Why Jesus Though?

All denials of God must appeal to intellectual integrity

Without God, intellectual integrity isn’t binding

Therefore the denial of God is self-contradictory: Intellectual integrity without an account for intellectual integrity.

Under accidentalism, something necessarily entailed by the denial of a personal creator with a will, there is no universally binding intellectual integrity, because this view produces a divide between goodness and reality.

Yet, under the view that Jesus created everything from nothing, knowledge, and the varied identities of existence are thought-wills from He who is binding goodness Himself.

“And God saw that it was good.”

Further, It can’t merely be a personal God who doesn’t walk among us, interact with us actively through history, or reveal Himself. Otherwise knowledge becomes inaccessible due to a necessary entailment of a divide between Truth and Truth seekers. If revelation is necessary, the revealer necessarily actively reveals, or we’re stuck simply knowing we need revelation, but living where no revelation is found.

A personal God who walks among us in history is therefore necessary for true knowledge. Jesus and the scriptures are the only coherent accounts. The only historically verifiable accounts of of a God like this. A God who walked among us, and further, lowered His glorious self to our lowly circumstance, and radiated His self-revelation directly to us, repairing not only the finite human nature, but healing us from our mistakes, and lifting us to communion with infinity and divinity. History, then, is humanity falling down, and God offering his hand to pick us back up. A necessary revealer, who actively reveals. And this is only coherent for those who have the Eucharistic worship instituted by the same Jesus, and a belief in God’s Energies, something only found in the Orthodox Church.

This is the same faith as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Old and new testaments are only explained fully by this faith. All other options teach a novelty nowhere traced in the historical documents.

All of mans flailing in modernity is answered: It’s Orthodoxy. It’s Jesus. It’s repentance. It’s self-sacrifice. It’s the cross. It’s union with God. It’s the energies. It’s the Trinity.

“ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 1:3

Responses

  1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
    clubschadenfreude

    “All denials of God must appeal to intellectual integrity

    Without God, intellectual integrity isn’t binding

    Therefore the denial of God is self-contradictory: Intellectual integrity without an account for intellectual integrity.”nothign more than the transcendental argument for your imaginary friend, and surprise, you still can’t show it exists. Happily, intellectual integrity doesn’t need your god and your baseless assertions are just precious.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Caleb Anderson Avatar
      Caleb Anderson

      You’re an idiot. You think it’s bad that I believe in an imaginary friend, ‘bad’ entails a moral standard. Can you give me an argument for how this moral standard exists and why I’m bound to it? You wont be able to, because you have no account for ‘bad’ or ‘good’. You just proved me right, like you always do.

      Like

      Reply
      1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        ROFL. Christains always try this and fail,dear. Morality doesn’t need an obejctive standard, so your cult’s lies can be attacked anytime I want.

        Curious how christians can’t even agree on what morals their imaginary friend wants. You can’t show that your version is any better than another theist’s, and you can’t show your imaginary friend exists at all.

        Try again, Caleb. You have failed so far.

        Like

      2. Caleb Anderson Avatar
        Caleb Anderson

        You’re just sperging out, and notice how you didn’t actually answer my question. Let’s try this again: If I failed, what standard did I fail? is it your own, in which case I can just refer to my own, or is there a standard that unites us that I ought not to fail? Surely you can actually argue for your claim that I ‘failed’ since you’re the intelligent smart atheist that you are…

        Like

      3. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        ah, always nice to see frauds using derogatory terms that attack autistic people.

        You have claimed that morality is objective. You have yet to show that is the case. You also have not show that your god approves of your particular list of morals or that it exists at all.

        So all you have are baseless assertions, which means you fail. Your claims are not true.

        Like

      4. Caleb Anderson Avatar
        Caleb Anderson

        Do you know how to answer a question? You don’t because you’re an atheist, and you’ll stay an atheist forever until you look within and ask questions about the deeper epistemological assumptions you hold without any basis. I’m sorry I violate your personal subjective taste preferences about not liking the word ‘sperg’ and that I ought to make true claims. You have no reason for anyone to not lie, since being honest is an ethical position requiring justification.

        Like

      5. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        I have answered questions and I ask them all of the time. I have looked within and without, and have found no evidence for your imaginary friend.

        Where’s your god, Caleb? I make no assumptions, and I have no presuppositions that tell me that some imagnary being exists.

        You violate reality with your baseless claims, dear. And it’s so sweet to see a christian doubling down on having nothing but insults based on their hate of autistic people.

        If someone lies, they are trying to limit what that person knows for their own benefit. That can cause harm and that’s why I find lying morally wrong in most situations.

        I dont’ need a imagnary friend to control my actions.

        Like

      6. Caleb Anderson Avatar
        Caleb Anderson

        Your reply doesn’t answer my question. Telling me that lying ‘can cause harm’ doesn’t explain the epistemological basis for believing ‘harm = bad’. If I tried to convince you that I don’t hate autistic people it would be pointless, you’re just trying to find some moral fault with me. This attitude doesn’t work anymore, there are thousands of people becoming Christian because we actually have arguments for our position. Atheism is dead. Christ is alive and well.

        Like

      7. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        ROFL. That you have to hide behind this nonsense is great, Caleb. I find harm to be bad since it harms: to damage or injure physically or mentally (merriam webster dictionary) me. What do you find harm to be?

        You have used derogatory terms that are based on autism against me. It’s no problem to see that you have to hate autistic people if you think it is acceptable to use such terms against others. Yes, I am finding moral fault with you, someone who claims to have such objective morality to not be questioned.

        Nice appeal to popularity logical fallacy, Caleb. There is no one Christianity, so when a christian tries to claim that thousands are people are becoming “Christian” that means little since each version of christianity is sure the others are wrong.

        You have no arguments to show that any of your versions is the right one, and again, not one of you can do what jesus promises to his true followers, thus not one of you can show you are the one true Christians at all.

        Atheism is doing quite well, since you are an atheist too. Atheism is no more than the conclusion that a particular god or gods don’t exist. And since chritains can’t agree on which version of christ is the right one, the one that cares about the sick and poor or the one that kills all non-christians, you have quite a problem.

        Like

Leave a reply to Caleb Anderson Cancel reply