>it's a mystery bro
>just trust me
Yeah it doesn't get any more bullshit than this. And people still believe this crap.
>it's a mystery bro. >just trust me
>it's a mystery bro
>just trust me
Yeah it doesn't get any more bullshit than this. And people still believe this crap.
D&C thread
>t. """""""atheist""""" (agnostic)
take notes, christcucks
There are actually people here that spend every waking moment shaking in rage that their grandmother made them go to church on sunday morning
I wish sunk cost fallacy weren't real, so christians could quietly stop mentioning this embarrassment.
OP has yet to explain what part of his image doesn't make sense
apples are not oranges, oranges are not pears, yet apples pears and oranges are all fruit
seems straightforward to me, only a midwit would be confused
>apples are not oranges, oranges are not pears, yet apples pears and oranges are all fruit
fruit is a category, so does that mean the trinity is a group of three gods?
no, apples oranges and pears are all categories of fruit
get it straight, there are many different kinds of apple but they are all fruit
If I have an apple, a pear, and a banana, I have 3 fruits right? So if I have a father, son, and spirit I have 3 gods right?
>fruits
he doesn't know the word "fruit" is used in both a singular and plural fashion
its like saying geeses, you just don't do it if you speak english as a first language
That would be a pantheon, not a singular god.
Looks like you don't understand the difference between singular or plural yourself
what about the unity of plurality and singularity are you not understanding?
So your god is a schizo, then?
I accept your concession.
No, I genuinely have no idea how this is supposed to work. You make it appear as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. With the word 'fruit', there's always clarification on whether you mean singular or plural. A choice is made between them.
With 'god', such a set up, the way you try to use it, is completely incomprehensible. There can be either a singular god, or a pantheon of gods. There can't be 'god' where this means singular and plural at the same time, you have to make a choice, otherwise it's just pure gobbledyasiatic
>Human logic is sufficient to understand the divine.
Lmao, just give up. There is a God or their isn't and no amount of rationalizing either way is going to have an affect on that reality.
Which makes being a member of any organised religion utterly useless, true.
>With the word 'fruit', there's always clarification on whether you mean singular or plural. A choice is made between them.
Not always. In fact poetic use is often intentionally vague, mysterious if you will. You don't always need to choose, both may apply if you structure your sentence aptly.
>apples pears and oranges are all fruit
Wrong. They are all fruitS.
ESL detected. Stop adding redundant s's to words that don't need them, it sounds like you have a lisp.
>an apple and a banana are on a table
>if I use uncountable nouns like only a retarded 17th century writer ever would it's one fruit DUURRRRRRR
fruit is simultaneously countable and uncountable
I will admit that I favor the archaic forms of words over their more recently butchered forms.
I ask you to "Bring me the fruit on the table"
on the table you see 100 tomatoes and 1 banana
Do you bring me all of them? (except the banana, which is a berry)
or
Ask me, "Which one?"
you should have said all the fruit, or a piece of fruit, or however many pieces of fruit
you should never say "all the fruits"
You get the banana
>fruit is simultaneously countable and uncountable
God has never been uncountable. Your analogy is as profound-wannabe retarded as it gets.
I'm afraid you simply do not grasp the concept of uncountablity when it comes to grammar.
>noun with the syntactic property that any quantity of it is treated as an undifferentiated unit, rather than as something with discrete elements
Besides, I am not being literal with my analogy because that would be more or less impossible. It's illustrative and I thought the properties of the word fruit kind of point in the right direction.
I am aware that consubstantial means something else.
Yeah, the one not understanding uncontability here is you.
the catholic church acknowledges it makes no sense by calling it a mystery and anathematizing every specific explanation. that's their way of acknowledging bullshit.
in before protestants figured it out after what, 1300 years?
It's very easy to understand
The mystery of the trinity lies in the eternal generation and spiration of the Son and Spirit respectively from the unoriginated Father.
The mystery is not you being unable to understand what the hypostases and essence distinction means
>sure I can't claim to have perfect knowledge of god, and there are many things I claim to not be able to know about him
>But saying that this is beyond my comprehension is just one step too far.
If you encountered a core doctrine like this in any other religion, you would find it completely ridiculous.
I'm not a Christian, and I think it's fine if you're willing to allow for an omnipotent god. Either you accept that or you start bringing up nonsensical copes like saying it "violates his majesty" to try and cover for the fact that you cannot face the consequences of your beliefs.
That being said, I do not personally believe in an omnipotent god.
This. If there is a God and he is omnipotent then all your attempts to rationalize it, understand it, figure out "paradoxes" and "logic" are pointless and dumb.
If there is an all powerful god, you are powerless to do anything about it. Suck a fat one
No because I'm not a sperg who needs to fully understand things to see their truths and importance and put faith in them. If those other religions also offered enough benefit for belief I might believe in them
Why do you derive an entire moral code from it then
Because if God is real and I follow it I'm good. If God isn't real and I follow it I'm good. If God isn't real and I don't follow it I'm good. If God is real and I don't follow it I'm fucked. I'm not a risk taker and following a couple of already universally normal rules with a couple extra that don't really affect me isn't such a bad trade.
Which god? I'm pretty sure Allah will send you to hell for worshipping the cross
Pascal's wager is a dumb argument given that the evangelicals here think even catholics and other non evangelical christians are hell bound
I believe that anyone that believes in YHWH and by extension Jesus Christ is good.
I don't think you can dismiss him as a sperg given the gallons of ink spilled by Christian theologians over shit like the filioque
Trikaya (sanshin) was intelligible to me, no sweat.
The Trinity doesn't say anything particularly complicated, it's just that most laymen are terrible at explaining it
Theologians have argued over it for centuries to the point western and eastern europw split over irreconcilable differences in interpretation, I don't know why you lot keep pretending it's as simple as 2 + 2 = 4
it’s in hinduism as well with brahman. again you just cry about one religion that emotionally damaged you
Is Atheism just crippling Autism? The existence of a God predicates that there are things beyond mortal understanding, and the concepts we have in effort to understand are just the best of our ability, even if not perfect. The bible doesn't mention the trinity, it's a human tool to try to understand the divine, knowing it's not 100% accurate but the best we can get. This is the biggest problem with atheists, if you are going to argue on the basis that a deity is all powerful, then you have to accept when the answer is sometimes "dude I don't know I'm not God" and take it or leave it.
IE the entire foundation of faith.Whyy is that so difficult?
You are not special or intelligent
>god can't be three persons because... because he just can't!
>God can appear and act just like a bunch of idols and contradict his own word because...because he just can!
When did he do that?
Never, but according to retards like you he does.
>let me tell you what you believe
You tell it everyday you stupid moron. If you don't realize the trinity looks exactly like three gods from all possible angles you are lying to yourself.
>Looks like
comprehension problem
>posts a cartoon made to mock people like himself
The trinity is one of the biggest snares of the Devil.
Abrahamic religions are esoteric at heart
Esoteric religions are educational institutions.
God is the comunity and its values.
Father is the master. Son js the student. The hoky ghost is the whole body of initiates which will participate in the education of the student as instructed by the master.
Thats how the values are passed through generations. You need all three for it to work.
And you're a noob if you dont understand it.
The leaf is not the fruit, and neither is the branch, but all are the tree.
A leaf is not a tree.
Not the entirety of the tree, no, but as an aspect of the tree, it is the tree just as a branch is the tree or a piece of fruit is the tree.
If that's what you're saying the Trinity is like, then you should know that you're denying divine simplicity.
That's literally a heresy, hellbound fool.
Could you explain how it’s a heresy? I’m not a Christian, but I figured I’d take a crack at trying to find a good way to explain the trinity.
Makes sense to me.
Three distinct persons part of one God.
Look at the light that shines from the sun, the solar rays that emanate from it. These are distinct things, but are part of the one sun.
How is this hard to understand?
Partialism heresy. You will burn in hell.
Let me clarify.
There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. THAT IS NOT HERESY THAT IS TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANITY
Wouldnt God being omnipresent make this meaningless?
The trinity makes the whole point of monotheism meaningless.
The problem is really just that the autistic theologians misunderstood the Gospel.
God is just the Father, that which is always greater. Jesus is who we can grasp when dwelling on the Father, plus the right spiritual orientation. The spirit is the best relationship between the Father and the Son, and thus also the best relationship between Father+Son and Ourselves, understood through the stories of the Son.
The New Testament does not attest to Jesus as God. There are so, so, so many passages where Jesus clarified his relationship to God. There are so many passages in the epistles where Jesus is described. If “Jesus is God” were an important theological point, it would be explained as thoroughly as when in John it is explained how Jesus has obeyed the Father and thus became one with the Father and abide in each other. Yet this is not what we see.
We instead see: God is love. God is spirit. The whole story, all the language, all the characters are meant exclusively for an end result. God is spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit. And spirit is contrasted to: letter, flesh, law. Spirit is alive always right now. When the Apostle writes about “the law” in contrast to Spirit, he’s not referring to Old Testament laws. He’s saying: do you believe in a God who will answer you and who you answer to, and a Jesus who you can imagine as a real human being in front of you?
What in the unholy fuck is the "Holy Spirit"? Isnt that what God already is? A really fucking big holy spirit?
In the original meaning, the Holy Spirit simply mean “the spirit of holiness”, which of course must come from the Father. By spirit the ancients meant emotions/mood/feeling, as they didn’t have a word for “emotions”. Being filled with the Holy Spirit, the ultimate desired spirit, would always produce good fruit
>some guy tries earnestly to explain the Trinity in terms anyone can understand
>that's the En Passant heresy, you'll go to hell for saying that
kek, have you ever tried just having a less retarded religion?
God is omnipotent, right? Can he make the Trinity into a Quadranity?
If He is omnipresent, wouldn't He be in all —nities up to infinity anyway? :v
What version of Christianity makes the most fickle version of this triangle. Like the holy spirit and the son are the same and God, but the holy spirit and the father are not. With all 3 still being god. I want to know that Christianity
there is the heresy of subordinationism, which fits the bill and many groups subscribed to it
specifically Macedonianism seems to match your the specifics of your query
Plot twist: no real version of Christianity has the babylonian pagan three-headed god in it adopted and propagated by the whore of babylon and its harlot daughters.
okay let's put it this way
are Siamese twins two people, one person, or both?
they are clearly two persons who are consubstantial (in one body) yes? Is that too much of a stretch?