Guest my10thao Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity I will continue with the assumption that everyone agreed with this small paragraph. If someone already use this argument before, I apologize. If not, I hope my grammar isn't too bad. Now, if we analyzed the paragraph above where it said, "God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons". This very line indicate that without these three person, God can't exist. With that said, God and the trinity just can't exist, because if there was no God to create these three person in the first place, the Father and than some how gave this Father some time to give birth to the Son (Jesus), and than the Holy Spirit, God has no body to exist in. Let me rephrase this, I am sure many of you are confused. God only exist in these 3 person. Without this 3 person, God can't exist, so said the paragraph above. So, before this 3 person exist, God didin't exist because these 3 person didn't exist. So if God didn't exist, who created this 3 person in the first place so that God can dwell in them so that he can exist? still confused? Please tell me someone gets this and hopefully able to explain it better than I. Any question, I will try to explain again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 There's something very Lovecraft about the siamese triplet image of God....you can just imagine the sub Cenobite tentacle-pipe things pulsing fluids from one to another, the Jesus bit sort of grey and flaccid, only pumped up when it's extruded into our dimensions, like an obscene marionette.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The point kinda falls apart if you, as Christians do, assume that all 3 aspects of God have always been there, from before Time itself. I've even heard it said that The Father is like the head of God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God's hands. Jesus, in this assumption, was always God, and was just the part of God that the Holy Spirit shoved into Mary to become part of the natural universe. Kind of like using your left hand to help hold the glove while you slip the right hand into it. At best, Jesus was just the Fingerpuppet of God, the Godfingers always in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Welcom My10thao, I hope we'll see many more posts from you. Okay, to play the Devil's advocate here, i.e. if I were a Christian, I would realize from your argument that "Father" and "Son" are just descriptive labels to their functions of the god personas and not necessarily titles received through some biological connection. So what would your response be to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The point kinda falls apart if you, as Christians do, assume that all 3 aspects of God have always been there, from before Time itself. I've even heard it said that The Father is like the head of God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God's hands. Jesus, in this assumption, was always God, and was just the part of God that the Holy Spirit shoved into Mary to become part of the natural universe. Kind of like using your left hand to help hold the glove while you slip the right hand into it. At best, Jesus was just the Fingerpuppet of God, the Godfingers always in control. Yep, Jesus was the fingerpuppet with which God fingered Mary. I wonder if he was ribbed for her pleasure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my10thao Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 HanSolo Welcom My10thao, I hope we'll see many more posts from you. Okay, to play the Devil's advocate here, i.e. if I were a Christian, I would realize from your argument that "Father" and "Son" are just descriptive labels to their functions of the god personas and not necessarily titles received through some biological connection. So what would your response be to that? It would still remain that God can't exist because no one was there to create Father, Son, Holy Ghost in the first place. I mean, the trinity specifically said, 3 persons. I am thinking they have got to be 3 person. It explicitely said so. Unless I am wrong. It is kind of like the chicken and egg thing. So, God can't exist without this 3 persons, that means there must have been someone who created these 3 person and than created God so he can exist in these 3 persons. Am I making any sense at all? Am I confusing you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my10thao Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Robbobrob The point kinda falls apart if you, as Christians do, assume that all 3 aspects of God have always been there, from before Time itself. I've even heard it said that The Father is like the head of God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God's hands. Jesus, in this assumption, was always God, and was just the part of God that the Holy Spirit shoved into Mary to become part of the natural universe. Kind of like using your left hand to help hold the glove while you slip the right hand into it. At best, Jesus was just the Fingerpuppet of God, the Godfingers always in control. It would have been better if they would just said, "God exist and his head is known as Father, left arm is known as Son and the right arm is known as Holy Spirit." That would saved us all the confusion, won't it? Than we would know that there is actually just 1 God with a head and two arms that nick named Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Than someone might just add, "Any names for the legs?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFWN Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 "Any names for the legs?" No, but do you want to start a vote? My vote will be for them being called the Holy Shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 You will get no argument from me, I addressed this subject a good while back and a copy of my posting is located here in my blog: http://ex-christian.net/blog/heimdall/inde...p?showentry=232 - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my10thao Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Right leg = Satan Left leg = Satan's Son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Maybe it kind of works like a RAID array of hard drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Maybe it kind of works like a RAID array of hard drives. Father - Son = Spirit Usually I thought it was more like: Father + Alcohol + Fun time in bed => kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Or Father + Alcohol + Fun time in bed + kids=> Pastor or "Father" + Alcohol + Fun time in bed + kids=> Roman Church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 It would have been better if they would just said, "God exist and his head is known as Father, left arm is known as Son and the right arm is known as Holy Spirit." That would saved us all the confusion, won't it? Than we would know that there is actually just 1 God with a head and two arms that nick named Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Than someone might just add, "Any names for the legs?" Well sure it would. But then today's Christians would also be forced to admit that the writers of the Bible were talking in metaphors and other literary devices and not being literal pinheads. The Jews have always acknowledged many layers to their scriptures, from literal meaning to metaphor to deeper hidden meanings. It is the Christians who, even with Jesus being a metaphor freak, seem to think everything written in the Bible is accurate in the real world, as opposed to being metaphors for mystical experiences of the priesthood who wrote it. They knew better than to actually believe God had any real body parts, and that all names are just titles to the same deity. It is why the Bible was not translated out of either the Hebrew or Latin, because people not trained in the hidden meanings to the words would intepret them incorrectly. Now it is everyone's individual intrepretation that is right. The great pluralization of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The Jews have always acknowledged many layers to their scriptures, from literal meaning to metaphor to deeper hidden meanings. It is the Christians who, even with Jesus being a metaphor freak, seem to think everything written in the Bible is accurate in the real world, as opposed to being metaphors for mystical experiences of the priesthood who wrote it. Thank you! The Trinity is a Christian concept that is thoroughly abhorrent to Jews for a variety of reasons. (Google it if you want to know.) Furthermore, the notion that G_d could take on human form, in Judaism, is nothing short of idolatry - the queen mother of all "thou shalt not"s. If you ever visit a synagogue, no matter the denomination, you will always hear this prayer: "Shema Yis'ra'el - Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad." It's translated as "Hear O Israel - The Lord our G_d, The Lord is one." This affirmation of the unity of G_d is at the core of Judaism. The Jewish Bible really has to be approached with a cultural and historical understanding. Christianity, which flourished primarily among early pagans, is largely devoid of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The 6th letter in the alphabet is F. 666 = FFF, and FFF = Freedom From Fear. Fear of authority, fear of death, fear of eternal suffering after spending a lifetime trying to increase joy and happiness. Those who want me to fear their deity, go F yourself. An interesting example of the lack of Hebrew knowledge contained in Christianity is the speculation about the relation of the number 666 to the Antichrist. The Hebrew Numbering System is actually based on letters of the alphabet. I'm pretty sure #666, looks like TRSV (bear in mind that the Hebrew alphabet does not contain vowels). I have no idea if תרסו is an actual Hebrew word or not. My Hebrew still isn't that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eccles Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 It shows the stupidity of the whole thing. First, there is no "god", no creator. Second, the bible of a book of bullshit and those who believe that buybullshit need the help of a shrink. When a Christian blesses himself he says "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" A Jew says: "Spectacles. Testicles, Wallet and Watch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eccles Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 It shows the stupidity of the whole thing. First, there is no "god", no creator. Second, the bible of a book of bullshit and those who believe that buybullshit need the help of a shrink. When a Christian blesses himself he says "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" A