Never gets married

So this is the power of theology...

Mary's mother is recognized as a saint, but the impregnated by God part is made up or misunderstood. As is "the Father had sex with Mary"

What? So you have 3 Gods?

I know it's in the Quran that Mary was the daughter of God. Don't think it's in the Bible though

A wheel with three spokes is one wheel.
A God in three persons is one God

So God fucked Mary with his cock (the Holy spirit) who gave birth to a part of God himself? Am I understanding this correctly?

No, you're not. You're very purposely not understanding

Consider three different sponges submerged in water. Wetness surrounds them, fills them, they are all wet. You would not say that they were all the same object, but you would say that they are all the same in their wetness. This wetness does not exist purely in the context of the three sponges, either, it exists both separately around them and is manifest in their wetness.

SJW theology is more coherent than christianity. It's christianity 2.0. That's why the smarter amongst christians (liberal christians) are SJWs.

Ok, but how wet was Mary when she fucked the postman while Josef was at work?

Now your just being a fedora tipper.

just like ur mom when I ate that dirty ass.

Fuck I'm bleeding on the edge of your hat good sirs!

That's cool and everything but let me make some observations and ask you some questions
1. The sponges are not the water. But the Son, The Holy Ghost and the Father are all God.
2. The sponges are three different entities, but the Son the Holy Ghost and the Father are the same entity.
3. How does the idea of God being 3 reconcile with the idea of God being the Aristotelian prima causa?

That meme from 2012 sure showed me.

A wheel with three spokes can't be seperated. It is 1 object, the spokes can act independent of each other. So that analogy doesn't work.

Are you saying the father the son and holy spirit is just 1 entity taking multiple forms? So when it's in the holy spirit form, Jesus and the father aren't in existence? Sounds like Hindu pantheon.

Goodness gracious, people. I don't mean to be rude, but there is a lot of misinformation being thrown around in here. Let me help out a bit.

God is one being who eternally exists as three persons.
The best analogy for this is given by God himself in Revelation 1:8 -- "I am the one who is, and who was, and who is to come."
Time. You have one nature and yet three distinctions within that nature: past, present, and future. The past is the not the present, nor is it the future, and yet it shares with them in the nature of time.
The past is time. The present is time. The future is time. Likewise with God.
The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.
The proper understanding of Mary's relation to the triune God in the mystery of the incarnation is that she is the daughter of the Father, spouse of the Spirit, mother of the Son.

Can't act independently*

I'll ask you since you seem to be a well informed LARPer and the other guy didn't respond. How does God being 3 reconcile with the idea of God being the Aristotelian prima causa?

I don't know what's confusing you about that. The one being who is God is the prima causa.

But if he were the Prima causa he wouldn't have three distinct aspects to him, because the prima cause is One and one only (completely perfect, completely accomplished) (he also wouldn't act in the world, but that's another matter)

>But if he were the Prima causa he wouldn't have three distinct aspects to him
I don't know any reason to think that's true.

>because the prima cause is One and one only
God is one and only one being

That isn't even a protestant thing, OP just went dumbo.

>I don't know any reason to think that's true.
It's true because the prima cause doesn't have any determination other than itself.
>God is one and only one being
One and one only being... with three aspects. That's what I'm saying. If he were perfect and completely "accomplished" (in the Aristotelian sense) he wouldn't have three distinguishable aspects.

>"Hey guys look at me with my edgy comments with no substance meant only to provoke and make myself look like a retard."
>"Fuck off fedora"
>"Hurrdurr meme from years ago"
Stay retarded

>If he were perfect and completely "accomplished" (in the Aristotelian sense) he wouldn't have three distinguishable aspects.
It seems to me like you're judging God through the lens of Aristotle. Whether or not the Christian God passes that test, I dunno. But I guarantee you Thomas Aquinas thought and wrote about it. I'd go look up his answer if I were you.

1. The water is not god. The wetness is god in that it permeates, surrounds, and encapsulates all 3.
2. All 3 objects are not water, but all 3 objects are wet and thus share in common their wetness. In the same way, all 3 entities are not the same, but are common in their godliness. God is like the space within and around all 3.
3. You're thinking of God as a material entity, and not a metaphysical entity. God can be millions, and yet all those millions are not gods, but are the single manifest God.

Dude, I don't want to slog through 3000 pages of Summa, that's why I'm asking you christians on here lol.

>3. You're thinking of God as a material entity, and not a metaphysical entity. God can be millions, and yet all those millions are not gods, but are the single manifest God.
Wut? I specifically asked you about God and the Aristotelian notion of prime cause and you tell me I'm not reasoning on a metaphysical level? My problem with the notion of Trinity is entirely in how dumb it sounds metaphysically. Have you even read Aristotle?

Christ was the original sjw

God being 3 does not have anything to do with prime cause.

How so? God IS the prime cause according christians so obviously it does have a lot of to do with the notion of Trinity.

If God created the universe then who are you to tell them they can't be multiple entities simultaneously? God would have to exist in a different sense of time and dimension than any universe you comprehend.

one entity, not three

Your wording assumes that He conforms to any sense of entity defined in our current understanding.

>God would have to exist in a different sense of time and dimension than any universe you comprehend
t. Augustine

What happens if you remove the trinity? Would Christianity even change?

>If God created the universe then who are you to tell them they can't be multiple entities simultaneously?
It's not me, it's the Aristotelian metaphysics on which the christian religion and theology are based.
I have yet to see an answer btw. At this point my options are
-the Christian theology is wrong
-The christians on here aren't very informed on their very own religion.

God is one being with one nature and that nature is love. 1 John says "God is love." Love is a trinity. It requires a lover, a beloved, and the love that unites them. That is what God is: he is the Father and the Son united by their love which is the Holy Spirit.
God was completely satisfied in himself with no deficiencies. The Father was fully satisfied in the love of the Son, and the Son in the love of the Father.
What is the most loving thing this God could do?
Create a world where others can share in this love. He didn't HAVE to. It was an act of mercy and grace.
That is why the trinity makes sense of creation.
God created the world. The Son joins the world as a creature and joins the Church to himself. This is why the climax of all creation is the marriage of the Son to the Church. The Church is united forever, through the Son, by the power of the Spirit, and in this way the Church is brought up into the trinitarian life of God.
We become like the Son. That's what the New Testament teaches. So, God the Father loves us in the same way that he loves his Son. Through the Spirit we will love the Father with the love that the Son has for him. We will be mystically united to Christ, the head of the Church, forever.
So now you see why the trinity makes so much more sense of creation than Aristotelian whatever.

You're trying to reason about things you don't understand and are clearly not even willing to try.

are you a universalist?

>christians on here aren't very informed on their very own religion
>implying Aristotelian metaphysics is the basis of Jewish religious thought from which Christianity came

No, it is the Church that is the mystical body of Christ. Christ is the head of the Church, not all humanity. It is the Church that will be brought up into the trinitarian life of God.

newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm
Aquinas answered this, on decent sites it's really not hard to search.

people itt need to read some NT Wright.

Though really questions 27-43 would be more complete than just the 1.

My question: how does God being the Aristotelian prime cause reconcile with the notion of trinity?
Your answers:
-ur not thinking metaphisically
-it doesn't (bcuz I said so)
-u just don't get it
-u don't want to understand
I think it's pretty clear whose the one not engaging in intellectually honest discourse here. I have explained my reasoning pretty well to the other guy and he was far more accommodating and honest than you.

I'm asking about theology.

First off, you're confusing different people.
Secondly, you're the one who admitted you were too intellectually lazy to actually look at what Aquinas wrote about this or to do any searches for Thomistic answers.
Third, you're the one who isn't explaining yourself here or the nature of your problem.
Fourth, it is obviously beyond stupid to expect random Christians to be knowledgable about Aristotelian metaphysics. Oh, but it's the foundation of Christian theology? Oh, but there's a giant obvious contradiction at the heart of it that no one but you ever noticed before?
The pseudo intellectual stupidity of this board sometimes, sheesh

Finally! It only took two hours for a decent response.

No, what you're doing is basically
>whaaaaa whaaaa medieval scholastic theology was heavily influenced by aristotle, therefore the scriptural doctrine of the trinity has to be reconciled with it and also all christians should know about Aristotelian metaphysics whaaaaa

You're retarded if you think the trinity makes less sense than there being 47-55 Gods

>Secondly, you're the one who admitted you were too intellectually lazy to actually look at what Aquinas wrote about this or to do any searches for Thomistic answers.
...yes? That's why I'm asking on here. You guys are usually well informed.
>Third, you're the one who isn't explaining yourself here or the nature of your problem.
I have, in the other posts. Read the thread.
>Fourth, it is obviously beyond stupid to expect random Christians to be knowledgable about Aristotelian metaphysics
You fucking faggots namedrop Aquinas and muh theology all the fucking time.
>Oh, but there's a giant obvious contradiction at the heart of it that no one but you ever noticed before?
Knowing christians this is not only possible but plausible.
>The pseudo intellectual stupidity of this board sometimes, sheesh
lol, asking a question makes me a pseudointellectual now.

>Knowing christians this is not only possible but plausible.
See, it's this kind of fedora, anti-intellectual, i'm14andsosmart shit that makes your thread complete crap
You're intellectually lazy, unable to express your problem, more interested in fighting and acting like a living fedora reddit le atheist meme, then actually looking into a real answer

>asking a question makes me a pseudointellectual now
intellectuals put forth their own thoughts, pseuds beg for the thoughts of others

You saying that being one and three is not possible ignores the idea that through God all things are possible.

No wonder atheists are always so confused and petulant. They have so much to say about theology, but don't understand a damn thing

All things are possible, but Truth does not contradict truth. The Christian God is restricted to the logically possible. It's honestly a more interesting theological question than I'd seen in a while, actually had me looking up what Aquinas said. Definitely deserves a good answer regardless of prior conduct in the discussion.

This one dumb post is where the thread derailed. The person said God was three separate entities, which he is not and which is not the classical formulation of the doctrine of the trinity, and the Aristotle guy got rightly confused.

Also relevant regarding trinitarian analogies: youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

It was very interesting, until the OP realized they couldn't comprehend conceptual existence

Mate dude friend, I've posited a pretty clear and concise question that I have explained in further posts. Only 1 (one) guy provided a useful link, while the other responses have been "idk" "ur dumb" "u don't want to understand".
You seem to act like a pavlovic dog that starts spouting "fedora" and other various memes as a defense mechanism everytime that you feel like your faith is being threatened. I never said that I'm an atheist (I'm not, infact), yet you inferred this on the basis that I have dared to question the notion of trinity (how dares he? Quick, start posting your fedora.jps! This will make him go away!). I had come in this thread in the hope of getting my question quickly answered yet it has only cemented my suspicious that the vast majority of christians on this board are pathetic LARPers that don't actually know what they're talking about. Cheers.

What is Truth? What does it look like? Feel like?
If there are many truths, does it mean that there is no Truth?

Just because He is restricted to the logically possible doesn't mean that we can restrict Him with what we can conceive as logically possible.
For instance, before we were capable of understanding it, or even on this planet, gravity existed. Just because we didn't understand it didn't mean it wasn't the truth

>only cemented my suspicious that the vast majority of christians on this board are pathetic LARPers that don't actually know what they're talking about.
You're just so oblivious to how vague and incoherent and immature you've come across in this thread. You said there is a contradiction between the trinity and Aristotle's notion of the prime mover. When asked to clarify what the contradiction is, you either just vaguely refer to earlier posts which don't include it, or you say that it's because he has three aspects to him, which in no way says anything about why this is a contradiction.

>You're just so oblivious to how vague and incoherent and immature you've come across in this thread
We were actually having a decent conversation with this guy who was honest enough to admit he didn't know an answer. Then this guy shows up and tells me I'm not thinking metaphisically (lol). When I further pressured him on the matter, he employs the tactics of "ur wrong bcuz I said so" (here ). How am I the one being incoherent and immature?
>
When asked to clarify what the contradiction is, you either just vaguely refer to earlier posts which don't include it, or you say that it's because he has three aspects to him, which in no way says anything about why this is a contradiction.
I have explained it here

fucked up my greentext lol

>"Hey guys, let's make it so that the creative principle of reality is this weird homoerotic triune-godhead thing, for no real reason other than we have to come up with something that explains the rather unusual metaphysical reality outlined in our holy text! This couldn't possibly have any whacky unconscious implications!"

>and this thing we made up just so happens to coherently explain the reason why God created the world and gives an unfathomably beautiful hope to the human condition -- i.e. theosis

at first i thought you were heretical, but now i see you are just retarded

>the Father (...) impregnated
nope
>who is also the Son
nope
>The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate entities
"Entity" is not a good word to use here. You should use the word "person".
>A wheel with three spokes is one wheel.
Bad analogy. All analogies are useless in describing the Trinity. Often they're counter-productive.
>Consider three different sponges submerged in water.
This is the worst I've ever heard lol
>Time.
"Leave behind your three-spoked wheel and sponges, plebs, let me tell you how the Trinity is like time." It's not worth it to try to describe the Trinity with analogies. They only lead to greater confusion.
>The wetness is god
stop
>You're judging God through the lens of Aristotle...Thomas Aquinas wrote about it
Aquinas as the answer to Aristotle haha
>The Christian God is restricted to the logically possible.
the arbiter of logic speaks lol
>What is Truth?
heh noice

Fedora atheists are justified tbqh

You're right, logically possible was a bad choice of words. But He cannot contradict Himself or His nature, can't be evil, etc. He does not change, He is.
That's not quite what I meant. More that God cannot suddenly discard His omnipotence, etc, gravity in your analogy was not conceived of but wasn't seen as logically impossible.

They are justified, yes, but only in the fact that atheism is a reasonable position for someone completely ignorant in all aspects of theology.

>Double-conclusion:
The word you're looking for is corollary.

they’re justified because Catholics are fucking retarded and if you’re a pragmatist materialism is what youw ill defer to for metaphysics and ontology most importantly

To give you a less snippy answer, our knowledge of God as Trinity isn't philosophically derived. We know the Trinity through Divine revelation. The reason I lold at Aquinas being given as the answer to Aristotle is that Aquinas works from a totally Aristotelian scheme. This scheme is the belief that "differentiation" in God is the same as "composition". This lead Aquinas down the path of monistic divine simplicity, essentially affirming Aristotle. From skimming your posts, it seems like you've fallen into the same trap, that differentiation implies composition.

So Christians basically worship a limited God.

I don't mean to insult by stating the obvious, but in a way, yes. You have to keep in mind, though, that by the Christian conception of the good and of free will, one with perfect knowledge would not act except towards the perfect good. In this framework, the only limitation is "not incoherent".
The trinity is revealed, but also has philosophical basis. I've already referred to summa theologica, but 1:27-28 in particular address this. Calling it justification as an afterthought is ignoring those arguments completely, they're valid or not irrespective of trinitarian bias. It was also (though I'm barely familiar with this, you'd want to look more into it) accepted in different form by some nonchristian neoplatonists- obviously not in "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" terms but more philosophical terms similar to Aquinas'.

Reading Anselm or Aquinas won't turn an atheist into a christian, and you know fully well that's not where the objections come from. Only "MUH THOMISM!!!" nerds think that

I honestly think it's very impressive how Catholics have this perfectly internally consistent doctrinal system that allows them to handwave away all criticisms. It's a testament to the many genius Catholic theologians and philosophers that they were able to create this whole miniature world where everything links together. There's no way for them to understand how ridiculous it is from the outside though, and also Catholic revisionist history is especially terrible and unfounded, literally everyone except for them will admit that they had the Reformation coming. They still really haven't been able to recover from it and never will be, it's impossible to take all the stuff about sacred magisterium and papal infallibility seriously anymore.

It very well might not convert them, there are a large number of background metaphysical assumptions underlying Aquinas' work, but I should think that any remotely intelligent reading of the summas should provide certainty that Christianity is a serious philosophical position.
Atheism afterwards, sure, but the idiocy commonly described by "fedora" or "/r/atheism" should be hard to maintain in the face of a decent number of theological works.

And you've really studied early modern Europe, I bet, huh?

That's... are you serious? Even Catholics admit they had the reformation coming. Have you even heard of Erasmus?
And the assertion that what you describe as an internally consistent system is "handwaving" objections is idiotic- if the system is consistent and can refute an objection, attack its presuppositions and axioms instead of using arguments it has answers to. The claim that it "looks ridiculous from the outside" is entirely subjective. The points about sacred magisterium and infallibility are pointlessly tacked on to the end of your post- unless "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" expounded on is meant to be your greatest example of the Church's ridiculousness.

This logic is water-tight. Unlike Mary's vag.

Always remember, friends, that Satan has a particular hatred for Mary.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

>And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule[a] all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne
>And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

Yeah. You should see the sort of revisionism internet Catholics and even academics get up to. And it's not worth attacking Catholic axioms because they'll just handwave them away with the same baseless nonsense that only works if you already accept their system. This is why I don't advocate atheists or anybody else try to debate Christians because it's impossible to have an argument of any kind on an even ground. It's not neccessary anyway, they've already devoured themselves on their own, they don't need anybody else attacking them.

Mother of the Father,
Daughter of the Spirit,
Spouse of the Son!
Thy Unfaithful Blather
Cursed the Sacred Merit,
Yarn Come Undone!

I must say, you seem to be following your own advice and not actually debating Christians. Not sure what the point of your string of insults and straw men was, to be honest.

OP here. I can't this shitpost is still going