Random Reflection on the Trinity

There is no other mystery of the Christian faith as mysterious as the Trinity. Yet it is one of the central truths that Christians hold. In fact, denying the Trinity would put you squarely in the "non-Christian" camp for most people.

Christians assert one God but they also assert that there are three persons in one God. Each person is fully God (not part of God). Each person, as a person should, has relations with the other two. They are NOT interchangeable meaning while we can safely say, "Jesus died on the cross," and "God died on the cross," we cannot say, "The Father died on the cross."

Such a mystery has been misrepresented time and time again through heresies. Even well meaning individuals who try to explain the Trinity always end up using an analogy that fails to capture the essence of the Trinity in some way, shape or form. As such, I will preface this by saying the analog I will present will in no way be perfect. I'd even dare to say I don't have a proper analog in that I'm simply affirming that I simply do not understand it fully.

I'll start with a heretical view of the Trinity called modalism. It basically says that God has three "modes", namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just as a man can be a father to his children, a husband to his wife and a boss at work, modalism says that God simply takes on different modes depending on the situation.

Where this analogy fails is that the three persons of the Trinity are not mere modes or masks that God puts on depending on the situation but that they are three distinct persons. I first came across this analogy when a religion teacher was trying to explain the Trinity to us. I can see now what's wrong with the analogy but as a Grade 2 student, you simply don't see these things.

Another heresy called partialism says that the three persons of the Trinity are three parts of the whole God. That means just as a clover leaf can have 3 distinct parts, the Trinity is simply one God with three parts.

Thinking about these two heresies got me to make my own reflection on this matter. I started thinking about a cube. To make a cube, you can start with a point. Two points make a line. Four lines of equal length make a square. Six squares consequently make a cube. With normal human thinking, we stop at the cube without thinking if a higher dimension even exists! Going with the pattern, one could say that eight cubes could very well make up something entirely different! It's impossible for us to imagine such an object as we are limited to only the three dimensions we're all used to.

That's when I realized that things can exist apart from what we as humans can imagine and restricting the Trinity to our human understanding would be doing God a disservice. If I recycle the Trinity of God being like a man who is a father, a husband and a boss, and tweak it, it might represent the Trinity better.

Just as we, people can have three modes, God can have three persons and each person can have their own modes. Just as the second person of the Trinity has titles or modes such as "Prince of Peace" and "Son of God". In this case, God would be like our 8-cubed higher dimension object and each of those cubes has 6 squares - just as each person of the Trinity has their own titles or modes.

When one sees that God is higher than human understanding and admits that, the idea of the Trinity doesn't seem so odd anymore.

Nuggets of History: The Leap Year

Odd question. What happened in the period October 5 - October 14, 1582? While some people might correctly say nothing significant happened during those dates, I'd go further and say nothing happened on those dates. These are dates that never occurred. The reason they didn't occur involves a discussion on leap years.

Leap years are a strange thing. They're rare in that they only occur every four years and the only difference being that a day is added to February every four years.This is done to keep the calendar in sync with the solstices as well as to make determining the planting seasons. That's because while a typical year has 365 days, the actual length of the year is slightly longer at around 365 and 1/4 days. Which means every four years, the calendar will be a day off sync with nature by about a day every four years.

Which leads us to a problem. There isn't a leap year every four years - well, not exactly. There's a leap year for every year that is divisible by 4 but not divisible by 100 except when it's divisible by 400. That means the year 2000 and 2400 are all leap years, 2100, 2200, and 2300 are not.

The problem arises as the estimate of 365.25 days has enough error in it that nature becomes out of sync with the calendar after a hundred years. More precisely, it becomes about 3 days behind every 400 years or a day every 131 years.

So since 8AD, the ancient world had been following the "divisible by 4" rule and so when we found out our calendars where already out of sync, we were already many days out of sync. If the modern rule for leap years were applied, the following years shouldn't have been leap years but were (100, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 900, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500 - that's 12 years when we added a day when we shouldn't have  or "illegal")

To remedy this out-of-sync-ness with nature, when the new rule applied (the Gregorian calendar) the calendar simply skipped 10 days! Thus there was no October 5 to 14 in 1582. I could be said that 1582 was the shortest calendar year! It also made that month the shortest month with just 21 days! The mystery isn't over though as we have 12 extra leap years but only made up for 10 of them. There's a missing 2 days.

When Pope Gregory XIII introduced this calendar, it was primarily done for a religious purpose. It was very important to the Catholic Church to celebrate Easter on the correct date. This date, however changes every year as it needs to be as close as possible to a full moon after the vernal equinox as Jesus was put to death during the Passover. As such, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of this move as they wanted to get the date right every year.

The rules, however for determining the date of Easter weren't made before everything got out of sync. The rules were made in the council of Nicaea in the year 325. That means 3 "illegal" leap years had already happened before the rules for the determination of Easter were laid out. So from the Catholic perspective, they only needed to make up for the illegal leap years between 325 and 1582. The agreed upon date for the Vernal Equinox in the Catholic world  (according to Nicaea) was March 21. By then the vernal equinox had shifted to March 11 - meaning 10 days.

Calculating this, you would have 1,257 years between 325 and 1582. Dividing by 131 (see above) you'd get around 9.6 or approximately 10 days. Is the Gregorian calendar perfect for this purpose? No, it isn't but the earliest perceived time we could see the drift again might be between 3000 to 7000 years. That's simply too far off to bother with any proposal right now. My guess, however, is that we'll see another odd leap day being added where it shouldn't be or a year that should be a leap year where it doesn't have a leap day.

Do Images = Idolatry?

I've long given up on social media debates so I simply post my views on this blog so when a topic piques my interest, I can simply link a friend or family member to this page and a more fruitful dialogue can then proceed. I chanced upon this post by a Facebook friend which heavily implies that what Catholics do when have images of the Sto. Niño or other images of Jesus and the saints is tantamount to idolatry and that it's a clear violation of the first commandment.

(I'll preface this post in saying that people who post these things, including my Facebook friend, no doubt have good intentions. And if this issue was truly detrimental to my soul, I would welcome it and in fact thank them for informing me of such a dangerous practice.)

Catholics often answer this by saying that we do not worship the images. I don't know of a Catholic that does. It's akin to having a picture of a loved one on your phone or wallet. When one cannot see the person with which they have love for, it's quite possible that people will show their love for the person by maybe kissing a photo or saying words of love to the picture. In no way do we ever say that people must really be in love with photo paper or the like.

I find this defense reasonable but as this is a Protestant objection, a Protestant approach must be made. In other words, a Catholic should know the Biblical foundations for having icons and images.

The principal passages that Protestants will point to when saying Catholics are in violation of the law of God would be the passage above in Jeremiah and Exodus 20:4-5 or what Protestants call the second commandment:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (King James Version [the one most Protestants use])

What's going on here? The simple explanation is that God was condemning worship of idols not the making of statues. The main problem back in Moses and Jeremiah's time is that people were prone to worshiping statues that their hands made. Remember when Moses went up Mt. Sinai and he returned to see the Israelites worshiping a golden calf? This is all an effect of God calling his people from a polytheistic worldview into the monotheistic worldview.

Are icons or the making of statues prohibited by God in the Bible? Taken all together, it does not seem the case. Just five chapters after the prohibition of "graven images" God commands his people to make the ark of the covenant with very specific instructions on what one can reasonable assume to be statues or icons.

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be." (Exodus 25:18-20)

 It's quite clear that when we take all these passages together, one would have to admit that the making of statues has the stamp of approval from the Bible. If the Protestant does not wish to admit this, the only other possible conclusion one could reach is that the Bible has error or at the very least contradicts itself!

Exodus 25:18-20 isn't the only place where the making of images is commanded or approved of but it's the one closest to a perceived prohibition. 1 Chr. 28:18-19 has David givin Solomon a plan for a golden chariot and a cherubim with huge wings. Ezekiel 41:17-18 has him in a vision on an idealized temple which included carved images of cherubim.

Then we move on the issue that my friend correctly points out and that Catholics bow to these images. That does look a lot more like idolatry than simply having statues in our places of worship. The issue here is that simply bowing down before someone or something does not in any way shape or form mean automatic worship. Protestants may bow before their Bibles. The Japanese bow to elders or people in authority. Bowing is a posture of worship but not an act of worship. Just as speaking or singing can be used in worship, it is not an act of worship.

So again, my dear readers, Catholics do not worship other gods simply because we make use of statues in our worship. We respect the images just as one would show respect to an old photo of their long deceased grandparents. The use of such images gets a stamp of approval from the Bible and so we shouldn't be afraid of using them.

There is one issue I haven't addressed in this blog post and only now is it becoming clear to me. There exists a prohibition in Jewish law and in the Old Testament in representing God as anything we can perceive. That seems to be an issue that can be thrown at this post but instead of answering it, I'll pose a question.

What's the main difference between Christianity and Judaism that precludes Jews from representing God as anything we've ever seen?

World War III?

The news is saturated with news about an impending World War III. I hope and pray to God it will not happen. War isn't something people wish would happen.

I've been reading up on the events that lead up to the killing of General Soleimani to better understand why Donald Trump decided to strike. I'm trying to educate myself on the subject to find out what went wrong, when it all went wrong, and why. For that, let's look back at the series of events in reverse order (starting with the killing of General Soleimani) because I was shocked by how much eve surface level research one has to unpack.

General Soleimani was killed by an air raid earlier this month. This seemed to come out of nowhere especially to someone like me who isn't as aware of world events in that part of the world as I could be. He was an important military leader in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Trump claims to have reliable reports that say Soleimani was planning an attack on American diplomats and his strike was a preemptive one. I'm no fan of preemptive strikes if they have no prior basis for it.

Searching further, it should be noted that the IRGC has been actively involved in numerous strikes on oil tankers in the Gulf. Just last month, in December of 2019, Iran attacked US bases and a US embassy in Iraq. I believe this was the final straw that gave Trump the push he needed to push forward with his preemptive strike. I then wanted to see why Iran would attack.

It should be noted that all of Iran's attacks seemed to be focused on oil tankers. They didn't limit themselves to US controlled oil tankers or companies. Other countries involved are Saudi Arabia and the UK. So then the question becomes, why would Iran do such a thing.

It's said that an animal is most dangerous when it's cornered. It seems to me that Iran had been backed up into a corner as a result of sanctions put up against it by the US. I had only been recently educated about sanctions and how they can be imposed. Among the sanctions put by the US on Iran, are bans on all products from Iran. When your economy is heavily dependent on exporting your products, sanctions can indeed cripple your economy.

I still cannot, however, make the connection between the sanctions put against Iran and their attacks on oil tankers and companies but all major news outlets point to US sanctions for the primary driver of the Iranian attacks. I will insert my own opinion here and say that we shouldn't treat the Iranian government (IRGC) like a child that was acting up simply because they didn't get what they wanted.

Now, we're at the sanctions which can be complicated. in 2018, the US pulled from the Iran Nuclear Deal which would basically lift the sanctions the US previously imposed on Iran while Iran can continue (but limit) its nuclear program. Some news outlets say Iran had to give up most of its centrifuges just so the US would lift economic sanctions on it. The Iran Nuclear Deal was signed in 2015 and that allowed Iran to basically participate in trade with other countries.

So why did the US pull its support from the Nuclear Deal? What happened between 2015 and 2018 that prompted the US to change its mind on the matter? The short answer? 2016. More specifically, the 2016 US Presidential elections happened and Trump won.

US conservatives and Trump in particular don't trust the Iran Nuclear Deal. While Iran promised not to expand its nuclear program beyond use for nuclear power, I think Trump was uneasy with the idea that Iran may not have been keeping their end of the deal. His reason?

While it hasn't been stated outright by Trump himself, it's easy to see that when the Iran Nuclear Deal was signed, it was signed by the Iranian government which is run by the IRGC (remember, Soleimani?). The IRGC is listed as a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and of course, the United States.

Technically, the United States entered into a deal with an organization that itself views as a terrorist organization. Imagine striking a deal with the guy that three people, including yourself consider a bully. Why they did this? I don't quite understand. The goals were noble as it did allow Iranian citizens to participate in the global economy. But I personally can't see myself ever entering the negotiation table with a terrorist group.

So that's where I'm at now. These days, it's easy to spot Republicans praising Trumps actions and Democrats bashing him for it. Would life truly be better without General Soleimani? We'll never know. Unfortunately, in real life, you can only really find out one outcome or any decision.

Both sides, however, agree that Soleimani was an evil man. This isn't disputed. News outlets that try to paint him as a hero in his country should just stop already. What is up for debate it whether the air strike on his life was a good idea tactically. And that, quite frankly is a question well above my pay grade.

I had a Dream about Six Boys

I still laugh about this now but I legitimately think this was a message from God. Early last year, I had a vivid dream that when me and Nikki would get married, we'd have 6 boys.

I found it such a strange idea at the time which is why I don't think this idea came from my own head as whenever me and Nikki would discuss children, the number was always just two or three. It was never 6 and it was never all boys. Whenever me and Nikki would talk about children, however, we'd always say that we'll gladly accept any gift that comes from God - and children are that exactly.

I remember telling Nikki about this the first time and she said that's not what she wants. I told her that I personally wouldn't want 6 boys running around the house as well. Imagine how much rice we'd have to spend on! But if that's what God wants, we cannot say no. We can bargain but not say no. For the record, we've bargained for a girl.

We're still months away from our wedding but I simply wanted to put this on my blog for now just so it's out there. If it comes true, then I'd know for sure that dream came from God and no one can doubt me. However, if it doesn't come true, I'd be relieved as well!

For the record, I think me and Nikki are on the same page in that we both will still be gunning for our ideal family size of 2 or 3 kids but at the same time, we're ready to accept anything that comes our way.

Rest in Peace, Mavis Lily

I never met Mavis but her passing has affected me more than I thought it would. My friends Lilan and Mitch had their first born child last January 4. She died two days later. A child passing is always a sad thing for the parents and her parents I know for sure were readying themselves the best they could for raising a lovely baby girl.

Like in any other death, it's always best to look at their life instead of focusing on their death. While Mavis had only been 2 days old, I can say she has had a very beautiful and meaningful life. The full nine months she spent in her mother's womb was a sight for all of us to see. Lilan would always complain about being pregnant but no doubt she was happy - scared of the next chapter, but happy.

January 5 was Lilan's due date so we all expected some form of news last Sunday. When news of any form did not come, I decided to ask the group for news. It wasn't the news we were hoping. Their daughter, Mavis, had been born the day before but was struggling. We then got the news last Monday that Mavis didn't survive. The guys in our little chat group all felt sad but it was nothing compared to what the mothers in our chat group felt.

I was sad when I heard Mavis died but when I told my sister (who's also a mother), she practically shrieked. I then realized that I'm not at the point where I'll ever know how Lilan and Mitch feel right now. But one thing I know, in her two days on Earth, Mavis has touched me and she's touched so many lives. I see that as one beautiful life - short but beautiful.

Now, Mavis is in a better place where she doesn't suffer anymore. I'm sure she's praying for her parents to find the strength to move on.

To Lilan and Mitch, you haven't lost a child. You just have one in heaven. Be strong, guys and know we're always there for you.

To Mavis, rest in peace and thank you for being in our lives for even a short period of time. We won't forget you.