>Matthew Johnson

I doubt no amount of Bibilcal proof nor reasoning at this time will pry
you from your emotional attacthment to the trinity. I didn't find
anything of substance to correct from your last post and this thread
isn't going anywhere. It is an argument rather than a discussion- and I
accept some of the blame on that as well. I wish you well.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <090.46.18.05.743772000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> basicallyblues wrote:
>> > >Note that the Nicene Creed says that if a person doesn't "hold
>> > >this doctrine", he will be condemned.
>> >
>> > The Nicene Creed is not Scripture and the bishops that took part were
>> > not "inspired of God" like the Bible writers were (2 Tim. 3:16)
>> >
>> > >If one denies the deity of Jesus, he is denying that God saves
>> > >and that God is love
>> >
>> > huh? Where do you get that?
>> >
>> > John 3:16)
>>
>> Your "god" has no basis for "love." Love require interpersonal
>> relationships.
>
>Does it? Does the Scripture not say that we are to love ourselves?

Yes. See Mat 16:24 for starters.

>Love of self, while personal, doesn't seem to me to fit the definition
>of interpersonal.

Right. It does not. That is why self-love is a _perversion_ of love. That is why
St. augustine wrote:


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

"Bob Felts" wrote in message
news:151.42.08.05.789548000@srcbs.org...
>
>
> Gary McNees wrote:
>
> > "Bob Felts" wrote in message
> > news:139.59.11.05.201208000@srcbs.org...
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <138.48.09.05.240004000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Bart has ably refuted your "the Calvinist God is a demon" canard.
> > > >
> > > > No, he has done no such thing. All he can accomplish is to show that
> > > > it is internally logically consistent. But that is a _long_ way off
> > > > from refuting the claim, "the Calvinist God is a demon".
> > > >
> > >