Talk:Nontrinitarianism

This article was nominated for deletion on 05/12/05. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Irrationality

Jeffro77, please see my edit summary above concerning "completely". I will also clarify myself here: "Share" and "share completely" are not logically identical. 'Sharing' implies distribution, but not necessarily equal distribution. I do not think the clause "the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence" is significantly less 'awkward' than "the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine essence"; so I would put the concept back in. But perhaps the best thing would be to simply leave it at "...irrationality." Would this work:

"Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is [...] a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind."[7] Nontrinitarians counter that this "mystery" is actually an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence (Gk. ousia), and yet not to partake of each other's identity." ? -- JALatimer 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The word order, "to share completely a", seems like an awkward way of avoiding a split infinitive. Aside from that, the presumed irrationality is already clear in that something can "share a single [thing]" at all and yet not "partake of each other's identity", so completely becomes redundant. I'm not sure I agree with striking it out the phrase altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'm just too tired and lazy to think about this right now. That's probably more than half of why I cravenly advocated cutting out the whole clause. I'll just let you deal with it. -- JALatimer 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's what I'm thinking, just leaving these clauses out unless what they convey is so crucial to understanding an idea, that its worth the time it would take to make a brief critical treatment/explanation/background regarding the contentious label taking the effort to use 3rd party notables, etc. I think that's along the same lines as what you're saying?? Again, thanks for your efforts and time on this. Retran (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The section Irrationality must have an external secondary source analysing the concept of Aristotle exactly the way presented in the aforementioned section, otherwise it is private thought (WP:SYNTH) in an encyclopedia.

The argument used is besides flawed, because it tries to analyse a clause which is an approximation of an alleged perceived spiritual knowledge. (Elsewhere a private editor have noted that 1 = 1·1·1, which is another clause). So the argument attacks one perceivedly defect formulation not the concept in itself.

I'm going to mark it as undue, some way. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal of the word TRINITY and other vandalism

24.78.167.139 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Trinity" removal

• The title of the article is non-TRINITARIAN and there should be no effort to simply remove the word TRINITY
  with some duality formulation simply to tone down the anti-trinity theme.

Apologetics is the article

• I would say the current tactic of using the excuse "removed apologetics" appears to me to be a vandalism tactic.
  The whole article is about a belief and therefore apologetics apply.
  

no, it wasn't a vandalism tactic. check my edit record. they were edits made in good faith which resulted in an edit war, which I did not participate in the least. Nobody owns this article. I'm wondering who is writing his anonymous accusation? Stating "apologetics apply", and "apologetics is the article" is simply not true. This is a collection of information about nontrinitarianism. It's not an a placeholder for apologetic claims different nontrinitarian groups might publish/promote/etc. When notable, relevant, and not placing undue weight material from a primary source might be the only way to convey a certain point... but per WP guidelines, editors are to avoid primary sources. -- Retran (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments read like some irrational rant given that you ignore the fact that this "collection of information about nontrinitarianism" is supported by famous people and religious organizations that believe it. You are dead wrong that it is only information anyway, this is like religion, something that people believe, and the idea that it is mearly information shows you have no business editing here because you evidence that you don't understand the whole point of the article, to represent a real belief, "Nontrinitarianism." There is no article without references because the encyclopedia does not allow articles on an opinion, and you think people are so stupid as to let you remove the references so you can then say there is no point in the article. It is a laughable joke that you have edited and been allowed to edit here at all; You are another subversive trinitarian trying to undermine this article, that's all. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"I've found it interesting to remove POV entrenchment from an article," - I pulled this from your profile and I hope this is not the BS excuse for your edits here. The idea that this article is a POV under the Wikipedia policy is insane because this article doesn't represent one persons POV is represents an belief system of many individuals and organizations. It is your view that this article and its references are not notable that is the POV. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while you mention "anonymous," as if you personally are really the anime character "Retran." 24.78.167.139 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegation by User:208.87.197.82

I print this a proof that this editor has been subtly undermining this article for a long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=373942348&oldid=373941645
Saying that Jehovah's witnesses have "NO TRACTS" is a BOLD FACED LIE!!
They have a multiude of tracts on a large variety of topics.

• "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,..."
  

I see this users edits as an attack on this article!
I see this users edits as an attack on this article!!
I see this users edits as an attack on this article!!! 208.87.197.82 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez, you said you had retired from Wikipedia, but now you're just editing 'anonymously'. But aside from that, I did not say JWs have "NO TRACTS". I corrected a spelling error from Track to Tract and said JWs do not have TRACKS. You may now apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My Editing

After getting fed up with how poorly this article was written (the 2nd worst I've ever seen!) I had to fix it to the best of my ability. In so doing, I've tried my best to remain unbiased (I am Catholic, not Non-Trinitarian). Here is a list of my bigger fixes:

Fix 1:

Under "Forms" I moved a rather lengthy discussion about Constantine and persecution to the "History" section. I did this because Constantine and persecution is irrelevant to the various sects/forms of Non-Trinitarianism.

Fix 2:

I renamed the section once-named "Origins" to "History" to broaden it. Now you can add information about the entire history of Non-Trinitarianism, instead of just its beginning!

Fix 3:

There was a misrepresentation of the Athanasian Creed which I fixed. The wikipedia article said that the Athanasian Creed taught that the Father and Son are "co-equal", in contradiction with John 14:28 "For the Father is greater than I". This misrepresents the Athanasian Creed because the Creed also says "Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood". So there is no contradiction here, just a misrepresentation.

Fix 4:

I renamed the section once-named "Jesus as Almighty God" to "Jesus as true God", to avoid the weird-wordedness of the first sentence. I also moved a large section of information from "History" to "Jesus as true God", because the information wasn't about origins or history, but rather about Bible quotes apparently against the Trinity.

Fix 5:

I removed an invalid citation in "Supporting Scripture" which didn't verify the sentence. I replaced it with a citation needed tag. The sentence itself was non-confrontational, and basically said Non-Trinitarians don't believe the Trinity is biblical. Of course this is what they believe, nobody can doubt that, but the source was invalid.

Fix 6:

I shortened a rather lengthy discussion about the LDS Godhead concept, keeping an explanation of their beliefs, and keeping a D&C and BoM quote to verify it. I also added a 'see also: Godhead (Latter Day Saints)' tag so people could learn more about their Godhead, if they want to.

Fix 7:

Under "Claimed Pagan Origins" it talked about John 20:28-29 and the Comma Johanneum. I moved the discussion about the former to the "Views on Allegedly Trinitarian Passages in Scripture" section, and deleted the latter. I deleted the latter because everybody who is anybody knows the Comma Johanneum is absolutely irrelevant, so why even bring it up?

Fix 8:

I significantly shortened "Hellenic influences", while trying to keep its most important points. I also re-arranged the points so that they made more sense.Glorthac (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Things I think we should consider changing

Under "Forms" the article says Mormonism is not Non-Trinitarian, but rather is Non-traditional Trinitarianism. If they're Trinitarian, why are they on this article? Listen, this is a matter of definition. If we're going to play with definition, we could say the Modalists are Trinitarian. After all, there are 3 modes in 1 God. It is obvious that Mormonism is Non-Trinitarian in the standard sense of the term. So I suggest we change the article to fit with the truth.

Under "History" there is a H.G. Wells quote I think isn't important. I suggest someone remove it.

Under "Scriptural Support" there is a reference to Michael Servetus being burned at the stake. I suggest this is moved to the "History" section. How it would fit in there, I don't know. Perhaps add a little section in "History" about Medieval and Renaissance Non-Trinitarianism.

I suggest we merge "Alternate Views" with "People" and "Groups", to shorten the length of the entire article.

Under "History" it is really lacking in information, especially Medieval Non-Trinitarianism. Someone needs to add information to it.

I suggest we merge "Supporting Scripture" with "Points of Dissent" somehow, to shorten the article. Like merge Points of Dissent's "Holy Spirit" with Supporting Scripture's "Holy Spirit".

I suggest we completely remove "Controversy over Status", it doesn't even seem to have a coherent point. Why keep it, ya know?Glorthac (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Propose to change the article name to "Non-Trinitarianism". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this back to the original name, as it appears you have not waited for any actual discussion. The discussion about Category:Non-Chalcedonianism (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1#Category:Non Chalcedonianism) does not directly apply to this article. For a start, it related to changing from the words separate by a space (which is entirely non-standard) to separating with a hyphen. Additionally, as has been stated previously, Non-trinitarianism is not automatically and directly comparable with Non-Chalcedonianism as one relates to a doctrine whereas the other relates to a Church Council. I am not entirely opposed to changing the name to 'Non-Trinitarianism', however consensus among editors is required before it is changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Nontrinitarianism → Non-Trinitarianism — Per the decision on Category:Non-Chalcedonianism which was to substitute a hyphen for a space. By this logic a hyphen should substitute for a non space. Only extreme hair splitting could claim that the one does not follow the other. Similarly, it is usual to capitalise the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore Trinitarianism is also capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a space instead of a hypen at the Category was entirely wrong, rather than a valid alternative presenation as is the case here. Changing the space to a hyphen in the Category name does not automatically mean that "a hyphen should substitute for a non space".

When a term that is ordinarily capitalised is prefixed with "non-", it is proper to retain the capital on the original term ("non-Trinitarian") but the prefix itself should not be capitalised unless at the beginning of a sentence (or an article title). However, when a term that is ordinarily capitalised is prefixed with "non", no part of the term is capitalised ("nontrinitarian").

"Non" is more common in US English and "non-" is more common in British English. In an article that is not centric to a particular country, Wikipedia usage can be either, so long as it is consistent within an article. Usage in quoted sources should never be altered to match a particular style.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)