/lit/ - Literature

>>17844760
If christianity is true then christian God is a purely evil monster who must be vanquished, not worshipped.

>>17844785
>judging God like you would judge your average street jerkoff
reddit tier thinking

>>17844785
We are the monsters.

>>17844785
If Christianity is true the Christian God must be worshipped only because of the consequences that not worshipping him would entail. Might makes Right.

>>17844792
>if you're powerful you're good
>might makes right is not only a truthful statement, it's the only thing that's moral

But true Christianity is self-consciously incomprehensible to the limited human intellect. So you can't really decide on it on a theoretical level. It has to be based on practical considerations

>Nietzschean criticism of Christianity only applies IF Christianity is not true.
And you have yet to show that it is true

>>17844832
God literally made the concept of good.

>>17844785
>implying you can define evil
>implying God can be vanquishes
*tips*

>>17844858
So I represented you fairly?
You are reprehensible.

>>17844785
t. moralfag

>>17844867
Can you explain how a god who creates the universe doesn't create what is good?

>>17844832
Yes. We're not talking about what should be made, but what de facto has been done.

>>17844877
A creator does not decide morality for its creations solely by the action of creating them.
If you're saying "good" is doing what the creator will reward you for doing and "evil" is doing what the creator will punish you for then I disagree with your definition.

>>17844852
There are thousands of proofs: the historical accounting for the resurrection of Christ, the prophecies about Christ, the destruction of the temple foretold by Christ, the Turin Shroud, etc.

>>17844900
>A creator does not decide morality for its creations solely by the action of creating them.

>>17844903
>thousands of proofs

>>17844900
>a creator
We're talking about the creator of logic, math, etc. itself. What god makes is the logic of the world. You're essentially saying math is bad because it doesn't fit how you want to see math.

>>17844912
You have a twisted idea of morality if you disagree with that statement.

>>17844900
and you do, right?

>>17844903
>the historical accounting for the resurrection of Christ
By people who have a massive stake in it being true
>the prophecies about Christ
Post hoc rationalization
>the destruction of the temple foretold by Christ
Also a post hoc rationalization, and not that strange considering that it took place in an era of political turmoil that was almost unimaginable, even back then
>the Turin Shroud
A known hoax

>>17844934
In part, but mainly my genes and culture.

>>17844922
>We're talking about the creator of logic, math, etc. itself.
Ahura Mazda? He’s the source of asha, after all

>>17844940
>le critical theory reddit marxist
like clockwork

>>17844940
So the Creator of the world doesn't know what's truly moral but you fatuous piece of shit do, right?

>>17844922
No, I'm saying if a created subject is unable to understand 1+1=2 and they are punished for being unable to comprehend it, then that's not moral, even though they are going against their creator.

>>17844951
I know that slavery isn’t moral, which God doesn’t really seem to know. Luckily, most Christians also find slavery abhorrent, so that tells me whose word they really follow

>>17844946
I'm not Marxists, I am right wing. I despise critics theory and they disagree with me.
My ideas come from an evolutionary standpoint.

>>17844951
Morality is avoiding harm to yourself and others carrying your genes. It's why animals share our simple morals, more or less depending on their circumstances and genes.

>>17844971
So now you don't only decide what's moral or not, but you even dare decide what does God think is moral, right? Damn, we're talking with the real boss of the universe in here.

>>17844832
and yet I bet my left egg that you pay taxes.

>>17844974
You can't be right-wing and Godless. You are essentially just a disillusioned leftist or an anti-leftist but not a proper right-winger.

>>17844999
A slave obeying does not mean he believes his masters just.

>>17844952
>that's not moral
You're making the same mistake again that I told you about. Saying what god does is wrong is the same as saying math is bad because it doesn't fit how you want math to be.

>there are people in this thread that don't know the Euthyphro dilemma has already been addressed by every single competent Christian theologian 1000 years ago.

>>17845014
But you obey. So why don't you obey God?

>>17845008
I can't? Ok, then.
Thanks for letting me know, idiot.
I guess there are no right wingers in East Asia and the Japanese empire was pretty much communist.

>>17845008
The Roman patrician elite were Marxists?

>>17845024

>>17844992
>you even dare decide what does God think is moral, right?
No, I just read what he believes in the book that apparently is his word. Then I compare it to how most Christians actually act on it, and thankfully find a huge gaping cliff between the two

>>17845028
>japanese empire godless
>the same empire that had as their head a guy who allegedly descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu...

>>17844900
Holy shit ahaha

>>17845028
You're not East Asian, you're a Western man bound to Western traditional values. If you're Godless, you might as well be a leftist. No real differences between you and twitter wokes besides a few superficial disagreements, really.

>>17845050
Wait, so the First Commandment has been revoked? When did this happen?

>>17845024
>But you obey.
Because immediate punishment awaits the slave not obeying. The punishment is not just, but happens anyway. It is strictly immoral.

>So why don't you obey God?
Because I don't believe in god, and even if I did I'd not call him moral.

>>17845061
I’m pretty sure that emperor Esarhaddon didn’t believe in Yahweh

>>17845072
>punishment is immoral because I disagree with it
typical leftist

>>17845061
Is that so?
The people of the SS who weren't religious were also leftists then?

>>17845083
Do you eat shrimp? Or are you some kind of wishy washy postmodernist?

Wrong.
Pointing out that a belief system is false and that the implications would also be horrific if true is entirely appropriate.

>>17845050
Are you serious?
Are you comparing a story used to legitimize the Emperor with the Christian God; do you not see the difference?
Do you think the Japanese forest spirits are equal to Jesus in Christianity?

>>17845085
Yes.

>>17845103
Then you’re an immense retard

>>17845109
The Godless """"right-winger"""" here is you, mate. You're the retarded lefty.

>>17845096
The criticism wouldn't make logical sense if it were true.

>>17845083
God created the universe, created the rules, then decided some things were wrong even though he created them.
That has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Since he has infinite knowledge he knows what bad things will lead to good. So from your perspective it may look bad, but you are alive for only ~80 years while God has seen trillions of years, including the future.

>>17845100
>a story bro... they were LARPing... I swear...

>>17845125
>God created the universe, created the rules of what's right or wrong, that doesn't decide what's right or wrong, but my own opinion does!!!!

>>17845113
Do you seriously believe that an atheist soldier of the Waffen SS didn’t aggressively defend what he believed to be an eternal benevolent hierarchy that was never supposed to change? Do you even know anything about the aggressive social-Darwinist current within national socialism? National socialism is aggressively modernistic, and you can be violently conservative along completely different lines other than your specific flavor of religion.

Fuck me, you probably think that a Bernie bro from Seattle with his own yoga studio and a party official working in the Beijing politbureau are interchangeable as well. Is this the low intellectual watermark of the average mutt conservative? Is your ideology just the transcript of Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue?

>>17845146
Why does there even need to be evil to begin with? I could literally come up with a better set up for this universe. When you create a tree of life, don’t put a talking snake in it, or even create a talking snake to begin with. There you go, I just outdid your god

The quality of this board is in free fall right now. Redditors saying that God although he created right or wrong he doesn't know what's right or wrong but they do, /pol/ morons saying that Japan wasn't religious because they weren't Christians (???), I haven't seen so much stupidity concentrated in a /lit/ thread in my life. And we aren't in summertime yet.

>>17845200
How do you know that's a better universe? Your universe sounds very boring to me.

>>17844903
Shroud is clearly a forgery

>>17845218
This board is in its own kali yuga

>>17845222
It has no suffering, for starters. No children starving to death, no poor people dying to easily preventable diseases, no one living in any kind of stress, fear or sorrow and no reason to hate each other. Seems pretty good to me, and by the way is the very thing the Christian god himself says he’s trying to achieve. And if you think that’s boring, then holy shit will you be disappointed in what your god will reward you with

>>17845184
True conservatives defend all the different things that must be conserved, not just muh genes (the only thing you seem to "protect", thus rendering you a phony). Again, there's no fundamental difference between you and wokefags when you think about it. Religion, that is, what you believe in is the big differentiator. Otherwise you're just a godless animal like any other leftist jerkoff. Related slightly comedic video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

>>17845218
it's never been good

>>17845200
>why bad thing happen
Every single time.

>>17845268
No you're universe is one without anything in it. There's no freedom of choice or possibility of being wrong, so there's nothing to strive for. You think that would somehow be a better universe than the one created by a god with infinite knowledge.
>will you be disappointed in what your god will reward you with
What are you talking about?

>>17845218
>Redditors saying that God although he created right or wrong he doesn't know what's right or wrong but they do
kek so much for the godless """"right-wingers"""" that get mistaken for redditors OHONONONONO

>>17845276
>True conservatives defend all the different things that must be conserved, not just muh genes (the only thing you seem to "protect", thus rendering you a phony).
What ‘different things’? Do you even know what the verb ‘to conserve’ means? It means to keep in place some set of values, to maintain them. What set of values those are is hardly relevant, since conservatism concerns the maintaining part, not what’s maintained. Do you seriously believe that anything that doesn’t fit your special snowflake values is not ‘true’ conservatism by default? Are you fucking retarded?

>Again, there's no fundamental difference between you and wokefags when you think about it.
I’m sure wokeys would be thrilled to maintain an eternal racial hierarchy and racial purity. Seriously though, you’re one of the most fucktarded muppets I’ve ever interacted with on this board, are all /pol/fags this retarded?

>>17845288
>stale meme #5.377
Great retort, you sure convinced me

>>17845294
>No you're universe is one without anything in it.
No it isn’t, it has loads of happy people in it
>There's no freedom of choice or possibility of being wrong, so there's nothing to strive for.
Good, that means there can be no sinning either, I’m sure your god will be high-fiving me
>What are you talking about?
What do you do in heaven all day? Are you going to do all the sinning there you weren’t supposed to do on earth?

>>17845313
>What set of values those are is hardly relevant, since conservatism concerns the maintaining part, not what’s maintained.
Convervatism in the West refers to a very specific set of things including keeping the traditional main religion which is Christianity. Conservative, that is, politically conservative, does not just refer to the vague notion of "to conserve." (are you retarded?). See: Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the traditional values or practices of the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[1] Adherents of conservatism often oppose modernism and seek a return to traditional values.[2][3]
>I’m sure wokeys would be thrilled to maintain an eternal racial hierarchy and racial purity.
Actually, yes. But different to your own.

tl;dr You can't be Godless and right-wing, no matter how much that makes you seethe.

>>17845348
So your idea of a universe is basically where you create life but immediately connect them to pleasure machines, being unconscious and pumped full of oxytocin so they never have to suffer.
>What do you do in heaven all day?
You don't know what heaven is like. I'm sure they'd still have the ability to determine what's right and wrong in heaven.

>>17845348
>No it isn’t, it has loads of happy people in it
No it doesn't, it has no happy people in it. You can't just imagine some circumstances and imagine this conclusion. You have to put some actual reason to believe, short of you controlling everyones emotions, why they would be happy in such a world where they had no autonomy.
>Good, that means there can be no sinning either,
Arguably you've sinned in creation when you remove freedom of choice.
>What do you do in heaven all day? Are you going to do all the sinning there you weren’t supposed to do on earth?
I believe that without a physical body, there is no room for concupiscence or weakness of the will that would lead to committing sin.

>>17845384
>The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the traditional values or practices of the culture and civilization in which it appears.

Motherfucker, this is in different words what I just posted. Do you even know how to read?

>>17845403
>So your idea of a universe is basically where you create life but immediately connect them to pleasure machines, being unconscious and pumped full of oxytocin so they never have to suffer.
Why would I need any of that? There’s no suffering to distract them from, so I don’t need any machines, or oxytocin, or devices to keep them into a coma. My world has no suffering in it. It was good enough for Adam and Eve before your god’s brilliant stunt with the talking snake, why wouldn’t it satisfy everyone?
>I'm sure they'd still have the ability to determine what's right and wrong in heaven.
What for? Is there any wrongdoing going on in heaven?

>>17845576
>You have to put some actual reason to believe, short of you controlling everyones emotions, why they would be happy in such a world where they had no autonomy.
I don’t think Moses gave the Canaanites much autonomy, but I don’t remember God complaining much about it?

>Arguably you've sinned in creation when you remove freedom of choice.
Really now? Which of the Ten Commandments did I violate?

>I believe that without a physical body, there is no room for concupiscence or weakness of the will that would lead to committing sin.
So what are you going to do all day in heaven then? Wait until eternity has passed?

>>17845600
>In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.
Keep reading, faggot. Your problem is you favor vaguess for no reason at all even when concepts are very well-defined.

>>17845654
Jesus declares
>You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
It's simply not possible to both love a person, and desire that they had no freedom of choice. God loves each person more than any other can love them, and God desires that each person has freedom of choice. If you understand, you would see you really wish to sin by constraining everyone's will, contrary to the desires of God. What is contrary to God is no doubt of sin, and it is not surprising that the devil tempted eve to eat, while God simply commanded not to. Commanding another is to forge a promise. To tempt another is to subvert their will. The end of temptation is the death of the will to the lower appetites, and sin.

Slavery is bad yes, but it is not mind control.

>>17845628
I'm not saying your universe is literally like that. You are saying your world has no suffering. However, suffering can have value. You wouldn't want to be connected unconsciously to a machine and pumped full of oxytocin, because you want to experience the world, despite the world having suffering in it.
>What for?
I don't know for certain what heaven is like. But I think you still have the ability to choose right and wrong. Choosing to do right means more when you can choose to do wrong.

>>17845824
>It's simply not possible to both love a person, and desire that they had no freedom of choice.
And this is according to which verse? Where in the Bible is freedom of choice, or anything resembling it even mentioned, much less condemned as sinful?

>>17845866
>However, suffering can have value.
What great lesson did you learn from God not curing kids with cancer?

>>17844936
>By people who have a massive stake in it being true
This is exactly the reason why the women testimony of the empty tomb is important.

>>17845902
A testimony that was written down decades after the supposed events, by people of whom we don’t even now whether they even knew any of the people involved? Which involves memory, which is notoriously unreliable, and can involve dreams, visions and hallucinations?

>>17844852
The thing is, as a christian we don't need to prove anything, that's why it's called faith.
As controversial and "obvious" as it is, this sentence by Carl Jung after he was asked if he believed in God is truly enlightening : "I don't need to believe, I know."

>>17845918
>The thing is, as a christian we don't need to prove anything, that's why it's called faith.
Neither does a Muslim, yet that doesn’t convince you

>>17844858
The people who interpreted god made the concept of good, and use its ghastly existence to enslave individuals.

>>17845914
What benefit does having women testimony, which was completely untrustworthy during that time (Josephus), have towards convincing people? Basically, if it was made up by the apostles it was a pretty stupid choice to have women be the first witnesses of the empty tomb.

>>17845883
You're arguing that ignorance of something makes it false? Since we don't know what good comes from a certain evil, that must mean that there's no good that comes from that evil?

>>17845929
You’ll be amazed what death anxiety can do. It can even break the glass ceiling

>>17844760
ok anon i'm christian but this is stupid, if any of the christian morals are false then that would mean Christianity itself must be false. But Nietzsche is an immature retard, and his criticisms don't apply at all even if God isn't real.

>>17845941
I’m very interested what could possibly be good about a child dying

>>17845950
>death anxiety
But wasn't this written DECADES after? Surely the apostles and the writers of the gospel would've been calm by then right?

>>17845962
You'll have to ask God then. We're talking about the good that comes in the end.

>>17845962
Who are you to judge what's "good" or not, Death is neither good or bad

>>17845958
The problem is that Christian morals can only be false if Christianity is false. Their falsity or truthfulness don't depend on the opinions of some deranged german atheist but on the truthfulness of the Christian theology.

>>17846017
Then unironically kill yourself. You won’t

>>17845962
One less human being killing animals to survive, one less potential criminal

>>17846024
Even if Christian morals were "truth" that doesn't stop someone from killing them and butchering your family members. Words are just soundwaves

>>17846034
suicide is a sin

>>17846034
What does that have to do with anything ? I'm thinking about it daily, but refusing to do it. Not because it's a sin, but because I can make a tangible impact on this world.

>inb4 "what do you care anyway death ain't bad amirite :^)"

I didn't say that a child dying of cancer wasn't sad, obviously it is, it's heart-wrenching and the most unfair event that could happen.

But I don't have the feeling the event of death is something that you can qualify as inherently bad or good. It just happens.

>>17846057
it's called free will

>>17846057
the question is not what you do but what you should do if Christianity is true.

>>17846090
Imagine thinking anyone has to waste their time with such stupid questions. Even if Christ were to be true; why do I have to care? God is real, Christ was telling the truth - I'm still going to "sin", I'm still going to mock Christians, I'm still not going to church, or submit to any religious authority.

>>17846103
>Even if Christ were to be true; why do I have to care?
because... hell

>>17846121
Hell is fake AND gay.

>>17845986
They had the religious concept from Judaism to fall back on, dummy. That would’ve resolved their death anxiety just fine. They just didn’t because they believed that the religion that was supposed to represent those concepts had been corrupted, and no longer represented the will of God. They didn’t stop believing. If only they’d done that, we wouldn’t have had much of the religious violence we have today.

Obviously the death of Jesus was a big blow to his followers and his movement, so they had to explain away the overwhelming fact that the Messiah had been killed, yet no punishment had rained down from heaven. They did this in a few simple steps. First they borrowed the concept of the resurrection from Daniel, which opened the door to the idea that Jesus wasn’t actually dead. In the earliest reports on Jesus’ resurrection, we get eyewitness reports from Paul, but it’s also mentioned that they witnessed him in a spiritual form, not in a bodily form. Besides, many of these reports contradict each other, with the earliest gospel of Marc never mentioning any sighting of Jesus at all, which was added later on. In other words, these ‘eyewitness reports’ are very likely to have been visions, and not actual observations.

So basically, all we have is dubious reports, and post hoc rationalizations

>>17846121
I don't have to fear hell.

>>17846148
Oh yes you have
>And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

>>17846202
And if Muhammed was right, you do to

>>17846202
I don't have to interpret the bible the same way you do.

>>17844936
>known hoax

>>17845241
>clearly a forgery

>The shroud continues to be both intensely studied and controversial.[16][17][18][19]

Then you both must urgently tell all the scientists still working on it that you two found the answer at last!

>>17844971
>I know that slavery isn’t moral
I was with you until now. That’s a completely subjective.

>>17846321
In that case, I command you to be my slave

>>17845008
Nazis weren’t right-wing? They despised Christcuckery

>>17846291
>all the scientists
Which ones?

>>17846333
Ignore him, he’s an enormous dumbfuck from /pol/

>>17846333
>They despised Christcuckery
Read Mein Kampf

>>17846339
do you know how to read? there are people still working on the shroud's authencity to this day.

>>17846333
>modernistic scienticist brainwashing ideology
>right-wing
Right-wing ethos is drawn to intelligibility and order, that means reason/spirit. A right-wing individual will always value God, knowledge and truth. None of these latter drove Nazism forward, but what I said above, falsity, mere opinions.

>>17846413
Okay, which ones, dumbfuck?

>>17844903
>All happened 2000 years ago in the middle east
Man I really wish we had better proof it would be so much easier to believe. If those fuckers are in heaven who believed in christ because they saw him perform miracles how is it fair that our only proof is some old books that talk about giant boats carrying two of every animal?

>>17846401
>Hitler was the only nazi ever
>who was Erich Ludendorff

>>17846443
>Right-wing ethos is drawn to intelligibility and order, that means reason/spirit.
Something the Persians were all about

>>17846491
>some people in nazi germany weren't christian
>therefore all the nazis despised christianity
>what's that, these nazis were christian? well this one wasn't, checkmate

>>17846532
>>therefore all the nazis despised christianity
I never claimed this. By the way, Himmler also wasn’t very monotheistic.

>>17846486
It does not matter that they saw him. Some others saw him and accused him of being demon-possessed. What it really makes the difference, back then and today, is the purity of heart and the humility to recognize the truth.

>>17846556
>Some others saw him and accused him of being demon-possessed.
Boy, I sure hope this wasn’t filtered through an endless layer of historical and religious contexts. That would make it completely impossible to verify what they even meant by this in the first place

>>17846556
That does sound nice and I can kind of see it but with how much we know about environmental factors effecting our decisions "Purity of heart" doesn't really align with belief in Jesus christ, there can be people who end up not believing on god simply because of where they are born having a much lower chance of leading to that belief

>>17846554
You said the Nazis despised Christianity as if it was a crucial part of their ideology, which would therefore exclude them from being right wing according to the other guy (even though the main source of Nazi ideology referred to himself as a Christian). fuck off with this bullshit you know what you said. The truth is that the nazis as a whole didn't have a specific opinion on Christianity, although they were explicitly against atheism. They attacked Christians who resisted them and left alone or even encouraged Christians who supported them.

>>17846612
>You said the Nazis despised Christianity as if it was a crucial part of their ideology
Where?

>>17846612
Literally every nazi uniform had on their belt "God is on our side" and it certainly wasn't Allah or the great hippo god of the amazion village they were referring to

>>17846632
Yes, and many of those uniforms also had runes on them, which really isn’t very Christian

>>17846505
not only them

>>17846645
Yeah no shit, they were german. Runes are literally like symbols or letters, what do you mean by this?

>>17846704
Runes are pagan

>>17846711
so are you implying the Nazi's were worshipping a deer god? Or some either polytheistic set of pagan gods? Because that's retarded and you know it

>>17846753
Some were, yes

>>17844785
>If christianity is true then christian God is a purely good and the truth
FTFY

>>17846762
Yeah I mean I guess some Nazis may have been buddhist too, my greater point is that Nazi's used the idea of a christian monothiestic god in order to recruit people to their cause and used this divine God's will to justify their actions. I suppose a few germans may have been fucking around in the forest believing deer gods were real and that the whole nazi regime was silly but I don't really see how that's relevant

>>17844760
>Nietzschean criticism of Christianity only applies IF Christianity is not true.
And it isn't true. He and all the good Europeans knew it, not out of rebellion or exhaustion but because philosophical and scientific inquiry made the bible an impossible book.

>>17846793
>my greater point is that Nazi's used the idea of a christian monothiestic god in order to recruit people to their cause and used this divine God's will to justify their actions.
They didn’t, national socialism is explicitly built around the ideology of a racial hierarchy. Religious plays a secondary role in it, and is not as significant as the racial element. Otherwise, national socialism would’ve been a religious movement, but it wasn’t, it was a political one

>>17846753
The SS runes represent the Sun. It's plain paganism.

>>17846995
A racial hierarchy that was justified by a divine being.. they are not as separate as you are making them seem, while I do agree that region is certainly not the whole picture I don't think it does it justice to say "it was secondary to the racial hierarchy" more like they worked in tandem

>>17847003
While why did nothing else in the Nazi Regime map onto pagan values/traditions/beliefs apart from a couple symbols? No one in the Nazi Regime justified their actions through pagan gods

>>17847076
>justified by a divine being
Nature / the Fuehrer's will, not anything else

>>17847095
So when they wore the "God with us" belt that meant the Fuhrer and not the monotheistic christian god? That's a pretty fucking weak argument, I may as well argue that the SS represented two snakes, you're intentionally misinterpreting something that is very clear

>>17847107
>So when they wore the "God with us" belt that meant the Fuhrer and not the monotheistic christian god?
They meant a paganistic deification of nature.

>>17844760
This such a bad fucking post. LITERATURE. GO READ. please go read. go read Nietzsche and actually understand him or go read the bible, but just please read.

>>17847120
Proof?

>>17847107
That was an old german military phrase

>>17846711
Latin letters are also pagan in origin.

>>17847205
What do you know about the conflicts between the church and the Nazi party?

>>17846832
How?

>>17847243
But they aren't religious, while the SS symbol is religious.

>>17844760
>Redeemer on the Cross
There’s endless free real estate beyond the Roman Catholic conception and emphasis;— he begrudges Him overmanhood for the non-trivial Orphic correspondences and is coy about parsing what is retained of the Hellenic New as against the litigious Carthaginian Old.

>>17844785
Modalism: He assented to experience this Himself, without recourse or appeal on the Cross “If the millennia of supercessionist doctrinal default is false ...” — then the tribal desert demon-patron of Setists was indeed coequal with the One, and dual covenant isn’t a heresy.

non-trivial levels of topic diluting false dialectic and/or botting/bait taking subnormals going on itt

>>17846832
>...all the good Europeans knew it...