Anyway, He then denied that he said I was a polytheist, then when I proved he did he denied denying it.
here's where he claims I'm a poly theist.
And, no, you don't meet the qualifications for being a Christian since you waver between polytheism (which is incompatible with the essential doctrine of the trinity) and deism (which is incompatible with the essential doctrine of the incarnation) so fast that you believe they're the same thing.
This series explains it all.
Originally Posted by HillyBilly
who can trust you? I clearly proved that the one about polytheism did happen. right in front of your face. First you said you didn't say it then I showed you did then you denied denying it.
what a huge difference! that's exactly the very same thing. you just twist words and play literalism and go for the literal and legalistic. that's people do when they don't get ideas are concepts.you can only deal with the words themselves not their meanings.What Meta originally said I did was say that he supports polytheism. Since I did no such thing, I said as such. What I did say is that Meta wavers between polytheism and deism, which is a fact I provided documentation for. Now he's changing it back and saying I denied saying that he is a polytheist. He will never find a quote of me saying that, because I didn't.
you are just knit picking.
really quite a difference is it? If I'm not a polytheist at all then I'm not wavering bewteen that and deism. why does he think I am? merely becuase doesn't understand the concept of the trinity. Again the guy with the Masters degree from a major seminary doesn't know theology and the guy who has never read any does.
Here's another stupid one, abysmally stupid:
You've recently claimed that God is truth as found in the correspondence theory of truth. Sorry, Meta, YHWH isn't a relation, he's a god. If you don't believe in YHWH, you're not a Christian.
Saying that If God is truth in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth (my I expalined that meant truth is that which is, the nature of the case the correspondence to the nature of the world, God is the basis of what is and thus is the lynch pin of reality, and as such is both basis of an part of what is. you can more about his discussion my blog on Metacrock's blog.
He decides that that's like saying that God is a correspondence bewteen two things. Obviously he's just not willing give the benefit of a doubt that I mean by bringing the correspondence theory into it is that truth is that which is. God is that which is (as the basis of reality) thus God is truth. By that of course I don't mean God is synonymous with every trivial Continent truth such that God is the chicken sandwich I had for lunch, but that in the sense of an overarching truth that makes sense of the world that's what God is.
This is just a wrench thrower. He's just trying to gum up the works and start slander and say things that pull down my reputation. He's a knit a picker he can't give the benefit of a doubt. what he's saying is like saying if you say that someone is tall he would say "how could he be tallness?"