It’s been so long since I read it, I’d have to read it again to be sure. I remember I did have some issues with it. I’ll look to see if I even have it anymore.

I’ve just listened / watched four hours of a series on TBN which this author led us through.

Whereas I am impressed from a psychological standpoint—I found it very “real’ and powerful, I think the book is not very good with its understanding of God from a biblical definition. This doesn’t seem to taint the Christian psychological aspect—which is about understanding ourselves and our relationship with God and who we are in God’s eyes.

Howbeit, it seems the author knocks what he calls “religion” (what properly should be called the “Doctrine of God”) and emphasizes God experiences through relationships or knowing the inside of a person.

I feel (based on what little I know) that the exact same result could have been achieved with a biblically orthodox and doctrinally authentic portrayal of God. In other words, the theology is unsound and crummy but the experience is real nonetheless.

The book is about relationship and oneness. It’s not, nor does it intend to be about doctrine.

Here’s a review of the film written by a nun on the progressive Catholic news site NCR.

Believers have their hands full trying to wrestle some sense and consistency into their religion. I suppose the more noble viewpoint on the ceaseless “angels on the head of a pin” discussions is that these theological conundrums parallel the quest assigned the role of philosophy in understanding ourselves. Looking back on the time I spent trying to rationalize my Catholic faith with common sense, I am puzzled that it took me so long to recognize the entire exercise as hopeless. The more sensible assessment of the problem pops into focus if you ask the question: Is it possible that a fantastic and ridiculous religion is cooked up from nothing, condemning ensuing generations of the finest minds available the hopeless task in making sense of it?

I was asking about what was wrong with the theology of this film. There was a lot of worthwhile content in what I saw but I wondered why they didn’t use a more Biblical model defining the Trinity—the understanding of God in THIS film is based on Jesus (or “God the Son”) being the totality of the Godhead. There are a few other problems with the theology of the film. So I was wondering what was wrong with the film from a Christian perspective.

Stanleybmanly —I don’t think you should project your own confusions about Christianity or your struggles as a child or student as being an inconsistency in the Christian faith itself. A lot of atheists do this, but their lack of knowledge of Christianity or the finer points of theology does not indicate a problem with Christianity. Yes, there are aberrant beliefs out there but they do not define Christianity as the way its been defined by churches, councils, and scholars.

It isn’t so much a lack of knowledge as an erosion of faith through the acquisition of knowledge on the history and workings of the religion that did the trick for me. And whether you realize it or not, your very question is about one of the GREAT inconsistencies in the multitude that persist with Christianity.

The concept that one God from before the beginning of time and space eternally co-existing in three distinct persons is not that hard to grasp—it was actually more incomprehensible then than it is now, The doctrine of God the Son or Word is similar to several things I’ve learned from studying Jewish mysticism as well—the spirit or ruach is also not hard to grasp.

Even some Christians disagree on this out of ignorance, but I actually have respect for how meticulous the councils and creeds were in the first eight centuries or so, trying to discern what was biblical revelation about God and what was not—and what was canon and what was extraneous or Gnostic or something of an outside origin. Indeed some things did seem contradictory but scriptural nonetheless defining God.

Your lack of understanding or other prejudices or experiences are not my fault and I see no reason to explain it to you. Most of my knowledge of the subject came from secular universities and Christian radio. I learned more about some of these concepts from studying Jewish mysticism—the concept of God the Son is found there also, as something that dwells among Jews in the world or Judaism collectively. The concept is found in the Caballa and Germanic folklore about mystic words being the magician as much as the person of the magician.

The brilliancy of the concept of the Trinity is proof that it was not fabricated by the councils that wrote it down and hammered it out and defined it meticulously, It grieves me that even many Christians do not delve into the concept but apprehend without attempting to comprehend,

But by definition, it is one God eternally co-existing in three distinct persons—Father, Son or Word, and Spirit, All three are co-equally God. Many Christians mess up by saying the Son is all of them (the Jesus Only pentecostal movement) by quoting an “I and the Father are One” (Jesus was NOT claiming to be the Father but being One WITH the Father),

Again, you have access to the same wealth of material that I have and you may interpret as you will or dismiss it altogether, But don’t say it is inconsistent because many of us have studied in more depth than you have and do not find it inconsistent or contradictory—but gather more and more perspectives on the same subject.

I will read your response when I can. You can reject it but I just want to defend the fact that its not contradictory and in fact a well defined and long established doctrine.

You’re right about one thing. It’s a waste of time lecturing me on “the brilliancy of the concept of the Trinity”. To state that that the “concept” itself is proof that the notion was not fabricated at the Council of Nicea misses the point that it was certainly “fabricated” at some point in the evolution of the early church, and was compelled to compete with a lot of other mystical doctrinal nonsense that was clearly getting out of hand. And here I prefer to see the councils for what they surely were. Rather than “divinely anointed” convenings trying to “discern biblical revelations” they began as forced convocations decreed by an emperor to codify the religion in the service of the imperial state. They were political conventions in which “delegates” were compelled to “iron out the party platform”. The councils were necessary and repeated to rigidly restrict the pile of mumbo jumbo to manageable levels. With this in mind, it seems to me far more credible that the “3 in 1” angle was consigned to the “good” pile through the “lobbying” and arm twisting common to such assemblies. The concept of the Trinity survives to the present day not due its purported profundity, though it’s easy to argue that such a fantastic notion could avoid assignment to the heresy pile only through divine intervention. Nope. Like the religion itself, It’s all about salesmanship!