Thursday, April 20, 2006

Why the Trinity doesn't do it for me...

I've been musing on the nature of the Trinity and to be honest, it seems the biggest pile of horse hockeys in an al ready messed up paradigm. I understand the concept, but I don't see the need.

Here's why. A Denkwerk for you :)

Imagine I am sitting watching TV in a room with my wife and and my mother. Thus I am Roger the"I" to me, Roger the Husband to my wife, and Roger the Son to my mum. Three natures, one being. Does that make me a trinity? Add my brother and a drinking buddy to the mix and you have Roger the Brother and Roger the Drinking Buddy. Now, I have a five fold nature. Someone comes to the door, selling double glazing. I now have a six fold nature since Roger the Disinterested In Double Glazing is there. I am always all of the these things... When alone, I am still a husband, son, brother, drinking buddy and someone who's not interested in double glazing, as well as what I call 'I'. Obviously I am not six in one. I'm just Roger!

So, moving to God.

If the above is true, why then can't God just be God and him have different roles rather than the strange idea that God has to become God the Father to be our Heavenly Father, God the Son to walk among us, and God the Holy Spirit to stop us being damn dirty apes who can't do right for doing wrong?

All over engineered, and seemingly put there to test the faithful rather than add anything to the mix.

Looking at the orthodox definition of the trinity;

"A three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance; the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal persons; one God in three persons.”

I manage a six fold personality in one being (I think I'm pretty divine, as does my wife)... Its definitely a single union of the above 6 (my lack of interest in double Glazing knows no bounds, so perhaps my other natures are infinite too). As to one god being in three persons (bodies) God is in a whole lot more than that... unless he's not omnipresent.

That's why the Trinity doesn't work for me.


Roger the 6 in 1 (probably more)

8 Comments:

Blogger nolesrock said...

this comment is only for the one disinterested in glazing, not the other five, okay?

i think you are a stinkin' heretical loon! :)

*twats you with a concordance*

i totally feel you on this post, as i've been waffling between trinitarian and binatarian for a week!

7:14 PM  
Blogger Harlequin said...

I don't think I get beyond Montheist tbh...

12:13 AM  
Blogger Eileen said...

Yes Uncle Harley *wink*...but can you be Father, Spirit and Son to all? As far as I can see, you are only 6 in 1 to the six in the room, not to me or the rest of the world.

Just a thought...built in with a *hug* and *i miss ya*!!

1:48 PM  
Blogger Harlequin said...

"but can you be Father, Spirit and Son to all? As far as I can see, you are only 6 in 1 to the six in the room, not to me or the rest of the world."

If I had the same marketing machine, then I could probably extend it to the planet ;)

Just because the PR says it don't make it so...

1:55 PM  
Blogger Eileen said...

PR...hmmm...ok yea, Christianity gets a lot of PR - I will give you that. Why do you think that is? Jesus certainly didn't hire a publicist!

2:01 PM  
Blogger Harlequin said...

The nature of the growth of Christianity is a bit like an arch. The bit that made it possible has been taken away and junked

If you take a look at the late copy of 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas' (not the Sayings Gospel of Thomas) you'll find an example of something that would sell the idea to Pagans very strongly. It is an interpolation into Luke, that covers the missing years and has a pretty high body count and one resurrection pre-Lazarus. TBH, it re-minds me of a Twilight Zone episode (one that the Simpsons parodied)

In the end, there was more than one group preaching more or less the same thing. The Jesus one had a name for the teacher, and names ALWAYS appeal to the masses. Interestingly, the virgin birth is a more pagan thing than a Hebrew one... the exegesis of the OT support for the idea is scant, yew across the northern Mediterranean and across into India, one can hardly move for the number of Man-Gods born of virgins.

you get an idea that appeals to large communities of pagans, removes the need for them to alter their diet and cut bits off their Johnson, guarantees the idea of the 'meek [poor] inheriting the earth', and that death is preferable to life (gnostic... without the gnostics you'd not have had the martyrs...) :)

2:16 PM  
Blogger Marc said...

You totally do not get the Trinity. But I don't feel like explaining it to you so bah!:p Seriously though, you make the same mistakes on the Trinity that I did when I was much younger in the faith.

6:24 PM  
Blogger Harlequin said...

Having said that, the Trinity was a late construct that was basically pulled out of Eusebius' ass on the fly, to accommodate Jesus as a wholly divine, equal to God in t human form.

An I severely doubt that it can be explained, after all you yourself have used the term 'mystery' (the answer that you mentioned on your other blog, is the 'easy' one to shut up nay sayers) Unlike say quantum physics, while it's often believed while not understood, there is at least some evidence that it may be right. The Trinity is wholly absent from history for at least 250-300 after the events. It started out as just another (troublesome, but well organised) sect. The amount of blood spilled after the Trinitarians got government backing, both remarkable and well recorded. The only reasons the Trinity got the Imperial blessing was not because they were the largest sect, but because they were best organised and Constantine liked Eusebius. In the end, the Trinity is a political construct with no scriptural back up, save some painful exegesis that could only really convince those who already believe. Like most apologetics.

8:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home