Christians..."Trinity"?

[Windwalker]

That's not necessarily true. There's no way we can determine if the Arians would have been hunting down opponents or burning people at the stake. One can argue that their adherents were more calm, rational and philosophically enlightened (i.e. not being ones to accept a doctrine that's "Too much for the human mind to understand" which requires a lot of force upon those who don't agree with such logic for it to stick) so that they would have been more tolerant of dissenting beliefs. It's a fallacy to assume that they would have acted similarly.

I'm not willing to assume they were more rational, and therefore less prone to the sorts behaviors the Trinitarian group had. Here's the deal, any group will automatically create positions of power. It part of group dynamics. It's those in those power positions that will act within a certain common-mode mentality. I don't believe the Arians necessarily were of some different mentality, just because they held a different theological interpretation. I think you assume an awful lot, unless you can show these folk overall were of some different order, like a group of aesthetics, or something.

 

[Shiranui117]

That's not necessarily true. There's no way we can determine if the Arians would have been hunting down opponents or burning people at the stake. One can argue that their adherents were more calm, rational and philosophically enlightened (i.e. not being ones to accept a doctrine that's "Too much for the human mind to understand" which requires a lot of force upon those who don't agree with such logic for it to stick) so that they would have been more tolerant of dissenting beliefs. It's a fallacy to assume that they would have acted similarly.

And you had calm, rational and philosophically enlightened atheists who slaughtered Orthodox Christians by the thousands (at the very least), detonated, blew up and burned our churches, harrassed our monks, closed our monasteries, publicly ostracized anyone who believed in any kind of religion, and banned anything to do with religion that didn't mock it or ridicule it.

As Windwalker said, a theological position does not a calmer person make.

 

[savagewind]

Did I miss the answer? Is it fair to view a person a non-christian if he rejects the trinity? Let's just say it is judgement day. There is no more learning to be done. It is the end. I have followed the love and wisdom of Christ most of my adult life. I never came to the realization that Father, Son and The Holy Spirit are the same. Will Christ consider me friend or enemy?

 

[captainbryce]

Interesting. I think the topic of the thread is real Christian vs false Christian and NOT the depth of the trinity. Seems to me you might be off topic too perhaps?

It's funny how you read the OP that way. He specifically asked about the Trinity doctrine, and how if someone has a different take on that does that mean they aren't considered a Christian. The discussion was about the Trinity in the following pages, but then it devolved into this typical twaddle about True Christian(tm), blah, blah, not even touching on the Trinity anymore.

If this is what the OP wants for a discussion, then the topic should be renamed and I'll start another topic as I have zero interest in "Who's the True Christian(tm)" discussions.

I think it's a bit too late to rename this topic. But you are always free to start another one. I just wanted to know whether most Christians who profess a belief in a trinity consider it "un-Christian" to disbelieve in trinity. Or in other words, do fundamentalist Christians believe that anyone who rejects the trinity is somehow going against the teachings of Jesus Christ. The conversation has taken on numerous detours since that point.

 

[savagewind]

Oh Look! Me and the captain are the same! LOL (please see my post above)....posted at the same time....I love when that happens.....adds some spice to forum....omg shut me up!

 

[Shermana]

And you had calm, rational and philosophically enlightened atheists who slaughtered Orthodox Christians by the thousands (at the very least), detonated, blew up and burned our churches, harrassed our monks, closed our monasteries, publicly ostracized anyone who believed in any kind of religion, and banned anything to do with religion that didn't mock it or ridicule it.

As Windwalker said, a theological position does not a calmer person make.

I don't think Atheists were all that "philosophically enlightened", the most enlightened philosophers were theists.

Particularly though, the Communists you are referring to had put up with years of abuse from the gravely corrupt Russian orthodox church, if anything I sympathize with them on that matter. Especially as a Jew.



Point being we can't just assume the Arians would have acted like the Trinitarians and then condemn them with the same brush.

And also, as I said, I think the much more logical (and compatible) view of the Arians would have in fact resulted in less of a push to try to force what was otherwise a "Believe as we say even though it's too much for the human mind to understand" mentality. When you're dealing with twisted logic and wordplay, one may assume there's more need to defend that logic with the sword rather than with the pen.

And for the record, the Germanic Goths were very tolerant of Nicene-creed following Christians where they reigned.

 

[Shermana]

From the life of St. Antony the Great:

These things the old man saw, and after two years the present [16] inroad of the Arians and the plunder of the churches took place, when they violently carried off the vessels, and made the heathen carry them; and when they forced the heathen from the prisons to join in their services, and in their presence did upon the Table as they would. Then we all understood that these kicks of the mules signified to Antony what the Arians, senselessly like beasts, are now doing. But when he saw this vision, he comforted those with him, saying, 'Be not downcast, my children; for as the Lord has been angry, so again will He heal us, and the Church shall soon again receive her own order, and shall shine forth as she is wont. And you shall behold the persecuted restored, and wickedness again withdrawn to its own hiding-place, and pious faith speaking boldly in every place with all freedom. Only defile [17] not yourselves with the Arians, for their teaching is not that of the Apostles, but that of demons and their father the devil; yea, rather, it is barren and senseless, and without light understanding, like the senselessness of these mules.'

And an account showing Eusebius of Nicomedia orchestrating the martyrdom of Paul of Constantinople.

And I suppose no one is ignorant of the case of Paul[19], Bishop of Constantinople; for the more illustrious any city is, so much the more that which takes place in it is not concealed. A charge was fabricated against him also. For Macedonius his accuser, who has now become Bishop in his stead (I was present myself at the accusation), afterwards held communion with him, and was a Presbyter under Paul himself. And yet when Eusebius with an evil eye wished to seize upon the Bishopric of that city (he had been translated in the same manner from Berytus to Nicomedia), the charge was revived against Paul; and they did not give up their plot, but persisted in the calumny. And he was banished first into Pontus by Constantine, and a second time by Constantius he was sent bound with iron chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, and from thence transferred to Emesa, and a fourth time he was banished to Cucusus in Cappadocia, near the deserts of Mount Taurus; where, as those who were with him have declared, he died by strangulation at their hands. And yet these men who never speak the truth, though guilty of this, were not ashamed after his death to invent another story, representing that he had died from illness; although all who live in that place know the circumstances. And even Philagrius[20], who was then Deputy-Governor[21] of those parts, and represented all their proceedings in such manner as they desired, was yet astonished at this; and being grieved perhaps that another, and not himself, had done the evil deed, he informed Serapion the Bishop, as well as many other of our friends, that Paul was shut up by them in a very confined and dark place, and left to perish of hunger; and when after six days they went in and found him still alive, they immediately set upon the man, and strangled him. This was the end of his life; and they said that Philip who was Prefect was their agent in the perpetration of this murder. Divine Justice, however, did not overlook this; for not a year passed, when Philip was deprived of his office in great disgrace, so that being reduced to a private station, he became the mockery of those whom he least desired to be the witnesses of his fall.

-Source

Also see that source for other examples of how Arians (not Semi-Arians, but Arians proper) drove out bishops and other clergy.

Accordingly Constantius at once writes letters, and commences a persecution against all, and sends Philagrius as Prefect with one Arsacius an eunuch; he sends also Gregory with a military force. And the same consequences followed as before. For gathering together a multitude of herdsmen and shepherds, and other dissolute youths belonging to the town, armed with swords and clubs, they attacked in a body the Church which is called the Church of Quirinus ; and some they slew, some they trampled under foot, others they beat with stripes and cast into prison or banished. They haled away many women also, and dragged them openly into the court, and insulted them, dragging them by the hair. Some they proscribed; from some they took away their bread for no other reason, but that they might be induced to join the Arians, and receive Gregory, who had been sent by the Emperor. -Source

This is a perfect example of how Trinitarians would group their semi-Arian enemies with the actual Arians for whatever purposes it suited them.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not willing to assume they were more rational, and therefore less prone to the sorts behaviors the Trinitarian group had. Here's the deal, any group will automatically create positions of power. It part of group dynamics. It's those in those power positions that will act within a certain common-mode mentality. I don't believe the Arians necessarily were of some different mentality, just because they held a different theological interpretation. I think you assume an awful lot, unless you can show these folk overall were of some different order, like a group of aesthetics, or something.

You're one to talk about "Assuming a lot" when you go ahead and automatically assume that the Arians would have done the same thing as the Trinitarians just because they were a fellow religious group. If I am assuming they wouldn't, you're assuming they would. I'd suggest you stay neutral and not make assumptions either way that require a counter-assumption to show you that your assumption is nothing but an assumption.

If your logic is Religious group in power = total automatic persecution, then that's an assumption. Islamic rulers time and time again allowed most religious groups much leeway and didn't have nearly the same iron fist as the Trintiarian Orthodox groups did. Likewise with Hindus and Buddhists. And we know that the Arian Goths were quite tolerant to Trinitarians in the lands they ruled. So try again.

 

[Windwalker]

You're one to talk about "Assuming a lot" when you go ahead and automatically assume that the Arians would have done the same thing as the Trinitarians just because they were a fellow religious group.

I never said that! I did not say because they were a fellow religious group! It doesn't matter what group they belonged to or what they believed, and that was my very point you are missing. Group dynamics will always create a place for those who wish to control others a home to put themselves into. Next, take this and apply it to the mindset of that culture at large, and those people who are products of that culture and time, will behave very much the same way in similar circumstances, given the same opportunities.

You miss the point and create some romantic ideal that one group would never behave like their enemies. Bull, I cry. It doesn't matter what their beliefs or lack thereof are. People are people.

If I am assuming they wouldn't, you're assuming they would.

It's an assumption based on basic human behaviors throughout history. Call it a very educated assumption.

I'd suggest you stay neutral and not make assumptions either way that require a counter-assumption to show you that your assumption is nothing but an assumption.

To note, I am not saying definitely they WOULD do this, but the chances are good they would because they are people just like their enemies are. How many times do we see the oppressed when they come to power become oppressors themselves? Answer that, if you will and you'll understand my meaning.

If your logic is Religious group in power = total automatic persecution, then that's an assumption.

Again, I never said anything about it being because they were religious. I don't think like this. Why do you assume I do?

Islamic rulers time and time again allowed most religious groups much leeway and didn't have nearly the same iron fist as the Trintiarian Orthodox groups did. Likewise with Hindus and Buddhists. And we know that the Arian Goths were quite tolerant to Trinitarians in the lands they ruled. So try again.

I'd be cautious to draw direct comparisons, since we are dealing with different cultures and different times. Those are huge variables right there to account for you're bypassing. All I am saying is in that same culture, the same time, the minority group who is persecuted, given reverse positions would very likely do the same thing. Power is power is power.

Do you not understand this?

 

[Shermana]

I never said that! I did not say because they were a fellow religious group! It doesn't matter what group they belonged to or what they believed, and that was my very point you are missing. Group dynamics will always create a place for those who wish to control others a home to put themselves into. Next, take this and apply it to the mindset of that culture at large, and those people who are products of that culture and time, will behave very much the same way in similar circumstances, given the same opportunities.

I don't think they would at all. As I've demonstrated, we've seen plenty of examples where an oppressed group that ended up becoming in charge ended up being tolerant of other views. Like the ARIANS THEMSELVES.

Your argument that "power is power is power" does NOT equate to "all groups in power will act similarly". Because we know that certain groups are much nicer to live under than others.

Why should we think any differently when we have clear evidence that the Arians were very tolerant of their enemies the Trinitarians when they had power in the Goth lands? Your rhetoric falls short as soon as we see actual examples. Your argument that "human nature is the same and will result in similar actions no matter what the group is" is what's Bull here. Because we know for a fact that the Arians in power in the Goth lands acted quite differently than the Trinitarians in power.

You miss the point and create some romantic ideal that one group would never behave like their enemies. Bull, I cry. It doesn't matter what their beliefs or lack thereof are. People are people.

Okay, except we've ALREADY SEEN that the Arians treated their enemies quite compassionately when they had power. So rethink who is missing the point here. Before you come on here again and try to act as if we can know that the Arians may have not acted like the Arian Goths if they were in power, you may want to look at historical examples before you try attempting to say what's more probable.

It's an assumption based on basic human behaviors throughout history. Call it a very educated assumption.

No, it's a very ignorant assumption because we have ALREADY SEEN that the Arians treated the Nicene Creeders quite well.

To note, I am not saying definitely they WOULD do this, but the chances are good they would because they are people just like their enemies are.

Did you ignore everything I said? We've seen groups that treat their enemies quite well, LIKE THE ARIANS THEMSELVES in the Goth Lands. I'm hoping if I repeat it enough this time it will actually stick.

How many times do we see the oppressed when they come to power become oppressors themselves? Answer that, if you will and you'll understand my meaning.

How many times do we see them come to power and treat their enemies quite compassionately LIKE THE ARIANS IN THE GOTH LANDS?

Again, I never said anything about it being because they were religious. I don't think like this. Why do you assume I do?

I'd be cautious to draw direct comparisons, since we are dealing with different cultures and different times. Those are huge variables right there to account for you're bypassing.

Sure, name some variables that differ between the ARIAN GOTHS who TREATED THE TRINITARIANS VERY WELL and the Trinitarians in Rome.

All I am saying is in that same culture, the same time, the minority group who is persecuted, given reverse positions would very likely do the same thing. Power is power is power.

All you're saying is that we can flat out ignore the examples in history which go right against the broadbrush you're trying to paint for "people" in general and you want to totally ignore the actual Arians' example in history.

Do you not understand this?

What I understand is that you are purposely ignoring the fact that the Arians, like many other groups like Buddhists and Hindus and others, have in fact been quite nice comparable to other groups. You're trying to act as if there's a one-size-fits-all and ignoring blatant historical examples to get that brush to fit your palette.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think they would at all. As I've demonstrated, we've seen plenty of examples where an oppressed group that ended up becoming in charge ended up being tolerant of other views. Like the ARIANS THEMSELVES.

If you read my words, I never said its for sure they would, but given identical circumstances its likely this happens. Yes, yes, the Arians were saints and the world is better with them in control. They're the exception to the basic tendency we see in groups. You win. This trend is wrong because your group somehow didn't obey this tendency to a T. You've mastered the argument.

 

[Windwalker]

Did I miss the answer? Is it fair to view a person a non-christian if he rejects the trinity?

Is it fair to view a person as hell-bound if he accepts the theory of evolution? Is if fair to view a person as hell-bound if he follows another religious teacher than Jesus?

Let's just say it is judgement day. There is no more learning to be done. It is the end. I have followed the love and wisdom of Christ most of my adult life. I never came to the realization that Father, Son and The Holy Spirit are the same. Will Christ consider me friend or enemy?

You make it sound like passing a test in school. That's an interesting view. "No more learning" and now its test day!

I've always though it was really strange to imagine God holding a score card that gives you a pass/fail grade by how many questions you get right on the "belief" test. But, this sadly is how many people understand God.

 

[savagewind]

Is it fair to view a person as hell-bound if he accepts the theory of evolution? Is if fair to view a person as hell-bound if he follows another religious teacher than Jesus?


You make it sound like passing a test in school. That's an interesting view. "No more learning" and now its test day!

I've always though it was really strange to imagine God holding a score card that gives you a pass/fail grade by how many questions you get right on the "belief" test. But, this sadly is how many people understand God.

You have said many words but I have not heard you say anything yet. I believe it is not fair to judge anything. Captianbryce is asking what is it about the trinity that causes some people (but not you obviously) to judge him.

The scripture says this;
Young's Literal Translation
And they do not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Jehovah; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more. Jeremiah 31:34

According to all the people who stand firm believing God is three, we who do not believe it do not know God.

 

[Windwalker]

Captianbryce is asking what is it about the trinity that causes some people (but not you obviously) to judge him.

I don't think it has to do with the Trinity doctrine itself, as it is more symptomatic of fundamentalist mentality itself. I'm called a heretic all the time for my rejection of lots of various rigid traditionalist beliefs.

I'm not sure picking on the Trinity doctrine itself is the right target. That's like criticizing whether Christ hangs on the cross or off the cross on the altar of a church that is the cause of their respective behaviors. My point is, concrete-literal traditionist belief itself tends to be very right/wrong, good/evil, black/white thinking, which lends itself towards intolerance. Abstract thinking tends to see a lot more grey, and hence less quick to judge. I see the Trinity as highly abstract and esoteric in nature, hence it's certainly nothing you can judge someone by! Traditionalists themselves miss the point of it, thinking of it very concretely. Should they be judged in thinking of it in their literalist way? That pretty much sums it up.

 

[savagewind]

Should they be judged in thinking of it in their literalist way?

No one said they should be judged for their thinking. Do you believe God won't judge them for their condemning of us who are not literal?

OK Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses believe they will be condemned for their thinking. I have never met one who I suspect thinks anyone should be condemned.

 

[Windwalker]

No one said they should be judged for their thinking. Do you believe God won't judge them for their condemning of us who are not literal?

I believe we reap the fruit of our own actions. Judging others places us as judge, which blinds us to others and ourselves. God doesn't need to judge us. We judge and condemn ourselves in our attitudes and actions. The only God does is hope we figure this out.

OK Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses believe they will be condemned for their thinking. I have never met one who I suspect thinks anyone should be condemned.

Those who are uncomfortable having anyone with a different point of view do many things to correct that, usually resulting in some form of persecution. Rarely do they ever look at themselves and the basis for why they feel to be "Heresy Hunters". It begins in fear looking to beliefs to assure them of security. It will never come through beliefs.

I do not believe knowing God has anything to do with believing or disbelieving "approved" church doctrines. That's absurd.

 

[savagewind]

I do not believe knowing God has anything to do with believing or disbelieving "approved" church doctrines. That's absurd.

I agree

 

[Shermana]

If you read my words, I never said its for sure they would, but given identical circumstances its likely this happens. Yes, yes, the Arians were saints and the world is better with them in control. They're the exception to the basic tendency we see in groups. You win. This trend is wrong because your group somehow didn't obey this tendency to a T. You've mastered the argument.

You're not catching my drift.

You're saying it's PROBABLE that they would have acted like the Trinitarians, because "power is power is power".

Yet we have direct evidence, direct proof, that they did NOT act like them when they had the power.

Your argument about "tendency of humans" does not apply to all groups and all peoples equally. I understand you want to broadbrush all religious groups and believers with the same stroke. It doesn't work like that. Each one is different. Each one behaves differently. Some are more brutal than others. And we have evidence that the Arians were much less brutal.

Thus, it would NOT be likely that they acted like this. It would be likely, very likely, that they would have behaved just like the Arians. Unless you want to say the Goths as a culture were simply better people or had better kings than the Greeks and Romans for some reason.

(Despite what Shiarnui shows, it was the SEMI Arians, vastly different, who oppressed Nicene Creeders, and they themselves were actually Trinitarians, and they were called "Arians" incorrectly by Trinitarians because they weren't TRUE Trinitarians in that regard).

I'm not saying they were saints. They were the Goths! The Goths were not saints!

But they were very tolerant of those who went by the Nicene Creed. What were they was MORE Saintly than the Trinitarians when they had power.

We can make an inference thus that your argument that they PROBABLY would have acted like the Trinitarians is PROBABLY WRONG. In fact, we have direct evidence that you are in fact wrong when it came to the Goths and their vast kingdom. Even the Arian Vandals were tolerant of Trinitarians for the most part.

So if you're trying to act like they PROBABLY would be brutal oppressors, we have evidence they did not. We have nothing BUT evidence that the Trinitarians DID act like Brutal suppressors. But we have evidence the Arians did NOT. Thus your argument about "power is power is power" is bunk. You cannot broadbrush them with the same condemnation. Your attempt at generlization fails and then you almost ignore and handwave the examples that go against your generalization.

 

[Windwalker]

Your argument about "tendency of humans" does not apply to all groups and all peoples equally.

Tendency. There is meaning to that word. There is a tendency in my family towards brown hair and hazel eyes, yet I was born with blonde hair and green eyes. Does this meaning the tendency is wrong? Of course not.

You do understand a trend, or tendency towards something does not assure an outcome, right? So when the outcome isn't the trend, that doesn't mean the trend isn't still valid? This seems silly to even have to try to explain.

I understand you want to broadbrush all religious groups and believers with the same stroke.

Why do you continue to say this? I am religious. I'm not an atheist. Why do you think I see religious people this way? You make no sense. Persecution complex?

It doesn't work like that. Each one is different. Each one behaves differently. Some are more brutal than others. And we have evidence that the Arians were much less brutal.

Are you familiar with the standard normal distribution curve? The bell curve? The average mean in the 70-90% bulge in the middle. The <10% is on the edges. You will always have deviation from the tendency grouped in the middle on the edges.

Your group your defending sounds like there were the exception. How hard is this to understand?

Thus, it would NOT be likely that they acted like this.

False. Standard distribution curve.


Anyway, this is all pretty simple. If you can't acknowledge at least the truth of the above, there's no point in trying to get you to understand these basic things. Do some reading on the subject.

 

[Shiranui117]

But they were very tolerant of those who went by the Nicene Creed. What were they was MORE Saintly than the Trinitarians when they had power.

The Arians didn't even have power over the Orthodox. Both sides functioned under completely independent hierarchies and had nothing to do with each other in Gothic lands. It wasn't like the situation in the Empire where Arians and Orthodox were fighting for control of the same episcopal sees.

Also, the Arian Vandals did in fact dissolve Orthodox monasteries, exile or kill Orthodox clergy, and barred Orthodox laymen from holding any kind of office.

(Despite what Shiarnui shows, it was the SEMI Arians, vastly different, who oppressed Nicene Creeders, and they themselves were actually Trinitarians, and they were called "Arians" incorrectly by Trinitarians because they weren't TRUE Trinitarians in that regard).

No, they weren't. The Semi-Arians weren't "vastly different" from the hardline Arians. The Semi-Arians held that the Son and Holy Spirit were created in time, and were not of one essence with the Father. The only difference between the Arians and the Semi-Arians were that the Semi-Arians compromised and said that the three Persons were alike or similar in essence, which really isn't any different than the hardline Arian different in essence. Because at the end of the day, alike and similar still mean "different." In point of fact, Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arius's biggest ally) headed both the Arian and Semi-Arian factions together.

I'm not saying they were saints. They were the Goths! The Goths were not saints!

Tell that to the 26 Gothic martyrs.

We can make an inference thus that your argument that they PROBABLY would have acted like the Trinitarians is PROBABLY WRONG. In fact, we have direct evidence that you are in fact wrong when it came to the Goths and their vast kingdom. Even the Arian Vandals were tolerant of Trinitarians for the most part.

If by "the most part" you mean "three years when Genseric's relations with the Romans and Byzantines were good," then yeah, "for the most part."

So if you're trying to act like they PROBABLY would be brutal oppressors, we have evidence they did not. We have nothing BUT evidence that the Trinitarians DID act like Brutal suppressors. But we have evidence the Arians did NOT. Thus your argument about "power is power is power" is bunk. You cannot broadbrush them with the same condemnation. Your attempt at generlization fails and then you almost ignore and handwave the examples that go against your generalization.

Oh, the irony...