Do you Pray to Angels?
-
Yah .. you can't see so it is invisible. So I caught you with an example heh
I don't understand wat u r trying to say but u can't see ultraviolet lights, it is invisible and it is not violet. It is not violet and invisible at the same time. It is plain invisible.Distinct can still be the same - gamma rays distinct from radio waves but all are EM waves. All travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Gamma rays and radio waves r not the same. U say it yourself, they belong to different frequency. They belong to the same group, but they r not the same. If I classify god as a thinking being and I also a thinking being, then I am also god ? We only belong to the same group of thinking beings but we r completely different -
Wow! Eternal Hope becomes Eternal Science...hahha .. ok...joking.
Is it true that each of us is protected by a guardian angel? -
erm... thats wad my mum told me when i was little boyOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Wow! Eternal Hope becomes Eternal Science...hahha .. ok...joking.
Is it true that each of us is protected by a guardian angel? -
\Originally posted by Honeybunz:Wow! Eternal Hope becomes Eternal Science...hahha .. ok...joking.
Is it true that each of us is protected by a guardian angel?
Im not sure. I remember that during cathochism, I was taught that each person is guarded by 2 guardian angels. There was suppose to be 3, but ever since the fall of Lucifer, 1/3 angels left heaven and now we only have 2 guarding us instead. -
It is invisible and violet. Some animals can see them! Actually there are no colors per se in nature, only diff. wavelengths/frequencies. So my point still stands - something can have "color" and yet invisible.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I don't understand wat u r trying to say but u can't see ultraviolet lights, it is invisible and it is not violet. It is not violet and invisible at the same time. It is plain invisible
The particular wavelength exists independently of your vision. You say the unicorn cannot be pink and invisible, but that is only you cannot see it.Gamma rays and radio waves r not the same. U say it yourself, they belong to different frequency. They belong to the same group, but they r not the same. If I classify god as a thinking being and I also a thinking being, then I am also god ? We only belong to the same group of thinking beings but we r completely different
Flawed analogy you got.
Although we are thinking being like God, we think differently. so you can't say you are also God just cos you are a "thinking being" like God. But all EM waves travel at speed of light and share other properties like obeying the laws of reflection and refraction .. blah blah (read your combined sci. textbook) By the way, there are waves that aren't like that, eg. sound, ripple etc. -
wahah .. wave-particle duality is next. How can something be a wave and a particle?
-
It is invisible and violet. Some animals can see them! Actually there are no colors per se in nature, only diff. wavelengths/frequencies. So my point still stands - something can have "color" and yet invisible.
to human, it is invisible and not violet. To certain animals u claimed, it will be violet and not invisible. It can't be both simultaneously exists to the same being at the same time. To any being it can't exhibit both properties at the same time.Flawed analogy you got.
As flawed as claiming tat both radio waves and gamma rays the same ?
Although we are thinking being like God, we think differently. so you can't say you are also God just cos you are a "thinking being" like God. But all EM waves travel at speed of light and share other properties like obeying the laws of reflection and refraction .. blah blah (read your combined sci. textbook) By the way, there are waves that aren't like that, eg. sound, ripple etc
Then doesn't tat says tat gamma rays and radio waves r different as well since they belong to different frequencies. U r just playing with why u define tis group to be the same while defining why other groups r different. It is really just cheating U can't just group them together and claim they r the same while saying the other group is different. I can play the same game and say tat god can think, men can think, men can talk, god can talk while the group about gamma rays r different such tat gamma have higher peameability and gamma comes from radiation while radio waves can be man made etc etc. Tis is really a lousy argument 
wahah .. wave-particle duality is next. How can something be a wave and a particle?
from wikipedia
it is not necessary, or useful, to say that an electron is a particle - or a wave - just that in certain circumstances it behaves like a wave, and in others like a particle.
in certain circumstances i sleep, in other i am awake. So does tat make me contradict myself -
this whole exchange just shows your analogy (of the pink and invisible unicorn) is flawed. Your color and visibility are dependant on the viewer.Originally posted by stupidissmart:to human, it is invisible and not violet. To certain animals u claimed, it will be violet and not invisible. It can't be both simultaneously exists to the same being at the same time. To any being it can't exhibit both properties at the same time.
to say UV is not violet is arguable. After all, I've shown color depends on frequency/wavelength and not visibility. If you define violet to be something that looks violet (and visible), then your analogy is something like a tautology. Wah piang!
