I take the Bible a little more literally that most mainstream Christians. I have read it cover to cover at least 3 times now. And I don't just read it like one of those thick old revered books - I study it as I would one of my college textbooks. I have written notes in it. I have highlighted favorite passages. I have bent the corners of pages that I thought were significant, and I have marked parts that I did not understand and had to look up in a dictionary. I think in a later blog I'll explore my feelings about the Bible as a sacred document, as a useful document, and as a document that has been messed up by people seeking power... but currently I'd like to focus on the information about God that I have gleaned from it.
First off, I really don't think the Bible actually supports the Trinitarian POV on God.
 |
| from Wikipedia |
My Lutheran friend defined it this way: "Three in one, one in three without body, parts, or passions."
St. Patrick explained it with several examples.
(I like insider POVs. They're fun.)
Ok, so that's the Trinity.
The thing is, what I don't like about the Trinitarian God is that... well, I'll say it...he is so WEIRD.
You can't relate to Him at all.
No body?
No parts?
No passions?
Three people in one?
He is absolutely NOTHING like me.
At least Zeus got passionate, made mistakes even. And he was still a god. And all the gods of the other faiths got married. Women existed in their pantheons. Hera. Isis. Frigg. Brigid. Certainly you can see why the pagans resisted conversion to this weirdo foreign god whom their Roman conquerors tried to impose on them.
Now some people like the belief of the Trinity because to them it shows how you know He is God rather than a made-up story. (This logic is odd because it insists that all polytheistic gods are false and only the belief in a monotheistic god is true. What facts do they have to prove that? [I mean, real solid scientific, tangible facts.] Uh...none really. The only way monotheists prove monotheism is correct is by going to their own books of scripture. Problem with that is that the polytheists [and atheists] will ask "How do we know your book of scripture isn't just a load of tripe?" To be fair, we have to acknowledge that belief in monotheism is in fact a matter of faith (just like St. Patrick explained about the Trinity above). And monotheists believe what they believe not on empirical evidence, but on faith. It must also be said that their argument against polytheism is really an argument that: "My God is the True God." Which to polytheists comes across as, "My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy." POV, remember.)
So, getting off a tangent, a lot of questions come up when I think about the Trinity.
Even though in Genesis it says we are created in God's image, the doctrine of the Trinity (according to my Lutheran friend) says He doesn't have a body. Now, I paint and make things. I am quite sure the word image really does mean what He looks like. In Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy (see my earlier blogs) this was the grounding for why he could explain God exists by definition. Because if he didn't have a body (like a triangle) you could basically 'define' him into existence. I have noticed that a lot of Trinitarians work hard to explain away this one detail, insisting God has no body. But if you really read the Bible (and not skimmed it or only read select passages) you'd know it talks about God's face, hands, feet, and mouth. It also mentions the resurrected Christ having a body his apostles could touch. Why resurrect into a body only to throw it off? What was the point of the Resurrection then, if not to keep what you lost? And further to enable others to regain their bodies as well? Job himself talked about the Resurrection way before Jesus Christ was even born. Job 19:26. "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
Why do Trinitarian Christians get so feverishly adamant that God has no body then, if it is obviously in the Bible that he does? During the Medieval Era there was an incredible warping of doctrine that basically said that the human body (the flesh) was naturally sinful and therefore corrupt. Since then there has been a residual desire of many Christian sects to separate anything corporeal from that of the spiritual.
More kindly, I think the Trinitarians used the doctrine of the Trinity to explain why He is three persons and yet one person all at the same time. No body - no worries about explaining how one is three and yet one at the same time.
But why do they say God has no passions? Throughout the Bible it says that God is Love, is jealous, gets angry, forgives, delights, is pleased, and rests. (you do realize I'm only giving brief examples and not then entire collection of them?)
But anyway, most of the time such are explained away as symbolic or metaphorical. But Jesus wept. Is he not God, according to the Trinity?
Ok, set all this aside. I think the thing about the Trinity that bothers me the most is that they take away the reason we call God Father. Trinitarians say it is figurative. I say it is literal. I believe with my whole heart that God is our Father, and all that it implies. Jesus Christ himself advocated this. He said as recorded in John 10:34 (quoting Psalm 82:6) "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" And Paul, well known for the statement in Romans 8:16 and 17: "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him."
They say this is figurative. They say it is by adoption. Actually, Paul does say we are adopted in verse 15 of that same chapter. But I keep wondering...adopted by God the Father, or his Son Jesus Christ?
Years ago when I was a missionary in Russia I would listen to the locals share what they believed the same time I shared what I believed. Once a Russian woman told me about why the Russian Orthodox Church had so many icons of saints and apostles and why they even prayed to the saints and apostles rather than directly to God. She said that God was too scary. That if you prayed to your favorite saint then maybe that saint (or the Virgin Mary since she was his mother) could intercede with God on your behalf. But that was the job of Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible.
You see, I take the Bible literally. To me, God the Father is the one true God (monotheism). But I also believe God sent is Son to redeem us from the fall. (Something Jesus tells about in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and all over the New Testament). And his Son did all that God commanded him to do. Thus, becoming like God the Father. So when Christ said (John 14:9), "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Does that really mean, "Dude, we are the same guy!" or does it mean, "I'm doing what my father does, so if he came down here, he'd just do the same thing."? Because he does talk about the Father is in him and he is in the Father. Should I take that literally also?
The fun thing about scriptures is that you should also take them in context. Keep reading the passage. Read the entire discourse (If politicians, actors, and other people are brutally taken out of context, don't think for a minute that the Son of God would be exempt from such abuse. He was already crucified after all). He talks a great deal about service and doing the will of his Father. If they were the same guy, wouldn't he just cut to the chase and say he was? He also constantly mentioned the Holy Spirit as one that comes and goes. He even says that he will not always be with them.
There is so much evidence they are three separate people it makes me want to scream sometimes. For example: John 15:26 - "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"
Ok, if the Trinity were the truth and I am totally wrong then let's make this scripture make sense. Exchange the word ME. MYSELF, and I (since the doctrine of the Trinity says they are all the same dude) to mean God, and see if it makes any sense.
"But when [I] come, whom I will send unto you from [ME], even the [ME] , which proceedeth from [ME], [I] shall testify of me"
Uh...No offense. But the Trinitarian God sounds really egotistical. And from a god who says he is meek and lowly of heart, that's just... well... really.... It is why I don't believe in the Trinity.
Another reason the Trinitarian God bugs me is the motivation for why He does what He does.
Since the Trinitarian God is so different from me, not my literal Father in Heaven, but a distant Creator without body, parts, or passions what reason could He possibly care about me? (The answer to life the universe and everything might as well be 42 with that kind of god.) And what reason would I want to revere something so strange? Are we his toys? Pawns? Playthings? Collectables? A hobby? Is eternity and Heaven really that boring?
The God I believe in is our Father. And his motivation is the motivation of all good fathers. He loves us.
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment