Guide to the Gods

[_ID_]

While at work today, I came across an interesting website. It gave me a different perspective on some teachings I had shoved down my throat as a youth. One of the interesting bits they talked about was the trinity concept.

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/middle-eastern-mythology.php?deity=JEHOVAH

Three-in-One Humans?
Now here's a question: If JEHOVAH created man in his own image, why don't humans have three-in-one personalities? Answer: They do. Godchecker can reveal that the human brain consists of three separate but complementary parts: the R-Complex (ritualistic behavior), the Limbic System (emotional response) and the Neocortex (thought and language). We all possess a 'Triune Brain'.

This 'Law, Love and Language' model can be equated with the Trinity to such precision, we're staggered the Christian Church doesn't preach about it from the rooftops. Perhaps they don't like what it implies about the Father: obsessive, aggressive, ritualistic and very keen on blood. On the other hand, it sheds much light on the Holy Spirit, who brings intellectual inspiration and also the gift of speaking in tongues.

But perhaps it's embarrassing for the Church to be proved right by cold hard Science. And equally embarrassing for Science to be pre-empted by religion.

The religion I was brought up in taught that these deities were different people, not the same. However after reading this page I had to rethink that teaching. For years now I have had fundamental problems with what I was taught, and as a result had abandoned all of it, rather than piece mill it.

Thoughts?

[thrall]

Interesting ID..........i will have to think about this.........

hugs

[ThisYouWillDo]

I, like everyone else that has ever heard of the Holy Trinity, have no real understanding of what it is: God in three persons, yet three in one. What were they on when they dreamt that one up?

Godchecker's glib three-L trinity cannot possibly explain the complexities in just the one passage you have quoted; and the first objection is, if I accept that Law, Love and Language are the three persons in each triune human (they say brain), then who is Law, who else is Love, and who yet again is Language? If they are also all me, where are my two counterparts?

It's not for me to debunk what might be a very profound observation, I am just unconvinced.

If I had to point to a human equivalent of the Trinity, I would look first at my body and mind, then the part of me that is transmitted to my children, and then my soul (if I have one). These are separable from me, yet are unique to me.

TYWD

[annie]

The 3 in 1 Trinity is something as a Christian I struggled with (and still struggle with at times) for years. I never understood who they were or how they "fit" into the equation. Several years ago, it was almost like a light bulb came on for me concerning the "Trinity."

This is my understanding of it from the Christian Biblical teachings I have been taught. (I was initial taught in a Nazarene church but finally understood in a Baptist church, as a point of reference.)

The "Trinity" is the Christian God that is referred to in three separate ways depending on the context of the "need" of the person. He is the "Father" for comfort, support and love. He is the "Son" for the granting of forgiveness and grace. He is the "Holy Spirit" for the understanding, guidance and direction. God is "perfect" and therefore fills all needs through the "Trinity."

At least that is how I finally broke it down in my mind to understand it...

[Thorne]

I was born and raised Catholic but gave it up sometime during high school. I found that science answered more questions than the nuns could, and those answers generally made a lot more sense. But based on what I do remember and on things I've learned since about the founding of the Church, I'd like to put forth the following explanation. Be aware, this is all my own opinion, as I'm too damned lazy to go around looking up sources right now.

The founders of the Catholic Church, in trying to imbue divinity on Christ, had to somehow simultaneously make Jesus the Son of God while at the same time BEING God. Plus they had to account for the impregnation of a virgin while avoiding the Greek and Roman problem of the gods consorting with humans. AND they had to try to reconcile the vengeful, destructive, demanding Jehovah from the Old Testament with the new view of a merciful, caring, loving God.

Somewhere along the line someone dreamed up the three aspects of God that made the most sense (to him, at least) and declared that these three aspects defined a single God with three distinct traits. Naturally, once this concept became accepted it quickly became a foundation of the Church.

And it was really cool to announce while making the Sign of the Cross, too: "in nomine Patris (head) et Filii (chest, or heart) et Spiritus (left shoulder) Sancti (right shoulder)"

The same kind of thinking went into the idea of canonizing Saints. The Roman people (after all, it was a Roman world) really liked their personalized gods and goddesses. The concept of only one God was completely alien to them. By replacing these minor gods and goddesses with the Saints the Church allowed converted Romans to have their cake and eat it, too.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thank-you Annie and Thorne. But you see the difficulty? Annie's version is of a single God (Unitarian) who has three characteristics, while the Catholic (Trinitarian) version has three "indwelling" persons.

And whichever version we prefer, to the other we are heretics.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Thank-you Annie and Thorne. But you see the difficulty? Annie's version is of a single God (Unitarian) who has three characteristics, while the Catholic (Trinitarian) version has three "indwelling" persons.

And whichever version we prefer, to the other we are heretics.

TYWD

Let's face it, TYWD. That's the whole point of any religion. "If you don't believe what we tell you to believe you're the enemy." True, in the modern world things are no longer quite so severe. But I would bet that there are no true religions which give more than lip service to the idea of tolerance of other's beliefs. And the inter-sect wars which are going on in the Middle East right now (Sunni versus Shiia, for example) are not all that different from the way the Catholic Church dealt with Europe for hundreds of years.

As for the Trinity, none of the views can really make sense to anyone. It's a question of faith: you either believe or you don't. To my mind it doesn't matter which way you believe. Chances are you'll be wrong either way.

[annie]

Thank-you Annie and Thorne. But you see the difficulty? Annie's version is of a single God (Unitarian) who has three characteristics, while the Catholic (Trinitarian) version has three "indwelling" persons.

And whichever version we prefer, to the other we are heretics.

TYWD

I think perhaps that last comment is a bit extreme. It may have been that way in the past but I know personally, someone who doesn't believe in the religion I was taught isn't wrong or anything else. They don't have to agree.... heck some days I'm not even sure I "agree" with what I was taught.

[annie]

If I had to point to a human equivalent of the Trinity, I would look first at my body and mind, then the part of me that is transmitted to my children, and then my soul (if I have one). These are separable from me, yet are unique to me.


The "Trinity" is the Christian God that is referred to in three separate ways depending on the context of the "need" of the person. He is the "Father" for comfort, support and love. He is the "Son" for the granting of forgiveness and grace. He is the "Holy Spirit" for the understanding, guidance and direction. God is "perfect" and therefore fills all needs through the "Trinity."


The founders of the Catholic Church, in trying to imbue divinity on Christ, had to somehow simultaneously make Jesus the Son of God while at the same time BEING God. Plus they had to account for the impregnation of a virgin while avoiding the Greek and Roman problem of the gods consorting with humans. AND they had to try to reconcile the vengeful, destructive, demanding Jehovah from the Old Testament with the new view of a merciful, caring, loving God.

And maybe it is just me because it is late... but it looks like in some ways we all agree on the trinity in a broad fashion....

body/mind ~ Father ~ BEING God.

Transmitted to children ~ Son ~ Jesus the Son of God

Soul ~ Holy Spirit ~ Old Testament Jahovah/New Testament merciful, caring, loving God.

[Thorne]

And maybe it is just me because it is late... but it looks like in some ways we all agree on the trinity in a broad fashion....

body/mind ~ Father ~ BEING God.

Transmitted to children ~ Son ~ Jesus the Son of God

Soul ~ Holy Spirit ~ Old Testament Jahovah/New Testament merciful, caring, loving God.

I think I agree, except I believe you should move Jehovah up to the Father. My feeling is that the concept of the Holy Spirit was developed to make God more loving, more in line with the New Testament. The Old Testament God was a nasty sumbitch, visiting plagues and floods and all manner of nasty surprises on people.

Hmm... kind of like what's happening now.

[annie]

I think I agree, except I believe you should move Jehovah up to the Father. My feeling is that the concept of the Holy Spirit was developed to make God more loving, more in line with the New Testament. The Old Testament God was a nasty sumbitch, visiting plagues and floods and all manner of nasty surprises on people.

Hmm... kind of like what's happening now.

I'm flexible (in more ways then one :rolleyes: ) so feel free to move Jehovah up to Father...

Either way the point was, even in my tired befuddled brain, that we all had the same basic concept of the "Trinity" just a different way of stating it....

At least I think that was the point.... :32:

[annie]

Ohhhhhhh can I kill a good thread or what??? sorry folks!

[Thorne]

Ohhhhhhh can I kill a good thread or what??? sorry folks!

Don't think of it as killing a thread. Just think of it as leaving the rest of us speechless. Hopefully in a good way.

[_ID_]

The point I was trying to make with the original post was that yes, we all have different views of the same idea, but there is a version that coincides with science, and has proof on top of that. Explore the site, you will see what I mean.

[rce]

...
The religion I was brought up in taught that these deities were different people, not the same. However after reading this page I had to rethink that teaching. For years now I have had fundamental problems with what I was taught, and as a result had abandoned all of it, rather than piece mill it.

Thoughts?

First a question: what religion were you brought up in?

Contrary to many other Christians, I have never felt any troubles comprehending the Trinity. There is but one God, but he shows himself to us humans in three separate identities, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

You can compare it to the separations of power that is the foundation to most Western governments. The Government is separated into one Legislature (Parliament/Congress), one Executive (King/Cabinet/President), and one Judiciary (Court system), but it is still one government for one country. God has separated Himself into one Creator/legislature of laws of nature (the Father), one Executive (the Holy Ghost), and one Judge (the Son, who will judge mankind after the resurection).

[WyldWyl]

I'm not entirely sure that I buy their linking of the brain into the trinity. This isn't a topic I'm exactly ignorant on, and I think the brain breaks down into more separate units than three, and that the R-system they propose is really a subunit of the limbic system.

In any case, too much searching for synchronism between theological I think is an ultimately fruitless endeavor, in my opinion.

[_ID_]

First a question: what religion were you brought up in?

Mormon.

As far as if God displays himself as three different versions of the same personage, or is three different persons motivated to the same purpose and cause. I've no idea, and refuse to speculate. Are we made in his image? If being humanoid is being in his image then cool, we probably are. Anything more specific I think becomes elitist within the belief system. i.e. was god white, black, asian, woman,? Who knows! The pope doesn't, the Mormon prophet doesn't. Anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit!

[annie]

*grinz* Well, I know I always see God as female.... it would scare me WAY to much to have a male God.... unless of course he was the ULTIMATE Dom!

[_ID_]

I think whatever god there is.... is an artist, a dominant, and a father.

[annie]

I think whatever god there is.... is an artist, a dominant, and a father.

I would agree with that ID.

[Moonraker]

Thorne explained it exellently when he explained about the need of the early church to make the new religion more palatable. There are countless other examples. One that springs (pun intended) to mind is Easter. Easter was a pagan festival in honour of Ostare, the goddess of fertility. And like most religious festivals it coiincides with the seasons and sun. Easter heralds the start of spring when crops start to grow and pagans needed the gods to be a happy to ensure a good harvest. It would have been almost impossible for the church to covert the pagan of northern europe, if converting meant having to give up a much loved booze up and orgy. I can imagine what my ancestors would have told the bible puncher to do with his new god. So a bit of hasty damage limitation and tactical withdrawal was needed by the church. The date fudged the crucification and said, OK you can keep your piss up lads on condition you celebrate christs death not a pagan god. Whahey, we'll celebrate whavever you want mate, now where's my pint. Problem solved and the Brits and other converted with little objection. I'm sure posters can come up with other cases of the church incorpating paganism into christian traditions.

IDCrewDawg: Maybe you want to google on the miracles of the Quran. This is a nice hot potatoe. There are numerous cases where the Quran appears to "predict" scientific discoveries and the same counter argument applies to your trinity excample.

Incidentally those of you who have no problem with the God in three personalties should have no problem with us swithces. We only have two persona but that's maybe because we are only demi-gods.

PS- Annie don't worry about killing a religious thread, its sure to resurrect a few days later.

[Moonraker]

IDCrewDawg

I think God is a town planner. Who else would put the pleasure gardens between the water and sewage works!

[ThisYouWillDo]

Annie don't worry about killing a religious thread, its sure to resurrect a few days later

LMAO

[~faerie~]

For thousands of years many religions were polytheistic, and now many are monotheistic... who is to say what is truth and what is an interpretation. Just my humble opinion, but as long as you believe in something, have faith in something...that is all the really matters.

[Thorne]

For thousands of years many religions were polytheistic, and now many are monotheistic... who is to say what is truth and what is an interpretation. Just my humble opinion, but as long as you believe in something, have faith in something...that is all the really matters.

All religions have their origins in primitive man's efforts to explain the actions of nature. Powerful forces which he couldn't explain or control were ascribed to the actions of supernatural beings, simply because he couldn't find any other explanations for them. Those who could develop the most entertaining explanations became the shamans, helped in most cases by the liberal use of hallucinogenic drugs. Eventually, the shamans realized how much power their "understanding" of the gods gave them over their people. The tribes brought them food and precious gems and metals to bribe the gods. And naturally, if you didn't get what you wanted from your "sacrifice," well, it just wasn't enough! Make a bigger sacrifice next time! Thus we have the foundations of religion. It hasn't really changed that much. Men decided that only one god was necessary rather than dozens, but the idea is still the same. Give the fruits of your labor to the guy with the best story and feel better about yourself.

[rce]

Mormon.

As far as if God displays himself as three different versions of the same personage, or is three different persons motivated to the same purpose and cause. I've no idea, and refuse to speculate. Are we made in his image? If being humanoid is being in his image then cool, we probably are. Anything more specific I think becomes elitist within the belief system. i.e. was god white, black, asian, woman,? Who knows! The pope doesn't, the Mormon prophet doesn't. Anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit!

I had always thought Mormonism was a monotheistic religion, a religion of only one God. If the Mormon teachings say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different persons, I guess it is not monotheistic.

I believe God is just one. I also believe that all humans are made in His image, whence it is unnecessary to consider whether God might be black, white, or any other race. The question of His looks is of no consequence, since we are all equally made in his image.

[_ID_]

I had always thought Mormonism was a monotheistic religion, a religion of only one God. If the Mormon teachings say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different persons, I guess it is not monotheistic.

I believe God is just one. I also believe that all humans are made in His image, whence it is unnecessary to consider whether God might be black, white, or any other race. The question of His looks is of no consequence, since we are all equally made in his image.

The way I was taught is that the trinity is three separate beings. The Father (the person who is the father of Jesus and us) the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (the holy spirit). When it comes time for Judgment Day there was some debate among the Mormons on who would be sitting in the judgment seat, but most thought it would be the Father. Mormons believe that each of the three of the trinity has a purpose. God the father of all mankind. Jesus, the son of the Father, the medium through which we are forgiven of our sins. The holy ghost, the being who helps guide us in times of need.

Is Mormonism monotheistic? As a former Mormon, I would say I don't know, but mostly yes it is. The reason I say this is because Mormons believe that the Father is the only God they worship. They thank Jesus for dying on the cross, but he isn't the one they worship. However, they must go through him to get to the father. So perhaps it isn't. They close prayer in his name, but do not address the prayer to him. "Dear Heavenly Father, (say the prayer). In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." is how I was taught to pray. So maybe it is...

I saw way too many conflicting teachings while I was in that religion, as well as most others I have explored. So I have chose to forsake all of them, and just believe in a higher power of some sort.

In the end, I think the lot of them are askew, but I am not one to try and debate or correct their beliefs. The family values of that church are quite well founded. It's just some of the teachings I had problems with.

As far as the higher power bit... I think the Intelligent Design group is way off too... That is a different debate though.

[Thorne]

I saw way too many conflicting teachings while I was in that religion, as well as most others I have explored. So I have chose to forsake all of them, and just believe in a higher power of some sort.

It's too bad most people don't seem to see this problem in organized religion. I found the same problem with Roman Catholicism and I gave up on it. For my part, though, I don't believe in any higher power. I don't have a problem with those who do, mind you. That's their right. My problem is with those who try to foist their beliefs on others, sometime violently.

[_ID_]

Higher power meaning something bigger than myself. Most people tend to think supernatural. I don't discount that. It just isn't the basis of my belief.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I know people have died for asking less, but, does it matter? One God with three personalities, or three persons comprising one godhead? If we believe, and God is a fair god, he will not condemn us for failing to understand what is incomprehensible; and if we do not believe, the distinction is fatuous anyway.

[Thorne]

I know people have died for asking less, but, does it matter? One God with three personalities, or three persons comprising one godhead? If we believe, and God is a fair god, he will not condemn us for failing to understand what is incomprehensible; and if we do not believe, the distinction is fatuous anyway.

If we don't believe, and God is a fair god, he will judge us on our merits, not on whether or not we worshiped him. This is the problem which has plagued my understanding of the Christian religions. The proponents of these different cults all espouse their own superstitions as the only true religion, and all non-believers are condemned to everlasting torment. It's not sufficient to just be a believer, you must be their kind of believer.

From a non-believers perspective, then, the Trinity is just a means of explaining the contradictory natures of God. There seems to be no other means of reconciling the Old Testament God with the just and merciful version of the modern world.

I would recommend a book by Robert Heinlein called "Job: A Comedy of Justice" for a different perspective on God, Satan and religion in general. Yes, it is fiction, but there is much to think about in there.

[OttifantSir]

The Trinity of things. An example that (to me) seems to run through most religions.

I believe in the One Goddess-God, Day-Night, Clear Light-Void that separated itself into two yet stayed whole: Day and Night, Yin and Yang, Good and Evil, Punishment and Reward.

The Egyptians of old believed this happened through masturbation of the Supreme Being (name eludes me at the moment), creating offspring that took control over Heaven and Hell.

This seems to be the general idea of almost any religion or flavour of religion. Where they differ IMO is where they view who created the World, the Universe and ultimately the Omniverse.

My beliefs say that we are a part of the One Mind-Soul that permeates everything yet is apart from everything.

Does science confirm this? It really depends on who performs the tests I think. A scientist believer in the Higher Being(s) will enter with a different perspective than a scientist non-believer. While I haven't looked at the site yet, the quote provided by IDCrewDawg seems valid enough.

We as human beings are capable of anything. Endless love and endless hate. Untouchable belief and immovable scepticism.

A few years back I read an article asking the question: "Are today's scientist the modern priests?" Maybe they are. They do what the shamans, priests, oracles and other holy people used to do: Interpret the world. They don't hold to a religion per se, but they tell the working people, the "not-so-well-educated-in-these-matters"-people what it is like.

I hold no grudge against any person because of their belief in, or dismissal of a higher being. What I hold a grudge against is people who feel they need to shove their belief on others. Like Jehovah's Witnesses that comes to your door. I once found a pair of them at my doorstep asking me if I would like to hear the words of God. I asked them to wait and brought out my own Bible. I read a passage from it, and to me it seemed like they were taken back by what I said. As if they had never heard it at all. I haven't read their book/Bible so I can't say for sure.

To end this post: If God/Jahve/Jehova/Allah/The Trinity/The Clear Light-Void is out there/in us/beside us through our lives, do we really need to worship them? If there are no such thing(s), it really doesn't matter, does it? All that matters is that we are here and every day we are charitable, greedy, compassionate, vengeful, loving, spiteful, considerate, egotistical, creative, destructive.

[ThisYouWillDo]

If we don't believe, and God is a fair god, he will judge us on our merits, not on whether or not we worshiped him.

God! I do hope so.

[TomOfSweden]

Karen Armstrong writes lots about it in History of God. She's done her homework. The trinity is a political construct.

It has to do with pre-Christian traditions of Greece clashing with pre-Christian Cappodocian, (Turkish) traditions, which Christianity was adapted to.

It's got very much to do with language and how they used the terminology of god, faith, spirituality and belief. Anyhoo, it threatened to tear the east Roman empire apart and emperor Constantine threatened the quarrellers with death unless they came up with a compromise.

On one side was Arius who claimed that Jesus was not divine and that worshipping Jesus as such would be idolatry. There can only be one God.

On the other side was a variety of theories on variants on how Jesus had some divinity in him. ie was of God. Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Marcellus among others belonged to this camp.

They managed to agree on that God could be felt by the worshipper when praying, ie the holy ghost. The part of God that fills the prayer when praying.

But they managed to agree on nothing much else.

This is where the concept of "the father, the son and the holy ghost" was born. It was formulated this way because it doesn't say anything and mediates between the two camps. How this purely political and not theological solution has managed to linger up until today, is just one of those mysteries in life.

Arius eventually ended up being branded a heretic, but Arianism still went strong for centuries after his deaths. Especially with the Gorths, who managed to conquer Rome.

The debate whether Jesus is of the same stuff as God still rages today.

edit: I looked through that page some more. I don't think it's supported by any biblical research. I think it's fantasy. I'm guessing somebody just read the Bible and drew their own conclusions ignoring centuries of research and material to be found on the subject. Just my guess.

[Flaming_Redhead]

I've always had problems understanding the seemingly convoluted idea that there is but one god, although 3 personas. Like ID, I've abandoned "religion" due to its inconsistencies. However, I still ascribe to Christianity. I try to think of it in this way. God of the old testament still exists. He is like a good father in that he loves his children and wants them to do well. However, like any father trying to deal with wayward children, it's his way or the highway. He'll let you do your own thing, and just like the story of the prodigal son, he'll welcome you back when you're tired of wallowing around with pigs. *smiles* Jesus is God's son. He is of God, yet not God, in that he does his father's will. He was sent to earth to teach us that the laws and sacrifices were not enough to save us from damnation because most people's hearts were not in the right place. He came as the living word of God to show us what love is, i.e. forgiving people who don't necessarily deserve it instead of demanding an eye for an eye as well as giving up everything for those you love and what you believe in. Once Jesus had performed his task, he ascended back to heaven where he rules at the right hand of God. He knows what it is to suffer, and he intervenes on our behalf. The holy ghost is God's spirit. He has a physical being which remains in heaven and a spirit which he sends to us. Were we made in His image? I don't know what He looks like, but we also have a logical side, an emotional side and a soul. Hmm....so do I believe in a triune God or 2 separate people and a spirit?!?! arghhhhhhh I don't think it really matters in the long run. I won't burn in hell for being stupid. *ggls* Just think of Him as the ultimate Dom who can dish out love and punishment, who wants love and respect, who wants you to earn your rewards, etc.