Trinity?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 16 2004, 08:46 AM

Jenda - I doubt though that Christians of today whether Catholic or Protestant do not fear of being named a heretic if they do not agree with the Trinity. Chances are they would find a different belief system that they could agree with. The inquisition ended centuries ago.

M.

In this enlightened day and age, one would think so, but in reality it is alive and well and growing strong on ChristianForums. B)

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jun 16 2004, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jun 16 2004, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Jun 16 2004, 08:46 AM

Jenda - I doubt though that Christians of today whether Catholic or Protestant do not fear of being named a heretic if they do not agree with the Trinity. Chances are they would find a different belief system that they could agree with. The inquisition ended centuries ago.

M.

In this enlightened day and age, one would think so, but in reality it is alive and well and growing strong on ChristianForums. B)

I wonder if something is being missed here. The question is why was there ever an inquisition or if it has been done away with. If the inquisition is counter to the doctrine and teaching of Jesus how can we say that Christian institutions were involved? Can we all agree that Christianity was not being practiced or taught by the institutions that gave us the inquisition?

If the inquisition is acceptable to Christians - Why has the practice ended? Clearly it cannot be both ways - it is eather part of the kingdom of G-d or it is part of the Kingdom that opposes G-d. The finel question is by what authority was the inquisition practiced? and by what authorty was it altered and changed?

The Traveler

[Ray]

lurker,

The answer to your question is that they can usually imagine seeing 3 separate beings without knowing how they can also be the same being. They then usually follow that with saying something about how the how cannot be known, because it’s “incomprehensible”.

I think the lack of comprehension comes from not understanding that there are two separate perspectives.

"God" is a word we use to refer to 3 separate beings that can somehow be the same being, AND a word we use to refer to 1 being that can or has already somehow become 3 separate beings.

The disagreements come from explaining how God can be 3 beings and 1 being at the same time.

Personally, I like to explain the how by suggesting that God is a being in the same sense that other beings are beings, it’s just that God is superior to them all. In other words, there is no other being in all of existence that is superior to God.

This supremacy also involves something else, though, and that is that the being known as God is perfect. In other words, in the being known as God, there is no room for improvement because there is no way to be superior to God. If it were not so, God would cease to be God because there would be another being which is better. And as I have already stated, there is no being superior to God.

In the past I sometimes wondered why most prophets have stated that God is “one” without bothering to explain all of this, but now I think it may have been because they wanted to emphasize the oneness of God. If they had stated that there was more than one God, some of their listeners would have wondered which God was superior to the other Gods, in which case they would have missed the main point.

Heh, one more point. Things such as hair color, hair style, eye color, face shape, and even whether or not you have a glorified body yet have no bearing on whether or not you are more perfect or superior to another being. I state this partly in response to the craze for plastic surgery, which some people think can help them become more perfect or superior to someone merely by the change in their physical appearance.

NOTE: I define "being" as a life form, with the understanding that all life forms exist as separate individuals as well as collectively with other members of the same life form. In all of existence there is no other life form exactly like God, nor Man, nor any other life form that can be distinguished as a life form of its own kind.

[Jason]

Traveler,

"If the inquisition is counter to the doctrine and teaching of Jesus how can we say that Christian institutions were involved?"

Yeah, like that Mountain Meadows thing, or the Utah War of 1857....

"Can we all agree that Christianity was not being practiced or taught by the institutions that gave us the inquisition?"

Apparently not.

"If the inquisition is acceptable to Christians - Why has the practice ended?"

No longer politically correct.

"Clearly it cannot be both ways - it is eather part of the kingdom of G-d or it is part of the Kingdom that opposes G-d."

Are you always so black and white?

"The finel question is by what authority was the inquisition practiced?"

Rome and her apostolic authority.

"and by what authorty was it altered and changed?"

The same as started it.

Better question, what will the Council of Fifty do when they attempt to rule the world from Independence Missouri, and what type of punishment will said council do to someone like me who opposes that authority in the name of Christ Jesus?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 16 2004, 12:47 PM

Traveler,

"If the inquisition is counter to the doctrine and teaching of Jesus how can we say that Christian institutions were involved?"

Yeah, like that Mountain Meadows thing, or the Utah War of 1857....

"Can we all agree that Christianity was not being practiced or taught by the institutions that gave us the inquisition?"

Apparently not.

"If the inquisition is acceptable to Christians - Why has the practice ended?"

No longer politically correct.

"Clearly it cannot be both ways - it is eather part of the kingdom of G-d or it is part of the Kingdom that opposes G-d."

Are you always so black and white?

"The finel question is by what authority was the inquisition practiced?"

Rome and her apostolic authority.

"and by what authorty was it altered and changed?"

The same as started it.

Better question, what will the Council of Fifty do when they attempt to rule the world from Independence Missouri, and what type of punishment will said council do to someone like me who opposes that authority in the name of Christ Jesus?

Lets look at Mountain meadows. Was it the exception or the rule? Was it according to doctrine of the institution of LDS or was it counter to the Doctrine and published declarations of the LDS institution? Was it a practice of the Majority of LDS or an localized minority? If you believe the LDS institution was responsible for Mountain Meadows then tell me what protestant religious institutions are responsible for the KKK.

As for the Utah war? What did the institution of the LDS Church do that convinces you that it was wrong and that those that declared the war were Christian in doing so?

Here is my point. There were no followers of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years (392 AD to 1649 AD.) Jesus said where 2 or more gather in his name there is love. Tell me when was the first time a Trinitarian society passed a law to allow a non Trinitarian to practice their religion without risking to their life. Was there a society of Christian Monks or something the sheltered non-Trinitarians? Where did 2 gather in the name of Jesus during the more than 1000 years 392 - 1649?

If Jesus taught a true doctrine - why can institutions change his doctrine, ordinances and organization and call themselves Christian?

But the question I want to know the answer to more than anything else - What institution do you claim to be an institution to preserve all that Jesus taught. Who rightfully maintains the title of Christian today and throughout history?

The Traveler

[Jason]

"Lets look at Mountain meadows. Was it the exception or the rule? Was it according to doctrine of the institution of LDS or was it counter to the Doctrine and published declarations of the LDS institution?"

You've not read Jedidah Grant's sermons from 1856 I take it? He advocated the destruction of any non-mormon in Utah. Go look it up. You'll find 'em in the Journal of Discourses.

"Was it a practice of the Majority of LDS or an localized minority?"

The practice? A minority. The teaching? Depends on how far you're willing to twist your history.

"If you believe the LDS institution was responsible for Mountain Meadows..."

I do.

"...then tell me what protestant religious institutions are responsible for the KKK."

More than one. Im certainly not justifying the Inquisition or the KKK. But you, sir, are trying to say that Mormons are perfect. A notion I find absurd.

"As for the Utah war? What did the institution of the LDS Church do that convinces you that it was wrong.."

They refused to obey the US government. It's called TREASON. Ever heard of it?

"...and that those that declared the war were Christian in doing so?"

I never implied it was christian. Just that it was illegal.

"Here is my point. There were no followers of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years (392 AD to 1649 AD.)"

Are you on Crack? You've got to be kidding me!

"Jesus said where 2 or more gather in his name there is love."

That's NOT what he said. He said where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them.

"Tell me when was the first time a Trinitarian society passed a law to allow a non Trinitarian to practice their religion without risking to their life."

Who cares. You've made an absurd assumption that no Christians existed period until 1649AD. So what, did Christianity just burst out again in that year? All the humble, pious Christians between your dark period were not REALLY Christians! Are you truly that unenlightened?

"Was there a society of Christian Monks or something the sheltered non-Trinitarians? Where did 2 gather in the name of Jesus during the more than 1000 years 392 - 1649?"

You've just named a major institution: Christian Monasticism. Do you suppose that all during that time, they never sat around talking about JESUS? Are you insane?!

"If Jesus taught a true doctrine - why can institutions change his doctrine, ordinances and organization and call themselves Christian?"

I don't know, why do you think you're Christian after all the changes in LDS Doctrine, ordinances and organization???????

"But the question I want to know the answer to more than anything else - What institution do you claim to be an institution to preserve all that Jesus taught. Who rightfully maintains the title of Christian today and throughout history?"

Anyone who obeys the greatest commandments: Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. If you do that, Traveler, you can call yourself a christian.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 16 2004, 04:24 AM

You stated that "X" means that because they are the same being that they must have the same purpose, same will, same thoughts, etc., and that there would be no sense in communicating in prayers (as you demonstrated) because each mode would know what the other mode is thinking/feeling/doing since they are the same "ontological" being. So, therefore, modalism is wrong.

Jenda,

What on earth are you trying to accomplish? You know perfectly well that I said nothing of the sort. Are you trying to provoke me by fabricating things I did not say?

Please state your purpose.

I said nothing about anyone or anything having the same thoughts of purpose or will, or that there was no sense in communicating, or that one mode would know what the other mode is doing. In fact, in some types of modalism, the modes supposedly don't interact directly with each other or in the extreme case, know what the other thinks (which would mean God is not omniscient). Nor, did I, as you mistakenly claim that "therefore" modalism is wrong. I think it is wrong but I didn't use any of the faulty syllogistic logic you say that I did.

Read my post and stop representing me incorrectly.

You say that by refusing to allow that there are differing forms of modalism with incorporate differing concepts of the godhead than Monarchian modalism teaches. 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I said no such think about or refusing to allow differing forms of modalism. I recognize that the protestant understanding of God (including modalism) is just as splintered as are its congregations.

If God the Father is a different manifestation from God the Son, with it's own form and function, then why do you keep repeating ""NEVERTHELESS not my will, but the will of the mode I will switch into later, be done. ..." nonsense.  The will and purpose of God the Son never was the will and purpose of God the Father, that He denied His own will to do the will of the Father does not mean that they had to be separate beings.

That's not my problem. That is the problem inherrent in modalism. In it God is one entity with three seperate modes. One entity, not three. When you have a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to itself, human logic can't explain it. Sure the Son has his own will, as does the Father, but they are the same God, the same single entity just switching into a different mode. It's not my problem, it's the doctrine.

Sorry, you are wrong about the last point (well, you aren't wrong in that that creed is indeed confusing  ).  I have studied the godhead quite a bit while trying to decide where I fit with my beliefs, and my studies have proved that most Catholics and Protestants (the denominations not necessarily the people) believe this, "The word, Trinity, refers to the three persons (also known as hypostases) who, according to these traditions, are the single God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."  Hypostases meaning "any of the three persons of the Godhead constituting the Trinity especially the person of Christ in which divine and human natures are united"

You can use the word "person" if you want but the standard definition of person is "human being" or "physical body of a human being" So the word "person" hardly describes God. "Hypostases" is a fancy pancy Greek philosophical concept which is not surprizing since the idea of a "trinity" is based in Greek philosophy, but the word is useful because in Neoplatonist metaphysics it refers to the "underlying substance" and that is exactly what I have been saying, that ontologically, a trinitarian or trinitarian derived or modalist view holds that the three parts of God are of one substance; whatever that substance is - they are ontologically one being. So, in the modalist view, the Father and Son may be serparate "personages" but they are on one substance and thus ontologically the same being.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 16 2004, 08:46 AM

Snow - I think the word "being" must be defined. I define it as person, therefore you are incorrect because Christ and the Father are different and separate persons in the Godhead. They are the same entity, meaning they are the same God (divine essense) but in that one divine essense they are 3 separate persons.

It may not make sense but God does not have to make sense, that's what makes him God. And I find that the Athanasian Creed breaks the details of the trinity down to such detail that it makes sense to me - I love that creed. :)

Jenda - I doubt though that Christians of today whether Catholic or Protestant do not fear of being named a heretic if they do not agree with the Trinity. Chances are they would find a different belief system that they could agree with. The inquisition ended centuries ago.

M.

The problem in using the word "person" is that everyone of us understands that a "person" has a physical body and that one person has a different "essence" than another person. It is not too hard to think that when talking about God, we can ignore the usual connotation of physicality though if you are Mormon you don't have to. What is harder to do, is figure out what is meant by "essence" In LDS theology we can say that the essence is the celestial matter that makes up God's seperate and distinct personage - he has a physical, albeit pure, body. In more orthodox theology the essence has to being something else - "spirit matter" if you will, though the matter has no shape or form or density or materiality so it is not a good analogy but, in essence and thus ontologically, God the Father and the Son and Holy Ghost are one entity,

You say that God doesn't have to make sense - I don't know if that is right, but I sure as heck not going to believe something that makes no sense just because some theologians formed a committee and took a vote. If God had wanted us to believe in something like the creed, why did he say something? He didn't tell the Jews. He didn't tell Paul or Peter or James of Matthew. It took hundreds of years of political infighting to hammer it out.

If you understand the creed, you apparently don't believe it (sarcasm alert) because it says that God is incomprehensible.

[Snow]

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[Jenda]

Snow, there are many ways of impressing your beliefs on others, and using words is only one way. If you can't understand how you have impressed your beliefs on me with the way you talk, not just the words, but the things you deny, the things you propound to the exclusion of all else, etc., then we can't talk anymore. All those things give your beliefs away without you uttering a single word. (Well, without you uttering a single word stating your beliefs, if you know what I mean.)(If you don't, that means you don't have to say, I believe this about that, etc., for your beliefs to be interpreted from your posts.)

So, hasta la vista, bebe.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray@Jun 16 2004, 12:08 PM

lurker,

The answer to your question is that they can usually imagine seeing 3 separate beings without knowing how they can also be the same being. They then usually follow that with saying something about how the how cannot be known, because it’s “incomprehensible”.

I think the lack of comprehension comes from not understanding that there are two separate perspectives.

"God" is a word we use to refer to 3 separate beings that can somehow be the same being, AND a word we use to refer to 1 being that can or has already somehow become 3 separate beings.

The disagreements come from explaining how God can be 3 beings and 1 being at the same time.

Personally, I like to explain the how by suggesting that God is a being in the same sense that other beings are beings, it’s just that God is superior to them all. In other words, there is no other being in all of existence that is superior to God.

This supremacy also involves something else, though, and that is that the being known as God is perfect. In other words, in the being known as God, there is no room for improvement because there is no way to be superior to God. If it were not so, God would cease to be God because there would be another being which is better. And as I have already stated, there is no being superior to God.

In the past I sometimes wondered why most prophets have stated that God is “one” without bothering to explain all of this, but now I think it may have been because they wanted to emphasize the oneness of God. If they had stated that there was more than one God, some of their listeners would have wondered which God was superior to the other Gods, in which case they would have missed the main point.

Heh, one more point. Things such as hair color, hair style, eye color, face shape, and even whether or not you have a glorified body yet have no bearing on whether or not you are more perfect or superior to another being. I state this partly in response to the craze for plastic surgery, which some people think can help them become more perfect or superior to someone merely by the change in their physical appearance.

NOTE: I define "being" as a life form, with the understanding that all life forms exist as separate individuals as well as collectively with other members of the same life form. In all of existence there is no other life form exactly like God, nor Man, nor any other life form that can be distinguished as a life form of its own kind.

Just because I addressed this post to lurker doesn't mean that nobody else should read it or comment on it.

Maybe nobody said anything about it because it was placed in the middle of another conversation?

Note: I left that one wide open for you on purpose, Rodney. Contend at your own risk.

[Snow]

You've gone loco Jenda. You misinterpret my posts and then flat out misstate what I said and then say that you can tell what I REALLY mean without me uttering a single word.

That's abnormal.

I suspect that what's really going on is that in this thread, and the one about succession in the Church leadership you don't understand the material enough to address me head on, but can't keep quiet so you try to redirect attention from what I actually did say, to what you wish I would have said.

If your not up to snuff on the topic, perhaps you ought to just not respond to my posts.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 16 2004, 02:42 PM

Anyone who obeys the greatest commandments: Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. If you do that, Traveler, you can call yourself a christian.

All I asked is for an example of such an institution that does not provide lip service but allows their neighbors to worship as they expect them to allow them to worship. I asked if you could provide evidence of such a society between the years 329 AD and 1649 AD. Having observed your responses - the only conclusion that appears rational to me is that you are not Christian and have no intention of helping me. This is based on your insistence that I have said things that I have not said and calling me insane for asking for a demonstration of true Christianity during that time according to what you say is a Christian.

Yes I am LDS but before I consider something else I believe a true Christian will demonstrate a more excellent way. This you have not done.

The Traveler

[Jason]

"All I asked is for an example of such an institution that does not provide lip service but allows their neighbors to worship as they expect them to allow them to worship. I asked if you could provide evidence of such a society between the years 329 AD and 1649 AD.'

Ok, at the moment I cannot. Can you prove that in the year 1272 AD there was no society anywhere in the west that allowed one to worship as their conscience dictated? NO? Didn't think so. So what's your point? Heresy as perceived by the catholic church was discouraged. Kinda like apostates in the Mormon Church. You'd rather not have them talking in sacrament meeting on sunday, right? What the Fu@k is the difference?!

"Having observed your responses - the only conclusion that appears rational to me is that you are not Christian and have no intention of helping me."

I don't care what you think I am, but I do want to help you. I think you're nuts.

"This is based on your insistence that I have said things that I have not said and calling me insane for asking for a demonstration of true Christianity during that time according to what you say is a Christian."

I have already PROVED that Christianity DID exist during the time you claim it did not. You already lost that argument.

"Yes I am LDS but before I consider something else I believe a true Christian will demonstrate a more excellent way. This you have not done."

Boo Hoo! Don't be such a pansy. If you can't prove your point, don't bring it up.

[Snow]

Easy there big fella, were all friends here, right?

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 14 2004, 09:46 PM

If you want verses that show they are seperate:

Mark 1:10-11

Luke 3:21-23

Matt 3:15-17

Acts 7:55-56

1 Peter 3:22

John 14:28

and on and on and on and on

If the Father and Son were one you would have to read the above like this (Matt 26-39-42) "Oh ME, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless, not as I will, but as I will.

In the Church we believe in a "oneness as expressed in:

John 17-21-23

Romans 12:5

1 Corinthians 12: 12-13

Galatian 3:28

etc. where the followers, us, can be "one" in the Father and the Son, or one in Christ or one with Christ, though still remaining  seperate bodies.

We accept John 14:11 but understand it needs to be read with 17:21-22 that show the nature of God's "oneness." It says:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us..."

So, whatever it means that the Father and Son are one, it cannot possibly be that they are one in the same person - ontologically - because we too are going to be one in them the exact same way that they are one. That is exactly what the text says, literally. It is untarnished by a philosophical extrapolation made centuries later.

How then would you explain this:

MOSIAH 3:5-8

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

[Setheus]

how to explain this one....well if you had been paying attention you would know that Jesus is the God of the old test. and that Jesus is part of the Godhead and thus "...came down to dwell in a body of clay"...even though the human body doesn't have any clay in it. So there goes your literal theory.

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 17 2004, 06:28 AM

how to explain this one....well if you had been paying attention you would know that Jesus is the God of the old test. and that Jesus is part of the Godhead and thus "...came down to dwell in a body of clay"...even though the human body doesn't have any clay in it. So there goes your literal theory.

Okay then. Who is the God of the New Testament??

[shanstress70]

Jenda,

Just wondering... did you take out Setheus' KISS (Keep it simple stupid) acronym from his last post? I noticed that you edited it, and happened to read it earlier. Is that offensive? It is a quite common expression.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Jun 17 2004, 12:21 AM

How then would you explain this:

MOSIAH 3:5-8

I'm sure you have a point in there.

What is it?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 17 2004, 06:20 AM

Jenda,

Just wondering... did you take out Setheus' KISS (Keep it simple stupid) acronym from his last post? I noticed that you edited it, and happened to read it earlier. Is that offensive? It is a quite common expression.

I took out the KISS and the statement he made prior to it. Between the two statements, I found his post offensive.

And I realize it is a common saying, but that doesn't make it right.

[shanstress70]

OK, I respect that. Can you tell I'm bored at work today?

[Setheus]

wait a minute....Were not allowed to use acronyms anymore?

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. Another good one is "Don't Nuke it"

And on the other question to me.....Jesus is the God of the New Testement (Except when the Father is talking directly to Jesus or about Jesus

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 17 2004, 08:34 AM

wait a minute....Were not allowed to use acronyms anymore?

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. Another good one is "Don't Nuke it"

And on the other question to me.....Jesus is the God of the New Testement (Except when the Father is talking directly to Jesus or about Jesus

I didn't find it offensive....we use the expression at church all the time.

[Jenda]

You use "Keep It Simple Stupid" at church all the time? It's implications are not very nice.