This post will be very different from those I’ve written so far. I’m not too sure how well it’ll work so I’d greatly appreciate some feedback. Anyway, it is no secret that I’m not a prolific blogger. I write maybe one or two blogs per month—and this is at my best. Most of the time, many months go by without any update on my part. I do apologize for this but updating a blog with quality content on a regular basis is no easy task. That said, in those months when I haven’t been posting, I haven’t exactly been doing nothing either—well I’ve been doing nothing for the most part—but as I was saying, I was at least somewhat productive. The following is just a small part of what I’ve been up to when too lazy to update this blog. More particularly, I took the time to test out some of my arguments and the results were so well that I got banned in the space of a little less than 2 months. I’d like for the reader to follow the exchange between Sol Invictus and whoever he is discussing with (there are quite a few participants who come and go). The subject of the discussion is the Holy Trinity (although the participants move on to different topics as the discussion goes on) and what I would like the reader to note is how it is defended repeatedly without any refutation by the opposition.
(I know that I ended up misnumbering but it would be a pain to change the numbers now. Also, clicking the picture will increase its size and make for an easier read.)
1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18a, 18b, 18c, 18d, 18e, 18f, 18g, 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 19e, 20, 23, 24a, 24b, 24c, 25, 26, 27,
Readers of this blog will recall that I once wrote a response to an individual going by the name of landsway concerning whether or not the Christ is himself God (and as such equal to the Father)—particularly when this came to his use of 1 Cor. 8:6. The author acknowledged having read my article yet himself did provide no reply to what were serious problems with his position. Personally, I would have loved to have him continue discussing the subject with me yet he made it quite clear that he did not have the time to do so. I, on my part, respected this and for almost an entire year, this was the end of the matter.
Recently however, I have browsed through this individual’s blog again and found that the author is again reiterating the same viewpoint I had claimed to be faulty. Now, before being misunderstood, I should say that I am emphatic of the fact that every individual has the right to express their own opinion. Yet what I do take issue with, is the fact that in writing a post solely to defend his viewpoint and presenting once again the very same arguments—which to the best of my knowledge I have already refuted here (scroll down towards the comment section), here (once again make your way to the comments), here (within the comments) and in my “On (Christian) Unitarianism and 1 Corinthians 8:6” post (the first link within this post)—he is ignoring what I claim to be insurmountable problems with his understanding of the Bible. Moreover, in providing no reply to my argument and yet continuing to present the same points to his audience (as if no challenge to his understanding of theology has been presented) he risks being accused of intellectual dishonesty (not that I am accusing him of such) and failing to take to heart the very dictum he quotes in his post:
“I recently read that an honest but mistaken man; when show the truth, ceases to be mistaken; or he ceases to be honest.” — landsway
All this to say, given that landsway has taken it upon himself to defend his position as biblical truth, then at the very least he owes that post of mine that specifically deals with 1 Cor. 8:6 a response. It is likely that he has forgotten all about our past exchange yet due to his unprompted decision to make a post solely to promote his reading of scripture, he must in all honesty defend his methodology and conclusion from criticism.
edit: for some odd reason I had misspelt the individual’s name.
I have recently been engaged in a series of discussions concerning the issue of whether Jesus is God or something other than God, namely the Son of God. While your average Christian would see no contradiction in affirming both statements, the individual with whom I had the pleasure of discussing with seemed to have a vastly different understanding of what these terms meant. It was clear that to him, it denoted some inferiority in ontological being yet since I never actually asked him to expound on his understanding of this title, I won’t go into a discussion of it either. Now before I continue with the subject proper, I should mention that this post should be read in unison with these other two as well. Anyway, let us begin. (more…)