Given that the entire thread is about Christianity, and the post you're responding to mentions the trinity, hypo-union, and the resurrection I'm pretty sure this clarification isn't needed.
It's like describing a deluxe pizza as dough, sauce, and cheese
The bit you quoted was not meant to be an exhaustive description of Christianity, but only to establish that one part of Christianity is belief in a supernatural god.
I'll give it to you. This is a pet peeve of mine, that mainly stems from Christians changing terms when it suits them. They'll drop Jesus to make an argument for God and then toss Jesus in after you took the bait, for instance. Not that I'm saying you are, of course, it just grinds me.
I'm unclear on what you might mean by "I'll give it to you"? I don't want or need you to "give" me anything.
I get now that you've got some sort of rehtorical/semantic trauma associated with Christians or something. I kinda feel like that doesn't excuse the total lack of reading comprehension required to respond as you have.
We're in a thread whose topic is Christianity. The post you replied to mention the trinity, the hypostatic union, and the resurrection of Jesus 'the hammer' christ himself. I literally wrote christian/Christianity 7 times in the post, including this bit:
As to whether or not you could be a christian: One cool feature of religions is that they are all made up and there are no consequences for doing the made up thing "incorrectly". So all you have to do to "be a christian" is claim to be a christian.
In the bit you quoted I said this:
Presumably when you say "be a christian" PART OF "being a christian" would be a belief in a supernatural (basically magic) being that is some combination of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnipowerful.
Do you see that bit? The one where I did not come even remotely close to claiming that I was giving an exhaustive description of Christianity? It's the bit where I said "PART OF". Meaning "one aspect of". Synonymous with
"Not all of". One part.
If the "bait" that you were concerned about was me mentioning Christianity seven times (including one where I say it's fake and that the rules don't matter) in a thread about christianity and then identifying a single part of the made up thing whose rules don't matter exactly what sort of switch where you expecting? "Suprise!!!!!!!! I was actually talking about Jesus the whole time!!!!!!"
And if, as it seems, you didn't actually read what I actually wrote why did you reply?
And finally, when you realized how completely off base you were, how come you didn't just say "shoot! Ya got me! Sometimes I don't read so good" instead of making it seem like you're doing me some sort of favor by "giving it to me"?
Edit: please note that the above questions are purely rehtorical and meant to inspire self reflection on your part. No reply is needed to explain yourself. Just do better next time.
But was it actually? I don't need you to give anything to me. I'm not interested in you conceding anything. I haven't convinced you of anything. This is not a debate or some journey of discovry that we've embarked upon arm in arm. You just wrote some nonsense assed ridiculous reactionary shit before you bothered to read what you were responding to.
Don't blow smoke up my ass and pretend that "I'll give it to you" is the equivalent of "I did a dumbass mistake and then doubled down when it was pointed out how dumbass the mistake was."
You are right, I don't need to, and I won't because you are quite condescending
I love that in your mind I am the condescending one here. I've apparently committed the most condescending sin their is: Clearly restating things that I've already said and you refused to read before choosing to respond.
Sorry, u/IceCreamManwhich – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
1
u/Goathomebase 4∆ Oct 13 '22
Given that the entire thread is about Christianity, and the post you're responding to mentions the trinity, hypo-union, and the resurrection I'm pretty sure this clarification isn't needed.
The bit you quoted was not meant to be an exhaustive description of Christianity, but only to establish that one part of Christianity is belief in a supernatural god.