/lit/ - Literature

really hate to tip my fedora but I'm sure you can answer for this image in good faith.

>>10860692
I really would love to, but unfortunately I'm not an ant.

God bless you moron.

>>10860692
>>10860695
whoops

>>10860705
Nope, too late.

*ends idealism*

>>10860711
haha, of course, kill yourself

>>10860718
No thanks, I don't wish to go to hell, you stupid redditor.

>>10860726
someone's getting mad

>>10860728
God is a very real being who has characteristics similar to man. He is the essence of man, essentially. Not individual man, of course, but a great one who presides over all.

As for your ability to be a peurile fool and point out '''''inconsistencies'''''' it just really stems from you not wanting to have faith in something.

And not having faith in something means you're a loser because that kind of thing is important for relationships, it's important for jobs, etc. In the real world faith is a virtue.

>>10860738
>>10860733
>>10860728
Don't even need to really post these, here's a whole website to show how much of a moral authority your book that you decided to shitpost is:

http://bibviz.com/

>>10860745
check out this projection

>>10860705
I'm willing to bet that the high majority of these "contradictions" between Bible verses are taken completely out of context.
It's garbage points like
>Bible says a bat is a bird. Explain that.
that theists find it hard to take some new atheist seriously.

I think the two points of contention for Christians and Atheists are the origin of the universe and the resurrection; the origin of the universe would have to be dealt with first, anyway.

>>10860733
>the Garden of Eden should have the same standards as the first cultural society blessed by God
Dumb
>>10860738
>somehow this line proves that Satan doesn't reside in Hell
Dumber

>(You)
Dumbest

>>10860705
I'm sure this is going to be full of shit, I will answer some random ones because there's too many and they are probably mostly filler to make your point look better.

>90 Is circumcision required?
No, God chose 144,000 who will be circumcised, sinless, etc. and perfect in the bible, everybody else has to be forgiven by Jesus and therefore, they did not follow the bible until the end where they are rewarded anyways through Jesus.

>174 Do humans have free will?
You can't think abstract can you? The idea is that there is free will but God exists outside logic and still knows the destiny of all without compromising free will.

>188
That's just bullshit. Jesus was the greatest of those three in the bible, Jesus was heaven on Earth, John the baptist was just the best baptist in the land and they had to make him look good because he is the person who introduces Jesus, Solomon was not greater than Jesus either.

None of those are contradictions, it's just filler and whoever took the time to make that image tried to bend what the words said.

I'm just tired of seeing bible shitposts on this board, every single one of these threads should be filled with reddit shit desu

I like how all the arguments are always over the details rather than the main ideas and what the books are actually saying...

>>10860745
>He is the essence of man
Fauerbach is turning in his grave

>>10860705
The simple answer is the bible are collected texts collated by many scribes and editors over the course of centuries and nearly all of started off as oral transmission, not stenography, so obviously discrepancies arise. Even the most fundie of fundamentalist can acknowledged that on an issue like the color of Jesus' robe reported by two different sources. And many of the things listed on this image are not only contradictions theologians themselves have noticed, but are central to many of the debates on correct belief.
But I guess none of the theologians turned into an aesthetically appealing infograph to drop as if it were an argument

>>10860745
Why aren't you a Muslim then? They use the exact same arguments.

>U just don't want to believe

Except it currently is getting ignored
The only way the bible works is to suspend your disbelief on the existence of a higher power

>>10860705
you're a fucking moron you know why because these contradictions were well known thousands of years ago and IN FACT the new testament was created as an inversion of the old book. why are atheists such fucking brainlets i swear

>>10860942
I am

When will being religious stop being the hipster, contrarian thing to do among intellectuals?

>>10861157
Never le fedora tag XD

>>10860683
>sola scriptura

Heresy.

>>10860733
Honestly Christianity would be better off without the Old Testament. Believing in Adam & Eve, Noah's ark, and a bunch of Jews crossing a parted Red Sea in this day and age is just embarrassing.

>>10860683
if that were true then why was Aquinas necessary?

>>10861434
He was necessary for heartlets who couldn't understand the Bible and kept insisting it was wrong.

>>10860754
>Bible says a bat is a bird. Explain that.

These ones are the worst because they're completely artifacts caused by translation and they're mostly unique to the KJV. The Hebrew word translated as bird is "oph" and it just means "flying creature." Atheists will spam hundreds of these "contradictions" in bad faith and then wonder why nobody bothers correcting them.

>>10860733
That is specifically for the levites though, otherwise Christians wouldn’t be able to eat pork

>>10861543

The bible says Nazirites have to shave their head so why don't non-Nazirites shave their head? Checkmate biblehumpers.

>>10861408
Why? Because whatever academia says is right?

>>10861483
oh seriously man. this shit reminds me of Matt Dillahunty.

I don't believe he's ever debated any worth while theist. They don't take him seriously— for good reason too.

>>10860738
>tfw earth is actually hell

>>10860683
Are you kidding?

>The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
philosophy --> the love of wisdom

You haven't even begun to plumb the depths of wisdom and knowledge.

>>10860711
this, checked.

>>10860692
haha whoops, you're a moron. I assume you're familiar with Niemerhoff's Errancy of List theory, so I'll take this as a playful ironic post. good go at it, lad

>>10860728

That's not what the hebrew says, read the hebrew and it's more clear.

>>10860756
>You think that's a contradiction, kid? Heh, guess you didn't know that God exists outside your puny logic.
Why even bother addressing specific points if you're going to use an argument like that? Just say "it's God, I ain't gotta explain shit."

>>10860683
extremely embarassing thread, getting owned by fedoras is like getting owned by feminists. christfaggots should all be ostracized and made to live in the desert like their chandala god

>>10860755
>Genesis 9:3
>the Garden of Eden

>>10860756
>everybody else has to be forgiven by Jesus and therefore


what is with this abrahamic fetish for forgiveness

christianity is truly the most cucked religion

>>10863087
read The Anti-Christ, its all explained in painstaking detail. The whole faith is built off of Semitic neuroticism

>>10863087
sure

>>10863067

Taking the time to type out well put together reasons as to why they're incorrect about what they're saying isn't worth it, because they'll just say "no u" and continue to argue. You can't win with someone who doesn't believe in objective fact, and that can't comprehend that something had to have been pre-eminent, and that something must have had power to create things, in order for things to be here. The argument that elements did this, like hydrogen, the element that makes up most of the contents of stars, is absolutely ridiculous. Put hydrogen ina vacuum and let it sit for ages and tell me what happens.

Intelligent design, and the fact that when it comes to existence, scripture coincides with what science has observed. A book written thousands of years ago properly states the order in which things appeared on earth and coincides with states of being with certain things. Look into natural science.

>>10861408
"Haha let me retroactively destroy half the tradition that'll make it more convincing that the entirety of history unfolded so that God could incarnate himself as 1 human being, sacrifice himself, and redeem the world of the sin he allowed into it in the first place."

>>10861408
Tell that to the Nazarene carpenter

>>10860683
>>10861462
Why did God allow heartlets into His creation

Why did God save humanity through such a convoluted means of self-incarnation and self-sacrifice?

Why is a crucifixion enough to save all souls from sin, when plenty of babies have died far more painful and pointless deaths?

Why did God choose to die by crucifixion and not some other means.

Why did God choose to incarnate during the Roman empire and not some other time period?

Why did God leave the shroud of Turin if he wanted people to take his sacrifice on faith?

Why did God not redeem humanity during an era with photographs and film?

Why does God need people to believe in him in order to save them?

Why does God find non-believers blasphemous?

Why does God have such specific and seemingly demands of his creation?

If God is perfect why does He have opinions, demands, and expectations of something he already saw in advance?

Did Jesus Christ appear on any of the other billions of planets? If God made no life on any of these planets, then why are they just sitting there, beyond our reach? As decoration?

Why are questions like these regarded as petulant blasphemies by clergy and faithful?

>>10863099
>The argument that elements did this, like hydrogen, the element that makes up most of the contents of stars, is absolutely ridiculous. Put hydrogen ina vacuum and let it sit for ages and tell me what happens.
It fucking forms stars, that's what happens.

>A book written thousands of years ago properly states the order in which things appeared on earth
No, it doesn't. It has plants existing before the sun ffs.

>>10863099
you’re a know-nothing pseud faggot and i said you got owned because not a single respondent to the contradiction.jpeg post was cogent or properly formed as an argument. im sure many of those contradictions have valid explanations, im also sure you could mount a noble defense of intelligent design if you abandoned the bible narrative and were schooled in science, philosophy and theology better than someone like you or the other christfaggots.

WEAK WEAK WEAK

>>10863094
> The whole faith is built off of Semitic neuroticism

Maybe, but it has somehow transcended culture. It has infected societies from east asia to sub saharan africa; almost like it taps into some innate guilt in all humans.

really pathetic

>>10863125
Well who knows God truly?

>>10860705
Just picked a random one

115. who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

The verses reference two angels talking about destroying them, and then it says in the next verse that the Lord destroys them. Now, when Napoleon conquered Italy, who did it, Napoleon or his army? Some say Napoleon, but these very same people say, however, that his army did it! Thus, Italy was never conquered, since the people who claim it was are liars.

This is why nobody takes these charts seriously, because they're just a gish gallop of easily resolved points.

>>10863176
pseudery growing stronger

>>10863125
Did you copy and paste, anon? are you still here?

These are great questions, and worthy of digging into, which many people have over the years. hardly petulant blasphemies. lol, questions aren't blasphemous, are you kidding?? DOn't you know that it's the glory of God to conceal a thing, but it's the glory of kings is to search out a matter?

but let's take your questions one at a time, what shall we discuss?

>>10863094
>check neuroticism
>it descrives me

>>10863191
no, he's right. come, pick another point. the best one out of the red arc'd chart there. which one sinks the deepest nail in the coffin?

>>10863125
The questions in and of themselves aren't blasphemous. The answer to pretty much every single one is "why not?" He's God, he doesn't have a reason for doing things, because then there would be something outside of himself motivating him. There is no necessary reason it was crucifixion rather than some other means. God decided he liked it better that way.

The reason people consider them blasphemous is because when a single person asks a bunch of questions like that it's pretty clear that they don't believe. The purpose of asking the questions isn't to learn, it's to try to tear down the beliefs of Christians, and its means of doing so isn't by raising logical dilemmas (like problem of evil, which Christians regard as at least a serious thing to wrestle with) but rather by appealing to people's lack of absolute knowledge.

If I asked a bunch of questions about Locke's philosophy, for example, and the questions were all about "Why did Locke write two treatises instead of three?" or "Why did Locke write his two treatises only after Shaftesbury became Lord Chancellor?" nobody would take me seriously, and they would rightly begin to suspect that I was more interested in tearing down Locke's philosophy than actually learning about it.

>>10863211
i don’t think even half of them can be explained in a way that salvages the holy ghost/revelation narrative anon. i also don’t think a book that’s cribbed from Babylon, Chaldea, Sumeria, India, Greece and Egypt has any spiritual authority especially when a rival sect existed coterminous with the mainstream faith at the exact same time which had almost identical beliefs: mithraism and the cult of serapis

>>10863125
>Why did God allow heartlets into His creation
If we could not choose to love God or reject Him, we could never love Him sincerely; He did not create evil either. Evil is the absence of Good.
>Why did God save humanity through such a convoluted means of self-incarnation and self-sacrifice?
I don't see it as convoluted. In The parallel between Genesis 22 and the Passion of Christ is uncanny how precise and fitting it is (ram in the thicket was sacrificed, Jesus in a crown of thorns was sacrificed; God will provide as Abraham says, God provided at the crucifixion; Abraham didn't sacrifice his son, but God did, even as Jesus entered willingly.) There are plenty of more examples of these astounding intended correlations. And perhaps it seems convoluted given the mysterious nature of the Trinity.
>Why is a crucifixion enough to save all souls from sin, when plenty of babies have died far more painful and pointless deaths?
Not "a" crucifixion, "the" crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And I don't see how the two relate. Do you mean "why is a crucifixion sufficient, but it's not as horrific as X?" If so, you clearly don't know the Passion. let me be clear: This explanation does not dismiss the horrors of the deaths of others. Today in Mass, we all learned of a two year old child who was hit by a car; it was horrific. But I digress; The whole passion of Christ was unbelievably painful. You should genuinely learn more about the "pain" aspect about it, because you clearly don't get it.
>Why did God choose to die by crucifixion and not some other means.
It is one of the most painful ways a person could die and it is one of the most humiliating ways to die as well—especially back then.
>Why did God choose to incarnate during the Roman empire and not some other time period?
Good question, that's probably for God to know, but God doesn't hush away our yearning to understand Him. Perhaps it was meant to show the world that Christianity would topple the greatest world power of the time? I am not really sure. But you don't think it's a final-nail-in-the-coffin, type-gotcha question, do you?
>Why did God leave the shroud of Turin if he wanted people to take his sacrifice on faith?
God understands that some people lack more faith than others. This is why He permits miracles—like the Apparitions or the Eucharistic miracle. But using reason and rationality as a tool to strengthen our faith is not condemned or frowned upon. I mean if the Shroud of Turin was the cloth of Jesus's, how would you know that He died or not? How would you know if He was divine or not? It still isn't this 100% percent proof for God. It is a strong piece of inductive argument towards the Resurrection, yes. I would say that the documented and approved miracles of the Catholic Church are 100% confirming. Just know that Faith is above rationality, it is supra-rational; reason helps us come closer to our faith.

>>10860705
1. How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

>He engaged with eight hundred, and slew three hundred of them, when the rest fled, and were pursued and killed by his men;...the slaying of them all is ascribed to him.

>There were two battles, in which this officer was engaged; at one of them he slew eight hundred, and at the other three hundred.

>Through a mistake in the copier, was written "eight", instead of "three".

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_samuel/23-8.htm

>>10863139

You're incorrect, and hydrogen doesn't just *poof* form stars. It does nothing on its own.

>>10863247
the absence of good is the absence of good. someone standing around in a field is not Bad or Good. someone raping a woman to death in a field is Bad. Fuck’s sake you moralizing nigger

>>10863233
me again to whom you're replying.

what exactly is the
>holy ghost/revelation narrative
?

Besides the fact that it's not a book cribbed from babylon chaldea, sumeria, india, greece, and egypt except in the cases when it was written there...in which case you've got 40+ writers all coalescing about the same thing, in such a way that it jives in such a manner that it gotta be some sort of spiritual hoodoo or at least some kinda holy ghost/revelation sorta thing.

>>10863247
>>10863247
>Why did God not redeem humanity during an era with photographs and film?
Is this meant to discredit the Resurrection? Do you think Troy was a real city? Do you think Alexander the Great was a real person? If so, you take that on zero photographical evidence. But you do take it on inductive historical evidence, which in the case of the Resurrection, the evidence and historical documentation far exceeds any other piece of ancient history ever.
>Why does God need people to believe in him in order to save them?
God does not send people to Heaven or Hell. We, as man, choose to go to Heaven or Hell. So, we can agree that to get into Heaven, one must not have sin in him. From a Catholic perspective, a person must not have mortal sin(sin of grave matter) in Him after he dies to go into Heaven or purgatory—if needed, usually needed. What would constitute a mortal sin? Well in the context of this question, denying God's existence clearly is evil(not of God). It goes against the first commandment and Jesus's first commandment. So how could God save someone who rejects Him? He cannot, given He respects our free will, which He does.
>Why does God find non-believers blasphemous?
To knowingly not believe in God and the whole truth, which is Him, is blasphemous. That's why.
>Why does God have such specific and seemingly demands of his creation?
First, God does not impose, He proposes(go back to the whole sincere love and free will thing). Secondly, are you implying that the specificity of the rules seems arbitrary given their exactness? Well, they cover any and all situations. An example would be: The 1st commandment says don't worship idols. We agree that He speaks of things like the golden calf. But He also speaks of idolizing things or people. Someone might rudely devote himself to a sports team like an idol. It is a gluttonous act. And remember that the bar for salvation is perfection, not mediocrity.
>If God is perfect why does He have opinions, demands, and expectations of something he already saw in advance?
Hmm, perhaps it appears that way given how we perceive time. We see only the present. But since God is outside space and time, He sees the past present and future all in one go. I wish I could give you a better answer, but it's almost like trying to envision the 5th dimension. But God is perfect, has opinions(they would be right and factual), has demands and expectations because He wants us with Him.

