Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, my position is very simple.
Given that:
(1). many people who hold a particular religious or spiritual pov do so emphatically and with conviction, and
(2). that spirituality per se is difficult to "put into a box" due to the nature of the beast (I mean, anybody who "understands God" has a god that is far too small,
Hence, who am I to say th ...[text shortened]... hallenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!
"...most Christians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real challenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!"
This might be pertinent:
"The existence of theological mysteries is a doctrine of Catholic faith defined by the Vatican Council, which declares: "If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called (vera et proprie dicta mysteria), but that
through reason rightly developed (per rationem rite excultam) all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema" (Sess. III, Canons, 4. De fide et Ratione, 1). This teaching is clearly explained in Scripture. The principal proof text, which was cited in part by the Vatican Council, is 1 Corinthians 2. Shorter passages are especially Ephesians 3:4-9; Colossians 1:26-27; Matthew 11:25-27; John 1:17-18. These texts speak of a mystery of God, which only infinite wisdom can understand, namely, the designs of Divine Providence and the inner life of the Godhead (see also Wisdom 9:16-17; Romans 11:33-36)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm
The relevance is that, using your example, the doctrine of the Trinity (and its denial) cannot
and should not be based on reason "rightly developed." So any rational analysis of truth that is only knowable by divine revelation is to be avoided. So one's beliefs about the trinity are to be one's own and are not dependent on rational analysis, including the rational arguments between sides.
Now when you ask " ...is this really so critically important?" You ask a key question, and the above quote on mystery addresses a deeper issue than the Trinity. It applies to the Trinity
as a mystery, but that is because it applies to mystery itself, one example being the trinity. So the dualism invoked is between commitment to "reason rightly developed" for knowledge, and rejection, even condemnation of "reason rightly developed" in the resolution of mysteries.
This dualism, between reason versus (scriptural) revelation for the resolution of mysteries, puts people on both sides of the trinity dispute on thin ice to the extent that they rely on reason in their argument. It could even be said that
arguing about the trinity is anathema -- even reasoning upon scripture would be anathema.
So the dualism that underlies your example, IMO, is between rational thought and argument being an acceptable means of approaching mysteries like the trinity, and its being unacceptable. It applies to both sides. Both should stand down. The dualism that underlies
that is the dichotomy between things that are true that we can come to know by rational means, and those we can come to know, but not by rational means.
To be complete, the quote I cite above goes on to rely on non-Biblical sources for the full support of the anathema claim. The JWs; at least, and most non-RCC folks, would question them.