Christianity help

If the big circle is God, which of the two is a more accurate representation of the Holy Trinity?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    SageDirk

    Disingenuous bait
    Both inaccurate

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why is the right one wrong?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because for Trinitarians each person is the fullness of God, not a part

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          but the circles in a bigger circle usually represents things in a category, the left one is partialism with the pie chart

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are three circles

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tritheism?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope

        It would have been classier and made more sense if you did it Flower of Life style instead of trying to be deep to only just give a none-answer.

        Inb4 partialism

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It would have been classier and made more sense if you did it Flower of Life style instead of trying to be deep to only just give a none-answer.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What would the Flower Of Life mean? It seems complicated to interpretate.

        but the circles in a bigger circle usually represents things in a category, the left one is partialism with the pie chart

        >things in a category
        Wouldn't that be parts of that category, if they're inside the category?

        Nope

        [...]
        Inb4 partialism

        >Nope
        Why? Each big circle is a God.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why? Each big circle is a God.
          They are in the same space so as to be one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just because they are in the space, it doesn't mean that the three circles are the same circle. They just have the same radius and are overlaid. No?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't overlaid because on a 2D plane they are exactly the same

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they are exactly the same
            Congruent doesn't mean the same though. It was you who said three circles.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Congruent only says same in shape and size. I didn't say just congruent, I said they also occupied the same space, that is, space and position, which if you look up, means they are the same.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I said they also occupied the same space, that is, space and position, which if you look up, means they are the same
            It doesn't. It just means they are congruent and are overlaid.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define overlaid if you have no dimension of depth

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            First, you actually could have dimension of depth if you wanted to consider it in the representation. But even without it, it's just a situation of full intersection.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >full intersection
            Yes, and? Does that somehow make them less the same?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was you who defined that there were three circles. So the question is the opposite: why would the full intersection make three circles be one?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's both 3 and 1

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a logical contradiction

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what a superposition is

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean? From quantum mechanics? What's the relevance for this matter?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What do you mean? From quantum mechanics?
            Yes

            >What's the relevance for this matter?
            Because logical contradictions exist in our reality

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because logical contradictions exist in our reality
            What are the logical contradictions in quantum mechanics?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A superposition is simultaneously both true and false.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right, but why would you say that three circles overlaid are in quantum superposition?

            >They're not though, the radiance is a part of the sun
            Not really true since there is no aspect of the sun that is not also the radiance.

            >Not really true since there is no aspect of the sun that is not also the radiance
            So they're not distinct

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but why would you say that three circles overlaid are in quantum superposition?
            Because I was saying that something having a logical contradiction doesn't prevent it from existing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actually in quantum physics what happens is that the position of the particle is undefined. It's not a logical contradition. And you would have to prove that three circles overlaid imply one circle too.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually in quantum physics what happens is that the position of the particle is undefined. It's not a logical contradition. And you would have to prove that three circles overlaid imply one circle too.
            Yeah, and in the entity of the Trinity the person of God is undefined, so it is Father, Son, and Spirit at once. I said this in another thread.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            An undefined particle means a particle whose position you don't know. What would God being undefined mean? If it means that we don't know what it is, how is that an argument for three circles being one?

            >And you would have to prove that three circles overlaid imply one circle too.
            So you accepted there isn't one circle in my image, even though your senses empirically tell you there is one.

            Yes, you first defined that there were three circles. What's your point?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, you first defined that there were three circles. What's your point?
            I posted it along with a picture of 1 circle because there are both 3 and 1 circles.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you defined that there were three circles, the maximum that can happen is that the three circles are overlaid, not that three circles are one circle.

            >If it means that we don't know what it is, how is that an argument for three circles being one?
            A quantum superposition is both true and false at the same time when we don't know, and this isn't just theory either but found experimentally. God is Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time because he is unknowable.

            In the quantum superposition we don't know where a particle is until we look at it. By that logic, we wouldn't know which person is God and, if we looked at God somehow (sensed it somehow), we would conclude that only one of the persons was God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if we looked at God somehow (sensed it somehow), we would conclude that only one of the persons was God.
            Nope, all of the interpretations are valid. They don't just disappear because we recognize one of them. Also
            >we
            We don't choose to do anything, God does. Unless you are going to say that we each subjectively create reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope, all of the interpretations are valid. They don't just disappear because we recognize one of them
            Then you aren't following the quantum mechanics example of only one position being the true one after looking at the particle.

            >We don't choose to do anything, God does. Unless you are going to say that we each subjectively create reality.
            But it's us who are analyzing God, that's the point

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then you aren't following the quantum mechanics example of only one position being the true one after looking at the particle.
            There isn't a "true" one. It's chance, or fate.

            >But it's us who are analyzing God, that's the point
            And God is a being who created the entire universe and all that is in it and beyond it. There are bounds to what we can ever know of all that he is

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There isn't a "true" one. It's chance, or fate
            I meant the one position who will be determined after looking at the particle. If you take this behavior and apply to God, you wouldn't know which person is God until you looked at God, and, when you did, the other two persons of the Trinity wouldn't be God.
            >And God is a being who created the entire universe and all that is in it and beyond it. There are bounds to what we can ever know of all that he is
            You were talking about how quantum superposition is analogue to God being three and one. In the case of quantum superposition, an observer is required in the experiment, to see where the particle will be after they look at it. That's the point. What is your point other than calling it a mystery or something?

            You can say its one circle described in three different ways.

            Right, but then that would be one God and three descriptions of it. Each description wouldn't be God, just a description of it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Right, but then that would be one God and three descriptions of it. Each description wouldn't be God, just a description of it.
            Yeah, and it's valid to say either and both that there are three circles or that there is one with three descriptions.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it's either three circles or one circle (with three descriptions), it would be either three Gods or three descriptions of God.
            If it's both three circles and one circle (with three descriptions), it would be a contradiction, and each claim wouldn't even say that three things (persons) are God.

            >I meant the one position who will be determined after looking at the particle. If you take this behavior and apply to God, you wouldn't know which person is God until you looked at God, and, when you did, the other two persons of the Trinity wouldn't be God.
            >You were talking about how quantum superposition is analogue to God being three and one. In the case of quantum superposition, an observer is required in the experiment, to see where the particle will be after they look at it. That's the point. What is your point other than calling it a mystery or something?
            The observer doesn't decide what he sees. God in the unknown is Father, Son, and Spirit simultaneously. In observation, that resolves to one of the persons of the Trinity by divine intervention. Your observation of one of the persons of the Trinity doesn't make the other two persons of the Trinity any less God, because God could have opted to be any of the three, and because he is timeless, he could even retroactively be any of the three by his action.

            >The observer doesn't decide what he sees.
            I didn't say they decide the position of the particle, though. I just said it causes the determination of the particle's position.

            >I meant the one position who will be determined after looking at the particle. If you take this behavior and apply to God, you wouldn't know which person is God until you looked at God, and, when you did, the other two persons of the Trinity wouldn't be God.
            >You were talking about how quantum superposition is analogue to God being three and one. In the case of quantum superposition, an observer is required in the experiment, to see where the particle will be after they look at it. That's the point. What is your point other than calling it a mystery or something?
            The observer doesn't decide what he sees. God in the unknown is Father, Son, and Spirit simultaneously. In observation, that resolves to one of the persons of the Trinity by divine intervention. Your observation of one of the persons of the Trinity doesn't make the other two persons of the Trinity any less God, because God could have opted to be any of the three, and because he is timeless, he could even retroactively be any of the three by his action.

            >Your observation of one of the persons of the Trinity doesn't make the other two persons of the Trinity any less God
            So it's not the same as in a quantum superposition, since, in it, the particle can assume only one position after observation and the other positions then assume the value of false.
            >because God could have opted to be any of the three, and because he is timeless, he could even retroactively be any of the three by his action.
            How many persons can God be? I don't get your point. Are you saying that he could go into the past and change the person he is? Even with this he would just be able to assume one person as God, and the other two wouldn't be God. Just because he could change which one of the three is God, it doesn't mean that the three persons could be God, by the quantum superposition analogy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If it's both three circles and one circle (with three descriptions), it would be a contradiction, and each claim wouldn't even say that three things (persons) are God.
            It's both true at once.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How? The representation of three circles overlaid is not an actual quantum superposition. From what I understood, you just used the quantum superposition as an example of a contradictory thing being possible in reality, right? And anyway both analogies for God would imply nom-Trinitarian ideas: three circles would imply three Gods, and one circle with three descriptions would imply just three descriptions of God, not three things (persons) being God.

            >So it's not the same as in a quantum superposition, since, in it, the particle can assume only one position after observation and the other positions then assume the value of false.
            It's only false if the wave function collapses, something which we know nothing about.

            >How many persons can God be? I don't get your point. Are you saying that he could go into the past and change the person he is? Even with this he would just be able to assume one person as God, and the other two wouldn't be God. Just because he could change which one of the three is God, it doesn't mean that the three persons could be God, by the quantum superposition analogy.
            See above. The other possibilities are only false if the wave function collapses. If the wave function doesn't collapse, all are true.

            >It's only false if the wave function collapses, something which we know nothing about.
            >If the wave function doesn't collapse, all are true.
            After we look at the particle and it assumes one position, are you saying that the values for the other positions don't go to 0 (false)? Anyway the circles overlaid are not a quantum superposition.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >After we look at the particle and it assumes one position, are you saying that the values for the other positions don't go to 0 (false)?
            Yes, and that our subjective observation isn't definite because God maintains all possibilities as he wishes to set according to his will's desire.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not true. The positions only have the values of possibility as described by the wave function when the position has not yet been measured (the observer has not seen the particle yet).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and God is unknowable

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The positions only have the values of possibility as described by the wave function when the position has not yet been measured (the observer has not seen the particle yet).
            Secondly, you are again assuming the wave function collapses upon observation. If it doesn't, it means that all the outcomes are valid.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What I'm trying to say with the circles is that when you see the one circle you see the three circles, and when you see the three circles you see the one circle. Just like when you see a glass half full of water you also see a glass half empty of water. It's a separate discussion about the partialist dilemma about how two separate statements can both be true. The superposition discussion is about logical contradiction existing in reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >when you see the one circle you see the three circles, and when you see the three circles you see the one circle
            That would just imply that "when you see one God you see three Gods, and when you see three Gods you see one God". You seem to be changing OP's representation system, right? Because it was defined in the OP that the big circle meant God. Or is your circle not the bigger circle and is just the same size as it by coincidence?

            >Just like when you see a glass half full of water you also see a glass half empty of water
            I also don't get what that should imply.
            >It's a separate discussion about the partialist dilemma about how two separate statements can both be true. The superposition discussion is about logical contradiction existing in reality.
            Just because there is a logical contradiction in the quantum superposition and it exists, it doesn't mean that there three circles being one as a contradiction exist. As I said, this is not a quantum superposition.

            Yeah, and God is unknowable

            So?

            >The positions only have the values of possibility as described by the wave function when the position has not yet been measured (the observer has not seen the particle yet).
            Secondly, you are again assuming the wave function collapses upon observation. If it doesn't, it means that all the outcomes are valid.

            What do you mean by the wave function collapsing?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That would just imply that "when you see one God you see three Gods, and when you see three Gods you see one God".
            That's fair and that's where the analogy would be insufficient.

            >You seem to be changing OP's representation system, right?
            Aren't you OP?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Aren't you OP?
            No

            >Just because there is a logical contradiction in the quantum superposition and it exists, it doesn't mean that there three circles being one as a contradiction exist.
            That's a different argument from whether it can exist.

            >That's a different argument from whether it can exist
            Yeah, I'm not gonna dispute if a quantum superposition is a logical contradiction of not. But as I said, we're not talking about a quantum superposition in the representation of God as a circle.

            >So?
            Your observation doesn't force God to be one person. You and two other people can observe God at the same time and he would be to you the Father and to the others the Son and the Holy Spirit. He has sovereign power over existence to be able to do that.

            >[...]
            >What do you mean by the wave function collapsing?
            That's how a single "end" result is arrived at. Look it up. However there's no proof of where it would ever occur.

            >Your observation doesn't force God to be one person. You and two other people can observe God at the same time and he would be to you the Father and to the others the Son and the Holy Spirit.
            Well, in the quantum superposition, once anyone looks at the particle, its position stays the same for any other person who looks at it. Why are you not following the behavior of the particle in your own example?
            >That's how a single "end" result is arrived at
            That's my point. Why are you saying then that the wave function doesn't collapse when the observer sees where the particle is? Take this example: https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=QoOO-LYUL5KcHSLM (time:6:50). See how the wave function does collapse?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you saying then that the wave function doesn't collapse when the observer sees where the particle is? Take this example: https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=QoOO-LYUL5KcHSLM [Open] (time:6:50). See how the wave function does collapse?
            Because the observer is also a quantum object and their version of reality isn't definitive.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is your definition of a quantum object? Because only some particles can have quantic behavior.

            >So they're not distinct
            Yes they are. And they are both the sun. This literally exists and it has broken your mind so you can't process it.

            Saying that the radiance is the sun and that it's not the sun (distinct from the sun) is a contradiction. Saying that the radiance is the sun also implies two suns.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What is your definition of a quantum object? Because only some particles can have quantic behavior.
            Everything is made up of particles at some level that have quantum behavior. The wave-function collapse is supposed to explain the transition between quantum and classical mechanics with an arbitrary distinction between the observer who operates in accordance with classical mechanics and the world of quantum mechanics. However all observers are made of particles that operate according to quantum mechanics and physicists handwaved the issue under the Copenhagen interpretation throughout the 20th century that it doesn't matter how or why it happens. In the 21st century as our knowledge of quantum mechanics has grown that's no longer satisfactory and there's no consensus between versions of it and alternatives such as the many-worlds interpretation or superdeterminism. This also calls into question derivative ideas about free will premised on the centrality of independent observers and their special knowledge in the Copenhagen interpretation. For an example of what I meant in

            >Why are you saying then that the wave function doesn't collapse when the observer sees where the particle is? Take this example: https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=QoOO-LYUL5KcHSLM [Open] (time:6:50). See how the wave function does collapse?
            Because the observer is also a quantum object and their version of reality isn't definitive.

            see the Wigner's friend paradox.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right, but so do you agree that the particle, after the observer seeing it, is in one single position, not in more than one position at the same time? I'm saying after the wave function collapsed. After the measure has been done.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but in the Wigner's friend paradox, imagine the experiment were performed inside a box by Wigner's friend. Even after the experiment is performed, when Wigner doesn't know the result from his point of view his friend is still in a superposition of states even though his friend has definite information. So did the wave function collapse when his friend performed the experiment or does it collapse when Wigner gets the information? There's no consistency about when it was definite because both observations are technically valid.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Got it. It would seem to me that the collapse of the wave function is relative to each observer. But so applying it to the Trinity, it would mean that each someone who saw/sensed God, God would be only one person of the Trinity, and for other someones who saw/sensed God, God would be another person of the Trinity and so on. Right? God would only be the three persons of the Trinity simultaneously until someone saw it. And anyway, we don't have a proof that God is a quantum superposition, do we?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It would seem to me that the collapse of the wave function is relative to each observer.
            And this raises questions about its existence as if it was an objective phenomenon instead of being a subjective construct it would appear that reality is established by its relative recognition by observers, and brings up further questions about what happens when there are no "observers", and what recognition even constitutes. This isn't eliminated by generalizing the concept of an observer into any form of matter as you still have at some level quantum objects interacting with quantum objects, generating quantum phenomena. Where does "reality" appear? When nothing existed prior to the Big Bang in secular cosmology, there would have been no "observers", so how did it "happen" and yield the derivative classical laws of physics? This was subject to dispute between Einstein and Niels Bohr, the former taking a realist position and the latter founding the essentially anti-realist position that was given in the preceding, that properties require observational knowledge to exist, without further elaboration as to what that means or how it follows from the sum of its parts. It is akin to the question of whether a tree that falls absent a listener makes a sound.

            >God would only be the three persons of the Trinity simultaneously until someone saw it. And anyway, we don't have a proof that God is a quantum superposition, do we?
            Yeah but in the Bible there are instances like at the baptism of Jesus where the Father speaks while Jesus incarnate is present and the Holy Spirit descends on him. God is directing the entire scene and everyone in it there. Like the author of a book he can dictate the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the audience present. God could be perceived as the ultimate observer, whose interpretation establishes the canon reality for everything and everyone else, who does not have to maintain consistency with any of his creatures but for his sake alone.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, just because it's in the Bible that the three persons could be God simultaneously, it doesn't mean that it necessarily makes sense, right? Considering the possibilities of realism and anti-realism that you presented, in both of them only one reality is given to each observer. So in the Trinity, even if it was the case for anti-realism, each person would see only one person as God, unless you abandon the quantum mechanics example that you cited, no?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            each someone would see only one person as God*

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            each someone would see only one person as God*

            I would consider God as being a being that can instantiate, annihilate, and manipulate realities at will if he desires to resolve as one person, or two, or three that his created phenomena are compelled to observe as reality, unrestricted by the logical states apprehended by his subjects. Like in a dream, where objects can appear out of nowhere, and you can be in one place and then somewhere else completely in an instant, or talking to someone but then that person is someone completely different, he is able to operate on existence as its author.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In that case you'd be abandoning the quantum superposition example you cited, because for each observer only one reality is the resolution of the observation, even if for other observers the realities given are others.
            >unrestricted by the logical states apprehended by his subjects
            By subjects do you mean the observers or the persons of the Trinity, right? From what I understood, your point is that God being more than one person simultaneously is something that could exist even being illogical. But how is it possible if God being a person would contradict God being another person? Even the quantum superposition just happens when we still haven't looked at the particle. After that, the particle is in a well-defined place. Quantumly speaking, God could only be three persons simultaneously before the observation of any of them, for each observer.
            >Like in a dream, where objects can appear out of nowhere, and you can be in one place and then somewhere else completely in an instant, or talking to someone but then that person is someone completely different, he is able to operate on existence as its author
            Right, but even with these dreamlike reality shifts, to maintain logic God would have to only be one person at a time, not multiple persons simultaneously, right? Unless we consider illogical phenomena, but, as I said, would it be possible? Not even in quantum mechanics it's possible after observation.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just because there is a logical contradiction in the quantum superposition and it exists, it doesn't mean that there three circles being one as a contradiction exist.
            That's a different argument from whether it can exist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So?
            Your observation doesn't force God to be one person. You and two other people can observe God at the same time and he would be to you the Father and to the others the Son and the Holy Spirit. He has sovereign power over existence to be able to do that.

            >

            >The positions only have the values of possibility as described by the wave function when the position has not yet been measured (the observer has not seen the particle yet).


            Secondly, you are again assuming the wave function collapses upon observation. If it doesn't, it means that all the outcomes are valid.
            >What do you mean by the wave function collapsing?
            That's how a single "end" result is arrived at. Look it up. However there's no proof of where it would ever occur.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So it's not the same as in a quantum superposition, since, in it, the particle can assume only one position after observation and the other positions then assume the value of false.
            It's only false if the wave function collapses, something which we know nothing about.

