Why would god hate an athiest?

[Aesthetica]

[snip to remove wall of text bible spam]

And did you actually have some point to make or were you just hoping all the atheists seeing that would either convert instantly, or implode...



Not converted, or imploded...

[Aesthetica]

In other words, Christianity is polytheistic. However, you can't admit to that, so you play silly word games to try and retain monotheism while having more than one entity.

They are one entity, but distinct in person.

Your perfect all powerful, all knowing god had Multiple Personality Disorder?

[Veloxia]

Nah she wouldn't do that. God isn't so spiteful. She's probably more likely to punish the asshats who do horrible acts in her name.

[Dyakovo]

They are one entity, but distinct in person.

Your perfect all powerful, all knowing god had Multiple Personality Disorder?

Actually according to christians who believe in the trinity its "has" not "had"...

[Aesthetica]

Your perfect all powerful, all knowing god had Multiple Personality Disorder?

Actually according to christians who believe in the trinity its "has" not "had"...

Probably before Vatican-2, since then it's had rehab...

[Distruzio]

In other words, Christianity is polytheistic. However, you can't admit to that, so you play silly word games to try and retain monotheism while having more than one entity.

No. Honestly, I am curious where you got your education in Christianity from. B/c with every post I become more certain that you are just making shit up.

Christianity holds that God is not a Monad. God is a triune God - the Godhead. He is God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Each wholly distinct and individual, yet completely one. When a Christian says, "God is relationship" or "God is love," this Godhead existence is to what they refer. One cannot express love without something else to feel affection for. One cannot be in a relationship without another to sustain that relationship.

God is not a monad. He is triune.

[Distruzio]

If God would really allow humanity choose its own path, that means all path must be possible. That means, He would love us so much that He would allow humanity to take God's place. So, his omnipotence is important in that, in the absence of such powers, it would actually shows that He really does love everyone he creates to the point that He would sacrifice himself by creating creatures that would rebel against Him.

Just something to think about. A believe in a non-omnipotent god gives greater emphasis of one's personal relationship with their god.

Welcome to the crucifixion.

[Dyakovo]

In other words, Christianity is polytheistic. However, you can't admit to that, so you play silly word games to try and retain monotheism while having more than one entity.

No. Honestly, I am curious where you got your education in Christianity from. B/c with every post I become more certain that you are just making shit up.

Christianity holds that God is not a Monad. God is a triune God - the Godhead. He is God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Each wholly distinct and individual, yet completely one. When a Christian says, "God is relationship" or "God is love," this Godhead existence is to what they refer. One cannot express love without something else to feel affection for. One cannot be in a relationship without another to sustain that relationship.

God is not a monad. He is triune.

In other words, "God" suffers from Disassociative Identity Disorder...

[Distruzio]

In other words, "God" suffers from Disassociative Identity Disorder...

Which would suggest, were this thesis to be true, that DID is perfect, as God is perfect, or that the disorder is misunderstood entirely.

[Dyakovo]

In other words, "God" suffers from Disassociative Identity Disorder...

Which would suggest, were this thesis to be true, that DID is perfect, as God is perfect, or that the disorder is misunderstood entirely.

Or that "God" is not perfect...

[Distruzio]

Which would suggest, were this thesis to be true, that DID is perfect, as God is perfect, or that the disorder is misunderstood entirely.

Or that "God" is not perfect...

Or that perfection is misunderstood entirely?

[Aesthetica]

Why can I feel the "Ontological Argument of St. Anselm" stalking to wards this conversation...

Get a room you two...

[Dyakovo]

Why can I feel the "Ontological Argument of St. Anselm" stalking to wards this conversation...

Get a room you two...

What?
The triune does fit the definition DID...
Which in turn brings up the questions we both have asked...

[THE NEW NEWLY UNITED STATES]

Real christians dont do any of "calling atheists evil" conservative/republican christians think that "ZOMG UZ GOING TO HELLZ IF U DONT BELIEVE US" so dont listen to those fools i personally as a christian think your not going to hell.

*from a liberal

[The Archregimancy]

Why can I feel the "Ontological Argument of St. Anselm" stalking to wards this conversation...

Get a room you two...

Dyakovo is an atheist, and therefore wholly unlikely to care about Anselm.

Distruzio is Eastern Orthodox, and therefore likely to wholly reject both Anselm's ontology and his theology of atonement.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for pointing out that much of your hostility towards other posters in this thread - regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof - appears to presume a Catholic viewpoint; your previous post in the thread, for example, implied - no doubt accidentally (or perhaps even facetiously) - that you felt Vatican 2 to be relevant across Christianity.

In particular, you seem to be mildly obsessed with Jesuits, of which there are currently only about 200 in the UK, who between them run precisely nine schools across the entire country. So why Catholics and Jesuits particularly?

[Tekania]

What?! All Christians aren't Jesuit Catholics?! Next thing Arch you'll be trying to tell us all Muslims aren't radical suicide bombers/terrorists and that Wiccans don't eat babies...

[Dyakovo]

Why can I feel the "Ontological Argument of St. Anselm" stalking to wards this conversation...

Get a room you two...

Dyakovo is an atheist, and therefore wholly unlikely to care about Anselm.

Anselm's ideas are interesting... I'll have to read up on them a bit more than is possible by just reading his wiki page... Though you are right, I don't really care about him, to me all his ideas are flawed since they are based off the assumption that "God" actually exists...

[Aesthetica]

Why can I feel the "Ontological Argument of St. Anselm" stalking to wards this conversation...

Get a room you two...

Dyakovo is an atheist, and therefore wholly unlikely to care about Anselm.

Distruzio is Eastern Orthodox, and therefore likely to wholly reject both Anselm's ontology and his theology of atonement.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for pointing out that much of your hostility towards other posters in this thread - regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof - appears to presume a Catholic viewpoint; your previous post in the thread, for example, implied - no doubt accidentally (or perhaps even facetiously) - that you felt Vatican 2 to be relevant across Christianity.

In particular, you seem to be mildly obsessed with Jesuits, of which there are currently only about 200 in the UK, who between them run precisely nine schools across the entire country. So why Catholics and Jesuits particularly?

If fact, I referring to the possibility that the conversation might veer to the discussion of "is god perfect" which tends to lead to the "OA of St.A"

The Vat-2 reference is largely due to the fact that so far my main debate opponent has been a catholic, who answers almost every thing with "well since vatican 2", and was mainly light hearted...

Nothing to do with catholics or jesuits at all, who frankly come second place after the fundamentalist protestants on my list of threats...

[Serrland]

Dyakovo is an atheist, and therefore wholly unlikely to care about Anselm.

Anselm's ideas are interesting... I'll have to read up on them a bit more than is possible by just reading his wiki page... Though you are right, I don't really care about him, to me all his ideas are flawed since they are based off the assumption that "God" actually exists...

Even if you accept that God exists, Anselm is still flawed. Vladimir Lossky rips apart his substitution theory well. Here's a brief quotation from Lossky on Anselm:

In his work Christian horizons are limited by the drama played between God, who is infinitely
offended by sin, and man, who is unable to satify the impossible demands of vindictive justice.
The drama finds its resolution in the death of Christ, the Son of God, who has become man in
order to substitute Himself for us and to pay our debt to divine justice.

[Dyakovo]

Anselm's ideas are interesting... I'll have to read up on them a bit more than is possible by just reading his wiki page... Though you are right, I don't really care about him, to me all his ideas are flawed since they are based off the assumption that "God" actually exists...

Even if you accept that God exists, Anselm is still flawed. Vladimir Lossky rips apart his substitution theory well. Here's a brief quotation from Lossky on Anselm:

In his work Christian horizons are limited by the drama played between God, who is infinitely
offended by sin, and man, who is unable to satify the impossible demands of vindictive justice.
The drama finds its resolution in the death of Christ, the Son of God, who has become man in
order to substitute Himself for us and to pay our debt to divine justice.

*shrugs*
Doesn't make it any less interesting to me... I may be an atheist, but I am very interested in theology...

[Serrland]

Even if you accept that God exists, Anselm is still flawed. Vladimir Lossky rips apart his substitution theory well. Here's a brief quotation from Lossky on Anselm:

*shrugs*
Doesn't make it any less interesting to me... I may be an atheist, but I am very interested in theology...

Oh, no, I'm not saying he's not interesting, I'm just saying, as Archregimancy said above, too, that even to many Christians who can get beyond the objections on the grounds of a disbelief in God he is still on shaky (at best) theological footing.

[The Archregimancy]

*shrugs*
Doesn't make it any less interesting to me... I may be an atheist, but I am very interested in theology...

Oh, no, I'm not saying he's not interesting, I'm just saying, as Archregimancy said above, too, that even to many Christians who can get beyond the objections on the grounds of a disbelief in God he is still on shaky (at best) theological footing.

Though it's fair to note that, as an Eastern Rite Catholic, you're already predisposed towards rejecting Anselm (and, for that matter, Augustine and large swathes of Aquinas) since your core theological assumptions are closer to those of Distruzio than, say, Divine Unity, even though you share a formal hierarchy with the latter rather than the former.

[Serrland]

Oh, no, I'm not saying he's not interesting, I'm just saying, as Archregimancy said above, too, that even to many Christians who can get beyond the objections on the grounds of a disbelief in God he is still on shaky (at best) theological footing.

Though it's fair to note that, as an Eastern Rite Catholic, you're already predisposed towards rejecting Anselm (and, for that matter, Augustine and large swathes of Aquinas) since your core theological assumptions are closer to those of Distruzio than, say, Divine Unity, even though you share a formal hierarchy with the latter rather than the former.

That's very true, although for what it's worth I was educated by Dominicans for most of my pre-University education - it's safe to say that I ran into a lot of Aquinas.

[Sanguinthium]

Actually according to christians who believe in the trinity its "has" not "had"...

Probably before Vatican-2, since then it's had rehab...

the southern poverty law center considers radical traditional Catholics to be a hate group.

[Sanguinthium]

If god is not omnipotent, you have the chance to "dethrone" God, giving humanity as a whole a higher free-will.

If not, then everything would be deterministic.

If God would really allow humanity choose its own path, that means all path must be possible. That means, He would love us so much that He would allow humanity to take God's place. So, his omnipotence is important in that, in the absence of such powers, it would actually shows that He really does love everyone he creates to the point that He would sacrifice himself by creating creatures that would rebel against Him.

Just something to think about. A believe in a non-omnipotent god gives greater emphasis of one's personal relationship with their god.

He doesn't control us, but he knows what we're going to do. That's a key point.
I'm free to do whatever the hell I want, and He won't stop me. But he knows what I'm going to do.

if he knows what your going to do before you do, then you really dont have a choice in the matter, now do you?

He doesn't control us, but he knows what we're going to do. That's a key point.
I'm free to do whatever the hell I want, and He won't stop me. But he knows what I'm going to do.

So, in your view, do you think that God can be killed?

my gods can. Baldr will. all of them will- but Baldr will remain, Safe in Helheim, the only plane which will survive Ragnarok, with Hel. the dying god is a very common archetype.