Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Trinity/Messiah and Referential Aberration
Message-ID: <185@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 22:40:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.185
Posted: Tue Aug 20 22:40:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:53:45 EDT
References: <978@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1293@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Distribution: net
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 17
Summary: 


Charley Wingate:
>	Discussion of a religious idea such as the Trinity leads
> quite quickly into a dark valley.  Allegedly, what we are talking
> about is an existence which, if it exists, resists direct observation.
> It is further alleged that the true object is unknowable (i.e., that
> it is impossible to mentally represent it correctly).  Therefore,
> there is an important sense in which the doctrine is symbolic of existence
> rather than descriptive.

This makes perfect sense to me.  What I do find confusing,
however, is that some would say that the decision to adopt this
one particular symbolic visualization of God, rather than another,
would make the difference between an afterlife of constant bliss,
versus one of eternal torture.

	Frank Silbermann