You are confused with the law of non-contradiction, I must say.I can play the same game and say tat god can think, men can think, men can talk, god can talk while the group about gamma rays r different such tat gamma have higher peameability and gamma comes from radiation while radio waves can be man made etc etc. Tis is really a lousy argument
Totally ludricous. You are comparing mortal with GOD. It is for you to show me God thinks the same way as man. Well, want to guess how many neurons God has?
But gamma waves and radio waves are still EM waves and travel at 3x10^8 m/s in vacuum.in certain circumstances i sleep, in other i am awake. So does tat make me contradict myself
So when does light behave as a wave and as a particle? In Young's Diffraction Experiment, is light a wave or a particle? -
you played around with words and caused this hugh confusion between the two of us.Originally posted by stupidissmart:So logically if it still holds tat if is distinct, it can't be the same. If it is the same it can't be distinct.[/url]
You came out with the words "distinct" and "same". Did Scripture or Westminister Confession of Faith say distinct and same? -
If you look at the verse...
1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Read literally, these three are one.. ie, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ARE ONE. This is the mystery of the trinity.
The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity, He is the concept of all that has been and will be created. In John 5:17, Jesus said, "My Father has been working unitl now, and I have been working"
The Son is the "Logos" or expression of God, the "only begotten" of the Father, He Himself is God. As God incarnate, He reveals the Father to us (John 14:9). The Son is both the agent of creation and mankind's only Redeemer.
The Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity is the one that inspires the Scriptures, empowers God's people and convicts the world of sin and of righteousness, and of judgement (John 16:8.
All three persons of the Godhead are ETERNAL. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have always EXISTED FOREVER, THE FATHER DID NOT EXIST FIRST, THEN LATER THE SON ANS STILL LATER THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY ALL THREE HAVE EXISTED FROM BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT COULD BEGIN, THREE DISTINCT YET FUNCTIONING AS ONE, ALL ARE PRESENT AND ACTIVE. -
Dont Just read from the surface. Learn to look deeper.Originally posted by breytonhartge:If you look at the verse...
1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Read literally, these three are one.. ie, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ARE ONE. This is the mystery of the trinity.
The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity, He is the concept of all that has been and will be created. In John 5:17, Jesus said, "My Father has been working unitl now, and I have been working"
The Son is the "Logos" or expression of God, the "only begotten" of the Father, He Himself is God. As God incarnate, He reveals the Father to us (John 14:9). The Son is both the agent of creation and mankind's only Redeemer.
The Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity is the one that inspires the Scriptures, empowers God's people and convicts the world of sin and of righteousness, and of judgement (John 16:8.
All three persons of the Godhead are ETERNAL. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have always EXISTED FOREVER, THE FATHER DID NOT EXIST FIRST, THEN LATER THE SON ANS STILL LATER THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY ALL THREE HAVE EXISTED FROM BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT COULD BEGIN, THREE DISTINCT YET FUNCTIONING AS ONE, ALL ARE PRESENT AND ACTIVE. -
this whole exchange just shows your analogy (of the pink and invisible unicorn) is flawed. Your color and visibility are dependant on the viewer.
It is really a simple analogy but u twisted it by adding in animals in it. IF a thing is invisible to u, it means it cannot be seen and have no colour. If it have a colour, it means it is visible and cannot be invisible. It is really a very simple example but I guess u fail to understand such a basic concept. How about tis then, if tis EM waves is a gamma waves it cannot be radio waves at the same time.
to say UV is not violet is arguable. After all, I've shown color depends on frequency/wavelength and not visibility. If you define violet to be something that looks violet (and visible), then your analogy is something like a tautology. Wah piang!
You are confused with the law of non-contradiction, I must say. Or u want a further simplification to explain why does an object can't have contradictory characteristics at the same timeTotally ludricous. You are comparing mortal with GOD. It is for you to show me God thinks the same way as man. Well, want to guess how many neurons God has?
