Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christianity is a falling religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Work on your English more and say what you mean
    I said exactly what I mean. What exactly did you misconstrue?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      You are still confusing two fundamentally different approaches. I am making no claims whatsoever about the truth of a given view or perspective or dogma; nor am I putting faith in any authority here or trying to get you to accept any authority; I just want you to represent the doctrine correctly, regardless of your view of its truth value. That is a necessary foundation for dialogue.

      the elements traditional Christianity defines as the Trinity are common to four other religions at least; Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrian, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and defined the doctrine differently. It is unreasonable and arrogant for you demand that they all represent your view of the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity correctly.

      If you have not ignored the text of Thomas, then we can speak first about the text of Thomas. It seems you agree above that your interpretation of the Christian Trinity clearly goes beyond the obvious limits of his text. Thus, you should be able to agree that, based on this text, Thomas and his understanding of Christianity is absolutely monotheistic. It would not be possible to say of his view that 3 Persons = 3 gods. Agreed?
      I would not ever say Thomas's version of the doctrine of the Trinity was anything other than what Thomas describes it. I just consider his view an antiquated view of the nature of God in line with the Christianity of his time. I define the Trinity differently

      Again . . . Of course, it is beyond the obvious limits of the text, because I rely on a more universal view of more sources than just your limited sources of texts.

      I have plenty of reason not to accept one authority that you hold your faith in, because I appeal to many more sources from a more universal perspective. I am not trying to justify one religious perspective as you are with your reference to Thomas Aquinas. I appeal to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Vedic, Taoist, Baha'i and others to form the universal foundation of my worldview. ...

      I did not ignore the texts at all,, including Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe the ancient world view of the church fathers represent the reality of the universal nature of God. They represent the view of God and the Divine in the time they were written, including many church fathers believing in an ancient view of a literal Genesis.

      I actually affirm first the even more ancient Hebrew scripture and scholars of the evolved view of pure monotheism, but I do not assert them as being totally the absolute authority. I also believe in the Jewish traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit, which I cited in reference. I do not assert these as absolute dogmatic definitions as you attempt to unfortunately do citing selective sources, but as a foundation of why I believe as I do, and this is an excellent foundation of belief.

      Your claim to be relying on a more universal view of more sources is an at least implicit attempt to justify the universal foundation of your worldview and the universal nature of God in contrast to a more particular view. I've pretty much given up on engaging you at this level long ago because of your penchant for religious polemics. If you want to create the necessary conditions for dialogue, you must first represent the views of others fairly.[/QUOTE]
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        the elements traditional Christianity defines as the Trinity are common to four other religions at least; Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrian, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and defined the doctrine differently. It is unreasonable and arrogant for you demand that they all represent your view of the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity correctly.
        Why? I am not asking that they agree with Christiany; I'm just asking that they not misrepresent Christian beliefs. I would like to think that every honest and sincere religious person would want to be truthful about the beliefs of others. What good is there in misrepresenting the beliefs of others?

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I would not ever say Thomas's version of the doctrine of the Trinity was anything other than what Thomas describes it. I just consider his view an antiquated view of the nature of God in line with the Christianity of his time.
        Good. So you agree that Thomas' explanation of the Trinity was thoroughly monotheistic? That it is untrue to claim that for Thomas, 3 persons = 3 gods?

