Christians..."Trinity"?

[SamIam]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

If a person has believed in the Trinity his/her whole life, I think that when she dies and comes before God the Father, she will see him as he is, an individual with form. I don't think she will be surprised. I think it will all seem so natural, beautiful, intuitive, and true. She'll say to herself, "now what was I thinking down there on earth?" They will then embrace in love.

 

[captainbryce]

Seriously, I think any Christian denying anyone's faith because they have different ways of understanding and approaching God makes they themselves really missing the point and in the wrong.

Agreed.

Except in trying to define what murder is, for instance. Is killing someone in war because your government wants their land for themselves murder?

If you are a soldier, and you are ordered to kill someone, and that order is legal, then it is not "murder" (regardless of the morality involved). Only if a solider follows an illegal order, or kills someone against orders is he guilty of murder.

Is killing someone because they slept with someones wife murder?

Yes. And I'm pretty sure every legal jurisdiction in the western world would consider that murder, as would the bible.

What about killing someone who is trying to kill your wife? What if they are trying to kill you?

That is self defense. Self-defense is not murder. Everyone has the legal right to defend their life, and the lives of their family.

What if they got off in court after raping and killing your children?

Then that would be unfortunate, but that wouldn't give you the right to kill them. Killing someone out of revenge is still murder.

Those are all pretty easy, black and white instances under the law.

Well, see now? Aren't your judging them in the same way you see them judging you?

No, I'm not. I'm judging the concept, or the belief as being false. I'm not judging those who choose to believe in it. If someone believes something like that, then it isn't for me to tell them they aren't a Christian. That's for God to decide. What they are doing is telling me that I'm NOT a Christian because I believe differently. So it's not the same thing at all.

I don't see one iota of difference here. Who's wrong then? Both of you, perhaps?

See above!

And many of traditional Christians would say the same thing.

Well they may "say" that, but I'm talking about the ones who clearly go beyond that, in so much as saying that you have to believe in trinity in order to be a Christian.

Only those that need you to agree with them because they feel insecure in their faith use bullying tactics to drive out heretics from their midst so they can feel secure in their beliefs.

Seems to be a lot of them out there.

Well, I would agree how one conceptualizes God is not a matter of one being 'saved' or not, but rather a matter of being useful to them or not. A lot of people aren't comfortable with those who have a different point of view than themselves, because they aren't very secure in themselves. They cling to beliefs as defining them as 'in' or 'out', saved or lost, right or wrong. It leads to that black and white thinking I was speaking of.

Agreed.

 

[rusra02]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

If you define being a Christian as following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, then it is inaccurate, IMO, to say you are not a Christian because you reject the Trinity doctrine. Neither the word "trinity" nor the idea of a trinity was mentioned by Jesus Christ or his apostles. The trinity is a pagan doctrine, I believe, first introduced into an apostate "Christianity" after the death of the apostles.

 

[Windwalker]

Neither the word "trinity" nor the idea of a trinity was mentioned by Jesus Christ or his apostles. The trinity is a pagan doctrine, I believe, first introduced into an apostate "Christianity" after the death of the apostles.

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either. What does this prove? The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a theological formulation about the nature of God. Why would Jesus teach that? He wasn't a theologian. There are lots and lots of theologies expressed in religion that are "about" what is in their sacred texts, that are not explicitly spelled out in the text. Does that mean any and all teachings surrounding these text are "pagan" or wrong because they aren't talked about in those exact terms? This too is an invalid argument.

BTW, what the hell is "pagan"?

 

[rusra02]

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either. What does this prove? The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a theological formulation about the nature of God. Why would Jesus teach that? He wasn't a theologian. There are lots and lots of theologies expressed in religion that are "about" what is in their sacred texts, that are not explicitly spelled out in the text. Does that mean any and all teachings surrounding these text are "pagan" or wrong because they aren't talked about in those exact terms? This too is an invalid argument.

BTW, what the hell is "pagan"?

Getting back to the question at hand, a person does not and in fact should not believe the "theological formulation" of the trinity, IMO, in order to be a Christian. There is no end to theological speculation about Jesus Christ that has no support in the Holy Scriptures, which Jesus accepted as containing the truth. (John 17:17) True Christian doctrine is found in the Bible, which is referred to as "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Doctrines and teachings like the trinity were implanted from non-Christian (pagan) religions after apostasy from true worship occurred. Jesus, would and did teach the truth about God, about himself, and what true religion teaches and practices. I think true Christians believe and practice what the Christ taught, not "theological formulations" that have no support in Holy Scripture.

 

[Shermana]

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either. What does this prove? The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a theological formulation about the nature of God. Why would Jesus teach that? He wasn't a theologian. There are lots and lots of theologies expressed in religion that are "about" what is in their sacred texts, that are not explicitly spelled out in the text. Does that mean any and all teachings surrounding these text are "pagan" or wrong because they aren't talked about in those exact terms? This too is an invalid argument.

BTW, what the hell is "pagan"?

So should we accept Docetism as well as a "Theological Formulation" since the scriptures could be interpreted as such? There were plenty of proponents of that one too. It wasn't exactly spelled out but they had some decent arguments.

 

[Windwalker]

Getting back to the question at hand, a person does not and in fact should not believe the "theological formulation" of the trinity, IMO, in order to be a Christian.

This has nothing to do with my comments towards your remarks. I think it's stupid to call anyone "true Christians" based on how they believe, how they interpret God or the Bible in ways that makes sense to them. If I'm not mistaken the criteria of the validity of ones faith is not beliefs, not doctrines, but fruits of the spirit.

There is no end to theological speculation about Jesus Christ that has no support in the Holy Scriptures

No support according to you, which is really nothing more than you saying "I don't agree with them". Of course they have support, even when they outright contradict each other. They both are using it and reading different things in it. Imagine that! Are we to assume how you read it, is right, end of story? "The Bible says...", is really best understood as "I read the Bible as saying...". You have an opinion about what the Bible says. So do they.

True Christian doctrine is found in the Bible

Then they are all true. They all find it in the Bible. Including you. Now, go embrace your brother the Pope.

Doctrines and teachings like the trinity were implanted from non-Christian (pagan) religions after apostasy from true worship occurred.

Can you cite some actual historical events to support this? No, it was a reading and theological formulation from the Bible. Just as Modalistic Monarchianism was. Just as all sorts of different ways of understanding God were and are.

Ever hear of the story of the blind men and the elephant? May I share it with you?

Jesus, would and did teach the truth about God, about himself, and what true religion teaches and practices.

Jesus was not concerned with your theological quibbings. His "true religion" was not about your doctrines, and correct, "supported" views of God from the Bible, but about the heart. The heart.

So, while you meanwhile play the heresy hunter, Jesus cares only about the heart. Not you thinking only Christians who believe like you are "true Christians". Seriously, you think Jesus thought like this, in terms of correct theologies?

I think true Christians believe and practice what the Christ taught, not "theological formulations" that have no support in Holy Scripture.

I think true Christians are those who see with the eyes and heart of love.

 

[captainbryce]

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either. What does this prove?

It proves that it is a concept invented by man, not God or Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a theological formulation about the nature of God. Why would Jesus teach that?

Well, one thing I'm sure we'd agree on is that Jesus would certainly teach what he believed we needed to know about salvation. The fact that he DIDN'T teach trinity logically suggests that it is not a concept that is relevant to salvation.

He wasn't a theologian. There are lots and lots of theologies expressed in religion that are "about" what is in their sacred texts, that are not explicitly spelled out in the text. Does that mean any and all teachings surrounding these text are "pagan" or wrong because they aren't talked about in those exact terms? This too is an invalid argument.

Nobody is making that argument. Nobody is suggesting that theologies that are not spelled out in the bible are "pagan" because they aren't clearly defined in scripture. The claim is that TRINITY is pagan because is based on the beliefs of pagan cultures, who commonly held to "trinities" which predate Christianity.

BTW, what the hell is "pagan"?

Well maybe that's your first problem. If you don't know what something means, how are you going to criticize someone else for using the term?

Pagan: 'n'

1. Heathen - A follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2. One who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: An irreligious or hedonistic person

Pagan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Paganism is a broad group of indigenous and historical polytheistic religious traditions—primarily those of cultures known to the classical world. In a wider sense, it has also been understood to include any non-Abrahamic folk/ethnic religion.

Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Windwalker]

So should we accept Docetism as well as a "Theological Formulation" since the scriptures could be interpreted as such? There were plenty of proponents of that one too. It wasn't exactly spelled out but they had some decent arguments.

Accept whatever resonates with you. All truths are partial truths. As long as we are the ones understanding with the mind. Doesn't matter if you believe your scriptures are infallible or not. You will still be the one reading it, and your understanding is a shadow, a reflection filtered through your heart and mind. Why should you expect that to be absolute? And then, how can you judge truth for another?

 

[Shermana]

Why should you expect that to be absolute?

Because some views are based on objectively wrong grammar and likely wrong context.

 

[captainbryce]

Accept whatever resonates with you. All truths are partial truths.

2 + 2 = 4. Which "part" of that is untrue?

 

[Windwalker]

It proves that it is a concept invented by man, not God or Jesus Christ.

Of course it's a concept created by men. I called it a formulation. That's exactly what that is. That doesn't make it invalid! You think about the world all the time, everyday through concepts created by men. They are models that help you interpret the world. The doctrine of the Trinity is for all intents and purposes, a model. It's a way to talk about God, to relate to God, etc. Just as theism is, just as panentheism is, just as pantheism is, etc.

Say, here's one for you. Here's a word not in the Bible. Incarnation. That's formulation too. Hypostatic Union. That's a formulation too. But yet, I'm sure these are OK with you? Why? Because the Bible supports this? To them, the Bible supports the Trinity too. The only difference is what you choose to believe or how you read the Bible through your particular lenses. Same as them.

Well, one thing I'm sure we'd agree on is that Jesus would certainly teach what he believed we needed to know about salvation. The fact that he DIDN'T teach trinity logically suggests that it is not a concept that is relevant to salvation.

That's right. It may however be useful to someone. What's wrong with that?

Nobody is making that argument. Nobody is suggesting that theologies that are not spelled out in the bible are "pagan" because they aren't clearly defined in scripture. The claim is that TRINITY is pagan because is based on the beliefs of pagan cultures, who commonly held to "trinities" which predate Christianity.

I'm going to stretch your mind here a little... That other cultures came up with similar ways of understanding God does not mean they ripped each others thoughts off via shared stories. It could indicate that people independently come up with the same views because they are seeing the same thing! Coming up with the fact of the earth being a globe is something done by participation with it and observation and thoughts about it.

How about understanding it is better to love than hate? This also was arrived at by other cultures independently. "Love your neighbor as yourself" predates Jesus by a long, long time. Did he rip off this "pagan" teaching that Plato said himself 400 years earlier? Is Jesus teaching on love, pagan, because they taught it too?! You see, these similarity do not mean "theft". That's a very narrow, and inaccurate way of thinking.

Well maybe that's your first problem. If you don't know what something means, how are you going to criticize someone else for using the term?

Of course I know how the term pagan is used. I find it a meaningless and distracting term, used to dismiss something with a pejoritive. To the Hindu, the Christian is Pagan. To the Buddhist the Muslim is pagan. Blah, blah, blah. That's such an antiquated way to speak of cultures not our own. And that was my point in asking "what does the term really mean"? Answer: nothing.

 

[Windwalker]

2 + 2 = 4. Which "part" of that is untrue?

There is a whopping big difference between a conventional use of numbers, and attempting to penetrate something that is beyond any and all conceptualizations. Try finding a math formula to express what love is to you. Then we can talk like this, maybe.

 

[Windwalker]

Because some views are based on objectively wrong grammar and likely wrong context.

And you can claim to know absolute truth this way?

 

[Shermana]

And you can claim to know absolute truth this way?

I can claim a certain bit of objectivity from knowing that certain views are based on provably wrong ideas. If you say otherwise then you throw logic and reason out the window.

 

[Windwalker]

I can claim a certain bit of objectivity from knowing that certain views are based on provably wrong ideas. If you say otherwise then you throw logic and reason out the window.

Which when we're talking about God, why do we presume logic and reason tells us anything?

 

[Shermana]

Which when we're talking about God, why do we presume logic and reason tells us anything?

In the case of Jesus, we're not necessarily talking about God, we're talking about a specific concept with ideas that rational thinking can address and discuss regarding textual examination, language construction, context analysis, and manuscript development.

With that said, I see no reason why a discussion on God must eschew logic and reason, many prominent historical philosophers would disagree with this notion that God and reason are not compatible.

 

[captainbryce]

Try finding a math formula to express what love is to you. Then we can talk like this, maybe.

I don't need to find a math formula to express what love is TO ME. Whatever I think love is, it IS true unless you can find a math formula that proves that it isn't. There are certain universal truths in the world inside and outside of "math". We live on planet earth. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. These are not math equations, they are statements of fact. The statements are "true" in every sense of the word, no matter who expresses them, or what they may personally feel about the facts. They are not "partial" truths.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't need to find a math formula to express what love is TO ME. Whatever I think love is, it IS true unless you can find a math formula that proves that it isn't. There are certain universal truths in the world inside and outside of "math". We live on planet earth. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. These are not math equations, they are statements of fact. The statements are "true" in every sense of the word, no matter who expresses them, or what they may personally feel about the facts. They are not "partial" truths.

but 1+3 =4 is also true, despite 2+2=4...so what does that tell you about truth?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't need to find a math formula to express what love is TO ME. Whatever I think love is, it IS true unless you can find a math formula that proves that it isn't. There are certain universal truths in the world inside and outside of "math". We live on planet earth. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. These are not math equations, they are statements of fact. The statements are "true" in every sense of the word, no matter who expresses them, or what they may personally feel about the facts. They are not "partial" truths.

And the world I am speaking of, is far less clear-cut than statistics (which themselves are disputable on many levels and for many reasons). Again, we're not talking about rocks and whatnot. We're talking about things that are highly subjective. It is an illusion that people actually agree 100% on anything. The illusion is created by finding general surface features that a particular group can mostly agree upon, and ignoring the millions of subtle differences, that given a chance to be looked at would splinter this illusion of unity of ideas.