Aquin

The first one is correct.

Source: a jpg image anonymously posted to a chinese cartoon website

Horus' mother Isis was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris. Some legend have her conceiving Horus with the dead Osiris. There's no good reason to believe that Horus was born on December 25. Some source say November, others like Plutarch claim he was born in winter. Furthermore it's not even certain that Jesus was born on December 25, that's merely when his birth is celebrated. There is also no evidence that Horus had 12 disciples. Some sources claim he had 4 while other simply say he had an untold amount of followers.

Both are true. God is both transcendent and personal.

>he can't be both
Back to Perdition with you, brainlet.

says who?

God

Nobody claims to know when Jesus was born. The census of Augustus is no help in this because it took a long while.
Romans just pushed Christmas on the 25 of December because it was the old feast of Saturn and a big celebration day in Rome.
>inb4 protestant or larping pagans thinking this makes the Church looks bad

How is that even remotely contradictory?

You misinterpret the idea of God if you can only fathom an anthropomorphic physical entity. There is a great deal of teaching the confers wisdom of speaking to God through the soul, for their is an inner as well as outer divinity. One important purpose of making contact with an developing your soul (and God within your soul) is to properly develop as a person, to individuate, and spirituality is tantamount to the process, for prayer is essentially a form of meditation.

Many people (now) can only resolve problems by external dialogue. Prayer puts an emphasis on the self: you speak within and deliberate on what exactly your problems now, from where might they come, and how might they be confronted and solved. An interesting part of the unconscious, which is what you are seeking contact with, is that it problem-solves in the background. Take an instance where you might forget an important word in composing an idea: you can try and force the word to come to mind but it is often in vain; it is better to distract yourself with another stimulus and often the word may come to you in just a moment, though you weren't consciously thinking about it. By positing the idea of your problem and acknowledging it, it opens the way for solution by having finally assigned it some part of your mental faculty. You are introspecting to pray to the inner God, to your naturally inherent divinity as a human being, and by so ruminating the inner "Great Man" (as the still spiritually in-tune aboriginies may refer to it) may proffer to you the answers.

Prayer is not a genie in a bottle that you rub and wish for gold. You can not wish for material, the goal is not material. The Devil is the devil because he is concerned of material, and is directly opposed to God who is god because he is concerned of higher spirit. And so the goal of this prayer/meditation is really the development of your spirituality, and by doing so more it will be more easily done in the future. You become more in-tune with your unconscious, you become more whole, the total "Self" is fully assimilated into its potential perfection. In this respect it is easy for someone who doesn't believe in the power of their conscious-unconscious relationship to disregard it, for it is suppressed. It may as well have shriveled into a pea and so requires that much more nourishment to restore it.

And so, God is pure act. As radically not "athropomorph" as it can get.

you unparalleled brainlet. you can not even comprehend how this could be seen to be REMOTELY contradictory?

And what does he do when I pray to him? As transcendant being there is no way he should make changes in reality for the sake of one mortal. As a personal god how does he manage the conflicts between prayers from different people who would contradict if both their prayers are granted

He's not a genie, he's not granting you wishes.

If two people pray each other should be plagued because of some sort of indifference, then their prayer should perhaps aid in developing themselves in such a way that they come to an epiphany of why the feud is petty or childish, or how they are behaving immaturely to something that's not so incendiary when you separate an irrational emotional opposition/fervor from an otherwise reasonable thing, or a realization that they have transgressed and can offer honest apology; or that they might begin to direct themselves in a way that the two's paths cease to cross ever again thereby absolving the confrontation; or anything else you can abstractly imagine as a solution to human social disagreement.

You're not praying for literal hand of God divine intervention. It doesn't work that way, it has never worked that way, and I'm wholly convinced people only have this idea because of pop culture, because there's no more direct an explanation or representation a spiritual manifestation: even when that representation involves Peter Griffin has a fantasy/daydream (as in a prayer meditation) about talking with God, they can not help but represent the inner divinity, the inner God, as anthropmorphic. And even while that's not necessarily fallacious, for your unconscious aspect may present itself to you in numerous masquerades and characters, and animals, but still in large part "human" embodiments, the sentiment is taken far too literally.

Jesus, people here have a really childish idea of praying. It's not what you see in cartoons.

Its what happens when a generation is raised by Liberal Boomers who thought their children nothing about life

it is more like an mistaken concept. Today people read how in the past a prayer could cause the gods to help them with some divine favour and applied that concept toowards their own problems, ignoring that divine help was mostly reserved for great disasters and thinking it as almighty solution towards all of their needs.

It's rather simple. On one hand the smarter Christians figured out the Greeks were right and the universe runs only on natural laws. Miracles cannot exist and there is no free will.

On the other hand God is an archtypical concept, which is to say it's a big ball of certain emotional statements. God is a father because people long for maternity, God answers prayers because people long for easy solutions when they are helpless.

However to truly knowledge this reality kills off the religion and makes the theologians like Aquinas seem, if not downright shallow and mentally crippled, than at least completely irrelevant.

>It's rather simple. On one hand the smarter Christians figured out the Greeks were right and the universe runs only on natural laws. Miracles cannot exist and there is no free will.
>implying

>maternity

You mean paternity, you pseud fuck. And the rest of your post is equally incoherent both logically and grammatically.

Actus Purus is bs

This was one of the most puerile posts in the thread. It's impressive that you managed to be more incorrect than the person you were attempting to correct, given the authoritative tone you chose to use.

At any rate, you (and most in this thread) would benefit from reading the following beginner's guide before returning to this board.

>he says with zero citations or actual arguments

It's bull from a Christian perspective because it has no patristic support

And, just to give an example, Maximos the Confessor says God is neither potentiality nor actualization, being altogether beyond such logical categories

When Church Fathers say stuff like that is it the Christian equivalent of a Hadith were they cite stuff they heard the disciples or Jesus say?

So?