When those perspectives are held up as standards for the veracity of basic Christian beliefs, yes.
Ummm, did he say he was representing "basic Christian beliefs? And I think you mean mainstream orthodox Christian beliefs at that. Otherwise, the point being is that without those mainstream qualifiers, the text is clear that Jesus is NOT the same being as God.
If a concept is not understood, it cannot be adequately judged to be either agreeable or disagreeable.
And a person who's not a Trinitarian doesn't necessarily not understand the arguments and concepts of the Trinity idea. Even the early Trinitarians didn't quite seem to agree on what the understanding was.
No, I'm saying that Christians stand in a unique position to create meaningful theology out of the NT that carries any sort of authority.
Right, so in other words, they can go with whatever they want to read into it using their own interpretations that were at odds with other ideas.
No, I'm saying that a Christian doctrine can only be successfully argued from a Christian perspective. How can a fish argue successfully the merits of air?
Nothing close to the same. One can learn the Christian perspective without having to be a Christian and be able to critique it. Just as those who leave Christianity are still able to critique it.
Not cogent to the statement I just made. The theological framework of the text can't simply be dismissed.
But the "Theological Framework" is a purely subjective idea that is not exactly agreed on by all parties.
They are if they're applying an alien theological framework to it, and then calling it "wrong" for the original theological framework.
It wasn't an "Alien Theological framework" to the Arians, or to the JWs. It's only alien to Orthodox doctrine, and from there, you don't have to be one to know what they believe. As for Calling it wrong for Trinitarians, that's not the point, the point is saying that the Trinitarian perspective is objectively wrong for everyone who's not a Trinitarian. Obviously the Trinitarians are going to have their own interpretation, but there's most certainly a right to tell them that their perspective is wrong, using reasoning and grammatical exegesis. This becomes obvious when certain Trintiarians start denying facts and historical basics or outright making false claims to defend their claims. Eventually, one sides' argument must be wrong for the other to be right. It's not an "everybody's a winner" situation. A lot of people refuse to accept that they've lost a game and insist they've won even after the Judge says they lost, similar concept.
No I didn't. Here's another case of you twisting what I said. I believe I said that Arianism creates problems with biblical continuity. I never "wrote it off," nor did I say that it was "non biblical."
Nope, you said that it "Can't be reconciled biblically", that's not at all what you said originally, and I think "Can't be reconciled biblically" equates to "being non-biblical". You said nothing about problems with continuty, you said that it "can't be reconciled Biblically". It seems every time you accuse me of twisting what you say, you end up either flip flopping or restating with different wording with what you said originally. How convenient.
I disagree, again, if the views conclude that "our beliefs are wrong for us."
Then you seem to confuse "Wrong for you" with "Wrong in terms of objective reasoning". You might as well say it's wrong to tell Flat Earthers that it's wrong for them to believe the Earth is flat by this logic.
There's everything wrong with that!
Nuh uh.
These people are all Christians, and, as such, are entitled to their views of "what works for the Christian." So long as they don't condemn other Christians for holding different views.
Oh, you have a problem with Christians condemning other Christians for holding different views? Geeze, you would DEFINITELY not like the average Trintiarian Apologetic sites. So you're aware that Trinitarians have historically been condemning Arian-style believers even until the 1700s in England, right?
Not at all, although I am saying that no one can condemn other Christians. But that's entirely different from critiquing them.
What's the difference in your view between a critique and a condemnation of a view you hold as false? Have you not condemned many of my own views?
They would have that right, so long as they don't condemn.
I'm guessing you aren't too interested in spending the same energy telling Trinitarians not to condemn the JWs and Mormons? How do you stand on the historical abuse of those who disagree with Mainstream orthodox doctrines? Now why would you think they don't have a right to condemn? Do you not think YOU have a right to condemn views that you disagree with? Do I have permission to post quotes of you "condemning" perspectives you disagree with? Or what do you consider condemning exactly? Where is the line drawn between critiquing and condemning exactly?
By all means explain how its "usurpation" and "misrepresentation" to point out that the text itself does not read how Trintiarians say it does without the Trinitarian extra-scriptural qualifiers. Are they misrepresenting the Trintiarian view or your Trintiarian perspective of the text? Or are they simply misrepresenting the Text itself, through your Trinitarian lens?
No, you don't get it. Usurpation does not argue within the framework.
By all means, feel free to explain what you mean by this ambiguous statement then.
