How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
actually, John I agree with you in the misuse of Creation, but it does refer to Genesis, so when people misuse the story, lots of excuses are made for hierarchy and abuse, of people and nature
 
revjohn said:
The idea that Jesus is created by God is the heresy labelled Arianism.

The Patrick references are from the Lutheran Satire video I shared initially.
Click to expand...

ha yes, i had to google that up

I know google is evil ;), but its a great example of God using evil for the good :)
 
redhead said:
if God is the ultimate Creator, God creates everything -good and bad;
Click to expand...

Well, no. It doesn't.

According to the narrative God creates everything and proclaims it to be good. Evil does not enter the picture until another will is given agency.

God can present a choice such as eat from this tree and live against eat against this tree and die. Death does not become a reality until the choice is made to eat the fruit of a tree which has been forbidden.

In the same way society, in serving the public good establishes prohibitions designed to protect us from one another. The laws we create are not evil (unless they can be demonstrated to act against the public good). The behaviours that the laws prohibit are what is evil.
 
redhead said:
my apologies blackelt. The you understand clearly the differences within the synoptic gospels and Paul's letters, and how the Christian church was established, and by whom. I am sorry if I offended you in any way - never my intention. So I guess then that the first Nicaea Council fixed it all up nicely.
Click to expand...

i dont believe the synoptics are God Inspirit books , but non the less , why would i be offended? no need for apologies
 
one of my kindest Profs, who taught at Uof T and York U, and who taught me well in early Christian history, and was an Anglican priest but also a member of the historical Jesus seminar, taught me this: the reason for laws in the bible were created in reaction to what was happening; reactive and human governing - perhaps guided be God but more likely by humans to establish a peaceful existence And yes, he was a huge Borg and Crossan colleague so I admit that - but my 3 years of studying NT with him were very insightful - and I did score very well on the grades - s I did my readings - and he was very tough on the gradings, so I think he taught me well
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo
redhead said:
in the same way that is the story of Adam and Eve and the creation of free will John explain that
Click to expand...

Total Depravity 101. Everything is depraved in some degree rather than all things are depraved to the nth degree.

The fall was complete. The human will, created good is corrupted. Once compromised goodness is always in doubt.

From the Creation story like begats like. A pair of lions mates and brings forth a new generation of lions.

Adam and Eve mate and they bring forth their children.

Of course Adam and Eve do not, according to the narrative procreate in their original innocence and goodness. They reproduce in their corrupted state. Erosion has begun, without significant remediation that problem becomes worse.

Can humanity aspire to goodness? To a degree yes.

Can humanity achieve goodness? Not at its most pristine no. Goodness becomes a relative measure.

In the same way our human will is restricted and manages goodness only in relative levels. We can be relatively good when the standard we appeal to is a less ideal exemplar. In that way I am not as bad as Charles Manson because I am not a murderer nor as bad as Mike Duffy because if I find rules vague I seek clarification instead of fudging expenses. If God is appealed to as the standard of goodness I do not clear the bar.
 
I like the analogy John - I still find it difficult to reconcile if we are created in God's image. then how are we are imperfect - fallen. It is a hard question to answer and to live up to.
 
redhead said:
I like the analogy John - I still find it difficult to reconcile if we are created in God's image. then how are we are imperfect - fallen.
Click to expand...

I have a fondness for art. Tom Thomson is hand's down my favourite artist and among all of his works "Snow in October" is my favourite.

I don't have the money to buy the original (which is okay because the owner isn't offering it for sale). I can, afford a high quality print of "Snow in October"

Odd thing though. There is something about the print which is missing. A good quality print is able to capture the brushstrokes as far as image goes. It cannot actually reproduce the texture of the brushstroke and so something goes ever so slightly missing from the print that I could find in the original.

The print will not be able to reproduce actual light falling upon its surface the way the original can. Nobody with any sense is going to confuse the original for the print. One is a work of art the other, technically, is not.

If God is the original Snow in October, I'm a print of Snow in October. There is something about the original that I will never capture no matter how faithful an image I am able to manage. I will never replicate the texture even if I get the colours exactly right and in all the proper places.

Still, a print is not evil, it is just less.

If I attempt to sell you a print by telling you it is the original that takes the corruption one way.

If I sit down and attempt to replicate the picture from scratch using all of the same materials I might be able to manage a credible forgery. There will still be corruptions that a trained eye will pick up on.

redhead said:
It is a hard question to answer and to live up to.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

It is hard to live up to the notion of being created in the image without accounting for the fact that I am not the original.

I'm an image of God and not God.

Which means that there is something of God which is missing from me.

I can maybe manage an uncanny likeness I can never be more than a reflection of some sort. I will always lack the depth or the texture of God.

Of course with neglect I can lead others to believe that at my worst I'm still a faithful reflection and true image of God.

And if none have the ability to discern from original to copy my neglect and gradual erosion will not be noticed and may ultimately convince people that because I have become such an ugly image I still manage to be a true reflection.

If ever a print of "Snow in October" comes my way marred and disfigured I would be grieved. Not because a print in such a sorry state convinces me that the original work has become marred and disfigured but rather because the print no longer reflects a faithful image.
 
John,
a very interesting way to think about being created in the image of God and yet not be perfect. |I have written about being a reflection of God - an illusion but something to reflect upon and appreciate.
 
revjohn said:
I have a fondness for art. Tom Thomson is hand's down my favourite artist and among all of his works "Snow in October" is my favourite.

I don't have the money to buy the original (which is okay because the owner isn't offering it for sale). I can, afford a high quality print of "Snow in October"

Odd thing though. There is something about the print which is missing. A good quality print is able to capture the brushstrokes as far as image goes. It cannot actually reproduce the texture of the brushstroke and so something goes ever so slightly missing from the print that I could find in the original.

The print will not be able to reproduce actual light falling upon its surface the way the original can. Nobody with any sense is going to confuse the original for the print. One is a work of art the other, technically, is not.

If God is the original Snow in October, I'm a print of Snow in October. There is something about the original that I will never capture no matter how faithful an image I am able to manage. I will never replicate the texture even if I get the colours exactly right and in all the proper places.

Still, a print is not evil, it is just less.

If I attempt to sell you a print by telling you it is the original that takes the corruption one way.

If I sit down and attempt to replicate the picture from scratch using all of the same materials I might be able to manage a credible forgery. There will still be corruptions that a trained eye will pick up on.



Well, yes and no.

It is hard to live up to the notion of being created in the image without accounting for the fact that I am not the original.

I'm an image of God and not God.

Which means that there is something of God which is missing from me.

I can maybe manage an uncanny likeness I can never be more than a reflection of some sort. I will always lack the depth or the texture of God.

Of course with neglect I can lead others to believe that at my worst I'm still a faithful reflection and true image of God.

And if none have the ability to discern from original to copy my neglect and gradual erosion will not be noticed and may ultimately convince people that because I have become such an ugly image I still manage to be a true reflection.

If ever a print of "Snow in October" comes my way marred and disfigured I would be grieved.
Click to expand...

If God is the original Snow in Winter, who is Jesus? A reflection? Is the image of Jesus an original when He is fully human?
 
Waterfall said:
If God is the original Snow in Winter, who is Jesus? A reflection? Is the image of Jesus an original when He is fully human?
Click to expand...

Jesus, as God the Son is the original "Snow in October" as is The Holy Spirit.
 
revjohn said:
Jesus, as God the Son is the original "Snow in October" as is The Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't that be like saying that God is human? Wouldn't Jesus have had to fully reveal Himself and reveal the mysterious part we cannot know?
 
Waterfall said:
But wouldn't that be like saying that God is human?
Click to expand...

No. It would be like saying Jesus is God in human flesh. Which is something somebody already said.

Waterfall said:
Wouldn't Jesus have had to fully reveal Himself and reveal the mysterious part we cannot know?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top