Get it now?

Get it now?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    something modalism, partialism or something like that

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >so moronic he cant comprehend Modalism means different modes and Partialism means different parts.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Scotland is not the UK, just part of it.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Almost correct
    It should say English, Welsh, and Scottish
    And British in the center

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I fixed it for you OP
      God is Bri'ish

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't these regional identities parts of the British identity?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          No.
          Someone who is Scottish is British, not "part" British

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So wouldn't there be three British entities, meaning three gods?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The elements don't duplicate the set.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't get it, I just counted how many British people there would be and how many Gods there would be

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is one Britain and three British nations.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And aren't each of these British nations a part of Britain?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            isn't each*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Identity and geography are distinct. A Scottish person is British. They can move to England and still be Scottish and not English, but still British. A Japanese tourist in Britain is not British.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have a English person, a Welsh person and a Scottish person. How many people there are? Why not counting three Gods then?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            an English*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            are there*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            are we not*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            a Scottish "person"*

            ?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            a Scottish "person"*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because we're talking about identities. There is a Scottish identity, a Welsh identity, and an English identity, but they are under the category of British identity because they all derive from the British Isles.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yet people say "god is the father" while nobody says "british people are welsh"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            People say British people are English

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            People also say "god is the holy spirit"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And they're right.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            so people say "god is the father" and "god is the holy son"
            but people only say "british people are english", never "british people are welsh"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, we're talking about identities, but about the entities with each identity as well, right? For example: A person with the English identity is British. A person with the Welsh identity is British. A person with the Scottish identity is British. How many British people there are?
            In the Trinity, we can count how many entities are God, which is like counting how many people are British.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It can one people or three. You can say there are three British people or one British people referring to their shared identity, if they are all the British people in existence.

            so people say "god is the father" and "god is the holy son"
            but people only say "british people are english", never "british people are welsh"

            British people are Welsh though.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So do you agree that the counting would be three Gods?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >British people are Welsh though.
            Every British person is Welsh?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are British people that are Welsh. There is God in the Son.

            So do you agree that the counting would be three Gods?

            Would you say a glass that is half empty isn't half full?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the trinity diagram said "is in" it would be a lot clearer

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's appropriate in a certain way but it creates the problem where it can appear that it's one God puppeting three characters.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Would you say a glass that is half empty isn't half full?
            I don't get your point

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Two things apparently contradictory things can be true at the same time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But how counting one God with three entities being God is just an apparent contradiction? Why is it not actually contradictory?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How about this: if you have three people who are happy, they are each an individual expression of happiness. However, there is only one emotion of happiness between them.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't "being an expression of God" Modalism though?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Modalism would be arguing that there's one being across the three of them as if they're a hivemind just because they're all happy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But hapiness is not even countable, Gods are.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            not in the Trinitarian definition

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It maybe works with happiness phrasing it like "being an expression of something", but when you say simply "being something", it forces the object in question to be countable, otherwise it's Modalism, for example:

            This liquid in the cup is water
            This liquid in the pool is water
            This liquid in the ocean is water

            Three forms of the same substance.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the meaning that's lost in translation. Using happiness to frame the example was effective because each of the persons is an animate manifestation of God. The substance is seen in the three expressions, but is uncountable and is not duplicated across them. It was incredibly hard to put over these past two days because the ousia and the hypostases in the doctrine of the Trinity have separate properties.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The substance is seen in the three expressions, but is uncountable and is not duplicated across them. It was incredibly hard to put over these past two days because the ousia and the hypostases in the doctrine of the Trinity have separate properties.
            Why is it not duplicated?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Since before it was translated from Greek to Latin to English, it was uncountable universal, like happiness in English. I'm also the anon in the other thread.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But when you say three entities are happy, aren't you already creating three happinesses?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now you're altering the property of words to suit your argument. Happiness is uncountable by nature because it's one and the same emotion everywhere. That is how God is in the Trinitarian persons.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, I got it. But is being happy/being a manifestation or expression of happiness the same thing as being happiness itself? It's a different relation, right? Being a manifestation or expression of God is not the same thing as being God, as because of this relation that I argued for Modalism (being a manifestation of God, not God itself).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a problem with the Trinity diagram. The essence of God isn't a fourth person in the Trinity but that's what the diagram makes it look like. That's why it's not understood as God in three modes. The three manifestations in parallel are the reality of God. An article on an Orthodox website put it this way, that the essence of God is what God is, but the persons of God are who God is.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The three manifestations in parallel are the reality of God
            I don't get it, if you use the word "manifestations", how is still not Modalism?
            >An article on an Orthodox website put it this way, that the essence of God is what God is, but the persons of God are who God is
            Ok, he is one God and three persons. But then why saying each person is God when only the three of them would make God?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't get it, if you use the word "manifestations", how is still not Modalism?
            Modalism denotes each as something less than God. The Trinitarian definition has God existing as a triadic being. After revisiting my usage of expression and manifestation in my previous posts in light of this, I think I'm inaccurately thinking of extrinsic instead of intrinsic phenomena, that is, I shouldn't be referring the expression of happiness but experience of happiness itself. The direct experience of happiness can occur in three people, but the nature of happiness is one and the same between them despite the indivduation.

            >Ok, he is one God and three persons. But then why saying each person is God when only the three of them would make God?
            Because God is in the three of them simultaneously. They don't make God like puzzle pieces, they are God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Modalism denotes each as something less than God
            You mean, but being manifestations of God, not God itself, right?
            >The Trinitarian definition has God existing as a triadic being
            What do you mean by triadic?
            >After revisiting my usage of expression and manifestation in my previous posts in light of this, I think I'm inaccurately thinking of extrinsic instead of intrinsic phenomena, that is, I shouldn't be referring the expression of happiness but experience of happiness itself.
            What would be the difference? It's still not happiness itself, but a relation to it (you were saying expression of it, now you're saying experience of it).
            >The direct experience of happiness can occur in three people, but the nature of happiness is one and the same between them despite the indivduation.
            So there's three experiences of happiness, even if they're equal. Person A has the experience of happiness, person B has the experience of happiness, person C has the experience of happiness. It's not the same of each person being happiness itself.
            >Because God is in the three of them simultaneously.
            So God is in each person, but each person is not God, right?
            >They don't make God like puzzle pieces, they are God.
            I don't get it, how are each of them God? God is not even countable in the Trinitarian definition, right? How could there be three entities that are God? Wouldn't you be counting them?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not the same of each person being happiness itself.
            Each person experiences happiness itself, which is the same emotion across the three of them. Each person is happy. Yet the happiness doesn't override their individuality, despite their collective experience. But I see your issue, that being happy is not the same as happiness, so the following is probably a better illustration.

            >I don't get it, how are each of them God? God is not even countable in the Trinitarian definition, right? How could there be three entities that are God? Wouldn't you be counting them?
            Because God being uncountable like the happiness above is indefinite. Each person is an embodiment of the indefinite. When you add infinity to infinity to infinity, it's still infinity. A further analogy came to me just now and it's a fault of mine for not thinking of it earlier: God is fractal in the persons. Like this animation of a fractal pattern: the fullness is a component that is the fullness that is the component. The operation of God is homologous to this in the Trinity.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because God being uncountable like the happiness above is indefinite.
            Weren't actually the experiences of happiness or happy people that were being counted? The same way that they are countable, wouldn't that imply God being countable? Also, what do you mean by indefinite?
            >God is fractal in the persons. Like this animation of a fractal pattern: the fullness is a component that is the fullness that is the component. The operation of God is homologous to this in the Trinity.
            But so the fractal is divisible into infinite components, right? Wouldn't that imply infinite persons? And isn't just an illusion that the components are the fullness? The components just seem like the fullness, but when you zoom-in, they were just parts. That would imply each person of the Trinity just being a part of God, not the fullness of God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Weren't actually the experiences of happiness or happy people that were being counted? The same way that they are countable, wouldn't that imply God being countable? Also, what do you mean by indefinite?
            The persons are countable but the Godhood is not.

            >But so the fractal is divisible into infinite components, right? Wouldn't that imply infinite persons? And isn't just an illusion that the components are the fullness? The components just seem like the fullness, but when you zoom-in, they were just parts. That would imply each person of the Trinity just being a part of God, not the fullness of God.
            You forget the relation is also true in the fractal pattern in reverse: when you zoom out you see that the fullness is a component. The persons are in God, but God is also in the persons. It's a recursive relationship. On the divisibility, each of the divisions would be a recurrence of the three original components, in which the fullness is still embedded; that is, it is just the original at a certain depth. The pattern is still the pattern at all depths.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The persons are countable but the Godhood is not
            Right, in the case of happy people, in "person A is happy", "happy" is an adjective. But let's take a noun like "water": "Liquid A is water, liquid B is water and liquid C is water". What is the definition of water we're working with? Any part of the totality of water in the universe, or the totality itself of water in the universe? If it's a part of the totality, then it's countable. If it's the totality of water, it's uncountable but one in quantity. You can say that God is infinite, and that infinity divided by parts is still infinity, but each of these parts of infinity would still be parts, no?

            >when you zoom out you see that the fullness is a component
            Isn't it a visual illusion? In reality when you zoom out, you just see a part of the fractal, that has the same pattern of the more zoomed parts, but it's still a part, no?
            >On the divisibility, each of the divisions would be a recurrence of the three original components, in which the fullness is still embedded; that is, it is just the original at a certain depth. The pattern is still the pattern at all depths
            I agree that the pattern is the same at all depths, but each depth shows a part of the totality of the fractal. We're always seeing just parts of its totality.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just summarizing my arguments:
            1) Infinity can have parts. But that would be saying each person is a part of God.
            2) In fractals, even if the pattern is always the same, what we're always seeing is a part, not it's fullness.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Isn't it a visual illusion? In reality when you zoom out, you just see a part of the fractal, that has the same pattern of the more zoomed parts, but it's still a part, no?
            The reason it isn't an illusion is because fractal patterns aren't simply a set of visual elements, but are established by mathematics. Its mathematics extend the fractal to every depth in a recurrent, self-referencing structure.

            Just summarizing my arguments:
            1) Infinity can have parts. But that would be saying each person is a part of God.
            2) In fractals, even if the pattern is always the same, what we're always seeing is a part, not it's fullness.

            >1) Infinity can have parts. But that would be saying each person is a part of God.
            In this case, there are three recognizable "parts" as you put it. However in each "part" is found the whole. Where we designate part and whole is a factor of our frame of reference, not a real distinction, what we see is as you put it in the following, parts of parts.

            >2) In fractals, even if the pattern is always the same, what we're always seeing is a part, not it's fullness.
            I think what you've said here brings us to a significant point. Notice how you said "what -- we're -- always seeing is a part. The persons are seen by us as a "part" because of the limitations of our senses; the actuality of God's being in the persons extends beyond the qualities to which we have direct access. Reality is not delimited by our breadth of comprehension; you can see an analog in the fable of the blind men and the elephant, whose deficiency of the sense of sight leads to their perception that elephant is independently a tree, or a snake, or a wall, by the faculty of touch alone which is available to them. When one declares that a person of the Trinity is partial, a logical fallacy is in effect that one's observations by his natural senses have conveyed the totality of the person's nature to him, a fallacy of induction. Each is the totality of God embodied individually so as to be comprehensible to us.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The reason it isn't an illusion is because fractal patterns aren't simply a set of visual elements, but are established by mathematics. Its mathematics extend the fractal to every depth in a recurrent, self-referencing structure.
            Sorry, I implied we're always seeing parts of the fractal when it's the opposite: we're always seeing the full fractal, but never the full depth (quantity of details). So I should say not parts of the fractal, but parts of the full depth. In analogy we would always be seeing the full God, but never its full quantity of details, just parts of it. The illusion, then, would be the we are, at any time, seeing the full depth or quantity of details.
            >In this case, there are three recognizable "parts" as you put it. However in each "part" is found the whole. Where we designate part and whole is a factor of our frame of reference, not a real distinction, what we see is as you put it in the following, parts of parts.
            Each part of the full depth is not the full depth despite looking like it. The full depth is never seen, we'd have to zoom-in for infinite time to see it, so to say.
            >When one declares that a person of the Trinity is partial, a logical fallacy is in effect that one's observations by his natural senses have conveyed the totality of the person's nature to him, a fallacy of induction. Each is the totality of God embodied individually so as to be comprehensible to us.
            If you divide infinity (the quantity of God, so to say) by three, it's true that you have three infinities. But each if them are different from the original infinity and are a part of, by matter of being contained in the bigger infinity. For example, the infinite set of even numbers is contained in the infinite set of natural numbers.

            [...]
            And of course you'll go quiet and produce nobody, just like the last thread.

            I mean, are you talking about the Catholic Church? I admit I don't know if some pope, for example, explicitly condemned it etc. What I know is that it basically denies the Trinitarian core belief that each person is God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            and are a part of it*

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I admit I don't know if some pope, for example, explicitly condemned it etc.
            Finally you admit you're a liar pulling things out of your ass

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Each part of the full depth is not the full depth despite looking like it. The full depth is never seen, we'd have to zoom-in for infinite time to see it, so to say.
            Yeah, and God exists in, outside, across and beyond space-time, so there's no problem.

            >If you divide infinity (the quantity of God, so to say) by three, it's true that you have three infinities. But each if them are different from the original infinity and are a part of, by matter of being contained in the bigger infinity. For example, the infinite set of even numbers is contained in the infinite set of natural numbers
            You forgot that it's self-referential. The bigger infinity is contained in the smaller infinity as well, a paradox. You might ask, how is this possible? This was only uncovered in logic in the past century: see Godel's incompleteness theorems. There exist truths which are unprovably true within any system of logical axioms.

            >I admit I don't know if some pope, for example, explicitly condemned it etc.

            >I admit I don't know if some pope, for example, explicitly condemned it etc.
            Finally you admit you're a liar pulling things out of your ass

            Partialism was invented in a Lutheran meme video 10 years ago as a "joke" heresy:

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            After a bit of looking I think you might be right and that video itself very well could be the source of the nonexistent heresy
            How bizarre

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, and God exists in, outside, across and beyond space-time, so there's no problem
            I don't get your point. God is infinite but parts of that infinity are another thing.
            >The bigger infinity is contained in the smaller infinity as well, a paradox.
            So is there a proof or is it unprovable? How would you argue that the bigger infinity is contained in the smaller infinity, then? Bigger sets can't be contained in smaller sets by definition in set theory.

            On Partialism, the problem is that if you and

            After a bit of looking I think you might be right and that video itself very well could be the source of the nonexistent heresy
            How bizarre

            deny that each person is God, you are going against the doctrine of the church fathers. A heresy, by definition, is a belief contrary to orthodox doctrine. And that leads us to question what is orthodox. It means traditional, established. The Athanasian Creed was used in Christian churches since the sixth century and is accepted by both Catholic and Reformed churches. So going against it would be like going in a new (?) branch of Christianity, anathematized by the Athanasian Creed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't get your point. God is infinite but parts of that infinity are another thing.
            God transcends our understanding of part and whole.

            >On Partialism, the problem is that if you and15731799deny that each person is God, you are going against the doctrine of the church fathers
            The only one trying to do that is you. Both I and the other poster agree that the persons are fully God. It's you who is differentiating by saying that they can't be. It just is.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God transcends our understanding of part and whole
            If it transcends our understanding, then how can you affirm that the full quantity of details is contained in a part of the quantity of details?
            >The only one trying to do that is you. Both I and the other poster agree that the persons are fully God. It's you who is differentiating by saying that they can't be. It just is.
            The definition of Partialism is each person not being the fullness of God. You presented the situation of fractals are arr arguing that the fullness of quantity of details is contained in parts of the quantity of details, and I argued that that isn't possible by set theory.

            >How would you argue that the bigger infinity is contained in the smaller infinity, then?
            Recursion

            >Bigger sets can't be contained in smaller sets by definition in set theory.
            And God has His existence in a way that our set theories cannot illustrate.

            >Recursion
            Can you elaborate on how recursion allows the fullness of depth to be contained in a part of the fullness of depth?
            >And God has His existence in a way that our set theories cannot illustrate.
            And so why would God have his existence in a why that the theory for recursion can illustrate. And if not, then what is the relevance in trying to analyze the Trinity if our logical tools aren't even able to access it?

            >if you and [...] (You) # deny that each person is God
            no one is doing that mate, the pic in the OP illustrating this analogy says directly for each that they are the UK

            >no one is doing that mate, the pic in the OP illustrating this analogy says directly for each that they are the UK
            The definition of Partialism is each person not being the fullness of God. In the case of the UK and the countries contained in it, they're clearly parts. The other anon is arguing that, in fractals, the fullness of depth can be contained in a part of the fullness of depth (depth being the quantity of details in the fractal).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The definition of Partialism is each person not being the fullness of God
            Can you even find a definition for this gag "heresy" made up for a YouTube joke? It's just a pun on "modalism" being about the "mode" of existence.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The difference between Partialism and Modalism is basically that in Partialism there are three persons who are parts of God and sum up its fullness, and in Modalism, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of God. I found this definition of Partialism in wiktionary. Ignore the first part of the page and scroll down. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/partialism

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wikipedia is written by anyone.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The page was literally edited by a guy in April to add that sentence with no citation whatsoever
            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/72683037
            You have been deceived.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >basically that in Partialism there are three persons who are parts of God and sum up its fullness
            "Partialism" is, as far as I can see, a term someone made up for that YouTube video in the earlier post. Looking through scholarly theological works I don't see any discussion of this alleged "partialism".
            It's a bit from a gag in a YouTube video that you apparently took way, way too seriously.
            Even without using the term "Partialism", can you find anyone ever actually condemning this idea? It's a phantom controversy that never existed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea is still anathematized and heretic anyway, as I explained
            ...no you didn't? Explained when? You have yet to find a _SINGLE_ official statement actually condemning this idea and the thread has been up for days
            You've said that you think it contradicts a creed but it was already explained to you that that logic could equally apply to calling belief in evolution a heresy

            Well, I find some historical arguments that go against the idea of partialism. The point of the guy from stackexchange is that partialism indeed wasn't explicitly condemned, because, being an impossibility, a theologian should never get there in the first place. Citations:

            He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies 2:13:3

            What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself. - Clement of Alexandria On Providence

            God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. - Ambrose of Milan The Faith 1:16:106

            We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing - Cyril of Alexandria Dialogues on the Trinity 1

            The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two - Cyril of Alexandria Treasury of the Holy Trinity 11

            Why does John say, ‘No one has ever seen God’ [John 1:18]? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [where people saw a vision of God] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see. For God is simple and non-composite and without shape; but they all saw different shapes - John Chrysostom Against the Anomoians 4:3

            https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17893/is-partialism-a-real-heresy , scroll down to see the post by Spencer

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            These are talking about a notion known as Divine Simplicity (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/#QuesCohe), which isn't really directly related to doctrines of the Trinity

            (I do think it renders the Trinity incomprehensible but that's not quite the point)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So isn't Divine Simplicity contrary to God having parts anyway?

            >Only explicitly condemned ideas? Only by the Catholic Church?
            yeah, that is the definition of heresy lol

            Do you think Protestants never consider things heresies themselves as well? I don't know from where you took this definition of heresy.

            Yes, just like there is no part or whole in God. And it's not impossible, it exists in non-euclidean geometry, just like we exist in non-euclidean geometry. Did you know that you have have 3 90-degrees angles in a triangle?

            >Yes, just like there is no part or whole in God
            God has no whole? You were meant to argue that the whole of God can be contained in a part of God. And if God has no whole, how does it exist at all?

            Yes, just like there is no part or whole in God. And it's not impossible, it exists in non-euclidean geometry, just like we exist in non-euclidean geometry. Did you know that you have have 3 90-degrees angles in a triangle?

            >And it's not impossible, it exists in non-euclidean geometry, just like we exist in non-euclidean geometry.
            I don't know how that works but how would that image represent reality if it's information of height of the staircase parts contradicts itself?
            >Did you know that you have have 3 90-degrees angles in a triangle?
            How? And how is it relevant to prove that in each part of God, the fullness of God is there?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God has no whole? You were meant to argue that the whole of God can be contained in a part of God. And if God has no whole, how does it exist at all?
            As an indeterminate being

            >How?

            >And how is it relevant to prove that in each part of God, the fullness of God is there?
            Because God can exist in realities that our minds have a limited ability to grasp.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As an indeterminate being
            What do you mean by indeterminate?
            >Because God can exist in realities that our minds have a limited ability to grasp
            But you were able to demonstrate to me how a triangle can have 3 90-degrees angles. Why would it be impossible to grasp how the whole of God can be contained in a part of it?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What do you mean by indeterminate?
            I meant it as a synonym for being undefined in mathematics, but saying undefined would create confusion in this discussion. The result of division by zero is undefined, not because it doesn't have an answer, it's that there are multiple answers each logically true and contradict each other.

            >But you were able to demonstrate to me how a triangle can have 3 90-degrees angles. Why would it be impossible to grasp how the whole of God can be contained in a part of it?
            Because we live in three-dimensions. If I told a 2D being that a triangle with 3 90-degree angles were possible without any comprehension of the third-dimension, with only horizontal and vertical translations, they would think you are insane. God is fully present in the persons but our minds can only grasp at it in part.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is fully present in the persons but our minds can only grasp at it in part
            But can an argument be made for it? Why do you say that anyway? Where did you take this from? A triangle with 3 9-degrees angles is not illogical. A whole being contained in a part is.

            >Why would it be impossible to grasp how the whole of God can be contained in a part of it?
            It's not impossible to grasp. It just has to be experienced like you experienced the 3 right angles proof. NTA

            So do you agree that it's illogical and that it would depend on God revealing this illogical mystery to each person in particular?

            >So isn't Divine Simplicity contrary to God having parts anyway?

            Kind-of a yesn't situation
            When I hear someone who believes in Divine Simplicity try to explain Trinitarianism under their view it seems to wind up sounding like "God has no parts except for his three parts, which count as one part called Trinity, which is really just part of the one single Divinity part".

            Kinda reminds me of transubstantiation boiling down to "this bread is literally metaphorically literally Jesus, metaphorically speaking in a literal sense". Much Cathodox theology is a contradictory mess which is why they throw up their hands ans call everything a mystery, often capitalized to hopefully further distract from how it makes no sense.

            >Do you think Protestants never consider things heresies themselves as well?
            Protestantism includes everything from nearly Catholic groups to Mormonism so the only answer is "it depends"

            But I mean, independently of what particular Christians say about Divine Simplicity, do you agree that if it's contrary to God having parts by definition?
            >Protestantism includes everything from nearly Catholic groups to Mormonism so the only answer is "it depends"
            So your point is that some groups don't use the concept of heresy?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But I mean, independently of what particular Christians say about Divine Simplicity, do you agree that if it's contrary to God having parts by definition?
            Yes, but it also strikes me as contradictory to the Trinity by definition, and believing the earth formed from an accreted dust cloud strikes me as contradictory to the Nicene Creed calling God the maker of Earth, and bread keeping all of the properties of bread seems to me to contradict it literally being wine.
            Catholic thinking is full of contradictions, so identifying something as contradictory actually doesn't work to label is as heresy. The Catholic term for "impossible logical contradiction between two things I am required to believe" is Mystery. (The problem goes away better if you capitalize it)

            >So your point is that some groups don't use the concept of heresy?
            I don't think it really works to talk about "heresy" among Protestants, it's really a Catholic thing. Catholics have very specific and defined forbidden ideas.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Catholic term for "impossible logical contradiction between two things I am required to believe" is Mystery.
            Why would Christians be required to believe that each person is a part of God?
            >I don't think it really works to talk about "heresy" among Protestants, it's really a Catholic thing. Catholics have very specific and defined forbidden ideas
            See this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity . The Reformed also use the term.

            >But can an argument be made for it? Why do you say that anyway? Where did you take this from?
            The Bible.

            Where in the Bible does it say that each person is a part of God in which the fullness of God is contained? And as I said, even if it's in the Bible, do you consider it something logical or illogical?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would Christians be required to believe that each person is a part of God?
            They're not

            >See this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity . The Reformed also use the term
            Yes some use the term, it's a common religious word in English, but it will be different because of the diversity in Protestantism. You can believe there are multiple gods and still be a Protestant (like Mormons)
            With Catholicism there's a more central "don't believe this" list

            Also, has any Trinitarian Protestant organization ever identified a heresy called "Partialism"?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Also, has any Trinitarian Protestant organization ever identified a heresy called "Partialism"?
            I don't know if any did it explicitly, but as I said, as most Reformed churches accept the Athanasian Creed, they would consider it at least contrary to orthodoxy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            How many times are you going to repeat the same thing instead of moving the discussion forward? See above like 3 times now for that

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So no, I concede that I don't know if any Trinitarian Protestant person, church or group identified a heresy called Partialism. My point is that they probably would consider it a heresy anyway.

            St. Patrick is popularly understood to have used the shamrock as an analogy for the Trinity, which you would call partialism, but he is considered a Saint by all Christians, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike. So you are invented your own theory of what orthodoxy and heresy are.

            Just because he's a saint, it doesn't mean that his analogy of the shamrock is appropriate to describe the Trinity.

            >do you consider it something logical or illogical?
            It can be put in logical statements which are each true, but the reality which engenders them is beyond the scope of our incomplete theories of logic to describe.

            >It can be put in logical statements which are each true
            How do you know?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you know?
            The Bible and the inspired creeds of the church.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I asked how do you know that the affirmation that the fullness of God can be contained in a part of it can be put in logical statements which are true.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what a superposition is

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but explain what you mean.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            St. Patrick is popularly understood to have used the shamrock as an analogy for the Trinity, which you would call partialism, but he is considered a Saint by all Christians, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike. So you are invented your own theory of what orthodoxy and heresy are.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            inventing

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >do you consider it something logical or illogical?
            It can be put in logical statements which are each true, but the reality which engenders them is beyond the scope of our incomplete theories of logic to describe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But can an argument be made for it? Why do you say that anyway? Where did you take this from?
            The Bible.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But I mean, independently of what particular Christians say about Divine Simplicity, do you agree that if it's contrary to God having parts by definition?
            Yes, but it also strikes me as contradictory to the Trinity by definition, and believing the earth formed from an accreted dust cloud strikes me as contradictory to the Nicene Creed calling God the maker of Earth, and bread keeping all of the properties of bread seems to me to contradict it literally being wine.
            Catholic thinking is full of contradictions, so identifying something as contradictory actually doesn't work to label is as heresy. The Catholic term for "impossible logical contradiction between two things I am required to believe" is Mystery. (The problem goes away better if you capitalize it)

            >So your point is that some groups don't use the concept of heresy?
            I don't think it really works to talk about "heresy" among Protestants, it's really a Catholic thing. Catholics have very specific and defined forbidden ideas.

            *contradict it literally being flesh

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would it be impossible to grasp how the whole of God can be contained in a part of it?
            It's not impossible to grasp. It just has to be experienced like you experienced the 3 right angles proof. NTA

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So isn't Divine Simplicity contrary to God having parts anyway?

            Kind-of a yesn't situation
            When I hear someone who believes in Divine Simplicity try to explain Trinitarianism under their view it seems to wind up sounding like "God has no parts except for his three parts, which count as one part called Trinity, which is really just part of the one single Divinity part".

            Kinda reminds me of transubstantiation boiling down to "this bread is literally metaphorically literally Jesus, metaphorically speaking in a literal sense". Much Cathodox theology is a contradictory mess which is why they throw up their hands ans call everything a mystery, often capitalized to hopefully further distract from how it makes no sense.

            >Do you think Protestants never consider things heresies themselves as well?
            Protestantism includes everything from nearly Catholic groups to Mormonism so the only answer is "it depends"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And if not, then what is the relevance in trying to analyze the Trinity if our logical tools aren't even able to access it?
            Because we can see some of it but not all of it. Like this 4D cube.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right, but then what would be your argument for how recursion allows the fullness of depth to be contained in a part of the fullness of depth anyway?

            Wikipedia is written by anyone.

            The page was literally edited by a guy in April to add that sentence with no citation whatsoever
            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/72683037
            You have been deceived.

            Right, partialism is a generic term. It's like saying "anything-ism". It's a neologism. The idea is still anathematized and heretic anyway, as I explained, though.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea is still anathematized and heretic anyway, as I explained
            ...no you didn't? Explained when? You have yet to find a _SINGLE_ official statement actually condemning this idea and the thread has been up for days
            You've said that you think it contradicts a creed but it was already explained to you that that logic could equally apply to calling belief in evolution a heresy

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is your definition of heresy, then? Only explicitly condemned ideas? Only by the Catholic Church? What more?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Only explicitly condemned ideas? Only by the Catholic Church?
            yeah, that is the definition of heresy lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Right, but then what would be your argument for how recursion allows the fullness of depth to be contained in a part of the fullness of depth anyway?
            Consider this: where is the top and where is the bottom of this staircase?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Consider this: where is the top and where is the bottom of this staircase?
            There is no top or bottom because this image is an impossible representation of a staircase. But what's your point?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, just like there is no part or whole in God. And it's not impossible, it exists in non-euclidean geometry, just like we exist in non-euclidean geometry. Did you know that you have have 3 90-degrees angles in a triangle?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How would you argue that the bigger infinity is contained in the smaller infinity, then?
            Recursion

            >Bigger sets can't be contained in smaller sets by definition in set theory.
            And God has His existence in a way that our set theories cannot illustrate.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And God has His existence in a way that our set theories cannot illustrate.
            This is where you surrender all persuasive value in favor of mystery cult bullshit.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you OP?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you and

            After a bit of looking I think you might be right and that video itself very well could be the source of the nonexistent heresy


            How bizarre (You) # deny that each person is God
            no one is doing that mate, the pic in the OP illustrating this analogy says directly for each that they are the UK

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        being british is not being scottish though

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Being Scottish is being British. Being British is being Scottish, Welsh, or English.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So like I said, being british is different from being scottish

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it isn't since being Scottish is within the umbrella of British identity

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm british
            >Oh cool, what part of Scotland are you from?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            In many countries English and British are considered equivalent because of the higher culture awareness of the English vs. the Scottish. Now imagine if the three were equally representative of British identity, someone could ask that. A better example might be the Nordic countries.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Partialism.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    without a soul (you) will never understand the trinity

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You blaspheming wienersucker.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    thats partialism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      And?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        partialism is deemed a heresy by most denominations including catholicism, eastern orthodoxy, and (most) forms of protistantism

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No it isn't, you are 100% pulling that out of your keister. Show many any official declaration that partialism is a heresy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Athanasian Creed says each person is God, not just a part of God

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Heresy" is an official designation for a specifically condemned idea. Can you find ANY church official saying "Partialism is a heresy"?

