On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 00:17:23 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"Hatunen" wrote
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:15:55 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:
"Hatunen" wrote in message
I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.

You'd be right if that's what I actually said. But I didn't.
HAND

Yes you did. You said "Christans believe in the Trinitarian view
of God (Father, Son, Spirit)". You didn't say "Some Christans
believe in the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit)

You removed the quote from the context. I said, "Christian believe this...
Catholics believe this...". The "this" being idientical to counter what
Lew/Ike stated (that they believed differently). Hump my cyber-leg some more
if you must. Be offended if it strokes your ego. I don't care. This is the
end of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

What you said was:

Christans believe in
the Tirnitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that is
contained in "Christian".

I leave it to our other readers to decide whether you have
included all Christians in the category of those who believe in
the Trinity, thereby excluding anyone who does not believe in the
Trinity from the category "Christian". The English seems plain
enough to me.

There is a mode of thinking that claims that one is not a
Christian unless one's personal credo agrees with the Apostle's
or nicene Creeds, which include the Trinity. I certainly wouldn't
go that far.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *