Life itself is purpose; you were born to live. Live the best you can and include your fellow man who is a help to each other. Sort of the Golden rule.
Czarcasm that would be narcissism. unless, of course, God us not a person but rather a community of persons.
If your god is the universe, narcissism is all he’s got.
edited to add: And there is nothing healthy about Dissociative Identity Disorder, in gods or humans.
How would that be dissociative personality disorder?
The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghosts are genuinely distinct and different persons, just as you and your wife are. They aren’t independent in the same way that the Greek gods were independent of each other, but they are definitely distinct individuals, distinct persons. Is it dissociative personality disorder when you love your wife?
Might I ask what sect you belong to?
Hector, you still haven’t answered my question:
Why did God not tell the Jews about the Trinity?
“Creating Hell, for those who ask that question.”
In Christian doctrine, we err because we were born in Original Sin, inherited from Adam and Eve (funny concept, that); but, alone of all post-Adamite humans, Jesus (and, in RCC doctrine, Mary) was not.
Because Jesus was a Jew. When he prayed, he would not have done the hands-clasping thing, he would have done the head-bobbing thing.
And the Bible does say that he prayed, as if to a higher being – well, then, to Whom?
N.B.: Jesus was a Jew and nothing else. “Christians” came along later.
Re: And the Bible does say that he prayed, as if to a higher being – well, then, to Whom?
To God the Father?
One divine individual praying to a second divine individual doesn’t seem like a conundrum to me.
Re: Why did God not tell the Jews about the Trinity?
I don’t know, but I should say that, from my point of view as a Christian, the Old Testament was never meant to be a complete, definitive and fully reliable account of the nature of God, or of morality. There are parts of the Old Testament that I certainly wouldn’t regard as being of divine origin- the slaughter of the Amalekites, etc.- and even the parts that really do come from God, offer us at best a murky and partial picture. The purpose that God had in inspiring the Old Testament, in my view, was to prepare the way for the New. It isn’t to be viewed as a stand-alone document (if it is, it quickly leads you to some dark places): it’s to be viewed as background for Jesus Christ. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that the picture of God that we get from it is deficient.
Incidentally, I don’t think the Old Testament necessarily leads you to strict monotheism. It rules out polytheism, but it doesn’t rule out three divine individuals dependent on each other and forming a community. Christians can read the Old Testament in a way perfectly consonant with Trinitarianism.
Czarcasm me personally? I’m Episcopalian, though not necessarily an especially orthodox one, but my church doesn’t pin down the nature of the Trinity other than what is in the Creeds: Nicene, Apostle’s, and Athanasian. (The Athanasian creed gives the most detailed outline of the Trinity). Richard Swinburne, though, whose Social Trinitarian view I’m more or less cribbing (though it has much earlier roots) is a former member of the Church of England who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Re: Quotes. Do you need instruction on how to use the “quote” function? Your "Re"s do not indicate the source of your quotes.
What parts of the New Testament do you think are unreliable or incomplete?
It doesn’t seem like a conundrum to me, either. It sounds like ordinary polytheism.
Again, it’s like you’re saying it rules out polytheism, but it doesn’t rule out polytheism.
Re: Quotes. Do you need instruction on how to use the “quote” function?
Yes, actually. Thanks for the tip.
Re: Again, it’s like you’re saying it rules out polytheism, but it doesn’t rule out polytheism.
That depends if by ‘polytheism’ you mean ‘multiple distinct divine individuals’ or ‘multiple distinct independent divine individuals’. I believe (with Swinburne) that God in His revelation to the Jews, to the early Christians, and to the Church Fathers intended to rule out the second, not the first. The three Persons are interrelated (i.e. the Father is the source of the Son, and the Father and Son together are the sources of the Spirit). And they are united at a deep level in the same sense that a husband and wife in a perfect marriage are united: it would be impossible for them to be in conflict.
At the lower right of any post, there is a button that says “quote.” Click it and the post will be put into a quote box, with a link to the post and the identification of the poster. Once you master this, we’ll discuss multi-quotes (consider multi-quotes a sort of New Testament of quoting). 
Here is the code list. If you are quoting from a post on this message board, just hit the “quote” button for that post, trim out the stuff you don’t want to quote, then add whatever you want after the "
[/QUOTE]
"
Something just occured to me about the trinity. If the human aspect Jesus had power over the physical aspects of creation his human emotions might throw it into chaos. Just as the spiritual aspect could not objectively deal with the physical or the human side. The father or creator would have no opinions of feelings about very small details while more concerned with the universe and evolution.
Keep in mind that humans described this as a trinity where as it simply might be perfect objectivity. Those that pray often feel that one part of the trinity can implore another part to change something very small now and then as long as it does not affect the grand plan too deeply.
Fair enough: if Zeus keeps his eye on Apollo all the time, has veto power over any of Apollo’s acts, Apollo has to get permission, etc., then it’s less functionally polytheistic. Apollo would be much like the Christian Angels: a separate power, but having no policy-making power.
It would seem to diminish Jesus’ stature to irrelevance. If we can pray to Mary, or Saint Joseph, or even the Archangel Michael, and the results are as good as praying to Jesus…or even to God…the “value” of Jesus seems all but nullified. He becomes a figurehead, a “nonvoting partner.”
At the same time, if you reject that interpretation, how do you account for the power of prayer to Mary, the Saints, the Angels, etc.?
The house of cards leans one way…then the other, depending on which way the winds of criticism are blowing. When it’s important to the theology that Jesus be dominant, He Is God…but when it’s important to the same theology that Jesus be submission, he is just the son. There isn’t any coherence.