3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

As far as the Trimurti goes, I think it differs in the whole image thing. Which is why Christians were always encouraged to see God as an un-imaged concept.(One would never know it by all of the statues of Jesus, (a white Jesus at that!) but this is one reason Protestants dont trust Catholics. The Orthodox try and get around it all through the use of icons, which they claim are "windows to heaven"...but I never really understood it all. I know that for me personally, it helps when I pray to not have any physical image in my mind as to the God I believe I am talking with...though jar would likely argue that by giving God attributes(friendly to Phat, loving, quick to forgive, etc etc...)I have essentially created Him in my own mind. I disagree, but can see the point.

quote:

---

As far as the Trimurti goes, I think it differs in the whole image thing.

---

But that image is as good a representation as you can get of what Potter is saying - diversity and unity together.The usual Christian view downplays diversity, which is contrary to Potter’s ideas - Potter places diversity on the same level as unity. And a lack of images does nothing to counter that.

Christians have never been able to clearly explain the concept of the Trinity, but the idea of God being unified(Monotheistic) yet also diversified(Father and Son) cant really be explained any better...dont you think?

quote:

---

Christians have never been able to clearly explain the concept of the Trinity, but the idea of God being unified(Monotheistic) yet also diversified(Father and Son) cant really be explained any better...dont you think?

---

I think that doubling down on the contradiction makes a dubious concept even worse.

OK, Paul fair enough.Lets start out by asking what the specific contradiction is?

The contradiction should be obvious. You can’t have something that is completely separate and completely unified. Taking it to that level as Potter does is such an obvious contradiction I can’t take it seriously.

Why not? One obvious example that comes to mind is the family unit. Ideally complete and unified. Also fully separate. I see no contradiction here.

quote:

---

Why not?

---

Because they are opposites. It’s like being absolutely identical and completely different.

quote:

---

One obvious example that comes to mind is the family unit

---

Which is neither completely separate nor completely unified. I’m not talking about mere aspects of both, but of totality. The family unit is not a hive-mind with a single will, in a single body and never will be.And for any way in which they are unified they are not separate. Those are opposites.

PaulK---regarding our rabbit trail into the sanity (or insanity) of Potters third circle, Trinitarianism, lets continue this at an older topic where the Trinity was more fully covered:
Message 397We can continue our discussion of Potters book specifically in this topic.Here is Potters Table Of Contents:
The First Circle--(Monism)

The New Age Movement

Experiencing Oneness

The Cycle Of Life

Meditation and Language

The Nothing of Zen

​

The Second Circle--Dualism
(I notice that Potter does not elaborate too much on dualism. For the record, I wouldn't either! )

​

The Third Circle--Trinitarianism

The Problem of Opposites

Humpty Dumpty

Falling in Love on a Bridge

Defying Gravity

Change,Time, and Eternity

Me and We

You Gotta Serve Somebody

Look,Daddy,Look!

​

A Black Hole in the Heart

The Solution

To Put it Simply

​

45 Questions

Themes for discussion
with responses by Ellis Potter
******************************
Overall, I think this was a useful book for me. Critics may say that it only reinforced my World View, and I can only answer by saying yes, yes it did.

​

If anyone has any questions regarding any of the chapters in the book or any of Potters 45 questions, which I can also list in a few posts, we can go there. Otherwise, thanks for participating and perhaps some of you can start your own Book Nook topic and discuss your favorite reads this summer.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

It’s hard to ask anything about a book I haven’t read.And if you don’t want to talk about it more I think this topic is a bit of a waste.

Oh I'll talk....trust me on that! I find it hard to shut up! I just wanted our specific Third Circle Trinity argument to be elsewhere so as not to detract from the book.In the 45 Questions Chapter, Potter has some good ones. Care to hear them?

If you think it would be worthwhile to look at them, why not? This is the thread for discussing the book.

1) Do you truly believe it's possible to simplify so vast and complex a subject as the cosmos into one of your theoretical circles?2)What is the Monist's view of spiritual evolution?3)How do people of monistic religions see marriage?4) How do people of monistic religions explain increases or changes in the human population?5)You suggested that there is no genuine right and wrong in Monism. Doesn't the idea of karma,however, implicitly recognize the concepts of right and wrong, and therefore a general moral structure?
**********************************************
One thing that I respect about Potter is that he never cancels out the beliefs of the first circle simply because he is now a Christian. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I may as well share the questions which I found to be most helpful and revealing to me personally. 1) Do you truly believe it's possible to simplify so vast and complex a subject as the cosmos into one of your theoretical circles?
No, it's not. The three circles are grossly reductionistic symbol sets. I hope they will be useful, but they are not adequate. Objective truth in the form of a symbol is not sufficient to express the Truth. Truth is also subjective,which means that explanations involving symbols must be combined with your personal subjective experience to produce reality. You cannot merely think about Jesus and be a Christian any more than you can think about matrimony and have a marriage. The reality of being married is much larger than any kind of symbol.Christians sometimes adopt a defensive posture to the good they see in non-Christians. An example would be a statement like: Well, it was nice of those atheists to contribute to a good cause,but--and the but may be followed by--they don't have Jesus, or they are going to hell in the end, or some other statement that has the effect of discounting the goodness of another human being. Have you witnessed this attitude toward non-Christian acts of goodness, and what thoughts do you have about it?
I have seen that attitude, but less recently than in previous years,I'm glad to say. I think it's out of place in the kingdom of God not to recognize goodness when we see it, and not to believe that all human beings have eternity in their hearts. In a fundamental sense, it's not possible to please God without faith, but I think it's possible to express His image in a variety of ways,in some cases more accurately by the non-Christian than by the Christian. But those expressions of goodness,if not contextualized and completed by Jesus Christ, are not integrated. They are not held together. They are bits and snatches and incomplete. The goodness of the Christian, even if in some cases less than that of the non-Christian, is completed in Christ. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

They're the best in the book?It's a continuing source of puzzlement to me how you can read that totally unsubstantiated, almost meaningless tripe that's simply made up on the spot and be impressed by it.