The gayest thing about Christianity is prayer to Christ. In church, you don’t get to pray like the OG patriarchs did (David, Jeremiah, etc.), to the Holy One alone. Nooo. You are forced to carefully divide up your prayers into a new system of three like a pansy.> b-but Trinitarianism is true!I don’t care. Even if Trinitarianism is technically true and the Son/Messiah is the Logos and belongs on the uncreated side of the Creator-created distinction, not being able to direct all prayer onto one—ONE—still makes this religion come across as extremely gay compared to Islam and Judaism.The “three factor” is probably the whole reason atheists feel comfortable making fun of Christianity but not the other two.
>>18735871Then you'll like Mormons. They end prayers in Jesus' name, but they pray to the Father specifically.
>>18735871>The “three factor” is probably the whole reason atheists feel comfortable making fun of Christianity but not the other two.Atheists don't make fun of Jews because Jews don't proselytise.Conversely, atheists do criticise Islam, it's just that Christians take atheism personally and never bother asking themselves "that one famous atheist I hate, have they ever said anything bad about Islam?".The answer to the question is usually yes: Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris have all attacked Islam.People simply don't bother doing their research before jumping to a conclusion, hence the myth that "Atheists only hate Christianity because of daddy issues or something"
>>18735871>Even if Trinitarianism is technically true and the Son/Messiah is the Logos and belongs on the uncreated side of the Creator-created distinction, not being able to direct all prayer onto one—ONE—still makes this religion come across as extremely gay compared to Islam and Judaism.Wait till you hear about the Christians who don't even pray to God but to a non-divine mortal woman to act as a liaison for them kek
>>18735881I should mention that explicitly anti-Judaic atheists do exist, but these tend to be people who know Judaism from up close, i.e. ethnic Jews.Marx and arguably Spinoza are both good examples
>>18735885>non-divine mortal womanWhile Mary is not part of the Trinity, she's still Theotokos, so she's not exactly a regular woman
>>18735879>Then you'll like MormonsIf you believe in one divine will, one divine power, one undivided external action, Trinitarianism is gonna be cleaner for you than “Mormonism.”
>>18735871>not being able to direct all prayer onto one—ONE—still makes this religion come across as extremely gay compared to Islam and Judaism.You do not understand the Trinity. God is one, the trinity does not refute that. Christianity is the only true religion. The existence of Christ and his crucifixion is independently historically verifiable.Therefore debunking both Judaism and Islam
>>18735915How can three subjects share one agency without becoming effectively one subject? It seems to collapse to a singular Supreme Person. I don’t have a problem with Christ being uncreated and revealing that Person, but I’m pretty certain Jesus never taught to terminate prayers on anyone but the Father.
>>18735932> I’m pretty certain Jesus never taught to terminate prayers on anyone but the FatherJohn 14:14 “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
>>18735915>the trinity does not refute that.Yes it does, it says God is three.>debunking bothFalse, Jews believe Jesus existed and they punished him in this life while in the next he's boiling in shit. Muslims believe that Jesus existed and people believed they saw him get crucified >>18736668"I can of mine own self do nothing" - John 5:30
>>18737897> "I can of mine own self do nothing" - John 5:30Good point, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t divine.
>>18738268It shows that he doesn't have self sufficiency (aseity) and thus cannot be God. We also know that the Father is the one who actually does his works and is the one who speaks his words. "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"- John 14:10 Not very different from other prophets.
>>18738287His dependence does not disprove his divinity if divinity is understood as the perfect revelation of God rather than independent sourcehood. The Father alone is the Generator; the Son is His living self-revelation which belongs on the uncreated side of the Creator-creature distinction. The prophets spoke God’s words; Jesus claims that seeing him is seeing the Father (John 14:9), and that whatever the Father does, the Son likewise does (John 5:19). His lack of independent agency doesn’t disprove his divinity, it is rather how he reveals the one divine agency. His transparency to divine action is proof of his divinity, not a disproof of it, because it shows no second operator.
>>18738312>if divinity is understood as the perfect revelation of God rather than independent sourcehood.Too bad it's not. Revelation of God is not God itself. It's only the act or process by which God makes Himself, His will, and spiritual truths known to humanity. If God used a creature to make his revelation, that creature is by definition not God.
>>18738320>If God used a creature to make his revelation, that creature is by definition not GodThat’s why Jesus is not called creature but is on the uncreated side of the Creator-creature line. If a man is perfectly God Himself acting, how can you call that a creature? >Revelation of God is not God itselfI feel sorry for you because you don’t see God acting. Revelation is not merely information about God's action. It is God's action made manifest. Christ reveals the Operator.
God sent Jesus because you're too dumb to talk to him directly.
>>18738312>His dependence does not disprove his divinityLack of aseity disqualifies divinity. Unless you believe it's possible for any other object/being to posses it. Do you believe it's possible for a rock to have aseity?>if divinity is understood as the perfect revelation of GodIn other words you are changing the definition>The prophets spoke God’s wordsSo did Jesus, he spoke the Father's words. Prophets are agents of God>Jesus claims that seeing him is seeing the Father (John 14:9)That's because of the works the Father does through him. "believe on the evidence of the works themselves" - John 14:11 this is not making himself identical to the Father>and that whatever the Father does, the Son likewise does (John 5:19)Again because he only can do what the Father does. Without the Father he can do no miracles.>His transparency to divine action is proof of his divinity, not a disproof of it, because it shows no second operatorYes it shows no second operator beside the Father. In what way is this a proof of his divinity? It's no different than when Moses was asked to throw the stick and God gave life to the stick through the actions of Moses Exodus 4:2-4>>18738343>That’s why Jesus is not called creaturenta but he is, wisdom is called a creature which is basically the logos and he is called the first created being. It's no different from saying Adam is the first-born of all humans.
>>18738369>Lack of aseity disqualifies divinity.The Father is a se as the unoriginated Person. The Son is eternally from the Father, but receives the whole undivided divine essence, not a lesser or created existence. Thus, Christ is not a se in his personal origin, yet possesses the divine nature, which exists necessarily and independently.>In other words you are changing the definitionHow is God Himself acting in the flesh not God Himself in the flesh?>Yes it shows no second operator beside the Father. In what way is this a proof of his divinity?Glad you agree. It’s proof of divinity because it’s God acting in the flesh, so it’s God in the flesh. Simple equation.>It's no different than when Moses was asked to throw the stick and God gave life to the stick through the actions of Moses>Prophets are agents of GodJesus is beyond ordinary prophetic agency. Moses performed signs by God’s power. Jesus says “Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise,” and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus presents himself as the perfectly transparent revelation of God’s own action, which is why he is understood as uncreated.>wisdom is called a creature which is basically the logos and he is called the first created beingClassic Arian argument refuted by John 1:3.
>>18735871That criticism only works if Christianity teaches three gods competing for your attention. It doesn’t.Christians are perfectly free to direct prayer to the Father alone — Jesus literally taught us to pray, “Our Father.” The normal Christian pattern is prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. That is still prayer to the one God, not some awkward three-way division.And prayer to Christ isn’t a later corruption either. Stephen prays directly to Jesus in Acts 7:59, and Paul describes Christians as those who “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 1 Corinthians 1:2.So the issue is not whether Christianity feels as simple as Islam or Judaism. The issue is whether the Triune God has actually revealed Himself this way. If He has, then dismissing prayer to the Son because you prefer a tidier model of God is not fidelity to monotheism. It is putting your preferred idea of God above God’s own revelation of Himself.
>>18738409>Christ is not a se in his personal originMeaning Christ lacks aseity.>yet possesses the divine nature, which exists necessarily and independentlyMeaning he has aseity? If yes that's a straight up contradiction with the former statement. If no that just you mixing up the person and the being for no reason. And it also goes against the meaning of aseity. An a se person does not "receive" his essence. And your Church fathers do actually believe he gets a lesser portion anyway. " For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." John 14:28 In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels">How is God Himself acting in the flesh not God Himself in the flesh?For the same reason a drone operator is not a drone himself. And that's no proof of his divinity, it's proof that divinity was acting through him.>Jesus is beyond ordinary prophetic agency. Moses performed signs by God’s power.So did Jesus, you're just begging the question. Bring a symmetry breaker between the actions of Moses giving life to what was not alive and the actions of Jesus when he did the same. How is one simply an agent but the other the very same being. We went over the other verses.
>>18735871the gayest thing about islam is moooooslimes fuck goats top kekhttp://4chansearch.com/?q=islam2+more%3Apol&s=1
>>18738409>Classic Arian argument refuted by John 1:3.You can't "refute" what the text itself says. And yes indeed it's an argument Arians used. As for your verse it does not refute the Arian position because as with the Adam example earlier it's reasonable to say that through Adam all human beings were made as well. Under the logos theology of Philo we see this >“And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;” (Num 16:48) neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties…”This is just two stage logos theology, first the word was just another attribute of God and then he was brought out as a created being and then everything else was made through him. Very much similar to what the author of John is saying there
>>18735871What do you mean by gay?If you mean happy, then what's wrong with that. It's good to be happy.If you mean honosexual, then this is same-sex or one-sex, which is pretty close to the idea of "One", and I can focus on the holy spirit instead of dreaming about some gay sky daddy all day.
>>18738419>The normal Christian pattern is prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. That is still prayer to the one God, not some awkward three-way division.>And prayer to Christ isn’t a later corruption either. Stephen prays directly to Jesus in Acts 7:59nigga do you even read what you write?
>>18738440So, you can’t conceive of how it’s possible for God to generate a distinct person who is also God? That’s what all the complexity comes down to. I think God can.>a drone operator is not a drone himselfA drone operator is separate from his drone. You’re assuming that same separation between God and His manifestation. But Jesus says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”, not merely “Whoever has seen me has seen someone God operates through.”
>>18738495>you can’t conceive of how it’s possible for God to generate a distinct person who is also God?That's not really addressing what I have mentioned. But fine we can go to this topic. Since you believe this is possible how do you explain the Son and the Father having different knowledge? The first knows the statements "I am the Son" and "I am not the Father" while the second knows the statements "I am the Father" and "I am not the Son". How does one know the hour while the other doesn't? And it's not just my interpretation here as we can see in pic rel. There are many other issues here that are not clarified, like do you believe there is 1 center of consciousness or 2? Do you believe there is 1 will or 2? etc>A drone operator is separate from his drone.Just like the divine operator is separate from his subject.>not merely “Whoever has seen me has seen someone God operates through”Jesus was talking about the Father's works there being evidence of the Father. The same way the drone's actions can be evidence of a drone operator. We know it can't be literal because God according to the bible cannot be seen in this life.
>>18738516>That's not really addressing what I have mentionedYes it is. Your point is that Christ lacks aseity. He doesn’t. As God, he doesn’t, but as the Son, he does. That’s why I asked “ So, you can’t conceive of how it’s possible for God to generate a distinct person who is also God?” Because that’s exactly the simple geometry of it.> Since you believe this is possible how do you explain the Son and the Father having different knowledge?Different people
>>18738516>God according to the bible cannot be seen in this lifeI feel sorry for you too because you don’t see God Himself acting. Revelation is not merely information about God's action, it is God's action made manifest, if Christ reveals the Operator.
>>18739023No because I asked you to clarify and your current wording is just a straight up logical contradiction so I guess you have clarified just now. You believe the same being has aseity and does not have aseity at the same time. This is a proposition and its negation both being true at the same time and thus it cannot have an actual existence>Different peopleHow do two omniscient beings know different things simultaneously? Also you haven't expanded on what exactly that means. Multiple centers of consciousness and wills or not?>>18739024How this is different from the drone analogy again? Even if we take your twisted interpretation (that ignores all context and would make you start worshiping the twelve) of what it means to see the Father it still doesn't make them the same being. Why can't I be like Justin Martyr who believes texts like these speak of another numerically distinct god?
>>18735881When people talk about "atheists" they aren't talking about the two or three intellectual ones, they are talking about the average atheist like pic related. A woke golem that won't criticize Islam because free Palestine and no one is illegal on stolen land or some shit. Same as when people call Christians dumb they are talking about the dispensationalist boomer down the street, not Aquinas
>>18739209>A woke golem that won't criticize Islam because free Palestine and no one is illegal on stolen land or some shit.That describes a "progressive" political-cultist more so than the average atheist, if we're going on a basis of beliefs.>Same as when people call Christians dumb they are talking about the dispensationalist boomer down the street, not AquinasAquinas was kinda dumb, at the very least he was ignorant of what he believed in, thanks to earlier Church Fathers and their traditions.He didn't know about the history of institutional lies regarding scripture that he inherited from the church.The entire sacramental structure of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, developed through Aquinas and the Byzantine liturgical theologians, rests on a theurgic theology devised by a pagan philosopher who was murdered by his spiritual enemies and whose school at Apamea was ultimately closed by Christian persecution. The debt is never acknowledged. The source was buried and then stolen. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) cites "Dionysius" 1,702 times in the Summa Theologiae, ranking him immediately after Augustine as the most-cited authority after Scripture. The entire Thomistic doctrine of divine names, analogical predication, the angelic hierarchies, and the sacramental economy rests on Dionysian foundations. Aquinas believed he was engaging with a disciple of Paul. He was engaging with Proclus.Every Catholic seminarian since the thirteenth century has been trained in a metaphysical system whose structural backbone is the work of a pagan philosopher whose school the Catholic Church had worked three centuries to destroy.
>>18739209Why the fuck would you add the all seeing eye necklace, that's overkill.
>>18739209>complaining about people getting angry with your shit state while ignoring that most christkeks are the wokest of them allNice an actual golem. Don't you have tranny deity to worship? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYtfYvlNW7U
>>18739222Schizophrenic babble
>>18739239>thinks blatant heresy is a good representation of ChristianitySmartest Christ denier
>>18739418worthless shitpostMaybe grok or chat GPT is more your speed, anon.
>>18735871>The gayest thing about Christianity
