How come no argument for the existence of God ever points to the existence of a trinity?

How come no argument for the existence of God ever points to the existence of a trinity?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's just Neoplatonist shit that someone forced into Christianity. There is no Trinity in the Bible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      ἐντελής

      Pythagorean actually.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        Elaborate further please

        How come no argument for the existence of God ever points to the existence of a trinity?

        You say Trinity here but don't forget the one and the Monad, Christianity is about the Monad and Trinity, 3 because it is perfect, the first totality beginning, middle, end; 3 is truly number and is the form of completion of all things, the triad alone causes the monad to advance into actuality and extension, from pure potency, "This" belongs to Monad, "Either" to Dyad, "Each" and "Every" to Triad,
        To say God is Monad and Trinity, is to say God is "This" and "Each" and "Every," but it should not be forgotten, that God is not three persons anymore than he is one Ineffable essence, according to the correct theology, and that it is infact acknowledged by Christianity that the monadic nature of the Triadic Godhead, is infact beyond even the description "Triad" which is seen as being to affirmative to ascribe to to the Ineffable. In a sense God is more One than he is Three, and he is One prior to Being Three, as pure universal Possibility, pure potency, and as Infinity, and infact there is no symmetry between the Oneness and Threeness, if that was what you were asking,

        “Prayer is the purity of the intellect which is produced with dread only from the light of the Holy Trinity" and again, “Purity of spiritual mind is what allows the light of the Holy Trinity to shine forth at the time of prayer. The mind then transcends prayer, and this state should not properly be called prayer, but a fruit of the pure prayer sent by the Holy Spirit. The mind does not pray a definite prayer, but finds itself in ecstasy in the midst of incomprehensible realities. It is indeed an ignorance superior to knowledge."

        A good analogy for the Trinity is Unborn perfect mind, Seech (articulated and unarticulated), and Breath, upon speech breath or spirit rests in Speech, and the three one; with Mind being Father, Speech being Son or Word, Breath being Holy Spirit, if you carefully examine yourself in terms of these three things you will be able to derive the Trinity, down to the diaphysite nature of Christ, that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit and generates the Son, that the Holy spirit rests in the Son upon articulation, through the twofold exertion of the Father, that the perfect and primordial mind free of thought is infact the fount of the Godhead and is best communicated through the silencing inderminableness of his Son and so on.

        There is also the Triad of Damascius perhaps characteristically and the Platonists, that of Being, Life and Intellect worth looking into, essentialy what you find unfathomable is not Christianity exclusively, but Relative personality ascribed to the indeterminable monadic Godhead, however that may be grounded; if that were truly the case you should have no problem without the Quran as a starting point which Christians also agree with that of pure Ineffability.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Can you expand on the unborn perfect mind? What is meant by unborn, is this some sort of pre-life? Do you have a reading list?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Trinitarianism is the only reasonable conclusion after examining the scriptural data, beginning with Genesis 1.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol, lmao even

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your knowledge of scricture surely is better than every christian or garden gnome that ever lived up until 3 centuries after christ death.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your mistake is thinking that the Bible isn’t a thoroughly Trinitarian document and that the apostles from the first centuries of the Church weren’t proper Trinitarians because they didn’t use the terminology of Cappadocian theology to define and help conceptualize what is in the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers already. Yes, no one before the 4th century really talked of ‘one ousia, three hypostases’, but they all believed in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t even give them that much ground even if you’re broadly right. Origen talks about hypostases and essences too and he is 2nd and early 3rd century.
            > There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man. it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come." We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john2.html

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's just Neoplatonist shit that someone forced into Christianity. There is no Trinity in the Bible.

      bot?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because you're using natural theology, and presupposing 'self-evident' truths. In doing so, it only leads to some generic deism, a completely useless placeholder God. Which is why the Catholic church now believe Muslims worship the same God. It results in absolute divine simplicity and 'pure act'.

    Whereas, if Revelation becomes your grounding for knowledge, you have a coherent and specific metaphysic which allows for all transcendental categories and the coherence of a proper worldview. Only the Trinitarian God can give such a worldview.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      If Muslims don't worship the same God, what are they worshiping?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A mental idol created by Muhammad, inspired by an ‘angel of light’ that told him every central Christian doctrine was false.

        2 Corinthians 11:14
        > And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

        Christians believe in a triune God who so loved the world that the only-begotten Son came and dwelt among us, so humble that the infinite and eternal God became man for our salvation. Muslims deny this, and hence their ‘God’ is utterly foreign to Christianity

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why would God let Satan "inspire" Muhammad, taking away any chance of his to achieve salvation?
          Also source for
          >inspired by an ‘angel of light’
          and
          >every central Christian doctrine was false.
          Didn't Muhammad (pbuh) just say that God is not a Trinity and that Jesus (pbuh) did not die in the crucifixion?
          That doesn't sound like a huge difference to me.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Didn't Muhammad (pbuh) just say that God is not a Trinity

            And which version of the "Trinity" did he reject? A version in which Mary was a member of the Trinity, not the doctrine that everyone actually knows - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The quran also explicitly mentions Christ denying his divinity to God, despite the fact that he pissed off the garden gnomes precisely for claiming and doing things that only God could claim or do.

            If you're even superficially familiar with Christianity, then you'd know that Jesus not dying in the crucifixion is a huge and important difference. The entire point of Christ dying on the cross, and resurrecting, was to fulfill the messianic prophecies and redeem human nature itself, by joining the human nature to the divine nature and overcoming the barrier of sin & death that has separated them. This is also why Christ command His followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood - so that they have eternal divine life within them, and why gnomish Thanksgiving offering was fulfilled in the Eucharistic offering, not ever stopping the canonical liturgical sacrifice, but including Christ Himself on the altar for every worship service.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nice post.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Didn't Muhammad (pbuh) just say that God is not a Trinity and that Jesus (pbuh) did not die in the crucifixion?
            All of Christianity is based on the doctrine of the Word of God becoming man, assuming our nature, dwelling among us, and dying as man on the cross, descending into Sheol / Hades to preach the Gospel and bind the Devil, and finally resurrecting as triumphant over death. Muhammad denies it all, because Satan tricked him and choked the poor man out in a cave.

            Also, heresy is always possible. Humans and angelic beings (demons in this case) have free will. Christ taught that apostates, false prophets and antichrists (like Muhammad) would follow him, and they have done so since the time of the Docetists, Nicolaitans and Simonians onwards. Muhammad and Joseph Smith are just more examples of a similar phenomenon.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          >who so loved the world that the only-begotten Son came and dwelt among us, so humble that the infinite and eternal God became man for our salvation
          what a sentimentalist bullshit, your personal sky daddy is a creation of your imagination

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You will never be a monotheist

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why do I have to accept the Christian revelation instead of the Muslim revelation?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because Christian revelation is true and Muslim revelation is false

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Which is why the Catholic church now believe Muslims worship the same God
      But that was what Muhammed said himself. His god is the same as Christians and garden gnomes, but unlike him, they got the message wrong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      False dyerism, Revelation in the sense you mean it does not mean thing when it comes to a coherent metaphysic, it's infact the purified mind which is infallible and is communicated like a ray from the noetic sun.
      The Trinity in the sense

      [log in to view media]

      Elaborate further please
      [...]
      You say Trinity here but don't forget the one and the Monad, Christianity is about the Monad and Trinity, 3 because it is perfect, the first totality beginning, middle, end; 3 is truly number and is the form of completion of all things, the triad alone causes the monad to advance into actuality and extension, from pure potency, "This" belongs to Monad, "Either" to Dyad, "Each" and "Every" to Triad,
      To say God is Monad and Trinity, is to say God is "This" and "Each" and "Every," but it should not be forgotten, that God is not three persons anymore than he is one Ineffable essence, according to the correct theology, and that it is infact acknowledged by Christianity that the monadic nature of the Triadic Godhead, is infact beyond even the description "Triad" which is seen as being to affirmative to ascribe to to the Ineffable. In a sense God is more One than he is Three, and he is One prior to Being Three, as pure universal Possibility, pure potency, and as Infinity, and infact there is no symmetry between the Oneness and Threeness, if that was what you were asking,

      “Prayer is the purity of the intellect which is produced with dread only from the light of the Holy Trinity" and again, “Purity of spiritual mind is what allows the light of the Holy Trinity to shine forth at the time of prayer. The mind then transcends prayer, and this state should not properly be called prayer, but a fruit of the pure prayer sent by the Holy Spirit. The mind does not pray a definite prayer, but finds itself in ecstasy in the midst of incomprehensible realities. It is indeed an ignorance superior to knowledge."

      A good analogy for the Trinity is Unborn perfect mind, Seech (articulated and unarticulated), and Breath, upon speech breath or spirit rests in Speech, and the three one; with Mind being Father, Speech being Son or Word, Breath being Holy Spirit, if you carefully examine yourself in terms of these three things you will be able to derive the Trinity, down to the diaphysite nature of Christ, that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit and generates the Son, that the Holy spirit rests in the Son upon articulation, through the twofold exertion of the Father, that the perfect and primordial mind free of thought is infact the fount of the Godhead and is best communicated through the silencing inderminableness of his Son and so on.

      There is also the Triad of Damascius perhaps characteristically and the Platonists, that of Being, Life and Intellect worth looking into, essentialy what you find unfathomable is not Christianity exclusively, but Relative personality ascribed to the indeterminable monadic Godhead, however that may be grounded; if that were truly the case you should have no problem without the Quran as a starting point which Christians also agree with that of pure Ineffability.

      That is a [relative] ignorance superior to knowledge is all that is meant by it.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh rational arguments
    Muslims fail to understand that the Trinity is the self-revelation of an ultimately inconceivable Godhead

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sounds made up tbh senpai

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We’re not talking about Dhul Qarnayn in this thread.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So why tf was God conceivable UP UNTIL Christianity? Sounds kinda inconvenient, like you're rushing to lazily cover up the mistakes of the people who started the idea of a Trinity.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God has never been conceivable. Even pagans had the idea of apophatic theology where God was best understood by means of negation, and there was always an idea of the fact that God’s essence is beyond all words, conceptipns and understanding. Trinity comes from God’s self-revelation, church tradition and scripture. It’s just a further aspect of what people have always known.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    christians are so funny lol

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's just Neoplatonist shit that someone forced into Christianity. There is no Trinity in the Bible.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How come no argument for the existance of God ever points to God specifically allowing Muhammad to fuck his son's wife?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's what you have to say? Ok

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hate to break it to you, but God just told me that I can fuck your wife. Hand her over, bro.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Islam bad so..... POLYTHEISM GOODER??!??!!

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Because no-one making these arguments is as based as St. Maximus the Confessor.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nice book, Achmed.

    Anyways, its where Charles Sanders Peirce got his semiotic theory from, esoterically

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Because the trinity is something most christcucks really, really wish they could ditch, but it was too important to the early church's messaging so now they're stuck with it.

    Pic related.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your pic seems to be saying it makes more sense to be non-trinitarian, and then systematically explains why every non-trinitarian argument makes no sense

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The trinitarian argument is
        >We don't get it either, call it a mystery of faith and pretend it's not an issue because we can't un-fuck it from within our belief system and come out with some to most of those beliefs intact

        The non-trinitarian argument is
        >You clearly went wrong somewhere in your beliefs if you can't hold them rationally - either start from scratch or stop believing in objective nonsense.

        The church would rather embrace logical nihilism than start from scratch though, so here we are.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s like Christian apologists do a bait and switch whereby they make use of rational argument to get you to believe in some kind of God and then once you’re in they are like, oh and btw the core belief of our faith is actually irrational, I’m glad we could make use of reason to get you to come this far but we don’t actually believe in it ourselves (rather we selectively apply it).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God can’t be rational *and* supra-rational because… HE JUST CAN’T
      Okay, hylic

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What’s the relationship between God and reason/rationality? Is he above rationality as you seem to imply? Then why use rational arguments to try to prove his existence if rationality doesn’t apply to him? How is this different from an insincere bait and switch?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Bible teaches that God is revealed through his works in created nature, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Romans 2:14-16 also clearly teaches that the law is written on the hearts of men, bearing witness in our conscience. We are created in the image of God, we innately know God in some sense, and his works are clear through the things that are made. Natural theology is a perfectly doable enterprise up to an extent. The creation clearly teaches us of the creator. We can get an idea that there is one God, that God is immensely powerful, etc. and similar things, but you will never KNOW God fully on a relational level. God is not just the conclusion of a syllogism. God is personal, and he acts in history, and reveals himself to mankind through even more direct methods such as prophets, holy scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and even becoming man and dwelling among us. Why does the creator of the creation have to be bound by its laws and logic? He doesn’t. The idea that the Trinity is illogical though is silly. Christians confess one divine essence, and three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The word ‘God’ confesses the divine essence. Christian trinitarianism is the golden mean between Greek atheism and polytheism. Atheism confesses no governing principle, polytheism many. Christianity confesses one single governing principle—this is what is valued, not a monarchy of one person, as the Arians and other heretics taught, but the single rule produced by equality of nature, harmony of will, identity of action and the convergence towards their source of what springs from unity. There is numerical division but no division in substance. Even then, our language has trouble grasping the very truth of God, as he is something radically unlike the creation in many ways, all language will ultimately fall short, so applying terms univocally to God will lead you to absurdity. Think analogically, the terms give us an idea, but that idea is short of the reality. There is no bait and switch. Christianity acknowledges that God can be known by reason, and harmonizes this with the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and the revelation of the Holy Trinity from the God-man and his Apostles

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God is personal, and he acts in history, and reveals himself to mankind through even more direct methods such as prophets, holy scripture
            So does the Quranic God.
            >Christian trinitarianism is the golden mean between Greek atheism and polytheism.
            Actually, simple monotheism fills that gap neatly, but without having to take the additional painstaking steps that you take. Trinitarian apologetics always seem to degenerate into verbiage.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >>God is personal, and he acts in history, and reveals himself to mankind through even more direct methods such as prophets, holy scripture
              >So does the Quranic God.

              What? Countless Islamic apologists explicitly reject that the Quranic God is personal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Qur'an literally says that God is closer to you than your own jugular vein

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn’t make Allah a person. We have no clue what Allah even is. This is what Surah 42:11 says. Nothing is like Allah. If nothing is like Allah, no predications can be made of Allah, all language is equivocal, and everything said of him in his own Qur’an is meaningless nonsense, just like what you posted here. If Allah was a person, Q 42:11 would be false.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If nothing is like Allah, no predications can be made of Allah
                Weak line of reasoning and you make a large leap of logic. The verse in question is affirming the Uniqueness of God. Which I might add, is a universal concept. The Bible also talks about how God is so Great, so Subtle, and beyond our understanding. In any case, I advise you get off of LULZ and read your holy book, I only replied to you once and you did not respond in a civil manner. Good luck

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s a Salafi innovation. Muslims has always put importance on Kashf (personal revelation) and Kasb (The active creating of God) which are ways God reveals himself through the world, which Muslims believe is his Ayaat (word) similar to The Quran.

                On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
                Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said: Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him. It was related by al-Bukhari.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you please(طلب مؤدب) stop doing(فعل أداء العمل) this shit(الجودة الأدبية للقرآن)?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I was hoping people would research these theological concepts themselves.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They're literally just Arabic words. Translate them to English instead of pretending that they're magic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They literally translate into a sentence that you can’t really look up to explore further.
                Kasb, Kashf and Ayaat means fifty different things. Arabic words are etymologically too rich to be translated without using sentences that contextualize it. Similar to Greek and Latin. What is in brackets are not direct translation, but my personal understanding of the concept. If I can translate it into a word that is easy for people to look up, I would have. Stop being a Philistine.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Notice how your post is not concerned with truth, but with avoiding verbiage and things hard for the human mind to grasp.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [log in to view media]

            >Why does the creator of the creation have to be bound by its laws and logic?
            He doesn't, but once you accept he isn't, any rational arguments made for faith come off as pretty hollow and phony.

            Once you accept knowably irrational gods, but publicly try to defend belief in them rationally? It tells me you're not "getting high on your own supply", meaning you're not actually arguing your beliefs, you're running a con: these arguments are for convincing plebs.

            In YOUR head, all of the shit you're telling me is just nice sounding words and sophistry in the hopes you trick me into believing - because end of the day, your real argument is
            >Hey So basically I'm just gonna not care about my religion having logical contradictions I Know..... UGH I know... It's just that I'm not gonna care is all HAHAHAHAHRHAHAHA!

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >He doesn't, but once you accept he isn't, any rational arguments made for faith come off as pretty hollow and phony.
              Luckily, as I said, God can be grasped by reason to an extent. Revelation is not irrational, but supra-rational. All reason is sourced in God, but God is not reducible to reason alone.

              >these arguments are for convincing plebs.
              It’s an important step in itself for an atheist to acknowledge that they have a Creator. Once we get to this understanding, we can show them that the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, and show that the fuller revelation of the Holy Trinity is a part of this New Covenant, serving as an example of the unity and love that Christ calls us to. God did this in the past too, establishing the unity of God in itself was an important step in leading the Israelites from paganism. Even then, the Trinity is evident in the Scriptures from our more enlightened perspectives today.

              Also, I have given no logical contradictions, all I say is that God will not be fully grasped by logic, because he is the source of logic itself and is beyond logic, even if logic reflects him in some dim way.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The only reason you create an exception for logic is to make room for the doctrine of the trinity, call it “supra-rational” as you like. All the rote preaching is forceful and tedious filler and has been heard to death.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I allow for logic because it is how humans think in day-to-day life and because the Bible teaches what I say. Only a bugman would believe that the infinite and uncreated can be fully understood by the finite and created. You want a mental idol of deity, not God as God has revealed himself

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, you have to accept that there are exceptions for logic because you duped yourself into believing dumb shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Revelation is not irrational, but supra-rational
                Every religious person says their religion is "supra-rational" - the problem the religious have is that "supra-rationality" has no tools for settling disputes besides "kill the other supra-rationalist".

                If my supra-rational religious text says
                >"your mother will die in her sleep tonight unless you reply with 'Sneed',
                >also your revelation is false"
                you have no means to dispute my claim.

                If you use rationality though, you have ample tools to attack. You call out my faith's logical and bad Bayesian assumptions, I call out yours, and if we're intellectually honest, we both probably end up agnostics or godless, because regardless of how hard we dress it up, the fundamental prospect of belief implies an absence of strongly compelling evidence to actually know who's right.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >disputes to be settled
                There are none he who has realised God does not debate God.

                The only reason you create an exception for logic is to make room for the doctrine of the trinity, call it “supra-rational” as you like. All the rote preaching is forceful and tedious filler and has been heard to death.

                No infact the Trinity is the rational part, the supra-rational part is the Ineffable Monad or Unity which is impervious to mere reason, and can in turn only he experienced, in some way as light and love.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >supra-rational part is the Ineffable Monad
                Cool remake, but the Pythagorean and Platonic original was better.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are none he who has realised God does not debate God.
                This is meaningless word vomit. The faithful aren't sending their best.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, even if Trinity is false, Christians have Unitiarianism, which was developed by figures like James Martineau.
    Also, let's be real here, both Islam and Christianity are obviously false, but it's not advisable for any nation to drop either due to the complexities of geopolitical alliance and historicity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >both Islam and Christianity are obviously false
      No

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He hasn't read Plotinus

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Has anybody ever noticed the presupositionalist tendency which says "Logic came only from the Trinity" forgets that it came from Aristotle?

    Besides the Van Tilian analogy of the problem of universals uses the problem itself as the source of the analogy to make the a priori Trinity sound mysterious.

    The transcendental arguments are shamelessly derivative of Epictetus' discourses against Epicurus.

    The selective scepticism is clumsily expropriated from Kant. It's almost the rhetoric about stolen concepts, "slapping one's father in the face while on his knees" is actually a self accusation?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      It’s literally the “you didn’t build that” of theology, cementing the fact that Christianity is the n-word of religions.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nooo you can’t have logic if you don’t believe in giants and talking snakes! Only a worldview that affirms that you can drink poison without harm if you believe in Jesus can ground science guys I swear!!1

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Behold Stoic pagan presuppositionalism!:

    >"The propositions which are true and evident are of necessity used even by those who contradict them: and a man might perhaps consider it be the greatest proof of a thing being evident that is is found to be necessary even for him who denies it to make use of it at the same time."

    >Man what are you doing? are you refuting yourself every day; and will you not give up these frigid attempts? When you eat, where do you carry your hand to? to your mouth or to your eye? when you wash yourself, what do you go into? do you ever call a pot a dish, or a ladle a spit? If I were a slave of any of these men, even if I must be flayed by him daily, I would rack him.

    > Then those who talk thus, marry and beget children, and employ themselves in public affairs and make themselves priests and interpreters. Of whom? of gods who do not exist: and they consult the Pythian priestess that they may hear lies, and they report the oracles to others. Monstrous impudence and imposture.

    >Grateful indeed are men and modest, who, if they do nothing else, are daily eating bread and yet are shameless enough to say, we do not know if there is a Demeter or her daughter Persephone or a Pluto; not to mention that they are enjoying the night and the day, the seasons of the year, and the stars, and the sea and the land and the cooperation of mankind, and yet they are not moved in any degree by these things to turn their attention to them; but they only seek to belch out their little problem (matter for discussion), and when they have exercised their stomach to go off to the bath.

    t. Epictetus

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who knows indeed if the holy spirit is a human invention.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah Islam is completely monotheistic and free from idolatry

    Which is why you swear by Mohammed alongside Allah in the Shahadah and are forbidden from depicting the visual form of Mohammed because doing so would be idolatrous because Mohammed is.. . a god?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, because depicting him might make people worship him as an idol. And we do not swear by him, that is a dishonesty on your part, which I'm sure you knew.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because strict Trinitarianism is a mistake. It is an illusion caused by our limited existence and perception. He can be both one and three without contradiction. Or one and two, or one and four and five all at the same time. He created one, two, three, four, five. He isnt limited by the same rules that he created the material world to be bound by. His existence is pre-axiomatic, its tautological. Anyone who teaches strict Trinitarianism is making a mistake. We still pray Father, Son, Holy Ghost, because those major offices are attested to throughout both Old and New Testament, even by Jesus Christ himself. They are not exhaustive of his Nature, which does include the Angel of the Lord (in re Jacob), and certainly other spiritual mysteries we wont even learn about in this plane.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yea, why stop at three?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >How come no argument for the existence of god is without fallacy?
    ftfy

Your email address will not be published.