Which, is, in and of itself, a religious concept. Maybe you don’t adhere to a specific religion, but you are, by that statement not even agnostic, but a deist.
–deletes long screed about if we’re created in God’s image, God isn’t very impressive as off topic–
In any case, back to the OP, then then -If- we are created in God’s image, you seem to indicate that, contrary to the OP, you are in fact religious, and likely a subset of the Christian faith. Because you are now saying we were directly created by God (not common to all religions), in that God’s image (explicitly Judeo-Christian to the extent that phrase means anything), and that God -may- have three facets requiring us to do so.
Which means you’ve experienced epic thread drift!
May want to ask a mod to update the title because it’s no longer accurate.
I wasn’t saying that as if I believed it, I was saying it as the bible says it. The bible says we are made in the image and likeness of God. So if the bible says that, it is also saying we have 3 different persons in us.
Here is another thought, so if a Christian accepted this premise of the trinity and he accepted the premise that we are built in the image and likeness of God would it be a useful connection to make to accept that we are 3 persons in one. I do believe that as a person I have the capacity to be more than just one person, I know people who have taken this to an extreme, they are a cow boy, a gambler, a poet, a prophet, just depending on their mood. It seems to be a common trait of narcissists. Taking the view that w just one seems the sanest but is it the most useful?
You’re just describing the very common human trait of having many different roles and personalities in life, and there are always more than three identities, so the trinity metaphor makes no sense. Of course everybody can identify as a son or daughter, a lover, a husband or wife, an expert for (insert profession here), a fan of (insert actor, band or sports team etc. here). Life would be poor if we couldn’t, but I don’t know how this has anything to do with the Christian dogma of the trinity.
I never was a father (or a holy ghost, for that matter) in my life. Am I missing out for something? Because I don’t feel so and there’s nothing missing in my life.
I’ll try one more time, then bow out, because this keeps going in circles. You’re picking -a- religious text, -a- specific argument regarding the trinity (which is almost always just a Catholic issue), and requesting a discussion on that specific. And then asking to argue on how the spirituality applies (among other things, granted).
That is a religious discussion. And it’s specifically a Christian, almost certainly Catholic discussion. I’ve mentioned other religious POV, but you keep sticking to a specific sect, and I think saying it’s not religious when it’s already absurdly specific is inaccurate.
I am not doing a very good job of framing this. It is absolutely non religious. The existence or non existence of God is irrelevant. I am making one assumption in that there is probably some value to this particular philosophy and it would most likely be in the formation of one’s sense of self. I am postulating that some old philosophers saw some great value in instilling a sense of 3 distinct individuals within one person. all made in the image and likeness of God. This would basically become their operating system.
And has already point out to you, the Bible was not created and/or assembled and/or written by “some old philosophers”, period. From what evidence do you postulate this, in the face of all the evidence that says otherwise?
Maybe they created God in the image and likeness of an idealized man. Philosopher or not, someone felt it was very important to build 3 persons into one. What was that person thinking when he did that?
Not if you’re talking about the Christian concept of the Trinity. Christianity grew out of Judaism, which was monotheistic. Jesus was considered to be God/divine, but he was never considered to be “a god,” one among multiple gods.
As the Wikipedia page that was linked to in this thread’s first reply says, " The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions."
It’s poor form to assert what other people believe, especially a broad category like Christians. And doubly-especially about the Trinity, which is the probably the single most disagreed-upon article of faith among Christians. For example, rewording thusly would be better, while still making your point (which I otherwise agree with):
A person of that faith can see it as that, but might also deal with the belief-based issues that the metaphor ISN’T the point, it’s secondary to the unknowable nature of God.
