Because the consequence of sin is death. In order to pay for your sins you need to die, or make an animal sacrifice in your place, and both of these are imperfect because as a human your death can never change the past anyway, therefore your sin will always exist, and animals aren't worth a human life in the scheme of things. Sacrificing another human in your place would work better, but that would be murder, and thus another sin. Also all humans are imperfect, so taking any human life doesn't make for a perfect sacrifice, either. So in order for your sins to be forgiven and for your soul to escape destruction, a perfect human would have to willingly volunteer to die in your place. So God incarnated in the world and did so, thus saving any human who accepted that sacrifice.
>>6321099 So if A B and C are all clearly defined separate variables, how are they all D? Do you add them all together to equal D? That means they aren't D, they are 3 different variables which happen to equal D, as in they aren't one thing. Or are they all D on their own? This means they aren't variables with different properties, which means they're all the same thing and thus there is no distinction. As in, Jesus and God are the same thing, which doesn't hold up when Jesus is clearly a separate variable from God with different aspects and values.
>>6321129 "God" and "God the Father" are separate. When people say God, they mostly mean "God the Father" who was the active agent in most of the Old Testament. That image uses "God" to mean "the collected Trinity."
>>6321141 You misinterpreted the second part, I know full well that God is not the Father. Let's say a Jesus is 1, the other 2 have their own variables, and god is say 5. Jesus can't be 5, or else Jesus wouldn't exist as an independent variable when he clearly is. Jesus had to equal 1. But the Father and The Holy Spirit can't equal 1, or else there would be no god or father, they'd both be a jesus. They have to exist as independent variables to add up to 5, which means they aren't all one thing.
>>6321148 Give me some other systems than mathematics to explain logical concepts, unless you are asserting that it's an irrational position, in which case why try arguing it rationally.
>>6321149 They are still different things, the Father does not Jesus's body. They're not universals, they are all very different and take on extrenky different physical aspects, red is not oxygen is not a magnet. These aren't three different shades of red.
>>6321177 Why did you arbitrarily set God as 5? In any case, it's a bit like how "you" as a person taken in your entirety from birth to death is different than the "you" currently reading words on a screen and responding to them is different than the "you" who will be doing some other task tomorrow. Or to make a more extreme example for emphasis, a kindly elementary school teacher who writes snarky reviews of books in their free time and was once a millitary sniper.
God is eternal, so the divisions are at once more complex and more simple than in humans. There are only three schemas in the whole, as opposed to the many a human will have in their lifetime. And these schemas all exist and operate concurrently and semi-independantly, as opposed to a limited human mind that switches between them temporally. Taken together, they are "God."
>>6321321 God acts separately though from the three, Jesus laments god abandoning him even during his death. How can god be an aspect of something that acts contrary to it? If a light reflects something and the reflected light acts independently of the source, it isn't coming from it.
>>6321357 >Jesus laments god abandoning him even during his death. Again, because generally when people refer to "God" generically without clarifying they are speaking specifically of The Father because that's traditionally how it has been done. We are using more specific terminology here to try and avoid confusion.
>>6321425 You can't have it both ways. Either it's a polytheistic system of 3 separate working parts or they're all aspects of the same part. I'm looking this up and seeing nothing that reconcicles them being aspects of one with the co-eternal three. Trinitarianism and Modalism don't mix.
>>6321447 Just because a watch is an item unto itself doesn't mean you cannot examine the individual properties of a gear, clock-face and spring. Each individually has its own separate properties, but only form the whole when arranged correctly.
>>6321462 God is the one true force of creation and it had a son with a prophet, someone who could connect with him. I find it funny that catholics don't consider mary's gospel canon but do recognize its timeline and the books written by the dude escaping with her.
>>6321522 None aspect individually is "God." You don't get a cell by mixing carbon, hydrogen, phospborus and nitrogen in a big pot. You don't get a cell by mixing DNA, plasma membranes, and amino acids in a big pot. A cell only emerges from its parts when they are organized in a very specific manner. Likewise, the complete God only emeres from the incomplete Father/Son/Ghost when organized into the Trinity.
>>6321499 I'm not that anon, but I'll cut you off by saying you should reconsider your questions to pay attention to the linguistic implications of what both of you are saying. The anon was very clear in what he said, god is "the one true force of creation" and then you ask him why there is one and not many, but if we could assume that the contrary is true, that is, that there are many forces of creation, the definition of the anon changes with it and passes on to mean that collection of forces of creation, which is just one collection of them, it would be a correct affirmation. Atheists usually tend to call that the "god of the gap", as if the believer was dodging questions and bending definitions, but when you ask stuff like that, it is important to note that you too are bending these definitions by making these questions in particular. The things is that, to the believer, God is that term that bends to no other, so to say that whatever force of creation means, if it is one or several, if it is true on a literal, metaphorical or otherwise level, it will always mean God. Then perhaps it is useful to consider that the denial of God means to bend the definition of this word to something that doesn't match up with your experience of reality, a man in the sky that is not flying on a plane, or a different term or set of terms to determine true forces of creation that turn the word "God" unnecessary for a satisfying symbolic relationship with the phenomenon of the world. It is very easy to call the other out on playing semantic games with you, if only you don't notice that the word games are played by everyone, whether we like it or not, and that the only way over it is through it and that two may be talking very different words but saying the same thing.
>>6321583 No, because each aspect is eternal. I don't mean "organization" as the process of taking something disordered and making it ordered, but "organized" in terms of an ordered relationship between parts. I can see how you'd interpret it as a process from my last sentence, but I meant in terms of "analyzed in isolation" vs "analyzed as a whole." The incomplete parts are eternal, as are their organization into a whole, complete God.
>>6321099 >creating hierarchies and diagrams of a tribal desert war-god and his supposed son who was the combination of stolen stories/teachings from multiple apocalyptic charlatans into one apocalyptic charlatan by his traumatized followers after watching him get executed less than a week into visiting to his holy city
Yahweh seems to have been the Canaanites' storm god, it was his consort Asherah who was the war god.
>less than a week into visiting to his holy city
I think you might be giving too much credence to the gospel accounts. Considering how much the events of that week are clearly fictional or mythologised, we have grounds for thinking the compression of the events into a single week is an exaggeration.
Because we ate from the tree of knowledge; according to Philo, the Garden of Eden represented the soul, the tree of knowledge is the only tree not in the garden, meaning is represents fruit from a source of knowledge other than the soul (fruit itself being a metaphor for knowledge gleamed from discernment). That is, we first used our senses instead of our soul to perceive, which alienated us from God by drawing us into sin, sin being whatever is outside of "communion" with God. In order to get people back into communion with God, Christ had to voluntarily step out of it without sinning so there was a lifeline in the realm of sin (all the way down to hell, since Christ was in hell until he was resurrected), which allowed even those in sin to grasp God's hand and be pulled into communion with God.
>most important human being in history >only things confirmable about him are being baptized and executed >regarded as the wisest and best of all men >entire ministry consisted of him calling himself the only path to God, love, maintaining the status-quo in life, and preparing for the end of the world Was Jesus a meme?
>>6321678 >we have grounds for thinking the compression of the events into a single week is an exaggeration. Seems unlikely. Giving grandeur to things means stretching them out, the Trojan War, for instance, is a ten fucking year long siege, Odysseus takes ten fucking years to get home, etc. Certainly the accounts in the Gospels could only cover a brief span (as the Iliad and the Odyssey do), and would compress the events into those, but if they wanted to embellish time, I think they would have added to it, not taken away.
>>6321737 Should invention of Christianity really be credited to Saul? Didn't he make the jump from anti-Sadducee/Pharisee Jewish sect, to its own religion? Why did the original apostles let some outsider make so many critical theological decisions?
>>6321724 Maybe actual Christians would be harsher on you, I'm just an interested agnostic.
Also you mention 'stolen stories/teachings from multiple apocalyptic charlatans,' but I'd be wary about saying that Jesus' followers borrowed from other apocalyptic prophets if we lack information on who those other prophets were or what they taught.
>>6321744 I didn't mean it was for the purpose of grandeur, I was just suggesting that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, trial and crucifixion are presented as part of the same Passover week for typological reasons.
>>6321744 Compression and expansion are both literary devices used for different reasons. Compression is used to convey intensity of events. Think of Romeo and Juliet taking place over three days as opposed to earlier telling that took place over months.
>>6320710 Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu the preserver much like Krishna and Rama. Vishnu is part of the Trimurti along with Brahma the creator and Shiva the destroyer. By surrendering to Bhakti one is freed from the chains of ego by love and grace and is able to pierce through the veil of Maya and see the Brahman or nondual ground of Being/God.
>I didn't mean it was for the purpose of grandeur, I was just suggesting that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, trial and crucifixion are presented as part of the same Passover week for typological reasons.
Probably, but I'm saying I don't think the time was fudged *that* much, if shorter or longer. If it was a long time, they would have kept it that way, and used some other significance for the last seven days. Furthermore it doesn't seem unreasonable that Christ would have got that ax that fast if his reputation made him gather crowds very early. If someone in the Middle Ages were preaching heresy against the Catholic Church in Rome, they'd get the ax fucking quick.
>>6321775 Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be about adolescent infatuation though, that's a bad example, In fact I'd say all plays are, because plays are forced to have a more continuous line of action and employ minimal dramatic time (which is why Aristotle thought they were the best medium for stories).
>>6321086 So in other words he's not the thing in itself or the Aristotelian prime mover. The concept of sin, circles, squares, and heavy rocks all exist outside of god. In that case he's just a demiurge, and the Euthyphro dilemma DOES apply to him.
If god is truly omnipotent, IE, able to do illogical things like square circles or solve the halting problem, then he can also define a universal morality which mankind would have no choice but to accept.
If however, he is bound by laws of logic and reason, capable of doing anything possible, but only things which are themselves possible, then his commandments are not objective morality, but rather arbitrary rules that mankind only follows because of the threat of divine punishment.
This also suggest there an even larger entity outside god which defines the rules god is unable to break.
>>6320710 Because the dude's a huge dick. He could give us all a lifetime of deep fulfillment but instead he's up in heaven with his giant magnifying glass frying us to death under the sunlight for his own amusement. The damn bastard. Take this, God: 666!
>Jesus pulling Peter out of the water is symbolically Peter's baptism >yfw Jesus/Peter is a parallel of John/Jesus >yfw Jesus is the jealous older son and Peter is the righteous younger son >yfw you believe in a lie
>>6322663 He could, he would have to take away our choice to sin (move out of communion) with him though. "Hell" is the emptiness of sin, theoretically it would be something like an orgy devoid of any love, and there is only cold detachment in a void, but being human you're conscious enough to feel this and you're in a constant agony that sin will never satiate. Or the orgy isn't there, it's non-material; but the point is that even if it were, it would still be agony, it would a void of acute loneliness and pain, the natural conclusion of sin, sin in its purest form, uncut.
To save you from this, God can either take away your free will and force you to love him, which is not really love, or he can send his son into the midst of pure sin so you have something to grab onto.
>>6322689 But i want to know the rationale behind it. Is not like he had to sacrifice himself in order to kill a powerfull demon or something. The Christian God has all the power in the universe, and somehow, sacrificing his only son was necessary. But i cant see why. Is because there is a magical cloud of sins which God himself cannot destroy unless he sacrifices a pure soul or something? I dont get it. Was the sacrifice necessary to then appear and yell to everyone "he died because of your sins!"?
>>6322696 Because the wages of sin are death. That's the mechanics of it. It's like you're in a fire, and God puts his hand in the fire to pull you out even if it hurts his hand. The reason he can't just "beam" you out is because it has to be your own free will to take his hand.
>>6322706 >>6322700 The bible says God only needed to say "Let there be light" to make the light, so i take for granted he only needs to wish something to make it happen (that is why he is omnipotent) >>6322706 Right, but he sacrificed himself (or his son, or whatever). So, he created this mechanism to sin and to be free of sins, and at the end he follow his own rules to free us for sins.
It is like i want to punish you, so i command you to write 1000 times on the board "i will be a good person" (or whatever). Now, if i want to save you from this, why i dont just say "ok stop" instead of telling you to give space to continue your punishment?
>>6322713 Free will isn't a punishment, though. The mechanism of sin is just an option that is required for their to be free will, "sin" is nothing more than walking away from communion with God. Communion with God cannot be love if it is forced, meaning forcing it is logically impossible, and even God cannot do what is logically impossible, as agree upon by theologians.
>>6322722 Well, if im not mistaken then: - This sacrifice mechanism cannot be overcome by the word of God. - So God came with the idea of making the ultimate sacrifice, which was his son, in order to stop sacrifices.
>>6322792 How so? I assume that the course of every person's life is known by God. It follows that it is known where someone will end up in the afterlife. In particular, it is known that all people who go to heaven were predestined to do so, so that everyone who does not go to heaven was also predestined to do so.
By "predestined" I mean that once God created the universe, the details of how human lives would unfold are known.
The moral of the Jesus story to teach the sanctity of forgiveness. You would think that God would send hellfire or whatever like he always did whenever mortals pissed him off. Hellfire times a million, we killed his only son, after all. Instead, God forgave, and set a standard for our behavior. People often lose sight of how revolutionary Christian philosophy was. I agree that it's lost its relevance, but that's only because its teachings have become universally accepted.
>>6322825 No. God knows the possible, he cannot know the certain because there is no certain. The future, in Christian doctrine, is not real, therefore God cannot know it, because to know what is not real is logically impossible.
>>6322848 Your problem is you're continuously conflating Calvinism with a debate over free will. There are certainly elements of Calvinism which concern issues of predestination for salvation and the irresistability of grace, but those aren't the same thing as a general "free will" debate.
>>6322848 Most Christian denominations seem to believe that the "elect" are predestined to go to heaven, at least. Theologians seem to differentiate this from Calvinism by saying that Calvinism also includes predestination of some to Hell. I don't really see the difference between the two, assuming "not Heaven = Hell".
>>6322837 >The future, in Christian doctrine, is not real
The hell are you talking about? No matter what flavor of Christianity you're talking about, the future is a very real thing. You're taking away both the possibility of predestination AND the possibility of foreknowledge. So, congrats. You've pretty much eliminated the entire historic spectrum of Christianity.
>>6322862 Well, they kind of are, it really depends on how powerful you're taking free will to be. There's free will in the sense that you make the choice to accept grace from God, and then there is free will in the sense that you can act in accordance with God without help (Pelagianism, which hasn't been a current in Christianity for some time).
>>6322866 >Most Christian denominations seem to believe that the "elect" are predestined to go to heaven, at least. Except for Catholics, and Orthodox, and Methodists, and lots of Baptists, and various other major branches of Christianity.
>Theologians seem to differentiate this from Calvinism by saying that Calvinism also includes predestination of some to Hell. Except that's not even remotely true. Some anti-Calvinist pop theologians like to throw that around, but any serious theological discussion of Calvinism recognizes that that's rejected by most who profess to be Calvinists.
>>6322870 >Pelagianism, which hasn't been a current in Christianity for some time Yeah, since pretty much ever. It was never considered anything more than a rogue, heterodox heresy. When both Catholics AND protestants reject it as heterodox, then it's far to say it's not a Christian doctrine.
>>6322875 Anglicans are apostolic, though, they're not really comparable to mainline Protestantism anyway. And their communion with Lutherans and sharing of ordination has rubbed off on Lutheran doctrine (obviously, since sola scriptura should be indifferent to apostolic succession, which Lutherans increasingly are not).
>>6322885 Eternalism vs. non-eternalism isn't so much a religious debate as it is a philosophical debate. You've got people all along that spectrum in any branch of Christianity.
Plenty of Christians easily reject your "the future isn't real" argument simply by believing that God exists outside of time, and therefore trying to apply an eternalism/non-eternalism dichotomy to God is pointless.
>>6322872 >Catholicism The Catholic encyclopedia feels otherwise, but it could be wrong or lying.
>Orthodox Allegedly, according to Wiki because I'm too lazy to open the source it cites: >God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.
>Methodist, Baptist Can't immediately find a clear and reliable source, but they do seem to believe in predestination of the elect.
>>6322897 You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You come across as some smug high school student who has heard a couple of buzzwords and now thinks he's a theologian. You're using Liberalism like a cheap insult.
Liberalism, specifically in reference to Christian theology, is a very real, very definable thing. It's not a synonym for "non-Christian." Some people believe Liberalism isn't Christianity, and that's certainly a valid debate, but the terms are not the same thing. Liberalism is a specific set of beliefs as it relates to Christianity. Mormonism is also hotly debated as to whether or not it's valid Christianity. There's a good debate to be had there. But it doesn't share any of the characteristics of Liberalism. It's a different animal altogether.
>inb4 hurr durr you're just liberal or hurr durr you're just a mornmon I'm neither. I firmly believe that Liberalism isn't Christianity, and I firmly believe that Mormonism isn't Christianity. But Mormonism isn't Liberalism.
>>6322894 Logically impossibility doesn't present a present a paradox for omnipotence. Something logically impossible means it is a contradiction in terms, it's linguistic, it is impossible according to the rules of the language's terms.
>>6322905 In Christianity, the concept of foreknowledge is generally posited as the alternative to predestination.
And I have no clue what you're reading on Wikipedia, but the answers are pretty clear and easy to find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology
Regarding Catholicism, here's exactly what it says, quoting from the Catholic Catechism: >The Catechism of the Catholic Church suggests that "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will". It goes on to say that "God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."The section concludes with the role that grace plays, "By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world."
Regarding Oriental Orthodox Christianity: >The concept of free will is also of vital importance in the Oriental (or non-Chalcedonian) Churches, those in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. As in Judaism, free will is regarded as axiomatic. Everyone is regarded as having a free choice as to in what measure he or she will follow his or her conscience or arrogance, these two having been appointed for each individual. The more one follows one's conscience, the more it brings one good results, and the more one follows one's arrogance, the more it brings one bad results. Following only one's arrogance is sometimes likened to the dangers of falling into a pit while walking in pitch darkness, without the light of conscience to illuminate the path.
Regarding Eastern Orthodox Christianity: >The Orthodox Church holds to the teaching of synergy (συνεργός, meaning working together), which says that man has the freedom to, and must if he wants to be saved, choose to accept and work with the grace of God.
Regarding Methodism: >Christians influenced by Jacobus Arminius, such as Methodists, believe that while God is all-knowing and always knows what choices each person will make, he still gives them the ability to choose (or not choose) everything, regardless of whether there are any internal or external factors contributing to that choice.
All of these are FIRMLY opposed to the Calvinist/Reformed concept of predestination.
Baptists are split. That's part of a defining quality of Baptist theology. It's an issue left to local, congregational rule.
>>6322930 I was reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
Maybe I made a linguistic error in using the word "predestination", because it seems to have a different meaning in Christianity. I'm still struggling to understand the difference between the two in this context.
Yeah, the term "predestination" in Christian theology is very, very specific thing. If you're not used to reading Christian theology/philosophy, it can be very confusing.
At first glance, it probably seems like the difference between "man is predestined to do X" and "God foreknows that man will do X" is just a minor, semantic squabble, but it's unbelievably huge in the historic development of Christian theology. Entire branches and denominations have split repeatedly over the centuries over that very specific distinction. Even if that particular difference doesn't seem immediately huge, it has far reaching ramifications on issues of biblical interpretation and on the very nature of God himself.
>>6322943 The difference centers around the issue of the role of man, as an individual actor, in effecting salvation. Those on the far predestination end of the spectrum will say that man's action play no role at all in obtaining salvation, while those on the opposite end of the spectrum will say that the decision is ultimately man's and man's alone.
The problem is only compounded, though, by the fact that it's not an either/or argument. It's a spectrum, and different branches of Christianity (and different theologians within those branches) all see things slightly differently. Many, many people, especially in modern times, fall somewhere inbetween the two ends of the spectrum.
>>6322954 I struggle to see the difference when approaching it from the following viewpoint:
>God creates the universe with some set of initial conditions >God's foreknowledge includes all possible outcomes of every human's life >When the universe is created, one of the particular possibilities for someone's life is determined
From the cursory reading I've done the difference seems to be that predestination implies salvation independent of someone's faith, good works, and so on, whereas foreknowledge requires someone to actually carry out these things. However, my understanding was that they would be guaranteed to do so because of the reasoning I outlined.
Yeah, you're starting to get there. The foreknowledge end of the spectrum is easier to grasp, since it's more closely aligned with the way most people naturally think about things.
On the predestination end of the spectrum, salvation isn't independent of faith; rather, they would say that faith is the vehicle of faith. Basically here's a really, really simplified rundown of how it fits together: >God requires faith for salvation >however, man, by nature, is sinful and incapable of coming to God >therefore God predestines to have the Holy Spirit intervene in some people >that intervention is God overcoming man's natural, incapable state and empowering man to have faith After that point, there's a sharp split on the Calvinist end of the spectrum. Some see that as the end point, i.e., once the Holy Spirit gives faith, man cannot reject it, while others still hold that, at that point, man gets to exercise his will to have faith.
>>6322993 [cont.] Oh, and the issue of good works in predestination is that they are the result of the process of sanctification, i.e., becoming more Christ-like, AFTER salvation. So, basically, the good works have no effect on salvation. Rather, they are just evidence of somebody who has obtained salvation.
I was specifically having a pop at political liberals' tendency to believe human beings in the aggregate can be improved, which is the quick and dirty bottom line of Pelagianism. Nothing to do with theological liberalism.
>>6323024 Well, that's one of the most common objections to the more stringent views of predestination. Essentially, opponents say: >God is good and fair. >Predestining people to damnation isn't fair. >Therefore, God wouldn't do that.
Much of the debate centers around several passages in Romans, particular chapters 9-10, along with many, many other passages. The problem with this view (i.e., no predestination) is that it presupposes a certain definition of fair that many people say doesn't comport with Biblical descriptions of the character and nature of God. Essentially, those supporting predestination would say: We say that's not fair by our standards, but God says it's fair by his standards, and he's God.
If I were to step back and try to be objective, I'd say that, emotionally, just deep down in the gut, the non-predestination end of the spectrum feels more right. However, from a Biblical standpoint, there is substantially more to support a hard line view of predestination view. It's a tricky point. That's why it's been so huge in the development of Christianity.
>>6322737 I mostly agree with you Anon, but I think the theist might say that Jesus was sacrificed to show God's love, agape. It was to make his love felt and set an example for how we must die to ourselves to truly have a relationship with God.
>>6322837 You are retarded. God is supposed to be all migthy, know every single thing. You are saying that "to know what is not real is logically impossible", are you seriously trying to pair a GOD with logic? Holy shit I am mad.
>>6322837 Fuck,you are one uneducated cunt. Even Augustine talks about how God knows the future, how he knew that humans would sin. The future is certain for God because he exists outside of time, present in each moment in history.
>>6320710 Adam and Eve didn't follow directions, so God decided to punish all of their posterity by choosing which ones get to go to heaven or hell.
One day God decided that he'd have a son, but this wasn't a normal son because the son was also him (God) at the same time. God decided that he would sacrifice himself to himself in order to provide humans with a way to keep from going to hell—something which is determined by God in the first place.
>>6323525 Sacrifice, by definition, is an act which costs you something. It's not a sacrifice for me give a homeless man on the street a buck because I've got plenty of money. It would be a sacrifice for me to give him my entire life's savings.
If God is infinite, then he is of infinite worth. If a sacrifice is necessary, and he gives his own life, then he displays the ultimate sacrifice because he sacrifices the one thing of infinite worth and infinite cost.
The sacrifice isn't made for the benefit of God. The sacrifice is made for the benefit of man, who has nothing of value to offer an infinite God.
>>6323002 That's not an issue up for debate in your own doctrine. You strictly define yourselves as apostolic. In fact I think the official charges against that by the Catholic Church have to do with sacraments.
>>6323141 You have, been describing him with language. Meta-linguistic, mystical understanding of God is something else.
>>6323488 Yes, and he's wrong (at least if we are to accept the premise of free will). As I've said, in any doctrine of free will, the future does not exist yet, but is created through the agency of individuals. God existing outside of time wouldn't make a difference. If the future and the past were equally real to God, then that would necessitate an eternalist model of time; whether or not humans can perceive that is irrelevant, since everyone knows they cannot, including self-described eternalists..
>>6322194 What the other poster was saying is that while god could make a circle a square humans would only see the later square. While he is omnipotent we can't grasp the full extent of his work. We are the limited ones.
Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate expression of God's own perversion and obsession with human sacrifice. After the thrill wore off of the animals Abel sacrificed, after trolling Abraham and Isaac having Abraham sacrifice his son, after commanding multiple genocides in his name, God ultimately realized the only way he would be able to get off to his sacrifice fetish anymore would be to sacrifice himself. So he did, and in so doing wrapped the rest of humanity up in his perversions for thousands of years.
Thread replies: 185 Thread images: 12
Thread DB ID: 49239
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.