Search results

My apologies. I was just using an example in response to your question about using "him." Understanding the situation better, it seems to me to be less about you being hateful and more about you not forgiving. Have you even told the Pastor how strongly you oppose the points he makes? No one on...

What? According to you, that article died not apply to you since you are not mocking. :p

I’m not sure why you are invoking a doctrinal purity test as an obstacle to fellowship with living, breathing siblings in Christ. I am CERTAIN no church I ever went to had 100% doctrinal alignment. How did I respond to this reality? I forgave and loved them anyway. Make a Blessed Day!

How to interpret unitarian text from a unitarian perspective, given explicit unitarian verses, such as For us, there is one God the Father? In the verse you cite above, the most important fact is that it reinforces that Jesus is not God. The text proof is that it explicitly states God is...

No. I often use the genderless word "one." For instance, For those people who hate, it says more about the one doing the hating than those they hate. BTW, I often use the "his" and "man" as you do unless I am being critical generally of people. So, it is truly a doctrinal dispute. It sounds...

If it is not Ad Homenim, then stop all your playing, poking fun, LOL-ing, etc. :p It all just a form of mocking. The Mocking Spirit vs The Holy Spirit | Daily Manna (wordpress.com) The problem is non-trinitarians, like me, have the burden to change. You have no burden to stop mocking. You...

Whatever happened to ...?

Well, only if the assumption is true that the trinity is valid. Said differently, you are working under the assumption that evidence against your doctrine should be disregarded as being presumptive, i.e., another Appeal to Ignorance. It's kind of odd that verses that contain all 3 are used as...

Well, my point was about you guarding against the apparent man hating in this forum. I'd have to know more details about the person who is harming his flock. Feel free to PM me.

True enough. As my previous post mentioned ... in today's politically correct environment.

In today's politically correct environment, I wonder if feminazi's would accept constant bashing of women under the pretext of 'it’s easier to type than men and women?' And what does that say about commitment to equality? P-e-o-p-l-e. Just 3 more letters than men. Not a big price to show your...

Another outstanding analysis! I look forward to erudite responses from the peanut gallery.

Strawman. Jesus died. This is how we know he is not God for it means that Jesus is changing, not eternal. Jesus knows he is not God and talked about his God with good reason. Just today I was reading Rev 3. He talks about his God over and over and over again. Jesus' God is the only God.

This is not the doctrine of the trinity.

Pot calling kettle black. The biggest trinitarian strawman argument is that the trinity is in the Bible when it is not. The trinity is the false doctrine and it is clear from the reliance of vague Scripture to 'support' way beyond what the word of God actually says, demanding an interpretation...

I could but I won’t make my argument, your way.

Bot the word, not the doctrine. No verse has the doctrine of the trinity. Of course, you have to lower the standard of the concept in looking at Scripture to merely existing but then expand it to beyond what Scripture says on the matter, a condition of salvation and equality, while ignoring what...

I didn’t make an argument; just stated what I’m looking forward to. Regarding 2 separate individuals, a trinity is not made. :p Seriously though, you are going with ‘individual’ and forgoing the usual tedious ‘being’ persons?

Do you?

independent thought. For me, it started with a priest talking about the 1C. I realized the trinity violates the 1C. The more I read, the obvious it was how the trinity is a 4th century man-made construct having NOTHING to do with the word of God as evidenced by the trinity not being in the...