you couldn’t make it up

From BBC News


Categories: Life in the West, News, Silly

17 replies

  1. “You couldn’t make it up”

    That never stoped trinitatians, Paul 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  2. If I facepalm any harder, it’ll be considered self-harm… and then those forensic science students might not be able to see pictures of it!


    Liked by 3 people

  3. any excuse to get out of class lolol..

    Liked by 1 person

  4. We are raising a generation of wimps… weak babies… c’mon seriously, grow up… this making me too angry I’m going to sleep

    Liked by 2 people

    • Agreed. When I was in the third grade I had to watch the space shuttle blow up and I didn’t even get to leave class.

      Meanwhile in Islamic State schools children are taught…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mozer i see this is very hard for you emotionally. Do you need some time out?

      Liked by 1 person

    • thanks 🙂 that’s kind of you! It’s just frustrating and getting worse. I thought universities are where people learn and hear and see all typ0es of things. and liberals are supposed to be open minded… they stifle and silence every voice that’s not PC and not what they consider right… it really ticks me off

      Liked by 3 people

    • i know. i know, but you see some people really struggle with all that and we wouldn’t want the poor things getting all upset and then start crying, i mean think of the health and safety of these students tripping all over those tears! It would be a nightmare let me tell ya. That might have been what people did back then but that was then and they are old now and didn’t understand anything about the way the world works (if it works at all or even exists, do we exist? Who knows i suppose thats up to you).

      Mozer if you are upset about all this, i can recommend any number of wonderful counselling services that can help you through this difficult time, how about some Yoga to take your mind off things, i swear you’ll feel so much better :p

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks Patrice, I think I’ll take you in the offer 😉


    • Mozer, when you address God, you see Him as powerful being /1 conscious being with powerful nature, right?

      you say , “god is ALL seeing, ALL hearing, ALL knowing…”

      you don’t separate the powers from the person, right?


    • I’m not sure I understand what you mean to ask. I don’t thing God has a nature. He is what He is. The Might Glory Love Wisdom Kindness Vengeance are all attributes that we can relate to Him anthropomorphically. If you say God is Kind in nature and Wise in nature and Mighty in nature than you believe in a trinity…


    • moz, this is the point i was trying to get across

      i quote :


      James identifies the “being”(which is a nature) as YHWH. That’s no different than saying the “being” is named YHWH. I am identified(named) as Sean. That’s who I am. James is giving an identity(WHO), to a nature, a WHAT. This is fallacious. It’s mixing the WHOs and the WHATs(see pg. 27 of his book).

      James wants the one YHWH in his doctrine to refer to both a WHO and a WHAT, just like you do. This is nonsense. It’s equivocation. Either the Father is the only true God or the Father, Son and Spirit are the only true God. It’s not the same God, clearly.
      James clearly states:

      1) “That YHWH is trinitarian” (that YHWH is three persons)

      2)”There is one being identified as YHWH”

      3)”And the Father is identified as YHWH”

      4)”The Son is identified as YHWH”

      5)”And the Spirit is the spirit of YHWH”

      Tell me how those 5 definitions of YHWH(because they’re clearly not each other), make 1 YHWH? Don’t you see all the unnecessary confusion in this? The only way it works is if James is giving fallaciously that “nature” the name of YHWH and then slipping it to each Person underhandedly. Then somehow, the #1 YHWH, ends up as a single person(WHO) which represents all 3 speaking in unison. It’s a mess.

      The statement ” he (what or WHO( NOTE it is a SINGULAR pronoun ) is revealed through three(he’s) ” reveals you have another definition of God there… that’s more of a oneness view to claim 1 person(he) is revealed through 3 persons. Even if you change it to 2, you’re still getting back to the same issue I speak about in the Michael Brown video–you have 2 other persons who are the one person. This is the ambiguity you’re sitting on. Jesus is clearly a separate person from the Father. This is what the normal definition of “person” means. They are each independently God sharing the same nature—or you’ve got oneness or some form of it.(which is what you’re seeming to espouse now).

      The video still stands as a clear proof, it’s illogical to identify or name a nature. I never saw anything against this… there’s nothing in those texts which you listed which allow or make necessity of “God” even being defined as a ‘nature’ in the first place. “Theos” is not the same as “theotes” or the “form of God.”

      So to start making Him(or It rather) now 3…. which no text ever has the words “3” and “God/YHWH” together anywhere… is highly suspect. I am not just quibbling about small comments of yours either. For you to claim 1 person is also 2 other persons, is fallacious. God did not give me basic reasoning, grammar, and logic to throw it aside when dialoguing with others, just as He did not for you.

      To call the one God a “He”(a singular personal pronoun) and say “He” is also 3 others(or 2 others) is to directly say in English grammar, 1 person is 3 other persons(or 2 other persons). It’s either a contradiction or a form of oneness. It’s illogical. This is part of the main issues with this video also, the equivocation committed in explaining the trinity. If the ontological trinity says the 1 God is a WHAT, it’s not a person… so to give it a person pronoun would be to equivocate.

      When god said HE Spoke , is it 1 WHAT (nature) which Spoke or is it 1 PERSON which SPOKE or is it 1 HE = 3 he’s/3 persons WHICH SPOKE(how is 1 PERSON (he) 3 he’s (personS?))?

      There are actually five or more definitions of the word “God” in Trinitarian doctrine.

      1. God – a divine nature/essence of three persons
      2. God – a person who is the Father of Jesus
      3. God – another person who is the Father’s son
      4. God – yet another person who is the Holy Spirit
      5. God – and yet another identity who is the Triune Being

      end quote

      you see moz?
      these pagans think they can play with the word “god” and switch definitions at win attempting to fool and confuse a people


    • I’m sooo confused… they won


  5. I’m soooooo confused… they won I guess.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: