Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The Trinity

Rublev Trinity
This icon by Andrei Rublev was painted in the fifteen century. It depicts the three angels who came to visit Abraham at the Oak of Mamre. But it is also taken to be a representation of the Trinity. All the figures wear blue robes, but the figure on the left is clad in a concealing robe, representing God the Father who is hidden from sight, that in the centre is also clad in brown with a gold strip, representing earthly things and kingship, whilst that on the right is also clad in green, which in the Orthodox tradition corresponds to the Holy Spirit.

This has a bearing on a discussion I had last week with a Dominican. We started by talking about ecumenism and that went on to the notorious "Filioque clause" which was supposedly the cause of the split between the Western Latin Rite Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches which owe their allegiance to Constantinople or Moscow. Who is right? Does it matter anyway?

I have always pictured the Trinity as a dynamic movement between the Three Persons - something like the formula for benzene which came to the nineteenth century scientist Kekulé when he sank into a trance-like state whilst staring into a fire. This is the triangular relationship implicit in the Filioque, rather than a linear relationship expressed in the Orthodox formulation of the doctrine.

Rublev, working in the Orthodox tradition, presents the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity as dynamic. That is not what one would expect.

The fact that God is in the world and makes his presence manifest, above all in the Blessed Sacrament, tells us immediately that there are at least two divine Persons, and that implies automatically the existence of a third, the Holy Spirit. It cannot be otherwise.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer