The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"trinity".... is there such an entity?

We don’t have a problem believing why you don’t. There is no ‘extent’ having a problem. You either believe we do or do not. If you think we do, then have actually REAL reasons why not made up one’s because your ‘reason’ also belongs to a conditionalist Arian Christianity who believe that we are going to hell for eternity if we don’t believe that Jesus is not God. So as it stands, it appears there is only person in this discussion who has a problem and you don’t see us posting articles on why Arian’s have a problem understanding the Trinity or that Arians have a problem.

Craig.

I think Rodger is more interested in spamming Tentmaker and his books than to engage in a one-on-one discussion that would require him to use his own thoughts and research. If you have not noticed most if not all of his responses have links to other peoples commmentaries. I’m not against using commentaries, but to use them( when they are not your own) everytime you respond is ridiculous.

I don’t think Rodger remembers me from Lesley Arkansas a few years ago, as we were the only two Canadians in the conference and I was with Tentmaker Ministry at the time. That conference spawned a few great ministries one being very organized, christian-universalism.com/. Though I hope we don’t forget our humility we all had in that conference and think we are any better now years later.

In any case, it sadly appears Rodger is spamming this forum simply because we believe in the Trinity, taking his problem with conditionalist Christianity and directing it towards the wrong group. (Except maybe yourself, maybe you are the Trinitarian with the problem Aaron37, lol) :laughing:

Craig.

If being saved , sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost is a problem…it’s a wonderful problem to have, lol…

Aaron37, have you learned not to just post articles and refer people to those for your position as well? Look through new eyes my brother.

Ran was actually the one who brought up things that way, Craig; not Rodger.

Be fair. Rodger is replying to a thread started as a counter-trinitarian challenge by another poster. (Who by the way was asked to leave for being impolite about what he was doing. Incidentally, Ran was banned for a week for his own impoliteness in this thread recently. Rodger is being far more polite so far in this thread, not counting aggravations from RanRan.)

We (among the admins) don’t have problems with such threads in principle; not least because some of the people who created this site, and some of the guest authors they invited for this site (most notably myself in this case), believe and argue that trinitarianism is not only the truth but a truth important for universalism, too. We allow modalist universalists to post in favor of modalism, per se, so far as they can see to do so, for the same reason.

But we also engage in positive apologetics for trinitarian theism on this site, not only for universalism (of various kinds), as well as opening up discussion for pros and cons on various ortho-trin positions. Our site policy is to allow other members to do the same thing for positions other than ortho-trin, or for agnosticism on the topic (if they prefer). And one of several reasons for that, is because there are in fact trinitarians who do not in fact always correctly know (or understand, even if they know) the reasons for why non-trinitarians are not trinitarians.

Heck, if it comes to that, not all trinitarians are always theologically consistent in keeping to the precepts of that doctrinal set, even when as scholars they might be expected to do so–which isn’t surprising, considering its complexity and number of details. But ortho-trin teachers are usually well aware that especially at the popular level very few people who claim to believe ortho-trin really do know the details, or believe what the doctrinal set involves, or even know much about the rationales for the doctrinal set (other than what amounts, implicitly or explicitly, to “my teacher told me it’s true”.)

So actually yes, it’s fine for someone to post comments and create threads, trying to present non-trinitarianism on this forum, and trying to clear up “misunderstandings” on the topic. Thus sayeth the site owners, the guest authors (like me), the admins (including me) and the mods (ditto). :wink:

Indeed! :slight_smile:

I’d actually like to see a critique of the paper Rodger posted a link to. I’ve read it, and I think it’s actually a very good description of many of the biblical issues. It is argued that neither Trinitarianism or Unitarianism is biblically correct, which I think is an interesting position.

Craig,
:laughing:

Mel,

I emailed myself a reminder, which I hope will sit around bugging me in RED MARK until I get around to it. :mrgreen:

willieH: Hi Jason… :smiley:

This post below was made by YOU, on January 10, 2009… and here it is August 7th 2010, almost a YEAR and SEVEN MONTHS LATER… and you have YET to address the Scriptures in the OP of this TOPIC. “Trinity”… is there such an entity?

In this post below (no offense), …you make excuses instead of answer the OP, …and in making those excuses, have the audacity to ASSIGN “HOMEWORK” to me! …Recommending I read a long drawn out distraction that you have composed in the mean time? …please bro! :unamused: I may be a tad uneducated, but I am no NIM-NOD! :laughing:

Come on brother… get with it… that is, if you are able to do so… If not… I can understand, …which is why I do not believe in the “trinity”…

Btw… we are fast approaching the SECOND ANNIVERSARY of this topic and these “replies” of yours are still ABSENT… :astonished:

Is THAT MUCH STALLING… really necessary bro JP? :question:

This YEAR and a HALF long procrastination, only displays that your “trinitarian” belief is either pretty weak concerning actual SCRIPTURAL basis, or maybe as I have suggested, has no real Scriptural basis at all.

Knowing you and your (often intellectually distracted) responses (which beat around the bush, and rarely ever come to the point), …just find this TOPIC to be too difficult to be answered SIMPLY …because the belief in the “trinity” itself is a teaching, clouded amidst CONFUSION…

So here we are, …a YEAR and a HALF later, …and you are still found AVOIDING this TOPIC and its OP and the Scriptures listed, for the truth is that you really do not have a viable response to them… :cry:

…willieH :wink:

Oh My… :blush: :blush:

Seems Jason has written a great deal about this topic over this span!!!
Though it is true he has not placed it here in this particular thread.

This is a big site willieH; cast your nets a bit wider here!

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Jason has NOT responded to the OP in THIS THREAD… or the Scriptures LISTED in it… as HE SAID, that He WOULD:

Those are His words, which he has not followed up… I should not have to search this ENTIRE (to use your words “BIG”) SITE to get his response to the OP of THIS THREAD, …that MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) be somewhere within it! :unamused:

If he truly has a response to these Scriptures, it is a simple matter to do so (as HE, in his own words said he would) IN THIS THREAD. :bulb:

…willieH :confused:

I’m not aware that Jason is on any kind of retainer from this site that compells him to contribute. Threads come and go - some fall by the wayside - that is no indication of a lack of an argument, especially if the topic gets covered by that person somewhere else.

***** Jeff edits out his own inappropriate response **************
Stop ******** **** ****** around like some testosterone fuelled teenager!


If Jesus hadn’t been resurrected he’d have spent the last 2 millenia spinning in his grave :unamused:

willieH: Hi JeffA… :wink:

Please don’t expect me to go looking for his (or your) replies which are made in another thread, concerning THIS topic. HE said he would answer HERE, and if he does not, then he has failed to follow through with his own words…

As I said, to this point no one (including you) IN THIS THREAD has addressed the Scriptures in the OP… instead, just made excuses for not doing so…

Waggling my tonker? :laughing: How does one “waggle a tonker”? …and if you would be do kind Jeff, please define tonker, that I might know what exactly you propose that I am “waggling”! :smiley:

Is this intended to upset me in some way? :confused:

I am sure Jason is well able to speak for himself… so relax a taste, bro… :wink:

All I have done is request that Jason follow through with his own promised address of the OP… which he HAS NOT DONE in over 1.5 years!

Oh, and by the way, I noticed that YOU have also failed to do as well!

Why not address the topic, and give your slant/answers — for those Scriptures, Jeff? Instead of getting yourself all up into a wrinkle over nothing.

…willieH :sunglasses:

  1. What obligation ‘binds’ me to address this issue at all? I’m an atheist - why would I care one way or the other how many persons make up God? He can be sextuplets for all I care!

  2. Why on earth should I want to ‘upset’ you? - I merely responded to what struck me as unwarrented taunting and goading of Jason for not having returned to this thread - it’s not compulsory.

That said… I withdraw the genital reference as it is unbecoming for these boards and sincerely apologise for it.

So as to contribute something on topic (the title doesn’t mention God or the Bible specifically) then yes there is an entity ‘trinity’ - in Cajun cooking celery, garlic and onion form a trinity of ingredients which form the heart of many recipes (often referred to as ‘holy’).

How’s that :wink:

My thoughts on the above are perhaps best expressed in the words of the immortal Homer (Simpson):

“Mmm…sacrilicious.”

youtube.com/watch?v=UUnH9NECSUU

:mrgreen:

:smiley:

Whatever Jeff… :unamused:

If you are really an ATHIEST (I was once one), then why are you wasting your time with us “delusionals”? :question:

If I am not mistaken you note yourself as an “AGNOSTIC UNIVERSALIST”… which is

(1) an oxy moron, for a UNIVERSALIST believes in the Salvation of ALL, not… just in case there IS a GOD (agnostic)
(2) If you are an ATHIEST then you are NOT an AGNOSTIC… an ATHIEST firmly believes there IS NO such thing as GOD.

Athiests base their “BELIEF” (which is kinda ironic :laughing: ) …upon the premise that the existence of GOD cannot be PROVEN, and falsely conclude from this false foundation, that He does not exist… :unamused:

As an ATHIEST, …I challenge you to PROVE that he does not exist. :bulb:

And while you are at it… show us how DNA and PROTEIN which are the basic foundation of all life… “EVOLVED”, …when ONE cannot even EXIST without the other. :bulb:

Thanks. :wink:

…willieH :sunglasses:

hmmm… If a discussion topic is proposed, then those which actually enter it, should address it… If you could not, or did not wish to address it, why are you wasting time with it?

And your irreverance to GOD (“He can be sextuplets for all I care”), is offensive… so, along with your apology below, which was good, all you have done is continue in your disrespect.

(1) No one said it is that response is COMPULSORY… all that I have done is state FACTS… Jason IN HIS OWN WORDS, said he would reply and address the Scriptures noted in the OP, and he HAS NOT for 1.5 years. No one is THAT busy.

(2) “GOADING” comments below… :laughing:

Thanks for your “withdrawal” (not that you truly can “take back” words, if you are honest, which I have no reason to doubt, you meant what you said.)… However, it is decent of you to apologize, and I commend you for it as well as accept it… for in the end, you were actually “GOADING” me for (what you considered as) “GOADING” Jason, eh? :laughing:

As far as Jason is concerned, …don’tcha think he can handle his own affairs? He appears quite intelligent to me, so I am fairly certain that intelligence is not his problem, …what IS his problem, is that he can either ADDRESS the topic, or he CANNOT… to date, only one appears so far… 1.5 years of FAILURE to address this TOPIC. :bulb:

…willieH :wink: