Currently, there are these "trinity" related tags:


It's not at all obvious why the first four aren't all the same.

(If they aren't meant to be the same, their descriptions should be updated to make it clear what the distinctions are.)

Meanwhile, the last tag, , is frequently used for a specific form of non-trinitarianism.
Trinitarianism is a belief that the godhead consists of 3 persons, and most usage of this tag is directed to those that believe that the godhead is only one person (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses).

This practice totally ignores those denominations that believe that the godhead is two distinct persons, and it leads to awkward questions (e.g. How do non-trinitarians interpret Philippians 2:5-8?).
It's questioning Jesus's membership in the godhead, but the use of the tag implies that those that reject the Holy Spirit as a member of the godhead must necessarily also reject Jesus as a member.

Many people might see nothing wrong with "If you don't accept the Trinity, how do you interpret Jesus's claim that he was God?". Nevertheless, that question is wrong.

Having a negative in a tag is generally not a good practice. (What would "non-African-American" mean? It would include Nelson Mandela, since he isn't American, but most people won't think of it that way.)

I'd suggest replacing all five tags with, say:

1 Answer 1


Well and are already duplicates, so that's not an issue.

And the tag exists. I made a synonym of it.

And there's no reason not to have a tag, so I went ahead and added it to the few relevant questions.

The does have potential to be misused, as all tags do, but I think it's a legitimate tag for when people want overviews of the non-trinitarian perspectives.

So that leaves the question of whether it is useful to have a distinct tag or not. Maybe it isn't. But I think it could be, as a sub-tag of , for the more technical questions about the personhood of the persons, or the relationships between them. For questions like these:

What do you all think, is there value in a sub-tag for questions like these?

If you think there is, then we can talk about improvements to the description, and then clean it up by removing the questions that don't fit the specific sub-use.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .