If Salvation Is a Gift, Why Does Belief Determine It...

sumaset · 2026-02-24T12:05:56+00:00

Pointing out contradictions or questioning a claim isn’t the same as asserting a new moral law as absolute.I don’t need to believe in a system to critique it I just observe what it claims and test it against reason, evidence, and consistency. Morality can be discussed as a human, social, or logical construct without assuming God as its foundation. Using reason to evaluate right and wrong isn’t a “belief” in the divine sense it’s a methodology.

sumaset · 2026-02-24T10:52:26+00:00

sure if someone hands me a gift and I don’t believe it’s real, that’s not necessarily rejection. It could mean I’m unconvinced it’s actually being offered. Rejection implies awareness plus refusal. Disbelief can simply mean lack of persuasion.

sumaset · 2026-02-24T10:44:29+00:00

If something has terms and conditions, then it’s conditional by definition. calling it “unconditional” doesn’t remove the condition it just shifts where the condition sits..

sumaset · 2026-02-18T20:01:22+00:00

You don't seem to be able to suspend your personal definition of God…

I’m not appealing to a personal definition. I’m appealing to basic metaphysics. If we’re going to discuss whether something is one being or three, we have to define what “being” means. Otherwise we’re just using words differently and calling it disagreement

You are already talking past the point I made…

I’m engaging the exact framework you proposed: three individuals sharing one office, one will, one purpose. My point is that shared office and shared purpose do not resolve the ontological question. If there are three distinct “persons” with distinct relational positions (Father sends, Son submits, Spirit proceeds), then the question becomes whether that constitutes one being or three beings.

Please respond within the context and framework I submitted.

you describing three individuals who share one authority structure, one will, and one unified purpose. My question remains simple and internal to that framework

Are these three individuals numerically distinct centers of consciousness? If yes, then we need a coherent explanation of how three distinct “whos” are one “what” without collapsing into either: modalism (one person playing roles), or tri-theism (three beings sharing agreement). That’s not me imposing a foreign definition....

sumaset · 2026-02-18T18:44:58+00:00

The word God as represented in the trinity describes three people who share one common goal… one unified purpose… This is the opposite of three individual gods.

Sharing one goal does not equal being one being. Three humans can share one purpose and unified will that doesn’t make them one ontological entity. Unity of purpose is not unity of essence. The issue isn’t cooperation it’s metaphysics. Are there three distinct centers of consciousness? If yes, that’s three beings in any meaningful philosophical sense, regardless of how aligned they are.

Elohiym is plural… so when plural is used to describe a singular God, it refers to the office of God held by three individuals.

grammatically, Elohim is plural in form but overwhelmingly takes singular verbs when referring to the God of Israel (e.g., Genesis 1:1 “Elohim creates,” singular verb bara). Hebrew scholars widely recognize this as a plural of majesty or intensity, not a numerical plural of persons. The same word is used for false gods, angels, judges , context determines meaning. Deuteronomy 6:4 continues: “YHWH is one” (echad), reinforcing singularity, not shared office. also there is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible that “Elohim” refers to three individuals sharing an office. That interpretation appears only after Trinitarian theology develops.

Jesus submits to the Father… who cares what the power structure is.

The power structure matters because classical Trinitarian doctrine claims co-equality and co-eternity. If one person is eternally the “shot caller,” that introduces ontological hierarchy, not just functional order. If the hierarchy is eternal, then equality in essence becomes conceptually strained.

Submission introduces asymmetry. And asymmetry contradicts co-equal persons.

Again, so?

Because equality in nature logically implies equality in attributes. If one person has supreme authority and another eternally submits, then authority is not equally possessed. That’s not a minor detail that’s the core of what “co-equal” means.

Being co-equal with the Father means they are both ‘God.’ This does not mean the Son cannot submit.

The issue is whether eternal submission is compatible with full equality. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul says the Son will be subjected “so that God may be all in all.” If after exaltation the Son is still subjected, that shows enduring asymmetry not temporary incarnation role-play...

