The trinity = the family


e v e
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

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.

It's defined for You. You think every strawberry variety is the same. Human beings are not robot clones of each other. I am not a clone of modern christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

I've responded quite a lot, and on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, e v e said:

I think I know the word trinity, since I taught theology and philosophy at university for many years.

Oh how interesting!  Just out of curiosity, where did you teach?  What credentials/degrees have you obtained?

Something else I find interesting: When people, during the course of a discussion in which just about every participant disagrees with them, claim to be educated on the topic.  I mean, since you get to pick your own unique definition of "trinity", I'm interested to know how you define "taught" and "university".  

An exchange I had with someone who claimed to have a masters in religion:

Quote

NeuroTypical (9:49:40 AM): oed, the Christian faith dates back to the first humans, Adam and Eve.
NeuroTypical (9:49:52 AM): There is much you don't know about our faith, apparently.
oedipus38 (9:50:02 AM): wrong
oedipus38 (9:50:07 AM): buddism is older
oedipus38 (9:50:11 AM): muslim older
oedipus38 (9:50:27 AM): they are the oldest civilizations
NeuroTypical (9:52:01 AM): How can Islam be older than christ if Mohhamed and the Koran didn't exist before 600 ad?
oedipus38 (9:53:08 AM): if adam and eve were real we would all be hadicapped
NeuroTypical (9:53:12 AM): How can Islam be older than christ if Mohhamed and the Koran didn't exist before 600 ad?
oedipus38 (9:53:14 AM): the gene pool
oedipus38 (9:53:19 AM): u are mislead
oedipus38 (9:53:28 AM): i have masters in religion
NeuroTypical (9:53:41 AM): Okay, Mr. Masters in Religion, answer my question. How can Islam be older than christ if Mohhamed and the Koran didn't exist before 600 ad?
oedipus38 (9:54:06 AM): budda has been around longer than koran, jesus
NeuroTypical (9:54:23 AM): <-- notices you are not answering my question...
oedipus38 (9:54:38 AM): they did exist
oedipus38 (9:54:43 AM): who says they didnt
oedipus38 (9:55:05 AM): what i am saying is. dont u have questions
oedipus38 (9:55:25 AM): u actually believe there are levels of heaven

I'm just wondering, on the scale of this guy, to Dr. Daniel Peterson who teaches at BYU, where you fall on the scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, e v e said:

It's defined for You. You think every strawberry variety is the same. Human beings are not robot clones of each other. I am not a clone of modern christianity.

Okay e v e.  What's your definition of clone?  Just want to make sure I know what you're talking about.  smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

Actually I was utterly surprised that the mainstream christian view is the LDS one, at least enough to defend it so vociferously here. I did not know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, e v e said:

yes he did, sadly, describe the modern view of it all, but that verdict doesn't make him right or even universal.

But it does answer the putative question you asked in the OP.

e v e, I get the feeling that your question was a springboard for exposition. I suspect what you really wanted to do was to say, "Hey, folks! Listen up! I have an idea that makes a lot of sense to me, and I want to share it with you. I think that trinity = family!" Then maybe you wanted to go into some explanation of why you believed this.

If this was what you wanted, you might have been better served just making the thread's OP like that instead of asking a question that you really didn't care to have answered. Not a criticism, just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, e v e said:

Actually I was utterly surprised that the mainstream christian view is the LDS one, at least enough to defend it so vociferously here. I did not know. 

What in the blazes are you talking about?  Just because we like to stick to the established definition of the word Trinity, now we're defending the Trinitarian religious teaching? 

Okay, I'm done here.  You're obviously not interested in discussion.  This is just a Catholic-bashing session for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, e v e said:

Actually I was utterly surprised that the mainstream christian view is the LDS one, at least enough to defend it so vociferously here. I did not know. 

e v e, have you actually read the responses here? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't even accept the Trinitarian concept. How do you figure that ours is the "mainstream Christian view"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh how interesting!  Just out of curiosity, where did you teach?  What credentials/degrees have you obtained?

Something else I find interesting: When people, during the course of a discussion in which just about every participant disagrees with them, claim to be educated on the topic.  I mean, since you get to pick your own unique definition of "trinity", I'm interested to know how you define "taught" and "university".  

An exchange I had with someone who claimed to have a masters in religion:

I'm just wondering, on the scale of this guy, to Dr. Daniel Peterson who teaches at BYU, where you fall on the scale?

Oedipus is correct in that the actual islam as a religion based up on earlier forms, and not even in this world. THe hieroglyphs describe the same 'circling around the kabba stone.' However, I would not know if oedipus even knows that, or if in fact he is simply jumbled up. Don't know him. However, he is incorrect in that it's currently in a very dilute form, and disconnected from the reference I just made, re: hieroglyphs.  I don't know who Peterson is. I taught at a quasi Ivy league university, with a great football team on the east coast, subjects being philosophy ancient to modern and Medieval theology. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

e v e, have you actually read the responses here? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't even accept the Trinitarian concept. How do you figure that ours is the "mainstream Christian view"?

because you keep insisting that i follow the mainstream view of what the term means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What in the blazes are you talking about?  Just because we like to stick to the established definition of the word Trinity, now we're defending the Trinitarian religious teaching? 

Okay, I'm done here.  You're obviously not interested in discussion.  This is just a Catholic-bashing session for you.

I'm not Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

But it does answer the putative question you asked in the OP.

e v e, I get the feeling that your question was a springboard for exposition. I suspect what you really wanted to do was to say, "Hey, folks! Listen up! I have an idea that makes a lot of sense to me, and I want to share it with you. I think that trinity = family!" Then maybe you wanted to go into some explanation of why you believed this.

If this was what you wanted, you might have been better served just making the thread's OP like that instead of asking a question that you really didn't care to have answered. Not a criticism, just a thought.

Okay. Well, I didn't invent the idea. It's there in the early church. It was Rome who decided to hide many things and make it seem that to bring them up is nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, e v e said:

I taught at a quasi Ivy league university, with a great football team on the east coast, subjects being philosophy ancient to modern and Medieval theology. 

Again, there's a difference between Yale/Harvard, those close to them, and "Doctor Truthey's quasi Ivy League University of What "Trinity" really means!"

That you are giving vague hints to where you taught, rather than just naming the school, is what they call a "red flag".  

Referring to Augustine's "deep Paganism" helps a bit, but not much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, e v e said:

because you keep insisting that i follow the mainstream view of what the term means. 

So if I insist that you follow the mainstream understanding of the term "luminiferous ether", therefore that means that I believe in the luminiferous ether? That if I insist you use the term "spontaneous generation" as others do, that means I believe in spontaneous generation? That if I say that you should conform to the normal understanding of "sacrificing children to Molech" when speaking of it, that I therefore believe in sacrificing children to Molech?

That honestly does not make any sense. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with larger Christianity; it's a matter of using terminology in a way consistent with the widely understood meaning of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, e v e said:

okay. 

All through history, terms have come to be. The term christian for example, did not come to be until Christ. The term trinity is a fairly new one, starting in the medieval period and heavily influenced by the Platonic precursor. In various different thinkers, these terms meant different things. In scripture skin and curse means one thing. Yet, people today can take that as a racial slur, when that is not at all the topic in scripture,  yet, a newer usage can supplant other usages and come to dominate. That Rome jumped in with their canon view of trinity does not mean Rome got a monopoly on the term trinity. Many broke with Rome in fact. Might doesnt make right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, e v e said:

I'm not Catholic.

Obviously.  Do you have your own meaning of Catholic-bashing too?

 

7 minutes ago, e v e said:

because you keep insisting that i follow the mainstream view of what the term means. 

Uhmm.. .we're saying that if you want to avoid confusion, you follow the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of what the term means.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Again, there's a difference between Yale/Harvard, those close to them, and "Doctor Truthey's quasi Ivy League University of What "Trinity" really means!"

That you are giving vague hints to where you taught, rather than just naming the school, is what they call a "red flag".  

Referring to Augustine's "deep Paganism" helps a bit, but not much.

 

Two LDS people, on this forum know exactly where I taught. That is enough for me. I have not hidden myself but neither do I need to post my name and address on the public web. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Obviously.  Do you have your own meaning of Catholic-bashing too?

 

Uhmm.. .we're insisting that you follow the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of what the term means to avoid confusion.

Dictionaries contain many meanings for one word, including allowances for special usages, historical meanings, etc.

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

6 minutes ago, e v e said:

I taught at a quasi Ivy league university, with a great football team on the east coast, subjects being philosophy ancient to modern and Medieval theology.

"A quasi-Ivy League university"? :) Which would that be? Pitt? Maybe Penn State? "Penn State" does sound kind of like Penn, so maybe that's what "quasi-Ivy League" means. Did you teach in State College? Or maybe at the Altoona extension? PSU has extensions all over the state.

I'm just really curious what a "quasi-Ivy League university" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, e v e said:

Two LDS people, on this forum know exactly where I taught. That is enough for me. I have not hidden myself but neither do I need to post my name and address on the public web. Thanks.

You think saying "I taught at Brown" is tantamount to announcing your name and address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Obviously.  Do you have your own meaning of Catholic-bashing too?

 

Uhmm.. .we're saying that if you want to avoid confusion, you follow the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of what the term means.

I am an older person. I was raised catholic and left that as a youth, age 18. I was the only person in the family to read scripture. Alone. The family were Sunday catholics. I don't bash any soul. I do recall that the day my father died, in a restaurant my sister now of an unnamed other denomination yelled at me that I was not saved, loudly, so the whole place heard it. My mother is catholic and she is elderly. I have never bashed her and hope to see her in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

You think saying "I taught at Brown" is tantamount to announcing your name and address?

Sort of, since two people here know my name, and know where I taught and from there could find my address. So, I would rather not. But thanks. As I said, if I openly told two people here my academia.edu address then I doubt I am hiding who I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

"A quasi-Ivy League university"? :) Which would that be? Pitt? Maybe Penn State? "Penn State" does sound kind of like Penn, so maybe that's what "quasi-Ivy League" means. Did you teach in State College? Or maybe at the Altoona extension? PSU has extensions all over the state.

I'm just really curious what a "quasi-Ivy League university" is.

It means that the school is very expensive east coast and its team is big on the east coast. It's a catholic school. So from there you can probably know exactly where I taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Announcing one's credentials in order to establish or bolster an argument is sometimes legitimate. "I am a physician in California." "I practice criminal law in Texas." "I was a professor of botany at Georgetown." Assuming the people making these assertions are telling the truth, such credentials may in fact establish that one's opinions should be considered perhaps more seriously than those of other less-qualified people.

But announcing one's credentials in lieu of providing actual argumentation to bolster one's points is, as NT stated, a red flag. This red flag triples in size, waves violently, and adds a blaring horn when the credentials given are along the line of, "I know what I'm talking about because I used to be a professor at a big-time school that I'm not going to name because I'm trying to protect my privacy." Literally no one believes that, and it greatly weakens both your present argument and your credibility going forward.

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