/lit/ - Literature

>>14710435
>he fell for the law of noncontradiction meme

>>14710435
>what God tells Job to fuck off and stop questioning him
>that does not apply to be

>t-those blatant scientific and historical errors a-are actually metaphors
Metaphor for what?
>uh like moral stuff bro
Why not make the same metaphor with accurate scientific and historical data instead of wrong ones?
>GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS IT'S NOT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND!1
Ok so which parts are metaphors and which parts are true so we can have that clear.
>I prefer to withhold that info so whenever science proves the Bible wrong in another point I can move the goal post again

>>14710435
>Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

>Objection 1.
>It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.

>Objection 2.
>Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.

>Objection 3.
>Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.

>On the contrary,
>Gregory says (Moral. xx, 10): "Holy Write by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

>>14710457
>Why not make the same metaphor with accurate scientific and historical data instead of wrong ones?
NOOOOOOOO WHY WASN'T A TWO THOUSAND YEAR OLD TEXT WRITTEN MY OWN CULTURE'S SPECIFIC DISCURSIVE AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREJUDICES IN MIND!!

>>14710645
>quoting christcuck dindu nuffin apologists

>>14710435
>>14710645

>I answer that,
>The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has doen is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by his intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

>>14710664
>relativism is fine when it's in my interest

>>14710645
>while it describes a fact
>describes a fact
>a fact
>fact
Six-day creation, talking snakes, talking donkeys, etc.

>>14710690
How are any of those things contradictions?

>>14710687
>acknowledging that different cultures have completely different notions and practices is relativism
hm.. oh well, better than being a prescriptivist atheist...

>>14710435
Why would God send Jesus on earth exactly 2000 years ago and not anytime earlier or later in the history of manking which is over 150.000 years old?

>>14710457
>I prefer to withhold that info so whenever science proves the Bible wrong in another point I can move the goal post again.
Its not so cynical as that. The idea is that since God made the world in an orderly way and the laws that govern it, if times and science proves a passage of the bible to be impossible then it should be treated as a metaphor.
Atleast that was the idea that many catholic scholars like Aquinas held, since they subscribed to the idea that the universe could be understood definately through "science" and reason which where gifts from God.

>>14710690
>Six-day creation
God could make creation faster than a blink of an eye. This is not implausible in the slightest.
>talking snakes
There is nothing unbelievable about this, the same with donkeys. If the Bible says it happened, newsflash, it happened. Never once has the Holy Scripture ever contradicted historical narrative or reality – at least when it isn’t some Jew trying to tell you what (((happened))) as opposed to really happened

>>14710435
>>14710645
>>14710683

>Reply to Objection 1.
>The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Write no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one--the literal--from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

>Replay to Objection 2.
>These three--history, etiology, analogy--are grouped under the literal sense.For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epist. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives--namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only--the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.

>Reply to Objection 3.
>The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

>>14710720
>at least when it isn’t some Jew trying to tell you what (((happened))) as opposed to really happened
Anti-semitism is sin.

>>14710732
The Jews killed Jesus and they’ve been cursed ever since.

Thomas has never been refuted, only ignored.

>>14710713
>no I’m not a relativist I’m just saying there’s no such thing as truth and facts are culturally dependent

>>14710645
Based Doctor Tom

>>14710717
>it’s not as cynical as that
>in fact it’s even more cynical

>>14710749
This is not a licit belief in the Catholic faith. It is true that the Pharisees and Sadducees conspired to kill Jesus, having him executed by Pontius Pilate by the will of the mob. It is true that the Old Covenant has fallen away, for the High Priest (who represents the entire Jewish people before God) rejected Christ, and therefore permanently rejected the bonds of the covenant. But the forefathers of all gentiles were idolaters and fornicators and adulterers. While sin curses a man's family for generations, none are rejected from the Kingdom until they themselves reject God. We cannot therefore say that Jews who live today are, by the sins of the Pharisees, condemned before God. Likewise, we cannot support modern day Judaism as true religion. And certainly, as the Jews were God's chosen people, he must lament their apostasy greater than the apostasy of all others.

>>14710720
> “Never once has the Holy Scripture ever contradicted historical narrative or reality”
Neither has “On Industrial Society and its Future”

>>14710457
What are the blatant errors?

>>14710716
Because Alexander the Great established Greek as a common language throughout the known world and the Roman Empire built roads. Both of these things were necessary for the spread of Christianity.

>>14710778
>not taking the Amish-pill

>>14710645
He's trying to argue that scripture is simultaneously true in every mode of interpretation, including the literal, not giving you free rein to discard the literal sense whenever it's inconvenient.

>>14710871
Where have I discarded it?

>>14710720
>There is nothing unbelievable about this, the same with donkey
When you've run out of arguments just take the absurdist route!
The absolute state of apologetics.

>>14710936
Interesting how rather than engaging Aquinas, you look for the weakest argument on the thread.

>>14710788
And what about all humans who lived before christ (before written history) who did not know of God and Jesus

>>14710772
>But the forefathers of all gentiles were idolaters and fornicators and adulterers.
It’s sad to see what this Semitic mind virus does to people

>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST CREATE THE WORLD IN SIX DAYS

>>14710899
You're trying to get around the contradictions by arguing that it doesn't have to be taken literally, no?

>>14710939
I began by quoting other poster quoting Aquinas, saying that the bible describes fact. It describes a lot of fairy tale tier bs.

>>14710953
Am I? Where have I done this? What contradictions?

>>14710961
So what were you trying to imply by posting Aquinas in response to OP?

>>14710960
Do you really think that's a strong refutation?

>the rainbow exists because god made a pact with mankind, nevermind refraction and dispersion of light are natural phenomena that happen anywhere in the universe!
>That's not straight mythology!

>>14710981
Clean your room, bucko.

>>14710976
He made an untrue statement, what's to refute? Do I really think you're in good faith when you believe obvious lies? No.

>no I don’t actually read any books, I just came here to say FUCK the bible!

>>14710981
There is no contradiction between the mechanism and who and why it was created

>>14710780
Talking snake

>>14710435
but anon Orthodoxy is completely consistent

>>14710981
>yes I read everything literally and drag anything profound into the cramped reality of wikipedia articles about science I am not involved in nor truly understand, how could you tell?
>wait, how the fuck did you know I was insecure about my IQ??!?

>>14710969
I don't think there are any contradictions. Aquinas' argument seems very strong. No one has addressed it, but you and others keep mentioning 'contradictions.' Which contradictions? And, it seems prudent that apparent contradictions be compared to Aquinas' arguments to determine if they are really contradictions, or rather misinterpretations.

>>14710780
Earth isn't flat
Earth isn't 6000 years old
Sky isn't solid
Space isn't made of water
Sun doesn't move around earth
The sky didn't open and let the space water in, flooding the earth, and killing everyone except 1 family and a pair of every animal

>>14711000
>there was no refraction before the fake flood
>yahweh altered the physics of the entire universe, not just visible light but all electromagnetic waves, just to produce one cute vsual effect
The simpler explanation is that that's pure mythology
>>14711013
Project harder

>>14711013
>profound
What did he mean by this?

>>14711047
But but those are metaphors that reveal mysteries!!!1
>what mysteries?
I, I don't know!!!1

>>14710981
Did you even bother reading the Aquinas?
>The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.
God is the author of life, and we are only figures in the story of creation. Things happen as he ordains them. The physical laws are not arbitrary bounds to reality, but are rather the commands of God. Knowing all things, being all powerful, all merciful, and all just, there is a multiplicity of meaning in all things, beginning with the thing as such and climbing to a profound signification of the mystery of God's love.

>>14711062
Yes I wouldn’t expect a midwit to understand a word like that, maybe I shouldn’t have used it. Overly sentimental anime shit is probably more your speed

>>14710992
What is the untrue statement?

>>14711071
>The physical laws are not arbitrary bounds to reality, but are rather the commands of God
prove it

>>14711080
Circular argumentation, don’t ask for theological explanation and then reject that explanation on the axiom that theology is untrue. Poor form

Why should anyone take christcuck's arguments in earnest when they clearly have no interest in the truth or are open to the possibility of changing their minds, merely verbal contortions to reafirm their belief? That's why I don't debate them, I just mock them. It's a waste of time.

>>14711073
Mm yes, I watch exclusively ecchi anime. Nevertheless, I don't see how it relates to your use of vague words used solely to try and enlarge your own reflection in our minds.

>>14711085
>prove it
>I can’t
figures

>>14711077
That the Bible describes facts, when it describes mythological stuff.

>>14711086
>I’m searching for truth
>the best way to do this is ignore people arguing with me lol
you’re just another pseud faggot

>>14711001
It is interesting that, believing in evolution, you readily acknowledge that life today is not like life in the past--that a snake today is not like a snake in the past. When I say that life today is not like the past, you say it's a contradiction. Neither of us has seen the past, but where you speculate on the grounds of things seen today, I trust those who lived closer to the past. Tomorrow, your beliefs will be forgotten, for you do not believe in tradition, but my children will believe as my forefathers believed, for what has been passed down to me I will pass on also. You are stuck in time and your ideas with you. I am stuck in time also, but my ideas transcend it.

>>14711057
Not really a simpler explanation, and are you implying that simplicity is somehow truth?
Your post is full of unstated claims form a incoherent system of believes.

>14711096
dumb and bad larp not even worth a (you)

>>14711089
Let me explain then. Your post is worded like a shit parody of what you think a smart person posts like, and the fact that it ends up coming across as hopelessly tryhard and immature shows that you can’t actually post like an intelligent person- you can just posture. Anime is exclusively enjoyed by lowbrow midwits, it’s undoubtable you don’t read more than an hour a day etc.

>>14711047
By our faith, we say the meaning of Scripture is unchanging. But by experience we see that the meaning of words changes. In fact, it is given to us in scripture that when men are prideful and seek heaven without God, language becomes confused. So, the Scripture has the same meaning it always had, and yet our very words have shifted under our feet. The scriptures never say the earth is flat, but to the rest, you either confuse the meaning, or else can't demonstrate your disagreement.

>>14711071
Anon, I think we can both agree that my waifu figurine is a thing. Does it not then have a “multiplicity of meaning” which climbs to a profound signification of God’s love?
Anon is my waifu a manifestation of God’s love?
> “Muhhh God is in all things/ all people”
Really anon?

>>14711080
Laws precede their application. If all matter follows the universal laws of matter, then the laws precede all matter. If the Laws precede and supercede all matter, how can you possibly consider the natural laws to be a consequence of matter? No law exists without law giver.

>>14711096
You are replying to people who unironically think modern conceptions of reality are just “correct” and not just based on the same arbitrary assumptions that have existed across time. They legitimately believe history is a straight line of progression to “truth” while barely engaging in questioning why they fundamentally view reality in a certain way. They don’t engage in actual philosophy, they engage in YouTube debates and Wikipedia. The idea that modern conceptions will become outdated, irrelevant and “wrong” one day is unthinkable to them. They are the exact same people that would be a blind believer in the past

>>14711115
Yes, I wrote like an autist simply to mock you. And you seem to take the bait. I wonder who's lowbrow midwit now... I do read, but I read as long as I want to read, it's not a chore. Sometimes half an hour, sometimes three. Nobody really cares. Except for you perhaps. You can only seethe while I watch comfy anime.

>>14711071
Yeah that's what you believe in. We get it. It's not true though.

Do a thought experiment to try to understand just how you sound like.

Imagine if a traditional Buddhist came to you and said that Mount Meru is a giant moutain in the middle of the earth disc. You would naturally object that earth is not a disc and that there's not such mountain. We have explored the world and verified it. Then imagined that he replied to you that it doesn't matter because the Buddha said it, therefore it's true. Don't give me facts, refute what the Buddha said!

That's exactly how you sound like.

>>14711131
Oh, you can’t actually engage in philosophy can you? Instant retard reductionist shit to drag a complex argument down to the banal level you can understand

Why yes I ignore people who are in bad faith and are not likewise interested in the truth, how could you tell?

Which is more implausible? That an omnipotent being created the world in seven earth days, or that women are just men with tits and body parts are interchangeable?

That's check and mate, atheists.

>>14711145
>I was pretending to be a retard!
lmao take the last reply, I struck a nerve for sure midwit

>>14711142
>no dude see in 1000 years philosophy will prove that snakes could talk 6000 years ago, which is when the world started by the way
Are you people actually insane or do you just get off on pretending to be online?

Why yes I ignore people who argue in bad faith and are not likewise interested in the truth, how could you tell?

>>14711092
Is it untrue to say the Earth is round? After all, the shape is ellipsoidal, and rugged. If one were to follow the shape of Earth to the precision of a nanometer, would it still be accurate to call it round? We call it round because in a general view it is round, though it is not perfectly round. It is true the Bible portrays fact. But how are the facts understood? What perspective is required to see the facts truly? If you see contradiction, it is by your own insertion.

>>14711167
>>14711160
>>14711086
embarrassing bro

>>14711167
>>14711160
Why yes I fuck up simple meme posts, how could you tell?

>>14711168
>>14710690
>>14710981
>>14711001
>>14711047

>>14711166
Missed the point as expected. Just stick in your sub 130 IQ lane pal, go to reddit and discuss politics or some other trite shit. Maybe plot holes in movies

>>14711156
> Makes absolute claim
> Gets mad when presented with counterexample
Stay mad Christcuck

>>14711131
It does in fact, though it is tragic and negative, indicating your despair of God's love. I suggest you read Wisdom, particularly chapter 14, on the growth of idols from seemingly innocent reverence to material things.

>>14711164
Well if you say so. I must say, that image is very profound!

>>14711181
>oh no, is this metaphysics? fuck I haven’t even read plato uhhh I know muh cumbrain anime shit ahah that defuses the threat of complexity while wittily showing off my quirky Internet personality :)

>>14711166
An honest inspection of atheistic speculative sciences will reveal an pattern of revision and censorship beyond Orwell's wildest conceptions. Every step forward has been by refutation of preceding discoveries, with an axiomatic and unexamined acceptance of founding principles which have never been demonstrated. Nothing has been less predictive.

>>14711039
>No one has addressed it
That's because his argument isn't relevant to this discussion. Although he certainly did believe that the Bible didn't contradict itself, that's not what he's arguing in that article.

He's arguing that the literal, etiological, typological, analogical, and whatever other modes of interpretation they made up coexist in a particular verse and don't contradict each other.

As for contradictions in the Bible, I'll just leave this here to get you started. I'm not interested in arguing about it any further though. It's long accepted by now that the Bible has contradictions, and most even Christians realize trying to argue otherwise is a lost cause at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Contradictions

>>14711199
Yikes

>>14711139
>If the Laws precede and supercede all matter, how can you possibly consider the natural laws to be a consequence of matter? No law exists without law giver.
You're confusing efficient cause with formal cause. You started at Kant when you should have started with Aristotle.

>>14711219
>wikipedia link
ohhhhh nononono

>>14711180
>shit I can’t answer his question so I’ll just pretend he didn’t understand me
so this is the power of 130+ IQ, amazing

>>14711199
Brother. Never lose sight of the fact that you are talking with real people. We don't battle for ideas, but for souls. These discussions are not meant to swell our own pride, but to hopefully open at least one person's mind to the way, the truth, and the life. I encourage you, do not respond with what makes you feel good, but instead respond in such a way as you think might actually cause a change in your opponent's perspective. Our purpose is not judgment, but charity. Pray to our Mother for guidance, and please refrain from sarcasm and condescension. Wherever we identify ourselves as Christians, we place ourselves in the person of Christ, and become a symbol of the faith to all those who see us.

Can someone clarify why some individuals consider
>read book X
a good argument? That's just willingly being brainwashed by some lad writing down his opinions.

>>14711260
>reading books is brainwashing
If you are mentally weak. Reading books is always an opportunity to learn and reflect. In a book you might encounter something that changes your view upon reflecting on it

>>14711234
>We don't battle for ideas, but for souls.
Leave my soul alone!

>>14711180
If only there had been a couple 120 IQ redditors around when the Bible was written. One of them might have been a blend to point out the snakes don’t talk and save us all this trouble

>>14711271
That's fine and all, but most people are able to reflect on themselves even without a book. Or so I hope. So why not just present the argument immediately instead of telling the person to read some random book?

>>14711223
I think you have not considered the true scope of the dilemma. Your entire way of seeing reality relies on the consistent observations of material behavior. But why should matter behave in this way and not some other way? For you, the nature of behavior would have to be intrinsic to its being, a consequence of the manner of its existence. However, by your arguments and experiments, you will never be able to describe why this nature is natural. And as unexplainable as the nature of one thing is, it is even further beyond your method of reasoning to discover why and how there is such uniformity of behavior between different natures. And as much as a thing behaves in such a way so as to correspond to the same behavior as other things, and as much as the things themselves are less permanent than the pattern of behavior, you must admit that the pattern of behavior is in fact more real than the behavior itself. The consistent patterns of behavior are what we call the natural laws. As the transcendent, more continuously present thing, which remains even when the object which behaves ceases to remain, it is absurd to say that the pattern arises out of the behavior, rather than thinking and saying that the thing behaves according to the pattern. There are very clear bounds to material reality, and they fall well within the bounds of immaterial reality.

>>14711280
Yeah bro you are more intelligent than a vast array of scientists, writers, philosophers, artists, engineers, architects, mathematicians etc from the last 2000 years. They never could have comprehended these criticisms

>>14711219
>long accepted
By whom?

>>14711295
>muh argument from authority

>>14711285
If you think this you are actually a midwit. There’s stuff out there written by the greatest geniuses earth has ever seen, and you don’t think their work could provide anything you couldn’t “come up with”? That’s just silly

>>14711301
That muh fallacy statement would only work if I was trying to prove God with that post. I was only pointing out why your statement that intelligent people would have noticed contradictions is stupid

>>14711295
>Yeah bro you are more intelligent than a vast array of scientists, writers, philosophers, artists, engineers, architects, mathematicians etc from the last 2000 years.
If all those guys thought snakes could talk like >>14711096 does, definitely.

>>14711278
Who a man obeys--that is his master. When you are at war with yourself, which part do you follow?

>>14711298
Bible scholars outside a small subset of evangelical fundies

>>14711314
Ok, but now we face the dilemma that you obviously are not more intelligent than them. Oh no. Do you revise your stance of intellectual superiority or ignore this and dogmatically stick to it? It will be the second one

Point out something absurd in the bible
>Haha no bro it’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s a metaphor!
How do you decide whether somethings meant to be taken literally or metaphorically?
>Haha bro it says it right here in the Bible!

No matter how many autistic word games you play, it fundamentally comes down to circular logic. I agree with >>14711086, there’s no point engaging with these retards

>>14711166
There’s nothing impossible about snakes talking. With God all things are possible

>>14711319
I guess if many believe so, it is so. How have they demonstrated it?

>>14711302
You are putting yourself under their shoes simply because they are called geniuses. Nothing more than a bootlicker, born to consume and serve. I refuse to accept any of their opinions to have more worth than mine, due to the nature of opinions. They may write better than me, maybe lift more weight than me. But that's all irrelevant, philosophy is not a skill.

>>14710720
>animals can't talk
>"this sounds like subversive Jewish propaganda!"
The absolute state of /lit/, the """"""smart""""" board

>>14711295
This is a piss poor argument.
During about 1500 years of those years contradiction church dogma as a criminal offense punished by execution at a public square.
Likewise, hinduism, islam, judaism, and several other religions, including the very greaco-roman paganism that christianity supplanted also had multiple scientists, writers, philosophers, artists, engineers, architects, mathematicians etc that also went with their own religions absurd stories, despite christians insisting on them being wrong.

>>14711337
God you are such a pretentious retard. Reading does not mean accepting a view, just learning about it. “Writing” doesn’t matter since they are more intelligent than you and will draw conclusions you could not possibly have fathomed yourself. That doesn’t mean you have to accept them, but at least your midwit mind will comprehend something behind its stature

>>14711327
Why then do you never quote great apologists, but only put forward straw men? If we really only ever relied on circular reasoning, shouldn't you be able to find the best examples from the Doctors of the Faith? Why do you put forward weak arguments when you could put forward strong ones?

>>14711013
>insecure about my IQ
lmao imagine projecting THIS transparently

>>14711347
All those other religions will have “contradictions” too, yet intelligent people believed in them. And your sweeping statement about censorship barely holds water, there were open atheists even in the 1600s.

>>14711325
In fact it is you who must revise your stance. You should also revise the one on talking snakes while you’re at it

>>14711345
Yes, you should go back to /his/ or some other midwit shithole and stop posturing like you can fit in here

>>14711335
Mostly just by having such a higher standard of philological rigor that traditional strategies of rationalizing the contradictions away fall apart

>>14711361
Non argument that addresses nothing, purely insecure desire to save face. Probably a trait that has come from extensive use of reddit

>>14711327
all systems end in circular reasoning stop trying to pretend your subset of blives does not start with a axioms of some kind.
The fact that your chosen axioms form a inconstned world view is the best critique against it.

>>14711350
There is no such thing as great Christian apologia, it’s all dogshit.
Does it not bother you that to prove the existence of your all-powerful, all-knowing omnipotent deity, you have to resort to autistic logic tricks, as if my overwhelming people with 30 axioms will somehow prove god?

>>14711372
Sorry, let me make a high IQ non-reddit argument like you did:
>you’re stupid, change your mind

>>14711371
You seem to believe this. But what is your evidence. Can you site even one good argument? Where can I read for myself, or must I take your word for it? What is the history of your position? Can you answer these questions, or do you take it on faith that greater man have found the truth for you?

>>14711380
>because my axioms are lead me to a conclusion my axioms are true, then therefore my axioms must be objectively true!
Fuck off retard, this is brainlet-tier logic

>>14711384
This was literally your first post though pal. “People who believed this were stupid”. Obviously they weren’t, so then you just start deflecting

>>14711383
What's the worst apologia you've ever read that historically was held to be good?

>>14711291
> As the transcendent, more continuously present thing, which remains even when the object which behaves ceases to remain, it is absurd to say that the pattern arises out of the behavior, rather than thinking and saying that the thing behaves according to the pattern.

why does there have to be a transcendent thing at all?
That is an assumption, not a given.
At least you can say WHEN matter exists it exists by virtue of a given formal law, but that formal law itself doesnt exist (in any meaningful way) without matter to express it.
Meaning its circular, and not open to the same kind of linear causative premise you still seem to be implicitly invoking.

>>14711345
>thinking that the serpent in Eden was just an everyday snake that you could find in your garden
Go back to pleddit, fedora. Some snakes CAN talk and it was shown in the Bible. Letting plebs like you read God’s Word was a mistake since you are so exoterically minded that you always come to these absurdities and autism surrounding whether you personally have experienced a thing or not

>hurr I can’t see God who I envision to be a bearded skyman strawman, FAKE
>hurr I’ve never seen a snake talk, fake and gay
>hurr the Babble says that the Earth has four corners even though I’ve never been in space and saw on TV that it’s round!
The list goes on...

>>14711391
People who believe snakes can talk are, in fact, stupid. I’m not deflecting anything

>>14711394
It’s all equally bad because they all fall into >>14711388 category

>>14711099
OH NO NO NOT THE HECKIN OCCAMINO NOT THE FECKIN RAZORINO

>>14711395
It is not an assumption, it is an empircally demonstrated observation. You assume existence is limited to matter, and so obviously balk at an immaterial existence. And yet the behavior of all material demonstrates principles of behavior which transcend the material itself.
>Meaning it's circular
It's not circular; you've just taken a circular argument to be material reality.

>>14711411
Can you give me an example?

>>14711421
Suck my dick, Christcuck

>>14711405
Do you like poetry?

>>14711397
>no, idiot, we all know snakes can’t talk
>except this one which is MAGIC

>>14711349
I can already see every view, I am not a retard. How crippled mentally do you have to be to need 1000 pages of text to grasp another point of view? And how cucked do you have to be to look upon other men and consider them greater than yourself willingly?

>>14711354
>All those other religions will have “contradictions” too, yet intelligent people believed in them
So those religions also are as valid as Christianity, something explicitly rejected by several major christian denominations, then? Even when they are telling you to drink camel piss or that your main prophet was sending people dong images through telepathy?
>And your sweeping statement about censorship barely holds water, there were open atheists even in the 1600s
I can hardly find anyone proclaiming himself to be atheist during, especially since being an atheist was a exceptionable criminal offense.
There were wacky pantheists and deists, sure, but that isn't atheism.

>>14711427
I'm really not trying to provoke you. I'm genuinely curious. After all, I take my faith very seriously. I read the Bible somewhat frequently, attend mass often, pray regularly, read theology and writings from saints and doctors and fathers. If you could demonstrate a good example of their flaws, you would save me a lot of time and energy. You seem very confident. If you are so confident, can you share with me the source of your confidence so that I might have the same confidence?

>>14711414
How can you empirically demonstrate that something exists outside of matter?
Now you're just being fraudulent.
I'm not even an atheist or theist but your arguments don't hold water.

>>14711433
>omnipotent God can’t make a snake that talks
You’re just afraid to concede this point

>>14711414
>It's not circular; you've just taken a circular argument to be material reality.
Form doesn't exist without material. Material has to have a form.
That's not an 'argument', that's fact.

>see contradiction in the Holy Bible
>relabel it as metaphor
Check mate, atheists.

>>14711397
>it was shown in the Bible
How?
>The Bible says it so I believe it
Oh, got it.
>God who I envision to be a bearded skyman strawman
Never said this and I don't
>I’ve never been in space and saw on TV that it’s round!
Round earth is propaganda to anesthetize the unthinking masses. Incredible.
>>14711366
Try fucking off back to /pol/, faggot.

>>14711449
My guess is that you don't understand the meaning of the word empirical. Empirical does not mean "by matter." It means "by experience." In its original Greek meaning, it meant "proven by use" as contrasted with knowledge from say reading or revelation. By experience, we can see that diverse things behave in similar ways without any material relationship. If, by experience, we know that unrelated materials follow universal rules, then, by experience, we know that there are universal rules which transcend the materials which follow those rules. That understanding is the very foundation of natural sciences. If natural science, by intention, only examines the material in order to understand the laws without respect to cause, then how do you suppose you will ever demonstrate the presence of the cause in the material?

>>14711457
How is that a fact? How is that demonstrated? Anon just said "it's circular." How is it that nature has, out of nothing, provided a circular causation? How is it not abundantly clear that the circularity is in argument, not reality?

>>14711483
>By experience, we can see that diverse things behave in similar ways without any material relationship. If, by experience, we know that unrelated materials follow universal rules, then, by experience, we know that there are universal rules which transcend the materials which follow those rules.

Sheer sophistry.

Any empirical observation has to influence matter before we can perceive it.

>>14711469
I’d rather believe an infallible Creator than scientists fumbling around in the dark with their scientism.

>>14711493
>How is it that nature has, out of nothing, provided a circular causation?
Why does it have to be linear? That's just your poxy human brain's obsession, not the fundamental nature of things.

>>14711493
Circular means it created itself, it doesn't need an external creator. That's the whole point.

Again, you have been infected by the efficient cause meme of Kant and his descendants

>>14711498
Stay in the dark, sweetie.

>>14711510
Who created the dark room? You in the room, who created you? The flashlight, who created it? — God

>>14711495
I reject your axiom. It has no foundation. It contradicts the very development of the academic tradition it seeks to support. If you define empirical as material, then of course there must be material evidence in order to say there is empirical evidence. But why should empirical mean material only? This notion is young, hardly 200 years old. It has yet to be demonstrated.

>>14711507
You assume this. You cannot prove that it is so. Why do you believe it?

>>14711498
>I’d rather believe in this conception of an infallible Creator that fallible men fumbling around in the dark with their theology have crafted over time
Whatever floats your boat, pal.

>>14711524
It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
You turbo pseud. You can't even see what I'm arguing for ffs.
Waste of my time.

>>14711451
if he’s so omnipotent then why does he need retards like (you) to defend him on the Internet?

>>14711500
Why shouldn't it be linear?

>>14711531
>he thinks that Biblical revelation is revealed through the medium of fallible individuals
OH NO NO NO

>>14711536
>implying God cares about Internet shitposting either way

>>14711533
>it's not an assumption, it's a definition
And how did it become defined thus? For as I already explained to you, such a definition is novel. The origin of the word and the predominant history of its use was different than your use. Your definition is a revision of the word. Why was it revised? How was the new definition decided? By assumption. It is an axiomatic definition.

>>14711550
Why do you think God is distant, rather than present in his creation?

>>14711564
>pantheism
Gross desu

>>14711414
>>14711483
You are using the term transcend wrong, bruh.

>>14711564
Is God shitposting in this thread right know? Or is He just lurking?

>>14711553
Not Anon but you are cringe beyond belief.

He provided a definition of circular causality whereby matter and form could codepend.

You call this an 'assumption' (he didn't assume anything) then provide as an alternative a non-definition of what empirical observation means, all to make some bullshit claim that we have 'already' empirically observed transcendent phenomena outside matter?

You don't need Occam's Razor, you need Occam's fucking Chainsaw

>>14711536
We are not defending God against you, we are trying to defend you against Satan. God has no need of anything. All of existence is ex gratia. God created you because it pleased him to create you. If, at the end of your days, you discover that you are no longer pleasing to God, what exactly do you think will happen? God has made all things for a purpose. Who are we to contravene that purpose? Likewise, God has made all things--how could he put anything to bad purpose? If he has purpose for us, it follows that this purpose is best for us; since we exist, we know God has purpose for us. What then keeps us from this purpose, which is our best end? What else could it be but pride? We, who do nothing without the grace of God, would have more than he has decided fit for us. But if it were good for us, he would have given it to us. We rebel against God because we desire what is not good for us; how can we desire what is not good? By deceit. The devil, in swelling our pride, has disorderd our being, so that our intellect serves the senses of our flesh. If you doubt this, watch how your own mind fights against those habits which you know to be bad. Whom we obey--that is our master. Do you obey your flesh, or does your flesh obey you? Do you obey the devil, or do you obey God? If you obey the devil by choice, why do you think God will deny you that choice? If the devil is cruel in this life, why do you think he will be merciful in the life to come?

The first step to becoming initiated into the Christian mysteries is humility. Understand that you, a monkey, shall never unravel it unless through hard years of contemplation and self flagellation

>>14711571
Why do you think that if God is present, he must be contained? How could God make something and not know what he has made? How could God be distant from his own knowing? Therefore, if God knows his own creation, how can you say he is not with his creation and present there?

Consider it another way. Only God exists by his own will. God has created all things. Therefore, God is the origin of all creation. How then can it be that anything which God has made might become distant from him?

>>14711624
how does convincing me that snakes can talk defend me from Satan?

>>14711612
If I define Cringe and Based, is your argument retroactively refuted?

Leave the know-your-meme aside and sit with the arguments for a moment. What is the basis for declaring circular causality? How does the universe cause itself by material only? Certainly, this has not been observed by experiment. Rather, if one assumes there is no external cause, there must be an internal cause of matter. Having not observed the origin of matter, and being unable to experimentally recreate the origin of matter, any description or definition of the principles of that creation is speculative. If any such speculative principle is taken beyond speculation, it becomes, ipso facto, an assumption of the subsequent argument. What's more, this speculation was not derived for its own sake; rather it was speculated in order to bolster the argument that there is no reality beyond material reality. This is, without a doubt, a circular argument. The starting position is that there is no reality outside material reality. It uses as support the speculation that material reality is self-caused. It then takes that speculation as truth, to demonstrate that, since no outside being was necessary for the creation of material, that there is nothing outside the material.

>>14711579
What do you think transcend means?

>>14711397
>Some snakes CAN talk
What the fuck

>>14711656
To be honest, I'm not sure. I've never seen anyone take your position this far before. But it's certainly interesting that you, without anyone else making a point about it, have made the manner of the presentation of Satan in Genesis the singular foundation of your disbelief in Satan.

>>14711713
>What do you think transcend means?
In context of philosophy, it either refers to something relating to the nature of God, or relating to how we coordinated and organize our mental process in the pursuit of knowledge, neither which to relates to the laws of physics and their connection to matter unless you go full pantheism.

>>14711763
wrong and wrong.
You've never read a single book in your life.
Words have definitions, you can't just spurt out word salad like a broken hydrant and think people will be so charmed they will say "wtf? I love God now!"
Your televangelism won't work here.

>>14711763
Hmm, I don't like your definition, and I don't think it agrees with the history of either theology or philosophy. What philosophy writings do you take from. In a very general sense, transcendental simply means above or beyond a lower order thing. Many different philosophers of diverse traditions have used this sense of superceding in a variety of ways which are not compatible with each other. However, although some philosophers have tried to pin down a very specific definition of transcendental, it still has a general, functional use outside their systems. If it would help, though, I believe what I wrote will still work just fine if you replace transcend with super-ordinates.

>>14711763
Aslo, this(>>14711801) isn't me (>>14711713)

>christianity isn't even consistent with judaism, the religion where the whole concept of the messiah comes from

>>14711801
????
That is how the term generally is used in philosophy, and hell, the 2nd definition I gave is unrelated to God or religion in any fashion.
It could also mean "to be or go beyond the usual limits of something" in a colloquial way, but even then I think that it would be a poor word to use.

>>14711836
This is literally the oldest argument that's literally in The Book. It's addressed rather clearly throughout the gospels, and even more explicitly in the Acts and Letters. In fact, Catholicism still has a divine priesthood, with a high priest, whereas Judaism today has no priesthood. In Old Testament Judaism, the Temple was the House of God, and God was really present in it. Today, the Catholic church has the real presence of Christ in the tabernacle, combined with the ritual temple sacrifice commanded by the Old Testament. Today, Judaism has no temple, nor any sacrifices. It is very clear that the covenant rejected by Caiaphas has been taken up by Cephas.

>>14711863
Notable that you don't give a single example for any of these usages.

>>14711871
> It's addressed rather clearly throughout the gospels
if you mean by misquoting the jewish scriptures then sure. other than that. nothing has been refuted or addressed. whether it be the inconsistent nature of jesus, the virginal birth, the trinity, the forgiveness of sin and so on.. all of the christian theology of these things are inconsistent with the jewish scriptures.

>>14711907
Pretty remarkable that in 2000 years, these dogmas have never been addressed. Could you demonstrate for me some of these contradictions?

>>14711929
well, to begin with, the messiah. christians scriptures and theology say the messiah is God himself manifested in the flesh, jewish scriptures clearly say the messiah is a human man, not God, not part of God. then you have the virginal birth, christianity says the messiah is born of a virgin. on the other hand, Judaism states the messiah will have a biological father and mother. in-fact the virginal birth is never mentioned in the jewish scriptures, those are some of the many inconsistencies

>>14711882
For the first usage, God being transcend is such a big deal in Abrahamic thought that I don't think it need to give an example.
For the 2nd one:
>But Kant concurs with Hume’s proposal that no empirical deduction can be supplied for such concepts. Instead, he sets out to provide a different sort of justification for their use, one that is transcendental rather than empirical. Such a transcendental deduction begins with a premise about any possible human experience, a premise to which reasonable participants in the debate can be expected initially to agree, and then contends that a presupposition and necessary condition of the truth of that premise is the applicability of the a priori concepts in question to the objects of experience
Sauce: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/
The 3rd one(the colloquial one), I don't think anyone here disagree with it.

>>14711929
Dude, there were and still are multiple christians groups that reject one or even several of these dogmas.

>>14711962
Jewish scriptures describe a Son of God and a Son of Man. It prophesies a King and a Redeemer. Messiah itself means Anointed One. Christ means the same thing. Kyrie, which we take to mean Mercy, also comes from the anointed with oils as a salve for bruises and wounds.

Catholic Theology holds that Jesus was Son of Man (by Mary) and Son of God (by the Holy Ghost); by this we say Jesus has two natures in one person--he is both fully man and fully God, with both a Divine will and a Human will, united by person and not by nature. There is nothing in Jewish scripture which denies this or prevents this. Rather, it is only by this that all the prophesies of Jewish scripture can be completed. The prohpecies would contradict each other unless there was such a man who was also God.

As to the Virginal Birth, there is some Jewish scripture which indicates it, but there is very little explicit reference to it; however, the lack of prophecy does not mean that it is excluded by prophecy. Rather, it follows as a necessary element of Divine Birth. Further, Jewish scripture does not say that the Messiah will have a biological father in those or similar terms. For the entire life of Christ, Joseph was held by the people to be the biological father, and Joseph fulfills all the necessary prophecies. But it is not necessary, by prophecy, that a man beget the Messiah. If we are to continue, however, I think it would be better if you produced the exact verse, so that we can have a good discussion. If you claim contradiction only by general statement, I can only really reply by general statement.

>>14711983
That only makes it even more remarkable that the Church never responded, no? If no one had ever contested these points, it might make sense that no argument would be made. But how could they still exist in face of such criticisms if they never defended their positions?

>>14710457
Revisionist cuckold.

>>14712035
>Catholic Theology holds that Jesus was Son of Man (by Mary) and Son of God (by the Holy Ghost);
>There is nothing in Jewish scripture which denies this or prevents this
it is specifically mentioned that God isn't a man (Numbers 23:19) he doesn't lie or change his mind. he doesn't have human flaws. an example of a messiah would be cyrus the great, you don't see jews claiming he is God or part of God. thats because that idea doesn't exist in the jewish scriptures. the messiah is a man. he will fear God (Isaiah 11:3) if jesus is God then how can you explain this passage? God fearing himself?

>As to the Virginal Birth, there is some Jewish scripture which indicates it
there are no jewish scriptures that mentions it, it's the mistranslation of christians that change the word alma which means young woman to virgin.

>>14711971
that's not philosophy.
confirmed pseud. closing thread

>>14712136
>Kant is not philosophy
What.

>>14712122
It is not God who speaks in Numbers 23:19, but Balaam, a priest who is not obedient to God, and he speaks to Balac, an enemy of the Israelites. Further, Balaam does not speak prophetically, but descriptively, saying that God is not a liar like Men are liars, and he is not changeable like Men are changeable. This does not contradict Jesus, who had no flaws.

As to Isiah, Jesus is a descendant of Jesse, and though the Spirit of God is always with the Son of God, so also does the Spirit of God descend upon the Son of God when he is baptized in the Jordan. John even balked, saying, who am I to baptize you? And Jesus replied, true, but do you think I need baptism? Do this that scripture might be fulfilled. By this, Jesus gives us the sacrament of Baptism. Further, Jesus explains time and again the obedience of the Son to the Father. God is He Who Is. Just as the very saying of it makes God a subject to himself by word (that is, the subject of the sentence is God, who receives the action of being from God), so too the Son of God, who is the Word of God, is both God and a receiver of the will of God. I do not give this as explanation or cause, for that is beyond the power of all men, but only as illustration.

As to Mary, I already acknowledged there is a lack of explicit prophecy. However, the history of Ruth and Judith give testimony to Mary. All the sapiential books describe the pre-eminence of wisdom--its purity and its marriage to the Spirit of God. It also follows that just as the Temple of God ought to be without adultery of worship, so also the living tabernacle Mary, who carries God in her Womb, would be without adultery. As the essence of marriage is generation of unification, Mary is wedded to the Spirit of God, and by the unification the man of Christ is generated. And as Christ proclaims, no marriage is put away before God until one of the married dies; as neither the Spirit of God nor Mary ever died, the marriage never ended. We can say with confidence that Mary was, is, and always be perfectly Virginal, as a fitting property of her marriage to God, and her role as Mother of God.

>>14711149
.

>>14712213
I already gave evidence that in order for the messiahship to be valid, the messiah has to be a human man (i.e cyrus the great). you didn't respond to Isaiah 11:3 which is a messianic verse that describes the messiah. if jesus is both messiah and God. how do you explain this passage?it doesn't make sense for God to fear himself. not only that. Jesus hasn't fulfilled the messianic prophecies. for example. he didn't achieve world peace, he didn't build the third temple, he didn't cause the knowledge of the God to cover the world as waters cover the sea and don't tell me "ohh he'll fulfill this when he comes back" thats not how it works. in order for someone to be recognized as the messiah he has to fulfill these things first. then you have the problem of sacrifice, in the Hebrew bible it explicit says no one is going to die for anyone's sin, every person is responsible for his own sin (Jeremiah 31 29:30)
"In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge"
(Ezekiel 18:20)
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."
christianity of course contradicts that by saying Jesus died for the world's sins.
you said to give you evidence from the scriptures, I did, now please do the same. you haven't proven anything in your previous post

Christians are the niggers of religitards

>>14711149
So much of how people sound is how we choose to hear them. It would seem true and I do not contend that we have traveled the whole world round. We have photographed every corner. From Ancient Egypt we have known the Earth to be round. By simple and direct observation it is known. If the Buddhist, by the term Earth disc, mean that same thing by which we mean Earth, then clearly their claims are false. But who was there at the beginning of time? Who has photographed it? We know of the past by two ways only--by the passing down of witnesses (that is tradition), and by speculation from what we observe today. The traditional account is only as valuable and as true as the authority of the witness, and the fidelity of those who passed it down. The speculative vision is only as reliable as the logic of the argument and the accuracy of measurements. If the logic of the speculative account fails, it must be thrown out. If the accuracy of measurements is not reliable, then it cannot be trusted. The belief in existence without creator only seems reasonable by the preponderance of those who hold the position; upon any examination however, it is without logical foundation. If you held to your own principles of argument and demonstration, you would keep the older position (no matter how strange or unlikely it seems) until it can be falsified. Though the traditional perspective can at times seem absurd, it has yet to be truly falsified. Therefore, what is the justification for taking up a new position? It is not reasonable to abandon what has already been taken for granted in order to adopt a position which is yet to be proven. If the old position is wrong, it will still be wrong tomorrow. If the new position is wrong, it will always be wrong. If they are both wrong, the old position has the advantage of being familiar, whereas the new position remains untried.

>>14712304
I did address Isiah. As did Jesus. In fact, Jesus explained all these points, for what you say now is precisely what the scribes and pharisees said to him then. I believe John Chapter 8 addresses all your points.

>>14711517
>you want an answer? here I'll pull one fresh from my ass

>>14711510
>Oatmeal man teaches retards to stay retarded

Fucking Christcope taking over. Get off my literature board, weak-minded sheep

>>14713689
I'd rather be a sheep among shepherds than a sheep among wolves.

>>14710780
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

>>14713740
1. Micah says that God is merciful to the just, and destroys the wicked. Jeremiah, speaking of the unrighteous Hebrews, says they have a kindled a fire of wrath in God's heart that will burn forever. There is no contradiction. For the wicked and unrepentant, eternal damnation. For the righteous and repentant, mercy. This is according to the very words on the page.

2. The surrounding verses clearly demonstrate that the uses of tempt are not exactly the same. Genesis clearly demonstrates how God leads men to righteousness by guiding them through temptation, thereby testing their faith, refining it like gold. James clearly uses it in its other manner, which is that God never lures man into sin, and therefore it cannot be said that man sins on behalf of God. This is according to the words on the page.

3. The Catholic Church has put forward a pretty clear understanding of this for 2000 years and you can read about it in the catechism. You will find that in all their explanations, they go by the words on the page.

I'm going to stop here, because if you cannot tell already, the video is unserious. It does not demonstrate that the Bible is errant or contradictory, only that Sola Scriptura is impossible, for there must be some authority to hold consistent interpretations across generations.

However, by that same token--if you recongize that Sola Scriptura is clearly insufficient, then you cannot dismiss the Catholic faith without engaging with actual theology. Taking potshots at a casual Protestant's understanding of scriptural interpretation is not a valid way of dismissing the oldest institution on earth.

>>14711380
>stop trying to pretend your subset of blives does not start with a axioms of some kind
the problem is that we already understand this, the question is how do we determine which axiom set to adopt, or how MANY to adopt. You can't use a purely negative argument like this to assert anything positive, i.e. merely observing that no one system can ever be complete does not demonstrate why any particular system should be favored

>>14713915
Not that anon, but here is the issue. The minimum ought that we can derive from an is, which all can agree upon is that whatever is, our understanding of it ought to be without contradiction. The atheist perspective is axiomatic without justification. The faith positions says that the axioms are held because they come from a higher power and the higher power has set the axioms of belief. Therefore, the atheist perspective is, according to its own axioms, inherently arbitrary. That is to say that the axioms themselves are inherently self-contradictory. The axiom that all things are material and can be known by material experience is itself not demonstrated by material experience, nor is it material. The axiom that God is the creator of all things is certainly taken on faith, but the entire purpose of faith and its elaborations is to lead people to belief in that singular axiom. In the Catholic argument, the course from assuming God is the Creator of all things to believing God is all things runs through every tenet of faith and serves as both the foundation and purpose. It contains everything, and is self-contained. The atheist argument (at least the most dominant contemporary one) relies on a supposition of exclusive materiality which is never approached or supported. Its circularity is necessary, but always distant. As an argument it contains nothing, not even itself.

>>14713729
why be a sheep in the first place?

>>14710435
>all these seething christucks
the funniest part is that if your jew religion is real you're all going to burn eternally just like me

>>14711139
>Laws precede their application.
Wrong.

>>14713995
Wow, it's literally >>14711388

>>14714479
yeah, I'm still convinced that Christianity is a leviathanic archon regardless of what Christ himself was

>>14710435
I remember when I was 14

>>14714586
And you still believed Jewish mythology was different from other mythologies? I remember too! I’m glad I’ve grown up don’t you?

>>14714648
low IQ attempt
try again

>>14714674
What you don’t mean to say you still believe in Jewish mythology?

>>14710457
>metaphor for what?
Take Adam and Eve as an example. Did the ancient Hebrews literally know who the first humans were? Of course not. The story is about when humans first gained free, making them distinct from all other life forms before them. and what the implications of having free will are.

>>14714767
boring.
if you're going to larp as a mentally deficient midwit, the least you could do is be entertaining while doing so

>>14714806
>Did the ancient Hebrews literally know who the first humans were? Of course not.
Nice private interpretation. I would think it interesting. Too bad Christian insist that Adam and Eve were real persons.

>>14714832
Take your own advice and start entertaining us. Tell us what happened to the unicorns. And be creative about it!

>>14714861
>n-no you!
how witty
bye midwit. it's been boring. remember to clean your drool bib

>>14714900
Boooooooo
Boriiiing

>>14714900
We want you to entertain us, where is the leviathan? Behemoth? What happened to unicorns and dragons? Come on isn’t Jewish mythology real?

>221 posts and 23 image replies omitted.

>>14714950
Go look in a dinosaur museum.

>>14710754
It's not relativism you retard. If you had to lay down moral laws for people living 2500 years ago and start explaining microbiology they won't know what the fuck you are talking about. That doesn't mean truth is relative it means the ability of a given culture to understand that truth will vary

>>14710442
>He fell for logical systems where all propositions are true

>>14715554
Hello Kent Hovind how is the amusement park