How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

[chansen]

The other thing you can do while explaining the Trinity to children, is to provide different excuses for why each of them is elusive.

For example, you can't show that God exists because you have to accept God's existence on faith. You can't show that Jesus exists because he left to live with his parents but he promises to be back soon. You can't show that the Holy Spirit exists because, duh, you can't see spirits.

One thing, three separate reasons why you can't actually have any evidence.

 

[revsdd]

What do you do if you slip up and give an explanation where a man is a son, a husband, a father, and an uncle? If you get carried away and go with four things, have you blown the Trinity?

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams, and "The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy".

Nope. "Trinity" is, to me, an unfortunate word that is not biblical. God relates to us on numerous levels, not just three. Four, six, twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen. The point of the doctrine is that God not only relates, but that God is, in a sense, relationship.

Nor do I find God elusive.

 

[chansen]

Pythagorean Theory?

h^2 = a^2 + b^2 ?

That might work if you had all the information about two of them, and were trying to understand the third.

 

[Mendalla]

Can you have all the information about two of them and not understand the third in this case? I mean, really, the Trinity would have to be an equilateral triangle, would it not? Or is the Father bigger or longer or something than the Son and the Spirit or something?

This is why I'm a Unitarian. And a pantheist, really. It's all so simple compared to Trinitarianism.

 

[Waterfall]

Wisdom is eternal.

 

[revjohn]

I don't.

Why don't I try to explain it? I don't because it is a wicked difficult concept to explain and most attempts to make something that complex simple invariably teach heresy of one sort or another.

Points this out rather humourously IMO and because it is satire, shows that trying to be simple doesn't always work.

That said, getting angry and delivering some or all of the Athanasian Creed at rapid fire by way of explanation only excites theology nerds. I love this video so much I giggle whenever I am introduced to someone named Patrick.

A Theology Prof of mine in my undergrad days always said, the more certain you are that you understand it the further from the truth of it you really are.

Western Theology isn't comfortable with mystery no matter how much in vogue the word "mystery" becomes. It is a new fad word in the denomination.

Quite Frankly, I don't know that Elementary kids have enough experience with abstract thought that they can profit from a discussion of the Trinity. I'm not always convinced that adults are that prepared for it either.

 

[chansen]

Can you have all the information about two of them and not understand the third in this case? I mean, really, the Trinity would have to be an equilateral triangle, would it not?

So we know the Trinity is not a right triangle? You seem to be leaning toward an equilateral triangle. I always considered the Trinity to be more obtuse than anything.

 

[Mendalla]

So we know the Trinity is not a right triangle? You seem to be leaning toward an equilateral triangle. I always considered the Trinity to be more obtuse than anything.

 

[Waterfall]

It works with circles too.

 

[Mendalla]

It works with circles too.

The circle as an image of God is going to be a much different one, though. There are no discreet points, just a continuous, all-encompassing line so wouldn't be a "Trinity". More panentheism than traditional monotheism, I'd say.

 

[Waterfall]

But don't you have to form the triangle to find the area of a circle?

 

[chansen]

Area of a circle is pi * r^2. No triangles required.

Just like no Trinity required in panentheism?

 

[Waterfall]

Using Pythagorean Theory:

 

[paradox3]

But don't you have to form the triangle to find the area of a circle?

You don't have to form the triangle but it will always be there for the seeking. Likewise a hexagon.

 

[chansen]

Yep, you can always define a circle with three points, like the points of a triangle:

So, maybe the Trinity is those three points, that define the whole which is the circle.

And then, the FSM is a rhombus. Bear with me. The four points of a rhombus does not define a circle, but a circle fits inside a rhombus:

In this analogy, the Trinity fits inside a circle, and the rhombus shows that the Trinity was created by the FSM which is shown as a rhombus, because the FSM is funny, and it's really fun to say "rhombus", so therefore, the FSM exists.

Q.E.D.

 

[chansen]

Using Pythagorean Theory:

That's more forced than my rhombus analogy. That guy is just using Pythagoras because he has the centre and a point on the circle, and is trying to find the radius, to then find the area.

 

[paradox3]

In this analogy, the Trinity fits inside a circle, and the rhombus shows that the Trinity was created by the FSM which is shown as a rhombus, because the FSM is funny, and it's really fun to say "rhombus", so therefore, the FSM exists.

Just wondering how he shapes his noodly appendages into the rhombus. Please expand on your FSM theological reflections, Chansen.

 

[Mendalla]

Poor @Carolla . We've turned her thread into a discussion of ... what ... theological geometry? Geometrical theology? Do they offer a course on that at Emmanuel?

 

[chansen]

Just wondering how he shapes his noodly appendages into the rhombus. Please expand on your FSM theological reflections, Chansen.

Noodles can form any shape. A rhombus is just the most fun to say.

 

[chansen]

Poor @Carolla . We've turned her thread into a discussion of ... what ... theological geometry? Geometrical theology? Do they offer a course on that at Emmanuel?

"Theometry?" "Geology?"

Wait...that's something entirely different.