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
chansen said:
Oh come on. You're going all creation-y on me here.

I'd applaud the kid who said, "Tell God to suck it. I made this."
Click to expand...

I'm talking about how to get an idea across, not a fact. Not data. Ever heard of imagination, brainstorming? Okay, so I would tell the kid, "Sure "you" made it. But who made you (obvious answer if they know the birds and the bees is their parents)...but who made them and all the birds and the bees and trees to make the paper and dandelions and so on and so on to the very beginning of the universe? And you are a part of all that, and ideas just like the ones that inspired your painting inspired all the great work in the world, and it too goes all the way back to the beginning of the universe the same as you...but without the ideas...the Spirit...none of what we make would exist. And none of what God made would exist."

No, I am not a creationist...I don't believe the earth is thousands of years old. I believe in evolution. But I don't believe consciousness, imagination and evolving intelligence is a random accident, either.
 
Last edited:
Lol. Okay, so I'm not allowed to 'veer' toward a creative explanation of trinity and/ or /including God (the title of the thread is "how do you explain the Trinity to kids?) because it's too "creation-y" and now you're bowing out because some part of this conversation "veers" towards science and that ticks you off for some reason. Okay then.
 
chansen said:
So, if the kid answers, "Me", "Me" and "Mine," then you're gonna correct them to the answers you wanted them to provide?
Click to expand...


Actually, if that's the kid's answer, then they understand the traditional understanding of the trinity.

Kimmio's point was not that God created the art. Kimmio's point was that the kid worked in 3 different ways to create the art. The kid then becomes the analogy for describing a triune God. That actually leads into a wonderful discussion about how people are made in the image of God.
 
Can one create something indeterminate ... like an unfound mind? Po' eM I'z ole as information descends there as in as-swell or a wave of buttai! Bit of Tao's ...

This could deal with some aL arching as follows in hermeneutic, or lesser thought to the emotions ...

Larch in; Coming to the Haute-elle with Leech?
On de bridled flesh (bones of the myth) ...
Is this a man who has gained WIFI ...
At the loss of a bride ...
Fleshing out the high man ...
Into contemplating what was ...
And now is in-car-nate, or isn't ...
The way it appeared to be?
IFI being source of transverse chatter (without omega?)!
It can be a Ðin if not understood ...
Moderately; known as internal medium ...
Or ochre 'd ore, or smeared after the bore ...
Which may be a wave of dirty meditation ...
If you recall a parental rules in the whole of a star-dusting moment of gross impact!
This binary code resulting from a moment of lost thought ...
When the opposing power received the altruism of de lyre ...
An imperfection of populations falling on the wrong side of heaven ...
Thus becoming partially known ... in a chaos of scattered intellect; fractal im-materialistic?​
 
For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.
 
revsdd said:

Actually, if that's the kid's answer, then they understand the traditional understanding of the trinity.

Kimmio's point was not that God created the art. Kimmio's point was that the kid worked in 3 different ways to create the art. The kid then becomes the analogy for describing a triune God. That actually leads into a wonderful discussion about how people are made in the image of God.
Click to expand...
But again, that's crap. We have zero reason to say "people are made in the image of God". None whatsoever. And if the kid came up with and executed an idea, that still doesn't relate to this constructed mystery of a Trinity. It just means he or she did it all themselves, and so what? It's a terrible explanation for something that probably defies explanation on purpose.

It very much appears that all this was done on purpose, to build in mystery and intrigue to keep them coming back. The Trinity, I think, just looks like one more facet of a giant scam.
 
JRT - I like your explanation of "persona" rather than "person" - person has never quite fit for my understanding either.
 
chansen said:
But again, that's crap. We have zero reason to say "people are made in the image of God". None whatsoever. And if the kid came up with and executed an idea, that still doesn't relate to this constructed mystery of a Trinity. It just means he or she did it all themselves, and so what? It's a terrible explanation for something that probably defies explanation on purpose.

It very much appears that all this was done on purpose, to build in mystery and intrigue to keep them coming back. The Trinity, I think, just looks like one more facet of a giant scam.
Click to expand...

So on the one hand you say it's so ridiculous that it can't be believed and on the other hand you say it might "keep them coming back." Consistency on this point isn't your strong suit.

And there is no mystery to the Trinity. I say that to you and I say it to revjohn. I'm closer to JRT's position on this, in that I believe the basic doctrine of the trinity is simply intended to point out that there are various ways in which God is revealed or God relates. I don't find that at all hard to understand. The difficulty comes when we limit God to "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Yes, the formula is used in Scripture but I see no reason in Scripture to restrict it to three. The concept of "three persons in one godhead" is a human construction, not a biblical image and not biblical wording. I'd happily be done with the doctrine of the trinity to be honest. Not because I don't believe it, but because I think the word "trinity" is unhelpful as well as unbiblical and leads to a restricted understanding of God's nature. What I do hang my hat on is belief in the incarnation of God in Jesus.

