Today I will explain the Holy Trinity so that ANYONE can easily understand it. Really.

1 .God is a perfect God.

2. He made the world and everything in it, including us.

3. But he made it imperfect.

4. But he still loves his creation.

5. God is also an angry God who is easily offended

6. From the beginning, we are all depraved and have offended God.

7. And though he loves us, God is also just and demands punishment for the wicked  (which is all of us).

8. Since God is infinite then our offense against him is infinite (even though we are finite – don’t worry about the math) and we can never pay our way out of our predicament.

9. So we deserve God’s justice, which, unfortunately, is to send us to suffer in Hell for all eternity. Even babies. For our own good. Because he loves us. (It’s a mystery, don’t ask why. Who do you think you are, anyway? God?)

10. Because he loves us he must be fair to us. After all, he is just. Since we really chose Hell for our ultimate destination (always read the fine print) if he cut us any slack then he would not be respecting our choices. And what kind of love is that?

11. But God is also a sensitive God.

12. And God is Love. He told us so.

13. He doesn’t want to send any of us to hell – it saddens him. Especially the babies.

14. But our sin still requires some sort of sacrifice, preferably a blood sacrifice, to balance the books. Because God is really, really just. He demands perfect justice because he has no choice but to do so, even if he is omnipotent. He’s so perfect he just can’t look the other way. Some one has to pay the bill.

15. Except that, since we are imperfect, sacrificing our puny selves would be an imperfect sacrifice to a perfect God to pay off an infinite bill. You can see the problem there.

16. But he finds a loop hole in his own set of laws. ( He should’ve seen that coming.)

17. And decides to send Jesus,  his only “Son”, to Earth as a man and have him die in order to pay the price for our sins. This is called Grace.

18. Since Jesus is without sin, only he can possibly be worthy of being sacrificed in our place. Since he’s perfect then his sacrifice was perfect and pleasing to God.

19. But…what kind of God would sacrifice his only Son? And be pleased by it? That’s not very nice. And not too just, either, since Jesus is innocent.

20. Ah ha! We forget that Jesus is also God!  So in effect, when God sacrifices Jesus he also sacrifices himself. It’s like God picked up the tab himself. Which, you have to admit, is pretty nifty. Now that God/Jesus has paid the bill we don’t owe anything! This is called forgiveness.

21. But how can this be? How can Jesus and the Father both be God at the same time?

22. So somebody found out that God was Binitarian – one God who is also two persons. Tricky, but somewhat conceivable.

23. Except Jesus talked about God’s spirit like it was another person, not just a thing. (He does, doesn’t he?) And if Jesus is now God he must be omniscient so this “holy spirit” must be another person, too. But what kind of person?

24. So we added the Holy Spirit (Ghost) to the Holy Binity to create the Holy Trinity. More tricky and not so easily conceivable.

25. But God (or someone) said that everyone must believe that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or they cannot follow Jesus. No exceptions. Everyone else can just go to Hell.

There, now. Simple. Anyone have any problems with that?

(Disclaimer: the thoughts expressed above are not the author’s but those of what many consider to be orthodox authority.  If they had been real thoughts you would have been advised  to seek shelter in the nearest basement and  tune into your local Trinity Broadcasting Network for further instructions.)


, ,

  1. #1 by anon on June 18, 2010 - 11:50 pm

    original sin + crucifixion = salvation…….or something like that?

    Judaism does not have “original sin”, if Jesus Christ(pbuh) was Jewish, would he have taught original sin?—but….. if not, then the above equation falls apart……?…….

  2. #2 by Christian Beyer on June 19, 2010 - 8:58 am

    Right – “original sin’ is a distinctly Western/Roman idea. Though the idea of salvation through Christ is found in the Gospels as well as Paul’s writings, but it is the RESURRECTION and not necessarily the crucifixion which is important here. The crucifixion has become paramount to those who do not really believe in God’s grace or mercy – someone must pay the price. Very human, very religiously primitive – scapegoating.

    The crucifixion is important because it shows how Jesus was able, in the long run, to defeat those who use violence as a means to an end, particularly those who hold power over others, which is a sin that just about all of us (with the possible exception of the weak, the sick, the homeless, the starving, the imprisoned) are guilty of on an ongoing basis. It was that ‘sin’ – our sins – that Jesus died of.

  3. #3 by anon on June 20, 2010 - 6:12 am

    “but it is the RESURRECTION and not necessarily the crucifixion which is important here.”—as an outsider looking in—I had always wondered about that……to have a crucified Christ(pbuh) as a symbol seemed depressing (and the more realistic statues of Jesus Christ(pbuh) all bloody and agonizing (or dead) on the cross do seem fascinatingly horrifying…) on the other hand, there seems to be a certain amount of hope/renewal/triumph in a concept like resurrection—a concept that could be represented by something like that statue of Jesus Christ(pbuh) in Brazil.

    “It was that ‘sin’ – our sins – that Jesus died of.”—-I must say, this phrase makes more sense the the usual one that goes “…–our sins — that Jesus died FOR”. (—and….. yr version might be more compatible with Judaism….)

  4. #4 by anon on June 21, 2010 - 11:24 pm

    original sin + crucifixion = salvation—-There seems to be a hollywood version of this theory that says if “evil” is eliminated from the world then we will have utopia.
    On the other hand—-Buddhism, is not about eliminating sufferring, but on managing sufferring by how we react to it.

    What are your thoughts?

  5. #5 by anon on June 22, 2010 - 11:00 pm

    I didn’t express myself well in the above post—-I want to rephrase—I’lll come back to it after I get my thghts in order……..gotta go for now

  6. #6 by Christian on June 22, 2010 - 11:51 pm

    No, I think I understand you. Just real busy right now. I’ve got some thougts on this. Tomorrow.

    • #7 by Alex on July 1, 2010 - 12:40 pm


  7. #8 by Christian Beyer on July 1, 2010 - 12:45 pm

    Gasp! Alex! You are alive! (Be gentle, please.)

  8. #9 by Jonathan on July 4, 2010 - 7:28 pm

    Unfortunately, your satirical account neglects that such theories of atonement (a very Calvinistic supralapsarian account) is not the precursor but a subsequent (emphasis on ‘a’, for it’s not ‘the’ only response) attempt to explain atonement, grace, and christology.

    Consequently, the thrust of your rebuttal of trinitarian theology is somewhat nullified, at least as is. Interesting ideas though.

    • #10 by Christian on July 4, 2010 - 9:07 pm

      Right. But it’s a pretty popular position. Or one would think so, considering how vocal its proponents are.

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: