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 (84)
sorted by:
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.
I'm asking questions about what is true and you're not answering. Do you want people to repent and turn to the one true God? But how can he be one and true and God all at the same time, since those are three names or attributes? Of course diversity and unity have a perfect reconciliation. If you want people to repent, you don't make it hard for them by avoiding simple questions.
Unitarianism in one sentence: ^
No you fool, monotheism is the opposite of so-called Unitarian. But you digress.