diana

I think making this argument is trying to stretch the opponent's analogy too far without cause.

I think the analogy between the Trinity and water fails in the basic aspect that with the Trinity, we're talking about distinct personalities that are separate, yet all part of the whole (one), and even are the same Person.

Arguing that a substance can exist in three different states has no relevance to these claims about the Trinity.

d

Keith Russell

doodad said:
If believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or
God is beneficial then the fact that it may be irrational seems rather academic to me.

Keith: that's a rather large 'if'. I can see no benefits to untruth; period.

doodad: If irrational belief leads to adverse consequences then the belief becomes more than irrational, it becomes toxic. Perhaps we should judge "irrational beliefs" by the results they give in this case.

Keith: I am not a pragmatist. To me, the relationship between the nature of the claim (true or untrue) leads clearly to its consequence (beneficial or harmful). Lose sight of the relationship, and the consequences could easily be seen as arbitrary.

doodad: I cannot believe that millions of people continue to practice something that is not in their best interests.

Keith: Believe it.

doodad: Some of the finer things in life in the way of emotional experiences aren't all that rational.

Keith: I disagree. To even be able to identify them as 'the finer things in life' requires the use of reason.

doodad: Love, amore, and testing our limits or tempting fate with daredevil stunts aren't too rational to me, but I sure get off on the first two.

Keith: Love is very rational, and I can prove it--but I don't have the time to go into that right now. Ask me again some time.

doodad: I'm too old for the dare devil stunts, but I must have lived a charmed life when I was younger because
death was a heartbeat away for me on many occasions as I pushed those old jalopies with recapped tires up above 110mph.

Keith: And this proves what, exactly?

doodad

I think that the analogy was intended to say that each of the three figures of the Godhead represented one of the three common states of water. Maybe the discussion has come to suggest the need for the water to be simultaneously in three states. The analogy is rough, I'll admit, and doesn't fit very well, but it's speaking of the essence of God, and in that sense is applicable.
Why? Because water, steam, and ice are of the same essence, in its case, H2O, so for the purpose of this analogy the actual state of the water is beside the point. We're talking content and not state. The corresponding essence in the Holy Trinity refers to the qualities or traits manifested by God, and nothing more. His form or physical construction or whereabouts is not an issue in the Trinity. Webster gives a decent example of essence by saying that the various derivatives of perfume, such as cologne, toilet water, and other cheaper versions of perfume (of a given kind) have the same basic properties, primarily scent or odor, as the parent perfume.
That's what the water analogy of the Holy Trinity is trying to say.

The basic concept of trinity is kinda squirley anyway so can we expect to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

doodad

I think you may have touched on the basic problem those who defined the Holy Trinity faced. People had been led to beleive they should heed the advice of three divine entities, God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. At the same time old Jehovah says there shall be only one god, or object of worship. Right Charley, then which of these three possibilities should I do with? Does that mean I should ignore the other two? Ignoring any one or all of them would have been heretical, so the poor schnuks were in a tight, a no-win situation. The Trinity was defined to resolve this impasse or intractable predicament, and is essentially a compromise that attempts to reconcile the existence of three divine entities in the scripture with the first of the Ten Commandments that says there will be only one God, or object of worship.

The definition is still hotly debated today, but the orthodox view seems to be the prevalent view.
Fundamentalist or evangelical sects of Christianity tend to belief that Jesus is God, which is the Modalist view, and the more moderate sects tend to adopt the orthodox view which says that Jesus is the essence of God, but is not actually God himself.

BornOkTheFirstTime

Perhaps, but in actuality, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that a trinity exists anyway, this concept of a trinity was stolen from hinduism and from the babylonians. Jesus never claimed to be god, and there is no reference to the Holy spirit to indicate that it is a "person".

**makTHRAX**

My comment was meant to arouse humor but apparently I think I am a hell of a lot funnier than I really am. Anyways,, just to clarify: water does have a triple point. It can exist in all three states at the same time. sorry

thx,
makTHRAX

Fiach

As it was explained to me by the Church of Scotland, God is one god but with three distinct personalities.

This condition exists in human beings and is called Multiple Personality Disorder. It is considered a psychiatric illness, most common in women who were sexually abused in childhood.

Was God(dess) sexually abused in adolescent Godhood by some Uncle God who was a divine paedophile?

Seriously, the Trinity is just a compromise explanation for the syncretic process in which Christianity evolved from a mosaic of Judaism (one God) with Paganism (Polytheistic).

Prior to 30 AD, there were numerous trinities of gods in the older religions. My ancestors had a couple. There were the Trinity Goddesses of Battle: Babd Catha (the Battle Raven), Morrigu (the sensual fertility goddess), and Macha (the fury war goddess). Yet they were collectively the Morrigan Trinity (Tri Ingena aile dano Emmais). To make it more interesting, Babd was the Great War Raven, the beautiful seductress, or an old hag, (Cailleach.) We had a Trinity of Dagda (father of Gods), Eriu (Earth Mother), and Lugh (son of Dagda and Sun God.)

Egyptians 4000 years ago had a trinity of Amon/Atum the Father, Aten/Horus the son, and Ra/Kneph the Holy Spirit. In this story, the Father God sends the Holy Spirit Kneph to tell a virgin that she is to bear his son. That son, Aten, the Sun God is Son of God and also human. Kneph the holy spirit looks on. This is displayed in 4 wall murals of the Holy of Holies in the Temple at Luxor, Egypt.

It seems very very very likely that Tertullian who introduced the trinity concept was influenced by that ancient Egyptian Trinity. Tertullian besides being a theologian was an expert in North African antiquities, and would have known the temple at Luxor.

Persians, and Norse also had trinities.

Early Christianity was essentially a messianic Jewish sect. The Persian Mithra, who was virgin born god-human who died and resurrected, influenced converted Pagans. The Christians accreted this myth to Jesus. Arius taught that Jesus was the created god of Jehovah, but a secondary god to that high god. But some wanted Jesus to be a full god. But having two full gods is too symmetrical. That fit well with Tertullian making the spirit of God often referred to in the Bible as an emanation of God, into a separate entity, the Holy Spirit. Then they had their Trinity like every self-respecting Pagan Religion.

This process was a slow evolution over 300 years settled at the Council of Nicaea by bishops with a legion of Constantine's army ready to dispatch to heaven any dissenters to Trinitarianism or Athanasianism.

They just had one problem. They like to call themselves "monotheists." How could they have a Trinity and be Monotheists? Well the simple way was to have one god with three personalities, and that is just what they did.

Fiach

diana

Side point I'd like to add, doodad.

I remember having extreme difficulty imagining three objects of my worship as a child. No matter how hard I tried to imagine them all as one, they were all associated with different stories and different actions, and always got prioritized.

But the priority shifted, because I couldn't decide whether God the Father or Jesus the Son should get top billing.

The Holy Spirit, of course, was good for speaking in tongues and tongues of flame on people's heads, and perhaps inspiring the holy scriptures, but compared to the other two, he was just a parlor magician.

I kept trying to give Jesus top billing, because he was the one who paid the ultimate price, but somehow, it didn't seem right to put the Son before the Father. Besides...the Father had far more examples of his ruthlessness, so he seemed mightier.

The bible only tells you they're equal. But it shows you that God is the mightiest, Jesus is next, and the Holy Ghost comes in a distant third.

No wonder I had so many problems focusing on all three as an object of my affection.

d

A3

Hi All,

Why look so far for a fix?? We are all a trinity. We have a soul, a body and an influence on the world around us.
God is the Soul Who begot a body in Jesus and Jesus had His influence on each and everyone as the Holy Spirit.
If this is kept in mind while reading Matthew... No one can see our soul or spirit except through the body. The soul is on a higher plane than the body. The one that sees the body (and what it does) sees the soul, so why ask: "Show me the soul?"
The soul is what makes you do things, etc.

Regards
Adriaan

Oxymoron

On what evidence do you base the assertion that we have a soul?

You won't find many in this discussion board who agree. Simply stating that this is your belief is (a) really quite dull and (b) not advancing an argument or discussion any more than saying "I like pizza".

What is a 'plane'?

Have you really read about and understood the problems of dualism? Are you at all interested in what really makes human beings tick or are you happy to make up an answer or have someone else make one up for you and not question it?