Do people really believe in something as incomprehensible as the Trinity?

[BurtWorm]

Or do they just *believe* they believe?

[Dr.Phool]

1. Hell, they believe some REALLY dumb things.

[frankly_fedup2]

2. There are people that have that belief and in a way I envy them. I have

never been able to find that kind of faith in myself. I recently lost my father and have been tortured wondering if there is an afterlife, is he in a better place, is he okay. It's drove me almost mad to a certain extent.

Why do I envy them? They seem to have a peace of mind I have never been able to find in myself.

I mean if there is a God, the Creator of us all, what kind of God would put us on this Earth, let us live our lives with the people we grow to love dearly, yet when we die, there is nothing? There is no seeing each other again or being with that loved one? I try but I cannot get that faith in my head. It just see how religion has caused wars since the beginning of time. Nothing good comes from it that I can think of.

My mother in law told me the Holy Ghost was left here on earth after Jesus ascended into Heaven to be there for anyone who needed him. The father, the son, and the Holy Ghost is suppose to be one in the same. Is it true . . . maybe we will find out when we die.

[cyborg_jim]

4. A lot of them don't

Why do I envy them? They seem to have a peace of mind I have never been able to find in myself.

There is a difference between having peace of mind and presenting such to the world.

You do not need to meet your father again - what he was he has imparted to you in one way or another. The best thing to do to my mind is to try to pass the best of what our ancestors were to the next generation. In the end that's all we have.

[chaplainM]

5. My condolences

First of all, let me extend my condolences to you on the loss of your father.

Don't envy people who believe (or claim to believe) such idiocy. To believe in something for which there isn't a shred of evidence is bad enough. Believing in a notion like the trinity, that is self-contradictory on its very face, should inspire pity, not envy.

[MissWaverly]

8. hey, about believing such idiocy

how many people still see Bush as a compassionate leader and a good president.

:-)

[BurtWorm]

7. My dad was depressed for a lot of his life, and in his last years he was pre-leukemic

and finally, in the last couple of months, all-out leukemic. I'm somewhat comforted thinking death marked an end of his suffering once and for all. I'm sorry, sometimes, that he didn't get to know his granddaughter and she didn't get to know him, and that he missed some good times after his death. But I feel somewhat comforted that he's beyond pain and suffering now. And I'm comforted by the thought that that's what death will mean for me.

[Evoman]

22. Hey, I haven't heard from you in awhile...how are you doing?

I guess not so good, by your post.

[whistle]

3. Seems it came from pagan and very early religions

<snip>
The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘ a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1

Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and the ‘King of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures’ (316).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day’ (16).
<MORE>

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm


While this subject has stimulating interest, there is also the issue as to whether or not the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. Here is a piece which argues that the country was not:

<snip>
The Distinctly Non-Christian Origins of the
United States of America

There are those who would have us believe that the United States of America was founded on Christian ideals - that the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America were "God-Fearing Christians." I've heard people say these things with great conviction. Christian revisionism of the history of this nation has turned George Washington - a Deist - into a "God Fearing Christian." It has led to the contamination of our currency and coins (in the 1950's) with "In God We Trust" and to the corruption of the Pledge of Allegiance (also in the 1950's) by the addition of "under God". It is now the year 2000 - an election year. Being "Born again" is all the rage amongst presidential candidates. They don't have the slightest clue how backward their beliefs would appear to the Founders of this Nation.

The first Anglo settlers in North America (I use the word "Anglo" because the continent was clearly already settled by the Native Americans) were the Puritans who arrived first in 1620. Were the Puritans Christian? To me, this is a stupid question, but I ask it for a reason. Whenever I bring up the subject of a Christian who is a murderer or rapist, my Christian friends are quick to point out to me that the person in question is not a "real" Christian. In this way - disclaiming all who are deemed undesirable - Christians are able to keep their ranks pure. This being the case, can the Christians of today honestly claim that the Puritan settlers were Christian? The Puritans murdered and stole land from Native Americans. They burned at the stake - in public forums for all to see - Witches, Heretics, Unitarians, Atheists, Agnostics ....... everyone and anyone whose beliefs differed in any way from their own. And while we are so accustomed to hearing "burned at the stake" that we are no longer appalled by the phrase, just think for a moment what that entails. The Puritans stood and watched as the flesh charred and flaked away from the bodies of their tormented victims. Did they sing "Jesus loves me" as they watched? If these people were Christian, then so is every evil person who has ever called himself or herself a Christian. If Christians wish to claim the Puritans as their own, then they have absolutely no right to say of other people that they are not "real Christians".

The United States was born with the Declaration of Independence (1776). The document was drafted by Thomas Jefferson (a distinctly anti-Christian Deist) between June 11 and June 28.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. <.......>"

<MORE>

http://www.chestnutcafe.com/cafe/US_History.html

[Igel]

14. Arrgggghhhhhhhh ... NOT Hislop!

Grrrrggggg.

A friend (I use the term loosely) asked me to read it. I wanted to strangle the author, and considered going to England to find his grave for that purpose ... it might not hurt him, but I'd certainly feel better.

[Snap]

6. As a boy

going through my Lutheran religious education I thought these theological explanations were sort of elegant, but in the same way I thought "Who's on first" was nimble and clever..

[nealmhughes]

9. It is complicated, as is most Christology. However, most who have attempted

study in the subject arrive at the conclusion that there is one God, and the Three Manifestations of that God are the revealed ones. No one knows how many manifestations the can be, have been or might be in the future, only that there are Three, definitely.

The three Aspects may be seen as Past, Present, and Future: God the Father as Creator (past), God the Son as Saviour (Present), and the Holy Spirit as Future (no more physical earth, all spiritual).

I think that where the difficulty lies is that God the Father is usually seen as "God" while Jesus Christ the Son of God (defined in orthodox Xity as "one in being with the Father, begotten, not made") who had a physical body for 33 years or so and the Holy Spirit who either proceeds from the Father and the Son or just the Father are seen as separate from " 'God' the Father" as opposed to "God the Father."

Of course, Patrick supposedly held up a three-leaved shamrock and explained the Trinity by asking how many leaves there were. The people said "One." Then he said, "But it has three branches on the one leaf."
And they said, "Kewl."

That is what faith is for. Paul defined it as 'evidence of things not seen."

I don't see much Mesopotamian influence in Xity's Trinitarian formula, as the Persians influenced latter day Judaism much more than did the ancient Cannanite fertility cults and other Middle Eastern cults by the time Jesus came along. All the "high places" were 1000 years in the past in Judah by his time.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. How exactly would you study the subject of the manifestations of god? n/t

[Evoman]

12. Haha..great question.

I'm wondering too. How do theologians study these great mysteries....

"ah shit...I gots ta read the bible again"

[varkam]

15. "ah shit...I gots ta read the bible again"

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Modalism is a heresy

:hi:

[annabanana]

10. Its incomprehensibility makes it MORE believable.

Just incomprehensible enough not to be able to prove it false....

[BurtWorm]

13. Excellent observation.

:toast:

That's the strength of most faiths, and certainly Christianity's.

[skepticscott]

16. Xstians revel in ignorance

Nothing makes Xstians feel more like Xstians than thinking "wow, this is so incomprehensible that it must mean god exists and that we are all just insignificant worms who will never be able to fathom it". Catholics in particular wallow in their "Mysteries" as if they validated everything. It's just an elaborate way of hiding from the relentless progress of rationality, plus it give theologians some job security.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Is there a difference?

Not being wise-assy here, but if one believes one believes, isn't that belief?

[BurtWorm]

18. Yes there is a difference.

Belief in the Trinity is belief that there is such a thing as the Trinity. What such belief entails is belief in the reality of the thing--which, in my opinion, entails some comprehension of what the thing is. But belief in belief is more like faith that one believes in what one is supposed to believe in--in what the theologians have predigested for you to believe in. This does not entail believing in the Trinity at all. In fact, someone who believes in the belief is probably just as mystified by what is actually meant by "The Trinity" as a nonbeliever is by it, but they absolve themselves of the guilt of nonbelief by this simple trick of switching for the absurd object they're asked to believe in belief that they're believing correctly.

[kwassa]

20. Burt, you've come up with the most incomprehensible note that

I've read in quite awhile.

trying to parse this:

"But belief in belief is more like faith that one believes in what one is supposed to believe in--in what the theologians have predigested for you to believe in."

It isn't belief in belief, it is simply belief. It is it's own end. Belief is individual, and an individual choice.

You have introduced, however, the supposition that belief in the Trinity only exists because theologians created it. I would suggest to you that this belief would not endure unless it made sense to the faithful. The idea that God might have many different aspects is not unique to Christianity; the Trinity is really a way of seeing how God interacts in our lives. Other religious systems do this by using pantheons of gods.

[BurtWorm]

21. How does it make sense to the faithful if theologians have been excommunicated

or worse trying to parse it?

I would bet that most people view the trinity as three gods, or as one god with three heads. I would bet most people do not care to think too long and hard on what they're being asked to believe in. It just isnt' worth it.

[kwassa]

23. and what exactly do you base your bet on?

Sounds like it is constructed out of thin air.

[BurtWorm]

24. Just like the Trinity, now that you mention it.

;)

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Yes, I agree.

And I doubt too many are all that interested or educated in theological work. They either believe, or do not.

Now there are probably degrees of belief -- how strongly, how committed a person is to a particular belief. But I don't think that's something anyone other than the person involved can or should measure, really.

[BurtWorm]

29. Do you believe in the Trinity?

If so, please tell me what you believe the Trinity is.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Yes

And in the sense that was brought up already in the thread -- one God, different manifestations.

I also believe this is the way Christians understand God, but that other faiths see the divine in other ways, and that's fine, too.

As to what seemed to be the underlying question in many posts here: yes, it's something I've considered on for quite a long time, not something I accepted without a great deal of thought.

[BurtWorm]

31. So when Jesus was on the earth, he was just like a finger of the Father

poking into the natural world? And Jesus is not the Son of God? He's God?

[kiahzero]

32. I think that in that view Jesus would be the Son of the Father. (n/t)

[BurtWorm]

33. Huh?

:wtf:

[kiahzero]

34. All three are "God," so calling Jesus "the Son of God" doesn't make sense.

To use wildly inappropriate computer science lingo, your identifier is out of scope.

[BurtWorm]

35. I'm not the one who calls him "Son of God."

That's a fundamental of Christianity.

[kiahzero]

37. Mere semantics.

"The Father" is also referred to as "Lord" or "God."

[BurtWorm]

38. "I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"

Why don't they say, "The Lord, the Man and the Holy Ghost?" Because they want Christians to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, via Mary. But he's God. Get it?

[kiahzero]

39. One doesn't preclude the other. (n/t)

[BurtWorm]

40. Right.

;)

All you have to do is wish it and it is so...

[kiahzero]

41. It's all good.

I've never really thought that it's all that complicated. :shrug:

Christianity has its problems in my view, but I would hesitate to say that a lack of thinking about the nature of Christ is one of them.

[Dorian Gray]

36. Pretty much. NP

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. Theologically, yes, there is a huge difference

The early ecumentical Councils which defined the doctrine of the Trinity were very, very careful to detail what is and what is not the "correct" belief with regards to the Trinity.

Take, for example, modalism (also called modal monarchism and Sabellianism), a very common belief among Christians today. It holds that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different "masks" used by a single deity to interact with people in different ways. A more modern explanation is that the Persons are different states of being, much as water can be found as ice, liquid and vapor. Modalism was explicitly condemned as heresy by the Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381. Latter councils reiterated the anathema of modalism.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Well, actually I was just asking about the way the OP

put the question, which led to my question:

is there really a difference between believing and believing you believe?

I don't think I addressed any of the different *ways* of seeing the trinity, or heresies if you prefer.

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Got it, sorry. n/t