Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

[Longfellow]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but it has nothing to do with the word "Trinity" not being in the Bible. My point, now that I've remembered it again, is that the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible has nothing to do with whether some beliefs that people call "the Trinity" agree with the Bible or not. The word "Trinity" not being in the Bible is a false argument against the beliefs that people are calling "the Trinity." I'll give you an example. I'll define "the Trinity" as whatever the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because the label that I'm using for what the Bible says is not in the Bible, that doesn't mean that what the Bible says doesn't agree with what the Bible says.

 

[Longfellow]

Update on my thoughts about the Trinity:

"The Trinity" could just simply mean the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without saying anything about who or what they are or what they do. It could also mean "whatever the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" again without people trying to say it in their own words. The problems come when people try to say in their own words or someone else's what the Bible says about them, and call that "the Trinity," without ever thinking about what the Bible says in its own words, and without knowing or caring what the context is, diverting attention from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit themselves, our relationships with them, and their role in our lives.

 

[otherbrother]

You believe that there is an unknown source, but source of what? In your description of human progress, you don’t seem to see any knowledge, wisdom, or power coming to us from that force, so how is it a source? Source of what? Just as whatever makes the world do what it does?

Wisdom was mostly packed into Creation in the form of potential, potential for humans, the humans having the potential to become wise. I do think there is some information given from the “other side.” One premonitory dream saved my life. But mostly heads up on things that could help me grow. Either way (baked in, directly given), God is the ultimate Source of wisdom and knowledge and purposeful power. And yet it is not quite right to say that God is not part of “self,” albeit in such a deep and convergent zone of being that there is no meaningful distinction between “self” and “other,” including a Divine Other. We are spiritually connected to the Unknown Source. That connection provides abundance, an abundance xtra boost at times. But Creation was designed well enough that supernatural override is probably less prevalent and less needed than the potential baked into Creation from the get go.
All that is, of course, just my best hunch.

 

[Longfellow]

Wisdom was mostly packed into Creation in the form of potential, potential for humans, the humans having the potential to become wise. I do think there is some information given from the “other side.” One premonitory dream saved my life. But mostly heads up on things that could help me grow. Either way (baked in, directly given), God is the ultimate Source of wisdom and knowledge and purposeful power. And yet it is not quite right to say that God is not part of “self,” albeit in such a deep and convergent zone of being that there is no meaningful distinction between “self” and “other,” including a Divine Other. We are spiritually connected to the Unknown Source. That connection provides abundance, an abundance xtra boost at times. But Creation was designed well enough that supernatural override is probably less prevalent and less needed than the potential baked into Creation from the get go.
All that is, of course, just my best hunch.

Okay, thanks.

 

[otherbrother]

Okay, thanks.

Speaking of potential being gradually actualized, it dawned on me that the way I interpreted the premonitory dream as saving MY life was/is egocentric because it is more likely that it saved the life of the farmer on a tractor that I would have run into on a curve in the road if I hadn’t had a flashback of the dream while I was getting ready to pass a car. The dream did save the quality of my life had I survived the potential wreck. I would have had a lot of guilt to deal with. Not that I don’t already have some of that. I thank God (or the God Function) that I wasn’t burdened with the overwhelming guilt of having taken someone’s life.
See, even in retelling a story, a bit of growth can occur. Amazing how Creation was designed that way or just happens to be that way. All the hidden potential is indeed a kind of miracle, divine intervention of the soft, indirect, kind.

 

[otherbrother]

The problems come when people try to say in their own words or someone else's what the Bible says about them, and call that "the Trinity," without ever thinking about what the Bible says in its own words, and without knowing or caring what the context is,

I agree that we do need to glean wisdom from the inspired text, but also believe that the Bible is mostly a divinely inspired meaningful myth (with some historical facts also). It is open to interpretation because, like Creation itself, much of its beauty and usefulness lies in the fact that it is packed with potential to teach and help us grow spiritually. If taken too literally though it actually can stunt our spiritual growth.
Song lyrics that I wrote as a potential anthem for the “reconciling” church I belong to show my way of viewing (and trying to utilize) Christianity. Growth is one of my highest values, perhaps a carry over of my career as a psychology service provider. Growth is simply the upper end of healing, and I did spend many years trying to help people heal from unresolved emotional conflicts and other psychological problems. Sometimes the “healing” simply involved working around the problems, learning to no longer allow them to dominate one’s life. I helped one man with Schizophrenia learn to cope with his menacing auditory hallucinations so that he could have them without them having him. This liberation to unlocking potential is my heart’s and spirit’s desire. Authoritarian leaning ways of using religion send up red flags to me, harken back to angry sounding warnings about hell from revivalists in my Country church as a child. I sensed less grace and liberating forms of “salvation,” and more moralism than necessary or healthy in the old time religion. I think the concepts of a Tree of Life and of a Second Coming portend a future stage of collective human development and understanding in which we “get” (and are governed by) the beautiful and powerful interdependence woven into Creation from the get go and moving forward.
Here’s the song lyrics:
May we move from compliance to compassion and care, from beliefs that are ours, to love we share. From Christians knowing, to Christians growing. May we move from here to there.
We will tickle the strings of the universe, a Creation that’s never done, to bring songs of praise to the heroes who went unsung. And to bring songs of mercy to those twisted hearts so far from the Pearly Gates, transforming the moans of those muted souls into music that liberates.
(Chorus: May we move… from here to there)
We will form the clay of Creation, held in our loving hands, into the shape of justice a kind heart understands. And we’ll live every day like we’re breaking bread that we dip into Your cup, transforming the world into a place where we lift each other up.
(Chorus: May we move… from here to there).

