Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[Katzpur]

Ha! A feisty Mormon. I've never met one of them before. Must be my lucky day.

Yeah, it must be.

[ @Sunstone et aliae: Moderators, keep an eye on this thread, I'm expecting trouble. ]

Interesting. What kind of "trouble" might that be? Feel free to report me at any time if you think I'm "misbehaving" or if you're feeling overwhelmed by the fact that I'm no where near as clueless as you apparently think I am and can most definitely hold my own in a debate. I'm really pretty harmless, and most people here on RF have found me to be a competent and fair debater. I don't like rude people, though. I'll tell you that right now. And I pretty much treat people with the same respect with which they treat me. But, you want to play the big tough bully? Okay. I'm game.

When I call someone a "kid", it's because I know or have good reason to believe that they are quite a bit younger than me. I'm going on 72.

Well, that makes us about the same age then, even though I'd guess from your lack of maturity, that you're closer to 12. I mean, what person of our age needs to threaten to "spitball" someone else? I mean, that doesn't sound very "Christian" to me. How about just debating? Or is civility too much to ask?

There are a good number of old farts here that I wouldn't call "kid": Revoltingest, Terrywoodenpic, and Albert Tanner.

Bottomline for the confused: Get a grip, sister; your pettycoat is showing. But don't bother apologizin', Dear, 'cause I'm going to spitball you before I'm done with you.

Well, I don't know Albert Tanner, but @Revoltingest and @Terrywoodenpic are among some of my closest RF friends. It's good to see that we have the same taste in the people we admire. And don't worry about me apologizing, because it's not going to happen. So you're going to "spitball [me] before you're done with [me]," huh? You have no idea how terrified I am. And all over a simple difference of opinion.

[Note: In deference to your poor eyesight at your advanced age, I've decided to use larger, bold print for the bulk of this post. I don't want you to think that I'm trying to slip anything by you.]

How thoughtful. It's unnecessary, though, I can assure you. But since we're about the same age, would you like me to do the same for you?

 

[Katzpur]

Do tell.

• Good Lord, girl. Didn't anybody ever tell you? When you wade in the insanity marshes, you ought to wear high-top waders: takes less work to hose you down, if and when you get pulled out.
• My self-identification is, indeed, "Creedalist Xian"; however, that self-imposed label doesn't really "clearly state" anything, much less that my "beliefs about the nature of God are founded on the manmade creeds of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centureies, and not to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His contemporaries.
• If you really wanted to know what the label "Creedalist Xian" clearly states, you could have just asked before you made a fool of yourself.
• It so happens that I do indeed subscribe to one of the traditional Christian Creeds: i.e. the Apostle's Creed. The fact that you dismiss all traditional Christian Creeds carte blanche and affirm the teachings of Jesus Christ and his contemporaries, raises an intriguing question: What the hell do you think that Creed says that was not among the teachings of Jesus' contemporaries and can, therefore, be rejected?

When you have calmed down and have stopped frothing at the mouth, Terry, get back to me and we can continue this conversation.

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. As a 15-year veteran of this forum and as a 13-year veteran of another similar online forum, I have found it fascinating to see over the years how many self-professed Christians actually don't believe in the God of the post-apostolic creeds.
2. People of numerous different Christian denominations have questioned for years how God is both three in one and one in three, and have decided to use their God-given intelligence and ability to reason to come to the conclusion that this doctrine is absolutely not of God at all.
3. Now you've been here long enough yourself to have seen the numerous threads that have been started on the Trinity, most of them by non-LDS Christians.
   
4. They have resulted in a lengthy discussions in which both sides of the argument have been supported by people of various Christian persuasions.
5. There hasn't been such a thread in a while now, so maybe it's time for another one.

re: Your statement, which I identify as #1 above: I've only been in RF for about a year and this is the only non-Physics, non-Genealogy forum that I've participated in, and I too find it fascinating to see how many folks call themselves Christians who don't believe in the God--or the Jesus, for that matter--of the traditional Christian scriptures (from Genesis to Revelations), much less the God of the post-apostolic creeds. So what? Did I miss a call for or poll for votes somewhere?

re: Your #2 above. Your generous assumption that everybody who concludes that the Doctrine of the Trinity is "absolutely not of God at all" must have been using their God-given intelligence and ability to reason is just that: your generous assumption. Where does it say, in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelations, that the righteous who trust in the Holy One of Israel and/or Jesus are forbidden by divine law to have and to hold any false belief? If that were true, Relativists who believe in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity would, IMO, be violating the divine law.

re: Your #3 above. Indeed I have.

re: Your #4 above. Indeed they have.

re: Your #5 above. In your dreams. If I had my way, I'd put any anti-trinitarian thread that pops up in a "Dead End" forum and forbid any further posts. (Which, IMO, goes for sabbatarian threads, too, among others.) My Reason: Anybody with God-given intelligence and the ability to reason knows, or should be able to quickly figure out, that the Trinitarian/Anti-trinitarian Debate is an unending arm-wrestling match that will never reconcile irreconcilable differences in this world.

 

[Katzpur]

The 3=1 holds in Spiritual Sense.

I can go along with that, but I don't need a creed to come to that conclusion. John 17 makes it pretty clear that Jesus was not referring to a physical unity between Him and His Father. He prayed that His disciples might be "one" in the same way as He and His Father are "one" -- i.e. a complete and absolute unity of will and purpose. Jacob and I believe (he can correct me if I'm stating his position accurately) that the Father and the Son are both fully "God." They are "co-equal" only in terms of their divine attributes, and yet Jesus Christ stated himself that His Father is greater than He. That makes the use of "co-equal" in the sense of their relationship to one another an inaccurate way of describing their relationship.

 

[Terry Sampson]

You have no idea how terrified I am. And all over a simple difference of opinion.

I'd never make the mistake of imagining that you could be terrified.
"Over a simple difference of opinion"??? Ha. So, that's what you're upset over. LOL!

 

[Terry Sampson]

When you have calmed down and have stopped frothing at the mouth, Terry, get back to me and we can continue this conversation.

You're just full of assumptions today, aren't you? You wanna walk away, walk. I ain't done spitballin' you.

How thoughtful. It's unnecessary, though, I can assure you. But since we're about the same age, would you like me to do the same for you?

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I'm wearing reading glasses.

 

[Katzpur]

re: Your statement, which I identify as #1 above: I've only been in RF for about a year and this is the only non-Physics, non-Genealogy forum that I've participated in, and I too find it fascinating to see how many folks call themselves Christians who don't believe in the God--or the Jesus, for that matter--of the traditional Christian scriptures (from Genesis to Revelations), much less the God of the post-apostolic creeds. So what? Did I miss a call for or poll for votes somewhere?

The traditional Christian Christian scriptures say nothing about a triune God. That's what you missed.

re: Your #2 above. Your generous assumption that everybody who concludes that the Doctrine of the Trinity is "absolutely not of God at all" must have been using their God-given intelligence and ability to reason is just that: your generous assumption. Where does it say, in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelations, that the righteous who trust in the Holy One of Israel and/or Jesus are forbidden by divine law to have and to hold any false belief? If that were true, Relativists who believe in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity would, IMO, be violating the divine law.

I see. So in your opinion, only people who hold to the Doctrine of the Trinity are real Christians? And who are you to say that the Godhead as described in the scriptures is a "false belief" and that everybody who lived prior to when the 4th-century churchmen got together and voted on who God was to be from that point forward had it wrong?

re: Your #3 above. Indeed I have.

re: Your #4 above. Indeed they have.

Then we can agree on two out of five points. Not bad.

re: Your #5 above. In your dreams. If I had my way, I'd put any anti-trinitarian thread that pops up in a "Dead End" forum and forbid any further posts. (Which, IMO, goes for sabbatarian threads, too, among others.) My Reason: Anybody with God-given intelligence and the ability to reason knows, or should be able to quickly figure out, that the Trinitarian/Anti-trinitarian Debate is an unending arm-wrestling match that will never reconcile irreconcilable differences in this world.

Life's just not fair, is it? Sorry, but you don't make the rules.

 

[Katzpur]

You're just full of assumptions today, aren't you? You wanna walk away, walk. I ain't done spitballin' you.

Knock yourself out then.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I'm wearing reading glasses.

Sorry you have to. I don't.

 

[Revoltingest]

When you have calmed down and have stopped frothing at the mouth, Terry, get back to me and we can continue this conversation.

This is the first time I can recall your being feisty.
If I hadn't been alerted to this thread, I'd never have had the pleasure.
(I avoid arcane religious ones, what with my not have'n no Bible learn'n.)

 

[Katzpur]

I'd never make the mistake of imagining that you could be terrified.
"Over a simple difference of opinion"??? Ha. So, that's what you're upset over. LOL!

Yup, a simple difference of opinion. A matter than God can quite easily resolve once we stand before Him to be judged, and not one that's going to keep anybody out of Heaven.

 

[Katzpur]

This is the first time I can recall your being feisty.

Actually, most of the time, I'm not. As you well know, I'm not much of an "in-your-face" poster, and have no trouble whatsoever respecting the beliefs of people who see things differently than I do. Provided, that is, that they don't feel it necessary to resort to sarcasm and mockery. On the other hand, this Kat has been known to have claws.

(I avoid arcane religious ones, what with my not have'n no Bible learn'n.)

But you're such a damned lovable atheist.

 

[Katzpur]

The whole argument for the God of the Creeds always reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?
And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.
And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?
Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, but an economic subordination within God, a division which makes the substance no longer simple."
And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm do not know anyone who understands the trinity concept and can explain it in simple terms. It has all the hall marks as being written by a committee of senior civil servants so as to obscure the truth..

The LDS concept of the Godhead on the other hand is both simple to understand and to explain.
However for my own part I do not believe that God and the ascended Jesus have physical bodies with the likeness of men living in a world like heaven..

My beliefs tend to the Christian Unitarian view that God is one, that he had a Son Jesus, and that he has sent the Holy Spirit to guide and comfort us.

I do not believe that we can comprehend the nature of God or his true relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit or any other part of the Heavenly Host.

I also believe that we can all be justly called the sons and daughters of God.

I certainly would not try to justify the Trinity concept by mining the Bible. That may be possible, but none of the best Christian minds have done it yet. Nor do I believe that to be a worthy task.

It is not necessary to believe such an obscure concept as the Trinity, as to believe in God and follow the teachings of Jesus.

It is clear from the Didache that those very early Judao-Christians Believed in God, believed Jesus was the son of God and in the Holy Spirit. But that they had no concept of a Trinity nor a collective Godhead nor saw any need for one

 

[Terry Sampson]

Yup, a simple difference of opinion. A matter than God can quite easily resolve once we stand before Him to be judged.

• You see, this is where you've stepped off the curb and are in the gutter. You think there's a simple difference of opinion between you and me, i.e. over our "apparent" Trinitarian/Anti-trinitarian positions, and that's what you think I'm all hot and bothered about. But that ain't what I'm hot and bothered about.
• The day I get moody over what an LDS restorationist believes about the Trinity is the day I seek professional counseling. I actually don't care. The LDS don't shed any light on my path or darken it any darker than it is already.
  
• I pointed out to Jacob that:

  • • either you're "preaching", as it were, to other LDS Restorationists which, although it may be a reasonable thing to do, seems like an odd thing, to me, to do; or

    • you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested.

• Then I said:
  • "Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
  • That's a simple question, which you weren't asked and haven't answered nor have given Jacob a chance to answer.
• Then I said:
  • "If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested,
    • you're either doing it in the wrong forum or
      
    • you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum."
• THEN AND ONLY THEN, having attempted to lay out my reasoning, I gave Jacob my advice, which was:
  • "Next time you want to start a thread, consult one of your LDS elders and see what they think about what you want to do."
  • And read the special rules governing the forum that you want to post in. In this case, the rules that you would do well to read are @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

And that's when you jumped in, rarin' to fight, like a mama bear defending her cub, leaving me to wonder what the hell is your problem. I didn't lay down any rules. The only rules I mentioned were the "Same Faith Debates - Special Rules".

So what is your legitimate, rational, and reasonable objection to what I said?

• Do you really object to a 72 year old man calling a 27 year old younger man, "kid"?
• Or do you object to a 72-year old, non-LDS man calling a 27-year old LDS younger man, "kid"?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out to an LDS-younger man that he's pissing in the wind, regardless whether he thinks he's pissin' toward fellow LDS members, or pissin' toward non-LDS "heathen"?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man suggesting that an LDS-younger man consult an LDS-elder before engaging in what the non-LDS man considers a silly and futile exercise in pissin' in the wind?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out the possibility that the LDS-younger man would do well to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" before pissin' in the wind?

One thing's for certain, you're zonkers if you think the point of contention between you and me is about the traditional Doctrine of the Trinity. It ain't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

• You see, this is where you've stepped off the curb and are in the gutter. You think there's a simple difference of opinion between you and me, i.e. over our "apparent" Trinitarian/Anti-trinitarian positions, and that's what you think I'm all hot and bothered about. But that ain't what I'm hot and bothered about.
• The day I get moody over what an LDS restorationist believes about the Trinity is the day I seek professional counseling. I actually don't care. The LDS don't shed any light on my path or darken it any darker than it is already.
  
• I pointed out to Jacob that:
• Then I said:
  • "Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
  • That's a simple question, which you weren't asked and haven't answered nor have given Jacob a chance to answer.
• Then I said:
  • "If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested,
    • you're either doing it in the wrong forum or
      
    • you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum."
• THEN AND ONLY THEN, having attempted to lay out my reasoning, I gave Jacob my advice, which was:
  • "Next time you want to start a thread, consult one of your LDS elders and see what they think about what you want to do."
  • And read the special rules governing the forum that you want to post in. In this case, the rules that you would do well to read are @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

And that's when you jumped in, rarin' to fight, like a mama bear defending her cub, leaving me to wonder what the hell is your problem. I didn't lay down any rules. The only rules I mentioned were the "Same Faith Debates - Special Rules".

So what is your legitimate, rational, and reasonable objection to what I said?

• Do you really object to a 72 year old man calling a 27 year old younger man, "kid"?
• Or do you object to a 72-year old, non-LDS man calling a 27-year old LDS younger man, "kid"?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out to an LDS-younger man that he's pissing in the wind, regardless whether he thinks he's pissin' toward fellow LDS members, or pissin' toward non-LDS "heathen"?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man suggesting that an LDS-younger man consult an LDS-elder before engaging in what the non-LDS man considers a silly and futile exercise in pissin' in the wind?
• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out the possibility that the LDS-younger man would do well to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" before pissin' in the wind?

One thing's for certain, you're zonkers if you think the point of contention between you and me is about the traditional Doctrine of the Trinity. It ain't.

If it is not about the Trinity you are off topic. And irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If it is not about the Trinity you are off topic. And irrelevant to this thread.

You're Johnny-come-lately to this thread and, I'm sorry to say, not only are you a day late, you're a couple of dollars short.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Now, before anyone takes another step or draws a pistol, let's look at the "Same Faith Debates - Special Rules".

• Hello and welcome to the Same Faith Debates subforum! Before posting here, there are a few special rules you will want to be aware of:

1. The title of this subforum is a bit of a misnomer. "Same faith" debates need not be faith-based, nor do they even need to be religious. What this area is for is to have debates among members of specified group(s), such as "atheists only" or "Hindus only," etc.
2. Same Faith Debates are restricted to members of specified group(s). If you are not a member of the specified group(s), you are not allowed to participate in the debate at all, even if it is to ask a question. Failure to abide by this may result in a warning being issued to your account.
3. If you create a thread in this subforum it is your responsibility to indicate which group(s) you want to restrict the thread to. If you do not specify group(s), the RF staff may move your thread at their discretion. When you create a thread in this subforum, also do the following:
   1. List the specified group(s) in the title of your thread
   2. Elaborate on those group(s) in the opening post of your thread, if necessary

 

[Katzpur]

• You see, this is where you've stepped off the curb and are in the gutter. You think there's a simple difference of opinion between you and me, i.e. over our "apparent" Trinitarian/Anti-trinitarian positions, and that's what you think I'm all hot and bothered about. But that ain't what I'm hot and bothered about.

