>God consists of one entity in three persons and one of those

DAE think religion is stupid? Like and subscribe if you agree.

if you're too stupid for christianity you should try islam. everything is easy and simple there, clear laws and rules that the desert rapist gave you to follow. even the jews of his time knew muhammad was too retarded to understand the other two monotheistic religions, that's why he killed all the Jewish tribes there and raped them personally to satisfy his raging butthurt.

If you by chance are not a smelly, braindead Muslim, here is an explanation:

God is logic, God is love, God is creation. There is God in all things on earth, every moment of compassion, every moment of forgiveness is God himself. God is mysterious indeed, but for us to understand what God is, or how we are supposed to understand God, he has appeared in three forms. As God, the father, the creator of things. As the father, all things come from Him, all creation is from Him, he is the authority on Him as all originates from Him. Jesus is the son, he is creation, he is what the father has created. God becomes a human and walks amid his own creation so we can see Him and that He is close to us and His creations. God loves his creation so much, us little sinful, confused beings, that he would sacrifice himself so that we could find our way back to Him. The Holy Spirit is God's power and understanding. It is logic, belief, understanding, blessings. Only through the Holy Spirit, the mind, the soul within all of us can connect with God himself.

The trinity is about a mysterious force - God - making himself understandable to human beings, giving us guidance and way to find him and the truth within the world. It helps us understand that God is love through the Holy Spirit, that he is creation, through the father, and that we are created in his image, that he understands us and loves us through his son.

Regards, an atheist that deeply respects Catholicism

>>8642318
Mate, the majority of the world's religions think the trinity is stupid.

>>8642329
That's because the majority of world religions are simplistic and tribal, while Christianity is universalistic, grounded in reason and complex. It's among of the main reasons for why we had the enlightenment in Europe

>>8642327
>It helps us understand that God is love through the Holy Spirit, that he is creation, through the father, and that we are created in his image, that he understands us and loves us through his son.

Wait, what?

So God is not creation through the Holy Spirit? God is not love through the father? Are you saying that God's essential unity is both creating and not creating?

>>8642306
Unitarians GOAT

>>8642335
The idea that yes we humans understand what God is or could be through the forms He appears before us. God is creation and love at the same time, but to the meaning of the trinity is that we should imagine God as the father from which al things come and as the Holy Spirit that draws us closer to Him.

>>8642340
*-the

>>8642340
>the meaning of the trinity is that we should imagine

So the trinity doesn't actually exist? It's only a metaphor to help our understanding?

>>8642346
It does exist, they aren't literary metaphors. It's how God chooses to appear before his own creation. Think of it as metaphors God chooses for us, God becomes Jesus for humans to understand Him and can come back to God.

>>8642349
Wait, God "becomes" Jesus? How can a single entity "become" another part of itself? That implies God and Jesus are separate?

>>8642333
>actually believing this

>>8642357
Why are you so stupid? Water on the arctic ocean sometimes becomes an Iceberg, but it is still part of the ocean.

>>8642363
an iceberg is not part of the ocean in any other sense than a sailboat on it is as well

>>8642363
Until I take the iceberg out of the ocean and put it on my ship. The iceberg and the ocean are not coessential.

>>8642363
Modalism heresy.

>>8642327
>Regards, an atheist that deeply respects Catholicism

possibly the most cukced post I've ever read on /lit/

File: 1476900132001.jpg (23KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x720px

>>8642358
Considering that Christianity is Judaism combined with aspects of Greek thought you might as well say that the Ancient Greeks had a major contribution to the enlightenment happening in Europe. Better?

>>8642366
>>8642367
It's a linguistic difference yes. Factually the Ice is the same matter as the water except in a different form and we experience and feel it differently, chemists can understand how water works based on its behavior during freezing and vaporization. What water really is is H2O, but it appears in different forms and does different things in these different forms.

Trinity understandable now?

File: assburger.png (115KB, 247x267px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 247x267px

>>8642333

really makes you think

>>8642375
So just like water and ice have separate properties and can do things the other can't, Jesus and the Father have separate properties and do things the other can't?

>>8642392
Just imagine the water is a conscious being that becomes its different stages by will for the purpose of showing people how water works.

Yes it is different to take a perfect analogy for trinity in nature, I did the best I could.

>>8642375
so can god make a two sided triangle

Something else that might help you guys understand it: Christians repeat the mantra of trinity to remember all the things God is supposed to be at the same time. God is not just the father that punishes and demands from us, that created us. Catholic prayers often include "In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit" for us to remember the different aspects of God.

If in Islam you only have the punishing Freudian father, or as all surahs include without exception: "God is the one and only and there is no one beside Him" you only focus on God as the father and forget God as dying for his creation (son) and as a mysterious force (holy spirit) that he is simultaneously.

For example:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. "

or

"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."

It's important to understand and grasp God in multiple ways. Plus how exactly God is all of those things, how the trinity exists is a divine mystery. Our task is supposed to believe in God, using the forms he appeared before us, to understand that He did X and Y and Z as the father, son and Holy Spirit and that, by understanding these things we can come closer to God and eventually come into communion with Him.

>>8642396
But the state of water is essentially different from the state of ice. Nothing can be both water and ice at the same time. So the trinity can't be of a single essence.

>>8642415
>Plus how exactly God is all of those things, how the trinity exists is a divine mystery

lol ok

>>8642366
>sailboats consist of ocean water.

this is news

>>8642424
Alright smart guy. I can see the perspective that you offer here, but I have no reason to agree with you or believe it more accurate to actuality than my own view. All I have to do is claim that water cannot compose ice because in becoming ice it ceases to be water. Obviously ice consists of ice you fucking idiot...

>>8642418
they are both h2o, not essentially different. they only appear different in front of our eyes. on an essential level, the difference between water and ice is that in water the molecules are moving too fast.

>>8642422
religion is about faith, believing in God means believing He is different things at the same time. if you're too stupid for that and simple clear rules of an uberfather
--> Islam, Atheism

Spirit, represented at first as substance in the element of pure thought, is, thus, primarily the eternal essential Being, simple, self-identical, which does not, however, have this abstract meaning of essential Being, but the meaning of Absolute Spirit. Yet spirit consists, not in being a meaning, not in being the inner, but in being the actual, the real. “Simple eternal essential Being” would, therefore, be spirit merely in empty phrase, if we remained at the level of pictorial thought, and went no further than the expression of “simple eternal essential Being”. “Simple essential Being”, however, because it is abstraction, is in point of fact the inherently negative, is indeed the negativity of reflective thought, or negativity as found in Being per se; i.e. it is absolute distinction from itself, is pure process of becoming its other. Qua essential Being, it is merely implicit, or for us: but since this purity of form is just abstraction or negativity, it is for itself, it is the self, the notion. It is thus objective; and since pictorial thinking apprehends and expresses as an event what has just been expressed as the necessity of the notion, it will be said that the eternal Being begets for itself an other. But in this otherness it has likewise, ipso facto, returned into itself again; for the distinction is distinction in itself, i.e. the distinction is directly distinguished merely from itself, and is thus the unity returned into itself.

>>8642437
There are thus three moments to be distinguished: Essential Being; explicit Self-existence, which is the express otherness of essential Being, and for which that Being is object; and Self-existence or Self-knowledge in that other. The essential Being beholds only itself in its Self-existence, in its objective otherness. In thus emptying itself, in this kenosis, it is merely within itself: the independent Self-existence which excludes itself from essential Being is the knowledge of itself on the part of essential Being. It is the “Word”, the Logos, which when spoken empties the speaker of himself, outwardizes him, and leaves him behind emptied, but is as immediately perceived, and only this act of self-perceiving himself is the actual existence of the “Word”. Hence, then, the distinctions which are set up are just as immediately resolved as they are made, and are just as directly made as they are resolved, and the truth and the reality consist precisely in this self -closed circular process.

sorry for the wall

>>8642442
Don't be. Hegel was a brilliant man. His convoluted metaphysics and optimistic outlook on epistemology put a smile on my face.

>>8642306
>big bang explosion in the space and evolution then
the bible says how everything (the rules for humanity, how the earth was created, etc.) is and is therefore superior to atheist self made axioms
you're welcome

when you disentangle the mystery of the trinity, you'll understand why anything exists at all.

at present we aren't anywhere close to disentangling it. it remains a mystery, like much of revelation. nonetheless we can be sure that the definition is compatible with scripture.

>>8642306
Christianity is polytheistic (/thread)

>>8642327
desu senpai, Im screencaping this and sending it to my atheist friends

the trinity is not even mentioned in the bible

>>8642306
Stay woke huehue only idiots into religion superior intellect my parents are sheep hue

Freshmanposting at its finest.

alright let's have a Trinity poll
http://www.strawpoll.me/11474430

>>8642575
wow that's so surprising, that most detailed theology was not expounded in detail in the Bible

if the Bible was really the word of God it would read more like Hegel, right? Jesus spake in parables because he was a fraud, the real son of God would speak in formal definitions

>>8642606
>muh logic
I refuse to vote on this poll

>>8642575
>>8642614
yeah, only the divine persons were mentioned and there only being one god.

Must have been a true nail biter to find out whether there's one god with three persons!

>>8642617
If you think that the relation of the Trinity to logic doesn't matter, there are answers which allow for that

>>8642327
t. Benedict xvi

>>8642405

Anyone can, you just have to be degenerate

>>8642606
>http://www.strawpoll.me/11474430
good poll desu

i don't vote tho

>>8642606
>>8642666
desu, 4 and 5 are the same

>>8642606
The last option is the only fucking good one.

>>8642306
As someone who started Christian, had the edgy atheist phase, went agnostic, then back to a more informed panentheistic Christian, I think I have a pretty solid view on what is meant by the Trinity.
First off the Trinity is not biblical, it is never mentioned as such. It's a byproduct of theology.

>The Father(YHWH, Jehovah)
God as we often think of Him/Her. He is the I Am.
>The Son(Word of God, Son of God, Son of man, Word, Yeshua)
Jesus Christ, who is more than just a human, but the Word of God
>In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God
Jesus is an expression of God, his Words, as your words are you and your expressions are you. The Word occurs a few times in the Old Testament as several theophanies(burning bush, an angel, a man) but as an expression of God, it's technically all the same. In the beginning it wasn't God that created the Heavens and the Earth, it was His Word, which is technically Him, and that which came from the Word is of God (heavens, earth, us)
>Holy Spirit (holy ghost, the counselor)
The effect of the word of God on us. Giver of miracles, gifts of God, that which affects you. God as we feel him, as he moves in us. kind of in the way that you find yourself using the slang of other people; they're not your words, they're the words of someone else but being spoken by you. It's when God's words are spoken through us.

God speaks
The Son is the Words
The Holy Spirit is the Words through us

>>8642430
>ice is different from water!!!!
It's the same fucking chemical composition you mong. It's just a different temp. It's the same thing in a different state.

>>8642327
wowow you did not just post this in the current year

>>8642844
Why do you believe a man came back from the dead and was born from a virgin

>>8642306
It's not a complex concept.
>>8642418
They are not all water, water is the liquid form.

They are H2O.

I think it's a bad analogy but simple enough for a STEMsperg like you to understand. I guess I'm wrong.

>>8642986
>It's not a complex concept.
Actually it doesn't make any logical sense.

>>8642989
>muh logic

Every time, read the thread you thick fuck.

>>8642991
Concepts rely on logic.

>>8642989
Things can be understood tacitly without logic.

>>8642996
No, you think they can be understood. That doesn't mean it makes sense.

>>8642998
No, they are understood, without logic.

Logic is valueless.

>>8643001
No, you think they are. This is what faith is.

It's like none of you even understand the very basics of Hinduism

Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva, the Trimurti, are the trinity of the Hindu godhead

>>8643001
By this way, all we perceive is valueless, and as faith comes from what we perceive, you negate your own standing by your argument.

>>8642952
The concept of "belief" never enters the equation for me. I acknowledge what is written, I acknowledge what others believe or don't believe, I consider the possibility, but whether or not Jesus rose again and whether or not he was born of a virgin are matters of indifference to me. I'm not a Christian because I believe in a God that can do neat things. I am a Christian because that's the methodology of a living, productive, and fulfilling life that I've chosen. I could be a Taoist or Hindu or Jew; all of the ancient texts contain things that don't make much sense, but the application of the message, and an attempt at undermining that message by targeting the supernatural narratives is to attack a straw man.

File: 1475978035113.jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

>>8643037
>living
*loving

>>8643037
If you don't believe Jesus died and rose again for your sins, you aren't a Christian; you're a fakeass cultural Christian.

>>8643037
By our ridicule of the supernatural, we do not intend to undermine those moral frameworks which hold value for those that follow them; indeed we react to those who scrape for a sense of control or superiority from a wholly literal, and frankly ridiculous, interpretation of those books of morality.

In this way of calling our words a stawman, you yourself are guilty of the same.

>>8643046
Christian means "Christ-like".
I don't care about other people's interpretations. In fact, when people ask i generally just say no because "Christian" has taken a different connotation.

>we react to those who scrape for a sense of control or superiority
That's fair, but not an exclusively religious sentiment. I would even argue that I've seen (relatively) more of it in atheists than religious folks. A superiority complex seems more associated with the average atheist, where the average religious person is such because of their culture and cling to it/shun those outside of it as much as other cultural aspects

>>8643101
No. There are certain things you have to believe if you can legitimately call yourself a Christian. The resurrection is a very big one. The term cultural Christian exists for a reason.

>why isn't God like I expect Him to be
>why can't I fully understand an ineffable deity
>why is God mysterious

>>8643109
So that you can conveniently make a nonsensical belief system "make sense."

>>8642306
God is infinite and can exist however he wants. What one entity can't be 3 persons? Who made that rule? Oh GOD DID! He's above his own natural laws becauses he supernatural

If you're going to nitpick like this, you may as well say "oh he's INFINITELY strong?! How can someone believe that nonsense, nothing is infinite" because it's equally incomprehensible.

>>8643026
Shhh, don't shit on their Christian bashing

>>8642614
youd think something so confusing would at least be mentioned if it was such an integral part of the faith, also considering it directly contradicts parts of the bible
>>8642621
There's no reason to even assume the holy spirit would have to be a separate "person".

>>8643113
A God that "makes sense" isn't God. He's beyond us.

>>8642338
unitarians are lazy who can't into basic trinitarian teachings

>>8643118
I agree. God doesn't make sense. Discarded.

>>8643123
God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being - those are categories of thought. It's as simple as that.

>>8643105
sure. i'm not a Christian then.
whatever affiliation you want to tag me under is also a matter of indifference; I believe in God. I try to live as Christ would have me live. I seek guidance through the Bible, Aquinas, Tolstoy.
I do the thing, I don't care much for what it's called.

>>8643129
God isn't a metaphor. At least not the way most people use the term God.

>>8643101
"Christ-like" means to be righteous like he is

Thats through faith in his death as Lord as Savior, not by being good and doing what the bible says. That's just evidence of genuine faith, but it's the faith itself that makes you "Christ-like".

>>8643026
That's a bit different, the Hindu Godhead is 'seasonal' in that his aspect changes in cycles, although all three are homogeneous.
The Christian Godhead is like a more granular view of it; a closer interpretation of a singular aspect that also just so happens to be expressed in three forms

>>8643147
>a closer interpretation of a singular aspect that also just so happens to be expressed in three forms
Modalism heresy

>>8643123
>anything I don't understand doesn't exist
*tips fedora*

>>8642306
If you know a little bit about neo-platonism, it actually makes perfect sense.

>>8642306
I wish I could upvote you more than once.

>>8643122
Trinitarians are the remnants of shitty theological arguments made in the 4th and 5th century that resulted in a compromise that has no biblical basis.

Mark 10:18

>>8643175
Anything whose existence doesn't make sense can't exist.

>>8643248
Didn't know Tertullian and Athanasius lived in the 4th and 5th century desu m8

>>8642333
>Almight god who creates entire universe
>Help jews win all wars they fight
>But only when Moses has his hand up
>Make jews put stones under his hands in case he gets tired
>Later can't even help your chosen people completely win a war because the other side has chariots

Christianity is not grounded in reality lol

>>8642306
That's not in the Bible though.

>>8643261
You realize those aren't actual arguments? Interesting questions/situations, but they don't prove anything

>>8642306

Holy spirit... ....


I want more....

File: 1476590685459.jpg (36KB, 470x439px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 470x439px

>>8643340

Catholicism is the most /lit/ religion. Calvinism is a close second.

>>8643353
>Catholicism is the most Tumblr religion

FTFY

>>8643353
Idk what /lit/ religion means, but Calvinism is far more biblical than Catholicism as far as the solas and TULIP goes. I might give an edge to Catholicism on the origin of evil though, because I don't quite understand Molinism's view on that enough to discount it

>>8643356
that would be atheism friend

File: 5DV 1.gif (973KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 500x200px

>>8642306
Because I grasp philosophy and mmeetaphysics
>>8642329
Mate, the largest single religion in the world is Christianity at 31% of the entire planet. FFS, Just Catholics are 16% of the world's total population. Over 90% of Christians are trinitarian - almost 1 in 3 of *everyone* believes in the trinity.
Who cares if 9 neo-pagans in Brooklyn disagree?

>>8643374
Wicca maybe

>>8643374
atheism is reddit
catholicism is tumblr

File: HQ Pupper.jpg (293KB, 800x757px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x757px

>>8643353
>>8643356
>>8643374
>>8643378
>>8643380
and the dumbest conversation on /lit/ award goes to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

This should be a sticky already.

>>8643411
how long have you been here m8? We haven't even moved on to Stirner yet today

>>8643278
They prove that Judaeo-Christian faiths are the end product of playing chinese telephone with the scriptural product of bronze-age tribal mudfuckers.

You pretentious mongo.

>>8643422

That's modalism you heretic.

Unless you meant something else. I have no way of understanding you since all you did was post a link with no explanation of yourself, like a mouth-breather.

>>8644360
No it doesn't
How does it prove that

>>8644360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKudgsPT6N0

I'm amazed how Christians try their hardest to give sense to a fiction book from 2000 years ago, all this trinity bullshit, all the fucking metaphors could have been easily and clearly explained in the bible, why an omniscent God should give his word in such an obscure and unclear way? Why couldn't he give all the knowledge in an easy and clear way, maybe even a scientifical explanations also, but no, better to speak with shitty metaphors and stuff.

>>8642306
>not taking Christianity for its political worth
>not wanting to build the Kingdom of God on Earth via the liberation of the oppressed and excluded
You're missing out lads

File: 1474675938689.jpg (61KB, 650x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 650x640px

>>8644459
>scientifical

File: TWPoet.jpg (41KB, 570x484px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 570x484px

If you knew that, you would believe, or have a better critique of religion, whichever comes first.

File: LaughingPope.jpg (79KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 620x349px

>>8643369
>Calvinism is far more biblical than Catholicism.
The solas and TULIP are 16th century innovations. I mean, James comes out and says verbatim that we are not justified by faith alone. The Reformers went to the lengths of throwing out entire books of the Bible to justify their heretical views, so the claim that they were more "Biblical" is pretty suspect. Interestingly, the Thomist view of grace, which is popular among Catholics but isn't dogma, is much closer to Calvinism than most people realize.

>>8644360
>hurr logic
read kierkegaard pls

>>8644704
They didn't throw out those books just to justify their faith. Luther wanted to do that, with books like Revelations and James, but the reformers wouldn't let that fly for such a petty reason.

Some guys wrote a book and said they were inspired by an otherworldly being who will torture me if I don't suck his cock. You'd have to be a cuck to believe them, but I honestly do.

t. a Catholic

>>8644721
You're right, I was kind of simplifying things. I think the party line you hear from Protestants about the Deuterocanon is that 1st century Jews didn't recognize them. This still seems like a pretty crappy argument, since who cares what people who didn't accept Christ thought was scripture. There's also the fact that every single apostolic church accepts these books and that Christ quotes from several of them (Tobit and Wisdom at least) in the Gospel. But ignoring all that, just from a purely literary standpoint, removing the Canticle of the Three Youths, Tobit, and Judith from the Bible is a travesty.

>>8644774
I've read the quotes of Jesus "referencing" the deutero canon. I think they're reaches. I don't think he is referencing them, because either they aren't word for word, or if they are word for word, they were most likely just common Jewish phrases because past Jew leaders said the same phrases in different contexts, for example Hillel.

>God consists of 3persons
>3
ya dun goofed

>>8644799
Well, they occur with frequency enough that it at least suggests that Jesus might be referencing them. Still, there is inherently an issue with looking at the Bible to justify the canon of the Bible. This is why Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter) thing the authority of the Church is so important.

>>8644814
Protestants (my branch anyways) do consider the authority of the church to be important, which is how we do establish our canon (by church tradition and authority) but we don't believe it on par with the scriptures. I believe Catholicism allows the churches authority to supersede scripture, which is an issue.

>>8644830
Well Catholics don't believe that Tradition supersedes the Bible, just that the truths of the faith found in Sacred Scripture come to be more fully understood through ecumenical councils or infallible statements from a pope (actually a really rare occurrence). For instance, the Bible never explicitly mentions the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, which were defined at councils by the early Church. What's important here is that there's no contradiction between these doctrines what we find in the Bible. Instead these developments represent a growing understanding of what was always held to be true from the time of the Apostles.

It's also important to note that Sacred Scripture is an aspect of Sacred Tradition, so on the Catholic view the two cannot be separated. They form one deposit of faith.

autism general belongs on >>>/his/

>>8642306
nah you just dont understand man

File: tumblr_oexez7pEpm1qe9g4mo1_500.jpg (107KB, 387x750px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 387x750px

>>8642327
>mfw i see 8/8 b8

>>8644459

Because if you give non literal expressions then you will have different ways of communicating the same truth to many different people over many different times. Likewise it can go the other way and you may have many different truths meant for many different people that can all be derived from one thing. This cuts down on the size of your holy book, allows more accessibility so that different people can pull different things on it that are meant for their level of intellect, and gives you the most potential knowledge possible.

Anyways, OP have you ever tried to read accounts of the Trinity done by philosophers/ logicians like Boethius, Aquinas, Scotus, etc? There are some good accounts to be found there, and all of them were smarter than anyone who will ever post on this board, so you will get better answers there.

>>8644830
Why do protestants believe this blatant propaganda and falsehood?

File: 1467145864155.jpg (149KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 736x736px

Because there is only one will and action of the Trinity, the Father's.

>>8645304
because their protestant fathers have repeated it age in and age out for so long that nobody can believe it wasn't true

>>8646381
One would think a church ought to be built on truth.

>>8646749
they think it is a truth. maybe you haven't been a protestant, so you just don't understand it, but misrepresentations of Catholicism have existed for so long in their country, and their literature is so filled with it, that it seems self-evident to them that the Catholic religion is stuffed with superstition, ignorance, servility, equivocations, etc.

>>8644830
>I believe Catholicism allows the churches authority to supersede scripture, which is an issue.

That's not true at all. If anything you could say that they're on a level playing but even that wouldn't strictly be true since tradition can never contradict what is in scripture.

>>8643356
>What is Islam?
>What is Universalism?

>>8643353
>Catholicism is the most /lit/ religion.
that's like the least cool thing you could say about a religion. only ever so slightly better than saying "Catholicism is the most /fa/ religion"

>>8642327
Agreed. Christianity is the only proper Abrahamic religion. The other two are just lists of who to stone.

File: David-Beckham-necklace.jpg (34KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 320x320px

>>8647732
>implying

>>8642327
>Jesus is the son, he is creation, he is what the father has created.

i caught a heretic! that's arian heresy that the son of god was created by the father!

your public burning is yesterday, the main square, at noon

Christians are cuckolds to a Jewish mind meme

>>8642306
>Reading the bible without historical context
If you go straight into dogma and symbolism of course it is going to look stupid.
>Gnostic Heresy
>Valentinianism
>The emergence the Catholic Church

If you're not going to talk about a book in the bible or some passages to back up your assertion why are you on /lit/?

>>>/pol/
>>>/his/
This would be more your speed.

>>8647828
i meant tomorrow but you got it anyway

>>8642306
not all Christians believe in the trinity

>>8648036
Which ones don't?

if a mathematician tells you that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 etc unto infinity equals -1/12, you say "wow maths are so incredible", and yet the comparably comprehensible trinity is simply "nonsense"

>>8648036
not all "Christians" have any idea what they're talking about when they give their opinion on theology

>>8648703
>not all "Christians" have any idea what they're talking about when they give their opinion on theology
True, but that doesn't make the trinity any more correct. There is very little basis in scripture. Less so when you look at the original languages.

>>8643118

Good job ripping off Taoism, you fucking hacks.

>The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (20KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 474x528px

>This entire thread

>>8645304
>Why do protestants believe this blatant propaganda and falsehood?

Sunday sabbath is all you need to know that the Catholic church indeed believes their authority and tradition supersedes the scriptures. Here it is, in their words:

“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday.”—Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers (p. 89)
"“The authority of the Church could, therefore, not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed…the Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority.”—Canon on Tradition p. 263
“Sunday is our mark of authority…The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.”—Catholic Record, Sept. 1, 1923

What does God think?
"He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt 15:3)
"thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:13)
"‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)

>>8644877
>Well Catholics don't believe that Tradition supersedes the Bible
>>8646867
>That's not true at all. If anything you could say that they're on a level playing but even that wouldn't strictly be true since tradition can never contradict what is in scripture.
Please see
>>8648896
I would specifically like a response for the third quote from the Catholic Record.

“It’s the MARK of our authority to over-rule God’s law.”—Father Enright C.S.S.R. of the Redemptoral College, Kansas City, Mo., History of the Sabbath, p. 802.
"Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday…not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church’s sense of its own power….People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.”—Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995

To suggest the Catholic Church does NOT believe their authority is higher than that of God and the Scriptures is not supported by their quotes and writings. Some more:

"Not the Creator of Universe, in Genesis 2:1-3,-but the Catholic Church can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days." (S. C. Mosna, Storia della Domenica, 1969, pp. 366-367)
""The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." (Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary)

>>8648915
>>8648896
you should know full well that there is a much more complex relationship between Catholicism and Pharisaical observance of the letter of the Law. everybody who is a Catholic won't be bothered in the least by an objector who can't even acknowledge that there is any danger in perfect obedience to the letter of the law

>>8650453
Not an argument.

>>8650453
I'm sorry, but I disagree on this issue. "Remember my sabbath day" is a consistently repeated commandment from exodus all the way to revelation. Even Christ says that during the tribulation, the sabbath must still be observed. It is a well documented commandment in the scriptures, and not a "letter of the law" niggling issue like "don't mar your beard" or "don't mix your fabrics", which require context to properly understand. "Remember my sabbath day" is instituted in Genesis since God starting with God's blessing of the seventh day of rest. It is a conmand as old as the world. I can gather the scriptural reference if you like, as there are many.

The Catholic church's transference of this day of rest to Sunday is indeed a mark of their authority; they quite literally say as much, many times, with no room for confusion.

The proper argument to have should then be whether or not they truly have the authority to do so. The argument against this typically being that the command for the sabbath is often possessive ("my sabbath"), while the argument for it typically is that the pope is a vicar of Christ and indeed does have the right to change the ordinances to fit with tradition and the changing of the times.

>>8650726
>It is a well documented commandment in the scriptures, and not a "letter of the law" niggling issue
It is one thing to say so; it is another to say that this holds for the Catholic position. It is not the Catholic position. The church fathers consistently put it as a matter of spirit vs letter, the NT vs the Jewish law. You can argue that it is not so; but it will be much harder to argue that Catholics do not think it is so.

Quoting newspaper articles, old dictionaries, and the obscure publications of individual Cardinals is not especially persuasive in establishing what is a universal Catholic opinion. This tactic has been employed unsuccessfully by Protestants in the most flagrantly dishonest manner for hundreds of years, so that we are quite used to it.

Ferraris in particular is never quoted by Catholics, but is a favourite of sects who want to attack the Church. It has no authority among Catholics, but is taken as ex cathedra by people who run anti-Catholic websites.

It's funny that Catholics quote the Church fathers and major theologians, while persons like yourself love to quote old forgotten dictionaries and newspaper articles. When we see how you cherry-pick from our literature, how you take anything that suits a purpose, even if it must be taken out of context, or from a dubious source—when we see this, I say, is there any wonder that we don't trust you with Scripture alone?

>>8650868
That's fair, but the fact remains that there is a good amount of catholic writing that places their authority over God and the scriptures. To say that "Protestants have been doing this for years, we're used to it", and that this aren't widely held opinions of the clergy, or even that these quotes are out d context is a fair point, but I personally haven't seen any literature or heard anything that disavows this opinion or runs contrary to it, so unless you can provide me with something that does so, I will continue to argue that this is their position.

Also, I do not believe that "the spirit is what counts" when the spirit runs contrary to the commandment. To worship God in a personal way is fine, but the sabbath particularly is an oft repeated command, again, all the way through revelation. To say that the spirit is what matters regarding the sabbath is not scriptural supported. The bible is very clear that the seventh day is the blessed day, and was instituted before the Jews and intended to be kept long after the Jews.

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. … And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." He sanctified the seventh day. Saturday. The Catholic Church is aware of this and they say as much, continue to say as much, have never disavowed it (please show me contrary opinions if you have them) and quite plainly say that they are aware that God says the sabbath is Saturday. There is no confusion here that this is their choice.

This is usually where the argument turns into "you have no authority over scripture" or "you don't properly understand", which isn't an interesting conversation, and tends to be dismissive, condescending, and a poor argument.

If there is scriptural basis for the "spirit that matters", please show me. If there is a traditional basis for it, I am not interested in that, and I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't find it a very compelling argument to use scripture to say "on this rock I will build this church" when it is convenient only to ignore scripture that conflicts with tradition, as there is plenty of scripture relating to God's opinion on man's tradition. It's rather exhaustive, in fact.

>>8650975
>Also, I do not believe that "the spirit is what counts" when the spirit runs contrary to the commandment
>moving the goalposts

lol

>>8642306
Simple, just define an asymmetrical identity relation = s.t. for any individuals x and y, x = y iff x is a proper complete subpart of y, where for any x and, y, x is a proper complete subpart of y iff: (i) x is a subpart of y; (ii) there exists a z s.t. (a) z is a subpart of y and (b) x is a subpart of z and (c) z is not identical to x; (iii) there exists no unity u s.t. (a) u is not identical to y and (b) x is a proper subpart (in the sense of i, ii above) of u.

then if unity'(g), we can let f = g, s = g, h = g, but f =/= s, s =/= h, h =/= f

further let if be that person'(f), person'(s), person'(h), then the relative ternary Gupta-identity relation same'(P, x, y), P a sortal, x and y individuals, holds just in case there exists a z s.t. P'(z), x = z, and y = z. But then since ~person'(g), it follows that ~same'(person, f, s), ~same'(person, s, h), and, ~same'(person, h, f), while on the other hand E3x[person'(x) ^ x = g].

Then let nature'(Q, x) hold of a nature Q and individual x if there exists a unity u s.t. x is a proper complete subpart of u and nature'(Q, u), and primitively defined for unities.

thus if nature'(man, g) and nature'(divine, g), it follows that nature'(man, x) and nature'(divine, x) holds on the assignment of x to f, s, h.

hope this helps op, you can learn more in any third grade classroom or local bible study.

>>8642614
>if the Bible was really the word of God it would read more like Hegel, right? Jesus spake in parables because he was a fraud, the real son of God would speak in formal definitions
I know this is bait, but the Bible explains the parables. It's Jesus teaching down to the people, so to speak. You think a peasant would understand Hegel? No; neither would a commoner understand God's word without it being delivered in a parable.
Christ would later bring three disciples to the mountaintop to learn the undiluted truth, but they fell asleep before he could reveal it.
On a slightly related note, it's funny to me how childish the apostles act in the gospels. Especially at the Last Supper when Jesus practically says "Judas will betray me, I will die soon" and all of them are dumbfounded as to what he could possibly mean.

>>8651061
How am I moving the goalposts? Please explain. I think I was quite clear in my post about what that meant.

I don't think you can say "it's in the spirit of God!" when it runs diametrically opposed to his exact commandments. If you have some scripture that suggests otherwise, I'd love to hear it. There is plenty that says "don't fucking do shit how you feel, retards, listen to God. He literally doesn't care for your traditions."

I await your sophistry and condescension while ignoring the main point of my argument. Often the case when talking with Catholics, otherwise known as "Satan's little helpers."

But feel free to quote some dead "church leader" who was also wrong, like he's gospel.

File: tumblr_nzxs33bPEM1td9tg8o2_1280.jpg (167KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 640x480px

>>8642306
>this god is omnipotent but there exist things that are not pefectly satistfying to him
Riiiight.

>>8651192
>what is free will
Come on son.

>I don't want to create slaves
>so I have to allow them free will
>but if allow them free will
>they will inevitably choose things I don't like
>this is fine, because it's more important that they have free will to choose to follow me, rather than I create them slaves unable

And then you roll in like
>HA HA! "OMNIPOTENT" GOD? NOT FUCKING LIKELY LOOKS LIKE I OUTSMARTED YOUR DUMB SYSTTEM HA HA CHECK M8 GODTHEISTS

>>8651192
Ooh, OOH, I got this one!

"God moves in MYSTERIOUS WAYS"

>>8651214
Did Christianity literally steal this from a U2 song?

>>8651213
>Create being with my omniscient mind
>Can see that it's going to fuck up my orders
>Make it that way on purpose just because
>It fucks up
>Send it to hell where it's tortured eternally

Do you believe that people who do not follow your religious doctrine go to hell anon?

More importantly do you believe they deserve to?

>>8651219
Bono is the third coming of Christ

>>8651225
There is no eternal hell holy shit I am so tired of having fucking stupid argument.

Do you know how easily you could clear up your understanding of hell? It takes ten minutes. There is no eternal hell of torture. it is a misconception. I'm sorry you get your information second hand from shitty teachers, but the only support for an "eternal torturel is based on ONE passage that falls apart when you look at it in context, is even less credible in the original language, and is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED by ALL THE OTHER MENTIONS of what hell is in the bible. Eternal destruction. Damnation. You will no longer exist. That's it.

And before you counter me with some stupid argument about "lol lots of churches believe in eternal suffering", I don't care, they have no leg to stand on. There is no support for this. It comes from shit like Sinners in the hands of an Angry God and Dante's Inferno, and other medieval works. I understand if you don't know this, because before I looked into I thought the same thing. But it took me less than a day to clear it up and it was the first thing I google searched. There are hundreds of pages clarifying this common misconception and if you were an intellectually honest person you would look into it.

Whether or not you believe is irrelevant to me. But don't peddle the "eternal torture" garbage because it's fucking wrong and stupid and you're right, does not make any God damn sense. Blame shitty churches and people who can't read, spreading this shit in a 2000 year old game of telephone.

>>8651157
>the Bible explains the parables. It's Jesus teaching down to the people, so to speak. You think a peasant would understand Hegel?

this is the worst interpretation of Matthew 13 that I have ever had the misfortune to read

if you take "hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" to mean "they hear the words but aren't educated enough to understand abstract concepts", then how do you understand "seeing they do not see"? How do you understand this:

For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them.’

How can that make sense to you, who think that Jesus speaks in parables merely because peasants wouldn't understand anything abstract, or that they would have trouble following a chain of reasoning? Don't you see that there is some universal ailment which afflicts both peasant and philosopher, and that the parables are intended for all the children of Adam?

>>8651261
Why do you think it's unimportant that many (most?) popular forms of Christianity believe in eternal suffering? That is the doctrine which most Christians follow, and therefore that has more relevance than whatever "true" form of Christianity you practice. Just saying.

>>8651261
Bullshit, you don't even follow what it says in your book any more.

Chop and change, turn it around, wear mixed fabrics and work on the Sabbath.

You don't even follow your core text properly, how do you know YOU aren't going to hell?

What makes you believe your denomination of Christianity is the non-heretical one?

You can't prove the superiority of your sect over another any more than you can prove the existence of god.

And don't start wailing about "faith".

Basically, you haven't got any business telling anybody shit.

All you have is special pleading and casual violation of the burden of proof.

>>8651176
>you
>you
>you

he to whom you respond is not he to whom you were responding

>>8651275
It's not about education, either. It's a poor analogy but I used it in response to that anon's original usage. Education can actually limit one's grasp on enlightenment or repentance.

>>8651281
I don't care. Stand behind your argument or don't bother. I asked you a direct question, which you apparently cannot clarify.

How did I move the goalposts? I made myself very clear.

>>8651279
>>8651279
How the fuck do you know what I do, you sack of shit.

I follow the book very carefully, and I study it. Stop projecting. I'm very Torah observant. And protip, the mixed fabrics is not what you think it is. Neither is marring your beard. You'd know this if you STUDIED THE CONTEXT. It takes a lot of work, but I guess you'd rather whine like a baby and project your own failings onto strangers than open a fucking book. Pull your head out of your ass. It's not hard to study and observe.

>>8651279
And one more thing, you'd know if you read the book that character is what matters more than anything. Always be searching. David sinned many times, even cheating on his wife, and he was the most beloved child of God ever.

But no, contrary to what Catholics think you can't just "do what you feel" and it's all good. If you throw his words in the garbage he doesn't care about you. Sorry. If you make no effort to have a relationship with him or even bother to get to know him or what he wants from you, he doesn't care. Sorry. Truth hurts.

And when I talk to people like you, honestly, I don't blame him.

>>8651279
>how do you know YOU aren't going to hell
Dude the Reformation covered this. Read a fucking basic-level European history textbook.

>>8651340
>>8651324
Wow man. Much compassion, very Christian.

>>8651213
Explain this free will to me, anon. How does it work? I kid not, I've never been able to understand the concept.

>>8651349
Don't tell me what it means to be Christian with your bloo bloo understanding of jack shit. You don't know anything, and your meme understanding of Christian compassion doesn't work on making me feel guilty like you think it does.

>I have nothing but contempt for your backward beliefs
>so this argument wouldn't work on me
>but maybe if I cherry pick this one thing
>you'll realize I win

Chesterton said that the trinity makes complex democracies possible, and damn if I don't see his point

>>8651361
You can only understand it by its actual essence in the world. It's impossible to understand it as an abstraction, because it doesn't make sense as an abstraction. This doesn't mean that it's not worth thinking about, however. The blueness of blue is another absolute reality that cannot be reduced to an abstraction, but you'd have to be an idiot to deny that you perceive blueness in blue. Free will is the same way. You perceive quite clearly that you have a choice. It's at the center of your being. I mean the real you, the person sitting at the computer. Not some kind of aseptic totally neutral autistic scientific "subject." Real you, right now. You have a choice. It doesn't make rational sense, but it doesn't have to. You perceive quite clearly that you're free. Even if you're unfree, your mind is still free. That's what free will means.

>>8642374
>cuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuck*POOT*cuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuck*POOT*cuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuck*POOT*
Don't you have anything intelligent to say?

>>8642327

Why does god feel the need to "Sacrifice" himself? Why does his omnipotent self decide to make some things sinful and other things not sinful? Why did he create pain and suffering? If he loved us so much why didn't he make us biologically more prepared to deal with "Sinful" temptation? If he loves us so much why didn't he just send all his creation to heaven by default?

>>8651324
that's right tell that dongsmoker to switch to clean linens and an ephod before entering the tabernacle, or thou shall be consumed in a fire of wrath when he spreadeth forth his hand you noob

>>8651308
mate, I didn't have all day to post on 4chan, I was doing housework, having dinner, going to sleep. Somebody else came on and started posting, I just poked my head back in to point out what should have been obvious: that you were now arguing with a different person

you know as well as I do that no argument can ever be followed to its full and satisfying conclusion on the internet, and generally what must happen is that one party or the other cuts it short. As much as I enjoy arguing about the Church, I have other things which need doing and I can't keep this up any longer. Call that a victory for your side, and I won't deny it.

>>8653377
>m8 I have all this time to tell you why I don't have time to clarify one simple thing i am very busy ok let me tell you I just can't clarify it at all
ok
>>8653233
Well there is no need for a tabernacle anymore since we are not exactly in the wilderness on the way to Canaan, and we don't exactly need animal sacrifices anymore, since Jesus already came to fulfill those, forever, and since he himself ripped the temple in two, the point was made pretty clear on that, so there is no need for ephods or clean linens for those sacrificial customs and ceremonial laws because they are either done away with or different now, 3500 years after exodus and leviticus was written, 2000 years after the messiah in the time of Jews and Gentiles, but you'll probably just say I don't understand or that I'm "moving le goalposts" or laugh at me because I'm "totally not following my religion right."

So please, consider your sarcastic comment about highly specific rules for the Levites, now a lost tribe, where no one could even possible know if they were one or not, wherein you suggest I might be smote with holy fire like Nadab and Abihu for "forgetting those customs", a ripping dig. You got me man. You totally showed me on that one.

File: library.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>8651278
>That is the doctrine which most Christians follow, and therefore that has more relevance than whatever "true" form of Christianity you practice. Just saying.
Because it doesn't matter. Ask yourself an honest question: do you think most Christians have actually read the bible, cover to cover? And of that percentage, how many just stop after reading it? How many people, after reading it, read multiple translations? How many people, after reading multiple translations, use a concordance or look at the source language? How many people, after looking at the source language, study the history of the church and follow the doctrinal changes through time? Noting the schisms, and figuring out where and when each idea or perception came about? How many people study the scripture through time, noting the changes down the line, such as the vowel points added to the Masoretic text, or the over 300,000 differences between all the extant copies of the Greek manuscripts? How many people also go back and look at canonization process of scripture, and trace exactly "when" certain books were removed, and more importantly, "why", and then decide for themselves, not from tradition, whether or not those books are worth studying or reading at all? In short, how many people do you think truly, really care, and love doing the work? Pic related.

Now, take that number, and ask yourself how many people just learn about God from someone else. How many people just "go to church." And how many of those churches hold fast to suspect doctrines, with mental gymnastics, even when scriptural evidence is presented to the contrary, citing "tradition" or "those are just my beliefs" in spite of all the scriptural and historical evidence to the contrary? I'm sure this category is an astronomically higher number than the first. In short, most people don't have the time, don't care, or don't have the acuity to slog through all the work. They need the shorthand. Which unfortunately leaves them open targets for deception and misconception.

That's why it doesn't matter. To say "the misconceptions that most people practice are more relevant than the truth", is silly to me. Most of the people who believe these misconceptions have simply not done the work to understand the nuances of their religion. And it seems like the less work someone does over time, strangely, the more thick headed they become, refusing to even welcome the notion that things they have believed for years might be based in error, having grown too attached to certain concepts, such as browbeating others with a terrifying tale of eternal torture, from a smug place of self-satisfaction and human cruelty, and they will refuse to let go of those concepts, no matter what you show them.

So when the topic arises, I try to let people know that this horrible aspect of the religion is an incorrect, man made tradition, but whenever I do so, I am met with "what you believe doesn't matter, most people believe otherwise."

>>8653763
I am just reading beginning of mathew, and jesus mentioned that hell is awaiting adulterers and "name callers" several times already.
Also alot of those books are from occult origin, false prophets etc

>>8642306
The Trinity is not enforced by the bible.
The Holy Spirit isn't an entity.

>>8654545
Yeah He does. But He doesn't say that hell is eternal torture. It could be temporary torture then complete annihilation.
Or just complete annihilation after death.

>>8653763
>reads gnostic occult illuminati books
U sure you aint going to hell?

>>8654688
This is another thing I hear a lot that I don't understand.

God isn't going to damn you because you read a fucking book, m8. Please point me to the scripture where it says so. I'm pretty sure he says "be innocent as doves, and wise as serpents", and the only way to become wise is by reading with an open mind.

I can't combat gnostic heresies without looking at their playbook, or they are going to run circles around me with their "le sekrit knowledge demiurge abraxas" garbage.

God says not to practice sorcery or witchcraft or worship other gods. You can read about the occult without disobeying any of those tings. Use your head.

>>8654545
When I make the argument about hell not being eternal torture, please know that my evidence is contained entirely within the 66 canon books of scripture and does not rely on extraneous non-canon sources.

I read false prophets so that I can come up with arguments to destroy them. There are so many people who follow false teachings, so I have to make sure and read those teachings to help other anons. It was something I was lead to naturally, because I'd argue with people and they would spin me around "he doesn't know about the demiurge tee hee" and they would pull status on me, because they were right. I didn't know about the demiurge. Or Sophia. Or the apocryphon of John etc. So I naturally read it, and looked to see whether or not it rang true.

I actually study the occult extensively. The devil tells many lies, and when you study the bible and the occult carefully, you start to learn how he operates. He always tells the truth when he lies. That's why it's so convincing. But he leaves things out or distorts it. You have to know how to tell what's what, and you have to be careful and discerning. There are many people who fall victim to these lies because they have already have meme understanding of scripture in the first place, so when then they read gnostic shit and see how intricate and connected it is with eastern philosophy they come to this hipster understanding of "wow at last I truly see there is no sin ha ha sweet fuck Yahweh he's a war god ha ha fukken kikes" and it is exhausting.

I genuinely just want to help people. I can't do that without knowledge.

>>8654809
Thanks for this.
Do you think the end times are near? In last 50 years first organised worships of satan are surfacing, hes obv controlling the enterntainment industry for example, and hiding more and more in plain sight.
What do you think of current pope?