Trinitarian Dogma; A useful Gimmick for Christianity's PSYOP

Where I'm looking it from:

Outside looking in.
I'm not a believer in Bible or Bible-God.
So it doesn't really matter to me personally what the intended meanings were.
But I think it can be fun to examine.

Some of the reasons I don't think Trinity is a legit reading:

1.
The definite consensus among qualified historians is that:
Trinitarianism was a much later development.

There aren't any appropriately credentialed experts who think Trinitarianism was intended by any of the writers, except for some few minimally-credentialed persons who had pre-sworn religious obligation to Trinitarianism before they went to a college or university to add academic credentials to their clout.

2.
I've read all of it.
The texts, the different bible versions for those texts, and the arguments for-and-against.

At some point, I realized it's a big "wheel".

Someone's understanding of verse-A is supported by:
Their understanding of verse-B.

Their understanding of verse-B is supported by:
Their understanding of verse-C.

etc.

The more verses they use in that way, the bigger the "wheel".
It ends up being a matter of "circular logic". But that's harder to realize when very many points are being used to create the self-supporting wheel.

Usually, circular reasoning only has two or three points at most.
But in this case, it has many.

Now, I usually see both sides of that debate committing the same fallacy.

However,
I find the big wheel of Unitarian-theory to be a better fit with
A.) the externally-available facts,
B.) logic itself,
and
with
C.)

The context which the "support texts" sit within.

===
Let's consider each of those three reasons to doubt-or-dismiss Trinitarianism:

A.) 
Externally available facts

There is no reference in any historical document (outside of biblical texts)
to anyone thinking in terms of a Trinity
until several centuries later.

There are some examples of 2nd and 3rd century line-blurring between Jesus and God. Tertullian comes to mind.

However, the Catholic church, historically, has denounced Tertullian as failing to come 'far enough' towards the epiphany of the Trinity.
But they do credit him for helping to bring the Church closer to a Trinitarian realization.

I've read a 1980s hard-bound volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I read everything they had on the subject.

They admitted they came to realize the Trinity through centuries of dreams, visions, heated debates, votes, and Papal authority.

They chronicled the hard-fought but gradual process of gleaning the Trinity as a hidden-truth of God's mystery.

It's naïve for anyone today to think Protestant churches would have the Trinity dogma without having inherited it from the parent church (the Roman Catholic Church); from which all other modern Christian churches came.
---

B.) Logic itself.

[Note: My point about logic will end up including an appeal to ethics. I considered listing those as two separate arguments (which they are). However, these points of logic require mentioning the points of ethic, to explain WHY logic is being purposefully violated. So I just decided to format those two points as one larger point]

Trinitarian dogma was often referred to by post-Nicaean churches are the great mystery ... specifically because it defies human logic.

It defies human grasp because it goes beyond the limits of what any human mind can conceive or express as a coherent idea.

Thus, ever attempt to express it through analogy accidentally mispresents it.

Additionally,
the idea of saying "Jesus is God" (if taken in the first-person literal and absolute sense of being "God"),
would mean:

the entire life, death, and resurrection of Jesus on Earth ... was really just puppet theatre.

It would mean:
an immutably-immortal Being
used an incubated meat-husk as a puppet.

So then he made it walk.
He made it talk.
He used it to upset some rivals.
He intentionally get it pinned to a heavy piece of wood.
He waited a while.
Then he stopped animating it.
He did that to simulate a human "death".
He later picked it back up and starting animating it again.
He did that to simulate a human coming back to life.

And all for what?
So that he could emulate the "human sacrifice" ritual of other barbaric religions. BUT pretend he thought of that first.
And why?
So that he could emulate the "scapegoating" ritual of other barbaric religions.
And why?
So that he could have an excuse to "forgive (some) people".
For what?
For how that very same God FORCED us all to be imperfect.
And why?
So that he'd have something to "rescue" us from.
And why?
To satiate his need to be adored as-intensely-as-possible.
This is a form of narcissistic manipulation called "White Knight manipulation".
White knight manipulation method is used by giving the victim problems (usually a hard one so the victim will be in vulnerable position) then the manipulators act like a heroic white knight by solving the problem. It would be like setting fire to a very large forest, just to wait outside of that forest with bare-minimal aid, a mental hug, and an an opportunity to sell afterlife fire insurance to the lucky few who survive long enough to:
a.) stumble into that offer
and then
b.) panic-shop/buy some.

Christianity is really an overly complicated Racketeering Scheme

masquerading as a relationship with a super-Narcissist, Cosmic-Mafia King Pin

masquerading as a God Of Love. 



The Unitarians are guilty of this too.

The Unitarian version simply violates fewer laws of logic.
However, that's exactly what makes it less effective as a PSYOP, because:

Trinitarianism provides for an extra measure of teaching people how to gaslight themselves.

That helps to thicken the mind-fog that authoritarian churches use to make captured minds more malleable to suggestion.

It also makes "God" extra un-graspable; by making him as anti-logical as possible.

That, in turn, helps make people feel more small and limited per their failure-to-grasp.

That, in turn, helps push people down onto their knees (mentally and literally) more easily
by apologists who pretend to be closer to grasping it.
Religious leaders use that as "evidence" (even if only by unspoken implication) that they are qualified to relay "the truths of God" to the masses of people who don't come as close to 'getting it'.

This also created a social pressure for people to pretend they "get it". 

At first, only the most insecure narcissists will be quick to fake "getting it"; about any or all of Christianity's irrationalities. 

Over time, others will want to participate in that as an "Emperor's New Clothes" (fear of exclusion) type of socially-enforced delusion.

 This effect is further intensified by a religious culture that includes "getting it" as a measure of being:
"really one of us",
"spiritually healthy", 

"spiritually alive",

"spiritually wise",  

having special spirit powers, 

being endorsed by God, 

and being vitreous enough to become such a person. 

But for everyone honest enough with themselves to admit (to themselves) "I don't understand this stuff", that makes God seem that much more "beyond us" by making him so ungraspable. That, in turn, creates a social environment where all the other bad-logics of Christianity become easier to overlook and dismiss, with the idea that: "It's really not supposed to make sense. That's how you know it comes from a domain beyond our grasp".
In other words, people are being mentally conditions by Trinitarianism 
into a mindset of "God isn't supposed to make sense".

That conditioning, in turn, is being used to create a religious culture where anything said about God doesn't really need to make sense.

In fact, most such churches are known for going even further with that, to create an environment where it would actually be "wrong" to hold the teachings of Christianity to any rational standard.

And to really drive that home and cement it in place, they add more layers of that thought-stopping gimmick, by saying things like:

 "His ways are not our ways" and "do not lean on your own understanding".

In fact, professional gas-lighters in those religious communities chastise anyone who "dares to question God" or who "dares tell GOD he must only say or do things that make sense to us". 

 The real trick there depends on confusing members into conflating:
a.) the irrationalities which mere-fallible-men CLAIM God has revealed to them 
vs
b.) what any GOD has said for himself.

Everything in a "Bible" is entirely what mere fallible men CLAIM is true about "God". 

No actual GOD said or did any of it. 

But pretty much everyone at a church has already been tricked into to thinking those are the words of the Super-Being who created our universe.

And that means they are already PRIMED to be further manipulated 
into thinking:
 it's wrong to hold any of it to any standard. 

Trinitarianism is a cleverly contrived mental-device used by a certain niche of churches to become more successful at amassing flocks. 
 This is why most Christians are Trinitarians. 

 It's not because it makes more sense.
It's because it doesn't make sense at all. 
That's what makes it more effective. 
==

C.)

The context which the "support texts" sit within.