• Okay, so precisely what are you hot and bothered about? If it's not our difference of opinion regarding the topic of this thread, then what is it?

• I pointed out to Jacob that:
  [*]Then I said:
  

  • "Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
  • That's a simple question, which you weren't asked and haven't answered nor have given Jacob a chance to answer.

  [*]Then I said:
  

  • "If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested,
    • you're either doing it in the wrong forum or
      
    • you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum."

  [*]THEN AND ONLY THEN, having attempted to lay out my reasoning, I gave Jacob my advice, which was:
  

  • "Next time you want to start a thread, consult one of your LDS elders and see what they think about what you want to do."
  • And read the special rules governing the forum that you want to post in. In this case, the rules that you would do well to read are @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules.

And that's when you jumped in, rarin' to fight, like a mama bear defending her cub, leaving me to wonder what the hell is your problem. I didn't lay down any rules. The only rules I mentioned were the "Same Faith Debates - Special Rules".

And your understanding of these rules is incorrect. Since you thought it so important to alert @Sunstone to this thread, perhaps he can clarify for you that for the purposes of this forum, Same Faith Debates" not not mean what you apparently think it does. All Christians should be able to discuss their beliefs on the nature of God in the Same Faiths Debate forum, even if you don't particularly like the idea.

So what is your legitimate, rational, and reasonable objection to what I said?

• Do you really object to a 72 year old man calling a 27 year old younger man, "kid"?

• I don't really object. I just think Jacob's age is beside the point. You're proof that wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age.

• Or do you object to a 72-year old, non-LDS man calling a 27-year old LDS younger man, "kid"?

  It hadn't occurred to me that Jacob's religion had anything to do with your calling him a "kid."

• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out to an LDS-younger man that he's pissing in the wind, regardless whether he thinks he's pissin' toward fellow LDS members, or pissin' toward non-LDS "heathen"?

  The only pissing I saw came from a 72-year-old man. All Jacob did was state his opinion on a subject of interest to a great many Christians. You're the one who fell apart at the seams over it.

• Or do you object to a non-LDS man suggesting that an LDS-younger man consult an LDS-elder before engaging in what the non-LDS man considers a silly and futile exercise in pissin' in the wind?

  I have a strong hunch that Jacob actually is an LDS Elder.

• Or do you object to a non-LDS man pointing out the possibility that the LDS-younger man would do well to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" before pissin' in the wind?

  Funny, you didn't actually point out which of his assertions were incorrect. You might want to start there.

One thing's for certain, you're zonkers if you think the point of contention between you and me is about the traditional Doctrine of the Trinity. It ain't.

Okay. Well, if all you want to do is talk about "pissin'," I'm not really interested. I'm here to debate the topic of the OP. If you're not, then feel free to leave. If any other Christians want to contribute to this thread, it could prove to be an interesting one.

 

[Katzpur]

If you create a thread in this subforum it is your responsibility to indicate which group(s) you want to restrict the thread to. If you do not specify group(s), the RF staff may move your thread at their discretion. When you create a thread in this subforum, also do the following:

1. 1. List the specified group(s) in the title of your thread
   2. Elaborate on those group(s) in the opening post of your thread, if necessary

Well, that can be easily remedied, and when Jacob's omission has been taken care of, you can put your hostility to bed for awhile. @Sunstone, since it's clear that Jacob intended that this debate be between Christians only (as opposed to Latter-day Saints only), would you be so kind as to make a change to the title of the thread. I know a staff member has to do this and that the OP can't modify the thread title itself. Then it might be possible for us to get back to the topic at hand.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You're Johnny-come-lately to this thread and, I'm sorry to say, not only are you a day late, you're a couple of dollars short.

If your intention is to be rude to every one participating in this thread your are excelling in your task.
LDS members tend to be very knowledgeable and debate in a very friendly manner even when provoked.
You are presenting your case, thus far, very poorly.