Oakspear

Maybe I just don't get out much, but it seems to me that most people, trinitarian or not, Christian or not, believe in an afterlife of some sort, and a post-death consciousness. (I'm not advocating for or against, that just appears to be what folks believe). If I recall my early TWI days correctly, we sure seemed in the minority, believing that the dead were truly dead, with no consciousness or existance after death. That's pretty much what I was referring to, the "dead" being conscious in heaven and hell according to most people's beliefs. (Was that a Monte Python reference?) A valid point IMHO, but I guess the point (in this belief system) would be to end up not being tortured in hell As long as it's not on a pizza

Most folks who believe in the Trinity also believe that the dead have a conscious existance, so God dying would not present a problem for them. Just as an ordinary person experiences death and "crosses over", still alive and aware in some fashion, a dying God would also experience the physical side of death, but never really cease to exist, at least in the lifeafter death scenario. Bramble: I also know quite a few folks who have personal relationships with gods and goddesses (some who consider the goddess the creator), but some of the ones that I know are kind of scary, but most aren't

C.S. Lewis' "choice" is, as so many are in the religious realm, false dilemmas (or trilemmas as Bullinger says). The number of choices are limited, and set up in such a way that the "wrong" choices are cast as foolish, evil or just plain dumb.

Garth, I agree, the word "cult has become a loaded term, a pejorative; it was not always so, but today, when most people use the word "cult", they usually mean something negative, whether they come at it from theology or practice.

Rhino: I believe you are correct and "dhimmi" is the term used for people in Islamic lands who ar allowed to keep their own religion and a measure of self rule. "Dhimmitude" is the English version of ahl al-dhimma, the condition of being a dhimmi. As a dhimmi, there was no "full participation" in society; they were very much second-class citizens.

I do not like decrying I prefer delaughing

I see that my remark about the back of the bus has engendered a wave of take offs Do we really need forums where people are protected from inconvenient opposing views? And do we really think that "outsiders" can't contribute intelligently to a conversation?

Yeah, I'll just go sit in the back of the bus

Sunesis brought up the mocking aspect of TWI teaching. I concur. Even though I was convinced during my TWI sojourn that Jesus was not God, I was always very uncomfortable with the mocking attitude that many wayfers, including especially the top dogs, had toward Trinitarians. And the simplistic platitudes (that's redundant ain't it? ) like "There's one God, not three", "Jesus must have been talking to himself when he prayed" ad nauseum, betrayed a real lack of understanding about what Trinitarians actually believed. I would be embarrassed at some of my fellow wayfers who tried to witness to people and bring up the Trinity. :unsure: These days, even though I'm not a Christian, I have no problem understanding the concept of one God in three persons (the Latin was the persona, which actually communicates to me better than the English "person"). There the old Irish legend about St. Patrick explaining the Trinity using the illustration of the shamrock: three leaves on one plant; but the pagan Irish had no problem understanding such a concept and didn't need his explanation: many Irish gods & goddesses were manifest in three aspects, or forms, and modern paganism honors the goddess in her three aspects of maiden, mother & crone. Heck, Moorcock's "Eternal Champion" is a multi-aspect being!

The Arians were a huge "faction" up until the time of Charlemagne (c.800AD?); it is arguable that it was Charlemagne's support of the Roman heirarchy that put the nail in the Arian coffin.

Hey This is unique: a thread on the Trinity! ;) Most of you know by now that I'm not a bible believer. I believe that some of the bible was written as a genuine expression of the writer's desire to share their vision or interpretation of God, while other parts were tracts promoting their own particular theology as against others who they saw as heretics. So you've got different people not necessarily working in concert in putting this collection of books together. There are parts of the gospels and epistles that seem to say that Jesus is God, or at least as some attributes that are thought to be exclusively God's. There are a small handful where he is explicitly called God. There are a large number of places where Jesus is contrasted with God and it is pointed out that he is different from God. How did early theologians make it "fit"? If they believed that the bible was God's word, then it had to fit then, didn't it? The whole concept of the Trinity was an attempt to get the pieces to fit together. Did they cover all the inconsistancies and contradictions? Obviously not if people are still finding them. Likewise unitarian groups like TWI developed their theology as a way to make it "fit" also. Wierwille in particular focussed on the fact that the term "God the Son" is not used and zeroed in on the verses where Jesus' difference from God is discussed, deeming them the "clear verses" while the ones that seemed to call him God were "unclear" or forgeries. With that in mind, your questions: 1. What is your understanding of the Trinity? The Trinity is a doctrine whereby Jesus, while fully a man, is also an aspect of God. God's other aspects, or persons, are The Father and the Holy Spirit. 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? There are arguments that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be a Christian, just as one must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I find neither argument to be persuasive. 3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"? I think that neither side is perceiving the whole truth about Jesus. I don't think that there is "another Jesus", just different understandings and emphasis. 4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate? I don't have a copy these days, but if I remember correctly he misrepresents what Trinitarians actually believe, setting up a strawman. He also calls several groups of three pagan gods/goddesses trinities when they are not. He tries to make a case that pagan trinites prove that Christian trinitarian is false, but fails to make the same connction with several other Christian tenets, like the sacrificed god, the virgin birth etc. 5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out? I grew up Catholic and believed the Trinity, was in TWI and did not. Now I'm a pagan and don't think about it much

True, the word cult conjures different images in different minds, but that's what I'm asking: what images does it inspire? Obviously for some a cult is anyone who doesn't believe what the mainstream teach about Jesus. For others, a set of practices that are perceived to be harmful is the hallmark of a cult. Notice that I'm not asking in this thread whether TWI was or is a cult, but what determines cult status? I looked up "cult" on http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm and saw some interesting information. I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that we are talking about the negative uses of the word "cult". One of the things that this website does very well is present the various ways some labels are interpreted. This is a very good example of what they do. So when Geisha and Mr. Geisha talk about a non-Trinitarian group who is in no way controlling or harmful being a cult, they are right according to the definition that they have chosen to use; when a second poster says that they are wrong because the hypothetical group is benign in their actions and practices, the second poster is right according to his or her chosen definition. The problem I have with the Geisha family definition (apparently shared by at least some others ) is that it assigns a negative label to groups strictly on the basis of their theology. We have many people on this board who do not believe that Jesus is God, so they are apparently still cultists according to this definition.

