Replies

First off, I didn’t ping you because I was responding to My hearts in London - Everett, not you. I didn’t mention you in the post, so there was no reason to ping you. Is there a problem w/ self importance here?

Second, I told you in advance that I didn’t want to have a discussion w/ you because of your historical demeanor. I was answering one set of questions.Your post verifies I was right in that conclusion. Often your group says it never goes after Mormons, but rather Mormonism. You post is exhibit A against that claim. You make references to the points made being “bleat”. You call Mormons (not Mormonism) liars, & in fact, deliberate liars. So much for that argument.

I don’t want to debate you because history shows you’re not a very civil debater. History also shows you present your guesses as fact. Neither leads to a good discussion. Sure, you bring others thoughts into the discussion from time to time, but it’s often only their opinions as well.

Short & long of it, I don’t claim that I’m right & all others wrong. Quite the opposite. I do have my opinions, but state them as such unless sharing facts. You on the other hand, seemingly in your mind, have no opinions, just facts. I choose not to deal w/ such persons.

I laid out my beliefs. I may be right, I may be wrong. I did the research & came up w/ what I did. A lot of noted theologians & bright minds came to the same conclusions as I did. What does that mean? Not a lot frankly other than I have company in my OPINION. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, didn’t believe in the Trinity either. They were pretty bright. Religion was a BIG deal in their day & was researched quite a bit. Again, does that necessarily mean anything? No, just that I’m in good company & that the issue isn’t as clear cut as many would believe.

You’ve expressed your best guesses. Cheers! Now please go & bully someone who really cares. You seem to be pretty smart but not very nice ( I hope I’m wrong), & I don’t hang w/ those kind of folks outside of the internet, let alone here.

I still pray for you my brother.

You post is exhibit A against that claim. You make references to the points made being “bleat”.

Look it up in a dictionary, many writers used it of their own writings including CS Lewis.

You call Mormons (not Mormonism) liars, & in fact, deliberate liars. So much for that argument.

As was pointed out in the specific citations i quoted, delphi deliberately lies. I know, my discussions with him were epic. when you misrepresent the definition of a doctrine even AFTER being corrected - it becomes a deliberate lie, and DU persisted in them. Now perhaps YOU can avoid that same pattern by citing ACCURATE definitions rather than distortions and deliberate misrepresentations. Something YOU should think about.

I do have my opinions, but state them as such unless sharing facts. You on the other hand, seemingly in your mind, have no opinions, just facts.

Since you did a cut and paste - your presentation was nothing less than an attempt to 'share facts'. Perhaps you should research and present your own information rather than rely upon a demonstrated falsehoods.

A lot of noted theologians & bright minds came to the same conclusions as I did.

DU is not a theologian

perhaps the next time out you should REALLY research you stuff

We have two or three Mormons on FR who lie with great applumb, being very practiced in the behavior. That Inmans call these Mormons out for their deceits does not translate to attacking ALL Mormons, well except in the mind of someone longing for victimhood to show themselves approved by LDS inc.

You're still a n00b until Nov 30, 2011 ... it takes a year to live that down. May I ask what name you used before signing on again in 2010? ... Your techniques seem very familiar.

Here's a little essay to expound upon the notion of Triune God. Of course, the understandings of modern Physics were not available to Joseph Smith when he was fabricating his new religion, so these perspectives might be 'awkward' for an LDS inc mindset:

The One God evidences Himself in the work He is doing
The following will be 'a way' to understand the notion of the trinitarian nature of the Deity, not a strictly Biblical explanation, but one which is applicable to the teaching of the Bible. Here goes:
God The Father Almighty is greater than His creation, thus greater than dimension time and dimension space, thus we may think of The Father Almighty as beyond time and space but not prevented from touching and indeed penetrating His creation.
The universe of space and time is likened to a bubble: what is inside the bubble is in time and space. But the nature of what is inside the bubble is only partially understood in modern Physics.
The Bible relates scenes which defy our simplistic notions, but let us make the statement that God The Father Almighty is as comfortable outside the bubble of our spacetime as He is inside the bubble.
Modern Physics has discovered that the balance of forces and tensions sustaining the universe necessary for human life to arise within the universe is extremely delicate, on the order of a mathematical improbability, represented as a 'one in less than' fraction so tiny that a one over a one followed by more than one-hundred zeros [1/1x10¹⁰⁰] defines the probability that the whole thing remains in balance! Such a delicate balancing act is but one of the continuing 'works' of the Holy Spirit of God. It is by the Spirit of God, The Word, that the universe came into existence and it is said in the Bible that by His Spirit the whole is maintained.
But the Bible also states that The Word was with God in the beginning and was God. In John's gospel we find that Jesus is The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. So, inside the bubble Created by The Father Almighty, sustained by God The Holy Spirit, is the Word, God made flesh Who dwelt among us. The Creator does not stop being greater than His creation bubble, nor does His Spirit cease to sustain it all in balance, when Jesus comes in the flesh to dwell among us.
When one reads the Tanakh/Old Testament, one finds scenes like the fifth chapter of Daniel where a being is in one spacetime 'where/when' reaching into another 'where/when' to write on the palace party central wall of king Belshazzar. Just the forearm/hand is seen in the where/when of Belshazzar and the party folks, the rest of the being remains in 'another' where/when.
God The Father Almighty created this 'other' where/when, His Holy Spirit maintains its balance and separateness from our where/when, and Jesus has moved in and out of this other where/when: as shown when He resurrected from the tomb without rolling away the stone, just passing out of the tomb where/when, into 'another' where/when; then back into our where/when as He spoke to the women come to the sepulchre; and when He appeared in a locked and shuttered room with the disciples present; or appeared suddenly with the disciples walking on a road and broke bread with them then left our where/when to go to the 'other' where/when.
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by the 'work' He is doing/'action' He is taking.
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.

I have a little more time and will focus on one gross distortion from your cited 'source'

If the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost are one person, why even have three named? Why not just God? Period.

this is a classical misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity - but a very common one made by mormons on FR as well as other areas.

If this is the extent of your research confab - then I suggest that you hit the books again.

The doctrine states that within the Trinity there are three “persons” who are neither three Gods nor three parts of God, but coequally and coeternally God.

Here is a more detailed definition given by Berkhof:

A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).
B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished.

Now confab if you are honest, you will recognize that the definition you used or cut/pasted is not the same as what I used. DU has no excuse in perpetuating the error once corrected. However to continue to present a grossly distorted and incorrect definition of the Trinity as THE definition of the Trinity is lying and dishonest.

mormons love to catch Christians in error on mormon doctrine - thus I have spent a considerable amount of time in their documents so that I can properly define their terms and doctrines.

You want to cast aspersions on the doctrine of the Trinity - then you better study and learn to present it as it is defined by Trinitarians - regardless of whether you believe it or not - and then construct your argument accordingly.

copy and past of reputed 'apologists' who have demonstrated their repeated lack of integrity not in presenting material as it is, but in a purposefully incorrect manner (strawman) that they can pull down.

I trust you will do a better job of researching your points in the before you present tripe by DU and reno as 'facts'.