            Right now you're just saying "I think it contradicts this creed so it's heresy". You might as well say "not being a creationist is heresy because the Nicene creed calls God the maker of heaven and earth".

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Athanasius is a church father, and if it goes against the creed he developed, it's logically not the Catholic faith (Catholic meaning universal, so valid for Protestants also) and condemned.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            and anathema* I think would be a better word, actually.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You might as well say "not being a creationist is heresy because the Nicene creed calls God the maker of heaven and earth".
            Something being classified as a heresy depends on church officials pronouncing it as such, something someone interprets as being against a creed is not "heresy", a heresy is an idea which has been specifically and officially condemned.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You might as well say "not being a creationist is heresy because the Nicene creed calls God the maker of heaven and earth".
            Something being classified as a heresy depends on church officials pronouncing it as such, something someone interprets as being against a creed is not "heresy", a heresy is an idea which has been specifically and officially condemned.

            And of course you'll go quiet and produce nobody, just like the last thread.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    asking christcucks to explain the trinity will literally never get old

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they're all the same but actually they're not because the parts don't comprise the whole and actually it's just kinda complicated okay? oh and also some might not even acknowledge the holy ghost anyway and uhhhh
      I can see why denominations are a thing, nobody fricking knows what this book actually says because it was written by morons in a dead language and translated thousands of times in thousands of different ways with thousands of different biases
      This is why obviously Protestants are the correct ones and the rest are all going to hell

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheism is truly the religion of midwits.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >t. eastern orthodox catholic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong, again.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't these places parts of the UK?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yep. I never understood how this was complicated, even before I was saved. I do believe that Trinity deniers are liars or willfully ignorant.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      England isn't fully the UK though. The Trinity says each person is fully God

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Three countries inside one country ≠ Three spiritual entities inside one big entity

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Three spiritual entities inside one big entity
      Partialism, no?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        WRODS!!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          ?

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    But those are parts of the UK, each individual part is not the UK itself. Like Anon's arm is not Anon. Only Anon as a whole is Anon.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If I stabbed anon in the arm, he would probably yell "Gahh, you bloody stabbed me, init?" Emphasis on "me."

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The arm still isn't fully you, it's just a part of you. If I cut your arm off people aren't going to go about treating your severed arm as you.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nope still too smoothbrained to understand this.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >3 whos
    >1 what
    there, i fixed it for you

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What is "what"? How isn't each "who" a "what" as well? If 3 entities are God, how are there one God?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        how is there*

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What is God?
        God is one in essence
        >Who is God?
        God is three in person

        I'm Muslim btw, this is just how i remmber it

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The problem with this description is it's essentially meaningless word salad and if you press Christians to explain it you'll get several different answers.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can three entities be God and there only be one God?

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, I understand that the trinity is a heretical doctrine and an affront to God

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >partialism is bad and unbiblical
    >ok why
    >IT JUST IS OK

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well, it goes against the Athanasian Creed idea that the Son is God, and not just a part of God

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've always understood this. I just don't care and I will continue to call all scottish, irish, and welsh people "english"

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    England is bigger and stronger than the rest though.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Hulk Funkopop is bigger than the rest?

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Northern Ireland is Scotland though

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes this actually helped me alot

    t. didnt pay attention in geography

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what if we had monism but only for god
    wew

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's impossible to explain the trinity without reinventing a heresy.
    Arius was right, and it was all downhill from there.

  23. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heresy

  24. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was already solved

  25. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Amazing how Roman Imperial succession strategies are still being debated.

    The Father = the Emperor
    The Son = The Successor
    The Holy Spirit = The Empire

    Was important for Emperors, especially in the 2nd century, to build a cult around the succession, as that's when the Empire was at it's weakest. Vespasian started the trend as he wanted to bring legitimacy to his dynasty. By deifying Titus as the Son, he was ensuring a smooth succession and his future success.

    The 3 are different beings in person. However, they are one in essence. Through merging the 3, you communicate to the masses that all will continue as normal after death.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The 3 are different beings in person. However, they are one in essence
      But how doesn't three persons being one God imply three equal parts of God?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        In the context of the Roman Empire, you should look at it with time as another dimension.
        They are all aspects of the Empire in different phases,but for political purposes must always be sold as being the same.
        The Son IS the Father, as he will take over, and IS the spirit, as he will maintain the values.
        I would say that "becomes" or "converges to" is more accurate in the context of Rome, but religion will have made it more extreme without thinking it through, to give off the illusion it's logic of a higher power.

        Vespasian would've wanted the Empire to think that Titus is he, who is the Empire itself.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's tritheism

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