But you see, it is still taking place. Does The Church not know this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Holes in the trinity
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
I didn't rob the bank I just drove the get-away car.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. That's simply not the case. Disagreeing isn't necessarily being separate. There are different kinds of colors, shapes and textures in a quilt, yet the quilt is one quilt. It's when the disagreement entitles one to say, "I'm right -- you're wrong, and God's on my side that we run into trouble.
But such disagreement doesn't have to separate. Not all instruments in the orchestra are the same, yet they play the same symphony.
The thing is, you don't have to go "that way." You can express yourself and still be part of the family.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I said it was poetry -- not ontology. Do you not know this?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not the same thing. the text says what it says. I can't change what it says just because I want to. Interpretation is another matter. But that interpretation has to be based on a solid exegesis of what the text says. I don't see a whole lot of that going on in this debate. I see a lot of "this doesn't make sense to me, so I'm just going to change the meaning to make myself comfortable." And that's not solid interpretation.
Can you admit that your interpretation might not be "solid"? Why not?
John 1:1 is poetry. OK. HOW do you know? If it isn't real shouldn't you be preaching to them that think it IS real?
Is that you or me? Are you not saying that?
Agree!
Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits. DO NOT BE MISLED! That is what I try to do. Do you?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. My interpretation is the same as the orthodox stance. That stance is solid -- and has been for centuries, by the preponderance of Xy.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How do I know? Because, in the process of exegesis, we engage in several different kinds of criticism, including literary. I've preached to all kinds and sorts...
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that your conclusion isn't tenable, based on what you've presented thus far.
Associations don't have to be bad, just because of disagreement. That's what abiding in covenant is all about.
Google is not helping me with the preponderance of XY. Can you?
Please think. Someone like me might have created your orthodox stance. Do you understand?
What do you think? Do children engage in criticism? Matthew 18:3
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The great -- VAST -- majority of Christianity are trinitarians -- and have been for centuries. Trinitarianism was more or less settled by councils of church leaders -- not by individuals who are not theologians.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Neither do children translate the texts, or teach others, or provide spiritual counsel, or are called to speak for the community.
Matthew 18:3 wasn't addressing the spiritual need for guides and teachers.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You haven't provided reasonable arguments to support your position.
Strawman? Covenantal relationships are a straw man? Go back and study your logical fallacies some more.
To enter the Kingdom of God you must first become like children.
Jesus does these things. Children listen.
I am sorry I haven't got time for this now. I might hit myself with it later.
A strawman is changing the subject to something stupid.