Thursday, October 16, 2008

Theology: The Triune God

God’s triune nature is an essential part of who God is and how He relates to man. All of God is eternal. Every attribute, every nature, every part of His being is eternal. Scripture proclaims in Jeremiah 10:10 “But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God, the eternal King.” Also consider, Habakkuk 3:6, “His ways are eternal.”


When we speak of God the Father, the first person of the Trinity , we are speaking of an eternal Father. Therefore, for God to be a Father to man, He must first have always been a Father by His eternal nature. He was a Father before creation to the eternal Son, Jesus. If God became a Father because He created then He would have become something He had not been. This is impossible. For God never changes for He is never lacking anything. He has always been perfect in His eternalness. He spoke a great reality when He told Moses that His name is “I AM.” He spoke of His eternality, His completeness. Thus, for God to be a Father, He has always had a Son who was of the same substance of Himself, being fully God. The Son had to also be eternally the Son. He didn’t gain Son status, for He always existed as the Son of God. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “before Abraham was born, I Am” (John 8:58). If one denies the eternal God nature of the Son, then the Father nature of God is denied as well. One cannot exist without the other. John 17:24 says that God loved Jesus before the creation of the world. The Holy Spirit is also eternally binding the love of God to the love of the Son and is our Counselor, because He has eternally been thus. Romans 5:5 reads “God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.”


To break this down in a natural analogy, man gains his identity in relation to other people. A father becomes a father when he has a child. A wife becomes a wife when she gains that identity in relation or in reference to having a husband. Without a husband she is not a wife. Without a child, a person is not a parent. A human woman, contrary to popular sentiment, does not become a mother because she loves her pet like a child. Her pet is different from her and not her offspring. God did not become a father of mankind because He created mankind. He always is a Father because He always has a Son. He is a Father to mankind because He is first a Father to the Son of God.


God is a personal God because He has relationship within the Trinity. He doesn’t gain His personal nature from His creation. If there is no interpersonal God being such as the Christian God, there can be no personal God to creation. In fact, if God was this cosmic static entity with no persons of the Trinity He could not be self-existing. He would then not even be God at all for He would need something else outside Himself to sustain His identity. The finite creation cannot lend the framework to support an infinite God. God’s identity has to be secure before creation or separate from creation. He must be self-referencing. He must be His own identity framework. Thus any religion that posits a non-relational God cannot logically support the existence of God. Moreover polytheism fails to be a foundational system of belief for each of the many gods would have to be finite for you cannot have more than one all powerful God. It isn’t logically possible. Thus multiplicity of gods lends itself to finiteness of gods and that is not an adequate foundation for they would be in need of a self-evident eternal God themselves.


In conclusion, the nature of God being: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, is essential belief about who God is and how we can have a personal relationship with Him. For without His personal nature within the Trinity there would be no personal relationship between Him and all creation.

19 comments:

Chase Warren said...

Nice post Karla, the Trinity is a very interesting topic in itself, we have always tried to bring comparisions (physically speaking) to the Trinity (i.e. An egg contains the shell the yoke and the white but is one, or water and it's Triple Point) however nothing can truly measure how the Trinity functions.

William Fenholt said...

Yeah nice post Karla. It makes no sense that christianity is supposed to be a monotheistic religion and yet here we are, talking about the "trinity". Doesn't the prefix "tri" usually mean three? Strange how in christianity 1+1+1=1.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Moreover polytheism fails to be a foundational system of belief for each of the many gods would have to be finite for you cannot have more than one all powerful God. It isn’t logically possible. Thus multiplicity of gods lends itself to finiteness of gods and that is not an adequate foundation for they would be in need of a self-evident eternal God themselves.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Polytheism has been around a *lot* longer than Monotheism and to me - even as an atheist - makes much more logical sense than an all powerful God. Just because there are a multiplicity of Gods does not mean that any kind of logic has been breached. There is no contradiction (in my mind) in the idea of a finite God. You do not require a single all powerful God to provide a 'foundational system' to a belief system. Polytheists seemed to have had (and continue to have) no problem with this.

As usual it appears to me that you are filtering your views on a subject through your assumptions based on your belief in the Christian God. You are only seeing things from a single point of view - your own. I think this is the root of your problem in understanding other points of view which (often) have as much validity as your own.

Karla said...

William it's more like 1 * 1 * 1 = 1

Karla said...

Cyberkitten, I am speaking from the Christian worldview. I am starting with it being true and explaining it from that starting place. It's most logical to start from truth. I know we are disagreed about what truth is, but I would expect you to speak from your atheism when you share your view point. Then you can examine both your own view and mine to determine what is actually lining up with reality.

As for polytheism . . . where did finite gods come from? If they are finite, they had a beginning and if they had a beginning they would need to have a Beginner just like all of creation.

Also most polytheistic religions are ones that attribute the divine to nature. They are all nature gods. The son god, the moon good, the goddess of love, etc. It's all tied into nature, not separate from nature. Again not providing a framework of how nature began.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I am speaking from the Christian worldview. I am starting with it being true and explaining it from that starting place. It's most logical to start from truth.

Yes, but it's *your* truth - not *the* truth (which in this case does not actually exist). There is no 'one true religion' because all of them are cultural constructs invented by early peoples (with some modern arrivals) to explain the universe. You might *believe* that they are the truth you have been looking for but you would be wrong.

karla said: I know we are disagreed about what truth is, but I would expect you to speak from your atheism when you share your view point.

Yes, I am giving my opinion on the subject which is informed by my atheism. *But* I can still see the other persons point of view - even if I view it as in error. Polytheism is not invalid because Monotheism is correct/true. BOTH are equally invalid because both are illusions/delusions/fantasies. The reason you see Polytheism as invalid is because you *believe* that your version of Monotheism is the 'true' religion. But from the Polytheists equally valid point of view *your* Monotheistic beliefs are in error. If you are both making truth claims (and they are only claims) about invisible supernatural events how is it possible to decide which of you is correct. If you say whichever is closest to reality I can quite comfortably say that neither view has any claim on being remotely real in any reasonable definition of the term!

karla said: Then you can examine both your own view and mine to determine what is actually lining up with reality.

I pick mine.... You pick yours. Now what?

karla said: As for polytheism . . . where did finite gods come from? If they are finite, they had a beginning and if they had a beginning they would need to have a Beginner just like all of creation.

You'd have to read up on comparative religions to discover that. From my scant knowledge some Gods where made by higher Gods. Some have 'always' been here since the beginning and variations thereof.... The varieties of Polytheistic belief are seemingly endless.

karla said: Also most polytheistic religions are ones that attribute the divine to nature. They are all nature gods. The son god, the moon good, the goddess of love, etc. It's all tied into nature, not separate from nature. Again not providing a framework of how nature began.

As far as I am aware many cultures believe that nature/the world/the universe has *always* been here. Some cultures do not have creation myths similar to the Christian one. Again, this does not invalidate their belief - it just makes it different. Human cultures have been very varied. Its not surprising that their beliefs are so diverse.

Karla said...

cyberkitten: “Yes, but it's *your* truth - not *the* truth (which in this case does not actually exist).”

Is what you believe true—that there is no God, no supernatural world?


cyberkitten: “There is no 'one true religion' because all of them are cultural constructs invented by early peoples (with some modern arrivals) to explain the universe. You might *believe* that they are the truth you have been looking for but you would be wrong.”

That sounds like certainty. How do you know this?


cyberkitten ”Yes, I am giving my opinion on the subject which is informed by my atheism. *But* I can still see the other persons point of view - even if I view it as in error.”

Same here: I can see what you are saying even if I don’t agree with it and see it to be in error.

Cyberkitten“Polytheism is not invalid because Monotheism is correct/true. BOTH are equally invalid because both are illusions/delusions/fantasies. The reason you see Polytheism as invalid is because you *believe* that your version of Monotheism is the 'true' religion. But from the Polytheists equally valid point of view *your* Monotheistic beliefs are in error. If you are both making truth claims (and they are only claims) about invisible supernatural events how is it possible to decide which of you is correct. If you say whichever is closest to reality I can quite comfortably say that neither view has any claim on being remotely real in any reasonable definition of the term!”

The two are contradictory. If the Judeo/Christian God is the real God then polytheism cannot be equally valid. You take the position that they are equally invalid, and yet seem to want me to see them all equally plausible . . .


cyberkitten:”I pick mine.... You pick yours. Now what?”

That’s up to you, if you want to keep comparing and contrasting our worldviews and seeking to get at the truth of reality. I’m not asking you to abandon your worldview, I’m asking you to keep thinking about whether it is truth or not.


cyberkitten:”You'd have to read up on comparative religions to discover that. From my scant knowledge some Gods where made by higher Gods. Some have 'always' been here since the beginning and variations thereof.... The varieties of Polytheistic belief are seemingly endless.”


Yes some were considered to be made by higher gods through procreation or through other means. I think the Greeks did have a creator God but I’m I think he was as finite and corrupt as the rest of the gods they posited. They were deifying aspects of nature, and humanity and giving them corrupt natures as well. I’m not sure that any scholar actually thinks the mythological creatures and gods to be real. Though there is much scholarly debate on the existence of the Judeo Christian God.


cyberkitten ”As far as I am aware many cultures believe that nature/the world/the universe has *always* been here. Some cultures do not have creation myths similar to the Christian one. Again, this does not invalidate their belief - it just makes it different. Human cultures have been very varied. Its not surprising that their beliefs are so diverse.”

If a belief doesn’t line up with the truth about reality then it is invalidated. Just because a culture believed something doesn’t make it true. There are a lot of similarities in cultural mythologies. Every culture has a Flood story and most every has a creation story of some kind. All cultures have shown signs of believing in a supernatural reality. It was not until the rise of atheism that that was questioned.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Is what you believe true—that there is no God, no supernatural world?

I *believe* so yes.......

karla said:
That sounds like certainty. How do you know this?

I *believe* it to be true. I am actually certain of nothing. I am at heart a very skeptical person.

karla said: Same here: I can see what you are saying even if I don’t agree with it and see it to be in error.

...and that is *exactly* what I've been saying. We are merely expressing different points of view on the subject.

karla said: The two are contradictory. If the Judeo/Christian God is the real God then polytheism cannot be equally valid. You take the position that they are equally invalid, and yet seem to want me to see them all equally plausible.

Yes, they are contradictory - that doesn't mean that they are not equally valid alternatives. It just means that if one exists then the other does not. You are a Monotheist therefore it follows that you dismiss Polytheism as both invalid and implausible. As I am not viewing Polytheism from a Monotheistic viewpoint I do not automatically dismiss it on those grounds.

karla said: if you want to keep comparing and contrasting our worldviews and seeking to get at the truth of reality.

Well, I don't think that religion of any type is a useful way to understand reality.

karla said: I’m not asking you to abandon your worldview, I’m asking you to keep thinking about whether it is truth or not.

Don't worry. Doubt is a very close friend of mine... [laughs]

karla said: I’m not sure that any scholar actually thinks the mythological creatures and gods to be real.

[laughs] Of course not! They're all *imaginary* creatures, the same way all supernatural beings are imaginary.

karla said: Though there is much scholarly debate on the existence of the Judeo Christian God.

That's because belief in the Judeo-Christian God hasn't faded into history yet like the Greek gods and many others.

karla said: If a belief doesn’t line up with the truth about reality then it is invalidated.

Ah... Something we can agree on! Using that criteria I consider supernaturalism in all its guises to be invalid.

karla said: Just because a culture believed something doesn’t make it true.

*Two* things we agree on - we're on a definite roll here....

karla said: Every culture has a Flood story and most every has a creation story of some kind.

Not sure about the flood thing. Did the Greeks have a flood myth? Did the Australian Aborigines?

It's logical to expect that many cultures have a creation or foundation myth. After all in common experience many things have origins. It also probably helps to anchor a culture if it has an origin instead of just floating free in time. But the fact that many cultures share similar myths doesn't prove that there is some actual foundation behind all of them.

karla said: All cultures have shown signs of believing in a supernatural reality. It was not until the rise of atheism that that was questioned.

That might be the case but it doesn't prove that the supernatural actually exists - just that people believe it exists. There is quite a gap between the two.

Karla said...

If you are skeptical of everything even your own atheism, what else is left?

I'm not sure that doubt of all things can lead to truth. There has to be something that isn't doubted. Something that's self-existing by which all things can be known to be real because all flows from that self-existing starting place.

Descartes determined that his own thinking was the firm foundation by which to know he existed and formed his philosophy from that starting place. The famous I think therefore I am. And yet his starting place was himself. Descartes did believe God exists, but he arrived at that from staring with himself as the sure thing. To me that's backwards.

I don't see it as idealistic to know something to be true. But without a firm self-existing foundation, I guess that's all one is left with is uncertainty for how can we know truth if there is nothing beyond nature? Your world view doesn't allow for the knowability and certainty of truth.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If you are skeptical of everything even your own atheism, what else is left?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

karla said: I'm not sure that doubt of all things can lead to truth.

Neither am I but doubt is a good default position.

karla said: There has to be something that isn't doubted.

Why? What can you base certainty on?

karla said: Something that's self-existing by which all things can be known to be real because all flows from that self-existing starting place.

I'm assuming you mean God - an idea I don't believe in.

karla said: Descartes determined that his own thinking was the firm foundation by which to know he existed and formed his philosophy from that starting place.

I understand he did. I've read a little bit about him but nothing by him so I don't really have a full understanding of his ideas.

karla said: The famous I think therefore I am.

Indeed. Its a seriously flawed argument though....

karla said: Descartes did believe God exists, but he arrived at that from staring with himself as the sure thing.

Actually I understand that he assumed God existed and took it as a given. In this case his existing Theism coloured (or contaminated) his philosophy.

karla said: I don't see it as idealistic to know something to be true.

Its difficult at best. Maybe actually impossible. I'm still not sure about that. We can certainly *believe* something to be true. Knowing something to be true though is a whole different thing.

karla said: But without a firm self-existing foundation, I guess that's all one is left with is uncertainty for how can we know truth if there is nothing beyond nature?

I have no issue with uncertainty and I do not believe in things that are 'beyond nature'.

karla said: Your world view doesn't allow for the knowability and certainty of truth.

Absolute certainty and absolute truth? Nope - not from my perspective.

Karla said...

An eternal God is necessary to have a foundation for truth. Without Him I have no reference point of truth. Without Him we have only a broken compass. Each direction is equally possible and valid but no certainty can be found. There is no reference point for truth. Nothing solid on which to build.

When I asked you if you doubt everything even atheism, what is left? I mean if you doubt everything then you also doubt that your right that there is no God. So you can't be certain about that either. All your left with is uncertainty, doubt, and only your own subjectivity.

I would assume that if you default to doubt then you would doubt even your own subjective position about life.

Would not a stable anchor for truth be more liveable? More believable then what you posit? How can you be so certain I'm wrong if you doubt so readily?

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess we can add math to the things that you know nothing about. On that list is history and logic as well.

There is no logical reason why a deistic god can not be true. There is no logical reason why god must be a personal god. There is no logical reason why god must be triune. Even if your dubious argument that god must be bi-partite (son and father) is true, then that is all that would be required. There would be no need for the "Holy Spirit." If there is a third person, why not a fourth, fifth, or hundreth? There's also no logical necessity for god to be bi-partite or more in order to exist.

Finally, there's no logical necessity for god to be eternal, etc. Even if that god had to be created by another god, ad infinitum, it would still be logically possible for the finite god to have created us.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: An eternal God is necessary to have a foundation for truth.

No it isn't. An understandable universe and an ability to form reasonable hypotheses is a foundation for truth.

karla said: Without Him I have no reference point of truth.

I don't agree. If God is basically beyond our limited comprehension (moving in mysterious ways) how is it possible to use Him as a reference point?

karla said: Without Him we have only a broken compass.

Actually without Him we have our own compass - probably made in China.

karla said: Each direction is equally possible and valid but no certainty can be found.

That really depends on what area of knowledge you're talking about. We are quite capable of finding out truths about the universe without the need to inject God into the equation.

karla said: There is no reference point for truth. Nothing solid on which to build.

Again that would depend on your area of study. Physics, for instance, has a fairly solid foundation.... not forgetting biology which has Darwinian evolution as its foundation. That's quite a good rock to build things on!

karla said: When I asked you if you doubt everything even atheism, what is left? I mean if you doubt everything then you also doubt that your right that there is no God.

Correct. There is a vanishingly small possibility that God actually exists.

karla said: So you can't be certain about that either.

I'm not certain about anything.

karla said: All your left with is uncertainty, doubt, and only your own subjectivity.

That is the point I've been trying to make since I started leaving comments here.

karla said: I would assume that if you default to doubt then you would doubt even your own subjective position about life.

Yes. If I try hard enough I can even doubt my own existence [grin]

karla said: Would not a stable anchor for truth be more liveable?

You mean more comfortable? That I should live a cozy lie rather than the cold hard reality as I see it? No thanks. I'd rather be true to my beliefs if that's all the same to you.

karla said: More believable then what you posit?

My beliefs are the result of much thinking and years of study. I am not debating with you because it merely passes the time. I'm not making any of this up to 'yank your chain'. I am stating my beliefs to you. How can I come up with something more 'believable'? Do you mean that you don't believe my position?

karla said: How can you be so certain I'm wrong if you doubt so readily?

Because I doubt your position *much* more than I doubt my own.

Karla said...

cyberkitten said "An understandable universe and an ability to form reasonable hypotheses is a foundation for truth."

How do you know it's understandable? How do you know your or anyone's reason is right. By what standard do you judge hypotheses to be reasonable?

cyberkitten said: "I don't agree. If God is basically beyond our limited comprehension (moving in mysterious ways) how is it possible to use Him as a reference point?"

He has revealed truth to man and continues to do so.

"Actually without Him we have our own compass - probably made in China."

lol -- do you honestly think the compass of man a trustworthy foundation of truth?

"My beliefs are the result of much thinking and years of study. I am not debating with you because it merely passes the time. I'm not making any of this up to 'yank your chain'. I am stating my beliefs to you. How can I come up with something more 'believable'? Do you mean that you don't believe my position?"

I know you are speaking from what you believe to be true and aren't just messing with me. I guess I'm trying to challenge you to think critically about them as you are asking me to do mine.

No I don't agree with your position. I think you know that. I believe truth is firmly rooted in God and that He has revealed it to man and that all of creation, and all longings of man, and all stories of man, reflect His existence. I believe there is a grand story that makes sense of reality and that story is found in the Bible. I believe there are other stories in this world in other religions and cultures that also speak of the divine and the spiritual desires of man. Yet I think those stories are counterfeits of the real. I believe God is even now helping to open peoples eyes to the counterfeit and giving them the real. As I've said, Muslums are having dreams and visions of Christ and leaving Islam to serve Jesus at the risk of their lives never having heard the Gospel from missionaries. This is well documented. I know a guy personally who has listened to many such testimonies.

That was kind of a ramble. It's getting late. But I just know so strongly that the Lord is real and ever present in my life. I'm trying my best to communicate the reality of that to others.

CyberKitten said...

karla asked: How do you know it's understandable?

Firstly we need to *assume* that the universe is understandable. If we assume that is isn't then there's no point in trying to find things out. Second, it appears to be understandable because we appear to be starting to actually understand it. The universe behaves pretty much as we would expect it to behave knowing what we do. Third, our technology is based on our understanding of the universe - and it works (mostly). This is good evidence both that the universe is understandable and that we have a pretty good handle on how some of it works.

karla said: How do you know your or anyone's reason is right. By what standard do you judge hypotheses to be reasonable?

Because our reasoning produces verifiable results. It works.

karla said: He has revealed truth to man and continues to do so.

I do not agree.

karla said: lol -- do you honestly think the compass of man a trustworthy foundation of truth?

I guess that its going to have to be. Its the only one we have - so far.

karla said: I know you are speaking from what you believe to be true and aren't just messing with me.

Good.

karla said: I guess I'm trying to challenge you to think critically about them as you are asking me to do mine.

Oh I do. You don't need to worry on that score. If I didn't want to have my views challenged I wouldn't hang around Blogs such as yours!

karla said: But I just know so strongly that the Lord is real and ever present in my life. I'm trying my best to communicate the reality of that to others.

Oh, I think you're communicating fairly well considering. Unfortunately the reality you speak of is *your* reality. It's certainly not mine and probably not *real* reality either.

Karla said...

If you must assume it, you must be employing faith in some degree.

Also I don't wish to believe something that's "my reality" I wish to believe what is true universally. It's not good enough for me for what I believe to be "my truth" if it's not "the truth" there is no sense believing it.

I think we both want what is true, even though we, at this point, disagree on what that is and maybe our mutual desire for truth lets us have this conversation.

I hope I am showing you that I'm not interested in winning arguments but encouraging people onward toward truth. I'm not a seasoned apologist. I don't know all the evidences on the top of my head. I have to dig and study when asked questions I haven't learned yet.

I enjoy questions and challenges. I've appreciated your conversational approach. I really really don't want to argue with anyone.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: If you must assume it, you must be employing faith in some degree.

To an extent yes. We don't know with certaintly that the universe is ultimately understandable. It may not be. There is still much we know little about.

karla said: Also I don't wish to believe something that's "my reality" I wish to believe what is true universally. It's not good enough for me for what I believe to be "my truth" if it's not "the truth" there is no sense believing it.

The problem I have with your idea of 'universal truth' is I view it as highly subjective and particular to one group - Christians - who's preception of truth is determined by what I regard as an erroneous belief in God. Such a belief leads you to see your truth as universal truth but from my point of view you are quite mistaken.

karla said: I think we both want what is true, even though we, at this point, disagree on what that is and maybe our mutual desire for truth lets us have this conversation.

Quite possibly. We're just looking for it in different places.

karla said: I hope I am showing you that I'm not interested in winning arguments but encouraging people onward toward truth.

I don't think that you can 'win' the belief argument through debate - at least not easily. I doubt *very* much if we could convince each other of the others position.

karla said: I enjoy questions and challenges. I've appreciated your conversational approach. I really really don't want to argue with anyone.

I disagree with most of what you say but I see little point in getting uptight about it though. We believe what we believe for (we believe) very good reasons. We might be able to understand our own beliefs more through these debates but I'm not expecting much more than that.

Karla said...

cyber kitten said "The problem I have with your idea of 'universal truth' is I view it as highly subjective and particular to one group - Christians - who's preception of truth is determined by what I regard as an erroneous belief in God. Such a belief leads you to see your truth as universal truth but from my point of view you are quite mistaken."

Do you mean only Christians benefit from that truth? Truth by it's nature is exclusive of non-truth. Truth isn't there to make everyone happy, but it is what it is. It doesn't conform to people, people must conform to it.

If the Christian God exist then He would be the author of all truth. He has revealed truth to man in a myriad of ways and is revealing it still in new ways.

If there is no God and Christianity is only a human constructed belief system then, yes, it's pretty arrogant to have such an exclusive club where we claim to know what is true. It all hinges on if God exist and if the claims of Christ are true. If it is true, other ideas and beliefs that are contradictory to this truth would be false by default. I didn't make them false, they just would be in reality.

Same with if atheism is true and there is no God then all spiritual people, all religious people, all supernaturalist people would be all wrong and the group of atheist on the planet would then be the ones that have the handle on truth.

It has to be either/or it can't be both/and. Either way you look at it one of us is truly claiming exclusivity of truth. Atheism would discount all other belief systems far more than Christianity ever could. For so much of spirituality and religion have truth in them, but if there is no God even that isn't true for nature is all there is and all worship and spirituality is meaningless.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Do you mean only Christians benefit from that truth?

No. I mean that what you think you hold as universal truth is your subjective truth - as is the 'universal' truth of all religions who claim to have it.

karla said: If the Christian God exist then He would be the author of all truth. He has revealed truth to man in a myriad of ways and is revealing it still in new ways.

...and I continue not believing that.....

karla said: If there is no God and Christianity is only a human constructed belief system then, yes, it's pretty arrogant to have such an exclusive club where we claim to know what is true.

Indeed. As I have been saying....

karla said: It all hinges on if God exist and if the claims of Christ are true. If it is true, other ideas and beliefs that are contradictory to this truth would be false by default. I didn't make them false, they just would be in reality.

Agreed. But I do not believe it to be true - for any religion, not just yours.

karla said: Same with if atheism is true and there is no God then all spiritual people, all religious people, all supernaturalist people would be all wrong and the group of atheist on the planet would then be the ones that have the handle on truth.

In effect, yes.

karla said: Either way you look at it one of us is truly claiming exclusivity of truth.

Well, we have competing belief systems. We could *both* be wrong. [grin]

karla said: so much of spirituality and religion have truth in them

Well, that depends on what you mean by truth but I consider the amount of exclusive truth held by religion is minimal at best and totally overwhelmed by the amount of wrong-headed delusion that religion obviously contains.

karla said: if there is no God even that isn't true for nature is all there is and all worship and spirituality is meaningless.

Meaningless & pointless, yes. Humanity has wasted *so* much time and energy on this nonsense....