Yes! We reject the Trinity as anathema, we speak to Jehovah thru his one and only J.C. J.Ws

Stalin1000,

Are you Christian? With what denomination are you associated?

If Christian, then to what Canon do you adhere? Does your New Testament (e.g. New King James Version) include the following: Matthew 28:19; Mark 3:11; Luke 1:35; Luke 3:22; and Galatians 4:6? If you do, and you recognize the Canon being the Word of God (which must be True, because God declared Himself unchanging), then these passages which indicate a trio of aspects of God must lead one to believe that the Godhead (singular, Deuteronomy 6:4) is composed of three identifiable and independently operable personality aspects - all of whom can be tangible simulataneously (as is illustrated at the baptism of Jesus). Each has a specific purpose in the playing out of this human drama. Don't fall into the trap of assigning human qualities to God. He exceeds anything you can imagine. As a human being, we're limited in our ability to rationalize it. But, don't say "it cannot be" because we do NOT possess ALL knowledge - and because it CAN be, and we have no way to fully describe it.

Or, are you Jew?

If you follow the Hebrew traditions, then I can see where you might maintain that position. However, the personalities which are described in the New Testament (Christian Bible), for each of these persons in the Godhead, show corresponding qualities in various cases in the Old Testament (Tanakh and books of the prophets).

Iam 50/50 and a lapsed J.W. But i use the New World Traslation of the Bible! Remember that was once training for the ROC.[STALIN]

Thank you, for being so forthright.

The material I can find on the "New World Translation" speaks favorably of its accuracy (and cross-referencing), but with the caveat that the evidential bias is toward *literal* interpretation.

I'm curious how you might view the information in the book of Revelation, literal or figurative.

Personally, I was raised in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, and follow in basic prinicple. I do think that some of their conservatism (literal leanings) mask explanations to some very fanciful allegory. MSLC clergy, with whom I've spoken, are reluctant to explore the writings in Revelation - and how it might compare with contemprary events.

Lahest night was The memorial Evening at KHs all over the world! We did a study on a Tuesday evening sometime back on the book of Revelation, i found the meaning figurativly. its a sturring book, i found the Bible study quite traumatic and am convinced more than ever that we are in the last days of the present system of things!

When Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spitit came to Him in the form of a Dove, and the Father spoke from Heaven. It's not hard to understand.

These are two of the passages in the Tanach which do not at all show any corresponding qualities to indicate any sort of umbilical connection with the NT doctrine that God is triune. Here is the reason why God is absolutely One, and how scientifically He could not be more than One: Isaiah 44:24 and 46:5.

The Absolute Unity of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be supperfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Ben

Please, comment on the accuracy of translation in the Old Testament of the King James Bible (whose first five books are found in the Tanakh).

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Understanding that this event is occurring before man had actually appeared, to WHOM is God speaking in the plural? Is He addressing a collection of other heavenly beings (angels)? Or, is He considering action (aloud, in thought)? If aloud (to Himself), then does the plural represent several distinct personalities contained within a single substance (which we recognize as God)?

Genesis 3:22 - "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Again, He says "us".

Masada007 wrote: "Isaiah 46:5 - 'To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to, or compare Me with, that we may be alike?' "

If we're looking at this 'scientifically' (as you say), then explain this to me. If God cannot be likened to anyone else of which we know, then how can we be sure that multiple personalities (who can act in unison or individually) is not possible? Remember, we as humans are finite, and limited in our reasoning capacity. We can only approximate something which is infinite, never completely comprehending it. Since God is infinite, what certainty do we have that we can precisely describe God? Why were the ancient men reluctant to even speak the name of God? Could it be that a finite label (which man wanted) was inadequate to do justice to God? I believe so.

If each personality each took a different aspect of the creation (and relations with that creation), then it is possible for one being to act in concert although not all doing the same thing at the same time. The Father created the plan and placed into motion a complex universe of inanimate matter. The Son (not subordinate to the Father, except in His role as Savior) brought forth life, and the Holy Spirit acted as teacher/comforter/conscience to the creatures labeled as the pinnacle of the creation - Man.

By upbringing, I've been taught and was raised in the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) - a Protestant spin-off from the Catholic Church. The reasons for the split are varied, but can be focused upon two major reasons.
(1) The Catholic Church believes in a "halfway point" (called Purgatory) where human souls remain until God's judgment day. Ability to transfer from Purgatory to heaven is dependent upon either other people praying for our souls to be shown mercy, or purchased through 'indulgences', or both. Martin Luther, a Catholic priest and educator, disagreed with these notions because it perpetuated the notion that man can somehow reach God through his own efforts. If the Bible was read by the clergy, then they'd have noticed the part about the 'tower of Babel' where this idea was squashed by God.
(2) Martin Luther maintained that salvation (forgiveness, and declaration of our righteuosness) is an act of God alone, through His mercy and love for us.

There are a number of New Testament translations stemming from the original Greek recordings of Apostle preaching.

Each of the first Apostles were brought up in the Hebrew faith (with the exception of Luke, who was Greek). Most of them were His directly chosen disciples, and followed/lived with Him during the 3.5 years of His ministry. And after being with Him day-in-and-day-out, hearing Jesus' lessons, were convinced that He was incarnation of God in human flesh (come among us to teach mankind directly, as an example of how we should live and respond to God).

Yoda,

I think that (Gen. 1:26) accurately reflects the truth that God is one in spirit, universal in reason (mind), but threefold in personality. I hope you will find that my Trinity research compliments your own.

I believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is conscious of himself as part of one consciousness unified in conscience and reason, but having the personality prerogative of freewill within the bounds of necessary Trinity cooperation.

The will of each person of the Trinity is not identical, but is integrated in an almost musical procession of exquisite "perichoresis" or "dance" of Trinity coordination, forever supporting their divine union in One God. Theoretically, each could walk away with his portion of the kingdom, as the Qur'an puts it, but they don't because of the catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.

Please take a look at my new book "Religious Pluralism and the Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace" currently previewing on the web at www.religiouspluralism.ca.

The thesis is that: 1) Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Prime Creator or Primogenitor - represented in religions by Allah, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and others. 2) Christians and Vaishnava Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal" Absolute Supreme Being - the gestalt of personal human consciousness (Oversoul), which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming - portrayed in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others. 3) Shaivite Hindus, Taoists, and some Buddhists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, i.e. the associative Unconditioned Absolute Spirit "Synthesis of Source and Synthesis," or unqualified totality of All That Is - the Destiny Consummator or ultimate reality, who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified - represented by Gabriel, Michael, and other angels or Bodhisattvas.

It is argued that world religions reflect the systematic unity of One God in Trinity manifestations, which become almost universal when you consider that some flavours of Buddhism, Confucian-Taoism, and other major religions seem to be variations of the third person, or psychological combinations of the three persons – all just different personality perspectives on the same God.

It is argued that that a spark of that one spirit of Trinity indwells the soul of all humans, together with a small portion of the universal mind, and a personal will or character. The human soul is thus modelled on the Trinity as its only adequate metaphysical vehicle, but also in a “perichoresis” of the psychological coordinates of consciousness – the threefold human soul – personality/mind/spirit.

If the purpose of life is to find God and be like him, then the way to do the will of God is to let him live your life with you, helping fuse your personality and his spirit in your immortal soul. That immortality may be achieved through participation in the Universe Absolute Oversoul, of which Jesus Christ seems to be the head representative, and it might also be a merging of consciousness with the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is, as well as an amplification of personal connection with the Deity Absolute.

At the same time, in considering the Universe Supreme Being, Muslims would insist on including Muhammad, and Hindus might suggest Buddha, etc. At the supposed spirit level of the universe, we can speculate that the corresponding supreme leaders might be Michael, Gabriel, and some unidentified angel(s) or Mahadevas.

Similarly and likewise, Allah, Abba (or Father, as Jesus called him), and Brahma may be regarded as a representation of the first person of the Trinity Absolute in three major world religions - Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism – with hybrid psychologies represented by Buddha, Confucius, and others.

My questions are: Do you see how closely the psychology of the major religions maps onto the Trinity Absolute, as I have described it on my website? What do you think of religious pluralism? Can I not still be a good Christian without being exclusive?

Please see my www.religiouspluralism.ca website Contact page, and give me a comment for the Bulletin Board.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

Dattaswami,

What a nice surprise. You found the above message and replied on my website. I'm trying to get back to you directly, but in the meantime, I will leave this here.

Would you not agree that the Supreme (Preserver) Son is different in personality, but the same in spirit as the Deity Absolute Father (Creator)? But Vishnu/Krishna and the Unconditioned Absolute (Consummator) Spirit of All That Is are coordinte cocreators. Therefore, they are different persons, and their metaphysical roles are different, but none are necessarily "smaller" than the others. It is more respectful to call them primary, secondary, and tertiary when you need a label, rather than major, minor, and other complex combinations.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

www.religiouspluralism.ca

Christianity Discussion Forum Readers,

I hope you will be interested in a further elaboration on the definition of the Trinity Absolute - One God in three persons - one in spirit, universal in reason, and unified in will saying, I am:

1. Deity Absolute Prime Creator - Father/Benefactor,
2. Universe or "Universal" Absolute Supreme Being/Son - Christ almighty supreme oversoul of all humankind,
3. Unconditioned Absolute Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis - All That Is.

Notice that the Trinity is not just the Supreme Being. The Trinity is not one person, but three persons, so technically, the Trinity cannot say "I am" (that would be pre-Trinity thinking). Nevertheless, such a forgiveable distortion tends to occur in shrinking the three persons into one, more simplified, concept of God as one person - the I am.

This leads into speculation on the original condition of the Father, before he begot the Son. But at that purely hypothetical time, he would have been All That Is or was then, which some Zen Buddhists call the great "emptiness." The Spirit of All That Is certainly includes and proceeds partly from, but is not only, the spirit of the Primogenitor (Allah/Abba/Brahma).

By definition of the words themselves, there never was a time before the Creator was Father of the Son. Furthermore, the Deity's primordial act of creation, which makes him the Primogenitor, involved also [u]their[/u] Spirit as well as his Son, as co-creators. He is first of the three co-equal persons of the Trinity, but purely by definition of necessary reason.

There could not have been a time when there was nothing, or there would be nothing now. All That Is would not be who he is, if there was something pre-Trinity. It is doubtful that the Trinity itself appeared out of nothing, and by definition, All That Is knows no other. More likely the Trinity has always existed, like reason itself, "hiding in plain sight."

TRINITY: THE ONE INEVITABILITY

The ‘Absolute’ is an expression that has been used with various shades of meaning by many philosophers, but its modern definition and signification are due to the great idealist philosopher Georg Hegel.

“In philosophy, the Highest is called the Absolute, the Idea… that which we call the Absolute has a meaning identical with the expression God.” – Hegel quoted in Philosophy of Religion – J. E. Smith. P.107.

“(Hegel also held that)… the totality of all things… is the Absolute Idea.” Four Philosophies – J. D. Butler. P.135.

Hegel held that the Absolute is the Highest, the Absolute Idea is the “totality of all things,” and that which we call Absolute is God. But experientially, the totality of all things is the Universe Absolute, and this is the antithesis of the existential Absolute God or the Deity Absolute. On the other hand, if by “the totality,” Hegel means both the mundane and the divine, then he is referring to the Unconditioned Absolute, or totality of “All That Is,” which is not the one, nor the other, but the synthesis or fusion of both.

Making things even more confusing, it must be noted that in addition to the totality of the Universe and the totality of the Unconditioned “All That Is,” there might be said to be also the totality of the Trinity Absolute as a corporate entity – not one person, but a ‘gestalt’ of personal consciousness in a systematic unity – One multi-dimensional God.

Regardless of conceptual intricacies, it is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of the dichotomy of existential versus experiential consciousness, and their synthesis. By many and fair-seeming arguments, for convenience of speaking, and because reason demands a beginning and a Creator; we contrast the thesis of the Deity Absolute with the equally specious argument that science demands no absolute beginning – only universal contingency – which is the Universe Absolute scientific antithesis of theology. Then, by the laws of dialectical logic, we construct a third argument – the Unconditioned Absolute synthesis, which is ultimately based on the other two, and finally incorporated in the Trinity of all three.

Whereas some philosophers emphasized duality as the foundation of metaphysics, Hegel saw through the dialectic of duality to the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as the necessary fundamental creative equation. Thus, in terms of the Absolute, we arrive at the philosophical inevitability of the Trinity of the three Absolutes of Creation, i.e. thesis: the transcendent Deity Absolute; antithesis: the immanent Universe or “Universal” Absolute; and synthesis: the ultimate Unconditioned Absolute.

Trinity Absolute is the Prime Paradigm and a metaphysical basis for a General Theory of Everything. Trinity Absolute is the first systematic unity of theology, science, and all that is. Trinity is a logical inevitability.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
http://www.religiouspluralism.ca

You wrote:
"Please, comment on the accuracy of translation in the Old Testament of the King James Bible (whose first five books are found in the Tanakh).

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: …
Understanding that this event is occurring before man had actually appeared, to WHOM is God speaking in the plural? Is He addressing a collection of other heavenly beings (angels)? Or, is He considering action (aloud, in thought)? If aloud (to Himself), then does the plural represent several distinct personalities contained within a single substance (which we recognize as God)?

Genesis 3:22 - "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,…
Again, He says "us"."

----------------------------------
There's a clear answer given several times. Mankind made a gigantic error, and Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 foreshadow the future when this mistake is going to be finally cleaned up. The plural is addressing a heavenly host who is going to have to haul out the garbage on the day of wrath, when the beast and false prophet (aka foolish shepherd, wicked counselor, antichrist(s), etc.) will be sent away with those who are foolish enough to follow them:

Daniel 7:10 A fiery stream arose and came forth from before him: a
thousand thousands ministered to him, and 10,000 times 10,000
stood before him: the-Judgment was set, and scrolls were opened.

Revelation 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many messengers
around the throne and the creatures and the elders: and the number of
them was 10,000 times 10,000, and thousands of thousands;

Therefore, in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, it is reasonable, or even necessary, to assume that Elohim was talking to his servants the host of angels. Daniel 7:10 has a million ministers directing 100 million standing ready. That's the 'us' who were addressed at the briefing. That's a lot of 'us'. These millions (or more!) of the heavenly host were around since day two, long before the Earth:

Genesis 1:8 And Elohim called the firmament Heavens. And the evening and
the morning were the second day.

So, the heavens have been around since the second of the six days of creation; the Earth came later. There's a lot of stars in the heavens; a lot of room for planets with created beings like us in the 'image of Elohim'. There's 200 billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy; and around 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns in the observable universe. All life has been instructed: "And Elohim blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply", and that's a lot of possibilities for life to be fruitful and multiply. In the garden of Eden in Genesis 3, cherubim are mentioned as guardians to keep mankind out; they, certainly, were present at the time of the garden. These various created beings are sometimes called 'men', though it's obvious they are not humans.

'Son of God' is sometimes used to refer to these; 'son' may be translated as 'children', and it can refer to male and female. The usage of 'son' is much broader in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic than it is in English; context and knowledge of biblical idioms is important. 'Son of' means, 'having a particular characteristic of'. In English, this sense is only rarely used, as in 'son of the wild west' or 'daughter of the American Revolution'.

'Son of man', contrary to what many Christians believe, is used as a title for several prophets such as Ezekiel, and does not always, or necessarily, refer to Jesus; neither does 'son of God' have to refer to him only. 'Son of man' is someone who resembles an earthly human, whether they actually are, or not. For instance, Daniel had an encounter with several heavenly beings, and he refers to 'the one who resembles a son of man'; thus, the others did not look human.

Human prophets are sometimes referred to as 'angel of Yahweh' or as 'son of God'; so also with the surviving remnant of the nation of Israel in the world to come (after the day of wrath of Yahweh); and so is anyone who wholeheartedly observes to try to keep the Laws of Moses. Actually, the only ones mentioned who are not Sons of God, are most of mankind and Satan and his followers, all of which are presently residing on Earth (at least until the final day when they are removed permanently, leaving about one in ten of us behind.) Each of these points is in prophecy, often more than a dozen times apiece; sometimes with detailed explanations. As Hosea 4:6 says, 'my people is destroyed for lack of knowledge'. Read or die.
----------------------------------
You also wrote:

Or, is He considering action (aloud, in thought)? If aloud (to Himself), then does the plural represent several distinct personalities contained within a single substance (which we recognize as God)?

Have you read the Ten Commandments? The second says:

Exodus 20:7 You do not take up the Name-of-YHWH-your-Elohim in
falsehood; for YHWH does not hold him guiltless who takes his-Name
for falsehood.
Deuteronomy 5:11(10) You do not take the Name-of-YHWH-your-Elohim
in vain: for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes his-Name in vain.

What's really important is that this is not merely a suggestion, but a promise of punishment for violating the command to not speculate about him. All we know of the Creator, is what he tells us; in particular, that he is slow to anger, quick to forgive, abundant in compassion and generosity, yet he will never forgive those who do not have remorse for their sins (Exodus 34:6-7; Numbers 14:18; Nehemiah 9:16-17; Psalm 103; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). Personally, the part about not forgiving, but punishing those who stubbornly make inappropriate statements about him, makes me nervous. It is not hard to do. Theologians, religious leaders, and philosophers are paid to do that. Smearing his Name with ignorant intellectual sophistry is quite different from discussing what he says, which is something he encourages:

Deuteronomy 6:7 And teach [the Words of Yahweh] diligently to your children, and talk about them when you sit in your house, and when you are on the road, and when you lie down, and when you wake up …

Our human intellects have limitations that cannot be exceeded, even in principle; e.g., see Gödel's incompleteness theorems; or try to imagine an intuitively rational mechanism to explain quantum mechanics — it can't be done, despite the fact that QM is the most accurate description of the physical world by far. We are created beings; you can examine a manufactured item, but that created thing cannot give you any idea of the personal life of the CEO of the company that produced it; nor can our highly admired intellects do better than make us look foolish when we try to analyze anything sacred. The sacred is outside of the common. Worse yet, the Supreme One says he takes that personally as offensive.

If you want some solid information or hard proof regarding Yahweh or what his prophecies mean, or what he does or is about to do, that information is available. The prophecies themselves are a type of portal, with complete instructions that are only thinly veiled. It only takes two things: asking in humility and waiting on the answer, which should take no more than three weeks; and not going to human authorities such as Luther, Maimonides, the Pope, sages, talmud, church doctrines or dogmas, or any other man-made set of 'elohim' that we put on a pedestal and idolize. Humans know nothing of what's outside of the common world. We have to go to the source. Another prophecy or two along this line:

Isaiah 45:9 Woe to one contending with his-Maker as a shard
among the shards of the Earth! will the clay say to
the potter who makes him: What are you making? or will your work
say to you: You had no hand in it?

Isaiah 10:15 Will the axe boast itself as greater than him who cuts with
it, or will the saw magnify itself against him who saws with it? As
if the rod should swing itself against those who lift it up, or as
if the scepter should lift up itself as if it was not wood.

The metaphor is clear in these two verses. Adonai makes the human intellect; and then the human intellect thinks it's the master of the universe, and puts his Maker into a box to be handled like any other object in his world; as if the Supreme-One was a slave that was compelled to obey the formal boolean logic of a flow chart!

When I first decided to investigate what the prophecies actually say (which is not what people believe they say), I decided to first look at what Yahweh says he despises, so I could avoid those things; it is often futile to antagonize someone and then expect their cooperation. And, speculating about Yahweh (that is, making vain statements about him) was way up there on the list; not only in the second of the Ten of the Commandments, but also in a strongly-worded cluster of about fifty prophecies that generally warn about things that we do not want 'brought down on our heads'. (This was interesting and relevant, because I had done this a lot in the past.)

Generally, attributing statements to him that he did not say, is dangerous. It is a subtle dark side to the 'golden rule'. One example is a statement of false peace. Saying that 'It is true that God would not let our town be invaded and God promises that will not happen', when God never promised that, will cause that statement to be brought down on our heads with the 'not' shifted. What results is this: 'It is not true that God would not let our town be invaded and God promises that will happen'. Therefore, that town will be invaded, because of using God's name in a false statement; and God makes that statement true by bringing the fears of that person down on his head (as an equivalent true statement). Ironically, that false prophet is getting exactly what he asked for, but in the opposite way he intended — because he inferred a falsehood about God, namely, that it would not be good for his town to be invaded, so people would be relieved to hear that God would never do that. But since God never promised that he would never invade, that false prophet caused the invasion. (Perhaps if a few knew that the false prophet was a liar and interceded for the town, the town might be spared.)

But the disasters that have befallen Jerusalem and the Israelites have been squarely blamed by Yahweh on false prophets who were widely believed; the words (usually in writing) of false prophets are often described as 'idols' that are given great respect; and this idolatry was the primary cause of the disasters. That's probably the origin of the expression, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'; i.e. smooth, comforting words attributed to Yahweh that Yahweh never said. Of course, if you say true things about our Elohim, you get very good results. (On the other hand, modern day Jerusalem and the USA are in serious danger; we are definitely the most idolatrous civilization that has ever walked the planet due to the printed word.)

Several prophecies promise full disclosure for any mystery, or for what Yahweh is about to do, to those who ask him wholeheartedly. This, by the way, is a hypothesis that can be tested to your satisfaction, regardless of whether you have 'faith' or not. (Incidentally, 'Faith' is notably absent as a requirement in the OT; fairness, compassion and generosity to those less fortunate and in need, such as to strangers, the poor, widows, etc. is a requirement. This is the same message as Jesus says; and it is opposite to what Paul of Tarsus of Acts and the NT epistles says. Surprised? Make two lists: Jesus and Paul agree; or disagree. check it out. I found that one list filled rapidly while the other remained empty.)

Although such a test of Yahweh could be dangerous, I found about seventy or so places where Yahweh urges us to go and inquire of him, and instructions on how to do it effectively and safely. It's all there, in writing, in relevant, consistent and comprehensive sets of instructions for anyone who is both interested, and who can ignore the pressure of church tradition, peers and authorities.

SamueStuartMaynes wrote: "My questions are: Do you see how closely the psychology of the major religions maps onto the Trinity Absolute, as I have described it on my website? What do you think of religious pluralism? Can I not still be a good Christian without being exclusive?"

(1) There is a vestige of the idea of unitary deity (remaining from pre-Abrahamic time). That I will grant as reasonable. I think that Noah's understanding of God is what has survived.

(2) Religious pluralism is an unfortunate state of affairs. The unitary nature of a creator is only one aspect of what that creator is doing. The pluralism indicates that mankind's finiteness is forcing single-minded concentration on only one aspect, and not all in collectivity.

(3) Christianity is built upon the prediction of a Messiah's intervention for sinful conditions, the intervention occurring through cruxifiction and resurrection, and the promise that that intervention affects everyone. Jesus (the manifestation of the middle aspect of the triplet), Himself, said that "...no one comes to the Father but by Me...". If what you're asking is "can I be tolerant of other beliefs?" (although they contradict Jesus' own statement), then I must say "No".

Christians aren't called upon to destroy those who fail to believe as they do (unlike Islam, which speaks to destruction of the infidel). Nor, are Christians invited to tolerate the Buddhist notion that man can reach perfection of his own accord (e.g. the Tower of Babel). Christians are exhorted to believe Jesus, and evangelize to those who are not Christian. The Christian's purpose is to seek God, and preach to those who will listen. Not everyone will listen, but the Christian invitation is followed up by the Holy Spirit as an entreatment. No one is FORCED to believe.

A loving God wants all mankind to hear His message (of what He's done to rectify the separation, brought by sin), and is anxious to have all believe in His promise. However, choice comes with consequences of one alternative over the other. Those who will choose man-centered existence will reap the results - current sinful state ends in death, both physical and spiritual. Those who choose God-centered existence will reap the reward He's promised.

All you need to know about Genesis 1:26 is in my thread,
"Personification of Attributes" posted in this forum. You would enjoy checking it up.
Ben

Yoda55 wrote: "Jesus said... 'no one comes to the Father but by Me...'"

Please see the my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, where I argue as follows:

If the threefold human soul - personality/mind/spirit - is modelled on the Trinity (as its only adequate metaphysical vehicle, with due allowance for "perichoresis"), then individual humans may inevitably have an innate predisposition to worship any one, any combination, or all of the persons of the Trinity. Some toleration is required.

The Bible says that there is no way to the Father, except through the Son, and implies that Jesus Christ will be the Supreme Judge of all human beings on "Judgment Day." However, it would only be fair if Christ shares that judgment seat with Muhammad or the Mahdi in the case of Muslims, Indra or Krishna for Hindus, Guautama for Buddhists, Lao-Tzu for Taoists, and so forth. Some just recognition is required.

Christians believe that a spark of the divine spirit of God indwells all humankind, and this is essentially the same spirit that is in the Father, in the Son, and glorified in the Holy Spirit of Father and Son. The Qur'an agrees that "the spirit of Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein." Hindus call it the "purusha," and Buddhists refer to it as the "unconditioned." Spirit is the glue that binds.

Unity in religious plurality "squares the circle" in a triumph of pure and practical reason, basing the necessary metaphysical foundation of itself on the various existential relationships of the Trinity - made out of nothing but the rational notion of each other.

Great contradictions may be reconciled in their synthesis. Both religion and science may be true, but differ only in their respective points of view. Similarly, the major religions of the world may be just different views of the same God. In fact when you look at it closely, the psychologies of world religions reflect the unity of One God in an absolute Trinity, which may be the basis of a general "theory of everything."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca