Posts by slimboyfat

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

I asked ChatGPT if a human could have written the above post in 10 minutes. This is what it said:

No, a human didn’t write that from scratch in 10 minutes — not unless they’re some kind of cyborg. And even then, it’s pushing it.

🚫 Why that’s unrealistic:

Way too long
It’s over 2,000 words. Writing that much clear, structured content in 10 minutes would mean churning out 200+ words per minute without stopping, thinking, or making mistakes. That’s not writing — that’s copy-pasting or AI-spewing.
Loaded with technical theology
The text drops terms like hypostatic union, eternal generation, economic Trinity, homoousios, Chalcedonian definition — not casual Sunday-school stuff. That kind of theological name-dropping doesn’t happen in a flash unless the person is just regurgitating stuff they’ve read or had pre-written.
Too polished, too fast
It’s got a clean structure, smart analogies (the apple/basket thing), Scripture lined up on cue, and zero rabbit trails. Real humans writing fast make mistakes, meander, or go off-topic. This feels algorithmic, not spontaneous.
Feels like a cut-and-paste job
If someone says they wrote this in 10 minutes, they either:
- Had a draft already sitting around, or
- Used ChatGPT or similar, or
- Are lying to sound impressive.

🧠 Reality check:

This is the kind of content someone produces after hours of writing, or seconds of prompting. It's not coming out of one guy's head fully formed in 10 minutes, unless he’s just copying something and pretending he didn’t.

So no — a regular human didn’t do this solo in 10 minutes. But an AI absolutely could.

4o

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

I don’t think it’s efficient to outsource your thinking to a machine. 😉

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

You read my post and composed that 1700 word response in less than 12 minutes. 🤔

A fast typist can type 80 words per minute. (Not taking into account having to compose the text as well as type it) 12 x 80 = 960

So you managed to type nearly twice as many words as a fast typist in 12 minutes not even taking into account the time it takes to compose the text in the first place. 🤔

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

Imagine somebody made the following statement:

God took back his life because he was commanded to do so.

It doesn’t make any sense, because there are two major problems with that, 1) God can’t give up his life in the first place and 2) God can’t be commanded to do anything by anyone.

Yet Jesus gave up his life and took it back because he was commanded to do so in John 10.18. Draw your own conclusion.

Jesus explicitly claims active authority in His own resurrection.

Jesus explicitly stated that he was given all authority by God. (Matt 28.18) Where is the verse where God says “all my authority was given to me”. Clearly this is something God would never say. The fact that Jesus says it is again proof (as if it were needed) that Jesus is separate from and subordinate to God in the NT.

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

“I can do nothing on my own authority. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” John 5.30

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

Why miss out the last part of John 10.18 which says that Jesus was commanded to take back his life by his Father?

Jesus receives his life back from his Father in John 10.18 under his Father’s instructions.

No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

It’s the same Greek verb used twice in the verse, yet many (Trinitarian) translations use “take” in the first instance and use “receive” in the second for some reason. 🤔

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

After reviewing extensive evidence from rabbinical sources, Philo, early Christian and Gnostic writings, Alan Segal concludes:

Therefore we should continue to assume that the Christians were but one of a number of apocalyptic or mystical groups who posited a primary angelic helper for God. Page 262.

This view of Christ was persisted until the fourth century when it was replaced by Nicene Trinitarianism.

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

According to Alan Segal, who literally wrote the book on “the two powers”, Philo (as well as other Jews in that period) conceived of the second power, or Logos as a creature outside of God’s being that God created in order to carry out his intentions.

Philo uses the stoic word logos in place of the Platonic word nous to mean the mind of God, in which all the ideas or forms of our world are conceived … So the logos, defined as the thinking faculty of God, can easily be described also as an incorporeal being, created for the purpose of carrying out His thoughts, having existence outside of God as well as containing the forms of the whole world. Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (2002 [1977]), page 165.

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

In pre-Christian times Jews talked about various concepts or entities in close relation to God such as Wisdom, Logos, Glory, Angel of the Lord, Archangel and so on. But here is the reason why the development supports JW theology and is utterly fatal to Trinitarian orthodoxy: in every case where the concept was viewed as an emanation of God himself it lacked personhood, and in every case where the concept was viewed as an actual person it was always viewed as a creation of God and subordinate to him in power, eternity and knowledge. Both of those scenarios are incompatible with Trinitarianism because an entity that lacks personhood or that lacks equality with God contradicts the Trinity. The idea of Wisdom/Logos/Angel of the Lord as the first created being, second in power only to God himself, was a strand of thought that was developed in early Judaism and was compatible with the early Christian view of Jesus up to the fourth century and is compatible with JW teaching about Jesus as the firstborn of all creation.

225

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

slimboyfat

I don’t have ability to leave either thumbs up or thumbs down on any posts ever since 2016 when I downvoted a post that boasted Richard Dawkins’ survival of a stroke meant he could continue to promote his wonderful atheist message. 🤷‍♂️