Jew says: "Spectacles. Testicles, Wallet and Watch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Most Christians, at least "true believers", would just say that some mysteries are not explainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The Jews have always acknowledged many layers to their scriptures, from literal meaning to metaphor to deeper hidden meanings. It is the Christians who, even with Jesus being a metaphor freak, seem to think everything written in the Bible is accurate in the real world, as opposed to being metaphors for mystical experiences of the priesthood who wrote it. Thank you! The Trinity is a Christian concept that is thoroughly abhorrent to Jews for a variety of reasons. (Google it if you want to know.) Furthermore, the notion that G_d could take on human form, in Judaism, is nothing short of idolatry - the queen mother of all "thou shalt not"s. If you ever visit a synagogue, no matter the denomination, you will always hear this prayer: "Shema Yis'ra'el - Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad." It's translated as "Hear O Israel - The Lord our G_d, The Lord is one." This affirmation of the unity of G_d is at the core of Judaism. The Jewish Bible really has to be approached with a cultural and historical understanding. Christianity, which flourished primarily among early pagans, is largely devoid of that. So, who's the man shaped thing that Abraham thinks is God, eating his food and discussing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 A Jew says: "Spectacles. Testicles, Wallet and Watch". So you DO know the liturgy! So, who's the man shaped thing that Abraham thinks is God, eating his food and discussing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? I've always heard of the man-shaped-thing being an angel. That being said, even then, it depends on how literally you take it. Most of the Jews I know don't believe in angels, and don't really take that story too literally. Then again, I'm Reform, so I hang around a pretty theologically liberal crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 However, it indicates at one time the Jews did allow for God taking a human form... Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit) certainly indicates an evolving view of God... a humanoid form until the about the time of Joseph... after the 'captivity' it gets more elemental... the burning bush... the formless thing in the Ark that killed or maimed all it touched... Outside the Torah, God is simply a disembodied voice, that seemingly takes less and less interest in what is happening, by the time of Jerimiah nothing is being said at all... The Hebrews were never as picky as the Pagans for retconning their scriptures and their God, since, as you say, it's not literal (unless you're Hassidic, but they're more Russian than Jewish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 it's not literal (unless you're Hassidic, but they're more Russian than Jewish) The Chasids are an interesting crowd. I actually have some admiration for Chasidic ideas - although I'm about as likely to agree with it as to believe I'm the queen of France. The Charedim on the other hand - don't get me started. However, it indicates at one time the Jews did allow for God taking a human form... Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit) certainly indicates an evolving view of God... I don't know a great deal about Orthodox Judaism, but even the Orthodox who believe the Torah was literally written by G_d would be likely to take a pretty nuanced view of its contents. Reconstructionist and Reform Jews on the other hand, would be more likely to discuss with you the intent of the (human) author. In both cases, they'd probably tell you that Beresheit contains metaphor to explain an abstract concept to a primitive desert people. I've never met or heard of a Jew who would adopt the Christian form of literalism. I have a soapbox on which I jump concerning Christianity and the hijacking of Judaism. I'll spare you that, but I always find it to be a great tragedy when people take the Tanakh literally. It's a series of history books - a written record of a people and their faith - and it has to be understood in the cultural, historical, and cognitive context of an ancient nomadic tribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Dammit... you're makin' me like you again... I'd agree... I've been reading a fair amount of Dr Neil Douglas-Klotz, who is a Sufi who is looking at the NT from an Aramaic view... I keep pointing out to modern Christians that their image of Jesus owes more to Oedipus (that is Hellenic/classical culture) than Jeremiah (late Jewish thought, even with the alien Hellenic overtones that were appearing at that time). Half of the concepts in the Doctrine are not even communicable in Aramaic, thus couldn't even be thought.... even basic things like the view of linear time are screwed when you try to take them from one mind set to another in the late BCE and earl CE period. In some respects, it's like trying to explain large number theory to a Rain Forest tribe that has no concept of numbers greater than 4. I confess I get sadistic pleasure from watching their brain over heat and run out of their nose as they try to invoke Augustine or Clement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts