Very different Trinity

I am sorry, but I will be unpleasant with Snake once again. Yes, I will. I wish I could be more becoming and nicer to him, but he did not allow me to solve our differences, and showed me the cold shoulder instead, which disappointed me very much and made me a very, very sad panda. I thought Jesus had taught love to his disciples...

I just wish to point out that lecturing others for being arrogant, while calling oneself Imperator Gaius Julius Caesar is fraught with some sense of irony. That is all, and that's that. And I will not go further than that, no, and I will not say anything about the very mean allusions he made about people who do not believe in God. I cannot pray for him, but he has all my love, sympathy and consideration. I hope he will change his mind about agnostic minorities in the US, and try to show a more open mind, because these people also deserve respect:eek:. Yes, they do!

1. Honestly, who takes those titles seriously? They don't mean anything.
2. Subtly insulting the intelligence of religious members is not trying to solve differences.
 

Blackwood

Banned
Yes, please. The religious discussion belongs in another thread, and certainly one in which the arguments are presented without the subtle and not-so-subtle insults.

Moving on.
 
(Based on the Mother one that was in the original post) Well, maybe this would have affected how Christianity was spread based on some cultures' sexist attitudes, so they would not have opened up to Christianity.
 
First, I would like to make something clear: I have nothing against religions, I am not an atheist (I am an agnostic), and I consider myself as open to mysticism.

Now, as Steinbeck said, I do not believe in a "kindly, bearded, interstellar dictator", but I see myself as a "true image of his kingdom, our eyes the nebulae, and universes in our cells". My God (if I believe in something close to it) is nature. I have a lot of sympathy for Christianity, and for Christians, provided they accept that some people do not believe in God. There are even Christians who think that most people who go to heaven are non-Christians. They simply believe that being a christian is as much an opportunity as a burden, since when you were delivered the message, and do not abide by it, you are more guilty than someone who did not receive it. You are even more deserving if you managed to act kindly without knowing about God...

It is true that I see most religions as philosophical or ideological. That is why I feel I have the right to criticize them, and I like some religions better than others (notably Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism).

To anwer your question, vtmarxist, the Father, the Mother and the Son is a traditional family picture, and it is much more earthly than the heavenly picture conveyed by the Spirit. There is a semi-religious system of thought, also quasi-philosophical, that places emphasis on the family: namely, Confucianism.

I do not know enough about Confucianism to say to what extent Christianity and Confucianism might look alike in those conditions, though...
 
Well, this is the last I'll say on this, cause I don't want to have trouble, however I would like to clarify that the USSR and PRC were not atheist states as any atheist would define them. All they did was replace the Church with the State and replace God with Stalin/Mao. They were every based beliefs that are every bit as irrational and illogical as any religion.

Now! That out of the way. :)

I do think that Christianity could've thrived without Paul being involved, though it might've taken longer. This does raise a good question, though, which I'll start in another thread...

I'm sorry, if Stalin and Mao weren't creating atheist states then Oliver Cromwell and the Papal States and the first Spanish states weren't Christian, Al-Hakim bi Amr Allah's Egypt wasn't a Muslim state, the Mughal Empire wasn't a Muslim Empire, and Imperial Japan wasn't a Shinto state. You don't get to play redefinition games without us religious folk getting to do it, too.

Edit-and for future reference, I actually wish atheists could do what 150,000+ years of hominin existence couldn't and create a utopia, I really do. Unfortunately they'll run up against the same roadblocks religious governments did and then it'll just get worse from then on out.
 
So, trying hard to steer this back on topic, the general consensus seems to be that this different Trinity would lead to a version of Christianity where women are more equal, yeah? What does that do as far as it becoming a major religion? Does it still grow to the size it is now?
 
So, trying hard to steer this back on topic, the general consensus seems to be that this different Trinity would lead to a version of Christianity where women are more equal, yeah? What does that do as far as it becoming a major religion? Does it still grow to the size it is now?

Did you read my post about how it would not spread as easily?
 
So, trying hard to steer this back on topic, the general consensus seems to be that this different Trinity would lead to a version of Christianity where women are more equal, yeah? What does that do as far as it becoming a major religion? Does it still grow to the size it is now?

Christianity started out as a radical sect of egalitarian apocalyptics based around a charismatic rabbi named Yehoshua. It was at that time, insignificant. Had these egalitarian ideals continued, it would have been even shorter-lived than Tecumseh's confederacy and about as well-known. Ideals of that sort don't tend to last very long.
 
So, trying hard to steer this back on topic, the general consensus seems to be that this different Trinity would lead to a version of Christianity where women are more equal, yeah? What does that do as far as it becoming a major religion? Does it still grow to the size it is now?

I share your opinion, which is not very original as you pointed out, since there is an obvious majority in favour of a more prominent role for women.

Now, the Father, the Mother and the Son sounds really socially conservative. I was thinking about confucianism, but in my country, during the second world war, the Vichy regime's motto was 'Travail, Famille, Patrie' (Work, Family, Motherland), and it was not precisely tolerant. Our country is the first which created a Mother's Day, though (and it was at that period).

