Why the Trinity isnt polytheistic cope

Let’s cut back on all the try-hard math bullshit. So, according to Christianity, we have three necessary, uncreated realities: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, right? Is this polytheism? No.

Challenge to redditheists: find ONE (1) way to distinguish ontologically between three uncreated realities. You can’t. Remember, they all precede the existence of space-time, so they can’t be distinguished spatially or temporally; they can ONLY be distinguished in relation to each other. Finitude is what allows for distinction and disunity. The Trinity, on the other hand, are in such perfect, infinite, and inseparable union that they can’t be anything but one in essence.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    enough mumbo jumbo

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn’t find a ‘gotcha’ from /r/atheism to refute me, huh, cuck?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        whatever helps u cope

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I have heard it said the HS is female, but never that its Mary...

      • 6 months ago
        Other anon

        Yeah, quran was made up by 7th century shitskin warlord brownoid so its expected he didn't actually read the original magic israelite book.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >so they can’t be distinguished spatially or temporally; they can ONLY be distinguished in relation to each other.
    This is your brain on Christianity

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not an argument.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your entire argument is essentially that the Trinity makes sense because its three distinguishable beings are indistinguishable. Just take a step back to appreciate how moronic that is

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, atheists are generally moronic.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          If the Trinity is just polytheism, then the three persons would need to distinguish themselves from each other ontologically. We know that Thor isn’t Odin because Odin existed before Thor, they have their own physical bodies distinct from each other, their own separate personality and wills, etc. Therefore, we can conclude that they are two separate beings. You can’t do the same with the Trinity. How, then, are they three different beings instead of one?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If they're undistinguishable then they aren't distinguishable you moron and your entire argument is based on a self-contradictory premise

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because of verses like John 17:5
            >So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

            As well as Colossians 1:15
            >He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

            The scripture is rather unambiguous on Christ being the first created, thus establishing God the Father as existing prior to Christ, even though both predate the world we live in.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
            John 1:1-3

            Not only was he there in the beginning and God, but all things were made through him. All things could not be made through him if he was created.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they are separate. The father begat the son. So the son didnt always exist. This is from your own story. Now go ahead and argue it isnt true due to some theological horseshit some guys centuries later came up with.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Beginning of the book of John disagrees.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            homie, you just refuted yourself. If Christ existed before the world was, then that means he existed before time and space existed, which means he’s uncreated. Finite creatures like you and me need to occupy a space in creates reality because that is what the concept of finished inherently implies. There’s your contradiction, moron. So what came first? Christ, or space-time? This also debunks JWs and other arian heretics, too.

            And the term ‘firstborn’ does not inherently imply birth when talking about the Bible. It’s talking about primacy. King David was called God’s ‘firstborn’ over all kings despite not being the first king, or the first human, or even the eldest son of his family.

            Imagine a cushion, and a ball pressing down on said cushion. These two objects are also eternal, so the ball has been pressing down onto the cushion for eternity. The small depression on the face of the cushion is a result of the ball pressing down on it, of course, but since the ball and the cushion are eternal, there was never a time when the depression WASN’T there, either. So the depression is caused or ‘begotten’ by the ball, but not created by it. The Son’s begetting by the Father is a causal begetting, not a temporal begetting.

            I’m talking about ontological distinction, as in regards to their nature and being, not in personhood. Let me ask you a question: can there be two prime movers/uncaused causes? If so, how can one infer that they’re two and not one?

            >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
            John 1:1-3

            Not only was he there in the beginning and God, but all things were made through him. All things could not be made through him if he was created.

            moron.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they can ONLY be distinguished in relation
    You've just provided the answer. Classically, the relations are supposed to distinguish the persons. And so, you still need to explain how, if they're distinct from one another, you don't have three gods. You can't simultaneously say that they're one because they're indistinguishable (which would be modalism in any case) and also say that they're distinguished by oppositions of relation. Either they're distinguished or they're not.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because of verses like John 17:5
      >So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

      As well as Colossians 1:15
      >He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

      The scripture is rather unambiguous on Christ being the first created, thus establishing God the Father as existing prior to Christ, even though both predate the world we live in.

      homie, you just refuted yourself. If Christ existed before the world was, then that means he existed before time and space existed, which means he’s uncreated. Finite creatures like you and me need to occupy a space in creates reality because that is what the concept of finished inherently implies. There’s your contradiction, moron. So what came first? Christ, or space-time? This also debunks JWs and other arian heretics, too.

      And the term ‘firstborn’ does not inherently imply birth when talking about the Bible. It’s talking about primacy. King David was called God’s ‘firstborn’ over all kings despite not being the first king, or the first human, or even the eldest son of his family.

      Imagine a cushion, and a ball pressing down on said cushion. These two objects are also eternal, so the ball has been pressing down onto the cushion for eternity. The small depression on the face of the cushion is a result of the ball pressing down on it, of course, but since the ball and the cushion are eternal, there was never a time when the depression WASN’T there, either. So the depression is caused or ‘begotten’ by the ball, but not created by it. The Son’s begetting by the Father is a causal begetting, not a temporal begetting.

      I’m talking about ontological distinction, as in regards to their nature and being, not in personhood. Let me ask you a question: can there be two prime movers/uncaused causes? If so, how can one infer that they’re two and not one?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If Christ existed before the world was, then that means he existed before time and space existed, which means he’s uncreated
        One, there's no affirmative claim in scripture that causation only began with the world. Two, ordeal time where there is no distinct duration but only instantaneous cause-effect relationships between states is logically valid, if a monstrous pain in the ass to work with.

        >And the term ‘firstborn’ does not inherently imply birth when talking about the Bible.
        >The word doesn't mean what it plainly does mean because Scripture, just ignore the fact that it's an explicit Father/Son relationship too, and all the places Jesus calls on God as a separate person

        >Let me ask you a question: can there be two prime movers/uncaused causes? If so, how can one infer that they’re two and not one?
        Why do they need to both be Prime Movers? Why is it that Christ CANNOT be caused by God the Father? Your only argument here seems to be that you assume "time" only became a thing after "the world" was created, before which there could be NO causal distinction made... And then you wipe your ass with actual ontology by claiming the inability to distinguish origin means we cannot distinguish at all, despite all the parts of scripture that quite unambiguously distinguish between Father and Son.

        >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
        John 1:1-3

        Not only was he there in the beginning and God, but all things were made through him. All things could not be made through him if he was created.

        > All things could not be made through him if he was created.
        Why not? Why could God the Father, omnipotent as He is, have begun with creating God the Son? There's definite distinction made with the phrase "He was with God in the beginning", as this clearly denotes the Word as a separate (masculine) personage from God, otherwise "with" would be inapplicable as they would in fact be the same thing.

        If Christ is God, then quite a few verses stop making any sense because he would have no need for external reference to do what he did. It would make loads of it pure PR maneuvering.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why not? Why could God the Father, omnipotent as He is, have begun with creating God the Son? There's definite distinction made with the phrase "He was with God in the beginning", as this clearly denotes the Word as a separate (masculine) personage from God, otherwise "with" would be inapplicable as they would in fact be the same thing.

          The reason he could not be made, is because as the scripture states, all things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made. Thus, the Word would have to be created through the Word.

          And you're ignoring the part where it says the Word was God. That means that they are not separate beings.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    proof Trinitarianism was a thing before Romans took Christianity in, proof that it wasn't a deviation form original Christianity, maybe focus in that instead of defending it's existence with cope logic

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >proof Trinitarianism was a thing before Romans took Christianity in, proof that it wasn't a deviation form original Christianity
      If you want to cut through all that and debate scripture itself, we can do that. Don’t reverse the burden of proof on me, Black person. You’re the one who made the claim, so prove it.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Continental Philosophy is so fricking moronic

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay now show me the proof for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Be Roman
    >Believe there's a main triad of Gods
    >The FATHER Jupiter
    >The SON Mars
    >The HOLY SPIRIT of Rome/Romulus, QUIRINUS

    >Be Constantine
    >Need to find a way to relate your new ideology to the masses
    >JUPITER -> The Father
    >MARS -> The Son
    >QUIRINIUS -> The Holy Spirit
    >B-b-but muh monotheism
    >"They are all one!"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also, eventually, Romans were influenced by Zoroastrianism from Persia. Members of the military in particular liked Mithra, and his mysteries.

      Mithra eventually took the place of Mars 'the Son', and became more associated with being a son deity of the Sun. (Like Smamash and Apollo).

      During the Severan dynasty, this reached its height, and Julia Domna started state worship of a sun god, and commissioned the tales of Apollonius of Tyana to create some canon.

      All this parallels the gospels of Jesus. Whether her work was a reaction or an inspiration we don't know. Eventually she end up equating her son Elagabulus with both Jupiter and Sol, again keeping the idea of the traid alive: "fuit autem Heliogabali vel Iovis vel Solis sacerdos".

      Constantine initially pushed for sun worship, and is the reason he have SUNday as a day of rest:
      > On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.[38][39].
      It's also possible Christmas was chosen due to its proximity to the solstice.

      We should also think about the 'radiate crown' (similar to a halo) which Emperors would be depicted with, apparently as a way to connect an Emperor to Augustus.

      The trinity in Rome has always been a way of an emperor connecting themselves to:
      >Fatherhood and creation
      >Rebirths and future
      >Legitimacy, history and culture
      Through establishing your deity as being connected to the above 3 things, you effectively own the past, present and future.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they can ONLY be distinguished in relation to each other
    Which is also a problem. By definition God has aseity, He's not contingent on anything and is entirely self-existent. So the son and the holy spirit proceeding from the Father/the son proceeding from the Father and the holy spirit proceeding from the Father and the son is either completely meaningless or it means that the son and holy spirit aren't self-existent and therefore can't be God.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >find ONE (1) way to distinguish ontologically between three uncreated realities
    Right in front of me, there's a keyboard and a mouse. They evidently have different shapes and don't occupy the same place. There is no elaborate optical device that could explain this away, nor am I known to have any visual or cognitive impairment that would fool me in situations like these. Not only that, I can touch them and feel immediate feedback that is consistent with these being two separate objects. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt that they exist in reality and are distinct (at least far less than if I read a book about it which is exactly what Christians do).

    Glad I could help a Christian with understanding how to interpret and interact with a 3D environment, something atheists learn to do in the first few months of their lives.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    What do you mean by distinguishing ontologically?

  11. 6 months ago
    Other anon

    >Uncreated
    >Son

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