About the Trinity and being Christian

[Ziggy Stardust]

If God created H. Ghost and Son out of himself then they would logically be 'of the same substance' (as in the Nicene Creed).

But I reckon there isn't a dogma that has created so much dispute as that of the Trinity, ever since it was first formulated.

Well, there's also the view that all of creation is made out of God himself, which would propel the concept of trinity into something far more vast.

And I could imagine the explanation that a child exists out of the building blocks of the parents, the child and the parents are parts of the same origin. In Jesus' case however I feel that the mother's role gets seriously short changed.

 

[Masada]

Well, there's also the view that all of creation is made out of God himself, which would propel the concept of trinity into something far more vast.

That's not the case. The Nicene Creed is clear that God made the world but he begat the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And I could imagine the explanation that a child exists out of the building blocks of the parents, the child and the parents are parts of the same origin. In Jesus' case however I feel that the mother's role gets seriously short changed.

I'm not sure one should apply genetic theory to discussing the birth of Jesus.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's not the case. The Nicene Creed is clear that God made the world but he begat the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I was thinking beyond the NC. Irrelevantly mumbling about stuff.

I'm not sure one should apply genetic theory to discussing the birth of Jesus.

Good. Being sure is highly overrated

 

[Masada]

I was thinking beyond the NC. Irrelevantly mumbling about stuff.

I haven't heard of a view that has the world being created out of God.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

depends on what "christianity" your looking at. It is erroneous to treat christianity (or islam) as monolithic entities. I would think it self evident that the protestant heresy is not the same thing as the Catholic or Orthodox Christian faiths, and personally I would completely understand your view if you spent 23 years studying protestantism

Well I was baptized Episcopal, and raised Baptist. I only discovered Catholicism - the real Catholicism, not the twisted representation my anti-papal mother gave me - and the Eastern Rites in the last five or so years. Incidentally, the most intense "schooling" I got in Catholicism was that accompanying my Art History Minor (I focused on late Renaissance/Mannerism and Baroque). Even bothered to read St. Augustine at one point. As I said, the more I learned, the less sense it all made. Whereas, on the other hand, I literally knew nothing about Islam until college, and have studied it a lot since then, research works the way it's "supposed" to: more information and points of view leads to greater understanding of the faith. I actually liked Islam enough to convert, if it didn't mean giving up alcohol and pork. And so instead I became delightfully deist, and nominally Christian, because that is my culture's understanding of God and his message, and I think one should adopt one's culture's view of God, for whichever culture one chooses. So if I moved to Egypt it might be worth my trouble.

 

[Masada]

I actually liked Islam enough to convert, if it didn't mean giving up alcohol and pork.

Better Muhammad than the Pope.

(Liever Turks dan Paaps/Rather Turkish than Pope doesn't work that great in English).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Better Muhammad than the Pope.

I don't follow.

 

[Masada]

Dutch Revolt thing: Liever Turks dan Paaps/Rather Turkish than Pope.

 

[Farm Boy]

depends on what "christianity" your looking at. It is erroneous to treat christianity (or islam) as monolithic entities. I would think it self evident that the protestant heresy is not the same thing as the Catholic or Orthodox Christian faiths, and personally I would completely understand your view if you spent 23 years studying protestantism

Oh this old thing.

 

[holy king]

i never understood what's there not to "get" about that trinity thing. there's three aspects of god. naturally he is all three aspects of his at the same time.

a little bit of abstract thought should be enough to understand this, no need for bad analogies, so anyway, here's mine.

i am an atrocious singer, a lousy french speaker and an undetermined window cleaner.
i am all of those things at the same time. pretty easy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have visions of a window cleaner singing "Nein, je ne regret a thing" off-key.

 

[_random_]

I exist in three states. I'm a son, grandson and husband. Yet at the end of the day: I'm still me!

Still seems a tad modalist. You're talking about one person relating to different people in different ways. You may act as a grandson or a husband, but these aspects of you can't really relate to each other, and you're more than capable of ceasing to act out a particular aspect.

If God created H. Ghost and Son out of himself then they would logically be 'of the same substance' (as in the Nicene Creed).

Except the Son and the Holy Ghost aren't "created" as such. The Son is begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds, but this is a matter of eternal relationship, not creation.

 

[LucyDuke]

i never understood what's there not to "get" about that trinity thing. there's three aspects of god. naturally he is all three aspects of his at the same time.

a little bit of abstract thought should be enough to understand this, no need for bad analogies, so anyway, here's mine.

i am an atrocious singer, a lousy french speaker and an undetermined window cleaner.
i am all of those things at the same time. pretty easy.

But why's it so freaking important?

 

[Farm Boy]

It's the core of the religion. That the God which created also became flesh as one of us and is alive directly through continuing spiritual influence on his/her/its creations. All three are different, and all are God. You can boil this down into any number of petty differences in theology if you want to make it more specific or draw specific analogies, but that is the high level view of what Christianity is.

 

[Masada]

Still seems a tad modalist. You're talking about one person relating to different people in different ways. You may act as a grandson or a husband, but these aspects of you can't really relate to each other, and you're more than capable of ceasing to act out a particular aspect.

Granted, but it was a better explanation than water/ice/steam.

 

[bhsup]

but that is the high level view of what Christianity is.

Not to nontrinitarians, it isn't. And that's a problem because we're viewed as non-Christians by a lot of people. Thing is... this whole trinity thing isn't even in the Bible. It's made up after the fact by the ancient equivalent of a 'good ol' boys' network. It was just another tool used to impose their views on the rest of the Christian world and make themselves supreme. I guess it was a power grab at the start more than anything.

 

[del62]

I thought the trinity was implied from the bible, from what I have been told, Genesis uses the plural in Hebrew, something like let us, then in John's gospel Jesus is described as the word, and the word is God, but he also has God the father, so that is two persons, both of whom are God, but is also said that there is one God, so we then have the Mathhew verse about in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spiirit, why would the Spirit be used here if it were not on the same level.

So we have 3 and we have 1, which is implied from the Bible, I think the Church would say we cant understand it but gives anologies.

 

[civ_king]

We've long ago established that civ_king is an awful Christian apologist. So we ought not to worry all that much if he can't explain the Trinity.

I totally agree he is a terrible apologist, it may have to do with the fact he doesn't try.

 

[Jehoshua]

So Cheezy, I'm hearing your understanding of Catholicism for the most part comes through an art history course, and your personal interpretation of St Augustine... Thats not quite a substantial study of the Catholic Religion, Im afraid Augustine /= The Catholic Faith.

Anyways as to Islam: (spoilered as an aside).

Spoiler :

In my opinion it has the same fundamental flaw as protestantism, textual hyper-literalism. Perhaps even to a greater degree since the Quran is held as an article of faith to be free from all error and to literally have been dictated to Muhammad by God. This becomes problematic when you have such idiosyncracies such as a conflicting number of "days of creation". (Sura's 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days) and conflicting statements about the forgivability of shirk (Shirk is considered the worst of all sins, but the author of the Qur'an seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin. problematic no?).

In short if we accept the claim that the Quran was dictated directly by God, then God must be a liar or an idiot since these contradictions exists. It is simply inconceivable that an omniscient God (as monotheism in general accepts) could craft a book with such contradictions in it as I mentioned above (there are many more) while simultaneously declaring itself to be free from error.

-

Oh and just to briefly comment on the topic of the thread. I think what needs to be understood is that the Doctrine of the Trinity is considered a revealed mystery of the faith, that is, it's not something expected to be comprehensible within a rational descriptive framework. What the doctrine does reveal, is a relationship between the three persons (distinct but not separate) of the trinity that assists in understanding and explaining aspects of Gods nature, such as his love for his creation, and the possibility for an incarnate Christ. But fundamentally the description of this relationship (the trinity) is an imperfect analogy since it is an attempt to describe that which is incomprehensible, namely God.

Indeed theres a story about St Augustine and a small boy attempting to ladle the sea into a small pool that gets the point across aptly. One can sooner ladle the sea into a pool dug into the sand of a beach than fully understand the mystery of the trinity within the limits of the human mind. (or the nature of God "as he is" in general I'd add)

 

[timtofly]

Jesus is only begotton, so as to prove that humans can also be begotton. Most would point out: Why did he not just appear? But chose to be born as a human.

The reason that Christianity is inconsistent, is the fact it was not supposed to effect culture. All religions are grounded in culture. If Christianity is consistent, it means that it is grounded in culture. Religions come and go with culture.

As pointed out, we did not need the NC to prioritize the Trinity. One can say that it is important to them, and that is fine. One cannot turn around and force every single christian to accept that it is important to them.

I am not even saying it is wrong to form large fellowships of believers and come up with dogmas and creeds. What is wrong is forcing people to all adhere to the same dogmas and creeds.

There are a few key points that a christian adhere's to. Outside of them it is culture that sort of dictates how daily life is carried out. The NC was just putting to paper what was already in the Bible, and adding other things to it. It is true that there is a God. It is true that Jesus was begotten. It is true that the Holy Spirit was given to those called by God who accepted that call. Making it a dogma sorta sidestepped the issue that there are some who are not called. There are some who are called, but do not accept that call. Thus it becomes a cultural changer, not something personal.