Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

Longfellow said:
It really is like boxing with shadows. What I've been arguing and whining about is only shadows, and boxing away at them will never get rid of them as long whatever is blocking the light is there.

(later) But what is casting the shadow?

A shadow of something inside of people ...? Attachments?
Click to expand...
I know this is from a few days ago but.... what are you talking about here? 🤔 🧐
 
Longfellow said:
People use the absence of the word "Trinity" in the Bible as an argument against calling what the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit "the Trinity." Is the absence of the word "monotheism" an argument against calling what the Bible sayx about God "monotheism"?
Click to expand...
Not really seeing your point. We could go ahead and do without the word monotheism, and just rely on "The Lord our God is One"
If you do without the word trinity... what happens?
The concept of the trinity requires a lot of verbal gymnastics to explain why it is NOT a contradiction of the earlier scriptures that say God is One.
 
Longfellow said:
There's nothing we have to do or think to have that freedom, we already have it, He already broke our chains and cleared the way, and a person doesn't need to know anything in words about who He is or what He did, to enter it.
Click to expand...

Yahweh kid said:
Do you believe that? even though you cannot explain it? If you do then you will be Saved, if you don't you will not be Saved. That is what the Scriptures tell us.
Click to expand...

Question for you both - these remarks seem to leave out repentance or obedience. Are they not important to salvation in your understanding of it?
 
TheLightWithin said:
Question for you both - these remarks seem to leave out repentance or obedience. Are they not important to salvation in your understanding of it?
Click to expand...
What we owe to God when we sin is repentance, and we are forgiven as soon as we repent. Jesus freed us from slavery to the sinful side of our nature, for us to be able to enter the kingdom, but the way that happens is by a person seeing God in Jesus, and being moved by that to want to serve and obey Him.

I don't know what "saved" or "salvation" mean in the Bible, but whatever they mean, they come along with entering the kingdom.
 
Last edited:
TheLightWithin said:
I know this is from a few days ago but.... what are you talking about here? 🤔 🧐
Click to expand...
I was arguing against the idea that Jesus took the punishment that we deserve for our sins, because of the harmfulness that I see in that way of thinking, but now I think it's the other way around. It isn't the belief that's causing the harmful attitudes, it's the harmful attitudes that attract people to the belief. Then again, the belief helps to perpetuate the attitudes, so it goes both ways.
 
Longfellow said:
My point was that when people use a word that is not in the Bible for what the Bible says about God, and at the same time object to other people using a word that is not in the Bible for what it says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that’s a double standard.
Click to expand...
Is it? I don't think you're understanding the objection.
Think about it this way:
Everyone from theologians to pulpit preachers to Sunday school teachers to door to door evangelists are putting biblical and or catechism ideas into their own words, all the time, by the minute.
So yes indeed, you're going to wind up with all sorts of words that aren't in the original.
But what then happens is this --
What you do have to do, if i understand correctly is, IF you have a strong essential dogma (like the Trinity) based on something not explicitly stated in scripture--but which you say is absolutely positively essential to the faith -- you have to use-- what is the phrase sometimes used? oh yes, "Good and necessary reasons" to draw the conclusions you do from scriptural sources. Yes, what you have to do is be completely able to explain every step of the reasoning if you develop (or defend) a complex idea that is not outright stated.
I mean it makes sense, right? If you are relying on the authority of the bible for all your beliefs, BUT you state something that you say is from the Bible but is not directly in the bible -- explaining the reasoning for your deduction intricately is important, right? And explaining it again to each new person who asks - should not be hard, because you know it by heart.

Put another way-- given that people often complain of "unbiblical" teaching by this person or that person, or this denomination or that denomination -
It means if you have an idea like the trinity, which seems counterintuitive, not at all self evident, and at least plausibly in tension with the idea of God Is One--
Then, defending that reasoning -- even if it is over and over again -- is called for. Because the questions will come up, over and over again.
I don't see why it bothers anybody to hear the questions/challenges about the trinity and have to explain.
I don't see why anybody -- even if you're fully invested in the idea of the trinity and it makes sense to you, in your own brain -- I don't see why you wouldn't be completely understanding of the fact that people point out ways in which it does not make self evident sense. And find it not very burdensome to repeat the case for the idea whenever called upon.
 
Thomas said:
If one reads texts the way the Ancients read texts, one would accept that it's not necessary for something to be stated explicitly to be authentic or valid. They just didn't read texts that way, that evolved later, which is why the idea of Biblical inerrancy is relatively recent.

It was a given that texts were not self-evident or self-explanatory ...
Click to expand...
See my post #169 just above
 
TheLightWithin said:
Question for you both - these remarks seem to leave out repentance or obedience. Are they not important to salvation in your understanding of it?
Click to expand...
If we do not repent of our sins we are not true followers of Christ. However, repentance/obedience does not make you a follower of Christ. So salvation is not based on repentance or obedience alone, sorry.
 
Yahweh kid said:
If we do not repent of our sins we are not true followers of Christ. However, repentance/obedience does not make you a follower of Christ. So salvation is not based on repentance or obedience alone, sorry.
Click to expand...
What's the "sorry" for ?
Not sure of your intention but it has a way of sounding sarcastic.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Is it? I don't think you're understanding the objection.
Think about it this way:
Everyone from theologians to pulpit preachers to Sunday school teachers to door to door evangelists are putting biblical and or catechism ideas into their own words, all the time, by the minute.
Click to expand...
Everyone from theologians to pulpit preachers to Sunday school teachers to door to door evangelists ... to everyone arguing against them about what the Bible says ... are putting biblical ideas into their own words, and "the Trinity" and "monotheism" are two examples of that.

I was confused, myself, about what my point was. There are some slogans, formulas, and diagrams that people are calling "the Trinity." Those slogans, formulas, and diagrams might be false, but the fact that a label that people put on them is not in the Bible has nothing to do with whether they are true or not. For example, what if I define "the Trinity" as whatever the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Does the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible make what the Bible says about them false?
 
TheLightWithin said:
Not really seeing your point. We could go ahead and do without the word monotheism, and just rely on "The Lord our God is One"
If you do without the word trinity... what happens?
The concept of the trinity requires a lot of verbal gymnastics to explain why it is NOT a contradiction of the earlier scriptures that say God is One.
Click to expand...
I have been contemplating the “project”. The founders of Abrahmic faith tradition lacked resources and went deep to find a means to survive and if possible even prosper. Resources and means to use them had to be Created, so their minds found an Unknown Source of creation. The unknown-ness of the Source was boundless and wall-less, as if nothing. Out of nothing comes something and some things. Things they needed. Gifts. The one boundless “God” was a Father Creator. His progeny was the resources they were gifted with. Survival was made possible, even likely, as a matter of faith.
But once survival needs were met and the gifts began being taken for granted, our faith’s forefathers sensed a need for something to motivate their people to become active stewards of creation, even co-creators of ongoing creation. The Father God flowed into each person and guided and motivated them to make a better life together, to no longer sit on a lead. The Holy Spirit aspect of the one God was discovered. Finally there came a time when increased cooperation was needed if the people of the One God were to continue to do well and have wellbeing. The Son of the Father highlighted our potential to love one another. Creation was no longer just a business, a matter of doing, but now the “project” was to harmonize creation via love.
 
otherbrother said:
I have been contemplating the “project”. The founders of Abrahmic faith tradition lacked resources and went deep to find a means to survive and if possible even prosper. Resources and means to use them had to be Created, so their minds found an Unknown Source of creation. The unknown-ness of the Source was boundless and wall-less, as if nothing. Out of nothing comes something and some things. Things they needed. Gifts. The one boundless “God” was a Father Creator. His progeny was the resources they were gifted with. Survival was made possible, even likely, as a matter of faith.
But once survival needs were met and the gifts began being taken for granted, our faith’s forefathers sensed a need for something to motivate their people to become active stewards of creation, even co-creators of ongoing creation. The Father God flowed into each person and guided and motivated them to make a better life together, to no longer sit on a lead. The Holy Spirit aspect of the one God was discovered. Finally there came a time when increased cooperation was needed if the people of the One God were to continue to do well and have wellbeing. The Son of the Father highlighted our potential to love one another. Creation was no longer just a business, a matter of doing, but now the “project” was to harmonize creation via love.
Click to expand...
Is this what you think the Bible says? Or is it your own thoughts about where the ideas came from for Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Are you thinking that there actually is an Unknown Source, and the founders found it, or just how think that they imagined it? Are you saying that the Father flowed into each person because the forefathers sensed a need for, it and not because He Himself saw a need for it? The initiative came from the forefathers, and not God?
 
