The trinity = the family


e v e
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, e v e said:

The thread has become directed at me personally. Mods please close the thread. Thanks. 

e v e, there is a difference between people discussing what you wrote and people attacking you. I haven't seen anyone attacking you.

Also, the mere fact that you started a thread doesn't mean you get to have it closed whenever you want. The mods might close it, of course, which is fine. But that's at their discretion.

Perhaps if you would respond to what others have asked or pointed out, the thread might yet bear fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, e v e said:

no one here is discussing the op. The thread has now become about correcting how I used one term, which i explained exactly how i used.

It has morphed into a metadiscussion about how the original discussion was framed. I find it interesting. I also think that if the metadiscussion is resolved, the original discussion intended by the OP might take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

It has morphed into a metadiscussion about how the original discussion was framed. I find it interesting. I also think that if the metadiscussion is resolved, the original discussion intended by the OP might take place.

Except the meta discussion is not making a valid point and ends up more a moral policing. So the point seems to be to end discussion of the op.  

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, e v e said:

Except the meta discussion is not making a valid point and ends up more a moral policing. So the point seems to be to end discussion of the op.  

On the contrary, I think the point of the metadiscussion is absolutely valid, unlike those filthy pig murderers. Bssides, I believe your complaint was that the topic of the OP has already ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mod hat on]

Threads are going to wander around in directions people take them.  People are free to post what they wish, they are not free to dictate what others get to post.   No, we don't close threads just because someone doesn't like the direction it's taking.  People are free to stop posting/stop reading.

As long as the site rules are not being broken, the mods tend to not get involved.   I think the most relevant site rule here would be #'s 3 and 4:

Quote

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

If someone feels a site rule is being broken, report the post, and the mods will discuss and act as they decide.

[mod hat off]

 

Now, as a poster, I'm interested in why people think they can just make up definitions for words.  When someone claims to do that, I'm interested in talking with them about it.  They don't have to if they don't want to.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

[mod hat on]

Threads are going to wander around in directions people take them.  People are free to post what they wish, they are not free to dictate what others get to post.   No, we don't close threads just because someone doesn't like the direction it's taking.  People are free to stop posting/stop reading.

As long as the site rules are not being broken, the mods tend to not get involved.   I think the most relevant site rule here would be #'s 3 and 4:

If someone feels a site rule is being broken, report the post, and the mods will discuss and act as they decide.

[mod hat off]

 

Now, as a poster, I'm interested in why people think they can just make up definitions for words.  When someone claims to do that, I'm interested in talking with them about it.  They don't have to if they don't want to.

okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now, as a poster, I'm interested in why people think they can just make up definitions for words.  When someone claims to do that, I'm interested in talking with them about it.  They don't have to if they don't want to.

Indeed...  Communication requires a shared understanding in common.   If you understand what I just wrote it is because have a shared definition of the words I used.

If one of us has a different understanding of the words being used then communication breaks down and fails.  What is the point to knowingly and deliberately failing to communicate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, e v e said:

Im a basic soul. I expressed my christian view and explained it in detail. Others have a different view. The thread then went onto whatever unrelated stuff.

My response was very related to your question.  You equated trinity to family.  I said that's not correct.  Very related.

Of course, I interpreted the word trinity exactly by its meaning when referring to God.  It might be that you didn't know that the word trinity has a specific meaning.  You seem to understand that Godhead has a specific meaning that does not match what you're trying to define God as which is why you didn't want to use it.  So, if the misunderstanding was that you didn't know that the word trinity when referring to God means The Holy Trinity, then okay, I understand where the miscommunication started.  You can use the word trinity however you wish, just don't expect other people to understand you.

In any case, your interpretation of God, Jesus, Holy Ghost as having a parent-child relationship among the 3 of them is still not something that is held by any Christian sect due to the Holy Ghost not being a parent of Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, e v e said:

Many different sects have versions of what they mean by trinity. Not only the evangelics determine that for themselves or anyone. This is really nit picking imo. 

This is the source of miscommunication.  All Christian sects know what Trinity means.  There are no "different versions".  Christians who do not subscribe to the belief of the trinity don't use the word trinity to describe their beliefs - they are non-Trinitarians.  This debate has been settled in the 3rd century which caused those who did not subscribe to the definition of the trinity to be in schism with the early Christian Church.

This is not nit-picking.  This is correction of your misunderstanding.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My response was very related to your question.  You equated trinity to family.  I said that's not correct.  Very related.

