thethreefates

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies God is the ground of being. The definition can’t be separated anymore than I can say is my intellect me or are my emotions me? If you can’t wait to worship that which grounds all being and existence, then what could possibly be a greater thing to worship?

@thethreefates2 @MattTestifies So, The Father is "the ground of being?" Jesus is also "The ground of being?" Hardly complementary. It's like, 'I can't wait to worship the ground of being!"

Nothing exposes the pecking order faster than this. Question Christ’s commands and people debate. Question creeds and people collapse.

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies God means that which is the ground of being. There can only be a single ground of being, and Scripture is very clear there is only one God as is stated in Isaiah, yet Paul in Romans and Titus explicitly calls Christ God and also called the Father God.

@thethreefates2 @MattTestifies What does God mean? Is Jesus God? Is the Father God? If they are both God, that's two Gods, which sounds like what Paul is saying: "There is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." Lord = Jehovah. That's two.

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies Persons is a weird word because there are four Greek words that mean different things, but all get translated as person. We believe there are three hypostases. Hypostasis means the core reality or essence of something. There is one God but three core realities.

@thethreefates2 @MattTestifies Right. But you argue that there is one God, as in, the numeral one, but there are still three persons. How is that different from saying, "They are three persons but one being?" Do you not agree that there is one God?

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies Rather, we believe they are of one substance and nature. That substance and nature is not a being. 2/2

@thethreefates2 @MattTestifies By "literally one," I mean, Jesus and the Father are "one being," which is a false doctrine.

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies That is hard to respond to because we don’t think they are one being. We don’t see God as a being at all. God is the ground of being. He is that which being arises from. If God were a being, He would be something within the universe which we don’t believe. 1/2

@MattMcCork @vteclimey @majestyofreason This doesn’t have anything to do with religion. It has to do with how evidence is processed in investigations. Do we really have to rewrite how science works and how investigations are conducted so that Matt Dillahunty can dunk on religious people?

@thethreefates2 @vteclimey @majestyofreason Keep lying to yourself that claims are evidence, lol. Christians will say anything to justify their unsubstantiated claims. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Today I respond to Matt Dillahunty’s recent response to me. Let’s talk about claims, evidence, and science, baby, let’s talk you and me… youtu.be/LHVUeC3NI3A

@AtheistTakes When two people love each other very much…

@GuyInco15542744 There is a lot of confusion that enters when you try to use English instead of the original languages that Scripture was written in.

It always strikes me as odd when many, particularly the Bible only Christians, will spend most of the discussion telling me why the Bible doesn’t mean what it days. This is an example

@vteclimey @MattMcCork @majestyofreason What? No one claims that all claims are evidence. I said eyewitness testimony is evidence that is also a claim. Why don’t you read what I said instead of what you think I meant. I thought atheists are supposed to be rational…

@thethreefates2 @MattMcCork @majestyofreason Ah, so some claims aren't evidence. That's some back pedal.

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies … which is the root word of pathological. I’m not sure what you mean by Father and son are “literally” one. God is one. A pyramid has height, width, and depth, 3 dimensions, but one pyramid. There is nothing alien about that.

@thethreefates2 @MattTestifies What about the notion that God has no "parts or passions" or that The Father and Son are _literally_ one? That makes God out to be an alien instead of our Father.

@Mordie_Kai @MattTestifies God has no parts simply means He isn’t a composite being. He isn’t made out of anything, but rather is the basis of all things. Passions are defined as unnatural, unhealthy, and uncontrolled desires that enslave the human soul. It is a translation of the Greek word pathe…

@vteclimey @MattMcCork @majestyofreason To make it more understandable, I can change dogs can fly to people can die, and the sub to I saw someone die. The specific facts don’t matter, we are focused on the system/structure, not the specific facts. The system doesn’t change because the facts change.

@thethreefates2 @MattMcCork @majestyofreason If you can't tell it's true. Why fight so hard to call it evidence? Strange hill to die on. Go find some actual evidence.

@vteclimey @MattMcCork @majestyofreason … dog fly, that is then a claim that is also evidence. It may be considered a sub-claim if it is in support of a larger claim. I could claim, dogs can fly because I saw a dog fly. There is a main claim and a sub-claim, the sub is evidence of the main.

@vteclimey @majestyofreason It very well may be. That makes it evidence. Something being evidence doesn’t make it true. Eyewitnesses can say they saw something and that is evidence, but they could be mistaken or lying. At trial, both side provide evidence, but only one side can be true.

@thethreefates2 @majestyofreason Or maybe it's evidence that I'm lying. Do you ever ask "what is it evidence for?"?

@MattMcCork @vteclimey @majestyofreason True, but eyewitness testimony is a piece of evidence. It can be false, something being evidence doesn’t make the final conclusion true, it’s simply a piece of the puzzle.

@thethreefates2 @vteclimey @majestyofreason No, that's not how that works. If you claim to have seen your dog walk on water, you will be asked to provide evidence of your claim, lol.

@vteclimey @majestyofreason Of course the claim isn’t enough, but a claim to have observed something is evidence. It may or may not be sufficient evidence, but it is a piece of evidence to be weighed with other pieces of evidence.

@thethreefates2 @majestyofreason So you're saying the claim isn't enough. You need more information, which might even prove the claim to be false, in which case the claim isn't evidence!

@RestoredTruth8 With all due respect, the question doesn’t make sense. The two natures are attributes of Christ, not separate beings

Question for the Creedalists…. In what way can a human create an infinite/eternal sacrifice… since the hypostatic union promotes that only the flesh of Christ was the thing that felt the pain and what died for our sins… where does it say in the bible the flesh is sufficient?

@vteclimey @majestyofreason If you said that you saw your dog walk on water, that would be considered evidence. It would then be weighed against countervailing evidence such as, was this water frozen? Is the water only 1cm deep? Do the laws of science still work? etc.

@majestyofreason "My dog walked on water today" ^^ evidence my dog can walk on water.

@AmulekAtThat @MattTestifies … the authority vs our use of the terms bishop or Patriarch. We do believe our bishop ms hold divine authority. That is why the Orthodox are opposed to the filioque clause; it was added in without the council of bishops.

That helps clarify, thank you. So this Greek version of the Nicene Creed is being used as a common reference point, not because there is a single authoritative Church that follows it or a universally binding version revealed by God that all Christians agree on. Catholics add the Filioque, Orthodox reject it, and Protestants vary in usage and emphasis. So we’re not dealing with a single divinely established standard, just a broadly accepted historical formulation. That’s fine. Using this version, among other things, I reject specifically: “ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί” (“one substance with the Father”) and the underlying framework of a single indivisible essence. It defines God using post biblical metaphysics rather than the plain relationships shown in scripture and revelation. Implications: It collapses the real Father Son relationship into philosophical construct. It makes God less knowable and less relatable and thus ourselves as well. It shifts authority for doctrine from revelation to later consensus, creedal definitions and traditions. Scripture presents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct, perfectly united, not as one metaphysical substance and being defined by later councils. So I disagree with that, but even before getting into specific disagreements of what it says, I reject the creed outright because: It was not revealed by God through prophets or apostles holding divine authority. It has no binding authority over Christianity as a whole. Only within traditions that choose to adopt it. No tradition owns Christianity or has the right to define it for everyone else. And to be clear, we do not deny others or gatekeep Christianity either. You are Christian, even if we disagree. But the being of one essence thing, homoousios, it is not a minor thing. It changes everything. It replaces a real Father and Son relationship with an abstract, unrelatable. unknowable, 3 in 1 alien indivisible mystery essence, instead of our literal Father in heaven in who's image we are and who we are to become like. It distorts their relationship with each other as well as our relationship with them. It undermines and confuses the entire plan of God, the reason for the creation, the purpose of the atonement and Jesus's teachings, why we're here, our eternal potential and destiny. By obscuring who they are it obscures who we are and our relation to God the Father and Jesus. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3