Lord, how the heathen rage.

Non-Christians are profoundly offended by the doctrine of the Trinity.

This doctrine has long been the object of ridicule and scepticism by non-Christians and pseudo-Christians like Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses. It even confounds some true Christians who retreat into accepting the Trinity with only blind faith. Which is really laughable. Blind faith is not a rational defense.

First, the Trinity doesn't mean three gods. That concept is as irrational as any other polytheism, or pantheism either, for that matter.

Rightly understood, biblical Christianity explains the answer- even for modern man to be able to understand. Differing from the new theology of subjective and uncertain interpretations of the truth, it stands up to being rationally tested in lfe as we must live it.

The writers of Scripture said all things were designed to reveal the personality of God. Not in some pantheistic sense, but in the sense of an infinite and personal God who, on the order of the Trinity, created all else.

And!
And that this biblical Godhead of Father, Son, and Spirit must be discernable in everything that is. That this Godhead must be plainly understood as much as each person is supremely aware of his own existence.

This simple understanding of Christianity's systematic answer takes us back first to the very beginning and then as it flows on to an end. As the writers have told us, the fundamental nature of the cosmos is smashingly compatable with the Triune God of the Bible. Each part of everything relates to each other part and to the whole, and finally to what existed first. And rather than contradicting this biblical doctrine, the cosmos has been a resounding witness.  

Man has always recognized the intrinsic triune nature of the Space-Matter-Time universe. This universal experience always relates to just these three entities.

Modern science is still clearly that of a space-time-matter continuum with each of these three entities essential for the intrinsic character of the universe. One universe manifest in three essential elements.

All three equally universal and analogous to the universe and remarkably analogous to the character of the triune God. One God manifest in three persons.

Each equally and inseperably one. Lose any of the three essential elements or persons and it ceases to exist.
The physical universe is, by its very nature, the discernable evidence of its triune Creator. The continuum of space, matter, and time- where each is distinct and yet inseparable- reveal the triune character of God.

That's not all.

The three universals of the universe can also be described as trinities within themselves.

Space: can only be understood in the reality of its 3 dimensions- height, width, and depth.
Matter: is only understood by its three elements: mass, motion, and energy.

Time: by its past, present, and future.

All things point to the one triune Creator.

Why? part III- A unity and diversity of existence

Previously on the Zacchaeus Letter:

The world is the way it is. Any answer to the problem of 'being' can never be an "irrational" answer, and must be discarded. It may be held in theory, but not in practice.

The final answer then must lie in the possible rational answers to the problem of 'something is there rather than nothing is there'. And there are only three of them.

Theoretically, the first possible rational answer is that everything has come out of absolutely nothing.

The second possible answer for everything that exists is what an impersonal beginning may throw up, by chance, at just any time.

The third answer is that there is a personal beginning which can answer for everything.

We can nuance all three answers to find volumes of details to discuss; but in reality, these are really the only possible rational answers available.

With the first possible answer, that 'everything is from nothing’, well... simply put, it's an argument that has never been sustained.

The second possible rational answer is that everything came by way of an impersonal, natural process only. Now, this "natural process" beginning reduces everything, including man, to some impersonal mass, that is affected only by time and accident, occurring in no particular order. As a result, nothing, no individual thing nor the totality of all things, would have any real significance. Man would have no more purpose or meaning than anything else would have.

The last possible rational answer is that everything is from a personal beginning. This answers not only the problem of existence- for bare being and the complexities of meaning- but for man’s being different, with a personality that distinguishes him from non-man. With this answer, man and his aspirations can clearly be understood to be in concert with all that was originally there, with what has always been. Man, both collectively and individually, would have purpose and meaning.

With the personal answer, this personal beginning, is it God or gods?
--

Centuries before Christ, Plato wrote with the understanding that the existence of man is as difficult a problem as the problem that anything exists at all. He spoke of the need to have a personal beginning in order to answer for what is. He also knew, in order for anything to have any meaning or purpose, there needed to be absolutes.

The problem Plato had with the Greek gods was that they were not big enough to provide absolutes. They weren't a big enough reference point to be capable of answering for anything absolute or ideal.

In Greek literature the Fates sometimes seemed to be controlling the gods. But then, sometimes the gods seemed to be controlling the Fates. That was confusing. Because it meant that these gods were ultimately limited, and everything failed at this point. Limited gods are just too small and too insufficient to answer for any final truths- absolutes.

But Plato knew. He knew that the answer necessary to provide for absolutes, and for personal significance had to be big enough. It had to be the final answer.

Centuries after Christ, all the way into the 20th century, a noted philosopher, by the name of Jean-Paul Sartre, spoke similarly of man’s need for meaning and purpose. The need of an answer big enough. The need that could only be answered for with absolutes.

He put it this way:
If a finite point does not have an infinite reference point, the finite point is meaningless and absurd.

So, the answer for Being, with all its complexities, must by necessity be big enough. It must be limitless.

Second, Man being different.
Man has personality. Personality distinguishes him from non-man.
His being personal will be intrinsic to what he is and has always been.
Man needs to have an answer for what he observes of himself and knows to be: his personal unity and diversity.

Being personal means we are more than just a physical body. It means that we are mental and spiritual and physical beings. This is what man observes, and this is what his personality entails, a unity and diversity of existence. Man needs an answer for that problem of being more than just a physical body.

In Christianity there is an answer: the Trinity.

For aside from the Trinity, there is no other answer sufficient enough to answer for the problem of a personal unity and diversity of Being.
This isn’t abstract, nor is it some illusion. It is the only answer 'big' enough to answer man's need to solve the problem of Being and the personality of man..

Why? part II- anything in particular

Previously on the Zacchaeus Letter:

Like Jean Paul Sartre said, the question is that something is there rather not being there.

We all have a world–view so, in that sense, we are all philosophers.

The answers for our existence must be logical and rational, as opposed to their being irrational.

At this point in rational argument, Christianity is not just an answer, but it is the only answer for what is.
---

Saying this, generally assures criticism:

But the basic concept is simple: God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which, in reality, changes everything in the areas of:
existence,
morals, and
knowledge, in all of life.

We need to see that which is not abstract and that which is undeniably there.

As I spoke in the previous post, the great problem of beginning with the impersonal is that there’s no meaning or significance for any individual thing, any particular, nor any separate part of the whole. A rock and a man are both particulars.

Whether it is mass or space or energy, there would be no basic philosophic difference with which we begin. They are all just as equally impersonal. So then everything must be explained in terms of an impersonal, plus time, plus chance. There are no other factors to consider. And, ultimately, that means there's no design, meaning, or purpose in any natural phenomena.

We even must reduce personality to the impersonal. As a result, we’re being faced with some form of reductionism. Which is where everything is finally understood by reducing everything to its original factor, everything begins and ends as an energy particle, on a single note.

The problem of modern man is rather simple: he doesn’t know why he has any meaning. Man’s damnation today is that he can find no meaning for man. He’s a zero. He’s lost.

If we begin with the impersonal, how do we, or any other particular, have any meaning or significance? No one has given us a clue.

Often, it is at this point that some sort of pantheism is introduced into this impersonal beginning. But it’s only a semantic trick in order to solve the problem.

The very connotation of the root ‘theism’ introduces the personal into the equation, when what is meant is the impersonal.
In pantheism, there is no personal. Nature is god, and god is not personal. So, pantheism connotes the personal, but it isn’t. Thusly, pantheism becomes an illusion. The ancient religions of Hinduism and Buddhism are pantheistic. Their modern solutions are usually semantic illusions, and this is one of them.

Unfortunately, the form of pantheitic illusion that modern science has embraced reduces everything to an impersonal energy. Everything starts and ends with energy particles, there’s no variance.

One thing this pantheism does give us an answer for is our need for unity, for form. Yet, it's answer is devoid of  meaning for diversity, unable to give any meaning for any individual thing. It has no answer for freedom or morality, much less: man's personality or his aspirations. There is none; because, everything in pantheism is finally equal.

Modern liberal and progressive theology, naturalistic science, along with the new mystical thought, is almost always pantheistic. Beginning with the impersonal, as the pantheist must do, there are no true answers in regard to existence with its complexity, or for the personality of man.

If everything, including man, were the result of nature only, the latest step in the process of natural selection, then there is nothing in his behavior that is not the continued results of natural selection, nature evolved. There would be no difference between right and wrong.

So, what does it mean to begin with that which is personal; the opposite of impersonal?

If we begin with the personal origin of all else, then man and his aspirations are not meaningless. Man’s aspirations in the reality of personality are in concert with what was originally there, and what has always intrinsically been. This is our answer, the solution not only to the problem of the existence of bare being and its complexity of meaning for the particulars- but also for man’s being different, with a personality, which distinguishes him from non-man.

But, when we begin to consider a personal beginning, we have another choice to make: God or gods?

Why? part I- anything, anything at all

Why does anything exist?
The answer to this question is so foundational to the thoughts of man, that it colors everything else he thinks afterwards.

The question of "Being" takes us into very different views of the world, and shapes all of man's philosophic thought- that is: man's world-view of what is- metaphysics.

First we must realize that the existence of man is of no greater problem than the fact that anything exists- at all.
We cannot sidestep the fact that things do exist, and that they do exist in their present form and complexity. This problem we face... is the existence of what is- of Being.

Jean Paul Sartre may have said it best: The basic philosophical question is that something is there... rather than nothing being there.

All philosophies and religions deal with the same basic questions, even though they might give different answers and most likely those answers will be couched in different terms.

When I mention philosophy, it tends to make some people zone out. So, before anyone starts nodding off, allow me to briefly explain that philosophy has two meanings.

The first one is a disciplined, academic, and highly technical study. There're not many people on that planet.

The second is: a person’s world-view. That is universal in scope; everybody has a world-view. Eveyone has their own perspective on the world and tries to conform accordingly. No one can live without a world-view. So, no one is without- a philosophy. So, in that sense, all of us are philosophers.

Because both philosophy and religion deal with the same questions through their system of beliefs that are held to with ardor and faith, in that sense, we can also say- all of us are religious.

So, what philosophy can answer for what exists?
-

There’re only two kinds of answers to the metaphysical problem of Being. There’s no lack of variety within those two, but there are really only two kinds.

One answer says that there is no logical, rational answer for anything. That everything is meaningless. That nothing answers for anything, there’s no cause and effect relationship.

While the second answer says that there is a rational answer to consider. It is one we can communicate with each other about and to ourselves.

I shall only deal with the second answer for reasons I hope are so obvious it shouldn't really be necessary to explain. Should there be any questions about this. I'd be glad to address it further, if need be. Until then...
---

Under the concept of rational thought, there are only three possible rational answers to consider.

The first possible rational answer says: everything has come out of absolutely nothing. Theoretically, this is the first possible answer, even though no argument has ever been able to sustain it.

The second possible answer is that all that now is, came from an impersonal mass, or energy, or motion, plus time and chance.

There are no other factors to consider. And within this impersonal beginning answer, there is no form of any teleological concept. ( Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology )

The great problem of beginning everything with the impersonal, is to find any meaning or purpose for any thing in particular, any individual factor. That is, any separate and individual part of the whole. A rock is a particular thing, and so is a man.

While an impersonal beginning can provide some answer for form, it can’t answer for things like freedom and morality. 

Naturalistic science begins everything with the impersonal, with energy particles (or whether mass or motion, would make no difference)... plus time... plus chance. All are equally impersonal. As a result, they have no true answers for existence with its complexity, nor for the personality and aspirations of man.

The third possible answer is: a personal beginning. If we begin with the personal, then the personal does have meaning. And the personality and aspirations of man, and freedom, and morality, are not meaningless. The personal beginning puts man in line with the universe. With what was originally there, and what has always intrinsically been. This relationship is what is commonly known in the sciences as the laws of Cause and Effect.

At this point, it is the Christian who has the needed answer.

-

With this, we have exhausted all of the possible basic metaphysical answers we need for existence, of Being. That doesn’t preclude the details, variations or subheadings, but there are only three basic answers with which to consider under the term: rational.