Of course, I interpreted the word trinity exactly by its meaning when referring to God.  It might be that you didn't know that the word trinity has a specific meaning.  You seem to understand that Godhead has a specific meaning that does not match what you're trying to define God as which is why you didn't want to use it.  So, if the misunderstanding was that you didn't know that the word trinity when referring to God means The Holy Trinity, then okay, I understand where the miscommunication started.  You can use the word trinity however you wish, just don't expect other people to understand you.

In any case, your interpretation of God, Jesus, Holy Ghost as having a parent-child relationship among the 3 of them is still not something that is held by any Christian sect due to the Holy Ghost not being a parent of Jesus.

I think I know the word trinity, since I taught theology and philosophy at university for many years. I also know that there are many sects, and in each, meanings are different. I did define my understanding, well aware that it does not fit mainstream christianity's view of it, which I do not agree with. Since I did define my use of it, there was no 'hidden' meaning or using of surd words which mean nothing to no one. Everyone here by now Knows how I defined the term, Right? I do know exactly what the term means. In Augustine, in various church fathers, in evangelicalism and in others. And in each it's not totally identical. For example, Irenaeus understood His Spirit to be Feminine So did many hebrews in the time of Christ and before. If you want to say that all mainstream christianity defines it per the way you believe that trinitarianism defines it, in congloerate, I wouldn't agree with that, but neither am I going to beat the topic to death.

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, e v e said:

I think I know the word trinity, since I taught theology and philosophy at university for many years. I also know that there are many sects, and in each, meanings are different. I did define my understanding, well aware that it does not fit mainstream christianity's view of it, which I do not agree with. Since I did define my use of it, there was no 'hidden' meaning or using of surd words which mean nothing to no one. Everyone here by now Knows how I defined the term, Right? I do know exactly what the term means. In Augustine, in various church fathers, in evangelicalism and in others. And in each it's not totally identical. For example, Irenaeus understood His Spirit to be Feminine So did many hebrews in the time of Christ and before. If you want to say that all mainstream christianity defines it per the way you say that trinitarianism defines it, I wouldn't agree with that, but neither am I going to beat the topic to death.

Your next misconception - you expected me to have read every single post in this 5-page discussion.  I simply replied to your opening post's question which is the reason I quoted it.

And if you taught theology and philosophy, it is very surprising that you don't know that the word trinity has a specific definition pertaining to God.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the source of miscommunication.  All Christian sects know what Trinity means.  There are no "different versions".  Christians who do not subscribe to the belief of the trinity don't use the word trinity to describe their beliefs - they are non-Trinitarians.  This debate has been settled in the 3rd century which caused those who did not subscribe to the definition of the trinity to be in schism with the early Christian Church.

This is not nit-picking.  This is correction of your misunderstanding.

Rome, who propagated many mistakes, settled it yes. But you see, just because Rome decided what christianity and it terms mean per Rome's own dictates, does not mean all of Christianity bows to Rome, in the medieval context, or now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed...  Communication requires a shared understanding in common.   If you understand what I just wrote it is because have a shared definition of the words I used.

If one of us has a different understanding of the words being used then communication breaks down and fails.  What is the point to knowingly and deliberately failing to communicate?

Actually, what I might call "Trojan-horsing" is exceedingly common, especially among the sociopolitical left. Exceedingly. Words get redefined constantly, making effective communication impossible—WHICH IS THE POINT. "Marriage" doesn't mean marriage. "Racism" doesn't mean racism. "Love" doesn't mean love. "Sex" doesn't even mean sex. People use different definitions for words all the time, for evil intent. Not that e-v-e is doing so, but it is commonly done in our society.

This is what many non-LDS Christians have accused the Restored Church of doing. This is why they say things like "Mormons worship A Different Jesus®". I understand why they say it, and to some limited degree I have sympathy for what they say. I also happen to agree that, in many instances, we really do worship A Different Jesus®. The Jesus we worship is the Christ of the New Testament, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of the world, and the Redeemer of mankind. The Jesus worshipped by some others is certainly not that same Jesus. So in such cases, I have to agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

Your next misconception - you expected me to have read every single post in this 5-page discussion.  I simply replied to your opening post's question which is the reason I quoted it.

Okay then. So you didn't know that I indeed defined my term. The reason I did not just define it in the OP was simply the desire to let others say how they define trinity or for them to disagree or comment or whatever. I was waiting to see what responses took the thread where. One or two two posts down,  I did define  my understandings. If LDS wants to  use the term Godhead rather than trinity, it's not my call. I think LDS should refer to God however they think is best and use the terms they choose and want to per their own theology and I am sure that when concepts are not generally known, these get defined to clarify and distinguish LDS from other denominations. I find the example of Christian to be spot on since I am sure many do not agree I am christian, and neither do they agree you are, yet you persist and so do I in referring to ourselves as Christian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, e v e said:

The trinity = the family. 

Any thoughts? 

 

20 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Yes.
The trinity ≠ the family.

 

5 pages into this thread, and I figure NeedleinA basically conveyed the response/opinion of just about every single Christian, regardless of sect, or historical timeframe, who has lived, or is currently living, or (I'm guessing) will ever live.  I certainly haven't been presented with any notion or argument that has influenced my understanding of the word, the way people have defined it, or the way people should define it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually, what I might call "Trojan-horsing" is exceedingly common, especially among the sociopolitical left. Exceedingly. Words get redefined constantly, making effective communication impossible—WHICH IS THE POINT. "Marriage" doesn't mean marriage. "Racism" doesn't mean racism. "Love" doesn't mean love. "Sex" doesn't even mean sex.

Well, depends on what the meaning of "Is" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually, what I might call "Trojan-horsing" is exceedingly common, especially among the sociopolitical left. Exceedingly. Words get redefined constantly, making effective communication impossible—WHICH IS THE POINT. "Marriage" doesn't mean marriage. "Racism" doesn't mean racism. "Love" doesn't mean love. "Sex" doesn't even mean sex. People use different definitions for words all the time, for evil intent. Not that e-v-e is doing so, but it is commonly done in our society.

This is what many non-LDS Christians have accused the Restored Church of doing. This is why they say things like "Mormons worship A Different Jesus®". I understand why they say it, and to some limited degree I have sympathy for what they say. I also happen to agree that, in many instances, we really do worship A Different Jesus®. The Jesus we worship is the Christ of the New Testament, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of the world, and the Redeemer of mankind. The Jesus worshipped by some others is certainly not that same Jesus. So in such cases, I have to agree with them.

I would agree that given my version of trinity and my understanding of the God, I worship someone other than mainstream does as well. But that doesn't mean I am barred from using common christianity and terms. In fact, Augustine was instrumental in what books the mainstream adopted, the meaning of terms etc. Many of his uses and terms are utterly pagan. Examples abound in all his texts, and I can give a long list of them if ever asked, though that is a bit pedantic. A platonist set the canon and helped form the trinity views of many christians today. Not my problem to then feel I have to refrain from using a word, which I generously defined and in so doing opened myself to scoffing from those who view me as not christian or heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, e v e said:

Okay then. So you didn't know that I indeed defined my term. The reason I did not just define it in the OP was simply the desire to let others say how they define trinity or for them to disagree or comment or whatever. I was waiting to see what responses took the thread where. One or two two posts down,  I did define  my understandings. If LDS wants to  use the term Godhead rather than trinity, it's not my call. I think LDS should refer to God however they think is best and use the terms they choose and want to per their own theology and I am sure that when concepts are not generally known, these get defined to clarify and distinguish LDS from other denominations. I find the example of Christian to be spot on since I am sure many do not agree I am christian, and neither do they agree you are, yet you persist and so do I in referring to ourselves as Christian. 

One more time.  Trinity is already defined.  Just like Godhead is also defined.  Just like strawberry is already defined.  I'm not going to redefine the word trinity when pertaining to God just for your very own use.  It will be too confusing for me to have to remember e v e has her own definition everytime you use the word. 

Can you imagine?  I'm talking to all these people about a strawberry.   Then all of a sudden I'm talking to e v e.  And now I have to remember that strawberry to e v e is a banana.  English is only my 3rd language.  I can't create a 4th language just for e v e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

 

5 pages into this thread, and I figure NeedleinA basically conveyed the response/opinion of just about every single Christian, regardless of sect, or historical timeframe, who has lived, or is currently living, or (I'm guessing) will ever live.  I certainly haven't been presented with any notion or argument that has influenced my understanding of the word, the way people have defined it, or the way people should define it.

 

yes he did, sadly, describe the modern view of it all, but that verdict doesn't make him right or even universal. Because Mainstream christianity since augustine really has no use for the notion of female I described, not in any way shape or form. And so that is the problem with my using the word to describe something hated since Augustine's time. If I put quotes here from Augustine as to his reasoning, it would make anyone ill. And no, I am no feminist. This is not at all about feminism, but about Augustine's deep paganism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share