I may not have remembered all the lyrics exactly. I was afraid to shift over to Spotify or YouTube, for fear I’d lose this (long) message here. But these lyrics are essentially the same as the finished product.
Love,
Darrell

 

[Longfellow]

I agree that we do need to glean wisdom from the inspired text, but also believe that the Bible is mostly a divinely inspired meaningful myth (with some historical facts also). It is open to interpretation because, like Creation itself, much of its beauty and usefulness lies in the fact that it is packed with potential to teach and help us grow spiritually.

I'm not really sure how useful it can be in our time for spiritual growth, but I think that any usefulness is in the lessons it teaches, not whether anything in the stories actually happened or not, and not in any beliefs wrapped around it.

Song lyrics that I wrote as a potential anthem for the “reconciling” church I belong to show my way of viewing (and trying to utilize) Christianity. Growth is one of my highest values, perhaps a carry over of my career as a psychology service provider. Growth is simply the upper end of healing, and I did spend many years trying to help people heal from unresolved emotional conflicts and other psychological problems. Sometimes the “healing” simply involved working around the problems, learning to no longer allow them to dominate one’s life. I helped one man with Schizophrenia learn to cope with his menacing auditory hallucinations so that he could have them without them having him. This liberation to unlocking potential is my heart’s and spirit’s desire. Authoritarian leaning ways of using religion send up red flags to me, harken back to angry sounding warnings about hell from revivalists in my Country church as a child. I sensed less grace and liberating forms of “salvation,” and more moralism than necessary or healthy in the old time religion. I think the concepts of a Tree of Life and of a Second Coming portend a future stage of collective human development and understanding in which we “get” (and are governed by) the beautiful and powerful interdependence woven into Creation from the get go and moving forward.
Here’s the song lyrics:
May we move from compliance to compassion and care, from beliefs that are ours, to love we share. From Christians knowing, to Christians growing. May we move from here to there.
We will tickle the strings of the universe, a Creation that’s never done, to bring songs of praise to the heroes who went unsung. And to bring songs of mercy to those twisted hearts so far from the Pearly Gates, transforming the moans of those muted souls into music that liberates.
(Chorus: May we move… from here to there)
We will form the clay of Creation, held in our loving hands, into the shape of justice a kind heart understands. And we’ll live every day like we’re breaking bread that we dip into Your cup, transforming the world into a place where we lift each other up.
(Chorus: May we move… from here to there).

I may not have remembered all the lyrics exactly. I was afraid to shift over to Spotify or YouTube, for fear I’d lose this (long) message here. But these lyrics are essentially the same as the finished product.
Love,
Darrell

I'm thinking that the kingdom of Jesus is people moved by God to learn together to live the way He says to live. I'm not sure that the Bible alone can serve that purpose today. Some books in Christian bookstores might be better for that purpose, for Christians. Now that I think of it, I don't think that the Bible alone was ever all that was needed for the spiritual growth of individuals and communities.

 

[otherbrother]

I'm not really sure how useful it can be in our time for spiritual growth, but I think that any usefulness is in the lessons it teaches, not whether anything in the stories actually happened or not, and not in any beliefs wrapped around it.


I'm thinking that the kingdom of Jesus is people moved by God to learn together to live the way He says to live. I'm not sure that the Bible alone can serve that purpose today. Some books in Christian bookstores might be better for that purpose, for Christians. Now that I think of it, I don't think that the Bible alone was ever all that was needed for the spiritual growth of individuals and communities.

I totally agree. Well educated people whose basic needs (and then some) are met may need a little Buddha (who had it all but saw there was more) in the mix as well.

 

[TheLightWithin]

G-d knows best about what happens to everybody after their death.

Naturally

The idea that G-d
somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists,

Doesn't prove annihilationism is incorrect/wrong
(also some strains of Judaism, if I understand, are so averse to focusing on the afterlife that some outside of Judaism falsely believe that Judaism has NO afterlife theories. Some denoms of Judaism may indeed reject all theories, if I understand correctly, though Judaism as a whole does not.)

[atheists] who claim that physical
death is final.

Some do, some have other theories

 

[muhammad_isa]

Doesn't prove annihilationism is incorrect/wrong..

Do you need proof?
If souls could somehow be destroyed, I would prefer to be destroyed (blotted out).

What one does not know, one cannot miss!

No .. one needs both the carrot and the stick to succeed.
Faith consists of both the hope in G-d's Mercy, and the fear of His Wrath.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The idea that G-d
somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists, who claim that physical
death is final.

So maybe I could word my response this way--
Is that meant to be a criticism of annihilationism? The observations that atheists -- Which atheists? All? Some
But the observation that atheists MAY believe something - is that itself a critique of a belief?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Doesn't prove annihilationism is incorrect/wrong

Do you need proof?

My point was, if you were saying that annihilationism being a "belief of atheists" was meant to be in itself a critique of annihilationism, then I was trying to say something being similar to an atheist view doesn't make it wrong.

I was trying to stack all of them on the same comment but the site wouldn't let me...

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I was trying to say something being similar to an atheist view doesn't make it wrong..

OK .. so there is no life after death then, is that what you mean?
No, you don't mean that .. you mean that you consider it reasonable that
life after death is only for 'the chosen ones'.

 

[TheLightWithin]

You had earlier said "The idea that G-d somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists"
Then

Doesn't prove annihilationism is incorrect/wrong

Do you need proof?

I was trying to say something being similar to an atheist view doesn't make it wrong.

K .. so there is no life after death then, is that what you mean?
No, you don't mean that .. you mean that you consider it reasonable that
life after death is only for 'the chosen ones'.

Nope! I don't mean any of those things.
What I'm trying to say is much, much, much simpler.
Go back to your earlier point
"The idea that G-d somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists"
The point I was making, is that EVEN IF a belief in some way resembles the belief that some or many atheists have
It does not ipso facto make the belief questionable.

 

[TheLightWithin]

you mean that you consider it reasonable that
life after death is only for 'the chosen ones'.

Not sure why the eyeroll but...
If there is such as thing as 'some are saved and some are unsaved,' then yes, it is absolutely reasonable that life after death is only for the saved and the unsaved get death. Yes, that is thoroughly reasonable.
As to whether it is doctrinal or scriptural in any religion, that's a matter of ongoing interpretation and debate.

 

[otherbrother]

You had earlier said "The idea that G-d somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists"
Then




Nope! I don't mean any of those things.
What I'm trying to say is much, much, much simpler.
Go back to your earlier point

Not sure why the eyeroll but...
If there is such as thing as 'some are saved and some are unsaved,' then yes, it is absolutely reasonable that life after death is only for the saved and the unsaved get death. Yes, that is thoroughly reasonable.
As to whether it is doctrinal or scriptural in any religion, that's a matter of ongoing interpretation and debate.

The alternate belief is that the path back to God (heaven?) is much longer for the non-righteous. No eternal hell, just the hells of bad karma/consequences. I’m with Rob Bell on that one. All eventually will be reunited with the Source. Whether it’s true or not, it creates a self fulfilling prophecy of patience and forgiveness, yet still motivates us to do and be better so we can reunite sooner, with less hellish rough roads to traverse.
"The idea that G-d somehow 'blots out' souls, is very similar to the belief of atheists"
The point I was making, is that EVEN IF a belief in some way resembles the belief that some or many atheists have
It does not ipso facto make the belief questionable.

 

[otherbrother]

Somehow I got my reply in the wrong place. Looked like Light Within was saying it. Here is my reply:
The alternate belief is that the path back to God (heaven?) is much longer for the non-righteous. No eternal hell, just the hells of bad karma/consequences. I’m with Rob Bell on that one. All eventually will be reunited with the Source. Whether it’s true or not, it creates a self fulfilling prophecy of patience and forgiveness, yet still motivates us to do and be better so we can reunite sooner, with less hellish rough roads to traverse.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not sure why the eyeroll..

..because I get sick of people in Abrahamic religions claiming "they are the only ones" etc.

If there is such as thing as 'some are saved and some are unsaved,' then yes, it is absolutely reasonable that life after death is only for the saved and the unsaved get death. Yes, that is thoroughly reasonable.

..just like magic .. "bang, and the dirt is gone"

..perhaps you can tell me why I should want to live forever? .. if I have a choice, that is.

As to whether it is doctrinal or scriptural in any religion, that's a matter of ongoing interpretation and debate.

Indeed..

 

[TheLightWithin]

..just like magic .. "bang, and the dirt is gone"

Hunh??

..perhaps you can tell me why I should want to live forever? .. if I have a choice, that is.

no idea.
if immortality is conditional, you wouldn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if immortality is conditional, you wouldn't.

..conditional upon what? ..wouldn't what?