Evoken

Wrong..there is no evidence that Horus was known as such..not in any of the ancient Egyptian texts dating from 3000-2000BC at least..His father was Osiris and his Mother Isis, sure he was the first born of Osiris but there is no mention of im as The Father or Holy Ghost.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

I believe yes.

Well, there are several Christian interpretations of this. According to philosophers such as Swinburne, love is inherently sharing and cooperative (i.e. love, in order to be love, must be shared between people. Moreover, the two loving persons must cooperate to share their love with a third party. Much like a married couple share their love between each other and then cooperate to share their love with a third party such as a child). Swinburne thinks this is inherent in the nature of love, and because God is of his very nature loving, the primordial God eternally brought about a second person (the Son), and then the Father and Son together cooperated to bring about the third person (the Holy Spirit) with whom they shared their love. So, in other words, the Trinity came about because of the natural outworkings of a loving God.

I'm uncomfortable about part of Swinburne's argument. I'm not yet convinced that a loving God would need to share its love with another divine being - why not simply share his love with created beings such as humans, which in fact he does? Swinburne says this would not be 'sharing all of his nature' - but I don't grasp what he means by that.

Nevertheless, I quite like Swinburne's analysis of love, and he has made an argument which posits the existence of three and only three divine persons as logically necessary, provided that one loving primordial divine being existed.

Other Christian philosophers, such as the Australian philosopher Peter Forrest, argue that the primordial God underwent fission into three divine persons for the sake of a loving community. Once again, under this analysis love is primary and is the raison d'etre for the existence of the Trinity.

Note that both these analyses are from the perspectives of Social Trinitarians, who hold that "God" is the collective entity comprised by the individual divine persons. Other Christians hold to a more modalistic notion of the Trinity, arguing that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, rational conscious agents, but are mere "modes" of God rather than persons per se. I lean strongly towards the Social Trinitarian view.

There are a couple of reasons why I would argue that the three persons of the Trinity do not make three separate gods. First, given one divine person, it is logically necessary that three divine persons exist (according to Swinburne's analysis), so each divine person is inextricably linked with one another - it is not possible that one divine person exist without the other two. Second, no decisions made by one person are made without the loving cooperation and agreement of the others. In this sense the minds of the divine persons are linked far more than any link between completely distinct gods.

There is still one God (the collective entity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) made up of three inextricably linked persons.

That verse fits with a Trinitarian model because Trinitarians affirm the oneness of God. Any Trinitarian model must account for both the diversity in the Godhead and the significant level of unity.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

Rational BAC

Gawd how things can get complicated.--------------

I don't think the trinity, ----whether it exists in any sense at all or does not exist in any sense at all,----has anything at all to do with Christianity.

Who really cares? Not I. Ask most any Christian and they would say---

--- "dunno--might actually understand the concept of a trinity someday"

"Of what importance is it?" ---alluding to an old French verse from the "Chanson de Roland"

(I no longer remember the Old French version)----"
"de quoi co qui sault"---or something like them there. Should really look it up. I actually have a "Chrestomathie" from the late 19th century buried in a closet somewhere. ) One of my favorite sayings from Old French.

Anyway----------No importance at all is the trinity, or lack thereof for Christianity.

Not really.

Veovis

Here's my hypothesis:

Jesus came down to earth. This means that there would be no one in heaven to run things, so God would have to be two persons, father and son; one in heaven, one on earth. Now the Christians don't want to be polytheists like those 'damned heathern pagans', so they throw in a third part (because every one loves the number three. It's so special that it's even the circumference of a circle in relation to it's diameter ) and call it a trinity. That way, Christians can have the exhalted status of monotheism and still have Jesus as a god.

Just my whacked-out hypothesis, though.

Knurd

Just atheists?
I agree that it doesn't make sense, and I'll even agree that it shouldn't be a defining doctrine of christians. Nobody understands it, yes.
But, nobody really cares?

Man, you should have grown up in my demonination (Baptist)! If you didn't believe in the trinity you couldn't believe that Jesus was God, and you couldn't "get saved." (Typical Baptist logic.) Your salvation depends on it, and you can bet the Baptists would "get their balls in an uproar about the trinity." I think that most fundamentalist/conservative christian groups take the doctrine of the trinity seriously.

Rational BAC

Fundamentalist Christians get their balls in an uproar over the silliest things.

I will admit it is not an exclusive for atheists.

newtype_alpha

The funny thing is the Bible both supports and refutes the concept of the trinity, theologically. The only reason for keeping the doctrine of the trinity is that it's an easy (albeit nonsensical) answer to the problem of Jesus being God, yet talking to someone else who is also God. It solves for them two problems: 1.) The obvious theological contradictions between the gospel of John and all three of the others and 2.) the fact that Christian tradition ascribes all of Jesus' attributes to the God of the Old Testement. Thus they think Jesus is God because Jesus is the ideal god they would prefer to follow... yet they know Jesus called someone else God, they avoid being polytheists by saying "There is only one god... but 'god' is more than one person."

Having your polytheistic cake and eating it too :thumbs:

Agemegos

Unitarians' God isn't. Catholics' God is. Take your pick.

Agemegos

Actually, this happens to be untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity has been the subject of bitter controversy, warfare, and persecution among Christians. Look up "Arianism" or "Arian heresy" or "Arius", or "Unitarian". Many churches consider it sufficiently important that they require their congregations to affirm it at every service. Isaac Newton decided not to take ordination as a priest because he could not accept the Trinity.

Columbus

I am willing to join Christian Forum.com or Apologetics.org or any other christian forum you name if you will join and declare this and also declare yourself to be a "most excellent Christian". I agree with you and will support you to the best of my agnostic ability. ( I have read the Bible and am used to tangling with those people.)

I don't mean to challenge your theological beliefs. I am just curious about what the reaction will be amongst the Christians when you say "nobody really gives a shit whether God is one entity or three entities. Or 5 entities or 10 entities-----------Most Christians pay little or no attention to this very favorite subject of atheists. " What I am challenging here is your belief about Christians. As a gay man who is often very seriously inconvenienced by the beliefs of Christians I think you are kidding yourself about the level of enlightenment they will show to you if you express your beliefs in an open forum. Maybe you will show me that my opinion of Christian culture is mistaken. For that I would be grateful. Perhaps they will show you why I hold the opinion of them that I do. Most likely we will both be surprised by our new insights. Want to join me in this adventure?

Tom