Added: 1 month ago
From: aaronk1994
Views: 412
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (29)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Historian who might not agree with you?? Richard Carrier, you wanted one name.

  • i've haved enough of his chicken sh*t bullsh*t

  • Um, wasn't the trinity essentially just "voted on" at the Council of Nicaea?

  • This dishonest douche will be a virgin for innumerable years. Probably die and rot in the ground a virgin. What an ugly, pathetic sap you are. Gaudy, tacky cardboard stars on his wall.. LOL What an absolute joke.

    P.S. Wash your face, it's irksome to look at an ignorant dirtball.

  • How did you get two of John Oates mustaches above your eyes?

  • Can you please submit the transcript of this to the League of Reason?

  • @jebus6kryst No. I have no desire for AronRa to post another nonsense response to me - making up points and ignoring the majority of mine.

  • Can you give me your favorite PROOF of evolution? It's funny how evolutionists keep changing their "proofs" and so many proofs have been found to be a hoax. I am just wondering..

  • @JohnInTheUSA The proof is all around you. The universe is 13.75 billion years old.

  • @MrAgentGreeny I notice you say that but give me no proof... And don't say carbon dating because that has been wrong before. There is NO proof for macro evolution.

  • @JohnInTheUSA Since light travels at a finite speed, only stars within a few thousand light years of Earth should be visible in your view. This is not the case though, since quasars currently 13 billion light years away have been detected, which, allowing for the metric expansion of space, puts the lower limit on the age of the universe near 13 billion years. iop(dot)org/EJ/abstract/1538-3­881/134/6/2435

    or search "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" for more proof.

  • Right after you define evolution in its biological context, I will give you my favorite proof.

  • @JohnInTheUSA Google is your friend. But I suspect that you don't really care about what's true, just what makes you feel good.

  • The Church spent centuries trying to get its head around the Trinity. They labored over the issue because they did recognize the paradox between their monotheism and their liturgical and confessional language. And even after they settled on the language of homoousia and three hypostases, there were still problems translating this distinction coherently into Latin and beyond. You're doing a good job with this. But you seem to imply it should be simpler to understand than it is.

  • I didn't really follow this debate but did either of you concede any points or initial claims?

  • Aaron, on John 1 about the Word, he must have been reading the Jehovah's witness version which literally says "the Word was a God"

  • @shipleyshipster Yes, I know. I doubt that however.

  • Awesome vid.

  • Great responce man, God bless your efforts.

  • Loved it! <3

  • Why is it that if a man claims to have spoken to or be god 2000 years ago, you live your lives by it; but if a man sits down next to you and makes either claim today, your eyes stray towards another seat to sit in - away from him?

  • So if Jesus is God, then God "sacrificed" himself to himself to appease himself...

  • @CJCA915 No, that would be modalism.

  • @jcrebel18 To quote Wikipedia, in Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

    So, either different aspects or distinct persons to me it's the same, he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself...

    But, right now, I'm sick...

  • ... so I'd rather not try to make sense of it... it gives me a headache when I'm not sick, so it'll prolly give me a migraine, while I'm sick.

  • @CJCA915

    "different aspects or distinct persons"

    Not the same thing. Sorry.

  • @thunderbolt94 In either case, it seems like both are 3 in 1... whether it's 3 different modes or aspects of a single god, or 3 distinct persons in a god... you still have 3 in 1...

  • Sounds like you're saying Yawkweh's... I thought it was Yahweh...

    I think Christ was just a human being... running on that whole divinity ticket... I still see no evidence for the existence of a god... absolutely none, nothing conclusive... and if you accept evolution, and still include a divine being into the equation, then you don't really accept evolution as it's presented... because evolution works just fine without the divine.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more