Byblos wrote:Fortigurn wrote:
You guys aren't really interested in reading anything which disagrees with you, are you? So even if I were allowed to debate the trinity here, it would be a complete waste of time. I have taken the time to answer every single one of your arguments (some of them several times - because they were asked more than once, because people didn't realise I had already answered them, becuase they didn't bother reading my posts), and in return I have received nothing.
I did read your posts and was not convinced of your interpretations.
Really? In that case, you could at least have given reasons why you weren't convinced.
By the way, I am interested in exactly why you disagreed with me on:
* The definition of the Hebrew word 'echad'
* The definition of the Hebrew word 'elohim'
* The interpretation of the Jewish pesach meal
* The textual issue of 1 John 5:7
You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you
really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.
If you really read my answers on these issues, I'll be very interested to see why you are prepared to disagree with established orthoodox scholarship. I suggest you don't go there.
No one said you were not allowed to present your opinions and your beliefs but I personally had a problem with the way you presented them as incontrovertable facts with no room for any other alternative interpretations.
Oh, as opposed to the way you guys have presented your argument? Five pages of quotes and arguments from someone else's website, posted with a 'Done and dusted' attitude? At least I'm prepared to discuss my arguments.
You are a cultist insomuch as your beliefs contradict mainstream christianity.
No, I am a non-mainstream sectarian. The word 'cultist' is merely polemic - it's a word falsely applied to non-trinitarian Christians in order to invoke in the minds of others an image of cults and cultism. It's called well poisoning.
People who use this term redefine the English word 'cult', and apply it to the people they disagree with because it makes uninformed observers think of Charles Manson and Jim Jones. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.
It would be like me redefining the term 'serial killer' as 'someone who believes in the trinity', and referring to trinitarians as 'serial killers' every time I spoke of them.
Fortunately I have found this tactic reserved almost entirely within the US.
If you consider yourself Christian that is certainly your prerogative but others may not see you as such given your differing views.
Thanks, but this is not news to me.
As for you burning in the flames of hell, I really do hope you meant that as a joke as I did not see anywhere anyone saying anything remotely resembling that, especially when you do not believe in hell to begin with.
It was tongue in cheek, but I have been informed confidently by more than one trinitarian that I'm going to burn in hell.
Regardless, if in any way I made you feel that way then please do accept my apology. We all have our ways of believing, ultimately it is up to God to sort it out.
No you didn't make me feel that way, but thanks for checking. All I ask is that you actually read my posts.