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.

Modern Christians

Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as Modalists however this section makes it clear that they are; contrary to the mane article on Modalists. Wile both are non Trinidadian Referring to Oneness Pentecostalism as "Modalists" or "Sabellians" or "Jesus Only" is only commonly done so derogatorily. Jasoninkid (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Supporting scriptures: no proof!

The section Supporting scriptures provides a lot of Bible references that allegedly non-trinitarians use to prove this and that. But we don't need those lists of Bible references per se, because none of them prove anything at all, they're just a list of Bible references. We instead need a sourced explanation from non-trinitarians that explain why they should preferrably be interpreted against trinitarism, otherwise we ignorants (and everybody else, who are not anti-trinitarians) will not understand a beep. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of those have references from Jehovah's Witnesses publications. I would add it. --Fazilfazil (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Forms of Christian nontrinitarianism

The para that concludes subsection 1.1 has the sentence, "Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in a co-equal Trinity.". I think that it is more correct to say, "Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity." (my emphasis). The former would lead one to conclude that only dissent from the "co-equal" part of the doctrine is heresy; this is not the case. For mainstream Christians, dissent from any part of the doctrine is formally heretical. The full doctrine is stated in the lead and it would be superfluous to restate it in subsection 1.1. So to cherry pick just one part of the doctrine as being the basis for the heresy in general is wrong. Certain groups, e.g. Arians, have particular problems with "co-equal". There is a section on Arianism; that's where that fine point ought to be made. As this is a general conclusion for 1.1, it ought not to rely on just one group; the point relates to the doctrine as a unit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert

moved from own Talk page by In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't explain your revert except to say "edit warring" which was not really a valid explanation of anything specific. Because if that's the case the other editor was "edit warring". And I did NOT violate 3RR, by the way, so your comment was actually inaccurate and bogus. Now if you disagreed with my edit, and that's why you reverted, then that's another matter, but you didn't state that, or go into anything. You didn't go into any detail. I said that this matter should be taken to article talk...and you didn't do that. And I said that I'd abide by consensus on the talk only. Once the particulars and the cases are actually clearly made (if it gets to that point). Your edit comment was inaccurate, non-explanatory, and singled only one person out... hence why you will be reverted tomorrow. (And if you yourself revert again, without going to article talk, or really explaining anything, regarding the actual merits itself, etc, then arguably YOU will be "edit-warring".) Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim. No, but I see you have discussed on Laurel Lodged's Talk page and I added a comment there to the effect that the other editor appears to be maintaining sourced material. In any event comment should be here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that you were moving it...I thought you were just blanking it because you didn't want to talk about it, for some reason. Ok... Anyway, this is not that major of a deal, but I feel it's wrong to revert or undo something simply because one "does not like it"...even though it's A) valid, b) accurate, C) good-faith, and D) more clear. Arius also believed in a "trinity", but of UN-equal members. So it's not just a "trinity doctrine" in general, but more specifically a CO-EQUAL Trinity that many believe if one does not believe, it is "heresy". So? Why is that a big problem, to simply make it that a bit more clear, and specific? I'll say it again. Arius believed in a "divine three" ALSO. He said as much, that he believed in a "trinity". But just of un-equal members, who were NOT "co-eternal"... I don't see what the big issue is in the context of that sentence. It's only more clear and more accurate. Many people don't even know that Arius held to a divine "trinity" too. But in a more unusual and "unequal" sense. It's whatever. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is there are plenty of RS (in the article itself) that it's a CO-EQUAL "trinity" that is at issue. "Co-equality" (as well as "co-eternity") are what are CENTRAL to the point, in all "RS". Not simply a "three" in general. Yes, we kinda know that the phrase "the Trinity" refers to the Nicean/Constantineapolitan Athanasian "co-equal co-eternal" trinity, but the point arguably should be made clear that it's not just a "divine three" that is at issue, but that they are thought to be "co-equal". And it's obvious that the RS is stating that point. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim,

Sorry, but to whom is the above section addressed?

In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim, a couple of pointers; (1) Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR and note that they are not the same thing. (2) Also, please see WP:ES although it is good to use the edit summary to summarise edits, the edit summary is not the place to conduct Talk, see WP:REVTALK, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Groups

Groups should not part 7. Are groups current ones only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) In the information about Christian Science why is Key not quoted, no wonder some the information on the page is so inaccurate, especially around the nontrinitarian=jews mistakes. "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" has sold millions and is used by all Christian Scientists. Why are Worldwide Church of God (Armstong followers) not on the list when even their Wikipedia article says that they believe in a family of Gods. Church of Christ do not use the Old Testement and are definitely not nontrinitarian=jews. As over half the groups list is fake why have it. Stop edit wars, Wikipedia is shit.

Pruning the group and people lists

I am shortly going to start removing groups for which there is no citation, and likewise for the people. I also think that anyone who isn't a religious leader shouldn't be listed here. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After hundreds of years of being suppressed

This is in danger of entering a war and so needs to go to the talk page. Reverters of the text to the current version have consistently referred to the Pope in justifying their reversion. This despite the fact that neither this nor the alternative version mentions the Pope. The current sentance has 4 citations. The first 2 cite Byzantine Emperors who suppressed nontrinitarianism in the Empire. The third cites the Calvinists of the City of Geneva. The fourth, while mentioning the Pope, makes it clear that it was a secular matter for the King of France: "Although the Crusade did not eliminate Catharism, it eventually enabled the French king to establish his authority over the south. All of these tend t support the alternate phrasing of "Civil authorities in Christendom suppressed nontrinitarians in their realms. Today, nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians.". I move that this phrasing be used instead. Additionally the current one is not neutral enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with stating that civil authorities crushed the religious faction would hide and mislead the reader to think that civil authorities were the reason that the nontrinitarians were destroyed. The same forces that would incite a purely secular government would today cause our own American secular government to weigh against a religious faction, like nontrinitarianism, which simply does not happen (unless the government is being controlled by a trinitarian religious group). The reality is that the trinitarian Roman Emperors worked in lockstep with their trinitarian politico/clergy counterparts in crushing nontrinitarian forces. To state that the crushing was simply secular would be a huge insult akin to stating that the Jewish holocaust was simply the effort of a few inhumane and deranged guards. The reality is, both the Jewish holocaust and the nontrinitarian holocaust were controlled by leaders who had a keen religious and political bent, with a common benefit in crushing opponents to trinitarianism. The article should not mislead one into thinking it was simply a secular force. This would be more appropriate: "Secular governments working under the direction of the trinitarian church succeeded in crushing nontrinitarian Christians, such that today nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians." Otherwise not mentioning secular is fine; 64.20.197.115 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)