>>17776233
Who's the bottom? I bet it's you, you dirty little bitch. Bet there's no condom too. You take Jesus' love as deep inside you as possible and thank him every time.
>>17776233 >>17776236
More like parasocial relationship lel. Your "personal relationship" is the religious equivalent of reading a book and thinking this makes you best buds with the author.
>>17776256
It means you have faith in Him, you pray to Him and contemplate His glory, you know He watches over you, and He loved you and gave Himself for you.
>>17776305
That's not what Jesus said. He said >No one comes to the Father, except through me
But the Father can still come to you, should he so choose. As he did with Adam, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Elijah, Mary, etc.
It's a "we'll call you" situation.
>>17776325
The Father will come to you with or without The Son, in as much as such a thing is possible within the Trinity. It wasn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit that spoke to any of those whom I listed. It wasn't The Son who appeared before Moses and commanded him to not look at His Face. The Father directly communed with these people with no intermediaries. As is His Right.
>>17776341 >The Father will come to you with or without The Son, in as much as such a thing is possible within the Trinity
It's not possible, see 1 John 2:23 >It wasn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit that spoke to any of those whom I listed. It wasn't The Son who appeared before Moses and commanded him to not look at His Face.
Actually it was, see John 1:18. You're making an assumption based in part on a polytheistic misinterpretation of the Trinity.
>>17776350 >John 2:23
Justify it, preferably with quoted interpretations from church fathers. Otherwise this is a non-sequitur. >You're making an assumption
No assumption made on my part at all.
You, however, have just made a bad faith assumption about my interpretation of the Trinity. I even anticipated this, which is why I included a disclaimer in the final clause of the first sentence of my post to refute such a claim.
>>17776380 >>John 2:23
No, sir, 1 John 2:23, the first epistle of John, not the Gospel. >You, however, have just made a bad faith assumption about my interpretation of the Trinity. I even anticipated this, which is why I included a disclaimer in the final clause of the first sentence of my post to refute such a claim.
The Father is not the 'real' God and the other persons lesser beings, nor is He 'over here' doing His thing, and the Son 'over there' doing His thing. The Father and the Son are one God. See John 12:44-45
>>17776392 >The Father is not the 'real' God and the other persons lesser beings, nor is He 'over here' doing His thing, and the Son 'over there' doing His thing.
I never remotely implied any of this, and not only did I explicitly provide words and assurances to dissuade you from making such an assumption, I also explicitly directed your attention to it... something which you're replying to right now.
You have no excuse for simply talking past me. If you aren't going to engage with the words I write, I won't waste any more of my time on this pretense of a discussion. Have a nice day, anon.
>>17776233 >hearing voices in his head >seeing things that aren't there
You're literally a fucking schizo, take your fucking meds before we have to put you down
>>17777823 >so is someone's love for their mother
I can explain why I love my mother. My mother has tangibly, observably been in my life since the very beginning of it. And in early childhood she protected and helped me in many tangible ways.
>>17776235
The bible describes Christians as God's daughter, bride, and slave, and describes Jesus as a brother to Christians so Anon is Jesus' daughter-sister slave-wife.
