1: Class mobility is currently restricted because of the excess of regulations, taxation, and overt anti free market practices used by big business lobbying the big government to both get tax breaks AND to restrict their competition, because taxes are high and government is too large, making the lobbying costs more affordable than just doing business.
If regulations were the issue class mobility should have gone up because we've been slashing regulations since the Carter administration, but it turns out lack of regulation doesn't actually help start ups that much because established companies will always have ao much more resources that it's not even funny and cutting regulations allows market leaders to concentrate more wealth. What does help social mobility is social safety nets as robust social safety nets allow average people more opportunities as they can afford to take risks. And even if we assume that regulations play a role, it's much smaller than safety nets as Europe has more regulations and higher social mobility.
2: A car can't be safe without brakes, but the free market can't exist because it requires protections against abuses that were put in place because those abuses happened?
Your position is a fallacy of one flaw negating all good points, regardless of the merit of the whole.
If the fact that Stalinism happened means that socialism can never work the fact that every time we give capitalism even a little slack they commit massive human rights abuses and horde more and more wealth it show that the free market doesn't work as the ability make it anything other than straight up feudalism is dependent on keeping it chained an muzzled.
3: Christ the man was tempted and had to live as a man, obedient unto death, following God's will.
This we agree on, the difference is that Christians believe Jesus was also God the Son.
Christ the Divine Part of The Trinity is a contradiction, because how can God be the son on the cross and the God Above at the same time? And why is the Holy Spirit not mentioned in Revelations, when Jesus sits at his Father's right hand?
Respectively because while the Father and Son are both God, the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is everywhere.
Jesus is divine because he was a man with free will, who CHOSE to fulfill God's role for him, and not a piece of God sent to correct the sins of man.
So you do believe that any man that chose to fulfill God's role for him would be equally divine?
The economic arguments are getting repetitive.
You've consistently refused to even consider that FREEDOM, the FREE MARKET, is good.
You focus so much on "wealth inequality" that you miss how class mobility is more important, and how regulations restrict newer businesses more.
You also refuse to even consider that regulations protecting against market monopolization that are properly enforced are part of the regulatory protections.
Just drop this part. Neither of us is getting anywhere.
"Respectively because while the Father and Son are both God, the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is everywhere."
So Jesus IS God but he's NOT God so he's both but not both in this specific instance. The contradiction here is apparent.
And the sins of Man are not redeemed by Man, but instead by God posing as Man. This, even though Jesus traces his lineage back to Adam himself. Lineage matters little if God can just manifest at any time.
The Holy Spirit is also an intercessor between Believers and God, as we cannot speak directly to God and need the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf.
And perhaps there could have been a different person to fulfill Jesus' role, and perhaps not. Speculation on this point is going into the weeds to me, a realm where we're discussing abstracts less important than the main points.