That is why I tend to be wary of ideologies that place an emphasis on family (especially an idealized family). I am not sure that this version would necessarily be more tolerant (and perhaps even in the case of women). That is just a qualification I wanted to draw your attention on, although a greater emphasis on women and motherhood still seems positive to me. I believe it would also be more difficult for something like Protestantism to emerge (since it is much more patriarchal than the Catholic version).

The Father, then the Mother, then the Son (but where is the daughter?)...
 
'Travail, Famille, Patrie' (Work, Family, Motherland),

But it should read "Work, Family, Fatherland" - right???
And following your post (Louis) the mother also brings us to the Nazis and the German Mother!

So this is Christianity with a different trinity:
"the Mother" could be used to corner women in a traditional role if a Paul comes around.
But it does depend on the way its interpreted.
Thus it should be possible for women to attain a more active role of society and not just being mothers giving birth to much needed heirs and children for the line to go on.

Could make for some changes in Christian society. Thing is would it distance Christianity from other beliefs usually rated Pagan? Probably not and that could make for a difficult time for Christianity just being one belief among others - one that doesn't stand out.
It would make for a problem in attaining followers.

What would be the role of the Mother in this trinity? Quite important as this as already pointed to would make for the role of women in society. Make her a consort of the Father and she'd be just a mother.
Make her party to creation of the world and life and she'd have a role of her own. Which would require so re-editing or non-editing of Genesis.

The Son: Is this to be a religion of resurrection? As we stick to Christianity it is.
Is the Mother going to give birth to the son or being a creator of life is she way above earthly matters such as giving birth?
Or she could be Mother of Earth having given life to all matter including the Son. That way she again would be something like equal to the Father, who would properbly have been to one to have done all the planning pre-creation, by way of creating.
But then who would it be descending on Earth - the father in the incarnation of the son thus he be subordinate to woman - the creator, or? :D
 
Thing is would it distance Christianity from other beliefs usually rated Pagan? Probably not and that could make for a difficult time for Christianity just being one belief among others - one that doesn't stand out.
It would make for a problem in attaining followers.

I was thinking about it too. The Roman ethos was centered on the family, so that kind of Christianity would seem rather undifferentiated from other religions. As a system of beliefs and social values, it would stand closer to traditional Roman views on the family. One of the most important teachings of Christ is that you must learn to 'hate' your own family if you want to love mankind as a whole (he shunned his own mother...).

But it should read "Work, Family, Fatherland" - right???
And following your post (Louis) the mother also brings us to the Nazis and the German Mother!

That is an interesting point. In German, which I had the opportunity to study for a while when I was younger, I think one says 'Das Vaterland' (or is it Der?). It is therefore neutral, but the word Vater: Father makes it lean on the masculine side. I do not know how it works in Danish, but I suppose it is quite close.

In French, the ambiguity is maintained, because 'La Patrie' is in itself a feminine word, but 'Patrie' comes from the Latin root 'Pater', which means father ('père' in French).

Is the Mother going to give birth to the son or being a creator of life is she way above earthly matters such as giving birth?
Or she could be Mother of Earth having given life to all matter including the Son. That way she again would be something like equal to the Father, who would properbly have been to one to have done all the planning pre-creation, by way of creating.

An interesting scenario would be 'The Mother/ The Son/ The Father'. However, I think you will agree with me when I say that it is totally impossible without a complete change in previous human history.

One has to keep in mind that religions centered on 'Great Mother godesses' were not only found in Europe, but also in Turkey, for instance (Catal Huyuk). Now if those religious beliefs had somehow influenced monotheism and early Judaism, who knows what might have happened?
 
I do not know how it works in Danish, but I suppose it is quite close.

In French, the ambiguity is maintained, because 'La Patrie' is in itself a feminine word, but 'Patrie' comes from the Latin root 'Pater', which means father ('père' in French).

In Danish it is nowadays usually the motherland but earlier it would be fatherland.

My bad about French - too many years ago I took that in High School. :D

An interesting scenario would be 'The Mother/ The Son/ The Father'. However, I think you will agree with me when I say that it is totally impossible without a complete change in previous human history.

One has to keep in mind that religions centered on 'Great Mother godesses' were not only found in Europe, but also in Turkey, for instance (Catal Huyuk). Now if those religious beliefs had somehow influenced monotheism and early Judaism, who knows what might have happened?

Do agree - it would have to be a rewrite of Genesis to allow for a creating Mother goddess (I remember something about Gods female companion/alter ego that was edited out of Genesis, but thats all).
Perhaps they did influence monotheism but Paul erased it. ;)
 
What if Christianity had been established with a different Trinity? Not "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit", but "The Father, the Mother and the Son"? What would likely end up different?

Given a strict reading, this is better posted in ASB if you ask me. Now if it were some sect that gained prominence (see below) but didn't squeeze out Father/Son/Holy Spirit Trinitarianism (the correct view) I could cope with that.

Maybe. But it did evolve out of Judaism, which from what I understand is a little more equal with the sexes. I blame Paul for much of the sexism and homophobia in Christianity. Perhaps if he was, say, sat on by a donkey while on the road to Damascus, and thus taken out of the picture, we could've ended up with a more equal form of Christianity?

I don't think it would be viable from any decent viewpoint to blame Paul, he was a lot different from some of his day, and from what some people have done with what he taught. As for Judaism, strictly speaking they might have been more egalitarian at one time (Deborah as judge, daughters being able to inherit in the absence of sons at least, etc.) but were'nt so much by the 1st century it seems.

this would be the ASB of christianity because without Paul there is no Christianity he basically with very little help built chrisitianity

God could have used someone else, if He'd wanted to.

There actually was a minor Christian sect during the 6th century that taught that the Trinity consisted of "the Father, the Mother and the Son".

They never gained any significant influence, though.

We could try having this thread as a WI for this sect being dominant (to a certain extent).

Actually, early Christianity was remarkably more egalitarian when it came to relations between the sexes. In many orthodox Jewish communities men and women do not pray together. And you are right about Paul. It was Paul who told women that if they had a question regarding doctrine they should not ask the pastor, but wait, and then once home ask their husband. Simply, women were told to sit down and shut up once they stepped through the church doors. Paul, Peter, and John complained about Christian congregations being led by women. But there you had it, women were, at first, leading members of the various Christian communities.

I think that is misrading the texts somehow- what you refer to regarding Paul and women being silent has more to do with (given the context) order in services- I think the Greek word used implies being quiet and not making a fuss, not keeping utterly and continuously silent. (Praying and prophesying is at least permitted, which some argue may have been done in the church/fellowship meetings, even though teaching appears not to be- some even contest this based on the Greek.)

As for Paul being responsible for Christianity, I'd have to disagree. Christianity without Paul would have been a much smaller religion certainly, but it would have survived.

For which I have already expressed my viewpoint...

And to the original point.... I'm not so certain what views the Gnostics held regarding a mother goddess, but I do know that in Canaan and among Israelites there were indications that Astaroth (Ishtar) was the consort of Jehovah. Perhaps this idea might have found its way into Christianity.

El, God the Father
Astaroth, God the Mother
Jesus, Son of El, and avatar of Jehovah

Interesting idea.

Though it might be worth pointing out that this idea probably (from a Bible-believer's POV at least) found it's way into Israelite religion, as what might be considered a heretical belief, piced up by the influx of paganism from the surrounding territories (and prior to the kingdom era, the existing inhabitants they were subjugated to).

Well, this is the last I'll say on this, cause I don't want to have trouble, however I would like to clarify that the USSR and PRC were not atheist states as any atheist would define them. All they did was replace the Church with the State and replace God with Stalin/Mao. They were every based beliefs that are every bit as irrational and illogical as any religion.

Now! That out of the way. :)

An interesting assertion. Depends on your definition of 'atheist', and how far you credit on-paper oficialdom over reality.

I do think that Christianity could've thrived without Paul being involved, though it might've taken longer. This does raise a good question, though, which I'll start in another thread...

Ditto from the past time someone had this POV.
 
What if Christianity had been established with a different Trinity? Not "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit", but "The Father, the Mother and the Son"? What would likely end up different?
Interestingly, there have been some Christian movements which view the Holy Spirit as an intrinsically feminine aspect of the Christian triune deity.
 
All threads concerning religion seems to have the habit of desending into a flamewar.

the base reasons such treads deteriorate into flaming are;

1. a person will always come along wich feels the need to say something waguelly insulting about religion(or simply say something like all religious people are evil fuctards)
2.imediatly after this a religious person will find himself insulted and will comence the Comunism-Nazism-Rasism-China-Evil-Atheists routine often in a tone that is insulting thovards the above mentioned atheist
3.this starts a exchange of redundant arguments, wich is joined in by other members, ider becouse they agree with one of the sides, or usually becouse while such a discourse might be seen by most as something alike to a werbal conflict ower the existance of santa claus, it is still a flame war and those are fun fun fun


so seing as this forum deals in history and as such theres a large chance any number of topics might set of these things, why not make an isolated area where such thing get to run out of momentum on their own, without cloging threads
so that people can get bact to the acuall subject whatewer that might be
 
Oh yes, Christianity is very sexist. Hence the reason we good church goers stone women who dare speak at the pulpit and claim the title of "Pastor." Blasphemy!

Anyone who even bothers to enter this thread should go straight to our last "Jesus not crucified" thread and give that a read through.

Some Christian churches especially Catholic Church are sexist and some priest in Catholic Church marry because they cannot follow the celibacy of Catholic Church which is unbiblical in Christian bible. Woman barred to be a clergy because bible prohibits woman clergy. Woman was underestimated in some Christian churches especially Catholic Church.
 
Top