Help /Lit/

[Anonymous No.18524116]

I just got stopped by a hobo on the high street who said something like the following:

"The incarnation of the Godhead occurred in Roman Judea, but the incarnation was not Perfect. ie God is still speaking.

The evidence of this fact is constantly confronting us in everyday life. In fact, denying it is as much a denial of God Himself as any atheist screed."

What should I have said if I were a true man of letters? What is this hobo's philosophical/theological standpoint even called?

[Anonymous No.18524120]

>>18524116
>OP Note:
His phrasing was a bit more dramatic, but I think I gave a pretty good paraphrase.

[Anonymous No.18524122]

>>18524116
>What is this hobo's philosophical/theological standpoint even called?
Schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.18524123]

>>18524116
>incomplete creation
>homeless
sounds like heresy and god has punished him

[Anonymous No.18524144]

>>18524122
>>18524123

I could have done ad hominems for myself. I'm looking more for a knockdown kind of argument.

[Anonymous No.18524180]

>>18524144
it's actually schizophrenia, many hobos are schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.18524184]

>>18524144
it's actually heresy, many hobos are heretics

[Anonymous No.18524217]

>>18524180
>>18524184
Lit is disappointing today

[Anonymous No.18524226]

>>18524217
>today
Heh, yahh.......

[Anonymous No.18524290]

>>18524116
Should have invited him into a nearby coffee shop for a free coffee and stimulating philosophical discussion OP.

[Anonymous No.18524296]

>>18524116
It means you can listen to god if you want just as jebus did

[Anonymous No.18524297]

>>18524116
The correct reply was the verbal equivalent of pic related.

[Anonymous No.18524300]

>>18524144
>I'm looking more for a knockdown kind of argument.
The burden of proof is on the schizo. He just made a bunch of assertions, there's nothing to discuss.

[Anonymous No.18524330]

>>18524290
Thought about it but too scared

>>18524300
It's a proposition. If it contradicts other propositions that are themselves well supported then said counter-propositions can be developed into an argument against the initial proposition. Burden of proof doesn't need to come into it. If I said that the square root of 64 is 2 then you could prove me wrong without resorting to the legalism of a 'Burden of proof'.

The intellectuals on this board seem to want to exempt themselves from philosophical discourse imo

[Anonymous No.18524348]

>>18524330
>If I said that the square root of 64 is 2 then you could prove me wrong without resorting to the legalism of a 'Burden of proof'.
That's because math is an axiomatic formal system that is consistent, unlike philosophy which seem to be a bunch of guys standing around going
>It's like this!!
>No it's not you fool, it's really like this!

[Anonymous No.18524427]

>>18524348
Lowest point of the thread. I asked /lit/ for a theological argument and I got ad hominems and relativism. Yuck

[Anonymous No.18524434]

>>18524427
>theological argument
About a homeless man with schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.18524508]

>>18524427
>more -isms
Your brain has rot.

[Anonymous No.18524838]

>>18524434
with not about

>>18524508
admit that you've got nothing to contribute midwit

[Anonymous No.18524846]

>>18524838
Is this your first time dealing with homeless people? Why the fuck are you taking their rambling as anything other than the words of mentally ill people?

[Anonymous No.18524872]

>>18524838
retard

[Anonymous No.18524912]

>>18524846
Its like you think that the fact that its something a homeless person said means that it can't possibly have any internal coherence. Its not like I'm confused about whether or not he's fucking homeless, I didn't ask for an ignorant ad hominem I asked for a legitimate response to what he told me. The people replying in this thread are intent on ignoring that in favour of dismissing hobos out of hand. What a vibrant intellectual forum this turned out to be.

Here is the quote:
"The incarnation of the Godhead occurred in Roman Judea, but the incarnation was not Perfect. ie God is still speaking.

The evidence of this fact is constantly confronting us in everyday life. In fact, denying it is as much a denial of God Himself as any atheist screed."

Refute it properly or shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.18524926]

>>18524912
There’s nothing to refute because the guy is a fucking schizophrenic. Fucking he’ll go to the psych ward and you get this shit a dime a dozen. It means shit.

[Anonymous No.18524944]

>>18524926
>trust me bro

[Anonymous No.18524969]

>>18524944
Start defining terms then so we can talk about it then:
>incarnation:
>Godhead:
>Perfect (incarnation of the Godhead):
>Speaking (in terms of God speaking):
>God:

Then talk about what evidence he meant.

[Anonymous No.18525050]

>>18524969
As I said at the start of the thread, I listened to him and then paraphrased his comments.

>incarnation:
Jesus living as a man
>Godhead:
Yahweh Himself

>Perfect (incarnation of the Godhead):
I think it makes more sense to define 'not Perfect' here. He was essentially saying that Jesus was not fully God and so not everything Jesus said applies as revelation/divine law. God came down into the world through Jesus but it was Imperfect, like a crackling phone line.
>Speaking (in terms of God speaking):
Revelation is continually happening through creation. World history, human psychology, the beauty of nature. Everything from particle physics to Cancel Culture to UFO's is God speaking.

>God:
God

>the evidence:
The evidence, as he put it, was all around us. He was camped out near some apocalypse Christians but he was screaming at them that the Bible was irrelevant and that all texts can be equally holy/revelatory. He was saying that the modern world is not 'fallen' just because it clashes with the incomplete moral insights of semi-literate ancient Jews.

For a second i thought he was redpilled but that didn't seem to be his angle. I'm not keen on going back there he almost talked my ear off as it was, but if anyone can post something actually worth saying to him then I might try. I at least want to give him the dignity of treating him as someone capable of having an opinion.

[Anonymous No.18525339]

Why don't schizophrenics ever try and write books about their ideas? Do they think it's pointless?

[Anonymous No.18526506]

Although his statement cannot be proven or refuted as it lies outside the realm of logic and dichotomy, he is not wrong, just attempting to show others the reality he has witnessed.