/lit/ - Literature

Da Jesus Book is the best Bible translation

https://ebible.org/study/?w1=bible&t1=local%3AhwcNT&v1=MT1_1

>>20100776
THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD

>>20100776
Book had a lifelong impact on me, still love to read it. The illustrations didn't hold back from the violence in the Old Testament at all.

>>20100776
Why is there a nigger?

>Donatism
1 Timothy 3:2
>Now the overseer is to be above reproach
>A bishop then must be blameless,
Or a variation thereof in any version. some of you protest that in defense of unrepentant sinners.

I wasn't able to read to my dad when I visited, but I've been re-reading the gospel of St. Matthew on my own and I find it very comforting, and also very sad because of certain parts, like 26:36-46. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. There is something incredibly painful about imagining Jesus' pain. I went to a catholic school, and they weren't very good at teaching us about Christ. Maybe I just didn't pay attention, but whenever I think about my school and Jesus' pain, I only remember them telling us about all the physical pain he endured on the cross, not about how he felt sorrow before. I hope I can share these thoughts with my dad soon.

Are there funny bits in the Bible? Just started reading it and Jacob wrestling with God made me chucke, but I guess it is not meant to be a joke. But are there any jokes or funny situations?

>>20101622
*chuckle

>>20100776
My southern Christian grandma bought me and my sibling this exact book after we were born. I never absorbed a single word of it but the funny pictures made me giggle.

>>20101612
Did you cry?

>>20101622
Yes. In 1 Kings 18, the prophet Elijah challenges the prophets of Baal to see whose diety will light the altar on fire. The prophets of Baal try everything and nothing happens and Elijah replies with trash-talking, including:
>And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."
Literally "maybe your god's asleep or on the shitter and thus is too busy to listen to you." Other translations simply say he's "busy" or "occupied" or something, but be aware that the actual intention of the Hebrew is to say he's on the toilet. The other translations are just trying to mask the vulgarity of the verse. Basically, if your translation says someone is "meditating," they're likely on the toilet.

Then in the next verse, the prophets of Baal start cutting themselves with their own swords "according to their custom" and still nothing happens, meanwhile Elijah is cracking up in hysterics. Elijah then does his own ritual and of course God lights the altar on fire.

Amazingly, this isn't even the only toilet humor in the OT. As when then see in 2 Kings 10:27:
>And they demolished the pillar of Baal, and demolished the house of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day.
And then in Judges 3:12-30, the King of Moab is assassinated and his guards assume he's taking so long because he's on the toilet. The joke is that he actually was on the toilet; he was assassinated while taking a shit.

Got an old Bible and it was missing part of a note.

>>20101986
So I fixed it. Did I do well?

>>20101122
the book was created after 1960
https://ebible.org/study/?w1=bible&t1=local%3AhwcNT&v1=MT1_1

>>20101122
He's there to listen to the 8th commandment.

>>20101808
Kek excellent examples, thanks anon

>>20101622
There’s a lot of funny stuff in the Bible, honestly. When a group of young men call Elisha a ‘baldhead’ and God sends two bears out to maul them all is one of my favorite moments. It’s just so bizarre and comes out of nowhere.

>>20102422
>>20101122
>I-IS THAT A N-NIGGERINO IN MY BIBLE?? AHHHH IM GOING INSANE AHHHHHH1!1!

>>20100776
Do you guys believe in eternal suffering for sinners? I got into a debate about this and having done some research it just isn't scriptural if you view the eternal punishment as the destruction of the soul by turning down God's mercy, it makes sense. An eternal punishment/judgement would be this because soul eternal, fire is eternal because it's always there, and explains the concept of yiur body and soul being DESTROYED in Gehanna (burning trash).

>>20100948
I still love the animated ones

Dharmic Thomism? Dharmic Thomism. (Exodus 3:14)

>During the Vivartakalpa, a deity from Abhassara plane was reborn in the Mahabrahma plane, as many living beings forget about their past life, this too happened with the Mahabrahma (Elohim), and being unaware of the above planes of existence, he felt alone. He longed for the presence of others. After some time, many other deities from the above planes were also reborn in those brahma planes, as his ministers and companions (Psalm 82:1.[7] Seeing this happen, he falsely believed himself to be their creator. This belief, states the Buddhist texts, was then shared by other deities. Eventually, however one of the deities (Yahweh) died and was reborn as a human (Moses). Through meditation, he got the power to remember his previous life (the Burning Bush).[6] He went on to teach what he remembered from his previous life in the lower heaven(Mosaic authorship), that Mahabrahma(Elohim) was the creator of the universe. This teaching led to the widespread human belief in a creator god, according to the Pali Canon.
> "I am that I am" can also be read as "I am that I was" (he word אֶהְיֶה (’Ehyeh) is the first person form of hayah, 'to be', and owing to the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar means 'I am', 'I was', and 'I will be'.)

That is to say, Yahweh reincarnated imperfectly as Moses and could only grasp the return of his presence imperfectly, hence the analogy of being. Moses recollected his past life in the heavens, writing the book of Genesis about Elohim. Everything that happened from Adam to the Patriarchs happened in a different plane, to a different Egypt. Yahweh-Moses, in a different plane, would lead the Israelites to Canaan. He died and never got to see the land (it was impossible, because he would then reincarnate again but in a different plane). The conquest in Joshua also happened in a different plane, hence the lack of archaeological affirmations in this plane. I AM THAT I WAS would then repeat this cycle, reincarnating as David, then Solomon and possibly Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

1/2

>>20102904
Eventually this cycle would repeat, until finally I AM incarnated as Jesus, which almost is our timeline and plane. But there are three reincarnations, hence all the apparent non-harmony in the Gospels. The Gospel of John is actually the 'first' - "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, " so we should take Johannine priority. Jesus is reincarnated during after cruxifixion, however, He then is reincarnated (John 3:7 Ye must be born again). John 3:8 affirms this cycle of reincarnation (The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound (I AM, AUM), but you do not know where it comes from (the planes) or where it is going (Transmigration). So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."). This occurs at least three more times, hence the other three Gospels. But then it doesn't actually finish there. The cycle starts again and Jesus in reincarnated in "John-2". The cycle of reincarnations starts with John, goes through the Synoptics and then maybe finishes in that alternate John.

But that is not all. If we exceed the analogy of Being and go for the univocity of being entirely it is entirely possible that I AM incarnates in common persons outside the Bible. And each plane has its own Bibles possibly. Countless permutations. We would then affirm I AM, because that I WAS. Maybe the cycle started with Elohim himself, may it didn't.

I AM THAT I WAS. THE CYCLE WILL CONTINUE

2/2

>>20102858
I think just as Satan knew what his betrayal of God would mean, the separation of a person from God out of sheer spite and arrogance is what leads to eternal suffering/damnation
They cannot fathom Christ and His sacrifice

I liken it to a hot stove top:
You know it is screaming hot
You can see the red coils
You KNOW what happens if you touch it
And despite all of this you still grab onto it and act indignant that you are burned
"How could this have happened, surely God is to blame!"

I think the unrepentant sinners willingly go against God after a certain point. They would "proudly" suffer the fires of hell before kneeling or bowing their heads in thanksgiving.
Such arrogance is their prerogative of course, but it is not God that spits in the face of his beloved children and then condemns them.

>>20103027
They do it to themselves, and try to trick others into blaming God.
pride really is the worst sin.

>>20102858
The torments of hell have no end. This is clear from the Bible and it has been re-affirmed at several ecumenical councils against Origen and similar heretics

>>20103027
>>20103125
You fools. Thieves of light - I can't even fathom the depths of the cowardness and depravity which would lead you to be willing to serve the thing which you have incorrectly labelled as your God. Eternal suffering for a mortal making a mistake in the domain where all things are known? Christ is a dagger in your mouth and venom in your soul. You know nothing of mercy. You are the summation of all things wrong with Christians. Your grace is a weapon and your will is the death. You are the son of Peter most truly, a traitor born from a kiss.

Repent.

>>20103455
See >>20103476

>>20103476
So your claim is what then? That hell doesn't exist or that hell isn't permanent or that God doesn't condemn people?
My knowledge of the Bible isn't thorough but I'm fairly confident there are consequences for those who reject God and blaspheme him, no?

Your language is LARP but the absence of a point is more embarrassing, hopefully you can use your words next time.

>>20100776
>Blond haired Moses
Based, Jews owned.

>>20103501
Hell is the extinguishing of the soul - not an eternal torture chamber.

>>20103524
weeping and gnashing of teeth doesn't seem like inexistence.
Also the passage of the rich man and Lazarus.

>>20103524
Is that not in and of itself a torture? Or is Hell then a void wherein no suffering exists, but instead is the absence of God's light?
By that description Hell is a neutral place rather than a continual punishment?

>>20103484
>>20103476

>>20100776
>And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
This is literally true right?

>>20101203
Pretty convenient that the "Church™" had a council and ruled that itself could be evil but still be the official institution of Christ on earth. Always excuses, and never repentance, only admitting wrong a while after being exposed and forced.

>>20103731
As long what you ask is in line with God's will. (which means it's exactly what you should be asking for)

>>20103750
Why do you recognize the New Testament canon? It was formalized at the Council of Rome overseen by the Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I.

>>20100776
Picrel given to all in the 2 year old Sunday School class of my church in the 70s. It is a full OT and NT with periodic, fairly "realistic" illustrations (see a few randoms I found, below). Back then we didn't need condensed and sanitized "story" books or bicycle helmets. We were all given King James Bibles by the Gideons in 3rd grade and had standards that left children behind. We might have lost an average of 2 IQ points from breathing lead without fear, but we were born as men and remained as men, with Dukes of Hazzard, Archie Bunker, Sanford and Son, and Good Times broadcast proudly to millions each week, daily upon syndication.

>>20104224

>>20104224
This is not a duplicate reply.

>>20104224
Nor is this.

>>20104224
This was a favorite, and I repeat Psalm 23 (KJB) daily.

>>20104224
Last one. I would stare at this and imagine hearing the voice of God calling me.

>>20104251

>>20104261

>>20104251
I can't read that, but I like it, it's an event of great profundity in an incredible story, and the moments they picked to illustrate on that page are great encapsulations of that particular part. It tells a lot without even knowing what most of those words are saying.

>thinking about all the great commentaries in Latin, French, and German from centuries ago that have still never been translated
It hurts.

>>20101695
I didn't cry last night reading, no, but I've cried reading the Gospels before

>>20101612
I somehow missed this update earlier but saw it thanks to the reply to the Anon asking about the crying. How was your first bit of time away from home?

>>20104216
>formalized
Unnecessary, to those who knew the voice of the Shepherd it was clear what was and wasn't without this institutional input from the man who was known as "the ladies' ear scratcher" and endorsed "Saint" Jerome's wacko sicknesses and heresies.

I had this one as a child

>>20105838
Okay, Joseph Smith.

>>20104501
>needing more commentaries than Henry, Poole, Gill, and Calvin

>>20105808
>How was your first bit of time away from home?
It was easier than I thought. I cried a lot on my first day because I missed my dad, but we call daily, and I try to talk to him about as many little things as I can, just like I did when we were together. I've also been thinking about reading to him through the phone... It's better than nothing. I've been reading on my own too, which has been more comforting than I thought it would be. I've been blessed with friends here who make me feel less lonely, and even when I'm sad I feel warmth and hope inside of me. It's like a fire has been lit inside of me and even when I'm sad, I can feel it inside of my chest.
I started reading the epistle to the Romans, but I find it a bit hard to understand... So I think I'll just keep re-reading the gospel of St. Matthew

>>20100776
Fank u bible fred

>>20106362
Be very careful in the friends you make. There's nothing wrong at all with just reading the gospels or a gospel over and over. Paul's letters can be very dense, they often say *a lot* in even just a few of the words in one, and can take *a lot* of contemplation on any one small part.

>>20102831
Kek this one is amazing

>>20106345
Yes, preferably ones by Christians.

>>20106345
>having time to read 500 meandering words per 10 of actually useful.

>>20106546
To exemplify that point, Romans 2:14-15
It's literal proof of God.
Lewis' Mere Christianity discusses it in depth. (To mangle it a bit, the gentiles "instinctively" follow the law of God, without knowing it, but they can choose not to (with the consequence of feeling bad); therefore it isn't an instinct per se, and not theirs. it could only come from God. to word it differently, morals and the ability to separate right from wrong.

>>20100776
Fuck jannies.

>>20108380
>Why do you believe what Jesus said?
Because I believe it is true. I started with the Greeks, partook of Plotinus, and finally arrived at Aquinas. Go back and read the Sumerians if you like, it's all there too. Flood, a creator god, even the problem of evil has the same answer in the Annunaki as Aquinas. God permits mankind to sin, to fall into evil, because his ends are unknown but it is certain that his end is good. We are improved by our failures, brought closer to mercy and justice. Read Jeremiah.

>Why do you believe he even said the things he is alleged to have said?
Because it is too brilliant a work for the mind of man. Because his disciples and the apostles that succeeded them withstood persecution and death rather than deny being part of his body. Because grace is a gift that I asked for and received, though I'm still not worthy of it.

>>20108427
>Because it is too brilliant a work for the mind of man
Especially when you consider the interworking of the whole with many authors spanning so much time. There are things early in the texts that its human author participants could not possibly have known would repeat and resolve as they did within the later developments, and those repeats and resolutions are incredible beyond expression, when understood to any depth.
>Fuck jannies
Yes.

>>20108459
Well said anon. In particular I'm fascinated by the reverence the Sumerians had for carp, feasting on the fish perhaps to honor Enki. The chap who in pic related is shown ushering carp from non-being into being and out of being. Very curious that the Christian icthys comes to mind, and becoming fishers of men, and the 153 fish the disciples hauled up. Really something.

That's not to say I'm proposing some kind of syncretism or whatever. No, the bible and its Sumerian ancestry if at all present is part of what is predestined. It is all divinely inspired. Dual authorship. Merely entertained by the vastness of coincidence and a constant revealing that now to us looks like foreshadowing. Catholicism is true and correct, and the purest expression yet of God's goodness and a mysterious icon of his justice and mercy (as if we could tell them apart).

bump

>>20100776
>they shoehorned a nigger in
God dammit America

>>20109888
Enjoy roasting in hell with Satan's cock in your throat. He will take on the form of a giant buck negro just for (You).

>>20108496
>his justice and mercy (as if we could tell them apart).
These are contrasting concepts, according to divine justice we have to pay for our sins, but through divine mercy which infinitely outweighs our transgressions, we can be forgiven.

>>20109888
Racism is retarded. Moses had an Ethiopian wife btw

>>20109949
There is no hell, Cathocuck.

>>20110100
>t. hopes she's right
If there is, I assume many popes will be there.

Okay /tv/, are they kino or not?

Did anyone else have this children's bible as a kid? I didn't read one page everyday like you were supposed to, I just read through the whole thing at once because I liked the stories and illustrations.

>>20110729
That didn't exist when I was a kid, but I wouldn't be averse to using it daily even now as a supplement to my standard Bible reading/study.

>>20110729
No, but we had this.

>>20106546
Thank you for your words as always, anon. It makes me feel better to know that its not just me being dumb that makes it hard to understand Paul's letters. I think I will just focus on the Gospels for a while.
And I'm very thankful that I already made a few friends. The people in my course all seem to be very nice, and what I'm studying isn't something that generally attracts people with bad intentions because it involves working with disabled people. Thank you for your words

>>20111546
That sounds like an excellent field of study and career for a Godly oriented person. Bless (You).

>>20100776
Man, the book of Job is fucking kino. I had a really hard time getting through the slog that is the history of Israel and then it hits you with that gorgeous piece of poetry from nowhere.
Definitely my favorite part next to the first bits of Genesis up until this point.

>>20100776
Anyone here read the German "Lutherbibel"? Im not done with it but the translation seems pretty awkward at times. I get the feeling that it sacrifices readability and beauty for accuracy.

>>20112110
It invented the modern German language so of course it's going to sound awkward.

>>20112103
what did you learn reading it?

>>20112701
Its my first read and im not entirely done yet but so far it seems like the classic "why does god let bad things happen to good people" debate.
Really the content itself seems pretty trivial but the way its presented is beautiful. I love all the symbolism comparing a flourishing life with flourishing plants and all the death and corpse related imagery being used to compare someone's life going to shit.

>>20112923
it's the answer to that question. don't get angry if you don't understand it the first time around.
>pretty trivial
absolutely not.
>beautiful
Wait until you get to the end.

>tfw the Bible market is so ridiculously saturated that I can't find the cartoony kid's Bible from my youth to post

Are there any good Christian youtube channels?

>>20103695
Catholicism: when you give people a book and cry when they actually read it.

>>20113300
It used to be possible for there to be a "Catalogue of English Bible Translations" published every now and then. It not only listed translations but also published editions from different publishers, serving as an important resource for extremely obscure revisions from the 1800s that nobody even acknowledges anymore. Good luck doing something like that today when Crossway alone has 9000 variations of designer ESV.

I didn't like the bible, it insists upon itself

>>20113659
Catholicism: when that book must have been something other than the Bible.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/frequency-of-reading-scripture/

>>20113719
>Crossway alone has 9000 variations of designer ESV
Good on them for getting so many out there and good on the people for buying enough to justify the production.

>>20112997
I just finished it. Well that definitely was not trivial, the ending really threw me for a loop. I was totally expecting Job to get fucked over at the end with his buddies being proven right somehow.
This is by far my favorite book so far and I will have to revisit it later. I do hope there is more like this in the old testament, a lot of the other material so far was dreadfully boring.

>>20112997
>it's the answer to that question.
How does it answer it?

So do I really need to read the whole of the bible? I’ve just started reading Genesis a few chapters a day and looking towards the back of the book I didn’t realise how much longer the Old Testament is than the New Testament, I can’t take 800 double stacked pages of “X lived 457 years and begat Y, Y lived 378 years and begat Z”, so can I skip ahead to the NT and just read that in full, maybe there are some specific books in the OT I can read but skip the rest?

>>20113744
No, you have to read the whole thing. You'd miss a lot of important details.

>go to Orthodox Church
>meet another inquirer
>he’s obsessed with church councils
>he’s obsessed with philosophy
>he watched Jay Dyer
>he talks about Church Fathers more than God
Why do these people exist

>>20113744
The Book of Job is a pretty sobering experience, since it shows that God doesn't give a shit about you in the slightest as an individual.
Ezekiel has some lulzy passages too

>>20113856
If God "didn't give a shit in the least" then He wouldn't have restored Job and then some. This essentially mirrors the sufferings we experience here in the temporary testing grounds vs our eternal Kingdom inheritance.

>>20114004
Until he forgets to pay the server bills and your archived consciousness, running in a loop of bliss, gets deleted or corrupted while the power is out.
Guess it's a better fantasy than Roko's Basilisk, though

>>20113735
Look forward to reading Ecclesiastes, you'll like it.

>>20114020
t. crypto-Gnostic

>>20113794
>go to Reformed church
>meet another inquirer
>he’s obsessed with the Westminster Assembly
>he watches Joel Beeke
>he talks about the English Puritans more than God

These kinds of people exist in every denomination anon

>>20114030
Ironically, my own spiritual views are the complete inverse of Gnosticism. I believe the spiritual world is an emergent property of the material. I see it as a "higher plane" in the same way that Python or C++ are higher levels of coding compared to Assembly and microcode.

>>20114020
>God needs to pay others for services

>>20114045
Then why's he always asking for money?

>>20114035
Ah, so you're a crypto-Mormon then.

>>20102840
>BLASPHEMY! YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE MONKEY PEOPLE PART OF MY HOLY WORD!

>>20114054
It blows my mind they managed to become an established religion and conquer an entire state. It's worth noting that they have a bit of over-representation in our glowie agencies due to their religiously-autistic lifestyles.

>>20114079
>conquer an entire state
No one was there yet, it was basically just a matter of them settling there. I've been to Utah and it's pretty clear how they've maintained a majority, there's just no reason for anyone else to bother with the land.

>>20114052
>God has ever once asked for money
God wants us to take care of each other.

>>20113794
Because a large number of religious people are far less interested in the divine and in ultimate truth than they are desperately seeking to be part of a community with a history. They aren’t searching for God, they are searching for a team to support.

How do protestants reason homosexuality and their marriage?

>>20114292
By tossing out the epistles and saying only the Gospels count.

>>20114292
You know what seems to be an even bigger abomination unto God than faggotry? Idolatry. Enjoy your false sense of institutional superiority until He returns and lets loose the book of Revelation on that Babylonian pagan ass.

>>20114292
we don't.
>>20114299
it puzzles me how heretics can reason that.
>>20114326
>b-but your problems are worse than mine!
doesn't mean you're not both wrong. Revelations 21:8
Also stop using foul language.

>>20114381
>Revelations
Sorry, this is a Bible thread, there is no "Revelations".

>>20114443
Oh, oops. Revelation, rather.

>>20114105
Makes sense. Can’t entirely blame them in this day and age

>>20113794
>>he’s obsessed with philosophy
How is that not a respectable path to God?

>>20114546
Just read how /lit/ autists treat philosophy and religion, and also read Colossians 2:8. Philosophy isn’t necessarily negative, but it is when one gets more wrapped up in mental speculations and concepts than they are in deepening one’s relationship with God and practicing

>>20114528
should have that group help direct them to God though.

Matthew 11:28-30
such a nice passage.

>>20114097
Who are you to claim what God wants? For all you know, God doesn't even perceive our minuscule existence in the grand scale of the universe.

>>20114674
He literally took on the flesh and died on the Cross for us.

>>20114674
Mark 12:30-31
>And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

>>20114698
don't engage anon. seems to be the same guy over and over trying to cause strife or whatever else.

>>20114698
According to who? Some guy that got crucified over 2000 years ago? I agree that his death was pretty shitty, but you really gonna just take his word that he's the direct son of the grand creator itself? Well not his word, but the word of some guys writing about him hundreds of years later. And you take that as unquestionable fact?

>>20114736
Yes.

>>20114703
So why do you believe Mark has any claim to what God wants?

>>20114740
How?

>>20114709
>>20114744
case in point.
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

attention to verse 19.

>>20114806
So what claim does this book have over God's will? This is the grand creator of the cosmos. Why do you think anybody has the guy's plan in a book?

>>20114814
Because God inspired its making through the Holy Spirit.
literally called the word of God.

>>20114814
Who is God to you, anon? What is the relationship between God and creation? What does creation offer God?

>>20114825
We're going around in circles, anon. What is the basis of this belief? What has been so convincing about this book that makes it any more the "word of God" than literally any other piece of literature written by some bozo claiming to have a divine connection?

>>20114840
I have a few conflicting definitions of God.
One being the Creator, the entity that wrote the rules of physics and set the universe to run. This is assuming there is a realm outside our universe that can control of our own, rather than the universe itself just being eternal.
The other being the memetic gestalt of anyone following that particular faith. Essentially, it's a tulpa manifest from the collective consciousness of anyone that believes it to be reality. It doesn't have any real world impact, outside of driving the motivations of its followers in a kind of social metagame. This entity wouldn't be the creator however, but rather our own creation made in our image, emerging from our collective interactions.
>What does creation offer God?
Novelty. But that assumes such a God has the capacity to even experience novelty, something seemingly reserved just for animals. We could say the same for love and any other emotion a God might have too.

>>20100776
I've got this and a leather copy of my dad's KJV with his name in gold. I'm keeping that shit forever.

>>20114894
This is a thread for Christians dumb pagan shit

>>20114897
that's the one i had!

>>20100776
Why does God take so long to answer my prayers????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

How do you feel about the people making claims of "hidden"/"encoded"/etc stuff in the bible?
How do you feel about the people trying to add various stuff onto the bible like it's some syncretic thing with other "mystical" stuff?

>>20114899
We're discussing the Bible as a piece of literature. Besides, your mythology is mostly a bundle of Zoroastrianism stuffed with a bunch of pagan culture reskins anyways.

>>20114919
Have you tried directing your prayers to his complaint line?

>>20114926
hard to verify, really. stuff like properly explaining Revelation and all the prophecy and prefigurations in the OT is proper. most else is heretic rubbish.

>>20114926
About syncretism and adding stuff, i'll change my stance to "absolute heretic false teachings".

>>20114919
He may have already answered them with a no, or only He knows the right time and way to answer with a yes and if it happened any other time and way it would turn out to be more of a curse than blessing.

>>20114978
ain't that just confirmation bias? It's the secret ingredient in meme magic

>>20114926
Also against syncretism, here's some Biblical basis.
Paul's epistles. on the one to the Hebrews he does discuss OT law, as it is God given. on any other for pagans, you don't see him mixing truth with paganism

>>20114991
Were you to experience it enough yourself you'd know that there are times it clearly transcends confirmation bias, especially when personally aware of and on the lookout for that very potential.

>>20115045
>especially when personally aware of and on the lookout for that very potential
That is literally what confirmation bias is. Your mental leeway on the matter extends as far as placebo.

>>20115049
Nope, you obviously can't relate so you're like a bird looking at a computer monitor and I am a person looking at the computer monitor. When you experience it for yourself you know there is no possible way it could have been anything but God.

>>20114736

>>20115094
Never underestimate the power of delusion, especially when fueled by grief for their dead "savior." People still unironically believe in Mormonism and Scientology.

>>20115059
Experience what? What differentiates you from an /x/ denizen playing with tulpas?

>>20115111
Walk with God and experience the most incredible thing ever for yourself or just do whatever you want and enjoy thinking you are "smart" and "educated".

>>20115127
>Walk with God and experience the most incredible thing ever for yourself
What did he mean by this?

>>20115240
What a lame attempt at prayer.

>>20115127
How do I summon my own personal Jesus?

>>20115261
Violator is pretty cheap at most pawn stores

>>20115261
Blue Dress is a far better song.

>>20115261
Picrel
Interviewer: So you’re saying that, in reaction to the unbridled and violent Dionysian ecstasy of the late medieval and early modern era, the Church went too far, and occluded the Holy Spirit entirely?
Bishop of London: Yes.

>>20114926
To maybe be a bit more specific I'm talking about topics of "astrotheology", "alchemy", and other "mystical" topics of like

>>20115295

>>20115306
We did eventually manage to turn lead into gold by fucking around with nuclear technology, but the result was a net loss in energy and the resulting isotopes were radioactive. It's far easier to go the other way by shooting neutrons at gold atoms.

How do you help leftists who want to find God? I feel genuinely hopeless with them. At least liberals seem more open, but leftists have so much hatred and tension within them about "society" and "capitalism" and so on, I don't know how to help them. They're oftentimes borderline anti-natalists, depressed, and suicidal. I had a talk to a friend today who was genuinely trying to find God, but I don't think I was too helpful.

>>20115599
They should come to understand that the world is fallen and broken, always has been, always will be, there is no fixing it, and none of that matters beyond their own personal sphere of influence in helping others until God ends this world and takes those of His choosing into His Kingdom. If they or anyone else is all wrapped up in the political tensions etc. then they aren't listening to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, are are conformed to the world.

Is the New Covenant to be understood as something eternal? For example Revelation 13 talks about the Lamb being crucified before the foundation of the world, and of course Romans 4 refers to Abraham being made righteous by faith, and I believe Revelation 14 speaks of the ‘eternal gospel’—if this is true, it makes a lot more sense how people were saved prior to Christ, but then it is also confusing to ask about the purpose of the law, and what was changed by the incarnation. For example, would theosis be even possible before Christ came?

>>20115799
>For example, would theosis be even possible before Christ came
No one knows. Enoch walked with God and God took him. Later fan fiction aside, no one knows what all God showed and taught him before or especially after the taking. Apparently God really enjoyed Enoch's company on a personal level and wanted to bring him into His realm and take things up no telling how many notches/levels, which could well include what we now refer to as "theosis".

>>20101991
>not just writing it in with a fountain pen

>>20115599
Problem is, the cat is already out of the bag. Once you start thinking critically about religion, you can't just lie to yourself afterwards without a lifetime of misery. Leftists are already pretty jaded against tradition in its entirety, so getting them to accept your tradition on faith alone is gonna be a complete non-starter.
>They're oftentimes borderline anti-natalists, depressed, and suicidal
This one works in your favor, since conversions (outside of being born into the religion) typically happen when someone is at their rock bottom and desperate for any solution that makes them feel less alone. Love-bombing is a prime tactic to sucker them into faith in whichever god you follow.
>I had a talk to a friend today who was genuinely trying to find God, but I don't think I was too helpful.
But, like I said, once the cat is out of the bag and you start playing the tough questions in your head, they don't ever go away.

So my suggestion to you is to secularize the values you cherish most about your religion and sell it to them that way. You don't need to believe the stories as historical fact to understand the lessons they teach.

>>20115631
Yeah, but what's God gonna do about entropy? It doesn't matter how many creations the guy busts out, it's all gonna fall apart eventually. Why's he even need to wipe the planet if the Sun's gonna do it anyways once it runs out of hydrogen and starts fusing the helium? Why not just wait to see how far we go? What's this guy's endgame here?

>>20115855
I did but it looked too sloppy. But now looking at it, I think it still looks sloppy. I think I'm going to find another one and not "fix it" this time. I thought it was a single misprint, but apparently, this was the case with all printings of this publisher's edition, so it's probably right to keep it as is.

Okay, which one of you guys is this?
https://youtu.be/ngiW1QEcB2I

>>20115911
>what will the unmoved mover, capable of bringing forth creation ex nihilo, do about entropy
Gee, I dunno.

>>20116021
It's not like time ticks without it. Besides, God has gotta be pulling the energy from somewhere. Besides, we can directly look back in the past since light takes time to travel. Pic related is if you look as far back as you can go in every direction. It's the afterglow from when the universe was more hot, compressed, and opaque. We can clearly see a time long before our planet even started forming, so why would it make any sense for the creator of all the cosmos to hyperfocus on a tiny little blue dot? Isn't his scope of shit to do on a much, much higher scale than our tiny, temporary planet?

>>20116104
>God has gotta be pulling the energy from somewhere
...
>the universe is really big so why would its creator care about humanity
...

>>20115911
>what's God gonna do about entropy?
Whatever He wants to do, gosh.

>>20115852
Yeah everytime I think about this question I just get more confused. On the one hand it seems like something totally new happened with the incarnation, and new possibilities were opened up to us as Christ restored all things to communion with himself as he lived and taught, but then again in retrospect we can look and see many examples in the past such as what you mentioned that can potentially be seen as counterpoints.

>>20116149
Christ is the Alpha & Omega, the Logos, there is no telling what all He does throughout the infinite eternal. There are many, many, many things that we will not quantify and doctrinize here in this world in this form. It's neither possible nor necessary.

However, in one sense, in the present worldly timeline, yes, a new thing has occurred and opened new potentials, etc., but Enoch was pulled from this worldly timeline, and despite the Catholics and "Orthodox™" claims/suppositions, no one knows where the rest whom have passed beyond this world are presently residing, and what they are doing. They will use the reference from Revelation regarding the saints taking the prayers of those still here to God, but that doesn't mean that each and every saint is on that duty, nor does it mean that's what they are constantly doing beyond that one event. For all we know, just before that, God said "OK, places everyone, aaaaaaaaaand *action*".

The information we were provided with is what we need to achieve what I call "proper orientation", but not for "having everything figured out and knowing the answer to all questions". It's unfortunate that many through the ages have attempted to declare their own contemplational results to be actual dogmatic doctrine and people think that the thoughts of those like Aquinas are anything more than one man's intellectual figurings.

>>20116126
Why does there need to be a god that created the universe? Why can't the universe itself be eternal or without a cause?

I had this as a child and listened to a ton of the radio plays on car trips. Comfy memories.

>>20115325
The whole interview is quite interesting.
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/the-bishop-of-london-on-christian-contemplation

>>20116305
Numerous mainstream scientists today working with Big Bang cosmology have admitted that the universe began to exist at some point in the past, and is not past-infinite, and this beginning involves the beginning of space, time and matter as we know it. Various copes to get around this exist such as cyclical models and multiverses but there is no real evidence for any of these that isn’t fringe or highly theoretical. Since nothing comes into existence without a cause, and the universe evidently began to exist at some point in the past, then it is clear that the universe had a cause, and that would be God, because what else would exist prior to space, time and matter but God? This is not even to get into the angles of fine-tuning, Biblical prophecies, reports of religious and mystic experiences, miracles, arguments for Jesus’ resurrection, etc

>>20116414
If the universe is something akin to a computer program then there's something else outside of this that isn't necessarily a god.

>>20116424
>if if if
I don’t see much reason to entertain such silly hypotheticals

>>20116424
And even in that case, that 'something' would be another dependent being, with its own chain of causes leading to its creation and existence, leaving the question of how the chain began unanswered.

>>20116440
>leaning unto thine own understanding

>>20116432
>my hypothetical is better than your hypothetical

>>20116458
That’s correct, for reasons I have already demonstrated.

>>20116414
>then it is clear that the universe had a cause
The universe post big bang had a cause. However, we can't see past the singularity, so nobody knows what the cause is, if there even is one, beyond that.
>because what else would exist prior to space, time and matter but God?
What would exist prior to God?

>>20116448
Read the reply chain again goofy, I'm arguing against the simulation theory computer game guy.

>>20116473
Yeah, but our hypotheticals are built upon things that actually produce results.

>>20103695
Catholicism: eisegesis and sodomy

>>20110585
who made this meme, i never want to meet them

>>20116475
>What would exist prior to God?
This is a non-question. How does God introduce Himself to Moses from the burning Bush? He says that ‘I am that I am’ (or in the LXX ‘I am the existing One’. And of course Christ identifies Himself as the alpha and the omega in Revelation. God simply ‘is’—now of course the atheist can reply that the matter of the universe simply ‘is’ as well, but the question comes down to what is the more likely worldview, and given the nature of the Bible and its fulfilled prophecies fulfilled in history and in Christ, and religious and mystical experiences across history, and things that I have already mentioned such as fine-tuning and the the fact that the universe (space, time, matter) is evidently *not* eternal, one is well within their epistemic rights to believe that God is the foundation of existence and that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again.

>>20116482
>actually produce results.
Sodomy? Nihilism? Abortions? Environmental destruction? Overpopulation? Divorce? Transsexuals? Nuclear weapons?

>>20116494
>How does God introduce Himself to Moses from the burning Bush?

>>20116506
they think destruction is creation. gotta accelerate those contradictions, you know

I can't tell who's being ironic and who's posting seriously anymore. I'll check back here tomorrow.

>>20116506
>Sodomy?
If God didn't want buttsex, then he wouldn't put men's g-spot in their ass
>Nihilism?
Can be overcome by finding a purpose.
>Abortions?
Keep crime rates down
>Environmental destruction?
And environmental preservation.
>Overpopulation
Invest in conquering the Moon and/or Mars.
>Divorce?
The fuck does this have to do with science?
>Transsexuals?
Once we get artificial wombs and sexbots, women will be obsolete anyways, so I don't see the concern.
>Nuclear weapons?
https://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

>>20116494
>This is a non-question.
Lol no. It's a pretty simple question.
>How does God introduce Himself to Moses from the burning Bush? He says that ‘I am that I am’
How do you know that this guy, Moses from a few millennia ago, wasn't full of shit?
> but the question comes down to what is the more likely worldview
Simpler and more likely answer is the universe simply is. Adding God is an unnecessary extra step that requires an explanation for an overarching conciousness on top of its ability to create a universe.
>to believe that God is the foundation of existence
Sure, it's a complete tossup past the singularity, so invent whatever magic man makes you happy
>that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again
If you're gonna deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you're gonna need some extraordinary proof. Some bozos swearing they totally saw it a couple thousand years ago ain't gonna cut it.

>>20116482
The earth is flat.

>>20116571
Sorry bro. Once you take the Donut Earth pill, you never go back

>>20116477
>Read the reply chain again
Just reading yours a second time did the job but I still want everyone to heed my message.
You really have to wonder though, what if God doesn't truly know where He Himself came from? What if He thinks that He just always was, but doesn't remember some weird period of personal development? Or what if He knows a certain amount of these things but just didn't think it was necessary to overcomplicate Scripture with all that? I hope He will tell us all about these kinds of things in Heaven.

>>20116659
Why do you think God would suffer from human flaws like confusion or ignorance?

>>20116665
I don't presuppose anything, but it *is* logical to assume that a "first being" would have started in one state and evolved from there, and didn't just immediately know "anything and everything" from the very beginning. He could have gone through a *lot* of trial and error. Or, perhaps He simply did indeed know "anything and everything" from the very beginning which was no beginning because It and He always was and all that kind of thing. Who truly knows? Anyway, I don't presuppose anything, I'll hold off until He can directly address such matters.

>>20116731
>but it *is* logical to assume that
Why?

>>20116744
Like Him, just is...

>When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Is the Johannine Comma legit?

>>20116744
Because that's how logic works dumb fuck

>>20117238
Yes. So is the "longer" ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae.

>>20116581
Don’t use pharma dumbass. Screw their industry.

>>20117609
What's the issue? From what i gather it's saying the same thing twice (although the on earth and heaven distinction might trip me up)

>>20117210
Finally, as it was originally intended and inspired.

>>20117717
It doesn’t exist until in the oldest extant manuscripts so people assume it isn’t legit. But older doesn’t always mean better when we have thousands that do include it over a large period of time and large geographic range. If it wasn’t legit it would have been called out before the 19th century.

>>20117778
yeah, but isn't it the same thing being said twice?

>>20117782
Not really

Is homicide acceptable in Christianity?
>resist not evil
why is there so much coping over this very simple command?

>>20118214
>tons of religious wars in the OT
>Crusades
I dunno man

>>20117717
>>20117782
Basically, it's been present in Latin since possibly the 200s, because Church Fathers seemingly quote it, but wasn't in Greek manuscripts until one was "found" in the 1500s. It is known for certain that Jerome didn't include it in his Vulgate but that it existed in the Old Latin vulgates prior because we have Church Fathers certainly quoting it in the 350s.

Both the Protestant translators of the King James NT and the Catholic translators of the Rheims NT included it in their 1 John 5:7-8, and both spent the following centuries pointing to each other as proof it was legit and that it wasn't a sectarian invention. Protestants appealed to Catholics and the Vulgate to say they didn't make it up, and Catholics fell on an argument used for a lot of other Bible passages or words missing in some manuscripts (namely, a scribal copyist omitted it because of the repetition of "And there are three who give testimony" made them mentally skip everything between that part in verse 7 and its repetition in verse 8, and later copyists erroneously kept this omission, hence the lack of Greek manuscripts; as such, you go from "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." to "And there are three who give testimony [. . .] on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." Catholics, however, will also do the same as Protestants do and point to the King James for validation on this, as they do in their famous Haydock Study Bible note on the subject. This is, in a sense, a case of "Look, this can't just be a Catholic thing because it's even in the King James!"

Basically, it all comes down to whether you agree with what Ronald Knox said in his Catholic translation's footnote to the Comma: "This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript. But the Latin manuscripts may have preserved the true text." Traditional Catholics and King James Protestants do agree with him and modern critical scholarship doesn't.

>>20118618
>Ronald Knox
But how does Eugene Peterson weigh in on it?

>>20118770
Omits.

>This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.

>>20118311
how do they reconcile it

>>20118770
Your meme will never catch on.

>>20118946
It's a fact, not a "meme".

>>20119099
No, it's a meme, and only you subscribe to it.

>>20118214
Look at the greatest saints for the best Christlike examples. Let everyone else cope how they’d like

>>20119104
Better to be "subscribed" to it than to a paraphrased Scriptural counterfeit that's not the Bible so has no place in Bible threads.

>NOOOOO STOP CALLING US IDOLATERS

Numbers Kino
>the Lord said to Moses: Command the children of Israel, and say to them: When you shall have passed over the Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, Destroy all the inhabitants of that land: Beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places, Cleansing the land, and dwelling in it. For I have given it you for a possession. And you shall divide it among you by lot. To the more you shall give a larger part, and to the fewer a lesser. To every one as the lot shall fall, so shall the inheritance be given. The possession shall be divided by the tribes and the families. But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain, shall be unto you as nails in your eyes, and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation. And whatsoever I had thought to do to them, I will do to you.

>>20102904
>>20102908
It's another episode of some faggot tainting buddhist philosophy with his semitic filth.

>>20119575
Imagine intentionally striving for nihilism and painting it up as "spiritual". At least you acknowledge it as being a mere philosophy.

>>20119355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

>>20119610
>muh nihilism
Use your trite strawmen somewhere else. Nobody takes you seriously

>>20119706
>supreme goal of Buddhism
>trite
Well at least we are in agreement there.

>>20119706
>>20119769
Oh, and also that the one you were responding to >>20119575 is a faggot, but for the opposite of your "reasoning". Enjoy following a religion cooked up by someone who died of food poisoning.

>>20119769
>putting this much effort in being a faggot online

>>20119703
BASED

>>20119575
>It's another episode of some faggot tainting Christian philosophy with his pagan filth.
FTFY

Bump

What book are you currently reading, anons? I'm reading Exodus for the first time, quite enjoyable so far

>>20101622
>But are there any jokes or funny situations?
I chuckled at the bit where Abraham bargains with God to spare Sodom.
>And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
>Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
>That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
>And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
>And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
>Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
>And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
>And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
>And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
>And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

>>20101808
>relieving himself
This is not in the Bible.

>>20120733
Here is the Hebrew, it looks like only paraphrases like the NLT and ESV say "relieving himself". Never accept false substitution for the word of God.

>>20120799
Forgot:
https://biblehub.com/1_kings/18-27.htm#lexicon

>>20120799
>Hebrew
>word of God
That'd be the Septuagint. What does it say?

Where did the American Evangelical Protestant obsession with the Rapture/End Times/Millennium/ascribing current events to be signs of the Antichrist or End Times come from?

>>20120826
>scribing current events to be signs of the Antichrist or End Times come from?
I feel like many do this for some reason.

>>20120815
And it was noon, and Eliu the Thesbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is a god; for he is meditating, or else perhaps he is engaged in business, or perhaps he is asleep, and is to be awaked.

>>20101203
I used to be a donatist

>>20120542
Kek good one too

>>20120826
Christ told us to remain vigilant and prepared for His return at any moment, and included the kinds of things to keep an eye out for leading up to it. What's with your obsession with Mary and humans you never knew but are claimed to be saints that you should pray to?

>>20100776
Sort of a rough outline of my Soteriology

Not a normie but I'm roughly a Semipelaganist which is sort of heretical, I believe in Pantheism and the people who don't ask for Gods grace usually spend eternity in purgatory of some sort, either personal or divine, since God exists in all things and if you can't find god within you're doomed to spend an eternity dwelling in between redemption and damnation, which feels like pic related
Its "the worlds quietest room" except I'd imagine there's also visual deprivation too. Imagine feeling that for millions of years after you die, just conscious enough to know its there.

>>20120892
Btw this was copypasted from another site

>>20120892
ok

>>20120899
Does any actual churches believe in it?

>>20120934
As in a Christian church? No.

>>20120892
>pantheism
Not Christian

What do they do with the foot water?

>>20121212
They sell it to Internet whores who resell it as their own bath water.

>>20121264
>guy buys jar of the succulent bath water, that may have molecules that touched a real girl's pussy
>jar is just filled with magic foot water
>puts dick in jar
>ends up with a strain of jock itch thought lost to time
I'd watch a movie about it

>>20121293
That's merely the beginning of the curses Ishtar brings. By the 2nd film of the trilogy he has become a trans swimmer and is beating all of the actual women, only to wind up lynched by feminists in the 3rd.

>>20119189
>paraphrased Scriptural counterfeit
The King James and its counterfeit 1 John 5:7-8?

>>20121212
I'm new to all of this but isn't this weird and idolatry or whatever?

>>20121827
welcome to christlarpery

>>20121827
The people you're seeing are part of a schismatic Russian Orthodox sect called the Old Believers.

>>20101622
When Solomon died and his son became king, the people asked if he would free the Hebrew slaves who were used to build the temple. He said "My little one is thicker than my father's thighs. And now, whereas my father laid on you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips but I will discipline you with a scorpion." His "little one" is his penis.

>>20121827
So is people walking around carrying various depictions of a roman execution/torture device, but it's just one of those things people try not to think about too deeply.

>>20121911
Do people literally pray to crosses as deities?

>>20121922
They pray using the cross or saint as a reminder or focal point to help them in their spirituality.

>>20122049
And this is idolatry how, exactly?

>>20122052
It's not...

>>20122052
Pastor Bob said so.

What sin did the Dust commit to be formed into a man? The Dust didn't eat from any of the trees, what did it do wrong?

>>20122049
God is the only reminder or especially focal point for Christians. The way you have worded your idolatry sounds like just the tip I swear.

>>20122127
It's hard to visualise god. A crucifix necklace, for example, is a good reminder of his presence.

>>20122218
There's no need to visualize God. None whatsoever.

After months of being uneasy about the ESV and deciding against it, I decided to reconsider that line of thinking because the ESV seems to have a more accurate reading of Mark 2:26 than other translations, and I recently started looking into this topic. Then I watched another RSV vs ESV comparison video, as well as a standalone ESV one, and...yeah, sorry to say, I still think the ESV sucks. The absolute neutering of the poetic language, removing uses of the word "man" in favor of "gender-inclusive" language, actually introducing grammar errors by removing "nor"s for "or"s. It turns out, the ESV didn't become any less shit after sitting on the idea for a while. I genuinely would like to know if evangelicals actually like it or if it's all pretend because they hear everyone else praise it.

>>20122434
It's a combination of marketing hypnosis and cope. The cope is that people these days are just too lazy to put the effort into learning the quirks of the King James Bible, and the marketing is just doing what it's designed to do...convince people to buy.

>>20122434
The RSV is the best modern translation, but the ESV is the best modern English translation. Honestly I don't really see the point of the RSV anymore: if you want old english use KJV, if you want modern use ESV.

On what grounds do Christians refute Muslims?

>>20122786
Their beliefs have no evidential foundation and refute the divinity of Christ.

>>20122810
>Their beliefs have no evidential foundation
How do you mean? Archeological evidence? What kind of evidence do they lack but Christians don't?
>refute the divinity of Christ.
But don't they refute it based on some interpretation of the bible by which Jesus was not asserted to have been the son of God? Why do their words hold no weight?

>As for those who consider faith and reason as two distinct provinces, and would have us think good sense has nothing to do where it is most concerned, I am resolved never to argue with such men, but leave them in quiet possession of their prejudices.

>>20122786
Christians don't and can't and Muslims don't and can't, any who think they can can't and are incensed by ignorance and temporal assertions of power.

>>20122539
>believing marketing
NASB > ESV

>>20122813
>What kind of evidence do they lack but Christians don't
Well, the bible

>>20122786
BLOOD !!!

Fool!

>>20122986
But they accept the bible don't they?

>>20120980
Ok what if we substitute it for panentheism, would that make a difference?

>>20123014
Same anon but I've also wanted to look into Nestorianism and St John Chrysostom

>>20122984
Sorry, I don't read bibles that have local names in the title.

>>20122052
Both the cross and saint are idols.

>>20122810
>Their beliefs have no evidential foundation
You're one to talk

>>20123056
Jesus spoke to hundreds of people after being crucified. How many people saw Mohammed get his visions?

>>20123068
>Jesus spoke to hundreds of people after being crucified
Something you have no evidence of outside of stories. No fucking shit everyone is gonna say their cult leader still speaks to them from beyond the mortal coil.
>How many people saw Mohammed get his visions?
Enough to compile a big enough army of inbreds to push westwards.

>>20123102
>you have no evidence of your evidence
>you have no evidence of your evidence of your evidence
>you have no evidece of your evidence of your evidence of your evidence
The atheist "mind" hard at work.

>>20123068
How many people saw God talking to Moses?

>>20123201
Moses was 100% making stuff up. You can't trust jews with this kind of things. I would advise any pious Christian to disregard much of OT.

>>20122539
Because the RSV is the comfortable middle ground. The RSV predates the gender-inclusive bullshit that plagues both its children, the NRSV and ESV, while still having updates of 20th-century scholarship; also, in like 70% of occasions, if you quote the RSV, you're quoting the ESV (and the NRSV) anyway. But as >>20122984 says, if you want something more literal to pair the RSV with, then pair it with the NASB. There's nothing the ESV offers over the RSV that can't be done better by either the NASB or by just directly consulting the Greek. I've heard it described this way: for devotional reading, RSV > ESV, but for in-depth textual study, ESV > RSV; however, if your focus is in-depth textual study, there already exist much better options than the ESV so it's basically irrelevant, so why not just get the NASB, an interlinear Bible, or even YLT?

>>20123025
And yet it is the best modern version, so suit yourself.

>>20123185
All reasoning is done from axioms. The Bible itself IS evidence on the basis it is an axiom and so Christianity IS rational if it openly admits it is biblically rational. Biblical Christianity isn't irrational as such, it is merely "acausal" in both Aristotelian and Humean senses. Ex-nihilo is biconditional with miracle. To suspend material cause, to say cause resides outside space and time is the acausality of Biblical inerrancy, the essence of both ex-nihilo and miraculous thinking. This is no problem in itself, but it shows an aversion to causality outside of the Biblical framework.

At the top of the reply chain, to say of Muslims "their beliefs have no evidential foundation", to negate that both text-believing Muslim and Christian, is merely to negate the Qur'an out of hand. The Qur'an is in the category "text". That the Christian selectively negates texts is the essence of Biblical belief.

Why the Christian then makes metaphysical claims from such negationism rather than merely epistemic becomes less substantial as every second passes. And so Christianity isn't "irrational", it's just Biblical, Biblically nihilistic.

But what is to differentiate us living in a simulation of the Bible, rather than actually being really creature alongside Creator?

>>20123719
>To suspend material cause, to say cause resides outside space and time is the acausality of Biblical inerrancy, the essence of both ex-nihilo and miraculous thinking. This is no problem in itself, but it shows an aversion to causality outside of the Biblical framework.
How is this specific to the Bible and not something general to all religions/metaphysics and even physicalism?
>But what is to differentiate us living in a simulation of the Bible, rather than actually being really creature alongside Creator?
What? God is alongside us according to the Bible.

Regarding the Qur'an discussion, it seems obvious the Bible is right and the Qur'an is wrong because why would God have Christians believe in Christianity otherwise? The axiom is not that the Bible is correct, it's that God is among us and wants what's good for us. He made Christians the strongest people and gave them the world to rule according to their principles, so Islamism is obviously a pagan sect. Reality proves it, and reality is created by God.

>>20123299
I too enjoy heresy.

Bump infidels

>>20123299
But the NT God is the same guy from the OT

>>20123185
>eyewitness accounts from a bunch of superstitious sand people that weren't recorded until hundreds of years after the fact count as evidence
The christfag """mind" hard at work

>>20123719
>The Bible itself IS evidence on the basis it is an axiom
It's circular reasoning. It can easily be explained by a bunch of retards making stories for bigger retards to follow so society can have some semblance of function.
>Ex-nihilo is biconditional with miracle. To suspend material cause, to say cause resides outside space and time is the acausality of Biblical inerrancy, the essence of both ex-nihilo and miraculous thinking
That's a lot of jargon to get the message that Christians subscribe to magical thinking.
>This is no problem in itself, but it shows an aversion to causality outside of the Biblical framework.
That is a problem because it defies far, far stronger evidence. If you're gonna put forward that something breaks causality, you better have some extraordinary evidence to put forward to prove it.

>>20125472
You don't even have evidence causality exists you fucking retard

>>20123773
>Regarding the Qur'an discussion, it seems obvious the Bible is right and the Qur'an is wrong because why would God have Christians believe in Christianity otherwise?
Regarding the Bible discussion, it seems obvious the Qur'an is right and the Bible is wrong because why would Allah have Muslims believe in Islam otherwise?

>>20125482
Allah doesn't exist and Muslims are heretics.

>>20125480
Being able to predict where supernovae appear in the sky due to the light traveling in different paths due to curved spacetime is pretty damn conclusive evidence that causality exists.
https://youtu.be/ljoeOLuX6Z4
That being said, even the tech nerds running GPS still have to account for the way time flows differently in space compared to on the Earth's surface due to gravity.

>>20125508
>pretty damn conclusive evidence that causality exists.
Not at all, it just proves associative patterns repeat. Prove causality exists or don't complain God breaks "causality". What you call causality is in fact will of God.

>>20125500
Jehovah doesn't exist and Christians are heretics

>>20125519
>Prove causality exists
You posted, then I responded. Cause->Effect
ezpz

>>20125528
>atheist sophist is a retard who gets confused as soon as some concepts are introduced in the discussion
A tale as old as time.

>>20125535
>christian sophist is a retard who gets confused as soon as some concepts step out of his circular reasoning
The way I see it, scientific discovery is creating all sorts of new technology based off the discovered nature of the universe, while Christianity just offers a bunch of placebo and faith (read: dude trust me).
Granted, I will admit the outfits them church girls wear are rather fine. You guys know how to get the ladies to dress up to be on their knees to please.

>>20125560
> a bunch of placebo and faith (read: dude trust me).
Like the causality you posited but you couldn't prove?

>>20125573
We know causality so well, we have the exact speed at which it operates in terms of spacetime. What exactly are you looking for as proof? Cause and effect are well understood concepts.

>>20125713
>we have the exact speed at which it operates in terms of spacetime
Causality has velocity now according to this great intellectual of our times. He knows the velocity of causality but he doesn't understand what's a proof. Such are the brightest minds of this generation.

>>20125753
So what kind of proof do you have in mind, anon? What are you looking for me to put forward? Do you want the equations involved or are you looking for an IRL example of cause and effect?

>>20125768
>So what kind of proof do you have in mind, anon?
How about any evidence causality exists? Where can I find it and how do I know it's there?

>>20125786
my post in response to yours is direct evidence of causality. I even included a link to your post (cause) that I'm replying (effect) to

>>20125802
Two events succeeding each other is not proof that one caused the other, it's just proof that one succeeded the other. Try again.

>>20125813
Here's a handy article for how proofs of causality are generally handled.
https://creativemaths.net/blog/proving-causation/

>>20125840
>here's a funny link because I can't defend my assertion
Off you go back to r/atheism now.

>>20125867
>Cause must come before effect
>Effect wasn't an act of chance (null hypothesis)
>All alternate causes have been eliminated
It's not rocket science, anon.

>>20125922
You proved a probable association, not causation. Causation is necessary, not probable. You really don't seem to be familiar with any basic categories of thought, so of cousre you're an atheist.

>>20125936
lmao the fuck are you even talking about.
>Causation is necessary, not probable
Are you trying to get into necessary and sufficient causes, but completely butchering it?

>>20125965
Cause and effect follows a necessary relationship such that the effect necessarily follows the cause. You cannot show necessity empirically. You're about 30 IQ points below the threshold required to understand these concepts, so just don't bother and stick to atheist videos.

>>20125987
You can rule everything else out. Besides, are you just gonna deny physics as a whole?

>>20125999
No, why would I do that? Physics describe the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are created and enacted by God. Thus, there is no reason to deny miracles like you did at the top of the reply chain because God can will them however he sees it fit.

>>20126010
>and the laws of nature are created and enacted by God
Prove it. Prove God caused the laws of nature.
>Thus, there is no reason to deny miracles like you did at the top of the reply chain
Can't be replicated, because they're made up bullshit. Simple as
>because God can will them however he sees it fit
How do you know God's powers, anon? For all you know, he could have created the world and can't do jack shit about it after the fact. Maybe God doesn't even have a will and is just another force of nature. Who knows? You can't even prove he exists, much less make claims on what he is.

>>20126032
>Prove it. Prove God caused the laws of nature.
I can observe regularities in nature but I can clearly see causation doesn't exist in nature as I can't perceive it. What I can't perceive, does not exist. Therefore, either causation doesn't exist altogether or an allpowerful being cause the associations I see. You seem to believe in causation with no evidence, which I cannot do. I also can't deny the regularities I see in nature, so I have to recognize that God must cause the laws of nature.
>Can't be replicated, because they're made up bullshit. Simple as
Replicated by whom? By humans? Why would they be replicated by humans if they were not performed by humans to begin with?
>How do you know God's powers, anon?
Well, I can see them every time I open my eyes. Light becomes objects of imagination. That's God's language allowing me to perceive God's world. There's no other tenable explanation that is logically consistent, so you'll either have to accept it when you're ready or continue being a sophist for the rest of your life.

>>20126051
>What I can't perceive, does not exist. Therefore, either causation doesn't exist altogether
What's causing your perceptions?
>or an allpowerful being cause the associations I see
Is God manhandling every photon that reaches your eyes?
>Replicated by whom? By humans? Why would they be replicated by humans if they were not performed by humans to begin with?
Shit bro, you're right. Some guy with cheatcodes to the universe just popped out of a virgin and started spreading the holy word and showing off his l33t skills to the peasants until the jews killed him anyways. Then he magicked himself back to life, undoing all the decomposition and stab wounds, and did a victory lap with his buddies before flying away to heaven. You don't think the story sounds a bit far-fetched?
>Light becomes objects of imagination.
Your imagination runs off complex electro-chemical interactions. You change those interactions, say with a lead bullet rapidly decelerating through the brain matter, and suddenly that imagination ceases to be.
>That's God's language allowing me to perceive God's world
I can see it like that. If you see God as the one who set everything in motion and created the laws of physics, it does make sense. Don't think such a God would really care about human morality when they're operating on such a scale, though. To such a being, we'd just be a curious bit of ephemeral order in a sea of chaos.

>>20126125
>What's causing your perceptions?
God causes my sensual perceptions.
>Is God manhandling every photon that reaches your eyes?
Yes, God is allpowerful and omnipresent.
>You don't think the story sounds a bit far-fetched?
No.
>Your imagination runs off complex electro-chemical interactions.
Yeah, which are caused by God.
>To such a being, we'd just be a curious bit of ephemeral order in a sea of chaos.
God is all-powerful. If he didn't care about you and me, then he wouldn't be actively involved in our lives allowing us to exist. You seem to think existence and nature is somehow self-powered, which is ridiculous. Atheism in general is just a nonsense story for people too dumb to think and too arrogant to learn.

>>20126142
>God causes my sensual perceptions.
>Yes, God is allpowerful and omnipresent.
Is your God essentially sentient reality to you? It's not a bad way of thinking about it, but it still doesn't solve the issue of all the Jesus mythology.
>You seem to think existence and nature is somehow self-powered, which is ridiculous
Is God self-powered? If so, how is that any less ridiculous? And the universe doesn't necessarily need to be self-powered. Could be any number of higher dimensional reasonings for the state of things

>>20126166
No, God is beyond reality as he's imperceptibile and transcendent. There's no Jesus mythology, the Bible was written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Yes God is self-powered because he's all-powerful and not an empirical substance that is limited by natural laws. Christianity is the most logical and rational explanation of the world. If Christianity has flaws, every other metaphysics that has been proposed has ten times more inconsistencies. Anyway, I need to go now and you're in the wrong thread by the way this has been over the bump limit for a long time.

>>20126193
>No, God is beyond reality as he's imperceptibile and transcendent
So what's the point in even caring about whether or not he exists if he's imperceptible?
>There's no Jesus mythology, the Bible was written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Spirit
What differentiates it from any other religion's prophets, holy books, and myths?
>Yes God is self-powered because he's all-powerful and not an empirical substance that is limited by natural laws.
Sounds imaginary.
>Christianity is the most logical and rational explanation of the world
There's nothing logical or rational about it. It's based on faith. You have to just accept it, because if you start asking the hard questions it just falls apart. So you just gotta make believe there's a magic man running the show and if anything observed in reality doesn't match your narrative, you just resort to magical thinking for your answers.