Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, e v e said:

well. i can and do. look i don’t want to argue. Do take care. I did absolutely nothing wrong. 

Sigh.  Nobody is arguing.  You asked a question.  I gave my opinion.  Relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, e v e said:

okay then.

For future reference:  The LDS Church avoids the pitfall in your opening post by using the term Godhead to define the association between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to make it distinct from the Trinitarian definition of Trinity. 

Godhead also has a specific meaning as defined by the LDS Church.  In LDS belief, the Holy Ghost is male.   The relationship of the Godhead, therefore, is not the same as that of Parents and Child.  It is more akin to a Presidency.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

For future reference:  The LDS Church avoids the pitfall in your opening post by using the term Godhead to define the association between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to make it distinct from the Trinitarian definition of Trinity. 

Godhead also has a specific meaning as defined by the LDS Church.  In LDS belief, the Holy Ghost is male.   The relationship of the Godhead, therefore, is not the same as that of Parents and Child.  It is more akin to a Presidency.

Im not LDS... but I do understand why you avoid the term if that is how you chose to go with the situation based on your beliefs. I just do not find me bound by trinitarian rules of what I am allowed to believe as to what terms mean or what words I can use or not use. I'm not trinitarian, or belonging to modern christian sects. I do believe Christ is God and i stated my beliefs on this thread, just as others state theirs.

I don't want to use the term Godhead either since that term is not one fitting my beliefs. So I simply won't use the term trinity here on the forum, out of respect to the mods and those who run the site, when possible not to, if they indicate it's not okay per rules.  if using the term how I understand it according to my own beliefs, is not allowed I will be told. If I receive an infraction for using the term, I won't, okay? If someone else brings it up, then I will reply the same way. "That is how I understand trinity per my christian beliefs".  I don't know what else to tell you. I am sure mainstream christians may find your beliefs blasphemous or that they find mine blasphemous. I cannot do anything about that though I do not agree I speak blasphemy of any kind. I need to use words as I understand per my christian belief, not enforced to comply with beliefs of others. In my beliefs, the trinity is what I describe. Others believe what they think. I believe what I believe. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you view  my using the term trinity as a pitfall, but since I was clear of what I believe, then no one would be confused thinking I believed as trinitarians believe. You certainly were not confused. I know that many sects have different concepts yet use similar words to describe the same concepts. As long as each person is clear as to what they intend, I do not see the need to go further on worrying about if I use the term or to even view my use of it as a pitfall.

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, e v e said:

Im not LDS... but I do understand why you avoid the term if that is how you chose to go with the situation based on your beliefs. I just do not find me bound by trinitarian rules of what I am allowed to believe as to what terms mean or what words I can use or not use. I'm not trinitarian, or belonging to modern christian sects. I do believe Christ is God and i stated my beliefs on this thread, just as others state theirs.

I don't want to use the term Godhead either since that term is not one fitting my beliefs. So I simply won't use the term trinity here on the forum, out of respect to the mods and those who run the site, when possible not to, if they indicate it's not okay per rules.  if using the term how I understand it according to my own beliefs, is not allowed I will be told. If I receive an infraction for using the term, I won't, okay? If someone else brings it up, then I will reply the same way. "That is how I understand trinity per my christian beliefs".  I don't know what else to tell you. I am sure mainstream christians may find your beliefs blasphemous or that they find mine blasphemous. I cannot do anything about that though I do not agree I speak blasphemy of any kind. I need to words as I understand per my christian belief, not enforced to comply with beliefs of others. In my beliefs, the trinity is what I describe. Others believe what they think. I believe what I believe. 

This is not about mods on this forum or anything.

Here's the thing, if you use trinity to describe your beliefs then it leads to confusion because trinity has a specific meaning.  It's like calling a banana strawberry.  You can point to a crescent moon shaped fruit with a yellow peel and call it strawberry because that's how you understand strawberries, it's just going to confuse people.  It's like your refusal to use the term Godhead - because it has a meaning that doesn't conform to your beliefs.  Trinity is the same thing - that word when applied to God has a meaning that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not about mods on this forum or anything.

Here's the thing, if you use trinity to describe your beliefs then it leads to confusion because trinity has a specific meaning.  It's like calling a banana strawberry.  You can point to a crescent moon shaped fruit with a yellow peel and call it strawberry because that's how you understand strawberries, it's just going to confuse people.  It's like your refusal to use the term Godhead - because it has a meaning that doesn't conform to your beliefs.  Trinity is the same thing - that word when applied to God has a meaning that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

 

I will have to decide what terms I use and what I understand them to represent in my own beliefs? Just as you decide what terms you use and what you believe in?


The word christian for example has the same issues. Some accuse LDS of not being christian. Yet LDS still uses the word Christian to describe who they are. Because you believe that the word applied to LDS is valid even though some others do not. Same issue. I believe my use of the term as applied to God is totally valid within my christian beliefs and does conform to my beliefs. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I described my understanding of the true trinity per my beliefs, which conform to early christian beliefs of many early christians. Just as you use the word Godhead, and trinitarians of the mainstream christian sects refer to trinity based on their Roman version. I'm not telling anyone else here how to define their beliefs or terms. I am just defining mine, and sharing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see why this has to be gone over again. Can you accept that the above way I described trinity is what the true trinity is For Me, in my beliefs as I hold them and understand them. I am not questioning your beliefs by sharing mine. And I would never impose mine on those who view the trinity differently.

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, e v e said:

I will have to decide what terms I use and what I understand them to represent in my own beliefs? Just as you decide what terms you use and what you believe in?

Sure.  But if you want people to understand what you're saying, you kinda need to call a banana a banana and not a strawberry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, e v e said:

The word christian for example has the same issues. Some accuse LDS of not being christian. Yet LDS still uses the word Christian to describe who they are. Because you believe that the word applied to LDS is valid even though some others do not. Same issue. I believe my use of the term as applied to God is totally valid within my christian beliefs and does conform to my beliefs. 

That's because Christian, by definition, means follower of Christ's teachings.  So LDS can claim that same label and it's a valid position.  Other Christians don't like to apply that label to LDS (or non-trinitarians) because they want to limit Christian only to trinitarians because of the issue of a "different Christ" if that Christ is not the Christ of the trinity.  That is also a valid position.

The term trinity, though, does not conform to your beliefs.  Trinity means God, Christ, Holy Spirit are one essence (ousia).

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  But if you want people to understand what you're saying, you kinda need to call a banana a banana and not a strawberry.

That’s how you see it. Each person chooses how to speak for themselves. Others who are not in your beliefs do not define your lds beliefs. Just as you cannot makes rules about my beliefs and use of terms. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's because Christian, by definition, means follower of Christ's teachings.  So LDS can claim that same label and it's a valid position.  Other Christians don't like to apply that label to LDS (or non-trinitarians) because they want to limit Christian only to trinitarians because of the issue of a "different Christ" if that Christ is not the Christ of the trinity.  That is also a valid position.

The term trinity, though, does not conform to your beliefs.  Trinity means God, Christ, Holy Spirit are one essence (ousia).

I’m sorry but i use the terms that I believe conform to my beliefs and are right for me. I discern what i choose. I can’t control how others react to that. Not my call how others define their terms , beliefs. religions, etc. I simply feel fine making my choices as to how to fill terms and don’t feel other belief systems control my use of terms. Just as my beliefs do not control how you use terms. Of course. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, e v e said:

that’s how you see it. Each person chooses how to speak for themselves. Others who are not in your beliefs do not define your lds beliefs. Just as you cannot makes rules about mine. 

Not sure I understand your point. anatess certainly isn't trying to tell you what you believe. She is saying that the verbal tokens (aka words) that you use appear not to mean what you (or everyone else) think they mean.

Sure, you can make up your own language and your own terms, and then stick to them exclusively. But in general, you won't communicate effectively with others if you reject the larger agreed-upon meaning of words. You started this thread to ask a question of others. I have no real opinion on your question or its wording, but obviously anatess does. What she appears to be saying is that your question as asked does not seem to make sense. You have responded that you're using terms such as "trinity" in a way that satisfies you. Which is fine, but of course it doesn't really do much for everyone else. How can anyone answer your question intelligently if you have a private definition of the terms you use, a definition that others don't share or even know?

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, e v e said:

I simply feel fine making my choices as to how to fill terms and don’t feel other belief systems control my use of terms.

Okay... But why do you come here and post things?  The purpose of language, is so humans can communicate with each other using words with definitions upon which everyone agrees.  If you are wanting to be understood, perhaps even advocate for this or that opinion, you're shooting yourself in the foot when you just make up your own definitions for words that everyone else defines differently.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure I understand your point. anatess certainly isn't trying to tell you what you believe. She is saying that the verbal tokens (aka words) that you use appear not to mean what you (or everyone else) think they mean.

Sure, you can make up your own language and your own terms, and then stick to them exclusively. But in general, you won't communicate effectively with others if you reject the larger agreed-upon meaning of words. You started this thread to ask a question of others. I have no real opinion on your question or its wording, but obviously anatess does. What she appears to be saying is that your question as asked does not seem to make sense. You have responded that you're using terms such as "trinity" in a way that satisfies you. Which is fine, but of course it doesn't really do much for everyone else. How can anyone answer your question intelligently if you have a private definition of the terms you use, a definition that others don't share or even know?

Do your understandings always do much for everyone else? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a fun conversation with my buddy's girlfriend back in college.  We were all at a street fair, and she was very upset because the Greek booth had a pig on a spit.  She was starting to yell "MURDERERS!" under her breath.

Me: "Didn't you have a big mac for lunch?"
Her: "What does that have to do with what they're doing with that pig?"
Me: "Um, you know where the beef in a big mac comes from, right?"
Her: "That's different.  These people are murderers!  I was just having lunch."

As the conversation went on, she revealed that she had a special definition of "murderer", where neither she nor McDonalds qualified.  But those horrible people roasting the pig did.  Something about how it was only murder if she had to watch it happen.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I had a fun conversation with my buddy's girlfriend back in college.  We were all at a street fair, and she was very upset because the Greek booth had a pig on a spit.  She was starting to yell "MURDERERS!" under her breath.

Me: "Didn't you have a big mac for lunch?"
Her: "What does that have to do with what they're doing with that pig?"
Me: "Um, you know where the beef in a big mac comes from, right?"
Her: "That's different.  These people are murderers!  I was just having lunch."

As the conversation went on, she revealed that she had a special definition of "murderer", where neither she nor McDonalds qualified.  But those horrible people roasting the pig did.  Something about how it was only murder if she had to watch it happen.

i dont  think that example works. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

As the conversation went on, she revealed that she had a special definition of "murderer", where neither she nor McDonalds qualified.  But those horrible people roasting the pig did.

Special definitions fun....  That means the person might as well be speaking Klingon or Swahili or some other language with out the benefit of letting anyone know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, e v e said:

i dont  think that example works. 

Why not?  She was "simply feeling fine making her choices as to how to fill terms and didn't feel other belief systems control her use of terms."...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now