>>10863148

I'm not even the same guy who was presenting shitty arguments for Christ in the first place. I'm not going to debate you on this forum, if you wanted to debate I would debate you. But the facts are simply stated and you would reject them. Without accepting those facts, you'll never be convinced of anything but that you are the god of your own life. I don't agree with everything other Christians, or Catholics, are saying here. I'm a calvinist, and therefore believe in the elect and that sort of thing. I'd give you my phone number if I thought it were safe to post. The proof of God is insurmountable. You can fight it all you want, but the truth always wins.

>>10863332
>Did Jesus Christ appear on any of the other billions of planets? If God made no life on any of these planets, then why are they just sitting there, beyond our reach? As decoration?
What? It's more than likely that there is extraterrestrial life, but we do not know if they are beasts or intelligent. We don't know God's divine providence. So "Jesus going to other planets with possible intelligent ET life" is up in the air. But I will add this: for a planet to sustain life, there must be at least 200 parameters met(probably more), parameters for the environment. That'd be like the distance of the star to the planet, temperatures, amount of water, etc. So we know it is really precise for life to exist, let alone intelligent life.
>Why are questions like these regarded as petulant blasphemies by clergy and faithful?
Well if you have a context of conquer or an implication of one-up-ness, these questions are stupid. Too, why argue against Christianity from this technique? It's so odd and almost—not entirely, questions like the planet one is a pretty fun and interesting topic— worthless. That is given you are wanting to disprove Christianity. If you want to argue against Christianity, it is stronger the attack the meat of the bone, not the peach fuzz of the skin. These questions seem petulant because someone genuinely arguing against Christianity would argue against the parts of the it that make it Christianity, the parts that are the core of belief.

>>10863330
the idea being that the writers of the bible, the prophets and scribes were divinely inspired but there is no evidence that they were
>no its not
yes it is you dumb fucking narcissist, the book follows the narrative of mithra, dionysus, horus, marduk, nimrod, bal, ra, osiris and many other semitic-afroasiatic deities
>it has to be
the Jewish books were not finished till the Babylonian captivity which is convenient, Chaldean religion is almost exactly the same as the theology of Jews and Christians including the very words used for the afterlife, the nature of souls and Genesis is literally stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories from Babylonian cultural centers. How long do you stupid faggot cowards think you can hide from this?

Christ was not a real person and his myth was retroactively linked with the OT which was a copy of Chaldean and Egyptian mythology. There is no legitimacy to any of it. No one was inspired by anything. Serapis, Osiris and Dionysus along with mithra and Vishnu have nearly the same fucking mythological structure for their life stories as Christ and so do Moses and Noah and Jonah and Adam and Cain and many others in the book. There was no large unified kingdom of Judea, there was probably no captivity in egypt either. All of it is lies from the first to the last. Revelation is Chaldean, Babylonian, Persian theology plain and simple. The Gnostics who are older than the Catholic church by 300 years and the Book of Enoch, which prophecies Christ, are both basically Egyptian and Semitic Desert mythos’ that were lightly copied by the NT authors who were all normal human scribes that had no inspiration and were ordered by Roman families, two in particular, to write those books. The bible wasn’t even finished till the 3rd century AD, the OT wasn’t finished till 100 years before Christ and Jews have only existed as a group for about 3000 years. what a load of bullshit

>>10863320
>sloth
It is if you're trespassing or if its a refusal of responsibility.
You are never not doing something. If you go out to a field with the intention of doing nothing(not seeking peace or alienation for other's safety), you are doing it to undermine what you ought to do (that which is good). Try harder.

>nigger
lol, perhaps this was the red flag to not reply

>>10863332

Hey man, I appreciate you trying to argue with these guys, but you're wrong on a few things here. Keep up the good faith though, man.

God did indeed create evil, in fact He even directs it, by necessity. He is omnipotent, meaning all power flows from Him, not that He is the most powerful thing. If all power flows from Him then even the power given to wicked men to do evil came from Him.

The absence of good is not evil, evil is the state in which everything that is not God exists. It is the state we inhabit, it is the state of the universe. Good is God. But defining good against evil is interesting. Because good isn't the opposite necessarily. The truth is that righteousness is the opposite I believe. Righteousness cannot be found apart from God. There is no righteous man, not even one.

Further, no man chooses anything at all. We are led like automatons, believing we have agency. See the first point about omnipotence, and consider the sovereignty of God. Could a sovereign God who isn't influenced by anything outside Himself, as you pointed out, not be in control of whether or not you enter His kingdom? Or whether or not His creation that He loves so much is destroyed? No, He is intimately involved in all of our lives whether we are chosen or not. I'll admit, I didn't read everything you wrote, but it was a solid attempt at breaking their argument. Easy one in the future, "why did the resurrection happen in a time without cameras" (paraphrase), scripture says that those who have not seen yet believed are blessed. It would be easy to believe if it was on camera that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended into Heaven. But people would still just say "shopped". It is all part of God's plan at the end of the day. Bless the Lord, have a good one brother.

To everyone else, the sticky explicitly says to take these arguments somewhere else. You're discussing on the wrong board.

>>10863412
Thanks man.

Yeah, I don't agree with you on
>God did indeed create evil
I am much more comfortable and convinced to side with Augustine and Aquinas on this topic.

I do appreciate your tackling of these other guys too

>>10860683
*revives

>>10863139
>It has plants existing before the sun ffs.
Somebody needs to practice their poetry. For some reason you retards can believe that Kalevala is poetic, but Genesis can't be...

>>10863970
you mean you don't look for your science textbooks in the poetry section???

>>10863981
The Bible isn't a science textbook dummy

>>10863986
it was a joke man

>>10863981
>thinks science=truth
lmaoing at you

>>10861114
>why are atheists such fucking brainlets i swear
They want to be.

>>10863377
>yes it is you dumb fucking narcissist, the book follows the narrative of mithra, dionysus, horus, marduk, nimrod, bal, ra, osiris and many other semitic-afroasiatic deities
These have been debunked time and time again, though.

>>10861114
>these contradictions were well known thousands of years ago and IN FACT the new testament was created as an inversion of the old book.
That's nice, but there are people who actually believe there aren't contradictions in the Bible and both testaments are consistent.

>>10863265
>>Through a mistake in the copier, was written "eight", instead of "three".
Whether or not that's what happened in this case, this is the kind of thing that everyone who studies the Bible long enough has to admit happens and I don't really get how Christians and Jews can deal with this. You're basically admitting that not all of the Bible as it's been handed down to us is divinely inspired. I mean, if transcription errors can happen, who's to say parts of the Bible weren't altered more severely and deliberately, perhaps far enough back that there's no way to tell? Doesn't that remove a lot of authority from the scriptures?

>>10863993
Now I’m the dummy

>>10864067
ahh it's okay

>>10864042
I don't think divine inspiration means what you think it means. Basically the writers of the books were inspired. Everyone (except maybe Catholics) is aware that the compilation, translation, and selection of biblical texts is a human endeavor.

That being said, anyone who studies the Bible long enough has to admit the integrity of the whole project is pretty impressive.

>>10864091
But if all our copies of Samuel are descended from one that was subject to arbitrary human alteration, how can we treat it as anything more than a human document, regardless of whether the original was divinely inspired? How can we say the story wasn't altered to paint David in a more favorable light or something?

>>10864121

>How can we say the story wasn't altered to paint David in a more favorable light or something?

If I wanted to paint David in a favorable light I probably wouldn't include his adultery with Bathsheba.

>>10864139
Maybe they left it in because they thought it taught a valuable lesson or it was just too well known to leave out. But, to use a concrete example, there have been scholars who speculated that the book is going out of its way to deny the claim that David killed Saul. It says that David spared Saul's life multiple times, wasn't near him when he died, and grieved for him to an astonishing extent even though Saul spent years trying to kill him. So maybe there was a persistent rumor, true or not, that David acquired the throne by killing Saul and this was considered to make his and his descendants' rule less legitimate, so this book altered some facts to paint David as innocent. Maybe. Who can say, if the Bible can just be altered by any old non-divinely-insipred scribe? And obviously this doesn't just apply to matters of Israelite history, but to more relevant issues as well.

>>10861543
So are christians allowed to eat pork or not? My dad has recently become convinced of the fact that christians should not eat pork

>>10864208
Yes, Josephus tries to rewrite the history of his own people many times, even though we have multiple copies of these same stories spanning across centuries.

>>10861543
It's for all Israelites, not just Levites.

>>10860683
Okay, what is the most profound idea in the bible. Something that really pulverizes my pistachios. Go ahead, lay it on me, I'm ready.

>>10864228
Love and obey God or you will go to hell.

>>10864238

>>10864211
Yes they are. Not eating pork was a law for Jews; it was a Jewish law. We still observe Natural law, that which is originated from the 10 commandments. So a law against murder is still binding even though it was a Jewish law; the binding-ness of it stems from the Natural law of God.

>>10863233
Nice Zeitgeist the Movie trivia.

>>10863102
This guy tried to do it.

The problem with Christianity is that so completely depends on a very specific historical event. Many religions can be interpreted in mystical transcendental ways, but in the case of Christianity it's literally meaningless if Christ's narrative doesn't have historical veracity. Even Paul says this.
And it's basically impossible to believe that the Gospels tell us what really happened.

>>10865012
>And it's basically impossible to believe that the Gospels tell us what really happened.
Not quite. It has enough explanatory power to give the best perspective on the world and its events. In addition to this there is a massive, multigenerational defamation project that has been very successful in uprooting people from religious views.
>Christianity is weak, evil, gay and oppressive
That's basically all of it summed up.

>>10864228
Old Testament:
>you can't ever prove that anything that ever happens in your life will ever matter after you die so if you were never born is no different than if you were, there is no purpose to any of it because it will not last, and it will all fall apart and disappear and be forgotten one day, only some eternal being would be worth striving for because it wouldn't go away ever

New Testament:
There are a couple, the main idea is the only true profound thing in the bible but I can't explain it to you in just one post and I don't have the time right now, but here's one other minor idea:
>Most people are fake, they pretend to have lives but they are dead inside, and thus when the world they rely on falls apart they can't handle anything because all they know how to do is exploit the world, you must grow on the inside to become strong otherwise hardships will force you to give up on the world and become evil and people stay evil because they are too ashamed to admit what they've done and move on

>>10864017
Those are called protestants. Not people whom you should be attacking and expecting to in any way maim real Christianity.
>inb4 no true scotsman

>>10860705
Dude holy shit lol I can't comprehend how dumb you gotta be to think anything of this pic. Atheists are literally subhuman at this point, imagine actually putting stock in a banal parameterized analysis of any book let alone the fucking bible lol. I'm not even gonna go into it, I've done it a hundred billion million times on this board and elsewhere on the net, they don't get it dude, they never will. Once you talk to enough atheists about religion you slowly find out that they are actually just incapable of genuine thought in the first place because they spent their youth smoking weed, playing games, and taking anti-depressants/over the counter ADHD meds so that their brains are all fucked up and slow.
Worst part is that this actually describes a significant portion of the population, possibly the majority of people attending college/university now.

>>10865352
that's cool and everything but God isn't real

>>10864228
uh bro read girard read agamben read kempis read the bible christ is the lamb the scapegoat the sacrifice the outcast the outlaw the ousted and murdered king. christ is the focus of the mob's violence so that catharsis may occur and order can be restored. his sacrifice (and ordinary everyday practical sacrifices, ie of one's own anger and blame) is also a practical lesson in a utilitarian moral philosophy and worth imitating. turn on a brain and read your book.

>>10865356
uh bro can you prove that statement because wow you'd be the first my man i got the nobel prize ready

>>10860738
That devil looks like Zizek

>>10865352
>imagine actually putting stock in a banal parameterized analysis of any book let alone the fucking bible lol.
Boy, you must hate these guys then http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz
Or maybe not, because what you actually objectionable about that pic is that it contradicts your worldview.

>>10865356
>that's cool and everything but God isn't real


Wait hold on what the FUCK? DO THE CHRISTIANS KNOW ABOUT THIS?

HOLY FUCK I CAN'T BELIEVE NO ONE HAS TOLD THEM ALL THIS TIME!

>>10865375
Being is not the Being of a being.

>>10865388
uh bro haha like what that is not evidence of anything retard go back to elementary school i never said god is or is not, or is or is not a being why are you so simple

>>10865395
>that is not evidence of anything
It is though

>>10865375
If God exists, why is it so hard to come up with an argument for it that isn't crap?

>>10865405
uh bro 0 = -1 lol

>>10865409
why is it so hard for you to read philosophy that isn't crap

>>10865419
>uh bro 0 = -1 lol
embarassing

>>10865421
uh bro can you explain your proof of god's non-existence already in specific terms maybe a paragraph or something please thanks

>>10865434
i already did

>>10865435
uh bro whoa lol okay nobel prize is in the mail my guy good job solving philosophy for real doe

>>10863125
uh bro because brainlets can't comprehend that it is not illogical in fact it is necessary that the infinite contradict itself

problem of evil SOLVED motherfuckers

>>10865449
If something necessarily contradicts itself, that means it doesn't exist :^^^^)

>>10865439
hey thanks

>>10865466
>god doesn't exist, AGAIN
uh bro lol it's called reason depending ultimately on faith, not /lit/-discussing-something-intelligently kek kek kek

you can believe or not, but don't talk big and say you know by proof one way or another unless you wanna get your asshole stepped into

>>10865486
>uh bro did you know reason ultimately depends on faith so you can just believe anything you want if u just have faith and nobody can say it's not real lol checkmate atheizdss

>>10865518
uh bro think.gif some more and maybe come up with an interesting statement. you are confusing my position for a religious one and me for a fruit wearing a collar gb2reddit PLEASE please you are ruining things here

>>10865518
Someone once told me an angel of truth was the one who told Descartes about rationalism in the very first place!

>>10865409
Aquinas literally proved God like five times you're just too fucking retarded to even step at that level. It's OK, gotta have at least some people in hell I guess, not everybody can see the light lol.

>>10865381
lol dude, think about this. the whole reason I have issue with it is because it draws conclusions about the truth of the bible based on arbitrary data metrics. The data itself is neutral, it only becomes problematic when conclusions are incorrectly drawn from it, my tinybrain friend.

>problematic

>>10865568
yea dude, like the word

>>10865352
>they spent their youth smoking weed, playing games, and taking antidepressants/ADHD meds
Acutely accurate analysis. Can the soul of such people be redeemed? Do they have souls?

>The Bible is inconsistent take that christfags
This is a shitty argument in my opinion. Nobody will abandon the faith because some verses can't be perfectly reconciled, it's the foundations of the holy text in the first place that present a problem. If you believe that's it's sacred apriori then textual criticism won't mean much to you.