Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

No, not really. He may or may not be right but I think that post didn't come close to meeting the standards required to settle this issue.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not really. He may or may not be right but I think that post didn't come close to meeting the standards required to settle this issue.


"Canonically", it did.

Academically? That has been done for quite some time, now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Canonically", it did.

Academically? That has been done for quite some time, now.
Not really. This thread would not have been made if it had been settled for "quite some time".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. This thread would not have been made if it had been settled for "quite some time".

You mean you are not aware of the difficulty in changing the mind of billions of conservative Christians? (You definitely are as arguing with those types (whic you have done) is like arguing with a brick wall). Very simple proof of translational errors were presented even at the Council of Nicaea by the anti-trinity peeps, not the mention the works of many pre-KJV detractors, the gnostics that stuck around after the council of Nicaea, and the large number of people pissed off at the absurd declaration of the people that did not believe (correctly so) in the trinity being declared as heretics (probably pissed off a lot of people) and the sheer nature of the meeting being political (with the absence of real religious leaders from the catholic church) all points towards a problem from day 1. Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven.

I think you can get 67 angels on the head of a pin

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean you are not aware of the difficulty in changing the mind of billions of conservative Christians? (You definitely are as arguing with those types (whic you have done) is like arguing with a brick wall). Very simple proof of translational errors were presented even at the Council of Nicaea by the anti-trinity peeps, not the mention the works of many pre-KJV detractors, the gnostics that stuck around after the council of Nicaea, and the large number of people pissed off at the absurd declaration of the people that did not believe (correctly so) in the trinity being declared as heretics (probably pissed off a lot of people) and the sheer nature of the meeting being political (with the absence of real religious leaders from the catholic church) all points towards a problem from day 1. Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven.
It was "solely politically driven"? You don't think that the Nicaea advocates actually believed in the trinity? Proof please?

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was "solely politically driven"? You don't think that the Nicaea advocates actually believed in the trinity? Proof please?

No, the proof is on you:

Please provide proof of a church leader, outside of Constantine, that attended that meeting, with a contradictory advocacy.

You implicitly claim it was genuinely religiously motivated (on some level), and I claim it was politically motivated. I cannot prove that it wasn't politically motivated, like you want me to: I can only say that all those in attendance had political motivations.

If you want to contradict that, then, please, provide an example of a catholic church leader, in attendance, that attended solely based on religious beliefs and wanting to push the anti-trinity concept (because, that's where this conversation is going.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the proof is on you:

Please provide proof of a church leader, outside of Constantine, that attended that meeting, with a contradictory advocacy.

You implicitly claim it was genuinely religiously motivated (on some level), and I claim it was politically motivated. I cannot prove that it wasn't politically motivated, like you want me to: I can only say that all those in attendance had political motivations.

If you want to contradict that, then, please, provide an example of a catholic church leader, in attendance, that attended solely based on religious beliefs and wanting to push the anti-trinity concept (because, that's where this conversation is going.)
I'm not trying to prove that there weren't political motivations, but claiming that it was completely fabricated with nobody in attendance actually believing it seems to be jumping to conclusions. I'm just trying to get you to show evidence for what you've stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form. I think you would have a hard time proving that, but i'm giving you a chance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not trying to prove that there weren't political motivations, but claiming that it was completely fabricated with nobody in attendance actually believing it seems to be jumping to conclusions. I'm just trying to get you to show evidence for what you've stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form. I think you would have a hard time proving that, but i'm giving you a chance.

Who said no one was in attendance?

I didn't.

You didn't.

So what is your point about that?

And, that wasn't my point so I can't make it. I quite clearly said that there were others that presented anti-trinity points, so how can I:

"show evidence for what 've stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form."

Is it possible that 'solely politically driven" means something other than what you've concluded? (The answer is "yes", and I think you know what it actually means, there. What is your game?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said no one was in attendance?

I didn't.

You didn't.

So what is your point about that?

And, that wasn't my point so I can't make it. I quite clearly said that there were others that presented anti-trinity points, so how can I:

"show evidence for what 've stated, which is that it was solely politically motivated, with absolutely zero other factors coming into play in any way, shape, or form."

Is it possible that 'solely politically driven" means something other than what you've concluded? (The answer is "yes", and I think you know what it actually means, there. What is your game?)
I am not saying nobody presented ANTI-Trinity viewpoints. You gave evidence for that.

You were claiming that there was no religious motivation on the PRO-Trinity advocates. That they had solely political motives (meaning that that was their one and only motive).

"Yet, Christians, almost unanimously, believe in the very wrong and faulty concept of the trinity. It was made up, did not exist in their doctrines, and was solely politically driven. "

This is what I am referring to. You said that the creation of the trinity concept was solely politically motivated. I find it rather inconceivable that not a single person advocated the trinity out of honest belief in it. Elaborate, please.

You're trying to take the divinity out of Jesus. That's a very dangerous thing to do.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Based on these passages, we know two things:
1) The Word was with God and the Word WAS God.
2) The Word was made flesh, and dwelt on the earth

Who dwelt on the earth? Jesus. If Jesus = The Word, then Jesus = God. Simple property of substitution.

Let's look at these two passages:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation 19:10)

That is an angel, who denied John's worship. Now, let's see this one:

"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed." (Matthew 8:2-3)

Jesus, unlike the angel in the previously cited passage, accepted the leper's worship. No servant of God would accept worship from anyone, for the glory belongs to God alone.

Originally posted by ccdnn
Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone; consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man. This is quite the statement. Without going into the merits of the claim that it is a fact stated by god, would this make immanent, as opposed to completely transcendent, conceptions of godhood inherently sinfull and therefore sentence animists, pantheists and those who think god is both immanent to and transcendent to creation alike to hell?

I can't say I argee at all with what you had put.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I can't say I argee at all with what you had put. You're just saying that because he's Muslim.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Who dwelt on the earth? Jesus. If Jesus = The Word, then Jesus = God. Simple property of substitution.

I dwell on the Earth ergo I am the Word ergo I am God.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're just saying that because he's Muslim.

No I am not.

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.



2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.



If we accept the postulate given to me by Timothy during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with him last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Timothy kept shouting 'Oh my God.' lol

Originally posted by alltoomany
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.



2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.



If we accept the postulate given to me by Timothy during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with him last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Timothy kept shouting 'Oh my God.' lol

You're a bit too literate to be this stupid, unless that's copied from somewhere else. Luls and all though, since I'm relatively sure it's a joke.