Now I Get It….The REAL Trinity

Ah. It just struck me this evening. There IS  such a thing as a Trinity that is supported by church doctrine, tradition and history. But it is none too holy.



, , ,

  1. #1 by logiopath on June 30, 2009 - 10:35 pm



    We all want an idealistic world, don’t we?

    • #2 by Christian Beyer on June 30, 2009 - 11:00 pm

      Nah. Most of us don’t. I never did. Not until just a year or two ago. Used to be very criticial of idealists. Of course an anti- idealist (a realist) who has lost the status quo of his realism soon becomes another type of idealist. A reactionary. “Ah, the good old days…”

  2. #3 by logiopath on June 30, 2009 - 10:36 pm

    Do we always have to be whistle blowers?

    • #4 by Christian Beyer on June 30, 2009 - 11:01 pm

      Depends upon the circumstances. I think most whistle blowers struggle with their decisions. Rarely is anything black and white. We are all mini-Madoff’s.

  3. #5 by logiopath on July 1, 2009 - 12:03 am

    What is up? Did you go to some kind of Tony Campolo meeting?

    Why all of the guilt about having some stuff?

    • #6 by Christian Beyer on July 1, 2009 - 5:59 am

      Guilt? That’s one emotion that I rarely flirt with. Since you’ve brought pop-psychology into the discussion, I think that you are projecting right now.

      I do like Tony Compolo.

      Almost exactly right, Love. I would have said something other than ‘clients’; consumers maybe. Or dupes.

  4. #7 by logiopath on July 1, 2009 - 9:15 am

    You’re not really arguing. You are setting up an unwinnable challenge–in other words, live like a saint in all dealings or fall short of an unattainable mark.

    I wrecked myself with guilt for years trying to impose impossible honesty on people (and sometimes myself). All it did was leave me with drowning guilt and occassionally no food in the house (after giving $$$ to church and having little leftover for food). I realized now this was wrong.

    Businesses and government don’t owe us honesty, and we cannot have this expectation. Our employers owe us one thing–a pay check. They don’t owe us an explanation about any questionable practices (like an incident where I work, that was swept away).

    Think about your employer and how most of the people at the main office do a minimal amount of work (and think about how many of the people there have jobs that probably are unnecessary).
    Or at that school? Oh man! All of those people who steal company money by going on the computer during work hours? Or take supplies home? Or use the copy machine for personal use?

    Sheesh! Talk about a workplace that falls short.

    Are you going to H. H.’s office and proclaim that if his company was honest, most of the people would have to be fired? He probably wouldn’t care.

    • #8 by Christian Beyer on July 1, 2009 - 10:07 am

      No worse than your workplace or any other, I am sure. For gosh sakes, you work for the government!!! 😉

      No offense, but as usual, your missing the point by taking things personally. The idea is not to impose conditions or restrictions on others but to try and be aware of how our OWN actions affect others. Your example of employee and employer relations is a good one. Those employers who believe the only thing they owe their employees is a check are usually the ones that get the less than minimum amount of work for their money. I am always amused at how many employers expect their employees to demonstrate ‘loyalty’ to their employers or even express gratitude for the opportunity for employment, yet expect these same employees to understand that there is nothing “personal” in their being laid off.

      I used to tell people I interviewed for jobs that I would not be their boss but their customer. They had something I needed and was willing to pay for. Like anything else that is bought and sold, their service has a value and it was up to them to enhance or diminish that value. Any GOOD business man understands, just like any GOOD employer, that a profitable long term relationship is not dictated by a monetary exchange alone.

      So it’s not just about what people SHOULD or SHOULDN”T do but about what is also smart – best practices. There is a reason why honesty is the best policy. Why crime doesn’t pay. If looked at only from a financial perspective those old canards may be hard to defend. But there is more to life than financial gain.

  5. #9 by logiopath on July 1, 2009 - 9:15 am

    Not that I’m picking on your organization, but come on.

    • #10 by Christian Beyer on July 1, 2009 - 10:14 am

      Yeah, you are. Because you are still bitter that they didn’t think a doctoral student’s experience and knowledge offered the right kind of value for this type of environment. And it doesn’t, does it?

      Maybe you’d like to express these thoughts in a more private forum?

  6. #11 by logiopath on July 1, 2009 - 10:31 am

    More private?

    Naah. I’m fine airing your dirty laundry in public.

  7. #12 by Alex on July 25, 2009 - 10:35 am

    “Christianity began to lose it’s authenticity the moment they entertained the concept of a clergy and a laity”

    Are you referring to clericalism here?

    Laity comes from the Greek word ‘laos’, which means people of God. The true sense of the term ‘laymen’ is not one who is ignorant as it’s typically thought of (i.e. I’m a layman when it comes to understanding science, etc.), but rather one who is knowledgeable. It’s this idea of separation of the clergy from the laos that has had the detrimental effect (interestingly, the forced implementation of celibacy for clergy in the West was a calculated move to separate the clergy from the laity).

    BUT Christianity has always had the 3 fold ministry of the clergy (bishop, presbyter, deacon) – it did not ‘entertain the concept’ of a clergy distinct from the non-clergy.

    • #13 by Christian Beyer on July 25, 2009 - 12:15 pm

      Yes. My complaint is against the common conception (and execution) of clergy and laity. In some ways clergy has almost returned to a version of shamanism, with them having in their possession ‘special knowledge’ of the divine.

  8. #14 by Alex on July 25, 2009 - 10:49 am

    It is difficult for a merchant to enter the Kingdom of God

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: