How do we turn philosophical arguments for God into arguments for Christianity?

I'm well convinced by philosophical arguments that there is a God. But I'm currently undergoing RCIA and there is an agnostic among us who asked the question in the subject line. My response was something along the line of "Well, if we agree to say that God is the greatest good, then we have to think of what sorts of things he would do. It seems like the Christian God is the only God in history who was so good that he was willing to die for mankind and absorb all the evils we commit into himself."

He then responded by saying "If he is an omnipotent God then it is meaningless for him to sacrafice himself. He could do it a hundred times and it wouldn't be anything to him. So his sacrafice wasn't even really a sacrafice. Especially since he knew he wouldn't die and that he would instead be resurrected."

I then thought later that a good response to this might have been to consider a case where I was starving and without food. A man with an infinite supply of food comes along and looks down on me. He takes pity, and tells me he will supply me with a lifetime supply of food. Now, there are two ways to think about my benefactor. One is to praise him and be thankful, which is the Christian way. The other is to be thankless and to say that his act of charity was meaningless since it came at no cost to him.

But then I feel uncomfortable saying that deliverance from my sins came at little to no cost to Christ, since we do consider what he did as an act of sacrafice.

What do you think?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141456075/#141471259
strawpoll.me/12664749/r
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I think you got BTFO, OP.

Maybe. But was that inevitable or is there something more I could have said?

What makes it something to him is that in his incarnation, he was both fully God and fully human. Meaning he experienced suffering in his death. He purposefully placed the limitations of humanity on himself so that he could be both with us and for us.

I suppose that does sound like some sort of hell. To go from omnipotent God to shitting in a desert outhouse.

Every time someone sins God experiences the crucifixion all over again. Sinners x time = you got a shit load of sacrifice.

> I'm well convinced by philosophical arguments that there is a God.

This is what I want to hear about.

how do we get the fucking philosofags out of Veeky Forums so we can talk about books again without being asked "does existence precede essence" every fucking five minutes?

Especially since the type(s) of philosophical arguments that convince you might also be coloring what type(s) of god-concept(s) you have.

The arguments only lead you to the doorstep, not through the door. It's pointless to lay out the arguments unless you can accept that.

1. Uphold and defend a worldview.
2. Argue for the revealing of this worldview in one historical intellectual tradition (for example, Aquinas' defense that God revealed Himself as divinely simple at the burning bush before we grasped such a concept).
3. Defend the historical claims as legitimate.
4. Defend other aspects of revelation that are not knowable as still probable or at least possible
5. If you can adequately defend a religion's historical claims, worldview, and argue that there was actual revelation and not just lucking out then you have successfully and completely argued for the validity of a religion

The first step is to do away with philosophical arguments and turn to faith. What gets you to faith is another matter entirely. Read Kierkegaard.

> "Well, if we agree to say that God is the greatest good, then we have to think of what sorts of things he would do. It seems like the Christian God is the only God in history who was so good that he was willing to die for mankind and absorb all the evils we commit into himself."

You make MANY massive assertions here

First that humanity is "evil". And in order to this you must define good and evil in an objective manner (good fucking luck)

Second that God even needs to be the "ultimate good". Why not the ultimate evil? Why not both? Why not neither good nor evil? (again this requires to define good and evil objectivily)

Third that evil can be 'absorbed' and whatever the hell that means? (this will also need some objective proof)

Fortu that the Christian God did 'absorb evil' (which requires proving the bible is historically accurate, including the death and ressurection and Jesus)

Fifth AFTER you have proven the death and ressurection of Jesus you must prove he did 'absorb evil', but before you do that you must objectivily define good and evil and prove it can be absorbed


After that you can get to the sixth reason? Why I give a shit about the status of my evil (and you cannot answer this till you have objectively defined evil)

Well if rational conviction stops at the doorway, I'd settle for that - but so far I've never found it provided.

>leap of faith "everybody who doesn't think what I do is merely asleep but doesn't know it yet, I'm made euphoric by my own Christianity" nigger
Ew. Kierkegaard is the fedoralord of Christianity

Clearly you know nothing of Kierkegaard. He said himself that he hadn't attained faith which is why he placed himself between his two pseudonyms Johannas Climacus and Ante Climacus. The former not being a Christian at all, the latter being a full-bred Christian. Also he wasn't exactly euphoric, which is why he talked about despair an awful lot.

Faith is always at a disadvantage; it is a perpetually defeated thing which survives all of its conquerors.

He didn't have the limitations of humanity on himself though (see: miracles), and the suffering was entirely his choice. And if he's omniscient, he should be able to be both with us and for us without coming down as Jesus

This doesn't sound biblically supported at all

@10021147
Philosophy belongs on Veeky Forums

Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
Because the result for the man will be a smaller infinite amount of food, he will have lost food. But, it will be a tiny finite amount and relative to all he could have done, he did an infinitesimal amount. It's on an even smaller scale than a billionaire throwing a hobo £0.01 then expecting effusive praise. So, the guy kind of seems right, it's not that meaningful. Maybe when you consider God did it for everyone from the people at Jesus' time to the death of the last man, it's a more significant sacrifice, but it's still finite and hence dwarfed by what he could have done.

>smaller infinite amount of food

Like if I count the naturals I get an infinite set, then I count the naturals but starting from 25 I get a smaller infinite set

Your response reeks of pseud, fedora, and new-atheism, but I'll respond anyways.

>making assertions
Yes, the gentleman and I had agreed beforehand that there were good arguments for the existence of a God who was supremely good. You're referring to common ground that was established earlier in the conversation.

>First that humanity is "evil". And in order to this you must define good and evil in an objective manner (good fucking luck)

An act of evil for me is anytime I willingly pass up an opportunity to do good, or, in other words, fail to be godly. I do this many times a day.

>Second that God even needs to be the "ultimate good". Why not the ultimate evil? Why not both? Why not neither good nor evil? (again this requires to define good and evil objectivily)

Go read Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descarte, or Leibniz.

>Third that evil can be 'absorbed' and whatever the hell that means? (this will also need some objective proof)
>Fortu that the Christian God did 'absorb evil' (which requires proving the bible is historically accurate, including the death and ressurection and Jesus)

'Absorbed' was a poor choice of word. Forgiven, annulled, or paid for are better. Think of it in terms of justice. When someone does wrong, there are negative consequences. I do wrong all throughout my life, and accordingly become unlike God and inadvertently distance myself from him. I can't be like God, so God made himself like me. This is an example of supreme goodness. Christ became human, took responsibility for the sins of all men across time, and carried those sins to a miserable death so that I could be close to him despite the evils I commit, while at the same time preserving divine justice.

>Fifth AFTER you have proven the death and ressurection of Jesus you must prove he did 'absorb evil', but before you do that you must objectivily define good and evil and prove it can be absorbed
>After that you can get to the sixth reason? Why I give a shit about the status of my evil (and you cannot answer this till you have objectively defined evil)

I regret responding to this.

YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Is it though? Even if you start at a different point you're still going to get an infinite set, it doesn't stop at a definite point so the fact that one set gets a head-start is no matter.

The sets are still infinite, I haven't denied that, but infinities can be of different sizes, as they are in my example. Stop your eliminativism

Why can't you become like God?

Infinities can be of different sizes but not in the context of "infinity" as a theological concept, and I'm not convinced infinities in this context have been reduced.

Infinity-25 is still infinite.

This is the meaning of life: to try to become as godlike as possible. Plato says this explicitly in Theaetetus. And, of course, The New Testament ad infinitum to follow Christ's example.

But my nature prevents me from ever truly being like God, because I am tired, indifferent, ignorant, selfish, slothful, lustful...etc. In other words, I'm human.

If you're considering infinities not in the sense of mathematical concept applied to theology, but a theological concept in itself constructed purely by theologians, then you're probably right. But I think it's naive and egotistical to construct a concept when the concept has already been constructed by people who understand it more than you.


Your willing eliminativism is missing the point

But if you're following Christ's example, you aren't becoming godlike. You yourself said God made himself like you when he became christ and became human. To be Christ is to be human, so to be like Christ is to simply be like another human

>human nature existing
>those traits being static and not changeable with effort
Nice memes

I'm pretty sure "infinite" in terms of theology is even older than mathematics as a distinct discipline.

As a shit concept that's even more poorly defined than, and lacking the rigour found in, mathematics

Christ is God. To be like Christ is to be like God. Christ became like man only so that I could be closer to him and more like him.

Is it possible for a human being to do the right thing at every opportunity they get? To never slack in righteousness? To never be lazy? To never be petty or selfish?

>I don't understand divine infinity
>Therefore it's a bad concept.
Go back to Veeky Forums please.

And now you're going against the law of identity, by saying human = Christ = God, by which you allow a human to be God. You're also assigning your own purpose to God's incarnation as Christ which doesn't seem to be strictly biblically supported

It's possible, though highly improbable and an unfeasible goal. A more sensible goal would be to do more of the "right" things with each day

That's NOT an argument

It is a bad, nebulous concept though, deal with it

>It is a . . . nebulous concept
Wow, gee. I wonder why that could be?

Why would concepts surrounding an unknowable, incomprehensible otherworldly being be nebulous?

Familiarize yourself with the trinity and the concept of holy mysteries.

You really think it's possible for a morally perfect person to exist who isn't literally God incarnate? Like, really?

There is, don't forget, an extent to which Christianity back in the day relied on evidence and testimony. The Gospel of John even mentions eyewitnesses to the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Indeed, much of early Christian teaching is a matter of making sense of things that really happened, rather than building a philosophical system out of theories and premises.

>unknowable
>incomprehensible
Literally no reason to think this philosophically

And your admission that it is a nebulous concept is tantamount to an admission of it being a bad concept tbqhwy

If you're OP, I see why you got btfo, you seem to have trouble engaging with arguments and instead fall to sophist sidestepping rhetoric

>Trinity
Nice heresy

This seems like needless bickering.

To be as Christ is to be a human united with God's will. In this sense, we have unity with God and could in a sense be considered becoming one with God (the Orthodox concept of Theosis) but at the same time it does not change what you are: Human.

You both are correct and fight over what amounts to phrasing.

What the fuck kind of god would be knowable and comprehensible?

>Trinity
>Nice heresy
There is mountains of evidence to show the support of the Trinity as Christian. Where do you get off calling this heresy?

This is true, and sadly something which is ignored or dismissed when brought up to religious skeptics. If they can't see it, they will demand you show it through reason, with their fallacy chart in hand.

>Ignoring my question.

Most definitely. It's horrendous the extent the reformation - and later the modernists - took to destroy the intellectual and spiritual traditions of Christendom before it while still promoting what they called Christianity.

The idea of theosis is very interesting to me, I wish the Catholics talked about it more often. Does theosis happen only after death? Or is it a fleeting experience one can have during their lifetime?

And there's a great extent to which God and Christ is still mysterious to us, even today. Our theology is built on Scripture, which we rely upon because we trust that Scripture contains an element of revelation--that is, knowledge transmitted to mankind directly from God. So, basically, all we know about God is what he's told us and shown us. What little is beyond that is merely further deductions we've made by taking Scripture and applying our reason to it, and then trusting that God must be rational.

This is why faith is so important. Faith is a kind of private revelation. Through faith we know beyond knowing that God is real, that Christ rose from the dead, and the Christianity is true. It is God's direct communication with us, a sign of his continued activity in the world; it's a candle flame kindled in our souls, and from that light we may read all things, Scripture and the rest of the world, in the light they're meant to be seen in.

The philosophical arguments for Gd support the undivided Gd....which is what Gd is, without internal division. But logical arguments for a first cause etc shouldn't be the foundation for your belief or relationship in Gd, you should believe in Gd because you love Gd and because you have faith in Him.

Theosis isn't a Catholic concept. Catholics shun it as imprecise, poetic, and heretical if taken seriously. It's an Orthodox concept.

if you're implying that a leap of faith must be made then your argument is pointless. You can't fill in massive gaps in your argument with "oh you gotta just go for it bro".

"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" mountains"" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
No

Yes, there is no reason a person couldn't do the right thing at all the opportunities they had. Though by your definition, of evil being willingly passing up the opportunity to do good, to simply do nothing and expose yourself as little as possible to humans would allow one to easily do all the right things at the opportunities that prevent themselves.

Any god that can make its machinations known, and cares for its creations and understands uncertainty causes suffering, and drives people away from belief.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 460:

"The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

You guys aren't actually christian right? This is just one big meme. You can't possibly be religious these days and NOT be deluded.

>God ordered all the atoms and molecules of the universe together for billions of years in order to tempt some fags to eat an apple
>God creates us as flawed creatures
>He puts a don't touch me tree right in front of us
>God is all knowing
>Humans (which he created) inevitably fuck up and touch the arbitrary tree
>"WTF HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN"
>Curses the human lineage so hard he has to kill himself to fix it (seriously, he's God. Why such a painful and roundabout method?)
>He then returns three days later, completely defeating the point of his own sacrifice

I hope that if there's a god, it's not the Christian god. Because that dude is drunk as shit

Answer my question. Defend yourself with an argument rather than rhetoric.

Why would god necessarily want to make his machinations known, care about his creations or want to encourage people to believe?

Please go back to whatever board you crawled in from. If you read what I said, and if your fedora isn't on so tight as to hinder your reading comprehension, then you would understand that what I am saying is that the gap is a small one.

Anyone here who calls themselves orthodox is 100% memeing, whilst maybe 50% of Catholics are larping. The rise in orthodoxy on Veeky Forums correlates with the rise of /pol/.

I go to Mass every Sunday, go to Confession frequently, and believe in the Real Presence.

>why would God care about his creations
Nigga this naturally follows from omnibenevolence
>encourage people to believe
So they don't go to Hell, naturally follows from omnibenevolence as well.
>make his machinations known
Follows from the aforementioned and what I explained in my previous post

That it's not heresy is a positive claim, simply based on misinterpretations of the bible. To be heresy, it needs to not be biblically supported, so you need to provide the verses you think support the Trinity.

Wow, name-calling and memery, truly the christian way of making your point.

All you said was
>The arguments only lead you to the doorstep, not through the door. It's pointless to lay out the arguments unless you can accept that.

Which is a good way of saying "I'm dancing around the question instead of actually answering it."

I assume your reply to this will be another buzzword-heavy attempt to deflect the question rather than make any sort of argument.

I stand corrected. My bad. Theosis as "becoming God" in the Orthodox sense is rejected on the terms I mentioned, however.

90 percent of the "Christians" on Veeky Forums have political motivations.They don't want to pray at the altar, but rather stand atop it and shout orders.

>How do we turn philosophical arguments for God into arguments for Christianity?

You can't. Even if a god proof existed it would only prove that SOME god exists and it couldn't prove that only 1 god exists.

2/2

...

Then you're deluded. Sorry.

I grew up orthodox, and the fact that people are willingly converting to this branch of christianity makes me laugh.

All orthodoxy is is all the stupid delusions of modern christianity paired with the sentiment that shaming and guilting others into your archaic practices is not only okay, but part of the culture.

Honestly, fuck orthodoxy. Especially greek orthodoxy.

>The rise in orthodoxy on Veeky Forums correlates with the rise of /pol/.

Ahem, orthodoxcucks are even less conservative than other Christcucks. Moreover /pol/ is anti Christian.

No, heresy means that it goes AGAINST doctrine. It would upset be tied solely to the Bible unless you were assuming Protestant Christianity to be true and all doctrine extends from the Bible.


Also, no biblical support?

>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7

>"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 28:19

Any more necessary?

>deluded

Really?

The definition of delusion according to Google Dictionary:
>an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

so yes

Look friend, this has become a pointless conversation. At the same time, I want you to know that I used to be just like you.

You are beyond my help. What you need is an education. A real education. You aren't going to get it from me, and you aren't going to get it from this website. You aren't going to get it from Dawkins or Hitchens or a fallacy chart. You can only get the sort of education you need from a very special set of people and the books they have written. You need to spend a few years with these people, two years at the very minimum.

But you probably aren't interested in learning what these people have to say. And that's a shame. On the off chance that you are interested, I'll repeat the/ Veeky Forums mantra: Start with the Greeks. I'll pray for, fedora-user. Maybe we can try this again in a couple years.

>>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7
Stop using crappy translations, buddy. The original says:

"
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
"

Maybe you also claim that the New Testament condemns gays, eh?

The rise if Christianity on /pol/ came just before it's popularity in 2013-2015. This is where the Catholic focus came from. The rise of Orthodoxy on Veeky Forums came with Veeky Forums and partially from before it.

/pol/ is conflicted over religion now as /pol/ grew in popularity in 2016 and an influx of Redditers came that were very atheistic and/or ethnic nationalists that were turning to paganism.

S'all good, baby.

>The rise if Christianity on /pol/

No, such thing. Don't delude yourself. There are a couple of Vultfags and larpers, but there are nearly no Christianity threads on /pol/ and the ones that exists are full of negative comments and images.

Ah, but what if reality doesn't contradict it?

Ultimately, all doctrine does extend from the Bible. The philosophical conclusions of the Church are only accepted insofar as they agree with the Bible

The "Word" isn't Jesus, so doesn't show a Trinity. may also be right, I don't know the original languages and of the books tbf

What do you this Matthew 28:19 shows? Because if you're trying to use it to support the Trinity, you're saying is says a lot more than the words actually say, since it just notes the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are involved in baptisms, not that they exist together in a supposed Trinity

2/2

As if to illustrate my point. There is currently no Christianity/Jesus thread on /pol/ except this one: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141456075/#141471259

and it's full of negative comments. There are some Christians on /pol/ (duh) but there are only a handful of them and they get BTFO every time they show their ugly head.

Like I said here I grew up orthodox. I went to sunday school. I had the 'education' a.k.a. preying on children with vulnerable minds.

I am lucky I exposed myself to philosophy at a young age, because I did start with the greeks, which is why I now have the capability to have rational thought. so when you say
>You aren't going to get it from Dawkins or Hitchens or a fallacy chart.

You're just re-affirming my point about a leap of faith, and disregarding actual rational arguments for your own deluded beliefs. You're asking me to to basically be brainwashed by people for a couple years then come back to you.

If you feel like actually making your argument, feel free because I am interested in learning how you managed to delude yourself into this religion. This is a message board and I won't be able to interrupt you until you've posted it, not to mention I am actually interested in how you spin this.

And like I said you would, you deflected the question perfectly. Well done, you've learned well from your predecessors.

then please provide proof of that

meant here

No no this is well before. As I said, by 2016 the migration had changed the culture of /pol/ to be more anti-christian.

In 2014-2015 there were daily Christian and Catholic Generals. This was migrated to Veeky Forums which caused a massive uproar as religious discussion dominated the board and history fans were upset.

*what do you think the Matthew verse shows

where's your argument, mate?

No, all doctrine does not extend from the Bible but in Protestant Christianity (which is still questionable as the canon is not declared in the Bible but the canon is doctrine). By any other Christian tradition all scripture cannot be against doctrine but it is not the full extent of what is contained in doctrine as that is also maintained by oral teachings, church councils, and the like.

>The "Word" isn't Jesus

So when John 1:14 speaks about the Word becoming flesh, what non-Jesus incarnation of God is he speaking about?

>What do you this Matthew 28:19 shows?

Either polytheism - the father, son, and holy spirit being put in equal leverage as to what something as important as baptism is done for - or a unity of all three. As, given the culture, polytheism is off the menu pretty much entirely it would mean a trinity.

Christians on Veeky Forums are an extremely, extremely, loud minority, literally every poll we've ever had on this site shows that the bulk of users are agnostic(self described) or atheist. A substantial amount of christians here are probably frustrated ex-atheists who got assblasted by the accuracy of ""le fedora"" memes, glanced at cosmological arguments, realised they made 'sense' and appealed to their autismo-logic and applied their alt-right politics to traditionalist christianity.

All polls I've seen pre-election have put it at a near 50-50 split and newer ones post-election migration have put it a very sizable minority.

>All polls I've seen pre-election have put it at a near 50-50 split

You've seen the wrong polls then. This poll is before the split when Christfags were the loudest.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Just wondering: how long would you say you've been on Veeky Forums?
I've been for about 7 years and ALL I can remember is a long history of contrarianism. Veeky Forums was aggressively atheist at one point, and once Reddit became the face of that, coupled with the surge of right wing politics pre and post election a Christian minority developed

I'm not going to argue with you, because you aren't seeking the truth.

"Isn't it one great precaution not to let them taste of arguments while they are young? I suppose you aren't aware that when lads get their first taste of them, they misuse them as though it were play, always using them to contradict; and imitating those men who by whom they are refuted, they themselves refute others, like puppies enjoying pulling and tearing with argument at those who happen to be near. Then when they themselves refute many men and are refuted by many, they fall quickly into a profound disbelief at what they formerly believed. And as a result of this, you see, they themselves and the whole activity of philosophy become the objects of slander among the rest of men. An older man, however, wouldn't be willing to participate in such madness. He will imitate the man who's willing to discuss and consider truth rather than one who plays and contradicts for the sake of the game" (Republic, 539b-539c3).

>I could argue with you, but you have a different viewpoint from me so I won't.

Also
> He will imitate the man who's willing to discuss and consider truth rather than one who plays and contradicts for the sake of the game
is you right now.

So, why did you BTFO yourself with that quote? Religious intellect strikes again!

>303 vote poll

There have been far bigger polls, user. Further, your poll here actually has a close 50-50 split just as I mentioned.

>explicit followers of a religion: 83
>"spiritual" but believe in God (by virtue of the third answer leaving it out): 53
>"spiritual" but no God: 37
>explicit supporters of naturalism: 130

The first two together would be 136
The second two together would be 167

55-45 split between Christians and non-Christians (discounting the potential for Jews and Muslims on /pol/).

Been here since 2008.

There is contrarianism, but you misrepresent it to put it so bluntly. Veeky Forums has always housed counter-cultures. Counter-cultures don't simply develop to be contrarian.

Yes, the Bible isn't the full extent of the doctrine. But that is completely irrelevant to the assertion that the doctrine extends from the Bible. New realisations can be built on existing knowledge, and still ultimately have their basis in they existing knowledge
By tradition, do you mean denomination?

The Word became Jesus, that does not make it Jesus, since Jesus is an aspect of the Word.

The Holy spirit as an actual entity seems like a leap, it could very well be, and likely is considering the way it's talked agouti in the Bible, simply the power of the Father, not separate from him or a person unto itself, but considered a separate embodiment by humans

>your poll here actually has a close 50-50 split just as I mentioned.

No, it hasn't. Followers of religion (e.g. Christians) would be something like a total of 20%.

>The first two together would be 136

The second has nothing to do with Christianity, user. Just because you believe in some God doesn't make you a Christian at all.

>There have been far bigger polls

Show them. And no bullshit polls like "What is your religion?" or where the only non-religion option is "Atheist/Agnostic".

>Just because you believe in some God doesn't make you a Christian at all.

Nope, it just makes you an idiot.

>But that is completely irrelevant to the assertion that the doctrine extends from the Bible.

The phrasing could be mistaken as that being all it extends from, hence my comment which was a response to "to be heresy, it needs to not be biblically supported" and "ultimately, all doctrine does extend from the Bible." That is explicitly wrong.

The Bible couldn't be the basis either as the Biblical canon didn't exist until after multiple church councils and the canon was made doctrine BY a council.

>The Word became Jesus, that does not make it Jesus, since Jesus is an aspect of the Word.

You contradict yourself. Did the word become flesh or did an aspect of the word become flesh?

>Holy Spirit as an actual entity

As John 14:26 says: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." I find it hard to not prescribe at least personage to the Holy Spirit. It need not be considered its own entity. St. Augustine himself made the comparison of the trinity in which the Holy Spirit was considered self-love as the father was compared the mind and the son was compared to self-knowledge. Such a view is in line with the view of the procession of the trinity as well. Pic related.


So in what world are you expecting actual Muslims, Jews, and Hindi on /pol/? Paganism wasn't a thing on /pol/ until late 2016.

>Show them. And no bullshit polls like "What is your religion?" or where the only non-religion option is "Atheist/Agnostic".
>show me strawpolls

Uhhhh, well I found this immediately in Google.

strawpoll.me/12664749/r
>2017 poll of all times
>nearly 1500 voters
>Christians at 45%
>Atheists and Agnostics collectively at 40%

Whats bullshit about the non-religion option being agnostic/atheist anyway? Granted it's not as clear but there is a space for people in between regardless.

>Uhhhh, well I found this immediately in Google.

Yeah, just as predicted. You posted a shitty poll where spiritual people don't even have an option. Already the wording "What religion" is biased. You see, when I don't have own bike, I don't respond to polls that ask "What kind of bike do you have". And already in your biased poll Christians are a minority, atheists/agnostics are 40% and 20% are non-Christian.

>So in what world are you expecting actual Muslims, Jews, and Hindi on /pol/?

Dude, those who follow a religion are 27% per the poll I posted. Of these some are Jews, Muslims, Hindus WHATEVER. So Christians were maybe 20% of /pol/ at the height of Christfaggotry which your own poll confirms. Learn to poll.

What is the source of that image?

> ALL I can remember is a long history of contrarianism.

Been here since 2007, this. Christianity here is a rejection of the predominantly atheist rhetoric and a general move towards traditionalism. there are a handful of 'legit' christians but honestly I'm surprised they'd even come to this site.

Given the history of western theistic thought and the various kinds of theism in the world, I'd call this extremely stupid.

A show on HBO called Westworld. I highly recommend it.

I'll check it out, you think it's better if I read the book first?