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I define the Trinity differently
        But, of course, I am not asking for your definition of the Trinity. I am merely asking you not to misrepresent the definition of the Trinity by Christians, specifically by Thomas in this case.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Again . . . Of course, it is beyond the obvious limits of the text, because I rely on a more universal view of more sources than just your limited sources of texts.
        We have to start somewhere.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I have plenty of reason not to accept one authority that you hold your faith in, because I appeal to many more sources from a more universal perspective.
        You do realize that I have never once asked you to accept any authority in this discussion, right? I have merely been asking you to not misrepresent the views of others.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I am not trying to justify one religious perspective as you are with your reference to Thomas Aquinas.
        No. Once again, I am not trying to justify the perspective of Thomas or anyone else. I am merely asking that you not to misrepresent their views.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I appeal to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Vedic, Taoist, Baha'i and others to form the universal foundation of my worldview. ...
        Good for you, especially if you do so accurately.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I did not ignore the texts at all,, including Thomas Aquinas.
        Good. Then you should be able to answer my questions.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I do not believe the ancient world view of the church fathers represent the reality of the universal nature of God. They represent the view of God and the Divine in the time they were written, including many church fathers believing in an ancient view of a literal Genesis.
        I know, but this is irrelevant to what I am asking you.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I actually affirm first the even more ancient Hebrew scripture and scholars of the evolved view of pure monotheism, but I do not assert them as being totally the absolute authority. I also believe in the Jewish traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit, which I cited in reference. I do not assert these as absolute dogmatic definitions as you attempt to unfortunately do citing selective sources, but as a foundation of why I believe as I do, and this is an excellent foundation of belief.
        No, there is no disagreement in our views about this. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my position here when you claim that I am asserting anything as absolute dogmatic definitions in citing selective sources.
        Last edited by robrecht; 12-25-2015, 06:27 PM.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          I said exactly what I mean. What exactly did you misconstrue?
          "I do not ignore kataphatic theology, but I do say that kataphatic theology can only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God, ie, what has traditionally been referred to as divine simplicity. In this, I follow the fundamental theological method of Thomas Aquinas."
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            But, of course, I am not asking for your definition of the Trinity. I am merely asking you not to misrepresent the definition of the Trinity by Christians, specifically by Thomas in this case.
            I have never misrepresented nor shown disrespect to definition of the Trinity by Christians. I have presented my own definition which is a valid approach to the disagreement.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I have never misrepresented nor shown disrespect to definition of the Trinity by Christians. I have presented my own definition which is a valid approach to the disagreement.
              But no one has asked you for your definition. Here again is the question you have ignored: So you agree that Thomas' explanation of the Trinity was thoroughly monotheistic? That it is untrue to claim that for Thomas, 3 persons = 3 gods?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                "I do not ignore kataphatic theology, but I do say that kataphatic theology can only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God, ie, what has traditionally been referred to as divine simplicity. In this, I follow the fundamental theological method of Thomas Aquinas."
                And why do you think that the text that you bolded means that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation for belief in the Trinity??? It merely says that kataphatic theology should only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God. This does not say that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation for belief in the Trinity.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  But no one has asked you for your definition.
                  I do not need to ask for permission to have my own definition and understanding of the Trinity. It is not in reality my own, others also have this understanding. There is not copyright nor ownership of Christianity for the word Trinity. The same is case with Muslims which you seem to dismiss and not address.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    And why do you think that the text that you bolded means that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation for belief in the Trinity??? It merely says that kataphatic theology should only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God. This does not say that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation for belief in the Trinity.
                    Both statements have the same meaning.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I do not need to ask for permission to have my own definition and understanding of the Trinity. It is not in reality my own, others also have this understanding. There is not copyright nor ownership of Christianity for the word Trinity. The same is case with Muslims which you seem to dismiss and not address.
                      No one said you needed to ask permission. I was merely pointing out that you were once again avoiding the question that was actually asked. Here it is again if you need to avoid it yet again: So you agree that Thomas' explanation of the Trinity was thoroughly monotheistic? That it is untrue to claim that for Thomas, 3 persons = 3 gods?
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Both statements have the same meaning.
                        No, not at all the same. The first statement, yours, pertains specifically to the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I did not address this point. The second statement, mine, is a general statement about theological method, and says nothing at all about the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          No one said you needed to ask permission.
                          You did: "But no one has asked you for your definition."


                          I was merely pointing out that you were once again avoiding the question that was actually asked. Here it is again if you need to avoid it yet again: So you agree that Thomas' explanation of the Trinity was thoroughly monotheistic? That it is untrue to claim that for Thomas, 3 persons = 3 gods?
                          Meaningless question, already answered. Thomas is free to define the Trinity as he chooses, a traditional Christian definition, and I may define the Trinity based my view. Thomas' explanation represents an ancient world view that I do not believe Thomas' view represents a universal understanding of the nature of God and the Divine. In fact there are many things Thomas believed that I do not.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-26-2015, 05:34 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            You did: "But no one has asked you for your definition."
                            You're misinterpreting my intent. As I've already clarified for you, I was merely pointing out that your answer was not responsive to the question that I actually asked of you.

                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Meaningless question, already answered. Thomas is free to define the Trinity as he chooses, a traditional Christian definition, and I may define the Trinity based my view. Thomas' explanation represents an ancient world view that I do not believe Thomas' view represents a universal understanding of the nature of God and the Divine. In fact there are many things Thomas believed that I do not.
                            Again, while you are free to believe and say whatever you like, of course, you are not really answering the question that I asked of you. That's a shame.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment

                            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                            Working...
                            X