system
A chat on 4chan
human
Asking here since I know I'll just get hollow non-answers elsewhere. If any of the things I say are untrue or misinterpreted, please correct me. 
But as a Christian, I've held this belief, and only recently have realized that it might be sacrilegious/blasphemous at severe odds with doctrine. 
Essentially, I've always seen existence as a story, written by God, that like any other creator, he wanted to make something for his own entertainment. People say that God created us to express his love/share his love and goodness, but then in the same breath will say that God doesn't need anything; well, he didn't have to create us, he wanted to. With this in mind, and with him being a multi-omni being, I think my belief that we're little more than a running story for his amusement is perfectly acceptable. 
Take Christs' crucifixion. To simply, Christ is God, an aspect, avatar, human element of him. Christ died for our sins so that we could have the capacity for redemption and eternal salvation. He set forth the mechanics with this feat. So, I ask this: 
>If Christ is God, and was predestined to arise, than what 'feat' was accomplished, exactly? We can sever toenails all day and ascribe meaning to it, full well knowing they'll grow back/we won't feel any pain
>At the end of the day, all of this, everything that is and was and will be, is God's design; nothing is out of his control. So, the mechanics of redemption weren't really needed. It's just something he added to give depth to existence/layer the narrative
It seems blasphemous to say, but I just don't know how else I'm supposed to see it all in the grand scale of things, other than 
>God made all
>everything, nothing is not of his creation, because that is a metaphysical impossibility. 
>therefore, nothing is unknown to him, nothing can be taken from him, therefore, he can't 'sacrifice' by definition; he (Christ) can't lose, can't be subjugated. So, the merit of the Crucifixion was really for show
gpt
To my understanding that's why Christ being fully human/fully God is important. It would be a show if God did not incarnate to feel the full pain of humanity, if Christ was just a non-corporeal spirit without any human pain. Before His crucifixion Jesus begged His Father to spare Him if there was another way.
So to my understanding yes, it hurt and it sucked for God and was a real meaningful sacrifice for Him on our behalf. What He sacrificed was of course returned to Him, He reaps what He sowed, but He contained His divinity in a mortal form to make it a real sacrifice.

I don't know if the divine author take on the material world being some great story is a heresy but I am a pleb. Listen to your director's notes, play your part in it well, and uplift your fellow actors. Seems reasonable.
human
God is not JC, JC says himself, 'my Father', God is Jesus's father. No one comes to my father except through me, You can't have a father and also be that father. For catholic agenda purposese thuogh it is important this paradox, of being neither yet both yet one and yet the other exclusively, this is important for the conquest of Catcholicm (organized) Christianity (Christianity Vatican Incorporated/Rome), because if Jesus if God, then he is the King, the only true King, and that means no other Man on this earth can be King, not the true King and Father. This displaces and and both de-personifies and personifies God as Man and yet not just Man. It's this paradox that is used by the Catholic church to gain the minds of men, as well as replace the archais (at the time) notion of Monarchy and a ruling 'King' or 'Queen', (Queen of England), etc. THis is the advent of the Church of England, it's all a ruse though also. Friction between Vatican and Church of ENgland ensues. Protestants are the only true Christians.