will be researching this subject much more thoroughly thanks to you guys! God Bless
Comments are closed.