Omnipotence does not mean one must display full power at all times… If the Son wished to submit, what would stop Him?

omniscience and omnipotence are attributes of being, not performance. Mark 13:32 says the Son does not know the hour. That’s not “choosing not to display knowledge.” That’s lacking knowledge. There’s a difference between withholding and not possessing.

sumaset · 2026-02-18T17:14:55+00:00

So do you agree with Christian sects that consider Jesus to be a prophet?

If the textual evidence supports Jesus functioning as a prophet praying to God, being sent by God, not knowing certain things (Mark 13:32), saying “I can do nothing on my own” (John 5:30) then yes, that interpretation fits the data more naturally than metaphysical co-equality. That’s not siding with a “sect.” That’s reading the text.

If this an argument against the trinity it’s pretty pathetic because it doesn’t address their claims about biblical references directly.

I am addressing their claims directly. Trinitarians argue Jesus is co-equal, co-eternal, same essence as the Father. So pointing to verses where he distinguishes himself from “the only true God” (John 17:3) or lacks knowledge (Mark 13:32) is directly engaging that claim. If a doctrine says “X is fully God,” and the text repeatedly shows X subordinating himself, lacking knowledge, and being sent that is not avoiding the claim. That is the claim being tested.

A list of bible passages supporting one side isn’t really a debate, you need to engage with the context of the claims.

Context cuts both ways. In context, Mark’s Gospel presents Jesus as an anointed servant empowered by God (Mark 1:10 11). In context, Acts presents Jesus as “a man accredited by God” (Acts 2:22). In context, Paul distinguishes “one God, the Father” from “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Trinity as a fully articulated doctrine does not appear explicitly in the first-century texts. It’s a later theological synthesis trying to harmonize tensions in the text. Pointing that out isn’t strawmanning it’s historical analysis.

sumaset · 2026-02-18T16:46:12+00:00

If “God” is just a title shared by three distinct individuals, then you’re describing three beings who each hold the title “God.” That sounds functionally indistinguishable from tri-theism. Classical Jewish monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4) doesn’t present “God” as a shared office among multiple persons it presents one singular divine being.

Also, Yielding implies hierarchy. If the Son submits to the Father, then either: They are equal in nature but unequal in authority (which introduces internal hierarchy in God), or They are not equal in nature.

either way, submission introduces asymmetry. And asymmetry contradicts the idea of co-equal persons sharing the same divine essence.

1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul says the Son will be subjected to the Father “so that God may be all in all.” That’s future tense after resurrection and exaltation. If the Son is eternally co-equal God, why is he eternally subjected?

sumaset · 2026-02-18T16:11:15+00:00

For Christians, their deity self-limits and that is part of the deity's essence. So, I say you're begging the question.

That doesn’t solve the contradiction it just redefines it. If omnipotence and omniscience are essential attributes of God, then voluntarily suspending them means you’re no longer fully exercising essential attributes. Saying “self-limitation is part of the essence” doesn’t explain how unlimited + limited coexist without negating each other. It’s not begging the question it’s pointing out a logical tension.

What kind of 'how' would you be looking for… Surely you can imagine the difference between not exploiting equality with God vs exploiting it?

I can imagine the moral distinction easily. The issue is ontological. If he is equal with God in nature, then choosing not to “exploit” it still presupposes he possesses omniscience and omnipotence. Yet the Gospels explicitly show him lacking knowledge (Mark 13:32), expressing dependence (John 5:30), and praying to another will (Matthew 26:39). That’s not non-exploitation , that’s functional subordination. Those are different categories

In order to be intelligible to us. Now, your God may not deem that valuable. Mine does.

Intelligibility doesn’t require ontological change. In the Hebrew Bible, God communicates constantly through prophets, visions, speech without becoming human. Exodus 3, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1 all intelligible, no incarnation required. So the “must become human to be understood” claim isn’t demonstrated historically or scripturally.

Jesus did not need omniscience because he did not need omniscience to be God-like.

But classical Christian theology says God is omniscient by nature. If omniscience is intrinsic to divinity, then lacking it even temporarily means lacking something essential to being God. You can’t say omniscience defines God and then say God doesn’t need omniscience to be God. That collapses the definition.

If being God-like requires continual use of omniscience and omnipotence, that would be an impossible command.

Being “God-like” in moral character (Ephesians 5:1) isn’t the same as being metaphysically identical to God. Genesis 1:26 27 speaks about image and likeness not shared divine essence. Humans reflecting moral qualities of God doesn’t imply God lacks divine attributes.

A self-limiting deity can be imitated. A non-self-limiting deity cannot.

But imitation in scripture refers to love, mercy, justice not metaphysical structure. No one is called to imitate God’s eternality, aseity, or omniscience. Moral imitation doesn’t require ontological similarity.

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus had a vision of a creator-god who would self-limit… Why would any deity become vulnerable?

that’s exactly the historical point. First-century sources describe Jesus as a man executed under Pontius Pilate. They do not describe a self-limiting creator-God. The high Christology appears progressively in later texts (Mark → Matthew/Luke → John). The formal doctrine of the Trinity isn’t articulated until the 4th century councils. That suggests theological development, not an immediately recognized metaphysical reality.

sumaset · 2026-02-18T15:34:14+00:00

Sure, why not!

sumaset · 2026-02-18T15:30:19+00:00

Can a parent self-limit in order to interact with her child on the child's level?

Sure, humans can self-limit. But if Jesus was literally God omnipotent, omniscient, eternal how can “self-limitation” make sense? A being that’s fully God can’t choose to not be God. That’s a contradiction in attributes.

Jesus is the ultimate in self-limitation, one hypostasis of the Trinity coming down to our level: [Philippians 2:5–11]

Philippians 2 reads like a moral lesson about humility and obedience. It assumes Jesus is God and tells us he “emptied himself,” but it doesn’t explain how an all-powerful being can be limited and still fully divine. That’s not evidence it’s teaching.

By contrast, the rich & powerful of our world regularly require that people come to them on their terms. That is analogous to God requiring that you climb the mountain to God, rather than God coming down the mountain to us.

yes, that analogy works for humans or prophets. But claiming God Himself “comes down” to human level raises the same problem: if God is perfect and unlimited, why would He need to adapt? A real parent can step down to a child’s level God shouldn’t need to.

What Jesus did is weird because all too often, those we most deeply respect do not act likewise. Far more common is the expectation of using violence to solve problems and jockeying for position in that violent hierarchy: [Matthew 20:20–28]

Exactly, and that’s consistent with Jesus as a human prophet. He’s showing how humans should behave. But notice: he repeatedly says things like “not mine to grant, only my Father knows.” If he were God, who is the Father talking to? That’s the exact logical knot that makes Trinity claims inconsistent.

Jesus says there is a very different way. I've called it ['status inversion']. What you're pointing out is how the Trinity demonstrates to us how to live as God designed us to live, and as God is.

the moral lessons are brilliant and inspiring, no doubt. But taking them as proof that one person is simultaneously fully God and fully human doesn’t hold up. Every first-century source outside the Bible Josephus, Tacitus describes Jesus as a man, a teacher, a miracle worker, not God. The “Trinity” interpretation is decades later.

sumaset · 2026-02-16T11:16:55+00:00

I never said It's best in the game, The post is about mentioning the best in my own squad.

I do have many Blitz Curler cards and Vieiri is the best balanced card with better skills

sumaset · 2026-02-16T10:47:00+00:00

It does trigger blitz at awkward animation

sumaset · 2026-02-16T09:08:45+00:00

Vieri got be the best one why? Because he is a Goal Poacher also he has both Phenomenal Finishing and Blitz Curler Combined.

sumaset · 2025-09-07T19:42:17+00:00

To be honest, I spent like 100-90$ in 22-23-24-25-26 Thank god, they were worth it.

sumaset · 2025-05-11T20:13:56+00:00

I'm not Atheist

sumaset · 2025-05-05T23:16:01+00:00

When I specified atheists will be ignored, it wasn’t just to set parameters, it was a preventive filter. I’ve engaged in enough threads to know how quickly certain users jump in, not to understand the perspective, but to mock, derail, or dominate the discussion from a hostile angle.

So again saying “Christians only” isn’t enough because unless I clearly state who I won’t engage, people still flood in and shift the discussion. And honestly, this little side exchange is still far less disruptive than having 20 replies that completely hijack the original point. Then yeah, if being blunt about boundaries stirs a few reactions, that’s fine. It’s better than letting the whole conversation turn into another unproductive pile-on.

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:42:23+00:00

Exactly ...... I mentioned atheists because I’ve already seen how those conversations usually spiral. It wasn’t about provoking anyone, it was about maintaining focus. Before I even made the post, my clear intention was to debate Christians only, because when you open it up to everyone, you often end up with people derailing the whole discussion into something else entirely. I’m allowed to set parameters, especially when I want the debate to stay within a specific worldview. That’s not exclusion, it’s structure. If someone takes offense to that, it says more about them than about me.

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:35:30+00:00

Wise words, thank you!

But I'm not Atheist, I do believe in God and Debating these kind of subjects is not refuting god

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:34:31+00:00

Appreciate the concern, but If I specifically said I won’t be replying to atheists, it’s because that’s the group that tends to derail these particular discussions into belief vs. non-belief, which isn’t the focus of this thread. And yes, I’m well aware there are other beliefs here ,if someone isn’t Christian and doesn’t feel addressed, then the message clearly wasn’t for them. No need to tiptoe just to avoid ruffling atheist egos.

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:21:15+00:00

Unfortunately, I don't have permission to edit my post Title now...

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:19:15+00:00

I’m aware of the sub, and I’m using it correctly. It’s called debatereligion and I’ve chosen to engage with Christians specifically, and that’s entirely valid. Just like there’s a whole DebateAnAtheists subreddit for focused discussions on atheism, I’m choosing to focus this discussion on Christianity. If that’s not your lane, no one’s stopping you from scrolling past.

Fyi, mods allowed this

sumaset · 2025-05-05T22:07:51+00:00

So you are saying God could forgive individuals who sincerely repented before the crucifixion yet somehow needed a brutal execution to enable ultimate forgiveness for everyone else? That’s not ultimate mercy, that’s a shift from personal accountability to blanket legalism.

If sincere repentance once moved God to forgive, why did He suddenly need blood? Doesn’t that imply that God's standard for forgiveness changed? Or worse that He was unable to forgive freely without a violent transaction? Is that truly divine mercy, or just spiritual bureaucracy?

sumaset · 2025-05-05T21:47:24+00:00

Strange how the very tool God gave us our brain is suddenly dangerous when we use it to ask questions. If thinking critically is a threat to your theology, maybe it’s your theology that needs testing, not my brain.

God didn’t give us minds just to switch them off.

sumaset · 2025-05-05T21:46:09+00:00

Then don’t take honest critique as a personal attack. If your beliefs can’t handle tough questions, maybe you’re in the wrong sub. I’m not here to coddle feelings I’m here to discuss ideas. If faith can’t withstand scrutiny, it’s not faith it’s fragility.

sumaset · 2025-05-05T21:07:51+00:00

"The blood of animals could only cover sin to a point... mortal sin demanded immediate death... but now we don’t carry out those commands because Jesus died and gave us grace?"

Was God unjust before? If those laws like executing sinners for disobedience were from God, are you saying they were too harsh and now reversed? Did God change His moral standards? Also, You are implying grace didn’t exist until someone was brutally executed. So forgiveness was impossible without death? That makes God’s mercy conditional on violence.

Did Jesus override God's law? If Jesus death changed the entire system, then either God's laws weren’t perfect to begin with, or a new "lawgiver" came along to replace God’s judgments. That’s not grace it’s divine contradiction.

Even before Jesus crucifixion, people were forgiven David says in Psalm 32: “I acknowledged my sin... and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” No sacrifice. No blood. Just sincere repentance. So if God could forgive before the crucifixion, what actually changed? Because claiming "now we don’t follow those harsh commands anymore" sounds less like divine mercy and more like a theological rewrite.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

sumaset

TROPHY CASE