Last edited:
TheLightWithin said:
Why not? Eye for an eye, life for life...
Click to expand...
That would be a version of prescribed justice in the OT, to be implimented in this
worldly life.
It says nothing about the possible scenarios in a life hereafter.

One important difference between belief and disbelief, is in the concept that physical
death is not the end of our spiritual existence.

G-d knows best about what happens to everybody after their death. The idea that G-d
somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists, who claim that physical
death is final.
 
Longfellow said:
Is this what you think the Bible says? Or is it your own thoughts about where the ideas came from for Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Are you thinking that there actually is an Unknown Source, and the founders found it, or just how think that they imagined it? Are you saying that the Father flowed into each person because the forefathers sensed a need for, it and not because He Himself saw a need for it? The initiative came from the forefathers, and not God?
Click to expand...
All religion is in my opinion anthropological and psychological, but that does not mean there is no metaphysical referent behind the human evolution of thought and experience and ways of being. At best, any religion is figuratively true because it approximates a true pattern of God working through us and with us. The provider/creator Father god is conceptualized when humans are at or near a stage of victim-like dependency. Then the other two main “faces” of God, Holy Guiding Spirit through us, and God with us (and even in ways, AS us—Christlike behaviors and character) come later (if we are fortunate enough to develop). As we climb up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, beyond survival, being saved or provided for becomes less the focus than growing into the fullness of a beautifully created being. Spiritual empowerment moves from being adept “survivors” (equipped with adequate ego defenses and formula-like coping strategies) to “thrivers” who bask in the fullness of spirituality simply because it is a better way of being. God grows us.
But much of our concepts of God are stuck back in the victim/dependency stage instead of independent (correlating with survivor stage) and then interdependent stages of human behavior. Of course there are plenty who want us to stay barefoot and pregnant so they can benefit from their position of authority and power because of it. Growth and potential is not a high priority for authoritarian forms of religion.
 
otherbrother said:
All religion is in my opinion anthropological and psychological, but that does not mean there is no metaphysical referent behind the human evolution of thought and experience and ways of being. At best, any religion is figuratively true because it approximates a true pattern of God working through us and with us. The provider/creator Father god is conceptualized when humans are at or near a stage of victim-like dependency. Then the other two main “faces” of God, Holy Guiding Spirit through us, and God with us (and even in ways, AS us—Christlike behaviors and character) come later (if we are fortunate enough to develop). As we climb up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, beyond survival, being saved or provided for becomes less the focus than growing into the fullness of a beautifully created being. Spiritual empowerment moves from being adept “survivors” (equipped with adequate ego defenses and formula-like coping strategies) to “thrivers” who bask in the fullness of spirituality simply because it is a better way of being. God grows us.
But much of our concepts of God are stuck back in the victim/dependency stage instead of independent (correlating with survivor stage) and then interdependent stages of human behavior. Of course there are plenty who want us to stay barefoot and pregnant so they can benefit from their position of authority and power because of it. Growth and potential is not a high priority for authoritarian forms of religion.
Click to expand...
Longfellow, you asked this; “Are you thinking that there actually is an Unknown Source, and the founders found it, or just how think that they imagined it?”
I do believe there is an Unknown Source they found, but specific ways of conceptualizing the Source and ways of utilizing the Source was dependent on their stage of development and their life situation. God is both interpreted and used differently according to developmental stage and life situation.
I have wondered if the Garden of Eden story was allegorical. If groups of humans once had sufficient food (even without advanced agricultural knowledge), they could focus spiritually on relationships, and priestesses would be the best spiritual leaders. But if drought or other conditions exceeded their ability to provide food, then those people would have to become nomadic to search for food and survive, so the women would be inclined to pass the “fruit” of spiritual leadership over to the male hunters and hikers. The conditions may have shifted back to survival needs and the need for a provider God instead of a relationship God. That would explain why the hunter son was favored by Adam over the farmer son. And the emphasis of religion would have shifted to the business of creating resources that are needed. The Father God lorded over the potential motherlike relationship versions of the Source. And a whole patriarchal civilization to boot. But in time, as we moved past mere surviving, other higher needs required a different face of God. The trinity may be a way of saying the different faces are but aspects of the Unknown Source. Like a house appearing different when viewed from different angles.
Will “Adam” ever pass the “fruit” back to “Eve?” And civilization once again be governed by matriarchs? Or will we have become androgynous enough that men and women share the fruit of spirituality that transcends man/woman psychology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top