I didn't say I am smarter than god. I am just saying he is a thinking being. Why does the number of neurons tat god has ever become a matter of concern Or r u really just doubting tat god actually think ? Radio waves have lower frequency. U wanna guess wat is the frequency of gamma waves ?gamma waves and radio waves are still EM waves and travel at 3x10^8 m/s in vacuum
but god and I r still thinking beings and we both can communicate with other men.
U r just playing with grouping and u can't even argue tat radio waves and gamma waves r the same when they already have a distinct property tat make them different (frequency).So when does light behave as a wave and as a particle? In Young's Diffraction Experiment, is light a wave or a particle?
I am not your physics teacher to answer your enquiries I just need to tell u tat
it is not necessary, or useful, to say that an electron is a particle - or a wave - just that in certain circumstances it behaves like a wave, and in others like a particle.you played around with words and caused this hugh confusion between the two of us.
Highly confusion words ? U mean u cannot understand the meaning of "distinct" and "same" ? I am really simplifying the terms to make it easier to understand by common people. U just need to tell me your stand. Is the father and son distinct ? R they the same or they r just broadly classified in a group of entities called "god" (tat really make it multiple gods). U can't tell me tat they r distinct and same at the same time because it defies basic common sense and logics
You came out with the words "distinct" and "same". Did Scripture or Westminister Confession of Faith say distinct and same? -
aiyoh .. then your turn to do exegesis lah.Originally posted by shade343:Dont Just read from the surface. Learn to look deeper.
Ironside and kangaroo need to be taught. Come on, teach them to look deeper? -
If something is invisible, it cannot be seen. But it doesnt follow it has no color. cos i demonstrated some animals could see the color.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It is really a simple analogy but u twisted it by adding in animals in it. IF a thing is invisible to u, it means it cannot be seen and have no colour. If it have a colour, it means it is visible and cannot be invisible.It is really a very simple example but I guess u fail to understand such a basic concept. How about tis then, if tis EM waves is a gamma waves it cannot be radio waves at the same time. Or u want a further simplification to explain why does an object can't have contradictory characteristics at the same time
EM waves is a gamma waves? This is rubbish. It should be the other way round.
You definition of contradictory characteristics is wrong. If you mean the law of non-contradiction, then it should be p and ~p.I didn't say I am smarter than god. I am just saying he is a thinking being. Why does the number of neurons tat god has ever become a matter of concern Or r u really just doubting tat god actually think ? Radio waves have lower frequency. U wanna guess wat is the frequency of gamma waves ?
To compare "God and I are thinking beings" and "Gamma ray and radio waves are part of EM spectrum" as equivalent analogy is a mistake. 'cos whereas all EM waves behave the same in vacuum (same speed), not all thinking beings think the same.but god and I r still thinking beings and we both can communicate with other men.
yah .. so? does that make me god?U r just playing with grouping and u can't even argue tat radio waves and gamma waves r the same when they already have a distinct property tat make them different (frequency).
Isn't the whole issue about grouping? To you, they die die must be exactly the same then they are the same.Highly confusion words ? U mean u cannot understand the meaning of "distinct" and "same" ? I am really simplifying the terms to make it easier to understand by common people. U just need to tell me your stand.
Distinct and same are just not part of the theological definition, either in the Confession of Faith or Scripture. I need not answer you.Is the father and son distinct ? R they the same or they r just broadly classified in a group of entities called "god" (tat really make it multiple gods). U can't tell me tat they r distinct and same at the same time because it defies basic common sense and logics
One [badly used] analogy would be ice, water and steam. They are distinct but still h20. It is like "there can be no other compound other than h20". -
Can you show us your POINT BY POINT EXEGESIS of pertinent texts regarding the issue and rebut us like a true gentleman and scholar of the Scriptures........Originally posted by shade343:Dont Just read from the surface. Learn to look deeper.
I mean........ be man enough to have the decency to not just brush aside legitimate and Scriptural arguments..........like in every true, gentlemanly and educated discussions..... -
yah lor .. shade can share with us his insights.
We all need to be taught .. come on teach us?
-
If something is invisible, it cannot be seen. But it doesnt follow it has no color. cos i demonstrated some animals could see the color
As said, if u see it as invisible, then it cannot be violet while if u see it as violet, it cannot be invisible. U can't see the light simultaneously in the 2 states, tat is invisible and violet at the same time. U demonstrate tat animals can see ultraviolet, but it also demonstarte tat they cannot see it as invisible. U can't see both states at the same timeEM waves is a gamma waves? This is rubbish. It should be the other way round.
Hiow about using this sentence to explain it for u
If "tat man is a negro/chinese/japanese..." Is it utter rubbish ? Or r u going to argue tat it should be the other way round ?You definition of contradictory characteristics is wrong. If you mean the law of non-contradiction, then it should be p and ~p.
In logic, the law of noncontradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not-Q, are true at the same time and "in the same respect". In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
http://www.answers.com/topic/law-of-noncontradiction
So if we use your law of non-contradiction, then it just agree with me tat the idea of trinity is really logically flawedTo compare "God and I are thinking beings" and "Gamma ray and radio waves are part of EM spectrum" as equivalent analogy is a mistake. 'cos whereas all EM waves behave the same in vacuum (same speed), not all thinking beings think the same.
Who r u to set the standard tat your grouping is "correct" where other usage of grouping is wrong ? U can show some behavior of Em waves to remain the same but I have shown u the differences to their peameability. I show u the similarity between god and me as thinking beings and u tell me tat the extent is different. Why do u say tat my analogy is wrong while yours is correct ? if u say mine is wrong yours is equally wrong as wellyah .. so? does that make me god?
Gamma rays and radio rays r part of EM spectrometer. Does tat make gamma ray become radio wavesIsn't the whole issue about grouping? To you, they die die must be exactly the same then they are the same.
If u tell me tat god is not one and is actually a group of entities, then I will agree with u. If u say they r not a group but they r actually just one, then I will disagree with uDistinct and same are just not part of the theological definition, either in the Confession of Faith or Scripture. I need not answer you
To me tat answer is simply u can't find ways to make them logically correct. Don't wanna answer ? Fine with meOne [badly used] analogy would be ice, water and steam. They are distinct but still h20. It is like "there can be no other compound other than h20".
They r already different since ice is a solid and water is a liquid. They r again not the same -
if you choose to see it this way, then it could be said truth is relative to you. In short, your incomprehenson of Trinity has no direct bearing on the truth [whether Trinity is one big crap]. Maybe angels can understand Trinity, but you can't. So angels are like animals which see UV while you can't.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, if u see it as invisible, then it cannot be violet while if u see it as violet, it cannot be invisible. U can't see the light simultaneously in the 2 states, tat is invisible and violet at the same time. U demonstrate tat animals can see ultraviolet, but it also demonstarte tat they cannot see it as invisible. U can't see both states at the same timeIf "tat man is a negro/chinese/japanese..." Is it utter rubbish ? Or r u going to argue tat it should be the other way round ?
dunno what you tokking here.So if we use your law of non-contradiction, then it just agree with me tat the idea of trinity is really logically flawed
The Trinity never states that Jesus is God and not God. Please .. read up on the theological definition, dont force on us your definiton of "same" and "distinct".Why do u say tat my analogy is wrong while yours is correct ? if u say mine is wrong yours is equally wrong as well
Your analogy is flawed. cos while gamma and x-rays have diff. frequencies, they all travel at same speed in vacuum. However, God thinks this way doesn't mean you SIS thinks the same, isn't it?Gamma rays and radio rays r part of EM spectrometer. Does tat make gamma ray become radio waves
Yah, so even if you and God also thinking being, that doesn't make you God.To me tat answer is simply u can't find ways to make them logically correct. Don't wanna answer ? Fine with me
You came out with your own definition, ie. put up a strawman. Fallacious argument deserves no reply.They r already different since ice is a solid and water is a liquid. They r again not the same
They are all h20. You can compare the statement "there is only one God" to "there is only h20". -
if you choose to see it this way, then it could be said truth is relative to you. In short, your incomprehenson of Trinity has no direct bearing on the truth [whether Trinity is one big crap]. Maybe angels can understand Trinity, but you can't. So angels are like animals which see UV while you can't.
Seems tat u really can't understand the theory of non-contradictory It is logicaly impossible for an object to hold cotnradictory characteristic at the same time and tat make the trinity to be false. I suggest u read up on the theory of non-conradictory againdunno what you tokking here.
Let me write back in a more simple way so everyone can understand. If u can't then tat is too bad
if tis EM waves is a gamma waves it cannot be radio waves at the same time.
I first wrote tis sentence. U claim tat
EM waves is a gamma waves? This is rubbish. It should be the other way round.
However this form of phrasing a sentence is common in english, and an example is
"if man is a pure negro/chinese/japanese he cannot be a caucasian at the same time"
And gramatically there is really nothing wrong with it. U r wrong about the english part and yet tell others to correct themselves, which is of course something disgracefulThe Trinity never states that Jesus is God and not God. Please .. read up on the theological definition, dont force on us your definiton of "same" and "distinct".
I am asking u to answer wat then is the trinity about ? R they belonging to a group or r the same group or otherwise. If u r so good at theology then answer tis question using simple english. Why r u avoiding the question ?Your analogy is flawed. cos while gamma and x-rays have diff. frequencies, they all travel at same speed in vacuum. However, God thinks this way doesn't mean you SIS thinks the same, isn't it?
Don't u get it
Even though they travel at the same speed they r different in wavelength, frequency and peameability. Even though god and I r thinking beings but we r different. U can't just group EM waves to be all the same when they r already clearly distinct in terms of their frequencies. You example of EM waves r really terrible Yah, so even if you and God also thinking being, that doesn't make you God.
tat is right ! Even though radio and gamma rays travelat teh speed of light they r different as well in their frequencies. Isn't tat the whole point about tis argument ? Grouping things together is really a dumb way to counter the theory of non-contradictionYou came out with your own definition, ie. put up a strawman. Fallacious argument deserves no reply.
Com'on, u can't say anything wrong with the terms I used. U mean the idea of trinity can't even stand a simple test by merely simplifying the terms ?They are all h20. You can compare the statement "there is only one God" to "there is only h20".
They r h20, but they r different in terms of their states. U r again using grouping for tis. Ice is distinctly different from water. Ice is a solid, water is a liquid. They r group as water but they r not the same. They r different. Same as I am a thinking being and god is a thinking being. We can think but we r really different. Unless u say tat I am god, otherwise u can't deny tat ice and water r really different -
This is not reading from the surface, it is a very deep thing... maybe you might want to look deeper yourself?Originally posted by shade343:Dont Just read from the surface. Learn to look deeper. -
The concept of Trinity came from the bible. Where did the bible (or any accepted catechism or creed, for that matter) suggest the Trinity violated the law of non-contradiction?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Seems tat u really can't understand the theory of non-contradictory It is logicaly impossible for an object to hold cotnradictory characteristic at the same time and tat make the trinity to be false. I suggest u read up on the theory of non-conradictory againif tis EM waves is a gamma waves it cannot be radio waves at the same time.
You are the one with grammatical mistakes, read carefully. To translate the EM example to the man example, it would read "if this men is a pure negro .."
I first wrote tis sentence. U claim tat
EM waves is a gamma waves? This is rubbish. It should be the other way round.
However this form of phrasing a sentence is common in english, and an example is
"if man is a pure negro/chinese/japanese he cannot be a caucasian at the same time"
And gramatically there is really nothing wrong with it. U r wrong about the english part and yet tell others to correct themselves, which is of course something disgraceful
Moreover, it is weird to phrase the EM example the way you describe.I am asking u to answer wat then is the trinity about ? R they belonging to a group or r the same group or otherwise. If u r so good at theology then answer tis question using simple english. Why r u avoiding the question ?
I never claimed I was good at theology. Even if I am, I see no point answering your question. You have the internet at your disposal. I'm sure you can find the creeds stating the Trinity.
Don't accuse me of avoiding the question and afraid of the truth. The creeds are out there. Surely they wont hide from you.U can't just group EM waves to be all the same when they r already clearly distinct in terms of their frequencies. You example of EM waves r really terrible
I admit I gave a trivial example and probably a lousy example. I regretted falling into your trap. In my excitement, I never realized you were putting up a strawman all along.Com'on, u can't say anything wrong with the terms I used. U mean the idea of trinity can't even stand a simple test by merely simplifying the terms ?
Hello .. if you want to talk about the Trinity, the onus is on you to refer to the proper theological definiton. I never came out with the idea. It was all from the Bible.They r h20, but they r different in terms of their states. U r again using grouping for tis. Ice is distinctly different from water. Ice is a solid, water is a liquid. They r group as water but they r not the same. They r different. Same as I am a thinking being and god is a thinking being. We can think but we r really different. Unless u say tat I am god, otherwise u can't deny tat ice and water r really different
I state again, ice, water and steam are all h20. They are at different/distinct states from one another but are all the same compound. Is this clear enough?
Of course, grouping comes in. We can say, ice and carbon are both matter. We are thinking being like God. Nothing wrong with this. What is your problem actually? -
The concept of Trinity came from the bible. Where did the bible (or any accepted catechism or creed, for that matter) suggest the Trinity violated the law of non-contradiction?
If u tell me wat is your belief on the trinity, then it can be shown tat either the trinity violate the law of non-contradiction or tat god is not wat as he slaimed as only 1. If after so many repeated appeals for u to tell me your stand, I guess everyone will know tat it indeed leads to these 2 conclusionsI never claimed I was good at theology. Even if I am, I see no point answering your question. You have the internet at your disposal. I'm sure you can find the creeds stating the Trinity
Why not put it here. Wat r u afraid of ? U have no faith in the idea of trinity ?I admit I gave a trivial example and probably a lousy example. I regretted falling into your trap. In my excitement, I never realized you were putting up a strawman all along.
U not only give tis lousy example, u bring my attention to the law of non-contradiction which seems to be happily quoted by u for the first few replies.I state again, ice, water and steam are all h20. They are at different/distinct states from one another but are all the same compound. Is this clear enough?
Lets put it tis way for u. NOBODY can say tat ice, water and steam R THE SAME. (FULLSTOP) It is obvious they r different because their states r different. U can say they belong to a group called H2O and I will agree fully with u. Similary for your god thing, it is obvious tat the 3 types of god r distinct. If u wanna say tat these 3 r gods, then it means tat they r 3 gods. Logically u can't say these 3 r the same because it contradicts the idea of theory of non-contradiction. -
It is all in the creeds and confession of faith. Are you too dumb to use google? Or you want me to teach you how to use?Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u tell me wat is your belief on the trinity, then it can be shown tat either the trinity violate the law of non-contradiction or tat god is not wat as he slaimed as only 1.Why not put it here. Wat r u afraid of ? U have no faith in the idea of trinity ?
Get this clear. I'm not putting forth any thesis - it is all in the creed. You are the one claiming it violates law of non contradiction and so you have to present your argument - find the source yourself.Lets put it tis way for u. NOBODY can say tat ice, water and steam R THE SAME. (FULLSTOP) It is obvious they r different because their states r different.
Nobody says they are the SAME. Same what? Your accusation is too vague. Similarly I don't think any mature xtian or creed will say Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the SAME. Same what?
U can say they belong to a group called H2O and I will agree fully with u. Similary for your god thing, it is obvious tat the 3 types of god r distinct.
If u wanna say tat these 3 r gods, then it means tat they r 3 gods. Logically u can't say these 3 r the same because it contradicts the idea of theory of non-contradiction.
Who says there are "3 types of god"? strawman again.
Get your brain working. I will never say the 3 are gods. Gods? Siao! Another strawman.
So many strawmen .. now you know why I dislike talking to you. If not for the forum rating, I wouldn't have bothered so much. -
It is all in the creeds and confession of faith. Are you too dumb to use google? Or you want me to teach you how to use?
Since u r too afraid to show us your stand, then I can only use the definition from wikipedia
God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.
He even use the word "distinct" and "simultaneously" for it and he claims it is a single being but existing as 3 distinct being. So come to tis logic problem. How can 3 distinct beings be one and the same ? Don't forget about your theory of non contradictory -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
strawman again .. enuff said.
He even use the word "distinct" and "simultaneously" for it and he claims it is a single being but existing as 3 distinct being. So come to tis logic problem. How can 3 distinct beings be one and the same ? Don't forget about your theory of non contradictory