With all due respect to those who disagree with me, I for one don't buy the "Satanic blindness" explanation. We were fooled, blinded if you will, because we didn't know enough about the bible to be able to discern truth from error in the words of our teacher. We were dazzled by the arrogance disguised as confidence, because we didn't know any better. Once hooked, it became harder and harder to get out. No Satan needed to explain what happened to us.

Well guy, I don't think I'll be debating you, since your mind is made up, but despite that, there is a debate and the point is arguable simply due to its being debated and argued. Mingle? I do that quite often. While I do not belong to a church, and am not a Christian, I avail myself of the company and conversation of many Christians. Get out and mingle man, a little ritual circle wouldn't hurt you. :ph34r:

Ah, but it's all debateable my friend :B) "The Church" defines a cult in such and such a way? I was unaware of unanimity among Christians, or anyone who could claim to speak for "The Church" (well, the Pope, but not many non-Catholics think he actually does ) I'm sure that some of our unitarian GSC brethren would be very surprised to find that they are still in a cult. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion, but what I find difficult to believe, and somewhat unsubstantiated, is that your opinion is what all Christians ("The Church") believe.

So any group that teaches a non-orthodox view of Jesus is a cult? Do you include Jews and Muslims in this category? Do you believe that harmful actions (i.e. sexual abuse, control trips, etc) follow necessarily from the non-orthodox view of Jesus? I've seen my share of groups who hold the mainstream, orthodox view of Jesus that are indistinguishable from TWI in their actions.

We had local cops participate in a critical mass event a few years ago. Our city has designated bike lanes in the downtown area and seem to be working very well. On one hand I'd like to see bicyclists safe from drivers who cut them off, bump them and run them down. On the other hand, if they're going to use the roads and share the lanes that cars do, they should be obeying the same traffic laws. Many times I'll see a bicyclist riding right down the center of a traffic lane, yet blow right through a red light. That's annoying

I seriously doubt that dmiller is talking about the same thing that you are WD; but then you knew that, didn't you?

Thank you Sunesis, your post makes sense to me. Even today, I see people of various faiths who like being persecuted, it defines them. I realize that this is different than seeking death, but it seems like it's just more so with death-seeking martyrs.

While I think that from a biblical perspective it makes more sense to view Jesus as God than not, I disagree that believing that Jesus isn't God is what makes a group a cult. In my opinion it is actions and practices that determine a cult, not their theology.

I seem to recall Martindale, and maybe Wierwille too, describing martyrs as people who had a death wish, possessed by spirits of death, etc. Are there church or historical records that indicate that the martyrs sought death, rather than just accepted it as an inevitable part of preaching an unpopular faith?

Did somebody call me? This thread has chugged along pretty quickly and I haven't read all the posts, so please forgive me ;) if I cover ground that has already been covered. My beliefs don't include the notion of a "sin nature", nor anything like a "fall". People are people and each of us has the ability to do great good and great evil, each of us has the potential to be wise or foolish. But I also believe that each of us is responsible for our own actions. Forgiveness? I believe that forgiveness has two sides. One is to allow the one being forgiven the opportunity to change and the other is to allow the forgiver the opportunity to heal. To allow the other the chance to change, I believe that I have to open myself to being hurt again, but to trust that the other will change in truth. In this aspect of forgiveness I don't dismiss or minimize the damage, but let the other know that I am willing to continue our relationship, yet expect that the action that prompted the need for forgiveness will not recur. When dealing with someone who does not want to change, I do not apply the aspect of forgiveness that opens me up for damage, but I may employ the face of forgiveness that allows my wound to heal, to allow the hurt to go away, to decide that the hurt was not important enough for me to continue to allow the would to fester. I decide that the other no longer has power over me. In the case of Wierwille, we not only have the man who not only apparently did not ask for forgiveness, but whose heirs continued his legacy. Many still hold him in esteem and trust his words and base their theology upon them. What else to do but tell the "other side of the story"?

I'm not someone who looks for angels, so maybe I've encountered them and didn't recognize them. The mental place that I'm in these days I'm thankful for when things work out, or synchronicity puts some helpful soul in front of me. I can't think of any incidents that cause me to say "There's no way that could have been natural, it must have been an angel!" - but there's plenty of incidents where people came out of nowhere to help me out...bless 'em. I used to travel a lot for my job with a regional newspaper, and usually was able to plan around the weather and miss the worst of it. One particular day I ignored my intuition and took off in the snow, which soon turned into a blizzard. Even driving slowly I lost track of where the road was and ended up in a ditch. This was before cell phones had become ubiquitous, so I was stuck about 5 miles from the nearest town and unsure where the nearest farmhouse was. Before I had taken five steps a big pickup truck roars up and out pop three big cornfed Nebraska farmboys. Without a word they hitch a tow line to my car and two of them get behind the car and push. Without waiting for thanks they jumped in their truck and took off. Were they angels? Dunno. :huh: I suppose if I was inclined to think in that direction I might say yeah, they were. But I don't think in that direction, so I don't give it much thought; whoever they were they got me out of the snow and I'm thankful for their help.

I disagree with this assessment

You think there'll be rules against "stow-ries"?