[October's Autumn]

Wayseer, on Jun 10 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

Sorry to be so flippant but the whole Trinity thing reeks of beaucratic manipulation.

I rather, Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.

If it smells like a dead rat... it probably is!

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Jun 9 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

I rather, Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.

Interesting, I was thinking something along the line of Creator, Created, Jointly Creating. There might be room here for a comparison/ discussion?

[JosephM]

It seems to me the whole trinity thing is just a mental contruct of human minds. Perhaps one will go beyond mind and catch a glimpse that God is One and there are no parts in reality to explain. Just something to consider.

Love,
Joseph

[October's Autumn]

JosephM, on Jun 25 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

It seems to me the whole trinity thing is just a mental contruct of human minds. Perhaps one will go beyond mind and catch a glimpse that God is One and there are no parts in reality to explain. Just something to consider.

Love,
Joseph

Very true, very true.

[fatherman]

The diversity of thought on this concept is really fascinating!

I come from a family of ministers (mostly presby), and I've never quite understood their rigid preoccupation with this concept as a religious belief; however, I have to admit that rather like the concept of the Trinity.

For me it is valid in both concrete and metaphorical terms.

Concrete:

Father (God the Father or God the Creator), Son (Jesus or the Christ), and Holy Spirit (God or Jesus the eternal all-pervasive or "where one or more are gathered..." or God/Jesus spiritual presence with us)

These are variations that I was taught growing up in the Presbyterian Church USA. I rather like the concept of the Trinity. For me, it has never been in the category of 'religious belief' per se. It adds a layer to help me understand the nature of Jesus' and our relationship to God. It provides a richer context than just some God out there and some human down here.

Metaphorical:

This is where it gets even more interesting for me. I really think there is something fundamental about this concept. There are a few ways that I play with this concept.

1.) Cause, Effect, and the relationship between the two.

2.) Soul Pattern, Manifestation of Soul in physical form, Communal Nature of Soul.

3.) Creator, Creation, and the common essence of the two. The Holy Spirit aspect in this metaphor is that the essence of the Creator is in all of its Creation.

4.) A variation of #2 and #3 is Source, Life, and the Universal Energy.

Now, just because I've found meaningful metaphors in the Trinity doesn't mean that I reject the Father, Son, Holy Spirit tradition. It serves as the model for all the metaphors. It is a powerful and historical manifestation of this universal truth. Jesus fully realized this pattern in his own life. I believe he has called us to do the same. Amen!

[JosephM]

fatherman, on Jun 26 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

The diversity of thought on this concept is really fascinating!

(snip)

It seems to me you recognize by your statement above that it is a 'concept'. Just as any words we can say about 'God' is also a concept. Perhaps, the problem with concepts as relates to spiritual things is that concepts are limiting and of the mind whereas God is unlimited and found not in the mind but in transcendence of it. (Spirit) Jesus said ye know not what ye worship. True worshipshers shall worship God in spirit and in truth.

Concepts can tell you at best what God is not. If you say God is the creator then you are saying that God is not the created. If you say God is Jesus then you are saying God is not other than Jesus. If you say God is the holy spirit or his presence with us then all you are saying is that God is not absence with us. You can still say that God is all three but you still have only a limited concept of God by the dual nature of mind.

One could say that God is All that IS both in form and formless. Or just God IS (The I AM) . These words might be closer to truth since they say God is 'BEING' which is difficult if not impossible to conceptualize with the mind and don't have the same limits as other words yet they still are just an attempt to define the undefineable. It seems to me that one can only 'know' God by becoming One with God. And then one can only describe that by saying or declaring undefineable words to the mind like I am Truth, I am Life . ( Didn't Jesus say, "Father I pray that they may be ONE even as we are ONE".

Anyway, since my real nature is spirit, it seems to me good to not entertain the carnal mind by pretending to be able to conceptualize that which is beyond the mind's understanding. Be ONE with God as did Jesus and all questions will disappear. Just something to consider.

Love,
Joseph

[canajan, eh?]

McKenna, on Jun 3 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

It does not make sense to me to take one metaphor literally while ignoring the others (i.e. all the places in the Bible that refer to God in ways that can be interpreted as Trinitarian being taken literally, while those that call God by other names - i.e. feminine images - are interpreted only metaphorically). I don't think there's as much a danger of that in Progressive Christianity, although I could be wrong.

Jesus here.

What I find puzzling, from my angelic viewpoint, is that none of you has been willing to say out loud that the Trinity, when understood as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," is all about God being a guy. Male. Masculine. Paternalistic. XY chromosomes. Hunter-gatherer. King. Ruler. Mighty Lord. You can try as hard as you like to try to convince me that you're much more enlightened than that, that you know God is made up of more than just than masculine principle. Well, of course, you say, rolling your eyes at me, of course God must include the Feminine Principle as much as the Masculine Principle. But you're not willing to stick your necks out and say unequivocally that the Holy Spirit is a Gal. You don't want to stand behind the idea that the Holy Spirit is not the third masculine aspect of a male Triune God. You don't want to say, as Progressive Christians, that the Holy Spirit is your Holy Mother, God the Mother. Your mother.

In Hebrew and Aramaic (which I spoke), the root word for spirit is "ruah", and it's a feminine noun. In Koine Greek (which I also spoke), the root word for spirit is "pneuma," and it's a neuter noun, neither masculine nor feminine. But it's sure not a masculine noun. Give me some poetic credit. I was smart enough to take full advantage of linguistic nuances, such as gender and onomatopoeia. I was very careful with the words I used.

Come on, folks. Somewhere between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism lies the possibility that I, Jesus, was teaching people not to be afraid of the idea that God the Father and God the Mother are two separate but equal Divine partners. Abba . . . my divine father. Ruah . . . my divine mother. What's so hard about that?

Thank you to those who have correctly pointed out that Trinitarianism has almost no Biblical support, efforts to prove the contrary notwithstanding.

On the other hand, there are many scriptural references in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to the Divine Feminine. The holy dove -- whose form Spirit was said to take during my baptism -- is a clear and longstanding reference to the Feminine aspect of Creator. In other words, the dove represents God the Mother.

This idea was anathema to Paul, so don't go looking in the Pauline corpus for God the Mother. She ain't there, not the way she's hiding in the Synoptics.

Have a good day, folks.

Love Jesus
June 27, 2008

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 27 June 2008 - 08:26 AM

[JosephM]

As a clarification of my posts.... If any offence has been taken any reference to God as a Him was done in haste and accidently purely out of linguistic habit. It seems to me in my view that God is neither male nor female nor both since there is no incompleteness nor duality in God.

Love,
Joseph

[McKenna]

I don't have time for a lengthy reply but I just wanted to say there are some really interesting thoughts here!

And Wayseer, I have described it the exact same way in thought and conversation - Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.

[October's Autumn]

JosephM, on Jun 27 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

As a clarification of my posts.... If any offence has been taken any reference to God as a Him was done in haste and accidently purely out of linguistic habit. It seems to me in my view that God is neither male nor female nor both since there is no incompleteness nor duality in God.

Love,
Joseph

Funny you mention that. I go through periods where I am just rankled by references to God as a male and I go through periods where I don't even see it. Usually in my church "God" is the pronoun for "God." Perhaps that is why I didn't notice it? I guess I just read through it.

[minsocal]

October, on Jun 27 2008, 10:34 PM, said:

Funny you mention that. I go through periods where I am just rankled by references to God as a male and I go through periods where I don't even see it. Usually in my church "God" is the pronoun for "God." Perhaps that is why I didn't notice it? I guess I just read through it.

I know what you mean. In my church, members use "Our Father" ... "Our Creator" ... "Our Mother" as they see fit at the time. It sounds a bit odd during the Lord's Prayer, but you get used to it after a while.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 28 June 2008 - 02:58 AM

[davidk]

McKenna, on Jun 9 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

I don't, however, think the idea of the Trinity needs to be thrown out entirely by Progressive Christians, unless they want to (which clearly some do). I think it can be understood in a metaphorical sense, at least that's how I interpret it.

But you're right, I don't think a literal belief in a triune God really works for very many Progressive Christians, although I am sure there are some out there. (Like I said on this or another thread - we're a motley bunch )

All I, or anyone else can do, is present what we have to be answers to the questions of God, the universe, and Man. Some presented can be sufficient, but unfortunately many more are not. They only confuse and complicate the Truth's simplicity by placing man's answers ahead of God's.
The Truth is what we seek. Keep asking questions if you find answers unsatisfactory.
Trust His answer, not ours.
--
Jesus warns us; "See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead you. Don't follow them, because they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name."
--

[MOW]

McKenna, on May 30 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

[Haha can you see a theme here?

I wanted to bring up a couple beliefs that are central to "orthodox" Christianity and ask how you guys thought they could be incorporated into Progressive Christianity, or if you think they even should be.]

With that said, what do you think? Is there a way to understand the Trinity that can deepen our understanding of God? Or is it merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today?

Hi Mckenna

This is the way a guest pastor tried to explain it ,to a group of children at a church .
She had one of the girls stand up, (I'll call her Brianna). She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna" . I don't know if people here will like that analogy but I thought it was pretty good for a childrens sermon .


MOW

[soma]

Quote

She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna"

.

It is nice for adults also. Thanks

[canajan, eh?]

MOW, on Jul 4 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

Hi Mckenna

This is the way a guest pastor tried to explain it ,to a group of children at a church .
She had one of the girls stand up, (I'll call her Brianna). She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna" . I don't know if people here will like that analogy but I thought it was pretty good for a childrens sermon .
MOW

I like the way the pastor encouraged the children to think of Brianna as a person who has different sorts of relationships with others. This is positive and mature. Children (and many adults) are learning to think about their relationships in complex, interconnected ways. I think it's very important for us to understand our relationship with God in similarily complex, interconnected ways. So, for example, we can understand God as both parent and mentor and loving friend (to name only three out of many more which I and others can think of).

I think, however, it would be somewhat unrealistic to say that this is the meaning the church councils had in mind when they wrote the Trinitarian creeds in the 4th century. The Chalcedon Creed, written very late in the 4th century, has heavily influenced church doctrine since the time of its writing. The purpose of the Chalcedon Creed was to "nail down" once and for all the nature of the Son. The Chalcedon Creed -- which incidentally does not even mention the Holy Spirit -- is an edict dictating the exact way in which people are to understand the Son who is "of one substance" with the Father. Any other understanding was -- and still is, in some Christian quarters -- heresy, and sufficient cause for the Inquistion to burn you at the stake (although not necessarily literally so).

I think it's important to be realistic and honest about the horrors inflicted on millions of people over the centuries as the Latin Church sought to preserve the Trinitarian definition of God -- a definition that isn't even in the New Testament.

The language we use to talk about God is important. It's important that we be able to speak about God as daughter, friend, and sister. Or as nurturer, creator, healer. Or whatever else is loving and uplifting. I think those in the Progressive Christian movement want nothing less. But there is danger in referencing the orthodox Trinity (the one spelled out in the 4th century creeds). If we do not stand up and reject the traditional Father/Son/Holy Spirit formula, we are tacitly condoning and minimizing the harm perpetrated by the Church. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, as they say. Let's recognize the history of Trinitarian thought, recognize the way this dogma has been used, grieve it, and move forward together.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 05 July 2008 - 09:50 AM

[canajan, eh?]

Oops. Accidentally posted it twice.

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 05 July 2008 - 09:48 AM

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

So you're GOD/Father/Mother creator is now defined.

Do you yet understand?

There is a progression to your understanding.

Humanity is on Trial, will we set ourselves free?

Will we get life or death? I don't want life in prison or a death sentence do you?

[canajan, eh?]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Jul 6 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

So you're GOD/Father/Mother creator is now defined.

Do you yet understand?

There is a progression to your understanding.

Humanity is on Trial, will we set ourselves free?

Will we get life or death? I don't want life in prison or a death sentence do you?

Gary, I don't know what is going on in your life at the moment, and maybe you've already posted your story and I missed it, as I don't read everything . . . but you sound deeply distressed, and I just want to let you know that I really, really believe in the way God loves you. I know things on Planet Earth can be profoundly painful at times, but I trust the love and the courage of our amazing Mother and Father, and I trust they are looking after you -- even though it may be hard at times to see their love. To God, you are a beautiful and wondrous person. Just please try and remember that.

Blessings to you on your journey.

Jen

[davidk]

McKenna, on May 30 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

[Haha can you see a theme here?

I wanted to bring up a couple beliefs that are central to "orthodox" Christianity and ask how you guys thought they could be incorporated into Progressive Christianity, or if you think they even should be.]

With that said, what do you think? Is there a way to understand the Trinity that can deepen our understanding of God? Or is it merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today?

Dear McKenna,

For the liberal/progressive theologian it is quite impossible to understand the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation; because if one is commited, without question, to the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, then by definition everything is a machine, and any idea of a verbalized, propositional revelation becomes absolute nonsense. Whether you begin with the naturalistic view in philosophy or theology, it makes no difference. Discussing details won't solve the problem. The big question has to be faced, the question of presuppositions. If I express myself in philosophical or theological terms of a propositional, verbalized revelation, knowledge that man has from God, the liberal would consider it unthinkable. Because by his world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, everything is a machine and there is no knowledge from outside, from God.
If this is your world view, and cannot consider any other, you are at a dead end. It denies the evidence we know about ourselves. In addition you will never be able to consider the presupposition which began modern science in the first place.
Unless you can consider the uniformity of natural causes in an open sysyem, that is open to the reordering by God, you'll have no answer.
--
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and knowledge. -Proverbs 1:7
For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth knowledge and understanding. - Poverbs 2:6
-

[minsocal]

Natural systems theory, taken as a body of work, does not universally support the claim made by davidk.