I made him so mad he had to spin up a new alt
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (88)
sorted by:
God as three is polytheism. God having a human son AS God is polytheism. Any more false assertions?
Why do you say his position is "God as three" or "God having a human son as God" when those words are not in any Bible?
Why do you say "To discover the name and the source from which it comes is to understand" if a name and a source are two? It's possible for a name and a source to be one, but two concepts are seen just like you have two eyes but are one person. How could there be a monism without any distinction in it? As soon as you conceive of it, you conceive that it is not what it isn't, and that means it is revealed as plurality at the same time as it is revealed in another aspect as monism.
The history of the argument isn't contained in the bible except peripherally.
So why do you attempt to summarize his position without reference to his actual words? And what is the right way to talk about it? And
It doesn't 'belong' to Arius any more than any idea 'belongs' to anyone.
Skapegoating isn't a philosophical or theological point.
Unitarianism in one sentence: ^
No you fool, monotheism is the opposite of so-called Unitarian. But you digress.
You assume that gods or God HAVE to be one-person. There is no evidence of any kind for this. The Bible clearly teaches Trinitarian Monotheism. Trying to force your narrowminded, sad, cold assumptions borrowed from Islam isn't good. Remember, you are agreeing with nonbelievers by inplying God can only be one person. Humans are one person so they project their limited nature onto God!!
Trinitarian monotheism is a giant midget.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument.
Shame on you for having only arguments with no answers. You need it explained as if to a five year old, but that's for children in Sunday School. When I was a child, I spake as a child. Things change when the the divinity is sought and found.