If God impregnated the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18) and Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:30) then that means Jesus inseminated his own mother to give birth to himself in an act of magical incest. Disgusting.
Nice Reddit post r/atheism. Here’s your upvote.
>>18423694Cope ChristiancuckYou know Vishnu is far superior
>>18423702>>18423694These posters are both seething Christians btw
>>18423686GOD IS THREE PERSONS: THE FATHER, THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT.
>>18423884John 10:30>I and the Father are one
>>18423889THE FATHER, THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT, ARE ONE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE CONSUBSTANTIAL, BUT THEY ARE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS.
Actual retard moment.
>>18423891Tritheistic heresy
>>18423903NO.ONE GOD, THREE PERSONS.
>>18423906If it's one God, the incest issue remains. >>18423894Yet you can't refute it? Curious...
>>18423906Based 3 headed god, I wonder wat Greek myth jews ripped that one from
>>18423891>THREE DISTINCT PERSONSHow distinct? Can their wills differ? Do they have a seperate consciousness?
>>18423929>How distinct?DISTINCTION IS ABSOLUTE, NOT GRADUATED: EITHER, SOMETHING IS DISTINCT, OR IT IS NOT.>Can their wills differ?ONE WILL.>Do they have a seperate consciousness?NO.
>>18423917Engaging with mouth-breathers is a waste of time.
>>18423990>ONE WILL.>father why have you forsaken meOops
>>18423686Why do you make this thread everyday?
>>18424007THAT WAS CHRIST'S HUMANITY; HE KNEW, AND UNDERSTOOD, BUT THAT DID NOT ANNUL HIS SORROW.ARE YOU STUPID?
>>18424003I accept your concession
>>18423686You also forgot that Mary would have been 12-16 years old. So it was also rape, because she couldn't consent.
>>18424011Sounds like the son was admonishing the father… would a triune perfect god do that? Kektus
>>18423990Then I don't see how they're meaningfully distinct persons. Is the distinction just relational? That he is begotten of the father?
>>18424110That seemed to be a thing back then. When god's sons came down to put their seed in earthly women to create the nephililim, wouldn't that make jesus a nephililim too? Or just an out of wedlock bastard?
>>18424310EACH PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY PERSONIFIES A DIVINE FACULTY: THE FATHER PERSONIFIES THE DIVINE CREATIVE FACULTY; THE SON, THE DIVINE INTELLECTIVE FACULTY; THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE VOLITIVE.THEIR SUBSTANCE IS GOD; THEIR ESSENCE IS BEING GOD; THEIR NATURE IS DIVINE.THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS ARE IN SUBSISTENT RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER: THE FATHER IS THE FATHER DUE TO HIS RELATION OF PATERNITY TO THE SON; THE SON IS THE SON DUE TO HIS RELATION OF FILIALITY TO THE FATHER; THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT DUE TO HIS SPIRATIONAL RELATION TO THE FATHER, AND TO THE SON.
>>18425248I dont like how they appropriated this. The father and Son seem backwards i. Terms of power and knowledge.Because the father is not corporeal, he seems a better fit as the knowledge.Jesus, being corporeal, and the arm of God, has the ability to do the will of God. He should be the power.The holy spirit makes sense as the motivation/love/will.
>>18425415>I dont like how they appropriated this.?
>>18425441How they appropriated the faculties:Father: creative/abilitySon: intellect/knowledgeSpirit: voltive/motivationI feel like the father and son are reversed.The son is the tekton who actually does the work. The father is the non corporeal blueprint, so he should be the intelllect. I don't know why the Catholics appropriated it the way that they did. It seems backwords.Maybe it depends on which nature an interpreter views Jesus. My appropriation fits Jesus as a corporeal human. The catholic appropriation seems to be focused on his divine nature.
>>18425615>I feel like the father and son are reversed. [SIC]THE TRUTH IS NOT CONTINGENT TO YOUR FEELINGS.>The son is the tekton who actually does the work. The father is the non corporeal blueprint, so he should be the intelllect. I don't know why the Catholics appropriated it the way that they did. It seems backwords. [SIC]THE FATHER IS THE CREATIVE MIND; THE SON IS THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIND: THE LOGOS.WITHOUT THE FATHER'S CREATIVITY, THERE WOULD BE NO INTELLECTIVE SON.THE LOGOS IS MENTAL DISCOURSE, WORD, MANIFEST REASON, VERBALIZED SAPIENCE, SEMANTICAL ORDER, OPERATIVE LOGIC.>Maybe it depends on which nature an interpreter views Jesus. My appropriation fits Jesus as a corporeal human. The catholic appropriation seems to be focused on his divine nature. [SIC]THE TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE.
>>18425627>FEELINGSFine, then the creative mind is creating it, and I am "feeling"/recieving it.I think I'm getting closer to what you are saying, in terms of Jesus's divine nature.I still find the appropriation I discovered as useful when defining Jesus by his human nature.The soundness of an argument is not relative, but its validity is. Homonyms lead the readers into different paths of reason. Religion holds onto the homonyms while modern interpretations make choices, and actualize different results.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.As language evolves, one branch of the reason is selected. Old writings still have homonyms, and the double word meanings have not yet been removed.Homonyms are like twins in a basket floating down a river. In order to found a great state, one of the twins is killed.Religion is a record of the choices that were made, in order to allow for the correction of past mistakes.
