In article <7A229F74-A625-910A-293A-5E10D8B869AE@srcbs.org>, Ninure Saunders
says...

Why are you pretending to have a clue what you are talking about? "Russian God
of War" indeed! You have shown NO ability to understand the Zeigeist of St.
Aleksandr Nevsky's time. On the contrary: all you have shown is a sick ability
to twist and pervert with selective quotation and dubious interpretation.

But why am I not surprised? OH, I know why: it is because you show the same
brazen attitude towards Scripture, as twist and distort is your only alternative
to repenting of your very great perversion.


--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, 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. )))

nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

>>1. You don't even know the doctrine against which
>>you are arguing. Further, you admit you don't know it, because
>>you need it defined for you.
>
> I don't need it defined for me. I know what it is. I wanted to see if
> you knew. You whole point is impotent.

"Impotent" is right. 1. You couldn't have "wanted to see" if I
knew, since you were talking to Steve, not me. 2. Even asking
for the definition shows that you do not, in fact, "know what
it is." It's not a defintion (because who could define God?)
but rather a statement made against heresy.


> You are either skimming the posts and not comprehending or
> deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I asked for Steve to provide
> a definition of the trinity in 25 words or less. Why should that be so
> hard?

The real question is why you said "25 words or less." That's
a completely pointless demand, unless you want to impose artificial
restrictions on Steve.

The problem here is that "defining the Trinity" is not a phrase
that makes sense. Try defining a brick and see how far you get.




>>3. You dodge Steve's point that what you posted was
>>patently false in two fatal ways: A. The doctrine
>>of the Trinity was not of pagan origins and B. The
>>doctrine was not a 3rd Century concoction.
>
> the doctrine of the trinity is pagan. the trinity was unknown before
> the third century.

That's such an empty statement. I can assert that anything
I want was unknown before some arbitrarily chosen ancient date
and then stand around with a smug look on my face daring
people to prove me wrong. I'd have a good chance of hitting
upon something with no historical record and so I could smugly
stand for a very long time. But so what?

Unfortunately for you, you chose something which do