• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Question about Yog sothoth GGZ

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s in the same manner of how christians refer to God as “he” or “father”, but do not actually think he is male. It’s just a way to refer to them. There’s no issue here.
It makes sense. But I have another opinion, and I will put it forward in the next few days, because I am busy writing a paper.
 
It’s in the same manner of how christians refer to God as “he” or “father”, but do not actually think he is male. It’s just a way to refer to them. There’s no issue here.
Yog-Sothoth is depicted as a woman with physical attributes. This contradicts the principle of divine simplicity.

God has no parts or material attributes. According to Maimonides (The Guide for the Perplexed), God is "One in essence, undivided, and without body."

Meanwhile, by depicting God as a woman with a physical form, Yog-Sothoth adopts human traits (anthropopathism), which is contrary to the concept of transcendent divinity.

and if there is a topic that discusses the form issue, what I said is not contradictory to the topic, because it is already listed in the wiki.

Note:I forgot to tell you, although I am a follower of the Abrahamic religion, I do not fully support the Trinity. although if we discuss monads it can still be logical.
 
Yog-Sothoth is depicted as a woman with physical attributes. This contradicts the principle of divine simplicity.

God has no parts or material attributes. According to Maimonides (The Guide for the Perplexed), God is "One in essence, undivided, and without body."

Meanwhile, by depicting God as a woman with a physical form, Yog-Sothoth adopts human traits (anthropopathism), which is contrary to the concept of transcendent divinity.

and if there is a topic that discusses the form issue, what I said is not contradictory to the topic, because it is already listed in the wiki.
Right, depicted.

I’m sure Aquinas thinks God isn’t Pure Act because Jesus has the form of the man. Lmao.
 
Kanan, tergambar.

Saya yakin Aquinas menganggap Tuhan bukanlah Tindakan Murni karena Yesus memiliki rupa manusia. Lmao.
However, beyond our perspective on Jesus, He is a member of the Trinity, bound by gender, language, and so on. However, the one depicted as transcendent within the Trinity is the Father. If we look back, then the aformogon can be symbolized by Jesus, while Yog Sothoth (true form) is the father.
I will explain this further in the blog.
 
Last edited:
Namun, di luar kita yang mengambil Yesus sebagai contoh, Dia adalah salah satu anggota Trinitas, yang memang Terikat oleh jenis kelamin, bahasa, dan sebagainya. Akan tetapi, yang digambarkan sebagai Transenden dalam Trinitas adalah Bapa.
Kalau kita rujuk kembali, maka aforgomon dapat dilambangkan oleh Yesus, sedangkan Yog Sothoth (wujud sejati) adalah sang ayah.
Saya akan menjelaskannya lebih lanjut di blog.
Translate this to english and then I’ll respond
 
However, beyond our perspective on Jesus, He is a member of the Trinity, bound by gender, language, and so on. However, the one depicted as transcendent within the Trinity is the Father. If we look back, then the aformogon can be symbolized by Jesus, while Yog Sothoth (true form) is the father.
I will explain this further in the blog.
That’s what it is lmao. The girl you see is an avatar. The same way Jesus and the Father have the same divine essence but Jesus has a human mantle.

I’ll repeat, there are no problems here.
 
Begitulah adanya, lmao. Gadis yang kamu lihat itu avatar. Sama seperti Yesus dan Bapa memiliki esensi ilahi yang sama, tetapi Yesus memiliki mantel manusia.

Saya ulangi, tidak ada masalah di sini.
 
I'm tired.
First of all, I take issue with the illustrations/photos of True Form Yog, as shown on this page. I'm not discussing the avatar, which has female physical attributes, like Jesus, who had male physical attributes. Here, I also explain that the Father transcends the concept of gender as one of the divine essences of the Trinity. As both are above, the true form of Yog must be like the Father, lacking human physical attributes (certainly outside of European works).
https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/47889
 
I'm tired.
First of all, I take issue with the illustrations/photos of True Form Yog, as shown on this page. I'm not discussing the avatar, which has female physical attributes, like Jesus, who had male physical attributes. Here, I also explain that the Father transcends the concept of gender as one of the divine essences of the Trinity. As both are above, the true form of Yog must be like the Father, lacking human physical attributes (certainly outside of European works).
https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/47889
The girl you see is not the true form. (Obviously)

Stop explaining that it must lack gender like it’s some intellectual revelation—everyone knows this fact. You’re just being stupid and acting like that girl is the real Yog-Sothoth when she’s clearly a manifestation. The description of Yog is obviously against that if you’ve read it (which I doubt).

If she were just a girl, she’d never be Tier 0.
 
The loli girl is just the avatar, generally speaking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top