Now, whether there's zero reason to say that people are made in the image of God is a point of faith, isn't it? You may have zero reason to say it, I have plenty of reason. Since I believe that creation owes its existence to the creative work of God, I believe that God is creative. It is human creativity, the human ability to think in the abstract, the human ability to reason, the human ability to not just adapt to the environment but to modify the environment that reflects or images God. The reflection or image is never perfect but it's there. You won't accept that, but that really makes no difference to me. Your belief or non belief makes no difference to whether or not something is true. Neither does mine. We both believe what we believe. We both have reasons to believe what we believe. We just have to agree to disagree.
 
Carolla said:
JRT - I like your explanation of "persona" rather than "person" - person has never quite fit for my understanding either.
Click to expand...

its neet -- our English word 'Person' came to being in the 13th century, coming from the Latin term for mask or false face

i find that quite fun; every one you meet, even you, 'is' a mask :3 and how fabulous -- you not only get to choose what makeup to wear, what clothing to wear, but you are similar, too...

*cue Joseph Campbell Heroine with a million faces*
 
JRT said:
For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.
Click to expand...

I like this. It sums up my take on it rather well. We put faces on the Ultimate to try to understand and relate to the Ultimate but they are not the Ultimate and we always need to be mindful of that.
 
Actually, my belief is closer to JRT's as well but if someone were to give that explanation to a group of elementary school aged kids most of their eyes would glaze over with boredom or they'd get really confused, so I would give as simple as possible explanation in a Christian context and later that basic understanding might help them be open to an expanded understanding in their own time.

And I wouldn't go so far as to share my full BS with kids - it's a little unorthodox - but I belief Jesus was a historical person but through story, he is representative of us (if we choose to see that), of humanity with a common goal of caring for and saving and preserving humanity and the earth we inhabit, no matter what your religion - he illustrates the point. We are him, if we follow his example, in the Spirit in which he existed, and he is us. He passed the torch, so to speak, and lighted the way, and that torch has always been in circulation, and he is it. He's not returning in a magical spectacle - it's up to humanity - no matter what their faith or creed - together to recognize the world is in trouble and to change the world, small social "miracle", by small miracle - our minds and hearts in the right place - as has always happened. Now, I'm not sure anyone would want me teaching that in Sunday School.
 
Last edited:
revsdd said:
And there is no mystery to the Trinity. I say that to you and I say it to revjohn.
Click to expand...

Well you can say it. I'm not convinced just because you do. ;)

If God can be known in entirety then there is no mystery. If there is more to God than can be known mystery remains.
 
Hi chansen...
here is what you said:
bulls**t. Just because someone thinks they found a "clue" about God, does not refute the "haven't got a clue" line. Yes, people think they find clues about God all the time.
Click to expand...

I was born into a world of language. The language of my village and my people. That language included diverse references to the proper noun "God". That language shaped my basic understanding of the world and my place in it. I was to be good to others because that was expected by my family and our neighbours in the village. The proper noun "God" was credited with the insight that doing good is preferred to doing bad, in light of the consequences.

By puberty I had some serious questions about the proper noun "God". My language world had been expanded by personal experience and also by resort to diverse works of literature. I read stories that used the proper noun "God" in ways that called into question what I had learned from childhood as the only viable alternative. This launched me on a journey of discovery and the acquisition of a discipline related to communication of insight discovered following assorted "clues" about the presence and influence of the proper noun "God" in human language.

You may not want me to have a clue about God, but there is no way in which you can prove the assertion that I, a companion to many others, do not. If you enjoy rational conversation, we may press the matter forward by resort to respectful dialogue. This is dialogue where each takes the other to have some intelligence and assumes that each prefers working towards common ground over working to prove the other wrong from the outset.

Maybe, if you are up for it, we could start here:
early in the thread I said:
Warm, positive regard for the gathered imaginations and bodies goes a long way towards productive communication.
Click to expand...
If we begin with positive regard for the potential of the other to realize what is in fact the case, we have a key to effective communication. If, on the other hand, we begin with disdain, so that we do not have to entertain the other's perspective on any matter at hand, communication is not well served.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

George
 
revjohn said:
Well you can say it. I'm not convinced just because you do. ;)

If God can be known in entirety then there is no mystery. If there is more to God than can be known mystery remains.
Click to expand...

But where did I say that there's no mystery to God? I said that the doctrine in and of itself isn't especially mysterious. We convince ourselves that it is by saying over and over how mysterious it is. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense.
 
revsdd said:
I said that the doctrine in and of itself isn't especially mysterious.
Click to expand...

Which is why there are an abundance of analogies to explain it which don't fall into one particular heresy or another.

revsdd said:
We convince ourselves that it is by saying over and over how mysterious it is. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense.
Click to expand...

Well maybe circular reasoning than self-fulfilling prophecy. Though I'm not convinced that it is circular reasoning.

If the doctrine affirms that fullness of God cannot be known and the fullness of God cannot be known it certainly is not a cop out, circular or self-fulfilling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top