            >How many persons can God be? I don't get your point. Are you saying that he could go into the past and change the person he is? Even with this he would just be able to assume one person as God, and the other two wouldn't be God. Just because he could change which one of the three is God, it doesn't mean that the three persons could be God, by the quantum superposition analogy.
            See above. The other possibilities are only false if the wave function collapses. If the wave function doesn't collapse, all are true.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I meant the one position who will be determined after looking at the particle. If you take this behavior and apply to God, you wouldn't know which person is God until you looked at God, and, when you did, the other two persons of the Trinity wouldn't be God.
            >You were talking about how quantum superposition is analogue to God being three and one. In the case of quantum superposition, an observer is required in the experiment, to see where the particle will be after they look at it. That's the point. What is your point other than calling it a mystery or something?
            The observer doesn't decide what he sees. God in the unknown is Father, Son, and Spirit simultaneously. In observation, that resolves to one of the persons of the Trinity by divine intervention. Your observation of one of the persons of the Trinity doesn't make the other two persons of the Trinity any less God, because God could have opted to be any of the three, and because he is timeless, he could even retroactively be any of the three by his action.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you defined that there were three circles, the maximum that can happen is that the three circles are overlaid, not that three circles are one circle.
            Yeah and I am saying they are both three in one sense and one in another.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean? What would be another sense for quantity of circles?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can say its one circle described in three different ways.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If it means that we don't know what it is, how is that an argument for three circles being one?
            A quantum superposition is both true and false at the same time when we don't know, and this isn't just theory either but found experimentally. God is Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time because he is unknowable.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And you would have to prove that three circles overlaid imply one circle too.
            So you accepted there isn't one circle in my image, even though your senses empirically tell you there is one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So they're not distinct
            Yes they are. And they are both the sun. This literally exists and it has broken your mind so you can't process it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >What would the Flower Of Life mean? It seems complicated to interpretate
          What I mean is only having a minimized flower of life pattern. Basically three overlapping circles. Furthermore of course having them in one big circle.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      no difference between the three? should I congratulate you for coming up with a new kind of heresy?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Best answer.
      All are One.
      You are God, I am God, everybody is God. People forgot about that, but in the proper time everybody will remember. Some people remember faster than others.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why god not just big man in sky ?
    >it eezier to think of god as big daddy 🙁
    >why theists so confusing me :~~*((

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Huh?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      But it's not a theist problem, it's a trinitarian problem. Arianism was closer to the reality, trinitarianism won out because it appealed more to polytheistic pagans.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit, how many threads do we need about the Trinity at once, all asking variations of the exact same question?

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    These threads amuse me
    It's like watching a fandom vehemently argue over their show's lore

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >first thing he thinks of when he sees people arguing is marvel goyslop
      keep consooming golem

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You thought of Marvel, not me, schizo

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saving from perdition

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither of them because they're both partialism. Draw a diagram with the sun and its radiance (hint, they're the same thing, yet distinct).

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >sun and its radiance
      >they're the same thing
      They're not though, the radiance is a part of the sun

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They're not though, the radiance is a part of the sun
        Not really true since there is no aspect of the sun that is not also the radiance.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The second. We are all created in God's image. Some (like Christ) are better at behaving like it.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's whatever they want it to be at the time. It's all made up.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Devs already confirmed trinity is heressy

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    ftfy anon

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    A circle is define by its center coordinates and it radius. There cannot be three distinct circles that have the same center coordinate and radius. So that poster was a moron and we can move on to the next trinitarian cope.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why can't there be three congruent overlaid circles?

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither, end of thread

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Holy heretical trinitarian autism schism!

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Build a partial accelerator and find out.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is a concentric circle of higher dimensions.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reviving

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bumping

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      One tip is to delete your bumps after bumping

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Test

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *